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 : ... 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Narf Commandude
Minmatar
Gladiators of Rage
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.27 03:29:00 - [751]
 

I don't like the idea, because it changes how I make money in nullsec.

I don't think this will help new corps or alliances at all. Because giving them week systems to start in will not allow them to build strong fleets.

Decreasing the number of anoms in the system will force us to bunch up into the few good systems that remain. (I'd be ****ed if i had to do 40 week anoms to make up for the 1 we could of had, but didn't have because it was owned by another corp in the alliance).



Hope it works out.

ModeratedToSilence
Posted - 2011.03.27 03:43:00 - [752]
 

Originally by: Zan Talos


Now lets looks at what we do get the keep and thats the ability to upgrade the systems some say up to Hubs for -.1 - (-).5 well yes you dont have Havens and Sanctums but you can still make 10mil an hour easy ratting hubs in a Hac or Command. So Really just stop complaining and adapt.


Currently I can make 60-70mil an hour with sanctums/havens. In empire I can make 40-50mil an hour running level 4s in an afk drone boat with no risk. 10mil an hour with the ever present risk of being ganked is simply not worth paying for the sov/upgraded need to make the 10mil per hour.

EnviromentalNightmare
Posted - 2011.03.27 03:53:00 - [753]
 

Edited by: EnviromentalNightmare on 27/03/2011 03:55:55
Edited by: EnviromentalNightmare on 27/03/2011 03:54:30
Nice going CCP this will really help the small guys get established. ugh

Giant power blocks will still destroy the small guys, FFS the RMT russians even rent NPC stain out and deny access to the best mission systems for the majority of players in the area. Just the small guys wont have the isk to fight back

So you deny the small guys a chance of making isk to grow and concentrate people into smaller areas. I can see the big guys getting bigger as people leave smaller group to join them for a chance at a decent system.

Why not look at Moon Goo's endless isk stream and breaking up the giant powerblocks, not destroying the small guys.


El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.27 04:08:00 - [754]
 

Originally by: Sarrgon
To me, me the crappy 0.0 systems about worthless, how will they pay for their sov, SRP and such. They will never be able to take on the larger alliances / coalition, they will run out of ISK LONG before the larger alliances and coalitions that control the best space already.

Only real way IMO to fix it is to make moongoo like PI. All moons, low sec, high sec or 0.0 anyone can mine from, multiple people per moon etc, like PI. Take away the huge ISK flow that only a few alliances really have. When newer / growing alliances / coalitions see that they can now compete with the larger established alliances / coalitions, they will be much more able to fight them and actually hope to win.

But the newer alliances etc need to make good ISK in the crappy 0.0 systems to even try to make that a reality.


Yep that's what CCP doesn't realize, and its not just the cost of SOV you need to figure, ship replacements, stockpiles, paying off the neighbors while you build (rent), etc.

Your idea of moon goo changes is something that intrigues me that is an interesting way to take it. Indeed it could be a solution. Only problem is it would reduce demands for POSs

Tritium Solace
Posted - 2011.03.27 04:14:00 - [755]
 

If CCP goes thru with this I will stop playing this game and they will not get my $$$ every month. Star Wars: the old republic looks pretty damn good.

But before I emo-rage-quit due to CCP once again failing to understand what is good, let me make a few points:
-I make my money exclusively thru Sanctums and Havens. Lesser anomalies give me LESS money than level 4 missions (with salvaging included).
-Once the powerful alliances take over high true-sec systems the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and have no chance to fight the rich with 300 mil isk hellcats, maelstroms, and T3 ships. Never mind the capital ships.
-The game will become way too tedious if I can't farm sanctums and havens and will in itself be the single reason why I will quit.
-I haven't read all the pages here, but I'm sure you'll find a very hard time finding a player who lives out of 0.0 space who agrees with this idea.
-Explain to me who is going to be powerful and rich enough to take on Pandemic Legion and their hellcats once everyone is not able to replace their PvP ships?!?
-If you are trying to increase the value of isk, why not have an ISK cap instead - e.g. 30 bil isk wallet cap for an individual? Why must you once again meddle with game dynamics?

I vote ***NO*** to this idea that CCP is presenting us. Maybe I should call it CCCP instead?

Morp p'LLoran
Silver Snake Enterprise
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2011.03.27 04:17:00 - [756]
 

All you are accomplishing with this will be to encourage more empty systems in 0.0. Zero space is now more occupied with more targets than ever, cue 15 months ago where you have to travel through vast distances of empty space to get to the good ratting systems for some zero space pvp. Your original decision got more people into 0.0 and got more income into large alliance through renters that allowed bigger and more epic battles, it even led to more smaller alliance getting in through the renter, ally or buffer principles, since they could be given space will still allowing big alliances members the space to make isk.

Your short-sighted and unwanted decision will reverse this trend and make 0.0 less interesting,

Xel Ra
Posted - 2011.03.27 04:18:00 - [757]
 

Pure stupidity. Who will take all the best space? The established, big alliances. So what happens to the small guy? Game over in null. No chance to compete whatsoever. It's so obvious I can't even ****ing believe how stupid this move is.

You wanted small alliances to come out and have a fighting chance? Here we are. Now you just ****ed us. Maybe we can turn into Pandemic Legion overnight and muscle our way back in...yeah, right. What an idiotic change.

Small alliances that moved out to null just got killed by this. Do you really expect us to have a fighting chance under these conditions? How do they expect small alliances to form having less available high quality null? The moons weren't enough, you had to give the EVERYTHING. **** this and **** you CCP, for being as blind and stupid as that.

Captian Firelog
Killer Koalas
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2011.03.27 04:25:00 - [758]
 

I am 100% against this new plan, I hope that CCP burns any plans to screw up anomalies what so ever. I hate that CCP has been catering to Empire noobs for years with mission running, and right when CCP gives the 0.0 boys something to cheer about we're screwed over in an instant gang bang. This is some crappy about face decision, stick with you're old plan it is keeping EVERYONE happy!

Anomalies were never and never will be the problem of larger alliances and less 0.0 wars, that problem was created long ago with Jump Bridges and Capital ships. Don't screw with my anom's, I've been interested in The Old Republic!

Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
Posted - 2011.03.27 04:34:00 - [759]
 

And just like jumpbridge nerf, this is will be whined out of existance.

CCP, you know you have to do it. The game needs it.

Old Providence built all those outposts without sanctums and without moon mining. One of the poorest, worst regions in the game and it had the most player outposts out of any of them.

You don't NEED santcums, your space wallet wants them. All this "I won't PvP because its harder to make ISK" is not true. People have PvPed with just a highsec mining alt in a Covetor to pay for their replacements.

If you want to PvP, quit crying and plan your invasion of better space.

Kira Metari
Posted - 2011.03.27 04:49:00 - [760]
 

I Think it's a great idea , and to celebrate it , all true sec should be re-randomized at the beginning of the patch .(moon goo too ?)


On a more serious note , why not fix the sanctum's bounty rewards based on true sec ? 40M for -1.0 / 30M for -0.5 / 20M for 0.0 .



Luxotor
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.03.27 05:03:00 - [761]
 

Please do not do this, CCP. From what I have been able to deduce, this changes only appear to benefit the bigger guys. So in essence, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I do not understand the reasoning behind this decision and I do not support it.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.03.27 05:23:00 - [762]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 27/03/2011 05:24:19

Risk vs reward - The ratio is way off as far as farming anomalies in nullsec goes as the risk is about as big as farming a lvl4 in hisec unless you are doing it wrong. If you want risky pve, try lowsec exploration or lvl5 missions...


Seriously, reduced income is a good thing. Winning a battle needs to be meaningful, it has to hurt your enemy. If he can farm back his battleship in an hour, he is back in the fight instantly. Even a decisive victory is meaningless.

This is not only a question of big alliance against the poor oppressed little guy, it is also a question of competition between small alliances.

Getting away from the same old drowning the enemy in numbers tactics does only work when losses sting. CCP got that part right. Now moon goo money printing needs to follow suit, and we are going somewhere.

Harold Tuphlos
Posted - 2011.03.27 05:32:00 - [763]
 

Once again CCP fails to properly manage expectations. Greyscale said that this is part of a larger series of changes to 0.0, and that they expect negative feedback from necessary parts of it. That negative feedbak could be limited by actually telling us in at least broad terms what the plan is; a lot fewer people in this thread would be upset, I believe, if Greyscale had said that they also planned to make trusec change/able. That is just an example, but it would give people reading a better idea of what the goal of the change is. As it sits right now, it looks like a buff to Goons (cue pubbie rage at the NC) and a nerf to small alliances that don't hold good trusec.

Shuarek
Caldari
Retribution. Inc.
Strategic Operations Brigade
Posted - 2011.03.27 05:37:00 - [764]
 

Triple the map.Then you can do whatever.

Eric Xallen
Posted - 2011.03.27 05:57:00 - [765]
 

Greyscale, you newb.

All this is doing is making it more big-alliance0centric. Large alliances already control the best space, and pass out the crap space at exorbitant rental fees to smaller guys who aren't big enough to take the space themselves.

Dominion meant all space could be viable. Now, with this nerf, you're going to make large tracts of 0.0 barren again. Large alliances will lose renters all over the place, after they fail tor educe rental fees and corps can't afford it.

Watch your metrics. I expect this nerf will show a net average of players leaving nullsec, especially the crappy regions. The major alliances will hold the best space still, as they always did, and places like Provi and Scalding Pass will become wastelands again.

We've got a nullsec CSM, couldn't you at least have waited until these guys were settled and let them look at it? You show here you clearly do not understand what is going on in nullsec these days.

Fail.

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.03.27 06:21:00 - [766]
 

Good change imo.

There should be changes to true sec distribution as it is atm though. Much much less in regions with high number of tech moons, much much more in regions without.

PS: Loving the NC tears in this thread.

progodlegend
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.27 06:36:00 - [767]
 

Edited by: progodlegend on 27/03/2011 06:37:09
Originally by: Estimated Prophet
There's a major, fundamental difference between the real world and game worlds that CCP have missed, and I think is the root cause of the conflict here.

In the real world, lack of resources drives conflict. If you don't have enough food, or water, or land to grow food, you die. So you go war to get it, or die trying.

In game worlds, and EVE in particular, lack of resources stifles conflict. Lack of resources doesn't cause death, at worst it causes boredom; we fight for excitement, not survival. How many times have you heard these words in your Alliance chat/forums: "How do I make ISK so I can afford to PvP?" Look at Geminate; who's fighting? The NC vs the Drone Regions, two of the richest power blocks in the game. Before that? The Cluster**** vs IT. And that only happened after Goonswarm had been in Deklein long enough to recover from the financial disaster of a year ago. And now that the Goons have recovered financially, they're reimbursing all PvP losses, not just strategic operations.

tl;dr: If you want to increase conflict in EVE you need to reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor, not increase it.


Lul tech moons. Honestly I'm surprised the NC is so against this, they have the tech moons to sustain their population as it is. If anything, it should be alliances like mine that are ****ting their pants at this change, because the only thing we can do is rent space for decent income. After this, it will be impossible for us to rent out large amounts of space, and then we will truly have little to no way to combat the NC's tech moons.

And to think, I actually still think these are good changes.

Darirol
Posted - 2011.03.27 07:13:00 - [768]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:50:11
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:45:28
If a region is 80% dross but you can support your entire alliances from the remaining 20%, then you're in a pretty decent place.



and then someone places a cloaky afk noob ship in your 2 high end system and blocks all your sanctums with only 2 or 3 ships. for ever. and there is nothing you can do

Lev Aeris
United Amarr Templar Legion
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.03.27 07:15:00 - [769]
 

Originally by: Pedro Snachez
Originally by: Clavius XIV
While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through.

There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had.


Yeah, but that was before sov costs and POS fuel went through the roof, making it much harder to spam sov and have enough belts to support residents. What has been said about CVA already in this thread was true of many 0.0 powers before the Dominion changes: Highsec mission alts were common for someone who wasn't already wealthy. Mission on the alt, log the main in to spend the alt's Highsec money. Now, people tend to do both with their main characters, meaning that people don't need multiple accounts or to jump back and forth between 0.0 and Empire to survive. Anomalies tie 0.0 residents to 0.0, and that's ultimately a good thing.

The huge boom in 0.0 population (which I see nobody complaining about) post-Dominion was due to the ability of a small amount of space to provide good income for more people, especially those that didn't have fully-trained alts or secondary accounts. The issue I have with your argument is the fact that you have quotes around worthless. The truth is, upwards of 60% of all of 0.0 will not be worth the sov costs to hold. The possible income from the resources there would not be enough to even hold sov. Forget big power blocks or new alliances, if the math doesn't work then the math doesn't work. Period.

People keep arguing about 0.0 being about goodfights, but that's bull. Goddfights happen because of good money. All the PVP gumption in the world won't make a ship appear out of thin air. Well-funded 0.0 residents fight and die in expensive ships, and if you make the real life time cost of making ISK in 0.0 skyrocket, then people will either move back to highsec or blob even harder to create situation in which they can't lose. The question is simply this: Should 0.0 residents of all sizes and locations have access to enough ISK to actually make it worth defending space, or are those who don't hold awesome truesec space there as Highsec-living tourists who jump out for a "good time" every couple of days? CCP wants more people to live and actually stay in 0.0, and this "fix" does the opposite.


+1

On the old model of mission running on one toon (or Jump clone) and being a tourist in null, sure people made it work. Was it better than what we have now? I don't think so. Dominion gave players a reason to LIVE in null, not just visit.

I like having living, breathing, self sustaining populations in null. The old skeleton crew model had its merits, but it was pretty boring, and had all the same problems of Mob A and Mob B hoarding.

Put down the nerf bat. Rather than taking away from the game, have you considered adding to it? Growth vs amputation?

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.03.27 07:35:00 - [770]
 

Originally by: Clavius XIV
While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through.

There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had.

Clearly Providence residents did not have access to the riches that anyone with sov and an ihub does now. Despite it being one of the consistently most violent regions residents still managed to replace ships. So counter arguments based around being unable to afford PvP have little merit from where I sit.

I guarantee that if you make vast tracts of 0.0 "worthless" in the pre-Dominion Provi sense, you will still have people staking a claim there. These people will still (as-always) be at the mercy of the big powers knocking over their sand-castles. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over.

So called "little" corps/alliances in this thread worry they won't have a chance in null sec because they won't be able to make their rent? They could grab this "worthless" space that supposedly no one would want and save on rent!

I do agree that CCP really don't understand their game so this is a right change for the wrong reasons. The reason for the influx of people to 0.0 is not because there is suddenly more isk to be made there. The reason for the increase in 0.0 population is that current mechanics provide an incentive for the great powers to offer security in exchange for rental fees.

Unfortunately the double edged sword of making all space desirable rental property, is that you reduce the diversity and quality of conflict in 0.0. The best conflicts are ones in which both sides are in the same class, and where numbers on both sides allow it to be playable. Sov battles between two renters of neighboring superpowers will inevitably escalate into full block warfare.

Lots of "worthless" space allows what some may term "cripple fights" and encourages gathering of coalitions of the same "class" rather than a superpower that can maintain balance with other superpowers and it's sea of renters.

Yes NAPs and power blocks will always remain in a sandbox game, but all space being equal value (combined with the ease of projecting power, and the ability to knock over empires in a fortnight) encourages power blocks to grow as long as they can find renters to fill their conquests.

Making space "worthless" to top tier power blocks encourages the formation of more independent middle and low tier blocks. Mix that with making projection of force more difficult and you have things going in the right direction as far as encouraging variety in 0.0 conflict.


Extremely well said. Pay attenttion, CCP! (And the NC)

Superform
Caldari
Executive Intervention
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2011.03.27 07:36:00 - [771]
 

Quote:
Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player.


this

i only want to pvp... i would create conflict in 0.0 if i had more ships to fight with and could spend less time doing forced pve (which i detest) to pay for those ships

alliances dont fight over sanctums they fight over moons.. for a dev to not understand this is the main driver that creates conflict is truly disturbing..

if you really wanted to spice up 0.0 you would increase the number of strategic tech 2 moons or have these moons spawn randomly (or get mined out etc) for periods of 2-6 months then increase the ability of the grunts to make money to afford ships to fight for and defend these moons

if i cant run sanctums my income will drop and i wont be able to pvp so i cant understand how your solution will do anything but lessen conflict


Faith Astro
Posted - 2011.03.27 07:39:00 - [772]
 

Now stop crying, we need these changes because otherwise the game comes to be like wow.
Every one from 5 years can then play the game.
there will be challenges, otherwise it's crap.
The CCP finally makes something good, So you lazy people come into the battle. Surprised

Ruthless Erection
Posted - 2011.03.27 07:44:00 - [773]
 

I'm sorry, but this is a crock of crap.

You guys are screwing the kids who work their butts off. You guys should be making nullsec BETTER and worth it to be down there.

Why do you ******s constantly screw with the GOOD things? You do what every other Game company does, you nerf the best things, and you make the game unbalanced.

I'm sorry but if these changes happen, I'll be canceling my subscription to this game. It'll save me 15$ a month that I can spend on myself.

Here's a suggestion, instead of farking over nullsec, why don't you fix bugs? Improve the game play's smoothness? Why not improve the game lag, and visual lag?

Oh wait, that's something only real companies do, forgot, your just a bunch of foreign tards.

Congrats, Like Blizzard, you've now started losing players. Real s'well job guys.

Caldrion Dosto
Excrutiating Dirge
Merciless.
Posted - 2011.03.27 08:15:00 - [774]
 

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



Do not cave to the care bears. this is a good and most of all needed change. Just do it allready.

kazzago
Posted - 2011.03.27 08:15:00 - [775]
 

Hi guys,

I especially like the fact that you sneak this **** in, while fanfest is going on - respect for your hardcore fans ! (**** yeah ???). In case you are hangovered from the party at the top of the world, that was me being SARCASTIC.

I dont' like the idea, because of all the reasons stated otherwise in this thread (mostly because that alliances is not in 0.0 for the sancts etc - but it's a way for me to earn the isk to be able to pay the fee for the corp). So you are not changing anything other than making it harder for individual players, adding additional "grinding hours" to the game, instead of action packed pvp'ing.

Don't do it. Try to look in your bloody backlog instead, there should be plenty of bugs to fix instead.

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.03.27 08:16:00 - [776]
 

Worthless pets incapable of pvping whining about not being able to make as much isk per hour as skilled established pvp alliances (or blobbers). Maybe CCP should hand out 1st prize to all alliance tournament participants just so everything is fair and there are no losers.

Estimated Prophet
Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe and Trading Company
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2011.03.27 08:49:00 - [777]
 

Edited by: Estimated Prophet on 27/03/2011 08:58:16
Originally by: progodlegend
Edited by: progodlegend on 27/03/2011 06:37:09
Lul tech moons. Honestly I'm surprised the NC is so against this, they have the tech moons to sustain their population as it is. If anything, it should be alliances like mine that are ****ting their pants at this change, because the only thing we can do is rent space for decent income. After this, it will be impossible for us to rent out large amounts of space, and then we will truly have little to no way to combat the NC's tech moons.

And to think, I actually still think these are good changes.


You're right, the NC has enough Tech moons for this to be irrelevant to them. They also control space with low enough true-sec for this to be (I think) a net benefit to them.

They're against it, not because they're acting out of self-interest (hard to believe in this game), but because it would fail to achieve it's stated goals, and actually harm the game as a whole by making it harder for new alliances to challenge the existing power blocks. Sure, they'll get an initial foothold easily enough, but the systems they'll get will be so poor (supporting 1-2 players at an income level less than running level 4 missions in high-sec) that they'll have problems sustaining the growth needed to challenge the existing alliances. Meanwhile the existing alliances will be sitting on the best moons and the best systems, churning out super-caps as fast as they can, and growing richer and stronger at a much faster rate. The gap between the two is only going to grow at a much faster rate.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.27 08:54:00 - [778]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 27/03/2011 08:55:38
Originally by: Clavius XIV
While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through.

There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had.

Clearly Providence residents did not have access to the riches that anyone with sov and an ihub does now. Despite it being one of the consistently most violent regions residents still managed to replace ships. So counter arguments based around being unable to afford PvP have little merit from where I sit.

I guarantee that if you make vast tracts of 0.0 "worthless" in the pre-Dominion Provi sense, you will still have people staking a claim there. These people will still (as-always) be at the mercy of the big powers knocking over their sand-castles. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over.


Sorry Clavius but pre-dominion, which wars were fought over ratting grounds exactly? And after these changes there will be indeed less incentive to fill the space with renters, so we have empty space, how is that better? Because lets be clear, it will just like pre-dominion be buffer zones, they definately wont allow independent alliances there.

In providence the vast majority pre-dominion made their isk using lvl 4 missions, either in Ziriert or in high sec. Aditionally we wouldnt be able to support any kind of longer conflict without JC'ing back to high sec to make our ISK, is that how 0.0 should be? Because sure we managed to get our ISK while having ships in providence, but we definately didnt manage to do that in providence. Well by times I did that purely on ratting and exploration, but that was only possible due to no large conflicts going on, so no large expenses.

Then why providence was populated and allowed for the large ammount of pvp, you should really talk to Hardin about this since he understands it. But it comes down to security -> more security = more pvp, less security = more NAPs + empty wastelands. Old providence had jump bridges everywhere connecting everything, allowing for reasonable response times against roaming reds and relative safe travel for the main inhabitants. More important every single system was cynojammed, also against black ops hotdrops. This provided safety for all pilots, safety attracts people, which allowed for the most diverse pvp environment in 0.0 ever.

And that is something that CCP (and many others) just dont seem to be able to grasp -> increase reasons for conflict also means more people want to shoot us -> we band more together to protect ourselves -> larger NAPs. More security -> more people in 0.0 with less reason to NAP everyone in 30 region radius -> more pvp.

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.27 08:54:00 - [779]
 

Originally by: Estimated Prophet
[...] it would fail to achieve it's stated goals, and actually harm the game as a whole by making it harder for new alliances to challenge the existing power blocks. Sure, they'll get an initial foothold easily enough, but the systems they'll get will be so poor (supporting 1-2 players at an income level less than running level 4 missions in high-sec) that they'll sustaining the growth needed to challenge the existing alliances. Meanwhile the existing alliances will be sitting on the best moons and the best systems, churning out super-caps as fast as they can, and growing richer and stronger at a much faster rate. The gap between the two is only going to grow at a much faster rate.


Quoted for truth now, and shall be requoted if needed be in the future of this thread. Well pointed.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 09:23:00 - [780]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 09:50:41
I have been very much against these changes for many of the reasons already stated (even though I rarely run anoms).

The changes could work, but would require other changes alongside them.

The real problem here is blobs and coalitions. All we need to do is look at recent history (IT saying screw it and dispanding basicaly because there was no point fighting against 2-3x your numbers - even when not fighting against the whole coalition). If IT was unable to defend against the blobs then what hope does anyone else have? This is what needs to be fixed in eve.

Remove the ability for such rediculous numbers and then changes like the ones proposed could actually work well. A 0.0 full of smaller alliances would make PVP a lot more fun, and give new alliances a chance to take on the established powers (to a point).

If it were my choice, I would remove NAPs and limit alliance sizes (or at lease make them both cost a lot to sustain after a point based on the number of players in the alliance/NAPs - The costs should be not ISK, but require large amounts of logistics to sustain - and should grow exponentially). I think something around 1000 or 1250 players should be the limit before alliances/NAPs are charged for the extra players. When you consider how many of those would be able to turn up to a particular fight it should keep the fights at a sustainable size. -- Also note that special cases may need to be added for alt characters on the same accounts, they probably should not be included in the totals as they can not be used at the same time anyway.

Fix things like this and then maybe people would be able to fight for systems. Right now there is no point.

Nobody enjoys lag blob "fights" (or more to the point lack of fights).

I live for the day when eve 0.0 becomes fun again. When newer alliances can compete on some level, and when lag is a thing of the past. It really doesnt require hardware changes, it doesnt require massive software changes, it just requires common sense and some reasonable limitations.


Pages: first : previous : ... 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 ... : 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