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

Abrazzar
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:43:00 - [91]
 

So is this the thread where we can dump more or less random ideas for 0.0, up to and including a complete throwing away of current mechanics and implementation of new mechanics? Or is this just to comment on the devblog? I remember a big thread about sov in the F&I forum, what ever happened to that one? Oh, and modular POSes?

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.03 16:43:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Tradik
Good feedback


This is good feedback, thanks.

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?


This general sort of thing, yes.

Originally by: Kirkland Langue
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.



Agree with all of these, except the player-activity-sov one, not least because it conflicts with the point about not having to spend ages clearing up after you've won. If you've been ratting and mining and stuff and scored lots of "sov points", and then I come along and camp you into your stations until you all jumpclone back to empire and never come back, why should I then have to grind mining and ratting until I've scored enough points to actually claim your stations? Again, not dead-set against it, I just don't see a strong argument in favor.

J'Rela
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:43:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Phaershalee
Once again more emphasis on nullsec. LOL, why am I not surprised?


Because nullsec is supposed to be "the real game" and despite constant revision since release it's still not what anyone wants it to be.

Make sense?

Highsec for the most part works fine. Lowsec is absolutely broken but it's actually a more intractable problem. I would love to see the paradigm we were promised at release -- with an actual gradation of risk and reward as you move from 1.0 to 0.0 -- actually emerge, but CCP gave up on that long ago and in retrospect it might not actually be possible.

Azrael Dinn
19th Star Logistics
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:44:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
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.


How about if you introduce the PI to moons also in some way. This could be furter applied to the DUST things later on and would have nice opportunities. Not sure how to balance and what how the POSes will work on it. Balance would be needed definetly but it's a brainstorm ^^

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.03 16:46:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde
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


Agree with this sort of stuff.

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

[a whole bunch of stuff]


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

Originally by: Jack Haydn
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.


Agree with this.

Originally by: Lord Viziam
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?


Following blogs will be more specific. And no, nullsec people should not have to go to Jita.

gfldex
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:49:00 - [96]
 

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


Is a contradiction to:

Quote:
Nullsec features and content should avoid disadvantaging someone because of the timezone they happen to live in


Timers are the counter to out-of-my-timezone problems, no question about that. But they are the single biggest contributor to boredom in EVE. They lead to players orbiting a POS for hours until the timer is done. When the timer is down, you _do_not_ want to have enemies around. I'm sorry, but not wanting to shoot player ships is wrong.

Station ping pong wasn't all that bad, because it was pretty pointless to take a station if you didn't remove the ships of your enemies before you take it. If it's easy to take a station it's easy to take it back too. On top of that AFK alliances don't make sense in a timerless environment, because if you ain't there you can't defend it. In fact, if you ain't there you should not have it.

I would even go so far to say that timers and jump drives are the root cause of all evil in 0.0 . If you go down the list that is this (quite nice) dev blog and look at every single point, you will be able to find a connection to jump drives or timers in any case.

Why would you want to farm a system for hauler spawns (Very few pilots know how btw. The POD-Pilots Handbook is lacking there.) to fuel ship production when you can fill a JF with ships and jump them down?

The compression nerf was not helpful either. Nobody is compressing Veldspar. You are still better with Rails or Passive Targeters. In fact, the only reason to compress ore is to avoid refining taxes _in_player_owned_stations_. You managed to nerf holding space!

I agree that high HPs are wrong. Structures should have a sick active shield tank that requires high volley damage to bleed into armor and structure. If that sounds like dread guns ... well yes ... that's what dreads are for. Imagine your FC telling you to switch cycling off on your dread guns and to fire on his mark! Wouldn't fleet commanding beyond broadcasting a target be fun?

What happened to single point income nerf? Why are moons still not mined the same way then planets? A corp or alliance should make ISK by providing services to the locals. Not because some directors can restrict access rights to the moon mining array. If you want to use this nice JB, you need a ticket pal. Timmy here can sell you one for a little over 1MISK.

Members should matter to corps. If your corp wants to have a nice tec2 POS production network, you better have the members to get the moon goo. That would require standing based market orders. I can remember players asking for that when I joined the game in 2004. While you are on it, allow players (with high standings to the issuer) to convert a market order into a 24h contract. If I know that the buy order will still be there in 12h, I might actually go and get those data cores for you from highsec.

Super Capitals should be multi pilot ships. A bit like a mobile POS where you man a few guns and go shooty shooty on enemies. Remove the number of ships while involving more players in fights sounds like something team gridlock would like to have.

Nullsec should all the time be better then highsec when it comes to making ISK. Little hint, it's not level 4s _but_ requires to shoot sanshas that makes you rich right now in highsec. I personally can't understand why ppl whine about the sunctum nerf. Just get a logi-alt and follow the incursions around.

There is so much wrong with 0.0 and it's sad to see how hefty we had to rattle our cage to get your attention. EVE is about flying around in spaceships. If you forget about that, you will lose _pilots_.

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:51:00 - [97]
 

YAAAAAAAAAY


That is absolutely the right approach. Ask the players BEFORE anything is done. Finally, finally. Very good! Now you only need to listen and act upon it :-)

gfldex
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:53:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Agree with all of these, except the player-activity-sov one, not least because it conflicts with the point about not having to spend ages clearing up after you've won. If you've been ratting and mining and stuff and scored lots of "sov points", and then I come along and camp you into your stations until you all jumpclone back to empire and never come back, why should I then have to grind mining and ratting until I've scored enough points to actually claim your stations? Again, not dead-set against it, I just don't see a strong argument in favor.


Tradik didn't ask for carebear points. He asked to move away from wallet-activity (lolsovbill) to ship activity. If I stop you from fueling that space thingy of yours, your space thingy should go offline and all your base are belong to us.

J'Rela
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:57:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Jekyl Eraser

You have forgot to put maintenance cost on the elite stuff. Capitals might use fuel just like POS. Would add ISK cost and logistics tasks into having them.



Have you ever used a capital ship?

Jump drives use fuel. Deploying a capital ship for any operation is a nontrivial expense, as they can't go through gates.

Doomsday devices use fuel. Sure, it's nice to pop a capital ship in a single shot, but you pay millions of isk for that shot.

Bridges use fuel. Because honestly, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense to jump a freighter from point A to point B without paying for it.

"Reconfiguration" type modules use fuel, which means that not only is deploying a dreadnought expensive (now also pointless) actually fighting with it carries a significant cost even if it survives.

Now, I'm fine with all these things. Honestly, they're awesome.

But the notion that capital ships don't "use fuel like POSs" is frankly ignorant.

Unless you mean to imply they should be burning money just for being in space. Even POSs don't actually do that.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.03 16:58:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Abrazzar
So is this the thread where we can dump more or less random ideas for 0.0, up to and including a complete throwing away of current mechanics and implementation of new mechanics? Or is this just to comment on the devblog? I remember a big thread about sov in the F&I forum, what ever happened to that one? Oh, and modular POSes?


Comment on the devblog, mainly. There'll be another blog focusing on more particular areas of stuff in the nearish future I hope.

Originally by: Ugleb
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



Agree with pretty much all of this.

Zuviel Alk
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:59:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Zuviel Alk on 03/08/2011 17:01:37
Edited by: Zuviel Alk on 03/08/2011 17:00:59
I added a few thoughts (iconified below)

Originally by: Zuviel Alk
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 (yes, freighters) Arrow why can't I build them in 0.0 (planetside for example)..should take time + resources

    • 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 Arrow imho such vast almost passive income should be annihliated whatsoever

    • SOV Warfare Mechanics Arrow what is CCPs incentive of SOV in the first place? is there another way to accomplish these? i.e. untie benefits and SOV

    • expensive cyno jammers Arrow this should be the first thing one wants to do to his own system

    • 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




In Conclusion
Players will fight/roam anyway (aka for the lulz). Fighting for resources is overrated and imho does not justify current resource layout of 0-0 space. Arrow make 0.0 dense (population wise) and they will fight

Callic Veratar
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:00:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: Callic Veratar on 03/08/2011 17:00:32
I like the sound of this, I'm hoping to get into nullsec eventually.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.03 17:00:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Korvin
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.


...yeah, ok, I see what you mean there. IIRC this is aimed more at the smaller-scale end of the spectrum, in terms of making sure that stuff like exploration rewards you for playing with your friends. It certainly shouldn't be saying that "bigger is always better", and there is explicitly a point in the list about accommodating all sizes of organization.

Originally by: Aynen
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.


The NPC-faction-bounty thing is interesting. I may think further about this.


CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.03 17:00:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Zuviel Alk
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




Agree with most of this. (I'm assuming the titan bridges thing is because of freighters?)

Originally by: Azrael Dinn
How about if you introduce the PI to moons also in some way. This could be furter applied to the DUST things later on and would have nice opportunities. Not sure how to balance and what how the POSes will work on it. Balance would be needed definetly but it's a brainstorm ^^


MoonPI (heh) is something we're considering looking into the feasibility of. It does solve the issue in a very neat way.

Originally by: gfldex
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Agree with all of these, except the player-activity-sov one, not least because it conflicts with the point about not having to spend ages clearing up after you've won. If you've been ratting and mining and stuff and scored lots of "sov points", and then I come along and camp you into your stations until you all jumpclone back to empire and never come back, why should I then have to grind mining and ratting until I've scored enough points to actually claim your stations? Again, not dead-set against it, I just don't see a strong argument in favor.


Tradik didn't ask for carebear points. He asked to move away from wallet-activity (lolsovbill) to ship activity. If I stop you from fueling that space thingy of yours, your space thingy should go offline and all your base are belong to us.



Oh, ok. That I totally agree with and would like to see more of.

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:02:00 - [105]
 

An additional point should be made for playtime duration not just timezone.

If a player can only play 2h a night he should be able to make a meaningfull contribution in 0.0.
If a player playes 20h a day he should have intresting game play as well.

Currently to many fights or other 0.0 mechanics take a really long time and are far away making it hard for casual players to participate.

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:07:00 - [106]
 

More group PvE activity in 0.0 with a low barrier of entrance would be really nice.

Something sustainable that a player could log on and know it would be available(rather than 10/10 plex's that are not common).

Something to encourage players to work together and let newer players participate in PvE(PvP fly a tackle and go grab a point)

BursegSardaukar
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:07:00 - [107]
 

Sorry if this idea was already posted:

What about having Sov holders declare a "capital" system that has to behave by the current sov mechanics, and the further from the capital, the mechanics can change. Like, after 5 jumps from the capital, the system's sovereignty can be flipped by activity in a system alone. And depending on the size of the "empire," the various sov structures could have changing HP amounts. For example, if a system is simply a "capital" system and doesn't have any neighbor system that are also held by that sov holder, the TCU's could have much lower HP. So, breaking up sov in chunks would make each area of sov easier to break down as the space claimed gets smaller and smaller.

Also, the capital system can hold any bonus-giving structures, and any systems connected in the line from that system can carry those bonuses across (whether they be the current ones, or new ideas), so attacking specific strategic systems could "cut off" systems in many different ways.

Taleris Kline
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:11:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: BursegSardaukar
Sorry if this idea was already posted:

What about having Sov holders declare a "capital" system that has to behave by the current sov mechanics, and the further from the capital, the mechanics can change. Like, after 5 jumps from the capital, the system's sovereignty can be flipped by activity in a system alone. And depending on the size of the "empire," the various sov structures could have changing HP amounts. For example, if a system is simply a "capital" system and doesn't have any neighbor system that are also held by that sov holder, the TCU's could have much lower HP. So, breaking up sov in chunks would make each area of sov easier to break down as the space claimed gets smaller and smaller.

Also, the capital system can hold any bonus-giving structures, and any systems connected in the line from that system can carry those bonuses across (whether they be the current ones, or new ideas), so attacking specific strategic systems could "cut off" systems in many different ways.


Maybe after a certain number of jumps from the capital there can be regional HQ as well?

J'Rela
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:12:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: J''Rela on 03/08/2011 17:24:51
Originally by: Teirna

We want to see an alliance escorting a convoy of x to y papping their pants every jump because the potential loss is big and the potential gain bigger.



This will never happen, and it's important to give up on this impossible dream.

The problem is that while there are many that want to be the raiders, nobody actually wants to be the convoy. Thus when you make it possible to avoid being the convoy, that's exactly what people do.

Back before capital ships, this game had convoys. The result was that very little actually moved through lowsec or nullsec and that few went out there. The ones who did had to spend some part of their time baby-sitting cargo ships or standing in as a PvP objective for some ******* they'd never met. The game was less fun for everyone.

Part of that is that convoys only happen when keeping them safe is realistic. Losing one ship out of dozens is a failure, so primitive alliances didn't do that. They put the cargo ships under escort by The Blob, avoided peak activity, deployed scouts in all directions, and logged them out when things got hairy.

It was a huge pain in the ass, and raiders didn't get what they wanted (easy kills or GFs depending on the type) either.

Aynen
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:12:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Aynen

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.


The NPC-faction-bounty thing is interesting. I may think further about this.




I'd love to know where you might go with the idea, could you let me know?

Jekyl Eraser
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:14:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: Jekyl Eraser on 03/08/2011 17:22:20
Edited by: Jekyl Eraser on 03/08/2011 17:14:57
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
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.



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.


Alliances operate at a large area. I was kinda thinking the big picture of alliance owning the moons, not corporations. There would probably be many good dynamic resources on the area but the ones that appear at the border of 2 alliances migth wanna fight for it. You can build the POS anywhere. Maybe hard to defend but it might be a nice staging ground for a little few day war, a nice little staging ground to see who is who. You also mentioned that some big alliance might wanna turfs the small out of the way of a new rich moon in a negative manner when the conflict is really what you want!? It is true tho that the home base moon might dryout.

I'm not a big fan of the sov system and upgrading system. It creates big 'hit me' sitting duck sign for anyone with bigger gun. It also makes all other systems feel crap. Also entire 'home base' sounds like big laggy boring structure hitting fight ahead. Arbitrary rules where you can build/upgrade stuff... it is 0.0... it hates rules... there is no concord. Anyway, feels pointless talking about this because you guys are so much in favor for 'home' and 'upgrading'.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:16:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: Louis deGuerre on 03/08/2011 17:16:15
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
I'm still yet to be convinced about dynamic resources. We generally want players to claim space, settle down, develop it etc, and if doing so means their space becomes worthless, what's the point? Specifically with the "random moon movement" thing, I'd also be concerned that some little corp will have claimed a dead-end constellation in the middle of nowhere and developed it, only to have a major moon appear, followed by a big alliance who turfs them out to get at the moon.

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.


You are not convinced yet you nerfed 0.0 space so only a few systems are worth upgrading. This to force players to fight over resources. Well, it worked, but now the fight is over and all the good systems have been claimed by the big players. The map is back to static and the only reason to fight is lulz.
For small alliances looking to enter 0.0 there is nothing left. It is totally pointless to take a discarded -0.1 system and upgrade it for billions for almost zero gain. Many people who live in 0.0 are back to missioning L4s or doing incursions in highsec to make isk, or have just given up on 0.0 altogether.
And of course, by concentrating the remaining people in the few good systems (which usually now are permanently camped) everyone is crying about overcrowding and not being able to make any isk while 95% of the map remains deserted and unused.
The only reason for anyone to go to 0.0 is to PVP without concord hassles.

Aerissa Nolen
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:16:00 - [113]
 

Edited by: Aerissa Nolen on 03/08/2011 17:18:54
The two big issues I think CCP needs to change with nullsec are:

1) Sov mechanics encourage everyone to blow up everything, because there is no strategic benefit to leaving some structures unharmed. This is not how real war works.
2) Income generation for alliances tends to make them want to EXCLUDE neutrals from visiting their nullsec space, because they are simply seen as competition for limited resources (mining, rats, etc). This is not how real trade works.

In a sense, nullsec is exactly the opposite of empire space, when instead it should really be just like empire space, except with alliances able to fulfill the role of empires.

Change nullsec infrastructure to have lasting value. More importantly, change nullsec infrastructure so that it can be captured rather than destroyed, though of course capture would be more difficult. An alliance invading another alliance's territory should be thinking long and hard about what to blow up and what to try and capture. The key here that ties #1 and #2 together is to make new infrastructure something that, with invested time/effort, allows for better passive income generation, but only when used by lots of people.

It should take months or years for certain pieces of this infrastructure to reach full potential. The potential passive income should dwarf the naturally imbalanced income sources (rats/resources/moon goo), but only when sufficiently built up AND only when it is used by more people; alliances should WANT neutrals coming into their territory to increase passive income.

These ideas force strategic decisions in alliance wars, and greatly mix up the otherwise boring NBSI mentality.

Examples of the kind of infrastructure I'm talking about:

* Alliances should have to build jumpgates; a system should start out accessible only by jump-capable fleets, which alliances have to secure and build stargates to promote travel. An alliance at war can choose to blow up enemy stargates, but if their goal is to take over the territory, this comes at a massive time/cost they will have to invest later to rebuild the gates to get the passive income generation started up again. This is a strategic decision they must make.

* NPC colonies should setup on planets when alliance space is secure enough with stargates open, and of course alliances can tax these colonies. Colony growth should partly depend on NPC convoys traveling to empire, encouraging alliances to protect not only the colonies but the trade routes. Again, invading alliances can attack colonies and trade, but at the cost of having to rebuild those colonies up from scratch later. Again, strategic decisions must be made.

* When a colony is sufficiently developed, it should create NPC stations just like in Empire, with high value agent missions and excellent ratio trade goods, more attractive than what's available in empire. All of this is of course taxed by the alliance, and the more neutrals that use it, the more passive income the alliance gets. Alliances should be encouraged to increase security and protect neutrals to maximize their passive income.

The net result of this is that an alliance in nullsec should be able to create a lasting empire that people want to travel to for profit. Crucially, travel BETWEEN nullsec and empire should be required to maximize this. The current mentality to divide nullsec from hisec is, I think, a giant mistake. It has always split the player-base needlessly.

All of these ideas create targets that enemies want to hit (and CAN hit quickly; no POS sieges), which gives them a reason to come and fight, which gives you a reason to defend, which promotes PvP encounters.

The key point being, of course, that none of this is required. An alliance should not have to look like an empire if they don't want; they can leave their space unconnected by jumpgates, hard to access, NBSI lawless, and recluse. They won't make as much money as their empire-mimicing counterparts, but they may have other advantages

Dorian Wylde
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:24:00 - [114]
 

Edited by: Dorian Wylde on 03/08/2011 17:31:44
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


Outposts please.

Quote:
See: station ping-pong pre-sov, repairing station services. Having to do something tedious every day before you can actually play the game is not cool


I live in a wormhole most of the time. At least 30 minutes of play time after logging in is devoted to tedious crap that I have to do, if I want to get anything done. Please consider areas outside null as well when planning this point.

Quote:
See: Jump bridges, cyno jammers, Sov 4, AoE doomsdays, titans in general, supercarrier boost


The 1 bridge per system idea that has been mentioned seems like the best idea. I don't see what the problem is with cyno jammers, seeing them listed here makes me nervous. Multiple people have said it over the years, add a fuel cost to supercaps to make them less cost effective. And SC's just need to be toned down in general

Quote:
Cost is a useful variable to tune but an unwise thing to rely on to enforce scarcity or balance - players will always be richer than you think


Again, scaling fuel costs will help here. In addition, the new sov mechanics are great at taking money out of the economy. Now you need to step it up. Increase the cost based on how many total systems an alliance holds.

Quote:
Cost is a useful variable to tune but an unwise thing to rely on to enforce scarcity or balance - players will always be richer than you think


As someone who never goes to jita, I can't really help you here. I use the nearest hub, or just the nearest item. People who always go to jita are wasting so much time it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Jump freighters would be a good thing to look at here though, as well as carriers.


I posted an idea some months ago that didn't really get looked at, you know how the forums are. I still stand by it, however, and after reading this blog I think it would help solve a lot of your problems.

New bounty system: Automated bounties on players, paid by concord just like regular NPC bounties, on people in claimable null sec. Why?

It gets people fighting each other. This helps the economy, and is what a lot of people like.

Bounties would be based on ship class and tech level, so people couldn't just throw rookie frigates at each other and be billionaires. They would only be paid out in regions that players can claim, so no hi sec, no low sec, no NPC null sec, no wormholes. In these same areas, drastically cut down payouts against NPCs, to get players fighting other players.

Extra money awarded to fleets for killing capital ships, supercaps, and starbases.

Want a Lore reason? The main empires are afraid of the growing capsuleer power blocs, and authorize these payouts to keep us killing each other, and out of empire space. Bounties on NPC's in unclaimed regions reduced because concord pays better for attacking pirates in their home territory.

Xel Set
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:27:00 - [115]
 

I skimmed through this thread and noticed a few people picking up on something I want to point out. CCP has provided a great list of basic nullsec tenets but left out one which is crucial. Simply, many, if not most, of the listed tenets stand in either indirect or diametric opposition to one another, and this principal needs to be strongly and actively taken into account whenever engaging any single issue.

0oO0oOoOo0o
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:31:00 - [116]
 

I'd like to add one aspect to 0.0: You train skills slower when you're in 0.0 than when you're in highsec. This has to do with implants and bubbles (which often lead to pod destruction and therefore to a frequent loss of implants).
This might be fine for slot 6-10 implants or slot 1-5 implants with additional effects: if someone has the advantage of a module (e.g. +5% damage implant), there should be the risk of losing something valuable (~100m in this case). The attribute implants however don't give an advantage on the field. In the moment of the fight the person using +5 implants has no benefits compared to someone with +3 implants, yet risks much more isk. Attribute implants make 0.0 less attractive than highsec for players, who like to gain SP faster (and this won't be just a tiny minority of players). IMHO this is a disincentive for not going to 0.0 and stay on highsec-clones longer than necessary.

mkint
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:32:00 - [117]
 

It all sounds good enough in theory, but we'll see how Greyscale f*cks this one up.

Another theory that you might want to add to your wall of theories might be something about smaller alliances getting a new foothold in nullsec. Is it a good thing that the only route to sov is to join a big alliance or rent from a big alliance?

Jack Dant
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:32:00 - [118]
 

Quote:
  • Shooting at stationary structures is boring
    • See: Starbase warfare, Dominion sov warfare. Even the good fights that do happen around such objectives could be improved by having better objectives.
    • Shooting at things with hitpoints scales very efficiently with fleet size, which encourages lag-producing behavior


One thing I would like to is PVP kills affecting sov directly. The outcome of big battles deciding sov without having to bother shooting structures, or slowly eroding an alliance's sov through guerrilla warfare. The incursion influence meter is probably a decent model for this.

Korvin
Gallente
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:33:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: BursegSardaukar
Sorry if this idea was already posted:

What about having Sov holders declare a "capital" system that has to behave by the current sov mechanics, and the further from the capital, the mechanics can change. Like, after 5 jumps from the capital, the system's sovereignty can be flipped by activity in a system alone. And depending on the size of the "empire," the various sov structures could have changing HP amounts. For example, if a system is simply a "capital" system and doesn't have any neighbor system that are also held by that sov holder, the TCU's could have much lower HP. So, breaking up sov in chunks would make each area of sov easier to break down as the space claimed gets smaller and smaller.

Also, the capital system can hold any bonus-giving structures, and any systems connected in the line from that system can carry those bonuses across (whether they be the current ones, or new ideas), so attacking specific strategic systems could "cut off" systems in many different ways.

That won't work. I can easily distribute players in a dozen of alliances instead of one and distribute sov space the most effective way. That's what we call a bowerblock. And this kind of organization can be managed by alts and/or 1 corp friends with alot of external tools, like forums, jabber, rss, ets.

If it will give some good advantages, players will reorganize their structure to max it out one way or another.

Selak Zorander
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:33:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: Selak Zorander on 04/08/2011 00:20:26
I have read the devblog and all the comments so far and think that this discussion is moving in the right direction to make some progress at potentially fixing things.

While I admit i am not much of a pvp player I do tend to enjoy being able set up to produce needed things (particularly things that pvp players need/want.) From that aspect i also fully support pvp because all that destruction means things have to be replaced. Those things that need to be replaced mean that I have a task I know I can do to help out.

Along those lines any fix or change to 0.0 that is aimed at players like me that prefer the industry side of things need to take care of a few hurdles:

1 - Why should I go out to 0.0 to do anything if there is high risk to me even getting there because my limited play time does not allow me to try and get to 0.0 during non-peak hours? This means I have a high risk of losing everything before I can even get started doing anything unless I kiss up to some huge alliance that really only wants pvp players and not industry types because they handle all their needed industry with a few alts and refuse to do anything that means sharing their isk with others that are more industry oriented especially since they can produce thing as well as I can due to low barrier of entry into industry and no real industry specialization.

2 - Why should I set up shop in 0.0 (assuming question 1 can be answered in a meaningful way) when the materials I need are so limited that I end up having to fly to empire to get what I need at a reasonable price that allows me to make a little profit on my end product as opposed to losing money on anything I make? This can be particularly troublesome with tech 2 production. If I have to fly to empire to get my supplies to make it possible for me to make any isk for my effort, then why not just move to empire and set up shop there. Then I spend less time flying all over creation looking for supplies so I can build in meaningful amounts and may even look into taking up limited pvp activities that I otherwise would not have time for especially if I want to keep my production (and main source of isk generation) going.

3 - Why should that alliance (big or small) consider letting someone like me into their space to try and turn a profit on production when they can run a few alts and do everything themselves (even if they see it as nothing more than a chore that has to be done no matter how boring it may be)? Why should the let someone like me in when they can just as easily pick up enough modules and stuff in Jita when they ship out their stockpile of moon goo that makes them tons of isk but they cant do much with without importing 5 other types of moon goo that cant be found in their space?


PS - Before some of you trolls come back with the bog standard "your and industrialist. your a plague that must be removed from this game at all costs because you are nothing but a care bear and have no understanding of what this game is about." let me just say that I have though outposts need to be destructible and should have been made that way from the start. I even suggested an idea for making outposts destructible in a fashion more than a year ago. I dont want this game to be put into some dumb super easy mode. I want it to be difficult and I want to fill my part of the system. The problem is that industry is too easy to get into and offers little to no specialization. Once you get production efficiency trained to 5 (takes maybe a month to train with mediocre attribute), you can produce 90% of the needed gear in game just as well as that industrialist that has been building for 5 years. You cant say the same about pvp. you can get those gun and ships skills to lvl 5 but that does not mean you have the knowledge or skill to properly use those guns and ships in pvp. I want that sort of challenge brought to industry. I dont want every tom, ****, and harry to be masters of industry with no effort.


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