I think the biggest problem with Eve is the players. Specifically, players with numbers in their name. They shouldn’t be allowed to pilot anything larger than a power wheels.
Also capslock names. 
2 Likes
This is just an idea that might not even be feasible. I’m not sure.
Give corporations a benefit of some kind if they recruit Alphas and they convert to Omegas. Nothing huge or game-breaking, but something that’ll benefit corporations and encourage them to foster mentoring Alphas so they understand game mechanics, learn what path they want to take, not get bored, etc.
For corporations that invest in new players like that, give them a small SCC tax break dependent on the numbers they recruit and maintain, or something along those lines.
Admittedly, I didn’t put a whole lot of thought into it, so that might not be a good idea at all. Just spitballin’.
Honestly, I think the only way to reduce the number loss is to get the current players more vested into turning Alphas to Omegas and enjoying the game.
1 Like
EVE associated promotion only.
1 Like
Doing this would be in the spirit of the sandbox, where players are the content and players make their own play styles.
Various techniques need to be implemented, at corp/fleet/player levels, to create incentives for fleeting, mentoring, recruiting etc. The ‘Refer a Friend’ program just doesn’t cut it, as it’s not part of the game experience and 80% of the players you recruit don’t make it past day 3 anyway.
Unfortunately CCP thinks ‘giving players tools to create content’ means ship re-designs and weapon balance passes. They need to concentrate on creating reward structures that encourage players to go out of their way to do interesting things.
Take a look at one initiative:
Redemption Road Fleets (Greygal)
Also, look at the long-running Red Vs. Blue fleet wars:
Red Vs. Blue: Join the Forever War
These types of initiatives, especially if more widespread and varied, could lead to exactly the sort of player engagement and new player retention/training/socializing that EVE needs to improve.
Unfortunately, over time, there turn out to be very few individuals/groups who can keep such efforts going over the long term. (This applies to most MMOs, not just EVE.) However, if there was some sort of reward/perk/bonus structure for organizing, implementing, and participating in such activities we would see more of them.
CCP needs to implement tools that give players the ability and incentive to create positive game experiences, not just various ways of making it more likely you will explode alone in space.
1 Like
Without strong requirements this would cause oversaturation and massive fragmentation, just like it does with corporations now. Everyone will want to make his own, so the requirements to be able to do this would need to be pretty high.
I’m not saying the idea is bad. This really shouldn’t be possible for everyone and anyone.
1 Like
Agreed. Incentives like this need to be thought out carefully in advance (“How would I break it? Abuse it? Exploit it? Grief it?”) and then tuned to provide 80% of the benefit with only 20% of the abuses. (Everything will be abusable in some way or other.)
Part of the design issue is, if you only deliver rewards to the people who organize/mentor/run fleets, then you get ‘everyone wants to run their own’ problems. If you make some rewards available to the corp they are in, some to the organizer/FC, some to every member of the fleet… then you are more likely to get fewer organizers and more people who are content to let other people do the work of putting the action together and they just cruise along for the ride and the free benefits.
And yes, that would mean some people would pick up extra rewards or benefits just for joining up with alts/multi-boxing. Which isn’t a show stopper IMO - almost everything in EVE can be abused with alts/multiboxers - but at least active event management by players would minimize bots and AFKers.
1 Like
You can’t slow down the decline of EVE, it’s a dying game and has been for years. Accept that fact and it will make the eventual closure that less painful when you wake up and realize you, I and everyone else have given thousands of fiat currency over for literally NOTHING!
Welcome to reality 
Hmm and all those funtimes that were had by people over the years in this monument of a virtual sci-fi universe … Is Nothing ?
Moron.
2 Likes
LOL…
A long time ago in an EVE far, far away…
NPC rats were more of a teaching tool than a way to make bank. Kill a rat, it dropped 1 to 3 ISK, some other rubbish I can’t remember. But over time, the rats became more a goal than a teaching tool, so it’s quite comfy to remain in hisec because between mining and ratting, one can get large enough hauls to buy a blingy skiff or a decently fitted Domi.
Comparatively, lowsec had far better loot. But what I see now is that lowsec is only slightly better than hisec, and there’s no dramatic escalation of loot from 0.4 to 0.1, which means the escalation from “just under hisec” to “just above nullsec” might not be all that enticing. Without strong enough reasons to head to the lowest of lowsec, that whole sandbox we talk about is waaaaay out there and players don’t need to get anywhere near it.
Imagine if epsilon neural implants were rare drops only available in 0.1, and you couldn’t sell one but you could barter it for another epsilon. You’d need to make the decision to go to 0.1 to complete your set, rather than farm all the ISK you can in highsec to buy one off the market.
By that point, loot should’ve helped players develop =capable= defense or offense, which means more ganking, yes, but also more opportunity for reciprocal PVP that perhaps includes a surrender option that saves a ship but loses loot to the winner.
So I’d rework loot tables in order to help PVP. Anyone else’s mileage will vary 
1 Like
The problem is that ( in my country at least ) people have less money to spend.
So if the Rats paid a bit more, and Low Sec was spruced up too, then that may well help.
But…
Missions. They are the content people encounter as they find their feet. And they need fixing. Lvl 4’s need to pay a bit better ( Alpha’s can’t do lvl 4’s, so this does still encourage Alpha-Omega stuff ).
Old code or not those Missions need fixing.
It’s doubtful it will.
The game isn’t really set up for PvP that well imo.
Too long to get into as takes a long time to get into as skill tree is so long (my skill queue is at over 530 days atm)
A lot of PvPers having to fund their PvP via PvE methods.
Requiring multiple accounts to be more effective.
Difficult for solo PvP, as off grid support vessels are often used (not sure if that is still the case though).
Not always easy to get into a corp. as a lot of corps have restrictions and require a lot of info as there’s a tendency for paranoia especially if you’ve played before at sometime.
I can’t see this game growing if it tries to cater just for PvP players and reign of chaos doesn’t help the PvE side.
I don’t think this game was destined to have large player numbers as it tried to be PvP but having also PvE as both extremes of those two groups really don’t mix well at all.
The only thing this game does well at imo is scams as most other games don’t allow them in the same manner.
Isn’t that what you’ve chosen to train, though? You can be effective and have enjoyable gameplay within an extremely short space of time. Eve is now much easier to drop into as a new player than it’s ever been.
More, yes. It’s not a ‘requirement’ though.
Other than paying real cash there are multiple ways to fund it, ganking, trade, industry and exploration to name a few.
There are a ton of newb friendly corps as well as branches of large alliances. I will admit many of them are tax grabs offering little guidance for new players, but some of the larger ones have heaps of experienced players helping younglings.
How much PVE do you want? There are opportunities everywhere. Lowsec is a virtual dead-zone, trigs, exploration, abyssal sites, missions (granted dated), anoms, exploration…
Rubbish.
I encountered someone with a very similar attitude the other day. I even gave him 5x the value of his ship after killing him as I believe in looking after and encouraging new players whilst ensuring that they realise early on that being a target for someone is always a possibility. His response was typical of most newer players in this situation, a generalised rant about the state of a game he appeared to know everything about and had learned all this within a week of gameplay.
EVE sucks because I can’t do what I want to do wherever I want to do it, immediately and right out of the box, for free. I’m sick of being killed when I do the same dangerous thing over and over again. It’s not my fault, it’s yours…
Well boo ■■■■■■■ hoo.
2 Likes
What I wrote was my assessment on the quote I used.
The edition to your replies that I’ve quoted in this post is completely irrelevant, may have been your experience but not mine. But that edition to your response is symptomatic of the kind of responses that appear on this forum.
What if i told you a wardec used to cost 2mil isk and was often done by new players in t1 frigs, cruisers and battle cruisers learning to hunt miners and mission runners together.
Or that ganking didn’t always mean anyone could turn you suspect at any time. It just meant the person you had ganked could freely engage you for a month.
Or that can flipping didn’t turn you suspect. Only flagged you as a free target to the corp you flipped.
Does that sound like a better set-up for pvp and more accessible to noobs?
1 Like
Yes, actually.
It’s far less deterring.
No
Wardecs used to be used on occasions to hound alliances/corps to such an extent that it caused the break up of corps/alliances. it was being used as a griefing tool.
Ganking soft targets that get a month to shoot you back, total pointless, it’s not like a soft target is likely to hunt you down.
Same for can flipping.
I personally don’t consider two traders in a trade war PvP, as for ganking soft targets I don’t consider that as PvP more like a turkey shoot.
So the wardec corps/alliances should be forced to break up instead?
It’s been said a thousand times that wardecs hurt retention, yet they got their biggest nerf yet december just gone. And players activity went down. And not just down, but down faster.
The corps/alliances that break up from wardecs, are not sticking with eve anyways. Look around. Meanwhile content creators, the players that would stick with eve, are repeatedly being nerfed.
That really depends on who gets ganked. And who does the ganking. I hunted my ganker down, found him in an orca and the rest is a killmail.
Without kill rights, you don’t have to dedicate a character to ganking. Players did it on their mains for fun. Which means there was someone to actually hunt afterwards.
But if we keep nerfing ganking such that only career gankers are left, then of course their isn’t much point in hunting someone who spends 99% of his time in an empty pod and the other 1% in a throwaway destroyer.
Shame.
1 Like
Players (some players) only have themselves to blame, when people take things to extreme they become a problem and usually change will follow.
1 Like