These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#1681 - 2015-09-09 17:29:20 UTC
ImYourMom wrote:
Change is happening, and for the good
That's debatable but you're entitled to your opinion.

Quote:
Adapt or die, htfu, it is long overdue, it is not about you, don't let the door hit you on the way out and all that jazz
This applies as much to those trying to change Eve into something it was never intended to be as it does to those trying to keep it true to its origins.




In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1682 - 2015-09-09 17:55:24 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
This applies as much to those trying to change Eve into something it was never intended to be as it does to those trying to keep it true to its origins.



Funny part is, most of the serious and supported requests ask to make it harder/challenging without changing current demographic for said task but we get dumbed down version instead.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1683 - 2015-09-09 18:00:52 UTC
That last bunch of comments got me thinking. I have seen this before in another game...

Spore

A potentially groundbreaking game and engine ruined by some people forcing it to be their image instead of the gaming community that is most interested. Spore by far is a prime example of need to balance target and concept to an encompassing design.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Aquilan Aideron
Wardecs go here
#1684 - 2015-09-09 18:08:51 UTC
Also, highsec ganking needs to go, or at least be tweaked.

Highsec is the heart of civilized space. How in the world can imperial installations such as space stations lend support to criminals who are killing citizens?

Gankers should have no access at all to space stations or jump gates and shouldnt be allowed to roam freely. Change it so that they can temporarily infiltrate regions by hacking jumpgates or somesuch.
Sugar Smacks
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1685 - 2015-09-09 18:16:05 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Sugar Smacks wrote:
I p

Oh and PVP needs PVE otherwise they will never be able to find certain drops that are specific to PVE.
But saying PVE needs PVP is laughable, i could make my own ammo, my own ship, my own whatever and still PVE without you.


You misunderstand.

PvE needs PvP, in the sense that all PvE needs to include player competition and conflict (PvP).
PvP can take many forms, only one of which is combat.

A) Because EVE is fundamentally a PvP environment.
B) Because PvE without player competition and conflict will inevitably become tedious and boring.
Players are dynamic, produce content and are the key to implementing risk/competition and conflict.


Again you are stating PVE NEEDS PVP, which is false, it does not.
PVP can occur during PVE but it doesn't NEED it, if you are going to make such a broad statement back it up.
But you can't because its a lie.

CCP takes and takes from highsec PVE people, the most recent take was standings.
How can you keep taking from one group to appease the others, then not expect that group to get mad or leave?

You really think burner missions are some great addition everyone wants to do?
Maybe you should go ask CCP how often those burner missions get accepted, I can guarantee the number is low.

The fact is they pretty much are slowly screwing PVE people, then acting all surprised when they quit.

If you worked on something for years like Standings then the people in charge come in and basically say all the work you did for years is now meaningless and everyone gets it for nothing, then how would you feel?
Congrats you now feel like a former EVE player.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1686 - 2015-09-09 18:23:47 UTC
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Also, highsec ganking needs to go, or at least be tweaked.

Highsec is the heart of civilized space. How in the world can imperial installations such as space stations lend support to criminals who are killing citizens?

Gankers should have no access at all to space stations or jump gates and shouldnt be allowed to roam freely. Change it so that they can temporarily infiltrate regions by hacking jumpgates or somesuch.


Well, there is an example of different views and a different way to approach the gank. I am a firm believer in the tweak. In fact, if done right, the ganking could enhance Eve.

The biggest thing is that security standing really has to be longer lasting and harder to fix. First thing I would remove are tags for sec status.

Second is how to get security. Lowsec agents need special lowsec missions centered around negative standing players trying to get highsec access back. So you get sec, but burn your pirate standings big time. Other way to get sec? Sec needs to be earned by killing lowsec people. Standings gain based on isk destroyed. Standing loss based on isk destroyed.

This means that if a person is just shooting people with rookie ships, misdemeanor. Since is based on kills and losses, a person cannot just rotate alts really since would need to lose more than destroyed. Destroyed including lootable items.

The pirate standings work on another means. I think there could be a way to avoid concord, and only one way. Pirate gates.

So this makes it interesting, you are limited on how to get into highsec, but can commit criminal activities. If you use a gate, concord is probably going to camp it after, also burning the gate. To fix your sec, you are gonna burn pirate agents making such criminal activities extremely diffcult.

Result? We have ganks, but if you are a ganker, probably going to be one for life. It becomes a long term playstyle and work to be able to be a highsec criminal. Not a weekend hobby.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1687 - 2015-09-09 18:27:13 UTC
Sugar Smacks wrote:

You really think burner missions are some great addition everyone wants to do?
Maybe you should go ask CCP how often those burner missions get accepted, I can guarantee the number is low.


I don't do them. What is the point? It is meta rock paper scissors. The PvE isn't actually a challenge. Read the statement, spend more than the reward on a counter-fit ship, and have a quick faux frig pvp match. Booooorrrriiiiinnnnnggggg. Nah, I would rather run old missions which have at least something called... fun? Scripted missioning never works. Burners are about as script as can get. One enemy, and we tell you EVERYTHING about it.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1688 - 2015-09-09 18:34:51 UTC
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Also, highsec ganking needs to go, or at least be tweaked.

Highsec is the heart of civilized space. How in the world can imperial installations such as space stations lend support to criminals who are killing citizens?

Gankers should have no access at all to space stations or jump gates and shouldnt be allowed to roam freely. Change it so that they can temporarily infiltrate regions by hacking jumpgates or somesuch.

It really doesn't. Ganking is what creates any sense of risk to highsec, and without that risk, highsec would have to go or be tweaked to offer a pittance of what is currently available. The empires lend support because they're not criminals to citizens — only to other capsuleers, who aren't even human any more. They leave enforcement of intra-capsuleer conflict to CONCORD and wisely stay out of it beyond that.

Now, if you actually do start killing empire citizens, they also already do take umbrage, but since they're limited to their navies, it's an annoyance at best — hence why staying out is the wiser choice.

Gankers should have access to the space stations for the same reason everyone else have access to them. It is up to players to force players out if they feel those players shouldn't be there, and all the necessary mechanisms and mechanics are in place to let players do just that. So if gankers have access, it's because the players have decided that they should and allowed them.
Arthur Hannigen
#1689 - 2015-09-09 18:56:37 UTC
In my opinion CCP needs to dedicate much of its resources on improving the PVE experience. At this point it is too stale and outdated. And this won't make me popular with the hardcore types, but CCP needs to think about content for solo or lone-wolf players as well. Eve is now on its way to the end line. Now is the time to act, CCP.
Salvos Rhoska
#1690 - 2015-09-09 19:02:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Sugar Smacks wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Sugar Smacks wrote:
I p

Oh and PVP needs PVE otherwise they will never be able to find certain drops that are specific to PVE.
But saying PVE needs PVP is laughable, i could make my own ammo, my own ship, my own whatever and still PVE without you.


You misunderstand.

PvE needs PvP, in the sense that all PvE needs to include player competition and conflict (PvP).
PvP can take many forms, only one of which is combat.

A) Because EVE is fundamentally a PvP environment.
B) Because PvE without player competition and conflict will inevitably become tedious and boring.
Players are dynamic, produce content and are the key to implementing risk/competition and conflict.


Again you are stating PVE NEEDS PVP, which is false, it does not.


Again, you have misunderstood my point.

You are applying a too narrow definition of PvP to only include combat.

PvP means competition and conflict with players.
That can take many forms.
For example, Trading is a form of pvp, and involves no combat.

Confusing the meanings of PvE and PvP has become commonplace, due to the compartmentalisation and separation of the two in many other games.

In EVE, they are integrated into each other, and into the whole.

All PvE MUST include elements of PvP, as player competition and conflict (whether combat or otherwise).
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#1691 - 2015-09-09 19:15:44 UTC
Sugar Smacks wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Sugar Smacks wrote:
I p

Oh and PVP needs PVE otherwise they will never be able to find certain drops that are specific to PVE.
But saying PVE needs PVP is laughable, i could make my own ammo, my own ship, my own whatever and still PVE without you.


You misunderstand.

PvE needs PvP, in the sense that all PvE needs to include player competition and conflict (PvP).
PvP can take many forms, only one of which is combat.

A) Because EVE is fundamentally a PvP environment.
B) Because PvE without player competition and conflict will inevitably become tedious and boring.
Players are dynamic, produce content and are the key to implementing risk/competition and conflict.


Again you are stating PVE NEEDS PVP, which is false, it does not.
PVP can occur during PVE but it doesn't NEED it, if you are going to make such a broad statement back it up.
But you can't because its a lie.

CCP takes and takes from highsec PVE people, the most recent take was standings.
How can you keep taking from one group to appease the others, then not expect that group to get mad or leave?

You really think burner missions are some great addition everyone wants to do?
Maybe you should go ask CCP how often those burner missions get accepted, I can guarantee the number is low.

The fact is they pretty much are slowly screwing PVE people, then acting all surprised when they quit.

If you worked on something for years like Standings then the people in charge come in and basically say all the work you did for years is now meaningless and everyone gets it for nothing, then how would you feel?
Congrats you now feel like a former EVE player.


Oh yes, "what has CCP done for high sec"? Burner missions! So fun and successful, that it's not unusual to be offered 3 or 4 in a row. My personal record is rejecting 6 Burner missions one next to other; I felt like I had been cheating that agent with his special one...

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Sugar Smacks
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1692 - 2015-09-09 19:46:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Sugar Smacks
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Sugar Smacks wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Sugar Smacks wrote:
I p

Oh and PVP needs PVE otherwise they will never be able to find certain drops that are specific to PVE.
But saying PVE needs PVP is laughable, i could make my own ammo, my own ship, my own whatever and still PVE without you.


You misunderstand.

PvE needs PvP, in the sense that all PvE needs to include player competition and conflict (PvP).
PvP can take many forms, only one of which is combat.

A) Because EVE is fundamentally a PvP environment.
B) Because PvE without player competition and conflict will inevitably become tedious and boring.
Players are dynamic, produce content and are the key to implementing risk/competition and conflict.


Again you are stating PVE NEEDS PVP, which is false, it does not.


Again, you have misunderstood my point.

You are applying a too narrow definition of PvP to only include combat.

PvP means competition and conflict with players.
That can take many forms.
For example, Trading is a form of pvp, and involves no combat.

Confusing the meanings of PvE and PvP has become commonplace, due to the compartmentalisation and separation of the two in many other games.

In EVE, they are integrated into each other, and into the whole.

All PvE MUST include elements of PvP, as player competition and conflict (whether combat or otherwise).


Sure you can call market trading pvp, i wont disagree with that.

But if i go in to a station, accept a mission, then go complete it where is the pvp?
As i have said already i can just create my own ship and ammo therefore avoiding that "pvp".

There isn''t going to be another person doing PVE in the mission i went and did.
Sure its possible for someone to scan down and try to interfere and go flashy, but if i ignore them, nothing changes unless there is something critical to loot.

There is no forced PVP like the perception your trying to force on people, they are doing PVE and thats it, and if they did it everyday, you could say they never PVP'd and didn't ever need to.

PVP needs PVE
PVE doesn't need PVP
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1693 - 2015-09-09 19:56:12 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
*Usual attempts to dance around personal attacks*
Yes yes, I get it. The problem is me, not that when you repeat back to me what you believe I've said that it's entirely wrong much of the time, or that you misrepresent my views to others constantly. Roll

And the number of players online is the best link to the size of playerbase we have since CCP stopped posting their figures. It may not be spot on, but a massively shrinking online user count is unlikely be to good news.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Anslo
Scope Works
#1694 - 2015-09-09 20:58:19 UTC
3-4 pages of forum warrioring since my initial post. All that energy coulda been used to make content in Eve. But not, let us complain about the lack of content and Eve dying instead, surely this is better!

Dweebs.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#1695 - 2015-09-09 21:02:29 UTC
Anslo wrote:
3-4 pages of forum warrioring since my initial post. All that energy coulda been used to make content in Eve. But not, let us complain about the lack of content and Eve dying instead, surely this is better!

Dweebs.

Shu....actually yeah, you're still right.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1696 - 2015-09-09 21:27:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
Anslo wrote:
3-4 pages of forum warrioring since my initial post. All that energy coulda been used to make content in Eve. But not, let us complain about the lack of content and Eve dying instead, surely this is better!

Dweebs.


I make solo content in eve. More content in exploration PvE than in blueball PvP

It is better. Ccp hopefully sees ideas and discusses, eve=more fun.

Also, cannot be dweebs. This is far to entertaining. We be classic.... NEEEERRRRRDDDDD!

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1697 - 2015-09-09 21:48:17 UTC
Anslo wrote:
3-4 pages of forum warrioring since my initial post. All that energy coulda been used to make content in Eve. But not, let us complain about the lack of content and Eve dying instead, surely this is better!

naah it takes a lot more to get anywhere on f&i

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Salvos Rhoska
#1698 - 2015-09-09 21:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Sugar Smacks wrote:
There is no forced PVP like the perception your trying to force on people, they are doing PVE and thats it, and if they did it everyday, you could say they never PVP'd and didn't ever need to.


What does the term "PvP" mean to you?
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
#1699 - 2015-09-10 02:48:08 UTC
Sugar Smacks wrote:

If you worked on something for years like Standings then the people in charge come in and basically say all the work you did for years is now meaningless and everyone gets it for nothing, then how would you feel?
Congrats you now feel like a former EVE player.


What did they take from you via changes to standings? Mission runners still benefit from high standings, they unlock higher missions and they give you higher mission rewards from agents. The higher your standings the more you can afford to reject lower quality missions as well. Plenty purpose left in standings for mission runners.

Standings aren't needed for jump clones anymore, but jump clones are not specific to mission running. Jump clones are probably more likely to be used by people wanting to do PVP. So now someone who doesn't run missions makes a jump clone... why do you care? What difference is it to you? It has no effect on your PvE.

Standings aren't needed to anchor a POS anymore, but again, that is not mission related. CCP has simply allowed PVPers and industrialists to have access to things related to their preferred activities, without continuing to force them to do an unrelated activity (run missions). If anything, perhaps there are slightly fewer people running missions now, since you aren't forced to do them for unrelated things anymore. And because of this, it stands to reason there could be a slight decrease in LP injection into the economy, a benefit to mission runners.

Sugar Smacks wrote:

You really think burner missions are some great addition everyone wants to do?
Maybe you should go ask CCP how often those burner missions get accepted, I can guarantee the number is low.


Actually I've been seeing quite a lot of burner wrecks on dscan, in the systems I've been frequenting lately (around Hek). Burner missions do seem kind of hacked together to me though, and not really improving the game's PvE. I've read mission runners talking about how great they are for farming LP though. *shrug*

Jegrey Dozer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1700 - 2015-09-10 04:42:03 UTC
Drop in numbers is a non issue. CCP just needs to reduce skill training time and throw up more adds. Ta da... A bunch of new people with higher retention rate.

In my opinion, bitter vets need to get off the high horse and realize that your training time isn't proportional with retaining higher quality players. It just annoys the hell out of new subs because they have to pay 15 a month for 2 years to not suck in this game.

Now, some of you read that last sentence and already shut down my argument in their head. Before you furiously refute that statement and then suffer a panic attack, wipe the foam from your mouth and understand that every EvE player and their mother knows that you can be effective within a few months and be competitive. BUT NEW PLAYERS DO NOT SEE IT THAT WAY. There's a reason why flash games congratulate you every 5 seconds when you do something mundane. There's a reason why casinos have bells and whistles every time you pull a slot machine handle. There's a reason why CCP added the holding-a-newbs-hand Opportunities notification system. If the psychology behind the carrot on the stick needs to be broken down to you, carry on with your flaming of my post.

We need to stop dissuading players from keeping their subs active because we tell them with excruciating detail the exact length of time they need to train in order to have a fully effective character.

I have experienced this phenomenon of new players quitting time and time again. Only one of my 4 friends that I convinced to make trial accounts actually subbed. He then stopped playing because "there's no point." That in a nutshell explains why EvE has terrible retention rate. There really is no point in playing EvE if you full-heartedly believe that you need to train for endless months in order to be able to do something 100% perfect. You are not going to change this consumer behavior and EvE needs to change in order to adopt a compatible game model.

Bottom line, what I propose is simple. Manipulate the dumb behavior of consumers who enjoy bells and whistles(in this case that means faster training times) to have them believe they are not wasting time and money. Then throw up some adds and let the sandbox free to accommodate the new players.

As a closing note I just want to say this: We have an awesome sandbox, which at a time used to treat everyone fairly. However, now our sandbox punishes you the longer you wait to subscribe and start training. This is a disastrous way to treat consumers. Some people entertain the notion of pulling us all back down to 0 SP and restarting the game. There's no need for something so chaotic. Just help the new players reach the higher tiers of gameplay faster so they feel included in our shenanigans.