1 bil an hour tag teaming L4’s??? Lol ok you are out to lunch. My point with dread scarlet is that you can’t pull that mission consecutively. To get the lucrative missions you have to turn miisions down like crazy. So yeah if you want to go ahead and destroy your standings doing that, fine. But you are in for a hell of a lot of grinding to farm your standings back up to where you can do your big runs.
And I will iterate this once again. For a newbie having 2 max fit toons with bling battleships is asking a lot. The mission system needs refinement and that’s plain and simple.
I got your point with scarlet and I tell you you are wrong. It costs nothing to get a good enough standing. Also you are wrong because that is just an example, I never said I 'd do only scarlet.
You’re right, newbies can’t do a huge income in HS. They can’t in NS either, because … well they are newbs. guess what ? that’s how it is supposed to be.
Nope, what it is like is when they have an expansion and everything you have ever worked for is obsolete.
In other MMOs you work for weeks or months for gear, in EVE your ship can be replaced in hours. If not then you broke the cardinal rule: Don’t fly what you can’t afford to lose.
You say that the amount of time lost when you lose a ship is the true cost…and that is reflected how? By the ISK price and how much ISK you tend to earn per hour. The latter is dependent on what you chose to do to make your ISK.
Second, why would we want to nerf incomes? Generally speaking welfare is positively related to incomes. Why would we want to do this? What is the point?
How does this do that? You nerf their incomes and it becomes more accessible how?
And as was pointed out those players with 10s of billions or more in their wallets and even more in assets? This helps them how?
How? Most alliances in NS offer some form of SRP so losses are much more easily borne. Insurance also helps with this. And nerfing incomes is going help…by making it harder to buy a new ship…how?
Income and ISK faucets are not the same thing. For example, ISK income from mining is not an ISK faucet. ISK income from say invention or building stuff is not an ISK faucet. ISK income from ganking overloaded freighters is not an ISK faucet.
Maybe you need to sit down and think some more about this, you seem awfully confused.
There’s the “just go to null” argument again. And I will say it again to counter that argument, if you force people into PVP land you are excluding your main market for people who want a standard MMO experience. Which in my opinion, are most of the people with money. You Null/PVP guys have had your run of this game for 16 years since it’s official release. And the clientelle base has gotten smaller and smaller until the point it’s at now. Which is horribly miniscule. CCP cannot continue to run the game like this any longer. It is going to suffer. And it has. Why do you think CCP was sold to an investment group? Because it’s not making money. Wonder why? Because EVE doesn’t appeal to the general market. It appeals to a niche market. And that niche market is too small to sustain the game.
This is why I’m calling for changes to the system. I don’t give a rat f**k about the fluctuations in market. What good will it do if CCP has to close the doors in the next year or 2. All I see are old time vets leaving the game because they’ve had enough. STOP FORCING newbies into PVP land where “you can experience it all”.
And the solution of “most PVP corps offer SRP”. What you are forgetting, is that most PVP corps require their users to be fairly skilled to use their SRP ships. And also you already need the ship in order to be SRP. No null corp in their right damn mind is going to set up a large gang fleet with SRP using T1 hulls and sub-meta 4 modules. Give your head a shake.
A) You need to already be flying the ship under SRP
B) You need the skillset to fit the SRP ships to begin with
C) You are forcing newbies into the PVP zones or the high risk zones (read: abyssals), eliminating the vast majority of the gaming market from ever wanting to play EVE to begin with
D) The game is loosing players like crazy, plex has just taken a massive 25% jump. It is now 2 billion to plex your account. People aren’t buying as much plex anymore. The whole alpha/plex thing has become a massive joke. This will not sustain the game
E) “If the game dies, let it die being a PVP exclusive game” I’ve heard this argument too many times
F) All you need to do is fix the damn mission system, allow high sec runners to make proper money WHILE SOLO, and give PVE corps a chance to build up their base of core players, allow corps who fleet with their new members a chance to spread money across members
G) Don’t even go there with “how will people ever learn to PVP with a PVE corp”. EVERY corp has it’s guys that like PVP and for the first time in EVE history the changes to wardecs have allowed high sec corps to avoid PVP they don’t want to be engaged in. Now is the perfect time to revamp the mission system and make EVE appeal to the general gaming market a little more.
I cannot state my arguments enough times. You people just don’t get it. Your lies of earning 1 bil isk per hour while tag teaming toons is a lie. “Just run abyssals”. It’s a joke. “Just go to Null”. It’s a joke. Every statement made on this forum has been a joke, except by the people who think I"m in the right to say all this here. CCP I would like to see your response on this matter. Do you think it’s time to appeal to a broader market? Or are you going to be too proud and too stupid to change EVE for the better. That was a statement, not a question.
First off nobody is being forced into anything in game. However, EVE is a sandbox game so there are certain things that you may not be able to avoid. For example, if you undock with 12 billion in your charon’s hold you are taking on a considerable amount of risk and yeah you might be ganked. Then again you chose to put 12 billion ISK Into your cargo hold…
Second, EVE is not like most MMOs. It is a single shard, PvP-centric game that is also a sandbox. In other words, if someone really wants to shoot you they can. So your entire premise is flawed.
Maybe, but this is also EVE Online where that has a reputation for not being quite the normal MMO.
Which is fairly stable. Also you need to factor in various changes such as the elimination of broadcasting for ISBoxer which would likely reduce the PCU even if the number of players did not decline. Still, I know from personal experience that declining sales does not have to be the end…I know the industry I work is showing such a trend. In 2008 our projected sales for this year was over 100,000 now it is down to just over 80,000 for this year yet profits are up and things are looking pretty good.
CCP has always been owned by an investment group.
EVE has never appealed to the general market and if you try and change EVE to appeal to that market the current players will almost surely leave to a large extent on the gamble that the average more than one average MMO player will take the place of each player who leaves. That is a huge gamble.
The market is part of the game and draws in a number of players. Already you are going off the rails.
Are you certain your strategy won’t result in the same outcome? If not, then maybe STFD and STFU.
Nobody is being forced anywhere in the game. And ironically, the one bit of data we do have on this is that players who are surprised with PvP tend to have better retention numbers than those who aren’t.
Karmafleet, Brave, TEST, EVE Uni…these all take fairly unskilled pilots and SRP in Goons is linked to SP, but then again if you are low SP you shouldn’t be trying to get into a high SP ship anyways.
You clearly are not familiar with the fleet doctrines of Goons. Yes, there are T1 hulls with name modules for players who are low SP.
I’ll simply say that D is not true. And we’ll see what happens with changes to war decs.
Yes, yes you can.
I totally grasp your point, I just don’t agree with it. I don’t think risking the players that CCP does have right now vs. potential players is a worthwhile risk.
I’d love to see a quote on this…to be quite honest this you simply lying.
In GSF if you prefer to “bear it up” you can so long as you do enough fleets…which is not really that many.
Sure, it isn’t for everyone.
Right. The problem is ISK creation. If you can make a ton of ISK in HS without creating de novo ISK, not a problem. In fact, places like Jita and Amarr are monuments to this. The problem is de novo ISK creation which can lead to the ISK supply growing faster than the real economy which leads to inflation.
I agree but I have been countering this very argument the whole time. This is the main argument. That high sec carebears earning more money via the missioning system will cause market inflation.
Well guess what?
When the mission system was put in place 14 years ago, you could buy a T1 battleship for 50 mil. Faction battleships were 150 mil. And now? Triple to quadrouple that price. You see? The mission system had nothing to do with the market inflating to quadrouple the prices. The income you see in null sec however, with the introduction of anomaly ratting, has been netting a solo carrier pilot 200 mil per hour just doing their own thing. And it’s not like carriers are even expensive. In Delve you can purchase them for 500 mil.
What I’ve been trying to say is, do you think maybe that the market is being inflated by people who carrier rat? And isn’t that a null sec thing anyway? You could say incursions, and yes incursions are great, but people from both null and high sec run those in high sec I might add. The nullsec players take their wallets back down to wherever it is and they buy their cheap market items. As an experienced player yes I could do this myself. But for a newb? Good luck on that. The missions are a good way of introducing players to combat but they need to be more. If I run the most lucrative missions one after another I net about 65 mil an hour, and that includes salvaging, and that’s solo. But that only happens about 5% of my time missioning. The other 95% of the time I’m getting screwed with garbage missions that I can only turn down so often, so I only really AVERAGE over time, about 20 mil an hour.
And there’s no arguing this. Yes, you can multibox your own fleet of toons that can all pull and turn down missions till they get a couple of lucrative ones. But I"m talking about the new player experience here, and the ability to get PVE corps fleeting up with their new guys and showing them how fleets and combat work, and make some decent isk while doing it.
The 20 mil an hour you average over the long run of running missions is what I"m talking about. Organizing the mission UI so I can take the most lucrative of missions one after another as a vet, will still only net me about 65 mil an hour. Compared to the other ways people earn money, it’s actually not that much. Not even close to incursions. Or carrier ratting in null. It’s just a moderate boost to income. And it promotes an atmosphere for newbs that PVE corps are willing to provide. It’s catering to a certain but very large market and not pushing people either into PVP or away from the game completely. And in my experience seeing dozens upon dozens of people leave this game, EVE really turns its back to the vast majority of MMO gamers. It’s time to change that and see people coming back to this game. Eve could grow again but instead it’s shrinking.
Yeah CCP keep listening to these guys who want to strangle high sec mission runners. I dare you to try my suggestions even just on the test server. I dare you. Let’s get the newbies coming to the game into these corps that actually want to live in high sec and PVE. Why is there so much damn hatred towards that.
I’ve seen a guy in my corp skill inject 35 million SP because we got him mission running and he fell in love with eve. Now he’s dropped IRL money buying skill injectors with plex and has supported CCP. And it’s because he’s a standard MMO player WITH MONEY and that’s what EVE needs right now. I’m not asking to turn this into WOW because honestly, nothing can even come close to what EVE is. Just a tweak to the mission running UI that allows us better consistency. Ships are so F* expensive now and mission runners are horribly screwed in ever hoping to buy just a battleship
That is not inflation that is a change in the mineral requirements to those ships.
Not 200 million ISK/hour, IIRC more like 100 million ISK/hour. And no not 500 million for a carrier in Delve. Looking at the price of a thanatos right now, 839 million is more like it.
Currently there is little to no inflation.
Are you not blitzing these missions? Just get them done, take the rewards and LP, and hand it in to try and get one of the better ones?
New players aren’t running level 4 missions.
And even when they do get to that point…so what? They run missions for what? 30-40 hours a month that is 600-800 million ISK. That’s pretty good for a relatively new player.
Yes, but it won’t just be noobs running those enhanced payout missions now will it. I can earn a crappy amount of ISK running anomalies in a VNI or I can run much more lucrative missions in HS. So now I keep a HS mission running alt vs. ratting down in Delve. And I wouldn’t be the only one. You cannot create things “just for new players” that cannot be exploited by the more experienced players.
Who says there aren’t new players in NS doing that right now too?
You want new players to stay, improve the social aspects of the game. Isolating players is a great way to get them to quit. So increasing mission payouts is a dead letter, IMO. Now, if missions were changed to increase social interaction that might work.
And this is also a lie. “Player who enjoy the game tend to get more pvped than player who quit the game before their 15th day.” is as much a plausible explanation as your “players who were ganked stick more to the game”. yet you CHOSE to interpret it into one specific way, which tells about your FANTASM not about the reality.
Also note I did not say my explanation is correct. I said a lot of other explanations are plausible, and your INTERPRETATION of the data is not validated by those data, as much as the other one I gave is not.
It is wrong because you removed it from the context of the study. You take one study that explicitly searches for correlation, and you quote a result without the context : it becomes wrong.
That was not what they looked at. They looked at 80,000 accounts. They then grouped them as follows:
Killed illegally in their first 15 days (this was about 800 accounts or ~1%).
Killed legally in their first 15 days (this was about 11,200 accounts or ~14%).
Not killed at all in their first 15 days (this was about (this was about 68,000 accounts or ~85%).
Some of these players might have quit within their first 15 days, but that was not what they looked at. Also, they were not looking at players who were 15 days old or younger. They just grabbed 80,000 players and put them in one of the three “buckets” above then looked at how long the played.
Group 1 had the best retention. Group 2 slightly reduced retention. Group 3 the worst retention.
I am giving you CCP Rise’s interpretation…you know the guy with the data.
“And then, even beyond just being surprised we looked at what happened to the accounts and its opposite of what you’d expect. People who die, so people in the ganked group are the most likely to stay subscribed afterwards. People in the legally killed group were slightly less likely to stay subscribed and the people who didn’t die at all [in their first 15 days] were most likely to leave the game.”–CCP Rise