These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Next development cycle?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#161 - 2017-02-03 11:59:26 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
You know Any unsubbed account can be deleted from the servers after 3 months (90 days) of inactivity.

That is nothing new. It used to be 30 days since beta, until the recent EULA changes, where they upped that to 90 days. CCP never executed on that and all they ever did was rename never-subbed trial accounts to $racial citizen $randomnumber.

Characters can't even be deleted that simple. Biomassing sets in motion a process that removes your character from the economy and moves it into the Doomheim corporation, it doesn't remove the character from the game, as that would **** up the servers again.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
Salvos Rhoska
#162 - 2017-02-03 12:38:38 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


Come on. I wrote a bulletpoint list and the first thing you did was not ask "and how would this or that pan out", rather say "what you ask for already exists". Then there's nothing to discuss, is it?


That is correct. There is nothing to discuss further.
My rebuttal laid to rest each of your points, both on current implementation and "general directions".

You didnt bring anything new to the table.

If you have other more specific proposals, please submit them.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#163 - 2017-02-03 12:56:55 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

You know Any unsubbed account can be deleted from the servers after 3 months (90 days) of inactivity.

Any account can be deleted at any time. I havent seen any data suggesting CCP deletes inactive accounts after 90 days.
I also see no reason for them to do so.I dont see your point.

Yes customer retention is the single most important thing - And one that CCP has been failing at since around 2013.
Alpha's haven't added much to the PCU and new account creation is back to what it was pre Alpha days.

A) Since Alphas are now persistent, this leads to less character creation in the long run, as opposed to creating new trial accounts in the old system. The Alphas also continue to generate SP up to their limit.
B) Whether CCP has failed at player retention since 2013 is a subjective matter. It can be said they have been successful since the game still thrives.
C) Alpha introduction resulted in a popula4ion boom.

I'd like to see a split between Alpha and Omega accounts in the PCU - See just how many are no longer contributing to the CCP bottom line.

I dont see how that is particularly informative. Alphas dont "cost" CCP anymore than Omegas do. If you are suggesting that Alphas have reduced the incentive to sub, I find that unlikely.

Buying plex to fund an Alpha account? With the restrictions on Alpha's, a Single Plex would last a year and that is if you lost 3 or 4 maximum skill fit T1 cruisers a day.

Nominally, yes. But thats still revenue for CCP, whereas before, why would someone buy PLEX for a trial?
Even 1 PLEX a year on an Alpha, is more than 0 PLEX on trials before.

injectors have a psychological factor - Yes they do, when working out the most cost effective way to train my character - I'l plex my account for a month for 1 billion isk and not consider spending 7 billion isk for the same amount of SP.
Psychologically, spending 640 mil for 150k sp is just not an option..

Its a question of time vs investment. I am certain there are players that drop 640mil for 150k SP, or whom use Extractors to shuffle their own character SP pools. Remember that supply/demand of Extractors feeds directly into the price of Injectors, and by extension, PLEX.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#164 - 2017-02-04 10:46:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


Come on. I wrote a bulletpoint list and the first thing you did was not ask "and how would this or that pan out", rather say "what you ask for already exists". Then there's nothing to discuss, is it?


That is correct. There is nothing to discuss further.
My rebuttal laid to rest each of your points, both on current implementation and "general directions".

You didnt bring anything new to the table.

If you have other more specific proposals, please submit them.


Well, I discussed those matters here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4027180#post4027180

And here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5642967#post5642967

And here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5718348#post5718348

And here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5760066#post5760066

Or here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3762623#post3762623

Also here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6055658#post6055658

And made a summary here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6238281#post6238281

(I didn't know the exact English name of collectible card games, so I used different non-standard names... those posts are difficult to locate)

And here I considered a completely different matter:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=414223

Et cetera, et cetera.

One thing is in common in all those messages. The earlier they are, the higher was EVE population at the time of being written. In a way or another, I've been trying to expand EVE's niche since 2011, with, as Malcanis pointed, little success to make EVE cater to the Fazmarai suggestions. The fact that the game has been shrinking steadily since then could be a master plan to focus on having a smaller cult game, but also could mean that CCP is not exactly the brightest kid in the block, something their corporate portfolio should help to clarify...

Successes:
"The danger game" (board game)
EVE Online (longevous MMO)

Minor successes:
EVE: Gunjack (mobile VR game)
Valkyrie (VR game)

Minor failures:
Dust 514 (cross-platform online FPS, suspected to barely cover its development cost)

Major failures:
World of Darkness (planned MMO, cancelled with a loss of $ 23 million)

Yes, looks like a company which can go where they want to go and wants to go to where they are going as their cash cow keeps dwindling.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#165 - 2017-02-04 11:37:48 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
The earlier they are, the higher was EVE population at the time of being written. In a way or another, I've been trying to expand EVE's niche since 2011, with, as Malcanis pointed, little success to make EVE cater to the Fazmarai suggestions. The fact that the game has been shrinking steadily since then could be a master plan to focus on having a smaller cult game, but also could mean that CCP is not exactly the brightest kid in the block, something their corporate portfolio should help to clarify...

Or it can mean, like multiple people explained to you over and over again, that there is just less incentive to login because of the unlimited skill queue, like CCP Rise explained when they introduced the daily opportunities and that the PCU is just that, the PCU and not the amount of subscribers.

If you want a different game go and play a different game. But don't destroy EVE for the people who actually like it the way it is.

Evil RatKid
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2017-02-04 13:55:49 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
The earlier they are, the higher was EVE population at the time of being written. In a way or another, I've been trying to expand EVE's niche since 2011, with, as Malcanis pointed, little success to make EVE cater to the Fazmarai suggestions. The fact that the game has been shrinking steadily since then could be a master plan to focus on having a smaller cult game, but also could mean that CCP is not exactly the brightest kid in the block, something their corporate portfolio should help to clarify...

Or it can mean, like multiple people explained to you over and over again, that there is just less incentive to login because of the unlimited skill queue, like CCP Rise explained when they introduced the daily opportunities and that the PCU is just that, the PCU and not the amount of subscribers.

If you want a different game go and play a different game. But don't destroy EVE for the people who actually like it the way it is.

The problem here: if you believe that most of PCU drop is because people play 'SP collecting online' do you really want to keep it this way?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#167 - 2017-02-04 16:42:31 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
The earlier they are, the higher was EVE population at the time of being written. In a way or another, I've been trying to expand EVE's niche since 2011, with, as Malcanis pointed, little success to make EVE cater to the Fazmarai suggestions. The fact that the game has been shrinking steadily since then could be a master plan to focus on having a smaller cult game, but also could mean that CCP is not exactly the brightest kid in the block, something their corporate portfolio should help to clarify...

Or it can mean, like multiple people explained to you over and over again, that there is just less incentive to login because of the unlimited skill queue, like CCP Rise explained when they introduced the daily opportunities and that the PCU is just that, the PCU and not the amount of subscribers.

If you want a different game go and play a different game. But don't destroy EVE for the people who actually like it the way it is.


See, PCU before F2P was 30% below the peak from 2011-2013. Which according to white knights mean that at one point or another...

...30% of all logged in characters were highsec alts of nullsec characters...

or,

...30% of all logged in characters were bots..

or,

...30% of all logged in characters only logged in to set up their queues...

Implying that EVE was fu**ed up as hell but now it's actually healthier with that less people logged in. Except for the emptier highsec systems, the emptier secondary trade hubs, the emptier language-based chat channels, and the intensified milking of subscribbers, the intensified marketing campaigns and the removal of the financial access barrier.

At one pont or another, you'll have to face reality: people is leaving EVE faster than they are replaced, and this has been going on for years since Incarnageddon and the beginning of the Rubicon development plan.

Maybe that's something CCP wants/planned forward, or maybe it's an accident caused by wrong information leading to poor decission making. Or maybe it's deliberate sabotage, according to conspirationists like Dinsdale Piranha.

But Occam would agree that a different demographic trend starting with the establishing of different development priorities implies causation. Botters, highsec alts, skillqueurs and all the other excuses only began leaving the PCU after the Rubicon plan was introduced to the players and anyone reading CCP's communications learned what was coming in the future for an initial 3 years, which now have become 5.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#168 - 2017-02-04 17:03:48 UTC
By the way, since the original can no longer be found and all what can be googled are copies of the text, here's the original text of the "Crossing the Rubicon" letter, in which CCP Seagull introduced Rubicon as the first expansion of a new development plan which was supposed to span for three years (Q4 2013-2016). That plan isn't anywhere near completion (we may learn better next Fanfest) but so far looks like a minor milestone won't be achieved until Autumn 2017, meaning that the greater milestones will be coming later, well into 2018 and the 5th year of development.

This is the boat for which you all bought a ticket when you started playing the game, if you did so later than October 2013:

CCP Seagull wrote:
Announcement: Rubicon – Towards the Future of EVE Online
by Andie Norden (CCP Seagull)

EVE Online is not just a game – it’s one of the world’s most ambitious living works of science fiction. The EVE universe is a canvas for some of the most hard core PvP action in the gaming world, player driven stories of epic dimensions that mirror humanity in both amazing and disturbing ways, and individual stories of exploring this world and achieving personal goals.

As we take the next steps on our journey with EVE Online, we will continue to create an amazing, demanding game experience that challenges intelligent people to master what the universe offers. But now we are also questioning old truths and the rules that govern the New Eden universe, and we are doing it in line with the vision we presented at Fanfest 2013 in Reykjavik. That vision is about giving players, in the form of their immortal capsuleer representations, more power over this universe than ever before. This journey starts with EVE Online: Rubicon, and will unfold over the next several expansions to EVE Online.

We ask you to imagine with us. Think about an ancient, consistent dream of mankind: space colonization. Imagine conquering the stars and bending space itself to our will. Such gargantuan efforts are built on the hard work of science, engineering, innovation and industry – the same components also used to wreak terrifying destruction. The duality of that cycle, creation and destruction through technical advancements, fuels the EVE universe and we will amplify it in EVE going forward.

In the universe of EVE Online, military and industrial might re-emerged following the dark ages of the EVE Gate collapse, growing into four human civilizations that rose to the stars: the Amarr Empire, the Gallente Federation, the Caldari State and the Minmatar Republic. Yet the capsuleers, the immortal pilots of EVE’s most powerful spaceships, are becoming a stronger and stronger force of their own. They will not settle with what has been served to them thus far. EVE Online: Rubicon is the first step beyond a point of no return, on a dangerous path to ascension with consequences that neither capsuleers nor players can predict.

Think about building things and about destroying them.

Think about the rise of the immortal capsuleer, taking over what the human Empires used to control

Imagine capsuleer corporations, rising in power and capabilities, flying their own colors and using their might to build up whole areas of space. Imagine disrupting what someone else built up, through cunning or force. Imagine profiting from the interstellar-scale industry generated as capsuleers take control of new powerful technologies.

Imagine what could happen if capsuleers truly mastered the science of space travel itself, and were no longer bound to the known universe.

We are on a long term plan to deliver on what we imagine for EVE Online and New Eden. With Rubicon we continue our efforts to improve and balance the game, to support our player community, and give you the unique sandbox science fiction experience that EVE Online provides.

As capsuleers, you will find the first keys to the future.

Be part of the game. Be part of the universe. Be part of the story.


Doesn't looks like PvE or highsec had a role into those developments, do they? And certainly they aren't having a role. So guess who (as in, what kind of players) have been leaving the game since 2013.


PS: (since I might need to find this later, I'll seed a searchable word: platypus )
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#169 - 2017-02-08 10:14:29 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
By the way, since the original can no longer be found and all what can be googled are copies of the text, here's the original text of the "Crossing the Rubicon" letter, in which CCP Seagull introduced Rubicon as the first expansion of a new development plan which was supposed to span for three years (Q4 2013-2016). That plan isn't anywhere near completion (we may learn better next Fanfest) but so far looks like a minor milestone won't be achieved until Autumn 2017, meaning that the greater milestones will be coming later, well into 2018 and the 5th year of development.

This is the boat for which you all bought a ticket when you started playing the game, if you did so later than October 2013:

CCP Seagull wrote:
Announcement: Rubicon – Towards the Future of EVE Online
by Andie Norden (CCP Seagull)

EVE Online is not just a game – it’s one of the world’s most ambitious living works of science fiction. The EVE universe is a canvas for some of the most hard core PvP action in the gaming world, player driven stories of epic dimensions that mirror humanity in both amazing and disturbing ways, and individual stories of exploring this world and achieving personal goals.

As we take the next steps on our journey with EVE Online, we will continue to create an amazing, demanding game experience that challenges intelligent people to master what the universe offers. But now we are also questioning old truths and the rules that govern the New Eden universe, and we are doing it in line with the vision we presented at Fanfest 2013 in Reykjavik. That vision is about giving players, in the form of their immortal capsuleer representations, more power over this universe than ever before. This journey starts with EVE Online: Rubicon, and will unfold over the next several expansions to EVE Online.

We ask you to imagine with us. Think about an ancient, consistent dream of mankind: space colonization. Imagine conquering the stars and bending space itself to our will. Such gargantuan efforts are built on the hard work of science, engineering, innovation and industry – the same components also used to wreak terrifying destruction. The duality of that cycle, creation and destruction through technical advancements, fuels the EVE universe and we will amplify it in EVE going forward.

In the universe of EVE Online, military and industrial might re-emerged following the dark ages of the EVE Gate collapse, growing into four human civilizations that rose to the stars: the Amarr Empire, the Gallente Federation, the Caldari State and the Minmatar Republic. Yet the capsuleers, the immortal pilots of EVE’s most powerful spaceships, are becoming a stronger and stronger force of their own. They will not settle with what has been served to them thus far. EVE Online: Rubicon is the first step beyond a point of no return, on a dangerous path to ascension with consequences that neither capsuleers nor players can predict.

Think about building things and about destroying them.

Think about the rise of the immortal capsuleer, taking over what the human Empires used to control

Imagine capsuleer corporations, rising in power and capabilities, flying their own colors and using their might to build up whole areas of space. Imagine disrupting what someone else built up, through cunning or force. Imagine profiting from the interstellar-scale industry generated as capsuleers take control of new powerful technologies.

Imagine what could happen if capsuleers truly mastered the science of space travel itself, and were no longer bound to the known universe.

We are on a long term plan to deliver on what we imagine for EVE Online and New Eden. With Rubicon we continue our efforts to improve and balance the game, to support our player community, and give you the unique sandbox science fiction experience that EVE Online provides.

As capsuleers, you will find the first keys to the future.

Be part of the game. Be part of the universe. Be part of the story.


Doesn't looks like PvE or highsec had a role into those developments, do they? And certainly they aren't having a role. So guess who (as in, what kind of players) have been leaving the game since 2013.


PS: (since I might need to find this later, I'll seed a searchable word: platypus )



To use only the most obvious counterpoint, citadels have caused a big jump in PI demand.

Less trivially, the new sov system is significantly based on mining and ratting. It's not to say that one can't hold sov with out pve, but it's openly dishonest of you to try and claim that it's irrelevant.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#170 - 2017-02-08 10:15:30 UTC
By the way, it's been a week; are you going to answer my question?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Salvos Rhoska
#171 - 2017-02-08 10:20:48 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Snip


Yet again, you have submitted a list of references AS your arguments, rather than as supportive OF your arguments.
Im not going to read through that list of references, nor am I required to.
They dont constitute arguments or points, they are only references.

You still have not submitted anything beyond the initial 7 points which I rebutted, as a means of conveying what specifically it is you want done.

At this point Im starting the get the impression you dont actually have any concrete and specific implementations to suggest for consideration here.

You seem to just like talking, for talking sake, and to repeat your generalizations.

There is nothing myself and other participants here can constructively discuss with you on the issue, because you repeatedly refuse to provide specific suggestions that we can constructively discuss.

TLDR: You keep saying "I want more PvE", but you repeatedly fail to deliver on how exactly that is supposed to happen.
I want to discuss them with you, but I cant, because you arent bringing anything to the table which can be discussed.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#172 - 2017-02-08 14:58:30 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Snip


Yet again, you have submitted a list of references AS your arguments, rather than as supportive OF your arguments.
Im not going to read through that list of references, nor am I required to.
They dont constitute arguments or points, they are only references.

You still have not submitted anything beyond the initial 7 points which I rebutted, as a means of conveying what specifically it is you want done.

At this point Im starting the get the impression you dont actually have any concrete and specific implementations to suggest for consideration here.

You seem to just like talking, for talking sake, and to repeat your generalizations.

There is nothing myself and other participants here can constructively discuss with you on the issue, because you repeatedly refuse to provide specific suggestions that we can constructively discuss.

TLDR: You keep saying "I want more PvE", but you repeatedly fail to deliver on how exactly that is supposed to happen.
I want to discuss them with you, but I cant, because you arent bringing anything to the table which can be discussed.


I provided you with 7 different messages, over a span of three years, in which I explained my main suggestion, but you wil not read them, instead you want me to write everything again here since you won't read it elsewhere... you've got a funny logic, don't you?
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#173 - 2017-02-08 15:01:07 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
By the way, it's been a week; are you going to answer my question?


Which question? What?
Salvos Rhoska
#174 - 2017-02-08 15:06:07 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


I provided you with 7 different messages, over a span of three years, in which I explained my main suggestion, but you wil not read them, instead you want me to write everything again here since you won't read it elsewhere... you've got a funny logic, don't you?


I can provide you with 100 different messages I have posted over the span of years, in which I explain my position.
Will you read them? Funny logic you got there.

You seem incapable of providing specific proposals.

Tell me 5 specific PvE changes you want implemented into the game.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#175 - 2017-02-08 15:19:28 UTC
Well, it would be nice to see the Guristas Base Burner mission overhauled as well as the introduction of battleship class Burner missions.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#176 - 2017-02-08 16:11:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Ima Wreckyou
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

...30% of all logged in characters only logged in to set up their queues...

I already linked the post where CCP Rise states that the drop was caused by the skill queue. I'm sure he too is just a "white knight" who makes up a story to push his PvP centered view in your eyes.

Even IF the subscriber numbers dropped, why should your idea of all the ****** ideas out there be the one who will save the game? People like you never answer this questions. Your proposals always follow the same schema:

1. Proclaim a retention problem but fail to provide actual evidence of it's existence
2. Dream up some crazy idea about how to completely change the game
3. Pretend without showing any logical connection that the root cause of the previously constructed problem is the absence of your crazy idea in the game
4. Cry because no one takes you serious

Pretty much 80% of all the F&I posts are constructed that way, yours included.

Evil RatKid
Salvos Rhoska
#177 - 2017-02-08 16:19:51 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai:

Give us 5 concrete, specific proposals for how to improve PvE so as to retain players, according to your views.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#178 - 2017-02-08 17:58:50 UTC
I'm really starting to wonder if this game is so inherently broken at this point that it's impossible to be fixed, whether it be PvE or PvP. Some of the underlying mechanics are fundamentally flawed, and I'm not sure that continuing to do ''more of the same' is the best strategy.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#179 - 2017-02-08 18:03:00 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I'm really starting to wonder if this game is so inherently broken at this point that it's impossible to be fixed, whether it be PvE or PvP. Some of the underlying mechanics are fundamentally flawed, and I'm not sure that continuing to do ''more of the same' is the best strategy.

The game is perfectly fine and fun to play. If you think it is broken and not worth your time go somewhere else, there are literally thousands of other games out there.

Evil RatKid
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#180 - 2017-02-08 18:18:28 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
The game is perfectly fine and fun to play. If you think it is broken and not worth your time go somewhere else, there are literally thousands of other games out there.

That may be your opinion, but there's been a big push to get more players involved in PvP - or even just draw more players into the game. So I would counter if the status quo is just fine and EVE is so healthy, why are there so many requests to address wormholes, sovereignty and faction warfare (among others)? In addition, why the big push to subvert high-sec to force more players into these regions?

The whole HTFU or GTFO mentality doesn't really work anymore - not if you want to keep playing "your" game. Be very careful for what you wish for - you just might get it.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.