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

Jita mcheck
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:35:00 - [121]

A small fleet should be able to move faster than a large fleet.
Also fleets should be able to catch other fleets easier.

Posted - 2011.08.03 17:36:00 - [122]

I appreciate the direction CCP is trying to take with this blog, but discussing what 0.0 should be and how to achieve that when a very large portion of endgame content can be accessed in 1.0 space at a leisurely pace is just redundant. The key to making 0.0 meaningful and populated and fun is making it attractive when compared to a miserable alternative, and it will never be attractive as long as the miserable alternative is solo-farming an infinite chain NPC's, including 1m+ battleships, in a 1.0 system while buying up any item you want from a fully centralized supermarket. This is why 0.0 is and will remain strictly optional, and as long as it's optional it can't be what you envision it to be, as stated in the dev blog. You want 0.0 to be full of opportunity, but opportunity means nothing if you already have almost the exact same opportunity without any of the associated risks. You want 0.0 experiences to be adventurous, but how can it be adventurous when you can accumulate a massive pile of ISK without leaving high-sec, and have access to 95% of the exact same content that's available in 0.0 anyway?

Lvl4 missions and how they skew risk vs. reward are the elephants in the room when it comes to 0.0 development in EVE. You can write 10000 word essays on what you want 0.0 to be and rules and goals and objectives and collaborative action lists and team building exercises involving shaving cream and a fire-hose, but it's not going to amount to anything if you've already segregated 0.0 and high-sec in your development process. They're inexorably connected and you need to address both simultaneously.

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:38:00 - [123]

i like the fact you have asked for idea's.

i doubt very much any of them will get into the plan you already have set out though.

can you just finish that blog, get the nerf'ing and all the new screwed up stuff out in the open so we can point out all the flaws please.

would make life easier in the long run

Posted - 2011.08.03 17:38:00 - [124]

Edited by: Aitena on 03/08/2011 17:40:28
Edited by: Aitena on 03/08/2011 17:39:11
I was thinking about the trade issue myself the other day. In my example, I am a (miniscule) part of the -A- powerblock. While there are 4-5 regions that we have blue access to, no one that I know of goes to other regions in this space in order to buy or sell goods.

The problem isn't just that there is hostile territory and stations that I can't dock at. People generally don't like going many jumps out of their way - even in hisec, when it is almost risk free. Travel is boring. When you add the risk of traveling in nullsec, and alliances regulating their own markets (I believe in Omist the general rule is "no sell orders more than 120% of Jita"), the amount of trade from region to region is never going to be much more than the salvage that is difficult to obtain in that region.

Another problem is that in the depths of nullsec, production is often based on the absolute necessities, and is consumed quickly by active pvpers. When your trade hub is 55 jumps from Jita, you're going to want to focus on what your pvpers need to protect your space and expand.

I can think of a number of options to combat these, but they boil down to "How can we impart a significant advantage upon those who transport goods from region to region?"

Another interesting idea would be to attach alliance labels to buy and sell orders. Then we could really see how much inter-region trading is going on.

Ah, and I just had an interesting idea. What if there was a skill that allowed you to check the prices of one item in X (determined by level of skill) regions per day? Then you could see if there is actually a benefit to moving your cargo.

Jita Meatbag
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:40:00 - [125]

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Jekyl Eraser

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

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

insurable clones?

pay x% of the implant value in your clone, when podded wake up in a med clone with new implants already installed?

Posted - 2011.08.03 17:42:00 - [126]

Edited by: SARPIDON on 03/08/2011 17:42:11
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
MoonPI (heh) is something we're considering looking into the feasibility of. It does solve the issue in a very neat way.

Make nullsec PI storage / contents hackable, opening the contents to the raiding party and I see fun / rewards with black ops and or small gangs with blockade runners.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:43:00 - [127]

Players should be able to mitigate danger, but not eliminate it - nobody should be safe in space, everything that's built should be destroyable

Destroyable outposts. Way to destroy any potential economy in 0.0

The interests of players and their leaders should align

yaaay moon nerfs so they are all borderline valuable.

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

See: everything involving eve online


The bit where we ask for feedback

Frameworks are nice and all but it means nothing. You can say all that but then change nothing or change the wrong things.

Quick economy fix for 0.0 would be manufacturing slow nerfs in highsec. 15% more materials required. It's now cheaper to build in 0.0 than build in highsec and transport. It all pretty much falls in to place then.

Our Lord Jesus
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:47:00 - [128]

I think a large part of the problem with null sec is that most of the structures and resources are static. This has advantages for ownership but creates stagnation and/or real safety for members of large alliances. Dynamic moons resources, fluctuating faction presences, even fluctuations in true sec ratings would churn things up. (Not daily or hourly, monthly or more).

Trading/manufacturing T2 goods is so much more difficult in null sec (and losec) that it is hardly worth the effort. You could abandon the idea and resign to the fact that everybody buys everything in Jita. The area of success I had with trading was to bring in pre-built ships to standard designs and sell on the contract system. Improvements in contracts has helped but they are still nothing like as visible as the market and you have a very low limit for contract numbers still. Player shops?

Just my opinion,of course.

m3 Corp
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:47:00 - [129]

Originally by: Hicksimus

I'm with him, at the moment lowsec is completely broken and all I ever see are small changes to nullsec and huge changes to highsec. Can you guys at least turn lowsec into NPC nullsec instead of wasting so much space?

Normally, I'd agree with you.. but if they are serious about these changes to nullsec, then I would agree that fixing low-sec could be done much better after the changes have been implimented.

Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:48:00 - [130]

So to sum things up:
-tons of sweeping generalizations
-gave themselves a five year window whilst disclaiming that some stuff 'wont ever make it in', because you know most games don't go from concept to full release in that time
-nothing specific so nothing to commit to

Posted - 2011.08.03 17:50:00 - [131]

Doing something just "because it would be cool/neat/awesome" is always a bad idea and will come back to bite you later
See: Jump bridges, cyno jammers, Sov 4, AoE doomsdays, titans in general, supercarrier boost... Note that we should still obviously strive to make everything cool/neat/awesome, but when we start off with an awesome idea rather than an actual problem we want to fix or a feature that has a clear, functional and necessary goal, it generally requires painful fixes further down the road

I'm glad to see that someone at CCP is starting to understand that adding new features simply "because it would be cool/neat/awesome" won't always make EvE a better game.

That quote should be the headline of the company's next newsletter, and the question everyone should ask themselves when a new idea is proposed is "How does this fit within the existing game, and make the game better than it is today?"

Posted - 2011.08.03 17:51:00 - [132]

Regarding profitability ISK wise of 0.0, imho, the weight should be put on the industry side and the bounty and plexing side should yield diminishing returns.

0.0 is rich in natural resources.

One defining point of 0.0 is that it is barely settled and has never until Capsuleer empires experienced any significant harvesting of its natural resources. So moons, planets and asteroids should be the main income sources. Then some more esoteric sources like archaeology and salvaging of some really old and forgotten stuff that's from before the empires fell. And not to forget gas harvesting and booster production.

Pirates run away when you kill too many of them too often

In opposite, ratting and plexing on pirates/rogue drones should reduce in abundance the more they are 'harvested' as the pirates and rogue drones retreat to safer places. This would mean, some areas can be intentionally being left alone for a while to allow 'regrowth' of the pirates/drones. Much like hunting/gathering, this would be the lowest level of income and resource acquisition.

ISK comes from highsec, old world/new world style

ISK income would come from selling those gathered and refined resources and products to highsec. This in turn would mean, availability in highsec of 0.0 created resources, especially minerals, has to be reduced.

Currently all kinds of minerals are created from mission module drops. One way to alleviate this would be to remove meta module drops from all rats and replace them with meta components that act as blueprints which require a t1 version and maybe more minerals or PI stuff or some t2 materials to build the meta variant. The meta components can be used instead of the meta modules for invention. Reprocessing a meta module yields the meta component and the t1 module, the additional materials (minerals, PI, t2) could be removed as a further material sink. This will reduce amount of minerals generated by reprocessing and increases demand for t1 modules, thus further increasing mineral demand.

Things to fight over
Sovereignty should allow creation of small space settlements that produce resources from the system and can be raided and looted by small(er) gangs and can be disabled or destroyed by big(ger) gangs. Losing sov won't make them disappear but instead disable them until a new sov is established, no matter who that may be. So once created (and not destroyed) anyone capturing the system will capture the industry facilities on top. The workers there won't care who they work for as long as they have a job and their life.

This will allow alliances to improve their systems and make improved systems valuable for anyone willing to put the effort into taking over sov. These will also make it viable for smaller gangs to come along and raid them for a quick buck. Those locations are targets and if one wants to profit from creating them, one needs to protect them.

Similar locations could be put on planets and moons, which would then be fought over through Dust 514. Planetary control and resource efficiency of planetary installations would be something at least indirectly influencing sov of the system.

Pirates, don't shoot them, join them!
Instead of shooting local pirates, one could on alliance level establish a mutually beneficial agreement with them. On one hand removing profitability from bounties from them, on the other hand one could hire agent(s) to outposts and one could gain standings and LP rewards through missions for them. Of course this would also mean, no rats shoot at alliance members (unless shot at) and members with too low standing with the pirates will not be allowed access to the outpost(s) where agents (and their LP stores) are stationed. Agents won't go away when a outpost is lost, but will stay available to be transferred to a new outpost at any future time. Agents can be grinded up in quality and level.

Ok, enough of this.
brainstorm /end

Posted - 2011.08.03 17:52:00 - [133]

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
(I'm assuming the titan bridges thing is because of freighters?)

Freighters and hot drops. Freighters alone is manageable because you can web it to get it off the gate. But since you will warp for quite some time in a freighter, it's incredible easy to hotdrop it.

I'l Duce
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:59:00 - [134]

What keeps me from 0.0 are the blobs. I'm more of a solo/small gang player and any fight where my input is not noticeable or of no real importance i feel a sleep.

Sov system doesn't generate any incentive or objective for solo/small gang. I'd go as far as say it kills it because the ratters are so safe these days in a crowded defended system.

Long sov cooldownd make the blobs even larger. Bridges allow blob to get people from even larger area.

Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:59:00 - [135]

Fingers crossed for this patch, if its another balls up like the last few ones I wave a sad bye bye to Eve after 5 years of lots of fun.

Anywho, you need to remember that 0.0 isn't 100% about teamwork, there are people out there that want to run the odd plex or mine a belt solo. Whilst I like the idea of introducing incursion like plexes for 'small gang' ratting I also want the opportunity to run one on my own and keep all the goodies for myself. Perhaps bring back the old keycard system used for the old DED sites and only permit one ship to enter - but allow the gate to be hacked with a codebreaker.

As a Former POS director of 5 years this area needs a MASSIVE overhaul. I know it will only affect a few people but all T2 and T3 industries are 100% reliant on it and its probably one of the most boring jobs in the game. Its a mainly nullsec feature so I think some changes it fits here.
- Convert all moons mins to a 'Parts per million' system so EVERY moon has a bit of everything (say 100ppm gives 1 unit/hr of goo)
- Reduce Reactor/Silo/Miner CPU/PG by a huge chunk, running 4/5 large towers for a singe reaction is a pain and not fun (or alternatively MAKE POSES FUN TO USE!!!!)
- Prevent Fighter Bombers shooting POS Mods, they are SERIOUSLY over powered on POS Mods, the fact the can kill a mod on a live tower is completely against the original design feature for incapping mods.

The Red Circle Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:59:00 - [136]

How do you define 0.0, are you excluding wormhole space or just not focusing on it?

Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:59:00 - [137]

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.

You're missing the point here.

Yes, its peoples choice to run level 4's in empire over anoms. But the people you've responded to are saying that they WANT to be in nullsec, they want to have some risk and excitement.

The problem is a properly skilled tengu alt will pull about the same ISK/hour whether it is running level 4 missions or doing Havens/Sanctums. However, Level 4 missions have no scarcity, can be found pretty much anywhere in space. So even if you live in space that still has high end anoms, and your main goal is to pay for your PVP habit and buy a few shiny toys, there is no incentive for the individual player to pick nullsec over empire.

This is not a NERF EMPIRE! viewpoint but I think a lot of players feel that if they can make the same amount of isk sans the risk/competing for sites/logistical difficulties, what incentive is there to stay in null?

Posted - 2011.08.03 18:00:00 - [138]

To agree with and summarize a number of ideas I've seen presented so far: Sov could be redesigned to work a little bit like the Incursion system. That is:

  • Different levels of control, with one or a few "HQ" type systems and then less-controlled systems further out

  • Level of control relates to bonuses granted to friendly entities and/or penalties imposed on non-friendly entities

  • Distributed objectives in these "outer" systems make an assault on the more "central" systems easier, but it is also possible (if far more difficult) to assault the central system directly.

Making sov-holding alliances designate a limited number of "HQ" system might also give smaller alliances an edge, because their "HQ" system will be on even footing with every other alliance's HQ, but they will have fewer less-well-defended systems to support. The distributed objectives would make small-gang or more distributed fighting more viable and open up opportunities for small groups to make a big difference. To avoid tedium, you shouldn't have to clear every lower-level system to strike at the core, but if you pick your targets well you can viably assault core systems after three or four tangential target systems. Maybe even have some kind of constellation-command, and with X constellation commands taken down (which can in turn be weakened by attacking other systems in the constellation) being able to assault an "HQ" constellation. There are many variations of the idea that could be developed.

You can imagine things like Local would be restricted to HQ and similarly high-level systems, whereas lower-level systems might run on delayed or "pinged" (once every X minutes) local. You could upgrade, as an alliance and at great expense, how many systems of each level below HQ you can control, or in some other way still make it possible but much more expensive to control large areas of space. In short, it should be possible to control a lot of space, but there should be some point at which further expansion becomes non-viable, more so than the current sovbill system. This ceiling should be high, at least one region's worth of systems or maybe up to two, but it should also exist.

TL;DR Incursions by and against players could be an interesting form of sov.

lego brick
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:02:00 - [139]

I'd love to see certain areas of 0.0 more dynamic in nature. Example randomly spawning anomalies that have random effects. These effects could vary some positive and some negative. Maybe once there are 50 pilots in a system 30 are teleported somewhere random on the map. Or just capital ships are transported, or interceptors. Some could remove 50% shield if 500 + pilots are in a system. Once the dynamic has been applied the anomaly then re-spawns somewhere else.Perhaps more positive effects could be applied too. Just a thought.

Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:02:00 - [140]

On the dev blog though, especially "lessons learned," more things to ponder:

There is a difference between boring and tedious. Mining is boring. Jumping is boring. PvE is mostly boring (and when it's not you're doing it wrong.) The bulk of PvP combat is boring as hell (PvP has two modes, looking for targets and engaging targets. The first mode is incredibly boring and consumes most of the time.) EVE is not a fun game. It hasn't been since well before release and it probably shouldn't ever be.

Boredom is a counter for immaturity. If you want nothing in your life but excitement, it won't be very interesting or, indeed, very long. EVE isn't really a game. It's an MMO, so it's my life in space-ships. It shouldn't all be fun and games.

Tedium is any task that requires attention but not thought. Moving cargo into a can while mining is this. The vast majority of time spent deploying a POS is this. PI is this. Dear gods, is PI ever this. Moving from Point A to Point B, even in nullsec, is usually this.

So the lesson here is that boredom is okay, and even desirable in some cases (see: Sov mechanics, POSs) but that tedium is not. In point of fact, efforts to make tasks less boring often make them more tedious. Please, in the future, avoid artificial difficulty and unnecessary tedium even at the expense of increased boredom. Your players will thank you.

Meanwhile the best way of fighting bots is to make illicit automation unattractive.

I note that you have a *lot* of incompatible objectives. In each case, you need to decide which you think is more important and to what degree.

I'm also going to disagree with you over which of your "cool" ideas have been bad.

AoE doomsdays were the only solution seen to date to the blob problem. They along with the then-fragile Titans that carried them added a thrilling dimension to PvP combat that I greatly enjoyed being a part of. Compared to single-target doomsdays, they were a great idea. The costs and risks of employing them limited the odds of them being deployed against small groups.

Jump bridges have been a boon to everyone who had the means to invest in them. They expand small-scale trade and activity (including small-gang combat) whereever they are. They were an awesome idea, and recent limitations placed on them have not improved the game.

Now, jump bridges are less a good idea than constructable jump *gates* might have been, but they don't really belong in the "that was a stupid idea" camp.

Cyno jammers and sov 4 really allowed nullsec industry to bloom, allowing players to create their own pockets of proprietary virtual high-sec. It's hard to see how they were bad things. Cyno jammers combined with AoE doomsdays have actually given me some of my favorite fights to date, along with sov 4 adding real strategic complexity to attacking and destroying what was then my home.

That said, there is a point here that "cool" ideas do need careful examination. The mothership to supercarrier change created a huge problem on two axes that we tried to warn you about at the time. First, it marginalized dreadnoughts. Second, it virtually eliminated the non-Dreadnought-like roles that Motherships had had and were actually used for. Far from a boost, it was a repurposing, and it impinged on the perogatives of a class of ship with just one job.

Likewise, Titans were a great idea -- as expensive mobile jump-gates fragile enough to not ever be worth committing to a fight, or as a way of countering blob warfare and a significant PvP objective in their own right -- as a nonfragile asset capable of devastating subcapital fleets in direct combat and embarassing the Dreadnought at its only job, it's something of a problem.

The "stuck in this can" nature of supercaps is their biggest problem -- it's essentially an incentive for corps and alliances to torture their most prized members, and that certainly needed some more thought.

Posted - 2011.08.03 18:05:00 - [141]

Edited by: Terrorina on 03/08/2011 18:05:38
I like a lot of the things you guys are talking about.. the one thing I don't like is the timeline. For a player who lives exclusively in nullsec and has been hit with the anom nerf and the jb nerf recently I certainly don't see myself playing in 5 years (or even 1 year) unless something is done to make living here worth while.

At this point I feel the risk of living in 0.0 far exceeds the reward (for the individual players especially).. and if it comes down to it I won't be moving to high-sec, I will be moving to another game.

Cyaxares II
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:06:00 - [142]

How are you going to deal with players being "too rational"?

There are so many fights in 0.0 that could happen but that don't happen - because players/leaders tend to be pretty risk-averse and try to avoid fights in which they don't have a clear advantage (number, fleet composition, reinforcements, ...).

It seems to be a direct consequence of a ship loss in EVE being a serious financial loss and - perhaps more importantly - of the prestige gained by having good kb stats. The only change I could think of to solve that issue is to increase the "fog of war" to make it less clear who has an advantage before the fight begins - but with the pervasiveness of spies that would probably be highly ineffective, too Neutral

Any thoughts?

(and blue-balling the opponent by initiating timers he has to be ready to fight over and then not showing up to any fight)

Molyse Shakiel
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:09:00 - [143]

Hi what about capital system for aliance (i mean on economical way)
-let Aliance can set 1 capital system only
-Main system would be free form tax
-systems in constalation would cost half the price than in cont w/o capital system -
-only 1 capital system per constalation
-with this aliances with large space would be paying money for sove compared to small (1 costalation) aliances

This would help small aliances wanna get home in 0.0 compared to big ones with many terytories.

Second what u think about trusec
-lets say i have 2 system (-1 and -0,1) Right now diffrent is very big.
-so why no add something lik upgrades to trusec of system but with big money
-let say from -0.9 to -1 would cost 50 bil then form -0,8 to -0,9 - 45 bil and so on
-loosing sov would reset upgrades
-with this u could get better space and with big prices u wont get everywere similar space (for some ppl upgrades price will be to high, war or posibnility of it will prevent and last rent for those systems- like lets get -0.6 becouse rent/month for higher trusec is too big)
-also will give more reason to identify yourself with space u live

Cupio Mortem
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:09:00 - [144]

Things that need to happen:
- Nerf super caps (fighter bombers) or remove them entirely.
- Make outposts destructible.
- Fix the botting exploits.
- Fix lag, or if that can't happen, cap the amount of players per corp and/or alliance.

Some Ideas:
- Make individual system building and upgrading more interesting and enjoyable, with more long term goals that adds incentive for holding a single system for a longer period of time.
- Remove jump bridges and instead add the ability to upgrade a stargate for more jump range. I have always felt like stargates should have the ability to be less automatic and more like a actual owned sov structure that can be upgraded. Maybe even the ability to add turrets to a sov stargate or a secure password, which would increase the need and use of black ops and hacking (which are very underused throughout the whole game)?
- Make PI within a sov system offer better rewards and resources.
- Remove low sec entirely, and turn half of it into a actual enjoyable and functioning faction warfare area, and the other half simply make into more NPC 0.0 space.

Posted - 2011.08.03 18:11:00 - [145]

Edited by: mkint on 03/08/2011 18:14:32
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.

You reasoning is broken. If there's a little corp/alliance in a dead-end constellation, the only way such a valuable moon would appear would be if they were completely inactive.

Sounds to me more like you're afraid this would hurt whatever 0.0 alliance you've been cheating for.

Static truesec just reinforces the immutable FACT that if you do not have a titan and scar fleet to take sov, you have no place in 0.0. But that's a good thing for that alliance you cheat for.

Edit; and the fact that you admitted to arbitrarily targeting specific alliances and unilaterally making their space worthless (nerfed the hell out of their sec) makes you really seem like an asshat. Right here, you've just admitted to doing it, on purpose, with ill intent. You're a cheater and don't belong on a dev team.

Slave slaver
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:17:00 - [146]

It would be nice to build all the ships in 0.0, independent from high sec. There is no one, mining Veldspar by choice. So you need to build munition or after burners (or other modules) in highsec, jump them into 0.0 and refine it. The opposite of running a stable industry.
Putting less Mega, Zydrine and Noxc in those high value ore and massivly Trit/Pyrite... might solve this stuff. ;)

Thx :)
Slave slaver

Wyke Mossari
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:17:00 - [147]

Consider this;

Q) "why is Jita the biggest trade hub in Eve?"
A) The network effect, a lot of different factors have a multiplying effect that is larger than the sum of the parts.

The mechanics of EVE typically follow a model of diminishing returns. It general pays to spread the effort/cost arround. That needs to be balanced with some mechanics that provide power return.

I think that should be defensive sovereignty.

Consider an Alliance Capital System, (The Seat of Government, not the ships). This would provides a range of benefit such as defensive bonus, more easily policed, more loyal population, lowest corruption, less waste. The further from the capital the less loyal, lower bonus, higher corruption, waste, etc. These are as far as the Alliance are concerned. A sort of quasi-sec status as far as the Alliance is concerned.

The alliance pilots can adjust their behaviour, how close to the relative safety of the Capital system. As they gain skills and confidence they can move further away.

Some examples.
Refining waste, good near Capital, poor at borders.
Cloaky campers, easily scanned down in capital, difficult at borders.
PI, capital manufacturing bonus for higher tiers, lower extraction rates, reversed near borders.
Pirate complexes better near borders.

Two Alliance Capital systems too close with overlapping sovereignty causes friction and increases corruption. Plus the obvious security risks.

Posted - 2011.08.03 18:21:00 - [148]

Edited by: Viceroy on 03/08/2011 18:21:53
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

The lesson here isn't that shooting stationary structures is boring, it's that shooting stationary structures is boring when you have too many safety nets and artificial breaks to slow it down to a crawl, in addition to extremely poor design which gives defenders a massive advantage (POS being easy, cheap and super-fast to set up in comparison to what it takes to destroy them, which was the pain pre-dominion that was exchanged for the exact same thing with different structures post-dominion).

Siege warfare is a necessary part of territorial conflict, but under the current system you simply have no way of adjusting the amount of risk you take to speed things up, and there is always capital ship insurance (lol) as a consolidation prize for the losers.

The best way to mitigate the boredom of shooting structures or investing time into sieges is to allow for siege battles to be fast, extremely costly and as a result, decisive. The reason that sieges and conquest are so boring right now is because there are so many ways that both an attacker and a defender can simply bail-out their strategic assets (aka capitals) when things get even remotely risky -which in itself is pretty hard due to ridiculous jump-drive mechanics-. Even in the cases where a side loses a dozen capital ships in some mishap (lag), they get hundreds of millions in insurance and frankly, not that much is lost. This is why campaigns can stretch on for weeks and months, and more importantly with very little variation in engagements, since no one is losing their prime attacking/defending assets or recuperating from losses too fast for it to mean anything.

This ultimately leads to the same outcome in each major conflict; the side that loses isn't the side that runs out of capital ships or ISK or modules or replacements or anything. The side that loses is the side whose pilots get too bored to log on to fight the same battle again every day. The fact is, players don't quit the game because they lose ships or their alliances lose wars or they lose their space nearly as much as they do because the wars and campaigns that should in theory lead to those previously mentioned outcomes are just too goddamn boring because they're padded left and right with risk-averting, loss-recuperating and as a direct result, conflict prolonging game mechanics that make you repeat the same battle or siege over and over again, which is what leads to shooting structures being boring.

If sides were allowed to adjust the risks they took with their strategic assets, and if some simply stupid baseline safety nets were removed (spooling time for impossible to stop jump-drives, no insurance any sort for capitals of any kind (Jesus why does this even exist?)), battles could result in massive losses and decisive victories/defeats, or at the very least some variation in strategy. Right now there's a very solid ceiling to the amount of risk you can take as an attacker or a defender, and it's very low. A simple example of a mechanic to change this, originally suggested by a close friend of my hypothetical island-alligator, was that siege modules be allowed scripts that increase DPS and siege time simultaneously. You'd be locked down longer but could work faster even with less ships (less lag). I'm sure there are other examples as well.

Shooting structures is only boring an a chore if the game mechanics require you to do it over and over again in order to allow the other side more room for mistakes and losses. The end result is that both sides are unsatisfied and territorial warfare sucks.

Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:21:00 - [149]

Originally by: Tork Norand
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).

Enjoy trying to fuel one or more POSes with T1/T2 industrials.

Not to mention you could never build an outpost since you can't build the egg at a POS and it requires a freighter to haul and launch it.

A nice idea if you want to go insane with logistics.

Posted - 2011.08.03 18:22:00 - [150]

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.

That has nothing to do with 'liking' anything. It's purely and simply an economic issue. Empire missions provide better income (ad that's on top of other benefits - like security or ease or resupplying), they are simply more profitable, even though it much less enjoyable content.

It's the very example of situation that directly violates ground rules that devblog describes.

How can you not see it?

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

These forums are archived and read-only