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 : ... 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.05 09:50:00 - [421]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 05/08/2011 09:58:31
Originally by: Nomad III


Trading outpost like the PI docks isn't the solution. I'll garantee, as long as neutrals taking a trip into "our" space, there will be at least one that is trying to kill him. Hauling for 0.0 with blackop bridges has not the nessescary capacity and it's to expensive. So the Jump Freighter is the best solution. But neutral trading is impossible and will be impossible forever as long as EVE is dark and harsh.




Completely denying any progress is possible is a great way to improve things.. I simply pointed out why nullsec trade doesnt work very well. And a possible solution. There is nobody more deaf than the person who doesn't want to listen. Everything can be transported, I wonder how alliances who lose their space or move into some space do it.. There is more to it than jump freighter that cant even fit a cloak unlike rorqual.

Also, trade happens at NPC nullsec stations regardless of your alleged 'campers'. Getting a jump freighter to NPC nullsec station is child's play. On the other hand, players will choose the route of least resistance always. This is why certain things dont work without fixing the underlying reasons that make one thing harder than other.

On a related note, refining at POSes should be made better. Refining minerals is required in order to manufacture stuff within nullsec. Requiring nullsec dwellers to have an outpost for meaningful refinery is a hefty requirement and essentially only possible for large alliances. And not all outposts even have facilities for it.

Then theres the issues regarding supercap blobs, which are the most difficult-to-fix problem in null, due to players avoiding risks and only using them when victory is guaranteed. Or would appear to be. I dont really have answers to supercap problem myself..

Lucas Kell
Gallente
Lost Enterprises...
Posted - 2011.08.05 10:45:00 - [422]
 

Small suggestion:
Ice is very very important as it provides much needed materials for POS structures fuel. At the moment in nullsec, if youu have an ice belt, you can generally get a fair amount of what you need and buy anything you cant. If you don't, you have to go and buy it. Nullsec prices for ice products are very high, so most people take a trip to high sec for this.

I think that at random, ice belts should form (like a grav site that needs to be scanned out) This should be around for a single day at a time, should be VERY hard to scan out, and should provide a limited amount of ice (not too limited but llimited enough that mining it out completely is reasonable) It should also contain a mix of ice. Once its mined out it should not respawn but disappear completely.

This would promote a kind of "DUDES! ICE BELT IN SYSTEM! GRAB YER BARGES!" teamwork beahaviour which I think would be pretty awesome. Basically you are taking a resource with a high requirement and offering enough of it to a system to make it a must-mine resource. The time limitiation would give it a sense of urgency so its a drop-what-you-are-doing event.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.05 10:56:00 - [423]
 

Originally by: islador
I love that this is getting more attention again :) *hugs CCP*

The only thing I think you missed:
Content requiring large scale organization and commitment will only be attempted by large groups when there is sufficient return, FW has little reward and impact on the game, thus low to no participation.
- Example: Gallente FW CTAs are 30-40 man fleets while nullsec CTAs are 300-1,000 man fleets.

You seem to have covered everything else, and if this level of quality and scope continues, I look forward to your next patch cycle. Be sure to keep us informed and point out where your patches and dev blogs tie into this one.



Yup, this is fair.

Originally by: Farrellus Cameron
The first thing I think is important is creating additional incentives for PvP that do not just involve taking sov. Right now, you can roam around for some random kills, but often people will just dock up and wait for you to leave - or wait till they have twice your number before engaging.

I think you can tie this issue into the issue of isk generation in 0.0 by creating a system wherein people can raid and plunder each other's space without necessarily getting in a sov battle. Create some system where players can attack certain structures and then reap rewards from doing that - like having the structure drop components that can then be sold for isk, or something along those lines.


This is something we're looking into Smile

Originally by: Viceroy
Originally by: "CCP Greyscale"
This allows us to scale content easily and ensure that having your friends come play with you doesn't mean everyone's making less money.


The problem with 0.0 isn't that people aren't making enough money, or that the -already ridiculous- ISK taps aren't scaling to accommodate more people drinking from them.

The biggest problem with 0.0 is high-sec.

The more you ignore this, the more time you're going to waste wondering why all the content you keep adding doesn't work as it's intended. It's because it all depends on there not being a comfortable alternative that provides almost everything that you promise, with none of the associated dangers or risks.

You're a scruffy looking middle aged man trying to lure people into his suspicious looking truck by advertising delicious candy, and when they don't come, you assume it's because the candy isn't delicious enough. It should also occur to you that your candy truck is parked right next to an ice cream factory run by SWAT officers who enjoy handing out free ice cream to everyone who can ask for it.


Don't worry, we're not ignoring it Smile

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.05 11:00:00 - [424]
 

Originally by: Demon Azrakel
Basically, ask yourself this question: would including more players hurt the income of a high SP player with multiple accounts? If yes, then expect that player to attempt to keep the involvement of others to a minimum, zero if possible. At the same time, do not attempt to keep that player from doing his thing (seriously, if I could solo vanguards, I should get 10x the amount as I did the work of 10 players. More players should spawn more ships to provide more rewards. In other words: It should be a challenge to solo, it should also be a challenge to run with multiple players, expecially if for whatever reason, multiple players is supposed to result in a higher pay.)

I am not trying to be an asshat (at this moment in time), but I trying to inject a bit of realism to the debate as to why lower skilled players get rejected from PvE.


Right, and this is the concern we have with much of our current content - if someone has enough ships to start running a site, they're generally already at the optimal size, and additional players will only reduce the income for the people already there. This creates an active disincentive for team play. If we can make both the difficulty and the rewards scale nicely with the number of people, then there's no reason not to have your friends come help, and we'd rather have you playing with your friends.

Originally by: Matthew
It's certainly something worth being wary of, but I think there is much greater motivation to move Trit to nullsec than from it.

People will haul Trit to nullsec because the difference in income between mining Veldspar in nullsec and mining ABC/running sanctums/etc is so large that it overcomes the hassles of transporting huge volumes out to nullsec.

I'm struggling to see the same motivation to haul Trit back to highsec. If we've started off with the premise that all 0.0 ores are equal (at a given mineral price mix), then if nullsec residents wish to mine minerals for export, they can pick whichever one they want at the mining stage, and they are going to favour the high-end minerals as those are the most efficient to transport. Mineral prices would have to be heavily skewed to overcome the hauling efficiency barrier. And if they were skewed to an unusually high Trit price, empire miners are seeing an income bonanza too and it's all good. And if they were skewed such that Trit remains the same but other minerals are lower, then mining is going to be a relatively unattractive profession and it is more likely that players will seek out other income generation methods instead. (while this might seem to go against the "everyone can get involved in everything" rule, it is an unavoidable nature of the Eve economy that there is a limit to the demand for stuff and massive oversupply will always crash a market).

The main danger to the highsec miner I can see is to what extent the nullsec demand for highsec trit is supporting the current highsec mining population. It is also worth considering how much of that highsec population represents nullsec alts deliberately mining low-ends in highsec, and the increased demand for miners in nullsec if it becomes viable to mine all levels of ores there.

Of course, this would also need to be viewed in light of the overall highsec-nullsec trade balance - if the nullsec mineral market became completely internalized, highsec could find itself running short of high-end minerals.


Ok, this is a good argument and has somewhat changed my mind about this problem. Thanks Smile

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.05 11:07:00 - [425]
 

Originally by: Naradius
Although I can understand, how this could melt your brain, I think you have dismissed this valid point too easily.
Let me explain and give an example - low sec with it's different elements (i.e. FW) is suppose to be closely tied into nullsec...after all, it was CCP who said they wanted FW (and therefore low sec) to be a stepping stone for players, into null sec.
This is where I feel that there has been failure in the past - you concentrate on fixing one area and alienate it from the stepping stone you created beforehand. Low sec and FW is so broken it isn't even near to being a giant leap into null sec...so how can you expect new players to venture into null?
If you don't consider low sec/FW while planning null, how can you bridge the gap for new players to cross?

That all being said - great blog...this time make sure you don't get sidetracked and leave us with half finished features...pretty please Wink


Yes, you are correct that we would be better off doing this for the whole of EVE at once, and that we're probably going to have to - at the very least - retrofit this plan when we do this exercise for other areas in future. In an ideal world we would do it all in one go, but right now we don't have the time (or the manpower) to do a proper job of it and still get started on the winter expansion on time. It's suboptimal, but it's the way it's going to have to be right now. C'est la vie.

Originally by: Harold Tuphlos
Actually, people losing their stuff in stations as they are destroyed is a VERY good thing. It provides a way to seriously hurt the owners and users of that station. This means that they must defend it or lose their stuff and possibly give some of it to the attackers. It gives third parties interest to come help defend in the case of current outposts, as they could lose their left behind items. (Small interest, but for example, I would be tempted to take a sb out to defend 6vdt rather than lose the fit ratting cane I left out there) This creates a situation were the defenders may be more numerous than the attackers would expect. Also and more importantly, nothing in eve should be safe, except noobie systems.


It's great for the attacker at the time, but in the broader picture I strongly suspect that it'd act as a big disincentive for people to move out into nullsec in the first place.

Originally by: Vendictus Prime
How would limiting the number of Super carriers and Titans allowed in a given system, based on your corps and alliances work?


I suspect badly. There's not a lot of drawback to creating multiple extra alliances to stash your supercap pilots in, given that they can't dock anyway.


Kim Telkin
Caldari
Love for You
Posted - 2011.08.05 11:08:00 - [426]
 

Edited by: Kim Telkin on 05/08/2011 11:09:57
Since this is turning into somewhat of a 0.0 brainstorming session, I'll throw out my idea for a new sov mechanic. There are two basic, but related ideas.


1) Lock gates/stations to switch sov
First create a new module, call it a "claimer" for now. If you are in a claimed system, lock a gate or station and activate the "claimer" on it. A timer will start counting down from X hours as long as the lock is held. When the timer reaches 0, the system is set as 'reinforced. After Y hours of being reinforced, it goes into 'vulnerable'. When a "claimer" is used in a vulnerable system, start another X hour timer. After that one runs out the same way, sov is switched. If the holding alliance uses a claimer in a vulnerable system they push the timer in the other direction. If it reaches -X hours it goes back to invulnerable.

Since there are many gates/stations in a system, you could activate claimers on all of them to make the timer tick down even faster. Or if there are 3 enemy claimers and 4 friendly ones, it will tick backwards at a rate of 1.

2) Sov Levels
Now the weird part ;) In order to claim the next higher sov level, require the system to be "linked" to another owned system in the same constellation. Then activating a claimer on any gate/station in a linked system will cause a faster timer clock. Having a higher sov level could also provide a longer timer period as well.

An example to make things clear (I hope).
Alliance A owns 3 systems (alpha, beta, gamma). They are all have sov level 3 (and are linked to each other).
Alliance B wants to take alpha system for itself.

They send in a fleet to system alpha. System alpha has 1 station and 3 gates. So the fleet splits into 4. They send a quarter of the fleet to each gate/system. One of the members locks each gate/system and activates a claimer on it. The timer starts at (for example) 12 hours, but is running at 4x speed (since 4 objects are being claimed).

After a few minutes they FC decides to send gangs to each gate/station in systems beta and gamma to activate claimers on those as well. There happen to be 2 gates in system beta and 2 in system gamma. They set the claimers to work. Now the system alpha timer is ticking at 8x normal speed. An hour and a half later the system goes reinforced. The fleet leaves.

12 hours later the system switches to vulnerable. Now alliance A comes out to re-claim eveything. They send out gangs to all of the gates/stations in the system and put claimers on them. Only to have a single alliance B fleet drop onto them. The fleet fight is now split over 8 different points of interest and each FC has to decide if and how to split the fleets.

After many hours alliance B is defeated and alliance A reclaims the system.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.05 11:08:00 - [427]
 

Originally by: Zey Nadar
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

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.


Again, your current system is already pretty much like that, with a large number of obligatory tasks involved in attacking someones sovereignty. You have to do it by the book, dropping SBUs and reinforcing ihubs , stations and the like. Theres very little room for variety in there. Extremely few ways of attacking someones logistics or isk-making in actuality for example, therefore we are reduced to attacking their sovereignty. I really hope you go forward with "less rules for sov" approach. Also there are pretty few actually working fleet compositions. If everybody could fly every ship, the fleets would be even more homogenous.

Quote:

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.


Thats what I would like, but you need to introduce more 'tools' for players to do different things. There are many mechanics that simply aren't used because using them would require players to trust each other instead of the system mediating the interaction.

Nullsec trade particularly ONLY happens blue-to-blue or nullsec-to-highsec, because of lack of neutral ground where outsiders could do trade. There arent enough NPC stations for it. This is one of defining reasons for the "one-stop shop to Jita" phenomenom. The outposts only allow blues to dock in practise, with current system the players inherent distrust toward each other prevents nullsec trade from happening. This also makes sure that trade can succeed only within large alliances/coalitions, and encourages large NAP-fests in its small part.

On the other hand, dockable NPC stations everywhere in null would create a huge security risk for the alliances. So, what if you could introduce NPC trade outposts in space that you couldnt dock at, but you could unload/load cargo and set up sell/buy orders, kind of like planet custom depots open for everyone to trade in?

ps. Just remember that there are two main things that limit player interaction:
1.) Players would have to trust each other
2.) Players would have to be online more than they can (destructible stations for example wouldnt be a problem if people wouldnt have RL reasons for being offline for extended periods of time. The need for persistency creates the need of indestructible 'safe' storage)


Yeah, current system is like that, that's why I don't like it all that much Smile

And yeah, trade's only got a real chance of happening between alliances in a structured, bilateral manner, ie alliance leaders negotiating with alliance leaders. There's not going to be much room for independent traders in the near future, I don't think. Which is a shame, but some trade is better than no trade.


CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.05 11:10:00 - [428]
 

Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 05/08/2011 11:10:25
Originally by: Teirna
re: scaling PVE encounters

>> No, no, no!
>> Please not. This is a horrible, ugly idea. Completely artificial and immersion breaking.

>Can you explain your reasoning here further? This isn't a reaction I was expecting.

It smacks of a WOW style solution. One of the great things about games like EQ for pvp minded players was that some content required power. Some goals should only be achievable by those with the power to achieve them (numbers and gear wise).

If implemented badly this would allow an 'all content for all!' type deal which would break the feel of the game. 20 high sp characters in t3 ships should be able to achieve more than 10 low sp characters in t1 battleships, both in PVP and PVE.

There should be plenty for the smaller group to do, but it should be bridge content to the 'better' stuff.

OFC, a potential compromise is that the 'good' stuff is in nullsec requiring sov. This by definition requires a capable force to control the region to start with (which may be where you are heading anyway).




Would you be more comfortable if we had low-difficulty/reward content (anoms etc) scaling up to mid-difficulty/reward, but we kept the high-difficulty/reward stuff as it is now where there's a minimum threshold?


Originally by: Eugene Spencer
I really hope this post doesn't get lost - I have a legitimate concern.

I am NOT part of a 0.0 corp or an alliance. I do however, use Nullsec for two things:

1) For making money. I run plexes and other anomalies in small groups. I love the niche I've found. When playing the game, I really do feel like I'm taking something from the big alliances. I shouldn't be in their space, let alone taking their resources. I play the patience game and the rely on the fact that alliance members will usually ignore me - I'm more hassle than they're worth.

My point is, I'd like to continue doing this - allow me to steal resources in alliance space I shouldn't be in. I don't want that mechanic to change. Of course, you could make it easier for alliances to protect their space and resources.

2) For small gang roams. I'm not in an alliance, and our corp is fairly small-ish (85 players). I would like to harass alliances. I really don't care if what I do has long-term effects - I'd look for alliance vs alliance play style for that. I just wanna be able to go out on a sunday evening, into 0.0 and kick some alliance goofs in the shins - I want small fleet combat. I want to see ships getting blown up without the hassle of joining an alliance and dealing with all the bull**** I can't be bothered with.

Maybe I want everything for nothing. That might be true, but I thought I'd give a view of how I, and some of my corpmates, use 0.0.

Cheers CCP! :D


I'm on board with both of these points.

Hauhet
Posted - 2011.08.05 12:01:00 - [429]
 

It's very clear that lag is not handled.
One solar system cannot take 2000 people
fighting in..

So do something about sov system not to create
2000 pilot fights..

Draft.. continue/modify if you like :D

One approach:

Tcu's and sbu's has to be deployed in one dead space complex inside solar system.
complex works similar way as wormholes.
Dead space system is not "physically" same solar system. Entry to pocket is on every
solar system and every system has own pocket.
On local of pocket you see only your own alliance members.
=definition to pocket

Tcu's and sbu's has to be anchored and onlined inside pocket.

by default pocket takes 300 tcu owner alliance(sov holder) pilots to enter system and
100 pilots from another alliances.

unclaimed system pocket takes 400 pilots inside.

When sbu is online. Only sbu owner alliance and tcu owner alliance pilots can enter pocket
each onlined sbu adds 100 more pilots to sbu owner alliance enter pocket
making maximum 300 pilots from sbu owners. and 300 pilots from tcu owners.

When sbu is online targeting is not working outside pocket and if it's station system
market goes offline.

sbu will selfdestruct after onlining in 20 hours.

you cannot lid cyno inside pocket.


+Smaller alliances can hold sov
+End of large coalition blob warfare
+We will see "pimped" ships outside missioning.
+sc's and titans dont need nerf
+no more lag



Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2011.08.05 12:21:00 - [430]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
And yeah, trade's only got a real chance of happening between alliances in a structured, bilateral manner, ie alliance leaders negotiating with alliance leaders. There's not going to be much room for independent traders in the near future, I don't think. Which is a shame, but some trade is better than no trade.


Probably true in terms of trade happening within nullsec itself - any idea I've seen or can think of to create a neutral location for trade inside nullsec would break too many other things.

I think the closest we'll get is something hung off your revised resource distribution principle:

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
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.


If the multi-region resource clusters are chosen with the nullsec access pipes in mind, those pipes become natural concentrators of the resource flow and consequently have the potential to develop local tade hubs, probably at a point in low-sec or the high-sec jumping-off point as these are the earliest neutral territory on the pipe.

You still wouldn't have much in the way of neutral trade within nullsec, but it would generate venues for neutral traders and suppliers to feed their wares into the nullsec supply lines in a more localised fashion (rather than just dumping it all in Jita), and neutrals are likely to fill the role of trade balancing across the various access pipe hubs.

gfldex
Posted - 2011.08.05 12:40:00 - [431]
 

Originally by: Aralyn Cormallen

I find it a little pathetic to look at the influence map and see blocks of colour, taking up large chunks of space, vanish overnight because the defender knows after the first battle that its over, and walks away rather than put up a pitched defence. At the moment there is no reason or incentive to take only a portion of someones space; if your going to try and take a bit, you might as well take it all - both because you know you can, and theres no disadvantage to taking a region even if you have no intention of living in it.



On a small planet far far away, long years past, an empire build streets to march on by any weather, any time of the year. They conquered all of the known world. Then they discovered that there is more to know. But even the strongest elite soldier can march only so far. Their armies came to an hold. Their empire was grown to big (and they met Scots and Germans) and they went on the road of demise.

Distance should have meaning, shouldn't it?

Sepporith
Posted - 2011.08.05 12:42:00 - [432]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Would you be more comfortable if we had low-difficulty/reward content (anoms etc) scaling up to mid-difficulty/reward, but we kept the high-difficulty/reward stuff as it is now where there's a minimum threshold?



Sounds like a great compromise. I did read your example of new players arriving to a group post optimal size with interest and it did remind me what I hated about fixed sized instances in other games (late comers can't join the party).

I think I get what you're saying and I like it. More players means you still get the same reward/per, but of the same reward type that the current players were already getting.

I like the fact there is still some 'end game' style pve content in the game (such as c6's). I'd hate to see me jump into a c6 and have the system reconfigure itself to 'easy c6 mode' ;)




Castelo Selva
Posted - 2011.08.05 13:06:00 - [433]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale


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




Dear CCP Greyscale:
Short: You are wrong!
Long: Since I can not link here killboard to prove you are worng, please I will send to you an eve-mail with tons of link about supers at nullsec NPC systens, killing people. Bait it and then Hotdrop it is the new "I win" playstyle. Supers are everywhere! That is the problem for small fleet warfare. If one side loose, next time they will be ready to hotdrop to not loose again. And then this become a big circle and, after all, everything become a "who have most supers".

As I said before, to prove my point of view, check your ev-email. Or just do a kick search at killboard. Super are there, including at NPC nullsec!

Leah Pendragon
Posted - 2011.08.05 13:08:00 - [434]
 

Edited by: Leah Pendragon on 05/08/2011 13:13:47
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Jekyl Eraser
Stuffs


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?


Like what the anom nerf did?

The risk/reward is broken in null, for the average grunt, its better to spam lvl 4 mish in Empire and roam null rather than live there. Which is a shame because Null is far more fun than Empire, the land of carebears and honey.

What I would love to see in Null is for when the big land baron alliances go off 17 regions for pew, us small groups could raid their space empires and cart off space riches while generally smashing the place up a bit. Rather than just harvesting renter kms.

Might also help with lag as a part of the blob would need to stay at home keeping the vandals off the lawn and stuffs.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.05 13:29:00 - [435]
 

Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 05/08/2011 13:32:41
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
And yeah, trade's only got a real chance of happening between alliances in a structured, bilateral manner, ie alliance leaders negotiating with alliance leaders. There's not going to be much room for independent traders in the near future, I don't think. Which is a shame, but some trade is better than no trade.


Probably true in terms of trade happening within nullsec itself - any idea I've seen or can think of to create a neutral location for trade inside nullsec would break too many other things.

I think the closest we'll get is something hung off your revised resource distribution principle:

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
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.


If the multi-region resource clusters are chosen with the nullsec access pipes in mind, those pipes become natural concentrators of the resource flow and consequently have the potential to develop local tade hubs, probably at a point in low-sec or the high-sec jumping-off point as these are the earliest neutral territory on the pipe.

You still wouldn't have much in the way of neutral trade within nullsec, but it would generate venues for neutral traders and suppliers to feed their wares into the nullsec supply lines in a more localised fashion (rather than just dumping it all in Jita), and neutrals are likely to fill the role of trade balancing across the various access pipe hubs.


Yup, pretty much. The other candidate we've been looking at in terms of nullsec trade hubs is of course NPC nullsec, but that presents its own problems Smile

Originally by: Sepporith
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Would you be more comfortable if we had low-difficulty/reward content (anoms etc) scaling up to mid-difficulty/reward, but we kept the high-difficulty/reward stuff as it is now where there's a minimum threshold?



Sounds like a great compromise. I did read your example of new players arriving to a group post optimal size with interest and it did remind me what I hated about fixed sized instances in other games (late comers can't join the party).

I think I get what you're saying and I like it. More players means you still get the same reward/per, but of the same reward type that the current players were already getting.

I like the fact there is still some 'end game' style pve content in the game (such as c6's). I'd hate to see me jump into a c6 and have the system reconfigure itself to 'easy c6 mode' ;)






Yeah, the aim would be to have existing content scale up in difficulty, not down Smile If it's already a C6, we wouldn't turn it into a C5 just because you didn't bring enough people.

Originally by: Castelo Selva
Short: You are wrong!
Long: Since I can not link here killboard to prove you are worng, please I will send to you an eve-mail with tons of link about supers at nullsec NPC systens, killing people. Bait it and then Hotdrop it is the new "I win" playstyle. Supers are everywhere! That is the problem for small fleet warfare. If one side loose, next time they will be ready to hotdrop to not loose again. And then this become a big circle and, after all, everything become a "who have most supers".

As I said before, to prove my point of view, check your ev-email. Or just do a kick search at killboard. Super are there, including at NPC nullsec!


I'm not denying the fact that they're there, by any means, I'm just saying I didn't see any Smile I know of probably a dozen small corps who were living out there at the time without a single supercap between them.

BtodaC
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2011.08.05 13:54:00 - [436]
 

According to some posters lvl 4 missions in high sec are the most profitable method of making isk. However there are still corps willing to pay large sums of isk to rent systems in null for ratting. The gameplay seems to contradict the opinions of the posters.
Any chance of getting the CCP economist to provide some answers based on the facts?
PI style moon mining sounds good to me, especially if the sov holders can get the import/export taxes from it (and from PI aswell).

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.05 13:54:00 - [437]
 

Okay I've laid in on this subject many times but hadn't posted here.

First off what you've done in the past has nothing to do with the recent fall of the NC. I'd first readjust the anomalies so that even the poorest system has at least 1 horde or haven. Some systems are just not worth anything now.

Next restore the 2 JBs per system, if you recognize that logistics is to tedious and unfun, then lets make it easier.

Next rarity of minerals. If you want more empires you need more not less. Any system with less than 6 belts should be brought up to 6 static belts. Under your current system it is not possible to get military and industry up and keep it up with fewer than 4 belts, but you need to bring them up more.

For everything else double the belts, make 1 ice belt per constellation at least. This isn't about sov warfare this is about small scale warfare if you want it.

Don't mess up and make it so easy to take territory that its not worth anyone investing anything into, because they won't. That's what the anom nerf did, want to know why most to the NC didn't fight after the initial fights and why they lost space so quick after the anom nerf. Had nothing to do with the anoms other than there was not reasonable way to make money in half their systems. Why fight and defend what can't make you enough iskies. The moons were the real motivation behind the war.

Want to make t2 everyday common? Then redo the moon minerals and have moon colonies like you do on the planets. Make sure every constellation can at least make every moon material. You can still have the stuff reacted in POSs. To make that vulnerable to enemies.

You'll never get the numbers out to 0.0 without enough stuff for them to do, more belts, more anomalies, more plexes, more mini sites etc. Double or Triple all of them. You gotta make the space worthwhile or no one is going to come dislodge anyone. Also don't concentrate on moves just to dislodge the existing empires, they've spent years building up and it shouldn't be easy to take them down.

Want Empire corps to have a chance raiding into 0.0, you need to give them more tools to help deal with supercarriers and caps in general. Not caps of their own but ships to designed to peform anti-fighter/anti-drone roles. Some sort of subcap capitol buster ship, etc.

Leah Pendragon
Posted - 2011.08.05 13:56:00 - [438]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The other candidate we've been looking at in terms of nullsec trade hubs is of course NPC nullsec, but that presents its own problems Smile



I liked how the noctis was introduced creating a rush to Outer ring. If the things that CCP seeds on the market such as BPO's, advanced skill books and some decent profit trade goods were found only in specific low/NPC null stations could that not help stimulate a mini trade hub? If only for people buying stuffs to seed in empire.


CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.05 14:05:00 - [439]
 

Originally by: Leah Pendragon
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The other candidate we've been looking at in terms of nullsec trade hubs is of course NPC nullsec, but that presents its own problems Smile



I liked how the noctis was introduced creating a rush to Outer ring. If the things that CCP seeds on the market such as BPO's, advanced skill books and some decent profit trade goods were found only in specific low/NPC null stations could that not help stimulate a mini trade hub? If only for people buying stuffs to seed in empire.




This is an interesting idea.

Eperor
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:12:00 - [440]
 

Originally by: Leah Pendragon
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The other candidate we've been looking at in terms of nullsec trade hubs is of course NPC nullsec, but that presents its own problems Smile



I liked how the noctis was introduced creating a rush to Outer ring. If the things that CCP seeds on the market such as BPO's, advanced skill books and some decent profit trade goods were found only in specific low/NPC null stations could that not help stimulate a mini trade hub? If only for people buying stuffs to seed in empire.




NO it will not this wil stimulate noly jita market more will be always ppl hioo wil wait lonmg long time ger lots off stuf bring to jita and sel it there for more price.
And ppl are in his nature lasy, moste of them atleast, they beter go in to one spot buy all tibngs and leave that spot so i tink need all station have usual npc intem like skil books etc, even 0.0 playeer build outposts need to have that, than jita market wil be litle bit down.

Second ting for industry need to be ramda industry att all, curently profit from t2 ships its none here is talk about t2 BPO`s they braking all that t2 market over all. I ass manufucturer cant prduce eny t2 ship at curent jita prices i will lose **** loud off money even to try it. MOdules story its litle bit beter but stil not good.
Profit from production att all is verry low, even not worth to do it unles you dont have t2 bpo. Until that not fixed wil be verry low amount off pll ho wil produce enyting in 0.0.

BtodaC
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:13:00 - [441]
 

Keep t2 manufacturing in hi sec, if it goes to null then the new players in hi sec will lose access to it making their experience worse. Also keep t2 expensive, it makes losses hurt and juicy kills enjoyable. If you make isk easy too easy to generate in null sec then hi sec players will be at a massive financial disadvantage. The grind undertaken to buy (and/or produce) ships and equipment imparts the value players place on them.
Making isk to easy to get or lowering the prices of goods results in less pain over losses and less joy over kills.
The grind is horrible and dull but without it PVP loses its terrifying edge-of-the-seat excitement.

Leah Pendragon
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:22:00 - [442]
 

Edited by: Leah Pendragon on 05/08/2011 14:32:15
Originally by: BtodaC
According to some posters lvl 4 missions in high sec are the most profitable method of making isk. However there are still corps willing to pay large sums of isk to rent systems in null for ratting. The gameplay seems to contradict the opinions of the posters.


In terms of only ratting its difficult to say Mish or anoms are definately better accross the board, as a range of factors influence it, chiefly the true sec value.

If you can rat in a low population (thus low competition for the sites) and a good true sec rateing (meaning more top end anoms)then in my experience its pretty similar isk generation, in favour of the anoms.

However if your a smaller corp sharing a system and the true sec is poor then your competing for the sites, in many cases lower end sites than pre-nerf. Then mish are considerably better especially when you factor in LP's, mission rewards and the fact that you faction fit Tengu has almost no chance whatsoever of ending up on a rather embaressing KM.

Originally by: BtodaC
If you make isk easy too easy to generate in null sec then hi sec players will be at a massive financial disadvantage


Hi-sec players SHOULD be financially disadvantaged from Null players. Null is end game, its far higher risk thus the rewards should match this. Personally I'd nerf Empire but that isn't going to happen. So instead our corp live there but roam null.

DaiZom B
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:28:00 - [443]
 

Edited by: DaiZom B on 05/08/2011 15:09:21
Edited by: DaiZom B on 05/08/2011 14:37:05
Edited by: DaiZom B on 05/08/2011 14:31:03
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Leah Pendragon
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The other candidate we've been looking at in terms of nullsec trade hubs is of course NPC nullsec, but that presents its own problems Smile



I liked how the noctis was introduced creating a rush to Outer ring. If the things that CCP seeds on the market such as BPO's, advanced skill books and some decent profit trade goods were found only in specific low/NPC null stations could that not help stimulate a mini trade hub? If only for people buying stuffs to seed in empire.




This is an interesting idea.


What about some kind of "NPC Islands" - Trade Hubs run by an Marketeer NPC Alliance who (god knows why and how) set up shop deep in 0-0 and interconnect those hubs via stabilized (or high spawn rate/probability) wormholes or sth you may have to pay to use (like a highway toll) and Concord-like protection needs to be ensured.
I imagine here some Highsec-Like NPC Trade Hubs in W-Space with altering links - but they occur often (like 1 per constellation per day). In which capitals may not enter and such.

PLUS
Do not scale NPC sites with players! PLSPLSPLS. Eve shouldn't encourage multiboxing but force me to stick to one client since it's (should be) already hard enough to control that goddam ship as NPCs screw with you in a tricky manner all the time. So make NPCs smart and allow CONCURRENT multiprofession and COMBAT ROLES in ONE site, i.e. I will need 1 Inty 1 Bomber and 1 BS for Site Type A or fail is assured. Site B, C, D, .. need other professions, ships, roles and participant count. Scale the reward accordingly: if you bring hacking ships you will get fancy stuff and so on.
Also variate sites of the same type algorithmically so your content teams won't kill you. Maybe escalate this to algorithmically created PVE arcs wich happen in the same constellation and so on...

Abrazzar
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:33:00 - [444]
 

Originally by: Leah Pendragon
What I would love to see in Null is for when the big land baron alliances go off 17 regions for pew, us small groups could raid their space empires and cart off space riches while generally smashing the place up a bit. Rather than just harvesting renter kms.

Might also help with lag as a part of the blob would need to stay at home keeping the vandals off the lawn and stuffs.

This is something I was proposing, too. Allowing players (and their corps) to create small space settlements and deadspace facilities for industrial gain. Be it a mining outpost, a drug den, a central POS fueling station (that allows one to put fuel in all owned POSes in the system from one place with storage), production facilities (like PI) or tactical sites like station activity monitors or system scanning arrays or listening outposts.

Those can then be attacked and looted/disabled/hacked by small(er) gangs for their advantage. Those could even be (a minor) part of defining system control for sov, like for example in this old post of mine from the official Sovereignty and starbases, the future! thread back then.

Sites like this attract small gangs and small gangs can counter them. Unlike left behind 'civilians' that log off/safe spot/POSwarp as soon as a hostile is reported close by, those sites cannot be passively protected (much. they may have a gun or a few installed to deter solo pilots).

Player created installations would address a couple points I made further up in the long posts of mine, too. So overall, I'm all for it. It would attract more industrial minded people to 0.0 to build and tend to those places. ugh

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:40:00 - [445]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 05/08/2011 11:10:25
Originally by: Teirna
re: scaling PVE encounters

>> No, no, no!
>> Please not. This is a horrible, ugly idea. Completely artificial and immersion breaking.

>Can you explain your reasoning here further? This isn't a reaction I was expecting.

It smacks of a WOW style solution. One of the great things about games like EQ for pvp minded players was that some content required power. Some goals should only be achievable by those with the power to achieve them (numbers and gear wise).

If implemented badly this would allow an 'all content for all!' type deal which would break the feel of the game. 20 high sp characters in t3 ships should be able to achieve more than 10 low sp characters in t1 battleships, both in PVP and PVE.

There should be plenty for the smaller group to do, but it should be bridge content to the 'better' stuff.

OFC, a potential compromise is that the 'good' stuff is in nullsec requiring sov. This by definition requires a capable force to control the region to start with (which may be where you are heading anyway).




Would you be more comfortable if we had low-difficulty/reward content (anoms etc) scaling up to mid-difficulty/reward, but we kept the high-difficulty/reward stuff as it is now where there's a minimum threshold?



I think the worry is that scaling encounters done wrong is one of the major banes of many recent games and often a tool of a lazy developer who doesn't want to balance the content properly. If done poorly it can ruin an otherwise good game on it's own. To do it properly will require a lot of work and you can't just half ass the system and think you've improved the gameplay experience for all. In all likelyhood you've done the exact opposite.

I think you have the right general idea how to use it though. It can work just fine, but only at a limited range. The specific difficulty/reward range isn't important. What is important is that the variation is limited, so the encounter can provide exceptional challenges or be breezed through effortlessly depending on the fleet doing the site. Keep in mind, that not everyone wants the exact same thing from your encounters or does them in the most efficient manner, but you can only scale it according to one way of doing things.

The above dosen't alter the fact, that you'll have to decide what will trigger the scaling and what kind of scaling you think will work the best. Are you for example scaling things by numbers, some kind of "gear score" or fleet composition? The point being that a small group of frigate buddies, a few HACs and a dedicated logi pilot or a marauder with a salvaging buddy aren't looking to do the site in a same way and an overly simple scaling system can fudge up the site for some.

It is also worth considering what kind of reinforcements are we talking about. A new wave of more of the same would be the least disruptive, but also the most boring option. It would just make the site more long and repetative, but not really more challenging. Special random waves with incursion type AI and roles would be more interesting(I'm thinking cohesive NPC groups like a logistic group, bomber wing, interceptor wing, ect.), but possibly devastating if the scaling is triggered without the players actually having more combat capability on the field.

I don't want to go deep into the pros and cons of difficulty scaling until you get some details done on the system you intend to use. The things I wanted to convey at this stage is that scaling needs to be done with a lot of thought or not done at all and that the wider range of scaling you use the more problems your system will cause. Also don't forget that the players can always choose another site, if the challenge isn't to their fleets liking. A good alternative to wide scaling is giving people access to multiple sites of varying difficulty/reward levels and let them choose for themselves.

DaiZom B
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:41:00 - [446]
 

Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Leah Pendragon
What I would love to see in Null is for when the big land baron alliances go off 17 regions for pew, us small groups could raid their space empires and cart off space riches while generally smashing the place up a bit. Rather than just harvesting renter kms.

Might also help with lag as a part of the blob would need to stay at home keeping the vandals off the lawn and stuffs.

This is something I was proposing, too. Allowing players (and their corps) to create small space settlements and deadspace facilities for industrial gain. Be it a mining outpost, a drug den, a central POS fueling station (that allows one to put fuel in all owned POSes in the system from one place with storage), production facilities (like PI) or tactical sites like station activity monitors or system scanning arrays or listening outposts.

Those can then be attacked and looted/disabled/hacked by small(er) gangs for their advantage. Those could even be (a minor) part of defining system control for sov, like for example in this old post of mine from the official Sovereignty and starbases, the future! thread back then.

Sites like this attract small gangs and small gangs can counter them. Unlike left behind 'civilians' that log off/safe spot/POSwarp as soon as a hostile is reported close by, those sites cannot be passively protected (much. they may have a gun or a few installed to deter solo pilots).

Player created installations would address a couple points I made further up in the long posts of mine, too. So overall, I'm all for it. It would attract more industrial minded people to 0.0 to build and tend to those places. ugh


But what prevents some hundred men raider gang to go and wreck havoc to all those splittered, small corporations who can barely set foot in 0-0. This is SOV/bring a Blob goo all over again.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:49:00 - [447]
 

Originally by: DaiZom B
But what prevents some hundred men raider gang to go and wreck havoc to all those splittered, small corporations who can barely set foot in 0-0. This is SOV/bring a Blob goo all over again.

I think I was not clear in one point: The corps creating those sites are not independent, they are part of the sov holding alliance. So if a raider blob comes along a counter blob will get fielded against them. Which may result with some luck in a lot of small gang battles all over the place.

This whole idea is not intended for small independent corporations that struggle for a foothold in 0.0.

Viceroy
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:58:00 - [448]
 

Travel times are too short and travel (especially logistics) is too safe and convenient for a meaningful economy to develop in 0.0 space. This was always the case, but it became worse over time first with instajump bookmarks, then with warp-to-zero and obviously with the current ridiculous jump-drive mechanics. Every one of these changes made EVE smaller and safer and thus less meaningful, mostly to satisfy ADHD-ridden carebears (see: short-termism) who wanted to get everywhere and do everything before they went to bed.

This has made it impossible to develop a meaningful economy in 0.0. It really isn't an issue of rare resources being available in 0.0 only, or how those resources are distributed, or who has access to them, when all of those resources are 30 minutes away from being exported to Jita with a good set of cyno alts and Titans and/or JFs. If you seed BPOs or skill books in 0.0, some dude in a JF is going to seed the entire empire market in under 15 minutes of work. It also doesn't matter if you give 0.0 producers advantages or access to better resources or other incentives when everything can be bought from a much safer, much more efficient and much more competitive market that is again, at most 30 minutes away. On top of that, you can buy hundreds of thousands of m3's of stuff in a single short trip thanks to freighters. Jita will remain the supermarket of EVE as long as travel is so conveniently safe and fast.

For economies to develop in 0.0, the travel time to empire has to be measured literally in DAYS rather than minutes and loopholes like jump drive logistics and portals have to be plugged. But DAYS? That's insane. People would die of boredom.

Not necessarily; people would travel less if travel times were much slower than they do right now. WHAT? Well, right now it's more convenient to invest another 15-30 minutes of travel to get to Jita than it is to produce locally or give an incentive to someone to produce locally or any other complex solution that would involve local economy. Screw it and tell your alliance JF dude to ship it in. If the travel times were much slower, you'd likely be making the trip from empire to 0.0 once, and would carefully plan your logistics accordingly, knowing that it's probably a one way trip. After that, the time you would normally invest in going to empire to pick stuff up would be distributed among more engaging activities, such as, you know, BUILDING A LOCAL MARKET (either through buying stuff or actually producing stuff knowing that you won't be out-competed by a JF alt).

DaiZom B
Posted - 2011.08.05 15:02:00 - [449]
 

Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: DaiZom B
But what prevents some hundred men raider gang to go and wreck havoc to all those splittered, small corporations who can barely set foot in 0-0. This is SOV/bring a Blob goo all over again.

I think I was not clear in one point: The corps creating those sites are not independent, they are part of the sov holding alliance. So if a raider blob comes along a counter blob will get fielded against them. Which may result with some luck in a lot of small gang battles all over the place.

This whole idea is not intended for small independent corporations that struggle for a foothold in 0.0.


I see. But still: A big force can this way hit any number of systems and can only be countered by an equal or bigger force. So entity A may steal your stuff each and every day and you can not do anything about it since your force just isn't big enough. IMHO it is not about giving a small force an opportunity to steal something but to encourage to use a small gang and not a big blob. This is the key issue. If you manage that all doors are open.

Lady Zarrina
Posted - 2011.08.05 15:04:00 - [450]
 

What is with this fascination about Jita in null sec? Big deal, more trade happens in high sec? If you were going to buy billions in assets, where would you prefer to do the deal? Don't spend too much time trying to force people to do things that goes against common sense. Hate to see more development cycles wasted.

Null-sec should be rewarding. Null-sec should be exciting. Null-sec should be dangerous. But null-sec doesn't have to be the best place for everything. And, sadly it is often not even previous three.


Pages: first : previous : ... 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 ... : 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