I still think the difficulty is entirely in the head of people who think they need billions of isk and millions of SP to enjoy the game.
And in that way the game hasnt changed at all.
Exactly !
Definately !
These parameters will never change. Difficulty is extremely subjective and may chage person to person depends on their apperception.
When it comes to game design “ how much diffucult this game should be ?” Is the wrong question … Main pivot rational approach here is asking
What difficulty brings out the best for behalf of the wholesome game experience .
Therefor i give war deck changes as an example and how it turn out …
my focus was on objective change in game.
So the point i approach is not the first one and not the dimention you bring up… we are on the same page there you point out … and there is nothing to argue no contribution factor for design in that dimention .
1 Like
I think in that case, it was the other way around. CCP looked at the data, saw an issue and presented the data to the CSM, who overwhelmingly agreed that there was an issue needing correction.
My memory could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that was the order it occured.
Just wanted to link again .
It was some sort of podcast or meeting presentation that they said that CCP started to collect and look into data after CSM feedback. Then they worked on actual changes which is mentioned in CSM 13 minutes.
But I wont argue since I’m to lazy to find proof and there is chance that it’s just wonky memory…
October 18
Brisc Rubal.
It was CSM brought this to CCP s radar … Here you can read Brisc Rubal’s sugestion. (Page 12, 2. Paragraph)
“CCP Larrikin pulls up activity data for players of corporations that have wars declared against them and it shows considerable activity drops in all activities during the war. **
> They also show that the low activity continues after the war ends. Brisc Rubal noted that the numbers here were so stark, it would justify immediately removing war decs as a mechanic and promising a fix after the fact.
** The CSM in general were surprised at how stark the numbers were and noted it was clear this mechanic was having a significant impact on player recruitment and retention. ”
And innominate :
Innominate says the issue with War Decs is they can’t be removed completely due to the high sec structures. Having war decs limited to corps with structures and adding victory conditions would be one way. Opting out completely would mean the corporations would only exist as a social structure. CCP Fozzie says this is one of the leading ideas at this time.
Start readin from page 8
February 19 . Wardeck changes landed.
Did it increase retention?
NO
Did it increase active player numbers ?
NO
WHY ?
well i did expain why very clean based on science and research on behavioral psych … and science says NO !
Reading all these from an educated perspective was “ hillarious” experience for me … thanks for reading .
Seems to me the conclusions were obvious before the study began and CCP could have saved a lot of time with some common sense. Adversity is part of the game. A lot of people who experience adversity quit. You can’t ‘fix’ that without making adversity opt in so that people who don’t want to experience a setback never do, and that is a really, really low bar to set.
1 Like
There was an article in Harward Business Review .
My review in forums , letter to CCP was more set focus on mistakes effects on game design and the application. and someone so far i remember told may be it sourced from upper management … this of course definately doesnt dismiss the logic mistakes of CCP , but that review on harward business definately tells alot more … and now after reading this through , remember that comment then i remember that article and suddely all clicked. it is far more clear for me that reason CCP cannot deal with risk aversion problem is simply because of upper management share the same dynamics… perspective and what they approve what they wont … criterias and “ THE BAR” they set very clean proof of it ….
War decs should go back to how they were.
2 Likes
Yess…It should… but they wont … then they have to begin to use very spesific expertise at least stop goin downhill and begin to ramp up … which they did not touch up today .
And force anyone who wants to be immune to war decs back to NPC corporations? No thanks.
I do have other ideas to improve the war dec versus war immune corporations system but I think that’s better for another thread.
Yess yes… it is much better now IS THAT WHY WE HAVE MORE PLAYERS AND HIGHER RETENTION today?
Risk aversion in its golden ratio!
Risk averse aplications feeds risk averse players… and risk averse players seeks and demands more safety !
But… the absolute safety is not possible as long as game doesnt totally crippled…
And they cant make everybody happy… no matter how much make things safer for them there will be always something risky to cry about !
This game had most player population in its higest dangerous times…
And there was always cry babies… there will be always!
Yo more feed cry baby yo more you loose real men !
CCP shot at their own feets…
And they are still hundred thousand miles away from understanding what is risk aversion
There are countless of research about that out there…
Read !
It’d be interesting to see how it affects people tho. I believe part of why ganking is on the rise now is the war dec changes combined with some other changes as well.
I believe the war dec situation was good. Were a small amount of players too afraid to undock? Very true. However it also forced a game shift where they could also join larger alliances for protection.
I mean I just want to be a one man corp able to war dec peeps and have fun fights 
1 Like
I don’t think it’s a small number of players, though. I tried to make an indy war eligible corporation/alliance. I don’t think I ever topped 5 people at most willing to be in the corporation. I ended up getting more attention and appreciation out of the lowsec corporations and alliances adjacent to me than I could from highsec.
Was it better? Personally I think so, at least for my entertainment value. War has gotten too expensive even to opt into. Friends who wanted to ally in on a war with me had to pay to put up structures and some of them can’t afford that. Some of them don’t know much about structures and don’t want to deal with the hassle of putting them up and taking them down even if you’re willing to give them something. War is something you now have to pay a lot to participate in at all, whether you’re an attacker, defender, or just an ally.
I know that getting a bunch of indy players into a wardeccable corporation isn’t the most practical. We would be the sort of group that would have made a prime target for you. That said, it strikes me as a problem we could potentially overcome or manage, and that as an industry group we could afford to fail horribly. The stakes would be low on either side and so the conflict would be affordable.
I don’t think making wars expensive or opt in has done anything to promote symmetric fights, but instead shifts the balance towards a curb stomp because losing is less affordable and people take fewer risks. Then people look at the asymmetric wars and think they’re killing the game and want to restrict them more and the wars that happen after that get even less ‘fair’.
I don’t think you’ll get what you want. People who don’t want to fight are worth too much money. Customers are fungible. CCP doesn’t mind trading me for two or more highsec veldspar mining alts. It’s just a numbers game and you can make more bucks off people who can turn their brains off than you can from people who leave them on.
I know you’re right. Just sucks. EVE could be so much better if the players were able to play the game as it was meant to be played haha.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.