In a game so much of which is about status…it does seem somewhat absurd that so much of a person’s status is hidden.
1 Like
They had a ranked bounty board.
They have ranked leaderboard events, arena proving ground events.
I think your concerns are addressed by the EVE anywhere project personally and not really good reason not to expand the functionality of the client itself
So in this case, it’s equivilent to the state taking over innovation from the private sector, or, nationalising a private entity.
Not sure its a political thing no
So, after CCP adds all these external apps/sites features to the game, what then? They shut down?
I’d imagine 3rd party developers would find new ways to innovate and describe ways to interact with the server , an ever evolving cycle
And then CCP adds those new features, then what? They shut down again?
Why would I bother?
Seems to me that a lot of the changes that cause people to get enraged at CCP fall in the category of CCP trying to improve the new player experience. From what I can tell, those changes are based on what seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the problems in the new player experience. CCP seems to see it like players get over the hump by gaining ships and skills that allow them to do later-stage content.
I don’t think the hump is material, I think it is a knowledge gap. New players don’t know what they’re supposed to do. Other MMOs, it is immediately obvious. You see a big glowing exclamation point over the NPC you’re supposed to talk to or whatever. EvE doesn’t really have that. So, players complete the initial arc, don’t see what to do next, and wander off. New players are not sitting around thinking “oh man, I wish I could get a retriever faster,” they’re sitting around thinking “WTF is a retriever.” Players who make it over the hump are those who spent a lot of time googling what to do in the game, but that isn’t realistically going to be a large percentage of new players who are willing to do that.
I think the solution is pretty obvious- fix missions. Missions are the thing new players are most likely to identify as the thing to do, but missions have long been neglected. Some have been bugged for like 15 years. The pool of missions is small enough that you frequently get repeats. They were developed a long time ago, and the AI has gotten much better since then, but they never incorporated the improvements into the missions. If I was CCP, I’d spend a significant amount of developer time to double the number of missions, fix all the open bugs, and make them more interesting, and then I’d make the initial arcs nudge players that direction more firmly- end the arc with the player having a ship capable of doing level 1s (maybe it already does that, I forget), then have the arc direct them to a level 1 agent.
It’s a sandbox game, which I love about it, but maybe the sandboxiness should hit you around month 2 instead of week 2, when you’re more ready to understand it.
1 Like
To be part of that ever evoving cycle that improves the game for everyone
Well, we still use PyFa even with the ingame simulator/fitting management.
We still use EveMon even with the skill planner.
We still use websites for fittings even with “community” fits in the ingame fitting tool.
1 Like
Because they still contain additional functionality, see an ever evolving cycle like i said
We can also use them without running the game client, that IS an important capability.
Not sure its as important as you seem to want to make out , not like you dont need some computer equipment to address them , what diffrence the client itself or EVE anywhere .
I really only want to load the game client, to fly ships in space or do station stuff. I don’t want to have to log into the game to view things or tinker about with data.
Fair enough thats your personal choice
What about the nerfing? I’m not an old forum member but I’ve already read so many complaints about the nerfs. Although NPE does need improvement as well.
Those aren’t simply gained, it’s my understanding that those ships and skills are sold in packs. I don’t see how that would get me over any hump but I understand that CCP are fans of their own perfect never-to-be-improved upon ideas.
They’re supposed to do a little reading, at least to understand what universe they’ve jumped into and then choose their EVE-life journey amongst the many careers and possibilities within N.E
Anyone familiar with sandbox games would not be lost as to what to do next.
As for those without experience, the Help channel is always open for questions.
I think the issue with retaining players is the blocks that are put in place by the game/devs. I find myself wanting to do or try some things but I can’t until I wait a month for the skills to be trained and it’s like that for so many things in the game that most new pkayers just go mining directly or do a little exploration ( that’s what I’m doing now ) until boredom sets in and they simply cease to log in unless they want to fork over some bucks for SP but not every player happily spends on a game, especially a new player who doesn’t know if it’s a game he’ll play for 10 years or ten days.
I agree with that 
. Missions give some short-term goals to new players while allowing them to see/discover the possibilities and viability of taking advantage of the sandbox.
1 Like
If they really wanted to improve the new player experience, they’d have something like the little paperclip thing Microsoft used to have in Word. Sort of ’ I can see you are trying to fit a ship…did you know that…xyx ‘. Instead, people are just dumped in a station after 15 minutes in an Astero, and left to get on with it. Agent missions barely explain anything. The Eve NPE is largely ’ what happens if I press this button ?’.
I read an article once in which somebody asked Microsoft devs why they have that paperclip, and pointed out that everybody finds it really annoying. The dev’s response was that studies have shown that users are more loyal to software that they have an emotional response to, even if it is a negative emotional response, than to software that they have no emotional response to. In short, they were annoying us on purpose.