Change is coming


(Ima Wreckyou) #446

The word carebear does not mean you make money. It means to cry to CCP to change the game in your favor.


(Predvodnica LSG) #447

CCP is facing a tough financial future and has to make a financially justified decision.
If he calculates that PVPers is more profitable then he will change the game to more favorable for PVPers and attract more PVPers.
If he calculates that his carebears are more profitable then he will change the game to more favor the carebears and to attract more carebears.


(Aaron) #448

There will need to be a good balance though. Any decision has to be appealing to the pve’er and the pvp’er.

I’ve had some Idea’s for us find flaws in;

  • Perhaps wardecs can be based on average corp skill level, The skill level could be based on the average character age of all corp members, the ship loss record of corp, the pve/pvp activity level of corp, and the types of ships owned or affordable by the corp.

So we would have a wardec console where a wardec algorithm would pair you with suitable war targets who match your corps skill level, as you progress through wars your skill level grows and corps who get defeated; their skill level decreases which would prompt them to take an action like learning more about pvp, recruiting better pvp’ers, learning more about commanding a fleet and so on.

The goal of Eve could partly be to raise your corp skill level so you can compete at higher levels and take on bigger and meaner pvp’ers, The corp can be set activities by npc’s with the goal of raising corp skill level,

CCP shouldn’t be afraid of giving away isk in competitions, tied into the skill level we could have prizes for the corp who has the best skill increase over a week and highest skill level corp.

With the Corp Skill Level Idea in mind there could be options for a corp to invite others into the war, if the other side does not want to escalate it and seek war allies then this will leave their corp in a heavy minus wallet balance due to war fees.

So generally War Debt could be a major issue, assets could be seized due to a wardecs. As long as the mechanic prompts people to keep fighting then we could be onto an agreeable settlement.

Already I can see that experienced players will create alt corps and keep them at a level where they can continue fighting newer players, at least from this perspective the newer less experienced party will have a better chance of getting some kills against the more experienced party.

What do you guys think? I’m interested in pro’s and con’s.


(Black Pedro) #449

This isn’t a war. This is more akin to the Abyssal Arena coming next year or gladitorial contest. Matchmaking equal sides for a fight for a prize is a possible mechanic, but a war mechanic in a sandbox game it is not. Wars are meant to fight over… ‘real’ sandbox objectives. They cannot be balanced as such or it makes a complete mockery of the idea this is an open-world sandbox game.

The balancing of wars should happen via a diverse range of objectives. It’s hard to do to prevent the bigger groups from dominating everything, but I think something could be done with small, local objectives that require constant activity to maintain. Then, things worth something to smaller groups will have smaller groups fighting over them, and the most valuable things, like say the Perimeter Market Hub, will have the largest groups in the game fighting over them.


(Famine Aligher'ri) #450

Let me clue you in here being you obviously have no idea how game development actually works.

Most game developers do not make game design decisions based on money or the business. They do not think to themselves, “What is the smart business decision here?” Or even, “How can I make the business more money with this design decision?” That’s not how game development works essentially. Game developers often are just trying to improve the game and make it more fun.

The game director or producers on the other hand can often filter these game design decisions to align with a direction that is based on the business decisions made by management however. But, it does not start this way. Changes are are just that, a group of altercations or additions to the game like rocks in a bucket. Sometimes certain rocks make it in before other rocks. Some just get tossed out completely.


(Ima Wreckyou) #451

I honestly stopped reading right there… How is that still a sandbox mechanic Aaron? You create a stupid match making system out of it. This is even worse than deleting the whole thing…


(Aaron) #453

We have lost lots of subscribers over the years and there has to be some kind of accountability for it. The landscape for gaming has changed.

I think you have it wrong. Yes I agree it might be fun for wardec corps to camp gates and blow up targets easily but did anyone consider if it is fun for the newer player or smaller corp?

It looks to me as if you’re describing what the problem is, There needs to be more thought process on what the enjoy-ability of the game is for all parties concerned. If the design of the game directly affects how many subscribers you get then that’s what needs to happen in order to survive the market.


(Aaron) #454

LOL, and a 1000 man corp wardeccing a 2 man newbro corp isn’t stupid? And then the 1000 man corp just waits at gates for eternity for easy kills. I personally think any suggestion would be better that what we have now.


(Ima Wreckyou) #455

So you purposefully create a purely fictional example that looks completely stupid to then make the argument that all wardecs under the current system are like that? That’s called a straw-man argument and it is not reflective on what is actually going on and you know it.

Most wardecs are actually the other way around. A rather small corp/alliance wardecing huge number of other bigger alliances. Look at the 5 examples that where given that make ~50% of the wardecs. There stand a handful of pilots against a mass of thousand defenders. That is the reality.

You may still think that is stupid and maybe you don’t like it. But those wars are happening for a reason and the biggest part if probably just piracy, the attempt to catch one of their members with a Freighter full of stuff. That is a completely good reason emerging from the sandbox, from stuff players are doing.

Your suggestion on the other hand is a stupid minigame attached to the game without the economic, territorial or other reasons that come from this living world. It is like this stupid capture the flag modes some other MMOs have that have absolutely noting to do with the actual game.


(Aaron) #457

No, I am referring to the wardecs that result in less player retention. So if the data says 1000’s of new players left while under a wardec then that issue deserves looking at due to more subscribers resulting in more cash for CCP to pay developers in the first place.

I don’t mind the current wardec mechanic, It suits me fine because I know how to easily avoid it and combat it.

Analysing the data is the key here, If games designers can learn to adapt the game to what data is showing, while keeping a reasonably good balance between opposing views then we have success.

My idea is just thrown out there, I know it’s probably full of errors in logic. I’m trying to get a discussion going for what could be a good wardec mechanic.

@Ima_Wreckyou an update here.

The real truth could be this; the players who like hard games where conditions are very harsh and unforgiving my not have enough economic value to support a game such as Eve in this economic climate which is extremely competitive. Perhaps we only have the clout to keep Eve ticking over and stagnant and there may not be enough money to fund further research and development.

A good idea could be getting the newer community to stay and using that income to fund more development.


(Ima Wreckyou) #458

The CSM minuets say nothing about player retention. It says that corp activity drops, which is what you would expect if everyone just avoids the wardec by quitting corp or reforming it.

Yes, and that easy avoiding is what is visible in the stats.

Some things are better not left to the players. i have seen stuff like this happening in other games. The game will be nerfed and danger removes until everything is bland and boring and then even the carebears quit because with all the danger the purpose was drained as well… and then they flock to the next game and start the same process, ignorant that they are the cause of the mess.

Yes, the main error is that it is completely decoupled from the sandbox

Are you serious? EVE isn’t harsh. It is EXTREMELY easy to farm your little carebear heart out in almost complete safety with almost no effort. There are a lot of games out there that are far harsher and more successful. CCP tries to make it appear as if EVE was a harsh sandbox. Maybe that is true in null, low and wh, ,but in highsec it’s carebear wonderland for everyone who isn’t half stupid and can make the right choice when picking the mining ship or fitting for his mission runner…


(Aaron) #459

You may have misunderstood what I said here, I’m talking about analysing the newbro’s natural responses to events such as wardecs and then analysing trends across the stats which are generated.

If the stats show that player retention is affected after a new player is wardecced and defeated then that could be looked into and design changes could be discussed with the goal of raising the trend where new players left the game due to wardec.

Even if we look at Abyss, I get that were going outside of sandbox rules, but if it results in more subscribers and ultimately more money to fund development then is it a bad thing? or a very clever business move?

One last point, I have a comparison to real life which might apply here, again I may be wrong.

In my supermarket (Sainsbury’s, which is now owned by Walmart) I see lots of smaller independent businesses such as Timpsons Dry Cleaning, Ben And Jerry Kiosk, A Popular Sushi retailer, A furnishings company,

The Stationary Retailer WH Smiths now owns The Post Office, So the Post Office doesn’t have to own any retail outlets due to the WH Smiths retail outlets already being in place. Both businesses were struggling but have now become stronger.

My point is Lots of bigger retailers seem to be creating partnerships with other retailers in order to survive the economy. The Economy will effect CCP too, Why is it a bad thing for Eve Online to have an aspect of instanced gaming and benefit from the possibility of increased revenue? Perhaps some level of diversification is called for here?


(Ima Wreckyou) #460

It is not obvious what change would improve that situation. Maybe a pure social corp is a good idea. .This would allow the corp to grow and once they are ready for the wardec gameplay they can upgrade and deploy structures. That may be the healthy thing to do for retention, but it will not fix wardecs because the real problems have not been addressed.

A real solution to wardecs does not castrate them. This do nothing to improve the situation. A real solution will add tools to EVE independent of wardecs that allow for new gameplay that emerges from the sandbox where wardecs may be one possible way to go. I wrote a idea for this down a couple of months back: What we need is more tools not a wardec mini-game. A proposal for the expansion of the contract system


(Lurem Sebra) #461

Thats what Goons do everyday no real change in that :stuck_out_tongue:


(darkestkhan Eriker) #462

Does your activity have any effect on market? If yes, then you are also doing pvp. Market is also form of pvp. It is most brutal and most sneaky way to deal with anyone.


(Jonah Gravenstein) #463

That’s been pointed out to the troll farm repeatedly, they’re either suffering from selective reading or just plain don’t care.


(Aedaxus) #464

No, most just quit and cancel their subscription without even bothering with the forums.


(Ima Wreckyou) #465

That’s a lot better than to cry on a forum of a game they obviously have no talent for. Some people just don’t like and get EVE and they are better off with a game that suits their talents. Would’t you agree?


(Aedaxus) #466

I’m a little split on that as I’m mediocre at this game for over 10 years now. It’s a complex game and sometimes it’s harder than expected to gain information as enemies will sometimes help you get better depending on their person and how you communicate with them. I have played a lot of online games with playergroups. I joined a group in Star Wars Galaxies and we played until mosy left with CU and the rest quit after NGE although it had some improvements it put everyone in a cookiecutter build here we left due to bad decisions by CEO John Smedly. Most of us tried Fallen Earth a nice PVE game with lots of PVP areas. When the plyaer group leader left as he needed to concentrate on school (he was 12) there was a struggle for power from the PVP vs the PVE minded. I got selected as the new corp leader and led that playergroup for about a year untill they made some “combat changes” to make PVE “a challenge” by making it way harder and requiring teamplay and scaling down higher level players to the area’s content… needless to say the game dried out. Mostly because 90% of the players had a PVE fit (skills + gear). They also gambled and failed. So we returned to EVE Online and I returned twice once left for 1 year and once for 2 years. After the one year absence we returned with about 20 people, after a month 3 were still logging in. After the second year of absence we returned with 10 people. Although all of us played EVE Online before for years it is always a steef learning cliff to overcome in the first 18 months. This can be longer for people who don’t have much time to read wikipedia and develop ‘communications’ with other players. I’m ok (can loose ships of 1 billion uninsured and laugh it off while “gf-fing” and “O7” ing the attackers) since a few months now I guess, I even tried nullsec a little (playing in nullsec is a completely different and will learn you to be much better in high sec, however weir that sounds) I don’t have wormhole experience or lowsec ‘life’ experience yet but this game will be here forever so maybe in 5 or 10 years i’ll try that out too. On the other hand whining on the forums can be fun too… :wink: SO TLDR; I’m split.


(Ima Wreckyou) #467

Look, the truth is, almost everyone sucks at EVE. You don’t have to be good at it to win, just better (or more people) than your opponent :slight_smile:

I wonder what you where doing in EVE. Most corp I was with when I was new where the kind of “do whatever you want, we kinda do everything” corp, and that just doesn’t really contribute to the cohesion of the group.

What I would recommend is to plan some events. I mean you don’t need a lot of resources to have fun in EVE. Plan some roams, to null, lowsec, w-space or join faction warfare with your corp. Use cheap replaceable ships and plan to lose them. Literally just roam around until you all die together in some big ass gatecamp. Maybe have at least a couple of spare sips ready in the case it happens after 5min :smile:

I tell you, stuff like this will hook people and they will stick with the game and even play while no event is happening to “prepare” :slight_smile:

The experience to do those things better will come with playing and losing stuff. The problem is that most people think they have to prepare forever to be “ready” for this experience when it truth, they are already ready from day one and the learning happens while actually going out there shooting stuff.