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

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.17 10:16:00 - [121]
 

You guys are going to so screw this up I can already tell that. Following on the heels of the ever present Incarna disaster and the Greed is Good blowback I hope this won't be your NGE.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.17 11:39:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Dex Ironmind
Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw.

CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit.


This is a good argument.

Calistai Huranu
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2011.08.17 11:59:00 - [123]
 

Will we be getting a list of what we will/may actually get with the winter expansion alongside a date you're hoping to deliver on? Afterall, winter's not far off now. Four month's is not very long at all.


I can tell you that this is one of the moments where we look at what CCPers do and less of what they say.

Cryten Jones
Gallente
Advantage Inc
The Matari Consortium
Posted - 2011.08.17 13:15:00 - [124]
 

Smallholding....

This is what I have wanted since day fricken' one!

My corp and I nearly made this work in a wormhole as we were in danger but there was no sov balls to worry about. Only thing that messed it up was the lack of community within the WH because of the moving holes.

IMHO what is needed here is a 'shop' module to put up that allows you to trade with neighbours and build that wild west feeling some more.


How about making NPC 0.0 only colonised via Small holding to further allow for the growth of grades heading out to true 0.0. Also this would allow the SOV to be blocked without a major change to mechanics.

-CJ

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.17 15:55:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Dex Ironmind
Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw.

CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit.


This is a good argument.


One of the means you could avoid the 'null sec slant' is to better utilise the current 'security rating' of systems.

For example in terms of 'sovereignty' simply do away with an absolute measure and look at a % measure of influence (we had the old influence maps if you recall).

In High Sec the NPC powers already hold 99% of the available 'influence', a value which might drop as the security rating drops. This creates a natural vacuum which could be filled by players, passing to them "control" over certain mechanics according to their relevant influence in a system (a reward).

The sand box gets sandier (and less concrete) as you move deeper into lawless space.

C.

Dmitri Krylov
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.17 16:36:00 - [126]
 

Dex Ironmind is very much correct. It's supposed to be a sandbox so let it be a sandbox.

There are 2 problems with this post already though. CCP and posters all try to look to the Incarna update's terrible performance OR the lack of content OR Monaclegate (tm) OR Greed is Good or the fact the CCP Zinfandel probably shouldn't be left alone with an email account. These helped pull the pin but aren't the cause exclusively. THey're all long term issues that keep getting stated over and over and just ignored or BS'ed by CCP. The problems stem from CCP long term practices. This blog for instance offers "all this stuff we want to do!" but you aren't going to do all that. Some of it's not even possible since you can't program in player actions. Later, CCP will say they never planned on that or we're still working on it and just let it drift off. Faction Warfare is a classic exaple but not certainly not the only thing that has gone unfinished and ignored. I know this would be a complete review of how communications are handled, expectations are managed and even understanding what has made EVE successful at all but it needs to be done, We're trying to do the same thing at my job since things have gone from really good to really bad. Problems can't be ignored but the situation has proven to be a bigger issue than we thought. Ithink CCP is in the same boat.

Thus, this blog is already being seen as unachievable and misguided in various degrees. CCP will not understand the complaining that follows this dev-blog later but will try to brush it off as it just being angry about NEX prices and they will be very wrong. Stop trying to think these reactions are just singular events. They aren't. That's why each time these things go wrong (summer of rage, etc.) they get worse. Try sarting with this dev blog. It's as good as any place to begin.

Basically, please don't act like things are going to get done that won't get done. People respect an honest answer a bit more than you may think. As stated earlier, plese keep it a sandbox. Don't try to herd us into playing it how a board meeting felt we should be playing. Try just fixing the broken ends. They aren't sparkles and rainbows but they make for a better game and thus a better product. For the sake of clearing up some of these question posts, just tell the forums if you guys are never working on Faction Warfare again. I don't even do FW but they have been waiting a long time for a real response with a solid answer. Keep the content simple and on target for things you can ACTUALLY achieve.

Do a litttle research into what's really been going wrong between CCP and it's player base. Bring in somebody who knows how to do this if you need to. Don't ignore it or the game just slowly dies over time. We all might just need a bit og counseling.

That's it for me sorry for the wall. I hope things work out. Like I said earlier, this is my last sub and now my last day. I hope things get better. The history for it doesn't look good for CCP though (see above). It could work though with effort. Last toon, last day, last post. Out.

Manfred Sideous
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.17 18:15:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Dex Ironmind
Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw.

CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit.


This is a good argument.



The problem with Hi-Sec as I see it is ISK can be made to easily there with little to no risk. As it stands mission runners incursion runners and giant mining corporation exist in hi-sec. The reason being is they can make there isk without much in the way of real risk. That isk they make is almost on par with isk that can be made in 0.0.

Should be:

Hi-Sec (AKA Commerce zone)- Major Commerce center , minor mining/resource collection , minor mission running , minor production

Lo-Sec (AKA Industry zone)- Major production center , minor mining/resource collection , medium mission running , minor commerce

0.0 Wormhole (AKA Rural zone) - Major mining / resource collection , major mission running , minor production , minor commerce


This would create dependency and interaction between zones without eliminating any activity in any zone. The idea is different zones have there own unique strengths and weakness's. So a guy/girl that wants to mission or mine in safety can do so in hi-sec but his/her return is lower than low-sec which is lower than null-sec. A guy/girl who wants to do production can do so safely in hi-sec/0.0 but its limited or they can do it in lowsec and have higher/better production rates which = more return. A guy/girl wanting to be a marketeer can do so in any zone but major commerce zone is in hi-sec although some commerce opportunities will be available on open but more dangerous low sec markets or even more dangerous and closed market 0.0. Wormholes still retain the benefit of being the wild west uncharted and uncontrollable where unique commodities are harvested & collected.


With this template you have interaction on all levels. Goods will need to be harvested and collected of which some areas will be better or worse than others. Groups will seek to take these areas from eachother. These areas will need policing so that materials and commodities can be collected. These areas will be ripe for raiders to come pillage and kill the unprotected or to skirmish with the policing force within. Commodities will need to be transported out to production and commerce zones. That will require logistics and protection for that logistics which also creates opportunity for pvp and metagame & a host of other possible interactions.

Within lowsec commodities will need to be moved in and goods out. Logistics will need to be protected and pirates will **** and pillage the unweary and unprotected. Groups will form that specialize in production but they will need to interact with a police force that will protect them so they can carry out there task. Missioning pilots will be able to tap into better return and rewards for doing missions in this area. Mining will be noticeably better then Hi-Sec but more dangerous.

Within highsec all major markets exist this is where the bulk of all resources , commodities and goods are traded and sold. There is huge potential for profit through marketing and manipulation. Mining and missioning are also possible here and are very safe but the return is halved of lowsec which is halved of nullsec. Production is also possible here but the efficiency is half of that of lowsec & the same as 0.0


The idea is to take nothing away from any area but to make it more ideal to do a certain activity in a certain area. This will not limit activity but encourage it in focused points.

Alexzia Sevic
Posted - 2011.08.17 18:33:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Dex Ironmind
Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw.

CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit.


I don't see how any of this constitutes herding. Making the intended profitable area of space profitable doesn't push anyone anywhere. Only you can decide to jump through that gate out of hisec, CCP can't make that decision for you.

Dex Ironmind
Posted - 2011.08.17 20:47:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Alexzia Sevic
I don't see how any of this constitutes herding. Making the intended profitable area of space profitable doesn't push anyone anywhere. Only you can decide to jump through that gate out of hisec, CCP can't make that decision for you.


Let me try and develop the thought a bit further...

All games have some degree of progression, but the whiteboard/wiki roadmap Team BFF (hence, the FIS crew) has come up with for this proposed 5+ year null expansion makes NULL sec the end of the progression. That defies what I understood the game to be .. the ultimate space sandbox!

I agree that a player has to choose to jump out of HI SEC. However, if that is where the natural progression of the game leads you by design, then it is "herding." The roadmap CCP has tentatively drawn up and put out for our feedback trends in that direction. It seems to emphasize NULL to the neglect of low, hi and WH. It's specific ideas "herd" us toward NULL. For example, if NULL is the most profitable section of space, then NULL become the natural progression. Why does a sandbox have to have a most profitable section? As can be clearly demonstrated, the profit should not be based on what section of the sandbox you choose to live in, but by what you do in that particular section of the sandbox.

Frankly, living in any sector of space has its risks. But risk should not be the driving force of reward. Risk just adds to the excitement of the game. Security status should drive risk, but not reward. If I want to play in the part of the sandbox that has no laws, then I go to NULL. If I want some laws, I go to LOW. If I want to live under laws, then I stay in HI. That should be left to a player to choose, not CCP. Don't reward RISK, let the excitement be the reward for RISK in and of itself.

Their roadmap resonates with the idea that NULL is the endgame, with HI sec as the starter and LOW as some kind of midgame (unfortunately, LOW sec has been the odd man out in terms of development). I am arguing that this a bad direction for a sandbox game. There is no endgame in a sandbox! Endgame is when someone picks up their toys and goes home! So, if CCP is genuinely developing a sandbox for us to play in, then they need to keep that as their guiding principle. They need to keep making/improving the toys for all sections of the sandbox. Then we, the players, can play with them how our imagination sees fit. That is the mindset behind a sandbox. Give us sand and Tonka trucks and we will go to town.

This NULL-centric focus puts a lot of emphasis on one section of the sandbox, offering nothing new, or even taking away toys from the other sections of the sandbox. Why is necessary to do that? Add elements, or fix elements of NULL, without taking away toys from the other areas of the sandbox. Add/Fix elements that impact all sections of the sandbox. Do this with each update, then you will please more of your playerbase.

I do have some practical ideas that I will post next that will elaborate on this, since we know CCP_Greyscale is listening in Laughing, but I do hope this explains where I am coming from.

Dex was here. [8)

Dex Ironmind
Posted - 2011.08.17 21:52:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Dex Ironmind
Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw.

CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit.


This is a good argument.


Thanks for listening Greyscale! It is appreciated.

I hope I will not overstay my welcome, so to say, but I wanted to put forth a few more practical ideas that build upon this concept.

FOCUS ON CORE GAME MECHANICS.

Core game mechanics still need some critical attention. Things like corp and alliance management are serviceable, but barely. Empire building requires these tools. There are tons of great suggestions in the CSM posts on this and elsewhere in these forums. But, if you devs give us the best empire building tools out there, we will use them to build great empires. NULL would be enhanced greatly by simply fixing these two UI's.

Work out the details on modular stations. Privately owned stations should be available to all. But someone should be able to turn them into Corporately owned stations. In turn, let them be turned into Alliance owned stations. This fixes a broken element and gives everyone in all sectors of space new toys to play with in the sandbox. If you make them intuitive, cool and interactive, folks will use them.

EXPAND, DON'T ISOLATE.

Does NULL need some work? Sure it does. But don't isolate it to fix it. Expand it. Do this while expanding all elements of space. Instead of moving stuff from HI and WH into NULL, add new stuff to NULL. Add new stuff to LOW at the same time. Let me illustrate in very generic terms (not completely thought out in any way)...

I guarantee you folks would go bonkers for a new line of ships (frig to battleship, and beyond). How can you do that? Well... expand the story line. Let the various races find some kind of super-minerals in space. The combining of these super-minerals allows for the building of a unique line of ship hulls. That gives combat a boost in all sectors. These ships don't necessarily need to be more powerful, just different, cool and fun. It will give all of us some new toys to fit out and fly in the sandbox. You can even add some new modules.

Now, give alliance warfare a boost. Make these various mineral types available only in certain parts of space. Make it regional, or even super-regional. Dispurse them in some way that folks have to fight or cooperate to control. Limit some of these superminerals to LOW sec and WH space to add value to those systems. You can eve do this based on some factor(s) of space. In any case, give folks something to fight for control of and over. Now, that will stir the sandbox up! If you do this. The incentive is then to control that area of space. This gives value to certain elements of space, without reshuffling old minerals. It expands instead of isolates. It gives something to all, instead of something for just NULL.

You can simultaneously use this to expand and improve mining. New lasers, new skills, new markets, new opportunities. How can you go wrong? Besides, this would be a good opportunity to make mining more dynamic and interactive and use it to mix things up for BOTTERS (see my post in the botting dev blog comments for those thoughts). Everyone, from every sector of space will tell you that mining needs some serious love. Can anyone say ... mind-numbingly dull.

Balance the elements of space making each sector, uniquely, but equally interesting, with various things to do and fight for and folks will go and play there. Keep "herding" us around and we will stop saying "mooo" and go find something else to do.

Dex was here. Cool

Manfred Sideous
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.17 22:41:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Dex Ironmind
TL ; DR screw lowsec screw nullsec don't nerf my risk free high sec uber income

Dex Ironmind
Posted - 2011.08.17 23:14:00 - [132]
 

Edited by: Dex Ironmind on 17/08/2011 23:15:18
Originally by: Manfred Sideous
Originally by: Dex Ironmind
TL ; DR screw lowsec screw nullsec don't nerf my risk free high sec uber income



LOL. I agree with one part of your tl;dr. Don't unnecessarily nerf any segment of space to attempt to enhance another, particulary in a sandbox. As for your assessment of NULL and LOW, well... try again.

Balance the game. Apply some balance to the various sectors of space. Do it by enhancing, adding, giving us toys. Don't just redistribute wealth. Forced redistribution of wealth, or the potential to be wealthy, never works. Give folks the tools and let them figure the wealth part out on their own.

Dex was here. Cool

Manfred Sideous
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.17 23:32:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Dex Ironmind
Edited by: Dex Ironmind on 17/08/2011 23:15:18
Originally by: Manfred Sideous
Originally by: Dex Ironmind
TL ; DR screw lowsec screw nullsec don't nerf my risk free high sec uber income



LOL. I agree with one part of your tl;dr. Don't unnecessarily nerf any segment of space to attempt to enhance another, particulary in a sandbox. As for your assessment of NULL and LOW, well... try again.

Balance the game. Apply some balance to the various sectors of space. Do it by enhancing, adding, giving us toys. Don't just redistribute wealth. Forced redistribution of wealth, or the potential to be wealthy, never works. Give folks the tools and let them figure the wealth part out on their own.

Dex was here. Cool


Thats exactly why different zones of space should be better at different things then others but all things should be possible in all parts of space. Much like society IRL or do you think its logical to run a strip mining operation and a farm that harvest resources in a urban center? Do you also see factories next door to wall street? You can do so but it isn't optimum. Thus the rational behind my suggestion. My suggestion does not take any tools away from anyone it only entices activities in different zones that will cause interaction and interdependency . Is my suggestion finite - no not at all but the nice part is you can tweak and balance. Its not adding some fancy bell or whistle in hopes it will create interaction. Its taking existing content and molding it to a more logical societal structure. Humans have functioned this way for millenia.


As of right now you farm/collect/harvest produce sell/trade/buy almost everything in 1 zone. So within the boundaries of New York for example they would grow all the resources build all the goods and sell all the goods from within the boundaries of that location. Really is that even logical even fathomable?

Dex Ironmind
Posted - 2011.08.18 00:01:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: Manfred Sideous
Thats exactly why different zones of space should be better at different things then others but all things should be possible in all parts of space. Much like society IRL or do you think its logical to run a strip mining operation and a farm that harvest resources in a urban center? Do you also see factories next door to wall street? You can do so but it isn't optimum. Thus the rational behind my suggestion. My suggestion does not take any tools away from anyone it only entices activities in different zones that will cause interaction and interdependency . Is my suggestion finite - no not at all but the nice part is you can tweak and balance. Its not adding some fancy bell or whistle in hopes it will create interaction. Its taking existing content and molding it to a more logical societal structure. Humans have functioned this way for millenia.

As of right now you farm/collect/harvest produce sell/trade/buy almost everything in 1 zone. So within the boundaries of New York for example they would grow all the resources build all the goods and sell all the goods from within the boundaries of that location. Really is that even logical even fathomable?


We are really not too far apart on this. I see what you are saying. I just do not think SECURITY STATUS should determine reward. The sectors of space should have different toys, but they also should have similar toys. Notice in my super-mineral suggestion, I did not include HI sec as getting any of the super-minerals. Why? HI already has an abundance of the base minerals that make the world go round. Don't take away... add. Expand, don't isolate.

One area does not need to be more lucrative than another. This is where balance comes into play. Then a noob can go make a living in null as quickly as he can hi sec. He does so just because he likes the lawless environment of null more than hi. However, null and hi should have some things that distinguish them besides the security status, but REWARD should not be one of them.

Security status is about PVP laws. It has nothing to do with RISK vs. REWARD. Make all areas of space lucrative in their own way ... hence, balanced ... and then let the players figure out which they want to do most. Make that lucrativeness based on cooperation or conflict, but make it symbiotic (albeit in a volatile way) in that the sectors depend on one another too achieve greater degrees of success.

I don't want to log in to play real life. I want to log in for fantasy, sci fi and fun. Hence the need for volatility.

Dex was here. Cool

Manfred Sideous
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.18 00:48:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Dex Ironmind




I don't want to log in to play real life. I want to log in for fantasy, sci fi and fun. Hence the need for volatility.

Dex was here. Cool



So are you spaceship captain , Miner , Marketeer , Soldier in real life? Because in Eve you can be all of these things and much more. What im saying is different areas should be predisposed to certain endeavors better than other areas. However ALL ACTIVITIES should be able to take place in ALL AREAS. Just that if you do activity X in zone that has a bonus to activity X you will earn/yield/produce etc etc more. Im saying empire/high-sec ( pick your term) is more like a urban center in a urban setting you wouldn't see things like a logging operation , a strip mine a farm those things would be in a rural setting. You wouldn't normally see factories and industry in a rural setting they would be closer to logistic lines and well supplied markets.


Empire - Urban

Low sec - Industrial area

null sec - rural area

Erik Finnegan
Gallente
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
Posted - 2011.08.18 03:11:00 - [136]
 

Give us a volatile system faction/security status - everywhere. Based on player action ( fight AND industry ). A less static universe is needed. The effects of positive & adverse standing of yourself/corp/alliance towards the system's majority are to be determined.

Alexzia Sevic
Posted - 2011.08.18 03:26:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: Dex Ironmind


I agree that a player has to choose to jump out of HI SEC. However, if that is where the natural progression of the game leads you by design, then it is "herding." The roadmap CCP has tentatively drawn up and put out for our feedback trends in that direction. It seems to emphasize NULL to the neglect of low, hi and WH. It's specific ideas "herd" us toward NULL. For example, if NULL is the most profitable section of space, then NULL become the natural progression. Why does a sandbox have to have a most profitable section? As can be clearly demonstrated, the profit should not be based on what section of the sandbox you choose to live in, but by what you do in that particular section of the sandbox.

Frankly, living in any sector of space has its risks. But risk should not be the driving force of reward. Risk just adds to the excitement of the game. Security status should drive risk, but not reward. If I want to play in the part of the sandbox that has no laws, then I go to NULL. If I want some laws, I go to LOW. If I want to live under laws, then I stay in HI. That should be left to a player to choose, not CCP. Don't reward RISK, let the excitement be the reward for RISK in and of itself.




I'm a WH resident, so I support your stance that null-sec should not be the most profitable area of the game :D

That said, I can't agree with your premise that all areas of space should be equally economically rewarding. I don't think CCP plans do forbid any activities in any area of space (other then pvp). That would be taking tools out of the sandbox. However, making a continuum of increased income potential across areas of space is a healthy design decision. If all the areas end up being the same, it leads to a dull and uninteresting dynamic.

I believe CCP has also said, and I can't find the quote so I'll ask you to accept it on faith, that players will do what is easy rather then what is exciting. Given this, if one can make the same income in hisec as null, it will be easier to stay in hisec and that is where all the players will stay. I believe this in effect would 'herd' all the people to hisec, as there is no economic reason to go anywhere else.

Put it this way. In order for me to go to null sec, I need to have the expectation that it is possible for me to make enough isk to replace the ship I may lose while generating said income. If that isn't the case, I'm not going to go. I believe that CCP is trying to generate a risk vs reward structure where I can say 'yes, that is possible'.

With regards to industry, I believe the same should hold true. Going back to the manufacturing of ammo example, if I set up my factory in a lawless region it should be cheaper for me to produce. I don't have to buy the land, pay taxes, discard my waste properly or any other number of cost saving measures. Thus it should be cheaper to produce the lower in security status you go. That said, I believe you should be able to manufacture any item anywhere. I just believe it should follow the same risk/reward dogma.

Jekyl Eraser
Posted - 2011.08.18 08:14:00 - [138]
 

You forgot to mention how allaince population affects alliance sov affects allaince power which would give alliances the motive to attract players to 0.0. You're looking the problem wrong way ie 'how can we make people come 0.0' instead of 'how can we make people want to lure/force/pribe/pay/... other players to join 0.0'.

El 1974
Posted - 2011.08.18 11:45:00 - [139]
 

"Nullsec conflict destroys large amounts of manufactured goods, which drives the EVE market" CCP wants 0.0 to be the place where you can go out, have fun and leave your mark. They incourage people to risk losing ships in 0.0. Either design 0.0 as a place where you lose isk OR make sure the rewards make up for the risks. You can't have both.

gfldex
Posted - 2011.08.18 14:19:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: gfldex on 18/08/2011 14:21:49
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
I don't follow your reasoning here; in particular I'm not clear how you're extrapolating the existence of a large audience for early-EVE-type gameplay in 2011 based on the existence of a small audience for it existing in 2003.


It's no wonder you can't follow Digis reasoning because he doesn't provide as such. Instead he refers (rather sloppy) to how corps _felt_ in 2003/4 and to some degree in 2005 (in Digis case that would be m0o and Evol). Corps had programs to get ppl into BS. There was corp mining to get Jim and Jack their first Apoc. That has changed. There is simply no need to work together anymore to get ppl into ships. Heck, you can run Incursions now for 2 days and get the ISK to buy a fully fitted Carrier. (Capitals where meant to be corp assets. A plan is a list of things that wont happen, right? To bad that you can't pull ppl out of corp ships, even when they quit the game. Mostly because there is no way to mark a ship as being a corp assets.)

By making getting and moving stuff ever easier in EVE the need to help or to offer help has been removed. As a result the player base has changed over time. Nowadays you don't need to build a convoy to move your BS from Agil down to Stain. You just jump them down there and don't carrier (please note the fine pun) how the other guy is going to solve that problem. In fact you just fill your jumpy ship up to the brim and stick the stuff you don't need yourself on the market to happily drain ISK out of the wallet of your fellow corpies.

The whole concept of a co-operation where ppl work together (hence the name) is pretty much not there anymore. The only reason you may need to rely on your corp is to form a blobby blob.

gfldex
Posted - 2011.08.18 14:41:00 - [141]
 

Originally by: Tau Cabalander
The people that enjoy mining or enjoy building or enjoy missions, the stereotypical carebears, are not going to move into lowsec or nulsec. They'll just leave EVE.


I wonder where all those outposts in 0.0 come from. They must be randomly spawn every time a PvPer farts.

Ithilien Undomiel
Posted - 2011.08.18 14:52:00 - [142]
 

Since I've read the problem does not seem to make more attractive the 0.0, but how to force people to move 0.0.
I play by some years and sometime this problem return like that now.
Eve has the advantage that if you only do PvE / small / massive you can do it, ditto pvp.
If none in recent years has led populated null-low, I think the answer is one and only one:
a solid base of players just do not want the 0.0 or low or can not for various reasons (time-game goals etc.)
I think it absurd every time the only idea to populate the null-space is make poor of content the empire.
I know the " I camp SIVALA 8hrs at the gate so I'm shooting ppl afk graeatest pvper is a common idea"
Btw if ppl have no choice ... I mean you go or to null or you're bored and do not play in the Empire many accounts will be closed ... I simply make populated goal is failed.

I imagine the scene:
New – very relaxd player "hello can I join the corp?"
Pro-nerd "Yes…we want 30m sp capital pilot capble etc. 8hrs roaming for nothing is mandatory”
New "I have not / roaming 8hrs every day is boring at all/ I can0t log 8hrs at day”
Pro" Good stay bored in empire, pay a year of fees and convo me next year"
New ->> close client ------>> acc. Man -----> delete account

A few months ago there were agents with quality and usually high quality agents were in low-null, now we have no quality…..so we need news to force ppl to go null….or pirates have not preys
I think better , instead research what remove from empire, to think what add to null.
At last…at all null is already more lucrative than empire ( outlaws corp….belts…site…rats…) simply it lacks of ppl to shoot or that deserve….btw a lot of null-citizens have empire alts for safe isks …..or boring time
So what’s the problem?

gfldex
Posted - 2011.08.18 15:00:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: DigitalCommunist

And no, people will still have the option to do what they are currently doing. Nothing and nobody will ever force you into leaving empire, joining a corp, or risking your ass. The only difference is that it will no longer be the rational economic decision it is today.


I would like to elaborate a bit on that. Years ago I did the recruitment for a 0.0 based corp. Beside rejecting halve of all applicants it was my job to remove all members that didn't come online anymore. I had to observe a very dominant pattern.

Folks showed up at our doorstep because they finished skilling for their BS. They did so in highsec getting some ISK while shooting lvl4 NPCs. It felt sensible for them because them nice +4 imps improve skill time quite a lot. Most of them tried to move their BS into fountain solo at prime time. They didn't even reached 0.0 thanks to the Aridia population. We told them _again_ that we can build ships for them in our home system. They join us and got their new BS. We had pvp ops daily and as a result all those new members lost ships. Pretty much all of them quit the game after they lost the 3rd BS in the same week.

They never learned to keep the balance of gaining ISK and loosing ISK. Thus they never learned to lose a ship _properly_. They didn't learn it because _they_never_had_to_ while being big buddies with their lvl4 agents.

Dex Ironmind
Posted - 2011.08.18 18:39:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: Manfred Sideous

Hi-Sec (Commerce zone);
Lo-Sec (Industry zone)
0.0 Wormhole (Rural zone)


I went back and reread what you wrote. While this is very clean, from an organizational concept, it fails to acknowledge the PVP reality. Let's say I really like mission running, but I don't like PVP. Based on your plan, in order to progress in mission running, I have to go to NULL SEC, which is designed for massive PVP. Why would I want to bring my very expensive, pimped out mission running ship to NULL and blow up the BIGGER BORG without jumping in the deep end of the PVP pool. More ISK? Meh. As was pointed out by Alexzi Sevic above, players will gravitate toward easier in this instance. This design also means CCP is "herding" me move to NULL with their game mechanics and into a PVP centric area of space when that is NOT what I want to do. They are essentially making me play a certain way in the SANDBOX. Sandbox becomes very UN-FUN for me at that point. I take my toys and go home or stay discontent in HI SEC. Poor game design.

SECURITY STATUS is just that - PVP SECURITY. That is good design. CCP doesn't need to change that at all, nor herd people to one place or the other. If you want GUNS free, go to NULL. If you want to be a PIRATE, go to LOW. If you want little to no PVP, stay in HI. PVP is not the problem. Current game mechanics in NULL and LOW (and those that intersect HI SEC) are the problem. That is what needs to be balanced.

Each sector needs to have its attractions, but due the persistent nature of the world and global economy, there needs to be interdependence between the sectors. Balancing this is the trick. I am suggesting that they not just shuffle "old" stuff around to do this, but create new and cool stuff.

You want to give NULL stuff, tie it to their EMPIRE building in a lawless land. That is what NULL is all about, isn't it? Going out and forging your own EMPIRE. The EMPIRE builder gets to make the LAWS! Giving someone cool tools to build something and then dare another kid in the sandbox to come and kick it over -- now that is cool game design. No other game has it the way EVE has it. The problem is, the kids in NULL need some seriously cool toys to build their EMPIRES with. Don't take toys from the HI-SEC kids so the NULL-SEC kids have more to play with. Don't try and HERD the HI-SEC kids to NULL. When the NULL kids build their EMPIRES, the HI-SEC kids will get envious and want their own EMPIRES, which will drive them to NULL naturally, rather than "herding" them by linear game mechanics or RISK vs. REWARD mechanics. However, because PVP is the core element of NULL, give the EMPIRE builders a reason besides their little KINGDOMS to MIX it up a bit. GIVE one sector of NULL something the OTHER ONE needs (something like super-minerals).

LOW needs some of this serious love too. You should be able to EMPIRE build in LOW too, just with the reality that there are some laws involved that must be ... err.. broken to do so. LOW is really the space in-between NULL and HI where the PIRATE kids hang out. They cut into the trade between HI and NULL. LOW is that SHADY area where all the illegal stuff is. So, the EMPIRE BUILDING there need not be solely about making their own laws, but breaking laws too. LOW is the land of PIRATES! Give the PIRATES tools to build their EMPIRES. Everything in LOW should be about the DARKER SIDE OF EVE - shadier agents, risky venture, drugs, prostitution, etc. That will naturally pull folks in to LOW SEC that want their lives to be all about that!

HI SEC has its EMPIRES - C, G, A, M. HI SEC already has its laws. Those who want to live there abide by those laws. They can prosper there too. They don't need to be the poorest kids on the block because they want to be lawful. However, the things that go on in NULL and LOW might be just attractive enough to pull them out of HI and spur them to naturally gravitate in that direction.

More thinking out loud to come...

Dex was here. Cool

Dex Ironmind
Posted - 2011.08.18 18:44:00 - [145]
 

Edited by: Dex Ironmind on 18/08/2011 19:01:45
As far as the SANDBOX is concerned, CCP's focus should be to keep the toys we get to play with in our little make-believe worlds bar none the best that the gaming world has to offer! They don't need to "herd" us. Just give us toys and tools that are cool, fun and challenging, and we will come and play in it how we want to -- and even pay a pretty penny to do so.

CCP needs to place a major focus on killing the things that pollute the sandbox. Things like BOTTING, RMT and exploiting. Otherwise, they need to let us kids figure the rest out.

With that... it kind of brings to mind the modular station concept (Private, Corporate, Alliance, and then Empire)...

For NULL, allow those stations to scale to full fledged stations like the HI SEC stations are. However, these stations should be fully destructible - Gives TITANS some real purpose ... eh! As these stations develop, allow them to bring in agents for their own mission running. Instead, of EMPIRE footing the bill, they have to. Keep everything else out there, but give the NULL WANNA-BE KINGS the tools to attract HI-SEC players and new players out to their lands. Let the players run their EMPIRES as they see fit. You don't have to move any of the NPC stuff that is already in NULL out of NULL to do this. Just expand the toys in NULL to include this.

The same thing in LOW. Let the stations scale, perhaps not to those as big as HI, but let the PIRATES and CROOKS build thier own shady hangouts! Let them have their crime syndicates. Make these destructable also. Let them draw agents out into their world, and let them foot the bill. Let them be shady types of missions that require law breaking to achieve.

HI sec needs better station tools too. Make the private station the focus of HI. Even let them scale into corporate and alliance stations. Just leave the EMPIRE stations out of it, since the current occupiers of that space won't have it. To do that, you need to go where the laws allow it.

Make it so trade between NULL and HI is essential. That makes it win-win for all sectors of space. WH space is just that, the land of exploration. That already has its own features. However, they would benefit from all the tools of the space station too and the WH has its own inherent limitations by virtue of access to them and their moving entrances/exits. They can be fought over and occupied. Just limit the type of station that can be built there by the class of the hole somehow.

Okay...done thinking out loud for now.

If you read this far... you are a brave soul!

Dex was here. Cool

ITSAssassin
Red Bull Manufacturing
Posted - 2011.08.18 20:46:00 - [146]
 

You guys really think everyone is going to jump on board mining in null without a local? That's the stupidest idea CCP has put forth. You're gonna double or triple the PPU of Ice, and the high end minerals, and totally **** up the entire market.

Have your "uber" economist look that one over before implementing this change. It just doesn't make sense.

Erik Finnegan
Gallente
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
Posted - 2011.08.18 23:08:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Seraphina Amaranth
I think the principle
Quote:
"Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3"

won't work.

A better principle would be

"highsec is for all goods, but expensive to produce, low-sec is for cheaper production but riskier transport, and null-sec is for more profitable, faster production, provided you can build the infrastructure"

Yup, this is the direction I'm increasingly leaning in, based on the feedback we've been getting here.

^ This. Over at the industry thread.

And what Dex writes about the Sandbox needing tools; not herding.

Manfred Sideous
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.18 23:24:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: Erik Finnegan
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Seraphina Amaranth
I think the principle
Quote:
"Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3"

won't work.

A better principle would be

"highsec is for all goods, but expensive to produce, low-sec is for cheaper production but riskier transport, and null-sec is for more profitable, faster production, provided you can build the infrastructure"

Yup, this is the direction I'm increasingly leaning in, based on the feedback we've been getting here.

^ This. Over at the industry thread.

And what Dex writes about the Sandbox needing tools; not herding.



Greyscale this is a good compromise but I truly believe there needs to be more interaction and dependency between zones. I think empire should have a bonus to X activity Lowsec to Y activity and Null Sec to Z activity. Whereby all activities are possible everywhere but rational would suggest they be conducted in the area that is best/ most efficient. I really like my analogy of null sec being a rural area lowsec being a industrial area and empire being a urban area.

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2011.08.19 09:45:00 - [149]
 

Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 19/08/2011 09:47:04
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Dex Ironmind
Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw.

CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit.


This is a good argument.

At least it should be made clear to everybody that zero sec is NOT the end game of EVE. That kind of crappy game concept goes straight against the idea of a sandbox.

Also, we should not make a system where veteran and well established players get a lincense to print ISK while new players have to beg; do not forget Malcanis Rule.

Billy Endashi
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:55:00 - [150]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Dex Ironmind
Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw.

CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit.


This is a good argument.


indeed it is.


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 https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only