open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: CSM December Summit - Meeting minutes (Part 3of 3)
 
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 (12)

Author Topic

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.18 00:06:00 - [271]
 

Originally by: Zxmagus
Originally by: Bagehi
Just noticed that only two of the nine CSM are in sov holding alliances.



CSM's talking out of their asses about stuff they know nothing about, this shouldn't be a shock CCP has been trying to kill null sec power blocs for 2 years now. The funny thing is that remember when we had the second great eve war, that was really fun the entire of 0.0 was set up in 2 camps it had a feeling of immenseness to it that made eve something interesting to play with all sorts of emergent gameplay and giant slug fest fleet fights that was amazing what their suggesting is a devolution of eve and will turn 0.0 into just another pve zone


Not everyone appreciates dividing Eve into two camps and duking it out in 10000 person fleet battles. To me, the only kind of epic that is is epically stupid.

-Liang

Zxmagus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.18 00:40:00 - [272]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Zxmagus
Originally by: Bagehi
Just noticed that only two of the nine CSM are in sov holding alliances.



CSM's talking out of their asses about stuff they know nothing about, this shouldn't be a shock CCP has been trying to kill null sec power blocs for 2 years now. The funny thing is that remember when we had the second great eve war, that was really fun the entire of 0.0 was set up in 2 camps it had a feeling of immenseness to it that made eve something interesting to play with all sorts of emergent gameplay and giant slug fest fleet fights that was amazing what their suggesting is a devolution of eve and will turn 0.0 into just another pve zone


Not everyone appreciates dividing Eve into two camps and duking it out in 10000 person fleet battles. To me, the only kind of epic that is is epically stupid.


-Liang



Then please join a pirate corp that does small gang pvp or an empire war corp but don't destroy 0.0 so you can enjoy your style of eve.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.18 00:48:00 - [273]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/01/2011 00:48:51
Originally by: Zxmagus
Then please join a pirate corp that does small gang pvp or an empire war corp but don't destroy 0.0 so you can enjoy your style of eve.


I would argue that the enormous NAPFest Blobtrain that it has become what is destroying 0.0. Bring back the small scale 0.0 wars, and nerf the everloving **** out of massive blobs and NAP Coalitions. Don't destroy the older versions of 0.0 so you can enjoy massive PVE moon goo naptrain. Rolling Eyes

-Liang

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.18 01:00:00 - [274]
 

Re "Make logistics harder to make the game more interesting": No. Just no. It's an interesting enough concept that I don't mind it getting kicked around some, but it won't do what you think, and it'll make the game vastly more painful for everyone. Eve logistics is painful enough - yes, even with bridges, titans, stations every fourth system, JFs, carriers, and all the rest - you don't need to make it harder. I admit, convoy ops look kind of cool on paper, but in practice they're awful.

Re mining in nullsec: I have a bunch of people in my alliance who do it regularly. Yes, they're humans. The money is most definitely there compared to mining in highsec, even after you take losses from enemy gangs. The problem is, mining in nullsec doesn't create a viable manufacturing supply base, because they're mining high-ends. It's easy to export mega to empire for sale to empire industrialists, but it's a cast-iron ***** to bring trit out to null, and if you're mining it you should just be mining in highsec instead. As such, nobody builds anything in null that they don't have to. If you want to create a nullsec industry base, you need to make trit as easy to move out as mega is to move in. Drop trit down to being a million units per m3 instead of a hundred, and you might see what nullsec industry can really look like.

Re "If you make logistics harder, you'll just prevent big alliances from dropping on you!": That's not how it works. So it's now a major pain to attack space far away. Awesome, a coalition now needs no defence whatsoever for the four regions in the middle, and can put all their PvP supplies and toons into border areas. Ratting alts will still live in Oasa or Tenal, but all the serious combat will still be done with all the same bloc-level forces.

Ultimately, if you want smaller blocs, you're fighting Darwin, and Darwin will win. As the old saying goes "Less is sometimes more, but more is always more". If you want smaller fights, however, which is what I think most people do, then there's work you can do there. By the time I have grandkids, POSes may finally have been overhauled so that they don't pretend to be sov structures any more, and that could create the opportunity to have some structures with reasonable HP totals, some value, and that a defender can be forced to protect from smallish gangs. But yes, a fight like the LXQ station is going to get 3200 in local from time to time. Deal with it.

Originally by: Rosalina Sarinna
if you are in an intelligently led Corp, miners will be paid for their work, they don't profit from the ore, they profit from the work they put into mining it


I don't think you "get" market economics. You're espousing one of the purest forms of the labour theory of value I've ever seen. Not even Communists believe in that nonsense these days. If a corp is paying you the same for veld and ark, your corp deserves to die a horrible, horrible death.

Originally by: ChromeStriker
this would be epicness as hasnt been seen!! just imagine all the alliancs fractureing, theyre own cap fleets fighting each other, individual corps decimated, sections cut off and never heard from again.


As much as that might be kind of cool, you're being stupid if you think that would ever happen because of a couple mechanic changes(well, any more than usual).

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
In fairness to Greyscale, he specifically said that removing freighters was good only in the abstract, and that he fully realized that it would cause too much pain. He was trying to illustrate the tension between what might be best for the game vs. best for the players.


There is no such tension. The players are the game. If it's bad for the players, it's bad for the game. If CCP is designing on the basis of there being some abstract "game" entirely divorced from what the people playing it are experiencing...well, it'd certainly explain some of the more boneheaded decisions they've made over the years.
(cont)

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.18 01:16:00 - [275]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
In fairness to Greyscale, he specifically said that removing freighters was good only in the abstract, and that he fully realized that it would cause too much pain. He was trying to illustrate the tension between what might be best for the game vs. best for the players.


There is no such tension. The players are the game. If it's bad for the players, it's bad for the game.



Nonsense. It is trivially easy to show that some actions should be harder (even painful) for the game as a whole to be healthier. And the healthier game will increase the net enjoyment of the players - even if that action is harder for the players.

Consider that it should not be easy to make 100M ISK/hr in high sec running missions. It's bad for the game - yet certain players (me, for example) would find that nerfing missions in such a manner would be exceptionally painful.

Also, mineral compression already exists. I'd say what should happen is that it should be deliberately improved.

-Liang

Zxmagus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.18 01:32:00 - [276]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/01/2011 00:48:51
Originally by: Zxmagus
Then please join a pirate corp that does small gang pvp or an empire war corp but don't destroy 0.0 so you can enjoy your style of eve.


I would argue that the enormous NAPFest Blobtrain that it has become what is destroying 0.0. Bring back the small scale 0.0 wars, and nerf the everloving **** out of massive blobs and NAP Coalitions. Don't destroy the older versions of 0.0 so you can enjoy massive PVE moon goo naptrain. Rolling Eyes

-Liang


You know thats impossible right thats the thing that every one with your argument forgets that you can't nerf more being better then less at least not with out turning eve into something like wow battlegrounds Alot of us like big climactic fights they are a reason to log on thats why when the post goes out hey guys big fight coming ,700 people a side log on just to be apart of it, the game even sells it's self with that idea.

I don't understand the people that live in empire and think full well that in the wilderness of 0.0 they should be able to have a small alliance of less then 200 people with zero diplomacy no spys be 100% self sufficient from empire with all production being done in house and be unattackable from any one larger then them selves.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.18 01:35:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: Artisan Botanist
Originally by: Fred Freedom
Devil's advocate:

If you want to attract people to 0.0 you should probably begin by making it easier, not harder, to do things in 0.0.


it is already easy enough, nap, blob and conquer isnt what anyone would class as hard


There's about two guys in any given alliance who do the napping. Speaking as one of them, it's not a bad gig most of the time. The blobbing and conquering, though, is about a trillion times as much work as you're giving it credit for. I'm also one of the guys who does a big part of the logistics, POS setup, and all the other grunt work you need to keep an alliance running. That part, less fun. Most of the time it's tolerable, but sometimes it really does feel like it's a job I'm paying for. Until you've done it, lay off the "Oh, it's so easy" shtick.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Bring back the small scale 0.0 wars, and nerf the everloving **** out of massive blobs and NAP Coalitions.


Great idea! There's just one question - how exactly do you plan to bell the cat?

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Nonsense. It is trivially easy to show that some actions should be harder (even painful) for the game as a whole to be healthier. And the healthier game will increase the net enjoyment of the players - even if that action is harder for the players.

Consider that it should not be easy to make 100M ISK/hr in high sec running missions. It's bad for the game - yet certain players (me, for example) would find that nerfing missions in such a manner would be exceptionally painful.


True, making a particular action harder can be good for the game. I really don't see how this applies to the Space Trucker 2000 part of the game, though. Nobody likes that, and it's not a constraint that creates interesting gameplay elsewhere.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Also, mineral compression already exists. I'd say what should happen is that it should be deliberately improved.


Seeing as how I'm flying a JF worth of 425mm railguns right now, I'd say I'm aware of that. Personally, I like minerals being small, but compression just feels bizarre to me. An ingot of pure tritanium should be as dense as it gets, compressing from there is silly. The more I think about my above idea to just shrink low-end minerals by a few orders of magnitude, the more I like it.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.18 02:03:00 - [278]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/01/2011 02:04:05
Originally by: Zxmagus

You know thats impossible right thats the thing that every one with your argument forgets that you can't nerf more being better then less at least not with out turning eve into something like wow battlegrounds Alot of us like big climactic fights they are a reason to log on thats why when the post goes out hey guys big fight coming ,700 people a side log on just to be apart of it, the game even sells it's self with that idea.

I don't understand the people that live in empire and think full well that in the wilderness of 0.0 they should be able to have a small alliance of less then 200 people with zero diplomacy no spys be 100% self sufficient from empire with all production being done in house and be unattackable from any one larger then them selves.



You're putting words in my mouth. I am not in any way asking for "invulnerable" 200 man alliances. What I said was that not everyone enjoys dividing Eve into two enormous blobs and duking it out every weekend in 10000 person blobs. I further said that enormous massive 0.0 NAPfest Blobtrains are what are killing 0.0 in Eve. What you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding is that your enormous NAPfests with enormous power projection by default preclude the mere existence of smaller power blocs.

Frankly, the fact that the massive 0.0 alliances are against this change, and say it would be more difficult to have 10000 man blobs with these changes makes me ecstatic.

-Liang

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.18 02:32:00 - [279]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/01/2011 02:33:39
Quote:

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Bring back the small scale 0.0 wars, and nerf the everloving **** out of massive blobs and NAP Coalitions.


Great idea! There's just one question - how exactly do you plan to bell the cat?



Let's see:
- Add "sov hardeners" which provide resists for sov structures. Killing these hardeners is fairly fast even for smallish gangs, but they can be spammed within reason and may not appear on grid with each other or at any POS. This allows small gangs to 'force' the issue of a fight, or cause real damage to their enemies.
- Drastically reduce the HP on all sov structures. An unhardened sov structure can be dropped fairly fast even for a smallish gang. A hardened sov structure would require a lot of people to kill it in a reasonable time frame. Break up and kill the sov hardeners first.
- Reduce power projection (remove jump bridge networks, reduce capital/supercapital jump range). This helps ensure that even fairly major powers are are local powers.
- Change the pain points in logistics. It is entirely possible to smother huge scale logistics operations without destroying small scale operations. One way to do this would be to increase the number of low mass 0.0 <--> lowsec wormholes.

Quote:
True, making a particular action harder can be good for the game. I really don't see how this applies to the Space Trucker 2000 part of the game, though. Nobody likes that, and it's not a constraint that creates interesting gameplay elsewhere.


Ah, but it does. It creates a situation where the huge, vast empires we see today are simply too tedious to maintain. You are exactly right when you say that most of the alliance logistics are handled by a few people. So, it creates smaller empires with limited power projection.

Quote:

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Also, mineral compression already exists. I'd say what should happen is that it should be deliberately improved.


Seeing as how I'm flying a JF worth of 425mm railguns right now, I'd say I'm aware of that. Personally, I like minerals being small, but compression just feels bizarre to me. An ingot of pure tritanium should be as dense as it gets, compressing from there is silly. The more I think about my above idea to just shrink low-end minerals by a few orders of magnitude, the more I like it.


I guess you've never heard of compressed air?

-Liang

Ed: Formatting. Also, it might be possible to abuse my ideas about sov - I don't know or really care. What I do know is that encouraging smaller fights is good for the server and everyone in it. There's nothing that says that your 1500 person fight has to all be on the same grid.... or even in the same solar system.

Bhattran
Posted - 2011.01.18 02:42:00 - [280]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/01/2011 02:33:39
Ed: Formatting. Also, it might be possible to abuse my ideas about sov - I don't know or really care. What I do know is that encouraging smaller fights is good for the server and everyone in it. There's nothing that says that your 1500 person fight has to all be on the same grid.... or even in the same solar system.


Eve history says it must be, blobs must grow, all hail the blob. Wink

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.18 02:57:00 - [281]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Frankly, the fact that the massive 0.0 alliances are against this change, and say it would be more difficult to have 10000 man blobs with these changes makes me ecstatic.


And when it's someone from a 300-man sovholding alliance saying it?

Originally by: Liang Nuren
- Add "sov hardeners" which provide resists for sov structures. Killing these hardeners is fairly fast even for smallish gangs, but they can be spammed within reason and may not appear on grid with each other or at any POS. This allows small gangs to 'force' the issue of a fight, or cause real damage to their enemies.
- Drastically reduce the HP on all sov structures. An unhardened sov structure can be dropped fairly fast even for a smallish gang. A hardened sov structure would require a lot of people to kill it in a reasonable time frame. Break up and kill the sov hardeners first.
- Reduce power projection (remove jump bridge networks, reduce capital/supercapital jump range). This helps ensure that even fairly major powers are are local powers.
- Change the pain points in logistics. It is entirely possible to smother huge scale logistics operations without destroying small scale operations. One way to do this would be to increase the number of low mass 0.0 <--> lowsec wormholes.


Would sov structures still have reinforce timers? Because unless you change that, nobody is going to bother with hardening sov structures, they'll just pick it up on the first timer - hell, they'll probably be glad of the HP reduction, means less repping. And if you do change reinforce timers, then all of a sudden you're back to the bad old days of conquerable station ping-pong from 2004, where everything of value changes hands twice a day.

Also, as long as gates still connect point A to point B, power will still be projected. It'll just mean that your AHAC blob flies 30 jumps to the front lines instead of 15. They'll still fly, they'll just hate you for it.

As for wormholes, not a terrible idea, but I don't see most people bothering. Also, doesn't that kind of eliminate the whole "More gate travel = more fights" selling point?

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Ah, but it does. It creates a situation where the huge, vast empires we see today are simply too tedious to maintain. You are exactly right when you say that most of the alliance logistics are handled by a few people. So, it creates smaller empires with limited power projection.


You remind me a lot of people from the early days of titans, back when someone could say we'd only ever see a few in the game with a straight face. The best players - and this is true of any intellect-based game whatsoever - are max-minners. People who get as much as they can out of the rules systems, people who'll see a loophole and try to drive a Charon through it. For as long as a proper gamer chooses to invest their time in Eve, they'll do their best to make as much money, build as many ships, and win as many fights as they can. Tedium will bother them, and eventually drive them to ragequit, but until they do they'll drive as many freighters for as many jumps as it takes to get the job done to the best of their ability. You're trying to use boredom as a balancing tool, and it doesn't work that way. Boredom makes people hate you, but it doesn't make them stop doing something. There's no such thing as "Oh, this is too much work, I'm just going to give up a region". People who do that never get the regions in the first place. You'll destroy families, but you won't destroy alliances.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
I guess you've never heard of compressed air?


Sure I have. Never heard of compressed steel, though. And remember, no matter how good you make compression, you still have to move your raw minerals from the refinery to the factory.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.18 05:13:00 - [282]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Frankly, the fact that the massive 0.0 alliances are against this change, and say it would be more difficult to have 10000 man blobs with these changes makes me ecstatic.

And when it's someone from a 300-man sovholding alliance saying it?



I thought I was pretty clear about what I said.

Quote:

Would sov structures still have reinforce timers? Because unless you change that, nobody is going to bother with hardening sov structures, they'll just pick it up on the first timer - hell, they'll probably be glad of the HP reduction, means less repping. And if you do change reinforce timers, then all of a sudden you're back to the bad old days of conquerable station ping-pong from 2004, where everything of value changes hands twice a day.



Hmmmm, I thought it was pretty clear that there would be no timers - afterall "an unhardened sov structure can be dropped fairly fast even for a smallish gang". As to your concern about "the bad old days"... valid concern. The real problem with that time period was that you'd log in to a station you couldn't use. So, I think my solution to that would be to have stations become free for all until continuous sov was reestablished for some time period (3 days? A week?).

Quote:
Also, as long as gates still connect point A to point B, power will still be projected. It'll just mean that your AHAC blob flies 30 jumps to the front lines instead of 15. They'll still fly, they'll just hate you for it.


Well, I think you're missing a bit of the bigger picture here:
- They won't be able to send cap/supercap support without significantly more effort.
- They won't be able to send as many as easily. Some may still go... but it won't be as many, or as often.
- There would not be single epic fights starting at a certain time to determine the sov of a system. Instead, there would be long running skirmishes over sov hardeners and weakened sov structures. You might fly 30 jumps... but you really might miss the fight too.
- It would not be wise to empty your systems of PVPers and send them to help someone so far away. The lack of sov timers could leave your weaker systems utterly vulnerable.

Quote:
As for wormholes, not a terrible idea, but I don't see most people bothering. Also, doesn't that kind of eliminate the whole "More gate travel = more fights" selling point?


Thanks. I like to think it was a pretty decent way to make individual and small scale logistics fairly easy... and large scale logistics rather cumbersome. And, if someone wanted to do large scale logistics via jump freighters... well nothing stopping them from doing it roughly like they do now. Well, as long as they weren't zipping along on the wings of enormous jump bridge networks.

FWIW, you can fit a carrier worth of minerals in a couple blockade runners.

Quote:
You remind me a lot of people from the early days of titans, back when someone could say we'd only ever see a few in the game with a straight face. The best players - and this is true of any intellect-based game whatsoever - are max-minners. People who get as much as they can out of the rules systems, people who'll see a loophole and try to drive a Charon through it... There's no such thing as "Oh, this is too much work, I'm just going to give up a region"


Oh yes, I am quite aware of that - I have spent many a days building systems to explore how to game Eve's rules. As to losing a region - the goal here is to make it very feasible to lose that region (or another one) by over extending yourself.

As to steel compression... maybe you should read up on that. Wink

-Liang

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.18 05:40:00 - [283]
 

I'm sorry, I thought it was so obvious that reinforce timers were necessary that I didn't need to state it. Apparently I made a mistake. Sov timers are necessary. Eve fleets are not RL fleets, made up of sailors who are paid to live on their ship for months at a time. They're made up of people with day jobs, classes, families, and a powerful need to sleep at least occasionally. You cannot expect people to be around 24/7 to join fleets, and as such you need a fight broker mechanic to prevent the worst excesses of TZ warfare. And yes, that needs to be built into the sov system. You can have it be a "control meter" that takes into account who is dominant in the space for the longest period of the day, you can have a classic reinforce timer mechanic, and maybe there's a couple other options kicking around I haven't thought of. But you absolutely cannot have it just be sov ping-pong, because that's a dozen kinds of stupid.

Quote:
As to losing a region - the goal here is to make it very feasible to lose that region (or another one) by over extending yourself.


Well looking at the sov maps over time, I'd say mission accomplished.

Quote:
As to steel compression... maybe you should read up on that


Unless I'm missing a joke, steel isn't generally shrunk down to a twentieth of its former size for transport. Please let me know if I'm wrong, because I can think of a few very nice uses for a material with a specific gravity pushing 200.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.18 06:06:00 - [284]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
I'm sorry, I thought it was so obvious that reinforce timers were necessary that I didn't need to state it.


Eve is a world wide team based game. The fact that alliances which are near 100% concentrated in a single peak timezone are able to maintain sov is proof positive that sov timers are a failed mechanic. Everyone gathering the largest fleet that they can in order to deliberately crash the node and save their sov is also a failed game mechanic. Frankly, if you are worried about losing your sov and going into "station ping pong" (despite the fact that this specific concern was already addressed), then try recruiting people from another timezone. If you can't... you didn't deserve your sov in the first place.

The funny thing is that I'm not terribly attached to my ideas. But to proclaim that the way it is is the only way it can ever work is pure bull****. There are ways in which CCP can encourage smaller gangs. I merely suggested one that struck me.

Quote:

Quote:
As to losing a region - the goal here is to make it very feasible to lose that region (or another one) by over extending yourself.


Well looking at the sov maps over time, I'd say mission accomplished.



Try breaking those same sov maps down into coalition blocks for the last 5 years. I think you'll see a totally different story.

Quote:

Quote:
As to steel compression... maybe you should read up on that


Unless I'm missing a joke, steel isn't generally shrunk down to a twentieth of its former size for transport. Please let me know if I'm wrong, because I can think of a few very nice uses for a material with a specific gravity pushing 200.




As I said, you should read up on it. Furthermore, I'm not sure why real life mechanics should have any effect on what we can do thousands of years in game future.

-Liang

Aylara
Posted - 2011.01.18 10:16:00 - [285]
 

Reading through this topic, I noticed there's roughly the same number of people actually hurt by the JB removal as there are with the new CPU requirements. Carry on CCP!

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.01.18 10:23:00 - [286]
 

Edited by: Mecinia Lua on 18/01/2011 10:51:29
I thought of an additional remark to my remarks.

CCPs desire is more industry and more activity in 0.0. Now previously I went into why removing jump bridges was bad, removing frieghters is bad. Suggested that we allow outpost up to the limit of planets in a system and perhaps additional tools to help defend space.

I was just sitting thinking about it though as the patch is applied. I got to really thinking about what is the hardest part of industry in 0.0.

Then it dawned onto me, the Industry Index. It is to hard under current populations to keep the industry index. You can easily maintain a Military Index in a system but its almost impossible unless you have half dozen or more dedicated miners on a daily basis to keep up an industry index.

Solution halve the requirements of obtaining and maintaining each level of the Industry Index as a test. This should enable more alliances to keep the Industry Index up. This will give hidden belts and thus increase mining traffic or should long term as it makes us miners feel safer. More miners in the end means more targets for pvpers. Combined with a change in outpost limit this would probably have the most positive impact in increasing industry in 0.0. Lowering the cost of outpost construction would assist as well.

The next thing would be to double the belts in 0.0. In fact in particularly low belt systems this is a major problem with keeping the industry index or getting it up. If you have less than a half dozen belts, it will not be easy to get the industry index up. In addition to this put an ice belt in every constellation. This will help attact miners.

Tired of folks mining the ice in empire, you gotta make ice more plentiful in 0.0 its that simple. Perhaps some sort of industry upgrade that would add ice belts....this in addition to the upgrades that help the ore. You could have upgrades that added a belt of each race type and then finally have one that is more like a normal 0.0 belt. Believe me folks will upgrade and do this if you give them the tools.

The next thing to do is you need a ship that bridges the gap between the current industrials and the freighters. The best area to do this would be to introduce more transports of higher level than currently. A level 3 transport that was a deep space ore hauler might could provide the effort. Give it a special hold that only holds ore/ice and give it a decent hold size. Say 50k base instead of normal cargohold with mod slots that enable it to fit a tractor beam (for getting jet cans) and one other slot for maybe some sort of modicum weapon. (Keep in mind 1 weapon doesn't do much but it does psychologically make folks feel better and safer....even if it really doesn't do much). Some mid mods like an ecm burst and ab/mwd and some lows to either get more cargo or speed. Ideal cost of the ship should be somewhere between what the transports cost and what an orca costs.

If you'd take these steps you could easily nudge some of the mining done currently in empire to the various 0.0 Kingdoms. This would help reduce logistics (meaning fewer jbs to empire and back) etc. So it would accomplish your goals. How many move can't be certain and it would take time to kick it all up so moving this way it would probably be 3-6 months before you saw the benefits spreading and any major migration.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.18 11:38:00 - [287]
 

Originally by: Bhattran

4)While shooting structures may suck it can be a viable way to have multiple flash points that require a defender do something or risk 'losing out' by not doing something about the problem.

Situation is a 'core' system with 3 entry points 'external' to a space holder's territory. To 'take that 'core' system attacks have to be made on 'sentry' structures in all three of those entry points and all must succeed within a window of time and hold that ground for some period while defender 'drones' or the like spawn to fight. Alternatively during that holding period if the aggressor isn't present the 'sentry' structure repairs itself and must be taken down again and the hold timer is reset. This way you can't use uber fleet to take point A, move to point B take it, etc. If they are not reinforced through players arriving to fight the forces at the sentry points the 'core' system is left significantly weaker to an attack. This makes leaving the 'sentries' to be shot down without addressing the aggressors a bad move for defense/security of the 'core' system. It could even be tied to system/constellation upgrades where if the 'sentry' point isn't reinforced/defended by players in X time frame system upgrades suffer.



Already proposed, already shot down.

1) if the attacker need to incapacitate all 3 structures the defender will gather all his forces to defend only one of them and destroy the enemy fleet if it arrive piecemeal.

There is no need to defend the other 2 structures.

2) if the attacker need to destroy only one of the three structures we have the opposite scenario. The defender is forced to deploy forces at all 3 locations while the attacker can concentrate on one location.

The only option I can see would be if disabling the structures within minutes from each other would have a cumulative effect.

To make an example: disabling the first structure will reduce defence of the core system by 10%, the second by another 20% (for a total 30%) and the third by a further 30% (total 60%). To get this cumulative effect the attack to the structures should start within 1 minute from each other and some damage should be delivered every few second to each one until they are all disabled. If they are disables separately the effect on the "core" system would be only 10% for each disabled structure.

That way the defender would have to chose between deploying forces at each of the 3 structures, accepting a 10% loss in the defence of the "core" system and leave 1 structure unprotected or concentrate all forces on one structure and accept a 30% loss of the "core" system defence value.

Even this could be gamed, with the defender incapacitating one of the structures before the attacks on the others start so that the maximum bonus for the attacker can't be reached.

Vicious Cell
Amarr
Grim Determination
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.01.18 11:54:00 - [288]
 

Originally by: Tres Farmer
Originally by: Vicious Cell
*snip*
I would really hate if CCP actually changed their game based solely on what these CSM guys feel is needed. I know for a fact that the majority of players would be strongly against some of the stuff written in these meetings. As the majority of players have real lives and cannot afford harsh game mechanics, it would break the game for them.
*snap*

What? I don't even... ?!



I probably should have elaborated to explain that I was referring to mainly the industry sector of Eve.

I fully realize that Eve is a harsh game with loads of dire consequences which makes all other MMO's look like Hello Kitty Island Adventures. I am not saying any of that should change. All I was trying to say is that making this game even more inconvenient for casual players would overall have a negative affect on the game, not a positive one.

Also, that part you snipped in particular was probably the only part of my original post I didnt really like to begin with. But I just let it stay anyways. Now, non-surprisingly, it gets quoted. Laughing

tohs togi
Posted - 2011.01.18 11:57:00 - [289]
 

Iíve been wondering about whether CCP knows what they want to do. What caught my eye spesifically in that regard was the thing about wanting small alliances to be able to hold their own in nullsec, and removing jump freigthers. The smaller you are, the harder it seems to me that logistics become. If you are a big blob like the MM, IT or Goons it seems possible to have a large freight op going down from high sec. This is, however, a major operation. You need to lock down many systems in front of the freight run to be sure hostile gangs have not got themselves in there. And given size of the participating ships you are vulnerable to cloacked bombers etc. (Iíd imagin there be a lot of freight operations that would take days as one would get part of the way before having to abort and log off the freigthers and industials.) And the deeper you get in nullsec the more difficult this will get. Fortress Delve will be even more of a fortress.

It would seem to me that a small alliance wanting to operate in nullsec have two major challenges. A relative secure base and resupplying. Jump freigthers help with the latter. Also ease of resupply help with the willingness to fight in terms of sov warfare. If getting a new drake is hard then youíll be less willing to commit it unless you know youíll come out on top. (Though I accept that without JFs weíll se more gatecamps, especially if JBs are removed too.)

To me then removing jump freigthers seem to have only benefits for the already established big alliances, and be counter productive to fights. Neither of which I found on CCPs list of wanted outcomes.

If we start from the premise that we want the smaller guys to stand a chance in the soverignty end of nullsec (which I have understood as a goal) could rentable moons be an option? What I am thinking is that in sov. capable nullsec space you get your alliance in. And to make a safe base to operate from (where the undoc canít be permacamped like a station in NPC space) you toss up a POS, and choose to pay whatever is charged in moon rent to the local pirates. That POS is then invulnerable. It can be taken down only if you (a) stop paying the pirates, (b) he POS runs out of fuel and the forcefield goes down and (c) if soverignty of the system is claimed by a player corp. In all of these cases the POS would be vulnerable in the same ways as it is today. This would make it easy to establish a safe base to start from for a smaller alliance. It would require a tweaking of sov mechanics I think, to make it harder for (c) to take place. (Which must, of course be balanced with the reward for so doing.) I donít know, it is just a suggestion. It might very well be a bad one.

As for super proliferation, could the build rate be slowed by making them easier to abort? Sturctures to build must be placed in proximity of a POS, but outside the shield? We canít have them killed in one go, but a not too high amount of HP (should be possible to kill by a Black OP BS and bombers) and a reinforcement timer that can be preset by the corp setting it up? I know, this is more stucrure shooting, but make them killable by something smaller than a super blob and quicker than a POS shoot, but still with a chance to counter by the producers. It could make a few more die before leaving the production stage. (I honestly donít expect this idea to get any love, Iím just trying to see if we can think of ways that smaller than supers and smaller than the blobs can impact and be actionable.)

Vicious Cell
Amarr
Grim Determination
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.01.18 11:59:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: Zxmagus
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Zxmagus
Originally by: Bagehi
Just noticed that only two of the nine CSM are in sov holding alliances.



CSM's talking out of their asses about stuff they know nothing about, this shouldn't be a shock CCP has been trying to kill null sec power blocs for 2 years now. The funny thing is that remember when we had the second great eve war, that was really fun the entire of 0.0 was set up in 2 camps it had a feeling of immenseness to it that made eve something interesting to play with all sorts of emergent gameplay and giant slug fest fleet fights that was amazing what their suggesting is a devolution of eve and will turn 0.0 into just another pve zone


Not everyone appreciates dividing Eve into two camps and duking it out in 10000 person fleet battles. To me, the only kind of epic that is is epically stupid.


-Liang



Then please join a pirate corp that does small gang pvp or an empire war corp but don't destroy 0.0 so you can enjoy your style of eve.


At the same time please consider that with only two out of nine CSM guys being in SoV, then CSM guys have no place in being in charge of what the majority of Eve SoV players want. (since mathematically the seven non-SoV guys will overrule the two SoV guys).

If CCP wants the Eve playerbase's opinions on SoV warefare/0.0 space, they should do a direct poll or communication of some sort with us. Not let these Empire-dwelling CSM guys make the say for us. Like I've said before: It's also a terrible idea to put avid roleplayers in charge of anything game mechanic related. These guys actually feel they are some real Congressman of New Eden or some crap. They think it's all real. What we need is practical gamer-type people to give opinions. Regular joes who don't think their Avatar is a real person.

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2011.01.18 14:17:00 - [291]
 

I see another topic about changes of 0.0 and see GOONS trolling it to death again. I though they all died.

They trolled forums before dominion and CCP was milked and look with what we end up ? Dominion the worst expansion up to date.

Pomplamuse
Posted - 2011.01.18 15:19:00 - [292]
 

Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
I see another topic about changes of 0.0 and see GOONS trolling it to death again. I though they all died.

They trolled forums before dominion and CCP was milked and look with what we end up ? Dominion the worst expansion up to date.



would you prefer ccp nozh's version of supercarriers then?

you know the kind that could dock in stations

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.18 15:56:00 - [293]
 

Originally by: Vicious Cell

At the same time please consider that with only two out of nine CSM guys being in SoV, then CSM guys have no place in being in charge of what the majority of Eve SoV players want. (since mathematically the seven non-SoV guys will overrule the two SoV guys).



You make the very incorrect assumption that the "non-sov" CSM guys haven't been heavily involved in sov warfare for the last 5+ years. In fact, most of them have significantly more and better experience in Eve than you do.

-Liang

Tiligean
Posted - 2011.01.18 17:48:00 - [294]
 

If CCP were to change the dynamic where it becomes logistically challenging to get minerals from HiSec to NullSec (or ships, or materials, or mods, or whatever), there would have to be a multi-faceted change in the way nullsec alliances operate.

Right now the common 0.0 alliance recruitment goes like this: Can you fly a Drake? Can you fly a Scorp? Can you fly a T2 fit battleship? Can you fly a carrier? Can you fly an SC?

But it would have to add: Can you fly a Hulk? Can you fly a Mack? Can you fly an Orca? Can you fly a Rorqual? And that would be just as valuable as the combat ships.

0.0 would need to plan infrastructure to support refining, construction, invention on a large scale - more stations and POSses with labs
0.0 would have to integrate true industrial players into their alliances.
0.0 CTAs would not include "true" industrials (otherwise you might run out of ships.
Truely "valuable" systems would diversify from moongoo only to moongoo systems and high-quality mineral systems, creating more points of conflict since crippling your internal industry infrastructure becomes easier.
People who invent, mine, and manufacture en masse would be welcome in 0.0 rather than isolated to hisec (or losec)

In this universe, Veldspar is as valuable as Arkanor, because you need it just as much (maybe more) and the distribution of minerals in belts makes more sense for local production. Yes, it will take a team of miners days to acquire the full quantity of minerals to produce one supercap. This means losing them becomes more of an impact that "didn't want that mom anyway..."

The fantasy CCP is looking for is to move a complete swath of the population (not just the PvPers) into 0.0. This is a complete mindset change from the current one, so extremely difficult for someone currently in 0.0 to grasp.

In the current 0.0 mindset, so what if you have an alliance of 6000 people whelping a 300/400 man battleship fleet. 24 hours later and your alliance logistics team will have a new set of battleships and mods hauled down from jita. No difficulty choosing to attack (or defend) because it's easy mode to replace.

In this new painful future, that same alliance (or their opponents) may default to smaller ships and smaller conflicts because whelping a 300/400 battleship fleet takes WEEKS to replace, where whelping a 300 cruiser fleet takes half that.

This is why CCP says the transition will suck. Because for a while, people won't change, won't think and suddenly they won't have anything to fight in. Then they will have to re-evaluate how they work, and change isn't easy.

So what that the NC has the entire world of T2 moongoo in their hangars? They won't have enough Tritanium to build R.A.M. to construct T2 ships.

So you can't move item X/Y/Z from Jita. Good thing ratting drops some items so you can failfit some kind of ship.

So you, the one-off ship builder, you can't keep your corp or alliance in ships? You need someone who actually has trained the skills to do so. In fact, you need more than one someone, with maxed skills in that loathed Industry skill tree. And these people become important to your alliance, because without them, you don't have ships to blow up.

The repercussions of this are far, far reaching. It's quite scary. But it won't break the game. And if you are going to ragequit over it, you can give me your stuff.

Zxmagus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.18 18:00:00 - [295]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Vicious Cell

At the same time please consider that with only two out of nine CSM guys being in SoV, then CSM guys have no place in being in charge of what the majority of Eve SoV players want. (since mathematically the seven non-SoV guys will overrule the two SoV guys).



You make the very incorrect assumption that the "non-sov" CSM guys haven't been heavily involved in sov warfare for the last 5+ years. In fact, most of them have significantly more and better experience in Eve than you do.

-Liang


What are you basing this on? your using a highly subjective argument about your own style of enjoyment of eve and applying that to every one. EVE is a sandbox game that people are allowed to derive their own style of enjoyment from be it sov warfare empire production or amarr role player. All your arguments so far have been I LIKE IT THIS WAY YOU ALL SUCK FOR NOT LIKING IT THIS WAY!

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.18 18:24:00 - [296]
 

Originally by: Zxmagus
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Vicious Cell

At the same time please consider that with only two out of nine CSM guys being in SoV, then CSM guys have no place in being in charge of what the majority of Eve SoV players want. (since mathematically the seven non-SoV guys will overrule the two SoV guys).



You make the very incorrect assumption that the "non-sov" CSM guys haven't been heavily involved in sov warfare for the last 5+ years. In fact, most of them have significantly more and better experience in Eve than you do.

-Liang


What are you basing this on? your using a highly subjective argument about your own style of enjoyment of eve and applying that to every one. EVE is a sandbox game that people are allowed to derive their own style of enjoyment from be it sov warfare empire production or amarr role player. All your arguments so far have been I LIKE IT THIS WAY YOU ALL SUCK FOR NOT LIKING IT THIS WAY!


I base it on their corp/alliance histories, and the roles they've played in those corps/alliances. Far be it for facts to get in your way though.

-Liang

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.18 18:25:00 - [297]
 

Edited by: Fred Freedom on 18/01/2011 18:37:49
Originally by: Tiligean
If CCP were to change the dynamic where it becomes logistically challenging to get minerals from HiSec to NullSec (or ships, or materials, or mods, or whatever), there would have to be a multi-faceted change in the way nullsec alliances operate.

Right now the common 0.0 alliance recruitment goes like this: Can you fly a Drake? Can you fly a Scorp? Can you fly a T2 fit battleship? Can you fly a carrier? Can you fly an SC?

But it would have to add: Can you fly a Hulk? Can you fly a Mack? Can you fly an Orca? Can you fly a Rorqual? And that would be just as valuable as the combat ships.


Without being mean about it, here are two reasons I know you've never been to 0.0:

-Rorquals are by far the most valuable ship per isk required to fly one in 0.0 as it is (yes, more than supers; you can get along with one less super, but every alliance in the game is desperate for rorqual-flying logistics pilots)

-Most of the things you listed require 20 to 50m SP to fly correctly while hulks require 5.

Quote:
In this universe, Veldspar is as valuable as Arkanor, because you need it just as much (maybe more) and the distribution of minerals in belts makes more sense for local production. Yes, it will take a team of miners days to acquire the full quantity of minerals to produce one supercap. This means losing them becomes more of an impact that "didn't want that mom anyway..."


In this universe, we stage in hisec and reduce our logistics issues to 0.

Quote:
The fantasy CCP is looking for is to move a complete swath of the population (not just the PvPers) into 0.0. This is a complete mindset change from the current one, so extremely difficult for someone currently in 0.0 to grasp.


It's not a difficult thing to understand at all. It simply contradicts the playstyle of both PvP'ers, who think mining is the most boring torture ever devised in an MMO, and miners, who don't want to push one button a minute for 6 hours in 3,000 EHP ships that can be one volleyed by a half dozen bombers staged in through an AFK cloaker no gatecamp can stop. There are a full dozen different game mechanics that prevent the type of thing you're talking about. CCP *could* fix them all, but the result would not be Eve Online. Nor does nerfing jump bridges have anything to do with any of them.

Quote:
In the current 0.0 mindset, so what if you have an alliance of 6000 people whelping a 300/400 man battleship fleet. 24 hours later and your alliance logistics team will have a new set of battleships and mods hauled down from jita. No difficulty choosing to attack (or defend) because it's easy mode to replace.

In this new painful future, that same alliance (or their opponents) may default to smaller ships and smaller conflicts because whelping a 300/400 battleship fleet takes WEEKS to replace, where whelping a 300 cruiser fleet takes half that.


Well, we could show up in cruisers and lose a bunch of fights for 3 weeks, or we could stage out of Torrinos and not have this problem at all. Unless you want to nerf production *everywhere*, not just 0.0, all we'd have to do to avoid this magical land of never ending frustration is move our staging point 15 jumps. Everyone else would immediately do the same thing so it wouldn't even take any longer to get to a fight (but forget living in 0.0.)

Quote:

So what that the NC has the entire world of T2 moongoo in their hangars? They won't have enough Tritanium to build R.A.M. to construct T2 ships.

So you can't move item X/Y/Z from Jita. Good thing ratting drops some items so you can failfit some kind of ship.


Or we'd buy all our ships in Torrinos and not deal with any of that.

I get where you're trying to go, but making 0.0 more unfun is not going to make us play suboptimally, it will just push us to stage in hisec (and gank your hulks for fun.) I love the "adapt or die" meme in your post because our version of adapting would = a lot more of your dead hulks.

Tiligean
Posted - 2011.01.18 19:20:00 - [298]
 

Edited by: Tiligean on 18/01/2011 19:23:23
Well Fred, I've been in 4 different 0.0 alliances, and had to live in Fethabolis. I think I get 0.0 logistics from a fairly painful experience. I've never been in Goonswarm though, so I don't know how your alliance deals with deep 0.0 logistics.

We had JF services running daily from Jita. So even deep in Fethabolis we got ships, ammo and mods quickly and easily, with a minimal (15-20%) markup. TBH, it would have been easier with an industrial corp with the right assets in place (all the way up to stations and POSses) to crank out ammo, ships and such sometimes, especially when you get assaulted and your links to empire are threatened.

Black Ops is a joke. 4.5AU Max jump range on a Black Ops bridge means your little bomber threat doesn't impact most deep sov systems, and most good true-sec systems (with good ores across the board) are deep in regions, not near edges.

I think Jump Bridges aren't part of the problem, but the range and capability of cyno is, when paired with the SC proliferation. And although the logistics thing is apparently impossible for you to find a viable solution to, breaking the ease of empire to nullsec logistics would certainly slow the rate of supercapital proliferation. As many others in this thread have stated, no one thing is a solution, but you can't see any of them as possibilities.

Perhaps look at it from this angle, and reapply your resources: CCP is going to screw with logistics. What needs to happen in 0.0 to keep it from wreaking complete havoc?

The other thing is, they aren't trying to make YOU a miner. They are trying to redistribute population out of HiSec. You can still gank them wherever you wish, in whatever ship you can gather the minerals to build and it. People already mine (some do, really, and I know it's impossible for you to comprehend but I know guys who do this 3-4 days a week for 3-4 hours at a time - just about the same amount of time I spend looking for fights.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.18 19:44:00 - [299]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
The fact that alliances which are near 100% concentrated in a single peak timezone are able to maintain sov is proof positive that sov timers are a failed mechanic.


So you want to force every sovholding alliance in the game to speak English? That's the only language with full TZ coverage, after all.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Everyone gathering the largest fleet that they can in order to deliberately crash the node and save their sov is also a failed game mechanic.


So it's fine if they get big fleets together because they want to have more guys shooting?

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Frankly, if you are worried about losing your sov and going into "station ping pong" (despite the fact that this specific concern was already addressed), then try recruiting people from another timezone. If you can't... you didn't deserve your sov in the first place.


Station pingpong was addressed, albeit badly. You didn't touch the idea of sov pingpong. So what would happen, both sides get to claim a system, put up jump bridges and cynojammers? Would we be able to get four sanctums to a system if two alliances each have iHub upgrades for it?

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Try breaking those same sov maps down into coalition blocks for the last 5 years. I think you'll see a totally different story.


Other than Tribute and Tenal, I'd be hard-pressed to think of any region that hasn't changed hands at least twice in the last five years. Often far, far more. In the last year it's been especially pronounced - compare Jan 1, 2010 with Jan 1, 2011. Bloc-level sov changes happened in Cloud Ring, Fountain, Delve, Querious, Period Basis, Providence twice, Catch, Immensea, Tenerifis, possibly Esoteria(I'm not 100% sure of southern politics), Omist, Detorid, Wicked Creek, Scalding Pass, Insmother, and Geminate twice. That's 17-18 changes, and there's only 34 regions of sov 0.0. That's half of everything.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
As I said, you should read up on it. Furthermore, I'm not sure why real life mechanics should have any effect on what we can do thousands of years in game future.


"Read up on it" my ass. Links or it didn't happen. And RPish reasons like "Solids are pretty hard to compress" are always secondary to gameplay for me, but they do exist. Besides, my primary dislike for mineral compression as a solution is gameplay-based, not arguments based on materials science(though I will point out that at the rate stuff like that advances, it's quite believable that we won't have done anything really insane in the next 20,000 years).

Originally by: Mecinia Lua
The next thing to do is you need a ship that bridges the gap between the current industrials and the freighters.


They call it the Orca.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.18 20:25:00 - [300]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Liang Nuren
The fact that alliances which are near 100% concentrated in a single peak timezone are able to maintain sov is proof positive that sov timers are a failed mechanic.


So you want to force every sovholding alliance in the game to speak English? That's the only language with full TZ coverage, after all.



I said nothing about what language(s) your alliance speaks. I simply offered proof that sov timers are a failed mechanic.

Quote:
So it's fine if they get big fleets together because they want to have more guys shooting?


As I said: there's nothing about your "epic fight" that says that all 10000 people have to be shooting at the same guy, on the same grid, or even in the same system. I would argue that getting your huge fleets together very demonstrably prevents "more guys shooting". Unfortunately, current game mechanics - failed mechanics - make 10 minute module lag and crashing the node the standard fare.

Quote:
Station pingpong was addressed, albeit badly. You didn't touch the idea of sov pingpong. So what would happen, both sides get to claim a system, put up jump bridges and cynojammers? Would we be able to get four sanctums to a system if two alliances each have iHub upgrades for it?


I thought it was pretty clear that there would be no sov. No jump bridges, no cynojammers, no sanctums. But on the bright side, until sov was restored to someone else, everyone would be able to use the station - and all services thereof. No sov ping pong. No station ping pong. Just a war zone.

Quote:
Other than Tribute and Tenal, I'd be hard-pressed to think of any region that hasn't changed hands at least twice in the last five years. ...


You offered up specific sov changes when I asked you to look at power blocs. Looking at that map shows me the same power blocs exist in the same places that they have for years. But even disregarding that, the map looks mostly the same to me from an individual alliance level. Huge swaths of space haven't been challenged in YEARS.

Quote:
"Read up on it" my ass. Links or it didn't happen. ... Besides, my primary dislike for mineral compression as a solution is gameplay-based


Frankly, if you have a complaint about mineral compression from a gameplay perspective, you might try actually bringing that specific complaint up. So far, all you've done is whine that it doesn't make real life science sense - and then refused to look anything up when its suggested that maybe, just maybe there might be ways to compress things even today. I grant you that it isn't a whole hell of a lot at present.

Your mental laziness is staggering, and I'm damn sure not going to reward you by linking anything.

-Liang


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

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