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 : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Eugene Bugblatter
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:20:00 - [31]
 

The horse has well and truly bolted on the 'turn EVE up to 11' thing. Supercap blobs? Check. People botting in supercaps? check. People ratting in carriers in drone space and distorting the mid-range mineral market churning high-end drone plexes at 400 wrecks/hr/system? Check. People responding to CTa's in gangs of supercaps? Check. And by people I mean Russians.

I mean there's all this talk about 'everyone should have a weakness' and 'people should just go get organised' and 'blah blah we want to create space for small alliances to gain a foothold'. Crap. You move out, you either pay rent to the mafioso already out there, or you set up in some of the already crap areas and someone wipes you out in one weekend when they send a scout through your system(s) and realise their 100 dread blob can tear your POSs apart in 5 minutes.

There is no boredom shooting structures in null for most of the people engaged in the serious wars. The hardest and longest part is getting the logistics sorted out so you can actually get your cap blob onto the object you need to shoot, and then its pretty quick.

The real painful sieges are in hisec (no caps = no risk to deathstarred BPC-printing alt-corp POSs = wtf) and w-space (usually no caps, ridiculous POS spammed systems, omgwtf effort to clear them out). This crying about nullsec sieging is just people crying that they have to attend CTA's or the mafioso boot them out of their ISK faucets.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:22:00 - [32]
 

Your goal to reduce lag is in direct contradiction with your goals to get people to work together. And if wormhole space has taught me anything, co-op incentives with strict arbitrary limits (on size/numbers) would appear the best way of reigning in "the blob".

Then again... Why shy away from the political/strategic aspect of numbers, especially if you must hold true to the ideals of the sandbox, at the cost of player experience - in 0.0 at least.

Tactalan
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:22:00 - [33]
 

It makes a nice change to read a null-sec dev blog that doesn't make me angry. I hope this level of communication and consultation continues.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:22:00 - [34]
 

When i was apart of null sec back before CVA crashed and burned what i enjoyed most wast he ownership of a constellation. Me and the rest of my corp joined an alliance that had a nice piece of space to call our own and we treated as such, made improvements to it, almost added another outpost to our list as well. When you came out with the new Sov mechanics i didn't like the upkeep costs so much as i enjoyed going to the massive mining sites that popped up in our system when we improved the space. i understand the upkeep was a way of balancing the game play so i accepted that as we went along.

therefore as i see it, when you do start to draw out the details i say you should keep the method of trying to improve your space a posibility. this will allow for systems to really gain in popularity and or give us reason to fight over it. i.e. if someone upgrades it will attract bandits and workers alike trying to etch out a living somehow in this game. if there isnt that then its all a competition for the same contested areas constantly and you get dead spots where no one wants to own expect people who so desperatly want to play out there but dont have the means to own a piece of null sec.

tl;dr KEEP SYSTEM UPGRADES!!!... otherwise whats the point on owning a piece of land you cant improve on?

StarScream Xion
Caldari
Xion Limited
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:25:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: StarScream Xion on 03/08/2011 15:29:25
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: StarScream Xion
I'm sure I'm not going to be the only person who asks, 'but what about low-sec?'


This release will be about 0.0. What I'd like to do though, is repeat the process we've done for 0.0 on Low-sec, but that would be at a later time.


I appreciate the response, I do however hope that 'a later time' doesn't turn out to be too much later ^^;

Taleris Kline
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:26:00 - [36]
 

I think that most of the rules specified in the blog seem to make sense as a goal for null sec. I'm not sure though what a system will look like that follows the following goals/lessons as related to sov:

-> Shooting at stationary structures is boring
-> Having to spend significant amounts of effort defeating an enemy which isn't even fighting back is really boring
-> Waking up every morning and having to clean up the mess made while you were asleep is boring
-> Players should be able to mitigate danger, but not eliminate it - nobody should be safe in space, everything that's built should be destroyable
-> Nullsec features and content should avoid disadvantaging someone because of the timezone they happen to live in

Figuring out who own a system while following all of those rules is going to be difficult to say the least.

Ajurna Jakar
Gallente
Jian Products Engineering Group
Atlas.
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:28:00 - [37]
 

in the name of teamwork i'd say change the nullsec sanctums for something similar to vanguards et al. requireing teamwork and providing decent profit.

CCP Soundwave


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:28:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Ajurna Jakar
in the name of teamwork i'd say change the nullsec sanctums for something similar to vanguards et al. requireing teamwork and providing decent profit.


That's an interesting idea.

Jack Haydn
Valar Morghulis.
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:29:00 - [39]
 

1) The anom nerf really was a bad idea. First of all, you need to have happy individuals for alliances to succeed, and to be able to survive in (bad) null. You CAN nerf income on alliance-level, so it makes players want to go for different regions, but if the players as such are completely broken, demotivated and off to empire/low, you can't even start thinking about fighting for better space, even if alliance level income was ok. Hurting alliance income (which moons, due to scarcity, are. You can't give a moon to every member or corp) is less of a negative impact on perception and drive to play and go on, than hurting individual players.

2) If you think JBs are *such* a bad idea because they stop small scale pvp, make it necessary to anchor JBs at stargates, instead of towers. JBs "latch" into the stargate's technology to transport ships, but make it possible for a longer range by the JB technology + fuel. This way, the safety of JBs at armed towers, somewhere in random space which isn't immediately obvious, will be nullified. People still need to warp to gates, where they could jump into gatecamps, bubbles and everything part of conventional stargate travel. Yet, it won't make living in null tedious, since you can still cross larger distances in less time.

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:29:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Rene Sauntier
5 years is the new 18 months?


I for one appreciate that they're putting out a 5 year vision plan for null-sec. It's long overdue! I sincerely hope that they plan to do the same for ALL of Eve.

Taleris Kline
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:33:00 - [41]
 

Would it be possible to have the defenders decide if they want to defend a system that the attacker attacks?

If they do not contest, make sov switch immediately, whereas if they do contest, use some of the incursion mechanics without the NPCs.

This is a really rough thought but it might give ways to let sov switch quickly if they defender doesn't care but let the defender mount a defense if they are in a different TZ than the attacker.

Liner Xiandra
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:34:00 - [42]
 

In the devblog the industrial side is mostly adressed by the "what we learned" section (in the negative sense), and hardly has a place in "what nullsec should be". I hope this is not the case with CCP's vision for nullsec; and that there is room (and fairly equal returns) for most professions in null.

But that's touching not just nullsec but all of EVE. Maybe if we'd had some detailed economic report we could actually see what needs doing.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:35:00 - [43]
 

God dambit Greyscale, you're raising my hopes again. I know how this game ends, but I also know that I can't help playing it.

This devblog is a superb example of Doing It Right™. If I can bring myself to believe that CCP will actually follow through on the vision laid out here, then I might actually have a shred of optimism about EVE's survival in the medium term. That vision is, as described, one that I share. 0.0 should be qualitatively different, and there should be compelling reasons for people to want to go there. They should be able to do things that the oppressive, rigid, decadent cultures of Empire refuse to permit - and that absolutely, definitely includes industrialists.

PS I hope that your "nothing should be absolutely safe" comment means that you've looked upon my "Wreck Outposts" proposal with favour? YARRRR!!

EnderCapitalG
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:38:00 - [44]
 

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

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


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


Except in the current state of the game there's almost no reason to not live in Empire, especially after the recent Agent buffs compared to all of the nullsec nerfs that were put in before you decided to buff nullsec in six months.

Azrael Dinn
19th Star Logistics
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:38:00 - [45]
 

Could someone change the player owned structures already. They could be much much more interesting and they are a fact of life in 0.0

CCP Soundwave


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:42:00 - [46]
 

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

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


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


Except in the current state of the game there's almost no reason to not live in Empire, especially after the recent Agent buffs compared to all of the nullsec nerfs that were put in before you decided to buff nullsec in six months.


I completely disagree. There's less safety but also higher profits. As mentioned though, it doesn't cater to anyone. If you want to run level 4s in Motsu over anomalies, that's certainly your choice.

Jekyl Eraser
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:43:00 - [47]
 

Some thoughts about what i think 0.0 should be:

Moon and planet income should be dynamic. If there is static content players will behave static after the first war. It is incorrect to think 'rarity of resources crete conflict'. Rarity only limits how many afford to live in 0.0. All systems should be good places for individuals in 0.0 with some golden eggs(moons and planets) moving around galaxy for corps and alliances to fight for.

Your income should not be destructable (havens, sanctums).

It shouldn't be possible(nor smart)(bridges and jumps) to bring half galaxy to one fight. If you bring the fleet to the other side of galaxy, your home should be vulnerable for many hours. Currently those huge cooldowns make sure you are safe.

Hotdropping is too fast.... jumping shouldn't be instant.

Your implants shouldn't be destroyed so easily by bubbles. Bubbles slows every 0.0 resident skilltraining.


Sinq Arnolles
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:48:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Ajurna Jakar
in the name of teamwork i'd say change the nullsec sanctums for something similar to vanguards et al. requireing teamwork and providing decent profit.


That's an interesting idea.


Yeah ratting by myself is boring to the point I can not do it for more than half an hour.

So if you could put something in that would let us make more money in small groups that would be awesome. lots of the time me and a friend rat together so something that requires 2 people working together and is actually worth it would be nice and some more for larger groups of say 5 - 8 people.

Bringing people together for stuff like this and allowing them to make more money together would make everyone happier I think.

Taleris Kline
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:51:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Sinq Arnolles
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Ajurna Jakar
in the name of teamwork i'd say change the nullsec sanctums for something similar to vanguards et al. requireing teamwork and providing decent profit.


That's an interesting idea.


Yeah ratting by myself is boring to the point I can not do it for more than half an hour.

So if you could put something in that would let us make more money in small groups that would be awesome. lots of the time me and a friend rat together so something that requires 2 people working together and is actually worth it would be nice and some more for larger groups of say 5 - 8 people.

Bringing people together for stuff like this and allowing them to make more money together would make everyone happier I think.


I think the trick to that is making it too hard for a single person but lucrative enough for two people, otherwise you'll just have single players go into those sites that are supposed to require teamwork and turning it into an isk fountain.

Tradik
The Praxis Initiative
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:52:00 - [50]
 

Generally, I think the direction in this post seems to be for the better. The issue, I think, is specifics. Generalities tend to sound good, because everyone can interpret them to mean whatever they like. So I'm personally going to reserve judgement until we see something specific.

That being said, my personal pet peeve is the current sov structure mechanics. As someone who helped organize the clearing of fountain and delve after IT fell, I can tell you that, even with supers, its a pain in the arse as it stands. During fountain, we had 20 to 30 supercarriers going for 6~ hours a day for two weeks, to clear out the region. We could drop and reinforce an ihub before we had the capacitor to jump again. I remember one night, we flipped 6 outposts in one op, and ref'd or killed another half dozen I-hubs. Even so, when you're hitting all of the sov structures in an entire region, it takes a while.

On the other hand, in Delve we only had a few supers on any given op, and some we couldn't even use our supers, because there were superior Super fleets in range, waiting to hot drop, so it took us, on average, an hour or so to flip a single station. The fast ones in delve went down in two siege cycles. The really slow ones, when we only had a 60~ man subcap fleet, would take 30~ minutes per reinforcement cycle (more for the final station shoot).

I think there are two issues with the current sov mechanics - the pure HP on everything, and the clean up after a failcascade. I kind of actually like the current reinforcement mechanics - its the HP thats a pain. If it were more like, for example, a Point Capture mechanic in an FPS, where you had to hold the grid of the outpost/i-hub for a given timeframe (5, 10, 15 mins), then you'd be able to to do a whole lot of it with a relatively small force, which would both remove the incentive to massively blob sov structures, and make cleaning up after a failcascade a lot easier. You could SBU a region, and go sit a frigate or two at each ihub/outpost for the 5-10 minutes required to save it.

This would also have the added benefit for encouraging combat on the outpost/i-hub grids, when there is actually an active defender. If keeping X pilots within y range of the ihub for z time, while the opfor tries to push them off, then you've got a very strong incentive to stay on grid and fight. This would also discourage people just bringing massive, unsupported cap fleets, because a more maneuverable subcap fleet could remain on grid, while dodging the capitals weapons.

You'd need to make it a relatively short range - say 150-200km - so someone sitting at a bounce point wouldn't count to the sov mechanic, but someone at a reasonable sniper range would. Cloaked ships would, obviously, not count.

I think it'd actually be closer to a King-of-the-Hill mechanic. 30 seconds uncontested on grid causes the timer to activate, from the point 5 minutes to ref the target.

The problem would be the defender's victory condition. At the moment its kill the SBUs, but that's another HP grind. Possibly make them KotH mechanics as well. Attackers need to guard them for x time, and defenders can deactivate them (before the system is vulnerable) by holding the grid for y time. Once the sov structures become vulnerable, then the KotH mechanic swaps to them.

Anyhoo, I think it'd be a pretty good mechanic, both in terms of encouraging combat, and making sieging less of a hassle.

Jareck Hunter
Rubicon Legion
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:52:00 - [51]
 

Shooting at stationary structures is boring

So you will move away from shooting things for sov and maybe use hacking or other mechanics, that can also be done by small gangs and so wars on multiple fronts can be done?
And you have the be in your space to defend it and not amass a fleet for one timer?

Kirkland Langue
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:55:00 - [52]
 

Here ya go, some feedback/ideas:

1) POS should be individually owned and operated - not Corporate assets.

2) Static Belts should be removed and replaced with extra exploration content.

3) SOV should be tied to Player activity, and not force projection. A simple "Sov Tower" PI structure that contributes to your alliance's SOV claim but requires some kind of imported fuel seems like the simplest idea to achieve this - though there are other ways. Holding SOV should provide benefits to an alliance (cheaper fuel costs and mechanisms to gather intelligence within the system seem the most reasonable)

4) Outposts should be destructable. The system I envision doesn't actually allow Players to destroy Outposts, instead the Outpost has many components that can be damaged/destroyed. As the damage increases, player owned assets could be affected (fuels/ammo destroyed, ships and modules damaged). The outpost has it's own automated repair systems that will slowly repair damaged systems, with destroyed systems needing replacing. If the automated repair systems are taken out - the outpost will start to Degrade. During this degredation, Outpost structure and systems slowly lose health as Civilian and Pirate entities strip everything of value from the Outpost. Players can only deal so much damage to the outpost, but a Degrading outpost left to rot for too long will disappear completely.



Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:55:00 - [53]
 

I like the general direction and the sound of the process.

Challenges/ideas/problems/stuff I think should be looked at:

-One problem with incentivising 0.0 industry is that empire industry is incredibly more convenient AND cheaper. A poster above mentioned empire has 100% refine, maybe 0.0 gets 110%. I don't think creating minerals out of no where is a good idea, but making perfect refine unique to sov 0.0 would give miner/refiners a brass ring.

-In terms of supporting other organizations by using diverse metrics, I would love to see a region that offers strong incentives to a mining alliance (and other regions that incentive other type of organizations using the example that follows). The Drone Regions might have been it but the money in the combat sites led to the DRF taking it over. I'm talking some place which has *sick* money to be made but only if you strip mine belts. Pure industrial alliances get the 0.0 shaft because not only can they get easily steamrolled by PVP centric organizations but those PVP centric organizations have every incentive to do so since they make ISK in that space just as if not more effectively

-One Stop Shop: Yes. To get it you'll need to look at 0.0 production capacity, low end mineral supply, efficiency to balance the cost with the risk of 0.0 life, and somehow address the gap in T2 production just to name a few issues.

-Not Conflating Cost with Scarcity: Somehow returning Scars and Titans both to balance and to, frankly, their "cool" factor this has to happen. I know Soundwave mentioned they're looking at the log out mechanics which will certainly help the deathrate on these things; i hope something comes of that. If it doesnt, keeping the ships persistent in the world or revamping the Cap Ship Mait. array so that it offers better security (thus making it a more appealing idea to park your super cap) would both drive conflict and trim the numbers of supers to more appropriate levels

Jack Haydn
Valar Morghulis.
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:55:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Taleris Kline
I think that most of the rules specified in the blog seem to make sense as a goal for null sec. I'm not sure though what a system will look like that follows the following goals/lessons as related to sov:

-> Shooting at stationary structures is boring
-> Having to spend significant amounts of effort defeating an enemy which isn't even fighting back is really boring
-> Waking up every morning and having to clean up the mess made while you were asleep is boring
-> Players should be able to mitigate danger, but not eliminate it - nobody should be safe in space, everything that's built should be destroyable
-> Nullsec features and content should avoid disadvantaging someone because of the timezone they happen to live in

Figuring out who own a system while following all of those rules is going to be difficult to say the least.


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

You want player interaction and fights, not boring EHP grinding. So sov should be dictated by showing force and fights, instead of anchoring/shooting structures with millions of EHP.

This suggestion is probably incredibly terrible, I made it up on the fly while writing the post and is probably not suitable for EVEO gameplay - I simply want to show you that there could be fundamentally different routes of assuming sov, than having structures.

Take the "Checkpoint" example from FPS shooters for example. A system could have "checkpoints" or "beacons" in space. In order to grab sov, you will need to put your fleet on the same grid as the beacon. After a fixed amount of time of your presence, the beacon would switch to "contested" mode (similar to today's structures reinforced status, so the sov holder actually has time to plan and prepare for a proper defense). Sitting on it from now on won't have any effect, so you can leave. It will come out of "contested" mode after a certain period of time (either the sov holder could set it, stront-alike or station-alike or it will set a completely random time automatically, so there is no timezone bias [then again, enough "unlucky" random timers could screw over single-tz alliances]), then you need to camp it again and you will "own" it. Maybe have multiple of those beacons per system to make it less easy and not a one-time brawl to take a whole system.
As soon as the sov holder warps a fleet to the beacon with hostiles on it, the process of turning it to "contested" or "owned" will interrupt (but not reset) that process. After the battle is fought, the invaders need to remain there for the remaining necessary time to flip it, or the defenders have to remain there to "remove" the contested time from the beacon again (the amount of time needs to be carefully balanced of course, so it wouldn't result in hours-long boring campings).

Voila, you have a completely EHP-irrelevant sov mechanic, which entirely relies on hostile presence, fleet composition, allies, ... and therefore on goodfights to drive them off or lose.

Again, this proposal is flawed on many sides as I just made it up while writing this post, but structure-less sov is possible if you just think outside of the box :)

Zeimanov Kalzumaan
Haruspex Industries
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:57:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Zeimanov Kalzumaan on 03/08/2011 16:03:17
I like where you are going with this approach - trying to spot-fix nullsec will never solce problems, just shift them around.

In my opinion it's vital that something is done to both allow small aliances to get a foothold in 0.0, and to try and promote conflict between huge multi-alliance blocs.

I think making resources more dynamic is a good idea - "money" moons could be static but get depleted over time, decreasing their outout/value while "junk" moons could have a shortlived spike in value. This means large static alliances would still benefit from guarding high value moons but small alliances would be able to move around harvesting "spikes" in moon value.

Alliances need to actively defend their space - despite the best efforts of dominion, is is still too easy to dominate space you do live in. Titan chains and super cap fleets mean it is only a moderate challenge to project power across the map at fairly short notice - we still live in an age of AKF empires.

If sov were linked to player activity rather than just a single structure it would be a good start. SOme time a "pendulum" system for sov was envisioned where a number of things contribute to an alliaces sov claim - you could have things such as supplying planetary populations with trade goods, sov structures, supressing NPC pirate activity ect as things that contribute, while small gang raids would have targets to degrade sov if not answered. Sov would be more dynamic and fluid rather than an endless series of structure shoots. This approach would mean active numbers spread across a wide geographical area would have more impact than a huge lag-inducing blob.

Typhu5
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:58:00 - [56]
 

Nice Blog,

what i like to see in zero-sec is something like ice mining with PI. Why? There are Ice Planets, but it is not possible to get Ice from them.
I hope u get what i mean.^^
Or PI on moons.
T2 tractor beams, they pull the wracks to you and loot automatically.^^

thats all for now.^^

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:58:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Jack Haydn
1) The anom nerf really was a bad idea.


No it wasn't. Nullsec needs to be more than endlessly, mindlessly grinding the same four-per-race completely predictable statics that fountain vast amounts of ISK into the economy.

In the anomaly system, CCP actually managed to make a form of PvE that is not only worse for the game economy than missions, but also even more boring.

The original idea behind anomalies was sound, but the implementation was horrible: anomalies are horrible gameplay, and they should be phased out and replaced with something else.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:59:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave


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


That is in direct contradiction to:

"# Everyone should be able to see how to get involved

* For a given nullsec feature or activity, any player should be able to figure out a plan that ends with them participating in that activity/feature"

Also there is my situation. Here the issue is I do not get The Rush.

The Rush is a good felling one gets with and after a burst of adrenaline associated with an exciting experience, like PvP combat. Not everyone gets The Rush. Some get no pleasure from adrenaline, and some actually feel bad or sick from it. According to Dr. Drew Pinsky, the difference between these people is genetic. You are born to get The Rush, or you are not. The result is some players will not enjoy PvP and actively seek to avoid it, and no amount of game tweaking will change that, because game tweaking will not change their genes. After all this is a game, people will tend to avoid game activities that make them sick. Instead they do cooperative activities, industry, missions and the like.

If you think I'm alone, check the population level of High Sec huggers. So how do you plan for players like me to "be able to figure out a plan that ends with them participating in that activity/feature" ("that feature" being everything but combat) in null sec where the much dreaded combat could occur at any time?

Jack Haydn
Valar Morghulis.
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:00:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Jack Haydn
1) The anom nerf really was a bad idea.


No it wasn't. Nullsec needs to be more than endlessly, mindlessly grinding the same four-per-race completely predictable statics that fountain vast amounts of ISK into the economy.

In the anomaly system, CCP actually managed to make a form of PvE that is not only worse for the game economy than missions, but also even more boring.

The original idea behind anomalies was sound, but the implementation was horrible: anomalies are horrible gameplay, and they should be phased out and replaced with something else.


I agree in fact - the anom system as such may not be the best for the players to generate their income. However, it was the only proper ISK source for pve/pvp oriented players in null and it got taken away. If there are different means for the pvp/pve focused individual to make money, that would be ok, too.

Tradik
The Praxis Initiative
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:01:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Jareck Hunter
Shooting at stationary structures is boring

So you will move away from shooting things for sov and maybe use hacking or other mechanics, that can also be done by small gangs and so wars on multiple fronts can be done?
And you have the be in your space to defend it and not amass a fleet for one timer?


Heh, now I feel dumb for that not occuring to me. I still like the idea of a KotH mechanic, but a hacking based tool would be the perfect way to implement it.

The one issue then would be that I-hubs would stay where they are - there'd be no mechanic to destroy them. Unless you could just take them, upgrades and all. Would certainly decrease startup costs for people taking sovereignty, if they didn't have to move the damn ihubs and upgrades themselves. Especially for smaller alliances without titans, getting the Level 5 upgrades into nullsec is a right pain.


Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : 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