EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2010-10-07 12:47
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-27 17:52
  • Number of Posts: 5,011
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 5,805

Indahmawar Fazmarai

Security Status 0.4

Last 20 Posts

  • DEV I NEED ANSWER ON BANS in EVE Communication Center

    Smell My-Neck wrote:
    Hello CCP and players, my friends acc got banned, and it doesnt show any reason. for almost 2 weak's he dont have any answer from support. And the worst part is he cant even log in now in Eveonline.com and cancel his subscription. So basically CCP is illegally stealing my friends money. If any dev is reading this could you contact me.


    You shouldn't have bought ISK from a RMT site. Consider yourself lucky since probably was your first offence so you still have your other accounts; next offence will mean a permanent ban of all your accounts.

  • shiny floaty Nyx - delayed until Q3/4 2017 in EVE Communication Center

    Ashura Akiga wrote:
    So I paid my deposit, started counting down the months to expected delivery of a shiny, completely impractical, floaty nyx model to take pride of place in my...erm...need to clear a space for it in time for Q4 2016.

    Then, upon contacting Triforce, I learn that it was to be delayed to Q2 of 2017. So I harumph a bit, but decide to wait. Getting closer to the wire, I again contact Triforce, who respond telling me that it will be delayed further until Q3/4 of 2017.

    So, the question is - why are CCP associating with people who cannot build or deliver what they advertise? Does this reflect in any good way on the reputation of CCP.

    Expecting lots of trolling, but ffs - what is going on? can I get a free plex as compensation? Twisted


    Guess this just makes them the perfect fit for CCP's ability to deliver...

  • The First Lamb Grown In A Sack - Ancestor to the Pod in EVE Communication Center

    Must be noted that the "womb" works only on the late fetal stage, when the fetus is already formed and just finishes growing with little or no interaction to the womb. At this point the womb is essentially a feeding device that keeps the fetus warm and oxygenized.

    If "building a baby" had 100 stages, this would be stage 99 of 100, with stages 1 to 98 made by an actual womb.

    The really funny part it's the interaction between the womb and its content as it becomes a complete fetus which just needs to keep on track until being born. And it's funny because we neither know everything that happens, nor know how goes on most of what we know that happens, nor have a clue on how to figure it.

    If I had to give a timeframe for a fully functional artificial womb, from zygote to newborn, it would be 100 years based on what we know, and probably 200 once we factor what we don't know that don't know.

  • Alpha Vets, what would it take..... in EVE Communication Center

    Well, if CCP made some good addition to PvE I would feel inclined to try it to encourage the addition of more similar content. Also would work if CCP hired and introduced a new developer* tasked with adding new missions in each release in order to keep that content fresher.


    *his/her name could be CCP LevelFour, or maybe CCP Damsel... Lol

  • What is the general "health" of this game? Subs? New players, etc? in EVE Communication Center

    Slick Executioner wrote:
    I am LOVING this game, although three days in I realize I barely u der stand it all.

    With that said, what is the overall status of the game? Are more people playing now than ever before (with the f2p option now)?

    Are there a ton of new players joining?

    Just curious.

    Thanks!


    Overall status is unknown as CCP doesn't talks about it.
    Apparently there's more people playing it, but certainly not more than in the past.
    There was an outburst of new characters and server population after F2P, and both have receded. New character creation is about 15% higher than before F2P and peak server population is below last year's in the same dates. This could be caused because people on average stay logged in for shorter time, which would drive concurrency down even fi the overall population count (unique logins) was higher.

    We could say that EVE is doing well for its age, but you can't be a videogame 14 years old and be 100% healthy.

    Personally my hunch based on the current status is that EVE will last 3 or 4 years more.


    Note: EVE will never die completely, rather it might become a undead cult game like Ultima Online.

  • Referring to 'not enough being destroyed' in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:



    If I had those skills, I wouldn't even have started playing EVE Online... one of the hidden truths about EVE Online is that it provides a massive environment for people who don't socialyze, both literally and figuratively.

    I might not be effective, but surely I jsut keep droning around. Because, in the deep of my heart, I think that the only reason why I am here in the world, is to provide a odd insight into any reality I focus my interest on it. That some thoughts will never be thought unless I think them.

    Maybe you don't like the way I deliver my thoughts, but I dare you to find anything like them. Even when I am wrong. P


    Well that much is true lol.

    In our own ways, we are fighting the same virtual war, a war for PVE in a game centered heavily on pvp. You might not think I am because I will always tell people to accept the pvp nature of the game, but I am, I'm a cold blooded rat shootin M'Fer. That's why I responded in that thread about shipyards, because you and I both know that only a few people will care for PvPvE and we needed assurance that regular PVE is on their minds. It is.

    But we have to do it the right way, CCP are reasonable folk and they do respond when we approach it right. I don't expect you and I will stay on the same page, just sayin lol.


    I don't have a problem with the PvP nature of the game, just when it becomes the reason why I don't get any appealing PvE in 9 years.

    It's been great that CCP Larrikin answered, but after all, I am a bittervet and I've been disappointed too many times. I think that the'yre developing an extremely complex tool which will be unusable for anything else than its current goal, but instead of agreeing to that, CCP will just shoehorn it on regular PvE because they've got a very expensive hammer and need nails to hit with it. Case in point, they developed mission building tools and delivered Burner missions instead of Level 4s.

    I'll be delighted to be wrong and play EVE again because CCP got it right eventually, but chances are slim. All in all, they haven't asked anyone so as far as i know (and correct em if I am worng), CCP is developing new PvE without talking to PvE players.

    I am sitll waiting for the PvE devblog CCP Affinity had to publish a few months after Vegas 2015... Roll

  • Blood Raider Shipyards from Team Phenomenon (YC 119.4) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

    ...the whole thing I've asked Team Phenomenon is why they develop PvE content that it's not accessible to PvE players. Someone must be making this decission for some reason. Who, why or what sense does it, are a mistery.


    I'd suggest you watch this > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zho8nopiluc

    The TL;DR however is that the tools we're using to create the Blood Raider Shipyards can be used to make content at different sizes and in different locations. Solo content in Highsec, small gang content in WH space, or fleet content n Nullsec.

    We're releasing the Blood Raider Shipyards first because we want to test these tools in the harshest possible environment, v's 100's of players. Once we're happy with that, we'll be building follow on content in other areas of space.(...)


    The problem I see with developing complex tools is that they might become a solution in search for a problem, aka "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

    An AI that can effectively overwhelm a well organized and FC'ed PvP fleet is a challenging achievement, but, you don't need it to overwhelm a new player in a poorly fit T1 frigate, and first of all, there should come the consideration of whether you want to overwhelm new players by showing them how even NPC AI plays EVE better than them. P

    More seriously, what this player doubts (and according to them, other players doubt too) is whether CCP knows what problem do they want to fix about PvE, because as far as my experience goes, all new PvE is added out of the blue with results which, as JennASide pointed, are less than optimal.

  • Blood Raider Shipyards from Team Phenomenon (YC 119.4) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Alderson Point wrote:
    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Thank you for posting this and I won't derail you thread beyond this single comment about what you all are doing. I can't speak for Indahmawar Fazmarai as we don't agree on much, but one thing we do agree on is that it seems you guys are making an awful lot of "PVE" content that resembles PVP. I'm a pro-pvp PVE player (ie I like how pvp and pve interact in EVE and I counsel other PVE players to always keep in mind that ship to ship PVP can happen at any time so be aware of it, even embrace it), but I have a problem with the direction you guys seem to be going in. If a PVE player wanted a PVP like experience, we that's what PVP is for.

    In other words, some of us like saving the Damsel, or attacking that Pirate Haven for the umpteen-millionth time, or Dreading that Pirate named Scarlett.

    I'm sure you guys have internal metrics about what dedicated PVE players do across New Eden, and while I don't know for sure, I'd bet that if you looked at those you'd see a lot of people doing "old" content (like regular mining, anomalies, lvl 4 missions, DED complexes) even when they have access to newer stuff (like Burners, Drifters, Sleepers, incursions, Mining operations etc).
    That old content has value because it lets you engineer and experiment with fits and tactics and new approaches (mainly because it is in fact mostly static in nature, you know what it's going to be every time you experience it). The newer PVE like Burners and Drifters and Mining Operations and it seems these new shipyards involve a higher potential for ship loss and act more like PVP, which actually forces PVE players down a narrower path than the "old" PVE does.

    I know some vocal people have been saying for a long time how PVE should work like PVP, but not all of us enjoy that kind of thing, there is real value in the old style PVE that shouldn't be forgotten.


    Hi Jenn, thankyou for your post. It is a little off topic, but I think its valuable to answer it.

    TL;DR: All new PvE content won't be PvP-like.

    I understand where your coming from. Sometimes, you just want to watch Netflix, or chat with your mates, and only half pay attention while running some Sanctums, or running The Blockade.
    And yes, much of our new content has had a considerably higher difficulty cap than previous content. I can assure you we recognize the value of both.

    We understand the importance of 'low engagement content', and we believe we can deliver that while staying true to our push for player-like-NPCs. We can use a couple of different strategies at lowering their power level. Low skills, poor tactics, bad fittings, providing you with allies or handicapping them in other ways.

    Additionally, there is the question of Mastery. I've spoken about this at round-tables at Fanfest and EVE Vegas. Players have Mastered content, for example, the Mission system. They've spent the time to find the right ships, skills, fits and tactics to optimize that content. Changing that content has a cost, it reduces or removes the investment someone has made in mastering a system. This is a large part of what attracts many people to EVE Online, complex systems to master. This doesn't mean we'll never change missions, or any other system, but we do recognize the cost it has. And sometimes, this Master is just kinda bad...its not optimization and player skill, its just figuring out the game system (i.e. mission blitzing).

    Lastly, no matter how hard we try, I doubt we'll ever get to the standards of player flown ships. Theoretically, its possible, but we can't have a super computer to run every NPC in the game :) And, there is just mental difference between knowing their is another person controlling the ship your killing (or getting killed by) than a computer.


    Much of the push for adding the Mining Ops, and Blood Raider Shipyards has less to do with the specific PvE content and much more to do with the tools we're creating. How NPC's chose their targets and maneuver around the battlefield. NPCs respecting EWar resistances, or being effected by sensor dampeners and energy neutralizers. NPC's using capacitor when they activate a webifier or repairer.
    We're creating these tools at the highest possible difficulty level, trying to replicate PvP as much as possible. Ensuring these tools are rock solid. But these tools will be very useful for lower-intensity PvE as well. A Rifter fit with Civilian autocannons still needs to find the right range to orbit its target at, and respond appropriately when you use a Tracking Disruptor on it. We're striving for internally consistent PvE.

    We want to provide a variety of PvE and PvPvE (which is probably where the Blood Raider Shipyards fall) for EVE Online. Casual, High Risk-High Reward, Group Based, Solo, and everything in between.



    Thank you, that is really quite reassuring.

    We were getting worried that "some people" had been exclusively listened too and the wider game base was being ignored.


    To be frank, I still don't know who exactly CCP asked about the PvE added since Incarna, or about the winter thing.

    I've been figuratively sitting by that phone for 7 years and still nothing... would be horrible to have missed the chance. Sad

  • Blood Raider Shipyards from Team Phenomenon (YC 119.4) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Thank you for posting this and I won't derail you thread beyond this single comment about what you all are doing. I can't speak for Indahmawar Fazmarai as we don't agree on much, but one thing we do agree on is that it seems you guys are making an awful lot of "PVE" content that resembles PVP. I'm a pro-pvp PVE player (ie I like how pvp and pve interact in EVE and I counsel other PVE players to always keep in mind that ship to ship PVP can happen at any time so be aware of it, even embrace it), but I have a problem with the direction you guys seem to be going in. If a PVE player wanted a PVP like experience, we that's what PVP is for.

    In other words, some of us like saving the Damsel, or attacking that Pirate Haven for the umpteen-millionth time, or Dreading that Pirate named Scarlett.

    I'm sure you guys have internal metrics about what dedicated PVE players do across New Eden, and while I don't know for sure, I'd bet that if you looked at those you'd see a lot of people doing "old" content (like regular mining, anomalies, lvl 4 missions, DED complexes) even when they have access to newer stuff (like Burners, Drifters, Sleepers, incursions, Mining operations etc).
    That old content has value because it lets you engineer and experiment with fits and tactics and new approaches (mainly because it is in fact mostly static in nature, you know what it's going to be every time you experience it). The newer PVE like Burners and Drifters and Mining Operations and it seems these new shipyards involve a higher potential for ship loss and act more like PVP, which actually forces PVE players down a narrower path than the "old" PVE does.

    I know some vocal people have been saying for a long time how PVE should work like PVP, but not all of us enjoy that kind of thing, there is real value in the old style PVE that shouldn't be forgotten.


    Hi Jenn, thankyou for your post. It is a little off topic, but I think its valuable to answer it.

    TL;DR: All new PvE content won't be PvP-like.

    I understand where your coming from. Sometimes, you just want to watch Netflix, or chat with your mates, and only half pay attention while running some Sanctums, or running The Blockade.
    And yes, much of our new content has had a considerably higher difficulty cap than previous content. I can assure you we recognize the value of both.

    We understand the importance of 'low engagement content', and we believe we can deliver that while staying true to our push for player-like-NPCs. We can use a couple of different strategies at lowering their power level. Low skills, poor tactics, bad fittings, providing you with allies or handicapping them in other ways.

    Additionally, there is the question of Mastery. I've spoken about this at round-tables at Fanfest and EVE Vegas. Players have Mastered content, for example, the Mission system. They've spent the time to find the right ships, skills, fits and tactics to optimize that content. Changing that content has a cost, it reduces or removes the investment someone has made in mastering a system. This is a large part of what attracts many people to EVE Online, complex systems to master. This doesn't mean we'll never change missions, or any other system, but we do recognize the cost it has. And sometimes, this Master is just kinda bad...its not optimization and player skill, its just figuring out the game system (i.e. mission blitzing).


    Mastery also haves another face: people who have mastered how to build the same jigsaw puzzle for the 100th time without growing (too) bored of doing it.

    I don't know what you will think of this mastery, but to me it was one of the reasons that kept me playing EVE Online for 8 years.

    Not the fact that missions can be optimized in one "blitz" way, but the fact that they can be sub-optimized and tinkered with in endless ways because you know the picture and how the jigsaw puzzle will look once completed, and there's a myriad creative ways of reaching that (satisfactory) conclussion.

    And that's the exact opposite of the most lucrative thing I've done in EVE, Drifter Incursions. I was in a fleet that harvested n milion ISK per hour, two hours a day monday to friday and two fleet ops (thus four hours) on Saturday and Sunday. And it was always the same drill as any single mistake could spell doom. It was boring beyond words, the less sandboxy thing I've ever done in EVE.

    Thus it turned that the more challenging a content is, the more boring it becomes once resolved, whereas less challenging content allows more diversity of approaches and becomes a better sandbox to try different tools.

  • Referring to 'not enough being destroyed' in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:


    Your interpretation of those graphs is incorrect. The value destroyed line that's hovering around an average of 1T is *per day* not per month.

    That means the value destroyed in March was around 40.3T. The total Active ISK delta for the game during that same time was 5.16T or roughly 1/8th of the ISK destroyed in the game.

    The Active ISK delta in February was far larger, at over 35T, but the volume destroyed was still up around 38T, largely due to the shorter month than any real drop in destruction per day.


    OK, I see it now. I've checked the csv file and it's what you said, the daily values hover around one (American) trillion. Thus I've been wrong for a good amount of months...Forever, pretty much every time I've typed anything since the beginning of the interwebs, probably even longer than thatSad


    Fixed that for you Twisted

    More seriously, it is a sign of maturity that you can admit you got that wrong. I'm not trying to be mean but I'll tell you the same thing I told old Dinsdale Piranha (like you, he was prone to hystrionics and was alwyas bad mouthing CCP, the people he NEEDED to listen to him): It's not your overall message that is flawed, it's the fact that you are so terrible at delivering that message that hurts you.

    Just like in the Blood Raider Shipyard thread, if I were CCP I wouldn't listen to you either, especially that constant droning on about how PVE players somehow pay all their salaries (it's as bad as when people tell cops "my taxes pay your salary", yea, that's a surefire way to get me on your side and doing what you think needs to be done...).

    If you want people (like other PVE players , and CCP itself) to listen, develop better communication skills that build relationships rather than generate dislike.


    If I had those skills, I wouldn't even have started playing EVE Online... one of the hidden truths about EVE Online is that it provides a massive environment for people who don't socialyze, both literally and figuratively.

    I might not be effective, but surely I jsut keep droning around. Because, in the deep of my heart, I think that the only reason why I am here in the world, is to provide a odd insight into any reality I focus my interest on it. That some thoughts will never be thought unless I think them.

    Maybe you don't like the way I deliver my thoughts, but I dare you to find anything like them. Even when I am wrong. P

  • Referring to 'not enough being destroyed' in EVE Communication Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Teros Hakomairos wrote:
    the playerbase disagrees? you mean those who quit and are no longer "playerbase" do not count because they are no longer part of the "playerbase"?

    well...this is creative....


    Nope, I'm including those players when I talk about "the wider playerbase". Based on what we know objectively less than 1% of people quit the game as a result of ganking or similar activities.

    Claiming otherwise, especially with no evidence, is just demonstrating ignorance.




    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
    OK, I see it now. I've checked the csv file and it's what you said, the daily values hover around one (American) trillion. Thus I've been wrong for a good amount of months... Sad


    No worries, thanks for being big enough to admit that you're wrong in a polite way :)

    I also agree with what Jenn aSide is saying, though I would perhaps have phrased it differently.

    Speaking generally rather than at you specifically, the mistake a huge number of people on these forums and in the community as a whole make is starting and ending their argument at "OMG you idiot, how could you do this, staaaaahp!" and wondering why that fails utterly to convince anyone of anything. As a rule evidence based arguments work far better than assuming someone is an idiot and then treating them as such.

    Your argument was good, your interpretation of the data was just incorrect. :Pirate

    Overall though good discussion, we need more people like you around the forums! Big smile


    I was kinda mixed about the meaning of "trillion" and "30 days average". I was thinking of trillion as in 10^15 ISK, not 10^12, so intuitively it made sense that "over 30 days", that was the destruction/production.

    It comes to prove I am not a numbers person, but I found very thought provoking if lapsed accounts outweighted destruction as, all in all, the excess production must go somehwere, doesn't it?

    My position boils down to something very simple. I thought I was a freak for playing PvE, and discovered that that was wrong, as once you scratch the veil of silence (something as simple as asking in the right place, i.e, the old Spanish language chat channel), PvErs are literally everywhere, but CCP's attention is certainly not on PvErs.

    "Hey, who here plays PvE? Do you know how to convo? Convo me!"

    And some people just answered, and they talked about a EVE as real as everything you know, but which is never talked about. EVE according to people who never talk about EVE, who don't know what's the CSM and in on case I met a guy who didn't knew that CCP was the company developing EVE Online, although he had three active accounts.

    I think that CCP would act different if they knew of this EVE. And maybe then I would benefit from that different acting.

    Maybe I'm totally wrong and CCP know to the last decimal who is leaving the game and why and are struggling to keep everybody abaord as they follow a vision of what EVE should be, so all in all nothign I do or say changes anything.

    But then, if I had to give up fighting impossible fights, I would kill myself for any of a thousand better reasons than a videogame... Roll

  • What is the avatar above you thinking? in EVE Communication Center

    No I am not Japanese, I'm just sleepy.

  • Referring to 'not enough being destroyed' in EVE Communication Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
    Joseephus Rotineque wrote:
    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
    PvP may destroy about 1 trillion ISK per month, whereas lapsed accounts remove anything between 30 and 70 trillion ISK per month.


    Do you have a source for this?


    FAI, March 2017:

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Mar_2017/0_produced.vs.destroyed.png

    Produced: ~4.53 trillion ISK
    Destroyed: ~1.10 trillion ISK

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Mar_2017/0_produced.vs.destroyed.png

    Active ISK delta: -5.1630 trillion ISK (this btw is the lowest ever)

    Since March had a extremely low delta, let's look at February:

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Feb_2017/9a_sinksfaucets.png

    Active ISK delta: -35.5999 trillion ISK

    Or January:

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Jan_2017/9a_sinksfaucets.png

    Active ISK delta: -60.7101 trillion ISK

    Or before going F2P, say, October 2016:

    http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70687/1/9a_sinksfaucets.png

    Active ISK delta: -38.0956 trillion ISK

    No matter when you look, there is A LOT more money lapsing out than the value of assets destroyed.

    So the average asset in EVE is mined, manufactured, traded, stored and removed from economy when the account lapses/goes inactive. It only makes sense to assume that demand is driven by hoarders-quitters, not pewpewers. They want ship X, obtain it, never lose it, then they stop playing and ship X become invisible to EVE's ""production and destruction"" economy.


    Your interpretation of those graphs is incorrect. The value destroyed line that's hovering around an average of 1T is *per day* not per month.

    That means the value destroyed in March was around 40.3T. The total Active ISK delta for the game during that same time was 5.16T or roughly 1/8th of the ISK destroyed in the game.

    The Active ISK delta in February was far larger, at over 35T, but the volume destroyed was still up around 38T, largely due to the shorter month than any real drop in destruction per day.


    OK, I see it now. I've checked the csv file and it's what you said, the daily values hover around one (American) trillion. Thus I've been wrong for a good amount of months... Sad

  • Referring to 'not enough being destroyed' in EVE Communication Center

    Joseephus Rotineque wrote:
    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
    PvP may destroy about 1 trillion ISK per month, whereas lapsed accounts remove anything between 30 and 70 trillion ISK per month.


    Do you have a source for this?


    FAI, March 2017:

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Mar_2017/0_produced.vs.destroyed.png

    Produced: ~4.53 trillion ISK
    Destroyed: ~1.10 trillion ISK

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Mar_2017/0_produced.vs.destroyed.png

    Active ISK delta: -5.1630 trillion ISK (this btw is the lowest ever)

    Since March had a extremely low delta, let's look at February:

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Feb_2017/9a_sinksfaucets.png

    Active ISK delta: -35.5999 trillion ISK

    Or January:

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Jan_2017/9a_sinksfaucets.png

    Active ISK delta: -60.7101 trillion ISK

    Or before going F2P, say, October 2016:

    http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70687/1/9a_sinksfaucets.png

    Active ISK delta: -38.0956 trillion ISK

    No matter when you look, there is A LOT more money lapsing out than the value of assets destroyed.

    So the average asset in EVE is mined, manufactured, traded, stored and removed from economy when the account lapses/goes inactive. It only makes sense to assume that demand is driven by hoarders-quitters, not pewpewers. They want ship X, obtain it, never lose it, then they stop playing and ship X become invisible to EVE's ""production and destruction"" economy.

  • Blood Raider Shipyards from Team Phenomenon (YC 119.4) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Alderson Point wrote:
    mkint wrote:
    There is no value for CCP to provide new and interesting content. Not unless it can be used as part of their "million-man-fights" marketing plan. This whole thing is just to get nullbears to fleet up so CCP can use the resulting videos to advertise the game more. EVE is going to have the first 1,000 man PVE fight, and they are going to milk that for all the publicity they can. And for publicity value, it is worth far more than "we got new missions!" ever will have. Meanwhile the other 299,000 players will have literally zero benefit from this, or any other upcoming PVE. Keep your expectations low. Player retention is not a significant priority at CCP.



    Whilst I agree CCP have historically let PVE out of null or for nullbear vacations to HS, lapse "somewhat".
    i do not share your pessimism for the future, they Know (god I hope they do) that rebuilding PVE in HS, is more than just adding new missions, and until they sort out the biggest problem, there is no point adding anything that involves players joining together as all that would mean is more opportunity for "certain people" to drive people out of the game at an accelerated rate.

    Winter is going to require, brave, imaginative decisions, and the tools currently being created, excellent though they are, will not achieve CCP's and our goals on their own.
    There is no way they will announce those too much in advance, simply enabling those wardec over-farming groups who suck on the teat of unending free kills, to get their propoganda mill going, Whilst Hoping to continue to pull up every new shoot, before it can grow a single leaf.

    CCP will either revitalise HS, or burn the last thread of hope keeping many in the game.

    Bad, or overcautious decisions here, will have permanent consequences.

    They have the will, and backing of CCP Seagull to be courageous. They have shown they can be elsewhere, now it is time for the majority of the players in EVE to benefit from that courage.


    You don't need a themed winter expansion to add more scripted missions to the game for the first time since 2010. And this is just the very first thing CCP should do in order to sort the mess they've created about PvE.

  • here is an idea in EVE Communication Center

    Rain6637 wrote:
    There's no CQ in citadels because game balance or something


    And CCP yadda yadda yadda, you forgot to add the CCP factor.

    Why there's no CQ in citadels? CCP, yadda yadda yadda.
    Why the EVE store sux? CCP, yadda yadda yadda.
    Why PvE is abysmal? CCP, yadda yadda yadda.
    Why CCP is for sell*? CCP, yadda yadda yadda.


    *it's not official, actually it's just a hunch, but if CCP was your wife, she'd be taking pictures of herself in hot lingerie and you wouldn't be receiving them in your mail.

  • Referring to 'not enough being destroyed' in EVE Communication Center

    Lapsed/inactive accounts remove more wealth from the game than all other factors combined. PvP may destroy about 1 trillion ISK per month, whereas lapsed accounts remove anything between 30 and 70 trillion ISK per month.

    Production/Destruction is a visible cycle of the game, but what keeps the economy healthy it's the invisible hand of inactive ISK.

  • Blood Raider Shipyards from Team Phenomenon (YC 119.4) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Pryce Caesar wrote:
    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


    So according to you, the players who pay CCP for PvE don't deserve getting content that entices them to keep paying CCP for PvE. If they want a reason to keep paying CCP, they must work hard for it, right?

    Sarcasm aside, the whole thing I've asked Team Phenomenon is why they develop PvE content that it's not accessible to PvE players. Someone must be making this decision for some reason. Who, why or what sense does it, are a mistery.


    How do you expect CCP to cater to your needs?

    Anthar Thebess explained it in a way that I agree with: this is a large scale PvE activity that operates as a way to obtain Faction Capital BPC that can be used for PvP. Depending on how they handle this, these Sotiyo could also be an alternative to getting Capital faction BPC for the Sansha (assuming they buff those guys with a Dread and Titan as well).

    It is an extension of what higher levels of PvE have always been about: completing a PvE site for the opportunity to obtain rare and valuable loot, whether it be modules, materials, and so on.

    I do not know what your entitlement issue is about, but I never said that people who pay CCP for PvE "don't deserve getting content that entices them to keep paying CCP". The only thing I did say was that they aren't going to make thing EASIER just to satisfy a specific type of player.

    The new Sotiyo Pirate Shipyards are about advancing the game-play of EVE Online. With the slow but steady introduction of new Pirate Faction Capital ships to the game, the developers included a new way of attaining the BPC for these Capitals that doesn't come from special events. But they also made sure that it would not be easy for players to get them, with the new AI system that is included with the Sotiyo Shipyard NPCs.

    That is the best reason I can think of for this decision being made.




    There is no entitlement. This highly sophisticated and extremely niche PvE content is being developed in lieu of the meat-and-potatoes PvE CCP stopped adding in 2010. And by any measure accessible to a baseliner like me, that decisison is proving harmful for the game.

  • Your daily WTF, thank you. in EVE Communication Center

    Ah, irony.

    Some say it's a lost art, but some practice it with action and not just words.

    Cool

  • Not enough stuff is being destroyed in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    (...)
    Yes combat PVE is mainly about the isk, but it's also a platform for creativity. CCP's additions to PVE since litterally 2009 have been anti-creativity. There are only a narrow handful of ways with a handful of ships to beat Drifters and Burners and Incursions etc, there are legions of ways to beat missions, complexes and anomalies.


    Sonofab... Am I agreeing with you for the second time in two days? Shocked

    And it's 100% agreement. The main reason why I spent years doing exactly the same missions (easy job, since none are never added) was because I did them in different ships, with different weapons, different tactics... it was like a jigsaw puzzle, you know how the picture will look but how you assemble the puzzle it's up to you.

    Yet for some reason, CCP just develops increasingly complex and demanding content which can be run in one and exactly one way, and once optimized, it will punish any all attempts of creativity with failure. It's the less sandboxy content imaginable: a test with a single correct answer, as most of PvP is, btw.

    So I agree. CCP is anti-creativity with PvE. Which just proves how clueless they are about PvE.