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 : ... 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:20:00 - [1051]
 

Originally by: Arnakoz
Edited by: Arnakoz on 28/03/2011 13:11:31
Originally by: Super Whopper

I, too, would like to find a way of playing EVE without ever having to log on, because logging on involves CCP doing it for me (providing me with tools to play the game the way I feel like).

But it seems you have found a way of doing exactly this. Do tell how you do it.

eh, ... ok. i'm not sure where you are going with that, or what it has to do with the topic at hand.

maybe you;re trying to say that the mere fact that you can log on to play is CCP winning for you??
if so, then you're probably good with people just playing like "hey, CCP give me lots of ISK please!" and them doing it. but rather, they have to "[find] a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for [them]." much like i suggested.

but if you're talking about my specific lack of activity over the past few months: i play occasionally, but started an entire new career recently, in software, when my education is in structural engineering. so eve hasn't been high on my priorities. i fiond a few minutes here and there to troll the forums, but playing takes larger chucks of time than i've had. now that i'm more comfortable with my work i'm getting back into it though. i'll be sure to say hi if i see you Cool

edit: besides, i'm still not sure how, in either case, it has to do with the topic of this thread.... ?


If you have no idea what it's got to do with the topic at hand why did you say "winning it for us?"

You've, obviously, never been to 0.0 and are just making claims based on reading things, rather than empirical evidence. You're obviously jealous of those who run sanctums, so, why don't you stop being jealous and join them?

Wingshard
Order of the Sable Shield
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:28:00 - [1052]
 

Originally by: Clavius XIV

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.



You should also point out that it was the least contested 0.0 region and fell over on the first confrontation with a powerblock.


Originally by: Clavius XIV

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.



You seem to forget that most of the forces that were defending that sovereign space were random people that liked the nrds and joined up. It was not always CVA loosing their ships, and everyone is able to replace his losses with time. Providence allowed this time due to sheer number of players that enjoied NRDS space and felt bloodthirsty for a change.


Originally by: Clavius XIV

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. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over.



Wait, wait. You say big alliances wont place renters in that space because its worthless? I say they will give up their worthless space and fill it with even more renters to not pay the sovereign fee by themself.


Originally by: Clavius XIV

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?



It is also upkeep, TCU, I-HUB, Upgrades,.. cost. Basicly you tell people to invest several billion isk in a nicely upgraded system that after this nerf will support even less people at the same time than now AND can be knocked over by a bigger entity anytime? Not reasonable at all.


Originally by: Clavius XIV

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.



Or maybe that a system with only 5 belts and a truesec below -0.2 suddenly can support people living in it? Oh of course that cant be it.


Originally by: Clavius XIV

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.



A lot boils down to effort you need to take something. The supercapital age favors the once with more, and once taken the i-hub fortification will make loosing with super capital support very hard. Even when the space is undesireable, renters will stil live there just at lower cost and with super capital backup.


Originally by: Clavius XIV

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.


I completely disagree. Why should anyone claim so called "worthless" space that you have to PAY FOR on a CONSTANT BASIS and also have to UPGRADE BEFORE ITS EVEN A BIT USEFUL for SEVERAL BILLION ISK (not counting freighter for i-hub transport) be desired by anyone? Hold in mind that this system cant be upgraded fully of the bat (for hub anomalys as example) and even after all those isk put inside it wont support 10 people. There will be no variety, there will be no conflict over those.

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:33:00 - [1053]
 

Edited by: Arnakoz on 28/03/2011 13:33:47
Originally by: Super Whopper
Originally by: Arnakoz
Edited by: Arnakoz on 28/03/2011 13:11:31
Originally by: Super Whopper

I, too, would like to find a way of playing EVE without ever having to log on, because logging on involves CCP doing it for me (providing me with tools to play the game the way I feel like).

But it seems you have found a way of doing exactly this. Do tell how you do it.

eh, ... ok. i'm not sure where you are going with that, or what it has to do with the topic at hand.

maybe you;re trying to say that the mere fact that you can log on to play is CCP winning for you??
if so, then you're probably good with people just playing like "hey, CCP give me lots of ISK please!" and them doing it. but rather, they have to "[find] a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for [them]." much like i suggested.

but if you're talking about my specific lack of activity over the past few months: i play occasionally, but started an entire new career recently, in software, when my education is in structural engineering. so eve hasn't been high on my priorities. i fiond a few minutes here and there to troll the forums, but playing takes larger chucks of time than i've had. now that i'm more comfortable with my work i'm getting back into it though. i'll be sure to say hi if i see you Cool

edit: besides, i'm still not sure how, in either case, it has to do with the topic of this thread.... ?


If you have no idea what it's got to do with the topic at hand why did you say "winning it for us?"

You've, obviously, never been to 0.0 and are just making claims based on reading things, rather than empirical evidence. You're obviously jealous of those who run sanctums, so, why don't you stop being jealous and join them?



again, completely lost. i've lived in null about 10 months now. first in atlas space now in NC space.
every post i've made has been against this change for that very reason. plus i think it will make most of null the new lowsec; unused.

and when i say "winning it for us" i mean all of the people who are like "yes! this change must happen to break up the NC!" i'm saying that CCP is the one winning their fight for them, because at that point they don;t even need to log in for it to happen. we clear now?

edit: going to work now. bye!

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:38:00 - [1054]
 

LOLProvidence. The only reason nobody wanted it was because it was absolute and utter **** space. Now it'll go back to being that **** space but as there're sov bills and rent on stations to be paid I wonder who will want it. I certainly wouldn't want to waste my time on worthless belts and ore, especially as there're no moons in Providence worth having.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:41:00 - [1055]
 

Originally by: Arnakoz
again, completely lost. i've lived in null about 10 months now. first in atlas space now in NC space.
every post i've made has been against this change for that very reason. plus i think it will make most of null the new lowsec; unused.

and when i say "winning it for us" i mean all of the people who are like "yes! this change must happen to break up the NC!" i'm saying that CCP is the one winning their fight for them, because at that point they don;t even need to log in for it to happen. we clear now?

edit: going to work now. bye!


I thought you meant that Sanctums are what is 'winning the game for us'.

I humbly apologise.

Snyderm
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:43:00 - [1056]
 

Edited by: Snyderm on 28/03/2011 13:52:44
Here is what I think is going on.

CCP is acknowledging that soverignty war lag fests are breaking their game. They can't deal with the sheer number of players that participate. They simply can't fix it.

The way to avoid the problem is to make the average 0.0 system support fewer players. In this manner they can get rid of a lot of the poorer players that fly battleships and battlecruisers. When a fight breaks out, an alliance will have less of the poorer masses to call to their aid.

Most 0.0 alliances attact average players by getting them to pledge their time to participate in soverignty war operations. In return, the alliance gives these players access to good money making space under alliance soverignty. It is this pact that attracts a lot of average PVPers to 0.0 under the banner of an alliance. It is this pact that CCP wants destroyed.

Once the poorer systems are "abandoned", they want the "useless" systems occupied by poor, inconsequential alliances that do not contribute to soverignty war lag. In essence they will be an extention of low sec.

In greyscales response post, he admitted that what they are going to implement will not be liked or even accepted by the 0.0 community. This is because they feel they have no choice but to destroy the population changes since dominion. They wanted people to leave their comfy noob corps and join alliances and 0.0.

These proposed changes are an admission that they were wrong. They cannot get eve to function the way they envisioned and designed it to be.

In other words, it is time for us to go back to our noob corps so CCP can get some sleep.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:09:00 - [1057]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 28/03/2011 16:13:26
Edited by: UniqueOne on 28/03/2011 14:13:10
Originally by: Snyderm
Edited by: Snyderm on 28/03/2011 13:52:44
CCP is acknowledging that soverignty war lag fests are breaking their game. They can't deal with the sheer number of players that participate. They simply can't fix it.



Possible solution?

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:10:00 - [1058]
 

Originally by: Signal11th
All this really does is hurt the "average Jo" 0.0 dweller like myself. I get to play enough during the week but only enough I get to do one thing at at time e.g earn isk for pvp or actually out on roams.

I hate running sanctums/havens and all that stuff but when your stuck in the arse end of nowhere it's the only way of making isk if your based soley on combat. The sites are clogged up anyway with the big boys in the carriers etc so even when I get chance to make isk 50% there's already someone in it. Basically CCP want to turn me into a mission runner for some reason, my guess (tongue in cheek) is that they realise they will never fix the lag in 0.0 so have decided to make 0.0 unprofitable for the average player so in the end all of us will leave to become high sec carebears leaving only in CCP's exact words "high end players" only in 0.0.

What they should have done is make all 0.0 systems have "more sites" so this will tempt more people in 0.0 (especially if you make sites around the entrance pipes more valuable) this will increase pvp as more people drift in trying to make a fast buck. Bah what do I know. Really not a great idea Greyscale, I would stick to looking at pron and daydreaming about nailing Bjork.




This

The plans put forth in the blog will not aid in getting any new alliances/corps out to 0.0. Some will leave it and the blocks will rent to new ones but that just shifts the shells doesn't change anything.

Only by increasing 0.0 population by making a system sustain more than a half dozen to a dozen folks at a time will you see more combat. Make the systems support 100 or 200 or 500 each. Then as more folks come out that gives more targets. More targets means more conflict.

I have a suspicion that some of the loudest voices in this threat in favor of Greyscales blogs are actually alts of CCP employees. That or they have no clue themselves of how things work in 0.0. Nerfs coming to missions to from fanfest. So I have to wonder what else will they nerf, nerfing never works. Every company that gets into the nerfing cycle ends up losing more and more folks as they nerf what people like.

Time to break the cycle and build things up no nerf them as this blog proposes.

Edgar Druin
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:26:00 - [1059]
 

Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies ...


Then Greyscale is an idiot. Our small alliance holds upgraded space that will no longer produce the anomalies that we're the reason we upgraded. I assume you'll refund us the cost of that upgrade. :sarcasm:

The space we hold can no longer support the (small) number of people trying to use it, which means we can't earn enough to pvp, which means we go back to empire to mission ... no interest in that ...

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:36:00 - [1060]
 

Originally by: Edgar Druin
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies ...


Then Greyscale is an idiot. Our small alliance holds upgraded space that will no longer produce the anomalies that we're the reason we upgraded. I assume you'll refund us the cost of that upgrade. :sarcasm:

The space we hold can no longer support the (small) number of people trying to use it, which means we can't earn enough to pvp, which means we go back to empire to mission ... no interest in that ...


http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=372359&view=recent

look at all that pvping

Synderq
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:47:00 - [1061]
 

Did CCP reply to this torrent of abuse, lol?

Aphrodite Skripalle
Galactic Defence Consortium
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:06:00 - [1062]
 

Fix alchemy and dont nerf sanctums. Žnuff said.

Edgar Druin
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:08:00 - [1063]
 

Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=372359&view=recent

look at all that pvping


Work project ... some of us actually have to pay bills and take work when they can get it, not live off mommy and daddy.

And when it wraps next month, I would have returned, but this change makes it's less and less likely.

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:32:00 - [1064]
 

Originally by: Aphrodite Skripalle
Fix alchemy and dont nerf sanctums. Žnuff said.


I'm for this but I thought the one guy earlier in the thread had an interesting change for moons.

Make them like PI. Moon materials can be mined, processed etc on moons. Opens up the field, drops the cost of t2 items in the future ( or should but to be fair would take 6-9 months to really kick in). Its something I hadn't considered before.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:34:00 - [1065]
 

Edited by: Super Whopper on 28/03/2011 15:36:49
Originally by: Synderq
Did CCP reply to this torrent of abuse, lol?


Yeah, it was a case of "We're pretty daft for not understanding the game but we're going to implement some stupid change anyway, because we're CCP and we're good at not thinking before we do things."

Like we didn't know CCP are daft and have no clue.

Also this was not mentioned at the first CSM meeting. CCP know that the CSM will never support this and fight them. They dropped it on the players after the meeting. Had they done this the CSM members would have ripped these devs to shreds.

This is so sneaky of CCP, thinking they can throw out something that we won't realise will ruin most of 0.0. Fortunately for us we have members of all major alliances on there who do know how to play the game, especially Seleene (CCP Abathur).

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:48:00 - [1066]
 

Originally by: Arnakoz
so you're effectively saying that them playing smarter shouldn't be rewarded? that people who are just like "weeee pew pew weeeeee" and ignore all other aspects of the game should be the ones to get the rewards?
look, the simply fact of the matter is that people who have more ISK will win. there is no way to change that. how do you get more isk? you do isk-making activities; a.k.a. what we've dubbed carebearing.

to me the entire point of null is acquire space which can make you massive amounts of isk, but you have to defend. which sounds exactly like the status quo. alliances grow, they need new space, they go after the nearest neighbor whom they dislike. no matter how the dynamic changes this will be the simple truth. at some point this will even happen within the NC. i know some of you would like that sooner than later, but maybe try finding a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for you.


Super Whopper already gave you a reply to that.. but right, I'll be nice and add this;

I'm curious what you mean by "them playing smarter", since they didn't have this option before and have done nothing to deserve it either. It's essentially CCP giving them a safe location to make isk, let's call it a "sanctum" or a "safe haven". Razz

This is coming from someone who's done most in EVE. I started off scamming and stealing, went to beltratting, missioning, played the market, mined, done exploration, production, PI and tried making my living from WH's. I am now billionarie in the hundreds. Of all of this, and through the years, there's only two ways of making money that has been way too easy and way too powerful. One of them was the static DED-plexes, and the other is the upgraded anomalies (you could probably mention moon mining here too).

My main focus has always been PvP, and through the years small scale combat has taken a hit badly, while carebear activities have been boosted massively. The "bad" about people making money too easy, is that money loses value, and essentially that hits production, etc. If you know basic economy you'll understand why this is not good at all.

Obviously I want carebears to have good means for income, which is why I among other things really think CCP need to focus on mining. I'd love to see industry and production to expand, and they could use their own expansions tbh.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:54:00 - [1067]
 

Edited by: Super Whopper on 28/03/2011 15:57:06
If CCP boosted mining somehow and allowed me to make as much with mining as I do with trading and ratting I'd go back to mining.

Despite the massive influx of money ship prices have dropped (insurance rebalancing). Inflation hit GTC's and PLEX prices hard a while ago but even they have dropped.

CCP have an economist working for them and they still don't understand the game.

MuppetSlayer
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:55:00 - [1068]
 

This is quite possible the dummest idea I have ever read.
Thousands of us have invested huge amounts of time, effort and isk to develping 0.0.
More new people are moving out to 0.0 than ever before.

What do CCP Do?
Make all high sec agents give out max quality missions.
Nert 0.0 anomiles making the vast majority of a lot of regions worthless.
Moon goo is unaffected so the alliance HC's are happy and the grunts get screwed.

I must say CCP, even more so than usual, is doing the opposite of what the people who live in 0.0 want.


Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.28 16:04:00 - [1069]
 

Originally by: MuppetSlayer
This is quite possible the dummest idea I have ever read.
Thousands of us have invested huge amounts of time, effort and isk to develping 0.0.
More new people are moving out to 0.0 than ever before.

What do CCP Do?
Make all high sec agents give out max quality missions.
Nert 0.0 anomiles making the vast majority of a lot of regions worthless.
Moon goo is unaffected so the alliance HC's are happy and the grunts get screwed.

I must say CCP, even more so than usual, is doing the opposite of what the people who live in 0.0 want.




Petition the system and demand your money back. I'd recommend everyone do that.

skewbamatt
Posted - 2011.03.28 16:09:00 - [1070]
 

What a joke really! By going by the new format the only place for instance in pure blind for a Haven or a Sanctum is EC-P8R. Like anybody in there right mind will rat there.

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/EC-P8R

Basically by doing this the players like me who can't sit in front of the computer 10 hours a day playing internet spaceships that like to pvp and care nothing about mission running and industry are screwed! Only positive is maybe this will drive prices down because isk will be harder to come by

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.28 16:25:00 - [1071]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 28/03/2011 16:28:26
Originally by: skewbamatt
What a joke really! By going by the new format the only place for instance in pure blind for a Haven or a Sanctum is EC-P8R. Like anybody in there right mind will rat there.

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/EC-P8R

Basically by doing this the players like me who can't sit in front of the computer 10 hours a day playing internet spaceships that like to pvp and care nothing about mission running and industry are screwed! Only positive is maybe this will drive prices down because isk will be harder to come by


Indeed.

System security levels (and moons) really need to be redone before this would have any hope of working (and will need to be reevaluated constantly to match demand). There needs to be enough good systems to fight over at all times compared to alliance numbers and player numbers.

Butzewutze
Posted - 2011.03.28 16:50:00 - [1072]
 

Okay CCP, let me explain you how to make space more interesting because you obviously have no clue how to design a game:

Stable Wormholes(travel big distances and NO i dont mean JITA - AMARR HIGHWAY)
Anomalies(buffs for some time, makes better ships with better or additional bonus)
Skilltime decrease(just 1-5% in a certain category)

Voila.

omgdutch2005
Gallente
Advanced Planetary Exports
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.03.28 16:53:00 - [1073]
 

Edited by: omgdutch2005 on 28/03/2011 16:53:38
Are you too disgusted by the idea of getting rid of havens/sanctums in most if not all systems of IEGEX !! ?

If so --> http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html - sign the petition now!

in case your wondering what it all is about... Read about it at: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=883 and http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1487231&page=1

Vote now! Boost the systems, not NERF THEM!

Thank you

Omgdutch2005
IEGEX Alliance Director


p.s. mail to your corp mates/allaince mates!! dont be shy! sign up!

Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.28 17:02:00 - [1074]
 

Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Originally by: Alice Katsuko
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Desert Ice78

Lang, you know as well as I do that a hub cannot support one player in nul-sec (ignoring that you paid a bil to get that hub in the first place), never mind a corporation or alliance.



lolwut. are you freaking serious?


Text


I don't know, there are people here who swear on their mothers and their mother's uncles that they used to make MORE money on true 0.0, with their alliances and corps that had 20 blues on local at any given time, than it was possible to make ALONE on HIGH-SEC doing Level 4 missions with high quality agents.


I do make at least as much or more ISK in what you'd call true nullsec than I could make running level 4 missions, with over twenty other active blues in local. Good anomalies generally take less effort to run than most missions, since you usually don't have to worry about triggers, acceleration gates, and other such nonsense, and since any hostiles are announced in intel channels and can't just pop into your little corner of deadspace with little warning. More importantly, I don't have to clone jump to Empire to make IS, which makes life much easier since I can participate in more PvP. Pilots who lived in high truesec systems with few belts usually funded their PvP through datacore farming or Empire mission running unless their system was practically uninhabited. The Dominion sovereignty system allows pilots to fund their PvP locally rather than remotely, and this actually encourages low-scale conflict since it's much easier to put together a roaming or a defense fleet on the spot when half of your pilots aren't scattered all over Empire.

Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.28 17:15:00 - [1075]
 

Originally by: UniqueOne
Originally by: skewbamatt
What a joke really! By going by the new format the only place for instance in pure blind for a Haven or a Sanctum is EC-P8R. Like anybody in there right mind will rat there.

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/EC-P8R


Indeed.

System security levels (and moons) really need to be redone before this would have any hope of working (and will need to be reevaluated constantly to match demand). There needs to be enough good systems to fight over at all times compared to alliance numbers and player numbers.


Yes. The idea itself of adjusting nullsec so that there is some more variety between different systems isn't actually bad. The problem is that CCP basically is trying to do this with the least effort possible by bootstrapping new changes on top of a system which was never designed to handle them.

In order to make nullsec distinguishable based on truesec again, truesec levels need to be adjusted all across EVE, and the truesec brackets need to be rethought. While difference is good, entire regions should not be rendered worthless for the individual player.

While on this topic I would like to note that alliances were not and will not be significantly motivated by the truesec of a system when choosing who to attack. However, corporations and individual players do consider the value of an alliance's space when deciding which alliance to join. This is because corporations and thus individual players, especially those belonging to renter alliances, have bills to pay, and ships to buy, and they are not going to join up with an alliance whose space cannot let them do this. This is why we've seen posts where folk predict that players will leave alliances with poor space in droves -- a player who cannot fund his PvP habit, and a corporation which cannot pay its dues for upkeep of suddenly-useless iHub upgrades is inevitably going to start looking for a new home.

Mad Ilya
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.03.28 17:26:00 - [1076]
 

too drunk from FF to notice it's not april 1st?

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.28 17:27:00 - [1077]
 

Originally by: Mad Ilya
too drunk from FF to notice it's not april 1st?


Lol! Give it a few days...

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.03.28 17:33:00 - [1078]
 

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


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale

Kalissa
Sacred Templars
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2011.03.28 17:38:00 - [1079]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
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


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale


In other words, we don't care how much you complain we're going ahead with it cos we're CCP so we must be right.

Nurgl3
Posted - 2011.03.28 17:48:00 - [1080]
 

CCP,
"Dont bite the hand that feeds" The people who want to pvp go to 0.0 to PvP and if you want to make things so start alliances are able to break out of highsec make NPC sov space more valuable, make supers less of a "WIN button" and make dreads less of a liability and more of an asset to those same starter allainces (as to the rest of eve)
-there is no reason why a super should be able to tank as much as they do while doing that kind of dps
any other game tanks and dps are separate departments.. (its for a reason) drop the tank on them and make
them rely on outside reps rather than a passive tank.

-make dreads tank slightly better while in siege and have a cool down like the titan dd where they cant move and they don't tank as well(or maby atall) as pre siege cycle. again making them rely on outside reps and support to keep them on field.I know dreads going into siege is supposed to be when they are able to get destroyed. but for the sake of the game its time to mix things up cause as it is siege or no siege they die.

-make dreads do even more damage to ships greater than carrer's and dreads in size. (sence they dont do much for dps to ships smaller than cap size this would make them more viable as a response to supers and with a slightly buffed(read don't ****ing OP them k thanks) tanks they may beable to take a super down befor a responce is mustered.

-think about how supers must be produced... you have to have sov.. and hold it to cook one.. ie if your not already in 0.0 player sov space you have to pay the people you would be fighting to get one... no so much for the war of attrition eh..

AND YES THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS ARE THE POWER BLOCK PILOTS.. Because we understand the implications that this change could bring and when those who are not initiated to SOV warfare begin to move into it. they will see that it is not easy to do if you struggle on the logistical and financial side of it.

also idk how CCP thinks this will change things.
I do see how this might help a certain alliance gone defunct. codenamed Brother... who recently failed again... by making the changes proposed by CCP greyscale would allow a brother v4 to make another comeback into Eve (is it 4 or 5 now i don't remember)

i think its likely that codename brother doesn't want to have to have pets or as many Corps of players to keep happy.(Brother has a history of mistreatment of its band of merry men and associates with no regard of the political circumstance to come from it)
by making it harder for large power blocks such as DRF, THE NC, and The Coalition of the unwilling less able to support the player base they do Brother would have a better chance at regrouping (will less pilots and likely no pets) with out the need of political ties to
others in the eve community. IE if you don't have to rely on others for help you don't have to play nice with anyone. Brother sucks at politics and Fail cascaded because of bad leadership. i cant wait for Brother v10 (cause they will fail do to leadership more so than conflict....
there is no change that CCP could make to change the way players behave.

I Really hope for the sake of EVE that CCP will stop Clowning around and look at thier game engine and infrastructure rather than player base. because you can fix one and still make profit if you jack with us(the player base) you will likely start to loose subscriptions.

a




Pages: first : previous : ... 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 ... : 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