open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Sovereignty: Emergence is neat
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (17)

Author Topic

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2009.09.15 15:03:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: yunger
Right now my worries are falling down to pretty few points as the dev communication falls in but still worried about 3 points.

1, logistics, I live in the ass of space far from empire, to get stuff I need to jump a lot of cyno arrays to empire. A few of them being far from our space deep in allied space, also with alternative routes so we don’t get our arrays camped or get logistic problems if one falls.

Will this expansion be a nerf for all alliances that live in deep space forcing all our logistic pilots to get a bunch of cyno alts? (5 cyno points to empire and back with a carrier taking the shortest way)


2, And if we will be able to hold only a limited amount of space will we be able to upgrade before we are forced to withdraw? Our alliance peaks at close to 400 members online when there is no pvp going on that might be 100+ people out ratting, (not many regions can support that). If system is bellow -0,4 or has less then 7 belts doing level 4 missions earns you more cash. So will we be able to upgrade some space fairly quickish or will we be forced move to empire with half our chars and while upgrading systems with “lowers trusec 0,05 points” upgrades that takes 3 months each level, for 2 years first.


3, lack of cap fights :( never did like roaming around with small ships I’m all in for the epic cap slugfests.



1) To be very blunt and straightforward about this, yes, we are deliberately making your life more difficult in this patch. In order to prevent complete stagnation in nullsec, there need to be more desirable and less desirable areas. One way we can do this is by continuing to leverage truesec to some (probably slightly reduced) degree to keep differentiating space that way. Another way is to make logistics to far-flung areas (which are sometimes but not always the most valuable areas in truesec terms) more of a challenge, which gives us a second axis of differentiation. Then you have, in rough terms, a choice between a) rich and easy logistics, b) rich and hard logistics, c) poor and easy logistics and d) poor and hard logistics. More interesting choices, and all of them add value, even d), because that's going to be the ass end of space that no big alliance wants, which some small and dedicated alliance will claim, build up a really good logistics team and then go on to become one of the next big superpowers.

The downside is that some people right now are going to have a hard time come the transition. It's unfortunate, and I apologize for the necessity Confused

2) It should be possible to get at least basic upgrades in a reasonably short timeframe, but we're not currently balanced in this area so YMMV on release day.

3) Less cynojammers may mean more cap fights. We'll see what happens.

Originally by: Draco Argen
Quick one.
@Grescale you mentioned in one of your replies "what might help NRDS style play" in 0.0 (unless i read wrong)

One simple answer, The ability for a player to share/borrow standings outside any existing Corps, Aliances. Or at very least "switch to" the standings of another Aliance. In other words replace CVA's home brew KOS checker with a standing system you can look at, at a glance, in game. It should abandon your normal standings, In empire Jim may be your enemy, but in X Aliances space you must play nice. I fear "treaties" will just be big boy politics and cut out the natural qubiling that goes on within social groups or entities.

This would allow very flexible politics. Not just NRDS, but more complex NBSI, etc. Not necessarily bound to alliances themselves.

And can we ask that we clean up this "A whole Alliance cant have standing to a corp, or player" thing, yes we can. Just Eve wont let us set it lol.

Thanks for your time.


This sounds like something we can probably build into treaties, via some kind of "adopt the other alliance's standings (where relevant)" type of mechanic. We're not at a stage yet where we can talk about details here though.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2009.09.15 15:09:00 - [212]
 

Originally by: Jowen Datloran
So, an ability to look up an entity's (faction/alliance/corporation/pilot) self set standings and with a quick right click select to copy those standings to yourself or your corporation/alliance depending on your privileges. A nice idea.


A "sync standings" button is also a very neat idea that we may follow up on Smile

Originally by: jst tstng
Good read.

Just one question

Quote:
the dust has settled


Shouldn't this be "the dust have settled"?


I'm actually not sure. I think dust is singular in this case. I'll ask our editor for a ruling.

Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Is the assertion that empire shouldn't be messed with, in order to avoid the risk where empire gameplay is ruined.


I reworded that bit a couple of times before I was happy with it. Specific words chosen in the end, for reference:

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
because we obviously have to be careful not to ruin the gameplay for everyone in empire by accident


If we decide it necessary to ruin gameplay on purpose (THIS IS VERY UNLIKELY AND AN ALL-AROUND SILLY MOVE I'M BEING HYPOTHETICAL HERE), and we got sign-off from stakeholders for it, then we'd probably go ahead with it. More saliently, if we decided that changes could and should be made to empire gameplay that did not ruin it and also benefited nullsec, we'd probably go ahead with those, too. What we're specifically and very carefully doing our best to avoid here is changing some stuff without thinking about the consequences and then upsetting the entire empire-based playerbase. That would be silly and I wanted to reassure those players that we're thinking about them too, and not just off on a "let's improve nullsec at the indiscriminate expense of all other playstyles" trip. The intent was very much not to assert that we shouldn't touch empire space on principle, as it does very obviously closely relate to the nullsec situation specifically in the economics, and if I've failed to convey that fully I apologize Smile

Togakure
Sniggerdly
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:09:00 - [213]
 

Edited by: Togakure on 15/09/2009 15:11:16
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
<Best commentary in this thread>


To expand on what DigitalCommunist has said. You're fixing an unscalable system - great, but from what is already presented, there is still no incentive for empire dwellers to come to nullsec. It is too easy to make ISK in empire without 90% of the risk, even if that money is 1/10 less. It is simply not worth the effort.

In order to bring people to nullsec, the peons need to be able to make ISK quicker and easier than Empire. The smart empire guy needs to know that idiot in nullsec is outpacing him in spite of the being a r3tard. That's when empire dwellers will come out. As it stands right now with high sec POSes, unlimited manufacturing, and easy missioning, it's no worth the trouble.

Adam Ridgway
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:18:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: The Mittani
every major 0.0 alliance has logistics and production divisions and specialists who handle those aspects of nullsec, just as they have specialists focused on grand strategy, fleet combat, and war in general.


Problem is in reality usually you need a backbone of 10 men behind the lines to support a single foot soldier in the frontlines. Compared to EVE the ratio is ridicolous high.


I know, grinding (in whatever form) is boring, but 'hard work' is actually what makes EVE special, losing all your hard work to other entity in the game is what creates all the drama all you like so much.

Right now the pressure of 'hard work' is put in a very small dedicated players within the alliances, which profit mostlly from the static moon mining. CCP is trying to spread the hard work to all the alliance and at the same time most of it will benefit from it, and with this a whole load of side effects will come in (all explained in the blog and from Greyscale's answers within the topic).

I'm hopefull all will play out, by spect at least 3 major expansions until this starts to work out and a lot of pain in the trip.


MFWood
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:22:00 - [215]
 

Excellent changes , glad to see CCP addressing some of the major issues that have held back the greater numbers from taking part in the 0.0 sandbox.

One thing that is really needed though as an additional way of taking the lions share of attention off of dyspro and prom would be to make better use of the other r64s, thulium and neodymium as they are pretty much a joke as they are now and don't even deserve to be considered r64. Its like clasifying civilian shield boosters as UBER mods.

Has CCP any plans to increase the need for the 2 lesser used r64s, such as adding in more advanced materials and redefining some of the t2 parts like reactors to be racially grouped, instead of all ferrogel (dyspro/prom) based? To mess with it in other ways wouldn't level the r64s (all 4 of them) at a lower price level, but would instead just either drastically reduce the value of the current 2 giants by increasing supply of them, or would rediculously inflate a couple of lower rarity mins to levels that would not accurately represent their true availability such as is the case with cadmium now.

Increasing the number of required uses for the other r64s seems to be the logical step as it would also make a whole new plethora of systems valuable fighting grounds instead of the current "own the dyspro, own the region" mentality now.

Armoured Gamer
Gallente
Legion of EVE
The ENTITY.
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:35:00 - [216]
 

well least we will see space being used and the option to upgrade your resources is pretty good since then any 0.0 space is potentially a danger zone as the notion " wow that space isn't worth it" wont arrise.

maybe a new sov type map for level of resources thingiemabob is needed for this!

iP0D
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:35:00 - [217]
 

Originally by: Professor Dumbledore
I R havin problems


Aside of having hired a resident Economist, posts like these make me wonder if it is not perhaps time for CCP to hire a resident Psychologist, in order to provide relief for traumatised people like these. Obviously at a fee, on its own this could become a pretty worthwhile ISK sink.


teji
Ars ex Discordia
Here Be Dragons
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:36:00 - [218]
 

Edited by: teji on 15/09/2009 15:37:11
Edited by: teji on 15/09/2009 15:36:53
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 15/09/2009 13:31:59
Originally by: teji
-snip-


Nice quoting by the way. The only thing is with a devblog this vague there isn't anything people can say to object to anything since we have no details. I'm sure we'll adapt and most likely faster than many other entities in eve but if they want actual feedback from the playerbase before these go live, devblogs like this just won't cut it.

CCP should either spill the details so we can give feedback or stop being such a ****tease and stay silent till they put it on tranq with no feedback.

Professor Dumbledore
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:39:00 - [219]
 

Originally by: iP0D
Originally by: Professor Dumbledore
I R havin problems


Aside of having hired a resident Economist, posts like these make me wonder if it is not perhaps time for CCP to hire a resident Psychologist, in order to provide relief for traumatised people like these. Obviously at a fee, on its own this could become a pretty worthwhile ISK sink.




Yes because CCP certainly have a track record of making good patches that are totally working and balanced.

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:43:00 - [220]
 

ABT!

SHESH

why did you guys not figure this out the first time?

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:45:00 - [221]
 

Interesting reading.

Very good to come forth step by step way ahead of the final release. Still some time for discussions, that is good.

At the moment I can't see major flaws in the plan.

However, I am not so sure that it will work out as intended. Why would the blobbing be reduced? Actually if you more vulnerable, then there is even more need for NAP's. But we will see about the actual potential in one of the next blogs when the details are released. So far it is just the broad outlines. Curious for more :-)

Moon mineral prices going down? Yes very good. But will you install some other incentives for toe-to-teeth fights for a high valuable target?

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:51:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
If we decide it necessary to ruin gameplay on purpose (THIS IS VERY UNLIKELY AND AN ALL-AROUND SILLY MOVE I'M BEING HYPOTHETICAL HERE), and we got sign-off from stakeholders for it, then we'd probably go ahead with it. More saliently, if we decided that changes could and should be made to empire gameplay that did not ruin it and also benefited nullsec, we'd probably go ahead with those, too. What we're specifically and very carefully doing our best to avoid here is changing some stuff without thinking about the consequences and then upsetting the entire empire-based playerbase. That would be silly and I wanted to reassure those players that we're thinking about them too, and not just off on a "let's improve nullsec at the indiscriminate expense of all other playstyles" trip. The intent was very much not to assert that we shouldn't touch empire space on principle, as it does very obviously closely relate to the nullsec situation specifically in the economics, and if I've failed to convey that fully I apologize Smile


I want to know CCP's position on reducing empire incomes, what you intend to do and how far you plan to take it - in plain and simple english. Admitting the situation is 'closely related' to the economics after five years is not enough to impart any serious confidence in what you're doing.

The empire problem (also the risk vs reward problem) is the biggest issue in EVE. If you plan on executing real change in this expansion, treating this problem to the usual vagueness, evasion and rhetoric is probably way more cynical than a few vets telling you they lack confidence in what you're doing.

Darkdood
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:52:00 - [223]
 

Nice blog Greyscale. I'd like to see more details but I will be patient and wait till you guys figure it out.

I've had an idea for quite some time and I feel that it could have a direct effect on pulling people into 0.0. So I will link it here in the hope you will read it if you haven't already.

New ship - Yacht

I tried to sum up the bullet points in post 48.

CCP Gnauton

Posted - 2009.09.15 15:52:00 - [224]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Jowen Datloran

Quote:
the dust has settled


Shouldn't this be "the dust have settled"?


I'm actually not sure. I think dust is singular in this case. I'll ask our editor for a ruling.



'Dust' is an uncountable noun, so 'has' is correct.

DTson Gauur
Caldari
Blend.
Nulli Tertius
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:52:00 - [225]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

I will however say that CVA's apparent success in Providence was a big boost for us early on in this process as it showed that something like what we're aiming for could actually be done, even in the current environment.



CVAs success is only partly attributable to their NRDS policy, a more glaring part of it is that the space they claim (Providence) is so poor and "bad" that no one in their right mind wants it, there's just not enough rewards there to justify taking it away from them. This might change with Dominion though :)

Hegbard
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:05:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
It's a reasonably similar situation to the "old T2 BPO money" situation


"old"? Does it mean you're finally removing them? From here it looks like you're once again making them the best alliance level income source.

Aaron Min
Genco
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:06:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

1) To be very blunt and straightforward about this, yes, we are deliberately making your life more difficult in this patch.


I would like to offer that by creating this logistical "difficulty" you are simultaneously encouraging NAPs among the groups in the area.

I would offer that in conjunction with the logistics difficulty increase you should begin down the path of complete 0.0 independence from high sec. That anything and everything you need to sustain 0.0 sovereignty and construction of anything in the game should be able to happen without visiting empire (ie commodities should be producible), I should be able to make my own robotics, electronics, etc etc.

If you do that in combination with increase 0.0 logistics you will create truly independent empires that absolutely don't need to NAP other alliances because they have no dependence on them to secure their trade routes to empire to ensure continued operation.

If you balance it correctly so that it costs more to build it yourself, then to transport it from empire , then you have introduced another "option" and furthered the emergence theme. An alliance can either become friends with their neighbors and save isk by transporting goods from empire, or they can be an independent state and produce it themselves.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Details not finalized yet, but for me at least it's one of the two biggest problems with nullsec today (the other being doomsdays), so I'm pushing hard for a good resolution.


I would offer the simplest solution would be simple to make all moon resources ridiculously abundant. Make it so all moons have moon minerals and all regions have all types and in extreme abundance. Prices on moon minerals would be dictated by production costs and demand. While this would remove moons as a point of conflict for space, I don't believe moons as a point of conflict for space fits into your new vision for null sec anyways.

You could also do away with all high end moons, and make low and mid ends ridiculously abundant and make alchemy the only form of production for high ends.

The margins on t2 will go down, since t2 production will become similar to t1, except that it is more complex. However, ultimately the price will be dictated by PRODUCTION COST and DEMAND, and the effects of supply will be negligible.

It removes moon minerals as a primary source of income for large alliances, keeps them from caring about holding onto their existing r64 moons and allows them to centralize their empire, makes it so that all those towers out there that were purchased to just "hold" space can be reused in moon mining operations. Opens the door to a new profession using alchemy. Reduces the likelihood that space will be held just for the moon.

Downsides- price of t2 goes down, margins on t2 goes down, loss of scarcity reduces reason for 0.0 conflict(though I think there are plenty of reasons besides moon mining that encourages 0.0 conflict).

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:11:00 - [228]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

My unspecific ramblings about "legitimacy"


This is something I'm going to go away and think hard about. I can't promise that the results will make it into Dominion, but you may see facets of this in a future update. Maybe.



The simplest manifestation of this idea would be, if an alliance looses its system, then all the upgrades in that system are gone/destroyed. The new occupiers may then upgrade the system them selves. But, if they do not, and the previous owners retake the system, then all of their upgrades are put back in place at the next down time. This also supposes that all upgrades take some amount of time to implement, a few days for each and they need to be built one upon the other - A system can not be upgraded from worst to best in one day by throwing 100 billion ISK at it, after all, the game needs it's time sinks.

Suppose the following: The Gak Alliance upgrades their system with things, Foo Bar and Baz. The Boinky Alliance comes and attacks Gak's system and drives Gak away, and Boinky plants their flag. At this time, a "previous owner" data set is saved that states, Gak was here last and created Foo Bar and Baz.

The next day Boinky builds Foo and after a few days the Foo upgrade for Boinky is completed. But, Gak rushes back in and beats Boinky up and Boinky must flee and leave the system. Gak replants their flag, hoorah Gak! When Gak replants their flag, the system, on the next down time perhaps, sees that the current system owners were also the previous system holders, and puts back into the system Bar and Baz. Gak will have to "repair" or rebuild Foo, but once they do, Bar and Baz are back at full operational status.

Gak is not getting a free ride here, for one they lost however much income/time when they did not hold their system, and they have to rebuild Foo again before they can get the benefit of Bar and Baz. But they do not have to rebuild Bar and Baz, they only have to replace what Boinky had built. Had Boinky built both Foo and Baz, then Gak would have to replace both Foo and Baz. Had Boinky been able to build Foo, Bar and Baz, building up as much as Gak had built, then and only then does the "previous owner" data set get wiped and full "legitimacy" handed to Boinky.

This allows for both descriptive and prescriptive play. If an alliance wants to just plant its flag, then plant it and be done with it. If they want to upgrade, they must spend the time and upgrade it. It would be a shame to see an alliance go through all the steps and time and effort to upgrade to a nice level, only to be wiped out and claimed in one battle by some other group. If that other group wants the benefits, they should also have to spend the time and effort. If the previous holders have a vested interest that they can reclaim and restore with less effort than moving to a new area, then they're likely to return and fight for it.

Ok, done rambling, lunch time.

Rordan D'Kherr
Amarr
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:19:00 - [229]
 

Edited by: Rordan D''Kherr on 15/09/2009 16:19:39
I am pretty excited about the way nullsec is going to be changed.

What me confuses is:

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
A challenge, because we obviously have to be careful not to ruin the gameplay for everyone in empire by accident, but an opportunity because we can change the balance here and give more of our players a chance to experience nullsec gameplay.


In other words: Make life even harder in nullsec and leave empire people live in peace and harmony and affluence? Hmm...

Bigger alliances have taken space in hours and hours and days and weeks and months of pos warfare, cap fights and system lockdowns. Now, since BoB is dead, nullsec shall become a "free for all" place.

People do not join bigger alliances to be big, but to achieve something and most entities have achieved much. I am pretty sure there is also a chance to ruin nullsec players experience aswell.

Take this into account and think twice or three times about changes.

Sybilla Prior
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:20:00 - [230]
 

Edited by: Sybilla Prior on 15/09/2009 16:20:33
Way I understand it, the entire list of proposed changes stands or falls with Alliance's ability to turn non-alliance traffic into a source of income. But I don't really see how. I mean, if you add a taxing system where players who want to opperate in your nulsec space have to pay to stay then the income of those players still has to be higher than any other source of income for them, or they simply won't come to your nullsec. But what prevents an alliance from harvesting all the sources of income in their own space themselves? Are alliances going to leave loot-dropping rats alone in exchange for only a fraction of the income through taxes? Populating your nullsec empire would be like giving away money for free, unless you make it impossible for Alliances to harvest their own resources. Or am I missing something?

Aaron Min
Genco
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:27:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: Sybilla Prior
Edited by: Sybilla Prior on 15/09/2009 16:20:33
Way I understand it, the entire list of proposed changes stands or falls with Alliance's ability to turn non-alliance traffic into a source of income. But I don't really see how. I mean, if you add a taxing system where players who want to opperate in your nulsec space have to pay to stay then the income of those players still has to be higher than any other source of income for them, or they simply won't come to your nullsec. But what prevents an alliance from harvesting all the sources of income in their own space themselves? Are alliances going to leave loot-dropping rats alone in exchange for only a fraction of the income through taxes? Populating your nullsec empire would be like giving away money for free, unless you make it impossible for Alliances to harvest their own resources. Or am I missing something?


well not exactly, you don't have to populate your space with "non-alliance" members. This is about resource scarcity. Ratting is prime example. # of belts + the quality of rats determine the max # of players who can effectively rat in a system and still make optimal isk. As you pass the max # the income of each player becomes reduced.

What you really want to be able to do, is reach your thresh hold and then improve the system so the thresh hold moves up. Honestly it seems like to me, pirates (npc) would naturally gravitate to more dense populate systems anyways. So the rat quality and count (and respawn rate) should rise as the system population rises.

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:30:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Yes, yes, I am overly pessimistic and expecting the worst... can you blame me ?

Yes

because your always right.

Quote:
"Akita is always right. I will listen to Akita. I will not ignore Akita's recommendations. Akita is God. And if this ever happens again, Akita will personally rip your lungs out. Control out. [Sigh] Civilians. [Looking at Chirrba] Just kidding about the God part -- no offense."

Sybilla Prior
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:31:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Aaron Min
Honestly it seems like to me, pirates (npc) would naturally gravitate to more dense populate systems anyways. So the rat quality and count (and respawn rate) should rise as the system population rises.


Good point, same with ore-belt ore-types, more profitable ore types in more populated systems, so and not simply because an Alliance bought an upgrade.
Getting traffic to come to your space would be close to the primary resource of an Alliance.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:36:00 - [234]
 

Originally by: Harotak

Instead of corps taxing their pilots (which makes no sense, employers dont tax employees), why not make it so that alliances implement system-wide tax for the space they hold Sov, so that the alliance makes isk from everyone that rats in their space, regardless of what corp/alliance they are a part of


That's a good idea. For Every rat popped in a system, who ever holds that system gets 10% of the bounty of the rat, but does not impact the ISK recived by who ever shot the rat. Suppose a Rat is woth 100 ISK, then BillyBob Neutral comes and kills the rat. BillyBob gets 100 ISK and the group with the claim on the system gets 10 ISK. If they upgrade the system to RatTaxing Lvl 2, then they get 20 ISK on the rat, etc etc.

Sybilla Prior
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:40:00 - [235]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Harotak

Instead of corps taxing their pilots (which makes no sense, employers dont tax employees), why not make it so that alliances implement system-wide tax for the space they hold Sov, so that the alliance makes isk from everyone that rats in their space, regardless of what corp/alliance they are a part of


That's a good idea. For Every rat popped in a system, who ever holds that system gets 10% of the bounty of the rat, but does not impact the ISK recived by who ever shot the rat. Suppose a Rat is woth 100 ISK, then BillyBob Neutral comes and kills the rat. BillyBob gets 100 ISK and the group with the claim on the system gets 10 ISK. If they upgrade the system to RatTaxing Lvl 2, then they get 20 ISK on the rat, etc etc.


That's what I thought they'd do, but then I realised that it's still more profitable for the Alliance to kill the rats themselves.

Gran Frondre
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:48:00 - [236]
 

Heres the thing with the blogs and previous dev comments: When you put things in such general terms, it sounds good. In reality, I'm guessing it will be far from it.

Sounds Good: Invest into your space with upgrades that will pay back dividends!
Reality: But this mod, set it up in space, arkonor spawns in your belts. Great :/

You can make the old sov system sound great too if you talk in general terms. It allows for the claiming of sovereignty through anchorable structures, time-zone independent wars thanks to stront timers, a focal point for large scale pvp, increase security of your space with anchorable structures like cynojammers, set up jump bridges to ease logistics, upgradeable station services to customize your space!

Wow that sounds AWESOME! But in reality its something disliked enough to warrant change.

All CCP is doing right now is building hype, with the hope that if they inflate the bubble surrounding this enough, people wont realize how bad it is in practice.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:58:00 - [237]
 

Quote:
Quick one.
@Grescale you mentioned in one of your replies "what might help NRDS style play" in 0.0 (unless i read wrong)

One simple answer, The ability for a player to share/borrow standings outside any existing Corps, Aliances. Or at very least "switch to" the standings of another Aliance. In other words replace CVA's home brew KOS checker with a standing system you can look at, at a glance, in game. It should abandon your normal standings, In empire Jim may be your enemy, but in X Aliances space you must play nice. I fear "treaties" will just be big boy politics and cut out the natural qubiling that goes on within social groups or entities.

This would allow very flexible politics. Not just NRDS, but more complex NBSI, etc. Not necessarily bound to alliances themselves.

And can we ask that we clean up this "A whole Alliance cant have standing to a corp, or player" thing, yes we can. Just Eve wont let us set it lol.

Thanks for your time.

Hopefully greyscale reads this one too.

And first the i am just a regular member so i cant know if i am 100% correct in what i am going to say but i think it is correct:

This is indeed a great help, but I think it would work better if you make some kind of standing list, like a mailing list, which you can apply (and dont forget outpost/pos's and their docking rights/targets). The difference with the other idea is that you dont have one alliance you take standings from, but several groups can add standings (everyone with sufficient rights can do it). While CVA are largest group in providence, they arent the only one. It would be handy if for example we could make a standing list where all providence holders diplo's have the ability to add standings. So also a paxton/lfa/etc diplo can add a standing, which would then apply to everyone using that standing list. (And it would mean when it is introduced the diplos can have fun copying the entire cva kos list to that standing list, hihi).

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:59:00 - [238]
 

Quote:
Capital ships will still have uses, they'll just be less omnipresent than they are now. I'd hang onto them if I were you.

THE CHILDREN


THINK OF THE CHILDREN! And the cap pilots who like cap fighting.

I absolutely love capitals. I even liked pos sieging... with the exception of a few D2 specials that makes me cry at night. I like the idea that caps are far less used in pos warfare because 9/10 pos will be taken down probably. I also figure... 9/10 cappilots will also give in and never fly one again because they figure they are boring.

Quote:
1) I don't think the doomsday has ever served to reduce fleet sizes. Either people bring the full blob or they bring nothing - I don't know of anyone saying "let's only take half the fleet in case we get doomsdayed". As to specific changes, this will be explained shortly.

I think it's more like they bring the whole blob... but purposely keep to areas where you wont find the titan.

For example. Solar and friends had a big gang moving around the area. There was several larger gangs around looking to destroy them... but their plan was to cyno in 2 titans and jump out soon as possible. Leaving just a few of their ships. Then move back in for the cleanup.

We instead decided to stick to cynojammed system. Refusing to jump into any system that isnt known jammed; if they werent there. Not to hard considering like all systems being jammed anymore... literally knowing the unjammed systems being easier in this particular region.

This refusal to engage the enemy even when you are on par or large due to the fear of titans.


CAP BLAWG PLOX


Sybilla Prior
Posted - 2009.09.15 17:02:00 - [239]
 

If the maximum income in any one system could be upgraded infinitely, then theoretically any Alliance would only need to hold one system, freeing up a crapload of systems and bringing the player density in those systems up to Jita-scale. Provided that the server can handle it I think it'll make fighting over those systems very interesting and intense. Also that kind of traffic in a single system and perhaps the surrounding systems makes it more tempting for pirate gangs to try their luck there, creating yet more traffic. These hyper-dense Alliance empires might prove to be quite benefitial to the nulsec experience. But if you put a cap on how much one system can be upgraded, you'll spread the population around more, closing down more nul-sec space, decreasing oppertunities for non-Alliance nulsec venturers. Who else would like to see hyper-dense nulsec empires?

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2009.09.15 17:13:00 - [240]
 

Quote:
1, logistics, I live in the ass of space far from empire, to get stuff I need to jump a lot of cyno arrays to empire. A few of them being far from our space deep in allied space, also with alternative routes so we don’t get our arrays camped or get logistic problems if one falls.

The point is that if you cant do it. The next to come by can. So put your stuff on sale in 0.0 so those who arent in the ass end can do it. You choose to live there. Dont like it? MOVE.

Quote:
3) Less cynojammers may mean more cap fights. We'll see what happens.

No. Plainly no.

Take Ec-p8r for example. If that system wasnt jammed... you might get capfleets in there to pound poses to take the system. It would be extremely rare to see a capfleet dropped on the station in order to cause havoc. Such a thing hasnt really happened since the fighter nerf WAY back.

Now replace ec-p8r with a dockable npc station... and then ya. Which again... if nrds comes in... the agressors might get a 1 time deal in doing just this.

If standings start to be shared around far more. It might poison yourself to do it.

I do like the "sync standings" idea.


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (17)

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