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 : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 : last (22)

Author Topic

Integra Arkanheld
Posted - 2011.08.06 21:38:00 - [511]
 

Thinking about how to promote wars against players, perhaps it would be good that when you upgrade something, you remove quality from somewhere else.
For example, you alliance has several systems, and they upgrade them. Then the systems at the border cannot be upgraded. The more you upgrade them, the bigger the distance from your border that cannot be upgraded. Then when another alliance comes, they will need to come to your systems, and remove your upgrades so they can make theirs.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.07 00:51:00 - [512]
 

Originally by: Shadowsword
I took my time before answering to this blog because I wanted to think about it for a few days, but here goes:

- Nothing really new in this blog, aside of a higher probblility of ending up with destructible outposts. Disappointed.

- CCP want to encourage smaller-scale wars by giving more reasons to fight. Imho, it won't work. Giving someone a reason to fight to aquire an advantage, is also iving someone else a reason NOT to fight, to keep said advantage. Players form powerblocs not because it give them a more fun pvp (no one like lag), they o it do defend their possessions from others. Increase the value of said possessions, and you just increase the incentive to defend it at all cost, especially at the cost of fun.

- CCP want to give 0.0 players complete freedom. It's a good idea in theory, but how does it translate in practice? Powerblocs. Lag. 0.0 ruined in Serenity, last time I checked. Let's face it, if it's a choice between wallet and fun, fun will loose for most 0.0 dwellers. It's a case where what we want is freedom, but what we need is limitations. One example of limits I'm thinking about, and that would have results for sure, would be to remove identifications in local, remove standings, display only the ship type on a ship on the grid, without name/alliance information, put a limit to alliance size, and ban any player who would try to get around the limit by creating duplicate alliances or obviously coordinating with a out-of-game tool. What is really needed in 0.0 is chaos, and it comes with nerfing the tools of coordination.



I agree. if you want smaller scale warfare you need to limit the size of the competitors. there is nothing wrong with large alliance imho but they should not be the blocks that enable space to be held. Corporations should be the highest unit of space controlling groups possible. that way you don't have huge power blocks, you just have different groups vying for space.

Alliances should go the way of treaties and mutual defensive agreements. this will still let people have mutual groups that trade and help each other but still allow for autonomy between corps to rule their own space and set their own policies. Combine this with my Idea to hire NPC's to help guard your space and we can make for an interesting and deep player experience while still allowing for a controlled chaos to reign. think about it... a bunch of warlords holding small batches of space vying to take each other out to attract more people into their space.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.08.07 01:54:00 - [513]
 

Several people have suggested that players should be pair automatically for killing ships in PvP operations. I think this would be a system that would be meta-gamed by the players.

Two alliances could insure their ships, fit them as cheaply as possible and take turns killing each other. With full insurance and cheap fits even a minimal payout from NPCs would result in profit.

If the payout came from the alliance wallets, then two rogue FCs could organize a similar type of operation to defraud their alliances. Its just makes for a alliance headache that most likely all would avoid by not using the automatic payment system.

I think a better way for PvP lovers to get funds is by making their space safe for people who enjoy making money, and have null rich enough that the money makers will want to go there even when a large chunk of their income goes to fund the PvPers.

EdwardNardella
Capital Construction Research
Posted - 2011.08.07 02:36:00 - [514]
 

"Nullsec features and content should support and enhance a clear perception that some areas of space are "better" than others, measured by a given metric, but the hierarchy does not need to be uniform across different metrics"

Do you mean like having areas that are are each good for something different Like: Mining, manufacturing, group pve or exploration. I really like this!

"Doing something just "because it would be cool/neat/awesome" is always a bad idea and will come back to bite you later."

Then why would you ever impliement anything new?

BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.08.07 03:30:00 - [515]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Bubanni
As long as you don't make stations destroyable so everyone inside lose all their assets...


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




Oh Oh! I had an idea about this a while ago, I'm just not sure how easy it would be to implement. It's been a year or more, so I'm not 100% sure this idea is exactly the same but basically it works like this...

When a station is destroyed no items in it are destroyed, and how you can access them depends on where you are. First of all, all station services are destroyed, "extra" clones, station repairing, etc. Blueprints are ejected back into hangers, items in build are ejected as though they had never been started (minerals and blueprints are there) etc. Nothing is "lost" but people may be set back on build times and blueprint research.

So now if you log on you appear in a destroyed station hull. If the graphics guys want to have fun here, the outside is all busted up, the CQ inside is a wreak, your bed is turned over and dead hookers are visible underneath, whatever. Two ways to go from here, uber hard mode (I kinda like it) you can't access anything, hanger, ships, etc. Your stuck in the last thing you had active, even if that's a pod. Easy mode is you can access your hanger and change ships from here, access your hanger from fittings so you can refit for the escape run, etc.

Either way you have to undock eventually. After that you can no longer re-dock, there's too much wreckage and the automatic docking procedures are ruined. If you really want to make players happy, Scotty is also dead. However, you can still access your hanger and ships from space by nudging up against the station and opening a menu somewhat like a POS. So you can switch ships (do the ships go back in the hanger like they do in a POS, or do you have to be in a pod before you can take one? balancing items here for you devs). You can access all your goods, but nobody else can access them (for now?) so to get all that expensive stuff back, your alliance/corp/friends/whatever have to mount rescue ops into hostile space. Maybe you can still create courier contracts?

If you want to create some fun here, after a while (90 days? a year?) the items in personal hangers go public, anyone can grab them \o/ let the free for all begin. There will be people that track these and set timers just to try to grab some rare blueprint from a player that quit long ago that just changed to public. Oh the fun that would be had with this!

Now that that station is destroyed, there -might- always be assets in there, even if they go public, maybe people just don't want them, so you have to leave the station there. You can't rebuild on that planet or moon or whatever, so it's conceivable that a system might be completely full of wreaked stations with absolutely nowhere left to build a new one!

No idea if this is even technically possible though....

BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.08.07 04:02:00 - [516]
 

Edited by: BeanBagKing on 07/08/2011 04:05:46
One more post, I want to respond to another thing I see being brought up in here, "The AFK Cloaker!" *duh duh duhhhhhhh!* Ideas ahead, I hope this gets a devs attention/response.

We all know the sides of the arguments, to me both are reasonable, to sum them up. One says that a single cloaker is alone, completely outnumber in hostile space. It creates something for the lone wolf to do, harassment and gorilla warfare. The other says that there's no way to know if he's online, traps don't work because you could be there for hours, DAYS! and not even know if the person is online, and numbers don't matter because he can pick and chose targets that will be destroyed and he'll be gone before help arrives, and that's assuming he doesn't have a cyno fitted.

To me it boils down to this. A) Everything in Eve should have some form of counter and B) nothing you are actively doing (i.e. not station spinning) should be 100% safe. The AFK cloaker breaks both of these.

My solution isn't a "nerf AFK cloaking" solution. I'm against that, don't touch cloaking, it does what it's supposed to. If anyone wants to ***** about stealth nerf whine, read that last sentence, actually read it, "don't nerf cloaking". Still think it's a whine, tough.

It does need a balance though. My personal favorite is a new destroyer hull built for "sub hunting" and new scanner skills/items. It takes 10 minutes (play with the numbers, the idea is a long time) to scan down a cloaked vessel, it's cloaked after all, it's going to be hard to do. Then you can warp to it (it's 100% right away if he hasn't changed grid, read on for that bit), during this time even an AFK cloaker can be moving in a direction, so your best bet is to warp a large fleet in the same area, pop drones, and scatter for the decloak. You won't land right on him, 2500 and all that, plus the direction he's moving.

If the cloaker warps during this time, the scan fails, so as long as he's changing grid every 9 minutes he's still IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND (yes, you were right, this is def a nerf whine Rolling Eyes </sarcasm>). Scouts can still do their job with no fear, active lone wolfs can do the same, even going afk for a short time is still going to be pretty safe, but there is SOMETHING can can be done, he isn't 100% safe, a balance has been created! New ships and skills and equipment has been introduced, more for newish players to do? More power in the players hands period! Oh, and if it's a destroyer hull, perfect target for that stealth bomber, the smart pilots will quickly learn to add these cloaking finder probes to their overview so they know when they are being hunted and can hunt the hunter :)

Another often tossed around idea is some kind of system wide depth charge. Another is some form of sov upgrades. This last one might be more in line with the current theme of "upgrade the space you hold" line of thought that's been going on. I won't discuss these ideas because they aren't mine, but I don't think any of them are balanced right.

-BBK

Sleepy Gaezer
Posted - 2011.08.07 04:09:00 - [517]
 

I've always equated null-sec with non-consensual pvp. If this thread is "how do we improve non-consensual pvp?" then there have been a lot of interesting ideas from a purely theoritical standpoint since I have no interest in non-con pvp.

If the thread is "how can we use null-sec to make eve a better game?" then I'ld like to point out a few things that I feel you are already doing very well:
  • I like having clearly marked areas graded by the amount of non-con pvp (the less the better for me). You've done this well. Please keep this.

  • I fully, and briefly, enjoyed the rich pve experience available in null-sec (thank you CVA). I'm glad you (cpp) continues to find ways to enrich pve (separate from pvp) for those that enjoy it. E.g. incursions, new missions, better npc AI's. I hope to return to null sec pve when there are once again alliances stable enough to offer tourist visas.


How does null-sec affect what I like about the game? It doesn't really, for example I like eve for the following:
  • Flying expensive pve geared space ships. Null sec (non-con pvp) would not be kind to my silly pve based ships. Would love to build and fly bigger and sillier ships, but not if the cost is having to partake in non-con pvp.

  • Exploration. Unfortunately space is small and fully claimed, and it doesn't seem right that it is. I would love to have a ship/game-mechanic that would put me and a few friends in some exclusive, empty and un-explored space. Like wormholes that can only be accessed by the corp that found it. Right now wormholes are just another non-con pvp area. Or, in a similar vien, let our corp rent time-limited exclusive rights to a jump gate to some empty (null-sec) space that is being considered for colonization.

  • Realism. Love it! Lots of ideas on improvements I'ld like to see, but null-sec has no impact on this.

  • PVE. Would really like to try a level 5 mission, but will pass if the cost is that I have to go into a non-con pvp area in order to do so.


Disclaimer: Nothing against non-con pvp. Just not for me thanks. Not on my list of fun things to do. Yes high-sec has non-con pvp too, but it is constrained to a reasonable level. I'm happy to dock my hulk a few weeks every year Smile

In ending I'ld like to share the results my first planned exursion out of high-sec. Having got a clone and a fresh rookie ship, but not knowing how to check the map for gate camps, I ventured out of high sec for the first time.
"My, look at all those red ships.", I thought, "Surely they won't bother to shoot someone in a rookie.." BLAM! "Oh well, surely they couldn't be bothered to shoot a pod, I'll just..." BLAM!
I laughed my ass off and have been very carefull about going out of high-sec ever since Very Happy

Syekuda
Hell's Revenge
Posted - 2011.08.07 04:27:00 - [518]
 

I just wanna add my 2cents to this blog. I went in 0.0 for a short while and got back in FW. Here is why

What I loved about 0.0:
1. full pvp - most in fleets
2. ratting (boring but good for ISK making)
3. not safe at all. Always looked behind you.

What I hate about it:
1. When your corp or alliance is not prepared for an invasion, your only option is either using your jump clone or spin your ship in station (look at the door now ?)
2. ratting is boring. Way too repetitive. Combat sites are a bit better but still the same AI from npc's so it becomes boring.
3. Market is super crappy. I know why the prices are higher but so much more that can be done about that to fix it.
4. Not all items were avail where I was in 0.0 so like number 3, it ****ed me off cause i couldn't use what I wanted.
5. POS bashing seems to be important in 0.0, I hate it, its boring, way to long and ...I wanna pvp, not look at a pos all night lol.
6. the amount of scouts neutral alts in systems are just insane. I know its legal and all and I know the reasons, mechanics and all about it but its ****ing me off.

Because of those points and my short time of play, I got back in faction warfare. easy pvp, better market and the total freedom with the risk involved. Way better for me.

ps: more ISK making here btw. so join our corp to get more info on this.
ps2: ya, its also an excuse to plug in my corp and give fw a boost for new pilots for recruit lol.

Ze Beeblebrox
Amarr
Negotium Holding
Negotium Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.07 09:10:00 - [519]
 

@CCP Greyscale

Now you managed to kill all smaller alliances out of 0.0 as self sustaining entities with a glimpse, resulting in the exact adverse of what stupid crap you ever told ! And yet, you believes you have any good Idea at all ?

There were more poeple and more conflicts in 0.0 before you killed the kind of sov mechanics which supported smaller entities and before Jumpbridges (which I did not use for transports as they were too dangerous at all anyways) were nerfed, so that only Titan owning entities could do real logistics !

2 really stupid changes which killed off any diversity of 0.0 and especially smaller entities !

If you, CCP Greyscale, really want to improve 0.0, then just get off and let others work on it ! You only mess it up because you obviously did not understand anything behind it, neither realities of power, nor peoples psychology !

Next: If you want to improve 0.0 ! Start now ! You killed the growth of eve-online and ****ed off thousands of players and eventually got your company, CCP, into trouble because non-growing-memberbase means less creditworthyness !

Starting now also means, not to postpone it to St.Neverlands day ! You did manage to kill 0.0 within a few days, so improve it "within a few days", at least not within a few thousand days !

My personal suggestions:

- An Alliance needs a definable homebase, center of all its operations.
- The home system has the following abilities:
* as many stations and of any kind anywhere in that system as that alliance wishes
* as many jumpbridges as an alliance wants, with a max range of 12ly towards systems that alliance has sovereignity in. Jumpbridges are now freely floating in space, cannot be anchored less than 1000km away from anything else. Jump allowance on status threshhold and liquid Ozone consumed out of the cargo of those wanting to jump.
* cloakjammers (no cloaking device is working) can be set up within 2 ly surrounding the homebase.
* interdiction nullifiers do not work in the homebase.
* AOE Doomsday for Titans available and implemented via script on the classic doomsday (1 classic DD/hour/system fireable). AOE Doomsday works within any system 2.5 ly (just a value - could be less ore more and even depend on the natural secstatus of the homesystem) around the homebase.
* moons within 2.5 ly are all worthless at first and can be upgraded by Upgrades to the homebase and to the System the farmed moons reside. (The Homebase-Upgrade defines the max richness of moons and the System-Upgrade defines the classes (kinds of resources) of the moons within a system.
* Systems within 2.5 ly of the homebase have an upgradeable secstatus and can be upgraded to -1 if all homebase and system-upgrades are maxxed. Eventually there could be a radial degradation, giving -1 to all systems within 1 ly, -0.8 within 2 ly and -0.6 to the rest.
* Any Sentrygun within 2.5 ly of the homebase can be configured to automatically fire on all ships whose pilot whose status is below a certain threshhold.
* Only systems within 2 ly can be cynojammed
* systems which must be more than 1.5ly away from the homesystem can hold a guardian outpost upgrade. 3 guardian outposts are necessary for all defensive and other features to work (AOE doomsday, cynojammes, sentrygun control, secstatus upgrades).

Now the defense mechanism of the guardian outposts:
Systems with Guardian Outposts do have status indicators: blue, yellow, orange and red
As soon as more than 2'500dps (averaged on 30 minutes) hit a guardian Outpost, all systems of an alliance with guardian outposts enter status yellow.
As soon as all guardian outposts are simultaneously attacked within 30 minutes, they enter status orange.
for the next 8 hours all guardian outposts have to be treated with more than 2'500dps in average. As soon as that value drops below that average the timer resets to zero. The average is calculated towards the past 30minutes.

Idea: safe homebase, defined size for alliances, developpable.

Ze Beeblebrox
Amarr
Negotium Holding
Negotium Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.07 10:16:00 - [520]
 

The idea of my post above is:

Give alliances a natural size in space as well as a reasonable maximum area.
There can be places in space where an alliance can grow slightly larger than in other areas.
But as soon as we are at a certain distance from a homebase, it should be very easy for any alliance to set up their own homebase and guardian outposts.

there could be other tricks like:
- when Upgrades needed 4 weeks to reach their maximum, they will take 4 weeks to drop down to their natural status if sovereignity is dropped. (encouraging rogue and mercenary alliances to farm on fully upgraded alliance bases).
- complicated sovmechanics only work within a "safe" area of a homebase.
- Sovholders of a system can claim ownership of any structure not owned by their alliance on the control panel of their IHUB.

Instead of the classic Hitpoint mechanics, there will be a more sophisticated variant where more than a certain amount of dps is pointless:
- a structure must be attacked for a certain time, e.g. 8 hours.
- during that time the dps should be no less than a certain limit, e.g. 2'500dps.
- that limit is measured on average within a certain timeframe, e.g. 30minutes allowing tactics like warping in, giving huge damage, warping out and the like.
- certain important and extremely valuable structures might require to be attacked for several days for that timeframe, e.g. 4 days in a row for 4 hours each day.
- as soon as a homebase drops, any structure belonging to that alliance can be/is instantly claimed. (no grinding anymore !)

--

Abrazzar
Posted - 2011.08.07 10:17:00 - [521]
 

I was thinking about making sov claiming more fluid, organic, where player activity defines the sov and not plonking down a huge structure shouting "MINE!" and then abandoning the system.

The sov index could be similar to security levels, with 0.0 being no influence at all and 1.0 the maximum level of sov. Different levels of sov allow adding structures to the system, which increase usability, profitability and defensibility of the system.

Activities that raise sov can be sorted into indexes, for example industrial index being defined by mining and manufacturing, maybe PI and moon mining, too or the security index being defined by pilots active, rats destroyed and maybe, if possible, PvP fighting results.

Should activity drop too far too long, sov level drops along with the indexes and any structures no longer filling sov prerequisites will go inactive (but stay targets). Raising the sov level again to appropriate levels allows reactivation of the structures by whoever holds the sov level, so conquering a system with structures allows you to claim the assets the other people left behind.

If rats abandon systems they are hunted a lot, this would then also simulate the security distribution of rats for sov levels, where high sov levels usually means few rats are there (which is adding to the security index) and more rats in the sov fringe systems, should no one else hunt them there.

This would limit alliances to space they can populate, require them to remove and replace activity of other alliances' sov to conquer their space and reduces the need of big cap/super blobs to shoot at big structures for hours to days.

Sov system support structures range from small asteroid colonies to full fledged stations in the 1.0 systems. The structures don't upgrade but stay and add up, offering a wide range of target sizes for roaming gangs.

Sov claiming fees would no longer be needed. Instead activity, investment and maintenance(protection) of system assets are the fee for keeping the sov.


Biggest problem I see would be balancing the index flux, so it's not too easy (and thus meaningless) or too slow (thus frustrating), balancing the benefits of structures to be in line with current system upgrades and especially the whole database juggling of indexes here and there and who did when what and how did it influence something.

Anyway, fluffy idea, probably a pie in the sky.Laughing

0011110010110
Posted - 2011.08.07 13:28:00 - [522]
 

There is no need to "THINK" about nullsec as your members have done it for you.

For example :
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1447812

This kind gentleman has done an entire rework of the entire 0.0 sov mechanics. This includes stations, planets, sov mechanics etc etc.

On another note : You say you don't want building pewpew, but in every patch you bring out to "fix" this, it has only gotten worse.

1. Claiming sov via towers *1 reinforce timer to kill a tower, a system can be done in 2 hours by a fleet of dreads*
2. Claiming sov via sbus/tcus/ihbus. *2 reinforce timers of 2 days and enough ehp to need a blob fleet of supercaps to do it with.*

Play the game, listen to your members, fix the game. Not rocket science.

Gevlin
Minmatar
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
Posted - 2011.08.07 22:08:00 - [523]
 

to make the conquest of nul sec space it needs to satisfy several different playing styles. Though team work is required to get an objective collected.

For Small skirmish (10-15 newbs) or (5-7 Vets) groups fragile targets: though to avoid the flip flop of destroying and replacing a module there needs to be a lingering effect and then a cool down period before a replacement of the object and the effect to be on lined.
Also allow these objects to be disable vs just destroyable. Disable would require only a limited amount of to sustained DPS, Placing more DPS on this object will destroy the object and allow immediate replacement in the same location or another location in the system. The Disabling the object effect would not allow a similar effect module being on-lined in the system since the lingering effect of the disabling process is causing a disturbance in the system preventing similar objects to be onlined.
Possibly the Maximum Strength of 1 Dreadnaught or 10 Battle ships lasting for 1 hours.
These Objects should be only onlined around small POS's or other bodies that can't place too many static defences

The effect of these can be major, but are fragile effects – Making it worth while for defenders to take the risk to defend it instead of hiding in pos
Modification of Local
Cyno Beacon , Cyno Gammer, Jump Bridges networks if they will be allowed.
Modification of space similar to that of Worm Hole space

For Medium Skirmish (15 to 75 Newbs) or (10 to 30 Vets) groups of standard HP objects: the avoidance of Flip flopping of these object. The destruction will follow the similar lines for small skirmish targets but with a larger number of HP and a Larger amount of sustained DPS can be deployed on the object to disable it vs destroying it.
The effects of objects would be less radical than fragile upgrades but still would be benefits to the defenders:
The automated gate guns
Standard Military and Industry Upgrades the fit with in the infrastructure hubs

For large battles the simple destruction of objects with reinforcement timers would be applicable.
Though the objects would be in multiple solar systems. (blockade units would not be in the system to be taken over but in the neighbouring systems.) A system needs to be taken one at a time. Ie a blockade unit in a solar system will conflict with another in the same solar system preventing 2 Solar systems sharing the same neighbour from being taken over at the same time.

On the larger blob battles there should be some objects where smaller groups can accomplish to effect the larger groups. Deploying of fragile target that increase or modify reinforcement timers or destroying anomalies that spawn which the reinforcement timers produce that may advance or role back the timers.
To keep things interesting: While a system is under the process of being taken over – its value of resources increases dramatically– (The spoils of war) Bounties increase as the Local Pirates invade to capture resources under the chaos of war, The Mineral values increase as NPC miners (the ones we never see) leave the area for safer havens. Pirate/drone plexes become plentiful as these entities populate in contested areas.
This will match the reward for participating in such a dangerous areas. There will be more gross profit for miner who mine in a Warzone.

I can see as a result some alliance Designating selected border zones as contested areas for free for all combat so that resource could be collected to be farmed.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.08.07 22:17:00 - [524]
 

unfortunately im not sure what would make 0.0 more interesting..... the only thing i could suggest is to make ratting a lot more difficult e.g. rats that scrambler your ratter.....

its too easy for bots to be able to warp out of belts when local bumps and it would give more opportunity to kill things.

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.08.07 22:42:00 - [525]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
unfortunately im not sure what would make 0.0 more interesting..... the only thing i could suggest is to make ratting a lot more difficult e.g. rats that scrambler your ratter.....

its too easy for bots to be able to warp out of belts when local bumps and it would give more opportunity to kill things.


So you want to make income in null even less worthwhile and drive more people back to highsec? Or is this a thinly veiled "I am uber leet pvper and want to gank more ratters and miners"?

Doc J
Posted - 2011.08.08 01:29:00 - [526]
 

Edited by: Doc J on 08/08/2011 01:29:37
Originally by: Amber Villaneous
Originally by: StuRyan
unfortunately im not sure what would make 0.0 more interesting..... the only thing i could suggest is to make ratting a lot more difficult e.g. rats that scrambler your ratter.....

its too easy for bots to be able to warp out of belts when local bumps and it would give more opportunity to kill things.


So you want to make income in null even less worthwhile and drive more people back to highsec? Or is this a thinly veiled "I am uber leet pvper and want to gank more ratters and miners"?


Botter alt sensed!

how is sticking rats that scramble less "worthwhile" they work in WH Shocked

Think of it in this sense..... it makes roaming around more appealing and gives the "hit and run" fleets something more appealing than to a. roam and get sweetfa b. the chance to kill bots and c. to be able to float around and kill things without being WTF blobbs oh and d. solo pew pew......

Income in null??? most people use mission alts, PI and Pos chains to create their isk anyway....

mechtech
SRS Industries
SRS.
Posted - 2011.08.08 02:40:00 - [527]
 

Let's get it right this time CCP! (I'm glad 0.0 is getting another total revamp so soon)

Maybe run the new system on the test server for a while in order to get feedback before launch? If there's any feature to do live testing on, it's this one!

Oh, and remember to make the new landscape ultra-hostile to bots Twisted Evil

If only we had a few more team BFFs to breathe life into many of eve's outdated and rusting features...

Gevlin
Minmatar
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
Posted - 2011.08.08 02:53:00 - [528]
 

Would like to see more asteroid belts that are scan down only. Even the Crappy one that are reliant on of sec status. So that I can mine the crap or for production with out being jumped on by a non scanning ship.
As a Miner I would not mind the absence of local if the belts I was at had to be scanned down. This now make it a skill of scanning for the enemy, and keeping scouts on gates.. Requiring more Team work vs just using a Bot program to warn you when a neutral or red enters system.
Though if the scanning is going to become more popular and a requirement, the identification of the type of anomaly at 10% vs 50% would help with scanning down the care bear faster and hunting down the belts easier.
Though make it an upgrade option for local to be upgrade, allow Null sec sovereignty holders continue to make their systems into empire but in their own image.
Though an Idea is that as a sovereignty holder continues to upgrade the effective security of their holding, so does the sec status of that location producing less valuable ore. These would be havens for Trade in Null sec and be areas that could be sources for easily mined empire ores
So Goons could make VFK a .5 system by paying rent to Concord to guard that system. Allowing them to make a trade hub to all in the area. (Then they would make gate camps in the surrounding areas II-5, I30, 2-KF, 2R-C, to catch neutral traders...LOL) Though to complete this upgrade in the surounding systems would have to a special upgrade to maintain this so the enemy could eventually destroy this advantage.


Gevlin
Minmatar
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
Posted - 2011.08.08 02:59:00 - [529]
 

The benefits from null sec need to compare with empire but also include the cost of a or more scout to make Null sec as safe as empire

Rewards of space need to scale with the risk in a system. In order to sustain those caught in the middle of the warfare. To encourage those to enter risky/violent areas because of the larger rewards vs the desire to make a high reward areas low risk.

Provide a strength that a small alliance will have that will scale with deminishing returns as an alliance gets bigger and holds more territiory. Something that a Larger Power block would benefit from by having that small alliance exist just being there. (Ie a boarder of any kingdom will lower the effective rating of 1system) So a Large power block will by riddled and surrounded by small alliances... which will end up fighting amongst them selves more likely. Renter alliances seems to be preventing small term conflict.

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.08.08 03:24:00 - [530]
 

Originally by: Doc J

Botter alt sensed!

how is sticking rats that scramble less "worthwhile" they work in WH Shocked

Think of it in this sense..... it makes roaming around more appealing and gives the "hit and run" fleets something more appealing than to a. roam and get sweetfa b. the chance to kill bots and c. to be able to float around and kill things without being WTF blobbs oh and d. solo pew pew......

Income in null??? most people use mission alts, PI and Pos chains to create their isk anyway....


Not a botter, at all, ever. The point is we want people(targets) in null and everytime it gets fugged in the arse(anom fugg/jump bridge fugg) you have less and less people(targets) in null.

As far as how "most people" make their isk, unless you have a character named "most people" stfu. I don't have mission alts, I don't do PI and moongoo is a corp/alliance thing.

Who cares what works in WHs? If that's what I wanted I would go there.

If dram/cynabal vs rat scrammed ratting raven/hulk is what you call solo PVP.... well.

Kogh Ayon
Posted - 2011.08.08 08:40:00 - [531]
 

Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 08/08/2011 09:11:12
Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 08/08/2011 09:01:15
The need of "the reality of game" should always lean to the bottleneck of the technology in reality.
For example: Fix the lag in 2000 scale locals...or fix the 2000 scale locals, with a good "science fantasy reason".


As the blog mentioned "Nullsec permits extremely rich PvP experiences at all fleet sizes", and "Everyone should have a reason to fight".

These are already there,but I probably understand the second one in a different way. Fight does not only mean set standing at red and bring the cap bolbs to boost the local to 2000.
So for medium and small sized fleet, every of these fleets should "have a reason to fight", or "have a reason to form a medium-small sized fleet and go out".There should be an actual reason, not "try to catch some noobs", "try to find another roaming fleet to fight".
This is critical. if people have nothing to do other than causal "noob hunting roaming" or "kill havens/sanctums", they will back to high-sec for missions(they are at least better than havens) and incursions(fleet play with a clear goal). Don't mention sov fights they are not always happen to every alliance.


"Players should be able to mitigate danger, but not eliminate it".
I would like to make a comment on it: "the target of danger does not limited by the star-ships that players fly, there should be more properties/profits could be 'endangered', and eventually the grief play(usually would not create any value to the griefer) such as AFK cloaking should be nixed".


Many markets in 0.0 are terribly screwed only because there are not enough customers.If you can bring customers, heaps of people include me, will bring the JFs/carriers with whatever from high-sec.
Something like "NPC freighter/transport" would be nice idea in null. Enabled by a destroyable "fast loading pad" besides the station, the station will generates a NPC unit to carry the goods to the destination station, destroyable as a player's ship of course.


Pasadenasman
Born In Jungle
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.08.08 09:45:00 - [532]
 

Edited by: Pasadenasman on 08/08/2011 10:02:59
Edited by: Pasadenasman on 08/08/2011 09:54:07
Originally by: Abrazzar
I was thinking about making sov claiming more fluid, organic, where player activity defines the sov and not plonking down a huge structure shouting "MINE!" and then abandoning the system.



You think you propose do not make exactly the same? Automatic sentry guns, cloakyjammer, etc etc...

You sir just killed moar the nullsec entity.

What i've learned in many years of 0.0 is that there is nothing higher funny than NO RULES.

Just give people the choice. Only that thing, the choice.
The choice to destroy an outpost for example...

I don't want to have a place better than empire in this or that kind of way. Give me exactly the same mechanic and shut down all ****ing rules existing in empire and you will make my day.

I see... you want something more fun and will rise 0.0 life in no time... Just shut down empire by 3/4 it is now. That's incursion ! 0.0 Pvper assaulting the empire. Give reward for the braves carebears for saving tradehub, give kills to f*cking pvper.

Give us mechanic, give us tools, keep the rules for you !

Edit :
I forgot another example of rules you can shut down to improve player experience.
Shut down the ability of SC/titan to not be jammed by POS's electronic warfare. Why the hell my tower can't disrupt a ship even in 0.0 ?
Balance risk-reward, do you remind? give risk to the guy who is making what would be a risky activity and give me reward for training anchoring at V and pos gunner to specially disrupt that moron and keep him on the grid !

No rules, moar fun.

You want moar ? Moar moar moar ??

give us a sbu to specially anchore in a highsec faction space. Concord Rules the empire and give/or not give rights to keep/pay for sov. Nullsec people has find a way to jam back concord.

Empire SBU + destructible station = Win

Increasing industry and market in 0.0 is not required when you can loot the empire by force. You just get the reward you want by encouraging people to play with each other.

CCP one day said : " Empire is no absolute safe place, it's safer than 0.0"

GIVE US INCURSION 2.0 WHERE NPC IS REPLACED BY REAL PILOTS !

Nomad III
Posted - 2011.08.08 10:17:00 - [533]
 

Originally by: Pasadenasman
Edited by: Pasadenasman on 08/08/2011 09:54:07
Originally by: Abrazzar
I was thinking about making sov claiming more fluid, organic, where player activity defines the sov and not plonking down a huge structure shouting "MINE!" and then abandoning the system.



You think you propose do not make exactly the same? Automatic sentry guns, cloakyjammer, etc etc...

You sir just killed moar the nullsec entity.

What i've learned in many years of 0.0 is that there is nothing higher funny than NO RULES.





You are one of those few thinking more generally in term of concepts. But we have got rules because of the station ping pong. We have got new rules because it was to easy to conquer someone (MC versus D2 and allies) and then we have got more rules resulting into todays sov warefare. But no one is really happy. I know all the discussions and most of the were bad this thread is.

To me it's looking like the sandbox has a general problem of concept.

1) The warfare supports bigger entities better than smaller ones. It's not only the fleet war. Even logistics causes more work for a smaller entity. So I'm not wondering why there are so many big blobs.

2) ship design isn't made according to the principle scissor-stone-paper. An example is the discussion about SC. Many have ideas to get rid of SC, but this will solve nothing, because if this shiptype is dead, the big blobs comming with another shipsclass.

I like your idea of no rules, because it will solve several problems.

Get rid of sov. Every station or outpost should be open to all. No more pingpong, no more sov structure grinding. If you want defend your superriority in your area you have to make the live of others so miserable as possible. This is causing a constant war. It's like in the 0.0 NPC areas.

In the case of capitals we are just need a cheap bomber ship class, that is able to pull them into a nirwarna. So no need for a new rule. If soneone likes SC he has to put a big support fleet on field too or he will loose his precious toys. Hotdropping with SC will be suicide.








Nomad III
Posted - 2011.08.08 10:22:00 - [534]
 

Originally by: Kogh Ayon

Something like "NPC freighter/transport" would be nice idea in null. Enabled by a destroyable "fast loading pad" besides the station, the station will generates a NPC unit to carry the goods to the destination station, destroyable as a player's ship of course.



That's a terrible concept. We have got a sandbox made by players and ccp. Introducing NPCs is counterproductive. If you want trade and production in 0.0 you have make it cheaper. But you have already mentioned, that you are missing the volumne. The reason for this is, the hole 0.0 is buying in Jita, because they have good reasons and the lack of pilots in 0.0.


Elementatia
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.08.08 10:32:00 - [535]
 

You can't have a guideline for 0.0 only !
Bevor discussing details, you must have a guideline for low-sec, FW, High-sec and WH too.
Only then you can compare and see the differences.
Therefore, i requestthere must be a devblog with all guidelines.

Spugg Galdon
Posted - 2011.08.08 10:45:00 - [536]
 

I have a feeling that 0.0 is going to be the base that all other areas diverge from. Hence why they have no clue what is gonna happen in low/high sec yet cause they don't really know what null sec is gonna be

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.08 10:59:00 - [537]
 

Originally by: Viceroy
Edited by: Viceroy on 06/08/2011 01:03:50
Quote:
No, not exactly like that - mining does require stuff to be hauled, but it's usually I think being hauled by miners. The interesting thing about putting trade items - particularly medium-volume ones - exclusively in (NPC) nullsec is that it gets traders finding ways to move high-volume shipments back and forth. And if you're already swallowing the cost of getting a hauler to Fountain to pick up cargo, anything you can do to monetize the empty out-bound run (such as seeding markets, even at marginal profits) is suddenly worth your time.


As mentioned before, this already existed, and all it led to was heavily organized farming via jump portals. Lowering the profit margin might discourage titans, but again the most epic outcome will be some dude and his JF/Carrier and cyno alts seeding most of empire with a 20 minute journey. The massive time difference between jump-travel and normal travel means that no one in an industrial is going to bother with it if the profit margin is too low to attract even a bored JF pilot. It adds nothing that isn't already in the game, given that people already make trips to empire with trade goods (faction loot, deadspace loot) without any artificial NPC goods to incentivize them.

Compare this with a universe where the space between each region was populated by a number of massively massive desolate wormhole-like systems with multiple entries/exits and no resources, through which you could only navigate from celestial object to celestial object until you -discovered and- reached an outbound gate. Any trade run would be a long journey (similar to deep WH ops, taking many hours or split over days), and would be very profitable (similar to deep WH ops). You would plan and split your cargo between ships to make sure you don't lose everything if you run into hostiles, have scouts going ahead (actual scouts, not disposable 10k sp alts in shuttles that can't warp more than 15 au at a time) and real escorts. Planets and other objects you use to navigate through the systems would have either players looking for easy kills or sleeperesque unpredictable NPCs for added spice. Having a POS along the route would be valuable; you could even have a player run trade outpost for people willing to come half way.

NICE ARMCHAIR DEVELOPMENT THERE VICEROY, MUST BE VERY COMFY, I hear you say, but frankly 1) it doesn't use anything that isn't already in the game, 2) it doesn't even have to be like this, it's just an example, and 3) most importantly, anything is better than what passes for trade right now (AFK freighters and portals), and certainly better than re-adding something that was removed for good reason a long time ago and wouldn't add anything in terms of player experience or gameplay value if it existed. You can come up with a thousand different good ways to energize 0.0 production and trade, but every one of them involves fixing (INCREASING) travel times to be more reasonable and realistic across ship classes, and none of them involves ignoring the fact that it's 20 minutes from 0.0 to Jita with a freighter.


Ok, I see where I messed up now Smile By "trade items" I meant "things that players would want to move for trade purposes", and thinking particularly about things that are currently NPC-seeded - like blueprints and skillbooks, except their volume isn't large enough - that players want. We have no intention of boosting NPC trade runs in nullsec. Sorry for the miscommunication!


CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.08 11:03:00 - [538]
 

Originally by: Mobius Fierce
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
People like to do one-stop shopping, and will "go to Jita" for everything unless doing so is comparatively very inconvenient
You don't have to make Jita "very inconvenient", but it would be nice if null sec production was a worthwhile option with plenty of factory and market capacity.


Comparatively very inconvenient. If you can buy everything you need in the station you're in for reasonable prices, going to Jita is hugely inconvenient by comparison. If you have to shop around a whole region and the prices are high, going to Jita is probably not very inconvenient by comparison. If you have to negotiate a trade route with someone on the opposite site of the map to buy stuff at source, going to Jita and buying it off the market there is hugely convenient by comparison. The sum of "how much of a price premium am I paying locally?" and "how much effort do I need to make to buy locally" needs to be lower than "how easy would it be to just go to Jita".

Originally by: Elayae
Edited by: Elayae on 06/08/2011 10:03:37
I personally like the idea of a cloaked/hidden mini-starbase/POS a small base out of which covert op skirmishes can be prepared, ninja mining / salvaging, and which can wreck havoc on logistics fleets or harass fleets in general.



I like the idea of a starbase with a modified jump drive, tbh.

Originally by: EdwardNardella
"Nullsec features and content should support and enhance a clear perception that some areas of space are "better" than others, measured by a given metric, but the hierarchy does not need to be uniform across different metrics"

Do you mean like having areas that are are each good for something different Like: Mining, manufacturing, group pve or exploration. I really like this!

"Doing something just "because it would be cool/neat/awesome" is always a bad idea and will come back to bite you later."

Then why would you ever impliement anything new?


-Yes
-Because of the other part of that paragraph - there are things we need to do to fix broken mechanics, or to advance specific goals.

DaiZom B
Posted - 2011.08.08 11:20:00 - [539]
 

Hey here is one idea about nerfing supercaps by extending eve:

- Make (Super) Caps and maybe SOV Structures hackable
-- by a mini-game that is
-- needs a special ship and/or module
---> area of effect in which hacking can be done
---> increasing your sig radius extraordinarily
-- resulting in different effects/defects of the targeted ship
---> off-line a module for some time
---> jettison (parts of) cargo
---> disable propulsion, target locking, drive, jump drive capabilities (you may want to consider to actually and finally make those capabilities "fixed modules" on ships - thus making them in-line with regular module mechanics)
### The capital pilot should have the option to actually counter an attacker, or 2-3 if he is good (in the same sort of mini-game), but he will lose any encounter of 3 or more simultaneous attackers
### The mini-game could be pretty nerdy with console-command stuff and such (there are actually already casual games out there which mimic hacking)
### : New Skills, Modules, Ships, Professions -> good for eve

The scenario would look sth. like this: Adam's Fleet cynos in 4 Supers, Bob's Fleet counters with "OMG WE NEED THEM HACKERZ!" -> 5-6 Hacking Ships appear (maybe cloakies?) and start hacking the first 1-2 Supers. Bob's fleet now focuses totally on keeping THEM HACKERZ alive - who keep the supercap pilots on their toes and disabling some capabilities every now and then, weakening Adam's supercapital force substantially.
At some point Adam's fleet wants to retreat but by hacking one super is pinned down and lost/logoffski'd.

Plus, the idea of implementing running costs for supers (which is an awesome idea read here in the forums) that is.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.08.08 11:27:00 - [540]
 

Part of the issue of trade items is that to check the price point and availablity at a station you have to go there or place a alt there.

A % number of goods avaiblable say in 5 areas type 2 goods, type 1 goods, skill books, ships, all items. searchable like the new agent finder would help random pilots find systems with lots of items.

While outside tools are good the current search function in the market place hides trade hubs from view if they are just one jump outside of the search paramiters.

A new skill possible linked to shopping lists and the ability to check with in say 20 jumps to see where the items are avalable and if the area is friendly/is in a alliance store would help identify the needs so players can id them better.


Pages: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 : 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