open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked EVE Online, with no Concord
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic

Nekopyat
Posted - 2010.02.02 05:39:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: Platoon Sergeant
You want to get players hooked, you get their adrenaline pumping.


More accurately, if you want to get a particular TYPE of player hooked, that is what you do. What makes EVE work where pure PvP games fail is EVE maintains an ecosystem of multiple player types co-existing. If EVE was pure null-sec PvP, people would get bored of it very quickly, except for a small group of people who both (a) enjoy that type of game and (b) only need other people of their same type to enjoy it. At which point subscriptions drop to the point CCP can not continue to provide content and artwork, people start complaining that their ships are not as pretty as some newer game, and rage-quit.


End result is EvE runing out of some dev's basement as a private server.

Dantes Revenge
Caldari
Posted - 2010.02.02 06:22:00 - [92]
 

I played Tachyon a number of years back. One server was purely for dogfighting with an arena style of play.

the other had stations and groups used to go on sorties to attack the other stations. Imagine two neighboring systems in nullsec with opposing alliances at war with each other. There was no starter system, no protection beyond what your allies gave you and once you logged in, you were open to attack. People logged in, died, relogged, died, relogged, died, quit. Why? Simply because the "elite" were just shooting anyone who was new and not even giving them a chance to get orientated after loading the screen. Most were looking at the message "you have been killed" even before the environment had finished loading because the entry point was being camped by those just interested in upping their killscore. Arena server lasted 6 months and never had more than about 5 players logged in at any time. The other server lasted 8 months and actually managed to reach 56 users at peak.

Since there are so many Eve players more interested in their kill rankings than playing the game, it would go the same way. Noobs = easy targets and more kills on the board and other players are too busy defending themselves from other killboard fanatics to defend the noobs. Add to that, a noob ship will pop if you breathe too heavily on it so an attacker only needs to tank the defenders for a short while to take out dozens of noobs. He may lose one ship but gains dozens of new additions to his killscore.

Tason Hyena
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.02.02 06:26:00 - [93]
 

Quote:
[email protected] logic comment

Suggesting that the only positive experience for new players is found under concord guns; that new players have to spend months as the low man on the totem pole, running level 2s or mining in an osprey so that they can do more missions or mine in a bigger ship, THAT is griefing. You want to get players hooked, you get their adrenaline pumping. For better or worse, I remember my first pvp encounters 6 years ago with much greater candour than I can however the **** I managed to make isk at the time.


But for someone to have a positive experience, someone else has to have a negative one. It sounds like you were lucky, mine all were getting ganked by superior numbers until I joined RvB and tbh its mostly getting primaried now.

Chances are most people will have first experiences of being station camped, or getting blown up by superior numbers with no chance to respond. You wont hook up people that way, and I think this is why so many people dislike PvP in this game even with a safe spot, empire. If they couldn't escape it, there's be no chance to have any positive experience.

Seralder
Posted - 2010.02.02 06:53:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Seralder on 02/02/2010 06:55:50
What will happen if everything is 0.0:

1 year in future... 95% of Eve Player fligh in Velators (other starterships) and cry:
Who builds my battleships?
Who builds my equipment?
who transported me something?
where are all the industrial character & producers?
need money! cant make missions!

For small corporations will collapse the entire production ...
and most of the wannabe PVP Groups get hit by big PVP alliances with many many titans and carriers in the "high-sec" :D
than the writer of this Thread quit the game after he lost his last BS and say: Eve is **** YARRRR!!

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2010.02.02 10:24:00 - [95]
 

Let us discuss more about how throwing half the sand out of the box would be a "good" idea.

Has innovative thought completely died around here?

NatteFrost85
Ministry of War
Posted - 2010.02.02 11:28:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Epic DaSoto


CCP would freak out and start a new server called "Eve Trammel" that would basically be a whole universe of high sec space.




now THIS is what ccp needs to work on ASAP!

Elaine Shandrate
Posted - 2010.02.02 11:56:00 - [97]
 

Wasn't there a day without CONCORD when Empyrean Age was released?
The Minnies destroying CONCORD HQ, when all the wars started etc.

Can't remember if this was only during downtime though...

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2010.02.02 12:29:00 - [98]
 

Edited by: Wesfahrn on 02/02/2010 12:36:53
If veterans should not turn on the new players, you need incentives for them to do so. I dont think creating an Arena server with a scoreboard is any incentive for people to try and exist peacefully among each other, or at least in some zones.
What matters are the goals individual players set themselves, goals which would change as they become more accustomed to what the game has to offer. And EVE has much to offer here, which - in the case of there being no concord - eventually turn players from just killin each other to try and reach more challenging goals, which for most part will involve pvp because of the no concord situation. This is at least why i believe player maintained security and mutual respect will develop in some zones at least.

There is another point to make, i think most people who mine and mission, and rat for that matter, eventually get bored of it but still continue to do it.. Because it becomes a means to an end. Basically nothing will change here, except both means and ends would become more and less challenging - always changing - in the universe.

But again, if the guestimates are correct the PCU will drop, which will make plenty of zones for people to develop, to live in. To harvest resources and manufacture goods and fend of occasional hostilities :) This is not the only way the game will look, no-one can tell for sure what people will get up to, how they will organize and such. And thats the beauty of it imo.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.02.02 12:35:00 - [99]
 

I think that a better idea would be to scrap the hard line between high and low sec systems.

>0.5 "complete" safety
<0.5 risk

Instead, have a scaled chance that CONCORD show up in all systems between 0.0 and 0.9.

0.1 - a 1% chance per engagement of a concord "patrol" spotting the activity
0.2 - 3%
0.4 - 30%
0.8 - 90%
0.9 - 98%
1.0 - 100%

As security decrease, ther time it would take increases as well. Then in low sec, you have the option of (perhaps) being able to kill the target and warp off just as CONCORD arrives. CONCORD waits around for, say, 15 minutes then "continues its patrol".

Of course, how the system defined "engagement" would come into it.

NB: All numbers are to demonstrate the principle, plucked from thin air- maybe follow Cosine wave?



Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.02.02 12:52:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: ISellThingz
Enjoy your EvE with 95% less population.


You might want to check out the membership totals of the 0.0 alliances.

Hint: they add up to rather more than "5%" of all subscriptions.

Jeneroux
Gallente
Posted - 2010.02.02 14:49:00 - [101]
 

I started playing a few years ago then left while that big scandal was going on. That bothered me and I questioned the integrity of this game. I thought it over and decided that I detested mining, pew pew seemed so juvenile, and it felt more like a litterbox than sandbox to me.. so I quit.

Fast forward a few years and I got an email from CCP with a free time offer.

I came back to the forums and browsed around and thought.. meh.. samo samo.. then I stumbled into the market forum and found the spot I had missed before. Restarted both my accounts and I'm back and playing this game the way I want to play it and doing something I have fun at. Deal making, fast cloaked ships, tons of money ftw. I can play this.

Mess with that and I'm gone again.. and future email offers to come back would be marked spam. Nobody is going to tell paying customers how they have to play.

Ask NCsoft.. ask SOE.


Nekopyat
Posted - 2010.02.02 14:56:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Dantes Revenge

Since there are so many Eve players more interested in their kill rankings than playing the game, it would go the same way. Noobs = easy targets and more kills on the board and other players are too busy defending themselves from other killboard fanatics to defend the noobs.


Over the years, I have been pondering what it would take to build a stable player governed sandbox (yeah, I do it too...). This is one of the pieces I have been pondering. Killboards, or more specifically, getting rid of them. If one of the things stopping such a sandbox from working is people killing to up their stats, then remove the stats. This helps address one of the general problems, people killing for the sake of killing (as opposed to wars over territory, or piracy for loot).

Originally by: Malcanis

You might want to check out the membership totals of the 0.0 alliances.

Hint: they add up to rather more than "5%" of all subscriptions.


True, but how many of them would keep playing? Lack of high-sec alts and logistics, many null sec players would find their lives much more grind oriented. They would also loose much of their market for T2 goods, and might simply find the emptyness of the game less appealing.

Savatar Mei
Posted - 2010.02.02 15:36:00 - [103]
 

there used to be no concord right? i read that somewhere there used to be 'legendary' blockades by pirate corps in newbie zones etc etc.

Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2010.02.02 16:02:00 - [104]
 

This might not be the dumbest idea ever. But it's definitely up near the top of the list.

For one you couldn't get enough trit mined to build anything. Ship costs would skyrocket due to rarity of materials. New players would no longer start the carebear exodus would wipe out the bulk of CCP's revenue and the servers would be shut down with in a year since the hardcore PVP's wouldn't be able to cover the electricity bills.

You might think the economy could survive (you'd be wrong) But even it it did you'd have hell keeping enough isk in your wallets to replace lost ships.

Even if the developers were stupid enough to try such an idea, The bean counters would never let if fly. They can read the statistics perfectly fine to see that the vast majority of people playing this game spend the bulk of their time carebearing in high sec.

You don't need imagination to figure out that pure PVP MMO's don't work they don't attract or retain subscribers for crap. Look at EQ before the dark days befor WOW and you'd have seen that the red servers were always the loewst population and activity. If people had been interested in that crap they'd have had to create more PVP servers rather than more blue servers.

I'd say the only reason EVE hasn't gone pure carebear yet is because the servers are about maxed out already and hte only way they could support the subscription levels would be to do away with the single shard concept.

I actually think the current balance of security and PVP is pretty good. I'd still like to see Ninja salvaging create agression and insurance on Concordorken removed but as it stands now there is plenty of room for pew pew and enough security to finance it.

Nick Bison
Gallente
Bison Industrial Inc
Posted - 2010.02.02 16:13:00 - [105]
 

despite all the "cool" words bantered about like carebear, n00b, pubbie, tears, etc

What this really snacks of is all the little fat-kids wanting to get free-easy kills in HiSec as they are to spineless to head out to NulSec.
Very Happy

Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2010.02.02 16:18:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: ISellThingz
Enjoy your EvE with 95% less population.


You might want to check out the membership totals of the 0.0 alliances.

Hint: they add up to rather more than "5%" of all subscriptions.


Well considering that large alliance have alts in highsc for trading, research, and production, 5% might be a realistic number.

Nekopyat
Posted - 2010.02.02 17:41:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Skex Relbore

I'd say the only reason EVE hasn't gone pure carebear yet is because the servers are about maxed out already and hte only way they could support the subscription levels would be to do away with the single shard concept.


I am not sure that pure carebear would help their subscriptions much. One of the things that makes EVE unique (and pulls in the people) is the balance they have struck between relative security and freedom of actions. Even as a target (and I am a carebear), I am much happier in a game where people CAN attack me and no box pops up saying 'you magically can not do this'.

Plus, just like null-sec needs hi-sec to function, hi-sec needs the people (and conflicts) out in nullsec to keep the economy flowing. Loose either from the ecosystem and EVE would become a duller and less active place.

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2010.02.02 18:10:00 - [108]
 

Edited by: Wesfahrn on 02/02/2010 18:34:15
Financially CCP depends on subscriptions not how many users are online at any one moment. In fact, one could argue the more people that are online the worse it is for CCP. CCP ought to be focusing on developing gameplay that draws out and spands buckets of time (ie. dynamics, ie. ie. players responsible for security) to keep people subscribed for everô.

This is not what high sec/concord does. This kind of implementation only fosters grinding. The static security situation allow people to assemble in these areas and focus solely on ISK accumulation which distorts the economy somewhat. Also, the safety enables people to have second accounts made just for grinding where the result is decreased server performance overall per person. Do you understand this pressures CCP to upgrade server hardware etc. and this is but an expense for CCP which is bad buisness wise.

With fewer alts, lag will decrease. This is an important point too.


As for the thought that trit will dry out... This implies trit only gets mined in concord space today, but also refutes the common knowledge regarding supply and demand. If supply of trit is dwindling the price will go up, which will make more people sell from their stocks or go mine veld for example. The marketplace would only become more dynamic, more intersting -There is no such thing as drying out, unless something literately dries out of course.

Ava Stonlai
Posted - 2010.02.02 18:48:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Edited by: Wesfahrn on 02/02/2010 18:34:15
Financially CCP depends on subscriptions not how many users are online at any one moment. In fact, one could argue the more people that are online the worse it is for CCP. CCP ought to be focusing on developing gameplay that draws out and spands buckets of time (ie. dynamics, ie. ie. players responsible for security) to keep people subscribed for ever™.

This is not what high sec/concord does. This kind of implementation only fosters grinding. The static security situation allow people to assemble in these areas and focus solely on ISK accumulation which distorts the economy somewhat. Also, the safety enables people to have second accounts made just for grinding where the result is decreased server performance overall per person. Do you understand this pressures CCP to upgrade server hardware etc. and this is but an expense for CCP which is bad buisness wise.

With fewer alts, lag will decrease. This is an important point too.




Thread TLDR most of it.

You seem to miss the point that players don't want jobs as local police everywhere, if the system security is up to players in all systems the 'world' would shrink dramatically as only few locations would be populated with corporations/alliances willing and able to field the numbers needed to make it 'safe'. *IF* the even do that why do it in highsec, over 00 where they can have defenses, moon mine, etc?

Should concord vanish trade stops, all the alts from 00 with all their billions and the goods etc in Jita/hubs would be basically worthless as there would be no safety in traveling to get crap, every jump in highsec would be like a jump in 00 into hostile terrority. You'd be better off buying from your 00 alliance and staying there over venturing into lawless 'highsec' without protection, unless you were looking to kill people.

No concord=stupid idea.

Thread die already.


Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2010.02.02 18:49:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Edited by: Wesfahrn on 02/02/2010 18:34:15
Financially CCP depends on subscriptions not how many users are online at any one moment. In fact, one could argue the more people that are online the worse it is for CCP. CCP ought to be focusing on developing gameplay that draws out and spands buckets of time (ie. dynamics, ie. ie. players responsible for security) to keep people subscribed for everô.

This is not what high sec/concord does. This kind of implementation only fosters grinding. The static security situation allow people to assemble in these areas and focus solely on ISK accumulation which distorts the economy somewhat. Also, the safety enables people to have second accounts made just for grinding where the result is decreased server performance overall per person. Do you understand this pressures CCP to upgrade server hardware etc. and this is but an expense for CCP which is bad buisness wise.

With fewer alts, lag will decrease. This is an important point too.





Those alts are subscriptions eliminate the use for those alts and you eliminate those subscription hence revenue. And and revenue is what matters in the end. They will provide just as much hardware as is needed to maximize their revenue stream. Which is why idea's such as the elinination of Hisec or removal/nerfing of Concord will never happen.

In fact alt accounts are generally the most lucrative accounts. You have it entirely backwards the goal isn't to maximize log in time but rather the minimize it. That's why unholy rage resulted in such a great reduction of server utilization when those highly active accounts were banned.

No MMO designer is going to try and run off the casual gamer because the casual gamer is the most lucrative when it comes to revenue/support ratio.

hardcore players are good for advertizing casuals are the money makers.


Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2010.02.02 19:12:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Ava Stonlai
You seem to miss the point that players don't want jobs as local police everywhere



Perhaps you dont, and thats why yo usee it as a "job". As a matter of fact i think you missed a lot of points by not reading the thread

000Hunter000
Gallente
Missiles 'R' Us
Posted - 2010.02.02 19:17:00 - [112]
 

So... This isn't well thought tbfh... I mean, u would have funktards camping the noob spawninggrounds, whacking the noobs for their own sick enjoyment.

And who would be left to mine and build? EVE would slowely turn into a giant Alliance game...

It would be Alliance Online...

I would definitly quit the same day this would be implemented...

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2010.02.02 19:25:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Skex Relbore
In fact alt accounts are generally the most lucrative accounts.



Alt accounts are not lucrative, they increase load on servers which diminishes server quality per paying customer. I bet you server hosting and maintenance is CCP's biggest expense.

I think its unsustainable to design a game that requires people to run more than 1 character on the same server, and it displays lack of imagination in efforts to increase the amount of money each customer spends.

However, i do think this is primarily a matter of money for CCP. They have shareholders to appease and this is their primary goal. It is also what is going to kill this game. CCP will take a short sighted path, focusing on raising share price, and make so many mistakes and neglect too many of them on the way, until a customer too many has left and the company is bankrupt. Its sad, and i dont think im going to spending more time in this thread because i feel this is happening.

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2010.02.02 19:31:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: 000Hunter000
So... This isn't well thought tbfh... I mean, u would have funktards camping the noob spawninggrounds, whacking the noobs for their own sick enjoyment.

And who would be left to mine and build? EVE would slowely turn into a giant Alliance game...

It would be Alliance Online...

I would definitly quit the same day this would be implemented...


What makes you think no-one will attempt to shoot a camper? The universe is big, and by removing concord you can expect the average "living standard" of EVE to drop. This will make the universe seem even bigger, ad to that the increased dangers of traveling. People will no-doubt find spots where they can mine and manufacture peacefully. If trouble comes knocking, some move on, others will try and defend. Some will just cloak :)

Tulisin Dragonflame
Posted - 2010.02.02 19:51:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Originally by: Skex Relbore
In fact alt accounts are generally the most lucrative accounts.



Alt accounts are not lucrative, they increase load on servers which diminishes server quality per paying customer. I bet you server hosting and maintenance is CCP's biggest expense.


Sorry, but if the amount of money CCP makes from a monthly sub is less than the amount they have to pay to support an active player, much less an alt, they've got no business model, never have, and went out of business before they began. Since that isn't true, we have to assume their revenues per-account are at least a little greater than their costs, or likely vastly so.

The fact is that alt accounts pay as much as everyone else while being generally less active (to the point where some alts rarely even leave a station). Although I think you're overestimating the cost of supporting an account.

Tulisin Dragonflame
Posted - 2010.02.02 19:57:00 - [116]
 

As for the OP: Imagine the reverse, and all systems become 1.0.

Fun? No.
Why? Because it doesn't suit your playstyle.

I have no idea why you think homogenizing EVE would be a good idea when an MMO's greatest strength is the depth of appeal and the ability to pick and pursue your own playstyle.

EVE already has the best of both worlds with bands of decreasingly secure space depending on where you want to live and how you want to behave.

Sgt Blade
Caldari
Save Yourself Inc.
Posted - 2010.02.02 20:00:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Elisha Starkiller
so ok lets say they left.... who is going to build the ships? and who are you going to suicide gank now? :p



my alt will make my ships and I will kill the other pvpers alts who are doing the same for them Laughing

Guttripper
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2010.02.02 20:00:00 - [118]
 

Edited by: Guttripper on 02/02/2010 20:14:55
Let's make this experiment really interesting - with Concord being disbanded, both jump clones and medical clones were destroyed during the exodus.

Now when a pilot is podded, two choices can be discussed further and implemented:
- Complete and utter loss, making the pilot begin at skill points of zero.
- A percentage of skill points lost (perhaps 10% randomly across the pilot's skill tree). While this may appear to be a clone, a player can not "save" their current skill points and will always loose something harsh.

Make hardcore PVP actions really hurt instead of just a temporary setback.

Edited to elaborate on the podding results.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.02 20:27:00 - [119]
 

0.0 alliances will still dominate, only it will be the entire universe. as for "oh noes i have to socialize", u and those few mates will be roflstomped no matter what. but then again, u already knew that. Wink anyone else bored enough to respond to this troll?

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2010.02.02 20:28:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: Wesfahrn on 02/02/2010 20:30:22
I should have been more specific. I am talking about alt accounts used for grinding, grinding that only take place because of the static security concord provides.

This removing-concord thing is not a solution that would work for all, because like they say there is no one-size sock. Or however it goes..

What we are really debating on the performance issue is weather resources should be spent on linear gameplay (High sec NPC'ing) or the more rewarding gameplay in my eyes; dynamic environments, a risk/reward element, basically 0.0 stuff.

Anyway there is a threshold as to how many people the server can support, and as it looks like now CCP has a game even one single server where both gameplay types exist(A dumbed down, and an intelligent one). I think this is a mistake, this dual gameplay-type-catering. You should choose one over the other, otherwise you have created some sort of battle on server resources and content development and ultimately you are going to let both "worlds" down.

There is no doubt one is more profitable (Initially!) than the other, and it will be reasonable to say, what with company structure of CCP, they will go the short term "easy" money way, which is replicating what has been a success in other games, rather than go their own way like they did when EVE was first created, which ironically was what made them successful. But nothing is certain, maybe i just hold a view too pessimistic on the future of eve. Time still stands to proove. Untill then fly-safe im done with this thread.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only