EVE Search - Sticky:Daily Opportunities coming soon

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Sticky:Daily Opportunities coming soon

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27204	Posted - 2016.04.08 17:28:03 - [1] - Quote Ok. Bye. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27209	Posted - 2016.04.08 20:57:35 - [2] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Thanks for all the feedback (except telling me to go to hell, that's rude). Just posting to let you guys know we are reading all of it and even if takes a couple days we will definitely follow up with as many answers as possible. Keep it coming. Have you considered not trying to bribe players just to artificially inflate your key performance metric?
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27216	Posted - 2016.04.08 22:34:55 - [3] - Quote Ok. I'll be constructive. Obviously, the intent behind this massively braindead fucktardedness is that CCP feels EVE lives and dies by the online player count and they want to boost that. To do so, they will bribe players with the one thing that cannot be mechanically acquired in any other way: time, as expressed in SP. They do this by rewarding the most horrible type of gameplay the game has to offer: hunting the most uninteresting type of opponent the entire MMO segment of the games industry has on offer. I understand the first part: the felt need to inflate numbers (never mind that this last week has already demonstrated with resounding clarity what is needed for that to happen: war; conflict; interaction; action). What makes absolutely no sense whatsoever is everything else, since it is unevenly applied, pointless, incoherent, and unrelated to the activities that demonstrably draw people in. So how do you achieve your goal without any of that cretinous and short-sighted design incompetence? Simple: just do the same thing without tying it to any kind of action. During each downtime, tally the accounts that have been online for 15+ minutes since the last downtime. Those accounts get credited with a 10k SP token in their redemption queue, to be applied to any character the player chooses. Or better yet, don't hand out SP GÇö just realise what it is that actually make people log in and put your effort into improving those parts of the game. Somewhere along the line, you forgot that conflict is what drives the game. Embrace it; improve it; encourage it.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27223	Posted - 2016.04.08 23:44:41 - [4] - Quote Avon Salinder wrote: Rewarding active players with SP is a good thing It was tried back when EVE was in beta. Predictably, it was horrible and was removed pretty much instantly due to the awful gameplay dynamics it created and how much it hurt the very fabric of the core design conceit of the game. Active players are already rewarded. Rewarding them with the thing they already have in abundance is idiotic. Tosawa Komarui wrote: this dosent affect anyone that chooses not to do this. Yes it does. It removes choice; it penalises non-conformance; and it devalues the time they spend in the game doing what they want.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27304	Posted - 2016.04.09 02:16:39 - [5] - Quote Cajun Waffles wrote: No I'm sorry I still disagree. Basically you are stating you are "forced" which is inaccurate. Doing less of what you want to do? Again killing one NPC or whatever the daily may be is optional. Don't do it. It creates content for this that wish to do it. Just like content people do to purchase skill injectors. It does not create any content. All it does is penalise some people for not doing engaging in the most sub-par (pre-existing) content the game has on offer. You are forced because you are faced with a choice between being stupid and being bored. One is significantly suboptimal (no, having your GÇ£training dayGÇ¥ be 24 hours long rather than 20 is not a small difference, and that's the best case scenario GÇö for some, it'll be 24 hours compared to 18h); the other requires you to do something you do not want to do. It's the same nonsense as with the training skills GÇö you were not GÇ£forcedGÇ¥ to get those either; it was GÇ£onlyGÇ¥ very very very stupid not to, and the argument that you had an option was as ignorant then as it is now. In the end, being forced to train them was a huge part of why they had to go. An option to make a dumb choice is not an option GÇö it's a pathetic excuse for incompetent design, doubly so when this non-option doesn't improve the actual game in any way. Jenn aSide wrote: So while I won't be standing on any chairs cheering about this, it could have been worse (it cold have been millions of isk instead of 10k sp) so I can say I'm ok with it. If the positive side is that it could have been worse, then it's not something you should ever be ok with.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27304	Posted - 2016.04.09 02:40:14 - [6] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Yet I am ok with it. No one is more skeptical of these kinds of changes than I am (not even you), no one hates the idea of EVe being like other games or CCP selling out than I do. But as I see it, while it might be not perfectly keeping with what the game is, the amount of gain is so small it's basically inconsequential. Again, it turns a 24-hour training day into 20 hours at the top end; into 18 hours at the low end. A potential 30% increase in training speed is not an inconsequential gain. If they want to speed up people's acquisition of skills, then they can do that. That is not a sufficient or sane reason to do it retardedly. But of course, that's not the intent behind this idiocy, and penalising players that much for not making CCP's stats look good is an absolutely horrid and pathetically desperate design no matter what.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27304	Posted - 2016.04.09 05:01:07 - [7] - Quote Pleasure Hub Node-514 wrote: Having active and passive SP worked in Dust. It worked in Dust because the game was built from the ground up with that system in mind and because it had a single activity that fed a single progression tree and a single, very different, passive scheme. It cannot be implanted post-fact in a freeform sandbox such as EVE. In order for it to work in EVE, it must not be tied to a single activity. Indeed, it must not be tied to any activity at all. It must be properly balanced against the full range and every mode of passive SP acquisition. It must actually encourage the pre-existing gameplay. In other words, it must be none of the things suggested by this proposal to the point where it is wholly disconnected from SP altogether GÇö that scheme is better served by simply increasing the training speed, if that's what they're after (it isn't). Retrofitting a wholly incompatible progression mechanic from an unrelated game GÇö and an entirely different game genre to boot GÇö is so massively unintelligent and contrary to anything even remotely resembling coherent game design that it beggars belief.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27304	Posted - 2016.04.09 05:26:19 - [8] - Quote Niko Lorenzio wrote: Well said and I would say it didn't work in Dust because Dust was a failure. There's that too, but I wouldn't place the failure at the feet of the progression system. WellGÇª not entirely, at least. Cariq wrote: I also don't understand why, in a sandbox, you'd want to tie it to ratting specifically. Why is this necessary? Is this trying to increase the overall level of SP in the game, or get SP to ratters? GÇó Because their most critical stat for attracting investors is the appearance of lots of active players. GÇó Because ratting, in its various forms, is an activity that probably involves the most number of players, making it an easy target market. GÇó And because offering a 20GÇô30% boost in SP acquisition is such an insanely good hook that no-one in their right mind will ignore it. Large target market + irresistible bait GåÆ lots of takers GåÆ inflated activity numbers GåÆ appearance of healthy customer base GåÆ easier investment sales pitch. Never mind that something as peculiar and strange to EVE as a large-scale conflict very recently pushed the PCUs into the 40k:s for the first time in almost a year, demonstrating neatly that bribery isn't necessary to give rise to that appearance.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27304	Posted - 2016.04.09 05:57:51 - [9] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Except the current war won't last an eternity and everyone knows that including CCP. A spike in logins is useless. You need long term stuff. Bribing people to do a dull grind is as short-term a solution as they come. Bringing conflict back into the game is not.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27304	Posted - 2016.04.09 14:13:15 - [10] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T DO IT, IT'S LIKE PLANETARY INTERACTION. No. What you get from planetary interaction can be had a multitude of other ways. If you don't like it, you can choose not to do it because there are so many other ways of reaching the same goal. You have the option to pick a different route to get the same outcome, and arguably, PI is one of the worst ways of getting there in terms of time investment. SP cannot be had any any other way, and the bonus SP is tied to one very specific and very boring activity for an absolutely staggering payoff. There is no option, because there is only one route to a outcome, and the outcome is galactically out of proportion to the activity. Quote: But no, CCP adds free stuff, everyone rages and loses their goddamn ******* mind. It's only free if your time GÇö in and out of game GÇö is literally worthless.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27307	Posted - 2016.04.10 17:42:53 - [11] - Quote Big Lynx wrote: Great BS. Nobody in the ENTIRE virtual and real world forces you to do the daily. There are simply no arguments against this. only salt and tears without a factual background. So much buttpain for 3mio SP per year (!) Grow up nerds. GÇªexcept that you are being forced. There are no two ways about it. You have two options: one which rewards you in the most insane manner imaginable for accepting subpar gameplay; one where you forego said reward in exchange for the thing you actually want to do, which is bad for you. This is not an actual choice. It's a form of coercion: do as we say, or suffer the consequences. The argument that you're not GÇ£forcedGÇ¥ was as pathetic and ignorant back when it was used to try to save the learning skills, and for much the same reason: because you had no sane or sensible choice but to do the one beneficial thing. Just because you have a choice not to go along does not mean you're not being forced GÇö that's where the defenders of this retardation get it wrong. Let's draw it to an extreme: someone pulls a gun on you and tells you to give them all your money or they'll blow your knees off. Are you being forced? Yes. Every cogent and coherent (and legal) interpretation of the situation would classify this as you being forced, in spite of your having a choice. Because, again, choosing between two options where one is idiotic is not an actual choice; GÇ£you can choose not toGÇ¥ only works as an argument if choosing not to is a sensible choice to make. CCP has decided to force the issue by making the choice of non-participation to not be sensible. Just like GÇ£you're not forced toGÇ¥ was a useless and wholly inaccurate argument for keeping learning skills, it is a useless and wholly inaccurate argument for implementing this nonsense because by the very nature of the coercion GÇö the fact that you have to give up a 20GÇô30% increase in number of training hours per day(!!) in order to play the sandbox your way rather than the way CCP demands you do GÇö you are being forced.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27313	Posted - 2016.04.10 22:00:17 - [12] - Quote Sean Parisi wrote: I don't want you to stop getting SP for being logged off - but what is wrong with providing a bit more acceleration for people who do actually engage in game? Because it's not necessary. And in this particular case, mainly because the proposal does nothing of the kind GÇö quite the opposite. Rain6639 wrote: would you find it more agreeable if it was 50 SP per NPC with a daily limit of 10k That would make it even worse since at that point, it's no longer just a fundamentally idiotic idea GÇö it's fundamentally idiotic idea connected to an even more idiotic grind.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27313	Posted - 2016.04.10 22:03:47 - [13] - Quote Rain6639 wrote: Tippia seriously do you have a character that has engaged in PVP or PVE ever, it would help me take you seriously right now. Then your lack of logic and reasoning has disqualified you from being a part of this conversation, and all your arguments from being ever remotely relevant to anything ever.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27317	Posted - 2016.04.10 22:11:19 - [14] - Quote Rain6639 wrote: I just disqualified your logic or reasoning forever pal Lol no. You see, you just outed yourself as having an entire world view that is wholly constructed on irrationality and fallacious thinking. What you do and do not take seriously is therefore about as relevant to this GÇö or indeed any GÇö topic as a duck's opinion on washing machines. You are inherently incapable of disqualifying anything because you do lack the basic faculties to draw conclusions about or make rational judgements on the world around you.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27317	Posted - 2016.04.10 22:12:58 - [15] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Lol you can't really disqualify someone from discussing a topic even if some of their post are trolls I can't, no. But they can certainly do it themselves, much like how he just did.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27320	Posted - 2016.04.11 02:32:40 - [16] - Quote Zoltan Cole wrote: How is it not necessary? Because engaging in the game has all kinds of rewards as it is. On top of that, adding skill progression to that list has already proven to create very perverse incentives that objectively make the game worse. We know this because it has already been attempted, with predictable results. Quote: Why else would they add it. Because it artificially inflates one of their key metrics for success without them actually making any of the changes that would improve that metric by being successful. They're trying to bribe their way to success rather than do any actual work. Quote: If that's juvenile, then so is this game. Bigger is not better in this game.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27325	Posted - 2016.04.11 15:20:44 - [17] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Why Dailies? The skill queue was not a daily incentive. That's a patently absurd claim. The 24h queue was a means to avoid the 4am alarm clock skill-change logins, and it was 24h because that was all that was needed to achieve that goal. It did not in any way, shape, or form incentivise a daily login because you never had to log in daily to mange skills to begin with. The beauty of the skill system, especially with the 24h queue, was that it wasn't a daily requirement to log in GÇö you could do it at your leisure during the times you'd log in anyway. Of course you saw fewer logins and less activity when you removed the 24h limit. Everyone knew you would. The realisation that this happens is not reason enough to suddenly force people to log in at times when they otherwise wouldn't. Your fundamental problem is still that you are trying to bribe your way to an appearance of success rather than let people have fun when they log in, and being soured by the predictable results of the skill queue change is not an adequate reason to go completely nuts in the other direction. Quote: Why Skillpoints? The economic arguments are bunk GÇö if many people aren't motivated by those types of rewards, then that's a good thing. It means you've scaled it properly to only target a very specific audience that needs that kind of help. For those who aren't motivated by that, other things will already motivate them to log in and do what they do to earn that cash (and orders of magnitude more). For those that aren't motivated either way, you've already lost them because you are not offering gameplay that they want GÇö giving them SP for grinding content they've already rejected does not change this fact. Indeed, the argument you offer why SP is a good choice is the exact reason why it must not be SP: they are simply too valuable to too many people to offer the player a valid choice between doing what they want and doing what you want. And let's be clear here: what you want is utterly and completely irrelevant. Your opinions don't matter. If you want to matter, shut the sandbox down and construct a themepark where you decide what players do. Quote: Why so lazy? You have completely misunderstood the point here. The most fundamental flaw with this entire idea is not the SP, it's not the dailies GÇö it's that you are meddling with activities at all. Applying the same methodology to more activities does not solve the problem, because you're still dictating to players how they should spend their time. It just makes it worse since it will create massive imbalances in what's best described as the GÇ£action economyGÇ¥ of the game. There's no need to be coy: you want to reward people for logging in. So why are you being stupid about it? Just reward people for logging in. What they do while logged in is none of your business, and trying to meddle in it just makes everything else about the idea horrible. The core conceptual lunacy of the proposal is, and will always remain, that you dictate activities rather than activity. Consequently, you are not actually promoting activity GÇö you are promoting rote repetition that will keep people from engaging with the game. None of the design goals you present here suggest that ratting is a sensible activity to tie the rewards to. You are not deliberately keeping it simple GÇö you're deliberately making it stupidly complicated for some unconceivable reason. The simple solution is to reward logins. If you want to maintain a threshold level to increase the possibility that some unintended sidetracking happens, then that's fine, but that's still hellalot easier than what you're proposing. Hell, your decision to tie it to an activity actively works against that goal: GÇ£don't disturb me with [distraction], I'm farming my SP.GÇ¥ Quote: New players New players is an excellent reason why you should stay away from SP and look more towards economic incentives. Older players will gain substantially more from an SP scheme than new players will, with all the imbalances that come with that kind of bias, but they can easily out-earn some minor income increase that would mean the world to a new player. A feature does not need to be relevant to everyone to be successful. That's utter pigswill. A feature needs to be relevant to the target audience to be successful. You have failed to define a target audience, and have therefore accidentally targeted people that are likely not to benefit from the idea, or who will not let you reap the benefits you're after. Quote: We are taking your feedback seriously and if we don't make any changes before release we will absolutely be following up shortly after release with changes based on feedback and behavior. Right. We've all been down this road before and heard that exact line. What you mean in plain text is that you have no intention of changing this before release, and that you will ignore the predicable aftermath until it cannot be ignored an more, at which point you will try a new ill-conceived panicked solution. Your idea is very simple (in both meanings of the word): In order to boost your life-giving concurrent user stat, you want toGÇª 1) give ridiculous amounts of SPGÇª 2) to people who engage in a common activityGÇª 3) GÇªonce a day. A simpler way of doing what you want is to: 1) give something that can be had some other way, but perhaps not as convenientlyGÇª 2) to anyone who's logged inGÇª 3) GÇªfor a sufficient number of minutes each week or month. No need to balance activities; no need to set special trigger events; no need for any oddly timed action phases; no need to convince people that they should be doing something they don't enjoy; no need to make people feel they GÇ£lose out onGÇ¥ either rewards or on some fun activity.. Just use a stat you are already tracking, and let people play the game.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27337	Posted - 2016.04.11 21:48:36 - [18] - Quote Erihn Sabrovich wrote: If by " 95% of the skills an old character has are not relevant to the hull they are currently flying." you mean that someone which runs on a BS/Large guns don't need to have much skill in lower hulls, I think that it's YOU who are not understanding how things works... What he means is that for any given thing you're doing or ship you're flying, the vast majority of the skills you have make absolutely no difference. The supposed skill gap does not exist because it hinges on an assumption that more SP means you are universally better when it actually means nothing of the kind. Only applicable SP matter, and that number is almost wholly disconnected from the total SP you have. Quote: A "normal" player, with only ONE account, will have to grind it's way to be able to fly higher hulls. No. Largely because no such grind exists. Poranius Fisc wrote: Why should your inactivity be equal to someone actively playing the game? Atypically, how much you put into a game is what you get out of it. No. Typically, how much time you spend on a game does reflect how much you get out of it. The same holds true for EVE: if you play the game actively, you progress far faster than if you don't. SP is not a factor in this, nor should it be since that has already proven to create very very very bad player behaviour. Quote: Technically, you are not losing skill points, you are gaining extra. Technically, your training day is 24 hours long rather than 18 hours GÇö you lose out on 6 hours worth of training per day. All because you choose to actively play the game rather than subject yourself to whatever monotony CCP demands you do.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27337	Posted - 2016.04.11 22:13:37 - [19] - Quote Erihn Sabrovich wrote: Except that Except nothing. It's a simple fact of how ships, equipment, and their bonuses work. At any time you're doing anything, the vast majority of your skills are irrelevant. This portion only increases the more your character gets older and train more skills. But more than that: the older and GÇ£betterGÇ¥ trained it becomes the less valuable the SP become due to the massive diminishing returns, which is inherent in how skill training works. The skill gap ignorant people complain about doesn't exist GÇö it's a figment of their imagination born out of their complete miscomprehension of how the skill system works. Quote: What you need to grind is ISK. Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is not an argument against the facts you're trying to argue. If anything, it just further proves how idiotic the proposed mechanic is: it doesn't actually help with the thing you claim GÇ£normalGÇ¥ players need help with (which, by the way, they don't GÇö ISK is pretty trivial to come by these days). Quote: So, your current SP for your main/First toon includes both the applicable SP you're talking about and the "SP needed to accumulate the needed ISKGÇ¥ Those are the same SP, and for the most part, an utterly minute amount of SP is required to accumulate vast amounts of ISK. Technically, you don't need any SP to get huge amounts of ISK.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27337	Posted - 2016.04.11 22:23:07 - [20] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: To get to a battleship you only need to train skills to 3 along the way. That takes about 2 days or 100k or so of SP. With a ship at 3 you can use it just fine to earn isk along the way also. Guns similar, except even fewer categories. [GÇª] So sure, a brand new character is not as powerful, but it also does not take long for them to become as powerful. And there is no specific need for them to get faster training for that initial time period. To put this into perspective, Tippia is an 8-+ year old character with some 160M SP. Venture to guess how long it would take for a new character to be better than me at GÇó Flying a frigate GÇó Flying a cruiser GÇó Flying a battleship GÇó Doing PI GÇó T2 production GÇó T3 production GÇó Trading GÇó Exploration

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27338	Posted - 2016.04.11 22:43:36 - [21] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: You make a point, but my cross counter is the concept of training only what you need to 3 is the exact reason for soo many blown up battleships out there. Sure, but that just further demonstrates that the supposed gap in question is not one of SP, but of actual play time and game experimentation, quite contrary to what the myth would suggest.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27365	Posted - 2016.04.12 21:14:13 - [22] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Another small update: Thanks to feedback we see that it would improve the experience quite a lot minimize the amount of characters available for this reward so we are going to limit the reward to the first character completing the daily task on each account. Thanks Get better glasses. That would not improve the experience a lot. All it does is make a painfully stupid idea less painfully stupid. As long as the GÇ£painfulGÇ¥ and GÇ£stupidGÇ¥ parts remain, the experience is not improved. You already have the feedback you need to actually improve the experience GÇö why aren't you acting on it? You knowGÇª Instead of 1) Rewarding SPGÇª 2) GÇªfor a specific activityGÇª 3) GÇªonce a day you should 1) Not reward SP, 2) not tie it to any activity, and 3) not make it daily. There. Improved, and massively so. Unlike your original idea, it will also actually benefit and work in favour of the stated (and implicit) intent of the proposal, as opposed to directly sabotage the effort. Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: He already explained. The issue is the people who stopped login in daily because of the extended skill queue. Weekly rewards would do nothing to sort the issue. His explanation is nonsensical. The extended skill queue did not stop people from logging in daily, because it never required you to do so to begin with. The extended skill queue meant that people could stuff several weeks or months of skills into the queue, as opposed to maybe 30 days tops. If it had been a daily requirement to update your skill queue, the dip he's talking about should have manifested when the queue was first implemented, not 7 years later. He can claim otherwise until he's blue in the face, but that's just a fact of how the skill queue worked. He's going to have to come up with something far more clever if he want to argue against reality. His explanation is not a reason not to make it a weekly (or even monthly) tally; it's a pisspoor attempt at hiding the intent of the change: forcing people to log in more often than they've done since 2008. Erihn Sabrovich wrote: Dailies ARE NOT REQUIRED. GÇªbut they are forced, by the very nature of what's at stake. You can be as obnoxious and abusive as you like to people who recognise this, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter. And if you're forced to do something in a sandbox, the sandbox has been greatly diminished. Quote: EVE is a PvP sandbox with no real content Nonsense. It has tons of content: every form of player to player interaction and social dynamic that is generated by the underlying game mechanisms and the freedom of choice they provide. This mechanism, however, sharply curtails that freedom of choice. What is GÇ£killing EVEGÇ¥ is the lack of content GÇö specifically, the reduction in dynamics as the mechanics have grown more and more stale and predictable, and the many obstacles they've set up for free-form interaction between players. The conflict that has erupted in the last couple of weeks is exactly the kind of content the game thrives on, and unsurprisingly, the activity numbers have shot up. Meanwhile, CCP is begging people to accept a new mechanic that massively disincentivises such activities, instead trying to bribe them to engage in some of the most mind-numbing non-content the game GÇö indeed the MMO industry GÇö has to offer.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27365	Posted - 2016.04.12 21:20:24 - [23] - Quote sero Hita wrote: It will never seize to amaze me that people think requesting a roll back or that CCP tanks a project they have started, counts as constructive or valuable feedback. It is constructive and valuable feedback. Their being pigheaded and refusing to accept what's being said does not mean that the abortion of an idea they had is in any way worthy of development or implementation or that pointing out this laughable error is not constructive. Suggesting that someone should put the sledge down and not knock holes in a load-bearing wall is about as constructive as it gets GÇö far more so than just suggesting that they use a rubber mallet instead. The change of implement will not exactly keep the roof from falling in on their headsGÇª So I'm not entirely sure why you're so amazed by this?
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27391	Posted - 2016.04.13 14:55:16 - [24] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Well, I've been discussing a lot the steep decline in PCU. My main argument being (and is) that most people pay CCP for the PvE, PvE is a short career with poor quality and that kills population faster than anything else in the game, thus in the last years people who start playing are outnumbered by the continued pressure of quitting PvErs. That drives PCU down despite all of CCP's increasingly desperate efforts to improve PvP, quality of life and anything but PvE as PvErs want it. In this context, one of the usual counter-arguments is that multiple character training and long skillqueues are to blame for PCU going down. So when CCP comes and tells us that unlimited skillqueues have taken a toll on server population after Phoebe, I am more or less willing to take their word for it. It goes a bit against my main argument but makes sense. It's not the notion that the infiniqueue lowered logins that I'm objecting to GÇö everyone knew that would happen; indeed it was by far the strongest argument against doing it. When it was announced, people explicitly and openly embraced the concept exactly because they could now stuff the queue and not log in for months on end. No, the bullshit I'm objecting to is his attempt at using it as an argument why this new abortion needs to come in the form of a daily, suggesting that skill changes were a form of GÇ£dailyGÇ¥ in the olden days. This, of course, is nonsense and even a cursory glance at the queue itself by a 1-day old player will dispel that notion. He's engaging in some Chris Roberts-level history revisionism when he tries to suggest that the 24h queue made people log in daily, and that it's therefore ok to force people to log in daily to collect their SP bribes. Even before the queue existed, there was no daily requirement GÇö you mashed a bunch of lvl IGÇôIII skills into a single session, then set off a lvl IV or V that would last you until your next login. If we use reality rather than history revisionism as our basis, the 24h queue demonstrates that a weekly or even monthly requirement would be suitable to get the numbers up without disrupting everyone's regular play. And of course, that's just assuming that some kind of rewards grind is implemented at all, but that's where the real folly of his argument rears its head. By making the ignorant skill queue comparison, he accidentally proved that the Daily Opportunity proposal was completely pointless. Apparently, the infniniqueue cause logins to drop dramatically GÇö no surprise there. The solution to that problem is not to drive away even more players by forcing them to grind dull content; the solution is to remove the cause of the drop GÇö remove the infiniqueue. It'll be controversial and they'll be hated for it, but what's the difference from the grief they're getting now? With that kind of move, they would actually be able to make a historic argument: it worked just fine before; it'll work just fine again. Combine it with the clustered play types they figure out a year ago, and they can even make the argument that those who'd quit because they couldn't be offline for months on end are 99% likely to quit anyway, so there's no substantial loss from reinstating the 24h limit.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27394	Posted - 2016.04.13 15:29:19 - [25] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: What does it solve exactly? Being forced to log because of 24 que is better that dailiy? Players didn't log to play, they log to put skills into que. It solves the exact problem that they claim they want to solve: that, just as predicted, the inifniqueue made people log in less frequently. The 24h queue does not force you to log in daily GÇö it never did. Hell, having no queue at all didn't force you to do that. The argument that people didn't log in to play applies equally to the opportunity proposal, and thus completely debunks the notion that they're doing this to GÇ£promote activity.GÇ¥ They're doing it to artificially inflate a PR number that they accidentally deflated by changing a wholly unrelated mechanism. The difference is that the 24h queue was something you could fiddle with (while engaging in more relevant activities) during your regular play hours, be it over the weekend or biweekly or whatever, so it did not offer a distraction over more fun stuff, nor was it a demand when you didn't really have time for it. It was something you could incorporate in your regular game schedule rather than something you had to build an artificial game schedule schedule around. It's better than a daily because it's not a daily; it's better than a forced, limited activity, because it's a background maintenance task; it's something you can do at your leisure while you're logged in, not something you specifically have to log in to do.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27402	Posted - 2016.04.13 19:01:39 - [26] - Quote Pupinia Stewart wrote: Phew, thank god I unsubbed before I added another 6 months to my account. Off to Elite: Dangerous! See you at Sag A* GÇö don't forget to pack extra heat sinks. Frostys Virpio wrote: You will still be able to play when you want and how you want. You justGÇª GÇªget penalised for doing so. You can stop the charade and the pathetic excuses GÇö you know full well that this is what they're doing.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27403	Posted - 2016.04.13 19:21:03 - [27] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: The fact that a bunch of wakka wakka wakka The fact that you must insult people just to try to mount a feeble defence against a very blatant attempt to force people to log in does not make it any less forced, nor does it make the excuse any less pathetic. Quite the opposite. Again: just because you have a choice does not mean you're not being forced. You even explained yourself why it qualifies as forcing them. And yet, you are making up excuses for CCP dictating player behaviour; for CCP forcing players to engage in the worst gameplay EVE has to offer. You can try to rephrase it any way you like, but it doesn't change what they're doing.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27407	Posted - 2016.04.13 19:38:19 - [28] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Nope. They want you to log-in and do something and for that, they are willing to GÇªgive you something that cannot be had in any other way: time. In order to get this unique and incomparably valuable commodity, you are forced to engage in an activity that serves absolutely no other purpose. Quote: They want more log-ins and know they have no way to FORCE you to do so unless they go with drastic measure like cancelling your subs if you fail to log-in. Yes they do. They even acknowledge that they do, but that they removed the other way(s) and want to institute this nonsense to make up for that mistake. If for some inconceivable or irrational reason they refuse to fix the error they made, they could even take this abortion and turn it into something sensible to get to their old numbers. They have tons of ways of making people log in more often without actually forcing them, and they know this. They're just lazy and choose the most idiotic and abusive method instead: by force. Quote: Your are dense and that is the problem. Unless CCP start handing out punishment for not doing the activity You have no argument, and that is entirely your problem. If you had one, you wouldn't have to resort to these pathetic fallacies. CCP is handing out punishment for not doing the activity: they're reducing your training time from something on the order of 28GÇô30 hours per day to a mere 24 (or, if you like to 18GÇô20 hours rather than 24). Every day you refuse to do what they want, you lose somewhere between -+ and GàÖ of that day compared to those who comply. Do it for a year, and you've lost three months. If you don't see the punishment for non-conformance in this, you need to wake up. Quote: If CCP offered 10k SP for deleting every single one asset you have access to, you would feel punished for not doing it? At that point, there's opportunity for an actual reasonable choice to exist.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27408	Posted - 2016.04.13 19:58:21 - [29] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Injectors? Do not create time. Quote: Buying a character off the bazar? Does not create time. Quote: Deleting your SP for failing to have an upgrade close was a punishment. You were losing something. And by reducing your day from 24 hours to 18, you are losing something: time. You are being punished for your non-conformance by losing time. It's not a very difficult concept to grasp, and it is not very difficult to see how they could easily get the result they want without this submoronic strategy GÇö all they have to do is accept that they mad a bad decision, change their mind, and reverse the error they made. GÇªand that's before we even get creative and suggest they do some actual development work.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27410	Posted - 2016.04.13 20:21:46 - [30] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Last time I checked, my time is completely independant from CCP changes. That's because this change hasn't gone through yet. Quote: I still live 24 hours each day. What CCP is giving you is SP. GÇªand those SP are accumulated over time. In one day, you get 24h worth of them at the moment. With this idea, non-conformance means you only get 18GÇô20h of them as punishment. Quote: You will still get your 24 hours of training No. You still train 24 hours per day. But those 24 hours will only be worth 18GÇô20 GÇö that's all you get in a day unless you comply. Daily. If you want to get the full 24h, you have to do what CCP wants you to do, when they want you to do it, rather than what you'd actually want to do when you want to do it.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27410	Posted - 2016.04.13 20:51:01 - [31] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Nope. You get 25 24 hours or training for having an active queu for 24 hours with a skill in there and you will still get 24 hours of SP for having a queu active for those 24 hours with a skill there. No. Again: you train for 24 hours. This is not the same thing as getting 24h worth of training. With this change, your training for 24h will only get you 18GÇô28h worth of training. To get the full 24 hours worth, you have to obey. If you don't, you get punished. Quote: I will get all the SP I qualify for and not receive those I don't qualify for. In other words, by not conforming to CCP's demands on when and how to play, you are being punished by having your daily allotment of SP reduced to only 18GÇô20 hours worth, as opposed to the full 24 hours. You lose time. Quote: It's stupid but it's the only way that stupid feature will get them what they want. GÇªexcept that they have already explicitly confirmed that it is not. It's stupid because CCP stupidly refuses to accept and admit that they did something stupid, so instead they double down and hope GÇö stupidly GÇö that one stupidity will cancel the other out. This, of course, is even more stupid than either stupidity in isolation, but that's CCP for you: better to be stupid at a geometric rate than to change your mind and admit fault.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27423	Posted - 2016.04.14 14:57:15 - [32] - Quote Anize Oramara wrote: But Tippia, that's a bald faced lie. No. Again: injectors do not* create time*. None of the activities you list create time; much less SP. All you're demonstrating is that it would be infinitely better if the rewards came in the form of ISK, same as with every other activity you can choose from.

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.