Stop complaining, it's getting old. Same old stupid posts [Updated post 18/02/19]

Communications Center General Discussion
1

Okay so let’s address a few points.

  1. Eve is not dead.

Eve Online’s play base is far to loyal for this game to ever “tank”. It would be pointless in the extreme to assume that simply adding a “loot box” (which it is not) is going to fail cascade Eve Online. Micro Transactions are apart of gaming business now. Get used to it, Fortnite, Apex etc is no different.

  1. Low sec is not dead.

The issue here is simple, you are trying to take large cruiser/logi battleship/logi gangs into low sec looking for a fight when the majority of pilots fly Frigates and destroyers in these areas, if you want the first listed kind of fights. Take your fleets to null and pick on the big boys. Stop trying to score easy, campy gate kills and then complain when an area has gone dead because you have been camping it for weeks on end, of course people are going to move. Use your common sense.

  1. Eve is not “P2W”

Skill points do not make a skilful pilot, it is that simple, you can go to ebay and buy a 150mil SP toon (starting fresh yourself) the first ship you get into with no knowledge of the game or how it works, you are dead, Injector are not “p2w”. Plex is not “P2W”. So let’s stop this "eve online is P2w nonsense.

  1. Faction warfare is not “dead”.

Faction warfare is very much like the market game, in the fact is, if the sides hold a “stalemate” non stop then all LP i.e faction items and ships become worthless because the market becomes saturated with them. So you have to understand that FW needs to swing back and forth non stop. Of course you could just put some effort into running a corp, recruit a crap ton of players and wing it your way, hell the content would be good no?

  1. CCP & Pearl Abyss

CCP is not “controlled” by PA, it was an acquisition. Nothing more. CCP Games is a FULLY independent company operating in it’s own parameters. PA does not and will not tell CCP games how to govern Eve Online, the statements were very clear on this and to accuse CCP of being under “PA control” is absolute rubbish. Read the released statements before you make stupid posts based on your opinions.

  1. Loot boxes

Definition of a “loot box” is an item that can be brought for IRL cash to further you in-game and or give you an advantage over other players. This does NOT exist in Eve Online and if I know CCP, it NEVER will

These do NOT exist in Eve Online, so this new event hands you rewards in a “box” - So you go into an uproar and accuse CCP of loot boxes? You what? You remember that thing we had, where you had to match the wavvy lines (can’t remember the name) you remember the stages and then the rewards we got? What did they come in? Boxes, space boxes, not one person in Eve accused CCP of “loot boxes”. So just stop it. just because a reward for completing sites and killing stuff comes in a box doesn’t make it a “loot box”.

The bottom line is, Eve Online is perfect the way it is, so what if CCP want to “shake things up” - You are not required to like it, at all. If you don’t want to buy injectors, skins, plex, then don’t, don’t come on the forums making post after post about it. It is what it is, Eve Online is not going to “tank” at all, not now, not in 5 years, it 15 year’s Eve Online will still be here, it will you, the whiners and complainers who will have moved on because CCP Games is a company that does what it wants for it’s dream of how the game should be, their dream, their design, not yours.

So how about as a community we turn “general discussion” about Eve Online, not a discussion on what you “perceive” CCP Games flaws to be.

Thanks for reading, see you on the field!

14 Likes
2

Thankfully someone here finally said it.

I’ve been waiting. Lord knows every other online discussion board has been made ship-shape by some level-headed poster stepping in and saying “Stop, you guys.”

Brava, EVGA Max. Brava.

1 Like
3

Duh. EVE is life, slippery slope by default :slight_smile:

4

Agreed there but u’d think people would come up with better arguments by now instead of “whine, p2w, whine micro transactions” etc etc

5

/10chars

6

I don’t think eve is p2w (yet) but player activity is seemingly on the decline again (despite being free and despite wardec nerfs) and yes low sec and in particular fw is dead compared to say the last two years. Bots have ruined fw.

http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility

You just haven’t woken up yet.

7

Ill agree to disagree on those points, if you want PvP in low sec, you can find it.

8

The fact that you can still find PvP in lowsec and that FW is a shadow of its former self in terms of activity are not mutually exclusive.

Pointing out that a game system is not what it once was or has problems isn’t necessarily complaining. It can be, but often I see plenty of people trying to make constructive suggestions for changes to make things better. They may miss the mark, but telling people who care to shut up isn’t really constructive nor your place to be honest.

To your points:

  1. Eve is not dead, but it is also not as active and vibrant as it once was.

  2. Lowsec is not dead, but it is also not as active and vibrant as it once was.

  3. Eve is or is not P2W depending on your definition, but certainly is more heavily monetized via micro-transactions and the selling of in-game power than it was in the past.

  4. Faction Warfare is not dead, but it has accumulated issues and is less active than it once was.

I agree with you though about what options people really have: they can choose to pay CCP for things and play the game, or not. But they are also entitled to speak their mind, just like you are so I don’t think it especially useful to try to silence them. Call them out as whiners if you feel it necessary, but they get to express their opinions just like you do.

14 Likes
9

Finally a intelligent response. As I said my points are merely “things are not as bad as people make them out to be”

But I do agree on your points as well, but the game is 15 years old. Apart from WoW there is very few games that have maintained an active player base like ours.

10

Agree to disagree?

What happened to ‘stop whining’?

The truth of the matter is, player activity is down, low sec is quieter and there is a LOT of bots in faction warfare.

Your lone anecdote against everyone in that thread…

If i get the time I’ll have a look at kill boards for jan this year versus jan two years ago for black rise or some other area. And we can see if there is much difference. I suspect there will be even before discounting bot kill mails.

2 Likes
11

It’s easy to understand why people fall prey to memes. In seeing change, in feeling change, regardless of whether it is captured in argumentation or in sentiment, humans tend to express absolutist labels or statements in an attempt to give weight to the signal.

In other words: they exgaggerate their expression of their signal.

That does not however mean that the signal is wrong, unfounded or invalid. It merely means that how it is expressed is less than optimal for the intent.

EVE isn’t dying. Granted, it is changing. Observing all the changes is limited by people’s perspectives, they signal from within the constraints of their playstyle, their virtual environment, their gratification and so forth. That too is less than optimal for the intent.

But that too doesn’t mean that the signal in itself is incorrect or invalid. Merely that the form and method chosen for it does not serve the concern behind the signal.

Let’s be honest for a moment. EVE is changing. CCP knows exactly what they are doing in this regard. I can’t go into detail here as this is akin to walking a fine line, it also does not serve to keep repeating observations, data or arguments as the form and methods used by customers don’t serve the signalling of observations of change very well.

I completely understand the frustration with that. It is valid. But we should also not forget that we live in times where the proverbial belly doesn’t just speak in the real world, it causes consequences because of and in spite of guidance in relation to change. There’s a lesson for CCP in this, and a warning, boiling frogs is effective, but it is not an afk process, and as you boil and add to the mix the soup changes.

Here’s the gist of it: CCP is deliberately killing off the foundation concepts which originally made EVE a product & service rooted in emergent behaviour. CCP is replacing those foundation concepts with different ones, in order to transition to an entirely different operational and commercial model for product & service.

Honestly, it doesn’t take a genius to recognise this. It also doesn’t take a genius to recognise that humans inside the proverbial soup feel both the temperature and the change, no matter how gradual. Humans being flawed then results in flawed signals.

That’s all.

The EVE you know now is changing not just through CCP’s changes to game design and commercial mechanism concepts, they’re doing that, but they’re also being smarter. They are introducing stimuli to alter the demographics and the behavioural trends. The EVE as it is now will become very different as it is a textbook execution of managing functional model change of digital services products. There is nothing new or shocking in any of this.

The gist of it is that it all boils (pun intended) down to consumer choices which serves CCP’s efforts from another angle. As the old become conformist or leave, their inertia and weight decreases, giving CCP more room in the kettle on the stove for new.

People recognise that change is the only constant, but they do not like it. The kind of discussion that follows from that has a strong tendency to be self-defeating. Stumbling over form and method choices in such a debate is exactly what provides something called perverse triggers to root discussion in detail, form and method - as opposed to discussion on consequence, effect and benefit / cost.

I should mention, this is something actively reinforced by CCP’s policy to divide / distribute messaging paths for customers. The topic of the community team was brought as an accountancy decision, but the methdology and timing highlights another bogstandard textbook execution of venture management concepts. Well executed I should mention, as it is not hard to see how divided and fragmented information streams result in participants / users bumping into each other through overexposure to repetition of signals which in the case of a single unified customer / community messaging platform tend to simply be part of the signal noise of a great many different signals and flows.

In a way, it could be argued that you are following CCP’s trigger mechanisms and aiding them in replacing EVE’s functional model to something very, very different from its emergent behaviour roots :slight_smile:

Look, people make their own decisions. To a degree, as humans program they are also programmable, but that’s a different discussion :slight_smile: All the change is just individual choice, I do not find it surprising that people observe and feel and express signals, no matter how limited or less than optimal. It’s because they find enjoyment in their immersion, and they recognise that immersion is slowly getting swapped out for a different concept implementation.

It’s fine either way. Customers can’t influence the change either way. Those days are over, so it comes back to individual choice. So what if people go through a process in coming to terms with that, it’s human. It’s not their fault anyway, if one can even speak of fault. They’re neither root nor cause. That’s CCP.

Here is a thought to consider. When CCP began they had no idea what they were creating, by their own admission. It took them nearly a decade to figure out what the beast was, again by their own admission. But when they found out, they figured it out in a period where they not only bumped into limitations of their own role and impact, they also bumped into constraints following from their own decisions and behaviour - again, by their own admission. It was as such no surprise that there would come a point where CCP would do their own version of “take back control”, coinciding with strong pressure to plug the hole in the bottom, as Hilmar put it.

Unfortunately time had run out, and the only choice left was to take the ship to another ocean. That is what happened, unavoidably. When you can’t plug the hole, and your habitual port throws you to the waves, you discretely change port and waters and swap the boat out.

That’s the change behind the changes. Think about it.

4 Likes
12

Then step up, make a corporation, change the content in the arena you disagree with.

A lot of people on here are quite to “complain” but yet, offer no suggestions or answers to the current issues.

If people put more thought into that and less into complaining then perhaps as a community, things can change.

13

I fully 100% agree with you. The main issue with posts on here is a simple one, if we push the trolls aside, the issue is simple.

People are trying to resist change. CCP Games as you said is a company and has to change to stay con-current in present and future states of online game play. We as players, loyal as we are, should embrace this change, rather than trying to resist said change.

But I have read your reply and I fully accept My opinion is biased some what. But I also accept that everyone is entitled to an opinion but what I would like to see is posts offering constructive advice to CCP instead of quick fixes that will cause more problems in the long run.

14

You’re over simplifying how to run a corporation.

I have a corp, but it’s not a good fit for many people due to timezone. Other people don’t have the resources or experience. Or the charisma to make things interesting. (that last one im not good at either actually).

There are also plenty if suggestions from players on how to improve fw, or anything else. Check out features and ideas section of the forums. Lots of ideas. Some good. Some not so good.

15

Running a corporation is easy

  1. Establish HQ
  2. Establish fleets (for pvp)
  3. Establish how the corporation will make its money
  4. Recruit for your TZ only, don;t try to go worldwide
  5. Make a Eve Online forum post in rec center
  6. Recruit ingame
    7 speak to un corped people in your travels

You put the effort in, you will get results

16

Just the lowest CPC since 2008. Yay.

I got blobed by caps when I was in frigates or when I was solo in a BS. Yay.

Yay. You can smash SP into your head so that you can fly a titan in a day and then prevent skillful people from camping your gates while you are under the protection of your other supertitan umbrella. Definitely not pay to win.

:rofl: Shake things up. CCP has cemented things irreversibly in some areas for years to come and made lots of other areas objectively worse by introducing stupid gamedesigns. Yeah, shake things up.

You have no clue with your cool-aid addiction.

6 Likes
17

So which is it?

I’m getting the impression you are very naive. And for anyone looking and thinking starting a corp is easy, it’s not. And you should also understand that when you start a corp you become (at least partly) responsible for your corp members gameplay and enjoyment. Don’t take the decision lightly.

And read some guides on doing it.

3 Likes
18

I am not even going to get into it with you. You are a player who wants things to stay exactly as they are. Eve is changing, for the better, if you don’t like it, leave, Apex Legends is that way —>

1 Like
19

I agree that the discussion is a long way from optimal exactly because it is highly trolled by repetitive signals where form and method is - to say the least - counterproductive. It upsets, it distorts.

It isn’t odd to see people resisting change. That is human, and humans are flawed.

But when you take a step back, switch to a so called external observation perspective, it also becomes apparent that in spite of all the trenches of detail and distorted signals it isn’t just a case of resistance to change. It is a bit more complex than that.

This takes us back to the dynamic of EVE itself. CCP is changing it, slowly swapping out the functional model, but all those signals come from an EVE as it was and to a reasonable degree still is: a petri dish of simulated / accelerated virtual life of emergent behaviour. Which, I should mention, is something CCP recognises, as such the foundation for their discrete and careful managing of change - subversive as it may be at times at least they did learn one big historic lesson :slight_smile:

EVE being life in the proverbial change makes the situation very much akin to managing a country, population or state. What we see in these signals is the proverbial underbelly.

I understand why you prefer constructive signals, I do too. But do not discount the lessons of the real world, the underbelly is perhaps rationalising and distorted, but as a whole it is an expression of concern over the nature, the direction and the experience of both the change and the cumulative results of change.

This puts a bigger question on the table. Will the results of all the gradual changes provide an EVE which still provides the stimuli and immersion sought by its customers?

Personally, going by professional and other backgrounds, I do not think that they will. This is in line with a few strategic dependancy goals CCP faces. When doing a functional model swap one must enforce broad conformist consumer / customer behaviour if the swap is determined to require a swap of demographics for established purposes.

As I said, it’s textbook venture management. Which makes it a bit painful to see some users go off at devs and the product level, because that level is also required to be mostly out of the loop.

That said, I will say this. CCP is not taking any advice. I understand where you are coming from, and I recognise the perspective. But I also recognise the trap in it, and the conditions surrounding it. That point has passed, that relationship no longer exists, as Hilmar put it in one of those recent interviews after the PA announcement. CCP was provided with targets and a set of roadmaps, a requirement for long term strategic objective of functional model swap is a demographics swap, so there is no room for acceptance or consideration of any (advice or other) signals.

If this comes across as a bit harsh, my apologies. But this is business. It isn’t about community or product management. That is all within strict goal derivative boundaries now. This is venture management.

If considering all this leads to certain painful thoughts, again my apologies. But I do feel that users should be realists when considering their position, their situation and their already changed (nullified) role in the bigger picture.

If you do wish to strive towards constructive messaging, the channel CCP is closed, which means that in order to still provide constructive signals (for example to potentially correct / prevent domino effects or long term complications) your communication channel cannot be one of the company or the product. As such it follows that the only tangible method is that of external pressure mechanisms. For example industry media, gaming media, social media influencer points and such. Again because it is venture management, all else & other is contained by (direct and derivative) directives.

In more clear terms: communicating with CCP realistically has become a theater of personal moral choice in methodology which very easily can be considered as one or the other bridge too far. Because communicating with venture management is by default restricted to the application of pressure mechanisms on external model dependancies. For example, the correlation between strategic goals and brand perception / value management.

Before you mention it, yes, all of this sucks monkyballs, as old CCP Oveur once put it after waking up. But this is the reality behind and underneath the change.

As cold as this may sound, to CCP the studio engaged on directives your perspective within these product / community information streams has as much value and room for impact as that of the repetitive negative troll or as that of the concerned niche user who distorts his or her signal of concern: null.

That doesn’t mean that it cannot achieve effects. There is still the product level, in spite of policies and cultural-organisational conditions, devs play and read. But this kind of interaction processing is extremely limited. I completely agree that a more constructive messaging format would serve a purpose, but remember that product level itself is limited to exactly the quick fix symptom, as everything else is merely execution of directives out of their scope.

As long as CCP will require to complete the model swap that inherent limitation will apply. So the question really becomes whether it is worth expending the energy within connected channels as the ultimately changed product will be vastly different (and also entail a completely swapped out product level, but let’s not nuke hard working people’s dreams now as the change will take at least another two business cycles to gain traction).

2 Likes
20

Jesus I had to look up some of the worse you used. I only understood about half of what you said. Basically because you are clearly smarter than me (not a troll, being serious) Humans, do infact resist change, it is perhaps our biggest flaw, if we didn’t we’d be playing Eve Online for real.

Eve does need to change but people also need to change with it. You see things such as Fortnite which changes constantly and the player base loves it because they expect it, the issue with our “base” if you like is that people have kicked up such a fuss before that CCP was not, afraid but hesitant to change mechanics.

I personally feel that the line being taken at the moment. By CCP of listening to constructive posts in the “ideas” section and paying, little, to no attention to “general discussion” is a good thing, let’s be honest, this section has always been troll central.

I think in 5 years, around 50% of the old player base will be gone, being replaced with new players, new blood if you will. But this isn’t a bad thing.