These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
vccv
#1641 - 2015-06-26 20:27:23 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Libby Tazinas wrote:
EVE or CCP rather may not be dying, but they're building one hell of a house of cards and sooner or later it will all come crashing down.

Facts are the subscriptions and player numbers are down, you can clearly see this on all available graphs out, but CCP doesn't care because they have been generating more income from selling plex and other areas outside of subscriptions so it balances the equation except you have fewer players paying more to play and as you lose players one by one the impact of them leaving is much more apparent and abrupt to CCPs bottom line.

For the players, sooner or later this game of cards we call EVE will end, the question is do you want to be holding all the cards when that happens?



At the end of the day, EVE is an MMO. Of course it's going to end. All MMO's will, which is why treating them like a job instead of a game will make it harder for people to let it go when it does. I think it might be safe to say, though, that people who know how to enjoy their games, while they will probably miss EVE in its absence, probably won't have much trouble finding new fun to replace it. I haven't even been on much lately because of actual work and also, doing a new Mass Effect playthrough in anticipation of Andromeda. It's literally the only thing at E3 this year that made me squee like a blonde in a shoe store. I have a Steam library full of games I haven't even installed yet. If EVE ended right now, right this second, I would literally be finding something new the second after. And asking the remainder of my sub to be refunded, of course. Not expecting, just requesting.

What doomsayers need to realise is that they're the only ones really worried about the end of EVE. Everyone else is just enjoying it while it's there.


Well said! My thoughts exactly.


And as for the arguments over pvp.. there is a reason the most common quote in eve is "Dont fly what you cant afford to lose". Every single player logging in has pvp on their mind to some degree, freighters and all. If they didnt want to worry about it they are playing the wrong game.
GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#1642 - 2015-06-26 20:36:54 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
GankYou wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

No my idea of a successful sov system is one that doesn't outright focus on and encourage griefing with infinite safety for entrenched large groups.

That is to be expected and is reasonable. For capital systems. Blink
1) You discount that all of the dead EHP buffer, which is currently present, will fall into the hands of Neutral States™ as a result of Sov 5.0.

Quote:
2) When a new mechanic is biased toward existing powers, it can't do anything more than ultimately fail.

3) No-one but a large group will be able to successfully attack another large group, thing is, they won't fight each other while there are smaller groups to harrass.


2) I think you have it backwards.
One Entosis Link replaces a Dreadnaught strike team. No dreads = no targets for batphone.

3) So you want to assault Deklein with a 100 HAC gang and fail to see the futility of it? Smile
That's called working as intended.

Quote:
The only thing Fozziesov will offer is easy griefing of any smaller unaligned alliance - Much the same as what we have now except with a magic wand instead of supers.

Everyone will be "griefed" and that's the beauty of it. Or EVE is kill.

Love those who multi quote, especially those who make absolutely no sense or just choose not to respond without thinking..


Indeed, indeed!

It is far harder to hide inaccuracies & contradictions point-by-point. Blink

...And they all crave one thing - ISK. ¤

[WTS] ME10 / TE20 BPOs from Battleships/Cruisers to Fighters, Carriers, Triage/Siege, XL modules & Cap Components
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#1643 - 2015-06-26 20:40:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
In other news, some Mr. Gravenstein proved that being shot means that the victim was in town to shoot soemone. Roll
So many appropriate gifs could go here, I'm going to go with this one though.

I have no idea what you read, but it certainly wasn't my post.

Quote:
"Being shot" happens to almost 100% of players
Does it? Certainly almost 100% of players who live in nullsec, lowsec and wormholes probably get shot at by other players, but I would hazard a guess that nowhere near 100%, of the oft touted 60-75% of all players who reside in hisec, ever get shot at by other players. Most of those that do get shot at by other players are usually actively engaged in spaceship PvP, wardecced or doing something dumb.

This character, my main for the last 4 years, has never been shot at by another player*, despite living in hisec and my play style being that of what many regard as prey.

Quote:
"Loggin to shoot someone" is not what drives Entrepreneurs, Socials and Traditionals. Etiher they would PvP enough to be Professionals or Aggressors.
I said nothing about what drives people, nor am I arrogant enough to profess to know; I said that Entrepreneurs, who make up around 23% of players, engage in more PvP than Socials and Traditionals.

I've said my piece, I refuse to engage further with you, it achieves nothing.

*I'm sure somebody will be along to try and rectify this oversight shortly, bonne chance.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1644 - 2015-06-26 22:05:05 UTC
vccv wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Libby Tazinas wrote:
EVE or CCP rather may not be dying, but they're building one hell of a house of cards and sooner or later it will all come crashing down.

Facts are the subscriptions and player numbers are down, you can clearly see this on all available graphs out, but CCP doesn't care because they have been generating more income from selling plex and other areas outside of subscriptions so it balances the equation except you have fewer players paying more to play and as you lose players one by one the impact of them leaving is much more apparent and abrupt to CCPs bottom line.

For the players, sooner or later this game of cards we call EVE will end, the question is do you want to be holding all the cards when that happens?



At the end of the day, EVE is an MMO. Of course it's going to end. All MMO's will, which is why treating them like a job instead of a game will make it harder for people to let it go when it does. I think it might be safe to say, though, that people who know how to enjoy their games, while they will probably miss EVE in its absence, probably won't have much trouble finding new fun to replace it. I haven't even been on much lately because of actual work and also, doing a new Mass Effect playthrough in anticipation of Andromeda. It's literally the only thing at E3 this year that made me squee like a blonde in a shoe store. I have a Steam library full of games I haven't even installed yet. If EVE ended right now, right this second, I would literally be finding something new the second after. And asking the remainder of my sub to be refunded, of course. Not expecting, just requesting.

What doomsayers need to realise is that they're the only ones really worried about the end of EVE. Everyone else is just enjoying it while it's there.


Well said! My thoughts exactly.


And as for the arguments over pvp.. there is a reason the most common quote in eve is "Dont fly what you cant afford to lose". Every single player logging in has pvp on their mind to some degree, freighters and all. If they didnt want to worry about it they are playing the wrong game.

Waving magic wands at structures, IS NOT pvp.

-- - -- - -- - -- - --
I wonder how much of what is happening on Duality is down to friendly influence in the right places. If it is released to TQ as is, sov is done and won't be worth living in.

PL has found their ultimate toy - Interesting and disturbing.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1645 - 2015-06-26 22:20:53 UTC
GankYou wrote:

Love those who multi quote, especially those who make absolutely no sense or just choose not to respond without thinking..


Indeed, indeed!

It is far harder to hide inaccuracies & contradictions point-by-point. Blink[/quote]
Very true, which is why i responded in point form and you chose to cut out the points..

It is also harder to respond to those who multi quote as you can only quote so many times in a single post - Good ploy by the multi quoters to not have to respond to inaccuracies, contradictions and bias.

Same as on TQ, those who can will manipulate things to suit their selfish wants. The narrow minded will always look at personal needs over needs for the majority.
Who has what to hide?

If the Dev team is at all taking testing on Duality serious - Expect Fozziesov to be delayed once more - It is not suitable for TQ in its current form.
(they won't and it will be released on time and then soon after the excuses will start)

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1646 - 2015-06-26 22:52:55 UTC
Raven Jita wrote:
Manipulation is always present. Buying anything changes the price. Pick up an economic text. Any from the last three centuries will do. You can play how you want, just don't expect to get what you want just because it worked in the past.

So I am right ? Because the game changes I can no longer partake in the content I like, how I like.

Malcanis wrote:

1) In other words one that makes it hugely easier for people to mess with the "entrenched alliances" (Go on, jus say "Goons", we all know what you mean anyway).

2) Well "fozzie sov" allows for ongoing campaigns to weaken indices, where as dominion doesn't. "fozzie sov" removes the requirement to have supercap supremacy. "fozzie sov" strongly encourages (to put it mildly) local use of the space, meaning that AFK landlording over empty space is no longer viable.

3) You can say that it's not perfect if you like and sure I'll agree with you. But it's just completely dishonest to say that it doesn't give more opportunity to non-"entrenched alliances".

4) You commit the common General Discussion fallacy of posting as if all the problems apply only to you and all the advantages apply only to them.
1) No, you read my thoughts on how the mechanics should work in my other thread and at the time agreed - Nowhere did it say anything close to what you suggest. As for Goons, (the AFK alliance), whatever happens, happens, Fozziesov doesn't challenge them at all, so not much can happen. A few of their minion alliances will fall, as long as people can be bothered.

2) It does indeed, as long as you have a large enough group and are willing to spend the time, you could very well go after one of the entrenched alliances. It is far easier though for those entrenched alliances to go after the smaller new guy who is not aligned to all their neighbours.
Rather than AFK landlording - It will just be empty space. (renting will change but is not going away and will be the best weapon for AFK sov holders)

3) I did and the only way a non-entrenched alliance has opportunity is - If the entrenched don't bother with them or they have a blue army to fend of the entrenched.

4) Not at all, you read my thoughts on how the mechanics could work - and said you agreed it could be better. The mechanics in their current state favour entrenched groups and place huge barriers on non-entrenched alliances.
A few small mechanic adjustments could level the playing field so new groups are not so disadvantaged.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1647 - 2015-06-26 23:16:57 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
0bama Barack ******* wrote:
Yea, my null accounts are now hybernating as i wanna see what new sov will bring


I wonder how many accounts this is true of?

I've noticed that there is a steady hum of people asking CCP to slow down a bit with all the changes, which must amuse the bittervets to no end. I haven't let any accounts lapse, but I'll cop to waiting and watching more than I did before, just to see how things like the T3 cruiser rebalance shake out.


I haven't unsubbed any either and I still participate with my corp even though we aren't in null anymore. But I'm a Sov null guy (the nomadic "PL" style just ain't for me) no matter how many characters I keep in high sec lol and I'm in watch and wait mode like everyone else. I don't want to join a new corp just to have it all washed a way 2 days after I move in. Hopefully by late June early July everything will come into focus and I can make some moves.


Well then come back to us, sweetie.



Yeah about this...?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1648 - 2015-06-27 00:45:30 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
How's he going to hang out with Jeff in lowsec and be in highsec at the same time with EVERYONE else?
Colloquialisms can mean that "everyone" is self excluding. Blink

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1649 - 2015-06-27 01:25:59 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

I'd imagine CCP would be somewhat worried about the demise of Eve - They have built quite the ivory tower around it.



This is a strawman. You knew damn well I was referring to doomsayers on the forums because that's pretty much how I prefaced the point. If CCP were worried about EVE dying, I doubt they'd be investing in more expansion. But since it's not dying, we're not worrying. You can clearly see that player numbers have dropped, I'm not going to argue against that. But is it a drop worth worrying about? Talk to me when it's under 10K and maybe I'll CONSIDER a well-articulated point to the effect that EVE is on its dying breath. Until then, worry just gives you wrinkles.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Lim Yoona
#1650 - 2015-06-27 03:11:37 UTC
Friday night US Prime = 19,000 online Oops
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#1651 - 2015-06-27 03:48:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Cipher Jones
Quote:
We have plenty work in latvia. You find job, you pay game. No need for poor, two hour work not much. You try, no fear. This game no communist heaven for lazy people.


This mentality is exactly why the real world global economy is falling apart.

You're not lazy if you work a 40 hour work week.

If a game is your job away from work; **** that game, seriously.

Quote:
This is a strawman. You knew damn well I was referring to doomsayers on the forums because that's pretty much how I prefaced the point. If CCP were worried about EVE dying, I doubt they'd be investing in more expansion


Less people are playing now than after Incarna. The C.E.O. got onstage at fanfest the next year and said it almost broke the company. You do the math.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#1652 - 2015-06-27 08:08:24 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:


Quote:
This is a strawman. You knew damn well I was referring to doomsayers on the forums because that's pretty much how I prefaced the point. If CCP were worried about EVE dying, I doubt they'd be investing in more expansion


Less people are playing now than after Incarna. The C.E.O. got onstage at fanfest the next year and said it almost broke the company. You do the math.



That is because CCP has been using our subscription money to fund their failed projects. Next on the list is the expansion of DUST (failed) and Valkyrie (will fail)

Perhaps if they didn't treat us like their personal crowd-sourcing finance group they would pay more attention to what is happening in the only viable game they own.

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1653 - 2015-06-27 08:21:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
That is because CCP has been using our subscription money to fund their failed projects. Next on the list is the expansion of DUST (failed) and Valkyrie (will fail)

Perhaps if they didn't treat us like their personal crowd-sourcing finance group they would pay more attention to what is happening in the only viable game they own.

This from a financial auditor?

What rubbish. Youy pay for a product from CCP, just like you pay for products from other companies. After you give them your money, it's no longer yours, it's theirs.

So if you don't want to feel like you are a source of crowd funding (which you aren't), then quit the game. Simple. Don't buy CCP's products.
Svenja Timofeyeva
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1654 - 2015-06-27 08:36:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Svenja Timofeyeva
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
That is because CCP has been using our subscription money to fund their failed projects. Next on the list is the expansion of DUST (failed) and Valkyrie (will fail)

Perhaps if they didn't treat us like their personal crowd-sourcing finance group they would pay more attention to what is happening in the only viable game they own.

This from a financial auditor?

What rubbish. Youy pay for a product from CCP, just like you pay for products from other companies. After you give them your money, it's no longer yours, it's theirs.

So if you don't want to feel like you are a source of crowd funding (which you aren't), then quit the game. Simple. Don't buy CCP's products.

You must be mistaken. It's Creative Communist Plebs and all money is belong to us.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1655 - 2015-06-27 09:03:37 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
That is because CCP has been using our subscription money to fund their failed projects. Next on the list is the expansion of DUST (failed) and Valkyrie (will fail)

Perhaps if they didn't treat us like their personal crowd-sourcing finance group they would pay more attention to what is happening in the only viable game they own.

This from a financial auditor?

What rubbish. Youy pay for a product from CCP, just like you pay for products from other companies. After you give them your money, it's no longer yours, it's theirs.

So if you don't want to feel like you are a source of crowd funding (which you aren't), then quit the game. Simple. Don't buy CCP's products.

Really?

Maybe a translation problem in play here but what he wrote says to me - If CCP invested more time and money on Eve (their money making game) and didn't squander Eve time and resources (including money) on little side projects - Eve would be much better.

Dust I believe is ok (don't own a PS3 and won't buy one for 1 game) but not really anything to do with Eve (except it consumes server resources). Valkyrie is supposed to be the way to the future but is again not part of Eve.
Either of these if successful could save CCP when / if Eve ever succumbs to bad development choices but is it worth that risk when the extra resources (and a development team that can see past what "they" think is best) could see Eve be the only game of its type online for the unforeseen future.

Right now there seems to be a few saying, maybe eve like other games has run its course and will just fade away but does it have to? Or could a more open minded approach to Eve development see it break the cycle of "all games come to an end"

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1656 - 2015-06-27 09:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
That is because CCP has been using our subscription money to fund their failed projects. Next on the list is the expansion of DUST (failed) and Valkyrie (will fail)

Perhaps if they didn't treat us like their personal crowd-sourcing finance group they would pay more attention to what is happening in the only viable game they own.

This from a financial auditor?

What rubbish. Youy pay for a product from CCP, just like you pay for products from other companies. After you give them your money, it's no longer yours, it's theirs.

So if you don't want to feel like you are a source of crowd funding (which you aren't), then quit the game. Simple. Don't buy CCP's products.

Respectfully, he's bang on with his assessment. Even if there was a round of VC for Dust 514, World of Darkness, Valkyrie and Legion - it's almost guaranteed that EVE's subscription numbers, revenue and profitability made it happen. And if not, it's pretty obvious where the tens of millions in wasted development dollars were siphoned from. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to gleam there was a horrendous amount of mismanagement from their previously-published financial statements. And it's not much of a stretch either to theorize where EVE might be today had CCP not embarked on these fiascos.

But there's a hidden aspect to shrinking subscription numbers that CCP won't comment on: subscription terms, which are almost certainly at historic lows. There's not really any incentive to save a few dollars every month on an annual or multiple year subscription - because at the rate CCP is destroying EVE with every update they're alienating more and more of their player base - so why would you run the risk of shelling out a non-refundable/upfront subscription when you might be completely fed-up with any proposed changes inside of 30 days?

Give it six more months when a lot of these subscriptions lapse and are due for renewal before the real crisis starts.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1657 - 2015-06-27 09:14:56 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Maybe a translation problem in play here but what he wrote says to me - If CCP invested more time and money on Eve (their money making game) and didn't squander Eve time and resources (including money) on little side projects - Eve would be much better.

Doesn't matter what CCP do, there will always be complainers, always be fanboys and a large group of people that see things multiple ways.

It's why the best thing they can do is to make their decisions on the basis of what they want to achieve and not be constantly driven by us. They'll never keep us all happy no matter what they do.

Your interpretation is quite reasonable and much better constructed.
Svenja Timofeyeva
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1658 - 2015-06-27 09:30:59 UTC
More teams working on same thing is like too many cooks working on same food. You people not understand how to spread development funds. You think throwing more money at more people brings better product, but only adds limited amount of teams and increases team sizes, adding effort for dividing work, increasing inefficiency. In two years latest people point at you and laugh.
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1659 - 2015-06-27 10:01:29 UTC
This thread must be close to locked status
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1660 - 2015-06-27 10:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Cipher Jones wrote:


Less people are playing now than after Incarna. The C.E.O. got onstage at fanfest the next year and said it almost broke the company. You do the math.


Still investing in expansion.

Also, I've never heard of the CEO stating it nearly wrecked the company. I know he made a statement, but I had no idea "it nearly wrecked the company" was part of that statement. You'll understand if I don't take your word for it and ask for a citation, or a video link, or something.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104