I can understand that you might have this opinion, but have you ever validated that view to understand if it really is an issue?
CCP have in the past tried to validate that view and haven’t come to the same conclusion previously, however CCP Rise has already indicated in the opening post of this thread:
So they are going to look at it.
On this bit though:
Would you be even more surprised to find out that most new players don’t make it to a few weeks and drop out within a few days, and that it’s the boring activities like mining that they do before leaving the game?
Most new players that leave never even get shot at before they leave.
There was a graph that showed players who stayed longer also tended to have lost a ship. Along with a whole list of other correlations.
It did not say that loosing ships made people stay longer though.
If they really want to shake things up, they could try to make hull reps actually worth a damn… That would screw with so many people. They’re worthless as is though. I’d honestly die laughing.
I agree with this. CCP used to advertise that Eve Online was a game where YOU and YOUR actions mattered. A place where you can shape the world around you… That’s true to a certain extent still but what often happens is this:
Player reads or hears about Eve Online and how the sandbox allows you to be who you want and engage in this evolving story alongside others
Player gets in game and soon finds out that he is limited by his time based training (or he can pay $ for injectors to skip to the fun stuff).
Player quickly realizes that he needs / wants ISK and what is the best way a new player can make ISK? Exploration is pretty good, but it sucks in Highsec and Null / Low / Wormholes are too ~spooky~… So the new player does missions / mines in Highsec.
Player quickly realizes how ■■■■ this gameplay actually is and probably quits the game
The whole system and UI surrounding missions is archaic and uninteresting. People complain about consensual pvp like ganking, wardecs, and yet they often forget to realize that CCP have probably driven away 10x the amount of players that those activities have.
Do you think todays average gamer goes through what I posted above, then jumps into lowsec (which by the way is where the majority of new players die at last time I looked at data) only to die to some sweaty gate camp and then says…
“Yeah the UI is ■■■■, the game is pretty overwhelming, the players tend to be toxic, resources are often outdated or wrong, but I totally enjoyed dying even though I have no idea what happened or what I did wrong.”
Yes, I think many of the players that stick around had exactly that reaction when they died in a lowsec gate camp for the first time. They used it as a stepping stone to learn and improve.
Right, my point isn’t about the players that stick around. Those are obviously gamers that can handle the type of game that Eve Online inherently is. I’m referring to the players that DON’T continue to play.
What I was getting at is that CCP’s data is probably flawed in that I don’t believe that CCP can discern the difference between an actual new player dying and a veteran that created a new account and instantly brought it into Lowsec.
If they make Eve too easy for new players, don’t they risk losing the gamers that can handle the type of game that Eve Online inherently is in the process ?
Of course. I’m not advocating for an easier game specifically. The game is already pretty easy because most of the ■■■■ is already figured out. My comments were directed at some bad person claiming that player interaction was driving players away, which is true… It happens. There’s not telling how many players I’ve made quit, but I know for sure at least 10.
My point is that CCP does a way better job at making players quit than any amount of player interaction. That’s what I was getting at, not that we need to cater to modern gamers and their handicaps.
Back on topic though… This whole nerfing resistances and intentionally buffing brawling doesn’t actually buff brawling. If anything… If I knew that the brawling fleet was going to hurt more I’d just bring a kiting doctrine. This is going to force people to want to kite more than brawl in my opinion.
They can, but that data set didn’t. They also didn’t say dying in lowsec makes one stick around longer either.
It was just an interesting data point as they were looking for evidence ganking drove people away, and they didn’t find evidence when looking at accounts less than 30 days old (Or at least not using the dataset they had).
People and CCP with the attitude Adapt or die need to understand this. That’s all true from a certain mindset. Certain people LOVE figuring out how to beat an adversary. Whether your adversary is a certain mission type or playstyle, or what have you.
Here’s the thing though, which CCP doesn’t get. AFTER you do the work, investing time (in game or out) thought (in game or out) and MONEY (in game or out) and can now beat your adversary, CCP comes along and says screw you and your invested time, thought and money.
Eventually, inevitably some people will say screw you CCP and vote with their wallets and feet.
@Knowledgeminer I’m happy to answer the question, so I’ll take it from here
That’s part of it. A sandbox isn’t fun when you cannot control when someone comes over and starts kicking over your sandcastles. There has to be reasonable controls on player interactions: what interactions are possible and the conditions under which they are possible. Examples: CONCORD in HS, War Immunity mechanics (so players aren’t forced to be in NPC corps for war immunity), Caps being LS/NS only, Bubbles being NS only, eventual warp after bump, and eliminating ■■■■■■■■ mechanics that simply make the game unfun or disproportionately imbalanced in such a way that is less of a strategic advantage and more of an exploit that diminishes gameplay value.
In the other thread @Knowledgeminer mentioned (on when to restrict reshipping at motherships), we had a similar debate. He said
I disagree with this line of thinking. Mechanics make the game, and if the game isn’t fun, the mechanics should change. The mechanics changes being discussed at any given time shouldn’t necessarily be viewed in the context of “making the game easier or harder” - the disruptions cause people to alter their gameplay such that the game remains fun after such changes. It’s not easier or harder, just different and more enjoyable.
In this thread, for example, there’s a lot of talk about how triage FAXes will be affected - fleet compositions and tactics will need to change to account for this change, which was CCP’s intention. Too few players were handling the logi needs of an entire fleet, and they were doing so in a relatively impregnable fashion - now the need for logi pilots has increased and triage will need to be utilized with greater discretion and/or fleets will need to prioritize defending FAXes under triage in order to benefit from them.
As for freighters, I think CCP is just preventing an obvious potential problem before it proliferates. There is legitimate concern that this patch will make ganking easier across the board, and freighters are a particularly juicy and easy target. They didn’t mention DCs being nerfed, sure, but the +15% damage to T2 short range ammo is not negligible - gankers will be far more willing to gank freighters, and they can do so in smaller numbers and lower expense. I anticipate there would be a massive spike in freighter ganks if this gap were not bridged before the patch is released, or at least not shortly after the initial patch.
But you didn’t. You wrote a relatively long post about game mechanics and what you consider is fun or not, but nowhere that I can see did you answer the question of what it is that you consider “undesirable behaviors”…
No, look, it’s true that you said “it’s part of it” (which I did notice), but it was unclear what did you mean by that, and you didn’t elaborate on it at all. Except for that brief and vague comment at the beginning, your post was all about something else, namely game mechanics and what you consider is fun or not, not a single mention to anything that could be considered “undesirable behaviours”.
You’ve been a little more precise now and said that what Faylee said is the main idea (not just part of it). So just to be clear and be sure you understood what Faylee said, and we’re understanding you, if someone interacts with you in some way that you don’t like or at a moment that you don’t find convenient, that player is showing “undesirable behaviour”, correct?
You may want to think a moment before answering that question because, if you check again the contexts in which you’ve used that expression so far, it would seem to indicate that you think it’s OK to pretend the game should be changed so that such “undesirable behaviours” are eventually suppressed, maybe not at once, but iteratively one step a time… And when you do that, you may start to realise that maybe you still haven’t really answered the question…
No: I don’t consider “undesirable behavior” to be any interaction that makes any individual player unhappy. If a carebear wants to solo PVE in nullsec but gets ganked at a bubble gate camp and complains about it, that does NOT fit my (holistic) criteria for “undesirable behavior”. I don’t have a precise definition, but it’s more along the lines of a mechanic that currently does or has the potential (esp. in becoming meta) to make the game unenjoyable for many players but whose removal or alteration would not significantly make the game less enjoyable for those most of those utilizing the mechanic (especially, but not necessarily, if they are already the minority). And of course I also consider the risk vs reward element in that players wanting higher end content should in fact forced to put themselves at risk to get it, and that includes PVP.
I want to reiterate that is not a precise definition and that the criteria is holistic; I would not, for example, consider suicide ganking to be undesirable - I think it is perfectly acceptable within reasonable windows of operation. Example: when it comes to suicide ganking most mining barges, requiring a minimum of 1 Catalyst is too few and would make it undesirable for the barge, but requiring a minimum of 10 Catalysts is too many and would make it undesirable for the suicide gankers in terms of not giving them the opportunity to gank the barge. This is a matter of calibration - hence the discussion on providing HP buffs on freighters and whether it should be extended to other ships such as barges (perhaps some ship classes to a larger extent than others)
Theoretically speaking, a game devoid of undesirable behaviors allows players to largely regulate their interactions (ie. the interactions they don’t want to engage in are not disproportionately or aggressively imposed, provided they don’t “cross over” to dangerous territory), and the interactions would operate on the basis of player skill, fleet composition, and fleet coordination to a larger extent than other factors such as bling or mechanics not directly provided by players. Example: in the other thread we’re on, one point I argue is that “motherships should not provide reshipping while tethered because no player should be able to support a fleet in any capacity while being immune from harm” - that’s because this is not a mechanic based on competency, collaboration, or directly provided by players (eg. tethering is not like a player providing logi, and the POS itself cannot be killed at that time when it has shields or armor to disable tether); as such I feel it that mechanic is an exploit and therefore has no place in EVE. (For those reading this but not the other thread, I briefly point out that a mothership tethered but unable to provide reshipping can still eject ships from and scoop ships into the ship maintenance bay, so it can indirectly provide reshipping in this fashion, but at an intentionally greater risk to the ships and slowdown of procedure if the mothership insists on indirectly providing reshipping while being immune to combat.)
There are many practical reasons why iteration is required - I don’t think I need to state those reasons because as much as we butt heads and disagree I acknowledge you’re a smart guy (I don’t mean that sarcastically despite my comment made earlier in this thread, but I assure you I say this with the greatest of reluctance ). It suffices to say that iteration doesn’t mean satisfactory solutions are not known, it just means there are practical reasons why they aren’t released simultaneously.
.
). It suffices to say that iteration doesn’t mean satisfactory solutions are not known, it just means there are practical reasons why they aren’t released simultaneously.