/eog/ - EVE Online General

EVE can dynamically load content.
Make it download everything, a few details can bug out otherwise.

Downloading everything helps if you think you are going into big fights because dynamic loading (the server downloads content as needed) can make you stuck in warp tunnels more often and crash when you jump into a heavily occupied server node.

So did INRI kill the QFC?

Yes. Now they gonna team up with goons.

i love how everywhere goons go ends up a shithole

Who #bestship here?

Also how the fuck does zkill calculate the snuggly is beyond me. Do people pve in dictors?

caw

gate camping is basically pve

When did they add this?

nice dead tread

nice dead game

...

>shield stratios

nothing wrong with it

>le ebin stunt fit amirite xDD

>that one guy who is desperately baiting to keep /eog/ alive

>baiting

>We're also working on some exciting developments when it comes to PVE content in EVE...
>that I hope to be able to share with you soon

Not to be a cynic or anything, but i bet it's more scope challenges bullshit

incrusion nerf

nice dead gif

>guy
>he

yeah they'll say the scope challenge shit was a success while the daily wasn't

They said the daily was a success, but that wasn't the scope of implementation they'd have.

>said the daily was a success

they said the exact opposite

It looks like they're going to bonuses based entirely on the hull without tying the amount of strip miners into it. I like having only 1 miner on my skiff but meh. I imagine the skiff/proc is going to be nerfed given how strong they are now.

For the neut

Post it, then?

They said something like it got a lot more undocks, just not more logins. In any case, the point was that players were doing the daily.

The intention was to get people logging in regularly when they weren't doing so before. It didn't achieve this.

>The intention was to get people logging in regularly when they weren't doing so before
They never said this. For all we know, it was to improve sub retention.

>have to log everyday
>great idea

>have to
>implying

>They never said this.

uh, yeah they did, it was to bring in new players to the game and keep people active

>have to

>command ships

Mai Waifu

>not having to log in to get free sp for your alts

>uh, yeah they did
Why would a bunch of 40M SP pilots log in to get 10k SP. It was for new players and maybe getting some extra undocks.

>It was for new players and maybe getting some extra undocks.

which is exactly what i said

Which they said was successful for the undocks and have yet to comment on fresh sub activity.

Trying to suggest it isn't a successful mechanic because it's not making SP millionaires log in is horseshit.

...

except they said it wasn't successful

Daily SP rewards should make a return, but instead of a quest a day, everyone who is subbed gets 10k unallocated sp per day, but without ever needing to login nor undock.

Everybody who doesn't log in once a day should get - SP. That would encourage people to login every day.

Except, no.

they said it was not

Proofs where.

yeah post proofs otherwise it is not an argument.

Unfounded.

You already get SP over time for being subbed.

its like i'm really on /pol/

forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6539576

>t. brutor

"Our hope in releasing this feature was to gain insight on how direct, daily rewards might effect and improve engagement in EVE. I can't go into too much detail about results but I thought you guys might like to know a bit about what did happen after it launched. The biggest conclusions we can draw so far (though we are still gathering and analyzing data) are that recurring opportunities did have a significant effect on player activity in game."

>"On the other hand, we saw very little change in login behavior, i.e. if you weren't planning to log on anyway, the 10,000 free SP boost wasn't really going to change your mind. "

That wasn't a goal, as is already posted.

>one argues that it was successful
>the other one that its not
>both haven't posted any proof and continue sperging in /eog/ while quoting irrelevant bullshit from CCP

Are you both from r/eve? Just curious.

Holy shit /eog/, hold me.

You can be the little spoon

except it was literally the exact goal

>/eog/ shitposts
Come now.

you mean like
this one

why did they remove it, if the thing that it failed to do wasn't its goal
#checkmate
#riggityrekt
#balancelegion

gotem

CCP literally posts that it's "significantly effective".

You could say it's goal was to make players spend more money, but that doesn't make it a valid post or make sense. Why would they give 10k SP to veterans to log in?

>#balancelegion
Ayy.

I think the fundamental disagreement here comes from the ultimate aims of the participants.

One participant wants to show that CCP are a garbage company that makes garbage decisions. To support this conclusion, he brings up a mechanic, points out a success that it had and a failure that it had, and claims that its goal was to accomplish what it was successful at. It follows that only a braindead retard (CCP) would remove something that was successful.

The other participant wants to show that CCP are a reasonable company that makes reasonable decisions. To support this conclusion, he brings up a mechanic, points out the success and the failure, and claims that the goal was to accomplish what it failed at. It follows that removing something that's unsuccessful is a reasonable thing to do and so CCP is reasonable.

>to prove CCP is a reasonable company
>by providing miniscule rewards that no vet (the majority of the player base) would give a shit about

>CCP literally posts that it's "significantly effective".

so they removed it

To expand on this, just in case the implications aren't obvious -

Only CCP are able to claim what was and what was not a goal, meaning that only CCP are capable of determining if the concept was a success or a failure. Since there are no third-party checks (say, credible leaks of pre-implementation discussions), CCP is entirely capable of endorsing whichever version of events puts them in a more favorable light - so even if they did say something, there would be no reason to believe them one way or another.

To sum up, it is impossible to know without a shadow of a doubt if dailies "failed" or "succeeded", so there is hardly a need to discuss it further.

I can say my phone is significantly effective as a paperweight, but if I want it to make calls and it can't, I'm going to throw it away. As has already been mentioned in this thread, their use of "sigificantly effective" was in a conditional context.

>she thinks CCP is a reasonable company

When I first read that, I immediately figured in the realm of basically anything being "significantly effective". I'm sure plenty started doing it, but that percentage probably dropped intensely as players stopped giving a shit about such an insignificant reward and gameplay instigator.

That's probably why they removed it. Sitting in a 1.0 belt for 10s isn't what they're on about.

>nerfing proc/skiff

>yfw assault frigate rebalance will be +50 to hull

Just merge them with ewar frigs.

Just merge them with relevance.

Just make them cheaper.

I can't actually attest to their effectiveness, so that might be an implausible design decision, but it's not as if they're more powerful than cruisers (which are less than half the price).

maybe the navy ones sure

Everything they can do, a svipul can do better.

>I can't actually attest to their effectiveness
>wants to rebalance them anyhow

You and CCP have a lot in common, my friend.

A svipul is 2.5x the cost.

>nobody flies them ever
>but you should still know whether or not they're cost effective
I already know they aren't.

Which is irrelevant when a svipul costs ~45 million. Which is what, half an hour of incursions, or a handful of missions?

Cost has nothing to do with balance at the best of times, when you're talking sub 50 mil, cost is less relevant that what fucking colour the ship is.

where can i find combat without fucking my sec standing over and without jumping into a meatgrinder

>Cost has nothing to do with balance at the best of times
Umm.. except nobody's going to fly a shitty ship if the price is unwarranted. Making something awful less expensive is a decent idea.

I'm not exactly sure they could balance frig, AF, T3D, and cruisers costs properly at this point.

what do you mean

I hear nullsec, but apparently Brave's moving and we don't know where yet.

There's probably a kills/day metric for systems somewhere.

* in line with their design philosophies.

..Which apparently include making frigs cost 15M.

Gotta let the newbies afford shit, CCP.

Make AF work like the naga and co. Give them Cruiser sized guns and see how that works out.

brave is a pretty bad choice atm

test or horde are probably your best best

>test
m8

If it's a shit ship, no-one's going to fly it if it costs 5 or 50 mil.

>frigate with cruiser speed and frigate dps

wew lads, fantastic design

short rang mjds