EVE General Discussion

Short term it is usually done with cookies & content.

EVE is/was sick fundamentally on certain levels.

I were lured to null sec back 2009 with a hope i some day get to fly big ships...

It were very recently taken out of my plans, just as i had bought couple carriers and started to prepare skilling my alts for them.

Before that CCP managed to time letting interceptors through bubbles in null, just as i had skilled my alts to guard our only gate, as we had infestation of red´s in local.

And some other stuff, like rebalancing ships so that i were not able to fly my already fitted ships in hangar(s).

Yeah, something is infected, could maybe even say it smells rotten here...

I don't doubt that CCP are mostly briliant people. But "big brains make big mistakes" and sometimes it's nigh impossible to overcome cognitive dissonance. Also I have certain experience with customer oriented design and how it leads to funny results. Defining what is a customer is a tricky thing, and sometimes it turns that the customer you need is not a customer yet, so you need to aim outside of your customer base to succeed.

Apochrypha 2.0 (and now Incursions 2.0) don't look like a company suceeding to create new customers from the unlimited pool of non-customers, but rather focused on selling their product to those who bought it in the past in a spiral of shrinking potential customers.

They appear to be focusing on retention. Which is good. In a game where you need to keep playing to achieve anything - it's pretty much required.

One player that will stay in the game and help generate content for others is better than twenty who will join, pay a few months sub, stay in hisec and never interact with anyone.

Depends on what you mean by "help generate content." Enablers are certainly nice to have, but anyone who's worked in any sort of institutional setting knows that they're a small part of the general population, and their effectiveness depends on the existence of a great many more people who are willing to pitch in.

The people who don't interact in the Approved Ways are still part of the game, and part of CCP's bottom line. Even if you could drive them off, there's no particular reason to. They might not be helping much, but they certainly aren't hurting. 50 of them in a mission hub still make the game look populated and vital. And some of them stay more than three months.

One of the things that CCP has probably run into is that they have some percentage of the player base that is attracted to the game because the PVE is relatively simple, predictable and hands-off. The great irony of the game is that you can plausibly find it relaxing (I'm thinking mostly of mining, but I suppose missioning could qualify; judging from some of the posts in the fleet warp threadnaughts, massive fleet flights do too). Low stress, relaxing play might not have been the design intent, but intent and $2 gets you a cup of coffee. After 10 years, all that matters is what shipped. If your game has low-stress, relaxing gameplay, it will attract people who want a low-stress, relaxing game. Simple as that.

I obviously can't make any claims about how many of these players there are. Nobody else here can either, and if CCP knows they aren't telling. I know these players exist. If the game becomes more exciting then they'll probably leave. Whether that's good or bad depends on how many new people are drawn by more exciting gameplay. I have a hunch that the foundation of all successful MMOs is a large number of people who are terrible and inefficient at the game, but who have fun anyway. The game's ability to accommodate those players determines how likely it is that the game survives.

(It just occurred to me that this is the actual fault line between "ganks engage people" and "ganks drive people away". People who come to EVE because of the way it's advertised are engaged; people who just want to unwind after a long day are driven away. Whether they're new or not has nothing to do with it.)

If you can't figure out something to do in Eve during your training you should just quit. Seriously.

I was in similar predicaments several times, when I started out and had PvP-only specialisation - you could wait for months for dat special something, but then quit for months, years sometimes on end as it actually became available.

I'm not entirely sure CCP know who their target audience is right now. They have a long term plan (I hope) which unfortunately, they are not telling players about.
Introducing change that looks biased and unbalanced isn't made any more appealing by not letting those supposed to use it know what comes next. Devs can't tell us what comes next because the next phase is dependent on the perceived success or failure of the coming (unbalanced) sov system.
If the coming sov changes were to be judged for success or failure now - They could be classed as a success - Once they are actually in play, the result may well be the exact opposite.

* Many longer term players (I don't mean just bittervets) have expressed they don't like the idea of mini games for sov (in these and many other forums), yet that is exactly what we are getting. Funnily enough, the complaint seems to be how easily it can be gamed by large groups.

* One thing, 6 months on seems to be a particular focus point for some groups - Jump range nerfs and fatigue (especially fatigue) is working too well. They can't get numbers in fleet.

* A well known alliance, is now complaining because they have finally conquered everything in the few regions they have been fighting in.
Seems they managed to drive off all the smaller groups (or forced them to align with the only other large group in the area) who had been sov holders and are now left with only another large well organized group as opposition - They won't fight each other, neither has anything to gain from it.

* We have a whole (and somewhat large) group of players off playing another game and only logging in to eve for "events" (burn XXXX) and responding to the odd ping.

* Yet another very well known group is on the verge of imploding after a few drunken speeches from leadership led to, corps being kicked or just leaving after what seems to be a failed Coup d'etat.

Mention FozzieSov to these guys - The laughter was deafening, the derisive comments caused more laughter (I muted my speakers until the blue flashing lights in comms subsided).
One guy said, Fozziesov has done it job, we had a run of "gud fights" while preparing for the release of a sov system designed to create stability in sov.
A representative from a fairly well known (and sizable) group stated - We plan on using the new sov system to its fullest. Everyone who has ever annoyed us will be forever (or until we get bored) responding to entosis alerts. Only to find no-one around to fight by the time they form up and respond.

I believe, Fozziesov won't bring half as much ongoing content as expected. It is biased toward easy defense for established groups and punishes new groups. The addition of everything about sov being readily available to everyone in Eve via Crest and the API, will only encourage less content in the long term.
No new group is going to attempt to take sov alone knowing they need to commit 18hrs P/D to defending it, even if only for a few days.
New groups may attempt to take sov, if they have an army of blues to help them. We've all seen the results of ever growing blue armies.


NB; Don't bother asking me "who" these groups and individuals are. Looking at the killboards, sov map and alliance history will give you a fair idea if your interested.

Surely you can see the irony in the null sec groups complaining that FozzieSov caters to the griefer and punishes the established when all we ever hear on these forums is how much high-sec needs to be griefed more and ccp made it too hard for griefers.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander? Or can we not touch certain group's ganders?

My very signature indicates that I desire High Sec to be enabled rather than attacked.
It is possible that I am one of the few vocal people from a section of Null Sec players. Those that need to posture are more motivated.