open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked The CSM Summit - An Outsider's Perspective
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

BlankStare
Posted - 2010.12.22 22:47:00 - [1]
 

I was invited to attend a few of the meetings of the latest CSM Summit, you can read my impressions of what went down at the following links:


More will be added as they are published

JUSTMY JITAWITCH
Posted - 2010.12.24 12:20:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: JUSTMY JITAWITCH on 24/12/2010 12:20:42
-- wrong char

Max Kolonko
Caldari
Worm Nation
Ash Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.24 12:23:00 - [3]
 

great stuff, waiting for more

Max Kolonko
Caldari
Worm Nation
Ash Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.28 17:56:00 - [4]
 


Elzon1
Caldari
Shadow Boys Corp
Bloodbound.
Posted - 2010.12.29 04:16:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Mandrill
The discussion turned to adding resource based incentives to drive conflict and eventually came around to the possibility of player activity affecting the true security rating of a system. Intensice player activity such as ratting or running deadspace complexes, it was suggested, should have raise that system’s True Security Status, meaning that over-farming will end up with the system spawning less valuable rats and complexes. This will force players to move on to find more lucrative hunting grounds and may also provide an additional obstacle to botting as finding better hunting grounds involves more intuitive decision making.


My Idea

Originally by: Elzon1
2. Make NPC's and their bounties move away from intense player activity, including missions.

Reasons: By consistently moving NPC's away from heavy ratting activities all bots, macros, and players will have to move to areas where there was previously less activity in order to maintain their current rate of isk creation. With this macros, bots, and players will have to move out of their safe zones in order to farm better pastures which can increase risks and therefore increase the value of the rewards overall. This mechanic would make the highly mobile NPC sites points of contention due to such NPC sites being the harbingers of great isk rewards. Such a mechanic could also be used by CCP to create greater focus on the storyline of EVE by dragging the NPC sites towards current points in the story, as well as arranging the NPC's in different ways.In terms of high sec to 0.0, the higher value of potential isk should be higher in 0.0 than in high sec. With such a mechanic in place, players would tend to gravitate towards lowsec/0.0 for it's much higher earning potential... even more so than today. Perhaps loyalty points could be increased to account for the reduction in isk creation? Such a change should be incremental, not immediate. An immediate change like this could put too much strain on the economy. Perhaps a 100 day staged release is in order? A one percent change over to this system per day until it completely takes over?


It is a good idea, isn't it Twisted Evil

Dardol
Posted - 2011.01.12 19:08:00 - [6]
 

I enjoyed reading your articles.

thanks for posting

cheers!

Dardol

Walmatar
Posted - 2011.01.16 00:18:00 - [7]
 

Quote:
The topic of discussion moved on to 0.0 logistics with all parties agreeing that with the availability of jump bridge networks the logistics of running operations in 0.0 were nowhere near challenging enough. CCP Zulu had the opinion that 0.0 logistics should not necessarily be harder, but should at least be more of a challenge that scaled with the size of the operation. The complete removal of Jump Bridges was suggested and seemed to be widely accepted by both the CSM and CCP, whether or not this will actually happen though is anyone’s guess. The general consensus was that the logictics of 0.0 should consist of more strategic and tactical planning than simply “Oh I’ll run the jump bridge network on Thursday.”


This is the stupidest thing I've read in 2011. (not your writeup, but what is being said and suggested)

People who think like this really shouldn't be taken seriously. Particularly the idiotic suggestions around jump bridges.

How about people concentrate on there being an actual reason to hold 0.0 before you make it even more unliveable.

AVoiceFromTheShadows
Posted - 2011.01.16 00:51:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: AVoiceFromTheShadows on 16/01/2011 00:53:26
Originally by: Walmatar
Quote:
The topic of discussion moved on to 0.0 logistics with all parties agreeing that with the availability of jump bridge networks the logistics of running operations in 0.0 were nowhere near challenging enough. CCP Zulu had the opinion that 0.0 logistics should not necessarily be harder, but should at least be more of a challenge that scaled with the size of the operation. The complete removal of Jump Bridges was suggested and seemed to be widely accepted by both the CSM and CCP, whether or not this will actually happen though is anyone’s guess. The general consensus was that the logictics of 0.0 should consist of more strategic and tactical planning than simply “Oh I’ll run the jump bridge network on Thursday.”


This is the stupidest thing I've read in 2011. (not your writeup, but what is being said and suggested)

People who think like this really shouldn't be taken seriously. Particularly the idiotic suggestions around jump bridges.

How about people concentrate on there being an actual reason to hold 0.0 before you make it even more unliveable.


The only reason the CSM supports this is because most of them are from SOV holding alliances and the removal of JBs will solidify their hold on null sec. An potential enemy infiltrating thier alliance and getting their JB passwords is the greatest threat to their SOV. Just imagine a 2000 man fleet suddenly appearing in the deepest part of you SOV and shutting down your industry overnight. Then other fleets appearing all over your empire setting up SBUs all over the place.

Walmatar
Posted - 2011.01.16 11:17:00 - [9]
 

Btw, everyone knows everyone else's jb password, it is impossible to keep that **** secret. POS guns are the only thing protecting the jb networks.

People who don't know **** about 0.0 really need to stop offering us their considered wisdom. Because that is what leads to stupid proposals like removing jump bridges.

Because''of''Falcon
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:36:00 - [10]
 

lol to the spy comment,

but seriously, It could be an interesting suggestion. thoug it scares me, and i know that my home will go to **** if this happens. and im not sure what will happen to me and my corp. I could loose a lot.

however, it will make stuf smaller, and possibly more fun. and actually allow smaller alliances to hold space, less of this giant monstrous coalition stuf, rather, small groups of ppl pvp'in and having fun.

also, by removing the massive coalition factor, it could remove the ease of building titans and motherships and make them a real feat again, rather than just another day at the office. (this i know little about tbh, just seeing that from the outside)



 

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