EvE needs alphas and alphas need level 4 missions

Communications Center General Discussion
141

You are a liar and a fraud. Please drop your nonsense “prodigy game designer” claims, they’re as obviously dishonest as your lies about your CSM votes.

JFC no. How can you claim to be an expert when you can’t even understand basic concepts like “removing all sense of accomplishment and handing everyone a participation trophy is a bad idea”?

and it needs to be changed in a way that ships can be acquired quickly. every type of ship should take a month ish to get into. to be clear, a command ship should take a month to train into as a alpha.

IOW, “remove any sense of accomplishment from reaching long-term goals and rush people into ships they shouldn’t be flying yet”.

The game needs to support both of these types of players

No it doesn’t. EVE is a PvP sandbox. If you want WoW in space then GTFO and go play some inane WoW clone. EVE has survived by refusing to compromise and pander to PvE farmers, not by trying to turn itself into a terrible PvE game.

3 Likes
142

Proof.

143

Your lies about your supposed CSM votes pretty clearly demonstrate that. As for your game design claims, it’s up to you to prove your credentials instead of making empty claims and insisting that everyone else magically prove that you haven’t made a game. But we all know you are never going to post the successful games you have developed because they do not exist.

1 Like
144
1 Like
145

That is your claim. A claim that has been proven wrong by many games, and which is still being proven wrong by many more.

The truth is, this position of yours and that eve has to be this way is only a way to validate for you to abuse people to suit your personal insecurities and social problems (possibly psychological ones).

There are a large amount of ship classes in the game. well over 25, which means that in the “long term” it will still take years of training to get everything maxed if the training periods are only a month. This is not even including the module training, etc.

Also, The life expectancy of eve for many more years is very, very unlikely.

You need people to pvp. With a average drop of 9.6% people a year, something has to be done now. But if you were half the ceo you claim to be you’d know that.

146

Why is it so hard for you to understand that different games target different audiences? EVE has been successful by targeting the market of people who want success to have genuine meaning because failure is always an option, the empire builders who look at a difficult game and say “bring it on”. It would be utterly insane for CCP to throw that away and just hand everyone equal income as a participation trophy.

There are a large amount of ship classes in the game. well over 25, which means that in the “long term” it will still take years of training to get everything maxed if the training periods are only a month. This is not even including the module training, etc.

Except skills overlap and if you can be competently flying your choice of ship within a month training the next one on the list will be much faster. Or have you forgotten that flying a ship is about much more than having the skills required to undock it?

You need people to pvp.

So your solution is to remove PvP? Why do I care if there are people if they aren’t participating in PvP?

But if you were half the ceo you claim to be you’d know that.

Oh, so I’m a CEO now? Truly your delusions know no bounds…

147

Provide an official statement on who is included in that “audience”, please.

First, this was a bad design position. This is proven by many things, like the fact that half of the pvp takes place in high sec, or that low sec has almost (if not always) been massively populated.

Second, w hen we design games with progression in them, we design that progression system in stages. those stages are not require to be restricted to security. You can make progression happen on the bases of the activity.

Its clear that ccp understand this, as they have invented more modern forms of content and progression (like trig runs etc).

That can be changed.

No, the solution is to stop the abuse so that people can play the dam game with out you, or your retarded friends bullying them, abusing them, scamming them, and so on. Maybe after a while they will venture out and pvp.

148

PROVIDE PROOF THAT WATER IS WET OR ELSE I WIN.

First, this was a bad design position. This is proven by many things, like the fact that half of the pvp takes place in high sec, or that low sec has almost (if not always) been massively populated.

I fail to see how “highsec PvP is popular” has anything to do with “everyone wants automatic PvE success with zero challenge”. Would you like to prove that capitals are underpowered and CCP should reverse the cyno nerf by showing me your spreadsheet for optimizing highsec mining and reprocessing?

Second, w hen we design games with progression in them, we design that progression system in stages. those stages are not require to be restricted to security. You can make progression happen on the bases of the activity.

And your point is? Your demand was for CCP to remove progression entirely by giving everyone the same hourly income rate.

That can be changed.

IOW, to implement your terrible idea you honestly think it would be a great idea to completely redo the entire skill system such that each ship has its own independent skills and shared skills no longer exist? I suppose it is possible in theory to do this, but I have no idea why anyone would want to do something so utterly stupid.

No, the solution is to stop the abuse so that people can play the dam game with out you, or your retarded friends bullying them, abusing them, scamming them, and so on. Maybe after a while they will venture out and pvp.

Oh boo hoo. That’s a real moral high horse you’re sitting on for someone who enjoys scamming newbies. But let’s be honest about the real problem here, you’re just salty that someone bigger than you blew up your scam corp’s station. It’s not that you hate bullies, you just can’t stand the fact that you aren’t the biggest bully.

PS: all of those things you’re whining about are part of EVE and why people play it. Making highsec a zero-risk farming area for sad losers who can’t succeed in the real game is not the answer.

1 Like
149

This is a deflection. The truth is you are actually making statements with no evidence, and then resorting to statements like this. You have nothing, and bring nothing to these forums by a clearly desperate need for attention.

More deflection. In the end any developer of weight understands the majority of people in an mmo, pvp focused or not, do not actually pvp.

You are trying to “pwn the carebears” because its easy. Grow a set and go pvp the people that actually want to do it, instead of sitting in your carebear alliance claiming no one pvps.

Capitals in their current design, were a massive mistake. I believe they should not be able to touch subcaps, and the other way around.

OR you dont understand what i am saying. Lets pretend your stupid like i think you are and hold your hand through it.

Activities break down into (for example we will use three)
Mining
Incursions
Faction War

Lets say all forms have three stages of progression
Basic
Advanced
Expert

each stage should require a specific ship, and each of the three types should match income in each stage.

So level 2 mining and level 2 incursions should produce 50m/hr.

Finally each stage should increase in difficulty for that activity. This is not the case, as mining Null veld, is no more difficult then mining null bistot, or low sec bistot null bistot.

At current it does not work like this at all. Instead, we are pretending like high sec is safer, but the truth is, with all the pvp and faction wars, and trig stuff, its really not. You are just peddling that is the cause because “concord is there”.

I’d love to see concord removed, and the ability to fire criminally in high sec with it. I bet your entire argument that high sec is dangerous will go out there door then, even though all forms of pve would not be touched in those two changes.

150

Wait, I thought you were a “prodigy game designer”? Shouldn’t you be capable of basic tasks of analysis like looking at a game’s mechanics and marketing and drawing conclusions about who the target market it?

More deflection. In the end any developer of weight understands the majority of people in an mmo, pvp focused or not, do not actually pvp.

That’s nice. EVE is a PvP game, and you’re doing the equivalent of joining a FPS server and insisting that everyone stop using weapons so you can all go admire the scenery.

You are trying to “pwn the carebears” because its easy. Grow a set and go pvp the people that actually want to do it, instead of sitting in your carebear alliance claiming no one pvps.

Alternatively, the “carebears” could HTFU, stop defining themselves as helpless victims, and fight back.

OR you dont understand what i am saying.

Sorry but I don’t read minds. If you want to propose a progression system then you need to actually say that. You can’t say “everyone gets equal income” and expect other people to figure out that what you actually meant is “everyone doesn’t get equal income, there are still levels of income”.

I’d love to see concord removed, and the ability to fire criminally in high sec with it.

Sure, and then with it all income needs to be removed from highsec. That’s the basic concept of risk vs. reward: no risk, no reward. You don’t get to have endgame-level income from “expert” activities in highsec if all risk has been removed.

1 Like
151

That has already be done and spouted many times in my arguments. You, the troll douche, are a small number of people (0.3%) of the total population, and the pvp focused player exceeds no more then 18% of a game. You, and your positions are worthless to any developer that actually cares about its population rates.

Further more, pvers and pvpers have a direct relation with each other. It is the same with hardcore and casual players, who respectively lead content, generating competition and cooperation, while people (soft core players) follow and join and keep it going.

If anything this relationship is even more important in eve, since the economy directly depends on pvers. In the end, It can be established clearly that influx of pvers, bring about more pvp to a game, not less.

If we get to the crux of the real issue is, its not that at all. Its that you want to abuse people, and do not want your form of abuse changed. Which is why i say “you are an asshat, with a criminal mentality”.

btw, how many felonies have you done in rl? because your character seems utterly shot.

Really, we going full circle on this?

what part of “risk vs reward does not need to be security restricted” dont you get?

152

Risk vs. reward must be based on security levels because PvE content can never involve genuine risk. NPCs following a script are predictable and easily farmed, the only meaningful risk comes from other players. So if you want highsec to have zero PvP risk, and therefore essentially zero risk of any kind, highsec must also have zero reward.

That has already be done and spouted many times in my arguments. You, the troll douche, are a small number of people (0.3%) of the total population, and the pvp focused player exceeds no more then 18% of a game. You, and your positions are worthless to any developer that actually cares about its population rates.

Oh look, there you go again trying to pretend that overall rates for an industry dominated by PvE-focused theme park WoW clones are the same rates as for a PvP-focused sandbox game.

If anything this relationship is even more important in eve, since the economy directly depends on pvers.

{citation needed}

EVE needs PvP players who see the industry aspects as just another PvP arena to compete in. IOW, the players who ruthlessly win at industry by any means necessary: conquering nullsec space to secure resources, declaring war on their rivals to lock them out of highsec trade hubs, using every banned-in-real-life unfair business practice to drive the competition bankrupt, suicide ganking their rivals’ freighters and then selling them new freighters (and new suicide ships to the gankers), etc. Those players are great in EVE and the current game attracts them.

EVE does not need lame perma-victims who whine and cry about having to participate in PvP and demand risk-free farming 23/7. Those people can GTFO and nothing will be lost.

153

This is utterly insane position. You realize more people die in pve, then pvp right?

That does not mean that pve is not capable of providing risk, that means the ai coding is garbage, where did you learn to reason?

No, I want to remove your abuse. That does !- removing risk, reward forms of design.

Its the truth, and you dont like it. I get that, but in the end your wrong, and the game is dying because of insane positions like the ones you are advocating for.

How many people need to be lost, and how dire the situation needs to be, before you decide “well maybe we should try something else”.

Where i am sitting now is “eve is definitely done, no doubts. It is impossible to fix this problem, but lets try”.

I hope you understand how serious i believe… no, how serious this situation really is. Eve has to accomplish something that has never been done before in the history of this industry.

If we dive into the mindset of most pvpers tell me exactly, how many of them will come into a game with an almost impossible to beat disadvantage? Because we are measuring getting more pvp centric players here by what? changing the game to lose more pvers, all because you some how think catering to the 18% will magically cause a influx of disadvantaged pvpers to join eve?

Your insane if you think that will work.

But lets not stop there, even if you were right, my position still holds way more weight. Simply, t hat there are far, far more pvers then pvpers.

Thus, the conversation is utterly insane, It is stupidity for us to try to some how pick a few people from a already dismal % of the population that will, not even if we get 100% of them, ever recoup what was lost.

It is impossible for eve to ever heal by “targeting pvpers”. much less criminally mindset players like you.

You know if you played this game for a while, you’d know that this “forced pvp” nonsense did not exist in the past.

Imo, passive income needs to go, so you pvpers learn just what it means to lose. You sit around picking on miners, cry when they dont pvp, and then cry when you have to pve. You guys are out right, Toxic (those like you anyways). I am a pvper, and always have been and will be. I have never believed in forced pvp paps, and i think its down right lazy for alliance and coalition leaders to force it.

Actually, the only reason why its forced on pvers, is because there is not enough pvpers. Ironic how the pvpers want pvers to pvp, because there is not enough of them. I thin its hilarious.

154

Only because of newbies learning the game. Once you learn how to farm, and it’s not exactly a difficult task to figure out, the risk of death is essentially zero outside of connection issues.

That does not mean that pve is not capable of providing risk, that means the ai coding is garbage, where did you learn to reason?

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that we’re talking about EVE’s NPCs, not some theoretical PvE game that only exists in your own mind. And yes, game AI is still more predictable than real players. There’s a reason why every PvE game that gets at all popular very quickly has “how to beat X” guides posted and you can usually just follow the guide for an easy win.

No, I want to remove your abuse. That does !- removing risk, reward forms of design.

It does when you have defined all highsec PvP as “abuse”.

Its the truth, and you dont like it. I get that, but in the end your wrong, and the game is dying because of insane positions like the ones you are advocating for.

Nonsense. EVE is declining because of other issues. EVE grew and thrived when it had even more PvP and less safety than it does now.

You know if you played this game for a while, you’d know that this “forced pvp” nonsense did not exist in the past.

Lolwut? Remember when CONCORD was not an auto-kill and you could set up permanent gatecamps in trade hubs? Remember when war decs cost ~5 mil each and you could have an unlimited number of them with no requirements other than paying the token ISK? Remember when insurance paid out on suicide gank ships lost to CONCORD? EVE has less “forced PvP” than at any time in its existence.

But go ahead, keep posting more nonsense about how what EVE really needs is more mindless PvE farmers grinding away at inane PvE content until they get bored enough to quit.

155

Glad we both agree that pve has more risk then pvp.

It will always be that way for the next 30-50 years. We do not have Ai technology that can compete on the level of a person.

Nope, I have all Criminal pvp as “abuse”. That means no more suicide ganking.
But you in your limited thinking capability think that equals “the only form of pvp”.
Cuz your a criminal

Speaking of which, eve did not have massively implemented suicide ganking until 2006-2007.
So again we validate the insanity of your position. btw, in those days it was ravens on jita gate, so even the suicide ganking then is not what it is today.

On that note, another point is brought up with privateers and their massively war campeign that was so bad it resulted in a 3 war dec limit from ccp.

Its clear these are forms of abuse, and that ccp believes it at the very minimum “get out of control and be abusive”.

That happened only for a short time, and resulted in concord-npc farming and was quickly fixed.

That is a lie. Its criminal pvp is higher then those other alternative forms of pvp ever did. We both know that, and since im a 2003 alt, your bs in that matter is not gona work.

The first organization to implement massive high sec pvp was privateers. Out side of that it was just a few people here or there. It was not until the advent of goons mid 2006 or 2007 (cant remember the exact year) that these sorts of systems came about as a “standard” in eve.

Goons are true to their word when they say
“we are here to kill eve”.

Which is probably another reason why you are here trying to prevent good change, because that is and has always been goons real objective.

156

We have a massive pve population in eve, with an identity crisis. They are called “pvpers” its just not clear to them because they have “passive isk”.Remove all forms of passive isk, including rental agreements and bring about the inability for coalitions and alliances to provide srp, and we’ll see real fast who exactly is pvpers.

This is the real reason we lost pvers in eve. Because they became invalidated at what they do, namely resource generation (mainly in the form of goods to isk). That resulted in them being forced to play the game in a way they did not like, which resulted in a massive drop of players.

Im out. Going home now, and doing some work on the game. Good night.

157

What? I think you mean we don’t have commercial grade AI…AI that can beat pro players in games has been around for a while and is used by pro-games to train against. Maybe you have heard of a guy named Elon Musk?

Hardly 30-50 years away…

158

This is how all technology works. Military probably has that level of AI tech, but when i say “we” i am referring to the “development community” specifically us game developers.

Its actually a simi-false statement, we could create ai on this level, its just not economically practical.

159

You have that AI now…what you don’t have is the power to use it nor do most consumers. The AI is not the hard part, the raw power needed is. Again, not 30-50 years away as it’s already being used as trainers…

160

As an alpha player I am very happy for the abilities that I already have. My advice:
Join a corp in nullsec that has a super cap umbrella
Salvage until you get 40 mil or so.
Buy a myrmidon and run higher level combat sites.
Buy a battleship
Done.