These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2013-03-08 08:49
  • First Forum Visit: 2013-03-10 09:16
  • Number of Posts: 152
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 51

Tian Toralen

Security Status 5.0
  • KarmaFleet Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [Mini-blog] The Next Steps in Structure Transition in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I once thought it would be cool to have destructible stations and have the possibility to even loot them when destroying them. Also - null sec everywhere, no rules, new players can join one player alliance and that's it, no safety anywhere. As it is the case in real-world wars. I thought it would be cool and realistic to have that in a game. I see now I was naive.

    Problem: a game is a game, and players in game do not react as people do irl. Maybe they do not even want to be forced to do that when playing a game. Players react as players - and players are known to burn everything around them just for fun, because it's a game, it's not irl, and that's how it should be. But because of this, the game becomes even more of a trolling game than it already is. Fozziesov added magic wand trolling, now - if there are no invulnerable stations, even more trolling will be possible.

    "Let's just burn all Astrahus to troll the industry high-sec carebears, we don't care how much we lose, it's a game". And this will become the game of trolls, with fewer and fewer players really getting involved in the game - the MMORPG side of it. If you try to make a game "real" you cannot, by it's nature it is a game, you will end up with a trolling game, nobody will respect anything because of fear, or because of other things that make people keep the balance irl.

    A game world cannot be kept "safe' by what keeps the real world "safe" (and stops us destroying ourselves with nuclear bombs for fun). That is why developers have to create artificial rules (like high-sec instant police), if they want to have a game world at all.

  • About subcription, PLEX and about EVE's appeal in EVE Technology and Research Center

    A few presumptions:

    - Players who train more than one character at one time are what I define as "hardcore players", not "new players" or "casual players". I presume the majority of these players (CCP sure knows the percentage) buy PLEX in game using ISK to pay for their accounts. EVE is hard with only one account, with 2 accounts (or simultaneous game windows open), EVE is a different game. A simple example: if you play with 2 EVE windows open, no gate camp can catch your expensive ship, if you use one account for scouting. It is a different game.
    These players are veteran players, with billions of ISK and a multitude of ways to make ISK, so - using ISK for PLEX, and having multiple accounts is a simple and a natural choice. I also presume that the number of these hardcore veterans is dwindling.

    - I presume that most of the players who buy PLEX with $ or pay their subscription with $ are new players, (less than 2 years old). The combined factors of: paying for the game with $, and the fact they find the game hard (without a good corporation this game is both hard and boring at the same time), makes them quit the game. If they realize the advantages of dual character training, and/or the advantages or playing with 2 EVE windows open - they have to pay more $, until they become veterans and are able to use ISK for PLEX. If they make it that far.

    The current system punishes and restricts new players, while the majority of veteran players can just use ISK and this also does not support CCP.

    What I propose:
    - If a player pays for his subscription with $, he can train and play with three characters at the same time. (EVE is unique in this, imagine having to pay 14$ for each Wow character you play with...). This will encourage and lure in new players (the majority of players that pay $ for subscription). They will get to try various aspects of the game at the same time, and the game will not seem so hard. This will also help CCP - more $ for them, instead of ISK for PLEX.

    PLEX prices would drop to 1/3 (real money prices and ISK prices), this is solved by:
    You may think that players (including new players) will prefer to pay a third of a subscription price to play with only one character, and this will be bad for CCP.
    Problem solved: 2 types of PLEX: There will be a PLEX that can be bought for a full subscription price from CCP, that can be used for one account with 3 characters training, or sold in game for ISK, and another kind of PLEX (PLEX2) that can be bought for 1/3 price from CCP. This PLEX2 can be used for 1 single character training on one account, only if you already have another "full account" paid for (with PLEX1 brought for ISK in game, or by paid subscription).

    So - veteran billionaire players will still be able to get PLEX for ISK as they do now, and new players will have more opportunities, fun, and reasons to pay for the game with $ instead of struggling to get to a point where they can use ISK (with only one character), then they quit. And more $ for CCP.

    ---
    If you think CCP would lose if they apply this idea, I support even a requirement to pay for the game only with $ and not with PLEX - getting 3 training characters for one subscription, and PLEX to be used only for training additional characters (beyond one account with 3). Of course this would mean only one type of PLEX - PLEX2 at 1 third of the price of today. EVE with three characters would be much more appealing, even if I could not use ISK to pay for it, for myself and new players also.

  • Idea for something fresh. New game mode. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
    Has been suggested hundreds of times before, and each time met with a resounding no.


    Speak for yourself. Say "I do now want that feature" or "I do want that feature".
    When I write here, I write about what I want or what I do not want. I do not say "players want...". That would not be right.


    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6517010#post6517010
    Quote:
    From a RP perspective: pirate factions organize these tournaments in certain systems. Players go there, transport or buy ships there, then they wait in space or in station, until opponents are found by the game and are given coordinates to warp to. Everything else is details.

    The fight zone cannot be scanned. This is the biggest complaint I heard in the past about my idea. Solution: if the tournaments don't exist players would not be flocking to certain low sec systems to fight in safes and get dropped on in the first place. There would be nothing to be scanned down by the hardcore EvE players annoyed by my suggestion. But there would be more activity around that system and increased chances to catch players when they are not fighting. They still lose their ships when fighting.

    Once in the safe zone they can't warp out until the enemies ships are destroyed. Also the safe zone has a duration of ~ 1 hour, after that the safe zone disappears, and the fighters can be scanned down. There are no decisions by the game about who won, just this safe zone creation, the ones that still have a ship are the clear winners. This would keep things simple.
    Prizes and other stuff, maybe betting, can be sorted out later. Yes, I proposed in-game tournaments in the past, I propose it again.


  • What is the use and meaning of "sov" in EVE? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I do not want to remove the possibility to "plant the flag".
    Keep the sov map, and the "ownership" indicator for a system - make it show "owned systems" those systems that contain structures from only one alliance or coalition (the game should implement coalition as allied alliances). Except moon towers, those do not count.

    The value of sov is given by system upgrades, and the possibility to dock. These remain. What I suggested, is the possibility to install structures and upgrades everywhere you want, without the need for "sov ownership" as a game rule. And you still get the flag planted (system name) when you are the only one there.

  • What is the use and meaning of "sov" in EVE? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sov is usefull for: jump bridges, system upgrades, and docking in stations. Also for building stations.

    What about getting rid of sov requirements for installing any of these entirely? If you build a station or upgrade somewhere (it would work only for you), and as long as nobody attacks it you own that space, "de facto".

    I don't think there should even be a restriction about how many alliances own stations or upgrades in one system (that would make things really interesting). If you can and want to have a station or Ihub or CSAA near your enemy's station, then you can have it there. No extra "sov rules", no penalties.

    This would make EVE more "real", in a real space war - there would be no rules like "can't build there, enemy station in system". If you can defend it - you can build it. Timers and everything else still apply. Maybe even the timers for upgrades, counting from the age of a structure in a system until you can upgrade it.

    Also - what's the use of being declared the owner of a system, if anyone can pass through it's gates whenever he wants? No use. The only useful things are the structures, that is why sovereignity as an abstract concept or "game rules" should go away.

  • EVE's appeal in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    No one is going to participate because it will get disrupted immediately because -- as you mentioned -- boredom. And because the ships in these tournament fleets are easy prey.

    And just like in your older thread -- which you could have asked to get unlocked in order to contribute more ideas to the existing "I want Arenas" thread instead of creating another redundant "I want Arenas" thread --, the tools to create tournaments in game are already there. Will it be difficult to maintain? With the requirement of the possibility to disrupt matches that you yourself demand, sure, it will be. But why should it be easy? Or why should CCP setup this tournament where it can be disrupted? Just so that the players do not need to put in the effort? That's a sound logic.

    And just like in your older "I want Arena" thread: No, we do not need arenas. We need more people who actually do things in space instead. And we need more things to do that make people travel around space for meaningful reasons, like Random Agents in Landmark and Natural Phenoma sites.


    No arenas. Just safe spots "created by pirate factions" in certain low/null systems. Players can use these for their tournaments. They still have to bring ships there. Safe spot has a time duration, once warped in players can't warp out, and the game does not decide the winner. Whoever is left is the winner, or - nobody if both teams/players survive until the safe spot is gone and warp out.

    An in-game "tournament brakets" page could be useful, this page would be visible to players taking part, and it could be modified by the organisers. The difference from now is - those low/null systems where pirates give (maybe sell?) safe spots, would see almost continuous tournaments and duels.

  • EVE's appeal in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Holding space in a MMORPG appeals only to hardcore roleplayers. Besides holding space and participating in space wars (this is a RP thing), EVE offers nothing fun.

    PVE - try to rat anomalies, and you will fall asleep. PVE is fun only because game time and ships (ships wich should offer fun in game) can be bought with isk. So players accept the boring PVE, only for the ISK, hoping they will have fun after.

    Get your ship, fit it the way you like, train your skill then - participate in a fleet where you listen to orders for 1 hour. There is some fun/and challenge when playing logistics, where you get to use your own skills and make decisions, but not so much. Fleet battles could be replaced by a RTS where the FC just controls every other ship, because there is nothing for fleet members to do except - align, warp, target, shoot.

    Besides this, fleet battles where equal opponents meet are very rare. First I get bored because all I do is press buttons as ordered for 1 hour, then I get bored because the other fleet did not show up, or the other fleet showed up and my fleet avoided them. Or someone - the enemy or my fleet fough but it was one sided battle. And even if the battle is equal, it's totally boring. Just give the FC his own RTS.

    Then, CCP organizes the "annual tournament". I wonder why do they organize it between equal teams (in terms of ships) and in Jovian space where they can't be disturbed... A mistery! They should create random teams both in terms of numbers and ships, then show players the reality of EVE - a 30 man gatecamp, getting bored for 30 min, then cheering when they kill one frigate. Fleets in EVE are mostly social events where people talk and pretend to play a spaceship game.

    Short story: I ask again for players tools to organize their own in-game tournaments, and have some fun. I want to be able to participate in a meaningful and equal fight every evening, without the trouble of having to organize a tournament. I am busy enough irl. Else, - CCP should hold their tournament somewhere in null-sec, let's see how fun is that going to be and who is going to even participate.

    Another thread of mine requesting the same thing:
    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6512364#post651236

  • In-game tournaments in EVE Technology and Research Center

    "I attack a newbie in a weaker ship to teach him EVE reality, that's reality man, that will even help him!".
    No that is not "reality". That is what you choose to do. I choose not to do that ever in this game because I don't feel like it. No matter how many deaths and loses I suffered because of people choosing to exercise their ability to attack a weaker opponent, I don't feel like doing that. Even if I have opportunity to do that.
    Others have done that to me, it was not the new player I can gank but choose not to. If there is no equal opponent in front of me, I will not attack him. Not because e-honor and other **** like that, just because I don't feel like it. Yes I'm drunk. Being drunk is not illegal. Yet. Feel free to be all goodie and correct and delete this post.

  • In-game tournaments in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I see no problem, if players enjoy fighting 1v1, or 2v2 or more, against equal numbers of opponents. Pre-made teams, I presume - random teams will result in awox-fest, and the opponents can be random or pre-selected.
    Teams are formed, the pirate safe spot is created. Once the teams are both there they can't warp out any more, and the safe spot is unscannable for a period of time.

    There will be two modes: one with pre-selected opponents, people will agree to fight the other fleet, no matter the differences between them, and one mode with random opponents, where people will mark some checkboxes for example: I am in a frigate, I will accept a fight selected by the game ("the pirate organisers") against: frigates (number), destroyers (number), assault frigates (number) etc. And a (+) sign that can also be selected between checkboxes, so people can for example select to accept a fight against frigate (3) + battleship (5) or less.
    Maybe prizes or betting could be implemented in a way that can't be abused.

    I was in Brave, after a long break from the game, I decided to join GSF to fight PL, that's why I am in goons.

  • In-game tournaments in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
    Because eve is about organic unscripted fights an arena is in direct opposition of that


    But tournaments are fun and players can organize them? This means they are in game. Why is there an annual tournament held by CCP then? Are they trying to destroy EVE? Why do they try to arrange fights between equal opponents, why don't they just broadcast a random fight between random forces, resulting in 90% one side avoiding the fight ? Or one side being completely destroyed because they take the fight because it's the annual "real-EvE tournament", they must show something.

    Organic unscripted fights will still happen, players need to PVE to fund their tournament ships, and if null sec will be tuned so it offers amazing PVE, players will fight for ownership of null-sec, and there will be plenty of unscripted fights.

    And casual players like me will find a reason to play EVE, because it offers something fun, and the subscription numbers will rise, and they lived happily ever after.

  • In-game tournaments in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rivr Luzade wrote:

    Besides, the real targets with PVEing are the defenders who engage your roaming hunter fleet, but all these guys are sitting in their arenas having fun.


    So what's your problem then? You recognize people would have more fun in tournaments that trying to hunt you down - and you blueball them because they got a stronger fleet, or the reverse of the situation. The only reason for people to stay on field - is sov or space assets like towers, CSAA, etc. And usually these are tidi boring fleet fights.
    But now you can always obtain a response in null, just bring a sov wand and you get your fight - if people still care about null. Whoever owns null is a content farm now, anyone can get content out of them with little effort, tournaments will not take this away.

    Every other space engagement is created by people trying to coerce content out of the game: gate camps, dropping on ratters, roaming trying to obtain a defence fleet (approximately equal fleet, else there is no fight). I don't know who finds these things fun, maybe the game is full of 5 year olds. "My ship is better, my skills are better, I blew up your ship that was weaker than mine! hahaha!", or "We are 30, you are 1, you jump through gate, you are stupid, we win!".

  • In-game tournaments in EVE Technology and Research Center

    In case a system is in place where people win isk by winning fights, 50% of them will always lose and need isk for ships. For fights that would not have happened any other way, this means more ships destroyed. People will still need to PVE or defend their null space if they want PVE riches. Or maybe everyone will have so much fun with tournaments that they won't bother to PVE and will just buy PLEX.

    This game has an amazing PVP potential, but right now it sits unused, like - here have all these weapons, but you can only have random encounters with each other, and very few times you will feel you are using your skills or the weapons.

  • In-game tournaments in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Tian Toralen wrote:
    There is no content lost from this point of view.

    No content lost? People like you would not roam ever again, which removes targets for roamers in many areas of space. With the lack of targets for roamers, the already tedious act of roaming becomes even more tedious, which results in more people flocking to your arenas, which in turn removes even more people from the open systems to hunt, which in turn removes a lot of content and activity from the game. If people can find easy to access and secure PVP in your arenas, they will not look for it in the open world. No content lost by the introduction of your arenas? Only CFC affiliate can fall prey to such a ridiculous delusion.

    For further information, please google the many arena threads that appeared over time in this forum and read up in them why your idea is horrible for the game at large. Your redundant thread does not make the idea any better or less damaging to the game.

    I am not roaming anyway. What you are saying - let people try to coerce content out of the game, and do not give them something they enjoy.

    People will still have to do PVE to fund their tournament ships. People will fight in the open world for other stuff - for the amazing faction warfare system, or to conquer null - if it would indeed offer the rewards or the fun to make people bother holding it. It should offer greater PVE rewards, for the PVP trouble it requires.

    I mean - people will use tournaments for fun, and will fight in the open world for holding null-sec as a source of PVE riches, to enable them to have even more fun in tournaments. For some maybe the PVP of null-sec is really fun, and won't even try tournaments. All I can see is people trying to coerce content out of the game. How is gate camping content? How is 30 people shooting at 1 target content, and fun and challenging? Or the reverse of that situation, or fleet fights where I just obey orders. I'm bored as I said, so - good bye EvE for now.

    The idea of an unscannable spot for tournaments, created by pirates with technology found in secret space place is outlandish?

  • In-game tournaments in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Go ahead, try scanning people fighting in safe spots now. Tell me how many you caught after 1 week. You don't understand: those people would not be there fighting in their scan immune safe spots if the tournaments do not exist, or if the spots are not immune to scanning? Just try to find them now, I wonder where they are. There is no content lost from this point of view.

    There will be players coming in and out of those low/null systems where the "pirate tournaments" are organised. There will be ships lost in the tournaments. More content for everyone.

    Yes, I know I can organize tournaments. Maybe if I drop corp first, then organize, then schedule, then oversee. Don't have time for that. I am not interested in any scheduled game activity.

  • In-game tournaments in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Casual player: bored again. Don't know why I resubbed ~4 months ago, perhaps I forgot the reasons for why I got bored last year. But EVE looks so good from the outside, and captures people's imagination.

    Fleet fights: I participated and struggled not to get asleep. Follow orders, align, target. With time dilation and potato mode - it's even worse. The "I was there" video is...misleading. I tried being logi, that is a cool thing to do, but lately I avoided it, so to not be an important part of the fleet. I am a casual player as I said, more than 1h in fleet is not for me.

    Smaller fleet fights: still it's a time investment, and gate camping is not for me. I participated in one of DBRB fleets and we were shooting newbies like "fish in a barrel", still I got bored after half an hour. I was just following orders - align, shoot, align, shoot, change ammo, etc.

    Solo PVP? Sure - and I will find one fun and satisfying fight once every 1000 hours.

    FCing - still did not try it properly, mostly because of the time investment needed. I can't take people out on a fleet then say I have to go. The fact that english is not my native language does not help.

    PVE: exploration is kind of less boring, still 80% boring. Doing anomalies is death by boredom.

    ---

    The single thing that would make me sub again: in-game tournaments. 1v1, 2v2, etc, based on ship classes. This means I could jump into the action the moment I log in, and have a satisfying game experience, a "fair" or "fun" fight, so rare to find otherwhise.

    From a RP perspective: pirate factions organize these tournaments in certain systems. Players go there, transport or buy ships there, then they wait in space or in station, until opponents are found by the game and are given coordinates to warp to. Everything else is details.

    The fight zone cannot be scanned. This is the biggest complaint I heard in the past about my idea. Solution: if the tournaments don't exist players would not be flocking to certain low sec systems to fight in safes and get dropped on in the first place. There would be nothing to be scanned down by the hardcore EvE players annoyed by my suggestion. But there would be more activity around that system and increased chances to catch players when they are not fighting. They still lose their ships when fighting.

    Once in the safe zone they can't warp out until the enemies ships are destroyed. Also the safe zone has a duration of ~ 1 hour, after that the safe zone disappears, and the fighters can be scanned down. There are no decisions by the game about who won, just this safe zone creation, the ones that still have a ship are the clear winners. This would keep things simple.
    Prizes and other stuff, maybe betting, can be sorted out later. Yes, I proposed in-game tournaments in the past, I propose it again.

  • More rewards for group PVE in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The chances will not grow so much. Just a little. And if you pay for 12 accounts, it's your right to use them as you please. And Ibises should be shot down by rats, so you won't be able to do that. Increase chances based on number of players present in the area, in a ship. And - these players have been there since the start of the anomaly. Programmers bussines how they implement this, to avoid things like brining 12 ibises just for the final boss.

  • More rewards for group PVE in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The extra rewards would not be much more, the bounties would be the same, just the final loot would be more. Not always, just a chance for more loot, according to the number of players in a 100km radius maybe. I don't know how they calculate it now, let's say there is the max loot that can drop right now. To that max loot they add extra stuff for each player present but do not increase the chance to drop. Or increase the chance to drop and keep the loot as it is.

    I only have one main, if some people will use their 1000 alts to get even more rich, I don't mind. This would encourage more PVE fleets. It's not like people with 1000 alts are not using them for farming alone places that are designed for groups right now.

    There will be more loot on the market, the prices will fall a little - nobody will get super rich farming with 10 alts (he has to pay for them). Isn't that CCPs view about alts - they are treated like regular players, even if only one person pushes the buttons?

    But the incentive for PVE fleets will remain, even if there will be more loot in the market.

  • More rewards for group PVE in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    By group you mean someone's alts? I can have my alt(s) in my anomaly circling it in a ceptor at 100km and get a nice bonus reward.

    Yes, I forgot this is "game of alts". Still, there is more effort from your part, and you pay 2 subs, you are entitled to extra rewards. This is no more "pay to win" than the fact that 2 subs allow you to never be caught by a gate camp, if you want to use them for that purpose.

  • More rewards for group PVE in EVE Technology and Research Center

    There is no reason to group up for anomalies and exploration.

    The attempt to make people group up for relic/data sites failed because it was somehow designed to punish people not in a group instead of rewarding those in a group. People could hack the site fine by themselves, without the need for help, and because of this - the spew can system felt like a punishment - "if you are not in a group it is possible to miss loot!".

    I don't want to say make anomalies and exploration too hard to solo, I want to say: give extra rewards when completing them in a group. Or a chance of extra rewards.

    Why? People group up for extra reward, that leads to more stuff happening in space. PVE and PVP.

    For example - 3 people do an anomaly, the rewards from bounties are divided by 3, but also it's the time required - and at the end there is a bigger change of an escalation or spawn. And the escalation, if completed in a group has a bigger chance for blueprints or extra loot. In such a way that the total possible end rewards divided by the number of players are bigger than the possible end reward for a single player.

  • Variable sov defence in EVE Technology and Research Center

    ADMs are now tied to ratting, forcing people to rat or mine.

    1. Owning sov should offer more opportunites besides ratting and mining.
    2. It should not be tied to ratting and mining.
    3. Entosis links should disappear.

    How will it work?

    In fact there won't be any sov. Players would colonize space wherever they please, and the only indication they own sov would be the fact that their structures are there - and not someone's else's structures. And these structures improve that space, in various ways, and this is "owning sov".

    And all of these "improvement structures" come in various sizes (the same as citadels). And this is the variable sov-defence - if you invest more you get bigger structures, more defence, if you invest less, you get less. And these can be attacked only with ship guns.

    I am not talking about a return to the POS sov system. All structures in a system would be vulnerable, useful and in sizes ranging from small to XXL, and there would be no sov system as I said before. You install upgrades - you get better space, someone destroys them - you lose the upgrades. Why all this complication with "owning sov" and paying sov bills. To who? From a RP perspective this is strange. Maybe add a "flag" structure that has no role except displaying your flag near the system name.