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 : ... 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Ravora
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:02:00 - [1501]
 

Edited by: Ravora on 29/03/2011 22:03:17
Originally by: Nomad I
CCP will get the Yulei syndrome. CCP is trying to destroy a disease with some actions and creating a new disease, like destroying Yulei as a trade center and creating Jita. It will be happen again. CCP Greyscale wrote in 2009:

Quote:
Firstly, let people upgrade their space, and in particular its resource density. By increasing the resource density, you increase the potential population density, and by letting players do it rather than simply seeding more resources, you open up more decisions and more emergence.[..] It gets more people into nullsec - one of our objectives - by making big alliances want more people in their space. It makes it much harder to be a big, rich, military alliance

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=695

The same CCP Greyscale makes now a 180 degree turn. Really funny.



And thats how the reason he want's hold on that change.
Originally by: Greyscale
.... we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run....


Well... I FEEL that HIS FEELINGS will prove oneself wrong AGAIN!!!.

helmeo
Caldari
Star Mandate
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:09:00 - [1502]
 

Originally by: mkmin
Originally by: helmeo
um, all those that are quitting can i have your stuffz?


That depends. If you're going to use it to suicide gank rookie systems, maybe.


i was thinking more like smart bombing jita undock...

Ahh yee
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:10:00 - [1503]
 

This change alone will do nothing to influence alliances.

GET RID OF THE ******ED TECH IMBALANCE IN MOON MINERALS IF YOU WANT TO TRULY IMPACT ALLIANCE BEHAVIOR IN EVE

Aquana Abyss
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:13:00 - [1504]
 

cram it up your "emergence" hole Greyscale!

Nostimo
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:13:00 - [1505]
 

Dear CCP.
You need to listen to the people who buy into this game.
50 pages so far of how Epic a Fail this change will be.

When enough people are unhappy about the way things are run, they will revolt.

Fanfest was really good by the way, but you will need fans for next years bash. Today, I am not a fan. -1 for next years fanfest.

Regards

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:15:00 - [1506]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire

In that case, what you're implying just further reinforces the fact that CCP apparently couldn't give two sh*ts what their player base thinks.

They'll do what they want with their game, when they want, how they want, and f*ck all if people don't like it.

Real good business practice.


Ok, this is getting really old. Let's just be clear: the customer is not always right. In fact, I'll take it one step further and say that the customer is frequently willing to outright bankrupt and destroy a company either out of sheer pettiness or for a temporary personal gain.

CCP is taking steps to correct an imbalance that they perceive as having come from Dominion - something that they feel is hurting the game as a whole. Frankly, them not fixing things that they see wrong in the game (even if it makes certain groups cry like little girls) would be doing a grave disservice to us (their customers) and their employees (who lose their job when the game tanks because they didn't tend to it).

Basically: sometimes a gardener has to do a little pruning to keep a plant healthy. Sorry.

-Liang

Evangalin
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:24:00 - [1507]
 

Edited by: Evangalin on 29/03/2011 22:26:03
I just got to 5 million skill points got my first battleship Amar (yeah) and am ready to pay for another 6 months of gameplay after enjoying some sanctum runs with my corp. I am probably not much of a pilot or know alot about eve but it sounds to me like this change will seriously dishearten me into paying for another 6 months if the only thing I can do is fight with my corpmates about whose hub is who in the weeks to come. Seriously does ccp think this will improve there market income of the game if people under the 10 million skill level will want to play the game with a bunch of cutthroats rather then enjoying a nice shoot out with friends. What the hell are they thinking!?!?!

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:24:00 - [1508]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire

In that case, what you're implying just further reinforces the fact that CCP apparently couldn't give two sh*ts what their player base thinks.

They'll do what they want with their game, when they want, how they want, and f*ck all if people don't like it.

Real good business practice.


Ok, this is getting really old. Let's just be clear: the customer is not always right. In fact, I'll take it one step further and say that the customer is frequently willing to outright bankrupt and destroy a company either out of sheer pettiness or for a temporary personal gain.

CCP is taking steps to correct an imbalance that they perceive as having come from Dominion - something that they feel is hurting the game as a whole. Frankly, them not fixing things that they see wrong in the game (even if it makes certain groups cry like little girls) would be doing a grave disservice to us (their customers) and their employees (who lose their job when the game tanks because they didn't tend to it).

Basically: sometimes a gardener has to do a little pruning to keep a plant healthy. Sorry.

-Liang

You're right. Who needs all those damned roots anyway? Just sitting there not growing leaves.

Xel Ra
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:27:00 - [1509]
 

Edited by: Xel Ra on 29/03/2011 22:37:36
There are a large number of well explained reasons that the customer base has given to back its claims and no adequate reply to them from CCP. This is a service the customers are paying for. They damn well know what they want and particularly in these kinds of numbers, as this last CSM's bringing about long sought changes and the consequent approval rating has well illustrated.

CCP, why does the solution have to be a Pyrrhic victory? Surely there is something better than throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Inappropriate content removed as per the forum rules.StevieSG

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:29:00 - [1510]
 

Edited by: mkmin on 29/03/2011 22:30:59
Originally by: Xel Ra

CCP, why does the solution have to be a Phyrric victory? Surely there is something better than throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Because they are bored and want to **** stuff up, and are too drunk, stoned, or stupid to realize that it's going to cost every one of them their jobs.

edit: But I guess the actual decision makers hold ownership in the company and are probably cashing in as we speak. Who cares about the players? Who cares about the coders?

Grandua
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:56:00 - [1511]
 

So I guess I should quantify why I belive this is a bad idea...

As a combat pilot I loose a great deal of isk. For all the reasons this could be, I have been playing for almost 3 years. I keep less than 100 mil in my wallet trying to replace the ships I loose, while skilling and buying the next better ship.

If CCP makes these changes, as a combat pilot I will have four choices: 1. Become an indy to pay for all the ships we throw away....thus flooding the market and devaluating it in a very incredible way. 2. Go to the worm holes and flood the market with that stuff....again destroying the market, and reducing my ability to enjoy PVP so much. 3. Start high sec suicide ganking (very distasteful to me) 4. Going to play WOW or WOT where we can start again as a noob without having to invest years to do it!

P.S. I understand the whole marketing strategy thing that CCP is trying to implement.... but these changes will redesign a game in such a way that the customers...or at least I....will quickly become bored.

If you neut our ability to make isk to buy skills and ships (which is what you are suggesting) we will have to take MORE time to carebear to make money to replace them....doesn't this game suck enough of our lives away?

Again,



-----Grand

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:58:00 - [1512]
 

Originally by: Xel Ra
Liang. Just shut up. No one is even remotely impressed by your pathetic sophistry


I agree - it's better to be uncivil, rage, and froth at the mouth when discussing changes. I also agree that it's better to refuse to discuss someone's arguments and dismiss them as "sophistry". :)

-Liang

Lord Lightcloud
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:07:00 - [1513]
 

The downfall of EVE, victory to Greyscale.

UberDeathDealer
Steel Fleet
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:09:00 - [1514]
 

Edited by: UberDeathDealer on 29/03/2011 23:10:19
hey CCP,
Bitter vet here. Not sure you are not listening to your paying customers. I pay to play this game. The fact that you are not listening to a rather large part of your PAYING community really bothers me. The only reason i play is to make stuffs to boom.
Not really sure you are gonna make it harder to live in 0.0. Not really sure why you chose to make it harder for me to make isk to make things go boom. I really thought living in any part of 0.0 is should be more profitable than any part of empire. Looks like high sec missions will remain the best safest way to make isk. With much risk comes the chance of great reward am i rite? I have to ask do your predictions see less subscribers in your future. Why not nerf highsec missions and make it so more people have to move to 0.0. Why not nerf botters?
This change just seems really short sited and made by people who dont actually play this game.
CCP states they want more alliance combat? Sense when is there not enough? Check out the epic fights between DRF and NC.
Or you should check out our killboard.



Raindeth
FACTION Inc.
Irrelevant.
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:10:00 - [1515]
 

Edited by: Raindeth on 29/03/2011 23:35:06
TLDR: THIS is how you get to your stated goals.



I read the first 3 pages of replies. I hope some poor CCP newb has to get through to page.. 51 because I will fix this for you. I will cross-post this so CCP sees it.

First, you have to stop looking for the quick and easy solutions to complex problems. Seek first to understand the motivations of your players and the dynamics of the economy. State your goals, then make changes that speak to the players' motivations.

So, your goals are to:
1) Increase conflict among similarly sized entities
2) Allow new, smaller alliances access to 0.0.

What motivates large alliances to hold sov?
1) Vanity. "We are the king of this hill" mentality "We are leet PVPers" etc
2) Passive Income. Making billions with little work through established moon-mining.
3) Individual income production for members is a factor.

So, how do you achieve goal #1?

There is currently no way to classify how big an alliance or powerblock is. With metagaming and use of NPC alts, alliances could be any size. So, the first thing you need to do is get alliances to voluntarily classify themselves. You would need to give big incentives for alliances to classify themselves appropriately. I would definitely use a "vanity" reward as well as an isk reward. In fact, here it is: Make sov bills scale in cost, so that one system costs 5 mil per day, but say, 5 systems cost 20 mil per day EACH (100 mil total) scaling up more steeply as more systems are added. THEN, you can reduce the sov bills based on the size of the alliance or powerblock you have. So, a "medium-sized" (make cool names) alliance would get, say, 5 systems at the 5 mil per day rate, but any sov after that would start increasing the per-system cost. Also, sort out moons and technetium. Make what you want valuable correctly valuable and require a certain level of alliance size to harvest certain moons. No small alliance has a tech moon now (or not for long) anyway. A small alliance could HOLD a tech moon, but would not be able to get isk from it. Many reward factors like this would help discourage big alliances from splitting up into a billion small alliances working together to grief the little guys.

Ok, now that you have alliances and coalitions classified to represent their size, you can address factors that will allow them to want to fight similarly sized entities. Introduce rewards (vanity and actual strategic incentives as well as an effect on captured moons) that reward similarly sized entities to attack each other. If a huge alliance attacks a tiny one, make it less rewarding and more difficult, AND VICE VERSA. If a small alliance attacks a large one, make it less rewarding. A number of small alliances could band together, but then if they want to attack the large alliance and get the full rewards for doing so, they have to register as a larger entity, even if it is a temporary TREATY.

Goal #2

I think the realization of goal number one will naturally lead to goal number two. Smaller alliances will pop up everywhere and probably fight each other for the best systems for small alliances as long as it is more rewarding (remember vanity and iskwise) to hold 0.0 sov.

As far as programming and work, I'm sure what I've proposed here is difficult, but if you want Eve to continue to be a great game, you need to look first at the goals, not how easy it'll be to implement. In fact, you would probably have to redesign a lot of 0.0 by moving the moons that are supposed to be valuable to the lower truesec systems. Also, the regions should be spaced more like "Monopoly" so that several really low trusec systems are together in certain regions so the large entities will clash over region-wide conflicts. Other regions (like Providence) are perfect. Somewhat crappy space but some differences within enough to keep the small alliances fighting. Sorry programmers ..and current sov holders, but it has to be done.



Critics, constructive ones, are welcome.

felchergod
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:12:00 - [1516]
 

At first I was against these changes but now I can see just by all the arguing, crying and sodomy in this thread that it will have exactly the intended effect of generating conflict. My wallet will suffer, but I'm one of those guys who spends 10% of his time pveing, the other 90% pvping...unlike "elite 0.0 pvpers" (as Liang put it) who farm isk 90% of the time to lose a couple bs/bc a month on CTA ops which are covered by alliance ship reimbursement.

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:17:00 - [1517]
 

Originally by: mkmin
Edited by: mkmin on 29/03/2011 22:30:59
Originally by: Xel Ra

CCP, why does the solution have to be a Phyrric victory? Surely there is something better than throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Because they are bored and want to **** stuff up, and are too drunk, stoned, or stupid to realize that it's going to cost every one of them their jobs.

edit: But I guess the actual decision makers hold ownership in the company and are probably cashing in as we speak. Who cares about the players? Who cares about the coders?


... are you just ******ed? they are simply turning back the tables to when the game was an actual challenge... eve will be here long after you quit... i bet you quit smoking too. i see a pattern here...

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:19:00 - [1518]
 

Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Originally by: mkmin
Edited by: mkmin on 29/03/2011 22:30:59
Originally by: Xel Ra

CCP, why does the solution have to be a Phyrric victory? Surely there is something better than throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Because they are bored and want to **** stuff up, and are too drunk, stoned, or stupid to realize that it's going to cost every one of them their jobs.

edit: But I guess the actual decision makers hold ownership in the company and are probably cashing in as we speak. Who cares about the players? Who cares about the coders?


... are you just ******ed? they are simply turning back the tables to when the game was an actual challenge... eve will be here long after you quit... i bet you quit smoking too. i see a pattern here...

You're right, they should turn everything back. They should remove POSes, remove mining barges, remove battleships and capitals... bring it all the way back to beta, because that was MUCH better and had WAY more subscribers. Rolling Eyes Just because something's old, doesn't mean it's good. In fact it usually means it's ****.

Dr Syphilis
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:24:00 - [1519]
 

Only a few days to go till Eve is changed for the better!!!

marinko26210
Gallente
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:36:00 - [1520]
 

Fail again CCP.

Sig Sour
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:38:00 - [1521]
 

Its been a long time since we have seen this kind of rage... Falcon nerf was it?

If history tells us anything, this kind of rage usually means the game is getting better.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:38:00 - [1522]
 

Originally by: White Tree
Should these changes go through, it will likely not stop larger Alliances from holding regions from which profit can be extracted via the moons. Especially if the profit is large enough to warrant keeping the space, which in the case of certain R64 types: it is.

We'll have to see how this works out.


When was the last time CCP iterated on anything in the game, or kept their word? If CCP continued 'development' it'd be the first time.

You are delusional if you think CCP are actually going to monitor anything, and then make changes.

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:40:00 - [1523]
 

Originally by: Sig Sour
Its been a long time since we have seen this kind of rage... Falcon nerf was it?

If history tells us anything, this kind of rage usually means the game is getting better.


Not all changes are good , and this is one of those times that it isnt good.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:42:00 - [1524]
 

Edited by: Super Whopper on 29/03/2011 23:43:57
Originally by: Sig Sour
Its been a long time since we have seen this kind of rage... Falcon nerf was it?

If history tells us anything, this kind of rage usually means the game is getting better.


Yeah, like the sharp drop in max concurrent players EVE's been experiencing, for the better.

More ISK in the game, yet fewer players.

When you've realised those players have left, despite being able to pay for their game time with PLEX/market GTC, because this is CCP we're talking about is when you realise CCP only know how to ruin things; they have never, ever iterated on anything they've released. According to their data polishing content won't bring in new players. Keep computing, while players leave.

CCP solving lag by solving their excess profit.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:43:00 - [1525]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 23:43:15
Originally by: Super Whopper
Originally by: White Tree
Should these changes go through, it will likely not stop larger Alliances from holding regions from which profit can be extracted via the moons. Especially if the profit is large enough to warrant keeping the space, which in the case of certain R64 types: it is.

We'll have to see how this works out.


When was the last time CCP iterated on anything in the game, or kept their word? If CCP continued 'development' it'd be the first time.

You are delusional if you think CCP are actually going to monitor anything, and then make changes.


Last patch (PI)

-Liang

ovenproofjet
Caldari
Therapy.
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:47:00 - [1526]
 

What is broken is that I'm just gonna go back and say hi to my old Lvl4 agent and I'll be making just as much money in high sec. Some risk vrs reward there eh?

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:48:00 - [1527]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 23:43:15
Originally by: Super Whopper
Originally by: White Tree
Should these changes go through, it will likely not stop larger Alliances from holding regions from which profit can be extracted via the moons. Especially if the profit is large enough to warrant keeping the space, which in the case of certain R64 types: it is.

We'll have to see how this works out.


When was the last time CCP iterated on anything in the game, or kept their word? If CCP continued 'development' it'd be the first time.

You are delusional if you think CCP are actually going to monitor anything, and then make changes.


Last patch (PI)

-Liang


Laughing

-Engine trails
-Cyno efects
-FW

-pesadel0

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:49:00 - [1528]
 

Originally by: Pesadel0

Laughing

-Engine trails
-Cyno efects
-FW

-pesadel0


http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features

Looks like a whole lot of iteration to me. Rolling Eyes

felchergod
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:54:00 - [1529]
 

Originally by: ovenproofjet
What is broken is that I'm just gonna go back and say hi to my old Lvl4 agent and I'll be making just as much money in high sec. Some risk vrs reward there eh?


Scared to mission in Venal? I promise I will let you dock at least.

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:57:00 - [1530]
 

Originally by: ovenproofjet
What is broken is that I'm just gonna go back and say hi to my old Lvl4 agent and I'll be making just as much money in high sec. Some risk vrs reward there eh?


Nope, missions are also getting the bat. Forget about your fancy BPC's.


Pages: first : previous : ... 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 ... : 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