CSM in Eve is a joke..... CCP did it just to pacify the masses and they throw a few token scraps out to make everyone think it is worth a damn.....

TBH most player feedback at this point is useless.... There are far too few people playing to give a good UNBIASED sampling of what the players think is good for the game or what balancing changes may need to be looked into....

At this point feedback about most game mechanics becomes a mud slinging contest regardless of which side of the political landscape you play in. It has become a game of who can kick and scream the loudest and how much feces can be thrown at someone........

Very few people in this game have the integrity to step up and support the feedback/ideas of an opposing faction member. Until alliances and corp tags can be set aside for the good of the game then our feedback means nothing.....


Lobo wrote:

Easy I win button?
I proto 6 t4 what ever down grade that tree then by the time I need it again that penalty will have been paid with a few corp farming ops.

I hate having to agree with you but........ +1000000000

DEV Zoom wrote:

To Tamas, and everyone else who thinks this is against some rule: it's not. It's everyone's own responsibility to find an undisturbed place for beacon operations, and to pick up your loot in time before it gets public. We can't and won't prevent anyone from being in the same location with you and shoot your NPCs that YOU decided to let out in the public at your chosen time and place.


I don't think anyone really thinks it would be against "the rules" however it does show the character of the individuals in question..... At one point it was luring spawns onto people..... Now it is stealing the loot/spawn from them (in particular the spawns/loot from newer players in the game)...

This is just one more step in the de-evolution of a group. Without even realizing it they are turning into what they used to hate the most.

bad idea is just bad........


(94 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Rage Blackout wrote:

STC is the father of mission abuse

They exceeded anything anyone else has ever done in this game.


stop talking


Stranger Danger wrote:

The real problem comes when you go to the pvp areas and expect people to not pvp you, or, bring a 1vs1 duel type force to counter you.  That's just not how it works.

Even bigger problem when you are like the OP, and assume its the games fault you got pvped in pvp areas and lost.

It can work, it does work, but lets be honest, a game like this is a tough sell.  Its not an instant gratification game built for uber casual play where you can show up and win with little effort.



(94 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Mastablasta wrote:
Scyylla wrote:
Scyylla wrote:

*edit: Yeah, let's not create drama based on false accusations again, thanks. - DEV Zoom

Oh c'mon zoom...... wasn't bringing up the thread just the spin and back peddling in this one!

The comments I brought in are certainly valid when certain members of certain groups reverse the course on certain issues. Especially when the comments are a word for word copy of the stance of the leader of a certain coalition.....

Bottom line-- every time an issue like this comes up CIR cries M2S all over again unless they are the ones benefiting....

OH, and Scyylla how about the "CIR said it so it must be wrong" which is repeated over and over in this forum.  OH and yes I do agree with syndic and many of us do agree with him also, because we are like minded.  Thats what a real corp is. Not just a rag tag bunch of Derpies giving out kill mails whenever they undock, but like minded individuals that work toward common goals for the betterment of their organization. It is not our fault you guys dont know how to pvp or farm/industry properly. It is not our fault that you get beat when you should be winning for whatever reasons.  Yet we are put down because we defend our holdings and we attack others.  We show up for pvp while other dock up, and we are the ones you hate and disagree with on every topic for our name sake. Not because you disagree, but because you cant stand to agree with us even when its a good thing to agree on.

The spin factory is in full swing!

Bottom line is you are abusing a game mechanic which is the exact thing your corp has cried about others doing... Whether it was duping, the insurance abuse, ghost bots etc.......... CIR has been one of the loudest voices against such abuse... Well until you decide to abuse a game mechanic like the mission issue, beacon herding or account sharing ( I remember the CIR rage tears when that happened....). tongue


(94 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Scyylla wrote:

*edit: Yeah, let's not create drama based on false accusations again, thanks. - DEV Zoom

Oh c'mon zoom...... wasn't bringing up the thread just the spin and back peddling in this one!

The comments I brought in are certainly valid when certain members of certain groups reverse the course on certain issues. Especially when the comments are a word for word copy of the stance of the leader of a certain coalition.....

Bottom line-- every time an issue like this comes up CIR cries M2S all over again unless they are the ones benefiting....


(94 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

*edit: Yeah, let's not create drama based on false accusations again, thanks. - DEV Zoom


(94 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Mastablasta wrote:

Finally, Its something that is available to everyone, but others chose not to do it for what every reasons.  Its not an exploit if everyone has access to it.

So was duping and the insurance exploit.....


(30 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Beta incentives are currently epi, nor and pvp. Tailor outpost control to a boost in those areas.

1- The higher the stability of the outpost the larger or denser the ore fields become within X range of the terminal.
2- The higher the stability of the outpost the more fields spawn within X range of the terminal
3- The higher the stability the better chance nor has to survive each cycle within X range of the terminal
4- The higher the stability the more cycles nor regenerates within X range of the terminal

SAPs (to stay on topic!)

1- reduced stability for not completing the sap for the owning corp. The decrease should be significantly less then the increase from capturing a SAP. If you get 15 points from capturing a SAP then the decrease should be around 5 points...... This adjustments gives owning corps a reason to complete the SAPs at all of their outposts.. No more passive ownership of beta.

Overall effect:

1- encourages industry on betas by giving people an incentive to mine/harvest
2- encourages roaming of islands to disrupt industry
3- encourages active defense of owned outposts to keep indy safe and maintain total control of the outpost
4- basically mandates a presence at each outpost to ensure SAPs are completed for ownership
5- slightly addresses the power projection issue related to spark teleporting. If you want to own 10 beta terminals then you are either doing a ton of walking or you are using your spark points.

Bottom line is it gives people a reason to be on beta whether its indy or pvp.......


(16 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

BadAss wrote:

then add sales of raw materials for real money, I don't want to be assaulted when to go just for raw materials

* waves hand and says*  This is not the game for you............


(16 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)


sounds like he wants more free cheese......

DEV Zoom wrote:

I'm not saying we don't listen to reason, but how exactly is this different compared to ICE?

In the past you bought ICE for real money, then you sold it on the market for hundreds of millions of NIC, then you bought robots etc. from other players.

With this system you would do the same thing, only without the ICE and NIC intermediaries.

ICE/Plex... All bad ideas......

Anytime you use RL cash to buy advantage it is a bad thing.....

The main problem is someone breaks out the ole visa card and buys the best of all equipment and gains an advantage over every other player at his same EP/experience level...... Meanwhile the regular guys are sitting around grinding out their gear and kernels getting crapped on by the visa players who are not putting the slightest of efforts into the game.

RMT cheapens the game experience for majority of players who log in every day to work towards a goal.... Working towards a goal is what a sandbox is about.......

I for one will not play this game should it become an RMT fest.....

Perhaps it is time to cleanse all the dead chat channels............

60-90 days of no activity is certainly grounds for closing them.

Ensireka wrote:

I believe the killing unit should dictate whether or not the can is immediately lootable or not. 

If npc destroys player (last hit), timer sequence goes into effect.  IF player destroys player (most damage + last hit) the player can is immediately lootable.

The abuse of players using npcs to facilitate a coward attack or otherwise gank will not be promoted and therefore will be hindered by the above calculations. 

Thanks for posting!


I could care less about markers for a destroyed bot but the free cheese mentality of nobody being allowed to loot a destroyed bots can is just plain garbage.... even on alpha.....

You die, you have to face the consequences and those consequences are u lose mods in the destruction and what doesn't go poof ends up in a lootable can........ Part of the economy in this game is making the items to replace said losses.....

Even alpha has to have risks and the only risk on alpha is losing ur bot to a spawn YOU have to attack and someone looting whats left......

Ensireka wrote:

What this enables players to do is; assist in the recovery of their remaining contents with very little fear of losing it due to can expiration or a looter.


There is no free cheese here...


(3 replies, posted in Bugs)

That seemed to fix it... Thanks Zoom!


(3 replies, posted in Bugs)

Having an issue with tile based geoscans showing the tiles on screen when selected from the geoscanner tab on the map. They show fine on the map but not on the screen when reviewing older results (even 1 day older).


(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Malsier Dabian wrote:
Syndic wrote:

What you don't understand Malsier is that there is no way to make a mechanic exclusively available to a smaller corporation and forbid a large alliance from using it to create more problems.

At this point you and a couple of others seriously need to step back and stop trying to manipulate the gamma revamp to suit your own agendas, or this whole thing will collapse 2-6-12 months after its released and then they'll have to wipe again.

I'm sitting on 50+ hitech terminals and still laughing at the 1-terminal-per-island joke.

*edit: Easy there. -DEV Zoom

Petty agenda? So what if larger corps can have the same defense, They are already going to own the *** anyway.... The point is to allow the smaller corps the same opportunity.

Which with your corps "Petty agenda", I can understand how you would not want smaller corps to be able to mount a defense capable of killing your blob attack squad.... Just saying.

My Agenda is equal opportunity, Yours is oppression.

There is no free cheese in a sandbox....... Gamma islands are not meant to be cheap and easy. The old saying "It takes a village to raise a child" can be applied to Gamma islands. A small corp is in no way, shape or form able to create and MAINTAIN a Gamma Fortress for any long period of time in a MMO with any kind of population. It takes a village of people within a large corporation to devote the resources and time to "raise" their Gamma base......

Wanting unlimited turrets will lead to exactly what was just wiped.... The only difference is that it will be all LARGE corps and unofficial alliances that rush every gamma so you don't have a chance to place a single structure. Then the complaint will be that 2 member corps didn't have a chance to even place a terminal.

As it stands with limited structures and terminals a small corp has the chance to place a gamma base and defend it against mid size adversaries. It will all come down to whether a small corp has the testicular fortitude to squat on an island that has a 300 member corp living on it or does that same small corp squat on an island that doesn't have a sizeable corp/alliance presence on it and build defenses that will afford protection from said inhabitants? Maybe, just maybe, small corps use some people skills and negotiate with their piers and take an island together...... If not, there is always Beta.

wtf is the world coming to when I agree with Syndic???????? lol


Don't much care as long as it doesn't interfere with the pvp aspect of the game such as :

PVE involvement with PBS/OP ownership

To answer your question, I wouldn't mind seeing:

Additions to the token shop
More missions on alpha 2
Respawn rate of npc increased based on how quickly they are destroyed

Sweet Jesus!!!!

All these carebear ideas need to stop.....

Beta is about pvp. It isn't about who can farm npcs the longest... The more you involve pve into a pvp mechanic the more you kill pvp.

What's next?? You must mine more epi then the attcker or lose control of your outpost?????


Sundial-- Do you agree with the idea or do you, like the rest of us pvp folk, just want more people on beta to pew pew with? Don't fool yourself into thinking adding a pve feature into intrusions will improve the numbers on beta. Only one thing can do that--- ADVERTISE THE HELL OUTTA THIS GAME!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!

Zarash wrote:

also, that 40K EP request up there sound fishy... thats what EA accounts got as bonus for pushing the first € into the DEVs wallets, taking the risk of paying for a game that has an uncertain future.


I am not sure what you are alluding to here, but the numbers were just from the top of my head. I have no idea about anything EA.

Yes the 20k ep is a good start for a trial account. I was not talking about trial accounts in the original post, I said only for paying accounts. I am not sure why people keep talking about it for trial accounts.

Also, I was not talking about pay to win I was talking about a 1 time payment. Only 1 time not more then one time. Let me say again just one time.

It more or less would be a little boost for people who first start playing the game or for anyone for that matter. I just think it would help out new players to be more well rounded. That is if they decided to buy the ep.

If this fail idea came from the top of your head then please cut off said head to save us further BAD ideas....

The ability to buy EP goes against the "progression" over time system this game has. I highly suggest going to Staples for your official EASY button.....