EVE General Discussion

I am not referring to my departure, but the departure of almost every single older player that has existed. that is the exodus, not my paltry 7 accounts. Considering that I have 7 accounts that I pay for on a yearly basis, that's approx 75 USD a month that CCP gets from me. considering that there have been thousands if not tens of thousands of accounts to go inactive over the years for the exact points I am bringing up, that's approx 75 to 750K usd each month that CCP is losing out on. keeping in mind that more and more older players are continuing to quit, not all of them as old as me, but some of them even as young as 4 years old (and I know of many that young) it isn't just the players that EVE started with that are leaving, it is also the intermediate players as well. when you combine all those people, see that what used to be average player levels online in the upper 40K's to around mid 50K's being online during most time zones, are you going to say that the exodus of players that does number in the thousands to tens of thousands has not made an impact on CCP's finances? considering today we are lucky to log in to more than 28K people logged in? you can not tell me that this is not a problem. CCP may gain new players, but not enough to replace the ones that are leaving in MASS.

k here goes, this was pretty much what I wrote earlier.

Player dockable Superstations, would be similar to current stations.

Only anchorable by alliances in systems that have been held for a period of time, and only one per alliance.

Require multiple satellite pos in system to provide with power and shield/armour bonuses. Encouraging an enemy fleet to take down these first. New tactics would be needed to defend or attack.

Stations would be modular, so would need to be constructed like t3 ships are now. Once a station is anchored they can upgraded with better defences, offensive structures, capital hangers etc. Station would have player controllable defences same as Pos that would require skills and permissions.

Mineral requirements would be massive so only the biggest alliances would be able to do this.

Would need special ships with holds large enough to deploy in space and would take considerably longer to anchor than current pos. When stations are damaged in battles special ships would be needed to repair them. Logisitics take far too long to rep pos as it is. These would be very expensive ships, that can only be used on stations not pos’ which would encourage them to be fielded when the station is not under attack so as to not make them even harder to take down. Or fielded during battle if you are that rich!

This would be a focus for an alliance to defend. A focus for an enemy alliance to attack.

Would mean lots of smaller conflicts, less CCP rage inducing lag, leading up to a main battle to save/take down the station.
And if the station had many players ships/items/pods docked and stored the loss of one would prove a massive loss to that alliance.

I’m sure the idea is full of holes and generally is bollocks, but I keep picturing how epic this would be.

Massive gains, massive risks?

plus, Tier 3 BCs are meant to be suicide ganker boats. They need to be able to make lots of them.

…which has yet to be proven, and yet to be tied to the influx of new players and their (supposed, but unproven) easier, but less capable time.

Oh, and for the record, how many SP do think separates a T3 from a Command Ship (the former supposedly being newbie-friendly, and the latter not)?

:)

not right now. i'll give it some thought, be nice if a CCP picked up the idea tho ay.

Learning skills didn't keep anyone away. They slowed down learning for noobs who didn't know what they were, and were an annoyance for those of us who bothered to figure them out and realized that they were going to basically cost $15 to train before going on to stuff that actually mattered.

The Q20 buff really didn't do much other than make it easier to hide mission bots. Mission runners didn't notice a huge bump in payout since the serious ones that produce a lot of isk were already on Q18-20, and the simplification of mission agents was a good thing, in that the previous system served no purpose but to annoy missioners.



I'm not a cap pilot--I have no intention of ever being one--but it was always my understanding that it took a year or more to get into a cap ship with decent support skills. And like I said before, you can train support skills for a year to build a "perfect" frigate pilot. After 18 months of training, I'm *finally* starting to branch out and fly more than one race of ships. You make it sound like anyone can just jump into high-end ships, and that's just not the case. It takes several months even with support skills in place just to train up to a battleship with T2 weapons.



Contract me a T2 BPO on your way out the door. Do it for the lolz. Embrace the chaos. Hell, give me all your stuff if you just feel like making things interesting :)

hmmmmmm... yeah, I smell sh*te.

…and even then, you probably missed one thing that is required to make them comparable: the T3 must train Warfare Link Spec V; the CS does not (because fleet CSes get extra command module slots by default). That's a rank 6 skill where that last level alone adds another 1.2M SP to the T3 build, which eats into and further reduces the time difference.

That assumes you're using them to run gang links. I've seen command ships used as solo PVP ships, and they are quite good at that. In any case, I fail to see where a player who thinks a year is too short to be able to fly "the good stuff" is entitled to complain about 30 days of training. Also, it should be mentioned that along the way to training for a command ship, you also pick up these skills:

Weapon Upgrades 5
Spaceship Command 5
Leadership 5
Warfare Link Spec 4

There's your 30 days right there. All of them are skills you'll likely need for far more than either of these ships.

So we've established that T3s actually take at LEAST as long as command ships to train up base skills in order to provide boosts. Funny how it's the "new" guys who actually bothered to look into the claims, while the bittervet who claimed to have such impressive game knowledge made incorrect assumptions.

I think we just figured out where his monopoly went: he lost it due to some fundamental misunderstanding of the game. "But I've been playing it longer, I should be better at it than you!" he'll bluster. As if time spent playing a game somehow qualifies you as an expert in its own right.