Good riddance.
2 Likes
As much as I usually agree most of the time when you say “good riddance” about someone, any dev that implement a mechanic that could erase the progress of a player in a game like EvE were long-term is one of the core concept of the game and believe that this would help player return/retention would probably have to be suffering from a brain cancer to make such a decision.
1 Like
And yet here we are with skill extractors and character/skill trading
Which do not erase the progress of a player. The player has just chosen to convert their progress from Sp into Isk.
Then, if we are looking at it THAT way, the only true progress in skill and learning is not of the CHARACTER but of the PLAYER
and short of… lets call it extreme metagaming, you cant erase the progress
So there is no CCP Flounder to have cancer wished upon.
Should there be a restart, the smarts will rise, the krabs will cry and we will all continue on.
Sunrise, Sunset
Kakuna Retarda
Removing one form of progress (aka assets in the above case actually being suggested), without rewarding it with another kind of progress is most definitely erasing progress.
The player making an active choice to convert Sp to Isk is a very different matter, and I hope you can actually visualise that difference, I really do.
That said, yeah a restart would result in what you say, plus a lot of drama and people not interested in doing the grind again. But yes, Goons would still win EVE, probably much faster after a restart.
Alas not. I get through life with sheer ignorance and brute force.
I leave the headology to nerds.
The most hilarious way for a restart to occur would be to have a shell company to hold the property, restart EvE but with a whole new name, and let a forum war commence when people start talking about this new game.
Then, when theres enough people in Space War 7 or whatever…
Providing alternative way to gain progress does not equal erasing previous progress, even if that allows you to progress faster than before.
As for converting SP into ISK, well… the key word is “converting”, you have nothing “erased” here…
Anyway let’s face it, such practice ARE bad ideas in terms of game design/balance and mostly exist because of the IRL money such a market create for CCP. That’s the sad story of Pay To Win and all it’s alternate forms.
To be clear, I never “whished it upon” anyone, I said “it would have to be the case to believe it is a good idea”.
In our quest to kill everything we can, we must lash out at that which we cannot.
“EVE IS DYING!” howled the BitterVet.
“It is? Where do I shoot at it? I wanna help!” clamored the masses.
“Stop blowing holes in my ship!” I screamed as I realized that pretty thing I was seduced by, yet again, was indeed a bubble.
“Eve is not dying” I think as I stare at my frozen corpse while it wafts gently through the vastness of space, “I am, again, and again, its what Im good at” I think forlornly to myself as I begin to, yet again, plot my glorious revenge.
Next time I will recognise the bubbles for what they are… splendid blossoms that must be investigated and… oh crap, here I go again
5 Likes
As I see it, less big war, less major political plays and in general interesting politics between corps alliances and coalitions. More heavy handed CCP changes to force gameplay they like and thwart gameplay they dislike, which is anti sandbox.
Numbers are irrelevant with the Korean launch and Chinese alphas.
There’s just less about what made this game so appealing and unique.
2 Likes
Brilliant ! 
2 Likes
Use some punctuation. I am not reading this garbage.
2 Likes
Wouldn’t change anything anyway, if your concentration capacity cannot reach four lines of text, you wouldn’t have the potential to give a useful answer, weither you read it or not.
It’s not about concentration capacity of the reader. It’s about the writer being seen as a normal human being capable of rational thought, instead giving off the vibe of being a run-on clown who’s ramblings don’t matter.
If you want to convey a message make sure you try your best to be taken seriously.
3 Likes
In case you are not joking, the two hours before and after downtime have always had the lowest numbers at least since I started playing cira 2008.
1 Like
All this talk about alpha accounts but couldn’t old trial accounts be logged on to the same device, at the same time as main accounts; whereas today, alpha accounts are restricted so one would need multiple machines to run an alpha and omega account at the same time? In other words wouldn’t the trial accounts of yesteryear have affected the active player numbers more than alpha accounts do currently?
Stop being dumb. Trials only lasted for 2-3 weeks.
Only if you wanted to get banned, sure it was possible but it was also totally against the rules.
1 Like
You missed the point of my question. One of the above conversations was about how the active player number on log in is not representative of the actual unique players, which is the truth. So my question was framed around the fact that during the two weeks trail accounts were viable and used, a single player could account for multiple active players at the same time, on the same machine. Nowadays the same player, using non-payed alpha accounts, needs to have multiple machines to have the same impact on total online players…at least the way I am looking at it…which could be incorrect. You are free to expand beyond the ad hominem
Two week characters were only really good for harassment and a player would only have eyes on them if they harassed someone in rookie systems. So would CCP have policed that considering how much illegal boting went on pretty freely?