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 : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (12)

Author Topic

Rixiu
The Inuits
Posted - 2011.01.16 12:20:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: Rixiu on 16/01/2011 12:23:39
I doubt removing jump bridges completely is a good idea. Make them go offline when the system is SBUd, restrict them to alliance use only and only one per system seem more reasonable to me than just ripping them out.

Edit: Having been in an independent 0.0 alliance trying to carve a few systems out for ourselfs the biggest issue in taking sov is:

1. Ihub and structure hitpoints
2. Timers
3. Ihub and struct Hitpoints
4. Hitpoints again.

Sitting for hours shooting something is ****ing boring, m'kay?

And of course, ENGINE TRAILS!!

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.16 12:31:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Ideally, your procedures should be sufficiently robust that it makes no difference whether you publish them or not. Google appears to have managed this with the copyright protection algorithms it developed for youtube, for example.


I'm begging to differ with everyone in this thread. Google's content match implementation is horribly flawed -- at least on a procedural level. For example, despite having buyout licenses for classical music used in some of my videos, and despite prominent credits to that effect, many of the videos have been flagged as infringing by rights-owners of other recordings of the same music. When you petition and explain the facts, the petition goes to the rights-owners, who immediately deny the petition. Google then can either block or place ads on the videos (and give the money to the guys improperly claiming copyright). Some of my best robotics videos can't be seen in Germany because of this crap.

Not only do I have no recourse, but the president of the company that created the music I used, and from whom I bought a license, is absolutely powerless to do anything. The only resource is litigation, which the copyright claim-jumpers know will not be cost effective.

Google knows this is going on, and does nothing. There is not even a way on the petition form to properly say "this is a false positive". It's shameful.

So maybe not the best example of how to do things. Very Happy

Originally by: "Lily Liu"
Where is the discussion about Technetium? Is it working as intended to have the valuable moon goo concentrated in one coalition's space, because it is a racial moon goo type?


ISTR that this was touched upon, and the opinion expressed was that some areas of space should be clearly more valuable than others; it is viewed as a conflict driver. My personal opinion is that reality is more complex, the differences should be more subtle, and that EVE players in general do not require a good reason to go to war.

Drazi1
Minmatar
The Knights Templar
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2011.01.16 12:37:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: Drazi1 on 16/01/2011 12:45:44
Originally by: Rixiu
Edited by: Rixiu on 16/01/2011 12:23:39
I doubt removing jump bridges completely is a good idea. Make them go offline when the system is SBUd, restrict them to alliance use only and only one per system seem more reasonable to me than just ripping them out.

Edit: Having been in an independent 0.0 alliance trying to carve a few systems out for ourselfs the biggest issue in taking sov is:

1. Ihub and structure hitpoints
2. Timers
3. Ihub and struct Hitpoints
4. Hitpoints again.


I like the idea of having the jbs go offline when said system is sbu'd :-D,never thought of that
Sitting for hours shooting something is ****ing boring, m'kay?

And of course, ENGINE TRAILS!!


Agrees with the idea of the jbs being offlined when said system is sbu'd

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.01.16 13:15:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
EVE players in general do not require a good reason to go to war.

Please elaborate.

Can we get a document containing all three parts? Just merging part 1 and 2 doesn't make much sense tbh.

Di Mulle
Posted - 2011.01.16 13:19:00 - [95]
 

Edited by: Di Mulle on 16/01/2011 13:19:40
Originally by: Venkul Mul



Yes, 6 months for a patch with the rebalancing of several ships is a reasonable timeframe.




Yes, I too would think 6 months is a reasonable timeframe. The problem is, in reality it became like from 2 years up to infinity.

It seems to me that CCP has largely abandoned the ever going task of balancing - because it is tedious and will never give an ideal result anyway. So they went for the greener pastures, forgetting (or simply ignoring) the large term negative impact this creates.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.16 13:40:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Aineko Macx
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
EVE players in general do not require a good reason to go to war.

Please elaborate.


“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.” -- Ghengis Khan (a noob, by EVE standards, but still)

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.16 13:48:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Sethose Olderon

I will say this, if you remove freighters from this game, you will have an exodus that makes the SWG fiasco look like an average afternoon picknick. Making the game harder will not make it more fun, try and you'll see how much of a bad idea it is.


Nobody suggested removing freighters.

Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Your problem is that anything you will do to make the game harder for big alliances will make it twice as hard for small alliances. I don't see how you'll get around that but I look forward to your ideas.

If you make travel much more difficult and I had friendly neighbours before, that would not last long Razz as we'd start shooting each other out of boredom. Sadly, by then most people would have left as they got tired of waiting for their ships to arrive or their product to be moved.


The needs of smaller alliances are also lesser than that of bigger alliances. But either way, I didn't suggest "get rid of the jump bridges and do nothing else". The point of the discussion about force projection and mobility was to say I felt it is too easy to move stuff around, it is too easy to move far to pwn someone else. People are less willing to engage roaming groups now than they were 2-3 years ago.

Also, smaller alliances don't have an extensive jump bridge network. When I said "get rid of them", I also said "but it has to be accompanied by other changes so that it doesn't become artificially cumbersome to move stuff about", we reiterated the need for POS fuel compression, for instance, and improved industrial facilities in 0.0, maybe even overhaul POS industry capabilities. It's not just a matter of "make everything more difficult", it's finding alternatives to the current situation to accomplish the goals.

You made my point when you said you'd engage your neighbours if moving about was less easy. There seems to be way less localized conflicts sov now. If people fight, it's not near, and it's not alone, and it's with larger groups of people. When a small cap fight emerges, one or the other just calls on to friends, no matter how far, and it escalates into everything and the kitchen sink. So smaller cap fights are less frequent.

Either way, this discussion is part of a process, we identified what we (CCP & CSM) believe to be issues, explored some ways of resolving them, CSM offered some suggestions, CCP offered their own and listened to our reactions, so the game designers at CCP now have a better idea which way they can and/or should go. I expect we'll be talking about a more precise plan as time goes by.


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.16 13:54:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Di Mulle
Edited by: Di Mulle on 16/01/2011 13:19:40
Originally by: Venkul Mul



Yes, 6 months for a patch with the rebalancing of several ships is a reasonable timeframe.




Yes, I too would think 6 months is a reasonable timeframe. The problem is, in reality it became like from 2 years up to infinity.

It seems to me that CCP has largely abandoned the ever going task of balancing - because it is tedious and will never give an ideal result anyway. So they went for the greener pastures, forgetting (or simply ignoring) the large term negative impact this creates.


About that, this first:

Quote:
CCP’s response was that it ranked rebalancing overpowered ships and items as a higher priority than balancing unused items – fixing problems with things that are being used rather to fixing problems with those that are not. The CSM responded that when something is not being used, that is a symptom of a problem. That was acknowledged by CCP but did not change the priority, for example the Dramiel is causing problems while the Destroyers are reducing the variety of gameplay for players, as unfortunate that uselessness is.


I.e: if it isn't terribly broken and the CSM don't push we will take our sweet time;

Then this:

Quote:
The CSM started out by addressing the issue of Hybrid weapon systems and how they were out of line with most the two other turrets. The point was made clear with the question from CSM; ‘when did you last see a Hybrid turret used in PvP?’ Almost immediately the answer came from another CSM member, ‘Megathrons with blasters are used’.
...
This question prompted the reaction from both CSM and CCP that going into specifics like percentage numbers or minute number theory would not serve any purpose and it would be better to try and identify what needed to be addressed rather than how to address it.



The CSM will push what interest them firs, what is left maybe someday. For hybrids it as been moved on to maybe, someday as we CCP+CSM need to identify the problem.

I can accept CCP point of view, they should reason from the position of a moneymaking company with a limited (even if not necessarily small) budget for development.

I appreciate way less the CSM position. They tend to represent they constituent interest, not those of EVe in general.
Maybe they think the two thing are identical, but they aren't.












Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.16 13:57:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Sethose Olderon

I will say this, if you remove freighters from this game, you will have an exodus that makes the SWG fiasco look like an average afternoon picknick. Making the game harder will not make it more fun, try and you'll see how much of a bad idea it is.


Nobody suggested removing freighters.



Quote:
Greyscale: The harder we can make logistics, the better for the game viewed as an abstract system. It would be much better for the game if we got rid of freighters, but we have to balance what is good for the game at a higher systemic level with making the player's lives a living hell. Forcing people to do convoys with lots of industrials would, from a higher level systemic view, be awesome. But for the individual players, it would “suck balls.”



This give the impression that if CCP is not ready to remove them, they will not be displeased in nerfing them.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:24:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Aineko Macx
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
EVE players in general do not require a good reason to go to war.

Please elaborate.


“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.” -- Ghengis Khan (a noob, by EVE standards, but still)

That contradicts even what the minutes state as possible reasons for the decline of pvp. Yes, small scale pvp is driven mainly by the sheer fun of shooting somebody in the face, but major conflicts (as in bloc vs. bloc) is typically motivated by very specific goals like moon ownership.

Nika Dekaia
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:43:00 - [101]
 

Very good stuff, indeed.

Many thanks to the CSM and the Devs´for their work. Much appreciated.

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:02:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Tres Farmer
@Fred Freeform

- Minerals.. if there is no local mining it needs addressing. Why is there only local mining of ABC and nothing else?

- Mineral logistics.. again, why is there no local mining of the basics going on? Why don't those high sec bears not come in droves and mine in your space?




There is no local mining of any kind. ABC does not get mined much more than veldspar. To confirm this, go look at the military indexes in practically any region (the average for any system with > 3-4 belts is going to be something like 4.5) and then check the *total* number of industry index 5 systems in the game (there might be one or two.) This isn't a perfect metric (yes, I know about leaving it at 3), but it should tell you something.

0.0 mineral production comes from the drone regions where it's pre-compressed, from the occasional guy running 20 simultaneous mackinaw bots in dead end systems with 50 bubbles on the gate, and from NPC haulers. There is almost nobody actually mining in 0.0 in the same way that it's done in Empire. Between the bots driving down the price of low and mid ends and the ease of sanctuming/plexing for isk, mining is worthless as a profession. The followup comment that we don't have a use for 5m SP characters with all 5m SP in mining is correct, but misses the point. Never mind that it's the most boring activity in any videogame ever produced; for it to be viable as a profession, mineral prices would have to be 3-5x what they are now.

Quote:
- Refining and Production.. POS could help with that. But again, why aren't there more people in your space delivering this stuff?

- Manufacturing time and slot capacity.. again, why isn't there more local manufacturing going on?
Why don't the high sec bears come to your space and manufacture locally?

- Finished goods logistics.. again, lack of people. Why?


There are people (although not many) doing all these things. The way it's done is simple: some helpful guy with a bunch of BPO's buys the minerals in Jita and compresses, a JF service delivers 100,000 1400mm Artillery I's, they get melted down into minerals in a refinery, taken to a factory and used in production.

Why not skip the bolded step? Player owned stations are terrible compared to NPC conquerables. You can't produce in a factory and you can't decompress (without losing 10% to taxes) in a refinery. It's not an accident that most production hubs are in NPC stations.

Why not POS? Try manufacturing 100 BS (we might go through 200-300 maelstroms in a week right now) and see how fun that is from a POS.

Why not finished goods logistics? I'm assuming you mean ferrying completed stuff over. The answer is that you can fit 100 BS' worth of minerals into 1-2 JF loads, or you can fit 7 completed battleship hulls. Aside from the fuel cost, the importation cost (i.e. paying the guy with the JF) alone makes that prohibitive.

Quote:
TL;DR.. the whole complaint falls flat on it's face cause you don't need more people where you are. You got the jumpbridges and the JFs and are perfectly capable to do all this stuff without the additional people and the headache they cause you.
They cause a security risk and most of them don't want to deal with politics, thus wouldn't come in the wake of a renter alliance in your space so they could become blue.



90% of 0.0 has renter alliances that do all these things, but there aren't any full time miners in them, either. There are plenty of industry corps out here, but most of them don't mine except on organized ops since it takes a fleet just to be moderately safe (not to mention that it doesn't make any money). They do make supercaps, run importation services and fuel POS, all very useful things in 0.0, but they don't mine for a spaceship living. Removing jump bridges will make living here a massive pain in the ass, but it won't do anything to address actually having to produce a battleship in the region.

Dalilus
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:12:00 - [103]
 

I read that subscriptions are down and that the number of high sec residents is declining. Duh! Carebears, in my opinion, are getting bored about being ganked, ninja looted, nerfed (loot, bounties, lp points, lvl 5 mish sent to low sec, low quality roids, and the list goes on) with no end in sight to their plight because "they make too much isk", pvp is what drives all EVE players, and the mistaken idea that they "will roll downhill to low sec and eventually nullsec". Right. Maybe some of them did go and play Hello Kitty.

But numbers dont lie. Around 250k had left, a few to low sec, null sec and wormholes but most simply quit and I would not be surprised that when the final chapter of Incursion rolls out, if its another gankfest, scanfest, ninjafest and nerfest with no solo content, other carebears hanging on with the hope those 40 new missions are NOT all going to be courier missions will stop playing carrousel with their shiny ships, stop looking at the sp counter go up while watching tv deciding wether to run the damsel for the 450345.6 time bored out their mad little minds, and turn off the lights in their hangars for good. Just saying.

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:17:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
The needs of smaller alliances are also lesser than that of bigger alliances. But either way, I didn't suggest "get rid of the jump bridges and do nothing else". The point of the discussion about force projection and mobility was to say I felt it is too easy to move stuff around, it is too easy to move far to pwn someone else. People are less willing to engage roaming groups now than they were 2-3 years ago.

Also, smaller alliances don't have an extensive jump bridge network. When I said "get rid of them", I also said "but it has to be accompanied by other changes so that it doesn't become artificially cumbersome to move stuff about", we reiterated the need for POS fuel compression, for instance, and improved industrial facilities in 0.0, maybe even overhaul POS industry capabilities. It's not just a matter of "make everything more difficult", it's finding alternatives to the current situation to accomplish the goals.

You made my point when you said you'd engage your neighbours if moving about was less easy. There seems to be way less localized conflicts sov now. If people fight, it's not near, and it's not alone, and it's with larger groups of people. When a small cap fight emerges, one or the other just calls on to friends, no matter how far, and it escalates into everything and the kitchen sink. So smaller cap fights are less frequent.

Either way, this discussion is part of a process, we identified what we (CCP & CSM) believe to be issues, explored some ways of resolving them, CSM offered some suggestions, CCP offered their own and listened to our reactions, so the game designers at CCP now have a better idea which way they can and/or should go. I expect we'll be talking about a more precise plan as time goes by.


I'm aware that there used to be more small gang pvp in 2006. Other gameplay in 2006 included ships with half their current HP, no t2 mods used in PvP, a dozen battleships or a single carrier costing real money to lose, and no SCs/titans. If Eve were still a game where a carrier meant something, you'd have small gang PvP. It's not, so no matter what you do every small gang will always have an alt-sized capfleet and, increasingly, a small SC fleet on standby.

There are many reasons why powerblocs exist in this game (hint: it's because everyone's on the same server and has long memories), but at this point none of them really have all that much to do with gameplay mechanics. Fragmenting the game by making everyone stare at Loading, Please Wait screens that much longer is certainly going to **** people off and nuke 0.0 industry, but it won't make RZR magically break up with MM or make a single Drone Russian reset standings when someone's sov gets threatened. I mean, seriously, do you really think any part of the NC is going to say "well, I guess we don't 'need' 200 tech moons and it takes an extra half hour to get there; time to cede a region" instead of moving subcaps down via titans?

PS: if you want to address spiderwebbed JB networks, nerf tech

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:27:00 - [105]
 

To prove some of what I was saying, I just logged in in the middle of Deklein, a great mining region since something like half our systems are below -.75 truesec.

The entire region has the following number of minerals on the market:
Tritanium - ~250-300m units (160 of them in the one system where people occasionally mine as a group for fun)
Pyerite - 400m units (225 of them in the system we import minerals from Empire in)
Mex - something like 80m units
Iso - 80m units, 55 of them in one system
Nocx - under 4m units
Zyd - 1m units
Mega - 600k units

An ME1 supercarrier BPC requires 1 billion (1,000,000,000) units of tritanium, 100m units of mex and 335K units of megacyte. That is *one* ship. Now pretend you're a midsized alliance holding one region that needs to produce 5-6 supercaps, 1-2 titans and 100 BS a month. Do you begin to understand what the problem is?

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:30:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Fred Freedom

I'm aware that there used to be more small gang pvp in 2006. Other gameplay in 2006 included ships with half their current HP, no t2 mods used in PvP, a dozen battleships or a single carrier costing real money to lose, and no SCs/titans. If Eve were still a game where a carrier meant something, you'd have small gang PvP. It's not, so no matter what you do every small gang will always have an alt-sized capfleet and, increasingly, a small SC fleet on standby.


There's obviously a combination of factors leading to the current situation. No single one of which is singlehandedly responsible for the state of things. That's why we talked about a series of things that could be, if implemented together, change the landscape enough that things would change for the better.

Originally by: Fred Freedom

There are many reasons why powerblocs exist in this game (hint: it's because everyone's on the same server and has long memories), but at this point none of them really have all that much to do with gameplay mechanics. Fragmenting the game by making everyone stare at Loading, Please Wait screens that much longer is certainly going to **** people off and nuke 0.0 industry, but it won't make RZR magically break up with MM or make a single Drone Russian reset standings when someone's sov gets threatened. I mean, seriously, do you really think any part of the NC is going to say "well, I guess we don't 'need' 200 tech moons and it takes an extra half hour to get there; time to cede a region" instead of moving subcaps down via titans?



No, but what unites people is common goals, when fighting people half the universe away becomes harder, people tend to cease being on such friendly terms with their neighbours and fight them instead simply because what united them no longer exists, so existing frictions become prevalent in defining the relationship. Also it helps smaller scale invasions (who the hell is going to invade anyone in the NC atm, when the whole north can descend on you in half an hour, if that).

I'm not saying putting the infrastructure in place to move lots of people about is easy. Neither is coordinating these people, but once it's in place it's far too easy to move large quantities of people about, and then nobody but similarly large entities can fight them off, which creates immutability in landscape and no opportunities for newcomers.

Regional conflicts are a requirement and they don't happen.
Mobility reduction is but one of the tools in achieving that goal.

Lili Lu
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:31:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 16/01/2011 01:24:25
Originally by: Lili Lu
Where is there any discussion about how invention still is not profitable with the terrible ME that can't get anywhere near a researched BPO? Do you want all command ships etc to be only produced by the few BPO holders?

Where is your post on the assembly hall section of the forum about it?
Did you contact anyone to raise this?

We're your representatives. There's a process in place. Post on Assembly Hall, get a CSM member to raise it for discussion within the CSM (we actually do that on our own, but bringing it to our attention sometimes helps), CSM votes on the thing, if it gets 5 votes out of 9, we talk about it in Iceland for certain.

Not saying I would actually support such a proposal, but this is the reason it wasn't discussed.



You will find some comment about that (making invention more profitable) hidden within the "Remove T2 BPO immediately or we will ragequit en masse" threads in Assembly hall and the S&I section for the forum.

Generally they are posts by Akita T or other people that know both how invention and BPO production work.

As the call to destroy the T2 BPO draw much more attention and give warm and fuzzy thoughts tho those that love other people pain (real of imaginated) they never get the attention they deserve.

You can find an example in the Assembly Hall here with link to a larger post.



Thanks Venkul.Smile Actually started typing my own reply and then lost interest :effort: Sad

Yeah, the suggestions have been mainly buried in lucent replies within the pie-in-the-sky please remove tech II BPO threads. Removal of those will never happen, and not really sure it should anyway. But it can't be that hard for CCP to just increase the base ME on invent jobs to diversify the production sources. Some things just aren't even worth inventing as things stand because the component costs cannot compete with the BPO holders. And invention was supposed to replace tech II BPOs . . .

Another new feature introduced pre-nerfed and not even years later readjusted . . .

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 16:03:00 - [108]
 

Edited by: Fred Freedom on 16/01/2011 16:10:29
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
I'm not saying putting the infrastructure in place to move lots of people about is easy. Neither is coordinating these people, but once it's in place it's far too easy to move large quantities of people about, and then nobody but similarly large entities can fight them off, which creates immutability in landscape and no opportunities for newcomers.

Regional conflicts are a requirement and they don't happen.
Mobility reduction is but one of the tools in achieving that goal.


If regional conflicts were a requirement, the answer would be to take the several hundred valuable moons concentrated in exactly one area of the game and redistribute them across 0.0 such that any given constellation actually had something worth shooting.

Instead, everything since Dominion's launch has gone exactly the opposite way. Supercarriers as an I Win button, titans as a viable anti-subcap fleet once FBs got nerfed, anomalies making truesec irrelevant and moons (all but one moon!) becoming relatively worthless means that the game is now about drama and/or who has the longest grudge. There is next to no reason to actually take a constellation over except for me not liking the other guy and vice versa. This is actually surprisingly adequate and the reason large parts of Eve are now on fire, but has nothing to do with mobility being too easy. In fact, the more you nerf mobility the more you turn titan bridging into an even bigger I Win button, and I hope I don't need to spell out why needing access to many titans to get people to a fight is not going to help promote intra-regional warfare.

That's all aside from the fact - and it is a fact - that making people stare at loading screens longer is not something that makes games more fun. If you want to try to make the game 'fun', whatever your definition of fun, the objective ought to be to make interaction with other players MORE available. I understand that you want to destabilize powerblocs to make that happen, but what you're proposing is to change the game mechanics to force players with 5+ years of interaction with each other to interact differently ON TOP OF making interaction harder to start with. This is dumb and will automatically fail. If you want to make regional conflicts more interesting, the solution has to be to make regions contain something worth fighting over, instead.

e: Also, good luck with that whole intraregional thing when taking sov in a station system requires 3 straight timers set to the other guy's TZ followed by repeatedly shooting 100 million HP off a structure. Why don't you SBU a system in the middle of nowhere, guard the SBUs for 3 hours, bring a midsized fleet of 100 subcaps and 10 carriers to shoot it outside of their home TZ, repeat this process 3 times, then tell me how much fun it is? Of course we're gonna bring 500+ to every station shoot - it's the only way to make it 10% less mindnumbing.

*talks about encouraging intra-regional warfare through nerfing movement*
*implements Dominion sov system that literally makes it impossible to shoot a station down without multiple fleets and large amounts of really expensive ships taking 6-10 weeks to build in secure player owned space, some of which purely coincidentally can also bridge fleets*
*is CCP*

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.16 16:05:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Aineko Macx
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.” -- Ghengis Khan (a noob, by EVE standards, but still)

That contradicts even what the minutes state as possible reasons for the decline of pvp. Yes, small scale pvp is driven mainly by the sheer fun of shooting somebody in the face, but major conflicts (as in bloc vs. bloc) is typically motivated by very specific goals like moon ownership.


Have you considered that the decline in PvP may be caused, not by a lack of desire to PvP, but a lack of desire to engage in PvP that is not fun? That perhaps, a nullsec PvP environment where an opponent can push the supercap "I Win" button -- where you cannot really assess your chances of winning because you can go from having an advantage to being overwhelmingly outgunned in the blink of an eye -- does not encourage participation? Where metagaming (logoffski, and loading up local to deter an assault, for example) is more important than gaming? And where the really strategically important battles become painful lagfests?


Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 16:24:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Have you considered that the decline in PvP may be caused, not by a lack of desire to PvP, but a lack of desire to engage in PvP that is not fun? That perhaps, a nullsec PvP environment where an opponent can push the supercap "I Win" button -- where you cannot really assess your chances of winning because you can go from having an advantage to being overwhelmingly outgunned in the blink of an eye -- does not encourage participation? Where metagaming (logoffski, and loading up local to deter an assault, for example) is more important than gaming? And where the really strategically important battles become painful lagfests?


I want to say this is mostly right but to be honest there's been a ton of PvP (in fact I hear you're engaging in some right now~). The reason overall PvP is down is that it's centered around the handful of regions where Molle has ****ed off enough people who now want his head. All other areas are full of nothing but bots, not worth shooting and definitely not worth alarmclocking 3 times for. This, not mobility, is the problem. You tell me why I should give a damn about sov in Anonymous Scalding Pass/Period Basis/Esoteria System that has no valuable moons, the exact same anomalies as the one next to it, and the same guy's tengu warping between belts 23/7, and I'll tell you how to drive PvP up. If you can make PvP more fun than 3 straight alarmclock ops shooting structures, I'll even throw in the secret of how to make sure less than 1000 people show up to shoot them (spread out your objectives to more than one goddamn system at a time).

Or you can remove jump bridges so we can use titans while whoever's in Period Basis right now massively logs off and is never seen again, whichever.

Aizen Intaki
Posted - 2011.01.16 16:55:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Fred Freedom
Now pretend you're a midsized alliance holding one region that needs to produce 5-6 supercaps, 1-2 titans and 100 BS a month. Do you begin to understand what the problem is?

So you're saying that removing jump bridges, thus making logistics much more involved than they currently are, would force corporations and alliances to make tough decisions concerning whether or not they need to build their next SC rather than just ****ting them out as fast as possible? I missed the part where that's a bad thing.

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 17:38:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: Fred Freedom on 16/01/2011 17:43:24
Edited by: Fred Freedom on 16/01/2011 17:40:05
Originally by: Aizen Intaki
Originally by: Fred Freedom
Now pretend you're a midsized alliance holding one region that needs to produce 5-6 supercaps, 1-2 titans and 100 BS a month. Do you begin to understand what the problem is?

So you're saying that removing jump bridges, thus making logistics much more involved than they currently are, would force corporations and alliances to make tough decisions concerning whether or not they need to build their next SC rather than just ****ting them out as fast as possible? I missed the part where that's a bad thing.


This wildly misses the point (and everyone who's ever lived in 0.0 knows it) but it's hard to explain why. I'll try:

Getting minerals in place is easy: you buy them in Jita, compress them and JF them in. The problem is not getting them, it's that CCP thinks that we get them from a very different place than we actually do and are trying to incentivize a profession that doesn't and can't exist. There is zero non-DR 0.0 production of minerals going on.

How do you get from minerals -> BS or from mins -> SC? For SC production, the problem is that SC systems are all cynojammed to prevent the POS building them and freighters ferrying the components being hotdropped, and that factory slots in the refinery system you are making them in have to be locked down to produce cap components. But that has a pretty easy workaround: you just cycle the jammer and lock down the slots. It's very annoying and unfun to have to do this, but it won't actually slow down SC building one iota, because once you have everything in place you press one button and forget about the build for 6 weeks.

Producing battleships, on the other hand, is going to be such a pain that you'll probably see entire deep 0.0 regions being all but abandoned*. Once they come out of build you can only move 7 at a time, not to mention the fittings, which means that there's a huge incentive to never build anything too far from the place where the minerals are. If all of your production hubs have to be within easy JF range of Empire, Period Basis, Tenal and Feyth are dead.

If there were no botters killing low ends or it were somehow impossible to use large guns to compress minerals, you'd be onto something. But in the current state of Eve Online, minerals aren't the bottleneck as much as their transportation and POS aren't the bottleneck as much as their fueling. Make this worse and you simply make 0.0 even more unfun and powerblocky. An alliance with 100 people that has to fuel 20 POS in industrials taking gates is a lot worse off than an alliance with 1000 people fueling 200 POS in rorquals, an alliance trying to build 100 battleships using freighter convoys is a lot worse off than a mega- alliance trying to build 1000 battleships using titan bridges, etc.

*by which, of course, I mean they'll be sovved up and left for botting tengus. If your small alliance tries to move into Period Basis and fight for it you're still going to fail miserably, because good luck replacing your subcap fleet from there and/or trying to get reinforcements to G-Q's third sov timer without a dozen titans chain bridging them in.

pmchem
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.16 17:41:00 - [113]
 

Removing JBs would be dumb for the reasons Fred mentioned. Real world example of JBs encouraging pvp: goons constructed a network (the "eye of terror") from Deklein to 1 jump from goddamn Fountain, specifically so that small gangs could more easily pvp.

Now you want to remove this? heh. All you'll do is remove subscribers and leave deep nullsec entirely for bots, even more than it already is. Speaking of bots, the efforts/penalties used against them right now suck. Redouble your efforts and throw some more eyeballs at the problem (ie - human GMs actually looking at systems with bots). But, whatever. Different problem.

Also, those SCs are still going to get built. There is no 'hard decision', because they're the I Win button. Remove the JBs and it just means Titans have to login to bridge a freighter or whatever the **** more often. Big deal.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.16 17:54:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Aizen Intaki
Originally by: Fred Freedom
Now pretend you're a midsized alliance holding one region that needs to produce 5-6 supercaps, 1-2 titans and 100 BS a month. Do you begin to understand what the problem is?

So you're saying that removing jump bridges, thus making logistics much more involved than they currently are, would force corporations and alliances to make tough decisions concerning whether or not they need to build their next SC rather than just ****ting them out as fast as possible? I missed the part where that's a bad thing.

If they want to take sov from another entity out there they have to shoot millions of HP.
You don't want to sit around too long doing that, thus you need DPS, as much as you can get.
CCP designed it. The players react on it.

The discussion now is on removing the ability of those DPS to move around so easily and far reaching and what should be nerfed about it.


The other point I find very enlightening is the homogenisation of space via iHUBs. CCP tried/tries to get more people out there to be sustainable in a handful of systems. This now caused more or less all space to be as good as any other to kill rats in and make isk (incentive for the foot-soldier to fight over XY-234 is low).
The only big monopoly left out there is a bottleneck for T2 material, which had been pointed out a year ago in MD forums by Akita T, if I remember correctly. But fighting over that stuff isn't so easy as it's all in one part of space and the sov holders have the advantage of the Million HP sov structures and the income of the Technetium to field powerful defence.

On top of all that the people gone into whiskey space, mining ABC like mad, causing that mining in zero-zero has a worse risk/profit ratio now too.
This should explain why the MPI shows deflation, although the average player wallet is going up by 15%+ on a yearly basis.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.16 17:56:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Fred Freedom

Getting minerals in place is easy: you buy them in Jita, compress them and JF them in. The problem is not getting them, it's that CCP thinks that we get them from a very different place than we actually do and are trying to incentivize a profession that doesn't and can't exist. There is zero non-DR 0.0 production of minerals going on.


CCP is perfectly aware that the minerals are ferried from highsec to 0.0 instead of being mined in 0.0 (except drone regions). You say the 0.0 miner profession "can't exist", I don't see why not

Originally by: Fred Freedom

Producing battleships, on the other hand, is going to be such a pain that you'll probably see entire deep 0.0 regions being all but abandoned*. Once they come out of build you can only move 7 at a time, not to mention the fittings, which means that there's a huge incentive to never build anything too far from the place where the minerals are. If all of your production hubs have to be within easy JF range of Empire, Period Basis, Tenal and Feyth are dead.

If there were no botters killing low ends or it were somehow impossible to use large guns to compress minerals, you'd be onto something. But in the current state of Eve Online, minerals aren't the bottleneck as much as their transportation and POS aren't the bottleneck as much as their fueling. Make this worse and you simply make 0.0 even more unfun and powerblocky. An alliance with 100 people that has to fuel 20 POS in industrials taking gates is a lot worse off than an alliance with 1000 people fueling 200 POS in rorquals, an alliance trying to build 100 battleships using freighter convoys is a lot worse off than a mega- alliance trying to build 1000 battleships using titan bridges, etc.



That's because you keep thinking in terms of the current game where moving stuff is easy and more economical than making things on site. If hauling stuff becomes an issue, suddenly producing things locally becomes much more of an option. An alliance that has to fuel 20 POSes can do that using PI in 0.0 and mine ice in 0.0... Certainly hauling stuff in indies or unescorted freighters is not really a good idea.
Same goes with nerfing reprocessing rate. Makes local production more economical.
Oh, and they'd have to defend the miners? Well, more opportunities for conflict...

Things get bad only if things change and people don't. People who adapt to changes are going to have a much easier time than people who don't...

And sure, farther regions will be required to change more than regions closer to empire. The devs are not against making those regions more profitable either.
Uniformity is bad...

Andrevv
ANZAC ALLIANCE
IT Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.16 18:08:00 - [116]
 

++ to everything Fred has said.

There`s no point reiterating any of it. I don't think it's possible for an empire/low sec char to understand how ridiculous the idea of some sort of local production in 0.0 is. 0.0 stations are ****. mining in 0.0 is pointless, you are better off ratting and looting the hauler spawns. and nobody wants a f*cking trader char in their system messing up the market, 0.0 markets are not PVP.

I nearly spit out my tea when I read there was not one dissenting vote for removing JBs. TO say that will decrease the size of engagements/alliances or improve 0.0 manufacturing is just ridiculous. It will just make it that much harder for small alliances.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.16 18:16:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Andrevv
++ to everything Fred has said.

There`s no point reiterating any of it. I don't think it's possible for an empire/low sec char to understand how ridiculous the idea of some sort of local production in 0.0 is. 0.0 stations are ****. mining in 0.0 is pointless, you are better off ratting and looting the hauler spawns. and nobody wants a f*cking trader char in their system messing up the market, 0.0 markets are not PVP.

I nearly spit out my tea when I read there was not one dissenting vote for removing JBs. TO say that will decrease the size of engagements/alliances or improve 0.0 manufacturing is just ridiculous. It will just make it that much harder for small alliances.


On its own you'd be right. I know enough about the hurdles of producing stuff locally in 0.0, having spent considerable amounts of time doing just that, the point is not just to get rid of JBs, but making it easier to produce stuff in outposts and, to some extent, POSes. Also providing market facilities to make it possible to avoid trader chars messing stuff up (I know Dr.Eyjo isn't too fond of the idea, but store fronts that were talked about some time ago could go a long way towards making it more viable).

Focusing on one part of the things that were said (removing JBs in this instance), singling it out and saying "this will accomplish nothing good" while "forgetting" the fact that it took place within a CONTEXT, a series of things towards the same goal, is just as idiotic as you say that change would be on its own. Straw man fallacy...

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 18:16:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
CCP is perfectly aware that the minerals are ferried from highsec to 0.0 instead of being mined in 0.0 (except drone regions). You say the 0.0 miner profession "can't exist", I don't see why not


Because it's not profitable and cannot be profitable. I gave you the numbers so I know you have them available. All you need to do is calculate the price point at which mining 10 billion units of tritanium a month + 10b of all other minerals in 0.0, which is roughly what it takes to meet the needs of a midsized region, is more profitable than running sanctums with carrier-assigned fighters at 100m+/hour and buying the trit from mining bots in Jita.
I see your corporation has "Industrial" in its name and you seem to enjoy talking about mining, so I assume you mine; go ahead and tell me what the price of low end ores or even ABC 'should' be to make that happen.

Hint: that price point is so much higher than today that if you nuked every mining bot in the game tomorrow you'd still have to wait about a decade for stockpiles to run out.

Quote:
That's because you keep thinking in terms of the current game


I am thinking of the game we have today, yes. I would rather do that than thinking in terms of the non-existent game where removing transportation instantly makes local mining into a worthwhile thing to do, as if there'd suddenly be any kind of incentive for doing that instead of saying "okay, our hub is now System X 1 JF from Empire. also, every system we control > 10 jumps from that hub is now Botville. enjoy!"

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 18:25:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Andrevv
++ to everything Fred has said.

There`s no point reiterating any of it. I don't think it's possible for an empire/low sec char to understand how ridiculous the idea of some sort of local production in 0.0 is. 0.0 stations are ****. mining in 0.0 is pointless, you are better off ratting and looting the hauler spawns. and nobody wants a f*cking trader char in their system messing up the market, 0.0 markets are not PVP.

I nearly spit out my tea when I read there was not one dissenting vote for removing JBs. TO say that will decrease the size of engagements/alliances or improve 0.0 manufacturing is just ridiculous. It will just make it that much harder for small alliances.



What's really funny about this is that I have a hauler spawn business (I pick up other people's dead haulers in a rorq and pay them a cut) and I occasionally bring in as much in a day as the entire mining output of Deklein.

Not that it matters because the actual amount is still minimal, it's just hilarious that yes, the random bots slaughtering NPC's 23/7 literally create more minerals than the miners and no, that's not going to change any.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.16 18:38:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Fred Freedom

Because it's not profitable and cannot be profitable. I gave you the numbers so I know you have them available. All you need to do is calculate the price point at which mining 10 billion units of tritanium a month + 10b of all other minerals in 0.0, which is roughly what it takes to meet the needs of a midsized region, is more profitable than running sanctums with carrier-assigned fighters at 100m+/hour and buying the trit from mining bots in Jita.
I see your corporation has "Industrial" in its name and you seem to enjoy talking about mining, so I assume you mine; go ahead and tell me what the price of low end ores or even ABC 'should' be to make that happen.

Hint: that price point is so much higher than today that if you nuked every mining bot in the game tomorrow you'd still have to wait about a decade for stockpiles to run out.


God no, I don't mine... I used to when I started playing but haven't done that in a long while. I produce stuff and PvP mostly these days if you want to know.
But to answer your comment, you also assume using reprocessing stuff back into its original minerals will remain the 100% conversion rate operation it is today and that moving stuff about has the next to zero cost. Those would increase the shipping cost and make it all the more viable to produce locally.
But your point about stockpiles is well taken, I'll make sure to enquire with CCP's statistics dpt and check what they have to say on that question.

Now, the overwhelming majority of PvPers don't want anything to do with mining, I know I don't, but there's hordes of people in highsec who enjoy it and would ask for nothing better than make more ISK doing it in 0.0, if they were given protection.

Originally by: Fred Freedom

Quote:
That's because you keep thinking in terms of the current game


I am thinking of the game we have today, yes. I would rather do that than thinking in terms of the non-existent game where removing transportation instantly makes local mining into a worthwhile thing to do, as if there'd suddenly be any kind of incentive for doing that instead of saying "okay, our hub is now System X 1 JF from Empire. also, every system we control > 10 jumps from that hub is now Botville. enjoy!"


The game as it is today doesn't function all that well. blobfests and napfests discouraging small/medium alliances, small gang PvP hard to find, small cap fights not happening due to escalations that systematically happen, boring sov fights (who likes to sit for hours bashing structures), next to nothing to fight over. I say improving the situation is feasable.
And, once more, I never claimed anything about "removing transportation", neither did I says "instantly", neither did I say it was the thing that, on its own, solved everything.

I however welcome the discussion... As I said before it's only the first step in a series going towards trying to change the current status quo.


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