open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The Streams Must Flow
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (13)

Author Topic

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.10.05 17:36:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: Takal Cylotar
What effects will actions (mining, ratting, etc.) of allied/neutral populations living in other alliances' space have on A) sovereignty B) upgradibility of systems?



currently, neutrals will add to the development index in addition to our future desire for a formalised treaty system which will allow you to manage your space more effectively.

Remember, sovereignty is just a virtual flag which is maintained through ISK upkeep costs based on several factors. Your desire to hold the system will be based on the benefit of paying for its upkeep and infrastructure upgrades.

Professor Dumbledore
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:36:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Garrakh
Edited by: Garrakh on 05/10/2009 17:11:33
I have one question for the devs: As you move more content to the exploration system and increase population density players will need to spend more time trying to find "free" cosmic signatures and less time doing the sites. Do you have plans to address this?


Yes, the vision is that once we have planetary rings or system wide belts, these will have asteroid beacon markers so do not always need to be probed but the rich sites will still need to be scanned down in addition to looking at introducing agents one day so missions could be run which will reduce this more.

It is definitely something we have seen before and remedied with wormhole space and something we are looking to ensure does not happen here with hordes of signature hits as well. This will get better as new null sec content can be published for the upgrades over time.


Yes its okay to push something that is broken and fix it later right?

Kilostream
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:37:00 - [93]
 

Quick question on the tech II component table where components requiring common materials increase in quantity whilst components requiring the rarer materials decrease...

Are the item production times going to be dropped (in the case of common material components) and increased (in the case of rarer material components) to balance out producion times so that producers still spend the same proportions of time on each component's total production run?

Otherwise for a given production run we could now find the common items in short supply as you may have to spend weeks building tens or hundreds of thousands of common items for your run, when the 50 or so rarer ones required are knocked out in a handful of hours

For example if you need 10x the common items, prod time goes from 3 minutes to 18 seconds, but if you need only 1/10th of the rarer items, production time goes from 3 minutes to 30 minutes, something like that.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.10.05 17:43:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Kilostream
Quick question on the tech II component table where components requiring common materials increase in quantity whilst components requiring the rarer materials decrease...

Are the item production times going to be dropped (in the case of common material components) and increased (in the case of rarer material components) to balance out producion times so that producers still spend the same proportions of time on each component's total production run?




Yes, that was mentioned in the blog that the production times are being decreased alongside some component material balancing to ensure there is sufficient potential supply for the new demand.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:45:00 - [95]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 05/10/2009 17:55:40
Thank you CCP Chronotis, that should put some people's fears to rest on certain points.

Quote:
The infrastructure hubs can be attacked once certain criteria are met and hoops have been jumped through which depend heavily on the strategic decisions of the current owners.


If the attack can attempt to either capture or destroy an infrastructure hub that opens up a lot of possibilities as far as strategy goes.
Obviously if you want to move in, you will try to keep the infrastructure hub intact (unless the hub is developing the system in ways that don't interest you, and its presence is driving up the upkeep cost of the system).
If you just want to destroy your rivals infrastructure but don't think you can profitably hold the area, then you chose the option to destroy the infrastructure hub.

Quote:
Will development points and/or upgrades degrade if the system is no longer used in the way those upgrades/development points accumulate/support? Or will a upgrade stay, no matter what the system gets used after it is achieved?


This is an excellent question. Will your miners/ratters/industrialist move locust like from system to system, enabling new upgrades that are persistent after they move on? Or will a certain level of activity be necessary to keep its level of profitability? I am assuming, human nature being what it is, that they will maintain their upgraded status even if activity drops off a bit. After all, why build up more systems to that level if your population doesn't demand it (especially if upkeep gets more expensive the more systems you upgrade).

Quote:
CCP you people are so stupid it hurts. You move from a place where huge conflict determins who gets the real resources too who ever controls the most amount of bots gets the most amount of money. Way to ruin your game.


I normally ignore the Dumbledore troll, but this is too easy. The indications are that the new resources will have to be scanned out to be utilized. I haven't seen any bots yet that handle that very well. I doubt you can get very far just grinding the resources that are easily found. Still, since such activities would be much more localized, and much more easily traceable due to the level of activity being actively traced for upgrade availability purposes, I think that alliances that use this tactic will quickly find they have more to lose than to gain by employing bots.

Quote:
I look forward to killing all income from upgraded systems with a single ship with a Covert Cynosural Field Generator I, 23/7.



Although a valid tactic, good luck with that. You still need fuel to power that Covert Cyno, and the need to refuel makes you somewhat vulnerable. As to keeping a fleet of cloakers AFK in those systems 23/7, again, that may be a valid tactic. However who is to say that one of the Tactical upgrades won't be to gain the ability to eventually find a cloaked ship? Wink How many hours a day are you prepared to devote to this tactic if you have to keep changing safe spots? Could be very interesting indeed.





Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:45:00 - [96]
 

Another question: will corporations be able to hold space and upgrade it, or is it only alliances? It seems that 0.0 will be worthless without an infrastructure hub, so there is the potential for Dominion to drive all independent corporations out of 0.0.

I'd suggest that corporations be able to upgrade their space at least part way. For example, maybe part of the improvement comes from ongoing use of the system, and another part comes from building infrastructure. Thus, a corporation that cannot build an infrastructure hub can still get some benefit out of living in 0.0.

Emperor Salazar
Caldari
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:47:00 - [97]
 

F5

Lacolo Basema
Kotar Engineering
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:03:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Can the infrastructure upgrades be attacked or captured?

This is something we discussed at fanfest a lot with the players that attended. Many were mostly in favour of being able to capture the infrastructure hubs (and therefore the solar systems upgrade level) in addition to a scorched earth option.

The infrastructure hubs can be attacked once certain criteria are met and hoops have been jumped through which depend heavily on the strategic decisions of the current owners. It is also worth noting that you can potentially more slowly damage an owning alliance by denying them this diffuse income through space superiority/domination strategies if they are prone to turtle tactics which will also damage their development indexes as well.



Destruction is the single most driving force behind the strong economy EVE online has. Without letting players tear down what others have built, given enough time, all of 0.0 would become magical rainbow land. This is already happening a little bit with outposts.

TBH, there should be some way to take down an outpost. What if you conquor a system with a Gallente Outpost, but it would benifit your alliance much more to have a Minmatar outpost because you mine a lot and will need the good refine rate? Then you're just stuck with the Gallente one forever?

Also, I'm happy the value of my still unborn Rhea will not be dropping dramatically in price :D

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:03:00 - [99]
 

I think CVA's methodology is going to be just fine actually.

Your current neutral population will help to enhance your ability to upgrade your systems.

The new treaty system will allow you to much more easily interact with your neutral and blue listed inhabitants. If fact, now you can effectively specify area's that are off limits to certain groups, as well as share standings with them.

System security and profitability will be closely tied to how active your player base is, and frankly that is one of your strengths.


iudex
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:05:00 - [100]
 

What will happen with NPC owned 0.0 systems, such as my angel mission hub, where thousands of rats are killed every day, will it be affected in any way ? Or are this changes exclusive for player owned 0.0 ?

Bluebear8
DOUBLE IDENTITY
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:08:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Bluebear8 on 05/10/2009 18:10:44
Question:

So, you really want to pack 50-100 pod pilots into every outpost systems for these "expanded ratting and mining opportunities"?

What does every ratter do before undock? {HINT: Check LOCAL!}
And, what happens to the LOCAL WINDOW with 50-100 blues in system?

Ratters are gonna need a NEW ALARM SYSTEM when the LOCAL WINDOW fills with 50-100 blues (mostly sitting station).

Will CCP expand the LOCAL WINDOW so the ratters and miners can actually see (in single view format) if hostiles are in system? [The current Local Window will only show about 20 other pilots when open wide.]

Or, do you intend a "new age" of alliances requiring attendance on gate camps or "ratting gangs"? blehConfused

edit - Don't answer this saying "SCROLL DOWN" as that don't work so well when fighting a nice triple BS spawn... lolz!

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:08:00 - [102]
 

Quote:
TBH, there should be some way to take down an outpost.


Agreed.

Quote:
What if you conquor a system with a Gallente Outpost, but it would benifit your alliance much more to have a Minmatar outpost because you mine a lot and will need the good refine rate? Then you're just stuck with the Gallente one forever?


There has been talk of being able to put more than one Outpost in a system. I have no idea if that is being implemented in Dominion though.

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:10:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Bluebear8
Question:

So, you really want to pack 50-100 pod pilots into every outpost systems for these "expanded ratting and mining opportunities"?

What does every ratter do before undock? {HINT: Check LOCAL!}
And, what happens to the LOCAL WINDOW with 50-100 blues in system?

Ratters are gonna need a NEW ALARM SYSTEM when the LOCAL WINDOW fills with 50-100 blues (mostly sitting station).

Will CCP expand the LOCAL WINDOW so the ratters and miners can actually see (in single view format) if hostiles are in system? [The current Local Window will only show about 20 other pilots when open wide.]

Or, do you intend a "new age" of alliances requiring attendance on gate camps or "ratting gangs"? blehConfused


OR alternatively, will CCP be killing LOCAL and replacing it with wormhole-style LOCAL? I think this is the unspoken question and the dev blogs' silence on it speaks volumes. Apocrypha was an experiment to see what would happen. How do the devs feel about the result?

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:13:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 05/10/2009 18:16:04
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Bluebear8
Question:

So, you really want to pack 50-100 pod pilots into every outpost systems for these "expanded ratting and mining opportunities"?

What does every ratter do before undock? {HINT: Check LOCAL!}
And, what happens to the LOCAL WINDOW with 50-100 blues in system?

Ratters are gonna need a NEW ALARM SYSTEM when the LOCAL WINDOW fills with 50-100 blues (mostly sitting station).

Will CCP expand the LOCAL WINDOW so the ratters and miners can actually see (in single view format) if hostiles are in system? [The current Local Window will only show about 20 other pilots when open wide.]

Or, do you intend a "new age" of alliances requiring attendance on gate camps or "ratting gangs"? blehConfused


OR alternatively, will CCP be killing LOCAL and replacing it with wormhole-style LOCAL? I think this is the unspoken question and the dev blogs' silence on it speaks volumes. Apocrypha was an experiment to see what would happen. How do the devs feel about the result?


Heh, the presence of local could also be tied to a particular "strategic upgrade". Now wouldn't that be interesting? Laughing

Level 3 Strategic Upgrade: Ability to have "Local".
Level 4 Strategic Upgrade: Ability to Cyno Jam a system.
Level 5 Strategic Upgrade: Ability to scan down cloaked vessels.

Hmmmm......


Terrible Karma
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:15:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1
I think CVA's methodology is going to be just fine actually.

Your current neutral population will help to enhance your ability to upgrade your systems.

The new treaty system will allow you to much more easily interact with your neutral and blue listed inhabitants. If fact, now you can effectively specify area's that are off limits to certain groups, as well as share standings with them.

System security and profitability will be closely tied to how active your player base is, and frankly that is one of your strengths.




I see you subscribe to the No Numbers Philosophy™ as well. Until you can address the points already made AND CCP releases Dominion details (i.e., specifics and numbers) that can be analyzed, your opinion is worthless (especially when it contradicts the former CEO of CVA).

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:24:00 - [106]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 05/10/2009 18:24:59
Originally by: Terrible Karma
Originally by: Ranger 1
I think CVA's methodology is going to be just fine actually.

Your current neutral population will help to enhance your ability to upgrade your systems.

The new treaty system will allow you to much more easily interact with your neutral and blue listed inhabitants. If fact, now you can effectively specify area's that are off limits to certain groups, as well as share standings with them.

System security and profitability will be closely tied to how active your player base is, and frankly that is one of your strengths.




I see you subscribe to the No Numbers Philosophy™ as well. Until you can address the points already made AND CCP releases Dominion details (i.e., specifics and numbers) that can be analyzed, your opinion is worthless (especially when it contradicts the former CEO of CVA).



1: My opinion is no more, or less worthless than yours.

2: CCP gets paid to crunch the numbers and do the game design, not provide you with a statistical justification for every aspect of their game design decisions. Perhaps you should step away from the computer for a little while, or cut down on your caffeine intake.

3: I really don't care if my opinion contradicts the "former" CEO of CVA. I actually support most of what CVA does/attempts to do, and I can understand his/your concerns. However, if he/you want to enter into a lengthy discussion on this I'll block out some time on my calendar. Otherwise, can the personal attacks, I am not the enemy.

4: For the good of us all, try to restrict youself to readable font colors. The blue in your previous post was a questionable choice.



Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:28:00 - [107]
 

Chronotis, three questions, each with an introduction.

While I do look forward to once more introducing vacuum in space, feodal organisations and increasing the population (shall we say to, err, balance out the Exodus expansion) I cannot help but wonder on the rather fundamental aspects involved in getting carebears to 0.0 of effort and risk.
What does a carebear do when he logs on. He warps to a belt to mine or rat. Exploration in empire space is popular only among a minority of the population, the big masses do not involve themselves in this. Not just because of effort (keep in mind you are dealing with a wide variety of subscriber mindsets here) but also because of risk and game time available. The teams who do dig into exploration are not the type who will make a move to 0.0 because they are specialised in their own fun factors, and are still averse to moving away from their settled environments.
In the historic examples we have seen over the years where people went to 0.0 it was because the isk overcompensated for the risk. At the risk of stepping on some old dreams of people, think of XETIC. A boatload of carebears filling up all the systems where everybody knew your name and everybody else could find a happy gank at little effort, which resulted solely out of the value divide between empire pay and 0.0 pay.

As such, question one: how can you see people moving out of low and high sec to environments which provide either less or equal pay at higher risk. Especially in a context of submission to others in an environment of schizofrenia which has long bypassed even the remote possibility of "uprisings".

On another note, 0.0 is or was supposed to be the endgame content element, where the biggest and baddest and most expensive and widespread **** culminated and come to and blew up in pieces. Even before we had stations (conquerables), I'm not even mentioning outposts, every major conflict geared around high interest / high value types of resources, or control of. Even when people lived out of cans in space (the newbies are probably going "wtf" now) the biggest push revolved around anything between dominance of those systems, the resources contained within them (back then zydrine meant something) and even the contents of the trailer parks in space.

I just can't see how you can break the old money circlejerk without providing another incentive to clash bigtime over points of high interest / high value, speeding up the pace at which newer organisations can get to a point of competition.

I admit we will see organisations adapt to change, that has been clear for months now. The big teams have invested heavily in empire based sources of income and AFK production, and have made sure to be able to remap and rework the moons for changes addressing the X64 situation, and have invested in a wide variety of specialised and controlled organisations and infrastructures for the purposes of pets, citizens, isk makers, resource makers, etc. That has already been taken care of. It's just a matter of waiting for November for the commercial schemes to start kicking in, and December 1 for a bit of pew pew, and the new year for people to start moving into those places.

So, question two: can you elaborate in detail on such new incentives for conflicts that fit the concept of "endgame" properly? If pinching people in the AFK wallet becomes silly, what other places can they be punched in that you envision.

And, as a third question on the side, it is clear that Bombers and Bombs are envisioned as tools for smaller and less well financed organisations to carve out niches and hamper the big boys for income and blobs so they won't see a nerf coming for quite a while ... but ... while sofar big mess situations could be made playable through asking for node reinforcement, is that process now able to detect hickups and address resource allocation on its own when 900 bombers pour into a system? Very Happy (never underestimate p

Mr Opinions
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:32:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Abrazzar
Will development points and/or upgrades degrade if the system is no longer used in the way those upgrades/development points accumulate/support? Or will a upgrade stay, no matter what the system gets used after it is achieved?


This is a critical question to have answered.

If upgrades don't require that the conditions which unlocked them be maintained, i.e. if they are permanent, then you will just get roving "unlocking" teams running around just long enough to enable upgrades in every system and subsequently leaving for the next system, defeating one of the purposes of the changes, which is to have people live in these systems permanently. Upgrades need to degrade when not used.




ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:34:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: ElvenLord on 05/10/2009 18:34:52
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Homogeneous space without gold mines!

We acknowledged in the blog that these can be conflict drivers (forcing an enemy fleet to show up) where there is geographical resource limitations. We are reducing the value of the gold and its place solely funding alliance or corporation schemes, not making it worthless. Those moons and others will still have value, it will just be much less than it is currently in the case of dysprosium and promethium and higher for some of the mid range moon minerals.

In addition, the core baseline resource factors of a system (geographical location, true sec and belt count) still play a large role in the systems value even with the upgrades included so you will not find one day the entirety of null sec upgraded to the same level with identical resources.

There will still be new geographical based resources (in addition to the now detached outposts) which will be added to and built upon in the future as planets come to play a more prominent role and we transition to planetary rings for example to name some of the things on the drawingboard.


So to reduce the "gold" value you are increasing the amount of lower level moon mineral requirements in t2 production (by raising amounts of components) you are actually increasing the amount of reaction chains needed to support that. And again we are back on the same story, what happened to promised decrease of fuel bills due to lower number of towers? Are you saying we will be able to do reactions in station?

pure sov holding towers will just be replaced by reaction towers along with regular towers needed to sustain other infrastructure. So fuel bill might be slightly reduced but on top of that you are still planing to add gate fee's that dont give any advantage to ppl paying them. Reduced profit margin with high risk and eventual benefits form "upgrades" in "near" future. Why make further investment for marginal profit increase in newly created high-risk environment?

As I already mentioned in a previous post, its the corporations/alliances that decide to invest their ISK in upgrades and that decision is made on a possible:
- profit
- security (in making profit for both members and organizations)
and all that is from pure need of sustaining them (reimbursement projects for example), they are not based on the possibility of few members getting better ore/spawns as the taxation mechanics in game is almost none existent. Tax that corporation have now sometimes barely covers office rentals (in cases of invasion).

As for billions already invested in outposts and outpost upgrades, they are to be some perquisites for new system upgrades as I understood, those where also partially vain investments since the value of outpost upgrades will be reduced drastically?

Gunship
Amarr
Destructive Influence
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:35:00 - [110]
 

Not sure if this is going to be flamed to death, but all these reactions are very good and I do like that the r64 are not going to rule eve. In fact I think the lasers, blasters and rockets should rule...

In an old eve... far far away there was only basic minerals, many corps would help each other strip mine these in any ship at there disposal and hauled many systems to the nearst station. The best minerals where as a rule not in a station system resulting in patrols had to be on guard from enemies and pirates. The further out you came from 1.0 towards 0.0 the better the rewards and the greater the risk.

No ACTIVE mining or ratting, no or little income. MAIN thing! EVERYONE was involved and the danger was always there for an attack.

Now I know we can't go back, but really there was someting really cool about this simple and effective game play. EvE got build on it remember!

WHY do we have all this complex stuff, if putting modules on your ship and battle is the fun thing to do?


Dagobert Dog
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:48:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: Dagobert Dog on 05/10/2009 18:48:56


Woohooo! Its Confirmed!
SPACE WHALES are coming!!!


ShockedShockedShockedSurprisedSurprisedSurprisedSurprised

Jainia Soltella
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:55:00 - [112]
 

With all of the streams around, will there be a detrimental effect if you cross them?

Terrible Karma
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:58:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 05/10/2009 18:24:59
Originally by: Terrible Karma
Originally by: Ranger 1
I think CVA's methodology is going to be just fine actually.

Your current neutral population will help to enhance your ability to upgrade your systems.

The new treaty system will allow you to much more easily interact with your neutral and blue listed inhabitants. If fact, now you can effectively specify area's that are off limits to certain groups, as well as share standings with them.

System security and profitability will be closely tied to how active your player base is, and frankly that is one of your strengths.




I see you subscribe to the No Numbers Philosophy™ as well. Until you can address the points already made AND CCP releases Dominion details (i.e., specifics and numbers) that can be analyzed, your opinion is worthless (especially when it contradicts the former CEO of CVA).



1: My opinion is no more, or less worthless than yours.

2: CCP gets paid to crunch the numbers and do the game design, not provide you with a statistical justification for every aspect of their game design decisions. Perhaps you should step away from the computer for a little while, or cut down on your caffeine intake.

3: I really don't care if my opinion contradicts the "former" CEO of CVA. I actually support most of what CVA does/attempts to do, and I can understand his/your concerns. However, if he/you want to enter into a lengthy discussion on this I'll block out some time on my calendar. Otherwise, can the personal attacks, I am not the enemy.

4: For the good of us all, try to restrict youself to readable font colors. The blue in your previous post was a questionable choice.






3. I'm attacking your opinion/argument, not you. There is a huge difference. The former is productive and how meaningful debate is conducted, the latter is not.
2. If CCP don't want meaningful feedback and useful criticism of their game that's their choice. However, their history of ignoring player criticism has resulted in a number of failed patches. I see you are a hypocrite on the personal attack issue.
1. My concerns are supported by evidence and are therefore useful (see previous posts). Your opinion is bereft of any supporting evidence and fails to address major concerns previously made by others. Therefore, your opinion is not useful in the analysis of whether Domion Theory will match Dominion Reality.
4. Colors changed, thanks.

Strikovsky
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:59:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Professor Dumbledore
Look CCP i'm calling you out right now.


You are pushing some stupid entirly new system out in 2 months you haven't given us the slightly amount of detail of anything even thou you said you were going to AT FANFEST. Which never happened likely because its not done nor even close to done.

Either given us every single piece of nitty gritty detail about all of this right now or push the expansion back.


Look, we both know all of this stuff promised is all on the 'drawing board' at this time. These dev blogs for the most part are to get us forum dwellers hyped up and so they can get feedback on things they'll be implementing throughout 2010. Dominion will be released with updates that fall into 3 catagories. New stuff that is done (read: won't be touched again), new stuff that is partially done, and stuff promised but not delivered. All of this stuff being promised should be in game by Dec 1st, just not Dec 1st of 2009...

I think if they had the details to give, they'd give them. But from what I've seen in MMOs, the strategy is to promise your vision in the expansion, then releases updates throughout the following year(s) to actually delever on (most) of those promises.

Don't worry though, the stuff they're promising that will break the game how you play it will definatley be in the expasion...developers never leave that out of the inital release...

LegendaryFrog
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:02:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Professor Dumbledore
Look CCP i'm calling you out right now.


You are pushing some stupid entirly new system out in 2 months you haven't given us the slightly amount of detail of anything even thou you said you were going to AT FANFEST. Which never happened likely because its not done nor even close to done.

Either given us every single piece of nitty gritty detail about all of this right now or push the expansion back.


CCP, Professor Dumbledore would like to see you in his office.

Katrinazinski
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:04:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Bluebear8
Question:

So, you really want to pack 50-100 pod pilots into every outpost systems for these "expanded ratting and mining opportunities"?

What does every ratter do before undock? {HINT: Check LOCAL!}
And, what happens to the LOCAL WINDOW with 50-100 blues in system?

Ratters are gonna need a NEW ALARM SYSTEM when the LOCAL WINDOW fills with 50-100 blues (mostly sitting station).

Will CCP expand the LOCAL WINDOW so the ratters and miners can actually see (in single view format) if hostiles are in system? [The current Local Window will only show about 20 other pilots when open wide.]

Or, do you intend a "new age" of alliances requiring attendance on gate camps or "ratting gangs"? blehConfused


OR alternatively, will CCP be killing LOCAL and replacing it with wormhole-style LOCAL? I think this is the unspoken question and the dev blogs' silence on it speaks volumes. Apocrypha was an experiment to see what would happen. How do the devs feel about the result?

Don't kill LOCAL unless you give everyone an extra Mid-Slot. As the Goonies used to say, "MULTISPECS, FTW!"

Hrin
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:25:00 - [117]
 

Put it on Sisi so we can see it.

This is something that you will have to iterate. You cannot just throw it out there and expect everything to work the way you expect. So few things in this game have taken shape the way you expected.

Reniithian
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:30:00 - [118]
 

I like the effort into changing the dynamics of 00 income. I think it's been needed, and think it'll have very positive results.

I don't think the moon goo changes are quite enough though. Just like T2 BPOs still make a load of money even with invention, those R64 moons will still mean big money for those alliances that have them.

The problem is the supply. Changing Alchemy might help but remains to be seen. Reducing the amount needed for building is great, but will just encourage hoarding to control the supply.

I'm thinking the only way to truly change this is to seed a lot more R64 moons throughout the whole of 00

Jacob Mei
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:31:00 - [119]
 

Quote:
You will be able to purchase and install upgrades in an infrastructure hub. These upgrades will unlock and add additional resources into your system, such as new hidden belts or encounters to complexes or escalation sites for you to find, thus increasing your potential diffuse income streams and theoretical member resource capacity of each system as a result.


So your basicly buying naturally occuring objects..... huh?!

Normin Bates
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:41:00 - [120]
 

So....

Biggest tears are from (so far)

1. CVA and Friends.
2. MM.
3. Goons.

General consensus from the tear shedders is: Wahhhhhh. No fair! We did all this stuff and have gotten used to it and now it's being changed! We can't adapt. No fair CCP!


Flush your eleventy billion down the drain. Stop crying 'cause you might hafta do some things different.

Adapt or Die.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (13)

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