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 : ... 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:17:00 - [1291]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 05:18:54
Originally by: Super Whopper
Doesn't count NPC sov systems in each region

A: 0.0 to -0.2 (no sanctums/havens!)
B: -0.3 to -0.4 (probably havens but few or no sanctums)
C: -0.5 to -0.6 (slightly worse than now)
D: -0.7 to -0.8 (slightly better than now)
E: -0.9 to -1.0 (much better than now)

Code:

| Region | A | B | C | D | E | |
|----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+-----------|
| The Spire | 3 | 9 | 28 | 18 | 14 | DRF (d) |
| Cobalt Edge | 7 | 19 | 19 | 10 | 14 | DRF (d) |
| Malpais | 8 | 22 | 27 | 34 | 11 | DRF (d) |
| Perrigen Falls | 4 | 9 | 39 | 42 | 10 | DRF (d) |
| Etherium Reach | 6 | 13 | 37 | 34 | 10 | DRF (d) |
| The Kalevala Expanse | 6 | 16 | 19 | 17 | 10 | DRF (d) |

I would like to remind you all.

CCP are REALLY HEAVILY boosting drone regions.


Unlike the basic premise of the Sanctum nerf, this is something of a massive problem. The drone regions are the worst source of second hand materials of all, and are the single biggest enabler of modern super capital spam.

To make sure things don't get thrown thoroughly out of whack, a massive truesec nerf will be needed in the Drone Regions.

Whats more, the entire premise of the Drone Regions needs to be rethought. There are too many minerals coming out of that chunk of space, which is widely believed to be predominantly controlled by RMT elements. Supercapitals are one of the most popular purchase items for people who actually buy things with cash for Eve.

Prijan Zhodane
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:18:00 - [1292]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion

In the long run, it might be better to not have more people in 0.0. It will mean fewer people to join large scale blobs, and it will reduce the number of non-combatant money grinders whose activities exacerbate the cash and material influx problem that's been worsening for the last few years.


Except this is against the PR that CCP was dishing out a few months back, they WANT the massive 1000v1000 man fights, they did ad campaigns on massive ship fights and why EVE is so good, despite it all being laggy as hell even if the node was ref'd.

The non-combatant money grinders, I assume you're meaning the bots and macro ratters, tbh this will have no effect on them, they run belts, they don't do anoms. This change won't hurt them the slightest and the issue of inflation will still be there after CCP lays waste to nullsec.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:20:00 - [1293]
 

Originally by: Prijan Zhodane
Originally by: Evelgrivion

In the long run, it might be better to not have more people in 0.0. It will mean fewer people to join large scale blobs, and it will reduce the number of non-combatant money grinders whose activities exacerbate the cash and material influx problem that's been worsening for the last few years.


Except this is against the PR that CCP was dishing out a few months back, they WANT the massive 1000v1000 man fights, they did ad campaigns on massive ship fights and why EVE is so good, despite it all being laggy as hell even if the node was ref'd.

The non-combatant money grinders, I assume you're meaning the bots and macro ratters, tbh this will have no effect on them, they run belts, they don't do anoms. This change won't hurt them the slightest and the issue of inflation will still be there after CCP lays waste to nullsec.


I'm not so sure that they don't run anomolies, and I've never been a fan of hyper-blobbing. CCP's PR statements may say it's desirable, but as a player, they are not what I want.

knobber Jobbler
Holding Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:24:00 - [1294]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 03:57:55
Originally by: Commander Hold
I think it easy to say that 90% of the people are trying to tell you ccp, this is a stupit idea.
There is some 10% saying this is great. Those 10% most likely live in empire, and have not spent much time in 0.0.
0.0 is expensive not just to hold but to keep safe. One of our systems cost almost 1.1 billion isk to maintain each month. On top of that we have spent massive amount of time to upgrade and keep the system. We have lost a huge amount of ships to reds and neuts. My corp is made up of older players with familys for the most part. We work everyday we spend time with our kids. We dont have time to grind 3 or 4 days for a ship. The cost of minerals have already hit most of us as well as the cost of pos fuel. When trit starts costing you almost 4.0 isk pu costs of ships skyrocket.
We need those sactums and havens to keep our space without them our major isk role is gone and there is no point holding low end 0.0.
Im here to have fun not grind day in and day out. You take FUN out of a GAME then why play.
If this goes through Im pulling my accounts. This is to much and ccp you have finally gone to far, your killing the game.


Is your small sovereign group existing independent of one of the main 0.0 sovereignty holding power blocks? Unless you're not playing by the blues game, these sovereignty issues don't hold much merit. Work on finding a better agreement, find a larger group to broaden the spread of sovereignty costs, or change play styles. If all you're in it for is to say "I have sovereignty to farm sanctums in," I see a fundamental issue in your pursuits; why are you doing it, besides to make money for the perceived fun of seeing your wallet blink upwards?

Moreover, 1.1 billion a month is not much money, in the grand scheme of things.


1.1b will be soon if you live in any border region. Imagine trying to belt rat that. Lvl 4 missions pay more. Joy.

I'm slightly confused about the carebear comments on this thread. If you don't carebear, how do you buy ships? Not through moon Goo as this goes towards ship reimbursment and paying for system up keep.

Galerak
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:24:00 - [1295]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in.

That being said, I'm not a fan of moons.


So the value of t2 materials will go down due to lack of demand for t2 ships. The lack of demand stemming from the INCREASED combat this change is supposed create? Assuming there is a lack of demand from this change, the change itself will have failed in its purpose. If combat does actually increase the demand for t2 ships will remain the same or increase accordingly and thus the profits from moon goo held by the power blocks will remain essentially unchanged. Your logic fails.

Killin Kittens
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:27:00 - [1296]
 

Well, with Greyscale's official "meh, we're doing this because we're excited to **** our paying customers" attitude, two of my subscriptions are now reduced to one month instead of the 6 months they were at... I'm curious if they are going to come to their senses is all. That and I need time to get things in order to transfer this $hit to some masochist that's actually going to stay and do the level 4 cheesegrater masterbation routine. (you know... mildly amusing... but mostly painful). Personally, I would rather be out PVP'ing in 0.0 but if all I have is 5mil per hub to pay for replacement gear... screw that... more time on the grind for less PVP action? Why am I paying for that? I could have the same fun for free slamming my fingers in a door.

The third account I had in the oven has been flat out canceled. No sense paying more money to a game developer if their attitude is "we love screwing our players and refining the grind for the little fish!"

And I know there's going to be the moron's that say "fine, leave. you're not doing it right then" or "go take better space!".
Those opinions are great... if you're one of the larger corps that don't give a rats ass about changes like these. Your income has always been secure... and is still secure with these changes as you still have the good systems under your sov. But unless my 40 man corp can somehow turn against and convince/defeat the alliance holding that good territory to give it up to us... there is little else for resources out in 0.0 now that makes financial sense to continue PVP. Oh... and by the results from some of the last battles with titan's and supercarrier pop action with 400+ crusier's and support vessels in tow... our 40 man group has really good odds at challenging those corps that hold the good territory... so don't be stupid and say "just go take better space".

I might as well make the Easter Bunny grow ****... it takes the same amount of magic and it's more amusing.

Let's paint the big picture. My starting corp was brought out with the changes CCP put out there... they wanted more "little guys" out there to fight. We came... we upgraded our rented space from one of the big guys so they wouldn't ritan squish us... we spent billions, and we're PVP fighting... having a good time.

CCP comes in and says... "hmmm... not enough fighting, we don't care what time and resources you've spent... that's not our concern... you have to move and fight... with less cash now... this is exciting for us to watch!"

So... we as a paying player base say... "sure CCP... we're sorry we didn't fight enough. We could have fought with more if we weren't spending billions on upgrades and production and making replacement ships... you know, all the stuff you created to get us out here... putting up with the crap POS action and shoddy UI... but now we have to move again... leave all this behind and do it again... in "better" space because you've made it that way and that's what you want to see."

If we do this... but we don't get it right, the results you wanted don't happen... you'll nerf it again... you'll **** us excitedly and bring out something else that will amuse you to watch... We'll be expected to comply... because you made it that way, or die... you don't care... this is exciting isn't it? Just a little change and hundreds of hours of effort is worthless... gamers like it when hours of work and effort is made worthless... that makes them happy... we know... we projected it! This will be fun won't it?

Who's playing who?

And I'm paying for this?

I've done the grind. I've made and spent my personal billions in this game and I see how CCP works now. All BS, no evidence to back the BS with... ignore the player base... so exciting!

Well... I'm excited to say my cash will be leaving for some other game system if these changes go through. I'm not about to do more grind for the stuff I want to do. I wonder if the dev's have a subscription fee they pay to play and screw with us?

oldmanst4r
Minmatar
oldmanst4r's Corporation
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:31:00 - [1297]
 

Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point.

This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires.

Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:33:00 - [1298]
 

Originally by: oldmanst4r
Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point.

This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires.

Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted.


There is an enormous difference between weakening a coalition and weakening its players.

-Liang

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:33:00 - [1299]
 

Originally by: Galerak
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in.

That being said, I'm not a fan of moons.


So the value of t2 materials will go down due to lack of demand for t2 ships. The lack of demand stemming from the INCREASED combat this change is supposed create? Assuming there is a lack of demand from this change, the change itself will have failed in its purpose. If combat does actually increase the demand for t2 ships will remain the same or increase accordingly and thus the profits from moon goo held by the power blocks will remain essentially unchanged. Your logic fails.


I never said it would outright increase the amount of combat taking place, but let's assume for a moment that it does. Even if the demand goes up for material, if there's no money out there to pay for it, there will become a cap on how much people can actually pay for the stuff.

Tech I stuff will increase in popularity, Jump Freighters will become much more valuable assets, and at the same time, the cost of everything will go down in proportion to the reduced amount of ISK. My logic does not fail - the logic in the posts hasn't list absolutely everything about the subject needed to derive a complete conclusion. At the end of the day, other than the fact that the number of places where you can create extremely large quantities of ISK will be reduced by this change, everything in these threads is pure speculation.

Prijan Zhodane
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:36:00 - [1300]
 

Originally by: Killin Kittens
Well, with Greyscale's official "meh, we're doing this because we're excited to **** our paying customers" attitude, two of my subscriptions are now reduced to one month instead of the 6 months they were at... I'm curious if they are going to come to their senses is all. That and I need time to get things in order to transfer this $hit to some masochist that's actually going to stay and do the level 4 cheesegrater masterbation routine. (you know... mildly amusing... but mostly painful). Personally, I would rather be out PVP'ing in 0.0 but if all I have is 5mil per hub to pay for replacement gear... screw that... more time on the grind for less PVP action? Why am I paying for that? I could have the same fun for free slamming my fingers in a door.

The third account I had in the oven has been flat out canceled. No sense paying more money to a game developer if their attitude is "we love screwing our players and refining the grind for the little fish!"

And I know there's going to be the moron's that say "fine, leave. you're not doing it right then" or "go take better space!".
Those opinions are great... if you're one of the larger corps that don't give a rats ass about changes like these. Your income has always been secure... and is still secure with these changes as you still have the good systems under your sov. But unless my 40 man corp can somehow turn against and convince/defeat the alliance holding that good territory to give it up to us... there is little else for resources out in 0.0 now that makes financial sense to continue PVP. Oh... and by the results from some of the last battles with titan's and supercarrier pop action with 400+ crusier's and support vessels in tow... our 40 man group has really good odds at challenging those corps that hold the good territory... so don't be stupid and say "just go take better space".

Let's paint the big picture. My starting corp was brought out with the changes CCP put out there... they wanted more "little guys" out there to fight. We came... we upgraded our rented space from one of the big guys so they wouldn't ritan squish us... we spent billions, and we're PVP fighting... having a good time.

CCP comes in and says... "hmmm... not enough fighting, we don't care what time and resources you've spent... that's not our concern... you have to move and fight... with less cash now... this is exciting for us to watch!"

So... we as a paying player base say... "sure CCP... we're sorry we didn't fight enough. We could have fought with more if we weren't spending billions on upgrades and production and making replacement ships... you know, all the stuff you created to get us out here... putting up with the crap POS action and shoddy UI... but now we have to move again... leave all this behind and do it again... in "better" space because you've made it that way and that's what you want to see."

If we do this... but we don't get it right, the results you wanted don't happen... you'll nerf it again... you'll **** us excitedly and bring out something else that will amuse you to watch... We'll be expected to comply... because you made it that way, or die... you don't care... this is exciting isn't it? Just a little change and hundreds of hours of effort is worthless... gamers like it when hours of work and effort is made worthless... that makes them happy... we know... we projected it! This will be fun won't it?

Who's playing who?

And I'm paying for this?

I've done the grind. I've made and spent my personal billions in this game and I see how CCP works now. All BS, no evidence to back the BS with... ignore the player base... so exciting!

Well... I'm excited to say my cash will be leaving for some other game system if these changes go through. I'm not about to do more grind for the stuff I want to do. I wonder if the dev's have a subscription fee they pay to play and screw with us?


^this

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:36:00 - [1301]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: oldmanst4r
Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point.

This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires.

Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted.


There is an enormous difference between weakening a coalition and weakening its players.

-Liang


Reduced cash flow is an equal opportunity molester of power blocks both large and small. The big alliances will be affected by these changes in the same way the smaller ones are; each member will have to put out more effort to make ISK if they don't have access to sanctums.

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:40:00 - [1302]
 

wow... Threadnaught!

First let me make it clear that I barely if ever run anoms, and never because I need the income. I have plenty of ISK coming in from other (all legit) means, and my alliance has access to some of the best truesec around, so these changes will actually benefit me significantly.

I'm in two minds about the changes, because nullsec should be harsh. I can see that a lot of space (ie low value) will become uninhabited like it was before, so there will be a lot more 'wilderness' space to hide in again, rather than the urban sprawl that has come out of Dominion.

But I still have a couple of major concerns as I will detail below:

  1. This will remove large ISK Drains, which will cause inflation.

  2. Player/Dev contract


Point 1. IHub upgrades and Sov bills are a major ISK drain that takes cash out of the economy. If it is no longer economically viable to upgrade ~45% of nullsec (anything between 0.0 and -0.25), players will either chose not to or go bankrupt.

If, as CCP Greyscale has said, there would be the same amount of worthwhile anomolies that are concentrated around low truesec, theortically the same amount of ISK will be coming into the economy.

So same ISK coming in, less ISK going out = more ISK in the economy = inflation = bad.

Point 2. I've had this discussion with Ernest Adams before (the Game Designer and co-founder of the International Game Developer's Association, not the baker) and his position is that the game mechanics are a effectively contract between dev and player and should be changed only under the most dire of circumstances and preferrably with player consent. In fact he's writing a thesis on the topic (I'm sure he'd be interested in consulting in this case - well worth the investment if you ask me).

My position was that the devs should make the choice that is best for the game, but I was referring to things like player imbalances (eg benefiting older players "just because"). I can very much see his point.

The changes made in Dominion were the dev's offer, and purchasing of upgrades and paying of bills by players was the acceptance. To completely take that away from large numbers of those (mostly small) alliances without any compensation would be a major breach of trust between the developer and community.

On a seperate note, I'd like to point out to the NC haters who are saying that "it's just the NC carebears who are complaining" that ev0ke, -A-, NC., Intrepid Crossing, Solar Wing, and Shadow of Death are not part of the NC, but all have members expressing their concern/disapproval of these changes for a multitude of reasons.

Sexy Mirkin
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:42:00 - [1303]
 

Simply judging by the massive emorage displayed here proves this is a good idea. Sure big alliances don't depend on anomalies but lots of individual pilots have come to depend on them. This will serve to destabilize current structures proven by all the people whining. If they can't make the isk they need where they are they may have to move somewhere where they can. People leaving corps and alliances enmasse, or corp or alliances themselves attempting to move is obviously destabilizing. Anything that hurts the blob, and encourages smaller gang pvp is a good thing. I fully support these changes, CCP is finally taking steps in the right direction.

Sexy Mirkin
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:44:00 - [1304]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: oldmanst4r
Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point.

This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires.

Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted.


There is an enormous difference between weakening a coalition and weakening its players.

-Liang



coalitions are made up of players, therefore weakening the players weakens the coalition.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:47:00 - [1305]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Galerak
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in.

That being said, I'm not a fan of moons.


So the value of t2 materials will go down due to lack of demand for t2 ships. The lack of demand stemming from the INCREASED combat this change is supposed create? Assuming there is a lack of demand from this change, the change itself will have failed in its purpose. If combat does actually increase the demand for t2 ships will remain the same or increase accordingly and thus the profits from moon goo held by the power blocks will remain essentially unchanged. Your logic fails.


I never said it would outright increase the amount of combat taking place, but let's assume for a moment that it does. Even if the demand goes up for material, if there's no money out there to pay for it, there will become a cap on how much people can actually pay for the stuff.

Tech I stuff will increase in popularity, Jump Freighters will become much more valuable assets, and at the same time, the cost of everything will go down in proportion to the reduced amount of ISK. My logic does not fail - the logic in the posts hasn't list absolutely everything about the subject needed to derive a complete conclusion. At the end of the day, other than the fact that the number of places where you can create extremely large quantities of ISK will be reduced by this change, everything in these threads is pure speculation.


Remember what happened to mineral prices when lag got so bad that nobody was fighting? Mineral prices hugged the insurance floor for about a year. This time people will stop fighting because why bother paying sov for something that has less value than highsec? No sov = nothing to defend or raid = no more small gang PVP. Having all of 0.0 upgradeable to be worth MORE than highsec got people out there. More people = more conflict. CCP's too ****ing stupid to see that. Wonder how far subscription rates are going to drop with this **** up compared to the **** up last year, and how many of the people leaving this time will make it permanent.

Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:47:00 - [1306]
 

Well done. It was bots in 50% of nullsec, now it will be bot in every system

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:49:00 - [1307]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 05:50:51
Originally by: Sexy Mirkin
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: oldmanst4r
Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point.

This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires.

Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted.


There is an enormous difference between weakening a coalition and weakening its players.

-Liang



coalitions are made up of players, therefore weakening the players weakens the coalition.


Kinda. While obviously hurting any part of the whole will hurt the whole, killing (or even seriously annoying the whole!) is an entirely different matter. Coalitions are political groups, and nothing is really going to break those political groups except boredom and "social friction" between them. Smashing them all together in a few really awesome regions is one way to increase social friction.

And yes, I'm aware that it creates a big gulf between the "haves" and "have nots". But, that gulf has always existed. It always will exist.

-Liang

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:54:00 - [1308]
 

Creating space nobody wants goes a long way towards making sure that power blocks have no vested interest in holding it.

However, this doesn't mean a thing if it's easy to make sure that nobody can have it. The force projection nerfs must arrive at the same time.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:57:00 - [1309]
 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
wow... Threadnaught!

First let me make it clear that I barely if ever run anoms, and never because I need the income. I have plenty of ISK coming in from other (all legit) means, and my alliance has access to some of the best truesec around, so these changes will actually benefit me significantly.

I'm in two minds about the changes, because nullsec should be harsh. I can see that a lot of space (ie low value) will become uninhabited like it was before, so there will be a lot more 'wilderness' space to hide in again, rather than the urban sprawl that has come out of Dominion.

But I still have a couple of major concerns as I will detail below:

  1. This will remove large ISK Drains, which will cause inflation.

  2. Player/Dev contract


Point 1. IHub upgrades and Sov bills are a major ISK drain that takes cash out of the economy. If it is no longer economically viable to upgrade ~45% of nullsec (anything between 0.0 and -0.25), players will either chose not to or go bankrupt.

If, as CCP Greyscale has said, there would be the same amount of worthwhile anomolies that are concentrated around low truesec, theortically the same amount of ISK will be coming into the economy.

So same ISK coming in, less ISK going out = more ISK in the economy = inflation = bad.

Point 2. I've had this discussion with Ernest Adams before (the Game Designer and co-founder of the International Game Developer's Association, not the baker) and his position is that the game mechanics are a effectively contract between dev and player and should be changed only under the most dire of circumstances and preferrably with player consent. In fact he's writing a thesis on the topic (I'm sure he'd be interested in consulting in this case - well worth the investment if you ask me).

My position was that the devs should make the choice that is best for the game, but I was referring to things like player imbalances (eg benefiting older players "just because"). I can very much see his point.

The changes made in Dominion were the dev's offer, and purchasing of upgrades and paying of bills by players was the acceptance. To completely take that away from large numbers of those (mostly small) alliances without any compensation would be a major breach of trust between the developer and community.

On a seperate note, I'd like to point out to the NC haters who are saying that "it's just the NC carebears who are complaining" that ev0ke, -A-, NC., Intrepid Crossing, Solar Wing, and Shadow of Death are not part of the NC, but all have members expressing their concern/disapproval of these changes for a multitude of reasons.


There is a reason why we've seen a drop in players but CCP can't get it through their thick skulls, even when they have an economist working for them, creating all those pretty QEN's.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:02:00 - [1310]
 

Originally by: Super Whopper
There is a reason why we've seen a drop in players but CCP can't get it through their thick skulls, even when they have an economist working for them, creating all those pretty QEN's.


The CCP economist was an economics teacher. Not an economics policy maker. Fanfest also made it pretty clear that nobody on the developer side listens to him much anyway. And I'd bet money that he doesn't actually play the game. Pretty graphs are neat, but it's looking like the devs that actually play the game must all live in good truesec and spawn their own super caps. Otherwise how could they be so ****ing clueless.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:02:00 - [1311]
 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya

So same ISK coming in, less ISK going out = more ISK in the economy = inflation = bad.



The number of potential sanctums is dropping quite dramatically. I wouldn't really expect the same ISK input to the system.

Quote:

Point 2. I've had this discussion with Ernest Adams before (the Game Designer and co-founder of the International Game Developer's Association, not the baker) and his position is that the game mechanics are a effectively contract between dev and player and should be changed only under the most dire of circumstances and preferrably with player consent. In fact he's writing a thesis on the topic (I'm sure he'd be interested in consulting in this case - well worth the investment if you ask me).



The problem is that players are proven to be very bad at balancing, and taking away someone's silver spoon will always **** them off. They will never, ever give you consent to fix the game. They'll demand boosts elsewhere, even though it will always result in massive amounts of boosting of everything to get the same result. In a complex system, that kind of boosting is very dangerous and radically destabilizes the whole.

Quote:

My position was that the devs should make the choice that is best for the game, but I was referring to things like player imbalances (eg benefiting older players "just because"). I can very much see his point.

The changes made in Dominion were the dev's offer, and purchasing of upgrades and paying of bills by players was the acceptance. To completely take that away from large numbers of those (mostly small) alliances without any compensation would be a major breach of trust between the developer and community.



Two things:
- They are not completely taking that away. They are modifying it.
- Obviously, Dominion is not working out as they had originally envisioned it --- or they have discovered that how they originally envisioned it was fatally flawed. Expecting uninformed players who don't understand the basics of the economy to grasp that is asking a bit much though.

-Liang

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:03:00 - [1312]
 

Edited by: Darth Gustav on 29/03/2011 06:07:48
Edited by: Darth Gustav on 29/03/2011 06:06:53
Edited by: Darth Gustav on 29/03/2011 06:06:20
Originally by: CCP 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


Sandbox Rules:

1) No micturating in the sandbox.

2) No micturating on the patrons.

3) See rules #1 and rules #2.

Once upon a time, CCP called its customers thieves, claiming anybody who took advantage of the Ghost Training TM "bug" was actually stealing from CCP. All this despite marketing propaganda stating this as a "unique feature."

Now, the same company that called us thieves is now stealing from many of us. Because that's what this is - just another giant bait and switch. Observe the logic of this comparison:

Then

Quote:
CCP > Once set to train, your character continues to train regardless of whether or not you are subscribed. We think this is a neat feature that will get us a bunch of subscriptions. Come see for yourself.

CCP > Nah, we were just kidding. You can't train for free. That was a bug. And really, you were stealing from us anyway, admit it! We won't admit that it was ever a feature, or that this was even mishandled. A threadnaught will form, but we don't really mind.


Now

Quote:
CCP > Once upgraded, your system will be just as good as all the other systems, regardless of true sec! This will encourage people to go to nullsec, which our network models indicate will be beneficial to Tranquility. Go ahead, see for yourself!

CCP > Nah, we were just kidding. Your junk ass systems can't really support such good ratting. In fact, our network models now show us that there are too many people in nullsec and it was cheating for them all to set each other blue! And, no, you won't get the ISK back for your initial investment. Go ahead, make a civil threadnaught for all we care.


This is not a knee-jerk post. I have read this thread, considered the repercussions, cancelled my subscription (citing CCP Greyscale's proposed change as my reason) and carefully crafted this well-thought-out (if I do say so myself) response.

GF's while they lasted, fanboys.

[Edited because the forums suck.]

HypeRDemoN
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:07:00 - [1313]
 

imho, theres just not enough systems for any kind of change to have any affect.

Erichk Knaar
Caldari
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:09:00 - [1314]
 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
...


You raise some fair points about the game design aspects of it, but as someone who's paid this sub for nearly 8 years now, its ****ed, and it NEEDS to be fixed. Not just *infini*ISK in nullsec. Moons, lvl4s, a bunch of stuff. Less ISK == more fun.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:14:00 - [1315]
 

Originally by: CCP 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


**** civil. Civil isn't making the trillions of isk and thousands of man-hours that the players put into upgrading sov into garbage. Civil isn't saying "wanna go to 0.0? Join an official CCP sponsored alliance. Wanna become an official CCP sponsored alliance? Too ****ing bad. Wanna rent from one? Too ****ing bad, there's nothing to rent." Your economist that you ignore all the time said at fanfest that players make better economic predictions than CCP does. No ****ing wonder if you think this **** is a good idea.

/amazed you didn't use the CCP Nohz troll alt to announce this ****-over.

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:26:00 - [1316]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
The number of potential sanctums is dropping quite dramatically. I wouldn't really expect the same ISK input to the system.


I seem to recall something saying that the overall number of high end anoms would stay the same. Either way, large tracts of space that were having ISK thrown down the drain will no longer have that ISK spent. That could very easily tip the Source/Drain balance.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
The problem is that players are proven to be very bad at balancing, and taking away someone's silver spoon will always **** them off. They will never, ever give you consent to fix the game. They'll demand boosts elsewhere, even though it will always result in massive amounts of boosting of everything to get the same result. In a complex system, that kind of boosting is very dangerous and radically destabilizes the whole.


Yes, this is true. However in a game where choices and actions have consequences, changing the consequences of the choices after the action has been taken is a bad idea and will make for a lot of disgruntled players. In the short term this could lead to a massive drop in active players. The long term effects of that could be very perilous, especially considering how much this is a multiplayer game. WoW can have the same appeal on a pirate server with stuff all players because of it's high amounts of static PvE content, but EVE is very much a multiplayer game that needs players to provide content (and is so much better for it).

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Two things:
- They are not completely taking that away. They are modifying it.
- Obviously, Dominion is not working out as they had originally envisioned it --- or they have discovered that how they originally envisioned it was fatally flawed. Expecting uninformed players who don't understand the basics of the economy to grasp that is asking a bit much though.

-Liang


For the ~45% of poor trusec (0.0 to -0.25) they are completely taking that away - people install the expensive ihub upgrades to get havens/sanctums, not the rest of the trash. For the rest of truesec they are modifying it.

So the trusec system went from being (pulling numbers out of the air simply to illustrate a point here, bare with me) 70/30 in favour of lower trusec pre-Dominion to being 54/46 instead - poor trusec got the anoms, but not the faction spawns/high grade BS rats in the belts so not entirely even.

This change will go to making it 80/20 in favour of good trusec (low trusec now gets better belt rats and more anoms). Wouldn't it be better to ease the change a little so that low end systems get at least some decent anomolies from upgrades (65/35)?

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:30:00 - [1317]
 

Originally by: mkmin
Originally by: Super Whopper
There is a reason why we've seen a drop in players but CCP can't get it through their thick skulls, even when they have an economist working for them, creating all those pretty QEN's.


The CCP economist was an economics teacher. Not an economics policy maker. Fanfest also made it pretty clear that nobody on the developer side listens to him much anyway. And I'd bet money that he doesn't actually play the game. Pretty graphs are neat, but it's looking like the devs that actually play the game must all live in good truesec and spawn their own super caps. Otherwise how could they be so ****ing clueless.


Obviously Mr. Economics Teacher knows enough about economics to make purty graphs.

These nerfs to the majority of EVE are either because devs are clueless, which means they should be fired, or they're idiots, also should be fired. I think it's a combination of both, which is why they are not discussing it with the CSM and are implementing it without consultation with their players.

Once again CCP have proven that the CSM are meaningless. They will discuss AF fourth bonus but not sweeping changes to the game. Thus, they should be FIRED.

I honestly hope the CSM refuse to discuss anything but CCP's arrogance and stupidity when they fly to Iceland.

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:39:00 - [1318]
 

Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Corin Nebulon
Greyscale you should really ask for someone to handle public relations for you. Your last post really reads like "F*** *ff eve community. We know better then you."



Considering the level of maturity displayed by 'the community' in this thread I'd say its pretty amazing that they even bother to respond at all.

Its alright to be angry about something that concerns you, but the inability to communicate in a socially acceptable form displayed by a majority in here is simply not acceptable.

Being taken seriously does depend a lot on the way you voice your opinion, but thats just my 2 cents.



Fuk Ovv

Galerak
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:47:00 - [1319]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Galerak
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in.

That being said, I'm not a fan of moons.


So the value of t2 materials will go down due to lack of demand for t2 ships. The lack of demand stemming from the INCREASED combat this change is supposed create? Assuming there is a lack of demand from this change, the change itself will have failed in its purpose. If combat does actually increase the demand for t2 ships will remain the same or increase accordingly and thus the profits from moon goo held by the power blocks will remain essentially unchanged. Your logic fails.


I never said it would outright increase the amount of combat taking place, but let's assume for a moment that it does. Even if the demand goes up for material, if there's no money out there to pay for it, there will become a cap on how much people can actually pay for the stuff.

Tech I stuff will increase in popularity, Jump Freighters will become much more valuable assets, and at the same time, the cost of everything will go down in proportion to the reduced amount of ISK. My logic does not fail - the logic in the posts hasn't list absolutely everything about the subject needed to derive a complete conclusion. At the end of the day, other than the fact that the number of places where you can create extremely large quantities of ISK will be reduced by this change, everything in these threads is pure speculation.


You didn't say it... it was in the dev blog as one of the expected consequences. You might start by reading that.

Ado Rotcod
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:53:00 - [1320]
 

Wohoo way to destroy individual players wealth.

The big guys will still collect the rent, just more for systems that spawn sanctums and same for all the others and the small guys will have to npc longer to make the same isk or leave there smaller alliances and join one of the big boys.

Even bigger blobs and less overall people in nullsec is my guess




Pages: first : previous : ... 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 ... : 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