open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New dev blog: Nullsec Development: Rules and Guidelines
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Bethor Invictus
New Eden Recon Force
Posted - 2011.08.04 08:08:00 - [271]

Am i the only one thinking that reading through the anomaly change forum topic would a a good idea to get ideas?

Next to the general rage there, there were quiet a lot of good ideas there how to make 0.0 "better"

this topic

Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.08.04 08:18:00 - [272]

Dynamic True sec status could help make 0.0 a bit more interesting. You could also chanage goo/roid spawn locations from sec level to something like star type.

Make it a little more, dare I say it, realistic...

Spugg Galdon
Posted - 2011.08.04 08:29:00 - [273]

  • Doing something just "because it would be cool/neat/awesome" is always a bad idea and will come back to bite you later
    See: Jump bridges, cyno jammers, Sov 4, AoE doomsdays, titans in general, supercarrier boost... Note that we should still obviously strive to make everything cool/neat/awesome, but when we start off with an awesome idea rather than an actual problem we want to fix or a feature that has a clear, functional and necessary goal, it generally requires painful fixes further down the road

I think this was probably the most important line in this blog and gives me hope for the future of EvE. Team BFF seem to have had a revelation in respect to this point and every other dev team at CCP needs to take note of this and make it their "Mission Statement" or something.

I also like how you're looking into making everything that makes money destroyable. This is so important as infrastructure of an Empire is usually the only way to attack and weaken it in order to bring it to its knees. Simply blobbing the **** out of it to have enough DPS to reinforce towers is a very dull tactic.

Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.04 09:07:00 - [274]

I like the devblog.

What still lacks though is something similar for low sec and high sec. It's hard to get the whole picture of null sec while leaving out the areas of space null sec is interacting with in one way or another. So while you're thinking in general terms also please think properly and hard about what you want low sec and high sec to be like. ;)

Peter Tjordenskiold
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2011.08.04 09:17:00 - [275]

I went to 0.0 because it was easier to make ISK for PVP. If it's easier, than have more time for PVP. That's all. If CCP is going to raise the time to gather ISK for PVP, the number of active account will be going down, because it isn't funny to grind sanctum all the day. Of couse many buying ISK to make PVP, but from my point of view it is destroying many strategical aspects, like acting together to earn ISK and organizing logistics.

Jita is the answer to the missing part of a central organized marked, like in our mordern world. Player have brains and use them and the answer to this ridicolous bad marked system was Jita. It's not only about a system of markedprices, it's about the underdeveloped ablility to deliver wares to all regions of new eden. The high risk driving prices into the sky and noone is able to accept that.

Big ships like SC and Titans aren't that bad. I like them. But I miss a small weapon like a special bomber frig to get rid of them, so that an enemy must field support to protect them.

Posted - 2011.08.04 09:21:00 - [276]

Another rule to propose:

Nothing should break the laws of physics nor the laws of logic:
- it does not make sense a monocle costs more than a carrier class vessel (this is not a monocle-hate statement, it just does not make sense. I could have said: it does not make sense a pair of high heels costs more than a battleship)
- do not remove ice belts from empire, since it would not make sense that for some unexplainable reason, there are none in empire. Rather reserve them for the empires and make ice mining in empire an offense against the empires and punishable by concord with a fine or by getting shot at.

Lessons Learned:
- Never introduce a feature that generates wealth without generating features that remove equivalent amounts of wealth through destruction, fees or whatever

Posted - 2011.08.04 10:27:00 - [277]

One reason why supercaps are so unbalanced is that a small but wealthy cadre of people can fly a lot of them.

A better mechanic would be to have a titan say, require 10 capital skill enabled people to pilot it. One for weapons, one for movement, One to do session changes, one for scanning etc etc. Maybe a super carrier takes 5.

Sure its unbeliveably difficult to program, but what isnt these days (seems people were better able to tackle harder challenges in the past). The main problem would be DC's but you can get around that by just having that functionalty go offline while the pilot is offline. Your weapons officer DCeed? sucks to be you.

Anyway this would get around the issue of cost not impacting scarcity enough. Also you could increase the awesome, by having them in an incarna environment on a ships command room of some kind, if you were feeling really funky the various tasks of flying the monstrosity could be finer grained than module on/off, click in space etc.

Posted - 2011.08.04 10:35:00 - [278]

Originally by: Ugleb
Edited by: Ugleb on 03/08/2011 16:27:18
I want to talk about this bit, as I think its central to what I feel is a growing dissatisfaction among many long time players I fly with.

Support multiple sizes and styles of organizations across multiple timezones

Nullsec features and content should actively support a landscape where organizations of all different sizes and structures/styles maintain a healthy presence

The key point is the perceived slow death of solo and arguably small-gang PVP in EVE. It is harder than ever to be the little, or even mid-sized, guy in EVE. As player numbers have gone up and null sec become more accessible, the fleet battles and general blobbage has become larger and more pronounced.

It is harder than ever to take a 5-15 man gang out for a roam and come back with any decent kills for the X hours you spent looking, without having 30+ drakes and 10 logi dropped on your head. You brought cruisers and frigs.

At the other end of the scale, when an sstation comes out of its final reinforced cycle and the fate of a weeks sov fight hangs in the balance 1,000+ pilots from dozens of alliances across half a dozen regions pile in to 'fight' one brawling slideshow of a lag fest.

In both circumstances, the outcome is typically an anti-climax determined by raw numbers summoned across often huge distances. CCP has promised more goals for smaller sized fleets a number of times over the years but never really followed through. I think the point on shooting up hitpoint based structure objectives is bang on, objectives need to be less 'monolithic' and more numerous. EVE needs a system where players are rewarded for working in smaller groups that operate in a coordinated fashion.

I have also come to the conclusion lately that it is now too easy to move large numbers of pilots great distances through null sec. While living in a region far from empire can feel awkward (not so much in a challenging way, just annoying in some respects) and then you are thankful for jump bridges, It is frustrating to be fighting your neighbour for their space only to see hundreds of pilots arriving from 3 regions away to bail them out at the last minute. Repeatedly. That detracts from another of these proposed Null Sec Design Rules;

Nullsec should feel big and uneven

Nullsec features should support and enhance the perception that Nullsec is a big place

Final word for now would be that this week I saw two alliances leave the coalition that my alliance is now a part of. The reason for leaving was that they were fed up of the leading alliance's strategy of packing key fights with huge numbers of people rendering the battle virtually unplayable and a non-event.

EVE needs to get away from that and back to fights that happen on a playable scale resulting in tense, fun battles where tactics matter more than the size of your blob pounding through the HP of a few key structures.

EDIT - Oh and another thought. I think many players would like to see a similar blog done for a very conceptual remake of low-sec and factional warfare. Comparing the expectations that CCP and the players have for each could be very enlightening

fully supported. Especially the EDIT part

Ilijk Mijself
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.08.04 10:35:00 - [279]

Ok here are my thoughts. Right now there is very little content for groups in 0.0 even in upgraded systems.

I would like to see anomalies dynamically changing depending on how many ships show up in them. Something like this: If you do it alone: everything stays as it is. If you do it with x people you get y more waves of rats and every wave contains z more rats to shoot at. Additionally the chance for an escalation and faction spawn is x-times higher. There should be a "cap" on this stuff. And maybe add sites that are designed for groups from the start but with rewards scaling with number of players(also only up to a certain point).

I would also like to see rewards other than just ISK from the rats and some salvage(if you even bother to do that). Why not make anomalies like missions you start by entering them (for yourself our your squad determining the spawns as mentioned above). You could be awarded LP from an Empire (this would work like Concord LP, but then there is an Amarr LP shop with some unique offers and you can exchange Amarr LP for LP for any of the Amarr Corps). At least one Station or outpost or E(mpire)OS of said empire should be within the region(as a kind of foothold, no services) so you don't have to go to empire to exchange LP for items.

Anyway there are lots of ideas how to make PvE content more exciting and rewarding but you should keep some soloable content that is similarly payed as L4 Missions.

Now some basic thought about SOV and PvP(some of it stolen from ideas for other games):

Sov should be largely tied to your activity in a system. This could be done by randomly spawning objectives that grants you a "sov-level"(there needs to be more than 5) on successful completion. They despawn after some time so you need to hurry up a bit. There is no ahead warning and while times to complete them should be low (20-30min with a small gang) there should also only be a small timeframe for completion. With every level you gain there are more benefits for you, with every level you loose you also loose the benefits. Now to address the concern that it would take extremely long for invaders to clear out all the accumulated sov: A snowball-effect. If you complete the objectives in a row you get bonus-levels of sov. There might even be items that spawn an additional random objective every x hours that could be anchored somewhere. So you can gain and loose sov fast if you/the enemy is dedicated. If you and the invader take about 50% of all objectives you will remain in control. If you complete 40% (fighting back, but slowly loosing ground) it will take very long for the invader. If you do not complete any objectives within lets say two days you also drop down one level for inactivity. This would be a natural limit in sov for larger alliances since its not tied to your area of political/military influence but rather your actual area of activity.

The mentioned objectives could be anything ranging from mining some specially spawned ore over scanning/hacking/salvaging objectives to fighting off NPC-Intrusions or even get a certain number of PvP kills within the timeframe. They would be totally random and not always doable(like the PvP kills) and they should be rewarding by themselves as well. Some of this objectives could have special triggers(for example the PvP objective popping up when an enemy gang enters).

Thats it for now...hope some ideas can be salvaged to create something good!

Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.08.04 10:48:00 - [280]

Hi, I guess I'm a bitter vet. Best get that out of the way.

While I think it's cool that you guys have gotten around to thinking about doing something I have a couple of questions and thoughts.

The first thing that jumped out at me when reading this blog was the 5 years thing. I think 5 years is a wildly optimistic guesstimate. Team BFF is four or five dudes if I remember correctly. One of which, CCP Tallest, is doing ship balancing. So that leaves how many to work on nullsec? The sweeping and philosophical points in your blog might be cleverly realized into simple fixes that yield substantial return, low-hanging fruit as it were. But looking at it from my limited perspective I'd venture you're going to have to make at least some changes that will require more workhours than Team BFF can realistically provide within a reasonable timeframe. Will you be able to call upon the twenty employees mentioned in this blog, or how is this going to work if you come up against something that needs serious manpower to overcome?

(The game needs a dedicated team for ship balancing, by the by, I'm not complaining about that. It needs more resources or more internal support though, there's no reason it should take months to do "iterative changes" to logistic warp speed values.)

CCP have proven itself to be notoriously unreliable about sticking to promised feature and feature iteration delivery. You already abandoned the Treaties and stuff that was supposedly the other half of Dominion. What was the problem with Treaties and why did it get left behind?

Jekyl Eraser
Posted - 2011.08.04 10:52:00 - [281]

Sov should only indicate influence or power, not determine when, what, how or how much you can do.

Then you could build a castle next to your enemy home base <-- I think that is essential if you remove bridges and limit jumping.

Sov is currently a set of arbitrary rules set to lawless space.

Stain Empire
Posted - 2011.08.04 11:01:00 - [282]

I lived 90% of EVE play time in 0.0 and participated in creation of few alliances, many sov wars, dozens of lagfests. Here are some of my thoughts.

First of all, every waanabe 0.0 group, should have a chance to start from small projects. Because this is like live in 0.0 any activity always starts for new plp
Currently I see 2 paths possible:
1. Join bigger group already rooted in 0.0 with own stations. This is bad, because it manpowers powerblocks with moves us towards blobs and swarming supercapitals.It kills small warfare and often change game play from "can" to "must", like in case when alliances purse bigger numbers and order all to join fleet and them send them all to one system where plp are stuck in lag.
2. Go to NPC 0.0 and there try luck. Personally my biggest fun was in that times, when there was a lot of small/medium fights and really with NPC i get more "can" then "must".
Most of them goes path #1.
And there is 3 path - wormholes where small activity is present. Look how different things are there.

IMHO if you want to see grow in 0.0 population, with bigger spread you MUST give small groups a chance to grown in deep non NPC 0.0 without entering into huge alliances and in consequence power blocks.

Why now you can't live in small group in deep 0.0 ? Because of stations and POS mechanic.
Too hold station in 0.0 now you need blob + supercaps + a lot of friends with blobs and supercaps.
To live in pos you need in fact exactly same as above + pos is pain in the ass if it came to fit ships, keep stuff there.
Also POS is imminently visible to all in system.
Systems in EVE IMHO are "small" now, there is lack of depth. In another words, when you enter system, you can know in 5 min everything about player structures there. There is no uncertainty, everything in static matter is clear. Look at wormholes, only lack of local make it totally different animal. WH system seems bigger some way.And I'm talking here only about perception not referring to ISK making activities.

IMHO if you want change in 0.0 here you must start. 0.0 is all about players and without improving mechanics for small groups no matter what you will do, in isk earning matter or supercapital adjustments, or logistic/production change it will fail because of plp will be forced in deep 0.0 to live in stations controlled by power blocks and pushed toward blob/supercapital warfare. Give pilots opportunity to move to deep 0.0 without involvement in blobwarfare and they will do it.There is no fun in grinding structures, or to be stuck in lag.

To be successful realization on that idea must be:
- scalable - if small entity grows into bigger one, at least some parts of it must be able to grow with them
- cost - must be big enough to move toward cooperation but small enough to provide start for small new groups
- risk - there should be risk in it, but because we are speaking about structures with will keep assets there must be chance to retrieve it
- must provide mechanism to push players out of territory without boring girnd and hours of CTA in supercaps

My example proposition of solution:
- Bases on moon/planets constructed in a way that you drop some machine and then it drill. Longer it drill, more space you have and more hangar,production,research lines you can have. Base then consume of course more fuel. Make some nice opportunities to plan it and late walk in it(incarna)
- Base can be found by probe with time depend on it size, let's say ex. time 7 days. During search massage to structure owner is send that attack is incoming
- If owner want to defend, can use pos above base
- After base is destroyed some kind of "vault" mechanism must be activated. It must allow to take owner assets for some time, if not attacker should have opportunity to grab stuff YARRRR!!
- Allow for structure(maybe hanging in open space) with bigger stealth(ex to discover this you need POS scanner)and no update possibilities for guerrilla warfare

Part 1

Stain Empire
Posted - 2011.08.04 11:03:00 - [283]


Totally change pos - make them able to grow and introduce guns against supercapitals.
If some entity will want to have a fortress big enough to hold 300 + supercapital swarm - that's ok.
It must them cost as hell, and consume sea of fuel every day but why not ?

What NPC 0.0 shows, that when players know that you can't take station, every activity focus on resources. Because siting in station (or in such super fortress) is nowhere near living on territory.
In such situation it is all about morale, and fight concentrates on every plex,anomaly,rat and piece of veldospelar around. And this is perfect, because you don't have one possible escalation trigger like in pos or sov structures but every small rat in systems around is possibility to start fight.

With such possibilities, there will be different strategies, for different kind of entity's, big alliances with a lot of resources can try their fortress approach, while smaller groups can try guerrilla warfare with spread, hard to find covert structures. And both can meet in same territory to fight over same resources.

What is most important here, that with such solution, pilots can start from small independent group, and if they grow bigger, solution can grow with them. Also if you loose, it is not end of new eden, but you can easily start somewhere else.

Best regards

Alissa Solette
Posted - 2011.08.04 11:28:00 - [284]

Edited by: Alissa Solette on 04/08/2011 11:27:58
Best blog I've read in a good while.

Now let's just hope that it's less of a disaster then the last few expansions (half-finished, not thought through and generally unspectacular).

I had high hopes before Dominion as well but the closer we got to release the worse it got. I pretty much expect the same thing here.

First it was walking on stations, then walking in quarters and then walking in quarters without any player interaction and with dismal client performance (and NeX).

So even while I find this dev blog fairly positive I'm not gonna get my hopes up due to your past tendencies to produce a lot of hot air and marketing talk but ultimately not delivering on your promises.

coldhart Siner
Posted - 2011.08.04 11:34:00 - [285]

Why not add a "Risk" like future. If you control said region you get a perks for it. This would drive PvP because I could take one system away and you lose your perk. You could make Ihub Upgrades that only work if you control the region or a region ihub. It would also be cool to have small thing to go after to start fights. scale HP with current corp members in space maybe even with there skill points. I would just like to see more fighting and less shooting at something that don't shoot back. Maybe less hp on pos's/sbu/Ihubs and smart Npcs ships that come to defend scale down the costs of Pos's and make the NPC's costs the same as the real ship would.

Posted - 2011.08.04 11:55:00 - [286]

CCP, for the first time in a while I'm optimistic about the future of Eve.

It seems to me that you're learning and moving away from your indie roots and tendencies to throw "awesome" at stuff to fix it. The fact that you're making a strategic vision and asking for feedback and ideas before you commit developer resources is a huge step in the Right Direction(TM). Great devblog is great.

Thank you.

Ideas and more concrete feedback will follow in later post.

Marubozu Doji
Posted - 2011.08.04 12:07:00 - [287]

that was an excellent devblog,

be fearless and roll out these changes sooner rather than later, CCP i hope you know by now that eve players are quite resilient, fact that we survived incarna means we can put up with pretty much anything, do what you got to do and do it quickly not in another 5 years

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 12:13:00 - [288]

Originally by: E man Industries
An additional point should be made for playtime duration not just timezone.

If a player can only play 2h a night he should be able to make a meaningfull contribution in 0.0.
If a player playes 20h a day he should have intresting game play as well.

Currently to many fights or other 0.0 mechanics take a really long time and are far away making it hard for casual players to participate.

This is a very good point that I am looking at integrating into the master doc.

Originally by: E man Industries
More group PvE activity in 0.0 with a low barrier of entrance would be really nice.

Something sustainable that a player could log on and know it would be available(rather than 10/10 plex's that are not common).

Something to encourage players to work together and let newer players participate in PvE(PvP fly a tackle and go grab a point)

Agree with this.

Originally by: Aerissa Nolen
Edited by: Aerissa Nolen on 03/08/2011 17:18:54
The two big issues I think CCP needs to change with nullsec are:

1) Sov mechanics encourage everyone to blow up everything, because there is no strategic benefit to leaving some structures unharmed. This is not how real war works.
2) Income generation for alliances tends to make them want to EXCLUDE neutrals from visiting their nullsec space, because they are simply seen as competition for limited resources (mining, rats, etc). This is not how real trade works.

Yeah, agree with this as well. These days I'm leaning towards preferring that Ihubs are captured rather than destroyed (it was my decision to make them blow up in the first place, I've just changed my mind as I've thought about it more), for example.

Originally by: Jita mcheck
A small fleet should be able to move faster than a large fleet.
Also fleets should be able to catch other fleets easier.

Yup. First line's almost a direct quote from the next blog Smile

Originally by: gfldex
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
(I'm assuming the titan bridges thing is because of freighters?)

Freighters and hot drops. Freighters alone is manageable because you can web it to get it off the gate. But since you will warp for quite some time in a freighter, it's incredible easy to hotdrop it.

Cool, thanks for the feedback Smile

Originally by: Rainus Max

Anywho, you need to remember that 0.0 isn't 100% about teamwork, there are people out there that want to run the odd plex or mine a belt solo. Whilst I like the idea of introducing incursion like plexes for 'small gang' ratting I also want the opportunity to run one on my own and keep all the goodies for myself. Perhaps bring back the old keycard system used for the old DED sites and only permit one ship to enter - but allow the gate to be hacked with a codebreaker.

Very much agree with this, we always need solo content available in nullsec. (This is mentioned in the next blog IIRC.)

And yes, starbases need work. Also, we're resurrecting fuel pellets again, because yesterday someone came up with a face-punchingly simple solution to the big implementational problem that was holding us back. Seriously, I wanted to hit myself, it was so obvious.

Originally by: Walextheone
How do you define 0.0, are you excluding wormhole space or just not focusing on it?

Excluding. It's a separate area that needs its own thought process (and which should thankfully be a somewhat simpler one).

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 12:13:00 - [289]

Originally by: J'Rela
On the dev blog though, especially "lessons learned," more things to ponder:

There is a difference between boring and tedious. Mining is boring. Jumping is boring. PvE is mostly boring (and when it's not you're doing it wrong.) The bulk of PvP combat is boring as hell (PvP has two modes, looking for targets and engaging targets. The first mode is incredibly boring and consumes most of the time.) EVE is not a fun game. It hasn't been since well before release and it probably shouldn't ever be.

Boredom is a counter for immaturity. If you want nothing in your life but excitement, it won't be very interesting or, indeed, very long. EVE isn't really a game. It's an MMO, so it's my life in space-ships. It shouldn't all be fun and games.

Tedium is any task that requires attention but not thought. Moving cargo into a can while mining is this. The vast majority of time spent deploying a POS is this. PI is this. Dear gods, is PI ever this. Moving from Point A to Point B, even in nullsec, is usually this.

So the lesson here is that boredom is okay, and even desirable in some cases (see: Sov mechanics, POSs) but that tedium is not. In point of fact, efforts to make tasks less boring often make them more tedious. Please, in the future, avoid artificial difficulty and unnecessary tedium even at the expense of increased boredom. Your players will thank you.

This is a really good point. I like this post.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 12:18:00 - [290]

Originally by: Terrorina
I like a lot of the things you guys are talking about.. the one thing I don't like is the timeline. For a player who lives exclusively in nullsec and has been hit with the anom nerf and the jb nerf recently I certainly don't see myself playing in 5 years (or even 1 year) unless something is done to make living here worth while.

At this point I feel the risk of living in 0.0 far exceeds the reward (for the individual players especially).. and if it comes down to it I won't be moving to high-sec, I will be moving to another game.

We're going to start rolling things out this winter, it'll just take a long time before even a majority of the goals here are completely met. Some of them we'll never totally manage, some of them will take time, some of them will be pretty easy. The next blog should make it clearer why this is the case, because it'll go into particular goals for different areas of the game.

Also, we've been live for eight years already, planning for at least the next five is pretty pragmatic IMO.

Originally by: Cyaxares II
How are you going to deal with players being "too rational"?

There are so many fights in 0.0 that could happen but that don't happen - because players/leaders tend to be pretty risk-averse and try to avoid fights in which they don't have a clear advantage (number, fleet composition, reinforcements, ...).

It seems to be a direct consequence of a ship loss in EVE being a serious financial loss and - perhaps more importantly - of the prestige gained by having good kb stats. The only change I could think of to solve that issue is to increase the "fog of war" to make it less clear who has an advantage before the fight begins - but with the pervasiveness of spies that would probably be highly ineffective, too Neutral

Any thoughts?

(and blue-balling the opponent by initiating timers he has to be ready to fight over and then not showing up to any fight)

I don't know yet. This is a big problem that we've not got a really good solution to. We're beginning to look into ways that a smaller fleet can get a fair fight out of a bigger one, but it's very early days on that yet and it may turn out to be rubbish.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 12:18:00 - [291]

Originally by: Viceroy
The lesson here isn't that shooting stationary structures is boring, it's that shooting stationary structures is boring when you have too many safety nets and artificial breaks to slow it down to a crawl, in addition to extremely poor design which gives defenders a massive advantage (POS being easy, cheap and super-fast to set up in comparison to what it takes to destroy them, which was the pain pre-dominion that was exchanged for the exact same thing with different structures post-dominion).

Siege warfare is a necessary part of territorial conflict, but under the current system you simply have no way of adjusting the amount of risk you take to speed things up, and there is always capital ship insurance (lol) as a consolidation prize for the losers.

The best way to mitigate the boredom of shooting structures or investing time into sieges is to allow for siege battles to be fast, extremely costly and as a result, decisive. The reason that sieges and conquest are so boring right now is because there are so many ways that both an attacker and a defender can simply bail-out their strategic assets (aka capitals) when things get even remotely risky -which in itself is pretty hard due to ridiculous jump-drive mechanics-. Even in the cases where a side loses a dozen capital ships in some mishap (lag), they get hundreds of millions in insurance and frankly, not that much is lost. This is why campaigns can stretch on for weeks and months, and more importantly with very little variation in engagements, since no one is losing their prime attacking/defending assets or recuperating from losses too fast for it to mean anything.

This ultimately leads to the same outcome in each major conflict; the side that loses isn't the side that runs out of capital ships or ISK or modules or replacements or anything. The side that loses is the side whose pilots get too bored to log on to fight the same battle again every day. The fact is, players don't quit the game because they lose ships or their alliances lose wars or they lose their space nearly as much as they do because the wars and campaigns that should in theory lead to those previously mentioned outcomes are just too goddamn boring because they're padded left and right with risk-averting, loss-recuperating and as a direct result, conflict prolonging game mechanics that make you repeat the same battle or siege over and over again, which is what leads to shooting structures being boring.

If sides were allowed to adjust the risks they took with their strategic assets, and if some simply stupid baseline safety nets were removed (spooling time for impossible to stop jump-drives, no insurance any sort for capitals of any kind (Jesus why does this even exist?)), battles could result in massive losses and decisive victories/defeats, or at the very least some variation in strategy. Right now there's a very solid ceiling to the amount of risk you can take as an attacker or a defender, and it's very low. A simple example of a mechanic to change this, originally suggested by a close friend of my hypothetical island-alligator, was that siege modules be allowed scripts that increase DPS and siege time simultaneously. You'd be locked down longer but could work faster even with less ships (less lag). I'm sure there are other examples as well.

Shooting structures is only boring an a chore if the game mechanics require you to do it over and over again in order to allow the other side more room for mistakes and losses. The end result is that both sides are unsatisfied and territorial warfare sucks.

This is a good point. I'd still argue though that, even though you can make a situation where "shooting at structures" is less bad, that situation can still be improved further by replacing "shooting at structures" with something more interesting.

Doctor Invictus
Industry and Investments
Posted - 2011.08.04 12:25:00 - [292]

Love the CCP feedback in the thread.

I've got my thread up over in F&I, and it basically goes over how to do exactly what CCP claims to want to do with nullsec. The summary for the latest version is below. I haven't posted a fully updated version, but most of the mechanisms are the same as the original...

Modular, destructible outposts roll together sovereignty, industry, and infrastructure. Multiple outposts can exist in a single system, increasing the total units of claimable space. Player groups are given substantial powers to improve the quality of their space based on a revised index system. At the same time, continually disrupting activity of space will both increase the costs of holding it and lower its value, boosting small gangs.

An overhauled sovereignty system is linked to the control of the outposts – each has a population that is ‘claimed’ by troops loyal to player groups. Troops have cyclical maintenance costs, introducing an efficient, flexible pricing mechanism for sovereignty claims – the cost of holding space will be set by the value it has to players. Troops also provide a difficult-to-game timing mechanism for conflicts.

A series of incentives encourage more local and small-scale warfare, without pre-empting fleet battles in any way. This system allows for player-created stargates, effectively making jump bridges obsolete by allowing route optimization. A vassalage treaty system allows for the subjugation of neighbors without removing them from the space.

The entire cyno-technology mechanism is given an overhaul. The ease of transit using cynos will now vary from system to system, creating a natural topography of ‘mountains’ and ‘rivers’ as far as non-gate travel is concerened. The revised cyno and outpost/infrastructure systems are combined to allow territory holders to interfere with their immediate neighbors’ operations. POS are effectively rendered obsolete as game constructs.

Can I has CCP love now?

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 12:29:00 - [293]

Originally by: Klandi
Please Team BFF, what feedback would you require that the thousands of posts you have already received on this subject have not already pointed out?

You KNOW the issues of nullsec
You KNOW the pain of those both in and out of alliances that occupy nullsec
You KNOW the extent of the frustration that your existing environment is causing


Feedback??????? YOU ALREADY HAVE IT!

We're trying to include you guys more in our development processes, and get player input earlier in the cycle. This is one of the steps on that road. The hope was that the majority of the feedback would be "yes, we agree", but we don't know that until we ask.

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
I appreciate that the Epic Stories are important, but I hope that CCP remembers that the most popular Epic Stories have a small cast (1-7 main protagonists and antagonists).

Just to clear up the terminology, "Epic User Stories" in scrum terms are just very high-level descriptions of what we're trying to achieve. An epic story contains many normal stories, and each story is a description of a particular part of a feature. Here is a sample Epic title: 'As a player, I should always welcome more people's assistance while doing nullsec PvE, so that there's never a reason to say "we'd love to play with you but we're full, sorry".'

Originally by: Leskit
•Keep a careful eye on economic balance
◦Nullsec moneymaking activities should be generally competitive with one another, and therefore pay out more than equivalent activities elsewhere
I respectfully request that you be more definitive with this statement: All of Eve? Known space only?

W-space should exist in the same sort of payment bracket, yeah. Fair point, I'll correct that.

Originally by: Comstr
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Specifically with the "random moon movement" thing, I'd also be concerned that some little corp will have claimed a dead-end constellation in the middle of nowhere and developed it, only to have a major moon appear, followed by a big alliance who turfs them out to get at the moon.

This is why you fail.

Those little corps don't exist. If they do exist, a big alliance will deploy supercaps right now, because they can. This situation exists right now in pirate 0.0 held space such as Syndicate. At least if the moons did move, that small non-existent corp you are referring to, might get a chance to own it for some time. Right now that non-existent corp will NEVER own it. Ever.

We want to support this sort of small-scale space claiming. One of the problems with mobile moons is that it potentially undermines it, which counts as a drawback because it takes us further away from the place we want to be.

(Also I was living in Syndicate last year, I never saw a supercap.)

Originally by: Rrama Ratamnim
Also something i'd like to see, why the hell hasn't the sansha tried attacking soverignty in nullsec? seriously have sansha drop into DRF/-A-/Goon home systems with supercaps and reinforce there station and then wormhole out that would be insane!

This general sort of thing we want to avoid because while it's "cool", it's not what alliances in nullsec generally want to be dealing with, and it distracts attention from the "good bits" (ie dealing with other players.

Originally by: John McCreedy
I'm holding an internal discussion on this within my corp. so as to pool the best ideas to post (I'm also encouraging our Alliance to do the same) but on this specific issue, from a player level, there doesn't just need to be a way to make more money in null sec than Empire, there needs to be more ways to make money in null sec. There should be opportunities to make money through means other than grinding rats be they from belts, anoms, wormholes or incursions, opportunities that are exclusive to nullsec.

This seems sensible, yes.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 12:34:00 - [294]

Originally by: Kaksakamasami
3. Quick fix to 0.0 industry: Kill mineral compression and make all 0.0 ores equal in terms of isk/hour income (which means that strip mining 0.0 veld would literally drown you in tritanium, but logistical challenges on moving it would be to severe to make Jita exports reasonable). In this simple way we solve several problems at once:

If people will haul trit out to nullsec, I'm concerned that they might haul it back as well. One thing we really want to avoid is crashing the empire trit market, because there are a lot of people who like mining in hisec and we'd prefer not to screw them over too much.

Originally by: Dominick Owusu
Edited by: Dominick Owusu on 03/08/2011 19:58:06
You mention Jump Bridges as one of the things that are cool/neat/awesome, but requiring fixes. I agree in relation to your goals for nullsec (to make it feel big) they tend to make nullsec seem smaller, but that's only because there's no visibility of the distance of a jump. This applies to regular stargates and to a lesser extent wormholes. It's the perception of distance that matters to making something feel big.

So you need ways to make the player perceive a large travel distance instead of feeling like they disappeared in one room and instantly reappeared 3 meters to the right in the next room.

Within solar systems this is very successfully accomplished by the warp tunnel animation, passing solar masses, the visible change in speed and the time spent in warp before arrival. Nothing like any of these features is found when using stargates, jumpbridges or wormholes.

I realize that since systems are, or often are on different nodes in your server network, you can't just duplicate the way in-system warping works. But even a simple client side animation with random stars going by that lasts for a period dictated by the distance traveled would work as a starting point.

Alternatively ships arriving in a new system could spawn gate-cloaked and already-in-warp, and land (still gate-cloaked) where they would have spawned as usual off the gate a few seconds later (again with time in warp matching distance between systems.)

This is a really good point.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 12:34:00 - [295]

Originally by: Dr Cedric
In my experience playing eve since 2005, some of my biggest frustrations have been in null sec. I've lived there for a year, then back to high sec, then back and forth. In my experience, there are several hurdles that should be looked at. I'll try to be succinct and explain clearly.

1) You "must" be in a large corp/alliance to "own" space. The mechanics of owning space requires a large commitment of time and resources. Yes, this should be necessary to make your mark (i.e. plant an outpost), but at the same time, solo, or small groups have no interest in null sec because they can't DO anything there except try to join the already large groups there.

Fix: Centralize resources to allow large groups to support themselves, and make more null sec space to allow small groups to create a home. Possible make killing POS's only about removing "squatters" from space you'd like your larger group to occupy.

2) Safety in numbers
In my last excursion to 0.0, the "home base" system was usually filled with at least 30 "blues." And almost always one "AFK" cloaked person, either waiting to ambush (read: Hot drop 50 Capitals) or just trying to disrupt activities. Honestly, if a corp/alliance has worked long and hard enough to plant an Outpost, organize their members, gain sovereignty etc etc, then it should be HARD for the opposition to usurp that situation. A single AFK cloaker should not be able to disrupt operations. Yes, a group of players should be able to enter a system and start shooting people, but I should feel confident enough in the "safety" of my home base to not dock up the moment one red enters the system.

3) Static structures blow!
POSes are a pain for almost every player. At this point, the only reason to have a POS is to extract Moon goo, or because you don't have an outpost to dock in. The prior shouldn't need a POS, the latter should. Moon mining and other T2 resource gathering activities should more resemble Planetary interaction. This would create the opportunity to make Dreadnaughts useful (to bombard the moon/planet command centers), would reduce the need for POS's in general, and make the POS's out there useful and a real tactical target.

4. Capitals, Capitals everywhere.
I'm sure this will be one of the more talked about topics on this thread. Something has to be done with capitals. At this point, they are about as difficult to come by as a shell on the beach. If I wanted, I could by how ever many PLEX, trade them for ISK and BOOM...I've got a Wyvern. If cost doesn't make an effect on how much they are used, maybe a different principle could: bigger is not better. Everyone knows that in sub-capital ship comparisons, there is a rock-paper-scissor effect. No one ship is "better" than the others, or at least ship class. Right now, super carriers are hands down, the best ship as far as fleet warfare is concerned. There is no glaring weak point in their design, and there is always a tactical advantage to bringing them. This advantage needs to be eliminated, and capitals need to fall into the rock-paper-scissor model.

Thats my two cents, take it as you will!


Pretty much agree with most of this.

Dawn of a new Empire
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.08.04 12:34:00 - [296]

I am very pleased to see a blog like this.

The fact that the blog clearly outlines the most basic cores of null sec is a great system to work from.

just one question, this being a discussion on null sec in general any particular ideas on the NPC null sec. ?

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 12:40:00 - [297]

Originally by: Daedalus II
I'm having some ideas towards how to make smaller alliances survive in nullsec, and different specializations.

How about an ability to "tune" your space in different directions? Something like you can tune it towards industry giving you nice belts and highly increased resists on all structures, but limiting your ability to field warships.

Or tuning towards a "small" alliance, gives you the bonus of blocking off all your space from caps, but limiting your number of members/(cap)ships/systems in some way.

Or you tune against shield fleets, making armor fleets weaker and vice versa.

Tune towards PvP makes your ships stronger but your infrastructure weaker and limiting industrial activity.

Block your space from capitals but make structures that were previously only destroyable hackable as well.

So essentially you "rig" your space, making yourself stronger at something, but paying a price for it in some other area Wink
I think this would give both smaller alliances and other specialized/non-PvP alliances survivability. It also gives "back-doors" into your space, make different tactics possible and required.

This already exists in some fashion as the effects you find in some wormhole systems.


If this is all too restrictive and mechanics-forced, why not add a few new nullsec systems with effects in them that cater to the smaller or more specialized alliances? Like incubator areas. For example blocking cap ships or war ships above a certain size. Or giving bonuses to mining lasers, refining, invention or production. Anything that blocks a larger pvp-centric alliance from just steamrolling the area at will.

This is an interesting concept that we should probably be using more.

Originally by: Feed Syndication
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
It is (AFAIK) impossible for a single corporation to anchor more than one starbase in a given system on a given day (probably downtime-to-downtime). This is a relic of the old sov system, where the person with the most starbases was given sov, and some alliances found it very effective to set up 30 towers in one night.

Originally by: Eve
Your alliance can anchor a total of 5 control towers in this solar system each day and you cannot anchor any more.

Please try again tomorrow when the space-time continuum has finished realigning itself.


Oh, is that how we ended up implementing it? Ok, cheers Smile

Originally by: Nirnaeth Ornoediad
The only item I disagree with is this:

"The interests of players and their leaders should align
Nullsec features should thoroughly consider the interests of players at all levels of corp/alliance heirarchies, and ensure that their interests all align"

I think some of the most interesting conflicts come when alliance leadership and alliance membership are not aligned. For example, the DRF recently waged an excellent PR campaign against the NC accusing--probably correctly--that NC leadership was keeping ISK from moon minerals and reactions for themselves.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the bullet point, though.

True, but I'd also assume that we'll never totally manage this anyway. The reason that's in there is that right now the interests of the two strongly diverge, to the point that we're being told by major alliance leaders that they don't really care what their members do - or do much/anything to support them - so long as they turn up for CTAs. The experience is likely to be better for most players if their leaders are at least pretending to try and make their game more interesting.

El 1974
Posted - 2011.08.04 12:47:00 - [298]

I see a lot of positive responses from people hoping things will get fixed, but such a list of general ideas makes it hard to visualise how it will affect gameplay. I see plenty of things that can go wrong. Sadly I am one of those people who's afraid you'll mess up ... again.
Let me be clear that my response is from a highsec carebear point of view. I want to go to 0.0, but it's just so much easier to make lots of isk in highsec. 0.0 is just not worthwile.

Functional role
*Nullsec as THE land of opportunity and adventure
Sorry, but that only works in the ideal situation that nullsec is accessible for every player in Eve, which currently it is not. Until that time you must cater for all players or they will leave.

*... players can ... exercise power over other players
Sorry, but I don't see any need for this. Renter alliances are bad. Those alliances should be able to get a place of their own. Broken mechanics force them into a position where they make a powerfull block even more powerfull.

Design rules
*Keep a carefull eye on economic balance
The economic link between nullsec and other areas of the game implies that you cannot look at nullsec without keeping an eye on other parts of the game. You may be able to solve some of the nullsec problems by changing some of the general game mechanics or making changes to other parts of the game. I fear a tunnel vision.

Lessons learned
* sov warfare
(My opinion is mainly a repeat of what has already been said in other words.)
Obtaining sov should not be another tedious thing to do. This can be accomplished if sov is more an indicator of effective control (activity) in a system rather than a seperate feature that requires special effort. Just doing the things people do in areas they effectively control (missioning, mining, camping station/gates) should automaticly (help to) give you sov.
To make it less tedious to take over stationary structures, sov could then also affect how much time/effort is required to take them over. Once you have chased off the enemy (for a period of time), you can easily take/destroy their structures.

* doing something just "because it would be cool/neat/awesome" is always a bad idea and will come back to bite you later
I would like to add Incarna to the list of failed ideas. Exactly one of those "awesome idea"s that doesn't fix "an actual problem" or "has a clear, functional and necessary goal".

I think we should add another lesson learned. The recent nerf to nullsec was a failure that resulted in people leaving nullsec. If you nerf peoples income in nullsec, they will go elsewhere. If you nerf highsec income, that could make people try their luck in nullsec.

Daedalus Arcova
Havoc Violence and Chaos
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.08.04 13:03:00 - [299]

Edited by: Daedalus Arcova on 04/08/2011 13:19:21
Edited by: Daedalus Arcova on 04/08/2011 13:16:28
You can't fix nullsec without dealing with highsec.

If the churning of vital cogs in the war machines of nullsec alliances can be safely done in highsec, highsec is where it will be done.

For example, I make a good chunk of my ISK from PI in nullsec. But to sell those PI materials, I have to get them shipped to Jita - the only place where they sell in decent volumes. There, those PI materials are bought by a nullsec alliance's industrial alt corp, turned into POSes and sovereignty structures, and shipped straight back out to nullsec. The materials are produced in nullsec, the end products are overwhelmingly used and abused in nullsec, but all the trading of resources and production of end-products all takes place in highsec.

The nullsec economy needs to be more complex than just shippin stuff back and forwards to Jita. Currently it's cheaper, simpler and safer to buy things produced in highsec and ship them out to null, so that's what happens, and that is why nullsec industry is so limited.

Maybe increase production or research costs in highsec, or maybe even limit the production of certain important items to nullsec exclusively (NOTE: It's already easy enough to make money out of nullsec. If null and highsec industry need to be rebalanced, it needs to be by making highsec LESS profitable, not null more profitable. This is very important.).

Another option would be to significantly increase jump freighter fuel needs, to make it more expensive to just jump stuff up from highsec. Whatever you change, it needs to be enough of a difference to make industrial operations in nullsec worthwhile, and for nullsec alliances to foster industrial activity in their space.

The more industrial activity takes place in nullsec, the more that industrial assets are placed in harms way, and so the more opportunities there are for conflict.

Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.08.04 13:07:00 - [300]

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Kaksakamasami
3. Quick fix to 0.0 industry: Kill mineral compression and make all 0.0 ores equal in terms of isk/hour income (which means that strip mining 0.0 veld would literally drown you in tritanium, but logistical challenges on moving it would be to severe to make Jita exports reasonable). In this simple way we solve several problems at once:

If people will haul trit out to nullsec, I'm concerned that they might haul it back as well. One thing we really want to avoid is crashing the empire trit market, because there are a lot of people who like mining in hisec and we'd prefer not to screw them over too much.

How hard would it be to make nul sec only blue prints. That use less trit and other materials. And are only sellable in nul sec. If they enter a low or hs system they have to register with CONCORD or get automaticly added to the can be shot at by everyone list (ship only no poding.) Enter new game machanic, isk sink, mini game, more targets to be shot in hs and its all a database exersise as art does not need to get invalved except maybe add some tags to blue prints identifying them as null sec only. Adding more varitation to the industrial game. Everyone wins and if planned for can be added when Team Gridlock updates Security Watch. So trit does not have to be touched often but the rate that Concord asks to reguester your ship can be changed if there is a problem/ exploit found.

Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (22)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only