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 : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Enuen Ravenseye
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.08.04 13:12:00 - [301]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
I'm still yet to be convinced about dynamic resources. We generally want players to claim space, settle down, develop it etc, and if doing so means their space becomes worthless, what's the point? 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.


So having a small group claim a good resource, even if only for a short time, is BAD thing ... but providing a constant ISK fountain to the mega-alliances is a GOOD thing? Gotcha. You wouldn't want to mess with the Russian mafia's income stream, now would you?

I would prefer to see dynamic resources (ffs, if SWG could pull it off, I would think EVE could) and a move away from any "automated process". A move to MoonPI would at least be a compromise I suppose. Then the smaller groups could get a leg up on T2 production without having to spend billions a month on POSes, assuming they can even get access to any decent moons. Though having some process for interrupting MoonPI would still be necessary (to replace the ability to destroy moon-mining POSes).

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.04 13:21:00 - [302]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 04/08/2011 13:29:02
Originally by: Salpun
How hard would it be to make nul sec only blue prints.
The selling part could possibly just be a part of flagging them as illegal goods, but the consequences of that have yet to be seen since they're remaking the smuggling trade.

The production bit, on the other hand, is very easy. In a sense, it already exists of a kind with booster production and reactors: you can get the blueprints anywhere and do most of the blueprint:y stuff with them…

…but to actually use them, you have to plug them into a structure that can only be anchored in lower-sec systems. If you don't want to mess with blueprints, you could conceivably have structures that give some odd bonuses to material requirements (e.g. -20% trit use; +20% megacyte use), but which have severe sec status requirements… blame the empire-based space unions for not allowing workers to use the spine-curling chemicals required for the process. Razz

Granted, I don't know if/how easily the code would allow for these kinds of very granular manufacturing modifiers, but that could be one way of doing it.

The problem I see with this, though, is that if these BPs or structures produce stuff that can be made through other means, you can use that process to transform one mineral into another through that bonus/mineral req difference. Eg. using the bonuses above, create a Drake that actually only uses up 80% of the normal trit content, then recycle it for more trit that went into it — you've now used that small extra amount of megacyte (~200 extra units) to poof a large extra amount of trit into existence (the ~500k units of trit that weren't used in the production process). So the mineral basket will go all screwy…

marinko26210
Gallente
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.08.04 13:32:00 - [303]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: VaL Iscariot
"Nullsec features and content should always remind players why they left safe space, and never make them think about going back"

Was this considered when you applied the Nerf-Bat to half of null sec with the whole system security thing? No Havens or Sanctums in any system with a security above -.25? A few losses in and I was broke with no real income source beyond my market toon. That only goes so far, as one needs gold to breed gold. I made decent isk running the forsaken sites because they have a high chance to spawn a faction rat, but it didn't take long for others to realize this too and my income stream was terminated. Thus I went back to high sec/low sec to grind missions, and run tasty Radar sites. That was 6 months ago, and have I've not even considered going 'back' to null sec: The Land of Boredom. Go team.


Nullsec isn't guaranteed to make everyone happy. If you like empire better, that's life.


Very poor answer to someone who got it right.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.08.04 13:39:00 - [304]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 04/08/2011 13:26:57
Originally by: Salpun
How hard would it be to make nul sec only blue prints.
The selling part could possibly just be a part of flagging them as illegal goods, but the consequences of that have yet to be seen since they're remaking the smuggling trade.

The production bit, on the other hand, is very easy. In a sense, it already exists of a kind with booster production and reactors: you can get the blueprints anywhere and do most of the blueprint:y stuff with them…

…but to actually use them, you have to plug them into a structure that can only be anchored in lower-sec systems. If you don't want to mess with blueprints, you could conceivably have structures that give some odd bonuses to material requirements (e.g. -20% trit use; +20% megacyte use), but which have severe sec status requirements… blame the empire-based space unions for not allowing workers to use the spine-curling chemicals required for the process. Razz

Granted, I don't know if/how easily the code would allow for these kinds of very granular manufacturing modifiers, but that could be one way of doing it.

The problem I see with this, though, is that if these BPs or structures produce stuff that can be made through other means, you can use that process to transform one mineral into another through that bonus/mineral req difference. Eg. using the bonuses above, create a Drake that actually only uses up 80% of the normal trit content, then recycle it for more trit that went into it — you've now turned a small extra amount of megacyte to poof a large extra amount of trit into existence.

Make new ship IDs modifiers that ID the as built state. IE the advantage versis the HS standard it was built with It serves two purposes identifies the refine value diffrence so refining in hs gets you less minerals and maybe gives the hull a built in weakness. So hs built ships have a slight defence advantage. No one hull tanks RightTwisted Evil

Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.04 13:40:00 - [305]
 

So how hard would it be to implement a mechanic, with various exploration sites that scales to how many people fleet warp into a site when it is first discovered? Probably to be controlled by the warp in at the acceleration gate.

For example, I scan out a mining site by myself and am looking for some solo mining. I go back get my hulk and spend then next few hours clearing out the site.

Or I scan out a mining site, but there are 12 of my friends in corp who are ready for a nice relaxing couple of hours mining away and BSing. We warp to the site and activate the gate as a fleet, there is now 13 ish times more minerals in the asteroids or more asteroids, and we spend about the same amount of time but probably a little faster with fleet bonuses clearing out a reward that is the same as if we did it solo.

I don't see why this couldn't be done for many different exploration sites. Though there would be problems with dumb people opening sites solo and ruining it for others, but if the respawn rate of the sites was good then it shouldn't kill the whole day's worth of sites.

Space Wanderer
Posted - 2011.08.04 13:57:00 - [306]
 

Edited by: Space Wanderer on 04/08/2011 13:58:03

Quote:
Nullsec is the land of opportunity and adventure
Nullsec is an area which brings people together in a very strong way


I think those two goals may be in opposition to each other. If you focus too much on the group (alliances and such) you tend to restrict the "opportunities and andventure".

You might want to focus on this dichotomy, as first step.

Lekimeya
Posted - 2011.08.04 13:57:00 - [307]
 

Getting rid of Titans or Supers in general could be achieved by installing a counter to them, which might be a specialised kind of torpedo that can only be fired by a fragile ship. This could be a frigate or cruiser, even a specialized one (Stealth Bomber, new T3 frigate or T3 destroyer? Wink). I love new ships Very Happy

Make those torpedoes have long locking times and short range which enables an escort to react. If those small ships could only carry one single massive torpedo this would lead to rearming during the fight. Carriers could finally have an additional new role this way as being rearming stations for such capital fights.

A different approach might be to give dreadnoughts the option to carry this weapon. It would give them a new task besides POS-shooting. Though I like my first idea better YARRRR!!

Teraformer
Posted - 2011.08.04 14:01:00 - [308]
 

Edited by: Teraformer on 04/08/2011 14:10:10
Edited by: Teraformer on 04/08/2011 14:02:00
Null-sec should also be a very dangerous place where noting is safe, solo pvp mechanics should be improved in terms of ships bonuses(can't think on anything else) , blob warfare is fun, but common, it can't be the only way to pvp!!

Local Chat issue...
imo, local chat should be delayed by few minutes upon entering a system, it will improve the pvp, the "element of surprise" will have a meaning. You'll need to be smart to survive 0.0, learn how to use your on-board scanner, check intel, and not just fly around in your nullified T3 like a boss.
In role play terms
look at it this way, since we far from empire and communication relays don't work that grate. it takes time to connect to them, or something in that sort.


Industry
I think that 0.0 should have as little as possible industry.
null-sec should supply only the raw high-end materials to the highly developed industry in empire.
improving industry in 0.0 will make it just like empire but without CONCORD.

cheers

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.08.04 14:05:00 - [309]
 

Thanks for the answers so far, CCP.

By reading some posts from other players, I can see that my idea posted in this thread neatly covers many aspects of what is actually wanted for 0.0 space.

What I would like to know is CCP's response to the suggestion. A feedback for feedback, if you like. I'd really appreciate if I knew CCP's thoughts on the idea of Personal Industrial arrays - positive or negative. The post (divided into 2 adjacent posts) can be found here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1560795&page=9#258

Thank you.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 14:08:00 - [310]
 

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso
***** I'd like to see this guiding principle put on your list:

Where possible develope carrots, not sticks, to lure people into situations where ideal fights will develope.


This is a good principle, I think I will add it to my list.

Originally by: Nova Fox
Breakable Automation

Marginally cheap (as far as allainces are concenred) to encourage deployment under the defacto 'just because' instead of
'Should I deploy one if the enemy is going to blow it up?'
Makes life that much easier (but should never net in 'free money/resources')
Easily disabled and Easily destroyed with a bit more effort
Lootable by Raiders if destroyed.


This sort of thing is something we're actively looking at, with the modification that it's less about "blow it up" and more about "steal the expensive fuel".

Originally by: Bubanni
As long as you dont make stations destroyable so everyone inside lose all their assets...


That's one of the tricky bits that's been holding it back Smile


Forlorn Wongraven
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.08.04 14:08:00 - [311]
 

Don't put effort into making outposts destroyable in 0.0. It will make station useless for industry (since people won't use it to actually build stuff) and increase the Jita problem. As most of 0.0 dwellers have multiple accounts anyway nothing will stop them from living out of carriers on a carrier holding alt logged off in their staging system. Additionally you will have to make another great big fleet target with a long timer and massive amount of hitpoints so there is no "whoops, where is my station?" rage each morning. Young players will be blocked out of 0.0 cause they are afraid of their hard earned assets, old timers will just work around it and be bored with it.

Whatever CCP does it must be carefully implemented and CCP has to listen to us testing it out. What seem to be small changes can have a huge impact on the sandbox eg the standing and agent changes recently.

All of sudden FW agents became good all over the place giving out up to 32k LP per mission. I can collect 14 level 4 agents with one shuttle loop through 22 systems within half an hour, finishing those mission within another hour and earn roughly 400k LP and atm this is a Fleet Tempest and a Fleet Typhoon (with a 6 mil skillpoint alt). Even when the prices are dropping like mad cause of the easy-to-do that is still way more than Mr. Average could ever accomplish in Sanctums when it was introduced in Dominion. The only thing that kept me doing Sanctum that was the social aspect of my main corp.

There is basically no way to make small scale pvp the new sov pvp by a game mechanic. Not by incursion like warpgates or mission, nothing will stop a defending alliance/ coalition just to bring 1000 people in the system, camping entry gates with huge fleets and killing any frigate/ cruiser that tries to pass such gates.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 14:09:00 - [312]
 

Originally by: Marlakh
A major suggestion, and a few smaller ones. Apologies in advance for not having read all the posts. If something has already been suggested, please excuse me.

I'd like to add one more guiding principle to the future design of 0.0: Not be immersion breaking with respect to the Sci-Fi genre. This means that whatever game mechanics are chosen to determine ownership/conquest, should not be artificial in nature. I always had issues imagining how a physical structure like an Outpost would undergo the two reinforcement cycles before switching allegiance, or how a number of anchored SBUs can "magically" affect the owner of the system on my HUD, or the vulnerabilities of the TCU/Outpost many AUs away. I've been a sci-fi fan for many years and there's no logic around this "artificiality". So IMHO, present sov mechanics (and any mechanics that switches ownership or structural behavior) are immersion breaking.

So my proposals are:

Remove the sov mechanics system. Instead just let sov indication be a hidden "flag". By this I mean that , depending on which alliance owns the majority of planets on that system will be passively flagged as owning that system. The only utility of this "hidden flag" is to feed into Eve's sov map or an external app like Dotlan/Veritas' sov map, as an indication of bragging rights. Whats the implication of this?

(1) Every system can potentially become a place where multiple alliances and corporations can own planets, moons, multiple Outposts and other orbitals. There is no restriction on whether any object (orbital, celestal etc) can be owned by an individual, corporation or alliance), as long as an "ownership" trigger like a command center is owned by that entity. As a consequence, TCUs and SBUs become redundant.

(2) Conquests become much more multi-level in nature, from orbitals, to moons, to planets, and beyond (think massive stations like Ringworlds or Dyson Spheres). Being free of artificial sov mechanics at the system level, this encourages scalable levels of ownership and also corresponding levels of conflicts for various conquerable objects. This allows smaller entities to participate in 0.0 space, and in turn reduce the size of fleets (and hence lag) as the cost-benefits of mass scale deployment to conquer individual moons/objects are weighed against the smaller returns.

(3) "Sov" becomes much more fluid and dynamic, and the geographical boundaries between alliances/corps much more blurred. As multiple parties fight for celestials wihin a system, there is much more room for intra-system emergent behavior (read: drama) and interest. Entire alliance wars can take part within 1 system. True victory or defeat thus depends on how well each object within the system can be conquered. Again, there is no clear marker of "victory", and is more akin to real geopolitical situations.

(4) Provides more avenue for DUST 514 events to take place. Again, it is immersion breaking to keep firing on an Outpost to conquer it. In the future, the final step to conquering a station is to reduce its shields and armor to zero, which then allows DUST mercs to enter it and conquer a central "control room". Similarly for command center on planets, moons and even POSes. Imagine the final holdout battles! Imagine the aggressor fleet having to hold position against defending fleets while DUSTies duke it out on the Outposts/surfaces.

Thanks for reading, and any comments plase.


This general sort of thing is something that we've been thinking about. One of the things that makes it less effective under the current "regime" is that warp speeds make systems trivially small, and that's something we're hoping we're not going to have to touch. There's some mileage here still though.

Frosteye
Posted - 2011.08.04 14:09:00 - [313]
 

Originally by: Saikoyu

First, I will say that I have never lived in 0.0 space, just read about it, treat that as you will.

Second, I do hope you still listen to this.

In reading though the dev blog and the comments to it, I think I see some of what is going on here, and why 0.0 space in its current form has not been good enough. CCP has said that there should be something for everyone to do, no matter how big or small their organization is. However, in practice only blobs and massive alliances seem to count. CCP has said that there should never be a reason to leave null sec, but in practice, many have left due to mechanics reasons (not enough isk, better in high sce, etc).

I believe that this is because 0.0 was meant to be a place for players to create empires of their own. In reality, CCP has created the American wild west, or other similar situations in history. Like the wild west, the only law in 0.0 space is the law of the gun, he who has the most guns wins. This encourages blobs, lag, etc. However, looking to history, we have the solution, civilization. Eventually towns in the wild west became cities, rule of law was enforced, and while conflict still existed, it was handled differently. The metaphor breaks down at the end as cities in the American Mid-West don't wage war on each other, but it still works fairly well. It needs to be possible to civilize 0.0 space so that it does not matter who has the most guns, but who can use them effectively. Please note I am not advocating the end to fighting, just the end to blobs.

Look at it this way, one needs to make 0.0 space like mini-high sec to the claiming alliance. That way, they can close the doors whenever they want. Cryojammers up so that no one can drop cap ships on them. Gate guns at every gate, at the very least, warnings when "enemies of the state" come in through the gates, maybe even NPC battleships of their own at those gates. Make it so that a straight forward blob attack might succeed, but would be so costly that no one in their right mind would try it. This is step one.


...




Makes sense to me. I think the wild west analogy about sums EVE up. It has been my complaint about this game for me. (Former 0.0 resident, WHs, Hisec, etc etc)

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 14:16:00 - [314]
 

Originally by: Baneken
One thing is that 'bad' space doesn't have to mean it's literally bad like it's now.
What you need to is to have every region in null to have at least one of each stuff (gas clouds, good moons, ABC ores, sanctums etc.) needed for a full industrial 'chain' this would mean that like in RL 'bad space' isn't completely worthless but just has less resources to compete with 'better regions'.
Current system is where some regions have several moons that produce ridiculous sums of ISK/month and other regions can barely hold their SOV bills with the moon goo they produce, let alone fund any sort of capital building (supers or otherwise).
Over the years this disparity has became to be known as 'super caps-online' which means that only way to beat a block X is to get a) bigger force b) block X gets bored and leaves the game.

So what ever changes you make to resources 'good ones' will be taken by the president power blocks that have more SC's then smaller alliances have members in battleships/regular caps combined.
One solution to arrange the resources and sov that you hold them by 'presence' ie. ratting/mining/what ever but just be in that space flying there instead of "ho ho ho I have 30 SC's & titans + what ever else I can bring I'll come and curb stomp my neighbors for **** and giggles and leave it for my renters that couldn't handle even a mission in high sec without holding hands"- 'sov warfare' that we have currently going.



The approach we're favoring currently is more making each region have at least one "good thing", but no region to have all the goodies. Currently with everything based on truesec there's essentially one order of "best to worst" that's the same in all cases. Mixing this up opens up more opportunities, we think.

Originally by: Gnulpie
Look at the CVA vs UK in the past. And how that sort of rich space got completely destroyed by your recent changes. Think about why such a rich, diverse and player driven 0.0 was dead after you changed.


Pre-Dominion Providence was a lovely thing, but it was only happening in one region. Nobody else was obviously trying to develop along those lines, and it would've been unfair to everyone else to focus on that sort of situation.

Originally by: Winksos Transbithan
>neither of which achieved much in the way of the nullsec-to-nullsec trade that they hoped to encourage

I was kind of shocked and encouraged to hear that was an idea. I hope a lot of thought goes into how to make that possible. Removing all transaction fees in 0.0 markets would be a start. Fully utilizing (a less painful version of) planetary interaction to unleash a full range of diverse products unique to 0.0 would be good. And then there's Dust— what new sorts of structures will the sov game created by Dust bring about, and what kinds of interactions might happen there?


That's the reason why the moon mins are split up the way they are, and the reason the stronger boosters need ingredients from all over. We're looking at whether it might be more successful if we try to encourage very localized trade, so for example each region has everything it needs either in itself or in adjacent regions. "Fly across the map vs fly to Jita", Jita wins; we're hoping "fly to the next region over vs fly to Jita" might come out more in favor of the next region over.

Originally by: Onnen Mentar
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. ;)


Trying to do this for nullsec, hisec, lowsec and w-space all at once would make my brain melt. It's hard enough as it is to hold the whole thing in my head with just nullsec Smile

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 14:20:00 - [315]
 

Originally by: Ilijk Mijself
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).


This is something we're looking into very hard.

Originally by: Ravcharas
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?


Yup, hence "five years for a majority of it, hopefully". As I said previously, some of it will be easy, some of it will be very hard, some of it will never fully be realized. Finishing it all is a monumental task, but the bigger win is that it gives us direction right now.

Treaties was cut because there weren't enough teams to do everything, and it's not happened since because we keep finding things that we think are more important. It's a good idea and it remains something that we'd like to do at some point, but when prioritizing we always ask "what's the best thing to do right now", not "what have we said we'd do in the past?". I realize this is disappointing, but our #1 priority is "make the game as good as possible", and if that means something like treaties keeps getting bumped because we keep finding things that would improve the game more to do first, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.


CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 14:25:00 - [316]
 

Originally by: El 1974
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.


- Yes, a lot of this only works in ideal situations, we're making no bones about that. It's a guideline for the future, not something that's going to happen next week
- Players exercise power over other players every time they shoot each other. But yes, that is supposed to include diplomacy and coercion too. They're part of what makes nullsec nullsec.
- Yes, this necessitates us looking at other areas too, and yes, we are doing so already. We're just doing it in a focused, how-does-this-help-our-nullsec-goals kind of way.
- I'd lean towards a less mechanistic system but yes, sov needs to be less tedious.
- Incarna's not "done" yet, it'd be premature to start talking about whether it's met its goals or not Smile
- I wouldn't classify the anom changes as a failure (or indeed a blanket nerf), but as with everything else we are of course taking notes and learning what lessons we can.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 14:26:00 - [317]
 

Originally by: Daedalus Arcova
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.


Agree with most of this.

Originally by: Salpun
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.


Nullsec-only blueprints, fairly tricky. The general idea of finding ways to build some stuff without low-ends, less so Smile


CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 14:29:00 - [318]
 

Originally by: Kethry Avenger
So how hard would it be to implement a mechanic, with various exploration sites that scales to how many people fleet warp into a site when it is first discovered? Probably to be controlled by the warp in at the acceleration gate.

For example, I scan out a mining site by myself and am looking for some solo mining. I go back get my hulk and spend then next few hours clearing out the site.

Or I scan out a mining site, but there are 12 of my friends in corp who are ready for a nice relaxing couple of hours mining away and BSing. We warp to the site and activate the gate as a fleet, there is now 13 ish times more minerals in the asteroids or more asteroids, and we spend about the same amount of time but probably a little faster with fleet bonuses clearing out a reward that is the same as if we did it solo.

I don't see why this couldn't be done for many different exploration sites. Though there would be problems with dumb people opening sites solo and ruining it for others, but if the respawn rate of the sites was good then it shouldn't kill the whole day's worth of sites.


Not at all hard, it turns out Smile

Originally by: Space Wanderer
Edited by: Space Wanderer on 04/08/2011 13:58:03

Quote:
Nullsec is the land of opportunity and adventure
Nullsec is an area which brings people together in a very strong way


I think those two goals may be in opposition to each other. If you focus too much on the group (alliances and such) you tend to restrict the "opportunities and andventure".

You might want to focus on this dichotomy, as first step.


It's by no means the only dichotomy, either - that's what makes the whole thing interesting Smile

Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Thanks for the answers so far, CCP.

By reading some posts from other players, I can see that my idea posted in this thread neatly covers many aspects of what is actually wanted for 0.0 space.

What I would like to know is CCP's response to the suggestion. A feedback for feedback, if you like. I'd really appreciate if I knew CCP's thoughts on the idea of Personal Industrial arrays - positive or negative. The post (divided into 2 adjacent posts) can be found here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1560795&page=9#258

Thank you.


This general sort of thing is something we're looking into.

Nele'B
Posted - 2011.08.04 14:35:00 - [319]
 

It is so nice to see this many CCP posts in this thread! Cool

Papa Digger
OEG
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.04 14:37:00 - [320]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Jack Haydn
It's not that difficult - you just have to get rid of the thought that structures means sov.

[a whole bunch of stuff]


Approve of this sort of thinking. Not exactly what we're currently looking at, but sufficiently out-of-the-box for my liking. (Also what you're describing is pretty similar to the FW mechanics.)


What wrong with "hold the flag" mechanics? FW "sov complexes" idea was great to involve all shiptypes (frigates for small, caps for large) in battles for system capturing. Randomize complex appearance was bad, but this is other question. :)
In general, shooting structures in boring. People must fight each other over sov, not grind stuructures. But you already made "incursions" when people fighting NPC in whole constellation for taking influence in it. And such fights really fun. Why not join this two mechanics into one and make new sovereignity system fighting not with structures but with players for influence in constellation? Every complex flag attackers hold giving them influence points, same for defenders. So attackers need to hold flags in majority systems to win. Reinforce timers between bigger level complex appearance.


Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.08.04 14:38:00 - [321]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Treaties was cut because there weren't enough teams to do everything, and it's not happened since because we keep finding things that we think are more important. It's a good idea and it remains something that we'd like to do at some point, but when prioritizing we always ask "what's the best thing to do right now", not "what have we said we'd do in the past?". I realize this is disappointing, but our #1 priority is "make the game as good as possible", and if that means something like treaties keeps getting bumped because we keep finding things that would improve the game more to do first, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.


But that means that Dominion nullsec came pre-gimped. Essentially doomed to fail because you guys never supported it. Supposedly there's at least the basis of a design for Treaties somewhere in a drawer, and I would assume it includes the underlying nullsec infrastructure redesign that would have made Treaties possible. Why not revisit that instead of starting over from scratch? The implementation could still benefit from lessons learned, but you wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.

Or would that be throwing good money after bad?

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.08.04 14:46:00 - [322]
 

I really liked this devblog and I agree with the points you listed. I remember asking CCP for design principles during a CSM summit and not really getting an answer, its good to see you guys finally sat down and thought about it :)

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Bubanni
As long as you dont make stations destroyable so everyone inside lose all their assets...


That's one of the tricky bits that's been holding it back Smile



Whats where wreckable stations come in. Station ruins that still contains the items but arent accessible until the station is repaired/rebuilt ;)

And with one of your design guidelines being that everything should be destroyable, I'm lightly hopeful you'll find a way for us to 'destroy' or incapacitate outposts eventually.


CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.04 14:59:00 - [323]
 

Originally by: Papa Digger
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Jack Haydn
It's not that difficult - you just have to get rid of the thought that structures means sov.

[a whole bunch of stuff]


Approve of this sort of thinking. Not exactly what we're currently looking at, but sufficiently out-of-the-box for my liking. (Also what you're describing is pretty similar to the FW mechanics.)


What wrong with "hold the flag" mechanics? FW "sov complexes" idea was great to involve all shiptypes (frigates for small, caps for large) in battles for system capturing. Randomize complex appearance was bad, but this is other question. :)
In general, shooting structures in boring. People must fight each other over sov, not grind stuructures. But you already made "incursions" when people fighting NPC in whole constellation for taking influence in it. And such fights really fun. Why not join this two mechanics into one and make new sovereignity system fighting not with structures but with players for influence in constellation? Every complex flag attackers hold giving them influence points, same for defenders. So attackers need to hold flags in majority systems to win. Reinforce timers between bigger level complex appearance.




Essentially, because it violates "Nullsec features should always maximize the amount of valuable options available to the player, and minimize the number of mandatory tasks they must complete". The sort of system you're describing would "work" just fine, but it turns nullsec warfare into something roughly akin to an extended game of TF2, where everyone knows exactly what you have to do to win, and every battle plays out in the same way. Our moment-to-moment combat doesn't stack up against TF2's (it's not where our strength is), our balance is not (and probably will not be in the foreseeable future) sharp enough to prevent the rise of "optimal builds" within this framework, and it'd likely end up becoming pretty repetitive and "gamey", which is not a direction we want to head in.

I'd personally rather go down the road of finding a way to handle sov with fewer rules, and leave it more up to players how they go about winning. For me, EVE gets more interesting the more the players are making real decisions about what to do next.

Originally by: Ravcharas
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Treaties was cut because there weren't enough teams to do everything, and it's not happened since because we keep finding things that we think are more important. It's a good idea and it remains something that we'd like to do at some point, but when prioritizing we always ask "what's the best thing to do right now", not "what have we said we'd do in the past?". I realize this is disappointing, but our #1 priority is "make the game as good as possible", and if that means something like treaties keeps getting bumped because we keep finding things that would improve the game more to do first, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.


But that means that Dominion nullsec came pre-gimped. Essentially doomed to fail because you guys never supported it. Supposedly there's at least the basis of a design for Treaties somewhere in a drawer, and I would assume it includes the underlying nullsec infrastructure redesign that would have made Treaties possible. Why not revisit that instead of starting over from scratch? The implementation could still benefit from lessons learned, but you wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.

Or would that be throwing good money after bad?


We're trying to avoid starting from scratch wherever possible, and there are other (easier) things to do to improve the current system without having to implement treaties. Treaties are an ease-of-use, quality-of-life addition - they can make existing behavior more simple, but they're just a tool and as such unlikely to change the way people play. They sound cool, but it's not obvious that people really need them right now, and we'd rather change that first.

Warwars
Posted - 2011.08.04 15:07:00 - [324]
 

In regards to generating ISK for PVP activity, I thought it be a good idea to actually give the alliance the tools in game to set up a "bounty" system. Give Alliances/Corps the tools to set up ISK accounts to pay for enemy(Reds) kills that automatically pays out. Set up an interface to let the leaders pick and choose values on a per ship/tier basis and by corp/alliance status(be the enemy orange to red). This way (high end)Null sec wealth(Moo Goo?) is moved around, Doesn't create another ISK fountain unlike rats, gives an alliance the tools to reward it's pvpers for doing what they do against the people the alliance wants dead. Possibly splitting reward among all in the kill mail evenly might promote more small scale fights as well. Although this leave out the poor logis so it still isn't a complete idea but well worth thinking about at least. I know some alliances already run third party sites rewarding kills and such but I just think that CCP should proactively try to learn from that and just give us the tools in game.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2011.08.04 15:08:00 - [325]
 

The functional role of Nullsec
This is a view from the outside and from the short time I spend in Thukker space. It's based mostly on what I read in threads and news about 0.0, on the content shown and my reasoning why I don't see 0.0 as a place for me to life in.


  • Nullsec is the land of opportunity and adventure

The opportunities are those of other people and most people are merely grunts to work for those other's goals. There's little adventure in jump bridge, black screen, (volley), die, repeat or in farming plexes to replace the last slew of ship losses.

Places to have adventures in are missing. Wormhole space is adventure land, not 0.0, but wormholes are PvE. So what would be interesting would be methods for players to created places for their enemies to adventure in.

A sandbox method for players in 0.0 to create locations other players are motivated to go for adventure and profits, while the resident players are motivated by profits and/or convenience to build those locations.


  • Nullsec is an area which brings people together in a very strong way

What I am missing are the common goals on differing levels of individual and community to bring people together in more than one way. From what I have seen it is mostly personal gain and forced participation on large fleet operations under threat of expatriation that keeps alliances holding together. This loose sense of loyalty seems to be on of the reasons alliances cascade failure so easily should some kind of upheaval happen, like loss of space or security and thus loss of profits on a personal level.


  • Nullsec acts as a rich source of aspirational goals for players of all levels of experience

As mentioned above, those aspirational goals are only available for a select few people. The power blocks seem to be rather static. Different levels of achievable goals that cannot be maintained by one or very few people at the same time would mean greater involvement of people in differing levels of magnitude. Examples that come to mind would be roles like "System Major" or "Constellation Major", to oversee and organize resources and sovereignty on these levels. Or combat related roles for different tactics beyond standard blob FC, allowing for roles like "Covert Operations Raiding FC" or "Space Lane Patrol" or "Field Intelligence Acquisition Unit Leader". Of course, roles like that need game mechanics to anchor them into the game, making them a opportunity for profit gathering, profit securing or enemy profit impairing. This would also require more targets in space other than hulks in belts that log off as soon as an enemy is detected. There needs to be a reason to fight on that level.


  • Nullsec provides an area in which players can amass and exercise power over other players

This is, as mentioned above, again, limited for a select few players. The mass of players are merely the grunts that get lorded over and being a peon is something few people aspire to become. The need for a hierarchical organization structure may make this point more accessible for more players and less of the sole domain of a few keyboard tyrants that roll the show and to hell with the rest.


  • Nullsec provides an area in which players can develop a rich, player-centric shared history

There isn't all that much history to be created in coloring dots on the map or yet another bunch of super blobs nixing each other. Giving alliances the sandbox tool in the hands to create a denser substance to their sovereign space may make gaining or losing it more significant. A bunch of POSes and maybe the takeover of an outpost aren't really that historically relevant. Now if outposts could be decommissioned and destroyed, that would move somewhere in this direction. Increasing the amount of things small and big alliances can create in their sov space and win or lose would create richer events for history.

cont.

Scandal Caulker
Posted - 2011.08.04 15:09:00 - [326]
 

Hey CCP Greyscale first of all fantastic work on the feed back in this thread. It is a refreshing and welcome addition to the forums.

Talking about some form of automated but vulnerable to attack industry has been mentioned here what do you think of this : Linkage
Sorry to plug my own ideas but I think it is work a read Very Happy

Abrazzar
Posted - 2011.08.04 15:10:00 - [327]
 

cont.

  • Nullsec permits extremely rich PvP experiences at all fleet sizes

Right now, there is little reason to form fleets other than blobs in 0.0 as far as I can see. Roaming gangs will find people logging off as soon as they show up on local (or in any other intelligence system). While shooting large static targets is boring, shooting small targets and raiding static locations for profit and damages would give reason to not only go raiding with smaller fleets it would also give reason to go hunt them with smaller fleets. The issue is, that what a small fleet can accomplish, a big one can do, too, just better. So without reasons to separate the blobs into smaller, less centralized gangs it would just cause blobs waltzing through systems until they are counter blobbed. While there may be no simple way (that isn't an artificial fleet cap) it points to the issues of hot dropping and power projection, the ease and speed with which large fleets can deploy and retreat. There are (unpopular) ideas around about limiting cyno amount, timers on cyno, jump travel time and cooldowns, fuel cost increases or anchorable cyno generators to jump in super caps and similar methods to limit this. Whether one (or more) of those ideas would be effective in limiting power projection or if this would just cause more drag and tediousness to fleet movements without any recognizable slowing effect, point remains, that small fleets need a purpose, need targets, to be actually viable over blobs.


  • Nullsec allows players to build a home and make a lasting mark on the world

Other than POSes and outposts, there is little players can create to create a lasting mark. It may be more involving, if players could create smaller things than POSes for their alliance (and corp) and if alliances could create bigger things than outposts for their members. Of course, for those creations to have meaning, they not only need a function fitting to their magnitude and need to be destroyable to foster competition and conflict. Coloured dots on the star map aren't really involving enough to matter for the individual alliance member.


  • Nullsec generates isolated events and on-going stories which energize the playerbase and help drive interest in the game

This point would only need a repetition of the points above about history and lasting mark in EVE. It reads more like "0.0 makes gamer news and is thus a good tool for PR for CCP and you can gain your 5 minutes of internet fame if you're lucky." Not sure why this is a separate point, really.


  • Nullsec conflict destroys large amounts of manufactured goods, which drives the EVE market

And it could use a lot more stuff to destroy and create and sell and scam with. About the interest for industry in 0.0, I'll just link to my other post in this thread.



  • Nullsec is a place that allows us to distribute high-value resources in a balanced way

As with above, my other post is talking about this in length.



  • Nullsec is one of the things that makes EVE interesting and unique

Yet, only a minority of the players are actually playing in 0.0. It is unique in so much that is a sandbox where players define the content, but alas, there is little sand to play with and the sand that is available is controlled by the few big fish. More sand for the sandbox, more things to create, fight over and destroy for 0.0, to make it more interesting for more people on more different levels of magnitude and involvement would attract more people to 0.0, creating a more detailed, and probably even more unique gaming experience.

cont.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2011.08.04 15:12:00 - [328]
 

cont.

In the end, 'fixing' 0.0 will be a great undertaking, affecting all of EVE and requiring a lot of developmental resources from CCP. It will take a lot of time to evaluate the different concepts, possibilities and necessities to make 0.0 a deep, satisfying and involving playing experience for all participating players. It will also need great patience from the players. Some number tweaking alone will just not be enough. The past has shown as much.


Now the one question remains: Are there enough developmental resources available at CCP for EVE and 0.0 specifically in addition to WiS and BFF to handle a undertaking of this magnitude or will it just fizzle out into oblivion as so many development initiatives before this one?

johnny RycKo
Posted - 2011.08.04 15:14:00 - [329]
 

5 years!

So funny! Is there a lack of coders at ccp? maybe they are coding dust or WoD!

Honestly 5 years to tweek the nul sec...

Tyrannis launched in 3 times over 3month (or like that)

Incarna Solo add-on with only one CQ, with nothing improving the game, And one ship reskin!!!



Damn what's wrong! fix the bug/issues that we have for a long time (the log in mechanism is crap and boring...), and make a real extension... I'm sorry but 00 tweek, it's just a patch not a real extension.

I really find great that the community can give his opinions, that's awesome, but please give to the player some great stuff!

Guiseppe Lombardy
Posted - 2011.08.04 15:20:00 - [330]
 

I had a interest in building an airplane in my garage. So I formed a development group with a couple of my friends that said they were interested too. We had a couple of brainstorming sessions about how to build the plane. I also asked my friend Mike who is an aircraft engineer for his opinion. He told me I was crazy and that my ideas will not work so I decided to completely ignore his advice (silly idiot thinks that being an actual engineer makes him a better expert than me who actually built paper airplanes as a kid). Also, I was extremely lucky as my neighbour's cousin was over for a BBQ last weekend (he is a pilot that specializes in crop dusting). I ran over my plans with him and he gave me some awesome pointers (make sure the thing has wings).

Finally, I tore up the napkin with the airplane blueprint into smaller pieces as there wasn't enough free room on my garage wall to lay it all out together. I am going to start working on it as soon as I get some free time but I already scheduled a press event and told everyone I am taking flight on December 18th. Boy am I excited about this!!!!!!!!


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : 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 https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only