Stop arguing with OP. If he and people like him, leave Abyss alone, our loot will be worth more
Abyss is not there to make ISK. No PvE is there to make ISK. Cause this entire game is not there to make a fortune. It is there to make fun. If making a fortune is where your fun is… Well there are better way to make ISK (trading, for example).
Abyss is rather unpredictive intense PVE interaction. Much more entertaining, than any other PVE activities, at least for me. And timer is part of it. Thats why I fly it, when I am not in the relaxed mood to do L4 missions.
After losing 5BISK in one go because the server refused to let me log in I simply stopped running those sites. My internet connection was active I could reach the forums and ping TQ, yet the launcher failed to connect to the game.
The timer is not the problem. The problem is that the server doesn’t pause it eventhough it very well knows that the player disconnected.
The timer wouldn’t be an issue if Eve wasn’t a total loss game. Any other game where you “die” / run out of time you might lose some gold or some XP in Eve you totally lose your ship (and in the abyss your pod) completely.
Having the server “pause the session” doesn’t sound like a bad idea (after all it is instanced) but I think the way TQ works means that it sometimes takes a while to realise you have disconnected at all, so you would still end up with loss.
I’m for the timer / disconnects throwing you out AND emptying your cargo of loot at the same time. You don’t lose, but you can’t win.
What is difference between gold and some XP vs isk? You are immortal. There is no total loss in EVE. People noways just care more about isk than anything.
I have never had DC issues in abyssal sites. Only time I ever DCed in Eve is when I pushed my old rig to hard or when there was known server issues and everyone was effected.
So is there a known issue with the instanced abyssal sites? Or is this just individual issues being blamed on the server?
I would advise you to either analyse and fix your packet loss
(and/or)
learn about and tweak your router/modem/ISR settings
(and/or)
switch to an ISP with (or try and talk your current ISP into getting) better guarantees in terms of connectivity (especially from/to the Singularity server location). Unreliable connections on your end are not CCP’s problem and getting a reliable connection is more than just about gaming.
Try using a VPN. I was having serious connection issues as well and ever since I started using a VPN I have yet to have a drop…knock on wood.
As for the odd PUBG reference, the loss of say 5 billion isk has a real monetary value that can take a not inconsiderable amount of time to recover. A death in PUBG, on the other hand, while tedious is meaningless in the greater scheme of things. You simply just have to queue for another round with no discernible loss involved.
First ccp’s opinions are really made by the player base, who are constantly advocating for “more skill” “harder or quit” etc and so forth. This is one of the major contributing factors to the decline of eve, and the implementation of bad mechanics like the death mechanic on the timer for sites.
Second, the other major factor of their decline of their game is the lack of an, or an intelligent UX designer.
In this regards, abyssal sites should of been designed so that you do not obtain a “bonu cache” at the end of the run instead of death. This make the game more about optimizing and team work which ultimately results in a more casually friendly, and socially supported form f game play.
Once you hit higher levels which have significantly more skills the player base will fade off and those more skilled and knowledgeable players will shine, but in the process the players should not be significantly punished for valid reasons like
learning how the sites work
finding and maintaining social structure (friends, etc) to complete higher group oriented content
enjoying the over all solo experience.
I try to tell ccp to listen, but their leadership is in general just bad.
The loss should really be shifted from player assets to acquisition of rewards. Player asset loss should be shifted to destruction of the ship by the npcs. imo, the difficulty is on par with where it should be with abyssal sites, some small modifications should be made (especially those that make towers in the levels more part of the planning and work of the game play for site clearing).
valid points, but in the end I believe CCP just wants more assets destroyed. the timer thing makes sure that if you fail, there’s 100% chance of loss. it’s a sinks/faucets thing to fix/maintain the economy.
Well, you will be surprised to learn that ship deaths actually dont effect the economy as much as they do the liquid isk of individual players.
If they really wanted to remove value from the economy, there are far more effective ways to do it, presented to us monthly via the data.
For example, they could remove income potential from stations, and shift them to a more passive form of support (like reducing the tax a player incurs from what he pays at an npc station). Instead stations are used as a form of income (via the taxing system). This would be one of the single most effective ways to combat both station spam, and to much isk into the economy (namely, but simply removing the taxing features of stations).
Another effective way would be to reduce the returns of insurance.
I dont think these death mechanics in a-sites are really here for the purpose of economic stability, as much as some ignorant players just said “oh, make it hard who cares about the carebear casuals” and ultimately ccp’s foolish choice to listen to that.
67,62 T ISK sunk in november of which:
20,27 T ISK Destroyed in kills (according to killdump.csv)
Not as much? … hmmmm. Cpt. Obvious? More like Cpt. Lies or Cpt. Oblivious.
Also note this graph doesn’t make sense. 93. + (-67.) = -24… in turn doesn’t correspond to BOM-EOM figures. However, gives a good impression in terms of ISK “movement” per month, kills are a good portion. approx 1/3.
IOW, you want to remove the risk of asset loss entirely. Risk of destruction by NPCs is always going to be essentially zero for even a marginally competent player. It’s just too easy to look up the incoming DPS numbers/spawn triggers/etc, fit your ship to exceed those numbers, and warp out if anything doesn’t work. The only way to impose any kind of risk is to have an abyssal-style “win or die” mechanic where warping out to try again is not an option and success requires more than just fitting sufficient tank and guaranteeing an eventual win.
Amusingly, the only way that NPC ship destruction ever becomes a threat is that if the PvE site requires a high-end (and expensive) fit then your ship becomes a target for suicide ganking. And you are one of those deluded people who wants to remove suicide ganking entirely.
Oh look, the fraud doesn’t understand the difference between ISK sinks and ISK re-allocation. Shouldn’t a so-called “prodigy game designer” have a better understanding of these things?
Yes, exactly, who cares about the carebear casuals. How have you been in EVE this long and failed to understand such a basic concept? EVE is a game that rewards investment and makes success mean something because failure is always an option. It is not a game where everyone gets easy participation trophies because it would be unfair to the “casuals” to have things they can’t beat.
But, as someone helpfully pointed out, we’re dealing with the liar and fraud who wants to turn EVE into Farmville:
And yet another “if there is no pvp, they dont die” we’ve been around this. Metric data clearly states your wrong.
Btw, What is “marginally competent?” I would love for you forum trolls to actually gain some intelligence and stop using ambiguous statements like “if he had half a brain, or a little skill… blah blah bla”.
Mean while you only want the game to be hard for you, but never advocate hard for the best player(s). Why is that? are you to scare to back up your own positions by making the game to difficult for YOU to play it?
**
In the end, your claim npcs do not kill things is simply no true.**
Wait did you just make an argument and then back peddle. You should hire help, your not good at this thing we call discussion… back peddler.
Oh look, the no body ceo scum alt does not know its called “economic viscosity”.
Ship deaths have actually no impact on the economy. If you actually read the chart with half a brain you would see that.
Station tax, broker fee’s, and skills books are where its at my friend.
On the other side, (instead of causing more tax, we could remove more income, something similar to the nullsec nerfs that took place a few months ago).
Either of the two positively impact the economy. On that side of things insurance is a good example of thing that can easily be changed and impact the game greatly. Also, there is the added benefit of making the game require more grinding if the insurance pays less, which means that there is more dependency on corporations impacting social interaction rates, as well as how much people need to focus on pve.
Insurance is the best way to positively impact the game on that side, out side of mechanical changes to the actual way income is acquired.
Metric data includes losses by drunk players, clueless newbies, RMTers, etc. The simple fact is that PvE in EVE is easy and if you’re dying at all frequently you’re pretty much hopeless.
Btw, What is “marginally competent?”
Understanding the game mechanics, having sufficient SP to use a ship effectively, fitting a standard PvE fit, and reading the PvE guides. There’s a reason I haven’t lost a PvE ship in literal years, and that I only lost that one because my PC locked up upon warping in to the site and I couldn’t reboot and log in fast enough to save my ship. And I barely care about PvE and put very little effort into doing it optimally.
Mean while you only want the game to be hard for you, but never advocate hard for the best player(s).
Nonsense. I would be happy for PvE to become hard for even the best PvE players, but I don’t think you would like that outcome.
Wait did you just make an argument and then back peddle. You should hire help, your not good at this thing we call discussion… back peddler.
Lolwut? It’s a completely consistent argument, the only threat in the situation is from PvP players. The NPCs are not a direct threat and have effectively zero chance of destroying your ship.
Oh look, the no body ceo scum alt does not know its called “economic viscosity”.
Oh look, a bait and switch where now you pretend you’re talking about “economic viscosity” instead of ISK/resource sinks.
Ship deaths have actually no impact on the economy.
Oh look, the fraud doesn’t understand that most market activity is driven by ship/asset destruction. If you never lose a ship then you have no need to ever buy another ship and your participation in the market is very quickly reduced to buying ammo. The only reason EVE has any meaningful economic activity is that assets are constantly being destroyed, forcing their former owners to buy replacements and pay those market taxes.
Insurance is the best way to positively impact the game on that side, out side of mechanical changes to the actual way income is acquired.
Wait, I thought you were supposed to be dedicated to helping newbies? Why are you advocating a change that hurts newbies the most and has little effect on veteran players? Is this your concession that your “newbie helper” corp is in fact a scam and you have no genuine interest in helping newbies?
Wait, did you actually just play the drunk card?
Are you actually trying to argue that the majority of losses are because someone was to drunk to fly their space ship?
=X
Man, you definitely need help.
all i got from that is even more ambiguous terminology.
Actually, i am not against a challenge, i think its good. I think however, it needs to be done in layers, so that people can accomplish some content completion, other wise they will get bored and leave the game.
Wow, and similar games have this by providing things like normal, heroic, mythic etc. Eve in ways has this with things like level 1 abyssal, various types of ratting encounters, and so on.
Actually, I very much think that the majority of pve should be shifted to group related activities, of which i believe the isk in them should be distributed to the entire squad (but no larger) equally (instead of split) to facilitate group related progression, which would be significantly harder.
I like the abyssals, i think they in concept are the way all pve should go (out side of the flat out ship destruction).
To make it clear, i think pve should work very much like incursions. I am a fan of adding level 5 missions to high sec, but making the level 4-5 missions move in the direction of requiring 5 man groups as a form of progression. I believe this is absolutely vital to the future of missions and mission based corps. this is just a start, mind you but its a few examples of how i believe the game should advance in terms of pve (combat specifically).
You said pve ships dont impact the eco, then you said they do when blah blah. That is hard back peddle my friend.
and you dont understand that the economy is seeded by ccp. Its not just players adding to it.
Ergo, the economy is not effected in any significant way by player deaths (pve, or pvp based).
If you wanted to make an argument that the seeded, and sold items by players in a general area are soaked up by ship loss, you could, but the when it comes to actually removing assets (items, isk) from the game (into the great abyss) ship loss really has no impact on the over all game.
If the servers spawn 10 thanny’s, then you lose 5 and buy 5 more for later, then lose them, and the server reseeds the 10 the next day, nothing was removed from the game. The only thing that happen was the items shifted from what can be best described as “buffer land”, to “active use”.
You are trying to argue that some how people dying is some how effecting the over all economy that is artificially seeded by ccp directly, i really insanity. Your so blinded by your ignorance that you cannot recognize that all that is really taking place is a swap of items (effectively, the economy incurs no loss).
