Their pronouncements require a special ingredient…that stuff that comes out of a horse’s backside.
1 Like
I’ll ask him again, @Zaera_Keena.
And you know this how?
1 Like
I think EvE’s toxic gameplay attracts toxic players.
So we will lose players if we change anything.
4 Likes
Who would want to play a game where there is no risk? No chance of being wiped out by an opposing alliance, or shanked by another player? At that point you might as well play a single-player game.
Can you read, or do you just look at the letters?
Texts from your sandbox, honey?
How old are you, kid? Are you still in diapers?
And that’s why you’re talking nonsense?
1 Like
The less you drink, the more you will understand.
The Force whispered it to him.
I heard the Force once… It’s definitely female 
2 Likes
Sacred words, although yours…
Except that the Gaussian curve shows that there are fewer toxic people, and this limits the scope for development.
It’s true, there are less toxic consumers, but a full cost benefit alliance applied by CCP’s marketing team will demonstrate the irrefutable truth that toxic consumers generally spend more, especially when playing a toxic pay to win game like EvE Online. Meanwhile, although carebears threaten to quit, in reality they are addicted and continue to swipe their credit card whilst crying. Consequently, although CCP could have more customers if they reduced the toxcitiy, they would also have less superior customers. Choosing quality over quantity, CCP has maximized their profit by catering to the toxic customer base.
1 Like
Your points would be better if they had any sort of basis in fact. Why would new players see more toxicity as Omega than Alpha? Where are they seeing this toxicity? In what numbers?
Certainly EVE Online has a little more than it’s share of ‘toxic’ players (ie., players who receive an unusual amount of satisfaction from harming others). Having played for almost two decades I can quite confidently state that new players will in general see more helpful and positive feedback from other players than anything ‘toxic’.
EVE has bigger problems than the small percentage of the community that revels in griefing or other toxic behavior. A few percent of the player base isn’t “the community”.
1 Like
1 Like
A lot of what people call ‘toxic’ is simply playing the game as it is supposed to be played. It is supposed to be a dark, dystopian, somewhat sardonic, world full of lying, scamming, extortion, destruction, and general mayhem.
People need reminding of the original trailer for Eve…
5 Likes
Well that’s not true. In 3 years I’ve gone from being a timid ganked carebear who rarely ventured more than 5 systems from Vittenyn…to having a collective 1300 kills ( 2.8 Trillion worth ) and increasingly getting solo kills in my own little corp, as well as fighting for Absolute Order. I’m no different, temperamentally, to anyone else…in fact probably still a little risk averse…and if I can thrive in the game, anyone can. CCP retained me with no difficulty at all…I even signed up for extra Omegas. Who are all these people who can’t handle it ?
1 Like
1 Like
Agreed.
But the griefers stand out more than the ones willing or wanting to help.
They do in all games because when you join a new game most of the warnings are about who to avoid, not who to approach for help.
I did a power point presentation many years ago concerning the large turnover of drivers in the company.
In part of that presentation I pointed out that when new drivers joined and were out route learning they went with whoever happened to be going on the route they were learning.
This included those current drivers who had a very negative view of the company and obviously this got passed to the new drivers who never really had a chance to make up their own minds.
Nothing positive got passed or was discussed by these drivers.
Because of that presentation we implemented minder drivers, drivers who were more willing to give a balanced view of the company and benefits, not just the negatives and so new drivers got off to a more positive start.
As a result the turnover of staff decreased from 23% to less than 10%, they still use this system.
1 Like
True enough. Players generally take a certain amount of welcome and help for granted, so “positive” help has to be pretty exceptional to really stand out. Whereas I’ve seen just one chat troll drive multiple people to the point of saying they’ll quit in under an hour.
So absolutely, negative experiences have an outsized impact. That’s one reason why we see regular long discussions of ganking. And even a few percent of toxics means you’ll likely run into one sooner rather than later.
I’m not implying people should accept toxicity as “just part of the game”, just pointing out that first, “the community” isn’t toxic - a small percent of players are. And second, while toxics are visible and annoying, EVE has other issues that by CCP’s own stats lose them roughly 3/4 of their new players within the first few hours of play. I doubt those are being driven away by toxics and griefers.
I don’t think CCP could get similar results from any simple changes, but with 10,000 new players trying it out every week, even a few percent would make a difference.
1 Like
Nah…what we really have is a situation where simply playing the game as it was intended to be played is called ‘toxic’ by a significant portion. We have people who describe any PvP encounter as ‘griefing’. It is important to recognise that, because when those words are used, people’s visualisation of who is depicted varies widely…and thus one can end up having a completely different argument depending on that very perception.
2 Likes
You’ll have a hard time convincing people you know how EVE is “intended” to be played. Devs have come and gone that supported PvE, or PvP, or null sov this way then null sov that way. The only consistent approach I’ve seen CCP take over the years is that EVE is “intended” to encourage subs and make money.
However it’s pretty clear that mining, industry, and PvE are all primary “intended” playstyles - since the NPE and most EVE advertising covers these. Not a lot of CCP focus on telling newer players about PvP though.
It’s also pretty a bit fuzzy on what the “significant portion” who call “intended gameplay toxic” is. Is it 2%? Is 2% significant? Is it 5%? Have you regularly seen five-to-ten thousand players calling whatever you think “intended” gameplay is, “toxic”? Because the handful of players we see on forums or Reddit claiming that make up less than 1% of the player base.
Don’t fall into the trap of presuming that the couple dozen people you disagree with represent a sizeable portion of the community. A hundred thousand or so players log in every day, only a small percentage of those ever express a public opinion about EVE.
2 Likes
Not at all. I’ve linked to the original Eve trailer numerous times. Nothing I’ve seen produced in the years since gives any indication that anything has changed. In fact one could find plenty of supporting evidence even in Eve fanfests from a few years ago that nothing has changed…
I regularly see loads of Eve adverts that highlight PvP in the game. In fact most of them do.
That was precisely my point. By ‘significant portion’ I meant not so much numerical size but how vocal they are. The line I generally take is that a handful of malcontents are effectively ‘poisoning the well’. Their actual numbers are almost certainly less than their apparent numbers.