I think we just disagree that the randomish violence w/o consequence is a necessary ingredient to this type of game. Again, for EVE, don’t muck with the formula. This is a precise timepiece built to appeal at to a dedicated fan base. But if you were building this game again, investing in it all over again, as Star Citizen is for example, I don’t see why you’d leave consequence free, random violence as a near constant threat. It’s just not healthy for a game’s growth and isn’t actually part of the engine that makes the world alive and well. Better supported games are better for everyone, and I’d like to get more than one flavor. 
1 Like
I think it depends on whether you are marketing to 30+ year old males who are willing to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on your game over time, or whether you are marketing to a bunch of 14 year olds that want free-to-play and might give you $10 and quit in a month.
You keep trying to make mainstream sound like a good thing. The people who play Eve and the people on these forums generally do not hold the mainstream MMOs in high regard.
1 Like
I know it feels that way, but it’s not that way. The measurable metrics out there show it’s not that way. Fornite makes more in a month than these niche titles make in a year, and they do it month, after month, after month, after month. I don’t get it, but it’s not the most financially rewarding choice to go hardcore dedicated niche. The way to be Rockstar is to grab everyone at the same time. To make billions, despite delivering open world PvP as a core feature to the online game. Their SP games do fine, of course, but their online games are what is giving them lift. They’ve figured out a formula that works.
And I’m in the 40+ crowd who will spend thousands on a game over a short period of time if I like it enough or believe in it enough. I prefer games that get the PvP balanced enough to curtail the random/trollish behavior. Because it’s not immersive. It’s not enjoyable to just by default assume I’m always at a 10/10 for intensity when I log in. I love open world PvP, but strongly disapprove of salt farming. I don’t do it. Don’t think much of those who do. But man do I love structured PvP and unstructured by purposeful PvP.
What are you referring to? Yeah, crappy products make money. You are being deceived by survivorship bias. You point to successful games and then claim that their traits are what make a successful game. It would be like telling a great landscape artist that he really needs to paint more portraits, because great art is mostly portraits.
2 Likes
Referring to the overall landscape. Survivorship bias isn’t as much a risk when you have multiple types of survivors. This isn’t a “look at where the bullets hit the plane” example. This is just looking at games of each type, and which have had any breakout successes vs. those who haven’t. And it’s true it’s not a sign of quality, but appeal, and those are not always the same thing. But someone would be out of their mind to say that a game like RDR2 is low quality mass market slop. It’s an incredible game. Aspirational for a dev.
Your arguments are all over the place.
In what way? They are:
- EVE is niche, but may have survived as a niche title because of features which also prevent it from being mainstream
- EVE should stay as it is, because it almost certainly can’t become something new without risk of losing even its niche audience
- Unconstrained PvP pushes titles to niche status, even when they are best in class
- Evidenced by every metric you can find on games for the last 20 yrs
- Mass appeal doesn’t mean quality, but it also doesn’t mean poor quality
- More players = more $
- Constrained PvP + Structured PvP + PvE is the formula to get the best ROI on investment for a game studio
Kind of what “niche” means. Not mainstream. Bc niche.
1 Like
Yeah, but what I mean is, one game may be niche the way that some shows are niche until discovered. They’re not niche by design, they’re niche by circumstance. EVE is niche by design, not circumstance.
No, but you’re deliberately ignoring the other parts of the situation. The lack of structure allows you to slaughter newbies, but it also puts you at risk of being killed by vastly more powerful enemies. Structured PvP may remove some of the slaughter but it also puts a ceiling on the difficulty you might face and guarantees that all of your fights will be fair. Therefore success in such a restricted environment requires less skill than one in which your enemies have more tools for wrecking your stuff.
I think we just disagree that the randomish violence w/o consequence is a necessary ingredient to this type of game.
Why is there no consequence? The whole point of an open world game is that players impose consequences if they choose to do so. Unlike theme park PvE farming games (with or without limited arena-style PvP) player agency matters in games like EVE.
I don’t see why you’d leave consequence free, random violence as a near constant threat.
You’re right, you don’t understand it. But your lack of understanding is not a virtue.
and isn’t actually part of the engine that makes the world alive and well
Nonsense. You know who restrictions on PvP hurt the most? Industrial players. PvP players can always find more targets to kill, the people who suffer from a loss of PvP destruction are the industrial players who build new ships to replace the destroyed stuff. Remove the constant PvP and you remove the player-driven economy entirely.
Constrained PvP + Structured PvP + PvE is the formula to get the best ROI on investment for a game studio
Nope. The best ROI is to make a F2P mobile game that exploits addictive behavior as much as possible. Minimal effort invested, tons of profit. Once you start talking about making a quality game you’re already deciding to place ROI as a lower priority than making the best game possible, at which point your arguments in favor of restricted PvP start to fall apart.
There is always a bigger, more knowledgable, better prepared or more lucky fish. Which is how it should be, any sort of rules in this regard remove/destroy the whole concept of sandbox.
1 Like
Don’t waste your time with those ‘Wanna-be PvP’ ganker rat trash. It’s the same 1/2 dozen alt/friends who constantly gang-bang and try to meta-game these forums. Doesn’t matter what you say, they’ll always disagree, will dissect every little word you post, then misquote you and present all your statements out of context.
I would like also to add just this, the lamest thing ever its that you are not getting killed you get overkilled.
Its no boast to kill an ant, what’s the point? if you want to get better at any game you have to play with people that are better than you. But that’s just me, never mind.
I bought PLEX got skins got ship, but no you cannot use it you have to pay more.
Yeah yeah i got it is an Alpha account its a financial thing, go to the restaurant and ask for a steak you pay it and the waiter comes and brings it raw, you look at him and say i thought that would be cooked? No, no, sir there is another fee to pay here but no worries if you pay it you’ll get your steak cooked for a month!
Why don’t they get the frustration out of the game like everybody else and just get money for skins and fashionable space design ?
Or the already “playing” customers will get trashed if new players with new ideas can get to their level, so they get an “EGO-Mega protection module 0” ?
I played this kind of games starting with Elite on 64kb. (no mouse just keyboard and a A4 paper with all the keybindings and combos, made much more real the ship manoeuvring in battle even if you where shooting at plane geometrical objects) Eve as a concept Its basically the same game just better graphics and multiplayer… just cause technology evolved not better ideas just better concept nuances aka. memberberries.
The whole EVE design as a whole its new and crisp and i like it very much, just the mentality and the concept of the gameplay are old and narrow and that is just for the fact that after you wrote this you got so many triggers :))) like go away we don’t want you here and all that jazz shows exactly the attitude that you got in game.
Didn’t you understand till now that speaking your mind in front of people its not a good thing
“…e pur si muove” Galileo Galilei
Thanks for not reading and have a nice day !
Ive noticed that 99.9999% of the time its someone in a better ship killing someone in a worse ship…unless its one of the rare battles thats happened maybe 3 or 4 times in eve’s existence
If really wanted to retain people they would make Warp Disruptors (yea ya ya i know WCS help) more difficult to make and get…this is the number one annoyance that really gets a lot of newer players…Hell its to easy to equip these and basically if screws a new player…You do this and and it would help by about 20% in retention
What?
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.