EVE Search - I would just like to point out

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

I would just like to point out

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.04 09:33:00 - [1] That thy shall no longer wait for the CSM minutes. They are available right here. Please enjoy. There's a lot of good stuff especially on 0.0 and sov mechanics and some good ideas on mining.
Navtiqes Englebarna	Posted - 2009.02.04 09:34:00 - [2] I got here as fast as I could. Thumbs up, guys -_-;

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2009.02.04 09:43:00 - [3] rawr mining! meow no M10.

Pontet Canet Amarr en primeur	Posted - 2009.02.04 09:54:00 - [4] Thumbs up for the TLDR :)
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:17:00 - [5] Highlights: -A lot of real poorly thought out 0.0 improving ideas thrown at CCP -Recycled materials = 40% of all the materials in EVE -Skill Queue is being worked on as we speak -"Sorry, nop" on live events The best part by far is when CCP completely OWNS CSM member Ankh about her ridiculously dumb ideas about Factional Warfare. I told you that your ideas were dumb and now you wasted CCPs time having to listen to your useless rabble. God you fail, Ankh.
Omber Zombie	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:52:00 - [6] did i mention i made a movie? ---------------------- My Blog
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:56:00 - [7] Quote: Pattern raised the topic of Environmental effects. Aspects would involve slowing ships down, but the point here would be to use those effects to effect sov through alliances controlling them. This was stated as being slated for being part of EVE in Apocrypha's Wormholes I love you guys :)
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:03:00 - [8] Originally by: Omber Zombie did i mention i made a movie? You just had to find the worst picture of me
Omber Zombie	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:08:00 - [9] which one? ---------------------- My Blog
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:10:00 - [10] Originally by: Omber Zombie which one? The first one, just after the pictures of Diagoras and Darius

CCP Xhagen	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:44:00 - [11] Applied glue.

Omber Zombie	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:48:00 - [12] ohai Xhagen ---------------------- My Blog
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:50:00 - [13] NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR STUPID COUNCIL. - just kidding, I've been reading the notes for the last twenty minutes or so. Good stuff, I found myself nodding my head/frowning on a regular basis and might post some comments later.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:50:00 - [14] Changed op to reflect the newest dev-blog on the long-awaited skill-queue. I hope that everybody is happy about the outcome of the skill-queue issue. We raised this during the first CSM which has now made it's way into a major expansion. I think that's a nice result
SentryRaven KIA Corp	Posted - 2009.02.04 12:59:00 - [15] I agree, the sov discussion and 0.0 stuff is hot air, or vaporware. You are throwing around multiple ideas that have no coherence. But I'll give it another read, just to make sure I haven't missed stuff...
Jack Gilligan Dragon's Rage Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.02.04 13:04:00 - [16] The CSM is probably the only "legislative" body less productive than the United States Congress.
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.02.04 13:32:00 - [17] Edited by: Joss Sparq on 04/02/2009 13:34:40 TL;DR crowd: Why are my opinions important enough to publish? I don't know, but I'm still publishing them. Friday 16th January 2009 I. Incentivizing 0.0 & Environmental Effects Comments: the "Pendulum" actually reminds me very much of the system being employed in Warhammer Online right now (represent Ironclaw Destruction?) where certain activities (Public Quests, Realm v.s. Realm combat, etc) accrue points that result in certain benefits being unlocked for the Realm with the "Pendulum" swinging in their favor. I generally like this system in WO so I hope it could work here in some capacity. However I don't quite see how/why sov should affect what moon materials are generated. For example, why should my Atmospheric Gases Moon magically turn into a Dysprosium Moon because I have a higher sov and then return to being an Atmospheric Gases pumpkin again when the server dings after my sov goes down? There is a lot of different ideas to process here however so I won't go any further for now. II. General Discussion on Mining Comments: Call me odd, but I like the current mining mechanics: Go to belt, pick rock, lock rock, mine rock. That isn't to say there is no room for improvement. There does need to be more incentives for miners to move out of high security space. At the same time the system could use some spicing up and it really does need a boost in profit v.s. missions, in my reasoned opinion. However, I don't know what to think of ninja mining. Without any details it sounds more like warping in, managing your HP while mining for however long you can, then warping out again possibly to rinse/repeat. Hardly inspiring. III. Skill Training Queue mk2 Comments: DO IT! I should be able to play when I want to play and not feel forced to login by the game developer or feel bad when Real Life ruins all my carefully orchestrated login and skill change plans, the fact that I was is still silly. I won't comment on the Dev Blog directly as I might make a few comments too pointed, suffice to say: about **ing time already, guys! I think the 24hrs should be 3 days, but whatever. IV. Live Events Comments: I do miss these. I didn't get to do many due to time zone differences but the ones I got to take part in I greatly enjoyed. Personally I'd like to see them return but it isn't really practical I guess. V. Drone Improvements & Drone Protocols Comments: drones are an area of improvement. Tech II drone modules, drone implants and yes, disconnection issues and drone control. VI. (1)R&D Job Security, (2)Addition of ôView Contractsö to Context Menu, (3)UI Import/Export Overview Settings, (4)UI New Context Menu Comments: (3) is my main area of concern, it can be a real pain to get everything setup just right only to lose it all and have to start again with settings. VII. Regular Revisit of Pre-Nerfed Features Comments: lol @ the poor Black Ops. Your time will come Soon(tm). VIII. Unanchoring Abandoned/Offline POS High/Low Security: Dead Corp: Unanchor on next DT after corp goes dead. Allow players to scoop or just delete the POS. No fuel: Unanchor after 1 month. Allow players to scoop. 0.0 Security: Dead Corp: Unanchor on next DT after corp goes dead. Allow players to scoop or just delete the POS. No fuel: Unanchor after 1 month. Allow players to scoop. You snooze, you lose! IX. Colonies Comments: Interesting. Maybe turn the "happiness factor" into an ISK sink, then offset that by a successful colony churing out some products. X. Factional Warfare û Focus & Goals Comments: Not my area of expertise at all but it does seem a game feature which has been a little orphaned. Perhaps attache VP to LP will be a good start. XII. Modifiable Corporation Orders** Comments: Who should pay? The corporation. Implement? I have no idea. Good luck, Team CCP! - Last few entries are mostly TL;DR so I'll skip along to,
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.02.04 13:33:00 - [18] Saturday 17th January 2009 I. Mission Monopoly On StandingComments: Standings seem like one of if not the biggest boon of mission running and a big part of why mission running usually leaves mining way behind it in time v.s. value. Heaps of stuff is tied to Standings which gives missions a hell of a lot of pulling power v.s. other professions. II. Ghost Training Comments: horrible implementation was horrible. I was surprised SP was killed but RP wasn't. Seemed strange. I'm not too fussed about the production. May as well kill RP, if only to hear their anguished cries. III. Display Account Expiration Date On Character Selection Screen Comments: lol @ technical difficulties, glad to see it is being looked into. **ing annoying as hell to be in the middle of a scrap in 0.0 only to be kicked out of the game without warning. IV. Contract API Comments: could prove interesting for some and downright almighty for others. V. Grouping of Non-Weapon Systems Comments: Another case of DO IT! It felt half implemented being limited to just weapons. VI. Smartbomb Overhaul Comments: Ideas on the linked wiki page are interesting. Never thought much about it before. will chew on these some more. VII. Marks Against Account Comments: It would be useful for many people to know these things at a glance. VIII. Item Database Updates & Database Exports** Comments: Evelopedia is delicious. IX. Bookmark My Ship Comments: Hurray! X. Suicide Ganking Part 2 Comments: I'm recalling a thread about this recently on GD. Therefore I "lol". Nothing further to add. XI. Events & Gathering Forums being merged Ugh, lotteries. ... All in all, the minutes were very interesting reading and I'm happy to see some progress on several fronts. I may not agree with the priority given to some things but I certainly can't say it is wholly unsatisfactory. P.S. if you ask them nicely will they let you swim in the fish tank?
Cors It's A Trap	Posted - 2009.02.04 13:46:00 - [19] I loved the talk on 0.0 sov. And how to get 0.0 more populated. It's quite simple. People stay in empire because it's "Safe"er. So make is so that major alliance's can make 0.0 "safe"er. Setup a system that ties in with the SOV system. Make Sov 5. Sov 5 is directly tied to the systems NEXT to it. If one of the systems next to a sov 5 System get taken, the sov 5 system devolves to a sov 4 system. In the Sov 5 system, only those who are +10 to the alliance can enter. This will create pockets of "safe" space in 0.0. this will pull the industiralists out of empire to mine/build in those systems. If it's a system with an NPC mission agent, it'll help pull folks from emipre to run missions. This will also allow 0.0 alliance's to create sov 5 systems at strategic choke points to block off their space. This is a GOOD thing, as this will give a focus for PVP. The Sov 4 systems surrounding the Sov 5 systems will become targets for alliance's. This will give 0.0 alliance's a potential way to introduce 0.0 life to carebears slowly. People carebear in high sec due to the safety. Give a similar safety in 0.0 in small numbers, and you'll give folks a reason to leave high sec. In the long term, as more and more systems are made into Sov 5 systems, we'll see more and more pvp takeing place in the Sov 1/2/3 systems. Combat fronts will appear where pvp will be focused. These fronts will focus pvp into smaller areas, with tighter target density.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.02.04 13:56:00 - [20] I prefer Devblogs. At least those have substance and are not talking about things that may or may not, partly, completely or not at all in the same, similar or different shape as discussed some day, eventually maybe or never come on the live server.
Kayosoni Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2009.02.04 13:56:00 - [21] Meeting seems to have lacked much substance besides talking about sov mechanic.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.02.04 14:11:00 - [22] Originally by: Cors I loved the talk on 0.0 sov. And how to get 0.0 more populated. It's quite simple. People stay in empire because it's "Safe"er. So make is so that major alliance's can make 0.0 "safe"er. Setup a system that ties in with the SOV system. Make Sov 5. Sov 5 is directly tied to the systems NEXT to it. If one of the systems next to a sov 5 System get taken, the sov 5 system devolves to a sov 4 system. In the Sov 5 system, only those who are +10 to the alliance can enter. This will create pockets of "safe" space in 0.0. this will pull the industiralists out of empire to mine/build in those systems. If it's a system with an NPC mission agent, it'll help pull folks from emipre to run missions. This will also allow 0.0 alliance's to create sov 5 systems at strategic choke points to block off their space. This is a GOOD thing, as this will give a focus for PVP. The Sov 4 systems surrounding the Sov 5 systems will become targets for alliance's. This will give 0.0 alliance's a potential way to introduce 0.0 life to carebears slowly. People carebear in high sec due to the safety. Give a similar safety in 0.0 in small numbers, and you'll give folks a reason to leave high sec. In the long term, as more and more systems are made into Sov 5 systems, we'll see more and more pvp takeing place in the Sov 1/2/3 systems. Combat fronts will appear where pvp will be focused. These fronts will focus pvp into smaller areas, with tighter target density. That's a truly dreadful idea. Giving alliances the ability to lock the rest of eve out of whole systems would be awful for the game. Destructible gate guns or whatever: fine. Flat out closing off a system: HELL NO.
Thargat Caldari North Star Networks Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.02.04 16:23:00 - [23] Originally by: Omber Zombie did i mention i made a movie? That video was awesome, but it was faster than a pre nerf vagabond, I can barely read that fast.
Omarvelous Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2009.02.04 16:45:00 - [24] Originally by: Cors In the Sov 5 system, only those who are +10 to the alliance can enter. This will create pockets of "safe" space in 0.0. I'd rather have a dangerous low populated area than this awful awful idea. Seriously - blocking off access to accommodate carebears?! Keep them in high sec. Use financial rewards to lure pople out of safety - not blocking off access.
Thargat Caldari North Star Networks Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.02.04 16:53:00 - [25] Originally by: Omarvelous Originally by: Cors In the Sov 5 system, only those who are +10 to the alliance can enter. This will create pockets of "safe" space in 0.0. I'd rather have a dangerous low populated area than this awful awful idea. Seriously - blocking off access to accommodate carebears?! Keep them in high sec. Use financial rewards to lure pople out of safety - not blocking off access. This better? http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=986402 Breathing 0.0
Kayosoni Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2009.02.04 18:48:00 - [26] Originally by: Thargat Originally by: Omber Zombie did i mention i made a movie? That video was awesome, but it was faster than a pre nerf vagabond, I can barely read that fast. Actually I really like the idea of of controlling gates with a regional sov system. You get something of real substance for laying claim to some space so intently. Personally I think using gates as KoTH control points is what should contribute to Sov. ---
Smog890 Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2009.02.04 19:27:00 - [27] You did not bring up this topic http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=975896 I did a quick search for it but nothing on faction warfare!!!
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.02.04 20:47:00 - [28] Why do CCP keep trying to get PvE people into PvP or into 0.0. The very nature of PvE people means they mostly don't want to do PvP or move to 0.0. FW failed as the PvE people mostly don't want to be shot at by other players so they don't do the FW missions. The PvP don't want to PvE so they don't do the missions. There needs to be content just for the PvE people and just for the PvP people.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.02.04 20:49:00 - [29] Originally by: Pottsey Why do CCP keep trying to get PvE people into PvP or into 0.0. The very nature of PvE people means they mostly don't want to do PvP or move to 0.0. FW failed as the PvE people mostly don't want to be shot at by other players so they don't do the FW missions. The PvP don't want to PvE so they don't do the missions. There needs to be content just for the PvE people and just for the PvP people. Because this is a PvP game, period. You can and should be able to be killed anywhere at anytime for any reason given sufficient planning and force for your attacker. Sorta makes this game unique among the other MMOs
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.02.04 21:44:00 - [30] Kazzac Elentria said " Because this is a PvP game, period." It is not a PvP game period. It's a PvP and a PvE game. Many people play it as a PvE only game and lots of the content is clearly PvE. Eve is by no means unique among other MMO's. PvE to Eve is just as important as PvP. Tryingf to force all the PvE people into PvP is just going hurt Eve. For Eve to survive it needs a balance between PvP and PvE.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.02.04 21:49:00 - [31] Originally by: Pottsey Kazzac Elentria said " Because this is a PvP game, period." It is not a PvP game period. It's a PvP and a PvE game. Many people play it as a PvE only game and lots of the content is clearly PvE. Eve is by no means unique among other MMO's. PvE to Eve is just as important as PvP. Tryingf to force all the PvE people into PvP is just going hurt Eve. For Eve to survive it needs a balance between PvP and PvE. No, pretty much CCP agree that this is a PvP game and you are subject to being attacked anywhere at anytime given your attacker accepts the consequences and or preps in advance.
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.02.04 22:11:00 - [32] Edited by: Pottsey on 04/02/2009 22:16:05 Of course it's a PvP game. But it's not a PvP at the exclusion of PvE. It's not a PvP game period. Its a PvP/PvE game.You are not subject to being attacked anywhere at anytime. PvPers should realise they are playing a PvP/PvE game not a pure PvP game. There are lots of people who have no interest in PvP. ____ Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation (www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
Jon McCane	Posted - 2009.02.04 22:36:00 - [33] Originally by: Pottsey You are not subject to being attacked anywhere at anytime. My friends, the poster above me has no idea what she is talking about.
Ticondrius	Posted - 2009.02.04 22:59:00 - [34] Pottsey, I've got to say it. I've had immense respect for you ever since our Earth & Beyond days and your ability to think outside the box, especially in EVE with being the first known passive shield tanker of a Dominix. But with that one statement, I'm sorry, you don't get EVE anymore. We can and ARE killed anywhere, and can be at any time. The undock button is the "I consent to unconsentual PvP" button. Sorry m8. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Blueprint Visibility Proposal MMORPG: Many Men Online Role Playing Girls
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.02.04 23:34:00 - [35] Originally by: Pottsey You are not subject to being attacked anywhere at anytime. I can see others have (rightly) commented on this already, but I would just like to reiterate the theme: Anyone can PvPee in your internet spaceship cereal at pretty much any time you're out there in space.
Omber Zombie	Posted - 2009.02.05 01:54:00 - [36] Originally by: Smog890 You did not bring up this topic http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=975896 I did a quick search for it but nothing on faction warfare!!! maybe because that topic was raised after we were already in iceland?
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.02.05 08:59:00 - [37] Jon McCane said "My friends, the poster above me has no idea what she is talking about." Ticondrius said "We can and ARE killed anywhere, and can be at any time." Please explain to me how you can be attacked anywhere at anytime while docked doing PvE stuff like running the corp, trading, researching, building, working on uncovering storyline or the many other things you can do docked. Some people go months or longer without undocking.
Pattern Clarc	Posted - 2009.02.05 10:03:00 - [38] what would happen to pvp if no carebares existed to make your ships?
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.02.05 11:04:00 - [39] Originally by: Pottsey Jon McCane said "My friends, the poster above me has no idea what she is talking about." Ticondrius said "We can and ARE killed anywhere, and can be at any time." Please explain to me how you can be attacked anywhere at anytime while docked doing PvE stuff like running the corp, trading, researching, building, working on uncovering storyline or the many other things you can do docked. Some people go months or longer without undocking. Anyone who used to be in BoB until yesterday can probably give you a good answer to this.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.02.05 11:24:00 - [40] Originally by: Pattern Clarc what would happen to pvp if no carebares existed to make your ships? I have no doubt that you will try to pass of this statement as a troll or a joke, but you are very ignorant if you think EVE is made up of 100% PvP-only players and 100% 'carebare' only players.
Pattern Clarc	Posted - 2009.02.05 13:28:00 - [41] Originally by: Vaal Erit Originally by: Pattern Clarc what would happen to pvp if no carebares existed to make your ships? I have no doubt that you will try to pass of this statement as a troll or a joke, but you are very ignorant if you think EVE is made up of 100% PvP-only players and 100% 'carebare' only players. Sure, but prices of many items would still rise regardless. PvP as you would be accustomed to would pretty much cease, HAC's, t2 mods, with so little supply, would have prices would rise to a new equilibrium. Some might consider that to be heaven, with t2 becoming as valuable as deadspace items, looting becomes a pirates wet dream. However, the reality is that the gulf between the haves and the have nots would widen to something last seen before invention - the barrier to entry for new players wanting to progress becomes much higher and your back to 2006 "make t2 cheap for noobs and normal pvp" style forum posts. In essence, more carebares you have in 0.0, the more targets pvp'ers have, and the cheaper your ships. ____ My Blog Is Awesome
Ankhesentapemkah	Posted - 2009.02.05 15:48:00 - [42] Originally by: Vaal Erit Highlights: The best part by far is when CCP completely OWNS CSM member Ankh about her ridiculously dumb ideas about Factional Warfare. I told you that your ideas were dumb and now you wasted CCPs time having to listen to your useless rabble. God you fail, Ankh. Funny that you interpret it that way because there was quite a consensus with CCP agreeing that the issues brought up regarding FW were valid. And I don't see any 'owning' going on in the minutes either. So cease your trolling.
Omarvelous Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2009.02.05 17:20:00 - [43] Originally by: Pattern Clarc what would happen to pvp if no carebares existed to make your ships? I make my own crap - pure carebears are not needed.
Cyprus Black Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.02.05 19:31:00 - [44] Edited by: Cyprus Black on 05/02/2009 19:32:12 Hey, thanks for posting them. In regards to FW though, there's still a lot of players who are hesitant to participate. Their reasons may vary, but my reason for non participation is because I don't want to lose my +4's if I get podded. If FW offered jumpclone services right from the beginning with no standing requirement, I'd jump right in and I bet a lot of other players would too. ______________ Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Cadde Gallente Gene Works AKA-AHN KINGDOM	Posted - 2009.02.06 02:49:00 - [45] VIII. Unanchoring Abandoned/Offline POS The arguments tp why this wouldn't be allowed/implemented in 0.0 made be get an uneasy feeling. Anchoring poses just to reserve/protect that moon from another alliance/corporation defines what is wrong with the sovereignty system in the first place. The only way to bring down sov is to contest the space with a tower (or more) but to do that you first have to kill an offline tower and then wait 60 minutes for your own tower to anchor? Of course, i am assuming every single moon in the majority of constellation systems has an offline pos anchored. But when dummy towers are set up just to make your sovereign space impossible to take when the whole idea is that sovereignty is about adding security to your space without making it impossible to lose it. When that mechanic can be defeated almost completely by having dummy towers as an additional obstacle it unbalances the original feature. Lets face it, as Darius Johnson so nicely put it... Originally by: "Darius Johnson" The game is to shoot people, over time the sov system is now about shooting objects. It's boring, people want to shoot other people. I agree, so why should we have to shoot dead/dummy/inanimate objects that serve no other purpose than being a barrier just to be able to defeat an enemy? If i had any say in the matter i would base 0.0 sovereignty on the performance of the defending alliance, as suggested. Many factors should apply, pos towers should hold a minor role of influence to sovereignty and the upside is they are better and cheaper to use than without sov. Maybe i am just uninformed on the matter, but that is my opinion. And as far as i believe there are way to many systems in 0.0 without any activity apart from them playing the role as SOV4 strategic points of interest. --------------- Opinions? Yes they belong to me, not my corp!
Threv Echandari Caldari K Directorate	Posted - 2009.02.06 05:47:00 - [46] On the Subject of FW I was very disappointed. I read your Wiki Ahnk, and I don't see any of those suggestions even discussed. Just CCP saying that they don't have a clue. Most disturbing is CCP's (Greyscale I'm looking at you!) insistence on 0.0 being the end game and more social. This is disturbing on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. I am a veteran from a former well known alliance that claimed a fair bit of choice space and I have news for you CCP; 0.0 sucks. It might have been nice back in the day when no one could claim it and you could do exploration and what not but now there is no incentive for small to medium sized corps to go out there and live in POS or NPC station. Let alone "wild" space. The minute you put up a POS some huge alliance will come and knock it down. Oh yeah thats fun. So to keep it simple I (and many others in FW) have no interest in the 0.0 "endgame" 1. 0.0 is hard work, I already have job I don't need a second. I play EVE for fun. 2. 0.0 Alliance stuff is only worth it if you are the boss. (apologies to Alliance leaders who say it's hard work, I'm not doubting that it is but you chose your role). Everyone else is an S.E.V. You do what they tell you to do, fly what they want you to fly, often at your own expense, (so your fail fit doesn't make the alliance Epeen shrink on CAOD or SHC). Run the plexes only when they tell you. Add in all mandatory gate camps, POS seiges, Bubble camps, dictors, Alarm clock ops, etc. and you basically are slave to Sov. If you don't like it go back to Empire. OK I did and with FW I'm having fun again. 3. Metagaming is not a social activity. I understand the attraction but frankly I don't want any part of it. Hacking TS, crashing forums, all that "must do anything to win @ internet spaceships" out side of actually just playing the game is just sad imho. 4. Freedom Its Ironic that 0.0, the player's high end heaven has less freedom than Empire. Oh sure there is no Concord and you dont have to worry about Sec status but outside that who cares? 0.0 is about "Go Big or go home". With Faction Warfare I can travel less than 5 or 10 jumps get pew pew, not worry about Sec hits, have fun with my friends AND enemies(who I actually get know and EGADS form relationships with even if they are adversarial).I can then Logoff and not have to worry about whether or not someone in State Protectorate is going to defect to the Goons, disband the alliance and lock me out of my stuff. I can make my money, (enough to satisfy my needs), buy whatever I want, I can even mine if I want to! As a matter of fact I can do most anything I want, when I want and how I want in Empire. Can I build Capships and Titans? Well no, but they are a hassle to use and maintain so I have no use for them. What about moon mining? Dysprosium is good I hear...no hassles with that amirite? Quite frankly, in my experience there is far more social interaction in FW than there is in the metagaming madness that is 0.0. I can fight Guys like Val Erian, or Friedrich's FOOM without all the hate and animosity so common in 0.0 culture. So CCP I ask you, please reconsider this attitude that 0.0 is the be all and end all of the game. 0.0 is like Antarctica or Madonna's snatch, we know its down there we just don't give a carp. We have been there, got the t-shirt and now live in Empire. Maybe someday a reboot of 0.0 will save it but for anyone less than "hard core" its not worth it right now. I'd rather have the all you can eat PvP buffet and mission running of Empire and FW, than the 2 million isk rats, bubble camps and POS sieges of 0.0. Boost Faction Warfare,give us FW only rewards for serving the State besides a rank thats worthless. Make flipping a system mean something... Don't rescind docking rights, or anything too hardcore that makes it too much like 0.0 then it becomes "srs bizness". Be creative and if you can't the look at some of the suggestions in Ahnk's Wiki.

CCP Xhagen	Posted - 2009.02.06 08:16:00 - [47] An addition to the IV. Live Events entry. "IC, as a news agency, exists to cover such events and will gladly do so where possible. Our contact details are news-at-isd.eve-online.com and the Submit News button the website." Just so this is clear ____________________________ EVE Online CCP Games

Ankhesentapemkah	Posted - 2009.02.06 10:49:00 - [48] Originally by: Threv Echandari On the Subject of FW I was very disappointed. I read your Wiki Ahnk, and I don't see any of those suggestions even discussed. Just CCP saying that they don't have a clue. The minutes of course can't mention everything that was said, but CCP agreed with the issues listed in the wiki and said most of them mirror their own concerns with FW. They do want a revisit of FW eventually, but it's once again a matter of priority and limited resources. And with Apocrypha coming up, they're very hesitant to make such commitments and promises right now. What does bother me is that FW repeatedly gets shoved under the carpet. Alliance participation in FW was one of the things that has been on the 'soon(tm)' list for over half a year, originally it was to be implemented somewhere in one of the patches after FW, that didn't happen, then it became 'possibly by the end of the year', and then we got a more final answer that it was Q1 2009. But in Iceland they seemed to have completely forgotten about it when it was brought up and we got a vague 'yeah yeah oh damn we still need to do that too'. That didn't bode well for the rest of the FW improvements, IMO. I'm hopeful that FW will get an overhaul later on, especially when they said that adding special rewards to the LP store would be easy to implement. Now all we need is a VP -> LP conversion and maybe something extra for kills, and we've come a long way to incentivize FW participation (and have a reason for fighting over those complexes). As for 0.0, CCP is very much aware of the problems, and as you can see on the wiki, it was also my observation that only the 'big bosses' profit from 0.0, while there is not that much for the grunts to live off. CCP agreed with that observation as well. However, overhauling 0.0 will most likely have a higher priority than fixing FW... Don't worry though, I'll nag them about FW again before my term is over. --- NEW MOVIE!
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.02.06 11:47:00 - [49] Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Stuph. CCP's mistake with FW is that they wasted their efforts by focusing on making it a vehicle for 'PVP noobs' to have a low barrier of entry into PVP. By not giving it any real depth and long term achievements they have squandered what could have been a really great opportunity to bring something special to lowsec. Adding incentives to FW is indeed the way to go, but in order to get players, and more specifically, high quality players flying high quality ships with expensive fittings to kill requires really high quality rewards for completing objectives. Otherwise, why would anyone leave the safety and reward structure of high sec level four missions? Answer: they won't. Pirates hate FW. FW pilots fly super cheap ships with fittings that amount to nothing once you loot the can (most of the time, there are always exceptions). FW blobs have chased off most, if not all, low sec mission runners that used to populate some of the larger low sec areas in Eve, thereby reducing worthwhile targets for pirates. If the ISK/hour was approximately four times as lucrative as a high quality level four agent in high sec, I think that you would see massive participation in FW, alliances allowed or not. Quite frankly, I think it's a really bad idea to allow alliances into FW for any reason. If you would like alliance life and combat, head to 0.0. Leave FW as something unique for lowsec and empire. But anyway, I don't really think this is the thread to discuss the details of how FW should be improved. You bill yourself as a game designer Ankh, but so far I haven't seen much in the way of a solid design plan from yourself or any of the CSM with respect to any of the issues that are being debated. Maybe you should develop a design doc so that we can review it publicly and offer some critique. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Jimmy Roan	Posted - 2009.02.06 14:46:00 - [50] The CSM are a complete waste of space.

ISD Serathu Ashk ISD Interstellar Correspondents	Posted - 2009.02.06 16:37:00 - [51] Originally by: CCP Xhagen An addition to the IV. Live Events entry. "IC, as a news agency, exists to cover such events and will gladly do so where possible. Our contact details are news-at-isd.eve-online.com and the Submit News button the website." Just so this is clear Just to introduce us, as EVE's official in-game news agency, the Interstellar Correspondents is a team of reporters ready to cover stories that happen throughout New Eden. You can find our articles in the Player News Center, on the character selection screen and by opening the in-game browser. To contact us, please see the links in my signature. \| News Lead? Tell Us \| Become An IC \| E-mail IC \| Visit Our Website \|

Omber Zombie	Posted - 2009.02.06 16:59:00 - [52] Originally by: Jimmy Roan The CSM are a complete waste of space. ironically so is your reply
Bad Borris tr0pa de elite G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2009.02.07 13:14:00 - [53] some good stuff in there tbh
Threv Echandari Caldari K Directorate	Posted - 2009.02.08 04:04:00 - [54] Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah What does bother me is that FW repeatedly gets shoved under the carpet ..... SNIPPED stuff about Alliances and 0.0 overhaul...... However, overhauling 0.0 will most likely have a higher priority than fixing FW... Don't worry though, I'll nag them about FW again before my term is over. Thanks for keeping it at the forefront, it does seem that CCP has a "Attention Deficit Disorder" concerning features like FW and Blackops and Stealth Bombers etc. I'm not happy about Alliances in FW TBH. I feel for CVA and Matari RPers who were really hoping for some love but frankly Alliances will just bring their "special" brand of T2, epeen, metagaming, Bulls h i t and ***** up our fun, thats just the way of things, they can't help it. As for Fixing 0.0, I wish them luck there's alot of work, other than decoupling POS from Sov, nobody is going to be happy with anything that makes it harder for them to to keep what they have have in 0.0. I mean Colonies hahahah right. This is a game about conquest and conflict, manufacturing and building only fuels the former it is (arguably) not an end in and of itself, the gentrification of 0.0 is the last thing on alliances minds.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2009.02.08 07:49:00 - [55] Originally by: Cyprus Black If FW offered jumpclone services right from the beginning with no standing requirement, I'd jump right in and I bet a lot of other players would too. holy ****, Brilliant!
Gonada Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.02.08 12:20:00 - [56] Originally by: Pottsey Kazzac Elentria said " Because this is a PvP game, period." It is not a PvP game period. It's a PvP and a PvE game. Many people play it as a PvE only game and lots of the content is clearly PvE. Eve is by no means unique among other MMO's. PvE to Eve is just as important as PvP. Tryingf to force all the PvE people into PvP is just going hurt Eve. For Eve to survive it needs a balance between PvP and PvE. actually noob, 90% of the pve aspect is also pvp, in the form of competing with others in buying selling and whatnot. the only pve part of this game is the missions
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.02.08 18:44:00 - [57] Gonada said " actually noob, 90% of the pve aspect is also pvp, in the form of competing with others in buying selling and whatnot. the only pve part of this game is the missions" Before calling me a noob again you should really go look up the history of the word PvP, it's all about killing not trading on the market. If you use the normal and original meaning of PvP then PvP stands for player killing. In other words two players V each other trying to kill each other. Buying and selling or competing against other players without killing is not PvP. Just because some people use PvP to broadly describe any or aspect of a game, where players compete against each other, it does not mean PvP stands for that. Every game I have seen has PvP being about Player killing. The only difference between a PvP server, area or game is the PvP server, area or game has players killing players and the non PvP server, area or game does have players killing players. Non PvP games and servers still have markets with players competing against players. If you go into a no PvP area you can still trade. If you play on a no PvP server you can still trade. ____ Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation (www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
Plumpy McPudding	Posted - 2009.02.09 02:57:00 - [58] Originally by: Pottsey HHHHHHEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYY!!!!! __________________________ Fear me for I have an insatiable appetite! Proprietor and inventor of Chocolate Chip Chocolate Donut flavored Ice Cream.
Navtiqes Englebarna	Posted - 2009.02.09 14:48:00 - [59] Originally by: Pottsey You are not subject to being attacked anywhere at anytime. Repeating for emphazis: You can and you will be attacked anywhere at anytime. It's not a question of where, but when.
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.02.09 16:59:00 - [60] Navtiqessaid "Repeating for emphazis: You can and you will be attacked anywhere at anytime. It's not a question of where, but when." That's false as I gave an example where you cannot be attacked. ____ Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation (www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.02.09 17:40:00 - [61] Originally by: Pottsey Navtiqessaid "Repeating for emphazis: You can and you will be attacked anywhere at anytime. It's not a question of where, but when." That's false as I gave an example where you cannot be attacked. What in station? Plenty of PvP happens in station though. The EVE market is one of the more robust market systems which allow plenty of room for PvP. Just ask the hundreds that likely lost a mint on the ferrogel speculation of last week. Unless you do absolutely nothing and just stay afk in game, you're subject to some form of PvP everywhere in the game.
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.02.09 19:36:00 - [62] Well as I said before I don't count the market as PvP. To me the definition of PvP is players killing players. Not players changing market orders against players.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.02.09 20:10:00 - [63] Originally by: Pottsey Well as I said before I don't count the market as PvP. To me the definition of PvP is players killing players. Not players changing market orders against players. *facepalm
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.02.09 22:03:00 - [64] Edited by: Pottsey on 09/02/2009 22:06:20 Why a facepalm? The definition of PvP has been player killing for years. PvP has stood for and been about Player killing for something like 20 years now. Player versus player stands for combat between players that resulted in the loser being penalized in some way. The key word being combat.
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.02.10 06:12:00 - [65] But in EVE it can be argued that PVP is Player v.s. Player in a much broader sense than just directly attacking each other in direct combat because there is much more to the game than just locking & shooting each other which makes your definition seem archaic.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.10 06:37:00 - [66] Originally by: Pottsey Well as I said before I don't count the market as PvP. To me the definition of PvP is players killing players. Not players changing market orders against players. I think that argument is flawed. So say that we have 4 people. 2 of them are shooting each other while the last 2 are doing market "PVP". 1 of the guys who's "PVP"'ing will lose a ship. That's what, 80mill max? Then one of the guys doing market PVP could potentially lose 100s of millions if the other guy outsmarts him. So in terms of risk, market pvp is entirely as much PVP as "pewpew" pvp.
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.02.10 07:30:00 - [67] Joss Sparq said "But in EVE it can be argued that PVP is Player v.s. Player in a much broader sense than just directly attacking each other in direct combat because there is much more to the game than just locking & shooting each other which makes your definition seem archaic." That's the thing people are forgetting what Player v.s. Player is short for. If you look up what it's short for and been used for as 20 years then it's very much combat related. Anyway all this is moot. In my post I was talking about the original and normal definition of PvP. When I said this game isn't PvP period and shouldn't focus too much on PvP I was talking about combat PvP. Not market trading or whatever else. Yes there is more to Eve then just locking & shooting each other but that's the same as other games. I don't see it as archaic PvP being combat. It's more a case of a few people don't realise Player v.s. Player is short for something then they changed the meaning of PvP based on an assumption. Like I said before the only difference between a PvP game or PvP area is combat. The market is 100% the same in no PvP areas or in no PvP games so PvP cannot be about the market to me.From what I have seen 100% of games with a pvp switch or area always mean combat. If you want to use a broader definition of PvP to mean more then combat that's fine. But my posts are made from a point of view of PvP as combat. There are many other areas of Eve I dont see at PvP.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.10 10:06:00 - [68] Originally by: Pottsey combat Quote: combat noun \|ˈkSmˌbat\| fighting between armed forces : killed in combat \| pilots reenacted the aerial combats of yesteryear \| [as adj. ] a combat zone. ò nonviolent conflict or opposition : intellectual combat. Do you disagree that market "stuff" is a conflict?
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.02.10 11:03:00 - [69] Yes I disagree sort off. Most of the time the market is just traders with people bartering, buying and selling like real life. There is very little opposition or intellectual combat. Changing a few sell orders to sell a little cheaper then someone else is hardly intellectual combat. I see the market like real life. Popping down to Jita to buy or sell a module is not combat. Just like popping down to the city centre to buy or sell something is not combat. There are rare times when I consider parts of the market intellectual combat. But even so thatÆs still not PvP as youÆre not killing. PvP doesnÆt just stand for combat alone, PvP stands for killing another player.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.02.10 13:21:00 - [70] Originally by: Pottsey I see the market like real life. Popping down to Jita to buy or sell a module is not combat. Just like popping down to the city centre to buy or sell something is not combat. I'll tell you an amusing anecdote. While in a pirate merc corp one of our directors convo'd me and let me know he just popped a Brutix in local, then got the guy again when he grabbed another ship and attempted revenge. He then went on to list some of the small named mods he got in the wreckage. I asked the director what was the guys name. I looked over my market records and sure enough, there was his name all over in my logs. Conveniently as well right after I had just manipulated the market and marked prices of most battlecruisers up 10%, and had been doing so to much of the named mod market for awhile now. To top it off, not only had he bought his first ship from it, but the second last ditch attempt one as well. After I told my corpmate about it he said "And they call us pirates"
RedFef Minmatar KDS Navy	Posted - 2009.02.10 23:41:00 - [71] X. Factional Warfare û Focus & Goals I can't talk much about the Amarr/Minnie FW, so this is mainly for Gallente and Caldari. Well, I think that CCP has the wrong idea of FW as an 'introduction' to PVP. I keep seeing CCP say that it's a great intro to PVP and basic fleet operations before the person sets out into 0.0. It scares me that it sounds like they will rip the rug right out from under me and act like it was intended. I doubt I'll be leaving FW anytime soon. Nor will a lot of corporations involved, the ones that plan large Battleship fleets almost every weekend that go POS smashing, or the small T2 hunter/killer fleets that operate across the boundries of FW space. Nor will the industrialists who produce a lot of T1 mods/T2 ships to sell in Villore or Nourv. Nor will the pirates who make their living off of attacking the Caldari and Gallente militias. Nor will the 0.0 vets who have actually GONE to FW after spending YEARS in 0.0. to me CCP has the wrong idea of FW because they think that once people play around for a few months they will go to 0.0. The only problem is that FW is drawing 0.0 people to it! It's targeted the wrong crowd on accident, as the people who play it the most are the ones that are supposed to leave after they 'get bored with it'! Suggestion time. I would /love/ to see Empire-sponsered Alliances fighting in lo-sec. I'm tired of the militia channel, heck, the Militias have actually set up additional channels, forums, teamspeaks/ventrillos just so it has the feel/look of an Alliance without any of the perks. But I already know what the answer to that is: 'Just go into 0.0 with those corps and have at it.'. A noble idea but theres just one problem, the FW teams would get slaughtered. Not because they are lesser PVPers, not because they don't have the logistics, not becaus they don't have the will. But because they don't have the raw materials to survive in 0.0. They make enough ISK to replace the T2 ships they lose and fit brand new ones, thats about it. There are even Capitals involved with FW, not just one, or two, but almost weekly there is a Capital fleetbattle involving 3 or more carriers/dreads. Granted it doesn't sound like a lot but I think CCP would be alarmed that their 'introduction to PVP' involves the purest PVP machines and the most expensive of ships on a weekly basis. I don't think they've realised the community they created and are now trying to kill the beast they've rought. Only I don't want that beast to die, I want it to grow. My EVE career has been based around FW. Pure and simple. An Empire can't backstab you or your corp, and for the price of that you get no protection outside of highsec. So it is just your corp and your milita to defend the only thing worth defending in the FW losec: POSs. There are a LOT of POSs in FW space belonging to both the Caldari and Gallente. There are always attacks (At least on the Gallente side) on these POSs, resulting in large fleets of 70. Which I think CCP would want, to emulate the 0.0 factor, but they never look at the shiptypes. Over 30 of those ships are always Battleships fitted to the teeth with enough T2 to put a Capital ship to ruin in a matter of minutes. Noobies don't fly Battleships, and yet the majority of players in FW, at least the most active ones, always fly Battleships, HACs, AF, Intercepters, Hicters and even all the way up to Blackops and Carriers. Now, this entire TL;DL has been based on the PVP element of FW. Plexing is next post because I have to >:
Red Cuse	Posted - 2009.02.10 23:45:00 - [72] Edited by: Red Cuse on 10/02/2009 23:45:33 Shoot the wrong character was selected. Anyways Just to keep right at it: Plexing would be useful if the system that was turned provided some sort of resource to the Owner of the System, ala, State protectorite or Federal Defense Union. In turn the Protectorate/FDU produces these materials/items that are given to the militiamembers. What are these items? Beats me. Faction loot? You can get that through LP, so. not really worth it. But how about something else. Faction ships would be a good start. Having the Militia seem like it's a living entity. Like, say, use this new AI to make roaming NPC gangs or something. Have 30 man NPC fleets patrolling the lo-sec sectors at random. And now that I think about it thats what the material/items are. The systems could produce the raw materials to make NPC fleets that roam about their sector, enabling PVE for those that want it. I'm no CSM, I'm no Dev, so thats as far as my brain can go. Thats as far as my brain wants to go right now. But there it is, an idea. Most likely a bad one, most likely something that could be exploited, most likely never to be read. But I just hope someone reads this post and gains at least something about my opinion to either use as an example or how CCP should or shouldn't go about FW.
Evocationz Amarr Terra Nostra SATRAPY	Posted - 2009.02.11 13:00:00 - [73] So bascially ccp shoots down every idea u give them pretty much n then makes it look like you tried your best The point of the CSM is?
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.12 06:35:00 - [74] Originally by: Evocationz So bascially ccp shoots down every idea u give them pretty much n then makes it look like you tried your best The point of the CSM is? I see that you haven't taken much time to actually read the minutes or even, gasp actually read them
Jmanis Catharg Caldari Dusk Blade	Posted - 2009.02.12 11:05:00 - [75] Just a quick comment to run by about the minutes. I was going to post a big huge reply, but I couldn't be assed. So here's the a slightly shorter version. Reading the whole "Settler" concept led me to a few things. A settler has a few attributes: 1. Wants to build stuff. 2. Wants to make their own rules. In my experience trying to (unsuccessfully) sell myself as a 'settler' to alliances I've found a few things. 1. "Building stuff" (especially Outposts) is seen as a threat to 0.0 alliances sovereignity if they can't completely control it, control which a 'settler' won't relinquish. 2. 0.0 Alliances only protect "built stuff" as long as it makes them money. The only way for alliances to make money off settlers at the moment is to eat into their profits. Further, settlers really should be a population to be "conquered", not destroyed. As it is, to get sovereignity in a system you have to: 1. Blow everything up. 2. Put your own stuff up. Zero incentive to "leave the infrastructure" and conquer through sovereignty, but unfortunately that's the mechanic as it stands now. A few things need to happen for any form of "settler" role to work. 1. Alliances need incentive for any infrastructure to be placed in their territory. 2. Alliances need a way to take control of sovereignty without destroying structures. 3. Alliances need an incentive to have people other than themselves (i.e. neutrals) to set up infrastructure, and take the grind out of maintaining the empire while still reaping rewards. Towards this end, while 'broad ideas', these are things that would help the situation. - Separation of POS/Outposts from the sovereignity system. While I read the "pendulum" idea, one of the best ways to achieve that is a Factional Warfare style system. - Whoever has sovereignty in a system is provided some "faucet" for the infrastructure (POS, outposts etc) developed by corporations. How this would get balanced is for argument. It must be an indirect faucet that does not impact the settler, otherwise either the settler gets no benefit from populating 0.0 because their efforts get eaten by the alliance, and they could simply turn a higher profit in high sec, or the alliance gets no benefit from the settler populating. Meh, bit of brainless theory crafting. Sounded better a few days ago in the longer format. --- Originally by: CCP Mitnal I went to the forums for special powers and all I got was a dancing padlock and a banhammer.
Armoured C Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.02.13 01:34:00 - [76] Originally by: Evocationz So bascially ccp shoots down every idea u give them pretty much n then makes it look like you tried your best The point of the CSM is? how about you open your eyes ? This week EvE Life: Wormhole Wars 01/Feb
Citizen AQ670E14	Posted - 2009.02.13 02:13:00 - [77] Originally by: Jmanis Catharg Just a quick comment to run by about the minutes. I was going to post a big huge reply, but I couldn't be assed. So here's the a slightly shorter version. Reading the whole "Settler" concept led me to a few things. A settler has a few attributes: 1. Wants to build stuff. 2. Wants to make their own rules. In my experience trying to (unsuccessfully) sell myself as a 'settler' to alliances I've found a few things. 1. "Building stuff" (especially Outposts) is seen as a threat to 0.0 alliances sovereignity if they can't completely control it, control which a 'settler' won't relinquish. 2. 0.0 Alliances only protect "built stuff" as long as it makes them money. The only way for alliances to make money off settlers at the moment is to eat into their profits. Further, settlers really should be a population to be "conquered", not destroyed. As it is, to get sovereignity in a system you have to: 1. Blow everything up. 2. Put your own stuff up. Zero incentive to "leave the infrastructure" and conquer through sovereignty, but unfortunately that's the mechanic as it stands now. A few things need to happen for any form of "settler" role to work. 1. Alliances need incentive for any infrastructure to be placed in their territory. 2. Alliances need a way to take control of sovereignty without destroying structures. 3. Alliances need an incentive to have people other than themselves (i.e. neutrals) to set up infrastructure, and take the grind out of maintaining the empire while still reaping rewards. Towards this end, while 'broad ideas', these are things that would help the situation. - Separation of POS/Outposts from the sovereignity system. While I read the "pendulum" idea, one of the best ways to achieve that is a Factional Warfare style system. - Whoever has sovereignty in a system is provided some "faucet" for the infrastructure (POS, outposts etc) developed by corporations. How this would get balanced is for argument. It must be an indirect faucet that does not impact the settler, otherwise either the settler gets no benefit from populating 0.0 because their efforts get eaten by the alliance, and they could simply turn a higher profit in high sec, or the alliance gets no benefit from the settler populating. Meh, bit of brainless theory crafting. Sounded better a few days ago in the longer format. It still sounds good, I am agreeing wholeheartedly. The entire Sov system needs a full revamp
Armoured C Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.02.13 02:18:00 - [78] abnd maybe sheild harnder while you at it ... vote against d2 pos's This week EvE Life: Wormhole Wars 01/Feb
Leiara Knight Gallente The Oblivion Guard	Posted - 2009.02.13 12:48:00 - [79] How do I bump a thread?
elric gallach	Posted - 2009.02.13 20:54:00 - [80] omber zombie that tank is a marine set up not tropical ------------------------------------------------------------- Seems you guys had a good time See no mention of THAT FUNNY POS THING .
Gonada Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.02.13 23:18:00 - [81] Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 08/02/2009 19:00:09 Gonada said " actually noob, 90% of the pve aspect is also pvp, in the form of competing with others in buying selling and whatnot. the only pve part of this game is the missions" Before calling me a noob again you should really go look up the history of the word PvP, it's all about killing not trading on the market. If you use the normal and original meaning of PvP then PvP stands for player killing. In other words two players V each other trying to kill each other. Buying and selling or competing against other players without killing is not PvP. Just because some people use PvP to broadly describe any or aspect of a game, where players compete against each other, it does not mean PvP stands for that. Every game I have seen has PvP being about Player killing. The only difference between a PvP server, area or game is the PvP server, area or game has players killing players and the non PvP server, area or game does not have players killing players. Non PvP games and servers still have markets with players competing against players. If you go into a no PvP area you can still trade. If you play on a no PvP server you can still trade. are you stupid? PVP = player vs player if players compete with eath other , wether in commodity trading, or fighting its still pvp. I was "pvping" when you were a grunt in your fathers throat, so I am pretty sure I know what PVP means.
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.02.14 10:05:00 - [82] Edited by: Pottsey on 14/02/2009 10:05:27 Gonada said "are you stupid? PVP = player vs player if players compete with eath other , wether in commodity trading, or fighting its still pvp." No I am not stupid. You appear to have forgotten whatPplayer vs Player is short for. You have gone and shortened Player vs Player down to PvP. Then extended PvP back to Player vs Player then extended Player vs Player to something different that what it originally stood for. For well over a decade PvP has meant killing other players. Not trading against other players. Yes some people now use it to broadly mean commodity trading against other players but considering the history of the word I don't agree with that use. Go look up the history of the word. Show me some examples from full commercial retail games where PvP is not about killing. Show me a full commercial game where the difference between the PvP and no PvP servers, area or game is anything but killing. Every single game I have seen has the only difference between PvP and no PvP as killing. In the no PvP areas or servers you still have players competing in commodity trading. If every single case has commodity trading still going on in no PvP areas or on the no PvP servers then commodity trading is not PvP. I am pretty sure in 100% of cases when boxs or game features talk about PvP they talk about killing and combat. It's true for the first decade of the use of the word PvP as far as I can tell. Only recently have some people started using PvP for none combat means and its mostly the younger new players who don't realise player vs player is short for something so they make up their own meaning which is not the same as the old meaning. Gonada said " I was "pvping" when you were a grunt in your fathers throat, so I am pretty sure I know what PVP means." Don't lie I know for a fact you where not PvPing when I was a grunt in my father throat. If you have been PvPing that long you must remember that PvP was coined sometime in the 1980s to refer to players killing other players and being penalized in some way. player vs player is short for killing another player to cuase loss.
Evocationz Amarr Terra Nostra	Posted - 2009.02.14 11:10:00 - [83] Originally by: Armoured C Originally by: Evocationz So bascially ccp shoots down every idea u give them pretty much n then makes it look like you tried your best The point of the CSM is? how about you open your eyes ? How about you stop posting in absolutley everythread thinking u must have your opinion THE CSM minutes an if u to stupid to see thats not my problem, that CCP agree with whatever they want to n say ** the rest, the CSM exists to serve CCP, not the player base, your a **ing fool Shamelessly Stolen Sig - it Owns All
Evocationz Amarr Terra Nostra	Posted - 2009.02.14 11:11:00 - [84] Originally by: Gonada Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 08/02/2009 19:00:09 Gonada said " actually noob, 90% of the pve aspect is also pvp, in the form of competing with others in buying selling and whatnot. the only pve part of this game is the missions" Before calling me a noob again you should really go look up the history of the word PvP, it's all about killing not trading on the market. If you use the normal and original meaning of PvP then PvP stands for player killing. In other words two players V each other trying to kill each other. Buying and selling or competing against other players without killing is not PvP. Just because some people use PvP to broadly describe any or aspect of a game, where players compete against each other, it does not mean PvP stands for that. Every game I have seen has PvP being about Player killing. The only difference between a PvP server, area or game is the PvP server, area or game has players killing players and the non PvP server, area or game does not have players killing players. Non PvP games and servers still have markets with players competing against players. If you go into a no PvP area you can still trade. If you play on a no PvP server you can still trade. are you stupid? PVP = player vs player if players compete with eath other , wether in commodity trading, or fighting its still pvp. I was "pvping" when you were a grunt in your fathers throat, so I am pretty sure I know what PVP means. Could u a bigger chav? Shamelessly Stolen Sig - it Owns All
Reven Cordelle Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.02.19 11:53:00 - [85] Originally by: Evocationz Could u a bigger chav? You appear to have failed at recognising what a "Chav" actually is. That and your lack of basic typing skills seems to make you look more like a Chav than Gonada, but thats neither here nor there is it.
Delkin Amarr	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:30:00 - [86] I was wondering if any more information on the amount of minerals claimed to be from recycling. "Recycled materials are accounting for 40% of the minerals in EVE" Without any further details this is sort of meaningless, was the snapshot taken as the Orca was first in game? or some time back. i.e. was it before or after mineral compression was adjust becasuse the Rorqual needed a proper role. Anyone moving minerals to 0.0 may well have used recycling to move minerals, the demand to be the first with an Orca may well have accounted for many "recycled minerals" the vast volume of low ends required to build capital ships will have some effect in this figure? Seems to me its just a throwaway comment used to justify the removal of something (mission loot) there is a healthy market for T1 items and named, most I know who salvage collect all items with a value and gain every isk they can.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:44:00 - [87] Originally by: Delkin I was wondering if any more information on the amount of minerals claimed to be from recycling. "Recycled materials are accounting for 40% of the minerals in EVE" Without any further details this is sort of meaningless, was the snapshot taken as the Orca was first in game? or some time back. i.e. was it before or after mineral compression was adjust becasuse the Rorqual needed a proper role. Anyone moving minerals to 0.0 may well have used recycling to move minerals, the demand to be the first with an Orca may well have accounted for many "recycled minerals" the vast volume of low ends required to build capital ships will have some effect in this figure? Seems to me its just a throwaway comment used to justify the removal of something (mission loot) there is a healthy market for T1 items and named, most I know who salvage collect all items with a value and gain every isk they can. Here's a breakdown of the minerals. The CSM has taken an active approach to try and figure out a good solution to this "issue". We have requested for CCP to try and expand on the data so we can address the very valid concern you do have to the numbers. While we are limited certain data, we are looking to get the data broken down so much that we can make an educated suggestion for how any problem with the supply of minerals. If you have any opinion, please add your opinions to this thread.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.