Slowing down the decline of EVE

Perhaps. Primarily, I criticize certain players for seeking ‘easy prey’ as a solution to EVE’s problems, or a factor in player retention. Really, all they are seeking is easy and safe gratification of their desire to victimize others for personal gain. I critique this primarily because IMO this behaviour pattern is bad for the long-term population of the game, and I believe I have references and logic to back that up.

I also criticize game design that rewards too much passive activity: boring, repetitive, bottable farming; setting up skill training queues, PI, AFK farming, bot-or-AFK trading, etc. etc. The list is long. This is an indirect criticism of the players who do these things, and while it is true these behaviours have long term effects on the economy, I do not believe the economic effects lead to lower game population.

The process of indulging in boring, repetitive PvE/farming and never learning or being incentivized to play actively… now that definitely hurts player population IMO as players get bored and leave.

Opinion, unbacked by facts. They are tools that certainly could be used as counters, in some instances, but there is no evidence I’ve seen that they actually were effective for that purpose.

Again, opinion, unbacked by facts. Stating your opinion is fine, declaring it as a fact is BS. If you have numbers to back this, go ahead. Otherwise, I will use CCPs statistics that wardecs are nearly useless griefing tools used by the powerful against the weak, with nearly no ability to fight back, and a detriment to game population.

EVE is far too oriented towards tools that allow the powerful to exploit and abuse the weak. All the “but weak players used this to ease into PvP!” arguments in the world won’t change that.

EVE needs tools that encourage, teach and incentivize newer players to engage in PvP and to find enough reward/entertainment in doing so that they continue to engage in PvP. PvE won’t drive this game, ever. It’s a support role. But the PvP that has always existed in EVE is not a player population growth driver. It’s always been a “attract 10 players, drive away 100” type of setup and that is not long term sustainable.

Perhaps something like the way there are BCs which are bonused for large/battleship weapons, we could get smaller, faster mini-capitals that are bonused for capital-hunting weapons.

The rock/paper/scissors balance would be:

  • Capital hunters are like destroyers/attack BCs to capitals - a heavy damage weapons loadout of anti-cap weapons with less tank/survivability
  • Capital hunters weapons loadout/tracking etc. would make them capable against sub-caps but not overwhelming
  • Some of the ‘in-between BS and caps’ would be balanced for combat against sub-capitals
  • Capitals would be balanced towards fighting other capitals, supers, and structures. Some application against Capital hunters, weak application against sub-caps.

I’m absolutely not a capital balance person so these are just ideas to toss out. The combat balance would then be:

  • Sub-caps/BS do things like tackle, scout, bomb, cyno - niche roles, plus shoot down Capital Hunters.
  • Capital Hunter/Capital Defense class are cheaper and more numerous and used to both apply firepower to capitals as well as provide some sub-cap defense.
  • Capitals shoot down Capitals, Supers, Structures and with less effectiveness, Capital Hunters/Defenders. Reduced application against sub-caps.
  • As suggested above, Titans/Supers take on the anti-capital, DD, fleet support roles.

(Hopefully people with more knowledge of the sub-cap/cap/super interplay and their uses in various game mechanics could find more/better roles for a Capital Hunter class of ships.)

Something like that, I don’t have more specifics sorry, as said I’m not really a capital combat person, nor do I think balancing capital combat is significant to stopping the current player decline - except as a way to entice some veterans back to the game and hold their interest long enough for other improvements to be made.

Production too ? I got almost all the bpos I need and I can make 1+ B in net benefit per day in Jita. Over the last 29 days I was making average 1.75B net benefit per day, but the month before it was like 1B per day in average. I only bought 24B in bpos on contracts this month (I can’t track the purchase of bpos from NPCs) but I could do like 40B in a month before summer (researched bpos on contracts).

Is that an issue that I prepare the market in advance to be sure I make the most money, all the while making very complex modeling ?
I found out it’s more fun than shooting rats, than shooting people. and it requires a lot more understanding of the game.

So you took the cheapest fit you could make, disregarded all external factors and made a claim that while technically correct is wholly unrealistic.

Seems to be par for the course.

1 Like

CCP just needs to stop being wimps and start making radical changes to the game, and cut their losses with unsubs.

1 Like

I did not say it was incorrect, I said it was unrealistic.

In an ideal circumstance your figures are fine, ideal circumstances would mean all that DPS gets applied; sadly ideal circumstances are like rocking horse poo.

Hence, unrealistic.

Then say in which way it is. Other it’s the same BS.

Nope, in ideal circumstances you have more than 20s.

Your numbers are based on 20 cats doing perfect application and ganking just doesn’t work that way. On top of that, I have never seen a ganking fit without rigs! For me, your argument has lost all credibility with that fit.

Get out there and do 50 ganks with 20 cats each, using that fit and then come back with some more realistic numbers.


The only reduction in application is from the distance.

And you completely missed my point.
You nitpick something and therefore completely ignore the point I actually made, which does not require the numbers I gave to be precise.

That’s just a troll. You’ve lost any credibility with that post.

Note that I said I criticize the game design that rewards passive gameplay more than active.

This doesn’t mean I criticize players who choose to use passive, reward-generating mechanics. They’re doing the thing that seems best to them, and in general (except for bots and RMTers), they aren’t harming the game. (They may well be distorting the economy somewhat but that isn’t as harmful as people think.)

Also, as you point out, the production you do requires far more activity, research, targeted trading and game knowledge. That’s hardly passive play.

Regardless, the key point is that in a game where you want PvP to be a central feature, you have to enable, encourage and incentivize PvP. In a game where you want more active playstyles, you have to design mechanics that reward active play more than passive play. Across the board, not just in a few examples.

EVE rewards passive, boring, repetitive farming style play, with generally less risk and less penalties, far more than it rewards risk-taking, active behaviour for the general gaming audience. Certainly there are people who will learn how to multi-box 20 stealth bombers, or pull burner missions and run them with maximum efficiency, or a dozen other very high-end play styles that reward active play better. It’s my experience that only about 10% of the gaming audience will ever play at that level.

CCP needs to make active play a better option for more like 70% of their audience, not 10%.

Yeah but actually, most of the activity is done out of game. So I can make my production, and at the same time I can rat if I want, because I just need to wait for the market to buy my stuff. In this regard it’s very close to trading.

I agree with you on your opinion, just trying to understand where we can draw a line.
I think the activity I do gives a bit too much money compared to other activities. I would not mind if the worth value was reduced.

protip : you can still optimize your burners to reduce the activity, therefore being able to run 3+ accounts at the same time.
Some people show it on stream.

But again I agree that it would be better if the game rewarded more active gameplay.

I’m afraid I totally agree with you (and it makes me sad). I think the introduction to pvp should be done earlier, and especially that people should access pvp that does not require to lose ship every time.

1 Like

Have only omega accounts be able to have clone services In the game, alpha can take a hike IMHO. :fu:

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.