Any lessons to learn from Eve Online's failures?


Pathfinder Online


What would you do differently from the guys at CCP?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not charge $70 for monocles.


Not hire Ryan "Steve Jobs" Dancey.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not purchase White Wolf Publishing.

...What?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

skrphan wrote:
Not hire Ryan "Steve Jobs" Dancey.

Steve Jobs founded two of the three of the companies he's famous for working for/with.

Just sayin'.

Scott Betts wrote:
Not purchase White Wolf Publishing.

I know, right? It doesn't seem like either has benefited by the association.

Goblin Squad Member

Scott Betts wrote:

Not purchase White Wolf Publishing.

...What?

Yeah... you beat me to this one.

Goblin Squad Member

This another Dancy hate thread?


I don't know, I see plenty of legitimate posts!

Goblin Squad Member

Ettin wrote:

I don't know, I see plenty of legitimate posts!

Yeah, I have nothing but high hopes for what he can bring to PFO. No hate here.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TabulaRasa wrote:

What would you do differently from the guys at CCP?

Remove non- consensual pvp.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
skrphan wrote:
Not hire Ryan "Steve Jobs" Dancey.

I've handled the works of Steve Jobs, and I've met Ryan Dancey.

Ryan Dancey is no Steve Jobs, not even close.


Don't create a game with only one server. That was one of the major issues with EVE: only one type of gameplay. PFO needs multiple servers to satisfy people who want non-consensual PvP and people who want consensual PvP. That way, we can all get what we want and stop fighting over it before the community gets torn in half over the issue.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Don't create a game with only one server. That was one of the major issues with EVE: only one type of gameplay. PFO needs multiple servers to satisfy people who want non-consensual PvP and people who want consensual PvP. That way, we can all get what we want and stop fighting over it before the community gets torn in half over the issue.

I wouldn't list that as a failure.


pdboddy wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Don't create a game with only one server. That was one of the major issues with EVE: only one type of gameplay. PFO needs multiple servers to satisfy people who want non-consensual PvP and people who want consensual PvP. That way, we can all get what we want and stop fighting over it before the community gets torn in half over the issue.
I wouldn't list that as a failure.

I would. The fighting I've seen on this board has me convinced that going with only one style of play is a very bad idea. I'd rather see a game with something for both crowds.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd have to question the premise of the OP.

Can it be demonstrated that Eve Online has actually in fact, failed? As it lost it's userbase? Have the servers shut down? Just because I might dispise everything there is about a certain game, does not entitle me to call it a "failure". At best, I can only cite it as a game I dislike.


LazarX wrote:

I'd have to question the premise of the OP.

Can it be demonstrated that Eve Online has actually in fact, failed? As it lost it's userbase? Have the servers shut down? Just because I might dispise everything there is about a certain game, does not entitle me to call it a "failure". At best, I can only cite it as a game I dislike.

I do not believe that EVE was a failure at all. But the game itself does have flaws, and I believe that those specific flaws are what the OP meant when referring to EVE's failures.

Personally, I found EVE tedious and annoying, and virtually impossible to get into due to that feeling of "being so far behind" the players who had been established for a long time.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
I would. The fighting I've seen on this board has me convinced that going with only one style of play is a very bad idea. I'd rather see a game with something for both crowds.

The opinions expressed on this board aren't reflective of the world at large.

The non-consensual PvP on EVE was set up on purpose, everyone knows it exists, and for the most part people will never see griefers or trouble if they don't go into the low-sec areas.

The one world instance works for EVE, their numbers have been increasing slowly over time.

Just because some, even half, even more than that, people don't want non-consensual PvP, doesn't mean EVE's setup is a failure.

Also, having the multi-server aspect like WoW has its own issues. Want to help your friend out on a PvE server? Roll up a new level 1. Oooorrrr pay 25 bucks. Hmmm. At least in EVE if you want to help out, you just fly over to where your friend is. Which is sometimes an adventure in and of itself.

Failures on EVE's part: Advertising gigantic, climactic battles... and then having the servers slow down to still frame as soon as anyone in the gigantic space battle opens fire after a big patch.. And then failing to fix it for ... well, ever. Playtesting!!

Other failures include purposefully gimping certain ships and weapons because they couldn't figure out how to fix them. And saying everything was working as intended, nothing to see here... IE. Not acknowledging problems and addressing them.


pdboddy wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
I would. The fighting I've seen on this board has me convinced that going with only one style of play is a very bad idea. I'd rather see a game with something for both crowds.

The opinions expressed on this board aren't reflective of the world at large.

The non-consensual PvP on EVE was set up on purpose, everyone knows it exists, and for the most part people will never see griefers or trouble if they don't go into the low-sec areas.

The one world instance works for EVE, their numbers have been increasing slowly over time.

Just because some, even half, even more than that, people don't want non-consensual PvP, doesn't mean EVE's setup is a failure.

Also, having the multi-server aspect like WoW has its own issues. Want to help your friend out on a PvE server? Roll up a new level 1. Oooorrrr pay 25 bucks. Hmmm. At least in EVE if you want to help out, you just fly over to where your friend is. Which is sometimes an adventure in and of itself.

Failures on EVE's part: Advertising gigantic, climactic battles... and then having the servers slow down to still frame as soon as anyone in the gigantic space battle opens fire after a big patch.. And then failing to fix it for ... well, ever. Playtesting!!

Other failures include purposefully gimping certain ships and weapons because they couldn't figure out how to fix them. And saying everything was working as intended, nothing to see here... IE. Not acknowledging problems and addressing them.

I didn't say EVE was a failure, the OP did. What I did was put out some things I think EVE did not do well.

As for the issue of porting characters across multiple servers, just because WOW charges doesn't mean PFO has to. If there were only 2-3 servers and you could move characters between them freely, it wouldn't be an issue.

Goblin Squad Member

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Don't create a game with only one server. That was one of the major issues with EVE: only one type of gameplay. PFO needs multiple servers to satisfy people who want non-consensual PvP and people who want consensual PvP. That way, we can all get what we want and stop fighting over it before the community gets torn in half over the issue.

It isn't necessarily possible in all games. If Eve were created as a PVE world, the game would flat out not function. Areas would fall into control of one side, and then remain permanently uncontested. Territory size would become unlimited because, well the drawback to covering a lot of space is that you can't defend when you are spread to thin.

For the most part games that have separate PVP and PVE servers, have no actual function to PVP beyond what I consider griefing. IE killing with absolutely no motive or incentive beyond the fact that you can, and there is no political consequence for it, because well it's a PVP server, everyone is expected to be serial killers, if you weren't you'd be on a PVE server.

Quote:

I didn't say EVE was a failure, the OP did. What I did was put out some things I think EVE did not do well.

As for the issue of porting characters across multiple servers, just because WOW charges doesn't mean PFO has to. If there were only 2-3 servers and you could move characters between them freely, it wouldn't be an issue.

Allowing free at will transfers between PVP and PVE servers is also a bad idea. PVP servers are intended to be something that is harder to progress in. It's more or less an intentional handicap, but at least for fairness, everyone else had to deal with the same handicap. Allowing someone to level and gear their character in a PVE server, and then switch to a PVP server. For a comparison, picture a bicycle race and a foot race starting at the same time. Would it be fair for someone to ride a bike for the first 75% of the race, and then hop off his bike, cross over to the running track, and claim he's now on even terms with the runners? (despite being a mile ahead of them and nowhere near as winded).


The part about character porting is a valid point, but on the other issue, just because PvP is at the wayside in WOW doesn't mean it has to be here, even if there is support for PvE. I think trying to mull over the massive divide in the fan base by trying to give both sides something fun is a worthy goal.

Goblin Squad Member

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
The part about character porting is a valid point, but on the other issue, just because PvP is at the wayside in WOW doesn't mean it has to be here, even if there is support for PvE. I think trying to mull over the massive divide in the fan base by trying to give both sides something fun is a worthy goal.

I don't think there is no middle ground, really we have too little information to work with as far as guessing the plan for the game. The dev's have implied that it will be fully possible to progress in the game completely avoiding areas where PVP is likely to ever be seen, and more or less stated that you can accomplish everything within low risk areas.

Of course the lack of reassurance as far as how low risk is low risk and how much less is less reward etc... It is fully plausibe to never have to fight a player in your whole career, in a PVP enabled game. IMO I think there is a huge natural knee jerk reaction from peoples PVP experiences on other games, that causes an automatic assumption that this one will be like them.

This game could be a huge messed up gank fest, or it could be a game in which PVP is so scarce odds of seeing it are 1 in a thousand, unless you go to one of a handful of areas where it is common. Really we have no idea at this point.

I am not saying the hysteria is wrong, but that it is unjustified at this stage of information.


Onishi wrote:

I don't think there is no middle ground, really we have too little information to work with as far as guessing the plan for the game. The dev's have implied that it will be fully possible to progress in the game completely avoiding areas where PVP is likely to ever be seen, and more or less stated that you can accomplish everything within low risk areas.

Of course the lack of reassurance as far as how low risk is low risk and how much less is less reward etc... It is fully plausibe to never have to fight a player in your whole career, in a PVP enabled game. IMO I think there is a huge natural knee jerk reaction from peoples PVP experiences on other games, that causes an automatic assumption that this one will be like them.

This game could be a huge messed up gank fest, or it could be a game in which PVP is so scarce odds of seeing it are 1 in a thousand, unless you go to one of a handful of areas where it is common. Really we have no idea at this point.

I am not saying the hysteria is wrong, but that it is unjustified at this stage of information.

No, we don't have an idea, but it is nice to make suggestions. Hopefully it is plausible to never fight another player (I know I don't want to fight anybody), but at the same time I don't want to turn around and say that because I don't want to fight people you can't. Hopefully more information will come out soon that settles the fighting.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
No, we don't have an idea, but it is nice to make suggestions. Hopefully it is plausible to never fight another player (I know I don't want to fight anybody), but at the same time I don't want to turn around and say that because I don't want to fight people you can't. Hopefully more information will come out soon that settles the fighting.

Agreed. :) I, myself, do not care for PVP. (BAD experiences) But if that's your thing, you enjoy. Just please do not drag me into it! :D

Re: PVP- Is there a reason it cannot be like the ORIGINAL EQ game? At that time, if you wanted your particular PC to be a PVP PC, you simply chose to be so. (No changing your mind later, IIRC) And from that point you essentially went around with a big glowing bulls eye over your head that told all of the OTHER PVP'ers you were a fair target. :) BUT, those of us who did not care for that option simply opted out. And you could not be attacked by another PC unless you CHOSE to accept a duel. And we all ran around on the same server(s). Is that not still a viable option?


Ragadolf wrote:
Re: PVP- Is there a reason it cannot be like the ORIGINAL EQ game? At that time, if you wanted your particular PC to be a PVP PC, you simply chose to be so. (No changing your mind later, IIRC) And from that point you essentially went around with a big glowing bulls eye over your head that told all of the OTHER PVP'ers you were a fair target. :) BUT, those of us who did not care for that option simply opted out. And you could not be attacked by another PC unless you CHOSE to accept a duel. And we all ran around on the same server(s). Is that not still a viable option?

That does sound like a good idea.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

LazarX wrote:

I'd have to question the premise of the OP.

Can it be demonstrated that Eve Online has actually in fact, failed? As it lost it's userbase? Have the servers shut down? Just because I might dispise everything there is about a certain game, does not entitle me to call it a "failure". At best, I can only cite it as a game I dislike.

I can't speak definitively on behalf of the OP, but I see a difference between calling it a failure and saying that it has failings (which would be a more appropriate word in the subject). Even the CEO of CCP recognizes that EVE has failings.

Ryan and Mark are very familiar with EVE, and have their own opinions about what it does well, and where it can be improved, and you can be assured that they'll bring all of their education on that topic to make Pathfinder Online the best it can be. But speaking publicly about a lot of those lessons would be inappropriate at best.


We all make mistakes. The only error is in not learning from them.


pdboddy wrote:
I wouldn't list that as a failure.

I wouldn't either. And furthermore, I would ask why people seem to simply assume that there must be PvP or PvE in the first place. A lack of imagination, if you ask me.

Now, if there are both PvP and PvE on the same server, what makes people think that the two can't be kept separate? For a smaller-population (in theory, certainly at first) game world, a single server seems a no-brainer, and I really can't think of a legitimate reason why it could be anything but a good thing.

Let's not let whiny, selfish, negative nancies ruin what has every chance to be a wonderful adventure.


Vic Wertz wrote:


I can't speak definitively on behalf of the OP, but I see a difference between calling it a failure and saying that it has failings (which would be a more appropriate word in the subject). Even the CEO of CCP recognizes that EVE has failings.

Ryan and Mark are very familiar with EVE, and have their own opinions about what it does well, and where it can be improved, and you can be assured that they'll bring all of their education on that topic to make Pathfinder Online the best it can be. But speaking publicly about a lot of those lessons would be inappropriate at best.

Vic,

You are correct. English is not my first language and failure is a poor choice of word. I am a player of EVE myself and love this game, yet it is far from perfect.

Hence, I would like to know what in the dev team's opinion are Eve weakest point and what would you do differently?

I have an opinion on this which I will give in another thread.

Regards

Goblin Squad Member

TabulaRasa wrote:


Hence, I would like to know what in the dev team's opinion are Eve weakest point and what would you do differently?

Any answer we give would be subjective and limited. We both know lots of folks at CCP and there's no value in our taking shots at the thing that pays their bills.

We are not making EVE Online, and the differences between our game and EVE will be greater than their similarities.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Don't create a game with only one server. That was one of the major issues with EVE: only one type of gameplay. PFO needs multiple servers to satisfy people who want non-consensual PvP and people who want consensual PvP. That way, we can all get what we want and stop fighting over it before the community gets torn in half over the issue.

Despite the single server the best thing about EvE was the incredible scope of gameplay. I am very confused on how you felt there was only one type of gameplay. If you did not want to PvP you simply did not go into low security space. If you did not want the chance of being wardeced you joined an NPC corp. There was a huge amount of PvE content, an incredible economy for PvE crafters, mission running, fantastic exploration to discover hidden complexes and other goodies, etc.. etc..

I would not be opposed to removing the ability to PvP at all in certain zones. Problem solved!


Specific to the systems in EvE that I think inhibited a still larger audience ...

I think the ability for one corporation to declare war on another corporation and then attack memebers of that corporation anywhere and anytime is probably the single biggest item non-PvP players do not like. Even though you can get around that easily enough by simply leaving your corporation and joining an NPC corporation, it disrupts the corporation/guild and is a hassle.

Though I personally liked it, I think the game could have grown even faster than it has and be more new player friendly if PvP was truely limited to low security space/zone.


Ryan Dancey wrote:
TabulaRasa wrote:


Hence, I would like to know what in the dev team's opinion are Eve weakest point and what would you do differently?

Any answer we give would be subjective and limited. We both know lots of folks at CCP and there's no value in our taking shots at the thing that pays their bills.

We are not making EVE Online, and the differences between our game and EVE will be greater than their similarities.

This is an excellent answer and it makes me more hopeful for this game overall.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Any lessons to learn from Eve Online's failures? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online