open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Nullsec Development: Design Goals
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2011.08.15 10:33:00 - [1]

CCP Greyscale and Team BFF's newest dev blog details the current design goals for nullsec.


Update: CCP Fallout is Failboat and published before creating the feedback threads. We'll get this done shortly :)
Update: Feedback threads have been created and can be found here.

Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2011.08.15 10:41:00 - [2]



Posted - 2011.08.15 10:56:00 - [3]

Edited by: ChromeStriker on 15/08/2011 11:57:43

Fake edit: ibc... ****

Real Edit: Good stuff! it certainly gets the mind thinking, what we think null is and what we think it should be. Wiil be interesting to see the feedback threads...

Jack Paladin
StarFleet Enterprises
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.08.15 10:59:00 - [4]

Originally by: ChromeStriker
fake edit: ibc... ****

Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:01:00 - [5]

Money chart!

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:06:00 - [6]


Dierdra Vaal
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:07:00 - [7]

Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 15/08/2011 11:33:42
nice :D I do have two questions though.

Also, the "money chart" is a future thing we'd like to look at where we map out how much money you should be making in different areas of the game

Will this chart also be made public in the form of a devblog? I think a comprehensive overview of how much money should come from where will help getting everyone's noses pointing in the same direction.

A more general question is that I get the impression that in quite a few areas the profitability of nullsec should go up. You mention agents (and thus missions) in 0.0 and even ISK benefits for small gangs ("...ideally things with tangible ISK-relative value as well as..."), are you not worried this will further enlarge ISK faucets in the game, thereby making the inflation of the EVE economy even worse? An economy which, in Dr.EyjoG's words, is "broken" already. Will you add additional ISK sinks to balance this?

MuroBBS United
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:07:00 - [8]

That was a great read. I guess now zerozero has a chance of someday becoming something I'd like to play in.

Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:23:00 - [9]

Nice blog, made downtime pass by much quicker.

I hope you keep this level of communication up. Cheers.

Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:55:00 - [10]

Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...)

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:01:00 - [11]

so you intend to make t2 production in empire? cost more, harder to do, less efficent, pointless?

Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:06:00 - [12]

Wow, that's a whole lot of work you're setting yourselves up for.

I'm pleased to see plans (or pre-plans) of this scope and depth being discussed but to be quite frank, before I spend any effort in making detailed suggestions, I'd like to see some concrete assurance that the resources to implement even a small fraction of what you're talking about here will be made available.

In short: that's some fine looking pie but please can you explain why it's not pie in the sky?

The Economist
Logically Consistent
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:40:00 - [13]

CCP Soundwave

C C P Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:42:00 - [14]

Originally by: Har Harrison
Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...)

I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though.

The Red Circle Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:44:00 - [15]

Edited by: Walextheone on 15/08/2011 12:44:30
Originally by: Smoking Blunts
so you intend to make t2 production in empire? cost more, harder to do, less efficent, pointless?

Seriously dude.
Low risk - low reward
High risk - high reward

You have like "5" years to adjust to this anyway

Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:44:00 - [16]

If you wanna move away from structure grinding and towards the PvP aspect of things.

my 'constructive' post...

I was there, in fleet the other day with a few friends and we all started brain storming on ways we'd enjoy sov and the ability to make it less focused on structures and more focused on pvp.

What we came up with were player driven incursions.

You have alot of the code written and to implement it would be pretty cool.

Basically, we've got acceleration gates already that limit ship size. Now when an attacking force launches an incursion, they do so by planting the acceleration gates in systems which deploy a dead-space "flag" that needs to be defended or destroyed.

Each level of the player driven incursion allows for an attacking force to implement larger acceleration gates which would escalate an engagement.

Sov is now defended on a sliding scale (similar to incursions) where disruption happens, not to the level of incursions, but it's something that a defending force definitely wants to take part in and enjoys doing it.

This benefits everyone in null sec in that, when you defend the initial stages of an invasion, smaller alliances who are skilled with small gang warfare can do so and it benefits them.

In terms of resources such as moon-goo and the likes. This will still create reasons and things to fight over so I don't forsee stagnation happening. Rather, making player driven incursions on a sliding scale of who dominates a system and comes out more powerful in the end.

Things like defending the accelleration gates to make sure your fleet can get through to fight for the flag.

Less blob as you'd put a "size" limit (similar to wormholes) on the defending and attacking gates. These structures can be used in a manner like POS's where there's a password which a specific role is necessary to change (config starbase etc.) which keeps in line with the whole fun espionage of EVE.

You still need to "defend" the acceleration gate to get your fleet to the "flag".

By limiting the mass on the gate, you'll see decisions made where "hey, **** ahacs, lets do 200 rifters!"

Meanwhile, the opposing side if decided to do ahacs, would have to fend off 200 rifters with a fleet of something like 20 ahacs. Depending on the skill of the FC's, this could go either way.

EDIT: And in the system where the gates are, there would be different types of fleets fighting to try and kill off the "assault" fleets before they make it to the acceleration gate.

I think one of the components to my post was the sliding scale aspect of it and escalation of the encounter. Possibly I didn't explain the idea behind it much.

Basically, if an attacking alliance can win the first parts of the 'incursion', they would go into a new phase where they can then anchor/online/add larger gates that have greater mass allowances. Maybe they just get upgraded... I really don't know here.

ok, I'm gonna go on a brain storm here.

SBU's are replaced with acceleration gates, incursion style. So the mechanic of 51 percent of the system needs to be covered in order to start the incursion. Similar health, similar deals with these gates.

Ihubs/TCU's are replaced with a deadspace flag in a system that is only reachable by anchorable gates. Sov level determines how many gates a holding alliance can maintain in a system. Gates are anchored in a system as a pos structure (maybe?) outside etc... similar to jump bridges.

I posted more on where I went into how systems are based on "levels"... Level 1 the attacker drops gates that are small forcing small fleet combat and the winner of each round decides if they want to keep upgrading gates or keep em small.

Super cap heavy organizations will want to upgrade, where smaller alliances who are good at small gang warfare can hold with small ships.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:16:00 - [17]

Logistics should be a weakness for larger organizations of players. It should avoid being tedious, but it should remain a major point of concern as size increases, and be one of the primary drawbacks of growing beyond a certain size.

Yet you nerf jumpbridges and therefore everyone ought to use gates and therefore there's no differentiation.

For further discussion. The best agents in the game should all be in nullsec, in keeping with the "richest area in the game" theme. There should be a clear margin of value for nullsec agents that acts as an enticement for mission runners to move there.

Except for agents in player 0.0 which is the majority of 0.0.

Groups running regular small fleets should find it pretty straightforward to move their base of operations. This allows them to "go where the action is", and allows any given part of the cluster to get a much more regular rotation of "local gangs", which in turn should lead to more combat variety for the average player on both sides of the fence (ie roaming groups and defense gangs).

Yet jump bridges got nerfed.

Smaller fleets should have some avenue via which they can have some impact on larger fleets, without just getting killed. There should be some sensible way to defend against this with some sensible amount of effort on the larger fleet's part. A smaller fleet should not feel that it simply has to run away from a larger one, but neither should it be able to have a disproportionate impact on a larger one.

Perhaps anytime there's a large number of ships in a grid there's some sort of 'gravity' effect that has the effect of pulling them all towards each other.

Hell's Revenge
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:17:00 - [18]

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Har Harrison
Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...)

I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though.

so in lets say 6 years from now on are you kidding me?

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:37:00 - [19]

Originally by: Walextheone
Edited by: Walextheone on 15/08/2011 12:44:30
Originally by: Smoking Blunts
so you intend to make t2 production in empire? cost more, harder to do, less efficent, pointless?

Seriously dude.
Low risk - low reward
High risk - high reward

You have like "5" years to adjust to this anyway

so all r&d agents are getting moved to 0.0 also cos other wise its just more pita. not fused about it being in empire or 0.0 as i live in 0.0. just increasing logistics for no real reason isnt what im after.
moon mins will have to be redistrbuted as some parts of the map wont have all(tech) the stuff needed. tbh all i see this doing is upsetting empire bears, and making more work for people in 0.0. atm its a short trip to jita and an empire pos. soon will be many trips in empire to collect cores, then many pos's to get all the reactions in 0.0. more work for teh same results, yay

Nomad III
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:38:00 - [20]

If 0.0 pilots are able to be selv sufficient, it's breaking the greater rules of acting together. That means every modern society depending on global rules of trade. But according to those ideas we are on the way back to the middelages.

I propose a different strategy: Make trade between hostiles in 0.0 possible so that the interconnection between all pilots is visible and has consequences.

Don't make logistics tedious. It takes more than enough time. We want shoot each other not preparing to shoot each other.

Posted - 2011.08.15 13:40:00 - [21]

Hi CCP Fallout / Greyscale

To remove permanent marker from a white board, simply scribble over it with a normal board marker - the oils in the board marker will react with the permanent marker "ink" and you'll be able to rub it off with a normal board cleaner, without the need to use special sprays / cleaners.

Posted - 2011.08.15 13:41:00 - [22]

I read the whole blog. Comprehensive and interesting, but there was only one recurring theme throughout:

"I want my cake and eat it too."

Good luck with that.

Renan Ruivo
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:48:00 - [23]

Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 15/08/2011 13:50:09


Posted - 2011.08.15 13:53:00 - [24]

Lots of great ideas in the whiteboard blogs, however...

Does CCP have enough resources to actually implement any of them in a reasonable time frame?

Meaning, it's one thing to shift existing game features around (minerals, ice, agents, etc.) but some of the more interesting ideas have that "pie in the sky" aspect that would require serious re-work and would require a lot of follow up tweaks for balance and gameplay.

Black Dranzer
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:56:00 - [25]

Hmm Haa.

Well, it all looks very impressive and encouraging, but, like you guys say, it's just a roadmap. It's a good roadmap, but that's only worth so much.

The real test of this will be how much bang for your buck you can get in how short a time. All the cool plans in the world don't mean a trit if nothing ever comes of them. Communication's good. Communication is part of what people want. Just remember that, more than anything, people want to see results.

Here's my advice, skimmed over though it will no doubt be:

Change something core. Something integral. Some vital thing which touches on everything else. Even if its impact is so far reaching you're not even sure if you can accurately judge what its impact will be. Worst comes to the worst you create chaos and alters the game like nothing else. But frankly? That might be just what this game needs right now.

Right now, you need change.

Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:08:00 - [26]

Edited by: Tippia on 15/08/2011 14:18:59
Many interesting ideas and design goals there, moving my comments to the appropriate thread(s).

kano donn
New Path
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:23:00 - [27]

Edited by: kano donn on 15/08/2011 14:25:44
Most excellent. I love this new direction.

edit: This is completely off topic but to remove permanent marker really easily.
Take your dry erase marker, color over the permanent entirely. Then when you erase it, it will come off. Try it, works wonders.

Posted - 2011.08.15 14:25:00 - [28]

Are you removing ice from hi sec low sec--seems like it based on the above?

J Kunjeh
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:34:00 - [29]

Really enjoyed this one, there are some great design guidelines in here. I look forward to the community discussion on these topics.

Posted - 2011.08.15 14:51:00 - [30]

Edited by: kdsjfjhiskhfs on 15/08/2011 15:09:31
Your CFO must be very unhappy with these changes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

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