The Player Online

[Candi Ruman]

Iwanted to share my perspective as a new player regarding the EVE Online experience. If you believe that new players play a crucial role in the economy and growth of EVE Online, then please continue reading as I aim to be concise in conveying my idea.

Firstly, I want to express my gratitude for the warm welcome I received in the game. The EVE community has demonstrated maturity, with players communicating in a professional manner or immersing themselves in roleplay, enriching the universe with thematic interactions. The user experience in terms of interface and learning resources is fantastic, considering the vast array of options and gameplay styles the system offers, all masterfully condensed by the designers.

Encouraged by the support I received from the customer service, I wish to share my perspective and idea with the community to make it more relevant and potentially bring about implementation. However, I must admit that I was initially hesitant due to learning about how some suggestions aimed at new players were received by veteran players, and their resistance to change. I understand that everyone has a history, and history often involves conflicts. Nevertheless, let me now get straight to the point.

These two points, seemingly insignificant, are probably the main reasons for the high churn rate of new players and their premature departure before giving the game enough time to learn and progress, even after investing in PLEX or personalized promotions.

The direct consequence of this is financial, as players work hard to earn enough to purchase their ships, only to find that someone who might be seeking mere amusement to troll and disrupts their experience. Alternatively, players may become apprehensive about trying thrilling activities like hauling, turning their journey into a nightmare for unestablished new players, driving them away from the game.

No one enjoys losing, and modern games strive to create mechanics that mitigate losses, minimizing frustration. I understand the importance of loss in EVE Online, as it drives the economy. However, considering the balance between highs and lows, as a new player, I have a simple suggestion:

Enhance the INSURANCE service by introducing the option to cover your ship and components up to 95% or even 100% of its value. This change will alleviate the fear of loss and encourage players to explore PvP and low-security areas, increasing the dynamic gameplay of ganks and attacks for those who enjoy it while allowing others to coexist peacefully in high-security space. Numerous ideas from the community can be shared to refine this system and boost the economy. Only data will determine their effectiveness.

I sincerely believe that by implementing such improvements, EVE Online can become a more inviting and engaging universe for all players, fostering growth and making it a thriving community for years to come.

In EVE Online, any player may attack any other player if they choose to, no

matter where they happen to be. This is because EVE Online is essentially

a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core.

If someone thinks step 4 is simply wrong then they are wanting to change the core gameplay loop of Eve Online. This game is not for them. Other games let players accumulate resources endlessly and progress bars go only up and to the right. Many Eve Online players find those games shallow and meaningless because the successes are so much more meaningful when genuine failure (which is not losing) is an option.

Agree this is so stupid, just let us get the choice to have fun. The ones that think its fine as it is and not realizing the player base isnt that big and that u should go through discord to find players to create a group with etc dont use it.

And lets say its cause of they think it ruins early ladder climbing (how anyone can compete with streamers anyway). Thats the only valid argument I can find. Ok make it 1 week delay then let us choose the difficulty. Then the ones that compete is lvl99 a long time ago anyway.

Live players and all players both show people who are online. The difference between live and all is what your time/weather settings are locked to. Live players ONLY shows other online players who are using live time and weather, this is why the weather button on the in game tab doesnt work. All players shows any player currently online, regardless of what time or weather they have set.

For me is the opposite, I see no reason to use any other mode than live multiplayer. If I am flying multiplayer with someone I want them to have the same weather and time I have. I would never play multiplayer if not using live mode.

Legal Report Trademark Abuse

VideoLAN, VLC, VLC media player and x264 are trademarks internationally registered by the VideoLAN non-profit organization.

VideoLAN software is licensed under various open-source licenses: use and distribution are defined by each software license.

Is it possible to check when a player was last online in the game? There are many players I am trying to reach to buy rivens from them, but I never manage to find them online and they do not respond to friend requests with notes. I can see when people on my friend list were last online, but have not found yet how to check for other players. It would be super useful to know if people I am trying to reach are even playing or have abandoned the game altogether.

The only way to check is by being their friend. In the Friend tab, underneath Communication, there will be three tabs. Online, Pending, and Offline. There, you can check the amount of hours to days they have not logged on for. That's all to my knowledge.

It's just a matter of time until the players notice that they can avoid the rage-quit penalty by killing their web browser through the task manager. So you shouldn't try to differentiate between these cases.

Intentionally and unintentionally leaving should be treated the same, as it's impossible to be sure which scenario happened in every case (e.g. a user plugging out their network cable versus the connection dropping). The only exception is to not wait for them if they were to explicitly select a "concede" option (but otherwise treat this option the same).

Apart from that, I would say there isn't really a "right" answer to this. Some options just may not make sense for some specific game. Other than that, different games treat this differently for different reasons, and they may also have special cases (e.g. allow players to concede in tournaments, but not in regular play). Even games that are very similar treat this differently (e.g. League of Legends allows conceding most of the time while Dota 2 only allows this in some tournaments).

If the games only take a few minutes, you probably don't want to wait for disconnected players nor give remaining players a choice in terms of what happens (in order to keep the pace going). But either replacing them with a bot or just ending the game could make sense.

When there are multiple players in the game that needs to agree on something (whether it's the decision to concede or wait or continue with a bot), this could make things complicated and make players angry at other players or you. So one should be careful when implementing things like that.

Why they leave could depend on a number of factors, including which device they're playing on, which country they're in, what penalties there might be for leaving and a number of other things specific to the game. But the bottom line is how often they end up leaving. You'll probably need to look at the data of your game, or at least your target audience, to determine this.

You really, REALLY want to avoid having a tie any time a player leaves or telling players they lost while the game is still ongoing (in case of team games or if you just pick the leading player as the winner).

If it's a team game, this would heavily favour a waiting option. Also, players may prefer to have their disconnected teammate just idle or die instead of being replaced by a bot which does "dumb" things.

In a "casual" game, it could make more sense to replace disconnected players with bots, whether silently or by asking the player first. You probably don't really want to do this with a game people are extremely passionate about, where they spend a lot of time trying to improve and there are tournaments and rankings and so on. For the latter, waiting for players would also make more sense.

This is especially important to ranked play, where players would have a certain expectation for the skill level of their opponents and you almost certainly don't want to replace players with bots, or at least this should be recorded as a win regardless of the actual result. But this may also be applicable to unranked play.

If they're better, this could suddenly make the game a lot harder, which will frustrate remaining players. If they're much worse, the game might become trivial to win, which may also frustrate players.

If a player can idle, die or have anything they control be removed from the game entirely without it making extreme changes to how the game is played for the remaining players, this might be a good option.

for intended disconnect, you can make any scenario based on your theme or game-play. for example in head ball 2 when a opponent exits, you receive the message that opponent was afraid of you and quit. or you can give winning score to opponent.

If player quit intentionally: -assign a bot but don't notify other players, penalize the player.If player quit due to network: -assign a bot but don't notify other players, don't penalize the player, but allow him to rejoin if he get back online.And philipp said that the players could just close browser to avoid penalty, but what if you check if a player left the game from the other players ? I mean a script always run to detect if one of the player is a bot, if so find the player who left and give penalty.

Good game design in an online multiplayer turn based game will time out the player if they do not take their turn in a timely fashion, because otherwise a losing player can simply walk away from the game and force their opponents to wait it out or concede. You will have to decide what to do when this happens. In games based on traditional card games there is usually a requirement to act, so you will need to choose an action for the player anyway when they time out. If they don't need to act, you simply pass their turn.

3a8082e126