open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: 0.0 Tweaks
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 ... : last (75)

Author Topic

FellRaven
Minmatar
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:55:00 - [481]
 

The biggest issue with PvP in 0.0 are bots that warp to safes and cloak when a hostile enters local, roam in RMT space and you'll see what I mean.

Get your priorities sorted

CheckingAmarr
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:55:00 - [482]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: xttz
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 10/05/2011 20:16:58
Originally by: Ship Type
In eve, you apparently cannot avoid PVP if you want to play with friends.

The only way to avoid PVP is to stay in the NPC corps to avoid war decs, obviously avoid low sec, and now you must avoid null sec. Previously, people who were not into PVP could go to 0.0 and avoid it all for the most part.

This is also why almost every person I've asked to come play this game has said they didn't like it.


It should be difficult to avoid PVP in nullsec. Right now that's relatively easy due to jumpbridges being so convenient and easy to use. The downside is that nullsec, an area that should be our pvp flagship, is relatively boring and lifeless when it comes to pvp, apart from territorial conquests. Hopefully this will shake it up a bit and create more opportunity for pvp.


Read my post then re-examine your flawed reasoning



Regarding your post:

0.0 wasn't designed for consensual pvp. You are not entitled to a fair fight where everyone lines up 10 ships of equal type to fight like gentlemen. You'll get both ganks, fair fight and massive cap ship fights, but there is no guarantee you can always chose exactly which one. We're not an instanced game that offers battlegrounds and I don't see any reason we should be.

Mini-objectives are a pretty obvious point for us to look at this winter. As I mentioned, we'll be looking at that in the months to come, hopefully we can make a bigger announcement when the CSM have been here. But yes, you're right, we should have mini-objectives, and hopefully we will.

I also didn't say that fighting didn't occur on POSs, but my point is that it's a lot more difficult than just getting a few friends together for a roam. POSs aren't invincible, but having the skillpoints, money, expertise to do it properly far exceeds how accessible open world pvp should be.


Why did you totally ignore the part of his post that dealt with NPC-station nullsec? That's the yin to the yang in terms of nullsec combat. Ignoring it exacerbates poor gameplay.

Khamal Jolstien
Caldari
THORN Syndicate
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:56:00 - [483]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Zamiq
Cause some people subscribed to the game after EvE was out for 4 years. These people have done a serious investment into the game and its understandable that they might not like a potential change that will double the time required to move goods/ships. Now, if you dont like these people complaining then fine you can stick with "there was eve before this and this change" but then you must realize that the people who are not happy with the change will leave


And they'll be easily and swiftly replaced, by people who embrace the changes.


So they won't be replaced.

Natalia Kovac
Minmatar
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:56:00 - [484]
 

Originally by: Vuk Lau
This is ****ing ******ed but nothing else to be expected from 0.0 dev team who wants to limit force projection by raping industrialist and common John 0.0 Doe with this change.

And the worst thing is giving only a week for a change to implement, while there is hundreds of things in backlog community is crying for years, but its more important for you guys to heal the frustrations and enjoy in drama on forums this change will cause. You are that really that horny to **** people up.

Before usual trolls emerge, I need to point my alliance will be the least affected with this cause we have small territorial footprint and we live 10j from Jita and 3j from highsec. Also cynojammers are not any protection for long time, but I pitty all semiserious industrialist in 0.0 and people who are living bit more far from high/low sec. CCP just got your life 10 times harder cause they are ****ing clueless how 0.0 operates.




You seem mad.

CCP Soundwave


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:56:00 - [485]
 

Originally by: FellRaven
The biggest issue with PvP in 0.0 are bots that warp to safes and cloak when a hostile enters local, roam in RMT space and you'll see what I mean.

Get your priorities sorted


I'm not entirely sure why you'd assume we can't deal with both? As far as I'm aware, CCP Sreegs has been kicking ass and taking names on the botting front.

Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:57:00 - [486]
 

Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 10/05/2011 20:58:33
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
It should be difficult to avoid PVP in nullsec. Right now that's relatively easy due to..
dramiels, cynabals, machs, ****ed ECCM mechanics making ships unprobable and cloaks with or without afk .. not to mention invulnerable npc stations.

Where's the balance?

EI Digin
Caldari
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:57:00 - [487]
 

these changes fix nothing

ModeratedToSilence
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:57:00 - [488]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Originally by: CCP Soundwave

The CSM have gotten the first peek at a highlevel direction for 0.0, and they seemed pleased. Once they've been up here to talk practical details, we should be able to diverge more.


We have seen a high level outline that to a great extent outlines the major problems with 0.0 life, from what the goals should be that motivate you to live there, to the major problems that make most players say "Screw this". It's a very insightful outline and I think it would provide the top to bottom overhaul that people almost universally feel should happen. I'm critical as all get out on what 0.0 is, and has become, because it needs a complete enema not tweaking the edges. They get this and if the guiding principles we've seen hold true 0.0 will indeed own once implemented.

What that actually is going to be remains to be seen because details haven't been introduced on any level. Next week we begin discussing this and hopefully my tentative endorsement holds true then.


Wouldn't it make more sense for CCP to:
1. Discuss long term with the CSM
2. Get CSM feedback regarding the long term plan
3. Outline the long term plan to the player base
4. Break the long term plan down into patch sized steps
5. Implement the steps.

What is happening in this thread is reactionary rather than proactive and it is happening on other forums and forms of communication as well. No one will agree with every change that needs to happen. Everyone agrees that 0.0 needs to change. By essentially blindsiding the player base with a change that addresses 1 random issue CCP are creating anenvironemnt of dissent.

Korvin
Gallente
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:57:00 - [489]
 

Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: CCP Soundwave

I disagree, I don't know where this entitlement to a fair fight comes from. PVP is a wonderful part of EVE, in whatever shape or form it may be in. Don't forget that you need someone willing to bring a gang out to your space in order to get a proper fight too. So a byproduct of ganking might be the fights you talk about.


The type of players that will benefit from this are the gate campers.
And where are they? in lowsec - as thats where the easy prey is.
And easy prey is what they want - not "good fights"

Sure there might be a minuscule minority that *does* wan't "good fights" (and thus will move out to 0.0 gate camping instead) - But it's just that, a minuscule minority.
While a HUGE part of 0.0 dwellers are getting royally screwed with this one.

It just doesn't add up (to a good change imo.)


Yay for the gate campers!
Bait and kill them with your roaming fleet. Homesystem fun delivery.

No, really, there were a time when there were no JB at all, and 0.0 was full of ppl anyway.


Minorius
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:57:00 - [490]
 

Yay, please nerf JBs! Honestly, alone for the reason of the lovely NC tears, who won't have much sov in the future anyway. I like it! Very Happy

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:58:00 - [491]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: FellRaven
The biggest issue with PvP in 0.0 are bots that warp to safes and cloak when a hostile enters local, roam in RMT space and you'll see what I mean.

Get your priorities sorted


I'm not entirely sure why you'd assume we can't deal with both? As far as I'm aware, CCP Sreegs has been kicking ass and taking names on the botting front.


because you are pretty much useless in most departments of your game, be it stopping bots or killing bugs

Madcapnl
The Rising Stars
The Volition Cult
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:58:00 - [492]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Zamiq

Again, you have not told us why this change will increase the chances of this non-consensual pvp that you keep talking about. I mean the people with an intel channel and a JB will stay as people with an intel channel and a JB and it does not take a genius to figure out that if a roaming gang has been spotted 3 jumps away from a JB location then its not safe to go there.


It increases traffic in areas that are more accessible to players outside your alliance. It's a given that a POS with guns, shields and a jumpbridge to another friendly POS is inherently safer than a stargate. While it's certainly possible to kill people at POSs, it's a bit more complex than just roaming around, killing people in open space.


Yes, it increases the chance of ganking a lonesome traveller by gatecamping. And CCP seems to think that qualifies as fun PVP or PVP at all for that matter. But guess what, it isn't. Whats the fun in shooting one ship with 10 dudes? No challenge, no teambuilding, no tactics, nothing. Its like the current fleet fight, they are boring but they serve a purpose (defending space/assets whatever). This is just more boring stuff with no purpose at all.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:59:00 - [493]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: FellRaven
The biggest issue with PvP in 0.0 are bots that warp to safes and cloak when a hostile enters local, roam in RMT space and you'll see what I mean.

Get your priorities sorted


I'm not entirely sure why you'd assume we can't deal with both? As far as I'm aware, CCP Sreegs has been kicking ass and taking names on the botting front.


yes your campaign that has only hit roidripper bots in highsec and market bots in stations with any real consistency is doing wonders on that front

Ayari
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:59:00 - [494]
 

Edited by: Ayari on 10/05/2011 20:59:30
Originally by: Ladie Scarlet
The best part about this thread is all the ~elite~ pvp alliances crowing about how excited they are for an increase in gate camps. I guess if you're not able to actually have a nullsec empire then gatecamping is the next best thing? Congrats I guess...


Maybe they want to have an EVE where players who are skilled at actual PVP are rewarded more than players that hide in massive blobs where pvp ability doesn't matter.


Philip Jones
Gallente
Thundercats
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:59:00 - [495]
 

I dont really care about your nerf mr soundwave, moving freighters by gate is just as easy now as it was back before jb. But what exactly is the point of holding sov space besides building broken supers?

Sverre Haakonson
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:59:00 - [496]
 

Quote:
Is 0.0 industry currently geared to support the population living there?


As in real life both sectors are depending on each other. You don't know your own sandbox.

The change isn't awful but this statement is frightened me.

CCP Soundwave


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:59:00 - [497]
 

Originally by: ModeratedToSilence
Originally by: Vile rat
Originally by: CCP Soundwave

The CSM have gotten the first peek at a highlevel direction for 0.0, and they seemed pleased. Once they've been up here to talk practical details, we should be able to diverge more.


We have seen a high level outline that to a great extent outlines the major problems with 0.0 life, from what the goals should be that motivate you to live there, to the major problems that make most players say "Screw this". It's a very insightful outline and I think it would provide the top to bottom overhaul that people almost universally feel should happen. I'm critical as all get out on what 0.0 is, and has become, because it needs a complete enema not tweaking the edges. They get this and if the guiding principles we've seen hold true 0.0 will indeed own once implemented.

What that actually is going to be remains to be seen because details haven't been introduced on any level. Next week we begin discussing this and hopefully my tentative endorsement holds true then.


Wouldn't it make more sense for CCP to:
1. Discuss long term with the CSM
2. Get CSM feedback regarding the long term plan
3. Outline the long term plan to the player base
4. Break the long term plan down into patch sized steps
5. Implement the steps.

What is happening in this thread is reactionary rather than proactive and it is happening on other forums and forms of communication as well. No one will agree with every change that needs to happen. Everyone agrees that 0.0 needs to change. By essentially blindsiding the player base with a change that addresses 1 random issue CCP are creating anenvironemnt of dissent.


I think we're doing this in terms of longer scale development, at least to some extent. We're developing the plan, which we'll share with the CSM this month, and hopefully we'll be able to show the players shortly after that.

This is an isolated change that has been slated to happen for a while.

Gourdo
Amarr
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:59:00 - [498]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

The CSM have gotten the first peek at a highlevel direction for 0.0, and they seemed pleased. Once they've been up here to talk practical details, we should be able to divulge more.


Of course they like the idea. It is their alliances/friends that will benefit from the changes the most. These changes as they stand without other balances first will make null only for large alliances. Small alliances will not be able to acquire or hold null sov for the most part.

If a alliance wants to bring in logistics then they will have to use non cap haulers since ships like Jump freighters will not be able to use jump gates to get into a system that is cyno-jammed to get to a station. From my time in null it seams any system that has a outpost in it is cyno-jammed. So to jump in ships or even open a titan bridge you will have to put the cyno jammer offline.

If a Alliance spends the resources and time to to take sov in null they should be able to make it somewhat safe for their industries or friends to operate. If you go down this current road you might as well just take the ice, rocks, and anomalies out remove all jump bridges cyno jamming and titan bridging. Oh hell just take out all caps and finish making null into WOW pvp server style arena.

Personally I feel as these changes stand you will be hurting null more than helping it. Getting into and out of null was a pain in the arse as it is, including moving around in null.

State Citizen
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:00:00 - [499]
 

Has CCP ever considered why players might want to be in 0.0?

They seem determined to remove any benefit for the individual to be in 0.0.

Logically in terms of game progression most of us may be better off in 1.0 Crying or Very sad

rofflesausage
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:00:00 - [500]
 

Originally by: Weaselior
Edited by: Weaselior on 10/05/2011 20:56:14
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Zamiq

Again, you have not told us why this change will increase the chances of this non-consensual pvp that you keep talking about. I mean the people with an intel channel and a JB will stay as people with an intel channel and a JB and it does not take a genius to figure out that if a roaming gang has been spotted 3 jumps away from a JB location then its not safe to go there.


It increases traffic in areas that are more accessible to players outside your alliance. It's a given that a POS with guns, shields and a jumpbridge to another friendly POS is inherently safer than a stargate. While it's certainly possible to kill people at POSs, it's a bit more complex than just roaming around, killing people in open space.


you know what would have fixed this without making things a pain in the ass for everyone, right?

beacons for jb's and fitting requirements that make guns impossible

presto, pvp is saved but without mindless tedium

edit: watch as I fix ganking without making me waste my time with gates:

a jump bridge requires 5m power

a jump bridge has the same global beacon as a TCU

boom, problem solved


This. A million times over.

I have no problem with JBs having some risk, and this seems like a fair balance.

Arthello
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:00:00 - [501]
 

OMG this is such excellent news. Thanks for buffing PvP CCP! CCP's war on blobbing is rolling!

Zamiq
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:00:00 - [502]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Zamiq

Again, you have not told us why this change will increase the chances of this non-consensual pvp that you keep talking about. I mean the people with an intel channel and a JB will stay as people with an intel channel and a JB and it does not take a genius to figure out that if a roaming gang has been spotted 3 jumps away from a JB location then its not safe to go there.


It increases traffic in areas that are more accessible to players outside your alliance. It's a given that a POS with guns, shields and a jumpbridge to another friendly POS is inherently safer than a stargate. While it's certainly possible to kill people at POSs, it's a bit more complex than just roaming around, killing people in open space.



Then why not make the Jump Bridge independent of the POS? Remove the guns, put it in orbit of the planet and make it visible on overview. Bam, you have far more risk but far less tedium. Problem?

JarJar Binkz
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:00:00 - [503]
 

There was life before jump bridges, jump freighters and titan portals and it was a profitable one.

There will be a life while there are still jump bridges around, jump freighters and titan portals.


ffs, goons stop whining

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:01:00 - [504]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

I think we're doing this in terms of longer scale development, at least to some extent. We're developing the plan, which we'll share with the CSM this month, and hopefully we'll be able to show the players shortly after that.

This is an isolated change that has been slated to happen for a while.


seriously why wasn't "removing guns from JB pos" considered since it's stupid easy to do, does a better job than your proposal, and doesn't increase tedium

FellRaven
Minmatar
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:01:00 - [505]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: FellRaven
The biggest issue with PvP in 0.0 are bots that warp to safes and cloak when a hostile enters local, roam in RMT space and you'll see what I mean.

Get your priorities sorted


I'm not entirely sure why you'd assume we can't deal with both? As far as I'm aware, CCP Sreegs has been kicking ass and taking names on the botting front.


Oh please not that old chestnut.

Mara Kashuken
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:01:00 - [506]
 

Originally by: Major Stallion
Originally by: Mara Kashuken
Or wait, is camping gates and ganking single ships your idea of "small gang PvP?" I guess you're right then. And I guess I need to buy some more SeBos for my hurricane Rolling Eyes


...not even going to entertain the rage post of an NC alt too embarrassed to post with his main. If youre unsure of how this affects small gang and gate-to-gate pvp, there's a chance you're also an NC pilot.


Not an NC alt, but nice try. I could be a jerk and call you out on your questionable experience in Sov 0.0 space... but I won't - I'm all for small gang PvP too. It sure beats the hell out of lagfest fleet fights. Or having supers dropped on you left and right. Changes like these, who knows, maybe they'll make things better in 0.0 and maybe they won't. The anom change hasn't done a damn thing to fix any of the stated problems of 0.0 - blobbing and supercap proliferation, so why should I believe that smacking jump bridges with the nerf bat will help small gang PvP in any way? Please, dear sir, enlighten me.

Madcapnl
The Rising Stars
The Volition Cult
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:01:00 - [507]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: FellRaven
The biggest issue with PvP in 0.0 are bots that warp to safes and cloak when a hostile enters local, roam in RMT space and you'll see what I mean.

Get your priorities sorted


I'm not entirely sure why you'd assume we can't deal with both? As far as I'm aware, CCP Sreegs has been kicking ass and taking names on the botting front.


I loled. You guys really don't have a clue, do you?

Purrp Ledone
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:01:00 - [508]
 

Originally by: Weaselior
Edited by: Weaselior on 10/05/2011 20:56:14
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Zamiq

Again, you have not told us why this change will increase the chances of this non-consensual pvp that you keep talking about. I mean the people with an intel channel and a JB will stay as people with an intel channel and a JB and it does not take a genius to figure out that if a roaming gang has been spotted 3 jumps away from a JB location then its not safe to go there.


It increases traffic in areas that are more accessible to players outside your alliance. It's a given that a POS with guns, shields and a jumpbridge to another friendly POS is inherently safer than a stargate. While it's certainly possible to kill people at POSs, it's a bit more complex than just roaming around, killing people in open space.


you know what would have fixed this without making things a pain in the ass for everyone, right?

beacons for jb's and fitting requirements that make guns impossible

presto, pvp is saved but without mindless tedium

edit: watch as I fix ganking without making me waste my time with gates:

a jump bridge requires 5m power

a jump bridge has the same global beacon as a TCU

boom, problem solved


Makes sense to me.

Flesh Slurper
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:01:00 - [509]
 

This change is utter and complete BS.

Thanks for making the job of fueling POS 10X worse. Not to mention making supercaps *more* powerful because its going to be a pain in the ass to deal with constantly cycling a cyno jammer and keeping logistics working at the same time since guess what? Jump freighters have jump drives. And since you cant trust just anyone to deal with the cyno jammer, now you get to open yourself more to spies, or leadership gets to have more work saddled on them.

First you turn the average Joe's income into utter crap and send them to missioning in highsec and now this... well I thank you CCP, at least I won't have to waste my life playing EVE anymore. Once I quit I will have more time to spend with my GF and making IRL isk.

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:02:00 - [510]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: ModeratedToSilence
Originally by: Vile rat
Originally by: CCP Soundwave

The CSM have gotten the first peek at a highlevel direction for 0.0, and they seemed pleased. Once they've been up here to talk practical details, we should be able to diverge more.


We have seen a high level outline that to a great extent outlines the major problems with 0.0 life, from what the goals should be that motivate you to live there, to the major problems that make most players say "Screw this". It's a very insightful outline and I think it would provide the top to bottom overhaul that people almost universally feel should happen. I'm critical as all get out on what 0.0 is, and has become, because it needs a complete enema not tweaking the edges. They get this and if the guiding principles we've seen hold true 0.0 will indeed own once implemented.

What that actually is going to be remains to be seen because details haven't been introduced on any level. Next week we begin discussing this and hopefully my tentative endorsement holds true then.


Wouldn't it make more sense for CCP to:
1. Discuss long term with the CSM
2. Get CSM feedback regarding the long term plan
3. Outline the long term plan to the player base
4. Break the long term plan down into patch sized steps
5. Implement the steps.

What is happening in this thread is reactionary rather than proactive and it is happening on other forums and forms of communication as well. No one will agree with every change that needs to happen. Everyone agrees that 0.0 needs to change. By essentially blindsiding the player base with a change that addresses 1 random issue CCP are creating anenvironemnt of dissent.


I think we're doing this in terms of longer scale development, at least to some extent. We're developing the plan, which we'll share with the CSM this month, and hopefully we'll be able to show the players shortly after that.

This is an isolated change that has been slated to happen for a while.


wouldnt it be better to have the whole plan ready before you start doing anything?


Pages: first : previous : ... 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 ... : last (75)

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