How does EVE fail at being an appealing sandbox game?

Communications Center General Discussion
22

But that also assumes that more alts is healthy, when it may not be the case. Take jump fatigue… Thanks to this mechanic, you can’t cyno across the galaxy without problems. In turn the number of Cyno alts decreased. Yes those accounts may no longer be paid for, but CCP may view their loss as healthy for the game because it improves low and nul sec life for more.

CCP banned isboxer and the like. That lead to a loss of some logins, yet it may enable more new minors a chance to compete in the mineral market.

Off grid boosting was killed, which many think is a good thing. Some accounts were lost but the net improvement to the game is better.

Yes would I like to see 43k online again, yes. But would I take that number with the elimination of jump fatigue, gland the return of isboxer and off grid boosting, no. Do those 3 account for all changes, no, but it is possible that all these changes add up to a more stable game with better growth potential… Maybe. I hope but I just don’t know.

5 Likes
23

It mostly comes down to time when the question is why do most of these people not give eve a chance. Those that do make it have numerous hurdles (mechanic and player driven) to overcome as compared to most wow clones they may be used to playing.

@Lady_Ayeipsia You are correct as far as what cost a few thousand accounts, but the slump was hitting before those were ever implemented. Apart from isboxer, cyno alts were typically not adding a lot to the login numbers which is the trend we can actually see, not active accounts.

Most of the people leaving are over burnout for any number of reasons or simply life is pulling them away. We are an aging player base after all. I don’t see too many teenagers anymore compared to when I started.

1 Like
24

Which mechanics, specifically? Also, “boring” is a subjective term. What criteria are you using to determine “boring” versus “entertaining”?

25

So I looked at the EVE-Offline graphs. And I went back to 2004, there was less than 10k players logging in daily on the server. When I go back to 07 when I started there was around 30k average.

The game has maintained between 30-40k players for 10 years. With occasional spikes during free trial periods. Like in 07 when it spiked to 41k players. I came in then it was a free 2 week trial of EVE given out for free advertised on MMORPG.com and TENTONHAMMER.com.

They did this periodically to get fresh players interested into the game. Like all free trials it would have a MASSIVE influx of new players who have no intention on staying but playing for free, then leaving as soon as it ends. I know I was one of them. I came back like clockwork every time they had a free trial for 2 weeks and would leave as soon as that trial was over.

So to say EVE Online is failing, or starting to die, is an argument based on a falsehood. Fact is EVE online is maintaining, it is arguably growing. Seeing as over a 10 year span it has seen a growth of 7k players, and a net growth of over 25k players since 2004.

I wish my 401K had that kind of growth.

26

Trend

If you can’t spot the trend please give up on math. And I was generous with the trend line.

This is what an INCREASING trend looks like (stock price of Ali Baba):

trend2

6 Likes
27

You are choosing to look at a small segment of the whole truth.

The game in May of 2003 had just under 6k players in it, the years average for 2004 was 8k players. So let me put this in a simple to read setup.
'03-6000
'04-8000
'05-12000
'06-23000
'07-30000
'08-35000
'09-44000
'10-47000
'11-46000
'12-43000
'13-48000
'14-41000
'15-34000
'16-33000
'17-34000* (8months)

So from 2003-2017 there has been a gain of 28k players, but a gain of 1000 over the time from 2016 to 2017, matching 2015s numbers. But still short of the peak in 2013.

So again, if you are going to try and use a graph use the whole thing, not just the parts that suits your point of view.

2 Likes
28

I am looking at it from the time the trend changed ie the highest point in the chart. L2graph.

2 Likes
29

I think your post topic fails - Eve IS an appealing sandbox game.

1 Like
30

When you are talking about graphs and arguing a point, you should look at the WHOLE graph not just the trends.

The 10 year trend is still showing positive. It is up 5k over the 10 year trend.

It is down from the 5 year but still well with in a margin of success. And it is up over the previous year and this year hasnt even completed yet.

31

You are analyzing the technicals of the graph without recourse to the structural changes in the mechanism that is producing that graph. But we don’t have to guess why the graph is doing what it’s doing. We can just look at the mechanism.

There are fewer characters logged in because, duh, there are fewer characters logged in. If that is the sum of your point, why are you bothering? If your point is that EVE is dying because there are fewer characters logged in, you’re gonna need a bigger graph, one that explains how fewer characters logged in relates to EVE dying. Good luck!

1 Like
32

You’ve kind-of answered the question yourself:

EVE is a sandbox, and the definition of a sandbox is that you have the freedom to do whatever you want. It’s a very simple definition.

EVE provides the opportunity for you to do whatever you want, but NOT in a single player environment; other players can interact with whatever you’re doing. This ability to interact and participate is awesome for those players who want their particular sandbox to have the big wars and the social interaction; these players will work towards finding PVP groups and getting the ships and participating in the fights.

However, the players who want a solo sandbox, who just want to build their little collection of ships or manufacturing or whatever, they see the stories of wars and huge battles as just news pieces, flavor added to make the EVE universe seem alive. Ultimately, they want to keep said wars and battles as far away as possible from the actual sandbox.

So, the answer is that EVE doesn’t fail to capture and hold those who want to be part of the content and story. It fails to hold those who want to play a solo sandbox and have the wars and PVP be just (distant) stories.

3 Likes
33

A gain of 1000 is very weak when you consider that the game went F2P by the end of 2016. Without the F2P expansion, we would probably be below 30000 average players.

1 Like
34

Not necessarily looking for a smoking gun I am just curious if there is something(s) EVE is missing, or perhaps many things it could do better. I get that you like the game the way it is and that is fine of course.

35

I didn’t assume it wasn’t appealing to players that enjoy it.

36

I do not have the freedom to do whatever I want Memphis. This isn’t a pure sandbox game (no game is except one that gives the player a blank slate and tools to do what they want), and it also has a lot of theme park design in it that guides players and by nature restricts them.

I also think it’s too presumptuous to assume that that it’s failure to capture and hold people is because they want a single player game. Do you have any actual proof of that assumption?

1 Like
37

This isn’t correct, the requirements for a “sandbox game” have nothing to do with not placing restrictions on the player. Any game is, by definition and nature, going to come with restrictions.

What you’re talking about is a simulation, not a game.

38

I’m thinking of things on a continuum in regards to game design.

Pure Sandbox<----------------------------------------------------------->Pure Theme Park

In this aspect of game design the pure sandbox is a developer starting with an engine, or group of players sitting down and designing a game. They can pretty much set their own rules and do whatever they want.

Regardless though you cannot do whatever you want in EVE. The game is restrictive in what you can do. Perhaps in this example the problem is that EVE doesn’t have enough sandbox in and is too much of a Theme Park. That Theme Park perhaps being very unappealing to the current gaming generation due to its design, but that is of course an assumption.

And then again, even in a simulation there are restrictions. Rules have to be set design wise on what we are simulating and how it works.

1 Like
39

CCP has stated two things that contradict this:

  • most players do not PVP
  • players who have been ganked are NOT more likely to leave the game

So, if most players are NOT here to PVP, but ganking them has little to no effect on their retention, that narrative fails. People aren’t quitting because they don’t get to live in their own little world where no one attacks them. And, I’d go a step further and ask whether people were quitting at all.

40

Alright… so as a 13 year vet, let me give you some reasons.

Eve is a difficult game to get into, its hard as hell to get hooked for a lot of people. When eve hit the market, most mmo’s were themeparks/guided. In other words, they setup rides and you ran the rides to get the prize. Or you went on a very specific path to get to said rides. A lot of people, and i mean A LOT, don;t want to think for themselves in games. they want you do guide them to point a and lets them run it, then go to point b. They want everything in a nice line with arrows.

This is one reason why eve struggled and never reached WoW levels. Another thing, is in order to effectively play eve it takes time. you can jump into a fleet fight from day 1, but if you want to fly a titan, it takes years. No ammount of grinding made you get a titan any faster (back in the day) and being solo was a bit of a disadvantage.

This kept people away. The issue is, this also hurts eve’s playerbase. As eve tended to have a slightly older player base (early 20’s to mid 30’s when it started, then people who had retired on the other end) As players like me aged (i started eve at 23, i’m 36 now) and had families and carriers, the time they had to play eve grew less and less. Hell i am lucky to squeeze in 1 hour a night, when i was playing up wards of 10 hours a day when i started. This caused some people to leave as they shifted priority.

Another thing, the market changed. People want simpler, jump into the action and do crap, games. EVE is not that type of game. People also wanted free to play, eve just recently got some of that.

These are mainly why eve was never huge. ‘pve sucks’ is not actually a valid reason. Mostly that eve is hard, take a lot of time to master and even a lot of time to do anything, is what hurt it.

Sure you can log in and mine or run a mission now, but thats not eve’s appeal. Thous large fleet fights? they take hours of planing, prep and coordination. Even something that happens like b-r once it starts takes a while for other forces to get there butting in gear, and even then that took hours of prep so someone could just jump in and go pew pew.

Its both what makes eve awesome and what makes it suck. There ya go.

8 Likes
41

Interesting you could see losing paid for accounts as a positive. In fact many who do still use capitals, including JF’s actually have more cyno alts now than prior to jump fatigue. Reduced jump ranges = need an extra cyno or 2.

Isboxer banned (but still used though not as widely) was a good thing and then CCP went and turned Rorquals into the ultimate mining barge - There is still no room for the small guy to compete in the mineral market.
As an example, look at the recent increase in prices, then look at the latest “war”, the group responsible for controlling the mineral markets suddenly stops selling to public markets, demand (due to war) increases - and prices go up.

Off grid boosting - Yes a few no longer login over such a trivial thing but more sold off dedicated boosting alts. So, no real loss or gain there.

What has affected logins and subs more than any of the things you seem to deem as game changers - Sov wanding and Citadel mechanics both of which have seen new and veteran players alike call it a day. Sov and citadel mechanics were changed on the pretence of reducing the “grind” and need for ever larger fleets.
Sadly this isn’t how things worked out - Sov wanding is the worst grind fest I’ve endured in 10 years of logging in to Eve. Cat and mouse games of Claws chasing Griffins around for hours isn’t fun or engaging game play - The meta is purely designed (by Devs) to be anti fight.
Citadel mechanics, well they just suck. It will take you a week to kill one (if it is undefended). A defended Citadel will see whoever can bring the largest fleet (and create the most tidi) win the day. Blob warfare rules all the way.
In the last year or so I’ve seen many friends walk away citing shite sov and citadel mechanics as the final straw.

In reality tidi induced lag fest’s which are not at all fun or exciting to be involved in is why many who like to read about eve’s great battles don’t play eve.

Edit;
I forgot - This time of year has always seen “Eve Die” but as in past years in a month or so it will bounce right back, I’ve been told this is due to the weather getting too cold to be outside in certain parts of the world (I’m an Aussie and live 100k below the equator, don’t really know what “cold” is, thankfully). So to all the “eve is dieing” crowd let me assure you, it isn’t.

2 Likes