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 : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Nikgah Plz
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:00:00 - [361]
 

Edited by: Nikgah Plz on 26/03/2011 05:09:56

Originally by: Kerosene
Edited by: Kerosene on 25/03/2011 16:59:31
Ghetto Quote from Blog:

* Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
* In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
* Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
* Coalitions will be marginally less stable
* Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)

On all 5 of them points I'd like to say 'my arse'.

1. Alliances don't base their location on the number of sanctums available.
2. Why? Do you think people fight over sanctums?
3. People won't move because of the change (see points 1 and 2 above) so why would alliances get a better foothold?
4. Coalitions will be less stable why?
5. Not while jump bridges exist. You think you over estimate the power of anomolies. They are a nice-to-have, not a reason for living somewhere.

edit: typo


I second and will add this: the shiny titans don't just get made by moon goo. Renters that rat in these spaces help pay for sov and payment to power blocs to build those titans as protection, ships and such. So conflict would decrease if their is less money coming in from renters, then pvpers on ship replacement plans under the major blocs will not have the isk flow backing up to go out and fight. By reducing the isk flow you are asking for an isk vs isk war and I will gladly play hello kitty if you nerf sanctums and havens. So glad we paid for expensive upgrades only Greyscale wants to make it worthless now. *Starting to pack for high sec*

Rellikmad
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:01:00 - [362]
 

Seems Greyscale is the only one excited, Personally not a good idea. For many of us time is limited enough so to make those changes will hurt the PVP. And if your out in null sec there is no lack of fighting.

If you think it will produce more conflict for prime space, "FIX THE LAG FIRST", this in it self would produce more fighting,,,,,,,,,,

Tugin Spank
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:02:00 - [363]
 

I'll make this short and sweet....if this change goes through you will lose 3 subscriptions to your game. Most people in 0.0 grind isk in order to support PVP (atleast I do) it sucks grinding isk as it is and if CCP is going to make that grind harder well I'm done with your game.

What happen to hey we want to get more people into null sec...I understand you're trying to make these changes to help the little guys. Like *cough* Dominion *cough* yeah I remember that was supposed to help out the "smaller" entities, well I can't see much change. So if this goes through you can bet you still won't see those little guys and you will lose subscribers over it also.

CCP please get in touch with your player base before you just throw garbage like this out

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:05:00 - [364]
 

Edited by: Marconus Orion on 26/03/2011 05:08:33
It is funny to see people tear up about not having Sanctums and havens to farm in every region 23/7.

I do have some suggestion though.

Make sov costs for upgrades and bills be relative to the amount of members in an alliance. That way if the area is not that great, you won't be paying out the nose for a small alliance. Maybe even have the true sec factored in as well.

That being said, the cost to member ratio should include blues as well so we don't have a **** ton of micro alliances in a coalition.

If a small time alliance wants to make in null sec without joining some super coalition, in some craptastic region, they should not be having to devote all of their income just to pay for sov upkeep and have nothing left to defend against evil neighbors.

EDIT: Damn auto correct on my phone. Embarassed

Glacius Prime
Gallente
Segmentum Solar
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:09:00 - [365]
 

LoL CCP, where do you get these ideas???

We spend to much time already grinding like morons so we can afford to PvP...
I lost my last ship due to lag!, now you wanna take my sunctum away. AWESOME!

We spend months to put the upgrades up!!! now the system will be useless? So what? I'm gonna go fight the blue next to me so I can farm in his system?
Fail! EPIC fail!
(good thing we did not put the station up)


Guess its back to high sec then. But all the renters will follow, so it will be crowded also...

Really CCP, if you want more fight, fix the fu***** lag! Don't force me to get the gay drake out to join the cta and wait 45 mins to jump a gate!

Vlakorados
Imminent Ruin
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:11:00 - [366]
 

10/10 This is a great way to sell more plex. But should nerf missions t oh wait...

Nikgah Plz
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:14:00 - [367]
 

Originally by: Vlakorados
10/10 This is a great way to sell more plex. But should nerf missions t oh wait...


+1Laughing

Tony Swift
Wrecking Shots
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:14:00 - [368]
 

Originally by: Wiu Ming
Edited by: Wiu Ming on 25/03/2011 21:38:51
Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 25/03/2011 18:46:20
This proposed change better be announced for a April 1st patch, if you catch my drift.

Quote:
CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies


So CCP Greyscale is excited about screwing people over?! This puts my confidence on CCP staff at such a high level..


Couldn't have said it better myself.


Agreed. Definitely not liking the direction things are going.
Dislike.

El Mauru
Amarr
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:20:00 - [369]
 

I think a lot of players underestimate the alliance level decisions based on ratting space.
CVA and similar entities on the one side and Bob (everybody remembers the whining about bob-space and the officer spawns?) on the other were an example of how this theorem worked out pretty well.
I'd gladly give away parts of my ratting income if it means a more dynamic political landscape again and less of the grey paste it is now (been to Provi lately? compare the range of targets...)- especially with the 2nd tier (force projection) changes in mind.

That being said, the people fearing that the casual grunt will now return to hisec mission running for isk might have a point. I'll wait on my judgment until I see the second part of the changes coming up.

The amount of negativity in this thread should give CCP a hint to not leave us in the dark for too long though.

Nikgah Plz
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:27:00 - [370]
 

Edited by: Nikgah Plz on 26/03/2011 05:28:32
"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".

I'm sorry but this was enough for me. When's Bioware coming out with Star Wars??? I think they care about their player base. I'm sure their petitions are treated with respect not CCP copy and paste answers. Oh you were in lag, our logs don't show this. Good day to you sir!

Ki Rathos
Minmatar
196 MPAD
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:28:00 - [371]
 

Alright ,
I am not generally the ranting, b**ching type. However, this is a bad idea. Few things I would like to point out.

1. Dominion was supposed to be awesome, and break up the large power groups to allow for smaller guys to get in. Flip side we are still renting as a small guy I can attest to this.I actually formed up an alliance that was running well, and we just couldnt find space. If we could find it we couldnt take it. And our puny 200 man fleets were easily squashed by much larger fleets. Maybe PVP fail, but the point is that the power blocks have shifted very very little. Its internal gankage, or oh s**t I didnt pay the bill that kills these guys.

2. The good money comes from moons, which are rarely found in good systems. Should you be renting they are dominated by the alliance you have to pay to hold any 00 in the first place. Try and take the moon and you are removed.

3. It takes a sustained fleet of LOTS of stuff to even attempt sov in any 00 system, and if you are low on caps , it takes hours. Allowing your enemy to take their time , field up the fleet and come remove you, or your SBU, or pretty much anything.

4. My corp is a broad based industrial corp (we will mine your hull for goods if we can). We currently rent a soon to be crap system, where we have spent TONS of isk to upgrade. Military upgrade came fast, its the first thing we focused on. And its been easily maintained, indy upgrade, having to have essentially everyone mine , all the time hasnt been maintained. As it requires to much to defend against any roaming gangs, in a renter alliance where they DONT want you to be organized.

I have more, but basically , if you want 00 to more "vivid" then make the upgrades count, and make them transferable if you take a system, not start from scratch. Dont nerf whats there , reward the guys putting the effort in. Half of 00 is already hardly upgraded, as the big alliances just take sov , then dont upgrade because they dont need the bill. They just want to hold the space. Redistribute the moon goo, and FFS make PI worth a bit more than just stuff from the planet. If your going to tie it into Dust cool, but mining should not be the only activity that increases industrial level. I for one, am producing all the pos fuel and goods for tech 2 production off the planets in my system. My corp is doing the same, and we get no reward other than fueling our pos at home and some occasional t2 stuff to sell.

Other things to think about.
1.POS mechanics stink for roles rights etc - yes i know the code is touchy and your all afraid to mess with it. Been around a while
2. Logistics suck - if you remove JB , it will probably be good, except for one thing, most likely the big alliances will pull back into their own already highly profitable 00 sec, or set up close to empire to block routes to more 00 sec. Want to make it better, find a way to kill the huge power blocks.

3 Standings are a mess most times. Hard to maintain, and a pain to deal with. Necessary in a way. Heres an idea, you want an isk sink, penalize shooting blue with isk fine. Clear up overview setup to be less complicated at the same time so you can hide blue (could see an issue here with rr though, could be tricky)

Additions welcome, comments too


Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:29:00 - [372]
 

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


Of course its not being well received, its not a constructive change to the game and cannot achieve the goals you state. Be careful of doing stuff because you think it will lead to a better future, didn't work to well for SOE and SWG....

Newer alliances will not gain an easier foothold in 0.0, you don't seem to understand 0.0 politics. The change you propose means that the big alliances will need more space to service the same amount of pilots. This means absolutely no opening of space to new alliances. New alliances who do not have the ability to build or purchase supercapitals and replace them on a regular basis cannot gain a foothold in 0.0 without the permission of a larger alliance that has them. Believing they can is just foolishness.

More time spent making the same amount of money they make now means less time to conduct combat operations against other players, which means less conflicts not more. Whether they have to work in 0.0 under your lower bands or choose to go back to empire to run missions to make the money it means less time in the field to fight opponents. While those with tremendous moon resources offer replacements for ships, those without such options each pilot is responsible for his own ship and being able to field it. Lowering his earning potential means more time in pve and less time in pvp. (This goes with your mission changes to, keep agent quality.....stop dumbing down the game that's what killed SWG for SOE).

Your proposed changes makes some Regions worthless....Providence for example. 95% of providence would be in band 1. It is not a strategic chokepoint like Geminate so one has to wonder how it would make it, perhaps Aralis will return and retake it for CVA.

To achieve your goals you need to make it more enticing to come out to 0.0. You need higher population, only with more people will you get more conflicts. To entice more folks you need to create a system whereby a 0.0 system can support as many people as the best mission running systems in Empire. Everything you propose in this blog goes counter to that and thus will fail to achieve your objectives.

I don't dislike the fact of tying anoms to true sec I just dislike how your doing it, even the worst 0.0 system when upgraded should be able to have at least 1 haven/sanctum/horde. I'd leave what exists now as the baseline for band 1, and then increase from there by band as you planned. This ensures all 0.0 space is better space than Empire and keeps folks interested. Next triple or quadruple the amount of anoms given per level upgrade. Double static belts. As systems can accommodate more people you will in time see shrinkage of empires.


Claire Auscent
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:29:00 - [373]
 

Originally by: Herr Nerdstrom
How about adding some upgrades in this 'flexible upgrade system' that will actually help the pilots who play the game? Instead of nerfing sanctums already in existence, how about leaving all as is, and improving the quality or payout of sanctums in better truesec systems (via a new upgrade would be fine)? This won't affect the average pilot's ability to buy more pvp ships, but will further entice the better systems, and have a rebalancing at the same time.



QFT This is what CCP should do.

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:31:00 - [374]
 

I'm not an anomaly grinder and not affected by this change, but I don't get why you are going for these all or nothing solutions where they aren't really necessary. It just ****es people off and isn't making the game any better. Such solutions are warranted when there is a fundamental difference between the different areas of space, but I don't see that to be the case here.

Let me explain what I mean. Take the WH space and DED sites in exploration as an example. WH space is fundamentally different from all other areas of space, so it makes sense to have rewards that only appear there. You want that, you go to a WH. Still differences in what you can get based of the WH level, but with increased rewards you get increased challenges.

With DED sites the differences between areas is significant, but nothing to warrant total differentation. Ofcourse you can have a system where there is a clear line between different security areas(lvl 1-3 high/ 4-5 low/ 6-10 0.0). Basicly have it so that every DED site can only available in one security area. No exceptions allowed. Inevitably you end up nerfing people and remove a lot of the fun from the game at the same time.

A alternative way of doing things would be to use an overlap system, something you seem to be going for yourselves, where you have specific sites for each sec rating, but also overlap at the edges(lvl 1-4 high/4-6 low/ 6-10 0.0). One of the benefits of these kind of models is that it offers better rewards to more people while still giving clear advantages to people living in more dangerous areas. It also gives people a taste of what they can expect if the can move to other areas.

As a highsec dweller, you mostly get to do those easy low level sites, but inevitably there comes a time when they notice that they would much rather be contantly doing those lvl 4 sites or even better and harder sites. You can either choose to keep hunting the few ones that appear in highsec or start taking risks and move to the areas where comparable sites are the norm instead of an exception. The same will happen later to the lowsec dwellers and their eyes turn to 0.0 or they settle for less because they prefer lowsec rules over 0.0. Again clear differentation in what you can normally find, but if you're lucky you can get a taste of what awaits you in other areas. A system that is more interesting, rewarding, enjoyable and quite fitting for the chance based nature of exploration.

At this point it should be quite obvious how this design, that you have adopted in other areas of the game, would fit the current anomaly changes. The all or nothing solution is even worse here though, since true sec doesn't affect the rules of the space or how secure that space actually is in any significant way. Player owned 0.0 is 0.0 in terms of actual security no matter what the truesec is, so while it makes sense to have truesec affect the level of rewards, it makes no sense to say that large areas of it will be **** from now just because. This especially since anomalies are designed to provide the basic income for individual pilots in that area and anything not competative/better than lvl4 missioning isn't worth doing.

You're making the game worse and less interesting, in my opinion at least, by using such clear cut limitations on what sites can spawn in what truesec or not. This especially since you could have just made it so, that the chances of getting better sites is higher with better true sec. Again differences are good, but is such drastic differences really good for the players or the game or even necessary considering you could have just made truesec a modifier in site type chance?

You also have the fundamental problem that if developing the bad space and fighting for it isn't worth it for the current occupants, it's going to be just as worthless for newcomers. It makes more sense for them to gather resources longer in empire and go straight for the decent space. No point fighting over crap.

Nikgah Plz
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:44:00 - [375]
 

Edited by: Nikgah Plz on 26/03/2011 06:01:30

And...this is why I don't go to fanfest anything because the game you love will one day be destroyed by a newbie (SOE Experience). Can we put a ticket in to move CCP Greyscale to a less important seat? How about he can be the guy that watches local but fails to tell anyone about the neuts or red targets coming through? Oh btw people buy plex because the game is crap right now for pve so no one wants to sit and get fat to grind isk.

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:54:00 - [376]
 

Originally by: Marconus Orion
*snip*
"HORRIBLE IDEA! We were here first so no point in changing now. Pass that gravy over. Now get you ass back on those gates and make sure if a non-blue comes though, you let us know so we can get our ships safely out of the Sanctums. MOVE IT!"


So why should an alliance who lives in a 'not so great' region want to stay blue with an alliance living in a 'great' region?


Probably because if that blue alliance was there first, they were there first because they were able to take that space for themselves. The smaller alliance got the 'not so great' space because they were blue to the other alliance and it suited the bigger alliance for them to be there.

As it currently stands the small alliance has the option to try and take the better space from the bigger alliance asking for the gravy (as you put it), but that option wasn't appealing before, isn't appealing now, and won't be appealing in the future for the simple fact that they will get squashed.

Making the space that the small alliance occupies even worse won't change this dynamic at all, it will only put the small alliance out even more.

Sem Nan
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:57:00 - [377]
 

Originally by: Claire Auscent
Originally by: Herr Nerdstrom
How about adding some upgrades in this 'flexible upgrade system' that will actually help the pilots who play the game? Instead of nerfing sanctums already in existence, how about leaving all as is, and improving the quality or payout of sanctums in better truesec systems (via a new upgrade would be fine)? This won't affect the average pilot's ability to buy more pvp ships, but will further entice the better systems, and have a rebalancing at the same time.



QFT This is what CCP should do.




That is the opposite of nerfing. I think some people would go haywire on CCP if they tried that.

Desert Ice78
Gryphon River Industries
R-I-P
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:01:00 - [378]
 

Greyscale, you are an idiot, a totally incompetent idiot, a fool, a moron. You are stupid beyond belief. You fail yet again to have even the most basic understanding of the changes you are proposing.

Iíve looked at your explanation and rational for the changes, and it is obvious that you are unable to process a thought to completion. How else could you possibably manage to come up with something that will have the opposite result to that which you desired:

Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space

Now this is true; itís called Hi-sec.

In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals

Why? The power-blocks already own all the Tech moons, and now they will own all of the anomalies as well??! All you are going to do is make them even more entrenched. If you want to fight a war you need one thing; ****ING RESOURCES TO PAY FOR THE CONFLICT. You are proposing to take all the resources from the smaller alliances and put them into the hands of the power-blocks, thereby making them unassailable. Is this honestly too complicated for you to understand?

Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec

Sure they will, because no one will want the space as it is valueless. And after one week said alliance will discover this too and promptly move back to Hi-sec where they may actually make a living. Two billion of upgrades for a ****ing Hub?!?! GTFO.

Coalitions will be marginally less stable

??????????? Your an idiot. A true idiot. The coalitions have even more resources and more reason to stay together now. And where is anyone else to go? As said before, back to Hi-sec.


Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. The power-blocks will just claim great stretches of useless empty space that no one wants and keep them for whatever purpose they need. Their lives will be even easier.

Here is the actual result of your moronic changes:

1) The rich get richer, more entrenched, more stable and more unassailable. The rest have nothing with which to fight them or indeed each other.
2) Conflict dies right across nul-sec. There is no one living there, and no one wants it anyway
3) A great stretch of nul-sec, entire regions in fact, is about to be turned into Low-sec. You remember Low-sec Greyscale? That completely useless bit of space between Hi and Nul where no one lives and no one wants as there is nothing and no reason to be there? (this is the clincher for me Ė a complete working demonstration of Greyscaleís changes, and the fool canít see it.)


Here is an original thought for you Greyscale, STOP ****ING AROUND WITH THAT WHICH IS WORKING, AND START FIXING THAT WHICH IS BROKEN: - POS DESIGN, FACTION WARFARE, LOW SEC, THE ****ING UI, ETC.


Ah forget it. Who wants my stuff.

Nikgah Plz
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:06:00 - [379]
 

Originally by: Desert Ice78



Here is an original thought for you Greyscale, STOP ****ING AROUND WITH THAT WHICH IS WORKING, AND START FIXING THAT WHICH IS BROKEN: - POS DESIGN, FACTION WARFARE, LOW SEC, THE ****ING UI, ETC.


Ah forget it. Who wants my stuff.



I will hold your stuff ;)

Sa'Shena
Amarr
Ars ex Discordia
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:11:00 - [380]
 

Redistribute the Truesec in 0.0 so that constellations in Fountain and Delve aren't so completely and outrageously stacked while an entire region like Pure Blind, Providence, Geminate or Cloud Ring are so utterly beyond worthless as to make holding them more of a hindrance than anything else.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:13:00 - [381]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 06:16:03
Originally by: Sem Nan
Originally by: Claire Auscent
Originally by: Herr Nerdstrom
How about adding some upgrades in this 'flexible upgrade system' that will actually help the pilots who play the game? Instead of nerfing sanctums already in existence, how about leaving all as is, and improving the quality or payout of sanctums in better truesec systems (via a new upgrade would be fine)? This won't affect the average pilot's ability to buy more pvp ships, but will further entice the better systems, and have a rebalancing at the same time.



QFT This is what CCP should do.


That is the opposite of nerfing. I think some people would go haywire on CCP if they tried that.


You mean people that understanding dumping massive amounts of raw ISK into the economy is a bad idea?

Originally by: Sa'Shena

Redistribute the Truesec in 0.0 so that constellations in Fountain and Delve aren't so completely and outrageously stacked while an entire region like Pure Blind, Providence, Geminate or Cloud Ring are so utterly beyond worthless as to make holding them more of a hindrance than anything else.



I was thinking about that... but I don't know how much good it would really do. I think if massive napped coalitions weren't so common, it'd encourage local warfare. But with them... it might discourage it even more by providing "county seats" from which big alliances could rule and rent out nearby "slums".

-Liang

Desert Ice78
Gryphon River Industries
R-I-P
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:17:00 - [382]
 

Originally by: Nikgah Plz
Originally by: Desert Ice78



Here is an original thought for you Greyscale, STOP ****ING AROUND WITH THAT WHICH IS WORKING, AND START FIXING THAT WHICH IS BROKEN: - POS DESIGN, FACTION WARFARE, LOW SEC, THE ****ING UI, ETC.


Ah forget it. Who wants my stuff.



I will hold your stuff ;)



Actually, if someone at Fanfest can now find Greyscale and punch him in the face....I want a picture too..

(I am also quite angry right now)

progodlegend
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:17:00 - [383]
 

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


NOOOOOOOO, please don't listen to these fools that are whining. Half of them probably didn't even play before dominion. CCP I applaud you for having the balls to do this, this is honestly the best change to 0.0 you guys have come up with. Dominion changes making each system equally valuable was just an awful idea in the first place.

Please don't think that the only reactions to this are negative, their are swaths of players that think this is a necessary change.

Honestly this is the best patch news I've heard since Stackless IO and the need for speed stuff. I can't remember thinking of a more necessary change to 0.0 than this.

Hey ******s, giant coalitions are not a game mechanic, there are corps, and alliances, you choose who you want to blue after that. Stop thinking that you are entitled to blues 5 regions in every direction and that CCP should only be doing things to preserve your ability to add as many blues as you want. Now no one can say, "yea just bring more people in, we can throw them in *insert random constellation here* and they will be happy mindlessly farming sanctums." The guys that live there will have to be creative

People lived in ****ty 0.0 space before the dominion changes. Before Sanctums, the ****tiest truesec, providence, was the most populated region in the game, so CCP, please don't listen to all these people, who have become spoiled by the ease of isk making.

progodlegend
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:21:00 - [384]
 

Edited by: progodlegend on 26/03/2011 06:22:30
Honestly, I actually think greyscale could be right with the whole coalition thing. I can't wait to see how really a BFF the NC is, when their D-teams and C-teams come whineing, "we need better ratting space can we have some of your true sec." Go ahead Razor, you ready to share some of branch yet?

Hey NC pet alliances, check it out:

tenal

Pure Blind




Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:24:00 - [385]
 

Honestly, I just can't leave this - it's just a terrible way to invoke the kind of scenario you are promoting, and what we all want.

A far better solution (one of my CSM campaign platforms) is more NPC nullsec with good agents and low end moons, particularly around Empire->Nullsec entrance points.

What I can see this doing is providing a space for small alliances to occupy. Small alliances can occupy space under very specific conditions:


  1. They are sponsored by a bigger alliance

  2. They stay "under the radar" of the bigger alliances

  3. They are hard as nails PvPers with an independent income source


Point one is the standard pet/useful ally scenario and won't change. Point 3 is only really available to a select few and also won't change.

Low value NPC nullsec allows groups to occupy space while staying under the radar of bigger alliances. Ask anybody who has tried to remove a group from NPC nullsec - it's a PitA. If a small alliance makes the odd roam into the big alliance's space and stays little more than a nuisance it's just not worth the big alliance's time to bother removing them.

Small groups get more access to nullsec, more PvP gets to happen, more ships go boom, = win. Please don't make it harder for small groups to get into 0.0

Ariman Mintanu
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:24:00 - [386]
 

Edited by: Ariman Mintanu on 26/03/2011 06:39:42
Ok, let's be a little more honest, CCP.

tl;dr

When a group wants to achieve a certain goal with it's clients, it uses money. If a cell phone company wants less data usage on smart phones, they charge overages and fees. If a government wants to stop smoking, they tax the hell out of it. On the flip side, a group can offer incentives to encourage an action. You guys built the largest MMO server out there and you have an in house economist, so you know this. Dominion was based on this understanding.

MMO's are fun because more time spent = more power. That's the underlying rule for the whole system. The proposed changes go counter to this. Living in Null-sec takes less time and effort for the same amount of power (isk, alliances, e-peen, etc). Risk has little to do with it. Right now you will pretty much always have a net positive greater than high-sec (macro-economics is fun!). With the changes, there is no longer a good chance of a net positive greater than high-sec can offer (more on that below).

These changes are not going to make the game more fun because it takes time to get powerful enough to be competitive in null-sec, but moving to null-sec will now result in an decrease in your net gain. So you spend lots of time to become more powerful so that you can... be forced to spend even more time than you would have otherwise? No, because that's not fun. Let's look at options. No large alliance is going to allow your corp to muddy up their now even more valuable space and you can't live on Hubs. High sec stuff like invention and missioning means risking going through border systems frequentily. That leaves mining and PI (both of which only require the occasional freighter hop to HS or to a 0.0 station to sell. Even a medium-large corp can pull that off twice a month). Low true-sec means no ABC except for the occasional signature, so you're better off in high sec for that too, from an isk stand point. That leaves PI. It's immensely more profitable in null-sec as it is. But not everyone likes it. Still there'd be more incentive now.

Here's where the honesty part comes in. There are system-wide issues in the eve universe right now. CCP is delving into console gaming with Dust. There's been promise of integration with the EVE server. This of course means that there has to be a lot of PI going on for there to be any enjoyment in those console games. Your proposed changes would encourage null-sec PI on paper. You also have an inflation problem. PLEX and trit prices have jumped by around 15% in 4 months. Your economist has probably told you this is bad. He's probably also told you that you can't touch your production base (high sec / minerals) because that would cause a spike in prices eve-wide (which is also why we still have bots and macros. The economy needs them. You banned 1000 accounts because they were starting to overwhelm the economy) So what do you hit? Low-sec is an isk sink as is, so nothing to do there. You can't touch high-sec. Nerf null-sec! Make the power blocs fight harder (lose more ships) while injecting less money into the system! Problem solved. And you may get a PI boost to boot. You also impact the minimum number of players possible: small alliances in null-sec.

/tl;dr

Summary:

1) You can direct people by making things more or less expensive.
2) In MMO's, time = power. Being able to spend less time for more power makes things valuable.
3) Proposed changes will make most 0.0 less valuable, therefore the game is less fun.
4) Changes would help fix some serious system-wide issues and long term econ stability.
5) Changes have few serious system-wide side effects and only affect small percentage of players.

I know "for the good of the community" doesn't sound as good as "more fun and excitement!" but at least acknowledge why you're considering these changes.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:25:00 - [387]
 

ITT: Coalition members in good true sec space are praying that their buddies in ****ty true sec space will still want to be BFF so they don't become a target.

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:30:00 - [388]
 

Originally by: progodlegend
Edited by: progodlegend on 26/03/2011 06:22:30
Honestly, I actually think greyscale could be right with the whole coalition thing. I can't wait to see how really a BFF the NC is, when their D-teams and C-teams come whineing, "we need better ratting space can we have some of your true sec." Go ahead Razor, you ready to share some of branch yet?

Hey NC pet alliances, check it out:

tenal

Pure Blind


So to summarise, is what you're saying that smaller and newer alliances will no longer be able to sustain themselves in the lower value systems? Is this not the opposite of Greyscale's objective?

Sverre Haakonson
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:32:00 - [389]
 

Edited by: Sverre Haakonson on 26/03/2011 06:33:02
You make the rich richer and the poor poorer. This has nothing to do, to get more wars.

To initiate a war, everyone has to gather ressources. If the existing sov holders have an advantage that their pilot have more ISKthan than you strenghen the big blocks.

Prologick
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:34:00 - [390]
 

Edited by: Prologick on 26/03/2011 06:41:17
Edited by: Prologick on 26/03/2011 06:39:55
Quote:
Ghetto Quote from Blog:
* Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
* In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
* Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
* Coalitions will be marginally less stable
* Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)


1. These alliances will just get back to high sec to run missions and JC back to null sec to PvP or just don't PvP because of the hassle of getting ships etc. jumped down.
2. Less people with not enough money to waste ships in one place = Less PvP. PvP costs money, not makes money.
3. Newer Alliances won't be wanting any space in null sec, since the space is crap and they're better off roaming while making money in high sec or staying in NPC null sec.
4. Coalitions won't be affected, they'll just rake in moon goo while members mission for money in high, ready to JC back to null at a moments notice. Also, Coalitions will just Titan Bridge all over the place from low-sec, leaving null sec even more empty and newer alliances even more vulnerable.
5. No they won't. Anything above -0.5 sec is useless and won't get developed.

How did CCP come to the conclusion that less money and less people in null sec magically results in more PvP and conflict?
How did CCP come to the conclusion that by making space useless it would become desirable to own?
Why practically force said New Alliances to bot belt rats to make any form of decent income to PvP with?

edit: You're just trying to change human nature via game rules which is bad for everyone in the end, alliances will just work around them, like they always have....

Most ******ed Devlog I've read in a while, that's for sure.


Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : 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