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

Phaershalee
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:01:00 - [61]
 

Once again more emphasis on nullsec. LOL, why am I not surprised?

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:03:00 - [62]
 

Well the rough outline of the stuff you list "sound good", overall.

With "sound good" I mean that it's just words. And I know you pointed it out yourself as well. But the fact is that CCP has yet to succeed in any of these departments, and just because you list what you have done wrong or messed up, it doesn't mean that there is hope for the future either.

Don't get me wrong, not a doomsday speaker here, I still play the game. What I am saying is that - "you don't seem to know what you do, and this blog just list what errors you have made". It doesn't spring confidence in any way, or belief in CCP, or your team.

A couple of notes;
* It's nice to see you note a few mistakes done in the past, like believing there won't be many supercaps and outposts becuase they are 'expensive'. Like how adding these things because they were 'cool' was not the proper way to go about it.
* Several times you mention scale of wars. One of them is 'fleets of all sizes', and the other is how null should be for 'all' sizes of teams. We all know that this is not the fact today. There's hardly any smallscale PvP, and holding any kind of space is the big masses that then rent it out to smaller teams. Technicly there is no null for smaller sized teams, and there's definately no relevant PvP to it.

TL;DR - this looks more like a confession than a devblog. I hope you can come up with some solutions too. Good luck.

Lord Viziam
GunStars
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:03:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Lord Viziam on 03/08/2011 16:10:39
CCP Guard. While these are all very high level goals and "lessons learned", it's a bit too abstract for any meaningful discussion at the moment. You could practically go in any direction from here. We need to get down to more specifics.

1. You mention Jita as the one-stop shop. Are you saying this is how it should be?
2. There is no high level discussion of Dust514 in null-sec. Doesn't that need to be there?
3. Shouldn't there be a discussion of player interactions between EVE and Dust514?

Tradik
The Praxis Initiative
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:03:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
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


I completely disagree. Just because everyone should be able to do something, doesn't mean everyone has to find a given activity fun. That's why there's diversity in a game like Eve - because people have different tastes. What Soundwave was saying is that Nullsec doesn't have to be fun for everyone - just accessible. If they find it fun, there should be a way for them to get into it.

Korvin
Gallente
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:05:00 - [65]
 

Quote:
Nullsec features should always reward teamwork, organization and interaction in every feature


I have to disagree with this statement, those processes by themselves are natural, and will happen if not have barriers by game design. If you reward them instead, especially with money, you will end up with large powerblocks and blobs without any alternative game style.

Aynen
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:06:00 - [66]
 

One of the 'tasks players must complete', actually the most basic one, is 'make money'.
Without money, no ships to pvp with.
And since pvp has been used so far as a way of driving the economy by destroying things, iow it's a money-sink, for pvpers it's kind of hard to make money by doing the thing you love doing the most.
This seems troublesome to me.
Should there perhaps be some feature in nullsec that allows pvpers to complete extra goals during pvp that will keep their wallet up, so that the thing that makes them their money is the very thing they love doing the most?
This would ofcourse have to count for both the winners and the losers, just more so for the winners, otherwise only the people at the top are able to make their money by doing what they love doing.

Off the top of my head, such a feature might look like making deals with pirate factions that are active in your bit of nullsec which will reimburse you for shiplosses that happened in their space, or ships you managed to kill belonging to players with negative standings towards that pirate faction.
In other words, you can either make your money by killing the rats in your space, or by having high standings with the faction those rats belong to so that if you pvp in that space, you gain money from them.
Admittedly though, that's not very well thought out yet.

Motriek
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:07:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: The blog

Making something tedious will not stop players doing it if it's very clearly the best option. They'll do it, and they'll hate it.
...
Nullsec features and content should avoid disadvantaging someone because of the timezone they happen to live in.
...
Nullsec features and content should actively attempt to reduce or remove the likelihood of unmanageable server load.
...
Nullsec features and content should actively support a landscape where organizations of all different sizes and structures/styles maintain a healthy presence.
...
Waking up every morning and having to clean up the mess made while you were asleep is boring.
...
Shooting at stationary structures is boring.



Ok, so, competing goals here:
- To optimize server loads, and give smaller alliances a shot, there should be little or no advantage to loading up a grid or even a system with more blues at any specific time.
- To avoid ping-pong and clean-up before play, contenders should be able to do something to break stalemates, even if the bigger fish always wins.
- Conversely, smaller entities should have achievable goals, other than ratter km's, to harry large blocs.

All that amounts to 'smaller dispersed goals over time' followed by a stalemate breaker if necessary.

*one possibility* for this would involve control bunkers with acceleration gates in adjacent systems; forcing sov indexes down to 2 before sov could be contended; hacking stargates and ihubs, instead of shooting; et al.

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:12:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
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.


before the dom patch, almost anyone that lived in 0.0 had mission alts to make there isk. belt ratting and so few sites were ok, but most income came to the average 0.0 grunt from missions in empire.
that changed, finally people could make as much isk in 0.0 as running lv4's in empire. so many people dragged there alts to 0.0 to make there pvp iskies.
then you nerf'd the **** out of most of 0.0 again. and them alts went back to doing what they were doing before the patch, some alts just got killed off.
its not about the choice of running missions or running anoms, its about where the isk stream to the player is.
missions are better income than anoms in almost every case at the moment, thats what your anom nerf did

Tetragammatron Prime
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:14:00 - [69]
 

I really liked the ideas brought up some time last year about cyno spool up and being able to attack moon mining array with a smaller fleet to steal moongoo and force fights (moon miner idea would benefit all of nullsec and low sec too).

Rian Focht
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:15:00 - [70]
 

SOV should be connected to the player activity in a system, like the infrastructure hub. Or something like your alliance get 5 system SOVs for free and has to show some constant activity in those systems to expand into other systems.

Tork Norand
Mechanical Eagles Inc.
The Ancients.
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:16:00 - [71]
 

Edited by: Tork Norand on 03/08/2011 16:23:10

We're not in null sec. The ideas below would make us want to move there.

Let corporations claim sovereignty on systems. If they do, the following policies are in place for that system.

1) No capital ship can enter the system:
-- No capital ships can jump into the system. Not even the sovereignty corp's cap ships. This includes Orcas, freighters, jump freighters, rorquals, and all other capital ships. This applies to ANY method of getting in (gates, bridges, portals, etc).
-- All ships can be built in the system. If capital ships that are built in-system ever leave, they can't come back in as long as sovereignty is held.
-- If the corporation becomes a member of an alliance, the alliance becomes owner of the sovereignty.

2) Enable changes to the system.
-- Enhancing the system makes it of more interest to competition, resulting in more "visitors".
-- Moon goods change over time and stuff can be harvested out (and need time to recover). Notification should not be given on these changes automatically.

3) Safety is in no way guaranteed.
-- The gates are known.
-- The gates could be camped by outsiders.
-- The gates don't have a mass limit.
These points make the system even more dangerous than a Wormhole system to hold.

4) Holding the space for a long period has advantages.
-- You can build up your defenses (building ships in system).
-- Safe spots.

Just a model of what would make a mid-sized corp interested in getting into null sec.

Taleris Kline
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:17:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Rian Focht
SOV should be connected to the player activity in a system, like the infrastructure hub. Or something like your alliance get 5 system SOVs for free and has to show some constant activity in those systems to expand into other systems.


Depending on what you're definition of activity is, wouldn't that lead to just parking a bot in the system? Would non-alliance activity count even if they are part of the coalition?

Cthulhu F'taghn
Sniggerdly
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:20:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Smoking Blunts
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: EnderCapitalG
Originally by: CCP Soundwave

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.


before the dom patch, almost anyone that lived in 0.0 had mission alts to make there isk. belt ratting and so few sites were ok, but most income came to the average 0.0 grunt from missions in empire.
that changed, finally people could make as much isk in 0.0 as running lv4's in empire. so many people dragged there alts to 0.0 to make there pvp iskies.
then you nerf'd the **** out of most of 0.0 again. and them alts went back to doing what they were doing before the patch, some alts just got killed off.
its not about the choice of running missions or running anoms, its about where the isk stream to the player is.
missions are better income than anoms in almost every case at the moment, thats what your anom nerf did


Rent some better space or fight for it (you probably can't so then I guess you deserve the whatever crap space you can get).

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:21:00 - [74]
 

fight for ratting space...lol your joking right, its about the moons for corps/alliances, but not for the average 0.0 member

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:21:00 - [75]
 

Came expecting new intel toys and local revisions. Left disappointed.

Ugleb
Minmatar
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:25:00 - [76]
 

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

Quote:
Support multiple sizes and styles of organizations across multiple timezones

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


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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Nullsec should feel big and uneven

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


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

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

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

Zuviel Alk
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:26:00 - [77]
 

In my opinion the following are the biggest problems:


  1. Many items and mechanics favor rich/big/spacious blocs instead of "ideal" 30-60 people ventures


    • LVL 5 Upgrades need Titan Bridges

    • Titans/Supercarriers in general (as expensive and "win button")

    • Titans/Supercarriers build process (as big blocs just snatch/destroy em when you build em)

    • Moon Goo

    • SOV Warfare Mechanics

    • expensive cyno jammers

    • vast space = long way to go = "secure (bot) income"


  2. 0.0 industry is not competitive to empire industry

  3. I want to attend business, pve, pvp with my corp/alliance mates and neither with some guys 30 jumps and 2 regions abroad, nor solo


TorTorden
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:26:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: TorTorden on 03/08/2011 16:28:34
Step 1. Remove or at least delay local.
Step 2. Eve is getting overcrowded, we need more systems.

CCP Soundwave


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:30:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
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.



I disagree, you're equating ability with willingness, which isn't the case. You should be able to participate in nullsec, but if you PREFER highsec, that's entirely legitimate.

onefineday
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:30:00 - [80]
 

as i can see all this lucks really nice on a paper as usual, but the thing is i remember last 0.0 sector reconfiguration and jesus i don`t want to see it again then you guys nerf drone secs and another regions, i live in 0.0 sectors most of the time then i started playing eve and what i can see you making 0.0 sectors worse and worse. Whit you upgrades, i had friends in another corporations wich used to live close bay all of them are moving out to empire little by little, jump brige nerf it just ridiculous have you ever tried to move standard industrial ship before the jump bridges they are always camped same thing today only whay to save you cargo those days was to sent and escort whit a freight ship, same as today so nothing change pvp wise it just more erothaiting now. Thats it because we dont have direct routs, nerf off security it destroyed so many small corp`s and forced them to move back to empire because they became unable to hold those systems because it is no more income in those system. you say corp leaders should ask what the corp members once but the thing is if you want to run successful corporation wich will be independent only whay to rule is dictatorship and i know it for sure because our corp is run this why maby sometimes we disagry whit a management but in the end it always works out. i gues same principals applies to large alliance as well what i can see you just want to make our life even more miserable in 0.0 sectors by making it even harder to earn isk simple example in one h whit one battle ship or a carrier before corp tax i earn 75 mils my friends ho lives in empire doing lvl 5 missions gets around 130 mil in same time so do you think its fare ? hoppe you don`t be ... and stop ruining your game, same thing why do we eve players would like dust integrated to it i shoot space ships why i want some ps3, 12 year old child having some sort of desitions in eve only reason i play it because it hard it takes time to reach my goals and it rely small amount of children plaing it..

so please stop making it worse just start fixing your bugs and programing errors in a game and you will make us all happy an thankful

Kind regards OneFineDay

EnderCapitalG
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:31:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: TorTorden
Edited by: TorTorden on 03/08/2011 16:28:34
Step 1. Remove or at least delay local.
Step 2. Eve is getting overcrowded, we need more systems.



Both of these are completely wrong.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.03 16:32:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Kenpachi Viktor
Edited by: Kenpachi Viktor on 03/08/2011 14:51:26
When I read "EVE turned up to 11", my understanding is that it's not just "lots more of the same", but also better stats (when you hold sov).
Eg. empire has 100% refining in stations, null sec has 110%; Empire has 50 production/science slots per station, null sec has 100 & they are %5 faster and more efficient.
POSs in empire are normal, corp POSs in their alliance's sovereign space are up to 10% better.


That bit's more intended to be about the core things that make EVE the game it is, rather than specific numbers. You're absolutely correct though that nullsec should have numeric advantages too Smile

Originally by: Squizz Caphinator
Quote:
Players should be able to mitigate danger, but not eliminate it - nobody should be safe in space, everything that's built should be destroyable


Are there plans in the works to be able to destroy outposts?


Some manner of destructible, degradable or wreckable outposts is very much something we'd like to implement in future, for a variety of reasons, yes. And yes, that's deliberately implicit in that quote Smile

Originally by: Gogela
This is very exciting.

I moved out of nullsec a few years ago. I make WAY more isk in empire and low sec than I ever did in 0.0... but when I lived in 0.0 I did have more fun. The only thing keeping me out is the ISK I make elsewhere and the fact that small alliances don't have a foothold. I've been in several corps and alliances (in the distant past) and the smaller groups were always more fun... just a few pods trying to break a piece off for themselves (FYI if you are new to the game I can't recommend the corp "Demon Womb" enough...). Good times.

I'll leave some 'usefull' feedback later when I have time to think about it and write, but in the meantime I just want to say this is a good start and I like where you head is at CCP.


Yes, ISK generation is a big issue that we need to tackle in a more systemic manner. We've totally aware that people of all playstyles need to be able to make money in nullsec if we want them to consider living there.

Originally by: Tippia
I still say that you need to look at something like old Planetside (and possibly PS2, if they keep the model) for ideas about how to create interlinked, strategic targets and early-warning, operational and tactical intel tools.

Yes, fighting over resources is one way of creating conflict, but what about fights over the the tools of fighting? This game kind of lacks a fog of war and methods to create, combat, and take advantage of this kind of intel. It's all about seeing the enemy and or getting annoyed by the warning mail spam a lot more could be done to promote sneaking (and not just to cloak-gank or AFK-cloak-terrorise PvE:ers) where small teams can actually create strategically important situations in small-scale fights.


Agree with this.

Originally by: Alpheias
Edited by: Alpheias on 03/08/2011 15:06:13
I just read a wall of :words:

Anything set in stone that is mentioned in the blog that we will actually see or is it just as I said :words:


Nope, nothing set in stone yet, as mentioned in the blog. We're deliberately asking for feedback before we've committed to anything so we have plenty of opportunity to actually use it Smile

Originally by: Nonnori Ikkala
Edited by: Nonnori Ikkala on 03/08/2011 15:09:51
Looks pretty cool to this newbie, hope to see the concrete information down the road. Though--what in heaven's name is the "one-per-corp-per-system-per-day starbase rule"?


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

J'Rela
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:34:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: J''Rela on 03/08/2011 16:35:46
Originally by: CCP Soundwave

I completely disagree. There's less safety but also higher profits.


Long story short, you're wrong. Especially with the anomaly nerf, vast stretches of nullsec --really the majority --are a useless wasteland in terms of profit.

The good thing is that that limits threat. The bad thing is that the threat is much greater than in highsec. Add in high initial investment costs and continuing costs and the only reason to go out to nullsec is if you're part of a huge coalition that can actually defend the worthwhile space (and are well enough positioned politically to get to use it.)

Or if you want to pursue a profession that only exists in nullsec (supercap production, for example,) though usually this requires at least membership in a large coalition if not good political position.

For most space, most corps, most players and most professions, highsec actually offers better returns than either lowsec or nullsec, especially once risk, cost, and difficulty (that is, tedium)are taken into account.

I suspect that it would actually be best to get rid of the ideas of "good nullsec" and "bad nullsec" entirely.

Jekyl Eraser
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:34:00 - [84]
 

New alliance has trouble coming to 0.0 because their home and income is a sitting duck. Any bigger can any time and from anywhere come and destroy it because. If someone can, it is sure someone will after enough time passes.

Sanctums and havens shouldn't give better income... all they should give is safer and provide income for larger population. If they provide superior income they nerf all other 0.0 systems. No point for a random guy come ninja ratting.

Joe D'Trader
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:34:00 - [85]
 

RAGE!!!!

What is this, a well thought out Dev Blog that I agree with. How can I rage, I want to rage!!!

Tetragammatron Prime
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:36:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Smoking Blunts
fight for ratting space...lol your joking right, its about the moons for corps/alliances, but not for the average 0.0 member

So because your leader don't care about providing good ratting space for their membership CCP should boost all space so you can make top isk per hour everywhere?

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.03 16:36:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Mirei Jun
Place holder


Place holder response.

Originally by: Nymeria Snow
Edited by: Nymeria Snow on 03/08/2011 15:20:02
So the only FiS feature team that is left (not counting the art, mission or lag guys, since they add nothing new nor fix any game mechanics as such) will be working on 0.0 for the next 5 years?


Oh, absolutely not. Part of why I'm saying "five years" is that we're obviously going to be working other stuff too, which stretches things out somewhat.

Originally by: Pattern Clarc
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.


Yup, these two are just things that we need to find a way to reconcile. We like big organizations, but we also like our servers not catching fire, so we have to find a middle ground.

Originally by: Lolion Reglo
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?


Upgrading space is still very much on our mind, as it serves a lot of goals. Expect more of this general sort of thing.

Originally by: Liner Xiandra
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.



To be fair, I don't think any particular side of the game is especially highlighted in this blog, because it's intentionally trying to be as generic and feature-agnostic as possible. We are thinking about industry, as you'll see in the next blog.

Originally by: Azrael Dinn
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


I've no found anyone working on EVE yet who doesn't think we should rework starbases Smile

Hratli Smirks
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:38:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Hratli Smirks on 03/08/2011 16:38:18
Edited by: Hratli Smirks on 03/08/2011 16:38:01
Originally by: CCP Soundwave


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.



Originally by: CCP Soundwave


No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s.


http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1210267/author/CCP%20Soundwave#4


heh

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.03 16:39:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Jekyl Eraser
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.




I'm still yet to be convinced about dynamic resources. We generally want players to claim space, settle down, develop it etc, and if doing so means their space becomes worthless, what's the point? Specifically with the "random moon movement" thing, I'd also be concerned that some little corp will have claimed a dead-end constellation in the middle of nowhere and developed it, only to have a major moon appear, followed by a big alliance who turfs them out to get at the moon.

I'm not dead-set against the idea, I've just not seen a really good argument as to why it's sensible.

Most of the rest of this I agree with, and the bubbles/implants thing is an interesting point.

mxzf
Minmatar
Shovel Bros
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:40:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Tork Norand
... great idea about letting smaller groups get a toehold in nullsec ...


As someone who has been a part of a non-powerblock nullsec alliance, I have to say I like this idea. I would love to see nullsec be at all feasible for smaller groups. The current state of things VASTLY favors the massive alliances and encourages, no, mandates, the usage of large blobs to control space.

I'm not sure exactly how it would work, but I think that some form of force multiplier for the smaller force would encourage smaller groups rather than blobbing. When there's absolutely nothing a small alliance can do against the 50 caps that decide to invade their system because some FC was bored one weekend, it is a distinctly un-fun experience.

Possibly also something like the above poster suggested which involves limiting/excluding hostile forces entering the system (possibly based on the upgrade state of the system, the more upgraded you are, the more reds that can enter the system, since a blob of 200 BSes is just as effective as 30 caps dropping in).

This would have to be balanced to prevent abuse by the existing large alliances, but I feel that something should definitely be done to give the smaller alliances and corps atleast a bit of a chance to get into nullsec without them having to rent or become pets to keep from being kicked out because someone's bored.


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