EVE General Discussion

*hug*

Now, now .. feeling better ?

Worrying about other people's hypothetical situations is the basis of most of the dissent in this thread so far.

good job ccp, this and the input broadcasting changes have completely fixed the game and made up for phoebe 110% or something

I think the idea of a Mass protest against change is not a reasonable thing to do look at all the changes that have been positive in the last few years, lets continue the positive and suggest better ways to implement what CCP wants to do.

This is CCP's modus operandi.

1. Throw up horrible idea on the community.
2. Wait for the rage to cool down.
3. Sift through the suggested compromises.
4. Find the one closests to their plans and possibly make it even closer.
5. Implement this and watch online figures drop a bit more.
6. Sit around wondering why this happened then repeat the cycle.

This SP vampirism will benefit the rich veterans the most and make the gap between them and newbies larger.

That's not quite true. In fact it's utterly false. The big changes of the last year were sourced from the community, proposed by CCP and the hysterical raging during the proposal phase was largely ignored in favour of iterating and tweaking once implemented. There hasn't been a series of compromise deployments recently because in principal the big changes have had support from key community leaders and thinkers who were actually the source for the ideas in the first place. If you pay attention to the major feedback threads you'll notice the incoherent raging is largely from imbeciles who only take to the forums to pitchfork wave and are almost invariably ignored. The constructive remarks came from people who consistently participate in those types of idea-driven discussions, and it's generally those types who get proposed adjustments and tweaks implemented. There is also a noticeable trend towards diminishing waves of hysteria since this cycle started and increasing bitterness from those whose only method of negotiation with CCP is to throw massive tantrums and engage in divisive campaigns.

I'm probably missing a few but the big changes in order in the last 12-18 months:

• Crius - Indy changes -> slight tweaks between proposal and implementation, removal of teams post deployment
• Phoebe - power projection changes -> Jump freighters ringfenced from PP adjustment, fatigue reduction post deployment
• Input automation - Isboxer nerf -> extended to macro use after initial proposal, no change post deployment
• Aegis - sov revamp -> tweaks ongoing post deployment
• Tradeable SP - ??

Tradable SP has split the side of the community who participate in this type of design discussion. Partly because it wasn't as high a profile topic as the others and may have taken some of them by surprise, but mainly because of the ties to the microtransaction topic which is perceived as a no-go area. But some of the negative reaction was a knee-jerk in surprise and concern that the wider community might reject the concept and attack CCP (which has proved to be false). Some are massively supportive, some concerned about the potential effects, but no-one with any credibility is having hysterics and threatening to rage quit/riot over this. Other than Sib I'm not seeing any of the people who give constructive feedback and who have doubts write anything up over this proposal beyond 'I don't personally like this' where the supporters have written at length. If they can't take the time to give a more detailed criticism that CCP will take on board and build into a future deployment it's likely that they don't have anything relevant to add beyond a personal reaction, or are reluctant to speculate about wider effects because they don't have enough data to comment.

Also, the playerbase have had CCP bent over since Incarna over design direction whilst simultaneously taking design mechanics to such extremes they are game-breaking. The PCU started dropping a long time ago, and I'd question whether that isn't the result of players engaging in activity which alienates/aggravates large portions of the playerbase. Examples

• Isboxer - Greed is Good, let's all bot, semi-legally and claim it's a legit playstyle
• OTEC - let's converge into two mega-coalitions and fight proxy wars, everyone else can be renters
• The Big Blue Donut - Dominion sov is too grindy, let's blue everyone and engage in phoney wars instead, we'll fight on the forums and pretend it matters
• HIghsec deserves to be punished - let's farm it to death via ganking and perma decs, that'll teach em they're playing wrong
• Supercaps online - supers are the only way to 'win' EvE, if you don't have one, you can't play - click my referral link pls
• Plexes - let's use these as passive income streams and drive those reliant upon them to unsub, if anyone complains be sure to say #nopoors, and tell them to get a job
• The only fights worth having involve 2000 players, and we only want to do this at most every six months. We demand CCP accommodate our vision for the most ridiculously boring type of battle, because the dozen people on field/touching their epeen enjoyed it. And they can kick members who complain.

Can you please back this statement up with some numbers, or evidence. Rich vets already have high SP alts. If anything a proposal like this narrows the gap between them and newer players with either RL funds to sink into purchased SP, or time to grind the ISK ingame to purchase it via activity. The only people likely to lose out are those Sib has identified as unable to commit RL funds or time to ingame ISK making activities. I'd still like to know exactly how this increases the SP gap when passive SP acquisition remains constant and isn't scheduled for change.

you just keep calm and carry on

I see a few main concerns with the SP concept as presented:

1. As argued unchallenged by Tippia, it breaks the in-game mechanics. I think "bypassed" was the term used, and I won't rehash it here (you can find it for yourself in the main feedback thread). This argument refers to the characters in the game.

2. Because the SP are being monetized, this will most likely widen the gap between "rich" and "poor" in the Eve financial landscape. Rather than benefit the "middle-class" as I think it should be intended, it will further reward those who have the most wealth. This argument refers to the people who play.

3. Hypothesized by some, is the long-term direction of the Eve game and CCP's incorporation of it's other assets (Dust, Valkyrie...) into a larger symbiotic system. We don't necessarily have the full context of this system and can only guess as to where it will lead. The SP proposal is (imho) not good in the current Eve game system. But with all the changes to come, it just may be a viable option.

Ultimately CCP will do what it wants to (and needs to). As consumers we have choices.
I don't believe whining about it is a viable option.

Argue well.

I agree, Marsha. Player suggestions for rule changes have been spectacular failures in action.

We can argue all day long, but none of us are looking at the raw numbers and data that CCP is.



I would like an answer to the RMT question that many have wondered about now. Why bother introducing something that increases (not decreases) RMT in the game?