These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#4161 - 2016-01-23 23:09:25 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Improve PvE yes, change PvE absolutely no.
This is what is known as an oxymoron.

The very definition of the word improve requires change to that which already exists, by means of making it better. The second part of your statement completely negates the first.

TL;DR You can't have your cake and eat it.


Apparently you're missing the point. To build on the existent is to improve and is a desirable change; to destroy or replace what exists is not necessarily an improvement, and is a undesirable change. Such is human nature.

Cars today have the same features as a Ford T 100 years ago. Many have been vastly improved, but little has changed. And when we face true change, we oppose it. Stop using cars? No way! Make them better? Of course, give us a double serving of it!

People often are confused and think they want a change, when they are thinking of an mprovement. Then change occurs an they're shocked to see that it's not what they wanted.

Aegisov was a change. And its success is still moot, depending on how you define success... which may be very different things for players and CCP. Players wanted something better, and instead they got something different. Some still are bickering about it.

PvE is no different. Nobody wants to get rid of the current content; but want more, different, better content, without losing the existing one. We don't want Timesov instead of Hitpointsov, we've seen how has that fared for nullseccers. We still want to drive our cars... but fancy driving something else, in some other way, at least as an option.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#4162 - 2016-01-23 23:32:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Improve PvE yes, change PvE absolutely no.
This is what is known as an oxymoron.

The very definition of the word improve requires change to that which already exists, by means of making it better. The second part of your statement completely negates the first.

TL;DR You can't have your cake and eat it.


Apparently you're missing the point. To build on the existent is to improve and is a desirable change; to destroy or replace what exists is not necessarily an improvement, and is a undesirable change. Such is human nature.

Cars today have the same features as a Ford T 100 years ago. Many have been vastly improved, but little has changed.
Having actually driven a Model T I can confidently tell you that the only things it has in common with a modern car are the Infernal Combustion Engine, 4 wheels, 3 pedals and a steering wheel, the pedals don't do the same things either. The model T is so far removed from a modern car that you need specialist instruction, from someone who has experience driving one, in order for you to get it moving; the control layout is completely alien and the stuff that does familiar tasks works in novel, and occasionally terrifying, ways.

It's far more akin to a horse and cart than it is a modern car, it's so different to drive when compared to a modern car because you have to take everything you know about driving, including years of muscle memory, and discard it. The modern car is an improved version precisely because so much has changed, in short you need a better analogy.

Quote:
And when we face true change, we oppose it. Stop using cars? No way! Make them better? Of course, give us a double serving of it!

People often are confused and think they want a change, when they are thinking of an mprovement. Then change occurs an they're shocked to see that it's not what they wanted.

Aegisov was a change. And its success is still moot, depending on how you define success... which may be very different things for players and CCP. Players wanted something better, and instead they got something different. Some still are bickering about it.
Change is how you improve something, or not as the case may be. Change can be good or bad depending on which side of the change you're on, Sov isn't my bag so I'll refrain from commenting on something I'm wholly ignorant of but you're correct in that the view of changes is subjective.


Quote:
PvE is no different. Nobody wants to get rid of the current content; but want more, different, better content, without losing the existing one. We don't want Timesov instead of Hitpointsov, we've seen how has that fared for nullseccers. We still want to drive our cars... but fancy driving something else, in some other way, at least as an option.
If we keep the existing PvE then that's new content, not improved content. It's a fine distinction but there is definitely a difference between the two.

The problem with new PvE content is that it's time intensive to develop for CCP, yet easily optimised for minimum effort and maximum profit in very little time. The first step to new PvE content should, in my opinion (bearing in mind that I know little about software development), be to place a framework down that allows CCP to tweak and improve the current PvE content in a way that makes it less easily farmed and then implementing what they learn from it into new content at a later date.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4163 - 2016-01-24 00:28:23 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Quote:
high monthly subscription,
Which is on a par with other subscription MMO's and doesn't gouge you for new content.


Problem with that is; EVE Online is one of very few MMO's in existence that still charge a monthly fee to play. This day, in 2016, when people see a paid subscription game, all they see is money scrounging game devs because it's not a widely used or accepted business model anymore. As valid a model as it may be, EVE cannot and will not survive another 10 years by asking 15 bucks a month to play. Simply because the current and future consumer base doesn't understand/support/want it.



That is why rumor mills are starting up coming out of "sources who know sources in the CSM" that CCP is pushing for free to play but pay to skill.

Meaning you can play for free all you want but if you want skill training you have to Plex or AUR it.

Like I said, rumor. But I would put no bad decision past CCP these days, they just keep outdoing themselves.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#4164 - 2016-01-24 00:35:28 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:

Problem with that is; EVE Online is one of very few MMO's in existence that still charge a monthly fee to play. This day, in 2016, when people see a paid subscription game, all they see is money scrounging game devs because it's not a widely used or accepted business model anymore. As valid a model as it may be, EVE cannot and will not survive another 10 years by asking 15 bucks a month to play. Simply because the current and future consumer base doesn't understand/support/want it.



Hardware and network bandwidth costs have gone down significantly since 2003. Yet I've never seen anyone drop their monthly fees to say 5 a month would be more reasonable. I only pay 8 for Netflix.

Gouge them while you can I guess.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#4165 - 2016-01-24 00:37:57 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Cars today have the same features as a Ford T 100 years ago. Many have been vastly improved, but little has changed. And when we face true change, we oppose it. Stop using cars? No way! Make them better? Of course, give us a double serving of it!


Average lifetime of a car is 11 years now.
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4166 - 2016-01-24 01:32:18 UTC
Reiisha wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Quote:
high monthly subscription,
Which is on a par with other subscription MMO's and doesn't gouge you for new content.


Problem with that is; EVE Online is one of very few MMO's in existence that still charge a monthly fee to play. This day, in 2016, when people see a paid subscription game, all they see is money scrounging game devs because it's not a widely used or accepted business model anymore. As valid a model as it may be, EVE cannot and will not survive another 10 years by asking 15 bucks a month to play. Simply because the current and future consumer base doesn't understand/support/want it.


100% disagree.

EVE works with a subscription because the entire game is built around offering long term gameplay value through solid sandbox mechanics. You can't really make a sandbox title free to play without seriously compromising the gameplay and possibly losing what makes the game good (see archeage).

A sub game needs to be justified of course, and i think EVE still does that, despite it's current problems. It's still got about 330k subs and it only needs about 30 to 50k to survive. If CCP manages to turn the game around and get the subs back to 500k again, that's more than enough to keep the game running and keep new features coming in.


You're right and I agree, but if the majority of the new audience you're trying to reel in doesn't get it or doesn't agree then it doesn't matter. If people are not willing to pay monthly to play a game then you're never going to get those people as players, no matter how justified the price is.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Kaivar Lancer
Doomheim
#4167 - 2016-01-24 07:40:34 UTC
I've been station-trading in Jita for the last few days, and am surprised to see my orders staying good for hours! You used to be 0.01 isked within minutes. The decline is turning into RAPID!!!
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#4168 - 2016-01-24 08:44:33 UTC
Kaivar Lancer wrote:
I've been station-trading in Jita for the last few days, and am surprised to see my orders staying good for hours! You used to be 0.01 isked within minutes. The decline is turning into RAPID!!!


It really depends on what you are trading. Even two years ago, when I started there were modules that was generally not 0.01 isked over night. A lot of the T2 modules for example. Try ofte used ship hulls and weapon modules, they are usually 0.01 isked pretty fast.

"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

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#4169 - 2016-01-24 11:14:43 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Apparently you're missing the point. To build on the existent is to improve and is a desirable change; to destroy or replace what exists is not necessarily an improvement, and is a undesirable change. Such is human nature.

Cars today have the same features as a Ford T 100 years ago. Many have been vastly improved, but little has changed.
Having actually driven a Model T I can confidently tell you that the only things it has in common with a modern car are the Infernal Combustion Engine, 4 wheels, 3 pedals and a steering wheel, the pedals don't do the same things either. The model T is so far removed from a modern car that you need specialist instruction, from someone who has experience driving one, in order for you to get it moving; the control layout is completely alien and the stuff that does familiar tasks works in novel, and occasionally terrifying, ways.

It's far more akin to a horse and cart than it is a modern car, it's so different to drive when compared to a modern car because you have to take everything you know about driving, including years of muscle memory, and discard it. The modern car is an improved version precisely because so much has changed, in short you need a better analogy.


I do know the quirks of a Ford T compared to its evolved offspring, but cars still do the same things in the same ways. Engine drives an axle at variable speed through a clutch with an option to reverse the spin of the axle. Throttle is operated by adjusting the ratio of fuel to air mix. And all is built serially in a series of steps gathering standard parts previosuly manufactured and stored until assembly. Then the result is used mostly by a single owner to do the same travels daly along the same roads...

I would had talked about airplanes, but turbine engines shifted the paradygm so dramatically that jet airplanes are not related to not-jet airplanes.

Quote:
Quote:
PvE is no different. Nobody wants to get rid of the current content; but want more, different, better content, without losing the existing one. We don't want Timesov instead of Hitpointsov, we've seen how has that fared for nullseccers. We still want to drive our cars... but fancy driving something else, in some other way, at least as an option.
If we keep the existing PvE then that's new content, not improved content. It's a fine distinction but there is definitely a difference between the two.

The problem with new PvE content is that it's time intensive to develop for CCP, yet easily optimised for minimum effort and maximum profit in very little time. The first step to new PvE content should, in my opinion (bearing in mind that I know little about software development), be to place a framework down that allows CCP to tweak and improve the current PvE content in a way that makes it less easily farmed and then implementing what they learn from it into new content at a later date.


Agree on the first part. As for the solution, I'd rather set up a framework so players generate the PvE content as a mean to oppose other players so conflict drives PvE and PvE drives conflict. Current PvE in EVE is an assembled toy -can only be used in one way. Improve it adding a construction set like the one supplied to PvPrs and that will be it.

But then, I've been saying that since CCP abandoned WiS... whereas CCP has chosen to focus on some of the PvP until things are doing so well that they will sell skillpoints and start eroding the subscription model. CCP chose to bet their future on PvP alone rather than take seriously PvErs, highseccers and all the silent crowds that never went to a pub crawl with Devs but paid their subscriptions so those Devs had a job and those players had a game to play.

And here we are.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#4170 - 2016-01-24 12:44:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
I do know the quirks of a Ford T compared to its evolved offspring, but cars still do the same things in the same ways. Engine drives an axle at variable speed through a clutch with an option to reverse the spin of the axle. Throttle is operated by adjusting the ratio of fuel to air mix. And all is built serially in a series of steps gathering standard parts previosuly manufactured and stored until assembly. Then the result is used mostly by a single owner to do the same travels daly along the same roads...

I would had talked about airplanes, but turbine engines shifted the paradygm so dramatically that jet airplanes are not related to not-jet airplanes.
Knowing about the quirks of and actually operating a Model T are entirely different things, you forgot about manually advancing and retarding the ignition according to your speed and having to operate the fuel pump by hand every few minutes for example. Cars and trucks are my bread and butter, over the years I've driven stuff ranging from Austin Minis to tanks, going through the gamut of super-cars, specialised off-road vehicles etc, the Model T is the hardest vehicle to operate that I've ever tried to drive, because it is so utterly different from everything else.

In theory a Model T operates on basically the same principles and does the same job as a modern car, just as in theory the Wright Brothers Flyer operates on basically the same principles and does the same job as a modern propeller driven or jet aircraft; in both cases the reality is that they're very different beasts indeed.

My point remains, improvement requires change.

Quote:
Agree on the first part. As for the solution, I'd rather set up a framework so players generate the PvE content as a mean to oppose other players so conflict drives PvE and PvE drives conflict. Current PvE in EVE is an assembled toy -can only be used in one way. Improve it adding a construction set like the one supplied to PvPrs and that will be it.
Many devs have tried to put PvE content creation in the hands of players, most have failed because the content produced is usually either insanely hard with little reward, or insanely easy with massive reward; putting that kind of framework in the hands of players invariably leads to poor balance and exploitation.

Quote:
But then, I've been saying that since CCP abandoned WiS... whereas CCP has chosen to focus on some of the PvP until things are doing so well that they will sell skillpoints and start eroding the subscription model.
When CCP start selling SP that hasn't been accrued in the usual manner and inject it from the nether then we have a problem, until then the exchanging of SP for isk isn't an erosion inasmuch as the source for the SP is other players and thus it could be seen as an extension of the character bazaar. I'm not fond of the idea myself but I don't see it as detrimental to the extent that you seem to.

Quote:
CCP chose to bet their future on PvP alone rather than take seriously PvErs, highseccers and all the silent crowds that never went to a pub crawl with Devs but paid their subscriptions so those Devs had a job and those players had a game to play.

And here we are.
Firstly CCP have always chosen to favour PvP over PvE, because they produce a PvP biased game, not a PvE biased one.

Secondly Highsec players and PvE players have equal opportunity to put forth their ideas, CCP give their ideas the same considerations that they give to those from PvPers; for example

  • is it viable?
  • is it possible?
  • can they spare the dev cycles
  • will it be balanced?
  • does it fit in with the game that they want to produce?
  • is it batshit insane? (they drop the ball on this one occasionally, often with their own ideas)Twisted


Thirdly the silent majority have no say, because they choose to remain silent. To anybody that claims to do so I say
Abrazzar wrote:
It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths.


We can speculate all we like about why the average player count is down, the only people that are likely to have that information are CCP. The multitude of changes that have affected how many accounts a player can operate at once, or how many they even need, and a plethora of other stuff will definitely have had an effect on the numbers though.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#4171 - 2016-01-24 14:26:34 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
CCP, who to their credit stopped at cosmetic items.
TIL SP transfers are cosmetic.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Both are valid models for monetisation but given the choice I'd rather pay a sub than have my wallet suffer the death of a thousand micro-transactions to stay competitive.
So would I, but I doubt CCP are going that way. Long term I can't see them not introducing more microtransactions, moving towards an end goal of running entirely from them.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
It's far more akin to a horse and cart than it is a modern car
Tesco can't put a Model T in a lasagne, so I beg to differ!

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#4172 - 2016-01-24 15:16:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
CCP, who to their credit stopped at cosmetic items.
TIL SP transfers are cosmetic.
While the injectors are initially an AUR item and like the other AUR items created by CCP and not the players, the actual use of them relies on SP that has been accrued in the normal fashion, just as the character bazaar does.

Quote:
So would I, but I doubt CCP are going that way. Long term I can't see them not introducing more microtransactions, moving towards an end goal of running entirely from them.
I agree entirely, being a subscription MMO works for them. Their attempt at micro-transactions was doomed to fail the moment some idiot thought that a virtual item costing more than a real one was a good idea, god help us if they go in that direction.
Quote:
Tesco can't put a Model T in a lasagne, so I beg to differ!
lol fair enough; for me the labeling was the problem with that not the equine content, but the British public gets squeamish about eating what are often seen as pets.


edited to reflect that I misread Lucas's post

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#4173 - 2016-01-24 16:01:51 UTC
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:

Problem with that is; EVE Online is one of very few MMO's in existence that still charge a monthly fee to play. This day, in 2016, when people see a paid subscription game, all they see is money scrounging game devs because it's not a widely used or accepted business model anymore. As valid a model as it may be, EVE cannot and will not survive another 10 years by asking 15 bucks a month to play. Simply because the current and future consumer base doesn't understand/support/want it.



Hardware and network bandwidth costs have gone down significantly since 2003. Yet I've never seen anyone drop their monthly fees to say 5 a month would be more reasonable. I only pay 8 for Netflix.

Gouge them while you can I guess.



you realize the cost of an MMO is not on that but on paying the salaries of the employees? And those need to go UP with the time?

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#4174 - 2016-01-24 17:20:25 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
While the injectors are initially an AUR item and like the other AUR items created by CCP and not the players, the actual use of them relies on SP that has been accrued in the normal fashion, just as the character bazaar does.
Sure, but it's still PTW (or pay for advantage, since it doesn't actually grant skill) given through microtransactions. All they've done is work their way into it using baby steps so people don't freak out for each step.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
I agree entirely, being a subscription MMO works for them. Their attempt at micro-transactions was doomed to fail the moment some idiot thought that a virtual item costing more than a real one was a good idea
I thoink you misread that last one P I think CCP will end up relying on MT more than subs.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
lol fair enough; for me the labeling was the problem with that not the equine content, but the British public gets squeamish about eating what are often seen as pets.
Yup, I'm in total agreement there Big smile

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#4175 - 2016-01-24 19:26:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Lucas Kell wrote:
I thoink you misread that last one P I think CCP will end up relying on MT more than subs.
Doh, you're right I did, twice in a week Oops time to get my eyes tested methinks; also god no and I hope not to that scenario given their previous performance where micro-transactions were concerned.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#4176 - 2016-01-25 11:15:21 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Quote:
high monthly subscription,
Which is on a par with other subscription MMO's and doesn't gouge you for new content.


Problem with that is; EVE Online is one of very few MMO's in existence that still charge a monthly fee to play. This day, in 2016, when people see a paid subscription game, all they see is money scrounging game devs because it's not a widely used or accepted business model anymore. As valid a model as it may be, EVE cannot and will not survive another 10 years by asking 15 bucks a month to play. Simply because the current and future consumer base doesn't understand/support/want it.


why does CCP need to copy anyones model?

I think all these people calling for no sub and MT's out the ying yang are badly mistaken.

I play many games and some of them are free to play, areas are restricted, gear is restricted, can make the game even more of a grind and most important it makes you feel like you are a lower class within the community.

the so called current model of FTP is not good for the community, it splits it and that's the last thing you want.

15 euros a month is nothing to pay for the level of service we get in this game.

you show me one other company that's even come close to what CCP has given us and i'll shut up.

i must say this again about this thread, it serves no purpose but to keep a few people talking rubbish about something they do not have the full facts on.

CCP knows well why new subs don't stick around, they're not a stupid company, i'm sure they already have a plan and this thread is nothing but a depth gauge.

but what does it matter, i log in and play, what i don't do is check how many are online before i log in and when the number isn't what i like, jump on the forums and have a whine about it. let CCP worry about their shite and we'll worry about ours.



Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#4177 - 2016-01-25 11:37:27 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
I think all these people calling for no sub and MT's out the ying yang are badly mistaken.
Currently CCP are leaning towards both.

xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
you show me one other company that's even come close to what CCP has given us and i'll shut up.
What exactly are you claiming they've given us and I'll give it a shot. I'd say that most MMO companies have given us what CCP has for the most part, which is a game and some support. Others tend to respond to tickets a fair bit quicker though.

xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
i must say this again about this thread, it serves no purpose but to keep a few people talking rubbish about something they do not have the full facts on.
Or to bring in all the people with rose tinted glasses to tell us how we should simply ignore failings because they mean nothing.

xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
but what does it matter, i log in and play, what i don't do is check how many are online before i log in and when the number isn't what i like, jump on the forums and have a whine about it. let CCP worry about their shite and we'll worry about ours.
Some people like to play MMOs because of the interaction with other players. When there are increasingly less players about that directly impacts how much interaction they get to have, thus player count is important.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Buzz Orti
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4178 - 2016-01-25 11:38:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzz Orti
Good news is, I managed to add time from my tablet using free wifi at McDo.

I don't know if my trader still has skills to train in his skill queue but I'll also be able to check from EVE Gate instead of having to log in to the client.

I can still check on EVEBoard but it will take a few minutes to clear the cache (for the updated data to backtrack).

On an alternate note, I am going in the test forum to post an audio recording of a forum post to convey the tone better (with open-end captioning).

+1

btw, if you used to sniped your own order in Jita within 5 minutes can hardly count as a Rabbit decline of rapid numbers...


Edit:
One of my main problem with 3rd party license is the IP right.
I not only have to copyright my work prior to testing to avoid potential seizure and forfeiture, but I also feel I am unfairly restricted in rightfully criticizing and reporting this.
So, it has to go in my work, one way or the other, it is an integral part of it due to the constant bombardment.

I don't see what would be the point of offering a service, which , while attacked, doesn't care of the risk, and damages the other parties instead of actually being beneficial at all in preventing coercion or other related attacks.
It would work like the virus which it prevents losses from.

mhmm, so yeah, spoils of war comes to mind as a possible solution.


Suing for peace


Edit 2:
from Cinneas ,
Pyrrhic victory
... The term is used as an analogy in fields such as business, politics, and sports to describe struggles that end up ruining the victor. Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, commented on the necessity of coercion in preserving the course of justice by warning, "Moral reason must learn how to make coercion its ally without running the risk of a Pyrrhic victory in which the ally exploits and negates the triumph."[6] ...

I for one, am not one that supports or incites such coercion as a possible solution in justice, but rather is against it, in, by and of itself.
As for numbers and warfare, it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to count properly.
A percentage of 20% or 40% of a pie still is more than 1% of a larger pie, even if that 1% piece is 10 times larger than the 20% to 40% percentages.

Builds ship in empty Quafe bottle.

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#4179 - 2016-01-25 12:07:51 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Others tend to respond to tickets a fair bit quicker though.

i have never been waiting longer than a couple of hours for a response for a ticket , regardless of the category ,
and have had prompt correspondence from that point till the tickets were closed.

thus far , iv received better customer service from ccp than any other company bar none .
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#4180 - 2016-01-25 12:20:38 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
i have never been waiting longer than a couple of hours for a response for a ticket , regardless of the category ,
and have had prompt correspondence from that point till the tickets were closed.

thus far , iv received better customer service from ccp than any other company bar none .
Well then you are lucky. I just got a response on Wednesday to a ticket where my last correspondence was on 5th November (and the first response took 6 days). And it's certainly not the first time it's taken this long. Judging by other people's comments too, it's not uncommon to get no response for ages.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.