These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Carnyx release - General feedback

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mister Ripley
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#901 - 2015-06-04 00:41:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister Ripley
*grrrrr*


New PBR stuff is aswesome!!!
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#902 - 2015-06-04 00:43:42 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:
Well after a few small-gang engagements, I can confirm that the new symbols are great at quickly distinguishing between ship sizes. I can imagine this being even more useful for newer players that are unaware of the various ships in EvE. It's a million times more useful than the previous method, which I just ignored and focused solely on the type of vessel. Nice work CCP!!! Lol

I always enjoy how every. single. patch. is followed with a wave of revulsion. How is it that EvE players are the least adaptable to change?

My only question is why the original symbols that were floated in the dev blog here weren't used. They were a lot cooler, and I'm sure would have prompted (slightly) less disagreement. Perhaps you should try to change to them?

People get used to the status quo. And (when people can't customize their UI enough) they get real touchy about any further disruptions to the UI that they know and are comfy with.
Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#903 - 2015-06-04 01:16:10 UTC
DHuncan wrote:


Whist for some, there may be a resistance to any change, but I contend these are the minority. Most people are against BAD change however.
The process you suggest of giving reasoned feedback, actually happened. On SISI, and we were relieved when the first attempt was shelved. However a new, uglier version was then released that addressed precisely ZERO of the suggestions and problems identified.

We now have something that is less legible, less useful, and less attractive than the classic Icons. They fail miserably when scaled, are over complex, difficuilt to distinguish, and cause some physical pain with eye strain.

Adding a slight amendmant to the classic icon would have solved things, giving All the worthwhile benefits of the new ones. Instead We now have Ooh it's a NPC destroyer, possibly, or loot, maybe. Can't tell for the other 300 icons covering it, why is that shooting me? It's a player???
.........But Nice corpse icon ........

Not a lot of plus sides there.

We identified that this would result in a massive trainwreck on sisi, and we hoped sanity would prevail, only to find, they put the foot hard on the throttle.



Quote:
People get used to the status quo. And (when people can't customize their UI enough) they get real touchy about any further disruptions to the UI that they know and are comfy with.


I'm contrasting Hakaari's statement with one from earlier. It's not 'resistance to change' here. It's real loss of functionality involving players processing and working with the game. I can't see how one could see even a couple of pages of this thread and not understand that unless they're just happy to see so many folks' enjoyment trashed by a willfully obtuse implementation, concerning the icon swap. Something must have been operating behind the scenes on this issue. The testers were very vocal about both the 1st and 2nd sets of icons used. This was already a flashing stop sign on the issue, but instead of checking to make sure that a massive mistake wasn't going to be made, the team pushed the change through.

Now perhaps they can alter the icons to address the issues that have come up with visibility and also the other difficulties presented. But generally, we're not in 2009, or 2011. Incarna-type decisions have worse consequences for keeping the playerbase in EVE now, in 2015. There's more competition and the head decision-makers have got to keep that in mind. Allowing for player input, rather than ignoring them to maintain a schedule would be one way to address player unhappiness.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#904 - 2015-06-04 01:21:10 UTC
Only problem I have with the new Icons is that it's difficult to tell the difference from
frig = destroyer
and
cruiser = battlecruiser

I have to focus on the icon as the line underneath on destroyer and BC is difficult to make out.
Doesn't fit well for people with astigmatism.

Needs to have better definition, like a wreck vs a wreck with loot.
Simon Ijonen
Pyke Syndicate
Solyaris Chtonium
#905 - 2015-06-04 01:43:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Simon Ijonen
Day 2, the exefile still does not respond upon being launched.
This patch is a complete and utter failure, please unfuck yourselves.
Skurja Volpar
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#906 - 2015-06-04 01:51:23 UTC
Minmatar ships looking amazing.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#907 - 2015-06-04 01:54:47 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:
Well after a few small-gang engagements, I can confirm that the new symbols are great at quickly distinguishing between ship sizes. I can imagine this being even more useful for newer players that are unaware of the various ships in EvE. It's a million times more useful than the previous method, which I just ignored and focused solely on the type of vessel. Nice work CCP!!! Lol

I always enjoy how every. single. patch. is followed with a wave of revulsion. How is it that EvE players are the least adaptable to change?

My only question is why the original symbols that were floated in the dev blog here weren't used. They were a lot cooler, and I'm sure would have prompted (slightly) less disagreement. Perhaps you should try to change to them?


When I started playing many years ago 30k or more users on at a time were a regular occurrance and there were regular attempts at a going for a record number of players being logged on together (think the record was in the mid 40ks) . Now when I log in its low 20s all the time. Its apparent that people have been voting with their feet for awhile now. So its not just a question of newness leading to revulsion that is gotten over with after awhile, its more of a problem with CCP losing touch with what its players want which is a function of them not listening to feedback.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Plane Walkerz
Big Sister Exploration
#908 - 2015-06-04 02:18:04 UTC
Please change the Battleship icon, it looks terrible (we are not playing OIDS).

The rest of the icons are fine, although swapping the icon for the intensive reprocessing array with the wormhole seems like a pretty silly thing to do from a design point of view rather than making your own custom icons, but I guess a 16 bit drawing does take a long time with MS Paint TM gotta zoom in and then zoom in again and then zoom in again, wait zoom out a bit, ok zoom in again...

[b][i]-The Unknown- Sleepers abound and hunger for blood There are few brave enough to look for a fight with these tyrants, but those who are brave and hold true to their goal will prevail[/i][/b]
Plane Walkerz
Big Sister Exploration
#909 - 2015-06-04 02:22:12 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:
Well after a few small-gang engagements, I can confirm that the new symbols are great at quickly distinguishing between ship sizes. I can imagine this being even more useful for newer players that are unaware of the various ships in EvE. It's a million times more useful than the previous method, which I just ignored and focused solely on the type of vessel. Nice work CCP!!! Lol

I always enjoy how every. single. patch. is followed with a wave of revulsion. How is it that EvE players are the least adaptable to change?

My only question is why the original symbols that were floated in the dev blog here weren't used. They were a lot cooler, and I'm sure would have prompted (slightly) less disagreement. Perhaps you should try to change to them?

See these Icons actually look like some thought and time went into them, good job on a complete fail at implementation of what you proposed to your players CCP.

[b][i]-The Unknown- Sleepers abound and hunger for blood There are few brave enough to look for a fight with these tyrants, but those who are brave and hold true to their goal will prevail[/i][/b]
Ma'Casonell
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#910 - 2015-06-04 02:32:40 UTC
I liked the old icons better, I wish CCP would allow us to choose which icons we want to use. Blink
BladeKnight2010
Spyders From Mars
#911 - 2015-06-04 02:36:49 UTC
New Icons: Reject, Reject, Reject. Bring back the standard Icons
Senarian Tyme
Serenity Rising LLC
Controlled Chaos
#912 - 2015-06-04 03:03:23 UTC
Well Carnyx definitely released, but I think it's a bit presumptive on your part to say it's successful. The new overview icons are terrible. I understand you were trying enable players to get better information from what is displayed, but the way you went about it is just horrible.


I will admit that they are an increment better than what you had originally shown to us, but they are still extremely poorly thought out and implemented.


First: All the icon types need to be extremely distinctive from the other icon classes. (ie ships from structures from planets etc)
Second: Ship weight classes should be very clearly delineated.
Third (and this is where the ball was dropped): Icons should be easily explainable. This is key when trying to teach newer players what the different things in the UI are.


My greatest frustration in this whole mess is that this is a repeat of several other "great ideas" you have forced on us over the last few years. I don't think this is quite like monocles, however this is much akin to the inventory UI overhaul awhile ago (Winferno wasn't it?) which made the game extremely tedious when juggling inventory and POS work became a living nightmare. The largest source of frustration now as then was that the players had TOLD you repeatedly in advance that it wasn't good/ready/sane and you still kicked an unpolished Vista turd out the door at us.... because....... I think the only reason I can come up with is CCP got embarrassed at the Youtube videos showing the old overlays and wanted to make it look a bit more sexy to people who had no idea what they were actually watching.


BTW: In addition to the icons themselves, your update tweaked my overview settings. I now have various ship types that don't show up on overviews when they definitely did before. Having to go in and manually fixing stuff like that on top of all the other tweaks is just the fun icing on the cake at the end.
DHuncan
Long John Silver.
#913 - 2015-06-04 03:07:42 UTC
Joia Crenca wrote:
DHuncan wrote:


Whist for some, there may be a resistance to any change, but I contend these are the minority. Most people are against BAD change however.
The process you suggest of giving reasoned feedback, actually happened. On SISI, and we were relieved when the first attempt was shelved. However a new, uglier version was then released that addressed precisely ZERO of the suggestions and problems identified.

We now have something that is less legible, less useful, and less attractive than the classic Icons. They fail miserably when scaled, are over complex, difficuilt to distinguish, and cause some physical pain with eye strain.

Adding a slight amendmant to the classic icon would have solved things, giving All the worthwhile benefits of the new ones. Instead We now have Ooh it's a NPC destroyer, possibly, or loot, maybe. Can't tell for the other 300 icons covering it, why is that shooting me? It's a player???
.........But Nice corpse icon ........

Not a lot of plus sides there.

We identified that this would result in a massive trainwreck on sisi, and we hoped sanity would prevail, only to find, they put the foot hard on the throttle.



Quote:
People get used to the status quo. And (when people can't customize their UI enough) they get real touchy about any further disruptions to the UI that they know and are comfy with.


I'm contrasting Hakaari's statement with one from earlier. It's not 'resistance to change' here. It's real loss of functionality involving players processing and working with the game. I can't see how one could see even a couple of pages of this thread and not understand that unless they're just happy to see so many folks' enjoyment trashed by a willfully obtuse implementation, concerning the icon swap. Something must have been operating behind the scenes on this issue. The testers were very vocal about both the 1st and 2nd sets of icons used. This was already a flashing stop sign on the issue, but instead of checking to make sure that a massive mistake wasn't going to be made, the team pushed the change through.

Now perhaps they can alter the icons to address the issues that have come up with visibility and also the other difficulties presented. But generally, we're not in 2009, or 2011. Incarna-type decisions have worse consequences for keeping the playerbase in EVE now, in 2015. There's more competition and the head decision-makers have got to keep that in mind. Allowing for player input, rather than ignoring them to maintain a schedule would be one way to address player unhappiness.


That quotation mentions me but those are not my words. I never wrote that text.

What did you say about CODE?
Sere O'Asis
Desert Oasis Investigations
#914 - 2015-06-04 03:13:33 UTC
I prefer the old icons as well.

My vision is such the new icons are "fuzzy". (Or blob-ish, as many others describe.) As an example the new wreck (with loot) icon appeared to me to be a "stick drawing" of a daisy, until I changed my UI scaling to 150%.

My vision is such I simply cannot see many of the fine granulation/pixelation details of the new icons.

Literally.

And I play on at 27 inch screen.
Qicia
Mercurialis Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#915 - 2015-06-04 03:14:41 UTC
DHuncan wrote:
Joia Crenca wrote:
DHuncan wrote:


Whist for some, there may be a resistance to any change, but I contend these are the minority. Most people are against BAD change however.
The process you suggest of giving reasoned feedback, actually happened. On SISI, and we were relieved when the first attempt was shelved. However a new, uglier version was then released that addressed precisely ZERO of the suggestions and problems identified.

We now have something that is less legible, less useful, and less attractive than the classic Icons. They fail miserably when scaled, are over complex, difficuilt to distinguish, and cause some physical pain with eye strain.

Adding a slight amendmant to the classic icon would have solved things, giving All the worthwhile benefits of the new ones. Instead We now have Ooh it's a NPC destroyer, possibly, or loot, maybe. Can't tell for the other 300 icons covering it, why is that shooting me? It's a player???
.........But Nice corpse icon ........

Not a lot of plus sides there.

We identified that this would result in a massive trainwreck on sisi, and we hoped sanity would prevail, only to find, they put the foot hard on the throttle.



Quote:
People get used to the status quo. And (when people can't customize their UI enough) they get real touchy about any further disruptions to the UI that they know and are comfy with.


I'm contrasting Hakaari's statement with one from earlier. It's not 'resistance to change' here. It's real loss of functionality involving players processing and working with the game. I can't see how one could see even a couple of pages of this thread and not understand that unless they're just happy to see so many folks' enjoyment trashed by a willfully obtuse implementation, concerning the icon swap. Something must have been operating behind the scenes on this issue. The testers were very vocal about both the 1st and 2nd sets of icons used. This was already a flashing stop sign on the issue, but instead of checking to make sure that a massive mistake wasn't going to be made, the team pushed the change through.

Now perhaps they can alter the icons to address the issues that have come up with visibility and also the other difficulties presented. But generally, we're not in 2009, or 2011. Incarna-type decisions have worse consequences for keeping the playerbase in EVE now, in 2015. There's more competition and the head decision-makers have got to keep that in mind. Allowing for player input, rather than ignoring them to maintain a schedule would be one way to address player unhappiness.


That quotation mentions me but those are not my words. I never wrote that text.


Your right. It was this guy epicurus ataraxia wrote: he missed quoted 1 to far
Vila eNorvic
#916 - 2015-06-04 03:39:44 UTC
Steijn wrote:
Taru Audeles wrote:
btw this link STILL does not work. Any chance that someone fixes this so we get an idea what you actually put online here?


link works fine.

No, it doesn't work at all.
Vila eNorvic
#917 - 2015-06-04 03:41:22 UTC
Lahnius wrote:
Steijn wrote:
Taru Audeles wrote:
btw this link STILL does not work. Any chance that someone fixes this so we get an idea what you actually put online here?


link works fine.


but it seems to be short a few icons ...

apparently this is the full list:

OMFG

And that one doesn't work either.
Qicia
Mercurialis Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#918 - 2015-06-04 04:00:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Qicia
This might take a reply or two but i'll give an example of relevant rage change to this patch and feedback asked for.

Response via Alliance Forums.

Quote:
I've said this many times. In order for me to consider playing eve on any given day, I need a 4 hour window. Insert Fatigue changes and you now have a "Go **** yourself" situation.

However, taking into consideration not everyone is like myself where less than 4 hours is worth logging in for as an FC.

Any timer I post I'll attempt at least 2-4 hours prep time (Knowing me were going through a wormhole). Intel and allied coordination previous day and day off. So this resorts to playing the day before the fleet even occurs normally to make sure things are in order leading up to the 2-4 hour pre-op prep readiness for certain surprise fights.

So prep time and a 4 hour window for fleet normally tells me I need a 6 hour window. Moreover, so that Bill, Bob and WillJABlowme can enjoy a well thought out and timed fleet under 2 hours. (which isn't normally the case)
Eve takes time and effort. Normally you could just put x amount of effort and you get x amount of excitement back "like most games."

Eve with fatigue whether you agree with it or not has multiplied the time and effort needed to get x amount of excitement back from the game because CCP has now changed the Chaos effect we (majority of big alliances) enjoyed. The effect of fatigue has been noticeable all around since it's implementation.

Take Fatigue away and all of a sudden you have chaos once again and a rise in conflicts with more player base which made eve what it was yesterday. A MMO.

Everyone is bunkering down for the long haul at the expense of players of old "i'm almost 10 years old" who do not want to put more time and effort into a game that already took x amount of time and effort in order to enjoy your time well spent.

Numbers are down across the board because Eve used to be young, ruthless and epic. It's now become old, boring and non-risk-based. B-R was the Climax of this game with the adoption of the new changes to "mass projection."

Those who loved the game with pure passion like myself where we could dream up fits, fights and tactics and had the means to do so...still can but it comes down to time and effort and now age and responsibilities of those who first fell in love with it comes into play.

Brave alliance has been a healthy injection to the game *content hub*. Like anything in order to make the game progress we need certain people to step up and lead corps, alliances, coalitions, fleets etc... because without those types of people the game becomes stagnant with little progression in a player driven game.

Thera is a temporary patch to content not a solution imo. *content hub*

Timezones across eve have dwindled in active players online and if we go back to the 4 hour window needed to play I'd almost rather play more instant satisfaction based games like BF4, LOL, SC2, COD etc... than hope for a positive change to finally be injected into the game....fozzisov...maybe

Some might say go run a small gang...go lead a small fleet. In an alliance/Coalition FC's eyes this might be fine for the odd joe but in a game where being relevant is boss, running a small gang or fleet doesn't make said "FC" relevant in the eyes of his counterparts.

In the current world of convenience is everything this game does not provide convenience.

Q

PS: Bill, bob and pete can play eve and take up twice the amount of time needed now with the changes or save 800$ a year and play something new. Which is really what it comes down to for some if you kept up with the outside forums. Depending on how many accounts you run.

PS PS: CCP in some way shape or form has stabbed the old players in the back with these changes hoping the young will run with the torch.....However if the torch isn't picked up and run with it will be left burning and soon blow out.


I bring this up as a reference to change and player reaction as a result.

Forced changes whether you agree with them or not have an adverse effect on the willingness of X amount of people that will put up with these forced changes. I've yet to see a scale back on Capital movement and fatigue since it's implementation as it makes for a less active player base as it won't be able to be involved in large scale conflicts unless your wh lucky.

Now we arrive at a new patch where you "CCP" attempt to change something not broken. You have an old school player base who is loyal to the game. Hoping you haven't burned a % of them away from the fatigue change. So please keep in mind that we the Eve Old players 31 myself as stated above have a certain degree of willingness to put up with the continuation of changes that are irrelevant while moving into your fozziesov stage in eve.

I'll continue with 3 relevant quotes a bit different from each other.

PS: When I noticed the new fancy pants map.....As an FC who scans religiously the new version isn't as efficient and functional like the old one. Thank you for placing an option to keep the old one. <-----hint hint.

Apologies to the font size and bad grammar. Hopefully the point gets across.

PS: I'm not particularly interested in learning a complete overhaul of icons after close to 10 years of game play, roughly 15,000 hours+ played. It's a bit much to ask tbh. Give the option and be done with it. Continuation of response and shared opinions below

Q
Qicia
Mercurialis Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#919 - 2015-06-04 04:02:01 UTC
Continuation of points that I agree with and share my opinion on:

Comment by:
Proxay Stimulus
Rote Kapelle

Quote:
Hi Surge, and CCP Art Team.

I hope you take the time to read my comments regarding the new icon set, I've been playing EVE for nigh-on a decade myself, and have spent the time in space doing various forms of PVP warfare.

The new Icon set has a fantastic philosophy, the idea behind the pointy and flat tops, the lines and other little details are very intelligent design language. But...

They are not 'at-a-glance' icon sets, they are in fact very far from being intuitive during combat in EVE. I've been on SiSi for a few hours in the past few weeks during our alliance tournament practice matches so I've had to endure the new changes and am totally opposed to the new icon sets from a combat perspective.

The core issue is the amount of detail you put in, it's the complete opposite of the old icon set which was absolutely fantastic and easy to follow during intense circumstances:
Squares were player ships - every time.
"+"s were NPC ships, whether they be Agents, Pirates, Mission Rats or Faction Agents
"x"s were drones, it didn't matter small/medium/large/fighter - they were drones of some type.
Wrecks were these odd little triangle things that were like very little else in game.

These four things are the most you'll interact with in EVE PVP, they need to each stand alone and be discernable at-a-glance to understand the situation you're engaged in. The old icon set despite age communicated this brilliantly and stood the test of time for players in use for over a decade.
Considering the UI is the only way most players know what is going on, changes here seem to be taken lightly and without cautious review or player buy-in. Even the option to flick back to old is not there which is what is causing most of the fury.

Okay now that I've explained what worked in the old set, lets look at what doesn't work in the new set.

- First off - there is too much detail, simplify the design.
- Drone icons are now bigger than frigate hulls and stand out a lot more - even though the Frigate hull a far more threatening opponent than a drone.
- There are far too many ship icons now, you already need to remember hundreds of ship names and classes, let alone icon sets that are this specific.
- Place 20 pilots on a grid and have each of them drop 5 drones, then set them to fight. In small-gang meta it is very confusing and hard to see what you are targeting or shooting, drones and ships are not discernable.
- Take a look at this image ( https://i.imgur.com/ighoK8j.png ) - this is a small 11 v 10 fight, yet it is very hard to see what is going on from this view (at a glance). If you sit and study it, you can get it, but not with a quick look before you go back to managing module heat.

In my opinion these four things should look nothing alike:
* Ships
* Drones
* NPCs
* Wrecks

Everything else is lesser used and can be studied, but the above 4 are things that require view priority.

Probably the most silly thing in this whole debacle is how little attention was payed to the player feedback from SiSi, and how quickly you implemented this icon set.

Please allow players to use the old set while you polish the new set. I would love to use them once you achieve the above objectives.

Cheers.
Qicia
Mercurialis Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#920 - 2015-06-04 04:02:55 UTC
Continued Again of shared opinion:

Commented by:
Quote:
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Let me tackle this one by one:

1) The reasons to overhaul icons are profound and correct. I enjoy the different asteroid icons now, and old ship brackets did not convey information properly. But I have never heard anyone saying they have problems with icons OTHER than ships.
Not only are you confusing people by re-using the same icon for something DIFFERENT, but you are not using the icon real estate well enough, by not using enough different forms and fills.
You should have only touched ship icons for now. A "tiericide" of the overview icons instead of a full blown revamp. Ship icons do not follow a pattern which is distinguishable enough to make a difference. This is the reason why the previous test was an utter failure because it relied on one basic shape alone.

2) Please don't say that. The feedback was bad enough, both times. We are concerned that you will actually never change a thing because since the last patch there have been ZERO improvements on Opportunities, and of the 4 starmap changes only ONE was significant since it was a bug fix. Opportunities affect "only" new players (it's just your future income) and we can still revert to the old map. We cannot revert icons.

3) You mean like the people who tested the icons on sisi for weeks already?

4) I'm sorry to say this, but this image is incomplete, and you know it. Why do you post incomplete information? This is like opportunities. They're half baked and clearly not finished, and now everybody has to pay the price. Please update the image with all icons, thank you.

5) Counter question: Are you going to pay the people who do your job? Are there going to be rewards for people who spend their free time to explain the issue of a product they are already paying for, and even invest more time to come up with solutions, all voluntarily? I can make a full set of icons which fix the issues with ships people are having, and I can scale the new ones AND the icons which are fine for all 4 sets. But who will reward me for doing so? Who will reward me with the time I can NOT spend playing in game? Talk to CCP Larrikin about my extensive feedback on the starmap which was not posted in the forum. He asked for it. And that was not even the full thing.

But to satisfy you with a little bit here: MOSTLY ship icons are bad, but overall you got too much into detail. The cargo container and wreck variance is useless. You brought too many distinctions which were not needed or wanted.

6) You are absolutely correct, it is an all or nothing scenario, and you were right to NOT allow the other set of icons for exactly this reason. This is proof that you all have the brains to make the right decisions! Which makes it even extra sad as to why some things go so horribly wrong :c

7) Not custom, but FIXED first. We have yellow for destinations. We have red for hostile NPCs. We only use white for neutral NPC and player ships. To avoid the green, give player ships AND player structures a light teal, which makes all NPC owned entities keep their white. Or do the reverse. Either way, let it be consistent. We had a great distinction between player and NPC before due to two completely different shapes. Now you are stuck with only two scenarios: colour one different than white, or fill out the player owned entities, while keeping the NPC ones empty. colour customization on an individual basis can be implemented LATER, since it won't magically make the problems with ship icons disappear.

8) I repeat what I wrote earlier:
"If you have an UI that allows fixed scaling, then you need to design from the SMALLEST possible UI choice first, and then HANDCRAFT upwards for the next versions. If it looks crisp and good on smallest size, it will look good on larger versions since you have more space to fill pixels with. Going from one size and scale it to smaller and larger sizes is the worst kind of lazy."

You KNEW about scaling issues AND ignored it? Designing one set per scale is not super hard work once the figures have been designed once. You do not have a seamless percentage slider from 75% to 150% . You only have 4 specific scaling sets. I could demonstrate you a full mockup, but who pays me with ISK for this demonstration for time I would not be playing Eve?