SO now you include burners on the list of PVE CCP got right? Wasnt it on the “wasted effort” list earlier?
1 Like
I see you aren’t interested in having a discussion. Thanks for letting me know.
See thats the thing. You made an argument to the conclusion (paraphrasing) “CCP should stop trying to make new styles of PVE (player requested) because players don’t like new styles of PVE they requested.”
I asked for reasons (premises) to believe the conclusion. Which you provided.
I then challenged the truth of the premises.
That is the crux of intelligent discussion.
You move the goal posts and negate your own premises. But hey, its cool. I can be done too. 
1 Like
You said my opinion is not a talking point in this discussion. I simply stated the opt out as showing CCP knew the niche nature of the missions.
1 Like
You aren’t positing in any kind of good faith. I mean you seem intelligent enough to know that what you are posting is basically a lie (like the idea that I think Burners are wasted effort), but you keep doing it.
I dislike the allegation of trolling because that’s something people throw around stupidly, but despite that I can’t help but feel like you are trolling by trying to twist my words. That’s childish. I won’t bother you (or with you) again, and I’m sorry if you don’t understand what I’m trying to say.
My point is, I see some merit in running PvE in PvP fits, not because I want to fight NPCs differently but to make more even PvP happen in PvE sites. The event sites are a good example for such content. But this involves making NPCs weaker and smaller in numbers, because PvP fits are usually less durable than PvE fits.
2 Likes
Sorry if I am confused by your statements regarding Burners. You have repeatedly claimed that the burner community is small. You included them on the list of PVE content that has been added which is super niche. You have claimed that developing around things like bettre NPC AI only makes content which a tiny few do. Furthermore, you chastize CCP for listening to player requests for stuff like NPC AI upgrades, because the players really do not want it.
SO after including burners in with stuff you think is…silly… you then say that burners have been a good addition. You can see why that seems contradictory to everything else right?
1 Like
Sure. I wasnt arguing with you (especially not about the obstacles with designing PVE for PVP sites). I linked that to show that people have been asking for NPC to be more player like. It was not a misunderstanding on CCPs part (but a request with a long and pretty popular history). I was just trying to add historical context.
Right. I get that you feel that way about burners, but the data necessary to actually discuss the popularity (or not) of burners transcends you. While CCP making them penalty free might be some evidence that they knew not every person would want to do them, that doesn’t really tell us about how popular they are either. See what I mean?
Indeed. This info is just a tiny snippet of information. Unfortunately we do not have all the information. We are both left speculating on the overall usage of many features in EVE. CCP has all the cards and do not share that info freely. The opt out acts a quantifier though. It means that less people do those then other missions. What percentage that actually is we do not know. And why do you keep talking about how I feel after stating my feelings dont matter? I do not understand…
It doesnt mean that at all. It is (so far) just as likely that players turn down other missions more often than the burner missions.They may even take a penalty to do so.
So basically your saying we both don’t know then? Or do you have ccps info? Because I know I dont know.
I am saying that the inference from “There is an opt-out --> Burners are not popular” is dodgy.
I am also saying that the inference from “There is an opt-out —> burner missions are declined more than other missions” is also dodgy
I am also saying that the statement “some people do not like them/ will not do them” and the statement “burner missions see sufficient use to be considered a successful addition to L4 PVE” can both be true.
Hmm. That does make sense they both can also be false a s well as true. We are left I think with a Schrödinger’s cat situation until more data is released.
I made a quick edit in my final statement. It should make things clearer, while allowing us to put stonger boundaries on the number of cases where both statements could be false.
But yes, IMO, definitive statements would require the correct type of data from CCP to be made available.
Just for your information, Burner misisons (and all missions actually) are injected into the pool authomatically at a fixed rate. IIRC, the pool is specific for each agent in the same node, so when a mission is rejected it is offered to someone else by the same agent. This way the work to preload the dungeon into the node before spawning it is not wasted.
Then, the funny thing with Burners is that it’s a common occurence that you’ll be offered several of them in a row. I’ve been offered a smuch as 6 Burner missions in a row, which means that those missions were rejected by other runners, and queued back into the pool, and then offered again and rejected again, and again, and again. Missions being offered 6 in a row points a imbalance between injection to the pool and execution of the dungeon.
Or, in other words, you get a lot of Burners in a row because they’re rejected a lot before they’re executed and removed from the pool. Mind you, burner missions are injected at a fraction of the rate in which other missions are injected, and yet they tend to pile up out of disinterest and serial rejection.
Source/ Discussion Reference thread?
EDIT: Of particular relevance would be the whole “pre load the dungeon in the node” part.
Where did I use the word silly? It seems like you can’t help substituting your own incorrect beliefs for what I’m saying. I think everyone else is having an easier time understanding what I’m saying, and I’m sorry if I’m not parsing my words finely enough for you. But it would take to long to spell out every single little thing to you as you seem to would need.
The basic point is all you need to know (if you wish to understand). CCP added things like missions and anomalies and mining early in the games life. Later they have added “:better”, “newer” PVE (the list that includes burners).
By all indications, the older content (anomalies, missions, mining, exploration etc) is done more frequently and by a wider cross section of players than the newer stuff. The most glaring example is High Sec FOBs , which zkillboard shows are done by a mere handful of people (look for you self, the same 7 to 12 characters end up on most FOB kills as damage dealers).
This means that CCP got something right with the older stuff that is missing from the newer stuff. And yet many a PVE poster (and most of the participants in the last PVE roundtable I attended) is focused on this new shiney stuff, and vocal forum posting PVErs almost unanimously declare that EVE PVE is ‘crap’, year after year.
I don’t know why it’s hard for you to see the disconnect between what players keep asking for and what they actually do in game, and what that means.
Thus the Malcom Gladwell quote; “New shiney”/advanced AI/PVP like/‘group content’ PVE is the strong hearty roast coffee in his example. Repetitive, farmable, ‘dumb AI’ PVE is the weak, milky coffee that more people , through their actions, demonstrate they actually prefer.
Your reaction to what I’m saying is odd to me, just like the reaction of some at the round table.
Seemingly convinced that the way forward was this ‘improved pve’ that is obviously unpopular and arguably a waste of time and resources for CCP that could be used to make stuff more of us (including you) would actually play with. I can’t understand why this is some kind of controversial statement.
Super quick before I get to the rest of your post:
When you said burners have been a good addition, did you mean that that they are NOT members of the “obviously unpopular and arguably a waste of time and rescources” list? Or did you merely mean “Me Like”.
I ran a lot of missions for a lot of years and from my experience I noticed that Security Agent mission pools start out rather large, offering both Anti-Empire and Anti-Pirate missions. As Agent standing rises, that Agent then starts offering higher profit missions more often.
Also the Agent offers more of the same type of missions that were previously accepted and completed. For example if you decline Anti-Empire missions then you’ll get offered more Anti-Pirate missions, and vice versa.