| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Reply to Topic | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Korbin Dallaz
    |
Posted - 2009.09.17 00:44:00 -
[361] - Quote
@DigitalCommunist
When comparing in game economy to real world economy you seem to leave out one important detail . The real world economy is forced upon you and the in game economy you pay real money to spend your leisure time " playing " in . If you make the experience not fun people will simply not pay the monthly fee to play the game .
This game comes with a serious penalty for loosing . The people that participate in PvP frequently are the ones that can afford to loose ships . The large Alliance guys that have moons afk isk printing and the guys with macro miner alts . I have also seen the people that have made fortunes in early wormhole exploration get into PvP . The bottom line is in the ability to afford replacing ships . If you want to make isk earning more difficult and think that will some how encourage PvP I think that you are greatly mistaken . The only way that can work is if you also make ship replacement less expensive . It is not just risk versus reward when it comes to PvP it is also about disposable income .
With the mechanics of this game if you want more PvP ( which is what it seems is being pushed here with the null sec push ) you need to give people more isk earning potential or make completely fitted ships cheaper . Also keep in mind that not everyone is looking to PvP or wants any involvement in PvP what so ever . I see many people posting here with comments that assume that PvP is the end game goal for everyone . If you make it so that null sec OCD level paranoid style game play is the end goal for everyone then there is a percentage of the monthly subscribers that will no longer subscribe .
Yes Eve is still around after man years . But Eve still only has 300 K subscribers when other games in a similar time frames have gone into the millions . I am sure the Devs are keenly aware of statics like that . The level 4 mission isk earning may not only be what is keeping the majority of the people in high sec it may also be what is keeping the majority of the people in this game . Just a thought for you to keep in mind when talking about nerfing carebears into nonexistence .
|
Cristine comings
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 01:22:00 -
[362] - Quote
 Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: Breaker77
Better alchemy, moon mining in WH space, reduction in materials needed for T2, and the aforementioned resource improvements are all very viable ways to achieve this. Especially if it's a combination of them.
A wholesale revision of the moon-mining system is another possibility.
1) one good thing would be to upgrade the moons mineral existence and make it available in practicality all moons, even if some had less abundance/income in the "Less good".
lots of 0.0 systems seem a "junk", with low bounty rats and poor asteroids, just a bit better than high sec asteroid belts, with lots of risk to mine on them.
2) also, a coupla of rare mineral rocks could be added to 0.0 belts, just for a taste ...
to make it more exciting, the rare belt rocks, could re-spawn in different belts occasionally ... like finding Easter eggs, but on normal 0.0 belts.
Originally by: Trenjeska
Ah finally it will not be about holding space just to generate static income. Moon mining should be as dynamic as belt mining.
3) that sounds like a very fun idea ... just hope it's not "as fun as ice mining" :D
Actually ... it could be both tipes of mining ... still keep the passive moon mining , but also allowing to moonmining with new mining strippers this would allow anyone to do it.
this would involve new modules and skills :)
Moon Striper (new effects ... purple beam perhaps !? )
Moon mining LVL 1 - 5
4) 0.0 stations should have a moon material reagent reactor, with Queues, and people could use them, for a fee, like refining/building , this would make everyone happy.
5) also, the existence of "nebulas" like a gas cloud belt, as there's ice belts already.
Originally by: Typhado3
Edited by: Typhado3 on 14/09/2009 22:56:17
<3
Fact is right now it's damn near impossible to get someone out of your space ... It's also impractical to keep people out ... to block all the entrances ... your gonna see a lot of people sneaking in and cloaking to disrupt enemy income ... unless the target has combat pilots standing ready to warp in save a half dead target and kill a cloaking nano/ecm raider they are gonna start to lose their carebears.
so how bout giving some tools to help defend so it's not all on the attackers side.
Originally by: Daan Sai
OK, exactly how do you think this is going to lead us away from the pervasive NBSI culture, that will still effectively lock out smaller groups? Will you put in place mechanisms that make NRDS a more advantageous option for space holding alliances??
5) very good point ... it should be someting that actualley gave an incentive to those that chose to play like NRDS to have a better return and that became more advantageous.
Expanding the standings list numbers , for alliances would help, as they have limited input numbers, the standings list seem to be made for NBSI instead of NRDS
6) How about a small NPC ships force, in each system, that would pursue Holders KOS players, in similarity to high sec faction Navy ships ?
that wouldn't be impossible to defeat by an hostile, but would allow some defensive edge on the 2 quoted above cases.
7) maybe making mining barges/Exumers more fitted to resist/escape (+2 warp strength to mining barges/exumers)
1) The truesec rating for most systems will be reset to true 0, and owning alliances will then continually upgrade (downgrade?) the truesec to -1.0.
2) As the truesec lowers, you will get an increasing cost in rent
3) The more systems you have, the overall maintenance will increase
4) Lower truesec will bring bigger rats, better exploration, more belts, so on?
5) What about the Dysprosium moons? Are you all switching moon mining to give MPG (Multi-Purpose goo)?
that seems precise and concise
Waite ! I'm coming ! |
Calvin Roh
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 02:07:00 -
[363] - Quote
Well its clear that change is coming - this post does not rate the merit of any of the changes - I have a relativley simple request that will help those of us that want to start planning for this change.
Please start providing the DETAILS on Sov costs and economic changes ASAP or, as soon as they are solidified in your design stages.
Ships and empires will always be coming and going, but what will really allow the existing political entities to prepare for the evolution into these "leaner and smaller entities" ( = Corps) and survive this patch in the short time afterwords is a good understanding of the non-linear costs of holding sov, as well as the changes to to income sources like moons, etc. In effect this will have prescriptive aspects to it as there will need to be a ballance of how many systems each entity holds vs the income it genterates - and we need to start to understand this very soon.
I am more concerned about the fall of many corps and alliances as they struggle to adapt game play to the new economic realites of the patch. Dont get me wrong, the change will certainly be fun/dynamic/interesting, but the current nul-sec inhabitants have a lot of very personal time and money invested in the plans and goals with our m8s - too much to be simply swept aside in a stroke.
Clearly there will be all sorts of growth variables that will be at our disposal, but im more interested in the short and near term. Please dont leave us in the dark for too much longer; allow us nul-sec inhabitants to embrace this change by giving us some time to plan for the inevitable/painful reorganizations and subdividing of current Allinace space into the right sized entities. This patch is imposing change on us, dont make this patch a penalty for only having succeeded in the playing field that YOU gave to us in the first place.
Hope you can comply with this reqeust sooner than latter.
Cheers!
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 02:23:00 -
[364] - Quote
What about local?
You've had a ******edly broken game mechanic in that was originally not intended to be the all seeing eye that it is, and yet, after all this time, that same broken mechanic is still in place, still helping bot ratters, and still making basic small gang roaming OR any kind of strategic roaming virtually impossible.
Fix that in Dominion, and the expansion will be a hit no matter what else you do.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Yon Krum
The Knights Templar
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 03:16:00 -
[365] - Quote
Originally by: Grath Telkin
What about local?
You've had a ******edly broken game mechanic in that was originally not intended to be the all seeing eye that it is, and yet, after all this time, that same broken mechanic is still in place, still helping bot ratters, and still making basic small gang roaming OR any kind of strategic roaming virtually impossible.
Fix that in Dominion, and the expansion will be a hit no matter what else you do.
My dream:
A module anchored in SOV space that makes delayed local into the current, real-time local, sorting low-standing pilots to the top.
Delayed local for all non-boosted 0.0 space.
Watch the macros go poof!
--Krum
--Krum |
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 04:32:00 -
[366] - Quote
Originally by: Korbin Dallaz
@DigitalCommunist
The level 4 mission isk earning may not only be what is keeping the majority of the people in high sec it may also be what is keeping the majority of the people in this game . Just a thought for you to keep in mind when talking about nerfing carebears into nonexistence .
I've heard a thousand variations of that claim over the years, so no, I haven't forgotten anything. I'm simply not convinced by it in the least.
Let me tell you about all about fun, space friend.
Fun is not encapsulating character advancement into discretely measurable units called "ships" for people to grind, acquire, rinse and repeat. But most people do it anyways because:
a) its the lesson taught (or should I say manipulation used) by MMOs to keep subscribers hooked
b) singleplayer games, books, and movies have structured paths and people are very familiar with them
c) they're crap at setting abstract goals, and EVE is equally crap at suggesting some
But the hypercapitalistic nature of EVE and all the greed it preys upon is only a means to an end: get people to play with and against each other. Agent missioning completely ignores this by rewarding people for their time. In the process it manages to transform ships as tools into content, and pvp as violence into sport.
The agent/isk/ship treadmill is identical to the level/xp/epics treadmill, and generally speaking, makes the EVE experience identical to any other MMO experience. BUT, the assertion that many players would ragequit just because we make the acquisition of ships-misrepresented-as-content less than guaranteed is shortsighted.
When the acquisition of stuff involves successfully competing against other players and losses take on significant meaning, then players put value in the game as a whole - and not just that slight buzz they get from boarding a new ship for the first time. More specifically, there are only so many ships you can get in the game and each one comes with diminishing returns. But a tool maintains value because of the things you can accomplish with it, even if you're sick of looking at it (yeah you, Mr. Taranis <_<).
If CCP ever feels pressure to keep churning out increasingly irrelevant and obscure ship classes, this is why. And if you ever find the general ship balance in EVE to be lacking, go ahead and blame agent missions.
In any case, competition and conflict results in feelings of anger, rage and all sorts of bitterness towards anything and everything. Players will curse EVE's harsh and ruthless nature, and feel physically ill after losing something. But at the end of the day they'll keep playing it or coming back to it, because the experience and emotions are real even if the world is not. Over time they'll have successes and relationships which are equally real, but in a more positive way to balance things out. This results in you being able to play a MMO for several years without feeling like you wasted a whole bunch of time and money at the end of it even if you don't enter the vet retirement home with megabillionz breaking your wallet seams.
And that is the whole point of building a virtual world in the first place, and ultimately what keeps it profitable. Maybe you can get ridiculously rich with only a singleplayer theme park that integrates IM chat, but that isn't the game they started making and it would be a pretty big shame to make the switch just because another company has more subscribers.
I also know intuitively that EVE is more limited by hardware and software architecture than by the number and quality of griefers which call it home. It couldn't support a huge influx of people if it wanted to, not because the other billion online gamers on Earth can't handle a bit of sand in their face.
|
Hrodgar Ortal
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 04:56:00 -
[367] - Quote
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Let me tell you about all about fun, space friend.
Fun is not encapsulating character advancement into discretely measurable units called "ships" for people to grind, acquire, rinse and repeat. But most people do it anyways because:
I'll say this again. Fun is subjective. Your idea of fun might not (probably isn't) the same as mine or anyone elses for that matter.
Trying to make "fun" into something quantifiable and objective is impossible at the individual level. You might have some possibility to try to use economic theory and statistics to make models and determine the utility inside the game for a large group but "fun" is a subjective matter.
Some like grinding stuff, some doesn't. Neither is wrong.
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 05:17:00 -
[368] - Quote
I've also heard that one a thousand times, and let me offer a simple rebuttal:
If I insisted Hello Kitty themed space Gundams having lightsabre duels be supported to comply with my vision of fun, I fully expect to be told 'gtfo' as it has no context within the game or its reason for existance.
Guaranteed advancement without risk of player intervention or failure just for paying a monthly sub is no different. Guarantees have zero context in EVE, because EVE aspires to be a virtual world. And anything with aspirations of realism can't revert back to catering on peoples unreasonable expectations with fantasy; at least not without losing its reason for existance.
In other words, having impenetrable zones in a sandbox with all the ammenities defeats the purpose of having a sandbox in the first place. I don't really mind impenetrable and super-protected zones or the people that never leave them, as long as your sand tastes like pee and your shovel can't scoop as well as mine.
|
Hrodgar Ortal
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 07:10:00 -
[369] - Quote
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
I've also heard that one a thousand times, and let me offer a simple rebuttal:
If I insisted Hello Kitty themed space Gundams having lightsabre duels be supported to comply with my vision of fun, I fully expect to be told 'gtfo' as it has no context within the game or its reason for existance.
Guaranteed advancement without risk of player intervention or failure just for paying a monthly sub is no different. Guarantees have zero context in EVE, because EVE aspires to be a virtual world. And anything with aspirations of realism can't revert back to catering on peoples unreasonable expectations with fantasy; at least not without losing its reason for existance.
In other words, having impenetrable zones in a sandbox with all the ammenities defeats the purpose of having a sandbox in the first place. I don't really mind impenetrable and super-protected zones or the people that never leave them, as long as your sand tastes like pee and your shovel can't scoop as well as mine.
And the other guys who think the exact opposite has the right to their opinion as well.
Your opinion of fun is yours, noone elses, there might be people who have a similar and there are people who have a compeltely dissimilar view. Neither is wrong. What Hello Kitty, what the hell that is, has to do with this I have no idea.
Basically, your idea of fun and what eve should be is just as valid as everyone elses (apart from CCP who actually own it). If someone likes to grind missions 23/7 fine, if someone likes to be an asshat fine.
CCP makes business decissions, nerfing lvl4's since they in your opinion are "unfun" and have no place in eve isn't a sound business decission nor does it make sense.
But sure, try to decide what everyone elses idea of fun is and why that doesn't have a place in eve. You only manage to invalidate your statement by it. I don't make any pretense to say what everyone finds fun or not, fun is subjective and is up to each and everyone to determine.
If that part of fun is to be profitable and have a place in eve is up to ccp which in turn base their decissions on business and what they want.
Not what you find fun.
|
Korbin Dallaz
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 08:12:00 -
[370] - Quote
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Originally by: Korbin Dallaz
@DigitalCommunist
When the acquisition of stuff involves successfully competing against other players and losses take on significant meaning, then players put value in the game as a whole .
You can only speak for yourself there . Not everyone on this planet is as overly competitive and insecure as you are . It is this assumption by excessively aggressive people such as yourself that everyone else is as they are that really turns me off to this game and makes me wish that I had not prepaid as many months as I have . I have already canceled my subscriptions to this game months ago . I was hoping the new expansion would have a place for people like myself . The Dev comments have made me think that there might be in the upcoming expansion . If there is not then I most certainly will not be renewing them .
I will rephrase a previous point that I made . The numbers behind the concentration of people in this game seem to indicate that I may be in the majority here . Maybe I need spell this out more clearly for you as you didn't seem to understand the first time . Null sec is by and large empty . High sec is heavily populated . It seems that there are more people interested in playing the game peacefully and constructively rather than competitively and destructively . The populations in other games that offer that seem to indicate that it is more than just here in which that is the case and more than just I that feels this way .
I do not play MMO's to compete against other people for imaginary resources or imaginary dominance in my virtual world of choice . I play for the opportunity to work together with others in a constructive manner towards imaginary goals . It is the social aspect of working together that I like . If imaginary scarcity is what I was after all I need do is turn on my TV or pick up the newspaper . There is enough killing in this world by people that imagine they have something to gain by taking from others . I do not need to pay $15 per month to experience that nor would I like to waste my time or invest my Karma sending that energy and emotion out into the world . I submit that competition is what is conditioned and cooperation is what is natural , not the other way around .
|
|
Korbin Dallaz
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 08:24:00 -
[371] - Quote
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
If I insisted Hello Kitty themed space Gundams having lightsabre duels be supported to comply with my vision of fun, I fully expect to be told 'gtfo' as it has no context within the game or its reason for existance.
If you insist that CCP provide an endless steam of victims for you to impose your will upon because you feel powerless in you real life then do not be surprised if there are not many people left to play with . I was not saying that CCP should change the game to suit my tastes . I was suggesting that since an increase in active subscriptions seemed to coincide with the introduction of level 4 mission grinding then maybe the current high sec experience is more a part of their success than the current null sec experience . That if they choose to make null sec more like high sec they might be more profitable than if they try to force more carebears into null .
|
Ethidium Bromide
Amarr
ZEALOT WARRIORS AGAINST TERRORISTS
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 08:29:00 -
[372] - Quote
emergence is great! well a great word at least.
the problem with the kind of emergence you are talking about is that it is not going to make anything better!
empire still lets you evade emergence! you make a decission and do NOT have to face the consequences. and don't come up with the useless noob ganking squad you call CONCORD.
emergence should take place in empire and 0.0 and if you talk about emergence in 0.0 do NOT start top down, only very few people are in a position to make the decissions you are talking about.
start at the bottom, give the thousands of players IN the alliances something to think about, give proper tools to diretors and CEOs to help their members have fun.
you know tcorporations, the funny little ignored entities that actually are (your words not mine) the most stable siocial group in eve.
the changes you are planning are rather bringing SUPER-alliance alliances into life and not giving the small man any fun in 0.0 as it will be even easier to smack them down.
more than a little fine tuning is necessary to make your ideas work, and to work you should start working bottom up for once, make the small man a happy man and give the higher ups tools to help them help themselves.
Originally by: CCP Prism X
1: "Just train Astrometric Quadilaterationcybbacrypph"
2: "MY MOTHER WAS A SAINT!"
|
Camdim
Caldari
Blood and Steel Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 12:12:00 -
[373] - Quote
A few points I would like to see covered:
NPC 0.0 space. This space should be accessible to all empire without having to break through other alliances territories to get to it.
This is stain and venal should have empire gates which then opens up 4 NPC 0.0 areas to all players.
Second corps should be able to hold sov or at the very least sov in NPC 0.0 space give the NPC's sov in their station systems and maybe one system in each direction but make the rest claimable by corps. This allows corps some degree of cash income from moons and to test their 0.0 capabilities. NPC 0.0 space should be the proving ground for corps.
Improvements when you lose a system do they keep their improvements? Or are they lost? Seems to me if the area is improved then it should stay improved or lose a little but not all of its improvement. Tying that loss of improvement with say damage to the area during the take over would be more realistic and make for limited action warfare in the hopes of getting a well developed area relatively intact. Maybe tie how much damage is done to a system by the number of cap ships use to take an area. This would further promote the use of small ship fleets to try and take an area intact. And promote raid actions by larger ships to damage your enemies and make them rebuild their infrastructure.
 |
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 14:44:00 -
[374] - Quote
Originally by: Korbin Dallaz
If you insist that CCP provide an endless steam of victims for you to impose your will upon because you feel powerless in you real life ......
Haha, wow. I've never seen a thread slam so abruptly into a wall. Apparently, asking that players earn their achievements by successfully competing for them in a pvp game is just too offensive for some.
You are not entitled to anything, even if you have such expectations. $15/month gives you:
- the right to log in during server uptime
- free rookie ships
- basic clones
- complimentary unit of Tritanium
It does not entitle you to:
- touch or fly the ships of your dreams
- remain perfectly safe once undocked
- any say or power in the game universe
- go on a hero's journey to save the inept princess from a comically evil turtle
No one claimed we should remove agent missions as gameplay, only reduce their effectiveness at giving you everything you want without any player interactions.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 14:53:00 -
[375] - Quote
Originally by: Hegbard
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
It's a reasonably similar situation to the "old T2 BPO money" situation
"old"? Does it mean you're finally removing them? From here it looks like you're once again making them the best alliance level income source.
That was meant purely in the sense of "old money"; my understanding is that profitability of T2 BPOs is substantially reduced these days, but also that a lot of people have a LOT of money still stashed away that they made with their T2 BPOs pre-invention.
Originally by: Aaron Min
I would like to offer that by creating this logistical "difficulty" you are simultaneously encouraging NAPs among the groups in the area.
I would offer that in conjunction with the logistics difficulty increase you should begin down the path of complete 0.0 independence from high sec. That anything and everything you need to sustain 0.0 sovereignty and construction of anything in the game should be able to happen without visiting empire (ie commodities should be producible), I should be able to make my own robotics, electronics, etc etc.
If you do that in combination with increase 0.0 logistics you will create truly independent empires that absolutely don't need to NAP other alliances because they have no dependence on them to secure their trade routes to empire to ensure continued operation.
If you balance it correctly so that it costs more to build it yourself, then to transport it from empire , then you have introduced another "option" and furthered the emergence theme. An alliance can either become friends with their neighbors and save isk by transporting goods from empire, or they can be an independent state and produce it themselves.
This is something that we'll probably keep an eye on and possibly revisit post-release when we see how the changes pan out. I would say though that the default situation is I think an interesting one, because you'll end up with asymmetric NAPs - I need a NAP with you to go through your space, but you maybe couldn't care less whether we're friends or not.
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn
Viceroy... Where did they go ?????????
What about low-sec ? Is it all about nullsec ?
Altering low-sec is too big a problem to deal with in this expansion, sorry.
Originally by: iP0D
Resources can be an important cause of conflict. But in EVE all you need is to shoot someone's hauler at the wrong/right time in the wrong/right place. Welcome to EVE.
This is our fallback position: there will always be conflict in EVE, because there are lots of well-off players who like fighting. As you say, those players will always be able to find (or fabricate) an excuse 
Originally by: Uronksur Suth
I'm looking to having the endless contempt PvPers have for the industrials (aka, carebears) decreasing somewhat if not disappearing entirely.
Oh, that's never gonna happen  What I suspect will happen is that those industrials will nevertheless be in a much stronger position to call the shots, so the PvPers are going to have to learn to listen to them, even if they still secretly want to kill them all 
Originally by: Mark Messier
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
More defensive tools of various natures are things that we're investigating as part of the infrastructure system (but not to the degree that they tip the balance significantly), but the cloaking situation specifically is something that really needs its own fix, IMO (ties into local and directional scanner and probing and map views and all that jazz).
Ok so dose this mean that you guys are going to bring the Big Nerf Bat in the sky down and do another beat down on stealth bombers and other ships that use a cloak?
It's out of scope for now, but I (and others here) would very much like to make some comprehensive changes here. The desire is not simply to nerf, but rather to come up with a nicer system where everything is balanced and cool.
|
|
La Gloria
Minmatar
Khatovar Industries Ltd
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:00:00 -
[376] - Quote
Have you considered revamping the "Bounty" Mechanic. If I could offer a "bounty" on a Pilot or more importantly a corp and its pilots, redeemable only from pilots in my alliance, it could add be a strong connection between "rich, fat, and lazy (RFL)" industrial corps and "PvP" corps within an alliance. If a corp attacks a RFL hulk then RFL offers thier alliance a bounty per pilot / per corp ship destroyed.
I could see an 100mil pool (5 mil - t1 frig up to 25mil / t3 cruiser + 10mil per podkill.)
Since the bounty only redeemable within the alliance, it becomes an income source to the PvP corps.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:01:00 -
[377] - Quote
Originally by: Sidrat Flush
Hmm, slightly backward I think - yes I understand you have to keep working, testing, fixing and re-testing, but should you have not brought this dev blog (i.e CCP's thought processes) to the CSM and or the website, months ago, in order to read the views and act on them?
We pitched the germs of this idea to the last CSM meeting here back in the first half of this year (I forget the date), had some further consultation over the intrawebs mid-year, and talked to the new CSM again a couple of weeks ago. It'd have been nice to get more general player feedback earlier too, but various constraints prevented it 
Originally by: Del Narveux
This may be a stupid question but what's to prevent the following situation from happening:
Imagine fictional alliance BobSwarm currently holds the region Venal Basis. Under the new sov mechanics they claim 3-4 systems and basically put out a post on CAOD saying "we dont mechanically own the rest of Venal Basis but if anyone moves in we'll gank you with our blob of 2,000 battleships because we like to blob stuff with our epic blob of blobbery" And since, like every other .0 region, Venal Basis only has 3 or 4 links to other regions it's not overly hard to establish a sort of de facto rule.
Nothing, and I'm really not sure what we could do to outright prevent that scenario. Under the new system though, there will be a much bigger challenge funding that fleet of 2000 battleships without populating their space some more.
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Just pointing out what should be obvious -- if the "alt alliance group" has a strong out-of-game identity, they will not suffer as much from this issue.
Entirely true, and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
Originally by: Hakaru Ishiwara
From a practical standpoint, true null-sec regions have been and still are severely under-exploited and the lost opportunity is tremendous. Please be careful with basing drastic game mechanic changes upon pure theory.
This I'd suggest is because the value of moon minerals mean there's no pressure to use that space, because there's no way it'll ever compare in income terms to moon output. By fixing the moon mineral situation we encourage utilization of nullsec space to expand to its theoretical carrying limit, at which point we will run into resource density constraints - which is what the infrastructure upgrades address.
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Regarding the postscript and emergence. You are, hopefully, aware that the current system in 0.0 is by and large emergent. The process you described in the postscript is in fact more emergent than the changes you are now proposing, although I admit that the new system has the potential for more emergent behaviour on the player level.
This is not a critique on the new system as such, as I quite like the ideas you are proposing, but from a deconstructive point of view I find it ironic that you are proposing to remove a current emergent system and replacing it with a new one, all under the guise of cherishing emergence.
The reply should be obvious, but I couldn't help but noticing this discrepancy. Good luck ...
Good catch 
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Most new players aren't able to diassociate themselves from game design, and ultimately lobby with a bias for things that make their life easier. You have MMO experience, but the ones that don't (and aren't economists by trade) fail to grasp that when you make things easier for one person, you make things easier for everyone.
Older players tend to see the light easier, not because they're bored, but because they've acquired most of what their initial greed demanded.
I'm - how can I put this - not convinced the trend you're describing is statistically significant 
|
|
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente
The Flying Tigers
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:19:00 -
[378] - Quote
First of all - Greyscale, the general direction of your goals are fantastic. Go. Go!
Now - brass tacks:
1) Increasing 0.0 population how?
The PvP types are pretty much already here, or in lowsec if they don't like the mess which can come from Alliance politics. So who can move to 0.0 to create this increase?
First - the rest of the PvP types. But they can't, they die a lot if they try. That needs to change. One of the biggest problems you are going to have will be space still desolate and empty. The Alliances won't keep towers there, they'll just sweep it once in awhile so it will be 'theirs' (no flag or anything) by virtue of 'go there and try and build anything and die horribly and lose everything you've worked for.'
The way to address this is the same way that NPC groups operate in Empire. Deadspace and similar hidden areas in space. Things that cannot be easily scanned out in seconds. Places that can be built and are very very hard to find. This means that casual sweeps won't turn them up, allowing player pirates to hide and operate. They'll need logistics and the like which might be a way to find them. The point is a casual sweep will not. If these folks can build pirate stations and pirate gates in Dodixie, why not let players do it in H-PA or Y-4? Creating areas of space that cannot be readily scanned but must be found by other (Harder and more active and time consuming) means will right away fill many of those empty systems. It will also make running an Alliance more like running one of the Empire nations - such immersion can only be good.
But what about the carebear industrialists? How to get them out? And why would the Alliance want them? Quite simply the answer needs to be money. Right now Alliances et al make their money through industrial efforts, Empire stuff and very very occasionally 'rent' (effectively taxes) from folks who use their space. You've already identified the moon mining nap-fest ISK printing as a problem. Good. Nerf the crap out of it. But what about that third thing? Taxes?
Real governments make money through tax. Not just on their own folks but on everyone in their region. Sales tax, income tax, user fees, you name it. As a system gets upgraded EVERYONE in it should generate some income to the owners through activity. This would ENCOURAGE higher populations in these areas from the point of view of the Alliance. More folks doing stuff = more money for them. Holding space still 'prints ISK' but someone has to DO something in order to create the ISK for them. They just get a cut. Want to get rich? Get a bunch of carebears down there. This should be a region's PRIMARY means of income. It also creates conflict. You'll need to protect your bears as they're your income. Others will want to raid the bears to drive them off and hurt your income - something you don't need Cap ships to do, or take your space and entice those bears to stay - something you DO need Cap ships for.
Want Alliances to encourage folks to move down? Give them a real reason to want that. The same one the Empires have.
Why would the bears want to go there? Well, obviously it would need to be MORE profitable and more fun then Empire. They would need to be able to do things there they cannot in Empire in order to make more so that after paying the tax they're still better off.
But, and it's a big but, this won't happen to the level you want without a key thing that isn't an 'in game' reason. And that is - that this is a GAME not real life.
People forget that. People think that folks are in Empire because they're afraid or what have you. That's true to some extent. But a big part of the reason is - this is a game. Folks want to have fun. Not everyone can afford the level of attention needed to the game for a 0.0 op. THAT, I believe, is the main reason Empire is so crowded. Moms with kids (my wife for instance) can mine there with reasonable safety. Contd.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
teji
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:22:00 -
[379] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
This I'd suggest is because the value of moon minerals mean there's no pressure to use that space, because there's no way it'll ever compare in income terms to moon output. By fixing the moon mineral situation we encourage utilization of nullsec space to expand to its theoretical carrying limit, at which point we will run into resource density constraints - which is what the infrastructure upgrades address.
Newsflash: we are already at the theoretical carrying limit. Which might surprise you since half the systems are empty. They are empty for a very good reason. ****ty rewards. Now get with the telling of how we are going to upgrade the space to be able to carry 2 people instead of 1.
|
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente
The Flying Tigers
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:43:00 -
[380] - Quote
Empire style carebear players are frequently those who are 'more casual' players. Folks with jobs, lives, families etc. which limit their ability to be online for Alliance CTAs etc.
'I have to go catch criminals in the streets of New York city - I CAN'T log on to shoot up the NC. Sorry lads.'
That's what you're facing. These casual players are what (I believe) make up a lot of the Empire pop. In order to get them to 0.0 space they need to be able to operate there in a way that supports their (unalterable by them) casual play lifestyle. How that happens- well that's up to CCP but those folks will not move from Empire - WHATEVER THE REWARD until their playstyle can be supported in some way. Basically until they can play there and have fun. Dying again and again and again until you are broke against people you cannot hurt in any way is not fun. No one signs up for that in what is supposed to be a leisure activity.
Which brings me to:
2) System upgrades
What does an Alliance upgraded system look like?
Well, we know that actually. Were it ever to reach its pinnacle, it would look like Jita, or Rens or Luminiere or Amarr or Pator. When an Alliance grows big enough its 'upgrades' should start looking a lot like Empire space. Why? Because, folks, that's what it is now. It's just PLAYER Empire space. That's what a sandbox should mean. Yes, players should have the freedom to do things differently if they want to, but things happen to the NPC Empires for a reason and are done BY the NPC Empires for a reason. Create something that naturally guides player Alliances along that general path and you have your success.
Okay, sure, but how?
First Alliance systems should look kind of like they do now. Later they should have more stations. Some of these stations should eventually come from NPC groups as well as player groups. If an area is doing well, why wouldn't Ishukone build a station there? Or the Guristas to raid it? As they develop they should look more and more like low sec, but policed by players, natch.
Eventually, the system should start to look like high sec. At that point, one OPTION for the Alliance should be to join the treaty of Yulai. Yes, folks, that means Player Empires could have Concord. The difference, however, would be that Concord in PC space CANNOT be as good as it is in Empire. Otherwise no one could ever attack! But it should still be there to do most of what Concord does. It wouldn't get involved with wars (not its job) and you could perhaps 'flag' ships as warships which Concord would then ignore, although that would require, perhaps, System SOV and some improvements by the attackers to allow. Pirates in PC space could fight (and beat) Concord as the ships would be the same but wouldn't have infinite spawn. Perhaps they would even have to be bought via payments to Concord by the system holding Alliance and when they're gone they're gone.
So - limited NPC protection you pay for. Why? Because that protection means more Carebears and, hence, more money for you.
What about MMORPG time zone messes? Well, if a group can have NPC cops, why not an NPC navy that will react in a (rather poor) way to attacks? That would give them some defence during downtimes. Not great, but maybe enough to hold the line until the Alliance can get online. Granted, you're talking about a VERY developed region for that. You'd need naval stations and it would cost like the ****ens - but if the Gallente can do it, why not players?
None of these things take actions from the players - players are still calling the shots. It just bridges the gap somewhat between PvP and PvE and lets Empires act like Empires creating entirely new things for players to do besides fly around in a spaceship. If you want to be Tibus Heth and never set foot in a pod again, why shouldn't EVE allow it?
Yeah, all very very long range, but why not? It would work and it would be fun.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
|
Sybilla Prior
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 16:21:00 -
[381] - Quote
Quote from CCP Greyscale:
Originally by: Del Narveux
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be a stupid question but what's to prevent the following situation from happening:
Imagine fictional alliance BobSwarm currently holds the region Venal Basis. Under the new sov mechanics they claim 3-4 systems and basically put out a post on CAOD saying "we dont mechanically own the rest of Venal Basis but if anyone moves in we'll gank you with our blob of 2,000 battleships because we like to blob stuff with our epic blob of blobbery" And since, like every other .0 region, Venal Basis only has 3 or 4 links to other regions it's not overly hard to establish a sort of de facto rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing, and I'm really not sure what we could do to outright prevent that scenario. Under the new system though, there will be a much bigger challenge funding that fleet of 2000 battleships without populating their space some more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking: if you include wormhole bridges that do not lead into wormhole space but directly from one region of nullsec to another through which an entire capital fleet could travel (instead of a mass limit they have a time limit) then the bottleneck problem would be a thing of the past since it requires Alliances to patrol all of their space rather than just the bottlenecks leading into it.
Or am I missing something?
|
Korbin Dallaz
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 17:12:00 -
[382] - Quote
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Originally by: Korbin Dallaz
You are not entitled to anything, even if you have such expectations. $15/month gives you:
I feel in necessary to point out that you are the one that originally decided to post how you feel the game should be changed to fit your play style . You are the one that suggested that an area of the game that you seem to not even be interested in using be changed . You are the one with the arrogance to suggest that other's game play experience be changed so that they be forced to play your way . I only pointed out that maybe there is a different opinion out there and that it is possible that the opposite view point be held by higher percentage of the population in game than the one that you put forth . I did not demand a game change merely pointed out the other view point . I find it funny that you try to make it seem the opposite is true . I do not expect nor would I want the game to be changed to suit my style if I am not in the majority . I can more easily just find a game that suits me .
Sand box implies an open ended experience . More choices = bigger sand box . Your idea is to reduce choices thus making the sand box smaller . In you own words you want to reduce choice and force the play style that is currently chosen by the minority of players and impose that on the majority . I think you may need to take your own advice before you start dishing it out to others and think about what $15 per month entitles you to . Now if you'll excuse me I need to go see if I can get a trial of this Hello Kitty game that you speak of .
|
Illwill Bill
Svea Rike
The Council.
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 17:31:00 -
[383] - Quote
This looks like awesome stuff! I will pass judgement once the details have been released.
 |
Little Feathers
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 17:36:00 -
[384] - Quote
Edited by: Little Feathers on 17/09/2009 17:40:41
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Apparently, asking that players earn their achievements by successfully competing for them in a pvp game is just too offensive for some.
Especially in a universe predicated on the notion of emergence as dictated by player actions. It's sort of hard to see or feel that emergence when you're grinding agent missions in what amounts to a vacuum.
CCP wants more casual players in this game? Then they would've changed it significantly by now. The biggest issue tossed around whenever I hear someone say why they don't like EVE has more to do with how the game plays than how harsh or unruly its populace is. Critics usually point out the need for so many open windows to see what the hell is going on, obscuring the game's lovely space visuals; they point out the unchangeable interface and limitations on hotkey assignment, something fully featured and promoted in WoW.
This is a game in space. It has a heavy economic slant. Its combat takes a great deal of study and effort. It's generally slow paced. There aren't a ton of colors or charming epic scores. It takes a lot of patience to get anywhere in it.
Taken altogether, those factors make EVE the very definition of ultra-niche. The fact that it has 300k players is frankly impressive as hell and a testament to the game's quality. CCP so far hasn't buckled under any pressures to allow for mods that significantly alter the interface or playability of the game; things that might very well net them a new playerbase. So no, I don't think they're actively going out of their way to get people outside of those who would ordinarily be interested in a game of this style.
By including agent missions in their current state, by inserting a vacuum without consequence into this game, they are affecting what appears to be the primary goal of EVE: To create a world in which you take part, affect and interact with other players in a variety of different ways - that your actions have results beyond yourself. Emergence.
I understand the need for a tutorial, even for missions initially there to help people get up and running, but the extensive network of them available at this point goes beyond helping and enters the realm of indulging. Get people up and running, and send them on their way into the larger world.
EDIT: Even DigitalCommunist made a suggestion that I felt was pretty reasonable by making the agent missions limited in number at any outpost. That at least approaches some degree of competition and emergence.
|
KrakizBad
Imperium Forces
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 18:43:00 -
[385] - Quote
Ok maybe im missing something, but lowering moon income, and replacing it with a system taht you upgrade systems to boost your income, is suppose to make less territorial sprawl? That seems like it would create the exact opposite reaction.
Right now you can fly into most 0.0 systems and not see people for like days, cause outside of once a month or whatever pos refuels, its worthless to be in that system for bigger allainces, and long as you dont try to pos sov spam, alot of them dont really care enough to try and evict you.
With this change every system will start to matter. That system before that no one cared about? Thats tommorows gold mine that your growing allaince will need.
One thing i have noticed from flying around and into several 0.0 regions are that some are ghost towns, and others are fuller then some high sec area's. The ones that are busier have stations, Providence and Syndicate while both are ass ends of space, tend to have tons of people flying and playing in them. On the other end is something like Cloud ring, which you can fly through about any time of day and see no one. I dont really see that anything suggested will change this.
I also fail to see how any of the changes will allow smaller allainces to hold space. Most allaince, esp the bigger allainces hold vast amounts of unused space, simply cause they can. It has little to do with economics, as alot of times the space isnt worth the POS claiming it. But thier ya go, its claimed, and if you try and put up a pos into it, youll get nuked. Just cause you change the Sov map and what it displays wont change peoples attitudes toward what they feel is thiers.
The only good thing that i see coming from this is by lowering moon income, that some allainces will have to actually earn thier isk. But i think we are a Very long way away from a time when this will matter. The Big allainces will still have such a huge isk buffer over smaller allainces that the game isnt about skill, its about simple brute force. And i have yet to see or hear of any changes that will try and equalize the battlefield and make skill the factor that matters, not Blob.
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 18:44:00 -
[386] - Quote
Originally by: Camdim
Improvements when you lose a system do they keep their improvements? Or are they lost? Seems to me if the area is improved then it should stay improved or lose a little but not all of its improvement. Tying that loss of improvement with say damage to the area during the take over would be more realistic and make for limited action warfare in the hopes of getting a well developed area relatively intact. Maybe tie how much damage is done to a system by the number of cap ships use to take an area. This would further promote the use of small ship fleets to try and take an area intact. And promote raid actions by larger ships to damage your enemies and make them rebuild their infrastructure.
This to me would be a mistake in my opinion, and here's why. The goal seems to be to allow smaller groups a way to gain a foot hold and to have more political entities in Null Sec, ranging from small roaming groups of pirates and raiders, to large multisystem alliances and everything in-between.
If a smaller Sov holding group's efforts, can be snatched away and then used in a larger group's infrastructure more easily than "build it your self", then the incentive to attack versus improve is increased. Sounds like Eve right? But it is counter productive to populating Null Sec. Recall what Grayscale said - they, CCP, are willing to wait a year or two to let Null Sec evolve. Take the long view, imagine a year from now, two years, that there are 100 alliances all over null sec.
As time passes, the pressures on available space will increase. The lack of space, closer proximity, access to Empire, access to allied territory, to additional markets, will be the driver of conflict and not a "Nice upgrades, we'll take it" mentality. Sure there will be pirates and border raids, and there should be, but the evolutionary pace of improved space should be slow, and not a game of who can snatch the most land someone else improved.
Also note from the proposed design that, to hold more systems will cost more. The cost is exponential, the line is curved. To what degree we don't know yet, but the line is not straight from the way I read it, it will have a curve. Some where along that curve, the line is going to be nearly vertical and the cost of further expansion will be crushing.
This is the reason I brought up the idea of some sort of abstracted legitimacy earlier in the thread. It gives your own space more value than someone else's space, it's not only an incentive to try and reclaim your own space, should someone take it, it is also a subtle check on what null sec suffers now, Alliance Sprawl.
As counter intuitive as it may sound, staying home and improving your own space, should be more profitable than attacking and taking someone else's space. The incentive to attack smaller entities should be less than staying home. People will still find reasons to fight regardless of all other concerns. It is after all pixel space ships blowing up while we sit safely at home in the real world swilling beer and munching chips. The more groups that can be placed in internet space ship fight club, the more people will be there to fight.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Cailais
Amarr
Stealthfield
Clandestine.
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 19:14:00 -
[387] - Quote
This is proving to be a very interesting thread. Digital Communist has raised some important issues , but Id like to turn things on their head for a moment.
Consider, if you will, two recurring themes;
 emergence or the butterfly effect.
empire agents.
Now empire agents direct players within empire to accomplish certain goals. Those goals are largely confined to, and effect only that player. The 'emergence' effect is there, but it is limited. However the player is rewarded, often comfortably.
Now consider the ability for an alliance to upgrade its space - improved rats etc etc. All well and good but we can do so much more here. A few posts up someone suggested alliance getting their own NPC agents to run missions for and hence provide a carrot to the 'carebear' and a route to distributing wealth.
Far better in my view is to allow Sovereign Alliances to create their own agents.
Now we have the seeds of true emergence and, at least potentially, a direct and enticing competitor to the 'empire agent'.
With sufficient upgrades to a system Alliances could, by degrees, emplace their own agents with their own mission parameters - providing rewards for the collection of certain materials, defeat of hostile forces, the transport of given goods.
Now players could 'run missions' but not for emergent isolated empire agents but for the Alliances of .0 space themselves. In this fashion we have the players themselves building and sculpting the sandpit of EVE - and crucially providing a system whereby the Alliances have something beyond mere ISK: influence.
Through the provision of "Alliance Missions" an alliance can reward a neutral, or positive standing player for completing their political goals and that applies right the way down to the granular level of individual players, which is where 'the butterfly effect' resides after all.
Consider - would you rather run a mission for some souless empire NPC to rescue yet another damsel in distress for a million ISK, or run a mission for 'Whatever Alliance' for a thick wedge of ISK?
If your answer is 'depends on the Alliance' then you can already see the emergent behaviour coming to the fore.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente
The Flying Tigers
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 19:21:00 -
[388] - Quote
Originally by: Cailais
With sufficient upgrades to a system Alliances could, by degrees, emplace their own agents with their own mission parameters - providing rewards for the collection of certain materials, defeat of hostile forces, the transport of given goods.
Excellent idea.
In addition, agents could also give 'regular NPC' missions depending on their type as well as 'PC Missions' set by the Alliance which created them. PC missions would take precedence, of course, but once in awhile other things would spring in because Empires are big and things creep up which are below the notice of Alliance directors (like minor agents sending folks out for Tobacco or Beef or what have you or even to get revenge on some guy who is threatening his job).
The more there is to do in 0.0 and the more interesting and fun it is, the more folks are going to want to go there and enjoy the game there.
Again, though, the Alliance needs to somehow earn funds from these activities or they will never bother to create the agents. There needs to be reward to go with the effort and risk of unknown folks in your space.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
Orange Faeces
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 19:22:00 -
[389] - Quote
Its encouraging to see Greyscale ignoring the people who complain about high-sec mission runners. The notion that mission runners are somehow ruining 0.0 access even for pilots who live in 0.0 is obviously a ridiculous distraction from the issues at hand.
On the other hand...
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Del Narveux
This may be a stupid question but what's to prevent the following situation from happening:
Imagine fictional alliance BobSwarm currently holds the region Venal Basis. Under the new sov mechanics they claim 3-4 systems and basically put out a post on CAOD saying "we dont mechanically own the rest of Venal Basis but if anyone moves in we'll gank you with our blob of 2,000 battleships because we like to blob stuff with our epic blob of blobbery" And since, like every other .0 region, Venal Basis only has 3 or 4 links to other regions it's not overly hard to establish a sort of de facto rule.
Nothing, and I'm really not sure what we could do to outright prevent that scenario. Under the new system though, there will be a much bigger challenge funding that fleet of 2000 battleships without populating their space some more.
The problem, as Del describes it, is the real problem with 0.0. CCP has signaled that they want to make smaller sov. claims for independent alliances possible in 0.0. Unfortunately, without addressing scenarios like this one, that goal is obviously impossible.
And there ARE solutions to this problem. Don't despair, Greyscale. Let me help you!
Simply require sov. to extend from an existing system with sov. That means, you can't claim sov. in a system that is not adjacent to your current claims. You can't attack sov. placeholders unless you have sov. in an adjacent system.
This has the effect of making sov. a continuous region around your station systems. You can't attack sov. on the other side of the map to protect the moons of some ally of an ally nap-trainery. Alliances have to grow organically from an existing space. If they want to make war on a neighbor they have to extend their sov. continuously into hostile territory.
Simple stuff. Now I know many of you are skeptical about any single idea that can fix a lot of problems, but in reality it is just that simple.
oF
---
 |
Cailais
Amarr
Stealthfield
Clandestine.
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 19:37:00 -
[390] - Quote
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom
Originally by: Cailais
With sufficient upgrades to a system Alliances could, by degrees, emplace their own agents with their own mission parameters - providing rewards for the collection of certain materials, defeat of hostile forces, the transport of given goods.
Excellent idea.
In addition, agents could also give 'regular NPC' missions depending on their type as well as 'PC Missions' set by the Alliance which created them. PC missions would take precedence, of course, but once in awhile other things would spring in because Empires are big and things creep up which are below the notice of Alliance directors (like minor agents sending folks out for Tobacco or Beef or what have you or even to get revenge on some guy who is threatening his job).
The more there is to do in 0.0 and the more interesting and fun it is, the more folks are going to want to go there and enjoy the game there.
Again, though, the Alliance needs to somehow earn funds from these activities or they will never bother to create the agents. There needs to be reward to go with the effort and risk of unknown folks in your space.
Firstly Alliances have the ability to restrict 'who' has access to given agents through the standings system.
Minor low level agents with limited mission rewards might be available to any neutral, better standings allowing access to better agents (with standings being a reward unto themselves). Thus you at least mitigate some of that risk.
Secondly Alliance missions need not be 'ISK profitable' to the Alliance itself, but give alternative reward to the Alliance.
Consider an Alliance that wants to encourage more trade, or better access to materials in its system (but doesnt want to get them itself). It could reward players for delivering certain goods. Alternatively reward players for the destruction of its enemies.
Alliances will inevitably accrue funds just by having busier, possibly more secure systems. Docking fees for example at a well stocked .0 trade hub. Less time (and time is money) spent gathering crucial resources.
The possibilities are expansive.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
|
| |
Reply to Topic |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |