open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.03.26 02:18:00 - [301]
 

Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale

fatherted1989
Red Horizon Inc
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:24:00 - [302]
 

i have to ask how you guys ever even came to this idea? do you since the T20 incident literally not have any guys playing in nullsec enviroments?

Jitizen
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:24:00 - [303]
 

wow CCP responds IR impress.

Proats
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:25:00 - [304]
 

Edited by: Proats on 26/03/2011 02:35:27
Edited by: Proats on 26/03/2011 02:29:26
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


But there have been many great points raised in this thread, many with seemingly no possible rebuttals. Can you at least try to refute them, so that we can try to understand better what you seem to understand that no one else does?

Aquestria
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:31:00 - [305]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Well ****ing duh!?

Gastarbajter
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:31:00 - [306]
 

HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAH You CCP Grayscale is a fracking idiot. You are always dead on 0.0 predictions. Maybe you should all just flip the switch on the server and end our misery than kill this poor game slowly...

How are alliances going to get space? You can't get more than 200 people in a system without ****ting up the server.

Idiots

Trey Gar
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:31:00 - [307]
 

This would be such a bad idea Sad

Dark Damus
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:31:00 - [308]
 

This Change is the biggest Bull**** in the CCP liveSad

mowie2
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:37:00 - [309]
 

because eve is really about grinding isk all day long and fighting alot less

orphenshadow
Gallente
Easy Co.
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:37:00 - [310]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


The range of issues in nullsec, should not include punishing everyone who came to nullsec based on the promises given during dominion..

I am all for shaking things up in 0.0, but not by punishing anyone. You need to take what we currently have and build upon it.

The fact of the matter is a lot of players have invested billions on billions of isk into their infrastructure and that there is not any way that you can take that away without causing a major backlash. I for one am prepared to cash in all 4 of my accounts. I'm sure I am not alone.

Why not increase the quality of the sanctums and havens based on trusec.. using 0.0 as the baseline and going upwards.

But i would rather see there be sites that are larger and more valuable than sanctums, perhaps with the new ai, that get progressivly better based on trusec.

just sayin... Carrots work a lot better than sticks.

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:38:00 - [311]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Proof that CCP is actually listening to players...


Just to clarify my perspective. I see the goal of this to be sound (more conflict, more access to 0.0 for new alliances), it's the method being suggested to achieve that that won't work.

Not only will it not work, I can see it working against the intended outcomes.

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:43:00 - [312]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback.

-Greyscale


I don't give a s**t whether or not you are happy with the direction and details, I am the customer not you. Well, I am a customer for now...

Thundren
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:44:00 - [313]
 

Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog.


10/10

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:50:00 - [314]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 02:51:17
Originally by: Amber Villaneous
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback.

-Greyscale


I don't give a s**t whether or not you are happy with the direction and details, I am the customer not you. Well, I am a customer for now...


The customer is not always right. See the Supercap changes.

-Liang

Ed: Actually, the amount of evidence against the customer being good at MMO balancing is pretty enormous. And yes, the balancing of the game is what continues to make it a functional game.

Garrix LaCrioux
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:53:00 - [315]
 

Originally by: Kalia Masaer
Edited by: Kalia Masaer on 26/03/2011 02:05:04

These changes will not really repair the situation but they will help a little bit. What needs to happen again is it must become difficult to fight a weaker more dedicated enemy willing to put in the time to win, there needs to be some space with virtually no value to rent out but is 0.0 where sov can be claimed so that there is a formative place for fresh alliances to develop and possibly eventually challenge existing powers.



And how is a fresh alliance to grow and challenge existing powers in space with no value? Utilizing what resources?

stupid monkey
Caldari
Easy Co.
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:58:00 - [316]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 02:51:17
Originally by: Amber Villaneous
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback.

-Greyscale


I don't give a s**t whether or not you are happy with the direction and details, I am the customer not you. Well, I am a customer for now...


The customer is not always right. See the Supercap changes.

-Liang

Ed: Actually, the amount of evidence against the customer being good at MMO balancing is pretty enormous. And yes, the balancing of the game is what continues to make it a functional game.


well well find out then... cause I believe said changes will cause most of 0.0 to become an empty wasteland and those that used to live there either let their accounts go inactive or mass move to high sec. basically all those smaller alliances that, since dominion, been able to grab a few systems here and there, working their asses off to do so. and then spend billions to get the infrastructure up so they can use their space will rage quit. When a group of people has to LEAVE their space, (that they fought for, pay sov bills for and payed to upgrade) just to make enough isk to buy the ships they need just to defend their space says to me that something is broken.


Gragnor
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:59:00 - [317]
 

Kudos for acknowledging response from members.

The number one reason for a lack of large scale null sec pew pew is the immense lag fest. Eve has regressed in this regard over the last two years.

The second issue is bots. You have to find a solution to botting. It undermines the eve economy. I just heard a story about 1,000 accounts getting banned for botting. If true; well done.

Another issue is risk/reward. The risk of being in null sec does not match the rewards. I can run level 4's in empire and make more isk/hour than in null sec. The principal reason for so much anger in these forums is that the risk of being in null sec is not matched by the rewards. The lack of understanding and awareness of this by CCP Devs simply astounds everyone.

Next issue is that there are now so many alternative sources of income in eve that a relative re-ranking is needed. Active sources of income such as mining and ratting should be buffed and nerfs for Moongoo and Planet crap. However, fourth issue cannot be resolved until second issue is eradicated.

We also need to think through supercaps online. The mainstay of any fleet should be a battleship not a capital ship. The prevalence of supercapitals and titans is really preventing newer players from enjoying the game. Dreads are now defunct with supercaps. Dreads should be the principle mechanism for killing capitals and structures.

The last issue is the perennial; sovereignty warfare suck dead dogs *********. Stations should be destructible. That more than anything will create an immense fight. If you kill a station anything in it is destroyed. A pilot in a ship simply remains there and all he can do is undock.


Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:00:00 - [318]
 

Originally by: fatherted1989

liang via dotlan crosscheck just how MUCH of 0.0 falls into that 'no sanctums for you' category - added plexes will not in any way accommodate for the pilots without a way to casually earn isk



About a third - 982 systems. The biggest losers are Pure Blind, Providence, and Cloud Ring.

-Liang

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:00:00 - [319]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 02:51:17
Originally by: Amber Villaneous
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback.

-Greyscale


I don't give a s**t whether or not you are happy with the direction and details, I am the customer not you. Well, I am a customer for now...


The customer is not always right. See the Supercap changes.

-Liang

Ed: Actually, the amount of evidence against the customer being good at MMO balancing is pretty enormous. And yes, the balancing of the game is what continues to make it a functional game.


You have already been shown to be sucking Greyscales cok so go troll someone elses post.

Xiang Zhu
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:03:00 - [320]
 

Put me down on the please don't do this list.

How about re-evaluating. I don't like the idea of gutting the majority of your nullsec player base. There have been several decent ideas about what changes can be made instead. I opt for the keeping of status quo for the higher truesec systems (or at the most a slight nerf) and work on making lower truesec more desirable. I would not go overboard with that either, perhaps less than what's originally proposed but still a buff so that it's still something worth shooting for, or fighting over as you think will happen. Then, look at your missioning income and align it on some level with income generated from the less desirable nullsec spaces. Also take into account that most alliances will continue to do most of their sov fighting over high end moons because that's what really pays their bills.

I don't know what to suggest to fix your game, but I don't think this will help with anything but alienating your playerbase that has already devoted a lot of time and many resources to better themselves and their home.

Mortania
Minmatar
No Compromise
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:05:00 - [321]
 

Looking through the database, there are:
3524 systems with negative security.
1635 are between -0.0 and -0.25, about 46.4%
738 are between -0.25 and -0.45, about 20.9%
554 are between -0.45 and -0.65, about 15.7%
414 are between -0.65 and -0.85, about 11.7%
183 are between -0.85 and -1.00, about 5.2%

I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.

Panda Name
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:08:00 - [322]
 

don't listen to the hordes of NC alts. these upcoming changes will be for the best!

stupid monkey
Caldari
Easy Co.
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:08:00 - [323]
 

Originally by: Mortania
Looking through the database, there are:
3524 systems with negative security.
1635 are between -0.0 and -0.25, about 46.4%
738 are between -0.25 and -0.45, about 20.9%
554 are between -0.45 and -0.65, about 15.7%
414 are between -0.65 and -0.85, about 11.7%
183 are between -0.85 and -1.00, about 5.2%

I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.


not to mention that most of the -0.5 to -1.0 are generally grouped together... so ENTIRE regions of -0.0 to -0.25 will become worthless while other regions become OMG gold mines

Denetric
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:10:00 - [324]
 

CCP, really are you that out of touch? I PVP because I can pay for it, how does making it harder for me to make isk ratting going to increase my desire to PVP? All this means is each loss takes longer to replace. Wow you guys just don't have a clue...

Qel'Droma
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:10:00 - [325]
 

Originally by: Xiang Zhu
Put me down on the please don't do this list.

How about re-evaluating. I don't like the idea of gutting the majority of your nullsec player base. There have been several decent ideas about what changes can be made instead. I opt for the keeping of status quo for the higher truesec systems (or at the most a slight nerf) and work on making lower truesec more desirable. I would not go overboard with that either, perhaps less than what's originally proposed but still a buff so that it's still something worth shooting for, or fighting over as you think will happen. Then, look at your missioning income and align it on some level with income generated from the less desirable nullsec spaces. Also take into account that most alliances will continue to do most of their sov fighting over high end moons because that's what really pays their bills.

I don't know what to suggest to fix your game, but I don't think this will help with anything but alienating your playerbase that has already devoted a lot of time and many resources to better themselves and their home.


Agreed.

John Haldane
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:14:00 - [326]
 

Well, this is a terrible idea, even if it is easy to implement. You're once again making safe missions in high-sec more valuable than 0.0, screwing up the risk/reward ratio.

Frankly, these changes look like they'll hurt the people you claim to be helping -- small alliances without high-end moons or a lot of existing assets.

I'm having a hard time believing (a) that the problem you describe exists, and (b) that this fix will solve that problem.

Taking on (a): There seems to be a good deal of conflict going on at the moment. The NC and the DRF are going at it hammer & tongs, with something like a trillion ISK in supercaps killed so far. Pandemic Legion is fighting in Pure Blind. The Deklein Coalition and IT have just finished a long brutal fight, and various parties are lining up to fill the vacated space. What conflict are you looking for and not finding?

And for (b): many have pointed out here, the proposed changes will ensure that large alliances control an even greater share of the economic power. Prior to the last set of changes, the large players settled those regions. They're not going to leave them. Meanwhile, those of us who grind our ISK will end up running missions in high-sec when we need new hulls. Meanwhile, you'll have cut botting income... well by half, perhaps. Per bot.

The whole point of the upgrades mechanism was to make marginal-trusec systems viable to live in, encouraging more people to move to 0.0. You'll have more accurate numbers than I do, but it seems to have worked. Why do you want to encourage people to move out again?

Meanwhile, the message you're sending to small- and mid-sized alliances is: all that money you spent on sov upgrades? Wasted. Y'all should have done L4 missions with your time instead. Leave 0.0 to the big boys with the moon goo or the bot networks.

Tell us true, Greyscale: Are you really excited about these changes? I'm not. They screw over the mid-level pilots without changing the balance of power in the larger scheme of things.

WhyAmIPoor
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:16:00 - [327]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


You suck.

lmao 2cat
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:19:00 - [328]
 



If your goal is to make the game more mobile, good job! All of the best regions are DRF, and with the thousands upon thousands of extra drone kills that are going to happen due to them being flooded with more Drone Hordes dropping alloys... their mineral production is going to be completely off the charts. Supercap production is going to explode, and in the favor of the people who already control the best regions in the game. This is literally the worst, most asinine change you could have possibly conceived. Do you people even play the game?

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:20:00 - [329]
 

Originally by: Panda Name
don't listen to the hordes of NC alts. these upcoming changes will be for the best!


Umm, you do realise that ev0ke, Intrepid Crossing, and Shadow of Death are not part of the NC right? Sure, a large portion of the people commenting here are from NC members, but a large portion of nullsec residents are NC members.

This has nothing to do with what side you're on in nullsec, it's about making sure that nullsec is worth inhabiting.

Aeternus IV
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:21:00 - [330]
 

This is quite a bad idea. The only people who seem to support it are either High-Sec trolls or players who already live in the "soon-to-be" best space. I would also love some confirmation on one thing. Even if CCP does bring out this horrendously ill-thought idea, please please confirm that you are also leaving the regions with broken true-sec alone, because if you're going to f*ck up, you might as well f*ck up in the biggest way possible. Nothing like completely improving you're game alts space while simultaneously making your opponents space worthless ehh CCP?


Here's an idea, and I know it might sound incredibly ridiculous to all you game developers, but how about NOT nerfing the 0.0 that you've tried ohhh sooo haarrd to make better.

This change won't accomplish any of the goals stated by CCP.

For F*ck's Sake, I mean really... I hope whoever thought of this idea is sterile, this world needs less morons, not more.


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (118)

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