I like them personally. But there is no evidence beyond anecdotes that they are wildly popular.
Burners make the list because people say they want tougher AI and more pvp like PVE. If this were true, burners would be more visibly popular.
How would they be more visibly popular. What is the metric you have in mind? I legit do not understand what āvisibly popularā means without reference to anecdote.
EDIT: Let me help this situation along. Without reference to statistics regarding burners (specifically), what information could provide for ANY determination regarding the uptake in burner mission?
You are missing the forest by staring at one burner shaped tree. The point is that eve players visibly do some things and not others.
Yet a great deal of effort is spent by ccp on stuff that doesnāt get used as much or at all. You can look back in my history on this forum and see where I predicted that fobs would be unpopular and why.
Another problem with the posters on this forum is that they get bogged down in useless derails.
Point blank, ccps pve focus described in the 2016 article I links is flawed.
About the details on how mission system works, a veteran player explained them to me in 2009 when I was starting to play. The specifics on the implementation of Burners probably are in the relevant devblog or maybe the developer in charge explained them, I donāt recall exactly.
But the gist is this, misssons are preloaded in a common pool for each node and then are assigned as players interact to agents so when a player rejects a mission, it is offered to another player.
I think that thatās not per-player, but based on a system that trims what missions are assigned based on activity, so very active agents get worse-than-average missions to control that faucet.
And then thereās the whole player standings matter, probably some missions are ātoo poorā for higher rated players, because when there was a bug above 9.99 standing, the agent would start giving the same missions as with poor standing, and where cheap missions poorly played.
Based on my own experience I disagree with that synopses.
Is that the point? That anecdotal data is fine, so long as it agrees with your post-hoc rationalizations?
Is that like declaring something is āgoodā for the game merely because you happen to like it?
I was going to say that your forest analogy isnt terrible. Except that your forest of evidence is merely a pile of dry tinder which burnt to the ground when someone looked at it. The funny part is there are some good arguments for CCP making more solo PVE content with ādumb aiā. You just canāt seem to make any of them lol.
Side Note: Its interesting that you keep running into people who get bogged down in āuseless detailsā. Especially silly things like evidence and the ability to make a coherant reasoned argument. Still its kinda wierdā¦the one thing they all have in common is you.
No matter. I am sure they will not distract you from the shimmering brilliance of your own ideas. 
2 Likes
This thread is kinda getting derailed from the main issue of the slow release of balance passes. We are getting AF changes but nothing on HAC and BS hulls.
2 Likes
Indeed. It got derailed less than 50 posts in lol.
But that was what this thread was for (you didnt think the RABBLE RABBLE buy my pitchforks RABBL was legit did you?) 
1 Like
Yeahā¦I am pretty sure that is not how it works. Its been a long time since I worked on mission related mechanics, but that certainly was not the common theory back in 2009 nor does it jive with the spreadsheet armies results.
If you can ever find a link though, I am interested.
1 Like
Yes that is the point. Iām sorry Iām not meeting your lofty standards for internet forum discourse, but I think almost everyone else understands what Iām saying and sees some merit in it. That point is that CCP is going the wrong way with PVE, meaning well as they always do, but theyād be better off playing to their strengths instead of trying to āinnovateā
As a side note , When CCP introduced this forum I used that as a means to post less because discussion always turn into what you made this one. I havenāt been real active for a while till i read the earlier part of this thread that mentioned PVE (and issue I care about). Thank you for reminding me why I participate here less often.
See that is real progress in communication! That wasnt hard was it?
Oh and this is a no judgment zone sister. Most people like to have a double standard when it comes to evidence. Your totes normal!
Glad I could also help you to renew your solemn vows. It warms my cockles to know I have helped someone stay on thier path. Its not always easy, or fun.
Oh, and not to nitpick, but maybe one of those peeps who āgets youā can explain why the word āeveryoneā utizilizes a Universal quantifier and why that doesnt apply to what you wanted to say. Toodles!
they add very good content to the exploration when introduced ghost sites and sleepers caches. So they are not sucks at making content they fail to see that we need to improve existing content (tested) instead adding new ātypesā of pve.
this statement is false when taking about exploration because exploration itself need commitment. There is no such thing as Iāll do exploration for half an hour and expect results as in doing two missions for half an hour. I can find no sites for hours. So no, I donāt need short commitment. I donāt mind jump into anomaly if I have no time to play but that is not the content Iām doing on regular basis and not the content that dragged me into the game.
again false, true we donāt need AI, we have other players for that, but ofc we need challange that is why burners were created, ghost sites and sleepers are in the game. We can lose ships in those sites but we can pull few billions worth implant BPC from them (ghost sites). My best pull from sleeper cache was 700 mil of loot and BPCs. Now if the sites were random with good loot people would skip them to do anomalies? ofc not. The real problem with RW is the rewards, if they were good whole HS would be mining.
1 Like
LOL. The problem with RW is that highsec is already mining for higher rewards, better scalation of rewards (bigger ships, better rmodules, and then switch from ore to ice) and very specially is soloable gameplay.
Any prospective miner meddling with RW is wasting his time and his chances to become a professional miner.
As for exploration, of course itās not reliable nor doable in short commitments. This is why exploration sites spawn at a fraction of the rate in which mission sites are spawned by players. Exploration is niche PvE, with occasioanlly higher rewards for higher risk of just be wasting your time, and thus thereās no need to keep up with player demand, rather sites can just be spawned by the system and thereās never a shortage of them.
it is far from niche, it has low entery level and can be done by even low SP character. Itās actually very popular, but it fail with your short commitment concept. Anoms and mission are short commitment gameplay but itās not the only pve type avaible in EvE.
Now I know why CCP has so much problem with pve players, if they have no idea what are they talking about how can they gave valuable feedback?
1 Like
Yes, because it had the potential to become something great. When DUST was still a thing, you could have just gone to a station, board a pod to the planet surface and start shooting someone if you were bored in space. It had the potential to connect all surfaces and areas of EVE into one gameplay experience. But a vocal minority forced CCP to abort it, and worse, made CCP think that VR is the big thing to pursue.
Instead of this VR bovine waste, CCP should have dumped all that money into bringing EVE to a whole new level of wholesome gameplay experience, combining lots of genres into one game, one universe, one war. They even could have used that in the future to introduce VR, once that had matured into a really good experience.
4 Likes
Did you even read the article I posted in any way? CCP currently is not giving balance devs the time for that.
3 Likes
That is what some players want, and that isnāt really most of them. Your own data does not support this view. Sorry.
1 Like
I donāt think it was that simpleā¦for example, not allowing it on the PC was probably a mistake.
2 Likes
Yes. I read it with dismay. Thatās why I said it.
Also yes. The execution of this plan was hideous. That doesnāt change the fact that the idea itself was really great.
1 Like