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

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.02.02 20:35:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Platoon Sergeant
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.
Yup good ole bitter vet "I had to mine for 6 months in the blinding snow to get a tier 1 frigate and another 2 months to fit it! You whippersnappers have it too easy! RAGE!!!!!" greifer logic at work. Take off the blinders son as apparently by the daily numbers on the map for who is where in eve it looks very much like people are hooked on safe empire and are quite happy with the situation if the steadily growing subscription numbers are any indication.

I mean there is a reason after all that 80% of the population is living there with around 20% duking it out in lowsec or nullsec depending on their pvp taste for either gang warfare or huge alliance blob fests. So you want new recruits? Then make your playstyle attractive to them instead of calling them all carebears and berating them at every oppourtunity. I mean really, what average empire living joe is going to want to join a bunch namecalling aggresive arsehats? Quit strutting around like your **** don't stink because you learned to f1 f2 f3 on what your fc called out and figure out a way to draw the perfectly competant empire dwellers into your pvp lifestyle.

Nekopyat
Posted - 2010.02.02 20:37:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn

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.


Mistake? CCP has been the first major game I have seen that has found a solid way to merge multiple play styles effectively into a heterogeneous ecosystem. If that is a 'mistake' is a rather profitable one that no one else has managed to come close to doing and still remain afloat.

The problem with 'one world or the other' is you end up with duller worlds that way. Monocultures are boring,... but more importantly (from CCP's perspective) they would be economic suicide. They would have to choose between pure player sandbox (which would result in layoffs and eventual closing of CCP) or carebare (which since it would put EVE in direct competition with other PvE services, would probably also result in layoffs at minimal).

The problem is, we are not talking 'two worlds', we are talking one deep world with multiple aspects. Makes for a much more interesting game and a much larger (and thus more interesting) playerbase.

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2010.02.02 21:07:00 - [123]
 

No the problem is lag. The problem is people hold multiple accounts, which drains more server resources per person. If the game was designed so there so there was no incentive for individuals to run 2,3,4 accounts, server load per person would decrease and ideally problems regarding lag would reside. And fun would be had -from my perspective. Of course the high sec dwellers loving the NPC security will disagree. And they wont be proven wrong untill the game with the ideas i talk about - yes, i know im not the only one :) - exist.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.02.02 21:15:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
No the problem is lag.
Lag? What lag. I play with multiple accounts pretty much every type of gameplay style there is in the game sans huge sov bashing fleet fights and haven't experienced any real lag in years. Stealth fleet fight whinge perhaps?Very Happy

Tason Hyena
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.02.02 21:35:00 - [125]
 

Wes, so the real solution is to screw over a large portion of the playerbase in the hopes the small percentage of the playerbase gets less lag in their fights? Yeah that's going to work well.

CyberGh0st
Minmatar
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2010.02.02 22:27:00 - [126]
 

Not a good idea, highsec is not safe enough as it is, with no penalties for suicide ganking due insurance payout for concord related kills.

There has to be a semi safe haven for industry to thrive, for the newbies to learn the game and for people tired/exchausted of lowsec / 0.0 to relax.

It is one of the foundations of EVE.


Lord Xantoh
Posted - 2010.02.02 22:51:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Edited by: Wesfahrn on 01/02/2010 19:29:33
People still dont unerstand that other players will take on the task of providing security


Nobody stops you from doing that in nullsec or wh-space... or are you too afraid going there? Laughing

Mlach
Posted - 2010.02.02 22:55:00 - [128]
 

but i like concord...

Dalieus Dakarn
Caldari
Capital Construction Research
Pioneer Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.02 23:14:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Robert Korad
I would like it as in-game event for a day or more. Like WoW had before the Lich king addon, where everyone could become zombies and go out cleaning the major cities.

Oh, you mean the event where I had to log out for a whole week because I couldn't quest without an army of high level zombies griefing quest NPCs and new players?

Awesome... Rolling Eyes

Nekopyat
Posted - 2010.02.03 00:38:00 - [130]
 

Edited by: Nekopyat on 03/02/2010 00:38:55
Originally by: Wesfahrn
No the problem is lag. The problem is people hold multiple accounts, which drains more server resources per person.


Not... really. Alts, even if they are off grinding, have ZERO impact (ok, technically minimal) impact on lag you might see in a fleet fight. They are on completely different servers. The only bottleneck that is shared would be the network pipes.

Quote:
And they wont be proven wrong untill the game with the ideas i talk about - yes, i know im not the only one :) - exist.


They have existed, and they fail. If you think you have a better idea (and the technical knowledge to back it up) then start your own game. That is what the EVE devs did.

Dastur
Gallente
Posted - 2010.02.03 01:45:00 - [131]
 

All your bridges to me belong...

I think we should call this the Christianity, Muslim, Dictator, I want to get my rocks off on your dead warm (well, in space it's not) decapsulated body tread.

One of the strength of Eve is that it can accommodate multiple play styles. To reduce it for personal gain (in the end it is just e peen envy) is arguable at best, morally reprehensible at worst.

If, after 7 years CCP has maintained the Pve/PvP balance, with a player base going from a few thousand to 50K+ online I seriously think that they have a winner and only minor mods are required.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2010.02.03 02:14:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
No the problem is lag. The problem is people hold multiple accounts, which drains more server resources per person. If the game was designed so there so there was no incentive for individuals to run 2,3,4 accounts, server load per person would decrease and ideally problems regarding lag would reside. ...

You have no clue about the nature and status of the network of computers and software eve is running on but give advice on how to reduce lag?!?
Are you trolling?

Get serious man and do your homework..
If there is lag in eve today, then its due to the numbers of people interacting with each other on a single grid on a single cpu somewhere down in nullsec (one more client connected means all other clients information needs to reach that additional client >> n^2, where n is number of clients)
.
Yes.. before dominion hit the fan it was working nice. CCP did something to the code inbetween so naturally the 0.0-crowd is raging.. give ccp some time to sort it out.
I bet 1bn isk that in 3 months the servers will be rockstable again and we'll have read a nice tech-devblog about what happend like the last time, when they figured out what caused the gate-hickups.

Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2010.02.03 17:12:00 - [133]
 

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.

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.


Active players cause serverload which is what causes lag. An alt that sits in stattion all day spinning ships doesn't cause lag.

Of course it depends on what the alt does to some extent but since most people use alts to gain extra utility for specific circumstances then the odds are that most generate very little if any server load. A research alt will add no lag a trader alt causes no lag a mining alt might cause a little but they tend to be distributed.

Most of the Lag problems in Eve seem to be related mainly to large fleet battles in 0.0 where mass numbers of players interact in the same system on the same grid.

The absolutely most lucvrative customer for an MMO is the guy who pays his account and never logs in. With a sliding scale the more a player logs in the less lucrative they become the ones that are on 23/7 being the least lucrative (which is why banning all the Bots during unholy rage had a far greater impact on server loads than their small numbers would suggest).

An alt is by definition an alternate account as opposed to a main. Meaning that it by definition less used than the main account meaning it takes up less resources to support and gnerates a greater revenue to support cost ratio than the "main" acount.

You're assertion that a game design that encourages the purchase of multiple accounts in subscription based game indicates that you have absolutely no friggin clue what you are talking about. Which goes a long way towards explaining why you thought your idea wasn't made of pure fail to begin with.


TL:DR you have a very poor grasp of the economic realities as they pertains to MMOs.

Still TL? You are an idiot.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2010.02.03 19:25:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 03/02/2010 19:42:30
Quote:
I mean there is a reason after all that 80% of the population is living there with around 20% duking it out in lowsec or nullsec depending on their pvp taste for either gang warfare or huge alliance blob fests.


Hey Zeba, I'm not entering into the debate (I really don't have much interest for the game going the direction this thread suggests) nor am I arguing with the rest of your post.

However I do have an observation concerning the quote above.

When you consider that most every member of that 20% lowsec/nullsec population has 1 marketing alt and 1 production or mission running alt in Empire space (not to mention a high probability of having 3 other characters there on a second account) that does rather nasty things to your assumption of the mindset of the other 80% of people that live in high sec. Very Happy

Truth be told, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the lions share of the EVE user population is not PVE exclusive. Just something to consider, for what it's worth.

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2010.02.04 20:16:00 - [135]
 

You need to understand where im coming from. I like player driven. I want as much freedom, if you will, for the player as possible. Its possible strangers, new players and old players alike in a game world (EVE with a few adjustments to make it even more likely) could co-exist with relative safety without concord -perhaps not the degree to which there is today, but more than enough to not drive newbies away.... rather suck them in.

So with this mindset, i move on to say that alts create lag. Simply because they increase server load per person. Maybe there are 250.000 acounts, but only about 125.000 actual people playing the game. Now, the server has a threshold for how many people/characters it can handle, and still be stable. Every alt pushes the server that much closer to the limit. The limit is where people begin to leave, and new players (Fresh purchasing power) dont even want to bother with the game because of lag and what not.

So, a "10 account per person" business model seems kind of bad, because server expenses (And those are usually high!) rises equally, to satisfy the same people, where alternative ways to make people spend more without the same increase in expenses would be better. And these, ladies and gentlemen, could be implemented in the no-concord eve. This is called micro-payments afaik, and some MMO's already utilize these.

So that was a little about buisness model. But what i really came to shed light on and explore, is the possibility of a successful mmo with no NPC sanctioned security in the economy, where EVE could very well be one. EVE for example would still be as diverse, and reward so many different play styles. Its just a matter of who delivers the security, players or NPC's.

Sig Sour
Posted - 2010.02.04 20:36:00 - [136]
 

Eliminate alts (one character slot) and $5 says NBSI wouldn't be common in this version of Eve.

Nekopyat
Posted - 2010.02.04 20:43:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Simply because they increase server load per person. Maybe there are 250.000 acounts, but only about 125.000 actual people playing the game.


Which is why people are knocking you for not understanding the technical aspects of EVE. There is no 'server', it is a cluster. Lag is on a per-node basis. The only time having alts would effect lag is if they are separate accounts (not alts on a single account) and the player has multiple accounts logged in at the same time in the same system.

Quote:
So, a "10 account per person" business model seems kind of bad, because server expenses (And those are usually high!) rises equally, to satisfy the same people


If we are talking separate accounts, then revenue increases too. Since many alts are specalists of one type or another (rather then all being null sec fleet), then the revenue increases more then the load on any particular node.

Quote:
This is called micro-payments afaik, and some MMO's already utilize these.


Not quite sure where 'micropayments' came in, but I think those would really ruin EVE. With micropayments you generally have to set up barriers between content types so that people who pay more have access to things that people who pay less do not.

Quote:
So that was a little about buisness model.


Please do not go into business school. You would make your professors cry.

Quote:
EVE for example would still be as diverse, and reward so many different play styles. Its just a matter of who delivers the security, players or NPC's.


Lower subscripts, lower diversity, bankcrupcy. EVE tried the no-concord model and not only were they not able to break even, but it was a duller game with only one kind of person around.

Equus
Nemesis Nation
Posted - 2010.02.04 21:02:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Edited by: Wesfahrn on 01/02/2010 11:11:53
Would be an interesting project. People who gank are equally susceptible to being ganked themselved. While the gankers battle it out, the lone guy is doing all his trading and mission stuff. However you would be best of with a few mates (Oh noes i have to socialize) when missioning and such, which in turn would make these tasks much more profitable. It will be the renesance of T1, and will give nuubies alot of oppertunity from day 1. Keyword is friendsip and social bonding will get you what you want, not just a 3 year old char with 1337 marauder skills.

Yeah lets do it, WoW has cataclysm, EVE has concord collapsing.

How do you think it would look like? Pros and cons?


I didn't read this entire thread but I will say that this has been tried to an extent, when Ultima Online first came out there was no Trammel, the entire world except in towns was open PvP. Griefing was abundant and death penalties were harsh. The developers did put in some restrictions and penalties for killing other people but it was not enough. Even Richard Garriot (sp?) is quoted calling the early days in UO a "Failed social experiment" all the griefers drove out everyone else, Origin was forced to make a 'Carebear' facet called Trammel to stay in business and keep subscribers.

Not everyone wants to PvP and as the past has shown us any game that tried to be exclusively a PvP game with no 'Carebear' side fails. All the people who think that a pure forced PvP game will do good and force people to rely more on each other and all that crap are delusional, it will cause people to quit. Period.

Meredith Midnight
Posted - 2010.02.04 21:19:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: NatteFrost85
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!


If they could revamp their combat system at the same time? Hell ya. I've strayed a bit towards STO because their space combat is a lot more fun. (Anti-primary capabilites galore and the inability to blob-gank unless one of the other team strayed off on their own).

Anubis Xian
Ministry of War
Posted - 2010.02.04 21:38:00 - [140]
 

If Eve 2 has CONCORD or anything like it, I'll not be playing.

Mobius Fierce
Posted - 2010.02.04 21:59:00 - [141]
 

Edited by: Mobius Fierce on 04/02/2010 21:59:07
The OP's idea would kill the game, at least in its current incarnation. Maybe it would work in EVE 2.0 or something if there were other methods implemented to protect newbies.

However, it might be fun for 1 night per year. There was one game I used to play where every Halloween would be declared "hell night". PvP flags were set for everyone but the next day the server would go back to the state it was before "hell night", so everyone basically went all out and didn't care about dieing or attacking their buddies or anything else. It was a lot of fun.

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2010.02.06 03:07:00 - [142]
 

Originally by: Equus

Not everyone wants to PvP and as the past has shown us any game that tried to be exclusively a PvP game with no 'Carebear' side fails. All the people who think that a pure forced PvP game will do good and force people to rely more on each other and all that crap are delusional, it will cause people to quit. Period.
.

We have to remember that PvP means Player versus Player. It means competition. Even people manufacturing and selling goods are competing, its PvP. Its not about forcing people to PvP. Its about establishing a set of parameters that constitutes a good game.

And the notion pure PvP game fails... What about counter-strike? It was a failure? :)

Feone
Posted - 2010.02.06 03:40:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Originally by: Equus

Not everyone wants to PvP and as the past has shown us any game that tried to be exclusively a PvP game with no 'Carebear' side fails. All the people who think that a pure forced PvP game will do good and force people to rely more on each other and all that crap are delusional, it will cause people to quit. Period.
.

We have to remember that PvP means Player versus Player. It means competition. Even people manufacturing and selling goods are competing, its PvP. Its not about forcing people to PvP. Its about establishing a set of parameters that constitutes a good game.

And the notion pure PvP game fails... What about counter-strike? It was a failure? :)


No we don't, or at least most of us don't cause we don't have the memory of a goldfish.

Yes when you have a game as complex as EVE with the market system Pure PvP does fail CS is a completely different game which seeing as you need to be reminded what PVP means I can understand you not getting that.

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2010.02.06 04:45:00 - [144]
 

EVE has areas with no NPC protection where markets still develop

Cayden Xios
Posted - 2010.02.06 07:02:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Originally by: Equus

Not everyone wants to PvP and as the past has shown us any game that tried to be exclusively a PvP game with no 'Carebear' side fails. All the people who think that a pure forced PvP game will do good and force people to rely more on each other and all that crap are delusional, it will cause people to quit. Period.
.

We have to remember that PvP means Player versus Player. It means competition. Even people manufacturing and selling goods are competing, its PvP. Its not about forcing people to PvP. Its about establishing a set of parameters that constitutes a good game.

And the notion pure PvP game fails... What about counter-strike? It was a failure? :)

You're comparing Counter-Strike to EVE? Clearly you need some time to think about this...

Throughout gaming history, pure PVP MMOs have had a very hard time surviving, and often suffered from being quite limited in scope. See UO, or Darkfall. I played a game called Wurm Online, and in that game, they literally added a whole new continent that had no pvp at all. Subscriptions for the game rose dramatically and stayed that way until the non-pvp land was also turned into a pvp land, at which point subs dropped by half within days. After a month of fighting between the pvp/non-pvp players and the developer, a new non-pvp land was added. But even months later, sub numbers are still under what they used to be.

Not everyone wants to be part of a gank/grief fest, and all the talk going on in this thread sounds EXACTLY like the talk on the Wurm Forums before the dev decided to change the land over to pvp: tons of pirates and griefers who just want cheap, easy targets... and all they get is a dead game instead, so rather than fight each other they get mad at the non-pvp crowd and call them carebears. You guys ever think some "carebears" are ex-pvp? If you ask around you'll be surprised how many of them there are. Some people are just tired of the stress, others are tired of dealing with all the immature pvp kids (UO was so bad for this...), but whatever the reason, they've hung up the pvp flag. But I guess that's still a carebear to you.

Hmm, how many of you pirates and other nullsec guys have "carebear" alts so you can use empire space? I'd be quite surprised if it wasn't most of you.

Neesa Corrinne
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2010.02.06 07:08:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: Wet Ferret
Highsec would be pointless, 80% of EVE would be griefed out of the game and you'd be back to struggling to break 5k peak users.


GREAT!!!

This game was so much better around 2005 when an active tank was actually useful and the peak concurrent players on the busiest day of the year was 18,000.

Capital Ships Online is a giant yawnfestival of gatecamping, POS Bashing and giant fleet node crashing. Remove Concord, let the whiners pack their emo bags and head back on over to their WoW Battlegrounds where everything is rainbows and unicorns and fairness!

Dr Chicago
Posted - 2010.02.06 13:15:00 - [147]
 

This was most likely the least thought out question I have ever seen posted.

Is like my son when he let me know he fed the dog a 5LB bar of chocolate, "Was that OK dad?" The dog shat himself and the house for a week then rolled over and died..Literally.

Hate the high sec people as much as you can conceive, but when its all done and said low sec'ers need highsec industrial capabilities to operate efficiently.

Shawna Gray
Gallente
Posted - 2010.02.06 16:04:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: Dr Chicago

Hate the high sec people as much as you can conceive, but when its all done and said low sec'ers need highsec industrial capabilities to operate efficiently.


Thats not really true. Atm its just easier to do it in high sec, thats why so many 0.0 and low sec players have their industry alts in high sec.

Jerid Verges
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.02.06 17:49:00 - [149]
 

Edited by: Jerid Verges on 06/02/2010 17:53:06
Eve Online would fail if that happened.

Almost everyone who lives in High Sec would leave. The percentage of new players who quit would hit 99% and so called 'PvPers' would end up also quitting because there would be almost nobody to gank.

This would KILL Eve online. All of you 'PvPers' would simply be destroying your own fun.


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