EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-08-02 13:41
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-16 03:02
  • Number of Posts: 150
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Alyxportur

Security Status 3.4
  • From Our Cold Dead Hands Member since
  • Badfellas Inc. Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Monthly Economic Report - February 2016 in EVE Information Center

    Thank you for posting this. I do hope it becomes a monthly habit.

  • Dev Blog: EVE Economy Update - EVE Vegas 2015 Report in EVE Information Center

    Thank you for posting this information, CCP Quant.

  • ♛♛ Bobmon for CSM 11 ♛♛ in Council of Stellar Management

    He has my votes.

  • Dev Blog: Exploring The Character Bazaar & Skill Trading in EVE Information Center

    Your intention is both inefficient and inelegant.

    What I surmise from the whole post is that you want to give newer players the ability to progress faster, and their choice in this is still affected by the knowledge of the game----much like buying a character on the bazaar, increasing the skillpoints on your own character is only as useful as your game experience and knowledge makes it. Ignorant people spending money on characters and skills meet their own hubris.

    If you want to place greater adaptability and an ISK value on skillpoints that is more generic and useful than the skillpoints proffered via the character bazaar, make SP accrue over time (similar to DUST, and an idea that has been around for years) as a resource that can be sold in units on the market for ISK. This has it's own negative impacts however, which necessitates mechanics to prevent the abuse, but that's always a part of EVE change.

    What I dislike most about the suggested process and the diminishing returns is:


    1. Making players buy Aurum to buy an item to buy skills (more $ generation for CCP)
    2. You're rewarding newer players more than presumably loyal players who have spent years playing the game and accruing skillpoints
    3. It reminds me of boosting in WoW where new players don't like being level 1 and get boosts to quickly get max level to where the real gaming is----EVE is NOT that type of game, and offering loyal players a smaller carrot than a new player is a punishment for being old.


    What I cannot shake is that this new item/mechanic was conceptualized to solve [what I and many assume to be] the population problem in EVE. Is CCP worried about new players failing to remain loyal players/are they quitting and not coming back after the first month? Is CCP worried about general population decline?

    If you want to justify this change, I ask you to please publish statistics on skill points of current players.

  • Dev blog: Tranquility Tech III in EVE Information Center

    I take it this means that the lag when making contracts, opening the market/any window, etc. will be reduced/gone, but will this also reduce the number of 'Socket Closed' events?

    It would be interesting to see numerical statistics (not a line chart or diagram, please) on the instances and magnitude of each TIDI occurence for (1) a year pre-Phoebe, (2) the time between Phoebe and Aegis, and (3) post-Aegis until now.

  • Idea for Capital ship rebalancing in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rowells wrote:
    oh boy, where to even begin.


    How about 'No.' and '-1'?

    http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you-v2/ says Citadels will be destroyed by DPS, so the only capital change I can get behind at the moment is a +1 for if only battleships and above are able to do DPS to the new structures. That would give several largely unused ship classes a reason to be fielded regularly.

  • [ IDEA ] a station chat channel in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Valkin Mordirc wrote:
    I really don't care about the separate chat, BUT


    I would support this if it blocked local chat from being seen while docked. >=D


    Making the Jita spammers undock for gankplay?

  • Bubbles in EVE Technology and Research Center

    When you do the mirroring, is it possible to parse the data and remove all the anchored bubbles in nullsec?

  • Sov-owning Corporations in EVE Technology and Research Center

    FireFrenzy wrote:
    because if you cannot pay a billion isk to form an alliance called "This **** stinks" executor "my corp is awesome" you have no busyness being in nullsec...

    Its a small barrier of entry hurdle to make it so you have to actually make an investment for the sov perks (in so far as there are any and what there is off them)


    IHUB upgrades are what give the perks of sov ownership.

  • Sov-owning Corporations in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Allow corporations to take sov for themselves. No alliance requirements. Make alliances optional.

    Why not allow strong, independent corporations to take sov on their own? It encourages one of the goals of Aegis: luring smaller, newer groups into nullsec.

    In Dominion, it was unrealistic to expect many corporations to have the power to defend their space via skillful (capital) DPS fights. Aegis has changed that to give smaller groups more power in the mechanics of sov war.

    Surely corporations deserve to operate that power on their own without the unwieldiness of dealing with an alliance if they choose to?

    To head off the argument that a corporation can make an alliance for itself (i.e. a one-corp alliance), I will point out that it is a rather band-aid solution, and is not a solution that encourages content, but adds another layer of valueless difficulty. There was a time when alliances did not exist as a mechanic, when only corporations fought over space.

    Why not allow players additional choice in how they want to organize themselves for wars and sov content?

  • Making Wormholes easier to Probe. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Aren't you just wanting this change to run roaming fleets through wormholes faster?

    Wormholers train the necessary skills to live in their space, and I don't recall ever hearing or seeing any wormhole resident (past or present) complain that scanning was too hard.

  • Add a small amount of Mexallon to Omber to make it more competitive. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ore needs nerfed to increase its value, not buffed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_treadmill

  • Tenerifis Moons in EVE Gameplay Center

    Complete list (except for seven missing ones that will be corrected at some point):

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FhQZSkd280lQMS9a5BokMeTFMJMgT6zRwQ9cBp_T_co/edit#gid=0

  • Jump Fatigue Feedback in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Kagura Nikon wrote:
    The exodus of players is not because of that, Is not even because of eve. Check how the world is out there, a large group of players cannot pay with credit card anymore because of US sanctions to russian banks, result they need to pay with plex, result plex price skyrocket. The next step is easy to figure. Take the graph of players and cross with theplex price and it becomes clear that the major factor is NOT jump fatigue .


    I feel the need to point out that PLEX prices are rising because ISK is easily available (via incursion farming or nullsec ratting) and because fewer players are buying the PLEX item to seed on the market. As a real-world example, if the US government increased the amount of bills that it printed while global oil production declined, the price of gas would go up due to both the inflation and the decrease in abundance. That (the latter seen more clearly than the former) is what is affecting PLEX prices.

    Unless you are CCP who has access to data like which accounts have unsubbed in the last 12-months which (1) have capital skills (2) have jumped frequently in the past and (3) are not unsubbed your aberrant conclusions are based on nothing more than taking two sets of data and saying there is an indirect correlation between a decline in players and a rise in PLEX. Unless you can prove two sets of data have a definitive connection (something that is very hard for players, but that CCP does have the data capabilities to do), you are at best throw out conspiracy theories.

    EDIT: Do you have any proof that CCP doesn't accept monetary transactions from Russian IPs? You've made me curious now.

  • Moving Assets in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    Alyxportur wrote:
    With some details proposed/released for the upcoming Citadel structures and how asset security is likely going to be dealt with regarding them, I'm wondering why a similar mechanism (and useful ISK sink) cannot be implemented for moving ANY assets out of the existing stations in the game?

    Many players have items scattered throughout nullsec, and while such debris is not likely to ever become commonplace again since there seems to be less moving around, why not use the same mechanic of paying 10% of the ISK value (please make that Jita-based for this and the Citadels) to have something moved over the course of a week or more? Such a high % isn't likely to compete with the services of Black Frog and might possibly encourage more independent couriers to compete against the mechanic even (though I doubt it).

    So while this is a feature request, I'll phrase it as a question again: Why not give our current assets in nullsec (or anywhere) the same ISK-sink, movement mechanic that you're going to give our future assets?


    If it's risk free, 10% of value to move it will not be enough of a financial hit.


    A good argument (against this and the Citadel asset mechanic), and I can agree that in asset movement there needs to be both risk and an ISK-sink, but how do you add risk to goods being moved when it's not a player doing it?

  • Moving Assets in EVE Technology and Research Center

    With some details proposed/released for the upcoming Citadel structures and how asset security is likely going to be dealt with regarding them, I'm wondering why a similar mechanism (and useful ISK sink) cannot be implemented for moving ANY assets out of the existing stations in the game?

    Many players have items scattered throughout nullsec, and while such debris is not likely to ever become commonplace again since there seems to be less moving around, why not use the same mechanic of paying 10% of the ISK value (please make that Jita-based for this and the Citadels) to have something moved over the course of a week or more? Such a high % isn't likely to compete with the services of Black Frog and might possibly encourage more independent couriers to compete against the mechanic even (though I doubt it).

    So while this is a feature request, I'll phrase it as a question again: Why not give our current assets in nullsec (or anywhere) the same ISK-sink, movement mechanic that you're going to give our future assets?

  • Dev blog: I feel safe in Citadel city in EVE Information Center

    While I applaud you for making the new structures more of a sink for ISK and materials, the new structures seem of far more use to lowsec, highsec, and wormholes than to nullsec. Implied in one of the dev posts was your intent to nerf player-built/NPC stations in order to encourage use of the newer structures, but unless you nerf them to something worse than what they were before you buffed them immensely, I fail to see that ever happening. Addtionally, you've yet to address the problem which still stagnates and bottlenecks nullsec content. Please make mechanic changes that actually affect the politics (e.g. decaying moon goo).

    Some questions:

    Why on earth would I bother docking my supers instead of logging them at a safe or near the citadel if you're going to make me pay to get it back if someone destroys the citadel? Even when not being attacked, why would I dock my supers? Undocking them seems rather riskier than logging into a safe. Is it permissible (or even possible) to bump supers that undock?

    Are the 'market prices' of items and their respective % sink ISK cost to get them back going to be based on Jita sell? Jita buy? something between the two? How often will these values be updated? (Bob forbid you try and base these things on the local region market.)

    If citadels generate killmails from being entosis'd, where are my IHUB and TCU killmails?

  • Jump Fatigue Feedback in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Harry Saq wrote:
    Stay strong CCP, the majority of the angry noisy feedback is short sided junk based on an obsolete entrenched mindset. Your vision is good, your goals are correct, do not go back, continue pushing forward and just bring on the system/constellation fortification ability and work on features that encourage and allow player density within said systems/constellations.


    The 'build it and they will come' policy only works when people aren't in the process of leaving.

    Sexy Cakes wrote:
    http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility

    New players joining are roughly the same.

    I'm about 95% sure the dip in subs is people unsubbing worthless, fatigued jump drive alts.


    Activation of new accounts and a drop in the number of active, older accounts are nothing alike. Which do you think motivates CCP more to change and rethink something they did to the game: Fewer new people joining or a rapid decrease in their existing population?

  • Jump Fatigue Feedback in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
    I love jump fatigue.

    It adds more strategy and stops alliances jumping on every little gang.


    Do you join these little gangs, or are you just romanticizing their assumed existence? Unless someone (aka CCP or the guy who runs zkb) can roll out some statistics on 'little' fleet-on-fleet encounters and prove with data how they've gone up since Phoebe, then content has gone down, not up.

  • Jump Fatigue Feedback in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sexy Cakes wrote:
    Alyxportur wrote:


    They may not be recorded/logged separately. Do the 'jumps' via the public API (e.g. jumps in the last hour on dotlan) refer only to gates or gates + capitals?


    Well then it's a ****** metric to use.


    It may not have been intended as anything more detailed than a basic activity/travel metric. If they could separate out just capital jumps (non-gate capital jumps that is) and publish those statistics as a table of #s per day, I would be surprised if they did anything but decline to a lower, stable level.

    My experience is that we all now avoid jumping capitals as much as possible.