Originally posted by Jelan Originally posted by PuciekOriginally posted by Jelan Originally posted by PuciekOriginally posted by Jelan The answers fairly simple why you'd play this over eve, you can of course play both and other games are available but imho the use of terrain and wasd means that combat is more tactical and requires greater individual skill, simples
If you think that wasd/terrain is what makes a game tactical, it only shows that you don't have even a basic grasp on tactics and strategy.
Bless you for trying, you keep going you brave little soldier, mama loves you
Now when you can grasp words like or phrases like 'more tactical' ie adds another dimension that eve doesnt have then feel free to quote me
I'm not the one sticking to linquisticks but you are the one missing the point. Having NO terrain can add as much to tactics as having it. Think about it for a minute before responding.
I'll leave you to your slightly weird viewpoint.
If you assume that all the other variables within eve combat are present in perpetuum as well, which it does. (allowing for the fact that eve has a greater variety of modules due to its maturity) Then adding obstacles, Los issues and the ability to move around said terrain, change distance, kite all sound like adding something to me rather than warp in at optimal and fire. Fights that ebb and flow across the land mass, knowing the routes around the island, knowing that some terrain is only passable to certain robot sizes.
Don't be so blinded by eve loyalty, I played eve for many years and it's an awesome game, what it missed was direct control of your ship, perpetuum had that
And that's my original point, you don't really know what make game tactical. You are used to simple artificial, typical for games, model where "if i put my archers uphill then they receive +20 to awesomeness". But what happens with hill advantage when we have units that ignore elevation ? What "tactical value" does hill bring then ? None. Ask any real strategist/tactician: what would be the best battlefield he can imagine where he can really show his skills ?
Answer is very simple: plain ground, no trees or other obstacles (btw that's a map serious total war tournaments are held on) so he got full freedom in maneuvers without useless and artificial obstacles. And this is combat in eve, pure tactics no random/preset terrain bullshit so it will feel "complex and tactical". Same crap is going on with most modern RTS games, they add butt-load of artificial stuff with supposed "tactical value" to the point that it narrows MU on any map to maybe 3 cookie-cutting possibly.
In conclusion - what may seem like "adding", in reality is taking away another layer from players (think about starcraft:bw, best rts ever made - it had so little artificial mechanics that it's hilarious [3 types of damage/armors, 20% miss uphill and that's all, no "morale", "supression fire" or other crap]) and simply dumbing it down for people who can't figure out a strategy without artificial bonuses but wanna think how great strategists they are because they got their archers on the hill.
All i can read is you think less is more now that could be out off some fanbois loyalty or you could genuinely not understand tactical advantage of terrain in a dynamic fight
Originally posted by Jelan All i can read is you think less is more now that could be out off some fanbois loyalty or you could genuinely not understand tactical advantage of terrain in a dynamic fight
Then you can't read or don't have the capability of abstract thinking. Either way, I won't repeat myself. Try reading it again and again is all I can suggest.
And that's my original point, you don't really know what make game tactical. You are used to simple artificial, typical for games, model where "if i put my archers uphill then they receive +20 to awesomeness". But what happens with hill advantage when we have units that ignore elevation ? What "tactical value" does hill bring then ? None. Ask any real strategist/tactician: what would be the best battlefield he can imagine where he can really show his skills ?
Answer is very simple: plain ground, no trees or other obstacles (btw that's a map serious total war tournaments are held on) so he got full freedom in maneuvers without useless and artificial obstacles. And this is combat in eve, pure tactics no random/preset terrain bullshit so it will feel "complex and tactical". Same crap is going on with most modern RTS games, they add butt-load of artificial stuff with supposed "tactical value" to the point that it narrows MU on any map to maybe 3 cookie-cutting possibly.
In conclusion - what may seem like "adding", in reality is taking away another layer from players (think about starcraft:bw, best rts ever made - it had so little artificial mechanics that it's hilarious [3 types of damage/armors, 20% miss uphill and that's all, no "morale", "supression fire" or other crap]) and simply dumbing it down for people who can't figure out a strategy without artificial bonuses but wanna think how great strategists they are because they got their archers on the hill.
Ehhh? Let me see if I'm tracking here. Your original point is that... the absense of a +20 hill of awsomeness is a feature that highlights your uber skillz. Obstacles to travel and engagement that limit and influence "freedom in maneuvers" are arbitrary/artificial and reduce the complexity and purity of tactics.
Well ain't that some paradoxical bullshit, let me put my boots on.
EVE is a great game, but the limited control over ship piloting was a huge let down to someone who was expecting to maneuver through a full 3 degrees of freedom with joystick like controls. To find even basic WASD control absent and replaced by double clicking, waypoint warping, a throttle slider and automatic orbiting is laghably artificial and simplistic approach to the complexity that a three dimensional coordinate system could offer. I'm not alone here.
The only terrain in EVE are collidable objects that cause a cartoonish rubber ball bouncing effect but that lasers and missiles pass through with ease. A lack of environmental factors, obstacles and gravity is not a 'feature' of pure tactical engagement... It's an over simplification that artificially weights the combat focus in favor of combat preperation activities like.... ship loadouts, min/max skill distributions and fleet composition all at the detrimental expense of the individual players piloting and combat skills. This in turn forces all but a handfull of players to sacrifice individuality and freedom to assimilate with the Borg like blob.
I guess it's a feature when your the FC but the other 20+ guys in your corp are religated to mindlessly toggeling modules while the ship all but flies itself... Really not fun... Once in combat, I want to feel like I'm doing something more engaging and proactive then just remembering to press the appropriate button at the right time. Having to dart in and out of terrain, manage LOS and use the map well enough to choose an optimal path that creates a terrain advantage in the heat of combat WHILE simultaneuosly pressing the buttons at appropriate times is REAL, ACTIVE, TACTICAL PARTICIPATION for every member of your squad.
P.S. - Perpetuum i's not twitch combat, there is no aiming involved beyond target selection and there are no magical +20 hills of pwnage, unicorns or archer elves... We do have trolls though.
P.S. - Perpetuum i's not twitch combat, there is no aiming involved beyond target selection and there are no magical +20 hills of pwnage, unicorns or archer elves... We do have trolls though.
This race seems to make it into every MMORPG, regardless of genre.
I have an idea, how about we merge EVE/Perpetuum into a single game, then we get ground combat along with Ship to Ship.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm not really discussing eve here but strategy and tactics in general. And no, what you said is not my point, let me bring you a quote
In conclusion - what may seem like "adding", in reality is taking away another layer from players (think about starcraft:bw, best rts ever made - it had so little artificial mechanics that it's hilarious [3 types of damage/armors, 20% miss uphill and that's all, no "morale", "supression fire" or other crap]) and simply dumbing it down for people who can't figure out a strategy without artificial bonuses but wanna think how great strategists they are because they got their archers on the hill.
To break it down - you create your OWN "hills" (places that give you advantage) based on enemy movement - to battle of pure wits without artificial help (read that 20 times). Yes - you need some artificial boundaries, but less - the better.
As for eve part of post: People who come to eve and expect twitch, didn't bother to read game description and quit fast. This is a strategy, not twitch game. And yes, in big fights soldiers are nothing but mere drones, if you don't like it - stay in small gangs where you have a lot more freedom. No one forces you. But remember that FC is the "overlord" and hence he makes all the decisions, rest are playing roles of archers, swordsmans and peons (and granted that eve may be boring for archers and peons but why are you playing that role if it bores you ?).
And no, pressing a button while doing 304923049023 other things is not "tactical participation" (god damn it, do you even know what this word means ?), it's called micromanaging and eve is full of it.
And sure there are "better roads" and other terrain advantages (as mentioned above).
P.S. - Perpetuum i's not twitch combat, there is no aiming involved beyond target selection and there are no magical +20 hills of pwnage, unicorns or archer elves... We do have trolls though.
This race seems to make it into every MMORPG, regardless of genre.
I have an idea, how about we merge EVE/Perpetuum into a single game, then we get ground combat along with Ship to Ship.
Could be fun.....
Would be AMAZING!!! but is extremely unlikely IMO... for all of it's goodness I think CCP knows that EVE's shortcomings are Perpetuums strengths and vice versa.... They've announced Dust 514 specifically to address it, in the end though... I want more from combat than what EVE offers, but I'm not a console gamer and fail at twitch combat. I think for me CCP will fail to find the sweetspot on the middle ground.
To break it down - you create your OWN "hills" (places that give you advantage) based on enemy movement - to battle of pure wits without artificial help (read that 20 times). Yes - you need some artificial boundaries, but less - the better.
As for eve part of post:
People who come to eve and expect twitch, didn't bother to read game description and quit fast. This is a strategy, not twitch game. And yes, in big fights soldiers are nothing but mere drones, if you don't like it - stay in small gangs where you have a lot more freedom. No one forces you. But remember that FC is the "overlord" and hence he makes all the decisions, rest are playing roles of archers, swordsmans and peons (and granted that eve may be boring for archers and peons but why are you playing that role if it bores you ?).
And no, pressing a button while doing 304923049023 other things is not "tactical participation" (god damn it, do you even know what this word means ?), it's called micromanaging and eve is full of it.
And sure there are "better roads" and other terrain advantages (as mentioned above).
I pretty much summarised what you said, and getting back to your references to the arbitrary and artificial, what could be more artifical than "create your OWN 'hills'". When you (and your opponent) control all of the factors what your left with is tic-tac-toe... each player responding to the other on an open field until one makes a mistake and puts their 'X' in the wrong place...
"to battle of pure wits without artificial help" Could be read 200 times and placing bad grammer aside (I'm an offender myself) still makes very little sense. It gives me the overwhelming impression that you've never actually played Perpetuum... You do know that environment has no effect on attributes and modifiers correct? The terrain provides obsticales for movement and Line of Fire... the effective use of those two factors creates advantages nothing more, nothing less.
Basic movement control != twitch. I never expected to find twitch in EVE, I don't like twitch... what I expected was to be able to fly a space ship, I was disapointed, double clicking and ship spinning just doesn't cut it. Incidentally, of those that participate in PvP what would you guess the average player drone to FC ratio to be? How viable are the small groups you recomend? Is gate camping a tactical activity (even after a target finally arrives)?
Of course I know what tactical means, the most relevent definition might be planning or moving to accomplish a task... how tactical do you have to be to move from pt A to B on an open field? Where do tactics enter for the player drones following FC orders? Once you consider the player drone to FC ratios in game I think you'll realize that most of the player base rarely if ever participates in tactical decision making, and those that wish to are saddled with the political espionage and drama that go along with managing a social construct. I want to play with others, thats what MMO's are for, but effective combat in EVE requires taking too much on or giving too much up... I just want to grab a few buddies fly around and pew pew in a challanging environment with minimal drama. The open field of combat lends itself to mindless blob warfare too easily.
Edit: Afterthought, maybe thats my greatest fault with EVE, it puts too much emphasize on social engineering and sacrifices individual player choices in the process.
they should just make a real mechwarrior/battle tech mmo already, let people aim the reticles at the target and fire their weapons of mass annihilation!
theres always narcs and missile boats for those that cant aim.
Originally posted by Puciek Then you can't read or don't have the capability of abstract thinking. Either way, I won't repeat myself. Try reading it again and again is all I can suggest.
Of course he is wrong...he also nicely demonstrated typical M2S attitude and 'capability'.
Originally posted by k0rr1ban Results: So, I finally got the game to install, got my account setup, logged in and made my pilot, and proceeded to enter the game. My first observation was that the chat channels were a lot fuller than I expected, so this game may not be having quite the desperate population problem that people are painting it out to be. The tutorial was shallow, leaving me with little idea of what to do at all, so I then asked in the Help chat channel for some tips. The other players proceeded to call me a noob and other assorted insults, as well as saying that if I sucked too much at the game to figure it out then I should quit. So much for warm welcomes.
The problem here is you came in post-patch with a flood of other newbies. The vets in this game, even the people who normally troll each other all day in General Chat, are usually helpful in Help!. I'm sorry people were dicks, but this is not par for the course, as someone whose been playing for about 4 months and answers questions in Help! all the time, your experience is the exception not the rule; although I don't blame you for being turned off by it.
Quality-wise, the graphics of the game are solid for an indy production; no need for overpowered hardware to play which is nice. Object animation and movement in the world could be better however as a lot of the mechs look like they're running a thousand miles an hour with how the leg parts twitter like a hummingbird. The controls were a little clunky and awkward at first but it didn't take long to get the hang of how to move around. Combat was a little lackluster and boring, but all I got to kill were simple NPCs. PvP combat might be better, but I haven't seen it.
This is a sandbox PVP game. The PVP is good and the only reason I'm still playing myself. Sound is pretty good, graphics aren't terrible but could use some work particularly where optimization is concerned (turn OFF shadows, trust me).
Overall the game doesn't seem to be dead but it'll take some improving to be more successful. I can't say I'd pay the asking price per month to play this game with the way it currently is, but perhaps with time it'll offer more to the players.
After the price bump, I have to agree. But all of my accounts have been pre-paid under the old pricing so I think what I paid is fair; it's still cheaper than most AAA titles.
Community: 4/10 - Way too many elitist jerks. Not new player friendly. Content: 6/10 - Tutorial was mediocre and world slightly bland. Combat needs some adjustments. Graphics: 6/10 - Pretty standard stuff for an indy mmo done on a budget.
Okay, I have to say the funny part about this is about 90-95% of the players in game are from EVE; current and former players. Crafting is where the PVE depth is, which you appear to have avoided. Assignments pretty much suck but that's been directly acknowledged and agreed with by the Devs who are working on an overhaul of the entire assignment system.
Overall: 5/10 - Game just needs a lot of work. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it certainly explains why players aren't hanging out for very long. The ones who do hang around seem to be real jerkoffs, which isn't uncommon for mmos but seriously.. who sticks around to play if they only get crapped on the whole time? I might check in on this game again in the future, but for the meantime I'll stick with EVE Online.
I don't really disagree with what you say but I think your score is kind of unfair (and once again, nearly all of the players are from EVE so certainly they aren't any more elitist jerkoffs than you would find there).
Currently Playing: Perpetuum MMOs Played (most time spent to least): World of Warcraft (BG/Open world PvP focused), Lord of the Rings Online (PvMP focused), Warhammer Online (BG PvP focused), Global Agenda, Age of Conan, DC Universe Online (PvP focused), Runes of Magic, Allods, Aion, Fallen Earth
Originally posted by Jelan M2S is still exactly the same as it was, people have finally stop listening to the propaganda bullcrap that the other corps have tried to spread about us, we havent been trying to destroy the game or scare people away, we're very passionate about it We love this game and want it to grow, we have from day one probably been the biggest contributor to promoting the game outside of its core. OT: The population has been growing again steadily now, lots more activity, market is starting to look busier and the latest expansion has made the game a lot better from a pvpers perspective. However the additional space has given other corps the chance to expand into beta as well so all round we are definately not dead not matter what the doomsayers want. Typical of someone who quits a game and wants to feel vindicated by getting others to quit with him lol
Says the biggest troll in the biggest troll corp in game. What's funny is anyone need only read your forum posts to see how full of shit you are.
The population got a decent spike because all inactive accounts got 15 free days when the 'expansion' was released.
Now that those days are over it's back down again but still above where it was before so it did help a little.
Currently Playing: Perpetuum MMOs Played (most time spent to least): World of Warcraft (BG/Open world PvP focused), Lord of the Rings Online (PvMP focused), Warhammer Online (BG PvP focused), Global Agenda, Age of Conan, DC Universe Online (PvP focused), Runes of Magic, Allods, Aion, Fallen Earth
I liked PO in the beginning, but it was very repetitive, and not that good for a solo player. I wish the game well, but it didn't have enough to keep me interested long term.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas." -- the best minds don't talk.
No that saying is: "Better to remain silent and be thought of a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" ~Abraham Lincoln
My saying is quoted from Eleanor Roosevelt or did you think I made it up?
I don't even know if that's really her quote. It's "commonly" attributed to her, but there's some question on who actually said it.
You know, I have read each of your posts and with each attempt to explain your position, they simply become more bizarre.
Let me clear it up for you Mr. Tactics; tactical engagements are not philosophical abstracts. If you want the type of tactics that you are talking about, play chess (but that probably has to many restrictions; after all, the board has edges).
In most folks' reality, terrain is a pretty important consideration in tactics. It is one of the reasons that people instictively hid behind objects when you shoot at them. Claiming that terrain is a "artificial constraint" that gets in the way of understanding true tactics is sort of bizzaro-land...get help.
With influx of players at the end of June and beginning of July, making for daily peaks at around 800 users, shortly after it is followed by drop as sudden as was the rise and peaks are now hovering around 430 users.
With influx of players at the end of June and beginning of July, making for daily peaks at around 800 users, shortly after it is followed by drop as sudden as was the rise and peaks are now hovering around 430 users.
Eve @ 8months old,. I was there,. it would peek around 3k+
Perp @ 8 months old, I was there,.. it would peek around 300+
forget about wasd, or ground game play,. or clones with bad tactics.. yes i read this whole dam thread..
eve was a better game when it was the same age,. 10x better,.
I do encourge people to try it though,. its fun for a few weeks to a month,. could draw you in for months depending how far you sink your head in the sand,.. ignore the problems and low playerbase,. or if your the type that just finds it exciting to grow a toon and never play..
Did all the Eve players go back to Eve? I sorda kept up with the whole monocle story and the mass exodus to this game but have not heard much else in the past month about it.
With influx of players at the end of June and beginning of July, making for daily peaks at around 800 users, shortly after it is followed by drop as sudden as was the rise and peaks are now hovering around 430 users.
It is obvious that despite frequent updates, the devs aren't able to keep players attracted to the game and yet they seem not to be troubled with extincting population and just keep pushing the same non-perspective, unsuccessful development...
Originally posted by Gdemami Not even a month later, the peak dropped even lower - 300 users online. That is a huge drop just within 3 weeks! http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/sept2userpeakgraph1200.png/ It is obvious that despite frequent updates, the devs aren't able to keep players attracted to the game and yet they seem not to be troubled with extincting population and just keep pushing the same non-perspective, unsuccessful development...
About month later, the numbers are following declining trend and nothing seems to revert or even consolidate population level. The user peak is now around 220 accounts online:
Comments
Bless you for trying, you keep going you brave little soldier, mama loves you
Now when you can grasp words like or phrases like 'more tactical' ie adds another dimension that eve doesnt have then feel free to quote me
I'm not the one sticking to linquisticks but you are the one missing the point. Having NO terrain can add as much to tactics as having it. Think about it for a minute before responding.
I'll leave you to your slightly weird viewpoint.
If you assume that all the other variables within eve combat are present in perpetuum as well, which it does. (allowing for the fact that eve has a greater variety of modules due to its maturity) Then adding obstacles, Los issues and the ability to move around said terrain, change distance, kite all sound like adding something to me rather than warp in at optimal and fire. Fights that ebb and flow across the land mass, knowing the routes around the island, knowing that some terrain is only passable to certain robot sizes.
Don't be so blinded by eve loyalty, I played eve for many years and it's an awesome game, what it missed was direct control of your ship, perpetuum had that
And that's my original point, you don't really know what make game tactical. You are used to simple artificial, typical for games, model where "if i put my archers uphill then they receive +20 to awesomeness". But what happens with hill advantage when we have units that ignore elevation ? What "tactical value" does hill bring then ? None. Ask any real strategist/tactician: what would be the best battlefield he can imagine where he can really show his skills ?
Answer is very simple: plain ground, no trees or other obstacles (btw that's a map serious total war tournaments are held on) so he got full freedom in maneuvers without useless and artificial obstacles. And this is combat in eve, pure tactics no random/preset terrain bullshit so it will feel "complex and tactical". Same crap is going on with most modern RTS games, they add butt-load of artificial stuff with supposed "tactical value" to the point that it narrows MU on any map to maybe 3 cookie-cutting possibly.
In conclusion - what may seem like "adding", in reality is taking away another layer from players (think about starcraft:bw, best rts ever made - it had so little artificial mechanics that it's hilarious [3 types of damage/armors, 20% miss uphill and that's all, no "morale", "supression fire" or other crap]) and simply dumbing it down for people who can't figure out a strategy without artificial bonuses but wanna think how great strategists they are because they got their archers on the hill.
Ehhh? Let me see if I'm tracking here. Your original point is that... the absense of a +20 hill of awsomeness is a feature that highlights your uber skillz. Obstacles to travel and engagement that limit and influence "freedom in maneuvers" are arbitrary/artificial and reduce the complexity and purity of tactics.
Well ain't that some paradoxical bullshit, let me put my boots on.
EVE is a great game, but the limited control over ship piloting was a huge let down to someone who was expecting to maneuver through a full 3 degrees of freedom with joystick like controls. To find even basic WASD control absent and replaced by double clicking, waypoint warping, a throttle slider and automatic orbiting is laghably artificial and simplistic approach to the complexity that a three dimensional coordinate system could offer. I'm not alone here.
The only terrain in EVE are collidable objects that cause a cartoonish rubber ball bouncing effect but that lasers and missiles pass through with ease. A lack of environmental factors, obstacles and gravity is not a 'feature' of pure tactical engagement... It's an over simplification that artificially weights the combat focus in favor of combat preperation activities like.... ship loadouts, min/max skill distributions and fleet composition all at the detrimental expense of the individual players piloting and combat skills. This in turn forces all but a handfull of players to sacrifice individuality and freedom to assimilate with the Borg like blob.
I guess it's a feature when your the FC but the other 20+ guys in your corp are religated to mindlessly toggeling modules while the ship all but flies itself... Really not fun... Once in combat, I want to feel like I'm doing something more engaging and proactive then just remembering to press the appropriate button at the right time. Having to dart in and out of terrain, manage LOS and use the map well enough to choose an optimal path that creates a terrain advantage in the heat of combat WHILE simultaneuosly pressing the buttons at appropriate times is REAL, ACTIVE, TACTICAL PARTICIPATION for every member of your squad.
P.S. - Perpetuum i's not twitch combat, there is no aiming involved beyond target selection and there are no magical +20 hills of pwnage, unicorns or archer elves... We do have trolls though.
This race seems to make it into every MMORPG, regardless of genre.
I have an idea, how about we merge EVE/Perpetuum into a single game, then we get ground combat along with Ship to Ship.
Could be fun.....
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm not really discussing eve here but strategy and tactics in general. And no, what you said is not my point, let me bring you a quote
To break it down - you create your OWN "hills" (places that give you advantage) based on enemy movement - to battle of pure wits without artificial help (read that 20 times). Yes - you need some artificial boundaries, but less - the better.As for eve part of post:
People who come to eve and expect twitch, didn't bother to read game description and quit fast. This is a strategy, not twitch game. And yes, in big fights soldiers are nothing but mere drones, if you don't like it - stay in small gangs where you have a lot more freedom. No one forces you. But remember that FC is the "overlord" and hence he makes all the decisions, rest are playing roles of archers, swordsmans and peons (and granted that eve may be boring for archers and peons but why are you playing that role if it bores you ?).
And no, pressing a button while doing 304923049023 other things is not "tactical participation" (god damn it, do you even know what this word means ?), it's called micromanaging and eve is full of it.
And sure there are "better roads" and other terrain advantages (as mentioned above).
Would be AMAZING!!! but is extremely unlikely IMO... for all of it's goodness I think CCP knows that EVE's shortcomings are Perpetuums strengths and vice versa.... They've announced Dust 514 specifically to address it, in the end though... I want more from combat than what EVE offers, but I'm not a console gamer and fail at twitch combat. I think for me CCP will fail to find the sweetspot on the middle ground.
I pretty much summarised what you said, and getting back to your references to the arbitrary and artificial, what could be more artifical than "create your OWN 'hills'". When you (and your opponent) control all of the factors what your left with is tic-tac-toe... each player responding to the other on an open field until one makes a mistake and puts their 'X' in the wrong place...
"to battle of pure wits without artificial help" Could be read 200 times and placing bad grammer aside (I'm an offender myself) still makes very little sense. It gives me the overwhelming impression that you've never actually played Perpetuum... You do know that environment has no effect on attributes and modifiers correct? The terrain provides obsticales for movement and Line of Fire... the effective use of those two factors creates advantages nothing more, nothing less.
Basic movement control != twitch. I never expected to find twitch in EVE, I don't like twitch... what I expected was to be able to fly a space ship, I was disapointed, double clicking and ship spinning just doesn't cut it. Incidentally, of those that participate in PvP what would you guess the average player drone to FC ratio to be? How viable are the small groups you recomend? Is gate camping a tactical activity (even after a target finally arrives)?
Of course I know what tactical means, the most relevent definition might be planning or moving to accomplish a task... how tactical do you have to be to move from pt A to B on an open field? Where do tactics enter for the player drones following FC orders? Once you consider the player drone to FC ratios in game I think you'll realize that most of the player base rarely if ever participates in tactical decision making, and those that wish to are saddled with the political espionage and drama that go along with managing a social construct. I want to play with others, thats what MMO's are for, but effective combat in EVE requires taking too much on or giving too much up... I just want to grab a few buddies fly around and pew pew in a challanging environment with minimal drama. The open field of combat lends itself to mindless blob warfare too easily.
Edit: Afterthought, maybe thats my greatest fault with EVE, it puts too much emphasize on social engineering and sacrifices individual player choices in the process.
they should just make a real mechwarrior/battle tech mmo already, let people aim the reticles at the target and fire their weapons of mass annihilation!
theres always narcs and missile boats for those that cant aim.
Of course he is wrong...he also nicely demonstrated typical M2S attitude and 'capability'.
Back to topic:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/638/may2526userpeakgraph120.png/
Just below 260 user peak.
The problem here is you came in post-patch with a flood of other newbies. The vets in this game, even the people who normally troll each other all day in General Chat, are usually helpful in Help!. I'm sorry people were dicks, but this is not par for the course, as someone whose been playing for about 4 months and answers questions in Help! all the time, your experience is the exception not the rule; although I don't blame you for being turned off by it.
This is a sandbox PVP game. The PVP is good and the only reason I'm still playing myself. Sound is pretty good, graphics aren't terrible but could use some work particularly where optimization is concerned (turn OFF shadows, trust me).
After the price bump, I have to agree. But all of my accounts have been pre-paid under the old pricing so I think what I paid is fair; it's still cheaper than most AAA titles.
Okay, I have to say the funny part about this is about 90-95% of the players in game are from EVE; current and former players. Crafting is where the PVE depth is, which you appear to have avoided. Assignments pretty much suck but that's been directly acknowledged and agreed with by the Devs who are working on an overhaul of the entire assignment system.
I don't really disagree with what you say but I think your score is kind of unfair (and once again, nearly all of the players are from EVE so certainly they aren't any more elitist jerkoffs than you would find there).
Currently Playing: Perpetuum
MMOs Played (most time spent to least): World of Warcraft (BG/Open world PvP focused), Lord of the Rings Online (PvMP focused), Warhammer Online (BG PvP focused), Global Agenda, Age of Conan, DC Universe Online (PvP focused), Runes of Magic, Allods, Aion, Fallen Earth
Says the biggest troll in the biggest troll corp in game. What's funny is anyone need only read your forum posts to see how full of shit you are.
The population got a decent spike because all inactive accounts got 15 free days when the 'expansion' was released.
Now that those days are over it's back down again but still above where it was before so it did help a little.
Currently Playing: Perpetuum
MMOs Played (most time spent to least): World of Warcraft (BG/Open world PvP focused), Lord of the Rings Online (PvMP focused), Warhammer Online (BG PvP focused), Global Agenda, Age of Conan, DC Universe Online (PvP focused), Runes of Magic, Allods, Aion, Fallen Earth
WoW ..this game realy is dead ...!
I don't even know if that's really her quote. It's "commonly" attributed to her, but there's some question on who actually said it.
This thread really seems silly now, what with the array being broken because of too many players... :P
its not a dead game.....
.. its just very few people play it so it just seems that way
really?
@Puciek
You know, I have read each of your posts and with each attempt to explain your position, they simply become more bizarre.
Let me clear it up for you Mr. Tactics; tactical engagements are not philosophical abstracts. If you want the type of tactics that you are talking about, play chess (but that probably has to many restrictions; after all, the board has edges).
In most folks' reality, terrain is a pretty important consideration in tactics. It is one of the reasons that people instictively hid behind objects when you shoot at them. Claiming that terrain is a "artificial constraint" that gets in the way of understanding true tactics is sort of bizzaro-land...get help.
With influx of players at the end of June and beginning of July, making for daily peaks at around 800 users, shortly after it is followed by drop as sudden as was the rise and peaks are now hovering around 430 users.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/aug98userpeakgraph1200.png/
@ gdemami: I'd noticed the same. Similar trend in Xfire numbers.
That being said, you probably should have necro'd this thread instead: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/321017/If-you-played-EVE-you-will-get-bored-within-a-month.html
It's much more recent (and therefor less necro) and more perfectly fits the point you are making.
With influx of players at the end of June and beginning of July, making for daily peaks at around 800 users, shortly after it is followed by drop as sudden as was the rise and peaks are now hovering around 430 users.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/aug98userpeakgraph1200.png/
Just a few days later, the decline is surprisingly rapid and the peak dropped to 390 users online.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/709/aug178userpeakgraph1200.png/
Eve @ 8months old,. I was there,. it would peek around 3k+
Perp @ 8 months old, I was there,.. it would peek around 300+
forget about wasd, or ground game play,. or clones with bad tactics.. yes i read this whole dam thread..
eve was a better game when it was the same age,. 10x better,.
I do encourge people to try it though,. its fun for a few weeks to a month,. could draw you in for months depending how far you sink your head in the sand,.. ignore the problems and low playerbase,. or if your the type that just finds it exciting to grow a toon and never play..
/shrug
Did all the Eve players go back to Eve? I sorda kept up with the whole monocle story and the mass exodus to this game but have not heard much else in the past month about it.
With influx of players at the end of June and beginning of July, making for daily peaks at around 800 users, shortly after it is followed by drop as sudden as was the rise and peaks are now hovering around 430 users.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/aug98userpeakgraph1200.png/
Just a few days later, the decline is surprisingly rapid and the peak dropped to 390 users online.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/709/aug178userpeakgraph1200.png/
Not even a month later, the peak dropped even lower - 300 users online. That is a huge drop just within 3 weeks!
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/sept2userpeakgraph1200.png/
It is obvious that despite frequent updates, the devs aren't able to keep players attracted to the game and yet they seem not to be troubled with extincting population and just keep pushing the same non-perspective, unsuccessful development...
About month later, the numbers are following declining trend and nothing seems to revert or even consolidate population level. The user peak is now around 220 accounts online:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/oct6userpeakgraph1200.png