EVE General Discussion

Obviously you're lazy or incompetent and I won't be arsed into doing any work for you. Anyway, up in the top right corner of this page is the word 'Archives'. Click it and navigate back to the Summer of 2011 and then back to 2006. Browse the various threads posted during that time.

Is thread still about asking CCP to break their promise to focus on space content? It's a little hard to follow with all the sperging.

First off , show the actual place where you can walk in a station. Someone open the door while I was looking the other way?

And secondly, a handful of whiny forum alts is not in any way representative of the playerbase, so y'all can stop bandying that term around.

The only meaningless fluff I can see here is your posting.

Mr Epeen

Confirming it was just a handful of whiny forum alts that caused the big loss of subscriptions between 6/2011 and 12/2011 (summer of rage) that made Hillmar issue a public apology and CCP to completely change development focus after losing 25% PCU in EVE during that time.

http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility

I suppose CCP also laid off 20% of its workforce because they just wanted to:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/10/19/ccp-layoffs-affect-20-of-worldwide-staff-company-focusing-on-e/

None of this had anything whatsoever to do with all the players that un-subbed because they were dissatisfied, or the loss of revenue CCP experienced because of it.


/Troll harder peen, your form lately is lacking, as if you sold your character or something

It's not complicated. CCP ignored Eve to work on Space Barbie for two years. People got fed up paying a subscription fee to beta test the WoD engine and then the leaks coming from inside CCP about their masterplan for microstransactions was the straw that broke the camel's back.

A bunch of people ragequit, CCP flew CSM6 to Iceland to tell them what was going on and now things are back on track. That's why I hate seeing things like the OP asking CCP to change direction now that the game is starting to improve.

Yes, several hundred avatars running around is possible. Many games have done it. And yes, a proper station environment and mini-games will draw players into Eve. However, I doubt very few will stay long once they realize that they have to A: Undock to make any isk for the most part, at least at first to get started. B: Train the skills to make that isk which will make them impatient since the average 1x skill to lvl is 20hours or so. C: They will also realize that there is no gameplay to be found on a station other then walking around, conversing and mini-games.

Do you have a source for this? I've seen you claim this; I've seen other people claim the opposite. Thus far I've not seen a single iota of proof for these assertions. Now I recall from an earlier thread you were lambasting people for claiming the opposite. I sincerely hope you can back up your claims.

However, I suspect not. One would think that if the "majority of the player base" wanted it CCP would devote more resources to it. It's not smart business sense to ignore the features the "majority" of your customers want, right?

I'm one of the ones that wants it, but not over the core EVE game.

Same to you, I haven't seen you provide any 'iota' of proof to back up your statements either. Please link your source stating that the majority of the player base did not want WiS when CCP first previewed Ambulation.

By the way, CCP has had a long history of ignoring the player base pertaining to a lot of different aspects in this game which was the reason for the '1001 Papercuts' threadnaught.




Funny, in the past 3 years CCP has added a lot of content to this game but hey, keep singing your same ole troll tune that CCP has ignored Eve due to working on WiS.

Common fallacy: proving non-existence : when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.



Common fallacy: ad hominem: An arguer who uses ad hominem, attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.


You cave been asked repeatedly to provide the evidence to backup your claim, and at each turn you attempt to use the above common fallacies to deflect. Perhaps you should pose your statements as opinions in the future to avoid being asked these pesky questions that serve to illustrate you are making stuff up to suit your agenda.

mining, research, exploration and production,
the products of the above activities, what do they do? why do people buy it?
the answer is flying in space.