These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

In Response to Sugar Kyle - Highsec development

First post First post
Author
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#241 - 2015-10-11 19:26:27 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Why should people playing in highsec, have any interest to move outside of highsec?
Profit? Danger? Sleepers?

I'm not saying that absolutely everybody should move out. Just that the rules are so much different in high security space that it makes the transition harder than it should be.
Ima GoodGirl
Aria Shi's Wasted ISK
#242 - 2015-10-11 22:01:58 UTC
Sort of related to the wardec idea I posted back on page 1 or 2, but even simpler.

Article by Steve Ronuken:

https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/2015/10/11/solving-the-wardec-problem/

Fits with the concept of not changing the risk balance in wardecs. Wardec Corps can continue to do what they do and defenders will have a reason to login and a goal to aim for.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#243 - 2015-10-11 22:21:32 UTC
Ima GoodGirl wrote:
Sort of related to the wardec idea I posted back on page 1 or 2, but even simpler.

Article by Steve Ronuken:

https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/2015/10/11/solving-the-wardec-problem/

Fits with the concept of not changing the risk balance in wardecs. Wardec Corps can continue to do what they do and defenders will have a reason to login and a goal to aim for.


It has taken me 0.2 seconds to figure why that would not work.

Come on, give a try. Think why that idea could not work. What could go wrong?

Still here?

See, that idea only works when the target is in it for the PvP. He must destroy a player structure, and thus face the obvious trap that will be set up by the wardeccer. That's PvP, which is exactly what the wardeccer wants... but not the average victim of a wardec.

Why bother with that? Dropping the corp is easier and doesn't involves any risk of PvP.

So no. It would not work.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#244 - 2015-10-11 22:27:32 UTC
Ima GoodGirl wrote:
Sort of related to the wardec idea I posted back on page 1 or 2, but even simpler.

Article by Steve Ronuken:

https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/2015/10/11/solving-the-wardec-problem/

Fits with the concept of not changing the risk balance in wardecs. Wardec Corps can continue to do what they do and defenders will have a reason to login and a goal to aim for.


Cripples smaller and newer wardec groups, forces widespread conglomeration just like the last nerf.

Completely unacceptable.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Oxide Ammar
#245 - 2015-10-12 04:11:52 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Nighthawk The Assassin wrote:
412nv Yaken wrote:
MMORPG...... what does it stand for? Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Yet solo freighter pilots can cry enough on the forums, reddit, petitions and get a play style banned. If they had 1 friend who brought reps, hyper dunking would not work.

LOGIC


Except this is bullshit. You play a play style that in ANY other game would be constituted as "Griefing" i.e deliberately upsetting other players in attempt to get "your rocks off". In ANY other game you would have warnings, temps bangs and then perma bans.


But this isn't "any other game".


Every official forum of any other MMORPG telling themselves the same phrase you just said it.....Ironic eh ?

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2015-10-12 04:19:30 UTC
In real life, when the bad guys win and rule the world with an iron fist, there's no way to escape the raping and pillaging. The population of victims which provides them their amusement has no escape except death.

In a virtual world where the victims can just choose another entertainment alternative, the incentives work somewhat differently.

The problem with EVE is that the bad guys won, and now they're bored.
Yang Aurilen
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#247 - 2015-10-12 04:27:45 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
In real life, when the bad guys win and rule the world with an iron fist, there's no way to escape the raping and pillaging. The population of victims which provides them their amusement has no escape except death.

In a virtual world where the victims can just choose another entertainment alternative, the incentives work somewhat differently.

The problem with EVE is that the bad guys won, and now they're bored.


Jokes on you the world is grey not black and white.

Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#248 - 2015-10-12 05:05:10 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:


Every official forum of any other MMORPG telling themselves the same phrase you just said it.....Ironic eh ?


Its the truth here. You said it yourself, any other game would not allow people to do what they can do in EVE.
Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#249 - 2015-10-12 09:48:19 UTC
Yang Aurilen wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
In real life, when the bad guys win and rule the world with an iron fist, there's no way to escape the raping and pillaging. The population of victims which provides them their amusement has no escape except death.

In a virtual world where the victims can just choose another entertainment alternative, the incentives work somewhat differently.

The problem with EVE is that the bad guys won, and now they're bored.


Jokes on you the world is grey not black and white.

No the world isn't, but Eve is.

A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#250 - 2015-10-12 11:31:42 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
In real life, when the bad guys win and rule the world with an iron fist, there's no way to escape the raping and pillaging. The population of victims which provides them their amusement has no escape except death.

In a virtual world where the victims can just choose another entertainment alternative, the incentives work somewhat differently.

The problem with EVE is that the bad guys won, and now they're bored.


Actually, the problem with EVE is that some people think there are "bad guys" and "good guys" based on what people do in the game.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#251 - 2015-10-12 12:21:40 UTC

Sugar Kyle wrote:
My belief is simple. If a player wishes to live in high sec, I do not believe that anything will make them leave that is not their own curiosity. I do not believe that we can beat people out of high sec or destroy it until they go to other areas of space. Sometimes, I think we forget that every player has the option to not log back in. We want them to log in. We want everyone to log in.


Hi Sugar,

The player who does not log in because hisec is not safe is a player we would have lost eventually anyway.

Hisec being safe removes content. People log into the game, long term, because of content. I don't think I need to convince you of CCP Quant's and CCP Rise's studies which find this statement to be true.

The people you think you are saving contribute only to wrecking the EVE market as a whole (creation without destruction). Destruction, mayhem, PVP, these are all hallmarks of EVE. These elements are what make EVE unique, and what make people continue to log in. The second that we coddle folks who let a thing like "undocking not being safe" be a valid reason for quitting, that is when we start selling EVE short.

I voted for you in CSM and I love what you're doing, but please don't cater to these people. They are not long term EVE players. They're not CCP's bread and butter.



The only question that I think you should ask is this: How do I get more content into hisec? Content is destruction, adversity, danger.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#252 - 2015-10-12 12:24:33 UTC

Ima GoodGirl wrote:
Sort of related to the wardec idea I posted back on page 1 or 2, but even simpler.

Article by Steve Ronuken:

https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/2015/10/11/solving-the-wardec-problem/

Fits with the concept of not changing the risk balance in wardecs. Wardec Corps can continue to do what they do and defenders will have a reason to login and a goal to aim for.


Everyone who logs into the game should be subject to a wardec. That's the only way to fix the system,

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#253 - 2015-10-12 12:37:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Sibyyl wrote:

Sugar Kyle wrote:
My belief is simple. If a player wishes to live in high sec, I do not believe that anything will make them leave that is not their own curiosity. I do not believe that we can beat people out of high sec or destroy it until they go to other areas of space. Sometimes, I think we forget that every player has the option to not log back in. We want them to log in. We want everyone to log in.


Hi Sugar,

The player who does not log in because hisec is not safe is a player we would have lost eventually anyway.

Hisec being safe removes content. People log into the game, long term, because of content. I don't think I need to convince you of CCP Quant's and CCP Rise's studies which find this statement to be true.

The people you think you are saving contribute only to wrecking the EVE market as a whole (creation without destruction). Destruction, mayhem, PVP, these are all hallmarks of EVE. These elements are what make EVE unique, and what make people continue to log in. The second that we coddle folks who let a thing like "undocking not being safe" be a valid reason for quitting, that is when we start selling EVE short.

I voted for you in CSM and I love what you're doing, but please don't cater to these people. They are not long term EVE players. They're not CCP's bread and butter.



The only question that I think you should ask is this: How do I get more content into hisec? Content is destruction, adversity, danger.



Some day, Sybbil, CCP will tell us how many assets are disabled from game economy as their owners leave, and how many are destroyed by player activity.

My gut feeling is that they're at least 3:1 ratio (3 ISK disabled vs 1 ISK destroyed).

CCP is doing their best to retain and engage everybody but highseccers and PvErs, and PCU is slowy and steadily going down. Not even the announced roadmap has spiked the PCU, despite how we are in a traditional growth season.

Someone is leaving the game every day. Someone is dragging the PCU down. That someone is not being convinced by what CCP does. Read my signature. There's no "Plan B" to retain that 62% of players who are not in the game because they can pew pew other players...

CCP's bread and butter is highsec and PvE. That's the dirtiest secret of EVE, and the elephant in the room.

And no. Highsec doesn't needs more security. It needs reasons to stay when you are a solo PvE highseccer and intend to keep being for as long as you bear with EVE. That would improve the retention of 50% of current players and 80% of all new players.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#254 - 2015-10-12 12:44:40 UTC

Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
One day, Sybbil, CCP will tell us how many assets are disabled from game economy as their owners leave, and how many are destroyed by player activity.

My gut feeling is that they're at least 3:1 ratio (3 ISK disabled vs 1 ISK destroyed).


Indy, can you tell me what the importance is of assets that were amassed never intended to be destroyed in-game?

Even if that player were subscribed and logged in, how would any of these assets contribute to:

  1. Interaction
  2. The destruction-creation economy
  3. Long term fun


Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#255 - 2015-10-12 12:47:10 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:

Sugar Kyle wrote:
My belief is simple. If a player wishes to live in high sec, I do not believe that anything will make them leave that is not their own curiosity. I do not believe that we can beat people out of high sec or destroy it until they go to other areas of space. Sometimes, I think we forget that every player has the option to not log back in. We want them to log in. We want everyone to log in.


Hi Sugar,

The player who does not log in because hisec is not safe is a player we would have lost eventually anyway.

Hisec being safe removes content. People log into the game, long term, because of content. I don't think I need to convince you of CCP Quant's and CCP Rise's studies which find this statement to be true.

The people you think you are saving contribute only to wrecking the EVE market as a whole (creation without destruction). Destruction, mayhem, PVP, these are all hallmarks of EVE. These elements are what make EVE unique, and what make people continue to log in. The second that we coddle folks who let a thing like "undocking not being safe" be a valid reason for quitting, that is when we start selling EVE short.

I voted for you in CSM and I love what you're doing, but please don't cater to these people. They are not long term EVE players. They're not CCP's bread and butter.



The only question that I think you should ask is this: How do I get more content into hisec? Content is destruction, adversity, danger.



One day, Sybbil, CCP will tell us how many assets are disabled from game economy as their owners leave, and how many are destroyed by player activity.

My gut feeling is that they're at least 3:1 ratio (3 ISK disabled vs 1 ISK destroyed).

CCP is doing their best to retain and engage everybody but highseccers and PvErs, and PCU is slowy and steadily going down. Not even the announced roadmap has spiked the PCU, despite we are in a traditional growth season.

Someone is leaving the game every day. Someoen is draggin the PCU down. That someone is not being convinced by what CCP does. Read my signature. There's no "Plan B" to retain that 62% of players who are not in thw game because they can pew pew other players...

CCP's bread and butter is highsec and PvE. That's the dirtiest secret of EVE, and the elephant in the room.

And no. Highsec doesn't needs more security. It needs reasons to stay when you are a solo PvE highseccer and intend to keep being for as long as you bear with EVE. That would improve the retention of 50% of current players and 80% of all new players.


Translation: "CCP should just do more of what they've been doing that hasn't been working thus far, because just one more push of the same failed thing will do it!!!"

It's like saying "there is water leaking onto the boat? Quick, lets pump more water onto the deck, that will fix it"!
Lin Suizei
#256 - 2015-10-12 12:52:04 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
And no. Highsec doesn't needs more security. It needs reasons to stay when you are a solo PvE highseccer and intend to keep being for as long as you bear with EVE. That would improve the retention of 50% of current players and 80% of all new players.


Sure, and I don't think anyone's begrudging them that. Players are still free to do PvE content in highsec by themselves or in a group, and I think there should be more reasons for highsec PvE players to work together (public save-the-carrier events, for example) - but even PvE should remain true to the "everyone against everyone" ideology imo.

Competition and interaction with players is healthy - but it doesn't have to mean ship to ship PvP. Things like a limited regional mission LP pool, severely limited mining resource availability and shared public events which reward the strongest player might make highsec more exciting, cause competition between players, yet still engage solo PvE types.

Content is destruction, adversity, danger - and there's no reason solo PvE types can't be involved.

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#257 - 2015-10-12 14:30:31 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
One day, Sybbil, CCP will tell us how many assets are disabled from game economy as their owners leave, and how many are destroyed by player activity.

My gut feeling is that they're at least 3:1 ratio (3 ISK disabled vs 1 ISK destroyed).


Indy, can you tell me what the importance is of assets that were amassed never intended to be destroyed in-game?

Even if that player were subscribed and logged in, how would any of these assets contribute to:

  1. Interaction
  2. The destruction-creation economy
  3. Long term fun




Creation-consumption economy. Item is created, then consumed, and then no longer affects the economy although it still exists. That's the case for maybe 60% of all supercapitals in game... they've been created, will never be destroyed and yet they aren't crashing the market nor lowering down mineral price because of lack of consumption. Neither are causing an orgy of destruction, since they're stored in disabled accounts.

A ship stored and a ship destroyed are the same for the market. Yet without people storing ships, some ships would not be built and traded at the same pace.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#258 - 2015-10-12 14:55:17 UTC

Consumption:

Indy, we already established in your ammo threadnaught that PVE ammo consumption was a drop in the bucket compared to PVP ammo consumption.

And as far as ships destroyed go.. PVE ships get destroyed? Not as much ISK as you lose in PVP. See ISK destroyed by CODEdot.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Arthur Hannigen
#259 - 2015-10-12 16:00:16 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
One day, Sybbil, CCP will tell us how many assets are disabled from game economy as their owners leave, and how many are destroyed by player activity.

My gut feeling is that they're at least 3:1 ratio (3 ISK disabled vs 1 ISK destroyed).


Indy, can you tell me what the importance is of assets that were amassed never intended to be destroyed in-game?

Even if that player were subscribed and logged in, how would any of these assets contribute to:

  1. Interaction
  2. The destruction-creation economy
  3. Long term fun



Even assuming that there is a zero-sum contribution to interaction, destruction-creation economy, and long term fun (as you listed above), I still would prefer no interaction + $14.95 towards the game than no interaction + $0.00 towards the game. A subscription is a contribution.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#260 - 2015-10-12 16:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Arthur Hannigen wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:

Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
One day, Sybbil, CCP will tell us how many assets are disabled from game economy as their owners leave, and how many are destroyed by player activity.

My gut feeling is that they're at least 3:1 ratio (3 ISK disabled vs 1 ISK destroyed).


Indy, can you tell me what the importance is of assets that were amassed never intended to be destroyed in-game?

Even if that player were subscribed and logged in, how would any of these assets contribute to:

  1. Interaction
  2. The destruction-creation economy
  3. Long term fun



Even assuming that there is a zero-sum contribution to interaction, destruction-creation economy, and long term fun (as you listed above), I still would prefer no interaction + $14.95 towards the game than no interaction + $0.00 towards the game. A subscription is a contribution.


That's the ugly business truth. It would be great(?) that players bought EVE for what makes CCP proud of EVE, but that's not the case and a buck is a buck. "Pecunia non odet", even if it comes from soloers casuals PvErs highseccers and all the other 62% crowd who don't buy the freak hot redhead in the party and would rather have a quiet, comfy brunette.