The popular saying is: EVE has always been dying. Truth is: this game still has to launch. Those 50K pcu numbers from the hey-day? Rookie numbers by industry standards!
Tricky to draw causation from correlation under these conditions.
1 Like
Rookie standards, but its all they will ever have I am afraid.
The show is running but we already jumped the shark. What now?
I think itās indicative of opposing forces within the company: the remainder of the original game design mindset vs. an up-to-date marketing/business strategy. This clash between opposite views is, I think, quite dangerous for the existence of the game.
While EvE was, originally, a true sandbox, the current marketing effort is flirting with fast consumption by more players (and lower retention rates. In order to do the latter they (ccp) also try to accommodate the fast consumers via game design elements - with all the negatives and the tensions that come with it.
That the game was designed as anything but āfastā consumption seems to have slipped from the current insights. I would cheer any decision to reduce alpha clone status back to a ārealā demo. Of course that would also mean opposing the current marketing strategy, which is very unlikely to be successful (the promise of a fast buck etc).
Turning this old, on dedication relying game - hence a title that will always be a small game compared to other MMOās - into a fast consumption one is an impossibility. Theyāre twenty years too late and should stick to the original path chosen - itās unique and they thrived !!
I have yet to see or read an analysis about the gameās growth in 2011-2013. Someone did something right back then, unless one believes in dumb luckā¦
so asmogold is talking a lot of ā ā ā ā about world pvp
he claims that carebears are the player that like world pvp 
im not proposing bad behavior or dog pile plz
but i think some eve players should politely give him a piece of our minds
thats uber unimportant but i was kinda pissed
again be polite plz
1 Like
Quite interestingā¦
The way it showed me the difference between hardcore and hardcorian.
I guess there are two, too many willing to discuss the cherrypickable myriad of whatifs and whydidtheys, which I findā¦ amusing.
Because thatās what I call hardcorian, btw. A true to the bone hardcore player doesnāt take this BS and for those who speculate that they just āmoveā to another gameā¦ I have news: He doesnāt. He just does not playā¦ anything.
I guess some business models cannot spend whatās needed to sustain a hardcore player baseā¦ there would be too many discussions and endless arguments regarding what should be done.
In the end, what I understood is that no game business is willingly retaining anyone. It might ā¦ eventually, (maybe) as a last resource, but that kind of player doesnāt belong here and to add reason for not seeking any other passtime in the same allyā¦ nor he belongs anywhere else.
the only thing more pathetic than a streamer is the moron who watches them.
yeah man , i agree
O_o, I mean if the streamer is an absolute legend and you are learning from them, then why not?
Watching 20 hours on stream of a pro might save you 50-300 hours in-game of trying to figure ā ā ā ā out yourself.
Obviously thatās different for asmo as he is mostly a talker xD
More mean people like Hera, Swifty, Ibeast, Deadraah and Bjorn
Tell me people should not be watching ā ā ā ā like this:
If people watched streams more often they would be like 20%-50% better pilots in a few days.
Go to null sec and 85% of tackle pilots are still using orbit and approach and then they die in 20 seconds of the fight and say yea its because I need more bling and implants obviouslyā¦
The āproblem of adversityā overlooks the fact that adversity is itself subjective. Few things in games are intrinsically hard in and of themselvesā¦they seem hard at the time. So a case of 'I overcame all those difficulties ā could equally be retrospectively looked back upon as ā It really wasnāt so hard after all 'ā¦or both, as people are quite capable of holding mutually contradictory views.
Oh, I got a question for the thread.
Do you think that the ability to fast travel via clone jumping was good, bad, or a mixed bag for Eve, and why?
i think is good
because is once per day and you lose your implants and you cant take your ships with you
there is no space without time
this is a space game
wen we jump from one system to another its only a trick , a loading , if coded that way we could undock in amarr station and apear in jita
all our prices and strategies and emergent gameplay depend on space AND time
EVE is vast because of TIME
but some IQ 400 genius come with the fantastic generalization that is just disrespecting the player time
one IRL friend of mine quit EVE on the first day because āyou have to warp to muchā
he obviously didnāt took time to think that this is integral to EVE gameplay , and i realy wont muster the will to explain this basic concept to such imbecile
2 Likes
Itās good because you can only do it once per day to one of at most 10 locations, you needed to install it beforehand and it is at risk of getting lost if services where reinforced or structures destroyed. Moreover, you could and cannot get out of unpleasant situations with JCs or Death Cloning. They have consequences while Filaments do not.
1 Like
I think as it is now is fine. Personally I would only apply the timer for jump to another station and not to switching clones in an NPC stations.
I would point out to you that people will death clone blank clones for instant return in any case.
1 Like
Okay, hereās my take. I think that there are advantages and disadvantages to the system, and there are limitations in place that help to limit the drawbacks. On one hand, it reduces time spent traveling, which players donāt particularly care for, and it makes it easier for people to participate in different content in different areas of space. However, it also means that there is less need for travel, which results in lower risk and effort to get to where you want to go, less opportunity to attack your enemiesā movement, and fewer targets of opportunity for other PvPāers.
So, isnāt that exactly the kind of thing the video author was discussing? We like the QoL of it, but doesnāt it limit challenge, effort, depth, and emergent game play opportunities?
Obviously, there are tradeoffs to most game design decisions, and I wonāt say that there are no benefits to being able to jump across space (in fact, I certainly use the feature). But, I canāt help but wonder if Eve is less off for it.
I donāt think that jump clones remove or drastically reduce challenge, effort, depth and emergent gameplay because they are so limited. You cannot use dozens of jumpclones every day to go to all the places all over the map. You have a very limited number of possible destinations that you had to setup beforehand (effort) and you are required to make a tactical choice when you use the jumpclone because you are stuck in that location (depth and challenge) for at least 19 hours or you have to DC back to your original location or travel by gates or wormholes (emergent gameplay and player cooperation) to another place where things happened unexpectedly.
Filaments have none of these aspects and just want to provide easy, fast travel free of consequences and meaningful choices.
2 Likes
All insta travel is bad, its circumvents content and it makes the game world more empty. Just because itās convenient doesnāt mean it should exist.
4 Likes
I think filaments have more impact than the current clone setup which is time limited for moves unless you death clone and can be compared to people using shuttles to get around which is poor content. So if anyone hangs up as clones being a loss of content it is a bit, you know, smallā¦
In terms of filaments they do make more people want to PvP or chance their arm in roaming, and giving them a get out of jail or easy escape if they can get away from the tackle which is sort of fine. But as I said it reduced content for entry point campers and of course reduces the chance of a kill for defenders who often hunted people down in revenge rather than beiong able to stop them getting a kill, but I can live with that.
A while back when I tried to explain that over doing it with ganking was dangerous to the ability to hisec gank I suggested that the extra effort people had to go to, to move stuff around was actually too much adversity as it was a painful waste of time for many people who had to nurse maid a freighter when they could just AP in their off times and do their PvP instead of doing that. I of course appreciate this gameplay, but I wanted to say that there was a cost. I hope you do not take that as me calling for the end of ganking in hisec, it is not, but everything is a sort of balance.
One can equally argue that the existence of jump clones shifts a few challenges. The straightforward āI canāt attack the other person if he doesnāt fly a ship to his destinationā is replaced with āI can attack that target on the other side of the map because I got my intel right and I planned aheadā. Not to mention the fact that it keeps NPSI fleets alive. In terms of emergent game play, jump clones deliver more than they appear to take away.
There is of course more to challenges than mere pvp. Keeping valuables (like bpoās) in hisec stations, especially with ccpās faux pas with respect to asset safety and abandoned structures, is more of a necessity. And it does require planning to do it time efficiently. Often I find myself mapping wh chains to be able to get to a certain location because Iām on a jump clone timer.
The presence of jump clones may look like a QoL. Iād argue that their existence is a necessity in a game with +7000 systems. And, if you are lucky, jump clones can bring you nearer to the action, making EvE better for it.
Note added: the same give-and-take is true for filaments. They add more (the noise versions) if you are looking for content. They also take away content, if your target simply filaments away to avoid a confrontation. Itās a quick fix for an old problem with people doing roams, it created a new problem for people wanting to keep a fight alive.
One thing is certain: take away jump clones (or filaments) and everyone loses something. That fact alone is enough to call jump clones good for EvE.
1 Like
I agree. I very rarely use jump clones. They are totally un-necessary if you already have suitable ships in or near the area to be jumped to and can just shuttle there instead. I mean, thereās no reason to clone jump if you donāt have anything there to jump to.
The only time I have clone jumped at all recently was collecting stuff from asset safety at Podion. I deliberately placed a clone in a system nearby, so that I would not have to travel in my pod through 70 systems if my ship was destroyed. A wise moveā¦as my ship was indeed destroyed. I still had the cost of destroying that clone laterā¦but at least I avoided a āpoddedā record on killboard.
How do you guys think they could change filamentās to make them less destructive? Instead of just removing them.
My thoughts would be a duplicate eve universe map but with all the systems and gates shuffled around so like the mirror universe that can actually be mapped. (pochven is in a way similiar) Then when you use a filament on a gate it reroutes that gate through the mirror universe for 3 minutes and jumping through that gate will put you into a a system far away. If you use the filament on the same gate a week or month or day after it will put you in the same system, this way people can learn these new routes and eve keeps its geographical and strategic importance but navagating through the universe will become quicker if you are skilled and know good routes mixing known routes + fila routes.
But to keep it interesting all high secs can only mirror to other high secs all low to low all null to null so people still have to cross those boundries naturally without bypassing them.
Imagine the skill ceiling for fleet scoutās it would be an incredibly challenging roll.
Maybe a module for intiās that when active they donāt need to use a filament on the gate so they can scout those routes and come back.