Dev blog: CSM Winter Summit Minutes & changes to election process

EVE Information Portal Dev Blogs
163

The argument that missions are fine in the condition they are currently in BECAUSE people are still doing them is crazy. People want to play EVE and give you money to have the joy of piloting spacecraft around doing things. They love the game so much that many will stay for years doing the same old thing time after time, because some of the other aspects of the game do not appeal to them. Their concerns about staleness in that certain aspect of EVE has been growing over the years as represented by postings on these boards, but CCP tend to dismiss them because of 3 main reasons: They don’t hear negative feedback about missions when they attend fanfests, when they talk to their NS buddies in chat/Twitter/mumble/reddit, or from the CSM. God forbid they come to these boards they created to actually see/hear what that part of the community is saying. Instead, they live in an echo chamber of feedback and wondering why their game’s population continues to fall.

So, CCP, keep doing what you have been doing: throw numerous ideas (some of which is suggested by the NS/large alliance bloc) up against the development wall and see what sticks. Continue to mainly use Twitter,fanfest, and alliance chat channels for your main feedback. Keep misinterpreting the data that shows that if a certain group has continued to do a certain aspect of EVE for years, then everything must be fine. Make sure that players must come to you on only your terms to have their concerns heard and acknowledged. Double down on developing game mechanics based on what you think the players want/need based on your echo chamber and ignoring feedback from the test server and these forums.

…and in the end, we’ll see what the verdict is based on player population. I have never seen a company work so hard to disenfranchise a passionate customer base. Well, steady as she goes…consider the last 3 months as a call of “iceberg dead ahead” from your lookouts.

4 Likes
164

Yeah, it all boils to be the player’s fault for running them non stop.

If you don’t use a feature… it’s underused, they scrap it.
If you use it too much despite the lack of expansion… they don’t touch it because it’s fine, rather try new things based on anything but your feedback.

Just give them your money and shut up while they use that money to give stuff to other players and ignore you.

(Well, actually there is a third option: they mess up something you used and worked well in the name of “updating”).

165

Interesting. I kept seeing new people being mentioned as a pain point. Yet I don’t see anyone new making comments or being asked where their problems lie with the game.

You all seem to be making heartfelt comments about a game which you have played for a long time. Though my first account was opened in 2003. I’ve only played a few times and then only did a short period of time. Part of the reason was I was one of those people who wouldn’t pay a subscription. I didn’t want to buy a game and keep having to pay for it. I kept coming back though, because I wanted to like it bad enough to pay that subscription. Unfortunately I never got a chance to see or understand enough to make that choice. Well, these days I’ve changed and so has this game. FTP is going to allow me to have the time to figure out wtf is going on with this game, how too play it and to survive in it… Well at least long enough to make it fun.

You all seem experienced. But as far as new player retention is concerned you could and possibly are way off. Because you’re not new players, you no longer see what the new players see. Nor do you know what they want or need. Not unless you talk to them.

So as far as new player retention goes. Talk to them! Send out surveys in game mail and to our of game email. Build it into the training missions even. I bet you’re spot on guessing some of the problems. But, there’s going to be some biggies that you’re missing.

Also, this is a mmo right? In that case the selfish "the game has to be played this way"mentally has to go. Continual bickering about whether pvp is better than pve is a waste of time. Worse yet is thinking that one is actually better than the other.

Yes this is primarily a pvp game, but it has pve and both need to work.

PS. Got to give kudos to CCP for being as communicative as they are. Most game devs are about as interactive as a bunch of rocks.

2 Likes
166

You mean like the last survey they sent out?

As soon as you showed any dissatisfaction with the game the survey ended without you even seeing the rest of the questions.

167

I don’t think the argument is ‘they’re fine’, i think (and for my own posts, I know) the argument is ‘this is working, can they afford to risk breaking it?’

168

I just jumped back in a few days ago, so I missed that one. But no, a survey like that would be worthless in this case. That sounds like someone fishing for positive relpies to impress a boss.

169

Then there’s the fact that despite everything…a LOT of people play the old missions every day and a lot of people run them for years and years. Feel free to tell me if you think I’m wrong on this next point, but when we look at the numbers, the value proposition of re-directing resources to add new missions isn’t necessarily that convincing.

So. let me try to understand your logic:

  1. High Sec players are the largest group of players.
  2. A lot of people (high percentage based on the use of LOT) run missions.
  3. People have been doing them for years and years ( a long time!)
  4. People on THIS forum have complained for a long time about the lack of new content in HS, more so in the last few years. Missions being mentioned the most often in regards to HS.
  5. Resource Wars was a development intense attempt to encourage/force HS players to interact and form groups. It failed.
  6. FOBs were an attempt to have people (HS included) interact and form groups. It failed.
  7. Server population and individual subscription/accounts have started to decrease, most noticeably from people in HS.

So, CCP concludes that despite several development intense additions that the players did not ask for and that were panned by the players, the failure to hear the concerns and ideas to resolve the problems as POSTED ON THESE FORUMS, and the noticeable reduction in player population ( largest gross numbers from HS), then missions are fine the way they are currently and scarce development time should be used on tweaking mechanics/content in NS.

I’m beginning to think that CCP never had anyone play Clue…

3 Likes
170

Despite this being explained to them, time and time again, they refuse to listen.

Personally I think its that they don’t want to listen. Developing new AI / npc encounters looks good on your resume. Using someone else’s old tools to create content is not sexy development.

171

Oh yeah. Add 5 more missions like “Suicide Squad” and another 5 like “Gone Berserk” and the outrage will be so loud that PCU will plummet by 50% and people will mail dead animals to CCP HQ as a protest. CCP is very smart to never, ever, add new missions like the ones that exist, otherwise they could totally break the system. It is better to just let mission runners think that they don’t matter and are just a bunch of suckers paying to be ignored while their money is used to favor other players.

172

Well, first, if they made 5 more missions exactly like those, you’d complain that they were just re-skinning things they’d already had. But really, the issue’s pretty simple here:

When you’ve got a lot of parts of your game that everyone’s complaining about or not using, and you’ve got one section of your PvE content that people seem to be not thrilled with, but ‘it’s good enough’ that they’re using it… you really tend to get a little risk-averse and conservative about how much you’re willing to chance screwing it up before you have something else they like.

I’m sorry you don’t seem to understand that. If you don’t want them to be so afraid of messing up the one thing the highsec PvE crowd isn’t screaming already sucks and refuses to use… maybe don’t jump all over them with both feet for every little screw-up while they try to get you something else to do while they work on missions.

173

Well, maybe I get it wrong, but IRL I work designing a specialyzed product that’s successful enough to keep us afloat, and when we add a new implementation of it, we are not afraid to screw the older products by adding new one. Each product is unique so by adding new products we just expand our portfolio, the newer ones don’t harm the older ones.

Frankly, I don’t see how adding new missions like the old ones could spoil the thing. Specially compared to middle-fingering players with all the undemanded PvE crap they release instead of just adding a few new missisons.

Please, tell how adding new agent missions could possibly break the whole agent missions?

1 Like
174

Right. You’re designing a specialized product with a dedicated target audience. CCP’s PvE is not a specialized product. It is MMO PvE. It is competing with PvE in every other MMO, as well as PvE in every other spaceship game. So they can’t afford to screw it up.

The PvE they’re designing isn’t a middle finger to players. It’s them trying new things. Just because it doesn’t work doesn’t mean they’re doing it to be obnoxious. They really do want to bring you something new that you’ll like… but they can’t just keep slapping in new sequences built on 13-year-old PvE code with crappy scripting tools, and crappy AI that’ll be picked apart within 2 weeks and optimized for ‘I got this mission, let me fit these hardeners, and there, I can afk it’ like all the rest.

Do that, and yes, people will go ‘ooh, new missions’ for all of 12 hours. After that, they’ll stop caring, because the new missions will be just like the old missions, so they’ll just be more bland and uninteresting stuff. And that’s the best-case scenario. Because ultimately, all you can do is screw it up. You can’t really make it better. Whatever thing you add that some people think is better, other people will hate that specific thing.

When that’s your best-case scenario: that your customers will go ‘huh, neat, now I’ll ignore it’ and all the time and effort and money you sunk into it ends up basically ignored… you don’t waste the development hours on it. You don’t waste the payroll hours on it.

175

WI am coming to the conclusion that the best solution to Wardecs is not to fix them but to deal with the issue at source and completely remove them.

Now this will be wildly unpopular with those who spend their gametime looking for targets who pose absolutely no risk to them, and getting the satisfaction of driving a new player or even better, group of them out of the game.
Of course the RW failed, everyone has been trained NEVER to join up with others in a corp in HS, as that is simply suicide, and anything else is a cludgy and awful way to try to bond people with a shared interest together. Incursions only work because the rewards are worth putting up with the horrific comms etc. A good corp can whittle the idiots out. But Good HS corps? With Wardecs? It’s Not going to thrive and survive.

The benefits of cleaning up whole reams of code, simplifying crime watch, new player retention, and actually getting players to actually play together in HS would far outweigh their disappointment.

It’s not as if there is a limited space elsewhere for them to operate, and hunt out targets, just not one where they can operate in total immunity from risk.

Once removed, Then The specific issue of preventing citadel spam in HS can be dealt with as a limited action with clear design goals. The bounty system can go to as it is entirely without any redeeming features or merit.

CCP be brave and actually do something that is good for the game.

For those who will say it is a slippery slope, it isn’t, it’s a cliff, and some deserve to be thrown off it.

176

because blitzers reject a proportion of missions, which causes their standings to bounce about. if you add missions you can potentially increase their rejection pile or push missions back onto their do pile from their rejection pile which can then negatively influence their income, which will send them to the forums with pitchforks complaining about nerfing blitzing.

This would be followed by all the usual chorus evident in these threads who would then be blaming CCP for nerfing highsec.

177

One doesn’t have to go all in and add thousands, if they had added just one a month for the last ten years, we wouldn’t feel so disappointed with PVE.

1 Like
178

The comment about mastery ABSOLUTELY hits it on the mark regarding missions.

I would like to add to that though, Mastery does not mean that new challenges are not desired, they absolutely are, we want MORE opportunities to master things, to improve ourselves, to reach further. What Is NOT wanted however is to introduce PVP like uncertainty into the PVE system, that cannot be mastered one can only attempt to reduce the risk, and risk aversion is not where any of us want to go.

I remember feeling just how horrifically CCP was out of touch with the playerbase when they celebrated how many people died to the burner, when introduced, it was a deliberate trap, Each of those who were betrayed, hated it, and hated those who cheered in Iceland. That won’t be easily forgiven, trust is a rare commodity, CCP burned it and danced on the grave.

ANY new PVE is treated now with caution and distrust, no one jumps in to do it now until we see how many have been needlessly slaughtered for shits and giggles. So don’t be surprised when players are slow to take up new “opportunities” we have learned to our cost, that they are just as likely to be there to troll us.

Most new PVE has failed because it has been called for by PVP players, many of who find it funny to screw over PVE players or wish to simply maximise isk per hour. Ie burner blitzing. They cannot be mastered, only blitzed with specially fitted equipment, by the numbers, or in a group. Great for grinding ISK useless as fun.

For PVE players (who may also do PVP when time allows) it is NOT about isk per hour, although isk is a good measure of achievement, it is about facing a challenge and learning to deal with it in the most thoughtful and enjoyable manner, (and that can mean bringing in a totally unsuitable ship and discovering its strengths and weaknesses.)

Simply adding a mission a month, that has an interesting lore to it, and needing to be learned and run well, that doesn’t demand a single solution and only a single solution, would go a LONG way towards helping until you can achieve something better, but ignoring why people do them, and listening to the wrong people has led you to where you are now, take simple steps, easily achieved, and those steps lead to a long and fruitful journey.

4 Likes
179

This is really concerning.

If you only have thin gruel to eat, we may eat it, but the first restaurant that opens, will take ALL your customers.

Do NOT assume that we are satisfied, we are just waiting either for you to improve your menu, or that restaurant to open.

Your choice.

We keep hoping you will “get it” but our patience is almost all gone, and is already too late for many you have already lost.

I am becoming concerned that those who are designing your priorities have completed the process of becoming detached from your customers. If CCP are not engaged in the game, why should we be. Sad if it’s come to that.

2 Likes
180

Really interesting perspective on burner missions. I hadn’t made that connection at all, but it makes sense. At the time I did think it was odd that CCP had added new PVE content that was mock PVP. You’ve got people choosing PVE because they aren’t interested in PVP and the first new content in ages for them has no story and is the type of content they were possibly trying to avoid? It would be interesting to know what the current metrics are for burner missions.

1 Like
181

From looking at killmail around for example llangisi, optimised bling ships designed to blitz as many as possible, as fast as possible. Others paid the price for gaining that knowledge, so now they are run in a single manner, with no variation, purely to grind isk. Especially in null where the rewards are much higher, probably bottled to boot.

There is no fun to be had in them in any way.

2 Likes
182

Wait, does it mean that you don’t plan to update Career Agents or even turn them into something else, more suitable for 2018? CCP Ghost was talking about something like that maybe a year ago, is it scraped?

People DO NEED those Career agents (or similar), Inception itself is not enough. But Career Agents need to be updated, and you should not be waiting for Jesus feature that would replace it, instead you should be really doing at least one iteration over the text, update it where it’s too complicated or unclear for newbies (videotutorials for exploration PLEASE) and so on.