Alpha didn’t do anything to add to Alt Spam since you can’t log in with more than one alpha… those that are, are exploiting and breaking the rules…
2 Likes
Oh I tryed to fit gnosis with only cpu+ modules and hasnt any warnings, but had that lowsec warning and it was handy… And I was solo pve player so yes, it sucks at final count in game goodness. But maybe we can ask for two servers, 1-st for chickens and 2-nd for real EVE Capsuleers?
So you can learn important tips from this situation.
You need speed up your socializing. And go make your school homework already, COME, LEARN!
No, really, you have to.
i think everyone playing this game is some kind of a introverted nerd or at least the majority
Hey, I made billions only thankfully for exploiting game mechanics, its part of joyment.
It is misconception at all. You can study it’s wronginess even from news in outgame internet, so much social based fusions in all that stories worthy of sir Arthur Conan Doyle… You just jump in chat and get your big story start, with trading, corporating, ganking cooperating, mining coop exploiting, all other fun part of multy player online game. That how it may works.
I’m the counterpoint to that. CCP dumbed the game down and made it “more accessible” to the point where I’ve had enough. It’s been several years now since I’ve logged into the theme park and these days I don’t even frequent the forums anymore. It’s LAGL and Caturday every now and then, but hardly anything beyond that.
CCP effectively killed the game for me and I have no desire to ever come back. I can give you plenty names of other people who feel just like me and considering the ever dwindling active player numbers, I reckon people like me are the majority by a long shot.
2 Likes
Bannable too
Didnt brake the rules lol😋
Post Update: there was some exploit chances with many alphas without rulecrossing.
but still I didnt pay enough attention on your post first and did hastened answering, my mistake
[citation needed]
Do you have actual numbers on this, or is the entire thing a “these changes make me feel bad” thing? What even is the “core” playerbase?
I agree with this part, EVE has been made more and more casual friendly over the years, i don’t think F2P is to blame, not really bothered by injectors either, its just the constant hand holding and changes that make it so players don’t have to read, only reason i don’t fall for jita scams is because i was raised on the escrow system where you had to carefully read everything to avoid scams, now people just get to look for big green or red text
I do miss EVE 
1 Like
Here here!
I recently wrote about this on my blog:
The TL;DR of this is that the early days of EVE Online was an “Age of Heroes” or an “Age of Mythology”, an exciting time full of the “first this” and the “first that”, when very few people understand how the game even worked and we have legends from Ye Times of Olde. But EVE Online is currently in a dark age - not from an in-game activity and economic perspective, but from a meta perspective - from the perspective of what EVE Online is as a game.
The reason for this is three-fold: EVE’s playerbase is aging and moving on to other things. CCP is trying to appeal to new (read: younger) players, but a) the changes made are never enough to keep them in the game and, through Malcanis’ law, mostly benefit senior players and b) the changes made dilute the EVE Online experience and alienate the veterans who are already being lost to attrition.
Notable changes include making HiSec safer (via WarDec changes, “friendly fire” toggle, etc), changes to Rorquals, and skill injectors.
I would argue that the extended trial period - forever - is probably either a net positive or a net neutral. It’s not something that veterans (to my knowledge, at least) can easily exploit since it would require multiple computers/virtual machines to run concurrent Alphas, and still risk a banhammer.
Yes. The years between 2009-2015 were the ‘golden age’ of EVE Online. This was reflected, not just in my personal experience, but by the PCU numbers. 2009-2015 saw the highest population in the game. What changes were made during this time? The removal of learning skills, the removal of clone grades, a revamp to ship balance (starting with frigates, destroyers, and cruisers - the ships newbies would fly first), as well as the FW iteration that pulled thousands of new pilots into the game. Then CCP started making mistakes and trying to fix the mistakes with bandaids (which were further mistakes - what CCP should have done is roll back changes that were mistakes and then iterate from there).
I would argue that the extended trial has less of an effect than things like skill injectors and increasing monetization.
I’m not sure there’s a correlation between IQ and game choice. I’ve met plenty of dumb people on EVE and some extraordinarily smart people on FPS games and WoW.
Yes, but this depended on the availability of the type of pilot you were looking for and the complete inability to totally customize the training. With injectors, if you want a Rorqual pilot you can inject a Rorqual pilot. Also, until recently, SP farming was a scaleable way of generating massive amounts of income in EVE. Training and selling characters, historically, not so much.
You’re making the analogy that the changes made to EVE, because they’re meant to “improve quality of life”, are similar to vaccinations. This is a false analogy. Not all change is good and not all progress moves is in a positive direction. The thing that drew people to EVE is because they could die of Diphtheria.
EVE Online needs to return to it’s roots and go back to appealing to that niche gamer. Sure, it needs to do so in a modern way - but EVE needs to remain EVE.
2 Likes
Actually something like 75% of players only have 1 account. 85% have 1-2 accounts. The remaining 15% have more than two accounts, and the distribution asymptotes from there.
That doesn’t contradict the other statement. Even if the vast majority of players has no alts, if the people with alts have enough alts you could still have a situation where 50% of all characters online are alts.
1 Like
No.
If there’s 30,000 characters online, and 75% of players only have 1 account, then it means that on average, 22,500 of those 30,000 people are single accounts. That leaves the remaining 25% to consist of dual boxers or multiboxers. Also to consider is that not everyone who has multiple accounts plays them concurrently. We’re talking about characters online, not characters existing.
Now you’re making a mistake. Multiboxers can have multiple alts.
Let’s say we have 200 characters online, 99% of the players has a single account. How many players is that?
Let’s fill these 200 characters with 100 players. 99 players with a single account, 1 player with 101 accounts.
This results in a situation where 50% of characters online are alts, yet only 1% of the players has an alt. In this scenario, people with alts are very rare (1%), yet every other character in space is an alt!
While this is an extreme example (it’s unlikely that so many people have no alts and one guy has so many alts), I hope this example makes clear that you cannot say ‘75% of people have no alts, so 75% of characters online must be single accounts’.
Um, multiboxing necessitates alts. But I made the distinction between dual boxers (2 accounts) and multiboxers (2+ accounts).
And the probability of of your completely made up scenario is nearly 0.
Your argument is basically “it can happen in a completely made up scenario where I set the math up to prove myself right - therefore it’s happening”.
It was an example to point out your math was wrong.
That’s what I just said. It’s a made up scenario.
I’m talking about probabilities here. Do you know how probabilities work?
Maybe I phrased something wrong or explained it poorly.
If you have 30,000 characters online, and 75% of those belong to single account players, 10% belong to dual account players, and 15% belong to people with 3+ accounts, how does it work out 50% of those characters are alts when 75% are not? Gimme a break.
That would be 1,500 people with 2 accounts (3,000 characters), 22,500 people with 1 account (22,500 characters) the remaining (whatever number) down to 1 being a mix of people 3, 4, 5, etc. or a single person with 4,500 accounts.
Note that in your made up scenario the math is completely different and you set it up to work out a certain way. I’m talking about real numbers. In your hypothetical scenario you have 201 characters online. 100 of those characters belong to a players with 1 accounts, and 101 belong to a player with 101 accounts.
It was just an example to show how your math is off.
The statement
A. 75% of players have one account
is simply not the same as the statement
B. 75% of all online characters belong to a player with one account.
That’s what I’m trying to point out with that example. It’s a hypothetical example, not meant to be an accurate representation, just an example scenario where the numbers for A and B are completely different.