Posted - 2011.03.29 07:00:00 - [1322]

 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya

---

...For the ~45% of poor trusec (0.0 to -0.25) they are completely taking that away - people install the expensive ihub upgrades to get havens/sanctums...

---

Which says what about Sanctums exactly? The infinite easy money that the system upgrade represents has injected ludicrous amounts of ISK into the system.

Instead of climbing the walls and screaming like children, enter a dialogue to give those poor areas some benefit unavailable elsewhere.
Supercharged mining upgrades or increase to general industry outputs for instance.

Would yield a nice real world equivalent of small/few financial centres and a whole swath of agriculture/manufacturing areas.
Add ways to disrupt either (no, not AFK cloaking ) and you have scorched earth option, attrition, supply chain breaks and what not (dependent on force projection changes).

Don't know who the moron was who convinced everyone that it is their Goddess given right to be able to make 100M/hr minimum in Eve .. whomever it was should be shot.

Posted - 2011.03.29 07:05:00 - [1324]

 

Originally by: Zey Nadar

---

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:56:15
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:55:35

Originally by: Lord Zoran

---

Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way.

---

Seconded. Difficult = more work. Thats what it means. Thats what all the crapsack world attitude means. Having eve life more difficult is not going to make me fight more pvp, I can tell you that. If I get bored, I will stop subscription.

The biggest fail of this CCP plan is that they think this will make alliances fight more over territory..

---

Personally I don't have such an issue with difficulty, it's boring grind that I have a problem with. PvE is the boring grind in whatever form it comes in, PvP (which is much more difficult) is the only continually fun aspect of this game.

Posted - 2011.03.29 07:20:00 - [1326]

 

CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly"
Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech"
CCP: "Meh"
*CCP rebalances TII components*
*Tech price shoots in the sky*


CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built"
Players: "People will reprocess them for profit"
CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that"
*CCP makes POS stuff player-built*
*People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight*


CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies"
Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0"
CCP: "We know what we're doing"

...can you see where this is going?

Posted - 2011.03.29 07:24:00 - [1328]

 

Edited by: Starkiller Adams on 29/03/2011 07:24:32

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Originally by: Imigo Montoya

---

So same ISK coming in, less ISK going out = more ISK in the economy = inflation = bad.

---

The number of potential sanctums is dropping quite dramatically. I wouldn't really expect the same ISK input to the system.

Quote:

---

Point 2. I've had this discussion with Ernest Adams before (the Game Designer and co-founder of the International Game Developer's Association, not the baker) and his position is that the game mechanics are a effectively contract between dev and player and should be changed only under the most dire of circumstances and preferrably with player consent. In fact he's writing a thesis on the topic (I'm sure he'd be interested in consulting in this case - well worth the investment if you ask me).

---

The problem is that players are proven to be very bad at balancing, and taking away someone's silver spoon will always **** them off. They will never, ever give you consent to fix the game. They'll demand boosts elsewhere, even though it will always result in massive amounts of boosting of everything to get the same result. In a complex system, that kind of boosting is very dangerous and radically destabilizes the whole.

Quote:

---

My position was that the devs should make the choice that is best for the game, but I was referring to things like player imbalances (eg benefiting older players "just because"). I can very much see his point.

The changes made in Dominion were the dev's offer, and purchasing of upgrades and paying of bills by players was the acceptance. To completely take that away from large numbers of those (mostly small) alliances without any compensation would be a major breach of trust between the developer and community.

---

Two things:
- They are not completely taking that away. They are modifying it.
- Obviously, Dominion is not working out as they had originally envisioned it --- or they have discovered that how they originally envisioned it was fatally flawed. Expecting uninformed players who don't understand the basics of the economy to grasp that is asking a bit much though.

-Liang

---

your a republican arent you

Posted - 2011.03.29 07:27:00 - [1330]

 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya

---

Originally by: Zey Nadar

---

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:56:15
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:55:35

Originally by: Lord Zoran

---

Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way.

---

Seconded. Difficult = more work. Thats what it means. Thats what all the crapsack world attitude means. Having eve life more difficult is not going to make me fight more pvp, I can tell you that. If I get bored, I will stop subscription.

The biggest fail of this CCP plan is that they think this will make alliances fight more over territory..

---

Personally I don't have such an issue with difficulty, it's boring grind that I have a problem with. PvE is the boring grind in whatever form it comes in, PvP (which is much more difficult) is the only continually fun aspect of this game.

---

Ya and the PvP in this game is fun because there is actually something at stake. If you lose your ship and and are able to replace it without any trouble, where is the risk? Can't afford losing pimped out t3's or whatever it is that you need mass amounts of isk for, then fly something you can afford until you're good enough to not die so often. Or alternatively figure out another way to make money, although at first this might actually take some effort, again making those shiny ships you worked so hard for seem all that more significant when they go pop.

Posted - 2011.03.29 07:31:00 - [1332]

 

That isn't an isk sink since only minerals and whatever ships etc are destroyed.

Posted - 2011.03.29 07:42:00 - [1334]

 

Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat

---

That isn't an isk sink since only minerals and whatever ships etc are destroyed.

---

I stand corrected.

Posted - 2011.03.29 07:44:00 - [1336]

 

Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 29/03/2011 07:49:34

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

---

Instead of climbing the walls and screaming like children, enter a dialogue to give those poor areas some benefit unavailable elsewhere.
Supercharged mining upgrades or increase to general industry outputs for instance.

---

Fantastic. I'm living in nullsec because I wanted PvP, and now I'm forced to take a shovel and dig the rocks? It's like buying a ticket for the biggest, scariest roller coaster just to be transferred to a kiddie merry-go-round.

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

---

Don't know who the moron was who convinced everyone that it is their Goddess given right to be able to make 100M/hr minimum in Eve .. whomever it was should be shot.

---

Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier.

Posted - 2011.03.29 07:57:00 - [1338]

 

Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 29/03/2011 08:01:15

Originally by: Darth Gustav

---

Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik

---

Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier.

---

I can't remember who it was, but he claimed he used three accounts to achieve this. Carrier/Logi/Salvage combo.

Income per account involved would therefore be more like 33M/h.

---

hmm... that's still one dps ship. I know that Guristas space have bad loot and salvage, but never thought it was that bad.

Posted - 2011.03.29 08:01:00 - [1340]

 

I have taken some time to calm down and post, at first i was very upset and just wanted to post a your a f*cking moron to CCP.
But I have calmed down a bit so here we go.

CCP if your goal is to generate more conflict in 0.0, then this is not the way to do it.

Your purposed changes will increase the grind time for the people that do PVP in 0.0, we will have to grind much longer to generate the isk to replace our ships, which means less PVP in null sec.

This change will not generate conflict over the better null sec systems, the large power blocks will just take them all for there members so there people can replace ships, how does that help the smaller alliances?

Many of the smaller alliance or corp that rent space will lose there income to rent that space, and not to mention have to grind for more hours to generate the income required for PVP, so much for small corp/alliance ship replacement programs.

By the look of the purposed changes it seems a little one sided, you are nerfing the PVE but not the industry, if you are going to make changes you should make them balanced, IE... the same systems that will not get havens or sanctums will not spawn ABCS,M ore in them either, and the systems that get 2 and 3 times the havens and sanctums also get 2 and 3 times the ABCS,M ore as-well. Seeing as the changes will be making the rich richer and the poor poorer might as well, even it out so your not just nerfing the PVE people, the only right and proper thing to do.

If you truly want to improve null sec and get more conflict there, i would suggest the following.

Redistribute the moongoo.( Evenly )(Better yet remove it all, and switch over to system similar to PI for the t2 components)
Make some changes to black ops, allow them to jump other ships as well based on size ie...cruisers and below, and give them some range to there bridge.
Null sec needs a resource that can only be gotten in null sec.
Add a treaty system and charge a treaty maintenance fee. (Should be based on number of members in initiating corp/alliance)
Ability to drop more than one station in a system.
Remove the ability for a titan or super carrier to enter a POS shield.
Tie activity into sovereignty (You have to occupy it to keep it)
Remove ability for non sovereignty holding corps/alliance to declare war on sovereignty holding corps/alliance.
Allow corporations to hold sovereignty.

I think the above changes would permote a vibrant null sec, with a thriving population.

Speaking of fixing things, how about fixing POS's, list bellow.
Anchoring/unanchoring queue.
Onlining queue.
Ability to set better members access to the POS
Ability to let all blues use the POS.
A fitting window to drag and drop mods.
Ability to set Owner to POS.


I think most everyone that lives in null sec would agree the changes you purpose are not going to permote any conflict with the null sec alliances, the only conflict I see it causing is more conflict with your paying subscribers.

Thanks,
Currently a paying subscriber, and null sec dweller.

Posted - 2011.03.29 08:10:00 - [1342]

 

Originally by: Pineapple Bill

---

Redistribute the moongoo.( Evenly )(Better yet remove it all, and switch over to system similar to PI for the t2 components)
Make some changes to black ops, allow them to jump other ships as well based on size ie...cruisers and below, and give them some range to there bridge.
Null sec needs a resource that can only be gotten in null sec.
Add a treaty system and charge a treaty maintenance fee. (Should be based on number of members in initiating corp/alliance)
Ability to drop more than one station in a system.
Remove the ability for a titan or super carrier to enter a POS shield.
Tie activity into sovereignty (You have to occupy it to keep it)
Remove ability for non sovereignty holding corps/alliance to declare war on sovereignty holding corps/alliance.
Allow corporations to hold sovereignty.

---

Wow... a couple of ideas that are actually worse than Grayscale's devblog Congrats for the effort, I know it wasn't easy.

Posted - 2011.03.29 08:24:00 - [1344]

 

Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik

---

Originally by: Pineapple Bill

---

Redistribute the moongoo.( Evenly )(Better yet remove it all, and switch over to system similar to PI for the t2 components)
Make some changes to black ops, allow them to jump other ships as well based on size ie...cruisers and below, and give them some range to there bridge.
Null sec needs a resource that can only be gotten in null sec.
Add a treaty system and charge a treaty maintenance fee. (Should be based on number of members in initiating corp/alliance)
Ability to drop more than one station in a system.
Remove the ability for a titan or super carrier to enter a POS shield.
Tie activity into sovereignty (You have to occupy it to keep it)
Remove ability for non sovereignty holding corps/alliance to declare war on sovereignty holding corps/alliance.
Allow corporations to hold sovereignty.

---

Wow... a couple of ideas that are actually worse than Grayscale's devblog Congrats for the effort, I know it wasn't easy.

---

I think of my ideas would permote a better null sec, and be much better than CCP purposed changes, but then again I am not a null sec power-block member, I am one of the little guys that the changes CCP are purposing will screw.

I can totally understand why folks like yourself would think my ideas are bad or worse than CCP purposed changes.

Posted - 2011.03.29 08:31:00 - [1346]

 

Originally by: Kalle Demos

---

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash

---

CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly"
Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech"
CCP: "Meh"
*CCP rebalances TII components*
*Tech price shoots in the sky*


CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built"
Players: "People will reprocess them for profit"
CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that"
*CCP makes POS stuff player-built*
*People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight*


CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies"
Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0"
CCP: "We know what we're doing"

...can you see where this is going?

---

You do know CCP ONLY introduced these anoms in Dominion yeah, you have only had these bot havens just over a year AND 0.0 never even gained any population, removing them would hardly result in losing players.

This will also stop the supercap mass production and FINALLY kills will mean something, if you have a problem with this ask your leaders for better space, but dont complain to CCP about making space worth something.

Next you will say "its unfair that Jita has more more activity than Amarr", EVE isnt fair and was NEVER meant to be balanced, you have an issue take it up with Kim Jong Lau NOT CCP!!

Besides you will still make alot of ISK in 0.0 from other sources, not everyone needs to bot.

---

how will this effect scap production? this only reduces teh isk income for teh small players and corps.

id bet this actually increases scap production as there corps stuck with now fully upgraded **** systems have to replace that income

Posted - 2011.03.29 08:41:00 - [1348]

 

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash

---

CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly"
Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech"
CCP: "Meh"
*CCP rebalances TII components*
*Tech price shoots in the sky*


CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built"
Players: "People will reprocess them for profit"
CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that"
*CCP makes POS stuff player-built*
*People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight*


CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies"
Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0"
CCP: "We know what we're doing"

...can you see where this is going?

---

Oh so true. especially the post in the middle saying **** you all. We're doing it.

Posted - 2011.03.29 08:49:00 - [1350]

 

Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 29/03/2011 08:51:51
Let me see if I may come up with a better idea than CCP Greyscale, in about 5 minutes.
You may send me €5,000 for the effort later.



1) The problem. Too much ISK in too few hands and at entrenched locations, huge NAPs galore.

2) The non solution: nerf the grunts who live farming anomalies and other small fry alliances.

Why? Even a non Einstein would get it, that nerfing grunts and small fries won't foster new grunts and small fries going into 0.0.

Why won't it fix anything? Even a non Einstein would get it, that leaving the ONE godlike ISK source as is, nothing changes.


3) A possible solution: leave the grunts in peace and give small alliances a chance. Create depletable R32+ moons (or just add the material to existing ones in these moons) with low yield that may be milked by small alliances. Not in the north though .
Once a moon runs dry (PI already implemented the concept) have it keep feeding a residual material. Just enough for a small alliance to survive, and not enough for a big one to bother scattering everywhere.

When the moon runs dry and stays at "residual level", a random other elsewhere in 0.0 will refill. This will foster prospecting, moving around and will give small and nimble alliances a choice to "roam" and seek riches the huge blobs won't care enough to take.