Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow NightSong Directorate
600
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
I present the official MNG solution.
Fixing Hi Sec
- Remove level 4s from hi sec and move them to low.
- Remove all asteroids except veldspar and move them to low.
- Create hi sec islands by putting a thin line of lo sec between every empire and its neighbor.
- Remove all DED complexes better than 1/10 and move them to lo sec.
Fixing Lo Sec
- Reduce gate gun damage by 75% and remove their ability to switch targets at will.
- Move all level 5s to NPC nullsec.
- Remove all ores better than omber and move them to nullsec.
- Remove all DED complexes better than 4/10 and move them to nullsec.
Fixing Nullsec
- Add 15 new full sized regions of nullsec (8 sov null, 7 NPC null)
- Buff sanctums, more bounties.
- Remove local from sov nullsec until the system has been upgraded to support local.
'Nuff said. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
276
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yeh that would be bad.
That would pretty much kill EVE.
|
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
523
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bloody hell, are you serious ?
Oh wait, it's you again. nevermind.
The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow NightSong Directorate
600
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Simetraz wrote:Yeh that would be bad.
That would pretty much kill EVE.
Some people fear change. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Well if the goal is the destruction of the game, then kudos. Other than that, really not well thought out suggestions. But I give you a C for the effort. |
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
817
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Posting in a masternerdguy thread. |
Hroya
63
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
Partially agree, some nice points and some not included. It's a start, now go a bit wilder.
You go your corridor but. |
Virgil Travis
GWA Corp Unified Church of the Unobligated
237
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
I have EVE sat on my desk, it doesn't need balancing, unless I tip the desk. If the Sims all became zombies it would be easy to escape them, just shove them in a room and make them answer the telephone. |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
62
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
I don't get it, am I the only one who likes his ideas?
If at least the opposition mustered some counter-arguments... but they never do... they never do :( |
Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
276
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:Simetraz wrote:Yeh that would be bad.
That would pretty much kill EVE.
Some people fear change.
Hardly. But as it is your idea.
Why don't take each point you made and tell us the ramifications of each item (including the possible responses from the players and the impact on EVE)
|
|
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow NightSong Directorate
600
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:24:00 -
[11] - Quote
Simetraz wrote:masternerdguy wrote:Simetraz wrote:Yeh that would be bad.
That would pretty much kill EVE.
Some people fear change. Hardly. But as it is your idea. Why don't take each point you made and tell us the ramifications of each item (including the possible responses from the players and the impact on EVE)
EVE is about low and nullsec, so those are the only areas that deserve content.
That's all. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
276
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:Simetraz wrote:masternerdguy wrote:Simetraz wrote:Yeh that would be bad.
That would pretty much kill EVE.
Some people fear change. Hardly. But as it is your idea. Why don't take each point you made and tell us the ramifications of each item (including the possible responses from the players and the impact on EVE) EVE is about low and nullsec, so those are the only areas that deserve content. That's all.
LOL in short you can't then, we are done here , next.
|
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:I don't get it, am I the only one who likes his ideas?
If at least the opposition mustered some counter-arguments... but they never do... they never do :(
People are concerned over dropping numbers (though I am not), if you were to force people into low sec as these suggestions are designed to do, the people who don't wish to be in low sec will simply quit and then you will see terrible online numbers. You cannot change mechanics to force people into a play style they simply don't enjoy. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
709
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:27:00 -
[14] - Quote
Oh, this thread again. EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it. |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow NightSong Directorate
600
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
Simetraz wrote:
LOL in short you can't then, we are done here , next.
Fine. Ramifications.
1. It would force pretty much anyone who wants to play the game into unsafe space, and will cause a mass unsub of those not tough enough (good thing).
2. It would force industry into nullsec and lo sec simply because the resources to do it in hi sec do not exist (really good thing).
3. It would force people to work together as a team to survive in EVE (excellent thing). Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Darth Tickles
Dark Sun Consortium
488
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
Buff ganking.
Nerf hulks. |
Darth Kilth
Clan Exiled Legends
61
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:30:00 -
[17] - Quote
Hahahahahahahaha....
oh wait, you are serious, let me laugh harder
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
With 80% of the game population calling high sec home I doubt any of this would be healthy for the future of EVE as a Game. Just another example why people who play the game shouldn't design the game. |
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
817
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:30:00 -
[18] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:Simetraz wrote:
LOL in short you can't then, we are done here , next.
Fine. Ramifications. 1. It would force pretty much anyone who wants to play the game into unsafe space, and will cause a mass unsub of those not tough enough (good thing). 2. It would force industry into nullsec and lo sec simply because the resources to do it in hi sec do not exist (really good thing). 3. It would force people to work together as a team to survive in EVE (excellent thing). As Bunnie Hop said, if you force people to do things they don't want to do, they'll just quit. They're customers, and they're here on their own accord. You take away their toys, they're not going to hang around solely for your amusement.
Edit: If you want people to move to null, then give them a reason to move there, don't take away their reason to be in other places. |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow NightSong Directorate
600
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:31:00 -
[19] - Quote
Darth Kilth wrote:Hahahahahahahaha....
oh wait, you are serious, let me laugh harder
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
With 80% of the game population calling high sec home I doubt any of this would be healthy for the future of EVE as a Game. Just another example why people who play the game shouldn't design the game.
You mean the nullsec and lo sec alts and the occasional genuine hi sec carebear. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
273
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:35:00 -
[20] - Quote
I completely disagree. |
|
Harbonah
A-OK Logistics and Fabrication StoneGuard Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:37:00 -
[21] - Quote
If lowsec is such a great thing then why are you trying to force people there instead of everyone mass migrating there in droves voluntarily.
No what you are trying to do is make it so that null sec has an abundance of easy targets then rapidly end up quitting the game because all the more casual players are not given a chance to compete with the hard cores that hang out in null space and play all day. |
Greyscale Dash
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:39:00 -
[22] - Quote
Harbonah wrote:If lowsec is such a great thing then why are you trying to force people there instead of everyone mass migrating there in droves voluntarily.
No what you are trying to do is make it so that null sec has an abundance of easy targets then rapidly end up quitting the game because all the more casual players are not given a chance to compete with the hard cores that hang out in null space and play all day.
Bull. Hi seccers who don't want to be "hard core" end up crunching rocks for the rest of their lives. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
474
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:42:00 -
[23] - Quote
Hulks are too strong they don't die to solo rifters in 1.0 systems eh |
Darth Kilth
Clan Exiled Legends
62
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:43:00 -
[24] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:Darth Kilth wrote:Hahahahahahahaha....
oh wait, you are serious, let me laugh harder
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
With 80% of the game population calling high sec home I doubt any of this would be healthy for the future of EVE as a Game. Just another example why people who play the game shouldn't design the game. You mean the nullsec and lo sec alts and the occasional genuine hi sec carebear. If that was true everyone in 0.0 would have at least 6 to 8 alts, and I think everyone agrees that is not the case. |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
62
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:59:00 -
[25] - Quote
I think the fundamental issue we are having is that people naturally hate anything that is a "nerf" to what they are doing/flying.
We should be instead trying to balance risk/reward by "buffing" the areas in question - low and null.
The end result is the same, more rewards in riskier areas. I completely agree with the carebears when they say the rewards are not worth the risk leaving highsec, so the obvious solution is to keep buffing low/null until the risk/reward is balanced.
Doing the opposite (nerfing highsec until the rewards are balanced) will naturally be met with opposition, especially since highsec income is what determines PLEX price. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
i say remove you along with all your alts and put you in the test server by youself. that way nobody has to see you bad posting and bad ideas |
SandKid
Gateway Mining Division
146
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:20:00 -
[27] - Quote
Aside from sov mechanics and the dead horse...(you know what I'm talking about)...nullsec is really quite fine. It is still thriving and it continues to see new players come to it.
Now lowsec - lowsec has a population or people wouldn't complain about it. (Think about that for a second)
The problem of lowsec is that it has very little draw to it. It is more of a transition to nullsec than anything. One thing I would propose is that a range of ores only be available in lowsec, reserving the most valuable ores to nullsec. Those 'middle' ores are still necessary and still provide the most efficiency for acquiring their respective minerals - thus, many mining corps that have the manpower to protect themselves, but not the manpower to own or protect sov, would work in lowsec.
The other issue is that the PvE content of lowsec is virtually nonexistent. Thus, your #2 Consumer - the mission runner - has no reason to be there, making for a dried up economy at best. The ease of access to hisec trade hubs also exacerbates this problem.
Finally, there is no real reward for PvP in lowsec (FW aside - and that is a tiny slice of lowsec systems) except for pirates. Now I LOVE pirates (really, I do - best mechanic in this game is the people) but their competitor has no reward: bounties are broken, there's no market for antipirates (because nobody will hire them since there is no PvE content or middle ores) and, piracy battles aside, there is no general reward for PvP in lowsec at all.
The ideas...
1) Separate out ores - not to the degree OP suggests - so that hisec ores only go to Plagioclase and Pyroxeres. The rest remains the same (I'm leery of reducing ore availabilities in nullsec - nullsec is meant to be self sufficient.) These boundaries are strict for missions and belts, but not exploration sites (so that exploration remains lucrative in all securities by chance).
This results in Isogen not being in hisec - except through loot of course. This would impact the minerals market significantly (in fact I'd argue miners would get richer from this change) but would not in any shape or form 'break' hisec mining. More importantly, lowsec continues to maintain the needed minerals to build tech I equipment with ease. Small jaunts into nullsec will allow tech II production, and WH space is accessible anywhere already.
In order to build a market in lowsec that is viable there must be a viable industry there. I'll discuss how we insulate this market from hisec later. (The excuse being - it's easier to go to Jita or other hubs than do industry in lowsec).
2) LVL 5 Missions need some buffing - preferably in content but also paygrade to a degree. No numbers, I wouldn't have a clue on this one. The lvl 4 and down missions need buffing as well in pay. Solo mission runners will come to lowsec if the pay is worth it (not double or something silly like that...) There has been a proposal before that lowsec missions be entirely DIFFERENT from hisec missions in content and difficulty - the missions would be easier to fly, enabling PvP setups to run even lvl 4's with relative ease.
Whatever the choice - mission runners need a reason to go to lowsec - and ideally those missions are PvP friendly for both sides. This teaches carebears they have claws, provides pirate food, and enables a better transition for new players to make money, learn PvP, and be better prepared (mentally) to enter nullsec. i.e. We're creating a natural 'path of progression' to nullsec. The more of EVE players experience, the longer they stay.
3) FW has already implemented a 'paygrade' for destroying enemies - this needs to be expanded to negative security players and their ships. When I destroy a pirate with -3.0 standings (or -10.0) I should get some sort of compensation for righting wrongs - the LP formula in FW could be changed to isk here. Antipirates now have an actual business (along with the usual loot of killing someone)
PIRATES - By making an incentive to kill you, you have more targets to work against. Because the FW formula rewards based on the # of folks on the kill report, blobbing as an Antipirate will be horribly boring but even worst, not profitable. Since most pirates fly relatively inexpensive ships, antipirates will be more inclined for solo battles.
But how does this help the pirates - well as I said, more targets. More targets = more ransoms, more loot, and the reason we all play a pirate at some point...more beer. Wait, women. No...umm...oh yeah, yelling YAR when we kill someone? (The real answer is of course, fun.)
4) Gates and Security: I agree with OP that gate guns in lowsec should not be suped up. I doubt we'll ever see hisec islands again (and I'm not sure that would be a good idea as it'd only help a few lowsec systems, not all of them). Gates should be significantly weaker. A cruiser tanking them (without combat) sounds reasonable.
Security Hits in lowsec should be lower than hisec - it's not totally lawless space, but its pretty damn close. This helps out the gankers and pirates some, but not a lot. What it really does is strengthen the gate camp buffer between hisec and lowsec - which creates an incentive to build a lowsec market. Gate Camps go both ways - going OUT of lowsec will be just as hard as entering it, stifling trade lanes. This further bolsters the viability of a lowsec market by reducing the competition with hisec. Trust me when I say that if the market is created in lowsec, the freight corporations will find a way to make a profit there.
Finally - you've also just created a huge market for mercenary protection, another win for PvP in lowsec.
TL;DR I'm sorry, it's too long to make a summary for someone too lazy to read it. =) |
Elenora Lash
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:24:00 -
[28] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:I present the official MNG solution.
... Fixing Lo Sec [list]
Reduce gate gun damage by 75% and remove their ability to switch targets at will. ... 'Nuff said.
Whats the point of Low Sec if there is no security at all there anymore? Wheres is the challenge in Low sec for a pirate then? Feared of Gate Guns? Go to null!
Further what do think will happen if your changes will be taken into the game? First some PVE focused players maybe will try to adapt,, some will stay in high sec, the rest will start a flamewar in the forum and then make those funny "I quit because..." threads. When the frustration will become too much for those who tried to adapt, they will quit on the long run too. This will neither help you nor your aim to get more targets into low or null. The game will rather more empty than richer. You can not force a PVE focused player to play PVP if he does not want! |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |