These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Decline in numbers... starting to turn into RAPID!!!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaivar Lancer
Doomheim
#3681 - 2016-01-13 16:59:16 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Kaivar Lancer wrote:
Alot of people are leaving Elite Dangerous. Might be a good time for CCP to stand on Frontier's throat and start an anti-Elite marketing campaign. This may help stop the decline from turning into rapid.


Implying that a lot of people were ever playing Elite Dangerous in the first place.


Frontier reported selling 825k units back in August 2015. By today, it'll probably be over 1m units, so that's 1m players.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#3682 - 2016-01-13 19:28:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Jenn aSide wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


I think I explained myself bad. I don't say it's impossible to escape gatecamps, I did that a lot of times myself (well played smartbomb camps are harder, if you didn't know the next gate has one and did not setup appropriate bookmarks in advance).

I am bringing the example from another game, where you can get a "gate camp" but the dynamics give you a proper fighting chance and to use a proper PvP ship to do that.

In EvE if you want to do more than just dart away but want to take the fight, your stabbed / nanoed / whatever ship is not exactly going to stand a lot of chances. That's why I bring the case for T3, because with them you can more or less replicate the (in my opinion, fun) mechanic of getting in a camp and decide to stay and fight back in good terms.

Then, of course, if the gatecamper(s) is bad, you might make it with a BC or BS but I'd hardly would go around looking for sparring with a lone BS, it's too juicy and easily picked target.


The problem you have is that you gave up trying, declared that a thing was impossible (this is usually done to salve one's ego) and now stick to the wrong conclusion because you're invested in it.

Since when is a Vexor a BS, BC or T3?

And OH WOW, did CCP sneak in some T3 haulers? Nope this solo pvp NEREUS is a tech1 ship


I knew Marlona Sly and her awesomeness. However you and Gregor keep moving the goal and also faithfully replicating old and less old WoW PvP fallacies (!).
If I talk about gate camping you may post some good fights with haulers and whatever but then it's not the context I was talking about. A context you try to steer away of, because of Shopenhauer rhetoric principles.

Also, you bring examples that "it can be done" like they did 11 years ago when trying to keep my class nerfed in arena. There were those 3 players in the world who were 2500 rated on their warrior who could *gasp* manage to score 1850 rating on the crappy class. With this 1850, people would say: "see, it's you who are bad, those guys get to 1850 so your class is fine!" (1850 = a score still vastly below the minimum accepted to be competitive anyway).

But you can't make demographics about overall PvP enjoyability restricting the scope to the top 5-10 best worldwide players. It does not work like that, because everybody ELSE are those who in the end make the big numbers and in decide whether a game becomes a best seller or not.

Now, show me the average Joe defeating gate camping ships (HIC etc.) with your beefed up hauler and then we are talking. Because average Joe certainly CAN get much better results at a gatecamp in ED.

Otherwise it's the same empty talking they did back when exhumers had no tank and were told to "just tank them" (getting Osprey-alike efficiency Big smile => useless to spend so much to get the same results). See how well it went.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3683 - 2016-01-13 20:01:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Because average Joe certainly CAN get much better results at a gatecamp in ED.


If this is true, it means that Elite is a truly crappy game designed more to stoke egos than present a good , deep, challenging game play experience.

If that's what you want, why not play Elite and let those of us who like EVE play EVE? Why must everything be distilled to the same watered-down mushiness?

It reminds of of how IRL I deal with people from other countries who take every opportunity to tell me how superior their home country is to the one we are actually living in, all the while steadfastly refusing to go back and stay there for more than 2 days...
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3684 - 2016-01-13 20:24:24 UTC
i love how , whilst all the wailing , dino-esq soothsaying and pushing of thinly veiled agendas ,

the numbers are actually on the rise again.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#3685 - 2016-01-13 20:31:48 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
i love how , whilst all the wailing , dino-esq soothsaying and pushing of thinly veiled agendas ,

the numbers are actually on the rise again.



I looked at that image, and Kim Dotcom himself came out of my monitor and kissed me

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3686 - 2016-01-13 20:34:06 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


I think I explained myself bad. I don't say it's impossible to escape gatecamps, I did that a lot of times myself (well played smartbomb camps are harder, if you didn't know the next gate has one and did not setup appropriate bookmarks in advance).

I am bringing the example from another game, where you can get a "gate camp" but the dynamics give you a proper fighting chance and to use a proper PvP ship to do that.

In EvE if you want to do more than just dart away but want to take the fight, your stabbed / nanoed / whatever ship is not exactly going to stand a lot of chances. That's why I bring the case for T3, because with them you can more or less replicate the (in my opinion, fun) mechanic of getting in a camp and decide to stay and fight back in good terms.

Then, of course, if the gatecamper(s) is bad, you might make it with a BC or BS but I'd hardly would go around looking for sparring with a lone BS, it's too juicy and easily picked target.


The problem you have is that you gave up trying, declared that a thing was impossible (this is usually done to salve one's ego) and now stick to the wrong conclusion because you're invested in it.

Since when is a Vexor a BS, BC or T3?

And OH WOW, did CCP sneak in some T3 haulers? Nope this solo pvp NEREUS is a tech1 ship


I knew Marlona Sly and her awesomeness. However you and Gregor keep moving the goal and also faithfully replicating old and less old WoW PvP fallacies (!).
If I talk about gate camping you may post some good fights with haulers and whatever but then it's not the context I was talking about. A context you try to steer away of, because of Shopenhauer rhetoric principles.

Also, you bring examples that "it can be done" like they did 11 years ago when trying to keep my class nerfed in arena. There were those 3 players in the world who were 2500 rated on their warrior who could *gasp* manage to score 1850 rating on the crappy class. With this 1850, people would say: "see, it's you who are bad, those guys get to 1850 so your class is fine!" (1850 = a score still vastly below the minimum accepted to be competitive anyway).

But you can't make demographics about overall PvP enjoyability restricting the scope to the top 5-10 best worldwide players. It does not work like that, because everybody ELSE are those who in the end make the big numbers and in decide whether a game becomes a best seller or not.

Now, show me the average Joe defeating gate camping ships (HIC etc.) with your beefed up hauler and then we are talking. Because average Joe certainly CAN get much better results at a gatecamp in ED.

Otherwise it's the same empty talking they did back when exhumers had no tank and were told to "just tank them" (getting Osprey-alike efficiency Big smile => useless to spend so much to get the same results). See how well it went.


What do you want to say with this? That every Joe, should be able to solo against an organized gatecamp, and if not it is no fun? Without having played ED, I have a feeling that it is just an illusion you are given. I am pretty sure the gatecamp will win in the end. Because they are also average joes, with the power to win over a gatecamp, like the gankee. They are just more. because EVE is single shard, with a high limit of how many can be in system, it is hard to avoid that numbers will be an advantage. But you are also free to use the numbers.

I also have a hard time imagining how you would implement this in EVE, without also implementing some kind of twitch mechanic. That would change the whole game away from the strategy game it is now, and I don't see it happen.

So could you elaborate on how you want that everyone can feel like they stand a chance against a group, without the group gets the same advantage by being more?

I also don't understand why people would be disencouraged by gatecamps? We have established you can pretty easily avoid them (You then moved the goal posts by claiming it was never about avoiding them, but figthing them solo). The gatecamps are usually in very predictable places. They are not on every gate. There are other types of fun PVP you can engage in. They can be blopped if you find friends.. you know this being an MMO, and all... So the only kind of person that would be disencouraged is someone who on purpose figths against overwhelming forces, they could have avoided. The hope they win like the hero they are in many other games. When they don't they feel bad and blame in game mechanics they could have avoided. With these people it is more of an EGO thing, and not a fault of the game IMO.

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#3687 - 2016-01-14 00:16:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Jenn aSide wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Because average Joe certainly CAN get much better results at a gatecamp in ED.


If this is true, it means that Elite is a truly crappy game designed more to stoke egos than present a good , deep, challenging game play experience.

If that's what you want, why not play Elite and let those of us who like EVE play EVE? Why must everything be distilled to the same watered-down mushiness?

It reminds of of how IRL I deal with people from other countries who take every opportunity to tell me how superior their home country is to the one we are actually living in, all the while steadfastly refusing to go back and stay there for more than 2 days...


First of all, unlike "people from other countries", my subs are each cent as good and worth as yours, therefore I shall exactly say what I think it could liven up EvE without the need to be bossed around by self appointed Truth Holders.


Second. a game where a min maxed FOTM setup is not going to give a very heavy hand up is not "crappy". It gives a less predictable outcome. If somebody loses a ship but "sees the light at the end of the tunnel" ("I could have survived if I travelled with less cargo onboard") that somebody is not going to give up and return to hi sec forever. He might want to improve instead.

I have been (among others) in those "deep challenging game play experiences" where I had to focus the given target and press F1. Yeah "deep, challenging". Come on, combat and physics are the weakest EvE feature and you paint them like it's something supreme. I still recall YEARS of having the all encompassing "Falcon alt", and "offgrid booster". That was the deep and challenging game.


Actually, had it been for you, we'd still have to flip sov by shooting at POSes. Another "deep, challenging" EvE feature we used to have.

Instead, we are going to get Valkyrie, which is a step in my direction. Of course if CCP truly keeps it restricted to VR users only, it will grandiously fail. But if they make it a "plug in" for EvE... that's the day I am going to go back to spaceship pew pew.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3688 - 2016-01-14 00:44:47 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
i love how , whilst all the wailing , dino-esq soothsaying and pushing of thinly veiled agendas ,

the numbers are actually on the rise again.



I would hope that in the historically busiest 2 months of the year for Eve that we would see a bump in average users.

Problem is this bump has been very minor, and appears to already be losing steam. So what happens when this level is the top from which this year falls in the summer and football months? If you want to talk about agendas, the most dangerous one here is pretending nothing is wrong and the user levels are normal.
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#3689 - 2016-01-14 01:04:56 UTC
I love this thread
Fantus
State War Academy
#3690 - 2016-01-14 04:45:54 UTC
I remember when EVE got 4000 players on a good night. Seems that we had just as much fun then as people do now, although I'm sure CCP doesn't want to see the numbers dip that low.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#3691 - 2016-01-14 07:11:54 UTC
King Aires wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
i love how , whilst all the wailing , dino-esq soothsaying and pushing of thinly veiled agendas ,

the numbers are actually on the rise again.



I would hope that in the historically busiest 2 months of the year for Eve that we would see a bump in average users.

Problem is this bump has been very minor, and appears to already be losing steam. So what happens when this level is the top from which this year falls in the summer and football months? If you want to talk about agendas, the most dangerous one here is pretending nothing is wrong and the user levels are normal.


There is less alts online, and people unubscribed some because PLEX is for 1 B.

I think situation is far from being bad.

ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ᴘᴀʀᴛ ᴏғ ᴀ ɢᴀᴍᴇ ʜᴇʟᴘs ᴛᴏ ᴛᴇʟʟ ᴀ sᴛᴏʀʏ 📕

ᴡʜᴇʀᴇ ɪs ᴀɴɢʀʏ ᴄᴏɴᴄᴏʀᴅ ɢᴜʏ ᴡʜᴇɴ ʏᴏᴜ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ʜɪᴍ

ᴏsᴘʀᴇʏ 🚀

≡⋁≡ ♥
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3692 - 2016-01-14 07:29:42 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
King Aires wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
i love how , whilst all the wailing , dino-esq soothsaying and pushing of thinly veiled agendas ,

the numbers are actually on the rise again.



I would hope that in the historically busiest 2 months of the year for Eve that we would see a bump in average users.

Problem is this bump has been very minor, and appears to already be losing steam. So what happens when this level is the top from which this year falls in the summer and football months? If you want to talk about agendas, the most dangerous one here is pretending nothing is wrong and the user levels are normal.


There is less alts online, and people unubscribed some because PLEX is for 1 B.

I think situation is far from being bad.


The only main drop in ACU in the last year was at the same time, as banning input broadcasting and implementing of Aegis SOV. So could be due to less alts. I rather supect the nullsec change is behind it though, just based on that the decline is steepest in these months.

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3693 - 2016-01-14 08:45:38 UTC  |  Edited by: sero Hita
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Instead, we are going to get Valkyrie, which is a step in my direction. Of course if CCP truly keeps it restricted to VR users only, it will grandiously fail. But if they make it a "plug in" for EvE... that's the day I am going to go back to spaceship pew pew.


How is this a step in your direction? They made a standalone game, to cather to people like you, who prefer the FPS dogfight PvP style. They even bound it to a specific platform(VR) again (like Dust is bound to PS3). I think Dust and the abscence of legion showed pretty nicely that they won't go for the connected universe, and rather focussing on different demographics in different games. Just googled Hildmar, and found an interview with Hildmar in the german tabloid media Bild from march 2015 (I put the quote down under if you read german). If you don't read german he mentions that Valkyrie and EVE are mostly connected in spirit. On the question if there will be a direct connection he answers that he can't say right now. But if they choose to they have the technical knowledge to react. Thanks to the experiences from Dust.

I don't think this looks very promising for your wishes tbh. I would personally also not like EVE PvP to be converted to dogfighting style PvP. Your point that EVE PVP is just F1, is pretty stupid to be honest. In what game do you not push a button or left mouse to attack? The complexity of EVE PVP comes if you want to maximize your playstyle and account for postion, transversal and falloff etc. Just by manually pilotting you can increase your chances to win. The mathematical fomula for many of these factors are not complicated, but balancing all these factors at once can be pretty complicated to master especially in short one-on-one frigate matches.

Source:
Wird „Eve Valkyrie“ mit „Eve Online“ verbunden sein, wie „Dust“?
Petursson: „Eve Valkyrie steht auf seinen eigenen Beinen und bietet eine eigene Action-Erfahrung, die die Fantasie erfüllt, ein Kampfpilot im All zu sein, der sich Gefechte mit anderen Spielern liefert. Es ist eine Schlacht innerhalb einer Schlacht, die innerhalb des Eve-Universums angesiedelt ist. Mit Eve Online ist es in einer eher geistigen Verbindung verbunden. Ob es auch eine direkte Verbindung geben wird, kann man zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt noch nicht sagen. Sollte es Bedarf in dieser Richtung geben, haben wir dank der Erfahrungen mit Dust die technischen Grundlagen, um darauf zu reagieren.“

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#3694 - 2016-01-14 09:05:47 UTC
"I'm playing a game with features which I don't like, because of :reasons:, and I'm going to try really hard to have them changed so that I do like them. If they don't do that I'll cry wolf about how the game is fcked and doomed".
Mithandra
B.O.P Supplication For Glorious
Dracarys.
#3695 - 2016-01-14 10:08:42 UTC
As much as some people want it to be, EVE is NOT a single player game, and the other players won't bow to your will just because you want them too.

Eve is also not a tactical game, it's a strategic one. It's more about planning, planning, planning and then execution, than about twitching your joystick.

Some people seem to want my little pony in space, and EVE is not that. Oh dear me , no. EVE is the totally hot emo goth chick of the gaming world. The girl with the attitude and the can of mace.

Some people demand their "right" to do everything immediately. EVE is not about the goal, it's about the journey. You have no rights in EVE unless you can enforce those rights.

Are the numbers down? Statistics would seem to suggest this. Is the game dying due to lack of players? Not from my point of view. I'm still having fun even when I get my derriere kicked up between my ears.

What EVE needs is an influx of players, who haven't been brought up in an education system that uses the mantra, "there are no winners or losers", awards certificates and trophy's for participation, and tells them that their rights outweigh the rights of the society in which they live.

There's a reason EVE has a large military and ex military player base.

Eve is the dark haired, totally hot emo gothchild of the gaming community
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#3696 - 2016-01-14 10:32:56 UTC
sero Hita wrote:

I don't think this looks very promising for your wishes tbh. I would personally also not like EVE PvP to be converted to dogfighting style PvP. Your point that EVE PVP is just F1, is pretty stupid to be honest. In what game do you not push a button or left mouse to attack? The complexity of EVE PVP comes if you want to maximize your playstyle and account for postion, transversal and falloff etc. Just by manually pilotting you can increase your chances to win. The mathematical fomula for many of these factors are not complicated, but balancing all these factors at once can be pretty complicated to master especially in short one-on-one frigate matches.


EvE being a sandbox would perfectly fit with my idea: if you want to fly your ship as of today, you can. If you want to "get inside" and pilot it, with Valkyrie you can. And, if Valkyrie would be "connected" to EvE, one could have the option to use a ship in the traditional way or the new one.


Gregor Parud wrote:
"I'm playing a game with features which I don't like, because of :reasons:, and I'm going to try really hard to have them changed so that I do like them.


True, and rightly so. It's my right to ask for changes. Actually, EvE is a sandbox but also a meta-sandbox where players have their own plans.
I have mine and I have the guts to tell it straight in face.

Actually, I don't even have to "impose" a plan, because Valkyrie is indeed being made regardless of my "plans", I am just pushing to have the option to connect it to EvE.


Gregor Parud wrote:

If they don't do that I'll cry wolf about how the game is fcked and doomed".


Where did I say that?
What I said is to expose a number of very long standing EvE limits and issues, those won't certainly go away just doing what I'd like.
In example, the archaic market charts are here to stay and are completely separate with ships piloting. Sov too.


Mithandra wrote:

Eve is also not a tactical game, it's a strategic one. It's more about planning, planning, planning and then execution, than about twitching your joystick.


Easily proven false by the very PvP videos posted above (and not by me).

1) Fitting and planning are in every game, not just EvE. I recall 199X games having customizable loadout etc.
2) In the videos posted above, every single fight sees the guy constantly clicking and twitching to stay parallel / to close in and avoid fire, to avoid being orbited and get very close (first video).

So, the :effort: is there. What's missing are a decently immersive flight physics and choice of peripheral. EvE practical gameplay is considered a joke in most PvP communities and dismissed as "lol mouse clickers".

It's funny, because if I asked for VR googles or 3D vision in EvE, nobody would be against it. Actually, I greatly enjoyed 3D vision in EvE, the ships look epic.
But I can say that as long as it conforms with EvE conformists "vision", as soon as I leave their lazy comfort zone they get a knot in the stomach and histeria.

What do you fear, to find somebody who outplays you at Excel-EvE AND ALSO at PvP?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3697 - 2016-01-14 10:43:06 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Reiisha wrote:
Heck, i'll just post it again.

EVE needs more active game systems and less passive game systems.

Unless something is done about the way the current systems work (you don't need to actually be online to operate most of them), new players will see empty space, game mechanics which require little to no input and as a result, not a lot of actual activity for them to engage in.

Give an example of what you mean by "active game systems".
Active game systems are systems where you have to actively control something to succeed. Exploration is an example as previously given, burner missions are more often active, PvP is generally active. E:D has the interdiction system for a good example of an active mechanic.

This is different from passive mechanics which EVE has a lot of, like where mining you just set up on your rock then click the go button and wait, and industy which is similar, and PI which is similar, and even missions which for the most part are similar.

Incidentally this is the argument I was using around the ISBoxer bans. That was treating a symptom of the problem, which is a lack of active mechanics, which leads to easy mass multiboxing. From the changes and announcements on future changes CCP have made they are moving towards having a better balance of active and passive mechanics, which I think is a good thing.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Mithandra
B.O.P Supplication For Glorious
Dracarys.
#3698 - 2016-01-14 10:58:45 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
sero Hita wrote:

I don't think this looks very promising for your wishes tbh. I would personally also not like EVE PvP to be converted to dogfighting style PvP. Your point that EVE PVP is just F1, is pretty stupid to be honest. In what game do you not push a button or left mouse to attack? The complexity of EVE PVP comes if you want to maximize your playstyle and account for postion, transversal and falloff etc. Just by manually pilotting you can increase your chances to win. The mathematical fomula for many of these factors are not complicated, but balancing all these factors at once can be pretty complicated to master especially in short one-on-one frigate matches.


EvE being a sandbox would perfectly fit with my idea: if you want to fly your ship as of today, you can. If you want to "get inside" and pilot it, with Valkyrie you can. And, if Valkyrie would be "connected" to EvE, one could have the option to use a ship in the traditional way or the new one.


Gregor Parud wrote:
"I'm playing a game with features which I don't like, because of :reasons:, and I'm going to try really hard to have them changed so that I do like them.


True, and rightly so. It's my right to ask for changes. Actually, EvE is a sandbox but also a meta-sandbox where players have their own plans.
I have mine and I have the guts to tell it straight in face.

Actually, I don't even have to "impose" a plan, because Valkyrie is indeed being made regardless of my "plans", I am just pushing to have the option to connect it to EvE.


Gregor Parud wrote:

If they don't do that I'll cry wolf about how the game is fcked and doomed".


Where did I say that?
What I said is to expose a number of very long standing EvE limits and issues, those won't certainly go away just doing what I'd like.
In example, the archaic market charts are here to stay and are completely separate with ships piloting. Sov too.


Mithandra wrote:

Eve is also not a tactical game, it's a strategic one. It's more about planning, planning, planning and then execution, than about twitching your joystick.


Easily proven false by the very PvP videos posted above (and not by me).

1) Fitting and planning are in every game, not just EvE. I recall 199X games having customizable loadout etc.
2) In the videos posted above, every single fight sees the guy constantly clicking and twitching to stay parallel / to close in and avoid fire, to avoid being orbited and get very close (first video).

So, the :effort: is there. What's missing are a decently immersive flight physics and choice of peripheral. EvE practical gameplay is considered a joke in most PvP communities and dismissed as "lol mouse clickers".

It's funny, because if I asked for VR googles or 3D vision in EvE, nobody would be against it. Actually, I greatly enjoyed 3D vision in EvE, the ships look epic.
But I can say that as long as it conforms with EvE conformists "vision", as soon as I leave their lazy comfort zone they get a knot in the stomach and histeria.

What do you fear, to find somebody who outplays you at Excel-EvE AND ALSO at PvP?


From the tone of your post and your perception of what you consider EVE to be, might I suggest Elite Dangerous? Seriously, that's a game that would seriously float your boat. It does tend at times to interfere with my EVE gameplay, especially when they released horizons.


The planning I was talking about wasn't how to fit your ship, it was about getting and holding space, using that space, getting a group of individuals working together towards a common goal. That's strategic planning. You see the game as being about you strapping on a ship and using your no doubt impressive reflexes to shoot other ships. That's not EVE, not really. You may disagree, and that's fine.

I have no problem with people standing on their soapbox berating the game as long as they acknowledge the rights of simple souls like myself who love the game and the current player base, to defend it. Are changes needed? Depends on who you talk too, and the changes in question.

Eve is the dark haired, totally hot emo gothchild of the gaming community
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3699 - 2016-01-14 11:04:18 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
And, if Valkyrie would be "connected" to EvE, one could have the option to use a ship in the traditional way or the new one.


This is what i pointed out in the part you ignored (you really read things quite selectively), that I don't think will happen. Mostly due to what Hildmar wrote, but also because the two ways of flying are not compatible. I mean you could probably get like in Dust, that what you do in valkyrie affect how much VP is needed for a system flip in FW, but flying like Valkyrie in EVE would be a hassle, and unwanted by many. I don't even know if you can balance it, so that people flying in one way won't get an advantage. Plus could the servers handle 200 man fighthing Valkyrie style in one system, along side 200 players who does not? And how sexy will the valkyrie style fight be in TIDI? You wishes seem pretty unrealistic right now. Which is why your " my way or doom" semantics are annoying.


"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Mithandra
B.O.P Supplication For Glorious
Dracarys.
#3700 - 2016-01-14 11:31:24 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Reiisha wrote:
Heck, i'll just post it again.

EVE needs more active game systems and less passive game systems.

Unless something is done about the way the current systems work (you don't need to actually be online to operate most of them), new players will see empty space, game mechanics which require little to no input and as a result, not a lot of actual activity for them to engage in.

Give an example of what you mean by "active game systems".
Active game systems are systems where you have to actively control something to succeed. Exploration is an example as previously given, burner missions are more often active, PvP is generally active. E:D has the interdiction system for a good example of an active mechanic.

This is different from passive mechanics which EVE has a lot of, like where mining you just set up on your rock then click the go button and wait, and industy which is similar, and PI which is similar, and even missions which for the most part are similar.

Incidentally this is the argument I was using around the ISBoxer bans. That was treating a symptom of the problem, which is a lack of active mechanics, which leads to easy mass multiboxing. From the changes and announcements on future changes CCP have made they are moving towards having a better balance of active and passive mechanics, which I think is a good thing.


I really don't see mining as a passive mechanic. I usually don't think about mining at all as I'm not at heart a rock fondler.

However, these days if you just click on a rock and watch your hold fill up, you die.

In empire we have CODE, whom I am not fond of, something about people pontificating to kill people in empire just sets my teeth on edge. I have no problem with what they are doing, just the pious, "we are doing it for the betterment of EVE" drekk.

In low and nullsec we have ravening hordes of barbarians emerging from wormholes and mullering mining fleets. We have gank gangs and enemy fleets doing the same.

Mining is not passive.... it's not my cup of tea, but its certainly not passive.

Industry... now, passive? I suppose it could be seen as that, but how on earth would you change it? Seriously.

Missions .... passive. Not really. There's always some form of player input. Also there's CODE again.

PI. Not passive. you have to set it up, move stuff, empty it, fill it up. Its more passive than PVP, but no not passive.

As far as I can see, the only two passive system(s) in EVE are using research agents and the skill queue. I'm open to debate on the matter :)




A fair example of a passive mechanic is using research agents. You set one up..... and go back in 6 months to a pile of data cores.



Eve is the dark haired, totally hot emo gothchild of the gaming community