open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked CCP, does it feel good to waste a lot of your developer time ?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (18)

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.05.31 14:45:00 - [301]
 

What can I say, I love the game, it's my one favourite past-time, and I hate to see it in such a state... so whenever I have some free time and something does get on my nerves...

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2009.05.31 14:57:00 - [302]
 

The problem is not really that things didn't develop as expected or as hoped by CCP and their devs (you never know how new features will be liked).

The problem is that lots of people on the forums pointed exactly out that things will fail and they exactly described the reasons why they would fail a long time before release.

Still, it got released without any changes - and failed of course.

THAT is why some people say it was wasted time.

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2009.05.31 20:02:00 - [303]
 

Originally by: Akita T
I could run L3 missions in a Drake and not bother salvaging at all, only picking up loot drops that are in convenient tractor beam range, and changing LPs into ISK at "whatever sells fast" rates... and STILL make close to 100 mil ISK in 12 hours.
If you make only that much running L4s in a more suitable ship, I'm sorry to say this, but you really, really, REALLY suck at mission-running.

Or just possibly, the rest of us aren't so obsessed with EVE we'd actually spend 12(!) hours doing the same mind-numbing activity over and over. Hence why I'd rather have capped limits than a few with no life ruining the game for everyone else by dragging down averages.
Originally by: Crewman Jenkins
I kind of like the idea of level 4 missions in low sec, an entire new way of life would crop up. Pirate and anti-pirate wars, protection fees and all that...the way wild space is supposed to be.

It would take a lot more than mission changes to cause that. See the many many many threads about low-sec and the psychologies behind it. It would have already happened with level 5s if it was that easy.

Lots of good discussion in the thread, as well as a lot of misinformation and frankly, appallingly bad economic grasp. I would still prefer to see the real economic impacts of missions addressed (e.g. T1 loot) over this continued slightly naive focus over the ISK generated, which as others have pointed out, is small beer compared to the amount made in trade or invention. That and we need ISK injection from somewhere.

ceaon
Posted - 2009.05.31 21:01:00 - [304]
 

Originally by: Kateryne
There's a far more simple, and elegant solution - move L4 agents into low-sec.
In fact, striate the entire heirarchy of agents as follows:
1.0 - Tutorials
0.9 to 0.8 - L1 Agents
0.7 to 0.6 - L2 Agents
0.5 and down - L3 Agents
0.4 and down - L4 Agents
Or something like that.


then i will chain kill missions lvl3
afaik a ishtar can make afk pwn there

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.05.31 23:05:00 - [305]
 

Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
Originally by: Akita T
I could run L3 missions in a Drake and not bother salvaging at all, only picking up loot drops that are in convenient tractor beam range, and changing LPs into ISK at "whatever sells fast" rates... and STILL make close to 100 mil ISK in 12 hours.
If you make only that much running L4s in a more suitable ship, I'm sorry to say this, but you really, really, REALLY suck at mission-running.

Or just possibly, the rest of us aren't so obsessed with EVE we'd actually spend 12(!) hours doing the same mind-numbing activity over and over. Hence why I'd rather have capped limits than a few with no life ruining the game for everyone else by dragging down averages.

Or quite possibly, that was merely an illustration of how low that guy's estimates for mission-running income was, by providing an absurd counterexample to his absurd example of:
Originally by: Nito Musashi
i think people are pulling numbers out of the sky, yes if you run missions 10 to 12 hours a day, if your lucky you make 100 million.

So, yeah, try to not take it out of context too much next time, please.
I'd never actually BOTHER to run L3s for that long FOR ISK anyway.
I might consider doing it for the standings though.



Quote:
Originally by: Crewman Jenkins
I kind of like the idea of level 4 missions in low sec, an entire new way of life would crop up. Pirate and anti-pirate wars, protection fees and all that...the way wild space is supposed to be.

It would take a lot more than mission changes to cause that. See the many many many threads about low-sec and the psychologies behind it. It would have already happened with level 5s if it was that easy.

Most L5 missions require a heavier tank than the hardest of L4 missions, and that in turn requires either a dedicated logistics pilot (or even a couple of those), or a ridiculously overpriced fit... or, if you're smart about it, a larger spider-tanking group.
However, the problem with L5s is not that they're in lowsec - you can get them in HIGHSEC too if you know how to "creatively use the somewhat flawed system"... still very few people bother running them, even after the massive LP rewards boost.
The reason, again, is simple : they do not offer significantly better rewards for the combination of risk and/or effort needed in order to complete them.


Quote:
Lots of good discussion in the thread, as well as a lot of misinformation and frankly, appallingly bad economic grasp. I would still prefer to see the real economic impacts of missions addressed (e.g. T1 loot) over this continued slightly naive focus over the ISK generated, which as others have pointed out, is small beer compared to the amount made in trade or invention. That and we need ISK injection from somewhere.

First off, if the mining system would be revamped (and it's in a dire need of a revamp), we wouldn't need to address the issue of T1 loot drops at all in the first place.
I am sure you are aware of the fact that the TOTAL revenue obtainable through invention, trade and manufacture is significantly lower than the revenue obtainable from PVE activities, and the fact all of those are PVP activities. There's only a limited amount of materials available to be used in invention/T2 manufacture, and you can only trade the stuff people manufacture or obtain from PVE - there are only SO MANY hands though which a product can go through before it reaches its final customer, and only a certain amount of overhead ISK people are willing to pay on certain items. Yes, on an individual basis, they MIGHT offer a greater amount of ISK (oh, by the way, you NEED a good portion of ISK to make that much ISK from any of this), but when too many people attempt to do it, it turns into less, then next to no ISK, if not a net ISK loss for several people.
Besides, nobody suggested removing the ISK injections that missions create - if anything, as global total, they might increase.

Dimarsul
Posted - 2009.05.31 23:35:00 - [306]
 

boost lvl 4 + 5s in low sec and remove security standing loss completly in low sec.

i think it could work.

iīm not sure.

Ciara Daag
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2009.06.01 00:04:00 - [307]
 

Edited by: Ciara Daag on 01/06/2009 00:08:27
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 27/05/2009 09:14:07
Right now, one of the best activities in the "profitability" area is L4 highsec mission-running : it provides decent income levels (which scale upwards with player skill and investment in gear, which is important), it requires moderate to low amounts of effort, it's marginally fun (for a while at least, until your hundredth time saving the damsel), it doesn't take a lot of player nor pilot skill to do (especially since rigs were introduced), and even less if you team up (or dual box)... so yeah, tell me, how exactly would you hope for other things to compete with that ?


Spoken like a true carebear. However,mission running is not in any way shape or manner the "best: activity in the profitable area. Exploration beats it hands down.Do does 0.0 ratting. Actually,there are some people in my corp that have been doing quite well in W space,but it requires more organization. It seems to me that the key to getting more people in W space is to increase demand for the T3 ships. If the cost is high,the demand is low and the equilibrium will setup in such a way that few people will work W space. If more people come in supply far outstrips demand,prices fall,people stop because its not profitable vs the risk etc. What needs to be done is to decide how many t3 ships they want in the game and decide the price point that will make that happen. They then need to decide how much money they want people they want to be exploiting W space and decide a profit point that will make this happen. Finally they need to adjust the build cost for the T3 ships to link the T3 activities with the T3 manufacturing either by adjusting build materials requirements of the T3 ships,adjusting the amount of materials gained from T3 activities,of both such that supply meets demand while the prices remain at where they want them. Risk is a factor but there is also supply and demand involved. Thats why CCP hired an economist,but I'm not sure if they are using him in this capacity.


One thing I would like to see is perhaps all TI non named drops eliminated from missions. Named modules would still drop,but no more often so often a wreck would be empty,but it would get rid of all that t1 junk that floods the market.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.01 00:30:00 - [308]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 01/06/2009 00:35:52
Originally by: Ciara Daag
Spoken like a true carebear.

Spoken like somebody who likes to post "TL;DR". If you would have bothered doing anything except skim across the thread, you would have had ample occasions to bump into the EXPLANATION of the particular definition of the term "profitability" that was used by me in the entire argument.

Here's a hint : it's NOT just amounts of ISK divided by time and adjusted for some perceived risk level, it's a combination of several other factors, including entertainment value, effort of all kinds from continuous online time needed, other time constraints, level of cooperation with other players required and so on and so forth.
The term "profitability" (in this particular context) simply seeks to quantify the likelyhood any particular individual would want to be engaged in that particular activity, by taking into account rewards, risks, required effort and enjoyment derived from it.

Highsec L4 mission running combines moderate amounts of rewards (which scale up with player and character skill, as well as with ISK spent on gear) with minimal risks, the required effort is nominal (can easily be soloed, can be done in a pair even at mediocre skill levels), no significant time constraints exist (can be done at just about any time of the day, for as long as desired, and can be done in small doses too - especially as you get more profficient at it so any one mission doesn't take very long) and there is a small degree of entertainment derived from mission-running (granted, not much of it is left after you kill Zor for the thousandth time, but still).
So, from that standpoint, the "profitability" of highsec L4 missions right now is UNMATCHED by any other activity in EVE.

Quote:
It seems to me that the key to getting more people in W space is to increase demand for the T3 ships. If the cost is high,the demand is low and the equilibrium will setup in such a way that few people will work W space. If more people come in supply far outstrips demand,prices fall,people stop because its not profitable vs the risk etc. What needs to be done is to decide how many t3 ships they want in the game and decide the price point that will make that happen. They then need to decide how much money they want people they want to be exploiting W space and decide a profit point that will make this happen. Finally they need to adjust the build cost for the T3 ships to link the T3 activities with the T3 manufacturing either by adjusting build materials requirements of the T3 ships,adjusting the amount of materials gained from T3 activities,of both such that supply meets demand while the prices remain at where they want them.


Well, at least you have a brain.
If you would have actually read this thread, you would have noticed that what you just said is almost exactly the very same thing I was saying for the entire length of the thread.

Quote:
Thats why CCP hired an economist,but I'm not sure if they are using him in this capacity.

You're not the only person who has this particular concern in mind Wink

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2009.06.01 07:37:00 - [309]
 

Originally by: Akita T
So, yeah, try to not take it out of context too much next time, please.
I'd never actually BOTHER to run L3s for that long FOR ISK anyway.
I might consider doing it for the standings though.

Except I wasn't specifically targeting you Akita, although I can see why you might have felt that. Malcanis came into the thread spouting numbers and arguing that he has personal experience of this level of effort, albeit on level 4s. That is a concern to me. I don't like infinite missions being farmed over and over for hours on end by anyone. The proposed change to simply have what is effectively dynamic agent quality amortised over a region therefore worries me because it can be gamed/disrupted by the actions of a few. Whether it's done in high, low, or null-sec I don't really care about. We all know that there will be times when some area of null-sec is 'safe' and they can farm to their hearts content etc. It only moves the problem of heavy mission input; it doesn't address it.
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
It would take a lot more than mission changes to cause that. See the many many many threads about low-sec and the psychologies behind it. It would have already happened with level 5s if it was that easy.

Most L5 missions require a heavier tank than the hardest of L4 missions, and that in turn requires either a dedicated logistics pilot (or even a couple of those), or a ridiculously overpriced fit... or, if you're smart about it, a larger spider-tanking group.

Kinda missed my point, although I didn't explain it well as I was trying to be concise. Low-sec isn't going to be 'fixed' by moving missions there, whether arbitrarily or via economic nudging. It needs a much more focused overhaul. There have been some good discussions about a Corruption expansion over in F&S that might help (and I echo your sentiments about FW getting screwed), but what I was attempting to explain to Crewman Jenkins is that low-sec in particular suffers from some major psychological problems in the way people approach the space. Changing missions alone won't help that.

Originally by: Akita T
First off, if the mining system would be revamped (and it's in a dire need of a revamp), we wouldn't need to address the issue of T1 loot drops at all in the first place.
I am sure you are aware of the fact that the TOTAL revenue obtainable through invention, trade and manufacture is significantly lower than the revenue obtainable from PVE activities, and the fact all of those are PVP activities. There's only a limited amount of materials available to be used in invention/T2 manufacture, and you can only trade the stuff people manufacture or obtain from PVE - there are only SO MANY hands though which a product can go through before it reaches its final customer, and only a certain amount of overhead ISK people are willing to pay on certain items. Yes, on an individual basis, they MIGHT offer a greater amount of ISK (oh, by the way, you NEED a good portion of ISK to make that much ISK from any of this), but when too many people attempt to do it, it turns into less, then next to no ISK, if not a net ISK loss for several people.

Of course the total across the economy is lower for trade etc. One system is finite; the other is infinite. One system is about moving money over injected minerals; the other directly injects money. That's yet another reason I've been proposing a capping system for missions; that changes them from infinite to a finite resource like asteroids. It introduces supply & demand in much the same way that a given null-sec system will support only a certain number of ratters.

I'm not against the concept of dynamic quality (in some form). I just think it can only be part of the solution, and that the introduction of supply & demand (in some form, I don't claim my proposal is perfect) is a necessary component.

Chrysalis D'lilth
Posted - 2009.06.01 09:58:00 - [310]
 

When level 4 missions can net you over 200m isk/hour i'll maybe start doing them.

Until then, i'll sit in my WH doing just that - and thats an extremely conservative figure....

While i'm at it, i'll laugh at people who post here and whine about how hard they are, or how they have no incentive to go there, or how they want it all risk free and point the finger at CCP instead of growing a pair and actually trying it.

WH's are massively profitable - i've not seen cash come so easily since deadspace complexes were static.

Terrakas
Posted - 2009.06.01 10:14:00 - [311]
 

Edited by: Terrakas on 01/06/2009 10:20:35
Originally by: Shadowsword
The only way to repopulate low-sec is to nerf gatecamping. Let piracy happen in belts or scanned mission sites, where it belong. Nothing else will persuade high-sec dwellers to come try out low-sec.

I say buff sentries to godmode statut and make them warp scramble. Pirates will scream bloody murder at first, then they'll reconsider, relearn about the art of ransoming, have more potential targets, and end up happier.


QFT



Also, all you people saying X/Y/Z are too profitable and thus cause inflation, where you profit by finding some item that some player will buy from you for a large sum.... this does NOT cause inflation. Moving something from one player to another does NOT add extra isk into the economy. Nerfing L4 drops will NOT prevent inflation. If anything, it may cause slight inflation due to less removal of isk from the economy through sales taxes.

Matrix Skye
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2009.06.01 12:14:00 - [312]
 

[Ease of piracy] and [targets] are inversely proportional to each other. But I'd dare say not many pirates know this or even care in knowing this. Right now, with how easy scanning has become, infinipoint T2 cruisers, gatecamps, losec chokepoints, among other things, catching targets in losec has prolly never been easier. But for that same reason targets don't go to losec.

Pirates are gonna have to take a big time nerf to their profession if they want other players coming even near them. And I just can't see them taking this too well, as they mostly think of the moment, not how their profession will be affected in the long term.

Drunk Driver
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2009.06.01 12:43:00 - [313]
 



Risk adverse players will not venture into areas where they can be killed.


You can spew any argument you want and that fact will not change.




Kel Nissa
Posted - 2009.06.01 13:13:00 - [314]
 

Originally by: Terrakas
Edited by: Terrakas on 01/06/2009 10:20:35
Also, all you people saying X/Y/Z are too profitable and thus cause inflation, where you profit by finding some item that some player will buy from you for a large sum.... this does NOT cause inflation. Moving something from one player to another does NOT add extra isk into the economy. Nerfing L4 drops will NOT prevent inflation. If anything, it may cause slight inflation due to less removal of isk from the economy through sales taxes.


Did the droped item exist before within the game? No
So does adding more valuable items to the game influence inflation? Yes id does.

Your argumentation is acutally wrong. You are right that shifting items between players does not change inflation, but you overlooked the fact that L4 mission rewards do not come from players.

Wang LeeMei
United Kings
Strategic Operations Brigade
Posted - 2009.06.01 13:51:00 - [315]
 

Originally by: Akita T

It's the reason FW failed : there's no reward to be had that can even compete with that baseline.
It's the reason alchemy fails : it can't compete in profitability with regular reacting, and is too time-consuming on top of it all.
It's the reason T3 and wildspace is failing and WILL fail if nothing is done : it's way too risky, and not noticeably more profitable, even at insanely high T3 prices.



u ONLY playing eve to make ISK eh ?
u NOT playing...
...to have fun ?
...too shoot other ppl ?
...to try sth new ?
...for the sake of social activities like chatting (using TS vent or whatever) ?

Kawea
Posted - 2009.06.01 14:46:00 - [316]
 

Originally by: Kel Nissa


Did the droped item exist before within the game? No
So does adding more valuable items to the game influence inflation? Yes id does.




Yet another one who doesn't understand that money does NOT equal value. Money is nothing more and nothing less than an aid for trade. The 'grease' that helps the trade roll so to speak. Without money people would need to resort to barter which is a rather inefficient system, although not without merits.

In the case stated in the quote, if there is a fixed amount of money in the system (in the game) and you 'create' another item either through industry line (mining - manufacturing) or through a drop, you now have more items being offered, against the same amount of money as before, which means the price of that item will have to be less. Lower prices are deflation.

Inflation is created by injecting money into the system (through bounties and mission rewards) and by eliminating items from the game.

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.06.01 14:53:00 - [317]
 

Originally by: Kel Nissa


Did the droped item exist before within the game? No
So does adding more valuable items to the game influence inflation? Yes id does.

Your argumentation is acutally wrong.


ah my brain, it hurts.


Muskiet
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Posted - 2009.06.01 15:39:00 - [318]
 

I can't speak for anybody else, but for me what is wrong with Eve is that it requires too much time and too many friends to be fun.

I used to be part of a corporation and we had lots of fun in low sec while heading to 0.0
The game was very dynamic and I never knew what's gonna happen next making it more fun and therefore more addictive every day.
The problem was that my family wasn't very excited when in stead of feeding the kids I decided to help defend the system from low-life pirates.

In order to have the most fun with the game you have to sacrifice too much time of your life.
Therefore I have chosen to "grind" the game.
It's not fun doing level 4's over and over again, but cutting my ties with anybody I used to have a great time with freed up my time to do important RL things like cooking dinner and getting the kids out to school in time without the risk of being "Called for duty to defend the POS".
In the mean time, yeah... level 4's earned me billions of ISK so far to fuel my goals in the game.

I've tried other things, I've tried mining, but the endless hours of having to empty my cargo every couple of minutes and then having to haul it all made it too boring to handle and still not very flexible as I couldn't just warp back to the station if my kids or my wife needed my attention without risking a big jet can of ore I've spend hours mining.

I've tried exploration too and made a killing in the first couple of months after it was introduced with faction loot and bpc's.
But as more and more people started figuring out how to use probes exploration started to be about as profitable as level 4's and now with the new probing system everybody and his sister can do it without having a database filled with probing bookmarks and I can spend hours not finding anything but black holes.

PVP? Pirating?
Lets see what others say when I CTRL-Q during a fight because the wife needs a hand.

Bottom line is that if you have a life or want to have one having lots of fun with Eve just isn't an option for a lot of people so I do the most boring of things to earn the ISK nescessary to buy expensive stuff without having to be online at times I have to be at work or mowing the lawn which is level 4's.

Level 4's are a grind yes, but it provides me with the option to do them whenever I want and I can warp back to station whenever the family needs me.
All I'm risking with mowing the lawn or feeding the family is the time bonus on the missions which is rediculously tiny compared to what I earn with looting/salvaging anyway.
I'm not risking the wrath of any players I offended because I wasn't willing to spend hours mining for the cause or probing down a spy in the system by taking care of my family and the rest of my life.

And I think that this is why a lot of people do the endless grinding of level 4's so they can afford expensive Eve toys while not having to part with an addictive game and living a meaningful life at the same time.

Arfvedson
Posted - 2009.06.01 16:54:00 - [319]
 

Well, it appears that CCP doesnt agree with you nerf crying pirates. All new level 4 agents, all in hisec.

It's so aggrivating hearing people cry that you can make 50mil an hour with a 2m sp pilot in a vanilla raven with level 1 missile skills and a mix of T1 and T2 modules. It's complete and utter BS. Most mission runners only make 12-15mil/hour and thats not much tbh. Everyone wants to scream that everyone in their mother is making 50+mil/hour doing these missions. People stating they are making a bil every couple days doing it. Well tbh, if they are, they are not mission runnes, they are farmers. If you can spend 8-10hours a day playing this game, that fine. If you can spend those hours running missions, you need help...

Sirial Soulfly
Posted - 2009.06.01 17:44:00 - [320]
 

Once when lvl 4 mission were relatively new, there were missions that would spawn 50km away from a gate in a system, and there were also a few right on top of a station where you had to defend it, this caused a lot of people to join in and shoot rats together with the mission runner, which imo was great fun.

THE L0CK
Posted - 2009.06.01 17:53:00 - [321]
 

Edited by: THE L0CK on 01/06/2009 17:53:20
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: THE L0CK
Telling the Developers they waste time making new content doesn't seem to be very forthcoming me thinks.

So... wait... you're trying to tell me that the developers that worked on T3 are HAPPY about the low adoption rates of T3 ? That those that did work on T3 HAVEN'T repeatedly said they are dissapointed how their work is so underused ?
Or, are you trying to tell me the guys that worked on the storefronts are happy instead of dissapointed the whole feature was entirely dropped ? Or that the guys that helped code alchemy reactions are so pleased with the results it caused ?
Give me a break...

Quote:
Now had he worded it differently and placed in a few 'It is of my personal opinion' and not state them as facts then maybe they would be a little more valid.

They ARE facts. The fact that they're also my opinions is of secondary importance.
In order to deny the issues presented as being factual, you'd really have to wear some heavy prescription tunnel-vision glasses.
I don't feel the need to "sugar-coat" what I am saying, sugar-coating and asking politely doesn't seem to have any effect with CCP whatsoever, the only recourse is wide-spread public outrage.

Quote:
Unless of course he's not telling us that he is not only a customer but the CEO then it would be more fact. If that were the case though I would think he would want to keep the attitude more in the office and off the boards.

Oh, so the FACTS themselves are completely irrelevant, it's the PERSON that posts them and the MANNER in which they are posted that makes them true or false ?
Gah... moron tolerance exceeded, release safety pressure valves, she's gonna' blow Evil or Very Mad



I see you fell back on your words of not debating with me just as you fell back on your words by saying that the items mentioned are not entirely a waste instead of originally saying they were a total waste.

At least you are consistent. Still waiting on those linked 'facts'.

Edit: and why the hell do we keep dragging this pile of dung back to page 1?

Chatea
Posted - 2009.06.01 19:11:00 - [322]
 

This game is allready so unforgiving why do you want to make it even more so. A T2 cruiser loss is in the region of 100 to 150mil T2 Fit. Your suicided Hulk sets you back 100-180mil depending if you rigged it. Lose 1 too many of these and your ability to grind a few lvl4s to get back to where you were and you start to wonder if your time playing to your time scratching back what you earned is worth it.

It is a game, it is meant to have varying degrees of difficulty and be an escape from real life, not turn it into a job or something un enjoyable. The more you take away the means to do the things you enjoy, the less likely you are going to be playing this as the server shuts down due to subscribers leaving.

EvE being the best game at being unforgiving to the casual or not so smart player is the reason it will never get as large as it's competitors. And then it will die, and you Akita, won't have a game to whine about constantly any more.

Lysianna
Nuxia
Posted - 2009.06.01 20:44:00 - [323]
 

Edited by: Lysianna on 01/06/2009 20:45:20
People want changes and if ever CCP listened to you Akita, other people wouldnít be happy. The point that you are missing here is that the proportion would probably be equal.

I admire your thousands of posts, tutorials and incredible amount of words. Your changes would make life harder for others or perhaps easier. Tech 3 will remain as is for the next year or so. Wormhole not explored?

Na people are exploring them and a lot of them are making tons of money on them, perhaps not in high sec but I rarely found an empty wormhole where I live.

Making something more attractive by valuing it by ISK is not always the best solution. Itís the easiest and perhaps the most comon but I doubt CCP or as a game dev, itís the best solution. Perhaps Iím wrong but Iím not going to analyze the situation any further.

However, one thing I find horrible about you is how you threat CCP like a bunch of ******s. True, I donít always agree with their decision but in the end, I at least give them some respect to what theyíre trying to do. Bad decisions, at timesÖ yes. However, as a fellow person in the industry, posts like yours does not encourage us to make something better, it completely demoralizes us.

Youíre passionate about EVE and yet fail to respect the folks that made it. Why should they ever consider listening to you?

Therefore, your post becomes useless.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.01 20:47:00 - [324]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 01/06/2009 20:48:15

Originally by: THE L0CK
Still waiting on those linked 'facts'.

In chronological order...

1. Linkage (16th of February 2009)
"[...]I personally would expect that price range to sit between 100-300 million for many people after the initial shiny phase is past[...]"
That initial shiny phase has passsed, and they're still at around 1.5 bil - 2.5 bil.
You can argue it was just a personal impression and all that jazz, but don't forget EXACTLY WHO CCP Chronotis is - the public face of the T3 design team, the one all the playerbase ran all the numbers though after SiSi tests prior to the TQ launch of T3/w-space.

2. Linkage (22nd of April 2009)
"[...]we were certain that now close to 6 weeks after release the market would be flooded with Tech3 ships and people would be bored with the 3 variations already in and would be anxiously awaiting the 4th. But it seems the required ventures into Wormhole space, with the accompanying Sleeper encounters as well as the manufacturing involved, has proven to be quite the challenge even for the most seasoned of players[...]"
Again, you could argue that the art department knows jack about the pricetag intentions for T3 ships and all of that, but the relevant issue is that they were EXPECTING a high adoption rate due to how the internal atmosphere at CCP about T3 was before it launched, and they were quite dissapointed by the reality.

3. Linkage (mid-May 2009)
[...]The lack of proliferation of T3 ships was registered as a disappointment among the dev team, and something might be looked into to increase their spread[...]
Again, you could argue the source, or the distortion due to word-of-mouth-of-drunkards method of information transfer, but fact remains, people who actually MET the devs in person have had a chance to talk to them one on one and get this kind of unofficial feedback.



Not that all of this wasn't already posted all over the place several times over, but I guess you can't be bothered to search. Happy now ?

Quote:
Edit: and why the hell do we keep dragging this pile of dung back to page 1?

No idea, but keep doing it anyway Twisted Evil

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.01 20:51:00 - [325]
 

Originally by: Lysianna
You’re passionate about EVE and yet fail to respect the folks that made it. Why should they ever consider listening to you?

That's just it - I respect the folks that MAKE the game, the people that actually do the coding, the hard-working devs whose time is WASTED by the handfull of people responsable for the BAD DECISIONS that were made.

Winterblink
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.06.01 20:55:00 - [326]
 

Originally by: Chatea
This game is allready so unforgiving why do you want to make it even more so. A T2 cruiser loss is in the region of 100 to 150mil T2 Fit. Your suicided Hulk sets you back 100-180mil depending if you rigged it. Lose 1 too many of these and your ability to grind a few lvl4s to get back to where you were and you start to wonder if your time playing to your time scratching back what you earned is worth it.

It is a game, it is meant to have varying degrees of difficulty and be an escape from real life, not turn it into a job or something un enjoyable. The more you take away the means to do the things you enjoy, the less likely you are going to be playing this as the server shuts down due to subscribers leaving.

EvE being the best game at being unforgiving to the casual or not so smart player is the reason it will never get as large as it's competitors. And then it will die, and you Akita, won't have a game to whine about constantly any more.

As much as I might dislike participating in whine threads, there's no denying that thoughtfully created ones are constructive to the game as a whole. Lets face it, Akita might not be the most favorite forum***** out there but the threads get some attention.

Negative feedback can be positive. There are people out there who are clueless as to how that could be, and those people generally get ignored to the benefit of all.

Emperor D'Hoffryn
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.06.01 21:08:00 - [327]
 

I agree profitability of hi-sec activities need adjusting.

However,

Keep in mind that a number of the things you rail on are new to the game (t3/wormholes, alchemy, even faction warfare is still newish) and with anything new the devs add, they do so conservatively. As you have linked, the devs are aware of issues, are not happy with said issues, and are going to adjust the issues.

As such, your post comes off a little trollish (just look at the thread title). You seem to think that everything should enter the game perfect. Also, I have been in game for 4.5 years now, and I have NEVER run a level 4 mission...so watch the assumptions...people like to do things that are fun (exploration, faction warfare, etc) and not just grind; although I do recognize that these people are in the minority.

Please just try to stick to the MAIN point...the REAL problem: lvl4 missions.

trolling the devs will just get you ignored. Wink (11 pages and no dev response)

baltec1
Posted - 2009.06.01 22:01:00 - [328]
 

I still dont see what all the fuss over t3 costs is about. I fully expected the 1.5 bil pricetag on the new hulls and I also knew they would slowly drop in price as competion and skills caught up to demand. The last time I looked an amarr t3 cost 600 mil a few jumps away from the amarr system which is a 900 million isk drop in a few months.

As for the devs quotes getting tossed around like poo in a monkey cage, most are a single devs opnion and all are estimates based upon what they think "might" happen in their veiw. The devs had no more idea how t3 would play out than me when it came to how much players would charge and would be willing to pay.

I say give it a few more months and see where t3 ships finaly settle at.

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2009.06.02 07:35:00 - [329]
 

Pricetag of t3 ships:

If you carefully analyse the t3-building chain then you see that only few items are really expensive and responsible for 80% of the costs. If you increase the availibilty of those items, the price of t3 ships will drop sharply. But then you reduce value of those items and people are even more reluctant to venture into wormholes if there is no profit - that is the whole problem with t3! And that is why it fails, and will continue to fail. And people (me included) told that all over even before wormholes were released.


On of the biggest waste time for developers I see is that they start doing something which sounds great, get the design up and all - but they never ask or listen to player input in that early stage. They listen and adjust minor stuff and tweak little things maybe late, pretty close to release. But that is not good enough.

Of course it is CCP's game and they can develop as much as they want. But there are lots of really experienced players here with a better insight into Eve than maybe even the devs - why let this great potential go to waste?

If player would be asked in the early design stage, much waste time could be prevented!

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.02 07:37:00 - [330]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
Of course it is CCP's game and they can develop as much as they want. But there are lots of really experienced players here with a better insight into Eve than maybe even the devs - why let this great potential go to waste?

[sarcasm]
Sacrilege ! NO player can ever know more about EVE than even the freshest dev on the block ! Burn him !
[/sarcasm]


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (18)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only