These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Alphas and F2P Have Failed

Author
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#221 - 2017-03-13 09:29:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:


Wow...so you had too respond to me twice and yet you keep getting it wrong.



As an economist I will say this,

You do not understand the game. That what we see is only the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the iceberg is not seen it is below the water line. When you say suicide ganking is easy that is simply not true. It is not like some random group of players decide to do it. No, instead it is Miniluv, CODE. or some other group. A group that has an SRP, comms, FCs, a logistics operation to ensure there are ships in place, etc.

All of that you want to discount as meaningless and of zero cost.

This makes you a liar...a despicably lying douche bag.

And despite several rounds of nerfs to ganking here you are again saying that more nerfs are needed. And you are oblivious to the fact that CCP keeps on boning you in the butt. For every "nerf" they give you they also do you in the butt like the little bitches you are. Please CCP nerf ganking and do me in the butt again and again so I know my place as the dirty little tart I am. That is what you are Infinity Ziona. CCP's dirty little laughing stock of a butt **** that they throw out on the garbage heap after the fun of Fanfest. And you keep crawling back to them again and again, and they keep treating you like the cheap whore that you are.

:)

In Desperation ignore the facts and go spazy ad hominem. Love it. Post more xx

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Gregorius Goldstein
Queens of the Drone Age
#222 - 2017-03-13 10:05:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregorius Goldstein
The data you need to tell if Alpha Clones failed or not is the share of new players that keep playing compared to the old trail. And you would need to know if some vets were droven away by the new model. But active player total has far more causes to look at.

Player numbers had a couple of reason to go up and down and it is hard to tell what had the biggest impact:
- Players coming back because of alpha and subbing again because they found a couple of old friends online
- New players starting because of Alpha Clones and staying
- Players unsubing off-grid booster alts
- Players taking a break after months of war campaigns
- Players unsubing alt accounts because they switched from multi-account mining to Roqual mining
- What time of the year and what part of the “EVE is Great –EVE is Dead” curve we are in.

I witnessed FTP models that drove long time players away and CCP was very careful with their own plan. Alpha is not like it would make you say: ”AWWW freeloaders, **** this I am out.” EVE does better than all other sandbox MMOs and I think CCPs product and brand development (for EVE, can’t tell for the other CCP games) is on spot.
The Fukuzawa
New Eden Trade Group
#223 - 2017-03-13 10:07:29 UTC
Gregorius Goldstein wrote:
The number you need to tell if Alpha Clones failed or not is the share of new players that keep playing compared to the old trail. And you would need to know if some vets were droven away by the new model. But active player total has far more causes to look at.

Player numbers had a couple of reason to go up and down and it is hard to tell what had the biggest impact:
- Players coming back because of alpha and subbing again because they found a couple of old friends online
- New players starting because of Alpha Clones and staying
- Players unsubing off-grid booster alts
- Players taking a break after month of war campaigns
- Players unsubing alt accounts because they switched from multi-account mining to Roqual mining
- What time of the year and what part of the “EVE is Great –EVE is Dead” curve we are in.

I witnessed FTP models that drove long time players away and CCP was very careful with their own plan. Alpha is nothing that would make you say: ”AWWW freeloaders, **** this I am out.” EVE does better than all other sandbox MMOs and I think CCPs product and brand development (for EVE, can’t tell for the other CCP games) is on spot.



plus fuckn one

! ! ! New Eden Trade Group is paying monthly interest to investors, contact me if interested ! ! !

If you already assume we are scammers without looking at what we offer objectively, go ahead and F*** off.

Thank you, that is all.

Vayen Kukkus
#224 - 2017-03-13 10:34:05 UTC
Looks like someone has a grudge against alpha players.

DUST 514 FOREVER!!!!

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#225 - 2017-03-13 10:34:19 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
From a business decision perspective, what should CCP do? Look at the evidence and make the best decision they can on the basis of it, or not try to validate anything they do and just guess?

Well...

For me the the most natural would be to look at every expired and for long not returned account. To look at his characters, they main area of space (high-sec, low-sec, 0.0, WH), main activity (trading, pvp, pve, whatever), they main connections (to discovery other alts of that player) and their area and activity.

And then using this data choose the most problem area of space and activity based on the biggest loss of active players. Maybe contact some of them in personal using email provided.

It would take a lot of time and effort but will provide the most reliable source for any decisions.

I haven't heard about such studies done by CCP. What they did and what they told in that FanFest (and what is widely using as 'ganking is good' by some forumites) is not even close to real searching for reason of losing players.

As proof (my personal anecdote): i know about many people who left the game for last 7 years. And not one of them left because of ganking nor nerfs to it. Some left because their main activity (PVE in 0.0 and evading PvP) is boring. Some other left because RL reasons. Some left because of high-sec PvP mechanics (OGBs, neutral logi and bumpers, station games).

So yeah, for me all this studi was just FanFest fluff. Made purely to make drunk fans happy.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Austin Blythe
Doomheim
#226 - 2017-03-13 11:03:06 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
As an economist I will say this


rofl
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#227 - 2017-03-13 11:31:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Teckos Pech wrote:

No you are wrong.

First off, new players should not be out there booming around in freighters. If they are they are being very imprudent and foolish and that should not be rewarded. Second, again looking at the CCP presentation new players who are suicide ganked or even killed legally tend to stay longer. There could be a type of selection bias here, but the evidence does not show that shooting new players is bad for retention. Third trial-and-error only works when you let players make errors. Remove the ability to make errors, or reduce the costs of making errors and they either are not a method for learning or they stop being errors.

And interactions with other players is what seems to keep people engaged with the game. Both negative and positive interactions. At least that is my view. Trying to limit negative interactions means you limit interactions and on an arbitrary basis and in a way that may end up rewarding players being imprudent and foolish. Once that kind of protection ends it will likely be bad. A player wondering why his foolishness was not costly and suddenly now is costly? Just make it costly from the beginning.

As for keeping players, if you decide that keeping players at any and all costs is the route to go I think you'll end up being ******. Eventually many of the current players will quite. I'd quite. My guess is Daichi, Jonah, Jenn, Torin, Nana, Cade, Scipio, Shae, Linus and many others would quit. You might keep some new players, but a large portion of the long time paying customers would walk. If HS became "locked at safeties green" I'd have to seriously reconsider my financial support for the game. That is some salty nonsense, it is simply a statement of fact. I like playing a game where no matter where I go or what I do there is an element of danger. Take that away and my interest is largely gone.

Or let me put it this way: the idea of making the game safer appears to be costing CCP many long term players. And it does not seem to be resulting in many new subs/players. In fact, the professional ganking groups that have arisen and the HS terrorists that are CODE. maybe be exacerbating the problem....but that is entirely the result of CCPs own blinkered policies.


I doubt I'm wrong - I'm not talking about freighter ganking for instance this is what happened to one person I know - after one of the events that made it to the mainstream press they got interested in the game mostly with a long term goal of getting into "nullsec mining" (that was their idea) didn't play much until they were skilled up for mining barges as they didn't fancy t1 frig mining - lost 2 retrievers to ganks mining near Jita in one day the first having barely paid for the second - I either gave them ISK for or gave them a retriever I can't remember which and recommended they moved to somewhere quieter and they got ganked again having moved to one of the places I recommended and promptly threw in the game.

Interactions with other players need to have some balance to them and unfortunately while it might not be unduly bad for every new player there is a not insignificant number who have a much more negative initial impression - people who are in some cases probably no different to many that do get into the game long term but happened to come off worse in their first few days or weeks. People can wax lyrical about the type of people that stick with Eve or whatever but the reality is many just had a balanced enough experience to learn how to walk before having to face too much of the negative aspects.

I can't pretend to have an answer to it and new player retention certainly isn't the only reason for a declining player base - I'm no fan of making highsec significantly safer and nothing is coming to me right now as to how to solve it. One aspect that I know has been a big factor in some of them quitting is the lack of ability to retaliate - I've been asked more than once before, before someone quit, to help them get revenge and I've had to tell them that there is little that they or I can do to meaningfully interdict for instance someone's random alt that is only used purely for catalyst ganking and so on.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#228 - 2017-03-13 11:49:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
March rabbit wrote:

Well...

For me the the most natural would be to look at every expired and for long not returned account. To look at his characters, they main area of space (high-sec, low-sec, 0.0, WH), main activity (trading, pvp, pve, whatever), they main connections (to discovery other alts of that player) and their area and activity.

And then using this data choose the most problem area of space and activity based on the biggest loss of active players. Maybe contact some of them in personal using email provided.

It would take a lot of time and effort but will provide the most reliable source for any decisions.

I haven't heard about such studies done by CCP. What they did and what they told in that FanFest (and what is widely using as 'ganking is good' by some forumites) is not even close to real searching for reason of losing players.

As proof (my personal anecdote): i know about many people who left the game for last 7 years. And not one of them left because of ganking nor nerfs to it. Some left because their main activity (PVE in 0.0 and evading PvP) is boring. Some other left because RL reasons. Some left because of high-sec PvP mechanics (OGBs, neutral logi and bumpers, station games).

So yeah, for me all this studi was just FanFest fluff. Made purely to make drunk fans happy.


Personally I had characters in or at some time involved in pretty much every part of the game except faction warfare which I've never touched - there are reasons people "quit" the game i.e. boredom but most of those who've played for any length of time have a love for the game and will come back from time to time, those that really quit are another matter.

Most people I know who've really quit (other than those that didn't make it initially) including myself have done so due to too often becoming collateral in sweeping changes where we've been involved in gameplay unconnected to areas that needed changes or rebalancing or whatever but have been ignored and/or even trampled over - the odd time you can write off but when it happens to often you tend to just quit. I still have some love for the game as I'm still posting here but it would take something special for me to ever pay to play the game again or even invest any time in it other than occasionally logging in as an alpha to touch base with old friends, etc.
mkint
#229 - 2017-03-13 12:29:22 UTC
Mav Ahishatsu wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Just because CCP may have posted record profits in 2016 (SKINs, skill extractors, no more associated costs with Dust 514 and World of Darkness) does not mean F2P is actually a contributing factor.

It does, however, mean that it was not a failure, therefore "Alphas and F2P Have Failed" is a factually inaccurate statement. Also, go here (http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility) and look at the actual player count over the past five years. Notice how the player count increased to numbers that hadn't been seen since 2012 at the exact same time the game went F2P. Also, note the fact that the player count has remained above average in comparison to the 18 months prior.

I watch those numbers pretty closely. After the f2p launch, there was no new upward momentum. Nobody going "hey, this is great, tell your friends" causing the numbers to gain an upward trend and continue upward. It was a single peak with a decline at approximately the same rate that it has been declining for the preceding several years. It's like people saw advertising, tried the game, decided it wasn't worth their time, and didn't ever come back or tell anybody about it. All trend graphs are about momentum, and the f2p peak didn't break the downward momentum at all, despite a 1-day peak. Of course the numbers are higher than they were before (but not higher than they were last year), you don't have to pay to log in now. Shoot, the "increase in revenue" could include an "increase in valuation" based on weird icelandic banking math (have yourself a read about icelandic banking, it's ridiculous.) And yeah, it could actually represent an increase in income and profits from EVE (except it probably doesn't) and f2p could still be a failure because it didn't turn the momentum of EVE's decline.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#230 - 2017-03-13 13:51:28 UTC
mkint wrote:
Mav Ahishatsu wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Just because CCP may have posted record profits in 2016 (SKINs, skill extractors, no more associated costs with Dust 514 and World of Darkness) does not mean F2P is actually a contributing factor.

It does, however, mean that it was not a failure, therefore "Alphas and F2P Have Failed" is a factually inaccurate statement. Also, go here (http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility) and look at the actual player count over the past five years. Notice how the player count increased to numbers that hadn't been seen since 2012 at the exact same time the game went F2P. Also, note the fact that the player count has remained above average in comparison to the 18 months prior.

I watch those numbers pretty closely. After the f2p launch, there was no new upward momentum. Nobody going "hey, this is great, tell your friends" causing the numbers to gain an upward trend and continue upward. It was a single peak with a decline at approximately the same rate that it has been declining for the preceding several years. It's like people saw advertising, tried the game, decided it wasn't worth their time, and didn't ever come back or tell anybody about it. All trend graphs are about momentum, and the f2p peak didn't break the downward momentum at all, despite a 1-day peak. Of course the numbers are higher than they were before (but not higher than they were last year), you don't have to pay to log in now. Shoot, the "increase in revenue" could include an "increase in valuation" based on weird icelandic banking math (have yourself a read about icelandic banking, it's ridiculous.) And yeah, it could actually represent an increase in income and profits from EVE (except it probably doesn't) and f2p could still be a failure because it didn't turn the momentum of EVE's decline.


The increase in income is extremely likely to be linked to injectors.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2017-03-13 13:57:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
mkint wrote:
Mav Ahishatsu wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Just because CCP may have posted record profits in 2016 (SKINs, skill extractors, no more associated costs with Dust 514 and World of Darkness) does not mean F2P is actually a contributing factor.

It does, however, mean that it was not a failure, therefore "Alphas and F2P Have Failed" is a factually inaccurate statement. Also, go here (http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility) and look at the actual player count over the past five years. Notice how the player count increased to numbers that hadn't been seen since 2012 at the exact same time the game went F2P. Also, note the fact that the player count has remained above average in comparison to the 18 months prior.

I watch those numbers pretty closely. After the f2p launch, there was no new upward momentum. Nobody going "hey, this is great, tell your friends" causing the numbers to gain an upward trend and continue upward. It was a single peak with a decline at approximately the same rate that it has been declining for the preceding several years. It's like people saw advertising, tried the game, decided it wasn't worth their time, and didn't ever come back or tell anybody about it. All trend graphs are about momentum, and the f2p peak didn't break the downward momentum at all, despite a 1-day peak. Of course the numbers are higher than they were before (but not higher than they were last year), you don't have to pay to log in now. Shoot, the "increase in revenue" could include an "increase in valuation" based on weird icelandic banking math (have yourself a read about icelandic banking, it's ridiculous.) And yeah, it could actually represent an increase in income and profits from EVE (except it probably doesn't) and f2p could still be a failure because it didn't turn the momentum of EVE's decline.

The solution is pretty simple.

There is enough room in EVE for both PvE only and PvP play.

Its frankly ******** to ignore all the PvE only players out there because they're the biggest group of potential customers.

I can hear the screams of rage already from the people who think they're IRL Pirates however they have High Sec Wars (High), Low Sec PvP (Low), Faction PvP (High, Low), Null PvP (Null), Wormhole PvP (Null).

So two options to PvP in High, Two options to PvP in Low, 1 option each to PvP in Null and WH space.

Strangely with all of those options they still demand the absolute right to gank in high, its either because they're bad at PvP or they're scared of PvP where the opponent can shoot you first. Whichever it is is irrelevant. The only option for PvE only peeps is a High Sec with much reduced ganking and a stricter war dec system.

The result of that is you'll have a bunch of carebears in High Sec gnawing on tiny asteroids, missioning and so forth. For whatever reason that seems to infuriate some people, they need to get over it. The only time I think about High Sec is the occasional trip to pick something up that I need, otherwise my thoughts are only on null. I'm not sure why some obsess over what others are doing elsewhere in the game but there are mental people everywhere so I guess they're just mental.

With an influx of people who purely like PvE will come an influx of cash for CCP. That's all that matters in a thread regarding subs.

Edit: To put it in numerical terms there are around 1000 high sec systems and 7000 other systems. Ask yourself Why there is such a need, an intense need for some people to want to deny any space to people that don't want to PvP when they already have 7 x the number of pure PvP systems already? Definitely Mental Cases.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#232 - 2017-03-13 14:19:43 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:


There is enough room in EVE for both PvE only and PvP play.

Its frankly ******** to ignore all the PvE only players out there because they're the biggest group of potential customers.

I can hear the screams of rage already from the people who think they're IRL Pirates however they have High Sec Wars (High), Low Sec PvP (Low), Faction PvP (High, Low), Null PvP (Null), Wormhole PvP (Null).

So two options to PvP in High, Two options to PvP in Low, 1 option each to PvP in Null and WH space.

Strangely with all of those options they still demand the absolute right to gank in high, its either because they're bad at PvP or they're scared of PvP where the opponent can shoot you first. Whichever it is is irrelevant. The only option for PvE only peeps is a High Sec with much reduced ganking and a stricter war dec system.

The result of that is you'll have a bunch of carebears in High Sec gnawing on tiny asteroids, missioning and so forth. For whatever reason that seems to infuriate some people, they need to get over it. The only time I think about High Sec is the occasional trip to pick something up that I need, otherwise my thoughts are only on null. I'm not sure why some obsess over what others are doing elsewhere in the game but there are mental people everywhere so I guess they're just mental.

With an influx of people who purely like PvE will come an influx of cash for CCP. That's all that matters in a thread regarding subs.


PVE has nothing to do with anything you are talking about. This idea that PVE players need protecting from PVP players isn't just stupid, it's insulting. Everyday legions of real EVE PVE players not only don't get ganked by gankers, they watch gankers explode while they fail, and those PVErs loot the gankers wreck.

And every year we get nerfed, because the weak minded "please protect me CCP" pve minority players convince CCP to add more and more safety. WE suffer for it, not the gankers, the gankers just adapt, but those of us who didn't need any hand holding watch all the fun ways to screw with gankers ripped out from under us. It's irritating.

CCp can make the game fun again by rolling back some of this mechanical safety and let people know the joys of figuring out how to deal with other people again, like we did for years before all these pop ups and safetys came about. EVE is a game, games are fun because of challenge, not hand holding.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#233 - 2017-03-13 14:23:40 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:


There is enough room in EVE for both PvE only and PvP play.

Its frankly ******** to ignore all the PvE only players out there because they're the biggest group of potential customers.

I can hear the screams of rage already from the people who think they're IRL Pirates however they have High Sec Wars (High), Low Sec PvP (Low), Faction PvP (High, Low), Null PvP (Null), Wormhole PvP (Null).

So two options to PvP in High, Two options to PvP in Low, 1 option each to PvP in Null and WH space.

Strangely with all of those options they still demand the absolute right to gank in high, its either because they're bad at PvP or they're scared of PvP where the opponent can shoot you first. Whichever it is is irrelevant. The only option for PvE only peeps is a High Sec with much reduced ganking and a stricter war dec system.

The result of that is you'll have a bunch of carebears in High Sec gnawing on tiny asteroids, missioning and so forth. For whatever reason that seems to infuriate some people, they need to get over it. The only time I think about High Sec is the occasional trip to pick something up that I need, otherwise my thoughts are only on null. I'm not sure why some obsess over what others are doing elsewhere in the game but there are mental people everywhere so I guess they're just mental.

With an influx of people who purely like PvE will come an influx of cash for CCP. That's all that matters in a thread regarding subs.


PVE has nothing to do with anything you are talking about. This idea that PVE players need protecting from PVP players isn't just stupid, it's insulting. Everyday legions of real EVE PVE players not only don't get ganked by gankers, they watch gankers explode while they fail, and those PVErs loot the gankers wreck.

And every year we get nerfed, because the weak minded "please protect me CCP" pve minority players convince CCP to add more and more safety. WE suffer for it, not the gankers, the gankers just adapt, but those of us who didn't need any hand holding watch all the fun ways to screw with gankers ripped out from under us. It's irritating.

CCp can make the game fun again by rolling back some of this mechanical safety and let people know the joys of figuring out how to deal with other people again, like we did for years before all these pop ups and safetys came about. EVE is a game, games are fun because of challenge, not hand holding.

Heard all your rubbish before. War dec or gtfo of High into those 7000 systems. Yeah I know people can shoot back at you before your ship explodes to Concord but you'll get used to it - PvP = Player vs Player, Not Player Vs NPC Concord...

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

mkint
#234 - 2017-03-13 15:03:50 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:


There is enough room in EVE for both PvE only and PvP play.

Its frankly ******** to ignore all the PvE only players out there because they're the biggest group of potential customers.

I can hear the screams of rage already from the people who think they're IRL Pirates however they have High Sec Wars (High), Low Sec PvP (Low), Faction PvP (High, Low), Null PvP (Null), Wormhole PvP (Null).

So two options to PvP in High, Two options to PvP in Low, 1 option each to PvP in Null and WH space.

Strangely with all of those options they still demand the absolute right to gank in high, its either because they're bad at PvP or they're scared of PvP where the opponent can shoot you first. Whichever it is is irrelevant. The only option for PvE only peeps is a High Sec with much reduced ganking and a stricter war dec system.

The result of that is you'll have a bunch of carebears in High Sec gnawing on tiny asteroids, missioning and so forth. For whatever reason that seems to infuriate some people, they need to get over it. The only time I think about High Sec is the occasional trip to pick something up that I need, otherwise my thoughts are only on null. I'm not sure why some obsess over what others are doing elsewhere in the game but there are mental people everywhere so I guess they're just mental.

With an influx of people who purely like PvE will come an influx of cash for CCP. That's all that matters in a thread regarding subs.


PVE has nothing to do with anything you are talking about. This idea that PVE players need protecting from PVP players isn't just stupid, it's insulting. Everyday legions of real EVE PVE players not only don't get ganked by gankers, they watch gankers explode while they fail, and those PVErs loot the gankers wreck.

And every year we get nerfed, because the weak minded "please protect me CCP" pve minority players convince CCP to add more and more safety. WE suffer for it, not the gankers, the gankers just adapt, but those of us who didn't need any hand holding watch all the fun ways to screw with gankers ripped out from under us. It's irritating.

CCp can make the game fun again by rolling back some of this mechanical safety and let people know the joys of figuring out how to deal with other people again, like we did for years before all these pop ups and safetys came about. EVE is a game, games are fun because of challenge, not hand holding.

Heard all your rubbish before. War dec or gtfo of High into those 7000 systems. Yeah I know people can shoot back at you before your ship explodes to Concord but you'll get used to it - PvP = Player vs Player, Not Player Vs NPC Concord...

You really don't know what you're talking about. Jenn is a PVEer. You didn't read the post obviously. Jenn is mad because the PVEer's tools to deal with gankers have been reduced in the name of "safety."

The appeal of EVE never has been, nor ever will be its PVE content. There are too many games out there that are 100% PVE. They are called single player and have existed since a 1950's radar screen was adapted to be the first video game. The value of EVE's PVE is to lead to interesting experiences. The unscripted stuff with unpredictable interactions in meaningful ways with real people. Making PVE even more boring will not lead to new subscriptions.

My opinion is that pretty much every passionate dichotomy that pops up in this community is tedious and pointless. Safety is a non-issue. Getting people engaged is the issue, that's where the game has been failing.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#235 - 2017-03-13 15:15:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
mkint wrote:
Safety is a non-issue. Getting people engaged is the issue, that's where the game has been failing.


This is why EVE did better when it was "here is a space ship, **** you". How some of these people can't understand that is beyond me.

The 'safety' people honestly think more safety is the answer. They are making the same kind of mistake modern day parents make, ie "if i keep my child safe enough, they will be ok". What they end up with is a bunch of people who can't function in the adult world and who need their participation trophies to feel special.

I don't think people like that are capable of changing their ways though, when your whole self image is built around "hey, look at what a good person I am, I oppose space tyranny in a video game", there's just no helping it Twisted
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#236 - 2017-03-13 15:45:54 UTC
mkint wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:


There is enough room in EVE for both PvE only and PvP play.

Its frankly ******** to ignore all the PvE only players out there because they're the biggest group of potential customers.

I can hear the screams of rage already from the people who think they're IRL Pirates however they have High Sec Wars (High), Low Sec PvP (Low), Faction PvP (High, Low), Null PvP (Null), Wormhole PvP (Null).

So two options to PvP in High, Two options to PvP in Low, 1 option each to PvP in Null and WH space.

Strangely with all of those options they still demand the absolute right to gank in high, its either because they're bad at PvP or they're scared of PvP where the opponent can shoot you first. Whichever it is is irrelevant. The only option for PvE only peeps is a High Sec with much reduced ganking and a stricter war dec system.

The result of that is you'll have a bunch of carebears in High Sec gnawing on tiny asteroids, missioning and so forth. For whatever reason that seems to infuriate some people, they need to get over it. The only time I think about High Sec is the occasional trip to pick something up that I need, otherwise my thoughts are only on null. I'm not sure why some obsess over what others are doing elsewhere in the game but there are mental people everywhere so I guess they're just mental.

With an influx of people who purely like PvE will come an influx of cash for CCP. That's all that matters in a thread regarding subs.


PVE has nothing to do with anything you are talking about. This idea that PVE players need protecting from PVP players isn't just stupid, it's insulting. Everyday legions of real EVE PVE players not only don't get ganked by gankers, they watch gankers explode while they fail, and those PVErs loot the gankers wreck.

And every year we get nerfed, because the weak minded "please protect me CCP" pve minority players convince CCP to add more and more safety. WE suffer for it, not the gankers, the gankers just adapt, but those of us who didn't need any hand holding watch all the fun ways to screw with gankers ripped out from under us. It's irritating.

CCp can make the game fun again by rolling back some of this mechanical safety and let people know the joys of figuring out how to deal with other people again, like we did for years before all these pop ups and safetys came about. EVE is a game, games are fun because of challenge, not hand holding.

Heard all your rubbish before. War dec or gtfo of High into those 7000 systems. Yeah I know people can shoot back at you before your ship explodes to Concord but you'll get used to it - PvP = Player vs Player, Not Player Vs NPC Concord...

You really don't know what you're talking about. Jenn is a PVEer. You didn't read the post obviously. Jenn is mad because the PVEer's tools to deal with gankers have been reduced in the name of "safety."

The appeal of EVE never has been, nor ever will be its PVE content. There are too many games out there that are 100% PVE. They are called single player and have existed since a 1950's radar screen was adapted to be the first video game. The value of EVE's PVE is to lead to interesting experiences. The unscripted stuff with unpredictable interactions in meaningful ways with real people. Making PVE even more boring will not lead to new subscriptions.

My opinion is that pretty much every passionate dichotomy that pops up in this community is tedious and pointless. Safety is a non-issue. Getting people engaged is the issue, that's where the game has been failing.

I know exactly what I'm talking about - I have encountered the clueless dweeb many many times.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#237 - 2017-03-13 16:00:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I know exactly what I'm talking about - I have encountered the clueless dweeb many many times.


It's 1600 EVE time, isn't it time for your daily rage quit and promise (ie lie about) deleting your toons again?
HindSight Pergatory
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#238 - 2017-03-13 16:13:28 UTC
I have no issue with these ideas, save one. Removing hi sec incursions entirely isn't an option. It only serves to feed the blood-thirsty hardcore PVPers and you essentially eliminate a group friendly aspect of the game for the casual player. (I live in Null so hi-sec incursions don't affect me much) <---keep that in mind when preparing your rebuttal). While it may serve to increase ship and module sales, it would alienate many players.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#239 - 2017-03-13 16:35:20 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
mkint wrote:
Safety is a non-issue. Getting people engaged is the issue, that's where the game has been failing.


This is why EVE did better when it was "here is a space ship, **** you". How some of these people can't understand that is beyond me.

The 'safety' people honestly think more safety is the answer. They are making the same kind of mistake modern day parents make, ie "if i keep my child safe enough, they will be ok". What they end up with is a bunch of people who can't function in the adult world and who need their participation trophies to feel special.

I don't think people like that are capable of changing their ways though, when your whole self image is built around "hey, look at what a good person I am, I oppose space tyranny in a video game", there's just no helping it Twisted


However even with a certain amount of hands off parenting you don't just abandon them to any and all dangers. I don't think that removing the danger is necessarily the answer though - maybe giving them the tools to understand the danger might help.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#240 - 2017-03-13 16:48:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Jenn aSide wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I know exactly what I'm talking about - I have encountered the clueless dweeb many many times.


It's 1600 EVE time, isn't it time for your daily rage quit and promise (ie lie about) deleting your toons again?

Tommorow maybe :)

Rroff wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
mkint wrote:
Safety is a non-issue. Getting people engaged is the issue, that's where the game has been failing.


This is why EVE did better when it was "here is a space ship, **** you". How some of these people can't understand that is beyond me.

The 'safety' people honestly think more safety is the answer. They are making the same kind of mistake modern day parents make, ie "if i keep my child safe enough, they will be ok". What they end up with is a bunch of people who can't function in the adult world and who need their participation trophies to feel special.

I don't think people like that are capable of changing their ways though, when your whole self image is built around "hey, look at what a good person I am, I oppose space tyranny in a video game", there's just no helping it Twisted


However even with a certain amount of hands off parenting you don't just abandon them to any and all dangers. I don't think that removing the danger is necessarily the answer though - maybe giving them the tools to understand the danger might help.

If subscribers don't want to PvP why would you force them to or have them quit.

Like I said there are 7000 systems designed for PvP. 8000 if you declare war. The only way to increase sub's is to target non pvprs . its a no brainer which doesn't bode well for the nay sayers.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)