These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Every year, there are less users playing, why??

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#921 - 2016-08-03 19:57:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Ahaaaa LOL yea that may be true.

Back then.

If they still do so today, by all means blow 'em up Sir! Pirate


Thats the funny thing. If you slap t2 mods onto just about any sub battleship hull, no tank mods and slip in a few cargo expanders then you will turn a profit killing them. Barges are the exception to the rule.


How do you figure? I take a Hurricane and fit it with 220mm vulcans, scram/web and a 50Mn AB. Damage control, gyrostab, tracking enhancer, the rest in cargo expanders.

Provided you manage to blow me up (which you won't by the way), and half of that drops. You then have 3 cannons, a web and a gyrostab. This is profit to you?

(yes, I took a hurricane for example, as barges are twice as expensive as cruisers. So I took the least tanky higher-up. The case for a Brutix is even more ridiculous and you won't kill that one either by the way.)

I'm trying but I feel like we keep going off on tangents. It's almost like I hear your words but I don't hear what you're saying. Think I'll leave you guys discuss away although I don't understand what any of this has to do with "Every year there are less users playing". I'll stop contradicting you at every turn and just yet you have your say- true or not, is up to everyone is his own right to decide.
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#922 - 2016-08-03 19:58:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Gadget Helmsdottir
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

Well, I mean....as a word it has meaning...

But I'm not sure anybody throwing it around here really knows the meaning...

On the one hand - obviously everything *in* the game is the literal *content* of the game - and this naturally includes everything done by every player at any time....So it is ridiculous to state that things players do don't "create content"....

But on the other hand....*everything* that *every* player does is the literal content of the game... That doesn't make it *good* content or *meaningful* content. I mean **** the afk miners chewing their asteroids are still "creating content" in a very literal sense...it is just dull, boring, meaningless content... So acting like you are some special snowflake by "creating content" in whatever unique way you do so is equally ridiculous...


It is just a word... A very broad, generic word... It doesn't have the deep meaning that people seem to assign to it...

And over-use is generally bad for any word in this context. People try to replace the actual meaning of the word with their perceived/desired deeper/alternate meaning... And it makes it hard for people not intimately familiar with the ongoing discussion to understand what they are saying (and that is before you even consider that many of the people don't even use English as their primary language)...

Roll


Nah. "Content" is now game jargon. We just need to define this piece of jargon for EvE.

Y'know, like bubbles in EvE have nothing to do with bubblegum.

--Gadget

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."
Galaxy Chicken
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
#923 - 2016-08-03 20:03:17 UTC
I checked in on this thread when it was only a few pages long and was disappointed that it had not yet descended into "gankers are killing EVE!!1 abloo, abloo bloo"

I'm glad to see that this thread has matured.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#924 - 2016-08-03 20:05:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
KaarBaak wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
It's strange how eve player think they create content by simply playing the game. Maybe it's just a lack of vocabulary...

Players creat actions, activities or opportunities but not content. The only people who greate content in EVE are the developers.

For me it is important to make the distinction because I have just cancelled my subscription and was asked to give a reason why - I selected "lack of content". This is not me saying there are not enough players doing things in game, it is me saying "I am bored with what CCP has put in the game".


That's a very narrow definition of "content" that you follow.

In my mind, that's like discontinuing your subscription to a newspaper because the news isn't interesting.

KB


Not really, it's just being specific and sticking with what the gaming industry has considered game content to be for several years now.

DLC (downloadable content) and content expansions are stuff the developers add to the game. Players simply use/interact with that content, they are not content creators. The closest thing to content creation in Eve is the development of third party apps.

And as for you newspaper analogy, I dissagree. A more appt one would be discontinuing your subscription because the writer are unimaginative and keep writing basically the same things, while other papers try new more interesting things.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#925 - 2016-08-03 20:07:24 UTC
Galaxy Chicken wrote:
I checked in on this thread when it was only a few pages long and was disappointed that it had not yet descended into "gankers are killing EVE!!1 abloo, abloo bloo"

I'm glad to see that this thread has matured.


LolTry about page 20 or so. Lol

It's gone there... and past.

--Gadget

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#926 - 2016-08-03 20:21:38 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:

How do you figure? I take a Hurricane and fit it with 220mm vulcans, scram/web and a 50Mn AB. Damage control, gyrostab, tracking enhancer, the rest in cargo expanders.


Using 2x cheap catalysts off the top of my head should net 2-3 mil potential profit.

Star of the show however is the gank nado, 60 mil in potential drops and it requires roughly 6.7k damage to kill it.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#927 - 2016-08-03 20:22:32 UTC
Galaxy Chicken wrote:
I checked in on this thread when it was only a few pages long and was disappointed that it had not yet descended into "gankers are killing EVE!!1 abloo, abloo bloo"

I'm glad to see that this thread has matured.


Actually its not what I was saying mate, I was talking about he lack of balance with gankers making it so casual hisec get fed up and leave the game. There will still be people like you running around. Will be interesting to see just how the "content" develops when it is only players like you. Will be damn funny to watch actually...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#928 - 2016-08-03 20:22:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Ahaaaa LOL yea that may be true.

Back then.

If they still do so today, by all means blow 'em up Sir! Pirate


There are lots of miners fitting no tank nor paying attention.


Then shoot them. With my blessings- godspeed!
Working as intended, that.

This, however, is taking us away from the "CCP is fitting their ships for them" complaint or the "but they keep nerfing my playstyle". Are you telling me the targets are still there and therefore that playstyle is still valid? Then we are in agreement. Nothing to see here, move along.


It is very hard to make a profit ganking miners who fit their ships badly. CCP has basically buffed mining. Mining ships still get ganked, but more for laughs or to get entrance to a ganking group.

Edit: T2 mining ships that is. Not sure about retrievers.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#929 - 2016-08-03 20:27:00 UTC
The silly thing is that CCP said it was not their intent that people who ganked would make a profit from ganking any T2 fit ship and it would be only if they wanted to kill someone for reasons.

The profit has to come from cargo and from bling fitting. That is their decision on game balance, and something they have got right. Well done CCP...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#930 - 2016-08-03 20:29:19 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Edit: T2 mining ships that is. Not sure about retrievers.


Its a ship best avoided, fitting room is basically nothing, 3 lows, one mid and two highs gives you zero options in fitting it. As I said, CCP have already fitted it for you.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#931 - 2016-08-03 20:30:58 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
The silly thing is that CCP said it was not their intent that people who ganked would make a profit from ganking any T2 fit ship and it would be only if they wanted to kill someone for reasons.

The profit has to come from cargo and from bling fitting. That is their decision on game balance, and something they have got right. Well done CCP...


CCP said people ganking a t2 hull with nothing fitted should not be profitable. Almost all subcaps lower than a battleship are profitable to gank if you fit t2 mods and no tank.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#932 - 2016-08-03 20:33:37 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:


Not really, it's just being specific and sticking with what the gaming industry has considered game content to be for several years now.


Sure. We can break it down, IMO, as content provided by CCP--e.g. missions.

Then there is content the players provide such as a fight between two or more players. What players do provide different levels of content for others.

Quote:
DLC (downloadable content) and content expansions are stuff the developers add to the game. Players simply use/interact with that content, they are not content creators. The closest thing to content creation in Eve is the development of third party apps.


By this narrow definition the bulk of the Eve patches have very little content. CCP has not seeded a single citadel for example. When a "new ship is added to the game" it is not added by CCP, not literally. The blueprint is, or a process to get a blueprint copy, but it takes a player to actually introduce these new ships.

So yes, you have a limited view of "content". If you are looking for "content" from CCP yes you'll be disappointed and leave. But then again this was never the game for you.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#933 - 2016-08-03 20:40:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
The silly thing is that CCP said it was not their intent that people who ganked would make a profit from ganking any T2 fit ship and it would be only if they wanted to kill someone for reasons.

The profit has to come from cargo and from bling fitting. That is their decision on game balance, and something they have got right. Well done CCP...


CCP said people ganking a t2 hull with nothing fitted should not be profitable. Almost all subcaps lower than a battleship are profitable to gank if you fit t2 mods and no tank.


Roll

You are like a stuck needle on a gramophone record....

Well one of my corp mates got ganked in a T2 fitted T3D and it had no tank as it was a kiting ship and they did not make a profit out of that. Working as intended...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#934 - 2016-08-03 20:42:00 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
.The same issue in terms of buffing ganking by increasing the EHP of the freighter wreck from 500 EHP to 15,000 EHP.

I'm beginning to really appreciate this change.

You're continually crying like a stuck pig because of it. That's quite entertaining.


Of course you would appreciate the change, but my issue is really that it removed a fun bit of gameplay for the AG players where they could be aggressive and the gankers had to defend against ganking themselves, which of course was too much for them. So they ran off and cried about it. But what annoys me is that CCP not knowing what was going on in hisec just blundered into making the change without thinking it through, then when they realised they buffed freighter EHP to balance out against it.

Personally I would like the two reversed.

But when you hear the gankers go on about the buff to freighters and Jump Freighters when the DCU II got made passive, just bear in mind that this was done to balance out against the freighter wreck EHP bufff (but you will not of courese) and in fact does not balance out at all in terms of gameplay. What got me to actually point it out was the numerous times I saw gankers whining about nerfs and including this in their whine.

So if a loser like you thinks it is entertaining that bothers me not. All I am interested in is showing the hypocrisy of gankers and their shrills, plus point out the balance issues around ganking of which this is one part.

And there you go.

Oink. Oink.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#935 - 2016-08-03 20:43:25 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
.The same issue in terms of buffing ganking by increasing the EHP of the freighter wreck from 500 EHP to 15,000 EHP.

I'm beginning to really appreciate this change.

You're continually crying like a stuck pig because of it. That's quite entertaining.


Of course you would appreciate the change, but my issue is really that it removed a fun bit of gameplay for the AG players where they could be aggressive and the gankers had to defend against ganking themselves, which of course was too much for them. So they ran off and cried about it. But what annoys me is that CCP not knowing what was going on in hisec just blundered into making the change without thinking it through, then when they realised they buffed freighter EHP to balance out against it.

Personally I would like the two reversed.

But when you hear the gankers go on about the buff to freighters and Jump Freighters when the DCU II got made passive, just bear in mind that this was done to balance out against the freighter wreck EHP bufff (but you will not of courese) and in fact does not balance out at all in terms of gameplay. What got me to actually point it out was the numerous times I saw gankers whining about nerfs and including this in their whine.

So if a loser like you thinks it is entertaining that bothers me not. All I am interested in is showing the hypocrisy of gankers and their shrills, plus point out the balance issues around ganking of which this is one part.

And there you go.

Oink. Oink.


That is not a squeal Roll

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Galaxy Chicken
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
#936 - 2016-08-03 20:43:30 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Galaxy Chicken wrote:
I checked in on this thread when it was only a few pages long and was disappointed that it had not yet descended into "gankers are killing EVE!!1 abloo, abloo bloo"

I'm glad to see that this thread has matured.


Actually its not what I was saying mate, I was talking about he lack of balance with gankers making it so casual hisec get fed up and leave the game.


Casual highsec players like myself?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#937 - 2016-08-03 20:43:37 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
The silly thing is that CCP said it was not their intent that people who ganked would make a profit from ganking any T2 fit ship and it would be only if they wanted to kill someone for reasons.

The profit has to come from cargo and from bling fitting. That is their decision on game balance, and something they have got right. Well done CCP...


CCP said people ganking a t2 hull with nothing fitted should not be profitable. Almost all subcaps lower than a battleship are profitable to gank if you fit t2 mods and no tank.


Roll

You are like a stuck needle on a gramophone record....

Well one of my corp mates got ganked in a T2 fitted T3D and it had no tank as it was a kiting ship and they did not make a profit out of that. Working as intended...


Lets see that KM.
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#938 - 2016-08-03 20:48:35 UTC
Gadget Helmsdottir wrote:
Nah. "Content" is now game jargon. We just need to define this piece of jargon for EvE.

Y'know, like bubbles in EvE have nothing to do with bubblegum.

--Gadget

To be fair - bubbles are still literal visible bubbles - even if they aren't made of gum Blink

But yeah, OK, it is EVE jargon....but I wish they would hurry up and agree on a defined meaning P

Then again...asking these 2 groups to agree on anything is probably a lost cause Ugh

I don't think they could agree on the proper way to fit a shuttle... Roll

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#939 - 2016-08-03 20:59:36 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Gadget Helmsdottir wrote:
Nah. "Content" is now game jargon. We just need to define this piece of jargon for EvE.

Y'know, like bubbles in EvE have nothing to do with bubblegum.

--Gadget

To be fair - bubbles are still literal visible bubbles - even if they aren't made of gum Blink

But yeah, OK, it is EVE jargon....but I wish they would hurry up and agree on a defined meaning P

Then again...asking these 2 groups to agree on anything is probably a lost cause Ugh

I don't think they could agree on the proper way to fit a shuttle... Roll


Content in this discussion is something entertaining. A dvd with a movie on it has content. Might be good content (you enjoy the movie) or it might be bad (you hated the movie).

When you were a kid and went outside and met up with friends and did stuff you had content--i.e. you figured out something fun to do.

In Eve it is the same way....hence the term sandbox.

So Rek is complaining that CCP hasn't handed him content on a platter, but that was never how CCP intended Eve to be, IMO.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#940 - 2016-08-03 21:15:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Brokk Witgenstein
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

Then again...asking these 2 groups to agree on anything is probably a lost cause Ugh

I don't think they could agree on the proper way to fit a shuttle... Roll


I'm beginning to see that. There's one guy saying "they turn outrageous profits", there's another saying "but it's actually more expensive than you think because :opportunity cost: so in fact we're getting poorer by the minute from all this negative profit. And then there is lolsmurf running the math on a DPS vs tank basis without taking into account they'd in fact vapourize as soon as I get a target lock. Say ... 8 seconds boys? This of course taking into account a 65 mil tornado can drop 60 mil in loot so in how far that math is viable .... bob only knows.

Think I'm ready for that shuttle now. I'll take mine nullified and cloaky please. Jumpdrive if you still have those in stock.