EVE Search - Which CSM rep do you need to speak to about PvE problems?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

Which CSM rep do you need to speak to about PvE problems?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2010.03.14 14:05:00 - [1] I am trying to get http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1248644 to the attention of CSM but am unsure which one I need to speak to. Although its not got much votes its a big problem for Gallante mission runers. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.14 21:28:00 - [2] Informed Z0D of this issue. Thank you for raising this issue, it is a valid concern and I'll do what I can to get this resolved. --- Click banner for info!
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.14 21:34:00 - [3] Z0d or song li CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2010.03.14 21:36:00 - [4] Thanks ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
King Dave Itto-Ryu	Posted - 2010.03.15 10:08:00 - [5] Originally by: Pottsey As a PvE pilot I hate PvP, hate being pushed into PvP situations and I hate risking PvE ships in PvP hotzones. We are PvE pilots for a reason, we donÆt do and often donÆt like PvP. Is this some kind of a joke? You do realize your playing eve right? "Evil Edna > just get director roles, put child **** in the corp bio and then petition ccp"
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2010.03.15 10:53:00 - [6] King Dave said ôIs this some kind of a joke? You do realize your playing eve right?ö Is your post some sort of joke? Do you not understand the problem? ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.15 11:39:00 - [7] I duno pottsey but EVE is a pvp game per sT, and CCP wants it that way. (wow, I made a rhyme) CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2010.03.15 12:47:00 - [8] DidnÆt CCPÆs reports say something like 75% of people live in empire and on average less than 1 ship is lost per month per account in PvP combat. This suggest combat PvP is the minority. For a PvP game we dont seem to do that much PvP on the whole as a player base. Or I am reading/remembering the data wrong. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
Fille Balle Ballbreakers R us	Posted - 2010.03.15 14:12:00 - [9] Edited by: Fille Balle on 15/03/2010 14:17:20 Originally by: Sokratesz I duno pottsey but EVE is a pvp game per sT, and CCP wants it that way. (wow, I made a rhyme) I think you fail to understand what a pvp game is. If eve was a pvp game, there would not be a pve option. pvp games don't need a pve option. "Enemy territory: quake wars" is a pvp game. There is nothing to shoot apart from other players. eve is a sandbox game. A sandbox will naturally encourage players to pvp (limited amount of sand to play with), but there shouldn't be a need to force it on players, as this removes options and makes it less sandboxy. Sandboxes are about options, not about linear paths. If I wanted to play a pvp game, it wouldn't be eve. And I do play pvp games. I don't pvp in eve because the game mechanics does not cater to my personal likes/dislikes. It's simply put: not my cup of tea. I don't really enjoy having a massive advantage over my enemy, as this makes the game less challanging. I always join the loosing team in fps games, as this makes things more of a challange. In eve, this simply means I'll be on the loosing side, and there's very little I can do as a single player to change that. I'm not complaining about that however, as there are plenty of other things to do in eve. But don't try to tell me that I have to pvp, because then the only reason I play eve is taken away from me, and I'll simply find another non pvp game to play. tl;dr: I'm not forcing you to mine/mission/plex/whatever it is that you don't like to do in eve, so don't force me to do something I don't enjoy, because I won't. Edit: I almost forgot to mention, pew pew is not the only way to pvp in eve. Almost every activity in eve is subject to pvp. In fact, even mission running is subject to non-pew pew pvp in many ways.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.15 22:38:00 - [10] I'm not claiming that PVP is the only way to play in EVE, far from it, but the economy is driven by PVP losses and your minerals, LP and loot wouldn't be worth squat without us to blow it to high heaven. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D

Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.16 00:46:00 - [11] Originally by: Sokratesz I'm not claiming that PVP is the only way to play in EVE, far from it, but the economy is driven by PVP losses and your minerals, LP and loot wouldn't be worth squat without us to blow it to high heaven. Really? Even leaving that out, the problem of those missions is that they are ill thought ans made in a way that scream "easy targets here" for all you PvP guys. No one like to be the cannon fodder for the enjoyment of other people. Even less if they have to pay for that.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.16 08:59:00 - [12] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Sokratesz I'm not claiming that PVP is the only way to play in EVE, far from it, but the economy is driven by PVP losses and your minerals, LP and loot wouldn't be worth squat without us to blow it to high heaven. Really? Even leaving that out, the problem of those missions is that they are ill thought ans made in a way that scream "easy targets here" for all you PvP guys. No one like to be the cannon fodder for the enjoyment of other people. Even less if they have to pay for that. Hey don't get me wrong, If something is broken it should be fixed but pottsey's concern of 'being pushed into pvp situations' is rather silly given that this is eve. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2010.03.16 11:03:00 - [13] Sokratesz said ôHey don't get me wrong, If something is broken it should be fixed but pottsey's concern of 'being pushed into pvp situations' is rather silly given that this is eve.ö ItÆs not silly if you look into it. Sending big slow PvE setup Battleships 30jumps all to the same system is not fair or right. No matter where you are in Gallante space the new missions send you to the same system. As all the PvE people are sent to the same spot there is a massive pirate camp at the gates. If we are setup for PvP we cannot do the missions, if we are setup for PvE we die to the camp. Not to mention the problem of 30plus boring jumps in a battelship. All that for no reward. PvE people are not PvP people and we are not bait so the PvP people have easy targets. Pushing PvE people into PvP is not only flat out wrong but itÆs a good way to make all the PvE people quit the game. If we wanted to do PvE mixed with PvP we would join Faction Warfare. I would also question how PvP is the driving force of the economy considering how few people do PvP and lose ships. It wouldnÆt surprise me if more ships are lost in PvE then PvP. Eve is not a PvP only game. A large amount of the player base do not to combat PvP and have no interest in combat PvP. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.16 17:28:00 - [14] Great, so we agree that it is broken and needs fixing, the pvp/pve discussion isn't even part of this. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Fille Balle Ballbreakers R us	Posted - 2010.03.16 20:54:00 - [15] Edited by: Fille Balle on 16/03/2010 20:56:57 Originally by: Sokratesz ...but the economy is driven by preset insurance payouts and your minerals wouldn't be worth squat without an artificial price floor created and maintained by insurance. Fixed it for you. Also, how do pvp'ers maintain the price of lp and highend loot if 99% of pvp'ers don't fit faction/meta4 stuff on their ships? I think, if less of it got evaporated, the price of it might fall to a level that would make faction/meta4 items viable on pvp fits. As for the price of faction gear, that is also artificially kept higher than it's real value due an artificial price floor created by isk costs for certain lp store items. So no, pvp'ers don't do squat to keep the economy going. In fact, because of insurance, they do more harm than good. Another thing to note is that a healthy economy will see a slight rise in prices every year. In eve, prices either fluctuate more than a bouncing ball on crack, or they slowly decline. So either there are way too few people loosing ships (which is supposedly what happens when you pvp), or your theory about pvp'ers keeping the economy healthy doesn't hold any stock. Either way, I don't see any new mechanic implemented to force pvp'ers to do 10+ jumps in pve fitted ships to an area surrounded by rats, in addition to having no other form of protection, so I don't see why pve'ers should be forced in to unreasonable pvp situations. In all fairness, it's not balanced. The equivalent to pirates would be that from now on, -10 pirates need to make 20 jumps through highsec every time they loose a ship. And while in highsec, they'd be considered FFA (the pod), but not be allowed to shoot back.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.16 21:26:00 - [16] Originally by: Fille Balle So no, pvp'ers don't do squat to keep the economy going. In fact, because of insurance, they do more harm than good. Another thing to note is that a healthy economy will see a slight rise in prices every year. In eve, prices either fluctuate more than a bouncing ball on crack, or they slowly decline. Are we playing the same game? CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2010.03.17 07:07:00 - [17] Although I don't think PvP is the main driving force behind the economy. I think it's going a little too far to say "pvp'ers don't do squat to keep the economy going". Come on now Fille Balle, PvP does have a noticeable impact on the economy. Thinking about it more I and am switching positions a little. PvP is a driving force behind the economy. I don't think it's as big a driving force as PvE but it's still a large driving force. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.17 07:49:00 - [18] Edited by: Sokratesz on 17/03/2010 07:50:37 Originally by: Pottsey Although I don't think PvP is the main driving force behind the economy. I think it's going a little too far to say "pvp'ers don't do squat to keep the economy going". Come on now Fille Balle, PvP does have a noticeable impact on the economy. Thinking about it more I and am switching positions a little. PvP is a driving force behind the economy. I don't think it's as big a driving force as PvE but it's still a large driving force. If not for item destruction, there would be no market for your loot, lp etc. Item destruction results from pvp. QED. I'm not saying it's more important in case I stepped on someone's ego there just that it is the 'end consumer' in a production chain and the demand that sets many a price. It would be like me saying that eve would be better off without carebears - because the dependency works both ways. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2010.03.17 12:57:00 - [19] Edited by: Pottsey on 17/03/2010 12:58:58 Sokratesz said ôIf not for item destruction, there would be no market for your loot, lp etc. Item destruction results from pvp.ô I was under the impression there was a lot more item destruction from PvE then PvP. I thought but I could be wrong that the highest lost ships tend to be PvE ships like Ravens which you donÆt get in PvP much. Either way like I said, once I thought about it more I think PvP is a large driving force and my first post saying PvP is not a driveing force is wrong. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.17 13:44:00 - [20] Originally by: Pottsey Sokratesz said ôIf not for item destruction, there would be no market for your loot, lp etc. Item destruction results from pvp.ô I was under the impression there was a lot more item destruction from PvE then PvP. I thought but I could be wrong that the highest lost ships tend to be PvE ships like Ravens which you donÆt get in PvP much. Either way like I said, once I thought about it more I think PvP is a large driving force and my first post saying PvP is not a driveing force is wrong. I'd like to see the number of ships destroyed by NPC's vs. the number of ships destroyed with a player on the mail. I'm fairly certain that that ratio would be something outrageous like 1:10000. (HINT HINT CCP QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER) CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.17 15:00:00 - [21] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Sokratesz I'm not claiming that PVP is the only way to play in EVE, far from it, but the economy is driven by PVP losses and your minerals, LP and loot wouldn't be worth squat without us to blow it to high heaven. Really? Even leaving that out, the problem of those missions is that they are ill thought ans made in a way that scream "easy targets here" for all you PvP guys. No one like to be the cannon fodder for the enjoyment of other people. Even less if they have to pay for that. Well said. This is exactly the issue here. The nature of 'kill' missions needs to be completely revisited. Wave after wave of Big'n'DumbÖ rats whos difficulty is rated solely on DPS and tank... No. Give PvErs a chance!
Fille Balle Ballbreakers R us	Posted - 2010.03.17 17:47:00 - [22] Originally by: Pottsey Although I don't think PvP is the main driving force behind the economy. I think it's going a little too far to say "pvp'ers don't do squat to keep the economy going". Come on now Fille Balle, PvP does have a noticeable impact on the economy. Thinking about it more I and am switching positions a little. PvP is a driving force behind the economy. I don't think it's as big a driving force as PvE but it's still a large driving force. Yeah, you're absolutely right. That's taking it too far, but on the other hand, saying that pvp is the sole driving force behind the economy is taking it too far in the opposite direction. In fact, pvp isn't fueling anyting at all, it is the fire that burns the fuel produced by mission runners/miners/industrialists etc. Sure, no fire, no practical use for the fuel. But my point still stands. If pvp was such a great way of burning fuel, then why has the price of minerals dropped to a point where it's profitable to sd a ship? I think part of the reason is that 99% of eve's players are carebears. The only players that actually loose ships are either noobs or 0.0 soldiers. Any experienced player will know how to avoid loosing his ship, even the pvp'er. And they will all do everything they can in order to avoid loosing ships. Besides, an average mission runner or 0.0 soldier fly's a Battleship or better, where as an average pvp'er will usually fly a cruiser or a BC. So when a mission runner/0.0 soldier looses a ship, far more minerals are "burned". This is what I mean when I say pvp'ers don't do squat. Yes, you're right, it makes a difference, but not enough unfortunately.
Alekseyev Karrde	Posted - 2010.03.17 18:13:00 - [23] People die in PVE? I mean seriously, ok maybe you lose a few ships learning the ropes/different missions and maybe the odd one when you forget to turn your tank on but otherwise: HOW do you die in PVE, especially if that's what you do full time? As a former mission runner, i would need that explained to me lol. The reason the Raven dies so frequently is twofold. One, it's extremely popular compared to other BS so when people attack PVErs they're more likely to be hitting a Raven pilot. Two, one of the reasons it's so popular is its versatility which includes its PVP role as the best torpedo ship in the game, so there's intentional PVP losses on top of ganks. Aside from ammunition, which is a consumable item, PVE does little to drive the economy unless there's PVP in the picture. Without PVP loss, players will stop buying ships. You'll have the case where players skill up, buy one of whatever they need at each level, and then they'll hardly need to make another purchase. EVE's growth rate simply cant sustain that kind of economic model. Now when you factor in replacements needed for victims and doers of suicide ganking, 0.0 PVP (including the cap-loss-heavy sov conflicts), lowsec piracy, at-risk PVEing (like in lowsec or 0.0 where the barrier to attack by players is low), highsec wars, and carebears buying ships they can go out and PVP for fun in, THEN you have what drives our economy. ---
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2010.03.17 19:43:00 - [24] Alekseyev Karrde said "People die in PVE?" Yes as there is far more to PvE then just missions. Complex's and wormhole space sleepers kill a fair few pilots. Cosmos and expeditions kill a lot. I bet a lot die in level 5 missions. Then there are those that seem to somehow die in level 4 and less missions. I know some of the static Cosmos sites I lived in used to kill a lot of pilots per day every day. Unlike the odd PvP battle here and there those cosmos sites are every day. That and as PvE people outnumber PvP people by so much even if only a small amount of PvE people die that's still a massive amount compared to PvP. I really don't believe your comments on PvP are correct. But only CCP has the stats to prove one of us right or wrong. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
Alekseyev Karrde	Posted - 2010.03.18 04:43:00 - [25] Originally by: Pottsey I really don't believe your comments on PvP are correct as CCP did give us PvP loss numbers and they were very tiny. But only CCP has the stats to prove one of us right or wrong. Perhaps the PvE numbers are also very small. Which stats are you referencing? Could you post a link for the discussion? ---
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2010.03.18 07:21:00 - [26] http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=656 Says "At the end of April, we had 299,064 active paying accounts, leaving us with about 0.67 ship losses per subscriber during that month." That 0.67 was PvP kills excluding shuttles the rookie frigate. That not only suggest relatively few ships are lost in PvP but if you take into account all the none PvP people that got caught out and killed or forced into PvP it also shows that the amount of PvP players in Eve must be small. Another way to read the above number is around half the player base don't lose a ship in a given month to PvP. The other just over one half lose 1 ship in PvP per month. One of the QEN (I think it was a 2009 one) which I don't have time to dig out said something like 14% of accounts are in 0.0 and over 70% of players are in empire. Which with the 0.67 deaths per account per months, suggests to me a lot of the player base are in empire doing none combat PvP stuff. Granted I don't have PvE numbers but unless the PvE people are having less than 0.67 PvE deaths per account per months then it's not PvP that's the main driving force. In fact in theory PvE can lose less than 0.67 deaths per month to PvE and have more deaths then PvP if there are more people doing PvE. This next graph is very interesting. It shows towards the end as the subscriber base has got bigger the ships lost in PvP has not gone up at fast as subscriber level and in fact goes down and level's off. Again suggesting less people PvP. http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/devblog/img/pvpblog/shipsdestroyedbymonthbysub2.jpg In short for a so called PvP game we don't really do that much PvP. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
Alekseyev Karrde	Posted - 2010.03.18 07:48:00 - [27] Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde on 18/03/2010 07:56:45 I'd bet you isk the ships lost/subscriber to PVE will be much lower than those PVP figures. I'd also bet my entire account that the ISK value in a given month of ships lost to PVP exceeds those lost in purely PVE pursuits. How many people lose Titans to mission rats? You can point to .62 ships/subscribers and say it's low, but as you note the vast majority of accounts are currently in empire (not to mention that a fair number of EVE players have indy and PVP accounts). The fact is that stat points out that, on average, well over half the accounts on the server experience a PVP ship loss once a month. Whether they are looking for it or not ;) And dont get me started on the numerous ways people avoid recorded ship loss in PVP, even when they are on the losing end of an engagement (docking games, neutral rr, self destruction). And lets be honest, empire supports a much higher proportion of macro/isk farmer/isk seller accounts than lowsec/0.0/WH space, accounts which literally do nothing but NPC (see stats on Unholy Rage) I'd say with less than 30% of accounts residing outside of empire raising that number to over half a subscriber indicates a high level of impact. That would support the argument that the demand of that 30% is what makes the activity of the empire care bears worthwhile. Believe me, i came to EVE from Matrix online where the only way items went out of game was gradual wear and tear through PVE pursuits. That economy was dead in like 3 months. In EVE, you dont even have wear and tear aside from ammo consumption (which doesnt even apply for drones and lasers). The fact with EVE is that unless you're still learning how to do w/e PVE activity you're engaging in, death is a rarity. Even C6 sleepers get regularly manhandled by practiced groups of PVErs (tune in to the Planet Risk show for evidence). You are correct that really only CCP holds the definitive answer to this though. All i can do is highlight the indications that show PVP to be a much higher and much more consistent source of demand than purely PVE pursuits. ---
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.18 08:08:00 - [28] I would like to see stats from ccp about ships lost in pvp and pve (and their total values) before continuing this, it'll be pretty futile otherwise. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.18 12:43:00 - [29] I suspect that the huge majority of "non PvP" losses are to CONCORD and insurance-fraud self-destructs. As it is, 299,000k subs with 0.67 losses per sub per month is 200,000 PvP losses per month. That's a hell of a lot of ships, modules and rigs to keep the industrial side ticking over. I would be very suprised indeed to learn that "true" PvE losses (ie: excluding CONCORD and self-destructs) were even a tenth of this figure. If you disclude "learning losses" from accounts less than, say, 60 days old, I would guess that the figure falls even further.
TeaDaze	Posted - 2010.03.18 13:07:00 - [30] Even pure PVE mission runners engage in PVP every time they sell their mission loot. PVP is Player vs Player, it doesn't require Ship vs Ship(s). Without ever firing a shot you can engage in PVP by * Trading * Reactions * Moon mining * Invention * Mining (Seriously, you can go mine roids to stop others getting them all ) Etc. As more and more stuff moves from NPC production to Player production (yay for Planetary Interaction) there are even more opportunities for PVP. And this is why Eve is so much more interesting than other games



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.