open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked CCP, does it feel good to waste a lot of your developer time ?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 : last (18)

Author Topic

Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Naqam
Posted - 2009.06.18 23:27:00 - [481]
 

Wormholes are one of the best things to come to EVE

definately not a 'waste of time' Confused

Christopher Multsanti
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.06.18 23:39:00 - [482]
 

Originally by: ceaon
dont try to overlay your reality to other ppl, Akita is from other culture so dont apply your standards world wide


That train goes both ways my friend.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.19 00:14:00 - [483]
 

Originally by: Christopher Multsanti
It costs nothing to be nice you know. ugh

It gets excruciatingly painful to STAY nice for several years in a row without signs of improvement on older issues, but increasingly more signs of "screw the game world balance, let's make more cash by attracting as many newbies as possible".

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.30 02:56:00 - [484]
 

Nice touches on the T3 front, could be barely workable now, finally.

But still no improvements whatsoever on factional warfare, storefronts, alchemy, (lowsec) mining nor the UI.

Mirime Nolwe
APOCALYPSE LEGION
Posted - 2009.06.30 11:13:00 - [485]
 

11 Days bump, nice! I can bump it for you, at least people wont look at you as a atencion*****.

Evalyn Gerbil
Posted - 2009.06.30 11:27:00 - [486]
 

Oh, this old chestnut again. "Lots of players don't play the game the way I want. Lets stuff it up for them so I can get more targets in Lowsec" blah, blah, blah

Stogee
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
The Black Isle
Posted - 2009.06.30 12:32:00 - [487]
 

Edited by: Stogee on 30/06/2009 12:35:35
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 23/05/2009 11:02:47
Originally by: Durzel
And yet it seems, as always, that you hold all the obvious & easy-to-implement-with-no-collateral-damage-whatsoever answers to everything. You should work for CCP!

Hey, what do you know, I do ! You say it in a sarcastic tone yet fail to provide any counter-point as to why they WOULDN'T be obvious and easy to implement solutions. And it's not like I'm the ONLY guy with thi kind of ideas. I'm just one of the more vocal ones LATELY.

And no, I wouldn't want to work for CCP, it's obvious they have plenty of people with good ideas, yet somebody somewhere is frakin' up the priorities and details of it all.
So, no, I would no longer want to work for CCP even if they made me a personal offer. I used to, once upon a time, but that was almost two years ago. Now, hell, no way.
That is, unless I see a change in the way they resolve things. Unlikely, but you never know.





You wouldnt make a good developer. You are a typical armchair designer, all ideas with no concept of the real issues or development. Why wouldnt it be easy to implement said ideas? Easy, from someone who is a developer:

1) You dont know their pipeline.
2) You dont know their toolchain.
(how could I forget)
3) You dont know their codebase.

Therefore, you have no concept of the pitfalls or hurdles to be overcome in implementing a spec and so would see it as easy.

And talking of implementation and development, my understanding is that any spec takes approximately 6-12 months? turnaround to get into the game. So to imply that someone is messing up priorites and details at a professional and quite frankly successful development house is pretty damn rude.

What have you ever worked on? amateur, commercial or otherwise?

Sgt Napalm
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.06.30 17:41:00 - [488]
 

This thread is gold

Ulstan
Posted - 2009.06.30 19:15:00 - [489]
 

L4 missions are fine.

The L4 mission running crowd and the industrialists capable of running tech 3 production chains simply do not overlap that much at all.

It doesn't matter how profitable tech 3 invention is, the vast majority of your L4 mission runners simply will never do it, because they lack the skills to do it, the knowledge to do it, and the willingness to go risk their ships in low sec/WH space to do it.

Hence, your analysis is severely flawed. Tech 3 is not failing because all the potential inventors/reactor POS operators are running L4 missions instead. Rolling Eyes

baltec1
Posted - 2009.06.30 19:19:00 - [490]
 

Rather that go over again why your wrong I am just going to point you to the star wars galaxies forums which will show you just how good we have it here.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.30 19:43:00 - [491]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 30/06/2009 19:53:53
Originally by: Stogee
And talking of implementation and development, my understanding is that any spec takes approximately 6-12 months? turnaround to get into the game. So to imply that someone is messing up priorites and details at a professional and quite frankly successful development house is pretty damn rude.

6-12 months you say ? Well, let's see...

Factional warfare has been the focus of one MAJOR patch one year ago, it went live then.
Even before it went live, the issue everybody was complaining about was lack of rewards, and CCP said "well, we only want a framework right now, and we'll see about the rewards Soon™, when the framework is stable".
Well, the framework IS as stable as it can be, since they haven't touched it much (if at all) in nearly one year - and there are still no CLEAR objectives, no SIGNIFICANT rewards, no nothing.

Storefronts, ok, they were not ready back then in Midas (repurposes and renamed Quantum Rise), because they did next to nothing what the people would have wanted them to do. If the "delay" would be 6-12 months between initial idea and actual implementation, the fact we had storefronts on SiSi in a lousy, incomplete and not very desirable form can only mean they were working on them for a while already. In spite of them being a trader's (and a manufacturer's) wet dream, they either ceased working on them altogether when they were halfway done, or they're taking too damn long working on them in secrecy.


Alchemy, it's all there, all they would HAVE to do is make a couple of database entry changes (material used, amount used), nothing else. They have had more than ample time to observe how alchemy works (and it works, to a degree), or more precisely, why it's inconsequential (it couldn't compete volume-wise with the demand even BEFORE the POS exploit was quenched, and now it's much worse). How many months does it take to change a couple of numbers ? Still 6-12 months ?

And the UI ? We've heard of a "team of UI designers" for a lot longer than just one year. Well, I don't see any SIGNIFICANT improvements in the UI, do you ?

And the nastiest one... mining in general (and lowsec mining in particular) has been a problem ever since the introduction of the drone regions, and that was YEARS ago. We've had threads trying to address the issue (regarded as an emergency) more than two years ago. By all means, try to explain that it takes 2-3 years to put that through the pipelines.

Basically, it's like this : CCP guys have been running a marathon, the finish line is in sight, but they stop for a second to take a breather before crossing it... and at the last minute, they say "screw it, we have to run a marathon tomorrow too, we'll just go get some rest now, we won't finish this one". Then the same situation is repeated the next day. And the next.

Rude ? Well, it damn well should be rude. They should be able to do much better than that.

Ben Sausage
Posted - 2009.06.30 19:50:00 - [492]
 

Originally by: Kateryne
There's a far more simple, and elegant solution - move L4 agents into low-sec.
In fact, striate the entire heirarchy of agents as follows:
1.0 - Tutorials
0.9 to 0.8 - L1 Agents
0.7 to 0.6 - L2 Agents
0.5 and down - L3 Agents
0.4 and down - L4 Agents
Or something like that.

That will shift the mission running hubs into low-sec areas where there is much higher risk facto, which would detract from the high rewards.
It would mean that the market hubs would have to shift out a bit, and there'd be more risk if traders decided to sell in low-sec.
It would also bring more use to low-sec space because, frankly, currently you get your mission runners, traders and miners in high-sec and your territory holding alliances and pvpers in null-sec.


This is the best idea.

Regat Kozovv
Caldari
Alcothology
Posted - 2009.06.30 20:25:00 - [493]
 

I find it amusing how "CCP" and "the Developers" are treated as separate entities here. Like, there's some shadowy council that hands down commandments from on high to their automations below, the former an evil tyrant and the latter a mash of oppressed masses.

If I were a developer of CCP who has to read this dribble on occasion, I might be offended.

I certainly emphasize with many of your points. And I find your assessment entirely accurate that many features have either been sidelined, forgotten, or not finished.

In the end though, we're paying for the product we have, not for what we think we might get. You and I of course are welcome to guess and wager, being that we invest time in this. There's certainly a case to be made that we could "tough it out" for a while until the game matures into something we want. We all have out cutoff point though, and I can't help but feel a little bit of respect for those who leave their angry rant on General Discussion on why they're leaving. Sure, it's mostly troll-bait, but a lot of them do leave. This game isn't for everyone, and a good responsible consumer will terminate their subscription when they feel it's no longer worth their money.

I certainly wouldn't recommend you cease brining your concerns forward, but it seems to me the hostility is misplaced. Do you think that as a result, The developers of CCP will be sympathetic to you after hearing your insinuated accusations which I have illustrated above? Will Torfi or Oveur go "gee, Akita T is ****ed. ALL HANDS, RIGHT FULL RUDDER! STOREFRONTS HO!" I don't.

Being a 4 year veteran, there are certainly lots of things I would like to see changed that pertain to me. New Player Experiences and how many SP a new 'toon gets doesn't really apply to me. But CCP is a business, and the revenue from 100 new players, no matter how n00b, is far more important than my measly contributions per month. I certainly don't feel as though they value me that little, but I wouldn't fault them for looking to cater to growth rather than my every need.

Indeed, if I were a developer working on new content, who had to push aside other features (the reasons thereof we are not privy to, and therefor, can only make idle speculation about) to make way for new ones to keep the game growing, I might take solice in the fact that accidentally deleting one EVE online account would have a small impact on my bottom line when my features were drawing hundreds of new players.

Unless you're referring to the ongoing forum problems. The load decrease might help things significantly. Wink


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.30 20:40:00 - [494]
 

Originally by: Regat Kozovv
I certainly emphasize with many of your points. And I find your assessment entirely accurate that many features have either been sidelined, forgotten, or not finished.

Thanks.

Quote:
We all have out cutoff point though, and I can't help but feel a little bit of respect for those who leave their angry rant on General Discussion on why they're leaving. Sure, it's mostly troll-bait, but a lot of them do leave. This game isn't for everyone, and a good responsible consumer will terminate their subscription when they feel it's no longer worth their money.

And that was the secondary focus of this thread, to some degree.

Quote:
I certainly wouldn't recommend you cease brining your concerns forward, but it seems to me the hostility is misplaced. Do you think that as a result, The developers of CCP will be sympathetic to you after hearing your insinuated accusations which I have illustrated above?

My only hope is that some of the devs that still play EVE (remember the times when playing EVE was a silent "almost requirement" for being a CCP employee?) might feel the same, and get angry enough with their own management to push for a "fix" on some of those issues harder than they already are (because, well, it's not getting fixed yet).


Quote:
But CCP is a business, and the revenue from 100 new players, no matter how n00b, is far more important than my measly contributions per month. I certainly don't feel as though they value me that little, but I wouldn't fault them for looking to cater to growth rather than my every need.

Player retention is just as important as an influx of new players.

Most of the players I know were drawn to EVE by word of mouth, not huge advertising campaigns.
They were drawn in by enthusiastic users who wanted to share the EVE experience with friends, and were captivated by how nice all of it was, and how everything was constantly improving.

Nowadays, I would find it extremely difficult to convince any friends to join, when I have the feeling EVE as a game is stagnating, or even getting ever so slightly worse in quality as time goes by, and this thread was also about pointing out the many issues that I feel would benefit greatly from even the least bit of developer attention (but they don't seem to be getting any).

There is a great deal of effort expended by CCP on bringing new content and new "whatever", and I am NOT saying they shouldn't do that... they should, and it's good that they are.
What I am saying is that this "new content" should never be put LONG-TERM above the continuous improvement of the basics, which would make less people leave, or draw in many more through word-of-mouth.

Stogee
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
The Black Isle
Posted - 2009.07.01 09:13:00 - [495]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 30/06/2009 19:53:53
Originally by: Stogee
And talking of implementation and development, my understanding is that any spec takes approximately 6-12 months? turnaround to get into the game. So to imply that someone is messing up priorites and details at a professional and quite frankly successful development house is pretty damn rude.

6-12 months you say ? Well, let's see...

Factional warfare has been the focus of one MAJOR patch one year ago, it went live then.
Even before it went live, the issue everybody was complaining about was lack of rewards, and CCP said "well, we only want a framework right now, and we'll see about the rewards Soon™, when the framework is stable".
Well, the framework IS as stable as it can be, since they haven't touched it much (if at all) in nearly one year - and there are still no CLEAR objectives, no SIGNIFICANT rewards, no nothing.

Storefronts, ok, they were not ready back then in Midas (repurposes and renamed Quantum Rise), because they did next to nothing what the people would have wanted them to do. If the "delay" would be 6-12 months between initial idea and actual implementation, the fact we had storefronts on SiSi in a lousy, incomplete and not very desirable form can only mean they were working on them for a while already. In spite of them being a trader's (and a manufacturer's) wet dream, they either ceased working on them altogether when they were halfway done, or they're taking too damn long working on them in secrecy.


Alchemy, it's all there, all they would HAVE to do is make a couple of database entry changes (material used, amount used), nothing else. They have had more than ample time to observe how alchemy works (and it works, to a degree), or more precisely, why it's inconsequential (it couldn't compete volume-wise with the demand even BEFORE the POS exploit was quenched, and now it's much worse). How many months does it take to change a couple of numbers ? Still 6-12 months ?

And the UI ? We've heard of a "team of UI designers" for a lot longer than just one year. Well, I don't see any SIGNIFICANT improvements in the UI, do you ?

And the nastiest one... mining in general (and lowsec mining in particular) has been a problem ever since the introduction of the drone regions, and that was YEARS ago. We've had threads trying to address the issue (regarded as an emergency) more than two years ago. By all means, try to explain that it takes 2-3 years to put that through the pipelines.

Basically, it's like this : CCP guys have been running a marathon, the finish line is in sight, but they stop for a second to take a breather before crossing it... and at the last minute, they say "screw it, we have to run a marathon tomorrow too, we'll just go get some rest now, we won't finish this one". Then the same situation is repeated the next day. And the next.

Rude ? Well, it damn well should be rude. They should be able to do much better than that.



Seems as though my post went entirely over your head and the points I listed mean nothing to you. Again, in response to your entire post, please see my original 3 listed points.

Again, i'll ask, what have you ever worked on in any capacity in game development?

BIZZAROSTORMY
Posted - 2009.07.01 09:26:00 - [496]
 

Edited by: BIZZAROSTORMY on 01/07/2009 09:26:50
Edited by: BIZZAROSTORMY on 01/07/2009 09:26:24
those were not "points", Stogee those were lame 'gotcha' questions.

A point is when you have something to say, not finding a reason to tell someone else to shut up.

And even if Akita or amyone else has never worked as a game designer that doesnt mean they ought to keep their mouths shut when CCP explicitly provide a forum for the goddam game.

I have never worked in politics or run a country, but you you know what? I still get to vote in general elections. Now why is that do you think?

MadScientistv1
Posted - 2009.07.01 09:53:00 - [497]
 

Edited by: MadScientistv1 on 01/07/2009 09:58:50
oops wrong character

= Stogee

Originally by: BIZZAROSTORMY
Edited by: BIZZAROSTORMY on 01/07/2009 09:26:50
Edited by: BIZZAROSTORMY on 01/07/2009 09:26:24
those were not "points", Stogee those were lame 'gotcha' questions.

A point is when you have something to say, not finding a reason to tell someone else to shut up.

And even if Akita or amyone else has never worked as a game designer that doesnt mean they ought to keep their mouths shut when CCP explicitly provide a forum for the goddam game.

I have never worked in politics or run a country, but you you know what? I still get to vote in general elections. Now why is that do you think?


They werent lame gotcha, they were valid points, as akita asked why something wouldnt be easy to do. They are exactly why something wouldnt be easy to do. So how are they not points please?

Never having worked as a developer is also why someone wouldnt understand what is easy to do and what is not. Akita is being extremely rude on the basis that he/she thinks they have all the obvious answers and 'easy to implement solutions'. So far as to claim 'an idiot could see'.

Thats when ill tell someone they should consider thinking before speaking.

Thats also a different kettle of fish, as politics is exactly that, politics. As opposed to game development is mainly technical in nature.

If you want to use politics as an example, then the difference is, your in a democracy. Whereas Eve is a dictatorship you willing join or leave.

Lt Angus
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.07.01 16:32:00 - [498]
 

Much love for this thread Razz
Can't believe how many people disagreed with Akita, mostly due to lack of reading skills but still Laughing

Blnukem 192
Amarr
The Imperial Fedaykin
Posted - 2009.07.01 16:42:00 - [499]
 

Good lord... This thread is still alive?!

Someone lock it, quickly!

5pinDizzy
Amarr
Pillow Fighters Inc
Posted - 2009.07.01 16:56:00 - [500]
 

I think you are a little hard Akita.

Balance is always contested and some bugs are really hard and complicated to fix, even with tons of time and people working on it.

The only thing I'm seeing CCP failing to take any action on atm is;

- Rockets, not a single person has ever argued they were fine I think.

- The Interface, now I understand if you've got complicated big replacements in the pipeline it'd take a while, but it doesn't hurt to do temporary minifixes and it's one thing to say you've got people working on improving the interface, it's another after you've said that to release new content which adds even more bad user interface. Really simple things could've been added to stop frustrating people time and time again making me rip my hair out, such as MOVING THE RECALL ALL PROBES BUTTON AWAY FROM ANALYSE OR YES/NO CONFIRMATION WINDOW. Evil or Very Mad

wickedpheonix
Caldari
Guy Fawkes Trust Fund
31ST Reliables Division
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:47:00 - [501]
 

I don't think this topic is so much of a "how do other activities compare to the High-Sec L4 baseline?" thread as it is a "the HS L4 baseline is too high" thread.

Which is something we need to agree on, first and formost - that hisec L4's need to be fixed. Somehow. Whether that means nerfing hisec L4's, or buffing everything else, or some combination, something needs to be done. If you do not agree, you either a) have a conflict of interest, or b) you've never run a HS L4 (properly or at all).

So for right now I would settle from a statement from a dev saying that they recognize that hisec L4's are broken.

I agree with the OP. I think CCP would do well to go back and realize that high-sec is really just supposed to be tutorial land, very unprofitable but safe so that newbies can get their bearings. "Real EVE" is in low-sec or null-sec (depending on whether you prefer large scale organization or small), but everything that people do in high-sec is doable in low-sec or null-sec with enough protection. Mining? Get protection. Hauling? Get protection. Protection comes from linking up with other players because EVE is not a solo game.

I personally think that CCP should nerf high-sec L4's instead of buffing other high-sec activities not just because players need to get out of high-sec, but because the amount of buffing needed to be done to all of these other activities makes it very likely that at least some of the buffs will be broken and then we'll be back where we are now, i.e. the more fixing you do, the more broken it becomes, so try to restrict yourself to simple fixes so that if it does unbalance, it's simple to whack it back into place.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.07.01 19:36:00 - [502]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 01/07/2009 19:44:36

Originally by: Stogee
Seems as though my post went entirely over your head and the points I listed mean nothing to you. Again, in response to your entire post
1) You dont know their pipeline.
2) You dont know their toolchain.
(how could I forget)
3) You dont know their codebase.

Of course I don't know their EXACT pipeline/toolchain/codebase, I'd have to be a dev there to know it all... but that's irrelevant since the only thing that matters is THE END RESULT.
Having a poorly organized pipeline, an insufficiently developed toolset or a huge arcane codebase is no excuse for being unable to do BALANCE changes that have next to nothing to do with tools or code in a timely fashion.
I was merely focusing on the only thing that matters, namely the end result.
I shouldn't have to CARE what thier internal process is, how they choose to have it is of absolutely no consequence, the only thing that matters is the end result.
And the end result was that "6-12 months to do something".

I then picked the major issues that are still open since god knows when, and slapped them across your "6-12 months" timeline of "needed time".
How about you answer me why they need so long on any of those things, especially since most of them are NOT coding-related issues, but something even a layman could easily change ?
Or do you believe the DECISION-MAKING process should also take not just 6-12 months, but 1-2 years ?

I am not criticizing the developers themselves, I am criticizing the slow-as-heck (and completely illogical, sometimes) decision-making process at CCP.
The reasons why it takes so long are completely irrelevant. All that matters is that it's way too long for things that should have been considered a priority.

Quote:
Again, i'll ask, what have you ever worked on in any capacity in game development?

Would you believe it if I told you I have ?
Would you tell me my opinions are irrelevant if I told you I haven't ?
Does it MATTER ?

Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.07.01 19:44:00 - [503]
 

Originally by: Evalyn Gerbil
Oh, this old chestnut again. "Lots of players don't play the game the way I want. Lets stuff it up for them so I can get more targets in Lowsec" blah, blah, blah


This. Akita is a feared lowsec pirate who is just looking for more people to blow up.







Laughing

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.07.01 19:46:00 - [504]
 

Originally by: Kahega Amielden
This. Akita is a feared lowsec pirate who is just looking for more people to blow up.Laughing

Yeah, I hear I once singlehandedly destroyed a fleet of carebear freighters in lowsec or somesuch Laughing

LordValia
Posted - 2009.07.01 20:25:00 - [505]
 

Ok, 17 pages worth of posts is something I am definitely not going to read. Nonetheless, I read the original argument, and I have to say that Akita makes a very good point about new features. When you make new features, you have to keep the player in mind. The player does not care about what actually changed. They care about what SEEMS to have changed and how it affects THEM. The player won't perceive any change in gameplay unless there is an incentive to use it. If the user does not perceive any change, the game has not changed at all. In order for the user to perceive an increase in features, you have to provide more meaningful choices than before. If there is a dominant strategy to the game(as Akita points out to be L4's), there are no meaningful choices to be made; you simply just choose the dominant strategy every time. One way to create meaningful choices is by balancing for which Akita has provided two options. I can't say if those are good choices to change them or if there exist much more elegant ways of solving the problem. From my experience in programming, I have to say that fixing by "addition"(adding case structures or more rules) is rarely the most elegant solution because most of these kind of fixes come from a lack of understanding of the program flow. Usually the most elegant fix makes your code shorter than it was before. Just my thoughts on possible direction for the fix. Comment away. Very Happy

Rilwar
BlackStar Industrial
Posted - 2009.07.01 20:36:00 - [506]
 

Originally by: LordValia
Ok, 17 pages worth of posts is something I am definitely not going to read............Comment away. Very Happy



Ok, crappy wall of text with no line breaks no one's going to read.

</comment>

LordValia
Posted - 2009.07.01 21:47:00 - [507]
 

Originally by: Rilwar
Originally by: LordValia
Ok, 17 pages worth of posts is something I am definitely not going to read............Comment away. Very Happy



Ok, crappy wall of text with no line breaks no one's going to read.

</comment>


Well, you apparently read it since you read the comment about "Comment away" and most people won't read the end of a "wall of text" so I take that as a sign. Secondly, it's a "wall of text" because I'm presenting an argument - not a handful of sentences injection where the purpose and reasoning is all but left out. Plus, I don't want those kinds of people who don't take the time to read to comment on my post. Good idea isn't it?

*deep breath* Here's your line break. Enjoy. Razz

Daemonspirit
Six Degrees of Separation
Posted - 2009.07.04 15:13:00 - [508]
 

Edited by: Daemonspirit on 04/07/2009 15:15:02
Originally by: Kateryne
There's a far more simple, and elegant solution - move L4 agents into low-sec.
In fact, striate the entire heirarchy of agents as follows:
1.0 - Tutorials
0.9 to 0.8 - L1 Agents
0.7 to 0.6 - L2 Agents
0.5 and down - L3 Agents
0.4 and down - L4 Agents
Or something like that.

That will shift the mission running hubs into low-sec areas where there is much higher risk facto, which would detract from the high rewards.
It would mean that the market hubs would have to shift out a bit, and there'd be more risk if traders decided to sell in low-sec.
It would also bring more use to low-sec space because, frankly, currently you get your mission runners, traders and miners in high-sec and your territory holding alliances and pvpers in null-sec.



This would simply shift mission runners from Lvl 4's, to lvl 3's. It would also decrease:

Minerals from reprocessing (good imho),
Isk in the game (good or bad, depending on your POV),
(IMHO)- it wouldn't budge market hubs at all, people are creatures of habit - it might, over years, move them, but I doubt it.


It would just change the (if I understand the point of your post) "people aren't leaving Hi-sec" argument from Lvl 4's to Lvl 3's. I understand those who want to build their Corps/Alliances/Empires being grumpy with players who don't wish to leave empire, it slows down and decreases what they can do.

There are a significant group of players for whom taking risks w/their gear isn't attractive... These are risk adverse players, and (from the ones I know), changing lvl 4's will do nothing to move them.

The only concrete result I can perceive from reducing content in hi-sec would be (when enough content was removed) to make the bored, risk averse players leave. That is of course only my opinion, but it fits with what I know of people/gamers in general.

I think (when speaking of Lvl 4's), the risk averse player has to be considered as well as they are part of the subscription base. CCP has done a fairly decent job of providing different "areas" in the "sand box" for different playstyles...

I also believe Akita makes a couple of good points. vOv The recent patch to T-3 industry and drop rates are a good case in point...
Originally by: Rilwar
Originally by: LordValia
Ok, 17 pages worth of posts is something I am definitely not going to read............Comment away. Very Happy


Ok, crappy wall of text with no line breaks no one's going to read.
</comment>

/me blushes... I read it... Laughing




Kazuma Saruwatari
Posted - 2009.07.04 15:44:00 - [509]
 

Leave it to Akita T to drop a thread of potential win/fail.

Akita T, you raise points that I, as a paying customer, always find as an inconvenient truth that the new "shinies" that CCP continue to add are unfortunately a bit off, or totally off the mark.

Whilst I cannot comment on Alchemy (for being a practitioner of the Art of Pewpew), I can agree wholeheartedly with FW.

Simply, FW has no point, other than bragging rights. There's no reward for the risk, and is currently an ISK sink for most FW participants. Sure it may be "fun", but remember, as fun requires ISK in EVE majority of the time...

I however do emote some resentment with your basis of "ISK making" in the form of highsec lvl4's. Highsec lvl4's have been a rather huge stain on the somewhat balanced risk/reward chart that EVE currently holds. Unfortunately, with the base cost of most of anything in EVE, Highsec lvl4's turn into the psuedo-baseline due to their isk vs effort ratio.

A lot of people have already given the malformed, and suspiciously convenient suggestion that moving lvl4's to lowsec would solve this glaring problem in the risk/reward balance, but in reality, would simply deny ISK from the system to begin with (and even reduce player numbers, with the sensible quitters opting to speak with their wallets instead of emorage posts).

There's a bigger issue with the risk/reward status quo than simply nerfing highsec lvl4's or boosting everything else. If you nerf 0.5+ lvl4's, you cut ISK from the system, increasing frustration levels amongst players, and more importantly, deny players the ISK to use for "fun" activities such as PvP.

On this note, not everyone has access to 0.0 to make their ISK, nor have the skills, connections (IRL and ingame), or even will (ohgo- scawy 0.0 >_< ) to make the jump to keep their ISK/hr up, so arguing the fact that people should just suck it up and head to 0.0 for isk is flawed.

Not everyone appreciates ANY change to risk vs reward status quo, especially that highsec lvl4's have been around so long, they're basically part and parcel of EVE as a whole. Change something that is essentially a fundamental part of EVE, you risk a playerbase reaction not dissimilar to the CU/NGE fiasco of SWG.

Now, lets see what would happen if you BOOST FW/Alchem/T3. You basically can do two things:

1. Make them ISK generators/attractors (ISK transferance).
2. Make them cost less ISK to get to the fun/end result.

Option 1 would essentially turn them into alternatives to a lvl4. True, the risk is there, but the reward is there as well. Lets say the current risk/reward for highsec lvl4 is 4 reward to 1 risk, 4/1 (yes, rough numbers, trying to get a point across here). If you, say, boost things so that the reward is 5, but the risk is 2 or 3, people may just decide to take the plunge and risk potential PvP and losses for greater gains.

Its the most basic law in keeping crowd interest. Carrot-on-stick. If you entice players with the carrot long enough so that he ignores the hard rough ground (and even spikes and sharp glass) along the way, he'll still try to go for the carrot. Let them have a bigger bite.

Option 2, to me personally, is a more viable and more EVE-centric approach. Basically, reduce the risk to match the reward. For example, FW currently rewards less than lvl4's for the potential losses akin to lowsec and empire wars. Reduce the risk then. Have FW NPC corps give out some T1 shipping, T1 modules, even pay for their insurance cost on their ship whilst they are part of the FW. This reduces the ISK sinkage for players up to a point (T2 of course, is not covered due to the large disparity between mineral cost vs market cost), keeping them in the fight and less in grinding back the ISK they've lost.

Just added my 0.02 isk, out of respect for Akita T's work in the skills section of the forum which has helped me greatly in the past for planning my current skillset.

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2009.07.04 16:00:00 - [510]
 

Originally by: Ben Sausage
Originally by: Kateryne
There's a far more simple, and elegant solution - move L4 agents into low-sec.
In fact, striate the entire heirarchy of agents as follows:
1.0 - Tutorials
0.9 to 0.8 - L1 Agents
0.7 to 0.6 - L2 Agents
0.5 and down - L3 Agents
0.4 and down - L4 Agents
Or something like that.

That will shift the mission running hubs into low-sec areas where there is much higher risk facto, which would detract from the high rewards.
It would mean that the market hubs would have to shift out a bit, and there'd be more risk if traders decided to sell in low-sec.
It would also bring more use to low-sec space because, frankly, currently you get your mission runners, traders and miners in high-sec and your territory holding alliances and pvpers in null-sec.


This is the best idea.


As long as there are only level 5 missions in 0.0 right? No more level 4s in 0.0 will make sense following this logic (So um, nice try but no thanks!)

missions are self balancing. Stop tipping what you don't appear to understand (comprehension appears to be ISK made and nothing else).



Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 : last (18)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only