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

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:24:00 - [241]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Tres Farmer
And one more thing.. play devils advocate in your OWN proposals.

Do look at those solutions from the perspective of whatever comes to your mind that might want/need/should go out there and how this will affect them.
This includes miners, missionrunners, pirates and whatever else runs around and has a name and is wished for to be out there.

We do, a lot... I know I personally will defend whatever opinion is contrary to the current one just to provide perspective and nuance. Obviously I don't need to do it on this forum, there's no shortage of people bashing the proposal ;-)

After that's done, however, one should draw a conclusion about which alternative is best while keeping an eye on the downsides. Playing devil's advocate doesn't mean one should be forever undecided because of the existence of points both for and against a given proposal.

This wasn't directed at the CSM.. the buzzword 'proposal' must have catched your attention. Sry. Embarassed
No, that was for the guys in zero-zero and their papers/recommendations.
They should play devils advocate on their own stuff. Cause I doubt CCP will take them seriously if they don't. Twisted Evil

I think they have roughly a month left for this..
They should better be starting. Wink

Ntrails
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:42:00 - [242]
 

Devils advocate.

When the only people you can shoot are 30 jumps by gate you won't go and shoot them and they can have a great time safe in 0.0 untroubled by your force projection.

You will not lose as many ships which is good cause they will cost a small fortune. So much so that there seems little point in ratting when the risk/reward is so skewed. May as well just run level 4's safely on an empire alt for isk.

In fact, since there is nothing to do that is not more effort than fun, why log in at all?

gg

Artisan Botanist
Minmatar
Hysteria Nexus
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:43:00 - [243]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Ravcharas


This is also an issue with most anything CCP insists on NDA'ing. Exploits and botting and what have you. I get that there're things CCP wants to keep under wraps, but they cannot both have their cake and eat it. Support is built through communication.


Just out of honest curiosity, what positive outcome do you think would come from detailing specific counter-hacking/botting methodologies? What would you gain from this knowledge personally? I understand that you WANT to know things, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how some knowledge being public information would be to anyone's benefit and I'd like to hear an alternative viewpoint.



I dont think the problem is the fact that theres an NDA I think it was because the section about botting / RMT was limited to 2 lines.

There needs to be some public response to botting (more than that damage control done a few weeks ago) where CCP say they WILL deal with botters and actually focus on reducing illegal gameplay and sooner rather than later, rather than say "RMT is bad, buy plex" and now "Cant discuss NDA etc".

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.17 17:08:00 - [244]
 

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.


Falin Whalen
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.17 17:09:00 - [245]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
I understand and appreciate your point of view, but allow me to clarify: what I am talking about by "whole package" is basically "the first draft".

Dominion had a pretty good "first draft" too. Everybody loved it CSM, CCP, and alliance leaders, practically gushed, about how wonderful all those changes would be for 0.0 space. "Yay, no more POS shoots," was a resounding cheer in the 0.0 community. We were assured by CCP that they would also keep small gang warfare in mind when they rolled out Dominion.
Quote:

What happened in December was a very general discussion, and CSM acting as a focus group. The real takeaway from it is that CCP wants to take another stab at improving nullsec. That's good.

Good.

Quote:
The next step is to encourage the game designers to engage with the players (not just the CSM) as early as possible in the process of developing their nefarious plans™. The good things that happened in the last 6 months when other groups inside CCP started doing that (in particular, the UI team) will hopefully encourage them to do that.

this is also good.

Quote:
No doubt there will be resistance to this by those who believe that "players don't do game design". But "players do shoot holes in game design", and for that reason, they should be encourage to debate big potential changes before the fact. It's both useful feedback and a useful metric.
It also makes development more cost-effective, since time isn't wasted implementing questionable mechanics, or partially implementing/deploying something when it is clear that success requires a complete package.

This worked, oh so well, for Dominion. Alliances were just glad to get rid of the POS grind mechanic, that they literally didn't care, or think about, how the new mechanic was flawed, and not a complete package that included small gang objectives. So now we are stuck with a mechanic, where the only way to get anything done, is with a massive fleet.

Quote:
Also, the designers should be required define exactly what their goals are, and what their success metrics are, and these should also be made public for discussion. I have no doubt that all of them are confident enough in their abilities that they will have no problem with this.

This is also good. CCP, and the CSM, shouldn't just discount negative criticism as "just a bunch of players, resistant to change," which is the tone we are receiving from a particular member of the CSM here. Remember that something new can be praised by most everyone in the community, hailed as a wonderful step forward for the game, by the developers and players alike, but be an utter failure, with serious unintended consequences, when implemented.

Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.17 17:54:00 - [246]
 

CSM 2010/2011, now officially sponsored by Pandemic Legion and Darkside.

Jump bridges are a means of defence, it allows the sov-holding entity a means to attack or evade on their terms on their own turf.

Tell you what. You can take our jump bridges. However, only when all NPC 0.0 systems that exist within otherwise conquerable regions are made into Conquerable systems (I'm looking at you Sisters of Eve, Mordus Angels, and Serpentis). And only if a method is devised for sov-holders to deactivate jump bridges between systems they hold sov in.

As it stands, systems like the NPC ones in Pure Blind make it far too easy for raiders to stage out of hostile territory and evade persuers. If you want to take away the only means we have to counter our regions being overrun by small raiding gangs who can go into hiding at will, we need a means to be able to force them out of our regions. Your welcome to come raiding, but you will have to break through our perimeter, and then get out afterwards; or stage from a pos which we can burn down to deny you the hiding hole. You cant just sit invulnerable in an NPC station surrounded on all sides by our territory, mooning us out the windows.

Which brings me to my point about being able to deactivate jump gates in our territory. Its our territory, let us cut down the routes of access to it if we want. If we cant evade raiders within our borders, let us be able to put up a defence at the border, without there being a dozen alternative routes they can slip through.

Sure, my ideas suck, but so does placing territory owners at the mercy of elite roaming gangs. If your going to take away one of our means to defend ourselves, give us others.

Artisan Botanist
Minmatar
Hysteria Nexus
Posted - 2011.01.17 18:13:00 - [247]
 

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

@ CCP, when do you expect these chages to occur?

John Zorg
Caldari
The Damned Legion
Posted - 2011.01.17 18:42:00 - [248]
 

Interesting CSM notes. I see some nice things discussed, especially around balancing.

When will fixes that were promised actually be implemented.

1. The shield bonus bug
2. The Hel Attribute bonus

The other issues that needs some attention:

1. Mining used to be a great source of income. Today for a single miner it is worthless. Mining used to be on par with ratting as a source of income but this has seriously changed. Mining is tied very heavily to the mineral market. With high end minerals becoming worth nothing there is no real incentive to mine. Ratting is in no way linked to the markets, it always stays constant. When balancing is done for ships and mods could minerals also please be looked at for balancing.

2. As you have a new artist for the dated effects, could you perhaps look at the cyno effect of capitals. It was always kewl to see how different jumping through a stargate was to a Capital Jumping. When a whole fleet jumped it was always that blinding white flash! I really loved that and seriously miss it.

Some ideas around the limited logistics plans. The biggest logistics that is done is:

- Minerals: if mineral prices were better or the rate of mining was a lot higher in 0.0 this could be self sustained in those far off systems.
- POS Fuel: This would be better now as it is hopefully not going to be a click fest as of tomorrow.
- Ships and mods: This would be the only other thing I can think of that would need to be sustained from empire.

Maybe if logistics was more difficult it would fix a lot of the above issues also.

Looking forward to the patch tomorrow!

JZ

Indeterminacy
THORN Syndicate
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.01.17 18:49:00 - [249]
 

Edited by: Indeterminacy on 17/01/2011 18:49:20
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

@ CCP, when do you expect these chages to occur?


You're not thinking from the perspective of a lone player just joining a sov holding alliance for the first time (or a small group of friends). You're pretending to be all :bittervet: and hopping on the groupthink express.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.01.17 19:30:00 - [250]
 

If you want more people in 0.0, you need to increase mobility, not decrease it. As mobility decreases, alliances target soft targets near them. As mobility increases, big alliances band together and shoot a bunch of other big alliances. While that happens, they rent space to smaller guys. Thus filling more null sec space, not less. The economist wants things to explode - force us to fight more. Mobility leads to more fighting as it makes space "within range" more crowded.

Kallehd
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.01.17 19:30:00 - [251]
 

Originally by: Aralyn Cormallen
Which brings me to my point about being able to deactivate jump gates in our territory. Its our territory, let us cut down the routes of access to it if we want. If we cant evade raiders within our borders, let us be able to put up a defence at the border, without there being a dozen alternative routes they can slip through.


I'm sorry if I'm missing something here, but can't you camp/bubble the gates to death? If anyone does go in, your perimeter failed!

What you described is exactly what I'm hoping for nullsec with these logistics changes, where smaller groups can actually disrupt a larger bloc activity to the point it becomes unsustainable isk wise! Larger blocs will eventually move further into deep space as it actually requires larger members and larger coordination due to having the need for a true industrial wing to make the machine work!

And Fred mentioned a couple of posts back that the goons would sooner stage from empire than give up any sov... well mate, then the logistics for you will become a double pain in the back from the already "crap" setting you'll have, and sooner rather than later it will become unsustainable, due to either whomever is organizing such an effort burning out or members simply getting tired of having to to 3h of a coordinated op just to get to the fight.

As the dev said, it would all go to **** and eventually, given enough time, the balance would return, with the alliances who adapted better on top of others who choose not to adapt. Those saying the NAPs will remain the same... I have serious doubts that would be the case as the attrition factors between alliances would be alot higher than today.

Kallehd
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.01.17 19:32:00 - [252]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
If you want more people in 0.0, you need to increase mobility, not decrease it. As mobility decreases, alliances target soft targets near them. As mobility increases, big alliances band together and shoot a bunch of other big alliances. While that happens, they rent space to smaller guys. Thus filling more null sec space, not less. The economist wants things to explode - force us to fight more. Mobility leads to more fighting as it makes space "within range" more crowded.



You said it best. If there's less mobility, you're more likely to attack your neighbors instead of going half way across the universe for a blob fight with your nap train! I prefer smaller localized fights than 1200 man fights. I have yet to read about a single 1000+ battle that people unanimously said "IT WAS GREAT!" ... it always lag like hell and noone actually enjoys it, with the fight being a necessary evil. Not the way to keep going I'd say :D

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.17 20:00:00 - [253]
 

Originally by: John Zorg
2. As you have a new artist for the dated effects, could you perhaps look at the cyno effect of capitals. It was always kewl to see how different jumping through a stargate was to a Capital Jumping. When a whole fleet jumped it was always that blinding white flash! I really loved that and seriously miss it.


Quote from the minutes: "It was mentioned that CCP has hired an effects artist (a specialist), who starts in a month. So old effects will be iterated - cyno effects and trails will be high on the list."

Pure Tabasco
Posted - 2011.01.17 20:01:00 - [254]
 

Originally by: CSM Minutes

Greyscale reiterated that his opinions on what supercapitals's should be is only his own and can't be taken as CCP policy; CSM responded that they had high hopes for the man who brutally murdered learning skills.



HAhahahaha, cheers.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.01.17 20:02:00 - [255]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 17/01/2011 20:16:05
Originally by: Kallehd
Originally by: Bagehi
If you want more people in 0.0, you need to increase mobility, not decrease it. As mobility decreases, alliances target soft targets near them. As mobility increases, big alliances band together and shoot a bunch of other big alliances. While that happens, they rent space to smaller guys. Thus filling more null sec space, not less. The economist wants things to explode - force us to fight more. Mobility leads to more fighting as it makes space "within range" more crowded.



You said it best. If there's less mobility, you're more likely to attack your neighbors instead of going half way across the universe for a blob fight with your nap train! I prefer smaller localized fights than 1200 man fights. I have yet to read about a single 1000+ battle that people unanimously said "IT WAS GREAT!" ... it always lag like hell and noone actually enjoys it, with the fight being a necessary evil. Not the way to keep going I'd say :D


This would simply lead to the big alliances getting bigger (they would gobble up their neighbors). That would lead to big blob fights that aren't scheduled (and thus the node wouldn't be reinforced) - as border clashes would quickly escalate.

The further force projection goes, the faster response times need to be. If everyone could get anywhere in Eve at the push of a button, blobs wouldn't happen. There would be unending skirmishes as people hit and fade. What is needed is a balance between what we have now and that where skirmishes can escalate into battles.

Nobani
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.17 20:16:00 - [256]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Mecinia Lua
The dev mentioning they'd love to remove freighters. That would be one of the stupidest things you could do and if you wanted to kill industry in 0.0 completey go ahead and do it.


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.



This is a dangerous line of thinking that I believe should be nipped at the bud. There is no such thing as "good for the game but bad for the players"! Shocking as it may be to some in this thread, EVE is a "game" I pay money to play for "fun". If I was doing something painful for some sort of greater good, it would be a "job" and I would expect to be paid.

You can have fun and interesting gameplay at the same time: see an article Mark Rosewater wrote on M:tG set design, for example.

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.01.17 20:19:00 - [257]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Edited by: Bagehi on 17/01/2011 20:04:36
Originally by: Kallehd
Originally by: Bagehi
If you want more people in 0.0, you need to increase mobility, not decrease it. As mobility decreases, alliances target soft targets near them. As mobility increases, big alliances band together and shoot a bunch of other big alliances. While that happens, they rent space to smaller guys. Thus filling more null sec space, not less. The economist wants things to explode - force us to fight more. Mobility leads to more fighting as it makes space "within range" more crowded.



You said it best. If there's less mobility, you're more likely to attack your neighbors instead of going half way across the universe for a blob fight with your nap train! I prefer smaller localized fights than 1200 man fights. I have yet to read about a single 1000+ battle that people unanimously said "IT WAS GREAT!" ... it always lag like hell and noone actually enjoys it, with the fight being a necessary evil. Not the way to keep going I'd say :D


This would simply lead to the big alliances getting bigger (they would gobble up their neighbors). That would lead to big blob fights that aren't scheduled (and thus the node wouldn't be reinforced) - as border clashes would quickly escalate.

The further force projection goes, the faster response times need to be. If everyone could get anywhere in Eve, blobs wouldn't happen. There would be unending skirmishes as people hit and fade. What is needed is a balance between what we have now and that where battles still occur.



Exactly :) and him quoting the goons would rather be based in empire rather than lose their sov and thinking that's a hopeful sign is a bit foolish I don't think he really knows what that means and if he did he'd do everything possible to ensure the Goons didn't have to return to empire....or any of the other big coalitions....

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.01.17 20:24:00 - [258]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 17/01/2011 20:26:19
Edited by: Bagehi on 17/01/2011 20:25:24
Originally by: El'Niaga
Exactly :) and him quoting the goons would rather be based in empire rather than lose their sov and thinking that's a hopeful sign is a bit foolish I don't think he really knows what that means and if he did he'd do everything possible to ensure the Goons didn't have to return to empire....or any of the other big coalitions....


Everyone knows what Goons in high sec means. They call it Goonswarm Jihad, another version goes by the name Hulkageddon. Imagine that 24/7.

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.01.17 20:28:00 - [259]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Edited by: Bagehi on 17/01/2011 20:26:19
Edited by: Bagehi on 17/01/2011 20:25:24
Originally by: El'Niaga
Exactly :) and him quoting the goons would rather be based in empire rather than lose their sov and thinking that's a hopeful sign is a bit foolish I don't think he really knows what that means and if he did he'd do everything possible to ensure the Goons didn't have to return to empire....or any of the other big coalitions....


Everyone knows what Goons in high sec means. They call it Goonswarm Jihad, another version goes by the name Hulkageddon. Imagine that 24/7.



I don't think Bagehi knows that......

John Zorg
Caldari
The Damned Legion
Posted - 2011.01.17 20:35:00 - [260]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: John Zorg
2. As you have a new artist for the dated effects, could you perhaps look at the cyno effect of capitals. It was always kewl to see how different jumping through a stargate was to a Capital Jumping. When a whole fleet jumped it was always that blinding white flash! I really loved that and seriously miss it.


Quote from the minutes: "It was mentioned that CCP has hired an effects artist (a specialist), who starts in a month. So old effects will be iterated - cyno effects and trails will be high on the list."


Soz, I misread it, thought it was refering to the actual Cyno field effect.

Elzon1
Caldari
Shadow Boys Corp
Bloodbound.
Posted - 2011.01.17 20:41:00 - [261]
 

Edited by: Elzon1 on 17/01/2011 20:44:23
Edited by: Elzon1 on 17/01/2011 20:43:19
Edited by: Elzon1 on 17/01/2011 20:41:59
Well, cyno spool-up will have some interesting effects...

1. Many cynos will have to be deployed due to cyno-in's no longer being instant

2. They will have to be able to tank significant dps therefore most likely be tech 3 ships

3. Tech 3 ships are a whole lot more expensive than kestrels or small tech 2 covert frigates and you will need a half dozen or more in order for the fleet to get in

4. Fleet will have to be slit up in order to get into well defended system as you have to make sure some of the fleet gets in the system in order to make a secure jump in point.

5. A seperated fleet in a hostile system against a focused blob fleet is a bad idea.

Conclusion: It will now become even easier to defend a system and fairly difficult and costly to attack said system.

Greyscale expresses concerns about dynamic resource reallocation – he would prefer people pick good
space and defend it, as opposed to being hunter-gatherers, or even locusts. This is clearly an issue that
needs more thought.

I submit that we're already hunter-gatherers/locusts, this EVE baby!!! With this botters will become easier to find/kill profitably as well as have less effect on the economy as a whole, well at least for the ratters. Perhaps the Ihubs could be reworked so as to give more/better salvage instead of bounties? I think the locust theme should effect missions as well, not just nullsec. This is not a game to do the same exact thing over and over again, this is EVE!!!!

Also, on the subject of treaties or cyno spooling first?

Treaties first please!!! The cyno spooling is said to have the effect of:

Greyscale warns, however, that during the transition period “everything will go to ****.”

Treaties before **** transition period please, with a cherry on top!!!

Another thing, if you are going to let us be able to fight over moon minerals in small gangs... make sure that such an action increases the supply of minerals, not decreases it.

"As a general design goal, CCP wants there to be economic
incentives that encourage more people towards lowsec and nullsec, where they can generate income,
build things, and have them blown up – thus, increased economic turnover."

I'm sorry but the only way to do this is take their bread and butter and put it in lowsec/nullsec, other than that you will accomplish nothing. Those carebears never want higher chances of getting blown up and they see lowsec/nullsec as "pvp arenas" instead of what they really are... "income arenas". So basically, if you don't take away their binky and put into lowsec/nullsec they will never go there unless by mistake. Maybe a binky moving transition period may be in order?

One last thing (I promise), if you want massive fights in a very small area you are going to have to implement a mechanic that "slows the system(s) down and all actions in it" in order for the server queue to keep up so the fight can be smooth. Even though this will cause things to be slower it will also be smoother and helps to prevent server screw ups. This will also allow for all sides of the fight to call absolutely every last active pvp asset they have into a single fight of epic proportions!!! Meanwhile you can try to reduce the queue as much as you can to make such fights quicker. I'm sure this will have the effect of bolstering the economy as well as emptying the wallets of the major alliances of every last isk it contains.

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.01.17 20:48:00 - [262]
 

Originally by: Elzon1
Edited by: Elzon1 on 17/01/2011 20:44:23
Edited by: Elzon1 on 17/01/2011 20:43:19
Edited by: Elzon1 on 17/01/2011 20:41:59
Well, cyno spool-up will have some interesting effects...

1. Many cynos will have to be deployed due to cyno-in's no longer being instant

2. They will have to be able to tank significant dps therefore most likely be tech 3 ships

3. Tech 3 ships are a whole lot more expensive than kestrels or small tech 2 covert frigates and you will need a half dozen or more in order for the fleet to get in

4. Fleet will have to be slit up in order to get into well defended system as you have to make sure some of the fleet gets in the system in order to make a secure jump in point.

5. A seperated fleet in a hostile system against a focused blob fleet is a bad idea.

Conclusion: It will now become even easier to defend a system and fairly difficult and costly to attack said system.

Greyscale expresses concerns about dynamic resource reallocation – he would prefer people pick good
space and defend it, as opposed to being hunter-gatherers, or even locusts. This is clearly an issue that
needs more thought.

I submit that we're already hunter-gatherers/locusts, this EVE baby!!! With this botters will become easier to find/kill profitably as well as have less effect on the economy as a whole, well at least for the ratters. Perhaps the Ihubs could be reworked so as to give more/better salvage instead of bounties? I think the locust theme should effect missions as well, not just nullsec. This is not a game to do the same exact thing over and over again, this is EVE!!!!

Also, on the subject of treaties or cyno spooling first?

Treaties first please!!! The cyno spooling is said to have the effect of:

Greyscale warns, however, that during the transition period “everything will go to ****.”

Treaties before **** transition period please, with a cherry on top!!!

Another thing, if you are going to let us be able to fight over moon minerals in small gangs... make sure that such an action increases the supply of minerals, not decreases it.

"As a general design goal, CCP wants there to be economic
incentives that encourage more people towards lowsec and nullsec, where they can generate income,
build things, and have them blown up – thus, increased economic turnover."

I'm sorry but the only way to do this is take their bread and butter and put it in lowsec/nullsec, other than that you will accomplish nothing. Those carebears never want higher chances of getting blown up and they see lowsec/nullsec as "pvp arenas" instead of what they really are... "income arenas". So basically, if you don't take away their binky and put into lowsec/nullsec they will never go there unless by mistake. Maybe a binky moving transition period may be in order?





I agree with some earlier assertions about the increased difficulty in attacking.

Disagree about the moving of high sec assets to low sec, this will not cause 'carebears' to move to low sec/0.0. THe majority are more likely to move to another game if you make it to hard for them to have fun. They pay the game to have fun, and that includes not getting shot while affording nice stuff, take that away and they'll leave.

Bagehi Ieyasu
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Strategic Operations Brigade
Posted - 2011.01.17 21:01:00 - [263]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
Originally by: Bagehi
Everyone knows what Goons in high sec means. They call it Goonswarm Jihad, another version goes by the name Hulkageddon. Imagine that 24/7.



I don't think Bagehi knows that......


Which Bagehi?

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.01.17 21:19:00 - [264]
 

Originally by: Bagehi Ieyasu
Originally by: El'Niaga
Originally by: Bagehi
Everyone knows what Goons in high sec means. They call it Goonswarm Jihad, another version goes by the name Hulkageddon. Imagine that 24/7.



I don't think Bagehi knows that......


Which Bagehi?



The one in RAGE above that we were quoting.

Elzon1
Caldari
Shadow Boys Corp
Bloodbound.
Posted - 2011.01.17 21:42:00 - [265]
 

Edited by: Elzon1 on 17/01/2011 21:43:31
Originally by: El'Niaga
I agree with some earlier assertions about the increased difficulty in attacking. Disagree about the moving of high sec assets to low sec, this will not cause 'carebears' to move to low sec/0.0. THe majority are more likely to move to another game if you make it to hard for them to have fun. They pay the game to have fun, and that includes not getting shot while affording nice stuff, take that away and they'll leave.


Another point I could make is that treaty contracts could be made so people could come up from high sec to 0.0 so as to rat and mine in nullsec whilst being under pvp protection because they are being taxed because of the contract.

For what treaties will be like watch from the time 56:16 onwards: CCP Presents 2009

Another thing, don't get rid of jump bridges... just change their workings. If you want a jump bridge to connect to another semi-permanently it makes things a lot quicker (much less spool up time) and in order to change their path semi-permanently it can take an hour or two to do so. Jump bridges will also have the other option of not being semi-permanently connected to one other bridge and therefore can jump to many other friendly bridges in range but with a significantly longer spool up time than the semi-permanent mode. Both modes of course should be faster than a regular cyno. This will nerf jump bridges, but not completely get rid of them.

I personally feel jump bridges will become invaluable for the treaty system so as to get high sec plebs to 0.0 with little fuss and without having to manually light titan bridges for them. The jump bridges can give such people a strange sense as if going through very slow jump gates. Also, make sure people can charge a toll for using the jump bridges so they can get regularly fueled. Maybe make some sort of collection chamber thingy if they want to pay in fuel or something like that. ugh

Bhattran
Posted - 2011.01.17 21:56:00 - [266]
 

1)Incarna=NDA, nothing new here CCP won't tell us anything, it is mentioned they haven't decided what they will include or what to 'develop' which is both sad and pathetic at this point because it shows that character creator was made before there was any plan or content to actually use them. It should have gone the other way, you make good content/gameplay then make the super nice characters that populate it.

I get the feeling that we will be tossed boring gameplay that is 'last minute' in nature instead of quality. If CCP worked to make Incarna fun, interesting, exciting then players would be more likely to make use of it, which is what you'd think they want. I doubt this is how it will be and feel that despite whatever CCP's promises have been about not requiring Incarna to do that which we do now from our pods will be kept. I think they will decide sooner or later, most likely due to crappy content for Incarna, that Incarna will be mandatory for that which we do now from our pods.


2)Excellent news to hear that CCP may be receptive to some balancing issues of stuff they have let languish and isn't used because it sucks balls when compared to other options.

3)Supercapitals, high time to 'fix' them and put limitations on 00 power blocks ability to be everywhere anytime through JB.

Introducing a random chance of damage based on range, cool-down time before a warp could be initiated after using a JB for example might be additional ideas to a JB nerf in range and 'spool up' time. Such changes might make it 'safer' to not jump right into the destination system but one or more systems away to get the cool-down timer off depending on the destination. Random damage could be applied to a certain level based on preset ranges, exceed 'optimal' range by 1 LY 15% chance of X damage, exceed 'optimal' range by 2 LY 25% of X+Y damage, etc.

This also opens up a potential isk sink to get repaired when exceeding optimal ranges or making a logistic repair ship a valued member of a convoy. Such penalties could also be added to jump drives to encourage a 'convoy' or protection on logistics routes used by Jump Freighters etc.

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.

5)Treaties should have some limitations so that there is 'cost' in picking your allies both in a 'danger' from the wrong people and penalties to those you don't have formal declarations with. There should be limitations on the number of treaties one can have and the 'roles' available for customization. It should just be a way to solidify an alliance and make power blocks even larger.

Bhattran
Posted - 2011.01.17 21:59:00 - [267]
 

continued

6)Can we have this artist create screen shots and preferably video clips of EVERY SINGLE EFFECT he/she creates so that one can theoretically view them in action through you-tube or some in station (INCARNA) database so new and old players can see WTF such and such effect looks like in the game before they are the victim of it? SISI is great but not everyone can deploy every technology, or get another player to demonstrate it for them, it really shouldn't be so hard in a game that has virtually no real manual to do something like this ESPECIALLY if you are bringing in someone new to do it all over.

7)The biggest problem, in my opinion, about null-sec is it takes much more time and effort to do the same things you can do oh so casually and with much more security in highsec. Not everyone has the time or wants to deal with that, I see CCP nerfing highsec to push people to 00 and that will work to an extent but many others will simply leave the game. Of course many don't care about those players but the reality is there won't be growth of subscribers if the result is to make highsec where poor newbies hang out with the rich alts of others.

More needs to be done to make 00 viable for smaller groups, some of it mentioned in this batch of minutes and comments to them. But simply nerfing highsec and pushing people to go where you want them to isn't going to make it happen or keep those players. 00 has a lot of BS in it, by design and through entrenched years of 'neglect' from CCP's balancing much has to be done to break up that stagnation while not destroying what it can/could be.

In my opinion new space needs to be added OR the size of systems has to increase through significant new 'content' in systems so that you aren't limited to handful of locales where you'll encounter other players like gates, stations, belts, scanned sites in addition to more entry points. I favor new space as the frontier of 00 is gone, it is populated, often underpopulated in many areas but still populated. Only WH hold the frontier aspect that space should be and isn't in this game anymore.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.01.17 22:04:00 - [268]
 

Just noticed that only two of the nine CSM are in sov holding alliances.

Zxmagus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.17 23:01:00 - [269]
 

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

Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.01.17 23:32:00 - [270]
 

Originally by: Elzon1
CCP Presents 2009


I wonder if this isn't part of the disconnect between ccp and players. The treaties feature is said to be something they wanted in there but had to cut last minute.

When I hear that I'm thinking 'Oh, that probably means they'll scramble to make treaties happen asap after release. It must be almost finished already.'

But evidently that's not what happens. Did treaties have to get back in line waiting to be processed? Does ccp allow themselves no leeway in shortlisting features or iterations on features that should have made it into the latest expansion?


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