Abyssal sites and CCP's lack of common sense is making this game play god awful

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Naari_Naarian

Are you actually trying to argue that the majority of losses are because someone was to drunk to fly their space ship?

Are you ever going to stop building straw man arguments? Nowhere did I say that drunk flying causes the majority of losses. But it absolutely is a relevant reason to lose a ship.

all i got from that is even more ambiguous terminology.

Apparently you aren’t a game designer after all since you don’t understand how mathematically precise definitions here are not possible. But go ahead, keep whining and hiding behind “too vague waaaaaaa” instead of addressing the substance of the argument.

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.

And it is done in layers. Abyssal PvE is harder than level 1 missions. You claim to want difficult content but here you are complaining about how difficult content exists.

You said pve ships dont impact the eco, then you said they do when blah blah. That is hard back peddle my friend.

WTF are you going on about? That isn’t what I said, and it has nothing to do with the context of what you just quoted.

and you dont understand that the economy is seeded by ccp.

JFC, tell me you are aware of how profoundly stupid this claim is and that you are just trolling. Please restore my faith in humanity.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Merin_Ryskin

Are you ever going to stop building straw man arguments? Nowhere did I say that drunk flying causes the majority of losses. But it absolutely is a relevant reason to lose a ship.

You my friend are insane. While drunk deaths might result in some really hilarious km’s, they do not have any impact on the already insanely useless metric of ship deaths impacting the economy.

You sound like a person who believes that anthropomorphic global warming is a thing, hate to tell you its not; Just like drunk driving is not a thing for impacting the economy.

@Merin_Ryskin

Apparently you aren’t a game designer after all since you don’t understand how mathematically precise definitions here are not possible.

Your claim.

Btw, im still a dev =D and my long day of coding really makes me giggle at your claims im not. You are truly clueless, which is probably why your game is on the way out in the next year. a truth you cleverly try to hide from the population, and investors but which will eventually come to light.

word of advise,
Lies are destined to be destroyed. Their nature is to be obliterated. Just dont bother with them bro.

@Merin_Ryskin

Abyssal PvE is harder than level 1 missions.

Pro dev tip #1236
Its always best to do thing in groups of three.
Normal, heroic, Mythic etc.

Abyssal ones to be honest are really a waste of time and were a waste of developer resources.

@Merin_Ryskin

tell me you are aware of how profoundly stupid this claim is

You do realize that ccp has stated many many times over the years (Even recently) how they directly seed and manipulate the game right?

Want an example of this?
Log into eve and look at the command ships history over the last few years. You will see Significant price changes, and returns to previous states. This cannot occure naturally in a player driven economy (ie going from 300m average, to 150m average over night).

The economy is absolutely directly manipulated by ccp, and it should be its important for a healthy game (as it players the single most major counter to gold-farmers and their abuse of the economy)

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Naari_Naarian

You my friend are insane. While drunk deaths might result in some really hilarious km’s, they do not have any impact on the already insanely useless metric of ship deaths impacting the economy.

Again with the straw men. You mentioned the “metrics” showing that PvE deaths happen, I pointed out the reasons for deaths that have nothing to do with PvE being challenging or risky. That had nothing to do with the net effect of ship destruction on the economy. Please do not take my quotes out of context and use them to build nonsensical straw men.

You sound like a person who believes that anthropomorphic global warming is a thing, hate to tell you its not; Just like drunk driving is not a thing for impacting the economy.

Oh Jesus, you really are that stupid. Though I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that someone who so eagerly lies about their credentials would also be a science denialist.

Btw, im still a dev =D and my long day of coding really makes me giggle at your claims im not.

Oh look, the so-called “prodigy game designer” doesn’t understand the difference between game design and coding and how they have two completely different approaches to everything.

which is probably why your game is on the way out in the next year. a truth you cleverly try to hide from the population, and investors but which will eventually come to light.

Back to that “you’re a CCP alt” lunacy, I see…

You do realize that ccp has stated many many times over the years (Even recently) how they directly seed and manipulate the game right?

{citation needed}

This cannot occure naturally in a player driven economy (ie going from 300m average, to 150m average over night).

Oh look, you’re just as ignorant of economics as you are of game design. Perhaps you should take a moment to consider how balance changes impact demand (and therefore price), how changes in resource availability to build them can very quickly change prices, how concentration of production of specific items under control of a small number of players/corps can quickly change prices, etc.

[Syphilis_Rottencrotch]

I too would like to run abyssals more as they are pretty challenging and fun. I find them to be some of the most fun pve content i can do solo. I don’t because i have a shitty internet connection that is prone to frequent disconnects. How is this CCP’s fault? Without that timer, abyssals become just another boring ratting site. Someday i’ll have a better connection, and would rather these still be a challenge when that day comes

[Algathas]

I stopped doing missions a long time ago (except for burners once in a while) but I enjoy running abyssal filaments as they are more interesting and challenging. I’m glad CCP put these in the game. They are not for everyone because not everyone wants to take a risk. But who cares? People that want boring easy missions have their content. There is no need to change abyssals to be the same as everything else. The variety of content is good for the game.

[z0ra_Berg]

What’s the cheapest, most accessible way of doing abyssals?

[Derath_Ellecon]

Oh RL, how you get in the way sometimes…

@Hilti_Enaka

I WANT TO RUN ABYSSALS BECAUSE I ENJOY THE CONTENT - do you get it now?

I got it from the beginning. If you like them then run them. If you want CCP to remove the timer or lose everything on death, then they aren’t abyssal sites anymore, they are just combat anoms.

@Hilti_Enaka

Most of Eve’s content isn’t time bound by 20 minutes, and the policy CCP has to support other forms of PVE is based on content being something that can be completed without a short time based mechanism. That’s why I’m saying CCP do a bad job at making abyssals more enjoyable.

So since most content isn’t like this, does that mean CCP is never allowed to make some new style PVE content? Due to their constraint’s I cannot run them all the time either, depending on my RL circumstances. But I wouldn’t want CCP to remove the timer or death risk as they are what makes Abyssal sites unique and cool.

@Hilti_Enaka

Don’t even compare PUBG to this game it’s not even remotely comparable.

A reply that clearly shows you have been reading but failing to comprehend my points. So I’ll leave you with your frustration. Fly safe.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

It’s perfectly valid that some players enjoy the “beat the timer or lose everything” edge, and other players simply do not participate at all because they are unwilling to risk an Abyss-capable ship on the whims of the connection gremlins.

I’d suggest in that case that CCP alter the Abyssal options. Have some filaments that lead to low-end Abyssal runs that simply rupture and push you back out into space when the timer is up. Those types should have reduced rewards of course. Maybe they could jazz it up a little by having it push you out into a system within 2 jumps of your entry point or something, so you have a little ‘risk of the unknown’ added in.

Then leave the current Abyss sites as they are for those who like the ‘beat the clock’ rush. That way you’d have more players engaging, more ships getting destroyed, more people working their way up the ladder towards more challenging Abyss levels.

[Herzog_Wolfhammer]

The time limit is the point of abyssal sites.
Guess what, once, when I had a BS alt using those Gecko drones, I almost lost them because of connection issues that I tracked to the node in the nearby city.
You know what I did?
I stopped using them until the problem cleared up.

But oh, I guess you want to farm abyssal sites and krab that to death too. Like everything else in the game. Right?

[Herzog_Wolfhammer]

@Kezrai_Charzai

Those types should have reduced rewards of course. Maybe they could jazz it up a little by having it push you out into a system within 2 jumps of your entry point or something, so you have a little ‘risk of the unknown’ added in.

C’mon, if they did something like that, they have to do it Eve-style.
Have it drop you in remote nullsec.
Or better yet, a wormhole, so you have to have a probe launcher.
There was once a time when they went balls deep in ideas like this.

[Kaivarian_Coste]

I would’ve preferred if all the loot caches blew up after the timer expired, or that more rats would spawn over time until you’re eventually overwhelmed. Once you reconnect, at least you have a fighting chance of retrieving your ship.

As it is, even if you reconnect, you’re absolutely fcked. There is no way around it.

[ISD_Buldath]

16 Messages removed for off topic responses.

1. Specifically restricted conduct.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.

In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:

Trolling
Flaming
Ranting
Personal Attacks
Harassment
Doxxing
Racism & Discrimination
Hate Speech
Sexism
Spamming
Bumping
Off-Topic Posting
Pyramid Quoting
Rumor Mongering
New Player Bashing
Impersonation
Advertising

[Drago_Shouna]

@Kezrai_Charzai

The actual issue is that CCP needs to design content that appeals to more players, because the game is bleeding players at a rate that means EVE will be a ghost town in maintenance mode within 5 years.

Burying your head in the sand with “yeah but this content is just fine for .005% of the potential player base” comments simply leads to the same kind of disconnect from financial reality that CCP suffers from. Evaluating EVE game mechanics in isolation and declaring “Yep there’s 500 players that like this” is stupid when you look at the player population trends over the past 10 years.

Another game I have played for over 12 years has the same issues…every release has harder and harder content aimed at the elite, rather than the majority, they too are hemorrhaging players, they had Millions of players but not any more.

What they had to do was merge server after server as players left in droves, still some servers are dead with very little growth.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Drago_Shouna

The actual issue is that CCP needs to design content that appeals to more players,

This right here is the second biggest issue in the game. Do you know what the first is? The game has become stagnant, because of the major entities. All the while ccp peddles large battles and entities, but its leading to their death and the ceo is to blinded by his own arrogance, or to stupid to get it.

we depend on social interaction. That involves progress, together, with competition against other teams. the entire game has effectively become one team, and that is interesting, but its not good for a sandbox.

its possible because of passive income, but the passive icome itself is not the problem as much as it is possible to horde masses of players.

• Delete all corporations and alliances
• Limit corps to 250 people
• Limit alliances to 5 corps
• limit alliances to no more then 3 allies (blues)
• remove tickers from overview.
• remove the ability to set standings, and shift it to some sort of automatic system. If player group a kills b, they get - standings and eventually turn red, etc.
• default that value back to 0 over time of no conflict, and give them + rating for grouping together and killing npcs, mining, or killing equally rival people.

do that, and then problem will resolve itself. the game will break up and content will happen again.

[Merin_Ryskin]

Oh look, another of your terrible ideas. Hiding information and making the interface worse is poor game design, and players will eventually figure out ways to make large alliances work through out-of-game methods because the advantage for doing so is overwhelming. If you want to break up large alliances you have to provide incentive to fight instead of cooperate, not just keep the incentive to cooperate but make the paperwork more difficult.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Merin_Ryskin

and players will eventually figure out ways to make large alliances work through out-of-game methods

If standings are limited automatic systems, and tickers removed from overview. IT will be physically impossible to blob players after that change.

There is only 1 mechanic that can circumvent this, but this can be resolved with some technical changes to eve (i think most people dont know of, or forgot about this so i’ll just not mention it for now, though i think the original entity that did it will probably look at doing something with it later so we’d have to patch a fix for this in the patch that came with the standing changes).

Out side of this, you have no possible way of using military to blob someone at the same time, which means your not on even-ish footing, and subsequently open to attack.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Naari_Naarian

If standings are limited automatic systems, and tickers removed from overview. IT will be physically impossible to blob players after that change.

Nonsense. Players are clever and there are a lot of players looking for a way to make it work. For example, you could have a fully client-side program that uses character recognition to extract the on-screen name of each player, look them up in a third-party standings database, and apply an overlay to indicate their relationship. This would be 100% client-side and undetectable by CCP, btw, so it’s just a matter of time before someone implements it and breaks your system.

The ONLY way to break up large alliances is to change the incentives to favor keeping group size small. This is a more difficult problem, but instead of posting my ideas for how it could be done I’ll leave it to you as the so-called “prodigy game designer” to propose a solution. After all, if you’re anywhere near as capable as you claim it should be a pretty easy task for you.

(I know you won’t because you’re a liar and a fraud, but it will be amusing to watch you try to weasel out of this.)

[Naari_Naarian]

@Merin_Ryskin

For example, you could have a fully client-side program that uses character recognition to extract the on-screen name of each player, look them up in a third-party standings database, and apply an overlay to indicate their relationship

ccp could easily break this by shifting player names into some sort of conversion system. 394234_23423 = naari naarian

the reason why your idea is not created is because its bs. All you’d have to do to break that software is break the way it gets names.

@Merin_Ryskin

The ONLY way to break up large alliances is to change the incentives to favor keeping group size small.

Or mechanically force them to be smaller. You cant make an alliance of 10k when its physically limited to 1k

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Naari_Naarian

ccp could easily break this by shifting player names into some sort of conversion system.

Uh, right, so now you’re going to remove the ability to see who a player is in local or in space and turn everything into a bunch of anonymous SHIP #1309023 labels? That’s great for the social connections you claim to value…

the reason why your idea is not created is because its bs. All you’d have to do to break that software is break the way it gets names.

No, the reason it isn’t created right now is because it would be pointless when the game allows you to set standings. And there is no way to break the way it gets names without literally removing player names from the game because OCR software can identify any text that a human can read and translate it into search strings.

Or mechanically force them to be smaller. You cant make an alliance of 10k when its physically limited to 1k

FFS, did you bother to read anything I said? When the incentive to make a 10k player alliance the players will find out of game ways to make those alliances and bypass the limits. The ONLY way to impose a 1k limit is to make genuinely independent 1k player alliances more effective than larger groups such that the winning strategy is to stay small even in the absence of any kind of hard cap on player count.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Merin_Ryskin

Uh, right, so now you’re going to remove the ability to see who a player is in local or in space and turn everything into a bunch of anonymous SHIP #1309023 labels?

Nope, you could still keep it as player by a de-conversion process that happens after it hits chat. the only way you’d be able to pull the names is through some sort of letter-recognition based software, which is highly complex, expensive to make, and far beyond the technical capabilities of most people (if not all) in eve.

On a more practical level it would be possible to potentially pull those things from api or logs, but as far as i know the logs (when they did) shows " has entered the system" and not names. Which means its probably not viable to pull that data out side of recognition based software.

If someone wants to sit around and code that, im sure a nice bad from ccp would be a great way to waste their time.

@Merin_Ryskin

No, the reason it isn’t created right now is because it would be pointless when the game allows you to set standings.

No, the reason its not created right now is because there is no way to pull the data from chat out side of pulling it from logs which requires manual imput, and this is easily fixed by ccp (by shifting to server logs instead of local or by encryption so the data cant be pulled).

@Merin_Ryskin

When the incentive to make a 10k player alliance the players will find out of game ways to make those alliances and bypass the limits.

The change to alliances on this scale as i presented are intended to be the end of donuts. If people want to create work arounds to make more alliances or not is not part of this discussion.

In the end, you are limited to 3 alliances, with 2250 people in them on one team. nothing you can do will change that. You will always have team a, vs team b with 2250 on each side (+ neuts who cant distinguish either)

AT this rate the complexity of who is who (friend or foe) will be so high, it will be logistically impossible to not kill neut-friendlies on the battlefield. This will invalidate the reason donuts exist, and subsequently they will break apart.

Your trying to hide behind the creation of more alliances as a means to validate if they can some how distinguish nuetrals as being anything other then what they are, grays on the overview, and no third part software that is legal will ever change that.