Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 04:55:00 -
[121]
Originally by: teji
Originally by: Jason Edwards The funny thing is that in the new system. There will be a consistent like 40% tax or higher to pay for the military side using carebears. Which I think is great. Afterall most of the big countries IRL have like 50% tax.
If there is 50% tax rates for 0.0 it's all the more reason to mission on an OOC alt in empire. That would be hilarious to destroy even further 0.0 ratting. Also 50% tax IRL lol. Canada?
Americans pay 51% in taxes by the end of a tax year. We also have the largest, most well-funded military, they take more than half of all that money...
Anywho, can I get a CSM rep in this thread to vaguely give their impressions of the changes CCP has on paper?
It would really calm the panic I feel as Winter comes closer and another blog says nothing solid about numbers/skills we will need/functions we should wrap our brains around.
Remember scanning probe change* in Apocrypha? Remember the exploration skillset being a wee bit radical? Remember Nanonerf*? Remember when your investment in moon minerals disappeared overnight due to increased supply/speculation? Remember when you did not know what small gang fits/objectives would be effective to harass CVA?***
Leaving us in the dark when alliance/corp leaders have to train Directors, Logistic personnel and develop a new viewpoint on Sovereignty is terribad for adaptation. Not to mention the social review large alliances will have to consider if they have to fracture. We adapt fast, but not if we get socially/economically/politically obliterated on SiSi, 2 weeks prior to the live patch.**
Come on CSM, I could swear the info was supposed to go both ways.
*I support all of those changes. **Never owned my own POS, they are annoying merely to visit. POS-bashing intrigues me less. ***This patch screams CVA is playing null correctly, and props to them. Now what defensive arsenals/abilities will I be facing? Nerf T2 Pulse already! 7 |
Jack Gilligan
THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 04:56:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Zastrow J this isnt a goon nerf, if you divide our population by how many systems we own we come out pretty decently in terms of population density. I'm still mulling over this dev blog because it's pretty high level and I'm not entirely sure the changes that are coming will bring about the results everyone wants
It is going to be hard for you to maintain all the space you have from what it sounds like. But then again, you can always invite more pets to do some of that for you, which does sort of serve the intended purpose, ie: more opportunity for more people to come to 0.0.
This IS going to be a huge "Delve nerf" though, to that and other highly coveted regions of 0.0 (coveted mostly because of the density of high end moons) and as a consequence, a boost to "poor" regions like Geminate and Etherium Reach (to name two I've lived in). The skeptic in me does wonder if the Devs would ever have done that if their favored alliance (BOB) was still in possession of Delve but I digress.
As for who is going to be MOST hurt by the change, you are right, it won't be the goons. It will be the slumlord alliances like AAA and XDeath, which hold HUGE swaths of space and makes their money from the moons and from renting out to macro ratters/miners. Most of their space is empty and unused (at least once your gang jumps through the gate and all the macros auto logoffski). Sounds like the new system will actually impliment a structure for maintaining pets/renters, but it will really only work for real (as in flesh and blood people) ones who actually LIVE and work in that space and who use it as real players and not macros.
This will require quite a lot of adjustment. I predict the Russian zones of 0.0 are either going to have to change a LOT or shrink.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 05:22:00 -
[123]
It's refreshing to finally see a devblog that's almost stream-of-consciousness in style, goes into enough general details and more importantly the reasoning behind it all to pique our interest, yet does not commit to something irrevocable yet by prematurely claiming any sort of finality nor revealing too much concrete details that aren't properly polished.
HOWEVER
I find myself wondering, why did it have to take 2+ years for such a devblog to come out, and when exactly will we get the system as envisioned ? You say this winter in Dominion, I'd say we have as much chances of getting it in working order as we had with FW in Empyrean Age (it's still being tinkered with and it's not going to be really ready before Dominion, if even then).
Yes, yes, I am overly pessimistic and expecting the worst... can you blame me ?
_
Info about our corp | Beginer's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 05:25:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen
Bottom line: you want more people in 0.0, buff 0.0 isk making significantly in comparison to empire
OR you could just nerf empire ISK generation a whole bunch. I like my idea much better.
When will the POD pilots start contributing their fair share to empire tax revenues?
I try to extract said taxes from every pod pilot I come across on a daily basis. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Kata Dakini
Amarr Flatiron Academy
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 06:02:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Lusulpher
Americans pay 51% in taxes by the end of a tax year. We also have the largest, most well-funded military, they take more than half of all that money...
Cite your source??? It seems your numbers are WAAAY off.
For more enjoyment and greater efficiency, consumption is being standardized.
|
Taudia
Gallente Sane Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 06:48:00 -
[126]
Sounds awesome in a vague, conceptual kind of way. I really wasn't expecting the t2 market to be drawn into this, but I guess you kind of have to re-do everything in one go.
So far it looks like Scrum is really working out for CCP - these expansions are pretty huge.
|
Howling Coyote
Drunken Retards In Cheap Ships
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 07:07:00 -
[127]
Current Sov mechanics canŠt get worse. Whatever CCP changes, it can only improve the current situation
|
Alynna Nechayev
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 07:15:00 -
[128]
|
CopyCatz
Caldari Brewery Research Ltd Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 07:17:00 -
[129]
This reasoning sounds awesome and very well thought out. The only thing that sounds a bit unnatural is the ability to generate your own extra resources, but hey. Overall this should be good.
|
Huan CK
Gallente GK inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 07:21:00 -
[130]
Yes yes yes!!! Seed more carebears! We're short on shooting practice
My videos: Watch on youtube. |
|
Hrodgar Ortal
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 07:27:00 -
[131]
Sounds good. The basic idea is to open up 0.0 to more players (having a closed "end-game" is silly) and to make the profit depend on activity rather than passive incomes.
However, the big establised 0.0 alliances won't be harmed as much as people think. Goons have a huge amount of players (no idea of activity though so that could be the issue rather than player numbers), PL and probably others as well have renters which they can force into alliances similar to the "greater pathetic community" and levy a high tax on for living in their space. All of them will have a huge head start (deserved) and should be able to get both a income and keep most of their space.
It will probably hurt the medium sized alliances that either hold space or have been installed in crappy space by bigger alliances. They won't have the capacity to secure their space to start with probably.
|
Slobodanka
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 07:30:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Slobodanka on 15/09/2009 07:32:14
Quote: Secondly, reduce the amount of income that can be derived from mining moons. In conjuction with the first change, this means that the best way to raise funds for an alliance will once again be to fill your space with as many people as possible, upgrade your space as much as possible and watch the money roll in.
This. There must be an industrial power behind every military power. Current system of semi-afk ISK printers violates this in so many ways... It should be players themselves making big alliances even bigger, not number of dysp moons they currently hold.
Also more people in 0.0 equals to moar targets and thats always a good thing (especially for small gangs)
P.S.: If you screw 0.0 into bot-country I will be very very mad and will write many many bad thins on these here forumz.
|
Blazde
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 07:44:00 -
[133]
First couple of the blog paragraphs are a really fantastic analysis of the current state of 0.0 and give a lot of confidence that CCP really do still have people with their finger on the pulse of nullsec warfare (I was starting to worry after all the calls for devs to stop playing EVE and the failure to fix capital warfare desync ). Most of the rest is good thoughts too but I will make some specific comments. Also I should add I reckon this is an extremely tricky subject. Over the past couple of years many times I tried or was asked to come up with thoughts on current or proposed 0.0 gameplay and everytime there was strong conflicts or condradictions in my views, which leads me to think that whatever gets changed there will be a lot of unhappy people. But I'm confident so far that we'll end up with a decent-enough system as long as CCP continue to view this as a tough problem, put their best game designers on it, listen to the players, and approach it from first principles.
Quote: It makes it much harder to be a big, rich, military alliance; rather, things should move more back towards the old dichotomy between big rich carebear alliances and smaller, poorer military alliances, because history (both in EVE and in the real world) shows that badass military organizations can't handle crop rotation without going soft and squishy. This dichotomy leads to more interesting conflicts; balanced but non-symmetric wars and political interactions between organizations with wildly differing objectives tend to be more entertaining than fights between largely identical groups.
I've heard this a few times now from devs and while it's an admirable aim, as far as EVE history goes I'm sure it's a complete myth. (To explain I'm going to have to go all 'political history' while doing my best to remain unbiased, and this is a somewhat artificial clasification but it illustrates some points.)
The first generation of alliances were mostly heavily heterogeneous, consisting of both military and industrial/carebear corps, as well as semi-military corps that shared little in common besides geographical location - which was much more important back then when the EVE timeline was shorter, capitals didn't exist, assets were scarcer, and you needed instabookmarks to go anywhere. I'm refering mostly to CA/FA/PA/SA - though there were some extremely interesting 'outliers' back then too. None of these alliances lasted long by today's standards, they were unstable as a consequence of their make-up. |
Blazde
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 07:50:00 -
[134]
[Wth. We have to wait 5 mins between posts now? Seriously? ]
The second generation of alliances were characterised by those that really hungered to control 0.0 before there was a significant economic reason to do so. Many of them were imperialitic, or aspired to be, or at the very least took great pride in seeing their name somewhere on the map. This was the time when alliances claimed nullsec NPC regions while actual sovereignty claims were still limited to stations and a handful of other core/key systems. More hetrogenous militaristic alliances were forming at this point and wherever they chose to go they displaced softer alliances. But the militaristic alliances were still few, tiny, and often unstable so there was the perception of many softer alliances holding their own. In practise this was either because the softer alliances kept their heads low, due to shrewd diplomacy, or because they (sometimes secretly) became de facto pets of the militaristic alliances. BoB and ASCN were both key alliances during this age and demonstrate two of the extremes. ASCN were arguably semi-militaristic to an extent and presented enough of an illusion of power to dissuade serious opposition for a long time, but simply weren't ever going to be a match for BoB when they attacked. BoB propoganda painted ASCN as tough opposition - a superpower - while they never were. I think this is the single biggest source of the rich alliance vs badass military alliance myth. The only surprising thing about this war - and it was said by plenty of people at the time without hindsight - was how hard the BoB capital pilots worked to take down the 25 odd stations worth of ASCN starbases so quickly. The defeat of ASCN was never in question and all the ISK in the galaxy wouldn't have changed that. Nor were BoB in any way a non-industrial alliance, their military might simply defined them better. This was over the 2006/2007 new year and marked the peak of the handover from 2nd generation to 3rd generation alliances.
The third generation of alliances was born with the capital age almost a year earlier, and the realisation that nullsec territorial control and nullsec territorial *conflict* were both simply neccesary to afford, build, and use the most spiffy hardware in EVE. All the soft and squishy alliances got swept aside during this transition, not because they ceased to be a match for the military alliances - they never were - but because having space became worthwhile, and gaining it became more fun, for the militaristic alliances. It's worth remembering that making teritorial conflict worhwhile was a longtime aim of CCP's game desginers back then - and a good aim too, it's given us some amazing, memorable wars. BoB were the single alliance that succeeded in transitioning seemlessly from 2nd generation superpower into succesful 3rd generation alliance. In general the 3rd generation of nullsec territorial alliances is defined by militaristic powers, with a desire to control territory and engage in capital combat. With a small, heavily integrated industrial component that's worshipped intead of being looked down on by the rest of the alliance. And they're very tough to kill off. Success is due to organisation and culture, in terms of military/industrial balance almost all major territorial alliances are essentially identical. (Plus there is a significant, but slowly diminishing handful of dependant alliances that can still be labelled softer).
There's an old adage about 0.0 corporations that you can turn a successful pvp corp into a great military-industrial corp by adding a few industry gurus (often you don't even need to add them, simply provide the latent industrial talent with a stable environment) but you can't turn a great industrial corp into a succesful pvp corp even if you add a hundred elite pvpers. There never was a dichotomy. Military trumps industrial everytime. |
Blazde
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 07:55:00 -
[135]
Now I'd love to see a more intreresting mix of 0.0 alliances, with different ideologies and more sandbox. I'm still sad that most of the NRDS alliances (including RAWR) were forced to go NBSI due to diplomatic/administrative workload. And it's unlikely to get reversed quickly because EVE culture now believes that somehow less everyday standings will lead to more serious exiciting territorial wars. (Imo the exact opposite is true, the less you have to shoot the more heavily you'll concentrate on it.) But for sure anyone expecting the chaotic wars and turbulence we had back in 2004/2005 is going to be forever dissapointed. Those were a function of the limited short-termist social structures that existed at the time, not the game mechanics. EVE is almost 6.5 years old now and it's ruled by long termist players, and long termist social structures.
Restricting the amount of territory that alliances can control will roll things back a bit. Adding more diplomatic tools should make these more politically varied. But you aren't going to get an industrial vs militaristic balance. As long as the combat system allows a fleet of skilled t1 BS to tear apart an incompetent capital fleet (and it should), ISK is (even theoretcally) a minor force multiplier. And in practise morale is always going to be a bigger factor than ISK in anycase. ISK is unlikely to ever be a better resource than loyalty when it comes to buying mercenaries either. MC suceeded with a bit of both for a while, and more of the later in the end. But they suceeded most of all because they were THE best at it and the only choice for anyone wanting to be, or to hire, a mercenary. Not because their business model was fundamentally viable.
Things I'd like to see back in EVE: - Nullsec mercenaries - NRDS alliances - Freespace / Freeports - Famous pirates - Pets that die trying to fight for independance - Nullsec based business ventures
Unfortunately I don't have the first clue how to make any of them workable again.
Highend moons are where my biggest contradicting views lie, so I'll mention that too. It was only a little over 18 months ago that we really started to get significant diplomat incidents and wars over highend moons, and I think this is easily forgotten. A moon can be spitting out several billion isk a month but still not be worthwhile an alliance making a move on because they may provoke a capital conflict - losing many billions of isk - and even if successful at capturing may not hold the moon for long enough to make it worthwhile. This gives stable, incumbent, alliances a collosal economic advantage and would make it very costly for new alliances to break into the highend moon control game, even without coalitions of alliances backing each other up. But reducing the value of highend moons reduces the tensions they cause within alliances, and within coalitions. I don't mind saying even within an ultra-stable alliance like RAWR moons have in the past caused tensions, and within the NC divvying up the spoils of war is always acknowledged as a very dangerous activity. So reducing moon income is a double edged sword and should ideally be replaced by some other trophy power achievement. In the distant past especially before outposts, conquerable stations served the role. Then perhaps static plexes stirred things up a bit territorially, while t2 BPO caused intra-alliance friction. Now it's just moons and nerfing them will eliminate a lot of potential flashpoints. (Eg. I can't help wondering what's going on in Cloud Ring and even Syndicate atm). Stuff like this generally doesn't lead to obviously moon related wars but can sometimes be a significant unseen, underlying factor, or a trigger to an expected war that might otherwised not take place. Again I'm also really not sure what the answer is I'm afraid.
_
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:14:00 -
[136]
Nice to see CCP is 100% on the right track. Now even if CCP's intention and thought process is correct, the implementation can always fail due to players doing the unexpected thing.
Cheers to CCP for being a great company that is clearly echoing the main complaints of the small 0.0 userbase.
The blueballs are excruciating, give us just one item and tell us this is what it does. For the love of christ, you are backing up thousands of nerds and the release will be massive.
Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Ambo
I've Got Nothing
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:17:00 -
[137]
It sounds awesome. Can't wait to see how it works out in practice. --------------------------------------
|
Morphisat
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:20:00 -
[138]
Not that much news in this blog. Even though it's very long !
Will there be something down about the gatecamps up to 0.0 to make 0.0 more accessible ? It's all nice that there will be a new system to sovereignity, but if you can't even get there because just about every gate is camped, it'll be the very same people that hold space now, that will cap it ...
|
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:23:00 -
[139]
I think it's time for some alliance leaders to play some Crusader Kings, so that they have their politics ready for when the vassal structure is implemented. -----
|
FatFreddy
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:33:00 -
[140]
Edited by: FatFreddy on 15/09/2009 08:33:22 Edited by: FatFreddy on 15/09/2009 08:32:58
Originally by: Morphisat
Will there be something down about the gatecamps up to 0.0 to make 0.0 more accessible ? It's all nice that there will be a new system to sovereignity, but if you can't even get there because just about every gate is camped, it'll be the very same people that hold space now, that will cap it ...
You can travel through Delve from Empire atm. without meeting a single gatecamp. I've done it twice in the past two weeks, there are systems after systems which are completely empty.
|
|
Myz Toyou
APOCALYPSE LEGION
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:36:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Professor Dumbledore so you want people exploiting chinese ratters as their primary source of income? man you guys are insane.
Hows Hogwarts these days ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [gold]Your signature image exceeds the maximum allo |
Typhado3
Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:40:00 -
[142]
Originally by: FatFreddy Edited by: FatFreddy on 15/09/2009 08:33:22 Edited by: FatFreddy on 15/09/2009 08:32:58
Originally by: Morphisat
Will there be something down about the gatecamps up to 0.0 to make 0.0 more accessible ? It's all nice that there will be a new system to sovereignity, but if you can't even get there because just about every gate is camped, it'll be the very same people that hold space now, that will cap it ...
You can travel through Delve from Empire atm. without meeting a single gatecamp. I've done it twice in the past two weeks, there are systems after systems which are completely empty.
I've done that trip about 50 times in last few months mostly in haulers (hauling pos crap via hauler sucks) and only died once cause I was lazy and made a mistake. There are plenty of pirates along the way solo often in hics and the occasional gate camp that will catch you if you don't know what your doing.
However I gotta say if you can't get past these then you shouldn't be in 0.0. null sec is supposed to be where alliances or large corps play and fight, if your corp can't get through a low sec gate camp you shouldn't be there. and if your trying to go out into alliance territory alone to try and solo your most likely doing it wrong (unless your heading to NRDSI space). ------------------------------
Just a crazy inventor ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
|
Vaedian GER
Excidium.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:43:00 -
[143]
Quote: A reduction in the value of moon minerals
I love you! .
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:47:00 -
[144]
Another good read in what is turning out to be a quality series of blogs as of late. Encouraging signs for the future.
/Ben
|
Charles Javeroux
Gallente INTERSTELLAR CREDIT
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 09:01:00 -
[145]
Edited by: Charles Javeroux on 15/09/2009 09:01:21 Thank you for explaining the background ideas of the upcoming changes. I'm anxious to see how it all turns out. Do we get a nice X-mas present this year or still the same cookies and milk for the Santa? Stay tuned...
and finally
Originally by: CCP Fallout ...and more importantly the toilet will actually be in the bathroom this time round.
Yay for toilets in bathrooms |
bitters much
Nekkid Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 09:08:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Blazde Highend moons are where my biggest contradicting views lie, so I'll mention that too. It was only a little over 18 months ago that we really started to get significant diplomat incidents and wars over highend moons, and I think this is easily forgotten. A moon can be spitting out several billion isk a month but still not be worthwhile an alliance making a move on because they may provoke a capital conflict - losing many billions of isk - and even if successful at capturing may not hold the moon for long enough to make it worthwhile. This gives stable, incumbent, alliances a collosal economic advantage and would make it very costly for new alliances to break into the highend moon control game, even without coalitions of alliances backing each other up. But reducing the value of highend moons reduces the tensions they cause within alliances, and within coalitions. I don't mind saying even within an ultra-stable alliance like RAWR moons have in the past caused tensions, and within the NC divvying up the spoils of war is always acknowledged as a very dangerous activity. So reducing moon income is a double edged sword and should ideally be replaced by some other trophy power achievement. In the distant past especially before outposts, conquerable stations served the role. Then perhaps static plexes stirred things up a bit territorially, while t2 BPO caused intra-alliance friction. Now it's just moons and nerfing them will eliminate a lot of potential flashpoints. (Eg. I can't help wondering what's going on in Cloud Ring and even Syndicate atm). Stuff like this generally doesn't lead to obviously moon related wars but can sometimes be a significant unseen, underlying factor, or a trigger to an expected war that might otherwised not take place. Again I'm also really not sure what the answer is I'm afraid.
Tl,dr: Wahhhhh, my moon mining backbone
|
Memphis Baas
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 09:14:00 -
[147]
I hope you guys have included some psychology-thinking in your overall thinking about this (not saying that you have not). Because, what you want to do with the system is fine, but how you implement it and how you present it to the playerbase will have an effect on the overall success of the thing.
Some specific examples:
- I don't think you can disassociate the money sinks from the reward outlets. We're paying rent on the gates but we're not getting anything FROM the gates (the only things we get from the gates are frustration due to traffic-advisory-related delays and "that's where the enemies are coming through"). We will want something in return for this "rent" (either "you better not have any damn outages or bugs with the gates, CCP!", or "no traffic advisory delays for the owner", or the ability to control who comes and goes).
- Your blog talks about changes from your point of view (of course). It's full of promises of riches and potential (and fun) for the empire dweller and for new players and for everyone, but all of the changes are quite a disruption to alliances. I don't know if you've convinced a lot of the people who put in the time to cat-herd big organizations to continue playing, or even continue to put in so much time once the expansion hits. Or alliance members, until then.
- This expansion has the potential to be the NGE of EVE. You're building up hype and are advertising all the changes with big grins and hugely-positive words, and you have NOT talked about plan B or a reversal strategy at all, especially from the point of view of alleviating player fears (and possibly preventing some of the "stock up for the expansion" behaviors). Just mentioning that a backup/reversal plan exists, without going into details, might be sufficient.
- You also haven't talked, lately, about just how good and hard-working your developers are or have been. I think some of that is needed, because you're promising the moon with this expansion, and we don't really know if you can deliver it.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 09:17:00 -
[148]
I definately like everything hear. I've always considered eve to be a game that continues to improve. It's the main reason I still play. It's good to know you all see the big issues clearly.
|
Redbad
Minmatar Mean Corp Mean Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 09:19:00 -
[149]
I feel an ISS IPO coming.
|
Sturmwolke
Genyosha Legion
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 09:24:00 -
[150]
Pretty much a lot of things in that blog have similarities in how Providence is being run. I guess we can expect more NRDS policies now that population density plays a factor in the system's wealth. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |