FIFY. Merry Christmas.
Wtf… am I developing schizophrenia? I do not remember posting this, and it’s a non-troll expression of my view of the state of Eve.
We do, actually. New code made the individual nodes faster, thus supporting more people on grid.
Look at fleet battle sizes since Brain In A Box. Sizes went up massively.
Maybe some day they’ll finally manage to remove POS from the game …
… and we get to see yet another performance uplift for whatever silly reason.
I’m sooo looking forward to that devblog!
… *does some googling* …
I’ve found this informative tidbit:
They’ve covered these two by now.
Makes me wonder what keeps them from removing POS entirely …
… though I’d really rather have them not, because they’re cool as ■■■■.
Also this.
Sorry, stopping now! 
Correct me if I’m wrong. : Eve (reddit.com)
2 Likes
CCP have said a lot of things. They’ve also said that about 25% of the player base engages in PvP, but a simple KB analysis shows that that number is actually in the single digits for players who fight other players in any capacity that doesn’t entail being an occasional victim.
I don’t think many people are saying that carebears et cetera are a problem; only that the changes they’re proposing for the game (e.g. PvP flag) are a problem. Pirates, gankers, wardeccers, et cetera want carebears to exist in the game, because they’re a source of content.
Reducing the number of miners is a practical consideration. It would indeed be bad if there were 50,000 players mining in high-sec all day long, without an appropriate number of non-miner players to balance them out, because the glut of minerals isn’t a good thing for the economy. It certainly wouldn’t be good for those miners, too, as their incomes would keep dropping to the point of nullification, and that would lead to a lot of public discontent with the game.
Actually the same stats from CCP said the percent of players who engage in any form of PvP during a login (at that time), was just under 14%. That includes all the people who are simply victims.
Nobody cares what carebears propose, least of all CCP. CCP has their own ideas how to run the game (whatever they may be), and the best you can get out of them with widespread player revolt is a fairy-tale apology written by the fiction department, just before they laid everyone in said fiction department off.
The practical consideration is, this would be great for the game. A glut of minerals would lead to tons of cheap production, which would make ships and modules cheap. Gankers and hunters would have tons of targets. Miners would get frustrated at the low returns and crowded belts and move out into low sec and WH space or Null. People would look for other sources of income.
These sorts of issues are self-correcting and self-adjusting. It’s the crazy things that CCP does that drives players away permanently. EVE could be significantly more than a niche game for sado-masochists if CCP would just stop shooting players in the head and themselves in the foot.
5 Likes
I don’t think this can be said enough.
2 Likes
Ok, so for you none miners or the uninformed. All of High Sec Regions/ Systems have a daily respawn formula. I can only talk to how high sec works. Once you mine over X amount it is counted off of the next days respawn and anything mined within 1-2 hours before server reset are counted directly agains the next day.
There has not been an infinite amount of ore since I started playing. Yes you could mine daily for longer periods of time but it was counted against the daily respawn once you hit X amount.
Although CCP removed the reward of mining in high sec and removed the reward of operating a moon but they did not once remove any of the risk. I thought this game was supposed to Risk vs Reward but it is looking like all Risk for little to no Reward.
4 Likes
As a hunter/ganker/other unsavory activity practitioner, I can tell you with full certainty that we would not prefer this scenario. And while I don’t presume to speak for every such player, I can guarantee that most will corroborate this viewpoint.
This also will not happen, and not only is there a proven history of this not happening, but in fact the exact opposite of this happening.
2 Likes
You seem to be struggling with the notion of fact vs your opinion/beliefs/preferences.
First you say 50-60% of the player base mines as their sole activity. Not even in the ballpark.
Then you say CCP says 25% of the player base engages in PvP, although their published figures say 13.8%
Then when I point out that gankers and hunters would have lots of targets (a simple numerical observation given the hypothetical proposition of 50,000 miners in High sec), you respond with the unrelated “me and most of the other hunters would not like that”. Heaven knows why you wouldn’t, or how you are in touch with the majority of hunters/gankers in high sec to guarantee their response to a hypothetical situation.
Then you say the exact opposite result of a hypothetical proposal (50,000 miners in high sec would make them start branching out), would happen, and in fact is happening. Since the hypothetical situation does not and will never exist, it’s somewhat hard to say the exact opposite of it is happening right now.
That said however, and please understand I’m not attacking you but simply seeking actual information, do you have even a shred of an actual fact to back this up? Or is it simply more wildly random number-tossing on your part?
3 Likes
Mentally, I was lumping the mission-runners into that figure. My bad.
It’s a figure I remember from an old poll, something along these lines. My point above was that the amount of players actually willingly engaging in PvP is in the (possibly lower) single digits.
You’re getting primary source statements here. Are you a hunter/ganker? Do you socialize with them often? I am, and I do, and we talk about this a lot. Most of us do not prefer a scenario in which everything is cheap, because we don’t enjoy quantity over quality. I brought this up because when you said that hunters and gankers would have tons of targets, I interpreted that as you listing a perceived positive aspect of this hypothetical situation; you can’t fault me for interpreting your words in this manner (unless your intent is to leave everything vague and open to interpretation, so that you can then steer your argument into a direction that’s convenient for you, and I don’t think you’re that kind of person).
We like meaningful kills, we like meaningful hunts, and we like meaningful engagements. It’s not fun for us if whoever we’re fighting keeps bringing out ships because they’re trivial to replace, because then conflicts don’t have winners. And we don’t want to hunt for large numbers of cheap prey, because it’s not exciting. You’d have to be one of us in order to understand this, so if you’re not, you’ll have to take my word for it. However, I welcome any other players like myself to post here and chime in with their viewpoints.
Throughout EVE’s history, as high-sec became safer and its economic opportunities dwindled (e.g. removal of static complexes, ore nerfs and reductions, mission nerfs via agent quality, etc.), its share of the game’s total population grew in proportion. It’s very counterintuitive, but it keeps happening. I don’t know why it happens. It might not be related to game reasons at all, and is simply the effect of the changing mentality of the average gamer over the years. But it is happening. Many years ago, when high-sec was more lucrative, it had a much smaller ratio of players. I remember those days. We aspired to ditch it for low/null-sec as soon as we could.
This is what most forum arguments come down to (“give me a peer-reviewed study to support your claims or STFU”), but there’s a limit to what I can quantify for you. For a very baseline perspective, look at zKill, and note some of the general statistics. There’s activity from about 46,000 players in the past 7 days, out of an estimate of somewhere between 200,000-300,000 active players playing during that time frame. So we’re looking at 15-25% of players with any sort of PvP activity. It’s safe to say that most of those players aren’t actively seeking out PvP, and fall into the “victim” category. That leaves just a few percent of the total population we can claim to be active PvPers.
Are we talking about the same thing here? I was talking about more farmers/carebears in high sec. You’re now talking about “meaningful” fights. Or are you calling the kind of one-sided ganks that happen in high-sec to be meaningful hunts/kills?
I seriously have no idea where you get these notions from? Is it just because they support the scenario you prefer to believe in? CCPs own data shows a slow but steady decline in the relative population of high sec since like 2012, and a corresponding slow but steady increase in all other sectors.
If this is your notion of “Hey I’m a primary source, you’ll just have to take my word that I’m right”, I think I’ll keep my eyes on actual primary sources, thanks!
4 Likes
But the Hypernet bets are on.
2 Likes
Its like those hunters who sit fat bellied in some vantage point drinking beer, chatting and firing their scoped guns at wildboars when they spot one. Of course that is meaningfull activity, they will always tell you that.
1 Like
They can be, and often are, yes. I’m not claiming that every gank/kill is a fight, but I am lumping all types of PvP conducted by gankers/hunters into one overarching category. Fights happen, too. I mean I personally built an entire business on attacking big carebear groups in high-sec, pretending to be a derp, and then baiting them into big battles in which they lost entire fleets to one or two of us.
But the point stands: we’d prefer 1 kill that’s worth 100 million ISK, than 10 kills that are worth 10 million ISK each. And if minerals become nearly worthless, we’d be looking at the latter scenario.
Graphs showing data derived from around 2013 and on, at which point the game stagnated (blue doughnut, Crimewatch, botting really starting to take off, etc.), and its players became entrenched. You can see that the graph, while showing a small downward trend, is actually fairly flat. The real change happened during the first decade of the game, which I’m sure isn’t something that CCP wants you to see. Maybe I’ll dig up some of the old QEN reports later, because I believe they had some of that data in them. I vaguely remember some destruction statistics, and it was a close 50/50 split between high-sec and other areas, and not utterly one-sided like it is today, except for times when there’s a major null-sec conflict going on (just look at the kill statistic heat map within the game itself).
It’s not any more or less meaningful than mining, or running missions, or running incursions, or whatever. Carebears will always say how what they’re doing is a legitimate play style, but then will yell that piracy/ganking/whatever isn’t “real” PvP. Doesn’t make any sense.
There’s very little risk mining in highsec. People doing it wrong does not change anything about that.
When people voluntarily increase their risk by not paying attention then that’s their problem.
It only takes seeing the overview and staying aligned with a higgs rig.
That’s all it takes to stay safe.
The only ones who are making mining a risky business are the miners themselves.
The rewards were always way too high compared to the little risk miners had.
Please understand that making bad decisions does not change the potential risk of mining in general,
it just changes the risk specific to the player who makes bad decisions.
Of course it’s meaningful. It’s even especially meaningful to the one who gets killed.
Not all ganking is the same. Some use scouts and hide inside the station until they have a clear target,
some like Argh or myself prefer staying outside all the time. Not sure he uses scouts, I don’t think so.
Sometimes we even have to hunt our targets, which is what I actually enjoy about this the most.
Trying to reach the target, or following it through systems, etc. etc. That gets me going.
There’s always the chance he gets away or that someone just points/potshots me at a gate when I pass through.
Getting ganked isn’t a fight, though. It’s slaughter. There’s nothing about it that makes it a fight
and that’s definitely not the purpose of a suicide gank.
When I want to fight I bounce around tacticals in my 50km thrasher or Tornado,
looking for the moron who makes the mistake of thinking I’m an easy target.
When I want to gank I just ambush people and slaughter them in a nice, wholesome manner.
5 Likes
I think the biggest problem is that more danger is fine but the lure needs to increase at the same time to compensate.
2 Likes
Its not actually about the danger tbh for me.
Its about monopolisation. It would be perfect recipe for controlling the means of production, for those with the resources already.
2 Likes
Who else is curious why CCP isnt showing any data about game population numbers for a long time? Because I had waken up with this though that CCP completely lost its connection with playerbase in that matter.
Like who is located where, what they do, why they do that.
But maybe nothing changed…
2 Likes
Literally every time I have the ability to speak to a GM / Dev, my very first question is, “Why is it that we don’t get accurate data about the number of real human users playing the game vs the number of accounts logged in?” Most composed answer i’ve gotten has been “No comment.”
It’s like an orgy in the dark, the only taboo is turning on the lights so people can see who they’re actually screwing XD
7 Likes
To be fair, logins and user accounts are proprietary business financial data that most companies wouldn’t dream of releasing publicly. Plus, every EVE armchair analyst (myself included) would quickly parade any numbers they published all over the place to prove whatever point they were currently discussing.
I’m less concerned about the data they don’t have, don’t use, or don’t publish; and far more concerned about the strange conclusions they seem to derive from the data that they do have.