These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How many more players must we lose to bullying

First post
Author
Trasch Taranogas
State War Academy
Caldari State
#61 - 2017-03-28 22:00:10 UTC
People say gankers, scammers, wardeccs et.c. are a part
of Eve just as in real life.
Lazy people, miners, travelers et.c. are also part of real life,
they should also feel welcome and at ease.

Let Eve be a mirror of everyday futuristic life, not like something
from the dark ages.

If you always stay ready you don't have to get ready.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#62 - 2017-03-28 22:01:06 UTC
Trasch Taranogas wrote:


That was well written.

Still a strange approach if you want to keep as many new
players as possible.

This is after all a game, not a Navy Seals recruiting program.

Seems CCP is struggling, should we stick to the original
concept or try to make it more compelling.
The general MMO genre is in decline AFAIK, less people are playing them, any decline in numbers is probably following the overall trend for the MMO market.

CCP have stayed fairly true to their original goal of an unsharded universe where everything is PvP, as former players of an infamous game that allowed similar things to Eve they are very aware of what happens when you change the game drastically in order to attract people from outside your normal demographics. Big game changes would hopefully be made with player feedback taken into consideration and much discussion, they learnt that lesson during the summer of rage.

The Alpha clone state merely opens an unlimited trial to an expanded demographic, the retention rate itself probably won't improve, the retained numbers on the other hand might. Eve isn't for everybody, there are loads of games out there that appeal to a far wider audience, as a niche game Eve has little competition.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#63 - 2017-03-28 22:02:46 UTC
Dark Lord Trump wrote:
I'd propose that we allow the creation of social corps that have the following restrictions:
-They cannot declare war, or have war declared upon them.
-They cannot anchor structures aside from personal deployables.
-They have a 5% NPC tax upon them, in addition to the corp tax.
-They cannot join an Alliance.

CCP haven't done much with the 'social corp' idea since the initial shitstorm reaction (me included in that) a couple of years ago.

I don't think we need social corps now, we just need in game social networking tools.

Corps typically lock you into one group, but why?

If it was just an ingame social network, you could be in whatever Corp you want (NPC or player run) and also be a member of as many in game communities as you want.

Be in a player Corp, but also be a member of Spectre Fleet, Redemption Road, etc. All of them giving you access to community tools beyond just chat channels and mailing lists (eg. shared fittings, contracts, roles to help run the community, etc.)

Then there is no need to worry about taxes, etc. on top, since the communities (eg. like Aaron's latest highsec community) is an informal group, just with some tools to help support it.
Alioth Ursa
Virtual Ducklings
#64 - 2017-03-28 22:03:33 UTC
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:


That used to be the case actually. Once upon a time concord was more akin to the faction navy's. They could be avoided. They could be fought. And they could be tanked against.
They would win eventually but it wasnt the insta nuke it is today.

And the HS care bears wined and complained and cried and ccp caved and made concord into what we know it as today.


Not sure if it is possible to revert this... I think this would be a great move though! Anyway there are more things which can be done in controlled environment of hi-sec. Why not start making tons of events like "pirate titan @Hek" or "pirate fleet of BC @jita"? All is needed is Game Master and perhaps some pilot-volunteers ... Or maybe concord could lost controll for some time over some systems (incursion like) - so in these system concord wouldn't be able to deploy "regular" IDDQD against pvp offenders?

o111
Trasch Taranogas
State War Academy
Caldari State
#65 - 2017-03-28 22:07:54 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Trasch Taranogas wrote:


That was well written.

Still a strange approach if you want to keep as many new
players as possible.

This is after all a game, not a Navy Seals recruiting program.

Seems CCP is struggling, should we stick to the original
concept or try to make it more compelling.
The general MMO genre is in decline AFAIK, less people are playing them, any decline in numbers is probably following the overall trend for the MMO market.

CCP have stayed fairly true to their original goal of an unsharded universe where everything is PvP, as former players of an infamous game that allowed similar things to Eve they are very aware of what happens when you change the game drastically in order to attract people from outside your normal demographics. Big game changes would hopefully be made with player feedback taken into consideration and much discussion, they learnt that lesson during the summer of rage.

The Alpha clone state merely opens an unlimited trial to an expanded demographic, the retention rate itself probably won't improve, the retained numbers on the other hand might. Eve isn't for everybody, there are loads of games out there that appeal to a far wider audience, as a niche game Eve has little competition.


Would never argue against so experienced players like you or the others at this forum.

Im only taking a different view. You are right, Eve is good as it is (its the only version of Eve
I know) Still got the feeling CCP wants more players and for some reason this "unfairness"
topic keeps popping up on a daily basis.

If you always stay ready you don't have to get ready.

Bjorn Tyrson
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2017-03-28 22:10:55 UTC
Alioth Ursa wrote:
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:

/.../
whats stopping the ceo of one corp from reaching out to the ceo of another that is currently under the wardec and joining forces? and another, and another.
wardecs go both ways, by opening up a bunch of targets for themselves, these corps are also opening themselves up to even more reprisal.
/.../
there is absolutely nothing stopping HS corps under threat of wardec from doing the exact same thing.

hell even if those corps can't put together enough of a combat fleet themselves, surely between the combined wallets of 4 or 5 corps they can come up with enough isk to hire some mercs to come to their aid.
/.../
And why is it that HS is the only place where "oh but we would have to move" is seen as a bad thing?
in low and null, if a bigger fish moves into your pond, you either stay and fight or you get pushed out and find somewhere else to settle.
.


In theory it sounds good. However I don't think it is realistic to expect bunch of hi-sec corps with no or little pvp experience to be able to setup fleet capable of fighting experienced pvp corp. Whatever fleet they will assemble it will be cut to the ribbons. They won't have intel they won't have proper communication and chain of comand. They won't have fits and enough isk/pilots to survive. And mostlikely they will be denied any isk grinding so once the first few fleets will be lost they will be done. I think that if pve corp is just not ready for pvp it won't learn it by wdec with grinding-griefing-pvp-machine. The hisec->lowsec->nullsec seems like a chain to gradually learn what is needed (while you can still farm isk in hisec). wdecs are kind of breaking this chain.

o111


The only way to learn pvp is to loose ships, this has always been the case, no I don't expect a bunch of HS pve corps to put up a solid fight their first time round, or their 10th time, but each loss will start letting them cut their teeth.

and you are also vastly under estimating the power of numbers.
lets say each HS corp can only pull together 10 pilots each who have at least some basic combat skills, lets say they can fit out a t2 tanked frigate with meta guns as the low end of the spectrum.
well you get 5 of those corps together, and you now have 50 pilots, slap a few of them into logi ships and you now have a VERY effective fleet. doesn't matter if the individal skill of each pilot is low, swarm tactics work, especially in HS where smartbombing isn't an option.

hell, 50 people in rookie ships can do some serious damage (as goonswarm showed in their very early days)

sure, some wardec corps have the numbers to counter a swarm like that, but not many. and sure, some corps might want to keep the dec going if they are getting content, but if so many of them are "just looking for easy kills" they are gonna be dropping the dec pretty fast once their killboard starts turning red to losses to rookie ships.

if they dock up, turn their own tactics against them, hellcamp them into the station, or bait them out, have a standing fleet a couple of jumps away and throw a disposable miner into a belt. when they engage jump on them.

the tools are all there, and there is absolutely nothing stopping you from using them. sure you will loose some ships along the way, but frigates are cheep, and corvettes are free. go out there and blow some **** up.

handholding and coddling doesn't do anyone any good.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#67 - 2017-03-28 22:23:16 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
DRDNOUGHT wrote:
I... Im not suggesting big changes here just idea's on improvements that may help to keep some of those players in game who otherwise would move on.

There is a cliched saying a lot of us bring out when these sorts of points are made; that being - HTFU or GTFO in its shortest and most aggressive form.

Putting the cliche aspect of it aside - "EVE is what it is and it's up to players to adapt, not the game" - there are at least two fundamental questions:

1. What change should CCP make to chase a group of players that don't currently stick around, that will also keep the existing player base happy?

2. How far is far enough? Where is the line that CCP should stop at if they were to make changes to chase more players, since the motivation to stay with the game is an individual thing, not a group thing?

No change is one way positive. Players already have 100% perfect safety from wardecs if they want. What more do they need that won't fundamentally change what EVE is and not necessarily for the better depending on your point of view?


This 100%

You can tell the people who believe what they believe for purely ideological reasons and personal preference, because no amount of evidence ever changes their toon. Since my 1st day in game (June 24, 2007) I've heard the same thing: "griefers are killing the game, CCP needs to do something about it!!!". The game was growing then and people know that the fringe complainers saying that were just mad at some aspect of the game and was using "new players" as leverage.

Then the game stopped growing (after a couple years of CCP backing off the things that made EVE great, the whole 'easy to learn, hard to master' mess), and that same eternally malcontented fringe got much louder. It would never occur to them that their success in nudging CCP towards a safer and thus more boring and less dynamic game was WHY it stopped growing. They can't understand that EVE is a game (not an alternate life) and unlike real life adversity is a GOOD thing, it give you a reason to be emotionally tied to the game, and a reason to learn how to fight back.

1 of 2 things will happen. CCP will wake up, and adjust their development efforts away from the hand holding they've been aiming at for the last 7 years (and treat it's customers like adults again, rather than children with tender child like sensibilities), or they will go further down the rabbit hole of "it's so safe, you can't have fun even if you tried!"
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2017-03-28 23:25:14 UTC
Kieron VonDeux wrote:
The point of Eve Online when it was released was that it pushed the boundaries of acceptable game-play.
That was the point, and why Eve remains that to this day.

It isn't for everyone though.

Not true. It diverged to stupid after a number of years.

Having said that regarding the OP wars are easy to avoid. Disband and run the corp through chat Chan's. Utility is not as good, corp hangers etc but it can be done

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..... :)

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2017-03-28 23:30:51 UTC
Kieron VonDeux wrote:
The point of Eve Online when it was released was that it pushed the boundaries of acceptable game-play.
That was the point, and why Eve remains that to this day.

It isn't for everyone though.

Not true. It diverged to stupid after a number of years.

Having said that regarding the OP wars are easy to avoid. Disband and run the corp through chat Chan's. Utility is not as good, corp hangers etc but it can be done

Jenn aSide wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
DRDNOUGHT wrote:
I... Im not suggesting big changes here just idea's on improvements that may help to keep some of those players in game who otherwise would move on.

There is a cliched saying a lot of us bring out when these sorts of points are made; that being - HTFU or GTFO in its shortest and most aggressive form.

Putting the cliche aspect of it aside - "EVE is what it is and it's up to players to adapt, not the game" - there are at least two fundamental questions:

1. What change should CCP make to chase a group of players that don't currently stick around, that will also keep the existing player base happy?

2. How far is far enough? Where is the line that CCP should stop at if they were to make changes to chase more players, since the motivation to stay with the game is an individual thing, not a group thing?

No change is one way positive. Players already have 100% perfect safety from wardecs if they want. What more do they need that won't fundamentally change what EVE is and not necessarily for the better depending on your point of view?


This 100%

You can tell the people who believe what they believe for purely ideological reasons and personal preference, because no amount of evidence ever changes their toon. Since my 1st day in game (June 24, 2007) I've heard the same thing: "griefers are killing the game, CCP needs to do something about it!!!". The game was growing then and people know that the fringe complainers saying that were just mad at some aspect of the game and was using "new players" as leverage.

Then the game stopped growing (after a couple years of CCP backing off the things that made EVE great, the whole 'easy to learn, hard to master' mess), and that same eternally malcontented fringe got much louder. It would never occur to them that their success in nudging CCP towards a safer and thus more boring and less dynamic game was WHY it stopped growing. They can't understand that EVE is a game (not an alternate life) and unlike real life adversity is a GOOD thing, it give you a reason to be emotionally tied to the game, and a reason to learn how to fight back.

1 of 2 things will happen. CCP will wake up, and adjust their development efforts away from the hand holding they've been aiming at for the last 7 years (and treat it's customers like adults again, rather than children with tender child like sensibilities), or they will go further down the rabbit hole of "it's so safe, you can't have fun even if you tried!"

2007 and it still hasn't clicked in its head why EvE hasn't grown and has instead shrunk. Hint: in business failing to grow means you're doing something very wrong.

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..... :)

Bjorn Tyrson
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2017-03-28 23:38:16 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

2007 and it still hasn't clicked in its head why EvE hasn't grown and has instead shrunk. Hint: in business failing to grow means you're doing something very wrong.


or it means that the MMORPG genre as a whole is experiencing a decline, frankly the fact that a game as old as eve has held its playerbase as steady as it has, while many much newer games have already folded or completely hemoraged to the point of being practically non-existant anymore. is a testament to the fact that CCP has something good here, and should meddle with that formula very carefully lest they loose the key component that has given it so much sticking power.
Tamoyo Hoshi
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2017-03-28 23:42:37 UTC
Well, this is a very long discussion in Eve.
It was already old when I started playing it.

First of all, let me declare that I'm a industrial carebear myself but I managed to adapt over time for the piracy, wardecs and so on. Eventually I got tired of continously Hisec exploits by gankers and wardec corps and moved to Null passing through low sec and wormhole space in between. But I also saw many people quitting along the way...

That said, I also concur with DRDNOUGHT that some balance is required with regard to wardecs.
I agree wardecs must exist. EVE is not supposed to be 100% safe and there must be a way to dispute resources at High Sec like POCOs and moons and now for structure agresssion as well.

But continous wardecs should be prevented. Empire space is supposed to be a civilized one with some degree of safety. Not 100% of course. But continous wardecs for a HS corp puts you in a situation worse than living at Null.
Personally it looks more like a Concord bribe to look the other way for me :)

What is interesting about EVE is the diversitiy of play styles and players in the game. I respect those who enjoy fighting, be it as big wars, piracy and hostiles take overs (aka wardec corps). But there is room for everyone. And the fact you enjoy one of these play styles doesn't mean the others shouldn't exist. Even if you don't like it...

Of course there are workarounds around the wardec process. Many successful players and corporations uses them. But new players won't know that. And that's the point DRDNOUGHT is asking for a balance in my opinion.

I'm not sure if it is possible. Maybe a limit of time for a wardec and a peace timer preventing others wardecs for a period of time...
Atom Lilly Tao
Doomheim
#72 - 2017-03-28 23:49:24 UTC
"EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time." - quoted from CCP Falcon.

Thanks for the link, it is great to know we got a honest community manager pointed out the true nature of EVE. For me, I should read more before I come back to this game and re-subed. Tho I do enjoy the beautiful space scenery, I admit I simply overlook the 'harshness' of this game after I read Falcon's post.

CCP by far would not mind player conflicts at all.

Conflicts -> War/PVP -> Asset lost -> need isk to sustain -> buying plex to make it up -> profit for Eve

simple as above. High sec ganking is just part of this formula. For me who likes to relax and mine in high sec, this game is obviously not for me anymore. I will not continue the subs after my current subs is over, I will miss the nice space scenery but that's about all I can say on Eve. Yes, I am just one player but I believe there are more like me who do not speak up before departing. Good luck and no, you can not have my stuff after I leave the game Smile
Nigel Carruthers
Virtus Crusade
Brave Collective
#73 - 2017-03-28 23:52:22 UTC
I'm with the OP here. Eve is NOT new player friendly at all.

I think one solution could be maybe 4 starter zones that were PVP free but making ISK was more difficult. I want to see new players join corps and have a chance to learn the game basics safely without being ganked.

Eve going FTP is a bad sign. CCP being for sale is not a sign of it's stellar business model for attracting new players. A PVP centric game can still be new player friendly but it MUST be done by protecting new players from Kill board padding Veterans.

Cheers.
Kieron VonDeux
#74 - 2017-03-29 00:03:57 UTC
Alioth Ursa wrote:
Kieron VonDeux wrote:
DRDNOUGHT wrote:
Agreed, my post was about those that wanted to play, but where pretty much hounded out of the game by empire wars that are running out of control.



And where that line should be has been a running battle between the fascist masochists and the liberal care-bears since launch.



Why won't make it free for all then? What would happen should hisec would be removed completly? Are we expecting huge amounts of new players then Shocked ?

I think this is all about setting up right learning curve. I would advocate adding even better reasons to live outside of higsec so the players will WANT to go there and PLAY rather than using wdec-like mechanics which are likely to STOP them playing.

o111



Hi Sec is just the shallow end of the pool, but you can still drown there if you are not careful.

Hi Sec, Low Sec, Null Sec and WH Space are simply variations in the terrain of the game. The point should be to add more variation, not to make all space the same.

So no, we shouldn't remove Hi Sec just because some players' idea of what it should be doesn't jive with how the owners of the IP think it should be.

Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#75 - 2017-03-29 00:11:57 UTC
Any concerns about permanent wardecs could be addressed by a progressive wardec fee. The first one costs you 50m, but a second one on the same corp within, say a month, costs 100m. And then progresses until it hits a cap of maybe 500m. Everything about the wardec system can be controlled through wardec fee structures.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2017-03-29 00:24:44 UTC
Atom Lilly Tao wrote:
"EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time." - quoted from CCP Falcon.

Thanks for the link, it is great to know we got a honest community manager pointed out the true nature of EVE. For me, I should read more before I come back to this game and re-subed. Tho I do enjoy the beautiful space scenery, I admit I simply overlook the 'harshness' of this game after I read Falcon's post.

CCP by far would not mind player conflicts at all.

Conflicts -> War/PVP -> Asset lost -> need isk to sustain -> buying plex to make it up -> profit for Eve

simple as above. High sec ganking is just part of this formula. For me who likes to relax and mine in high sec, this game is obviously not for me anymore. I will not continue the subs after my current subs is over, I will miss the nice space scenery but that's about all I can say on Eve. Yes, I am just one player but I believe there are more like me who do not speak up before departing. Good luck and no, you can not have my stuff after I leave the game Smile

Yeah except CCP Falcon has no clue what he's talking about. Its that sort of ignorance from the replacement devs that's made EvE stale and unappealing.

Highsec was designed to be relatively safe not harsh and terrifying.

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..... :)

Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#77 - 2017-03-29 00:50:51 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Yeah except CCP Falcon has no clue what he's talking about. Its that sort of ignorance from the replacement devs that's made EvE stale and unappealing.

Highsec was designed to be relatively safe not harsh and terrifying.



Hmmm...Saying that a dev is "ignorant" and "has no clue what he's talking about" because it differs from your personal view (and maybe even old devs views) of what highsec is supposed to be seems extraordinarily arrogant. Companies, like people and nations, change over time as their visions evolve. So does a long running MMO like EVE. Just because something isn't the way it used to be doesn't make it wrong - it just makes it different. When things DON'T change is when they become "stale" by definition. You may not agree with CCP Falcon on this point, but that's a philisophical difference - not because he's ignorant.
Bjorn Tyrson
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2017-03-29 01:15:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Bjorn Tyrson
Nigel Carruthers wrote:
I want to see new players join corps and have a chance to learn the game basics safely without being ganked.


Learning how to avoid wartargets and ganking IS one of the most basic fundamental aspects of the game.

it is a skill that you need not only in HS but in low, null, and WH space as well. it is fundamental to remaining safe and enjoying the game. no matter where you are.

they also already have a system in place for players to learn the bare bones of the game in complete safety, those are the NPC corps.
Mining isn't rocket science, neither is industry, or pve, it really shouldn't take more than a few days to understand the basics, but if the person wants longer, they have all the time they need before moving on to a player corp.

once you join a player corp you have left the "safe" newbie area and are ready to engage with the rest of the game, at that point pvp, and indeed wardecs get introduced. this is something that you will need to deal with for the entire rest of your eve career, and it is your responsibility to learn and understand those mechanics, or for your corp to teach you.

don't feel you are quite ready yet to join the big leagues and make your mark on the universe, well thats fine, simply drop corp and you will revert back to an npc corp where you will be immune to wardeccing. (of course ganks are still possible, but this is eve, no where is ever truly safe. nor should it be.)

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Highsec was designed to be relatively safe not harsh and terrifying.



you do know that in the early days, back in beta, high sec didn't even exist right? that implies that the "natural" state of eve. as originally designed, had ZERO safety mechanics in place.

even a after that happened concord was MUCH slower, and much weaker, it was only after the dev's caved to player pressure that it was made as overly safe as it is now.

so saying that the "replacement dev's are ignorant" is blatantly false. if anything they should be pushing high-sec back, to make it even more dangerous, if they really wanted to respect the original spirit of the game.
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#79 - 2017-03-29 01:17:08 UTC
Trasch Taranogas wrote:
People say gankers, scammers, wardeccs et.c. are a part
of Eve just as in real life.
Lazy people, miners, travelers et.c. are also part of real life,
they should also feel welcome and at ease.

Let Eve be a mirror of everyday futuristic life, not like something
from the dark ages.


"just as in real life" Who are the gankers in RL?

Anyway, as for being a 'mirror' of everyday futuristic life, CCP have gone for the dystopic visions rather than the optimism of Roddenberry .
Kaeden 3142
State War Academy
Caldari State
#80 - 2017-03-29 01:33:13 UTC
GTFO is not a good business incentive for CCP. Such elitist meme is bullying which is why Eve has a toxic community.