open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked some possible solutions to a few of EVE's biggest problems.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic

Zarthan
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Posted - 2004.01.01 23:08:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: Zarthan on 01/01/2004 23:10:19
On the other topics:

Insurance- I agree that insurance should flow with ship prices as far as coverage is concerned, however I really don't think it needs to be any cheaper. By this I mean insurance costs around 10-20 million isk for full coverage on most battleships (the exact number eludes me). You then have 3 weeks to achieve this amount again. Besides the caldari warships earning 10 million in 3 weeks is not a hard task even for your less hard core players. Thusly besides pay out I think costs are just fine.

Podding- Oh why must you pod me ,yes there is decent arguments both ways. Personally if we are forced to destroy somone who will not cooperate we ransom the persons pod if they are not moving to the gate. Finacially you've already abliterated their ship and the costs of clones is not that bad, thusly podding somone really doesn't set them back at all so i'm not sure about that argument holding much water. For our style of pirating though if we destroy your ship and with the known costs of implants we ransom pods as anyone withs something to loose (1 implant or more) gets off cheaper by paying us then buying new clones and implants.

Another good topic I see coming into light in this thread.

Problem 9: How to seperate Empire and Non-Empire space. Where is the blury line and how to make it truly a transition and not a dive in. Currently going from 0.1 to 0.0 is a huge leap which is a turn off for many.

Prposed Solution: I think the badlands idea's are good one's that can be expanded upon. As it stands empire space could use being shrunk but also as it stands risks are almost to high for pirates in .4-.1 to make the a resonable place to pirate. I think one solution may be to at very least turn down the strength of sentry guns in lower security area's. Also I think a good idea would be to remove sentry guns from stations in .4-.1 but keep them at the gates. By doing this somone forced to pass through is not at much risk, however those choosing to live in the space assume the higher risk.

Some problems in a way will be helped with player owned stations as far as how limited going to 0.0 space is, however Ideas and incentive to go out their still needs work. Adding rare finds in deep space, and more profits are two common ways I think eveyrone can agree at this point is ways to achieve that. Adding both those things draws explorers, traders, builders and all sorts alike. This also gives thrill seekers more of a thirll.

WhiteDwarf
Caldari
Battlestars
Posted - 2004.01.01 23:11:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: WhiteDwarf on 01/01/2004 23:11:57
"Finacially you've already abliterated their ship and the costs of clones is not that bad, thusly podding somone really doesn't set them back at all so i'm not sure about that argument holding much water"

Implants?

Yes, people who fly frigates that you swat out ot the sky just may have implants...

It gains you nothing, it's for bravado more than anything. Ego boost...


Keeval
Gallente
Posted - 2004.01.01 23:12:00 - [93]
 

Quote:
Quote:
I think if they PODKILL in 0.4-0.1 space they should get a greater sec hit, accompanied by a hefty bounty placed on thier heads by the "empire" who lays claim to that system.


Problem with this is they could get a friends alt and podkill them repeatedly, racking up bounty, then have thier friend podkill them and collect the bounty, this is profitable because clones are cheap.

Players with negative sec status's should have more expensive clones, Maybe clones should cost around 2x to 10x depending on how low thier sec status is, they chose a life of crime, so why should they have the same benifits as far as cloning as a law abiding citizen? 1-4 Mil ISK for a clone is peanuts to most players.

In addition to this, players should be able to fit stronger escape pods to thier ships, maybe even faster escape pods as well.



A think a simple solution to this (ie, stopping the pirate cashing in on his/her own bounty) would be; if that person has a bounty on his or her head then the price of their clone is increased by the bounty amount (or a proportion of it if the bounty was very large).

This would then stop a pirate from getting a friend or alt to claim the bounty as the gain would be minimal. This would also make the NPC given bounty idea proposed workable.



Jash Illian
Minmatar
Light Brigade Industries L.L.C.
Posted - 2004.01.01 23:28:00 - [94]
 

Quote:
Edited by: WhiteDwarf on 01/01/2004 23:11:57
"Finacially you've already abliterated their ship and the costs of clones is not that bad, thusly podding somone really doesn't set them back at all so i'm not sure about that argument holding much water"

Implants?

Yes, people who fly frigates that you swat out ot the sky just may have implants...

It gains you nothing, it's for bravado more than anything. Ego boost...




I have implants and can be found in everything from a Slasher to a Tempest depending on what I'm doing.

But considering I can manufacture all of the ships I fly and the modules you'll find on them in bad areas, the only chance you have to cause me any financial loss is to go for my pod.

WhiteDwarf
Caldari
Battlestars
Posted - 2004.01.01 23:33:00 - [95]
 

"I have implants and can be found in everything from a Slasher to a Tempest depending on what I'm doing.

But considering I can manufacture all of the ships I fly and the modules you'll find on them in bad areas, the only chance you have to cause me any financial loss is to go for my pod"

Good for you, is everyone supposed to be a 24/7 player and be that self sufficient?

Jash Illian
Minmatar
Light Brigade Industries L.L.C.
Posted - 2004.01.02 00:02:00 - [96]
 

Quote:
"I have implants and can be found in everything from a Slasher to a Tempest depending on what I'm doing.

But considering I can manufacture all of the ships I fly and the modules you'll find on them in bad areas, the only chance you have to cause me any financial loss is to go for my pod"

Good for you, is everyone supposed to be a 24/7 player and be that self sufficient?


The loss factor in this game is ridiculously low for any game involving PvP. Ship prices have just recently risen to the point where a person is capable of actually taking a loss. Podding:

1) Gets the person out of the area.

2) Tells them clearly you have no issue with potentially causing them a loss of skills if they encounter you again.

3) Causes the financial cost of a clone

4) Causes the financial cost of implants


If you cannot deal with people causing you a loss through PvP, why did you bother picking up a game based on PvP?

Hakera
Freelance Unincorporated
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2004.01.02 00:14:00 - [97]
 

Quote:

Insurance- I agree that insurance should flow with ship prices as far as coverage is concerned, however I really don't think it needs to be any cheaper. By this I mean insurance costs around 10-20 million isk for full coverage on most battleships (the exact number eludes me). You then have 3 weeks to achieve this amount again. Besides the caldari warships earning 10 million in 3 weeks is not a hard task even for your less hard core players. Thusly besides pay out I think costs are just fine.



Many players are not power gamers though who can replace BS even with insurance and the cost of the modules/lost cargo. Many do not have the connections that Jash has to replace everything without a cost. even for power gamers, they will most defintly feel the pinch of loosing a BS in lost isk/modules and game time until a replacement is made or bought and modules replaced.

I just think that a big part of the problem of tempting people to 0.0 is the fear of losing their ships - especially BS which for many just sit gathering dust now in their hangers. trying to earn 20mil lin three weeks just to keep your BS insured is a hell of a lot - maybe not much for an organised corp but would constitute about 80% of my income just to keep the BS insured (that may well be a problem with me and what I do when I play) hence the BS is mothballed and 0.0 is out of the question while the npcs are tough and the ore crap. Dont get me wrong - we need tougher NPC's but not so tough that a gang of 3 BS has trouble keeping the miners safe and that the ore we find is a little better than jaspet. There is not enough profit to warrant the high risk and there is not enough availible 0.0 space to mine in that does not have chokepoint access which is perma-camped.

I just feel that if insurance costs did not constitute so much of my or others income - it might form part of the tempting 'carrot' to tempt us to look to the chaotic space of 0.0 once more and the loss of our ships would not cripple our game so much.

0.0 must become more tempting, using a stick to force players out into 0.0 would not bode well, but making a more juicer carrot to follow might. I do like the idea of reducing empire space to 0.5+ systems currently and re-scaling them to 0.1-1.0 and making the new 0.0 space VERY well connected (ie 10+ gates to empire space - so blockading the whole region is hard).

The new empire space should have a graded Empire faction police patrols in all of its space, which respond faster to those of higher standing with them maybe.

Just my 2 cents for now Cool

Sara Kerrigan
Caldari
PAK
Posted - 2004.01.02 00:18:00 - [98]
 

Edited by: Sara Kerrigan on 02/01/2004 00:29:56
If you can't afford insurance or replacement of a battleship, because you don't play enough, then you simply shouldn't be in a battleship. It's not made for everyone, people should stick to what they can afford. I think the battleship is intended for fleet battles, not for a solo player to fly around.

This is a massive multiplayer game. The majority of players worth together. Even people that are not affiliated or with a corp will group together to help eachother out. If someone wants to play by himself, this isn't the game for him. It should be harder for such a person, and near impossible to maintain the best ships in the game. They can't keep tailoring the game to help the solo players, because it will just screw things up for the majority.

NewChina
Gallente
Red Conflict
Posted - 2004.01.02 03:30:00 - [99]
 

Quote:
Problem 8: Security status and the loss and or gain of. Currently IMO getting from negative to even takes far to long. However, I do believe it shouldn't be easy either. On the flip side there should be some form of loss over time for postive raitings back to even.

somewhere i think there should be an option to come back to the goodside if a player wants to go back to the empire he has to work for the empire maybye go work for the interbus something realy boring and time taking.
also let them get a parol and if they disbehave their sec gets a huge hit and and gets them banned from the interbus no more parol one chance thats it .

maybye resize the map i like the big size but maybye a smaller size can change the gameplay in a positive way ... not sure yet Laughing

ingame teamspeak .....


Zarthan
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Posted - 2004.01.02 05:43:00 - [100]
 

Quote:
Edited by: Sara Kerrigan on 02/01/2004 00:29:56
If you can't afford insurance or replacement of a battleship, because you don't play enough, then you simply shouldn't be in a battleship. It's not made for everyone, people should stick to what they can afford. I think the battleship is intended for fleet battles, not for a solo player to fly around.

This is a massive multiplayer game. The majority of players worth together. Even people that are not affiliated or with a corp will group together to help eachother out. If someone wants to play by himself, this isn't the game for him. It should be harder for such a person, and near impossible to maintain the best ships in the game. They can't keep tailoring the game to help the solo players, because it will just screw things up for the majority.


why my dear you hit the nail on the head. however many people will never understand the concept of playing within your means, much as in real life people to understand living within your means. For myself a battleship is a bit costly to loose often so I tend to like to use cruisers as for me they are a dime a dozen and take no time to replace were as a battleship can take me a day or two of having to work to replace it. Thusly knowing this I stick to cruisers often and only break out a battleship (other then to sell one i built) only for when I need it.

IMO I think if more people played within their means more people would enjoy the game. Having goals like I want a Battleship or I want a batleship BP are ok and all. However, those should not be your long term and only goals for the game. The ultimate goal should be to enjoy yourself at all costs, if anything you do makes you worried about risk of lossing something to enjoy yourself then you have gone beyond your means and need to rethink your gameplay imo.

Prien
Posted - 2004.01.02 12:30:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Prien on 02/01/2004 12:32:07
Edited by: Prien on 02/01/2004 12:31:44
Quote:
If someone wants to play by himself, this isn't the game for him. It should be harder for such a person, and near impossible to maintain the best ships in the game. They can't keep tailoring the game to help the solo players, because it will just screw things up for the majority.


Sara,

I don't make many posts on this board but I feel this one is justified.

On the back of the box that comes with the game called Eve Online, certainly the one I purchased, the text states, and I quote:

"Conspire with thousands to bring the galaxy to its knees, or GO IT ALONE AND SHARE THE GLORY WITH NO ONE"

Forgive the caps, but be in no doubt. Just because EVE is a "Massively Multiplayer" Online game, it should not restrict or deny the player(s) who decide to go solo in Eve the opportunity of reaping their just reward.

Remember, HIS RISK is significantly greater than those operating within Megacorps and huge Alliances and the mechanics of the game, as originally intended, should ensure that the solo player(s) reward is always commensurate with the risk he bears.

Just my Two Pence on the matter.

Regards

Prien
Knights of Justice.


Wylaf Umberg
Posted - 2004.01.02 13:53:00 - [102]
 

So -- the solution for too many people staying in high-security space is to reduce high-sec further and make even more of EVE into low-security space? I'll say, real genius at work here.

I think people avoid low-security space because risk is too high relative to rewards. Also, some do because they simply don't enjoy PvP or fights, just as in RL.

Risk could be reduced by making it more difficult for PvPers to stay there (make stations vulnerable and/or make military production very difficult)or by nerfing npc:s. Alternatively, raise rewards by putting relatively more ore there.

Avoid nerfing high-security space unless you really want to make PvP and giant corps dominate the game. Don't understand why this should be a goal, there are enough of shoot-em-ups already on the market. EVE could be something more interesting than that.

Negotiator
Coerce Inc
Posted - 2004.01.02 14:29:00 - [103]
 

Prien you miss-interprit that sentense. It is referring to the respect you get, which makes perfect sense.

Miri Tirzan
Caldari
Clan Korval
Posted - 2004.01.02 14:55:00 - [104]
 

Zarthan, these are some of the better suggestions I have seen and hopefully the Dev's will take some of them to heart. I for one agree that the way to increase traffic between empire and 0.0 space is to make there be a reason to go there. Your first suggestion is right on the ISK! Make an economic reason for people to take the risk, which right now does not exist for the small corp/single players.

In addition, I would like to see player structures, including player made jump gates. Back in beta the Dev's indicated that there would be player made jump gates and that they could be destroyed.

Good job!

Prien
Posted - 2004.01.02 15:20:00 - [105]
 

Negotiator - I don't believe I am misinterpreting anything.

The point is being made that the majority of players in the game participate via co-ordinated effort - which I accept. What I can't accept however is the notion that somehow, if you don't fit in to this category, then really, Eve isn't for you.

I fundamentally disagree with the principle of this for reasons stated in my earlier thread.

Hell, I'm all in favour of teamwork and enjoy being part of it. But those not wishing to tread the same path shouldn't be penalised.

Just my opinion.

Regards

Prien




Zarthan
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Posted - 2004.01.02 17:23:00 - [106]
 

Quote:
Edited by: Prien on 02/01/2004 12:32:07
Edited by: Prien on 02/01/2004 12:31:44
Quote:
If someone wants to play by himself, this isn't the game for him. It should be harder for such a person, and near impossible to maintain the best ships in the game. They can't keep tailoring the game to help the solo players, because it will just screw things up for the majority.


Sara,

I don't make many posts on this board but I feel this one is justified.

On the back of the box that comes with the game called Eve Online, certainly the one I purchased, the text states, and I quote:

"Conspire with thousands to bring the galaxy to its knees, or GO IT ALONE AND SHARE THE GLORY WITH NO ONE"

Forgive the caps, but be in no doubt. Just because EVE is a "Massively Multiplayer" Online game, it should not restrict or deny the player(s) who decide to go solo in Eve the opportunity of reaping their just reward.

Remember, HIS RISK is significantly greater than those operating within Megacorps and huge Alliances and the mechanics of the game, as originally intended, should ensure that the solo player(s) reward is always commensurate with the risk he bears.

Just my Two Pence on the matter.

Regards

Prien
Knights of Justice.




Your right the box does say you can go it alone. However, can you argue that you can't go it alone? Saying that well I can't have as much as a big corp. is a bad argument, mostly because that's just common sense. You can indeed go it alone but it's going to be harder that's just a given. You should not be able to amass insane wealth as a lone player however the game is setup so that you can be a lone player if you wish to give up the oppertunity to make billons of isk with a large corporation. So as said before it should be harder for a lone person to make a living.

Zarthan
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Posted - 2004.01.02 17:25:00 - [107]
 

one other cool idea i had, why not make jovian space available to people via finding worm holes or hiddent jump gates by planets that go to jovian space. That would also limit a flood of people into those areas.

MaiLina KaTar
Posted - 2004.01.02 17:58:00 - [108]
 

Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 02/01/2004 18:02:28
Quote:
My objections came in the moment I saw people strengthening the perception that Empire/Non-Empire are separate entities. I don't call this game Disneyland Meets Afghanistan (Cold War era)™ without purpose.


Thatīs obviously the way it was intended by CCP wasnīt it? When you have an empire drawing its borders across the map, why should this empire allow criminals and pirates within those borders? Sorry but I just donīt see how you could justify criminal actions taking place in empire space as realistic as in the eve background stories.

Quote:

There is no middle ground in this game. When it was obvious there was no middle ground in npc pirate hunting, people flipped. If there was no middle ground in the market, where a small corp could earn an income, people would flip. But the mentality is that there should be no middle ground for pirates. You're either an ore thief, which we all know is nothing more than a mild annoyance. Or you're supposed to be m0o with a conscience


I am all for middle-grounds and stuff like staged concord response, but IMHO itīs not the missing middle-ground thatīs the problem for "intermediate" players (with some of them being pirates). The problem is that not a single corporation in this game, not even mega-corps have the ability to enforce anything within "their" borders in 0.0 space.
You have no ability to really show how wealthy your corporation is, you canīt effectively make a system safe against enemies... all you can do is send some battleships and try to fight someone which even with the new jump-system doesnīt really work as you can see.
There are vital tools missing for all corporations. Tools they need to make a living out there. Tools that are required to set up those middle grounds youīre talking about. Without those tools, intermediate corporations will never find their middle-ground, because they canīt build it.
I think those middle-grounds your talking about should be set up by the corporations and players themselves in the parts of space we know as 0.0, but not by CCP and not necessarily in empire space.

In my view 0.0 space was always nothing more than badlands waiting for players/corporations to set up their flag on and build their bases in... something where they say "hey thatīs my base fella, you wanna annoy me? Here come talk to my sentry guns.". Secure space, unsecure space, middle grounds... I believe all this should be set up by the players in 0.0 space... not provided by CCP for players to swallow.

I believe it should be that way because it worked perfectly well in Mankind. You didnīt need concord or any police force back then, because up to a certain level players were able to effectively defend theirselves even when they were not online through the use of sentry guns and other defensive structures.
With that kind of content, middle grounds for pirates would immediately pop up all over 0.0 space as small and medium sized corps set up their bases out there.

Itīs just the content missing IMHO, because the current system is comepletely dependant of the things to come. We need Shiva, and we need it fast.

Jash Illian
Minmatar
Light Brigade Industries L.L.C.
Posted - 2004.01.02 18:49:00 - [109]
 

Quote:
Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 02/01/2004 18:02:28
Quote:
My objections came in the moment I saw people strengthening the perception that Empire/Non-Empire are separate entities. I don't call this game Disneyland Meets Afghanistan (Cold War era)™ without purpose.


Thatīs obviously the way it was intended by CCP wasnīt it? When you have an empire drawing its borders across the map, why should this empire allow criminals and pirates within those borders? Sorry but I just donīt see how you could justify criminal actions taking place in empire space as realistic as in the eve background stories.


No that's not 'obviously intended'. I remember from beta that CONCORD and faction military were intended to have a declining response time and fleet strength as the solar system's sec rating dropped.

The reason why you want the pirates in the fringe area of Empire space is because you don't want the pirates and the alliances controlling the required resources outside empire space. It's difficult enough for the not-so-average player to deal with an alliance. Toss all the pirates out there and you have a very unattractive situation: a lot of people being very indiscriminate about who they kill. Pirates doing just what comes naturally and alliances attempting to defend themselves. That's too many hammers waiting for too few nails to come out and play.

Quote:
Quote:

There is no middle ground in this game. When it was obvious there was no middle ground in npc pirate hunting, people flipped. If there was no middle ground in the market, where a small corp could earn an income, people would flip. But the mentality is that there should be no middle ground for pirates. You're either an ore thief, which we all know is nothing more than a mild annoyance. Or you're supposed to be m0o with a conscience


I am all for middle-grounds and stuff like staged concord response, but IMHO itīs not the missing middle-ground thatīs the problem for "intermediate" players (with some of them being pirates). The problem is that not a single corporation in this game, not even mega-corps have the ability to enforce anything within "their" borders in 0.0 space.
You have no ability to really show how wealthy your corporation is, you canīt effectively make a system safe against enemies... all you can do is send some battleships and try to fight someone which even with the new jump-system doesnīt really work as you can see.


With 'effective' tools to enforce their borders, this game will be in serious trouble. Because at that point the NVA will be able to shutdown access to Venal, FA will be able to shut down access to Fountain, CA will be able to shut down access to Curse/GW, SA will be able to shut down access to Stain...

And the intermediate players who are too big to play in diaperspace and too small to bully through alliance space will quit because they have no middle ground to play in.

Your only options in EQ aren't either kill rats or plane raid, which is why SOE isn't bankrupt. Your only option isn't kill leets or fight Tarasque in AO, which is why Funcom isn't bankrupt.

Rutherford
Posted - 2004.01.02 19:25:00 - [110]
 

0.0 space does have profitability but the risk is vastly approaching infinate.

I am leaving this game because I can not longer take "acceptable" risks in 0.0 space.

It is insane for my friends and I to mine in 0.0 space. There was a good 5 of us that mined bistot, we have lost bs' trying to adapt to castor and came no where close to mining a single unit of crokite since the bistot went pOOf!

I can not stand the mundane of Empire space and all the whiners there. I can not go back to 0.0 space either. All I can do is search for something else to occupy my time!

JackDonkey
Posted - 2004.01.02 20:40:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: JackDonkey on 02/01/2004 20:41:58
I no longer mine bistot because I'm a little yellow bellied chicken and I want tech 2 so I'm doing agent missions. However when me and my corpmate mined bistot in the FIX we would be able to take out the spawns and mine bistot and make about 3 million an hour operating at peak effciency and including the bounties (not including the 2 skadis and the extruded though). During this time I shot at a couple small time crooks in the fix and joined the battles once or twice, I was helping to block m0o's exit from the fix a couple days pre patch. But now since I've heard it takes more than two people to mine in 0.0 why try, so I'll just stick to running agent missions and mining in .5 space with a battleship and a can and make about 1 million an hour. My corp has also held off on making any more ships or modules for sale to the public because we must keep the remaining megacyte we have stockpiled for ourselves so we don't have to pay 7 million for a vexor. If I can make money to live on doing agent missions I find no need in trying to grow as a corp by using more mega to sell more ships.

So my point is that me and my corpmate were very much involved in 0.0 operations pre patch, but now I don't find much of a need, I think my corpmate misses it more than me though. Someone said something about how noobs in battleships should learn to live within their means, well I'm living within my means by no longer mining in 0.0 and staying clear of most danger zones.

I like the idea of clones costing the bounty amount plus normal clone cost.

I need to be able to see missiles in order to use my smartbombs to defend them, which is the way it used to be.

Edit: And my super laggy bookmark window prevents hauling in 0.0 now, so that's a big factor as well

toaster
APEX ARDENT COALITION
C0NVICTED
Posted - 2004.01.02 21:13:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: toaster on 02/01/2004 21:20:39
*retracted my post*

I want the devs to read this, so I'll take my topic elsewhere.

Zarthan
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Posted - 2004.01.02 22:06:00 - [113]
 

Quote:
0.0 space does have profitability but the risk is vastly approaching infinate.

I am leaving this game because I can not longer take "acceptable" risks in 0.0 space.

It is insane for my friends and I to mine in 0.0 space. There was a good 5 of us that mined bistot, we have lost bs' trying to adapt to castor and came no where close to mining a single unit of crokite since the bistot went pOOf!

I can not stand the mundane of Empire space and all the whiners there. I can not go back to 0.0 space either. All I can do is search for something else to occupy my time!


So instead of just using my post to whine, do what the post intended and give feedback and suggestions. Otherwise make a whine thread about how your quiting of your own plz.

Rutherford
Posted - 2004.01.02 22:17:00 - [114]
 

Zarthan: I am sorry you feel this way. However, my problem is your problem as well!

Zarthan
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Posted - 2004.01.02 23:21:00 - [115]
 

Quote:
Zarthan: I am sorry you feel this way. However, my problem is your problem as well!


The pointis you can either help or moan, and this thread is not for moaning. I came up with idea's others ahve come up with idea's all you did was whine which is no help and not needed.

MaiLina KaTar
Posted - 2004.01.02 23:41:00 - [116]
 

Quote:
With 'effective' tools to enforce their borders, this game will be in serious trouble. Because at that point the NVA will be able to shutdown access to Venal, FA will be able to shut down access to Fountain, CA will be able to shut down access to Curse/GW, SA will be able to shut down access to Stain...


Thatīs a problem with the way the universe is set up, not the way you should be able to control territory.

Iīm telling you: Without territorial control this game will fail. There is no doubt in that.

And as said Iīm all for variable concord response in .1 to .4 systems and stuff that provides this middle ground youīre talking about, but I donīt think that this is the only thing that needs to be done and I donīt think that pirate corps should be able to do longterm operations in <.4 space IF itīs empire space. Theyīre called empires for a reason, right?

Jash Illian
Minmatar
Light Brigade Industries L.L.C.
Posted - 2004.01.03 00:01:00 - [117]
 

Quote:
Quote:
With 'effective' tools to enforce their borders, this game will be in serious trouble. Because at that point the NVA will be able to shutdown access to Venal, FA will be able to shut down access to Fountain, CA will be able to shut down access to Curse/GW, SA will be able to shut down access to Stain...


Thatīs a problem with the way the universe is set up, not the way you should be able to control territory.

Iīm telling you: Without territorial control this game will fail. There is no doubt in that.

And as said Iīm all for variable concord response in .1 to .4 systems and stuff that provides this middle ground youīre talking about, but I donīt think that this is the only thing that needs to be done and I donīt think that pirate corps should be able to do longterm operations in <.4 space IF itīs empire space. Theyīre called empires for a reason, right?


And I'm telling you Twisted Evil: Territorial control is important, yes, but with the universe in its current state it will only make things worse.

You're trying to build a game with only a high end and a low end, but no middle ground. No middle ground is just as quick a death and just as final. Diaperspace is too easy and non-Empire space is for the big boys and girls. Those who have no ambition, time or ability to deal with either will quit under the current setup if all they have to look forward to is being bored to death in empire space because stepping 1 jump outside of it means instant death.

MaiLina KaTar
Posted - 2004.01.03 01:13:00 - [118]
 

Quote:
And I'm telling you : Territorial control is important, yes, but with the universe in its current state it will only make things worse.


Of course it wouldRolling Eyes. In germany we say: "What doesnīt fit will be shaped to make it fit".
The game must be changed so that it takes thousands of people to claim a region, but when it comes to single systems you as a corp should be able to at least let your sentries blow most of the NPCs in the belts away to let your miners do some work and maybe some guns somewhere near the gates and your bases to defend against player-pirates who may happen to choose your system as a good place to start some fighting.
You must be able to make that system safer and maybe even raise itīs security status over time so other people know you are there and working to make the system more safe.
This is the kind of stuff that really enforces teamplay as other corporations might come down into your deepsace territory to either help you raising the security status and build up an extremely cool system where people can buy your stuff and spend some time with you OR cause some havoc and see how well their artillery battleships can take out sentry guns. Itīs the kind of stuff that focuses corporations and alliances on solar-systems and constellations instead of the entire universe... creating local markets where real trade can actually take place without NPCs.

But I donīt want to get too much into this. Letīs just keep the point that without territorial control and some way to make your deepsace-ops more safe EvE will never be as good as it can/should be.

Quote:

You're trying to build a game with only a high end and a low end, but no middle ground.


No. Read my post again please.
I was saying that I fully support anything that helps providing that .1 to .4 middleground youīre talking about. First thing that comes to mind is delayed concord response based on security level of the system. You know... stuff like that.
BUT IMHO that isnīt the only thing needed. We need to enable corporations to build these middle-grounds out there on their own, without some stupid NPC-force ganking the players.

I just wish you wouldīve seen the "Babylon 5" base in Mankind back in the days. It was really cool and it worked... without NPC help but with players working together to build something.

Jash Illian
Minmatar
Light Brigade Industries L.L.C.
Posted - 2004.01.03 01:54:00 - [119]
 

Quote:
Quote:
And I'm telling you : Territorial control is important, yes, but with the universe in its current state it will only make things worse.


Of course it wouldRolling Eyes. In germany we say: "What doesnīt fit will be shaped to make it fit".

The game must be changed so that it takes thousands of people to claim a region, but when it comes to single systems you as a corp should be able to at least let your sentries blow most of the NPCs in the belts away to let your miners do some work and maybe some guns somewhere near the gates and your bases to defend against player-pirates who may happen to choose your system as a good place to start some fighting.
You must be able to make that system safer and maybe even raise itīs security status over time so other people know you are there and working to make the system more safe.
This is the kind of stuff that really enforces teamplay as other corporations might come down into your deepsace territory to either help you raising the security status and build up an extremely cool system where people can buy your stuff and spend some time with you OR cause some havoc and see how well their artillery battleships can take out sentry guns. Itīs the kind of stuff that focuses corporations and alliances on solar-systems and constellations instead of the entire universe... creating local markets where real trade can actually take place without NPCs.

But I donīt want to get too much into this. Letīs just keep the point that without territorial control and some way to make your deepsace-ops more safe EvE will never be as good as it can/should be.

Quote:

You're trying to build a game with only a high end and a low end, but no middle ground.


No. Read my post again please.
I was saying that I fully support anything that helps providing that .1 to .4 middleground youīre talking about. First thing that comes to mind is delayed concord response based on security level of the system. You know... stuff like that.
BUT IMHO that isnīt the only thing needed. We need to enable corporations to build these middle-grounds out there on their own, without some stupid NPC-force ganking the players.

I just wish you wouldīve seen the "Babylon 5" base in Mankind back in the days. It was really cool and it worked... without NPC help but with players working together to build something.


What I'm saying is that right now the game has 2 sides when it comes to PvP, Disneyland and Afghanistan (Cold War Era). You dream of being able to place a station somewhere out in 0.0 space? Right now I'd say the only alliance that stands a chance of defending a non-permanent structure with any real longevity is FA. If the NVA had a station, it'd have been destroyed or overrun a long, LONG time ago by FE. Curse Alliance would have trampled any assets of the CFS, while never being able to maintain any assets of their own never being home.

Dunno enough about the SA to make a estimate other than to ask "Who in the SA owns the station today?" Twisted Evil

That's at the alliance level of the game. Now what chance do you see of a middle size corp being able to hold onto a piece of a station to call their own in that environment? Realistically?

I understand the importance of needing something to build and call home. I'm questioning the priority given such without the middle ground of the game being in place. 0.0 space will never be friendly to the mid-size corp unless they join an alliance. At which point, they're not playing the middle ground game but the alliance end game, most of whom aren't ready for that (which becomes obvious when the alliance gets attacked and they go broke first).

Hakera
Freelance Unincorporated
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2004.01.03 02:00:00 - [120]
 

maybe station defences of various sorts like the forcefields, your own gates and sentries might make this a viable option wil certiantly need a lot of work to make sure such big investments are not easily lost


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

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