EVE is in crisis. Time to finish them and grab their players!
- Thread starter Lulzwhat
- Start date
I don't want ED to be like EVE thanks. I'm not bothered about a fully player driven economy. I'm not bothered about crafting and I'm certainly don't want territory claim.
Takes a while to kill off a successful IP while at the same time making it look like someone else's fault, give them a chance.
I mean according to a some posts ED has been dying from the day I first made my account so I guess it's a matter if which one dies slowest!
IMHO, these are too different games (beside similar "space" background). Theoretically it might be possible to add to Elite's Powerplay / BGS a little "EVEish" Excel-gameplay. But that might cost to our Developers that time, which would be used to make something what we wanted long time.
Is it worth it?
Not sure about EVE's being in big trouble, but maybe there is something. . .Even so, someone plays it and the fire hasn't gone out yet.
Though those numbers are not ALL numbers..
steamcharts.com
If somewhere IS potential candidates who will to enjoy the ED, then i would see at so called "worlds' simulators". The rough exemplars are Anarchy online and Project Entropia. Though i don't know, in what stage are exactly these games (maybe they are already dead), but their audience (and from similar games) might be interested to build some planetary worlds in ED, if that would be possible.
Is it worth it?
Not sure about EVE's being in big trouble, but maybe there is something. . .Even so, someone plays it and the fire hasn't gone out yet.
Though those numbers are not ALL numbers..
Comparison - Steam Charts
An ongoing analysis of Steam's player numbers, seeing what's been played the most.
If somewhere IS potential candidates who will to enjoy the ED, then i would see at so called "worlds' simulators". The rough exemplars are Anarchy online and Project Entropia. Though i don't know, in what stage are exactly these games (maybe they are already dead), but their audience (and from similar games) might be interested to build some planetary worlds in ED, if that would be possible.
Who's Eve?
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
It's a damn and Eve not....
someone finish that.
someone finish that.
ok, I'll bite..You dont want player driven economy and crafting?
Well...
No I don't. Or at least not like EVE does them. "Player driven economy" EVE-style is just a codeword for "eat noobs, get fat" which would destroy this game. If EVE genuinely is "in trouble" the last thing we want is to bring the same trouble here.
I played EVE for many years then stopped about 10 years ago. I loved it, some of the best gaming moments I've had were in that, did it all, industrialist, pirate, miner, corp member and corp leader, amazing game that I havent seen done as good since.
It has a reputation as a toxic community and it does have that aspect if you go looking for it, but on the vast majority I found EVE community an amazing thing.
It has a reputation as a toxic community and it does have that aspect if you go looking for it, but on the vast majority I found EVE community an amazing thing.
Personally i find EDs community to be more toxic, but i digress.
As a double- digit years player of EVE, the reason i play ED is because it isn't EVE, and vice versa. An NPC driven economy is not a bad thing done right, just like a player different economy. To compare the two is like suggesting a car is better than a boat in a road race; it's not even a relevant comparison.
ED doing a player driven market would require such a dramatic rewrite of the entire game that it wouldn't even be ED anymore. People seem to think a player driven economy is some eudaimonic state compared to an NPC one... it isn't... it's simply a different way to cut that game mechanic.
People also think player driven economies are inherently more dynamic; they aren't. In EVE, the markets almost never deviate from a constant equilibrium... the only thing that affects that is patches by CCP (and i say that with many years of playing the market game there).
ED needs to be better at what ED does, not what EVE does.
the spreadsheet thing has to be the daftest meme about eve and still floats.
in eve you very much fly your ships, and they are as much integrated into space as elite's are. in elite you fly in first person in your cockpit, in eve you fly in third person via more abstract commands, in both cases you are subject to arbitrary simulation of fictional physical forces.
there the similarities end because while elite has arguably a "bigger map", eve's scope as a space game is simply huge compared to elite's, and the level of depth of any of those aspects is several times that of elite. if that's why it's called a "spreadsheet game" then that's what most any other game tries to do but fails at such scale and level of detail.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Personally I believe the main problem with EDs community comes down to many of us are not sure what game ED is trying to be.
Whether that is on the players for not doing their homework OR is on FD for mixed messaging in their marketing as well as the game changing directions multiple times and starting features without ever really finishing them as well as dropping some features outlined but not telling us is a discussion for another thread.
But if person A want 1 thing from the game and person B doesn't, and argues for implementing it even if it means person As game will be ruined then that is going to lead to push back.
On your 2nd quoted point I fully agree.
I guess my perspective is more related to the thing where if i pick my nose in ED, I'm worried someone probably thinks it's griefing, and that i probably torch puppies in the real world.
With less hyperbole... ganking, murderhoboing, causing negative states, UA bombing, scamming and more are all seen as "griefing"... if this were the eve community i remember, that's just playing the game, and people understood that.
Which is exactly one of the reasons why I play ED and don't like EVE. I am not a fan of PvP really..... I don't mind those who do having options to do it of course but my biggest trigger is definitely when some players suggest forcing players to play in open or lose features etc.
ED was always meant to have that kind of content purely optional (indeed I would argue FD have still not implemented the multiple open modes with different rules. PGs only partly work due to limited numbers and it all being on trust.
But they all comes back again to is it not researching the game we bought (not aimed at you btw) or is it FD making statements about PvP being rare and will be forced to be on the outskirts of space with MP largely being a co-op affair.
I don't think DB lied as such but I think he was massively naive.
In general however I think the way the MP works in ED is largely one of the jewels in EDs crown. I can opt in or opt out of direct player interaction.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Hear, hear.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Agree. That meme is probably as daft as the "lack of depth" thing in Elite. But that is just the internet being the internet in both cases.
Never understood all the fuss myself. FDEV fixed that completely with the modes pre-launch.
We all know FD are not averse to a little bait and switch (cough offline mode cough).
They were clear during the Kickstarter that they didn't want to do EVE.
But then they were also clear that they didn't want to do Call of Duty in space either.
Odyssey alpha comes out at the end of the month btw.
"if you are instanced with another player they can shoot at you." - True of Elite, true of EVE, true of CoD.
BUT
The fact that this is true in all three games does not mean Elite has to be EVE on the spaceship side or that it has to be CoD on foot.