EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Sovereignty: Emergence is neat

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Sovereignty: Emergence is neat

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Shadow Lightbringer Daedal Anomaly	Posted - 2009.09.15 09:27:00 - [151] - Quote The vision of the blog sounds great but I'll wait until CCP starts giving us more of the details about how it will work before getting too excited about it. That and I've seen so many expansions have promised features removed because they just couldn't get the mechanic working properly in time. So here's to hoping the actual details of this vision are as good as the vision is so far.
Commander Azrael Three Shades of Brown	Posted - 2009.09.15 10:04:00 - [152] - Quote Not much to say except epic dev blog. Superb work CCP, the dev blogs keep coming and I'm continually impressed with their depth and coverage. As the above poster said, yeah there's some hesitation regarding actual features but the mind set of CCP for this expansion seems spot on. I for one are REALLY looking forward to this expansion.
Lindsay Logan	Posted - 2009.09.15 10:13:00 - [153] - Quote Originally by: Pnuka Down with big corporations, down with the rich, down with America!! Rich + America? Thats polar opposites! (fyi USA got **** tones of loans and are in it deep) But this new stuff will likly reward say goons due to their large numbers and willingness to adapt, the more rigid and ststic alliances will crumble tho.
zelalot	Posted - 2009.09.15 10:42:00 - [154] - Quote More Info please CCP, im getting very excited about this and think this is going to really open the game up to more engagements, battles and raids. Sounds awesome, im more intrgued at how you improve your system though. Ore, moons, ratting, stargates etc etc.
Fullmetal Jackass	Posted - 2009.09.15 10:48:00 - [155] - Quote 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 This will probably come out poorly worded. I appologize in advance. I'd like to see dynamic territorial boundries, rather then a couple of super blocs squating forever on as many choice moons as they can. I'd like to see alliances forced to adapt new stratagies from time to time, or shift to a new part of space. I'd like to see change and uncertainty, however small, in all alliances that choose to live in null sec. To this end, I'd suggest high end moons be given unknown but limited quantities of material. As well as devaluing certain indiviual materials. Moons should be worth fighting over, but shouldn't provide an overwhelming advantage forever. When I say limited, I'm thinking 2 to 7 or so months of continuous mining. Taper off the production as the moon nears it's limit. Or not. Cutting off the supply unexpectedly might be a better option. Or a random mix of the two. The point is to change the value of individual parts of null sec, outside of player control. Pass the wealth around as it were. Maybe some alliances will choose to conquer new space whenever one of thier moons runs out. Or maybe another really likes the area they are in, even though it has no high enders. Then discovers a new deposite on a previously worthless moon. As I said, I'd like to ferment uncertainty in an effort to stave off stagnation. "How long will our moon last?" "Will someone try to conquer our system if it leaks that we have a new supply on the boarder?" "Yay we've secured a new supply." And then a week later "Ah crap, it's already played out." "Hey one of our pets has a Dysp moon now, should we take it from them?" Or the opposite "Our landlord doesn't know yet. How long can we keep it a secret and should we?" Seriously over simplified examples, but I think you can get the idea. Nothing should be certain with moon mining in my mind. There's nothing wrong with some easy isk, but nothing lasts forever. Exploit what you have, and then look for the next big score when it plays out.
Cassidy Usaro	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:10:00 - [156] - Quote sounds to me like a nerf for alliances like goons and a boost for pet/resident based business model ( i do not mention the most prominent alliance perfecting this business model before they got defeated ... ;-) ) a quick, easy and instabil conquer mechanism will lead to the situation were all gimicks you throw in on the "build empires and improve ressources in your space" side are rendered meaningless. Nobody will invest billions in perks if they are not substantially safeguarded by a fortification. The write-up sounds to me just like stationpingpong2 with the differences that the pingpong is about your own investments instead of game created assets. @moons. nothing is wrong with the moonmining beside the 2 R64 moons Dysprosium and Promethium. With alchemy we ended up in a bizzar situation that R16 minerals are more expensive than R32. While R32 hardly finance their POS infrastruture, i.e. fuel costs, some R16 give a good profit, nothing compared to the insane rewards of Dys and Pro but still decent. Fix Alchemy or seed more Dys & Prom. and then everything is fine. Some persistent cash cows (like R&D agents & Moonminerals) that are not relying on permanent interaction with players are fine for the game balance, but Dys & Prom are the only thing unbalanced.
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:10:00 - [157] - Quote When apoc first come in high sec and low sec access to 00 was infrequent but u could get out there Apoc 1.5 - high sec wormhoels when they collapse 90% of the time lead back to high sec, low sec flows to high sec and other low sec 00 is once again cut off mostly as the randomness of wh code in each wh seems to have been nerfed to make them more security status tied up Basically less access to 00 will mean that gate camps become common, jump bridges etc in this new alliance warfare rather than black ops occasionally oging in the back hole and drawing groups of larger alliances back from the front line to deal with the threat Also means wormhole space is becoming more bland and those living in there easier to defend How will this new sov system affect wormholes will all k space exit womrholes and direct linkers just end up in high and low sec status with the only way into 00 now via the gate network ? ccp is being very quite on this im interested to see if they have a response
Doomed Predator The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:16:00 - [158] - Quote I have high hopes that CCP will stop the damn R64 crap and make T2 cheaper(I miss 80 mill HACs). And I really hope that the most space you can practically hold will be one region, where the borders will be full of PvP activity. The 'Fendahlian Collective' strikes again
Sigras	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:18:00 - [159] - Quote this new approach to dev blogs is far superior to the old one where we were told what changes were being made and were left to try to figure out why the heck you guys made those changes . . . at the very least every thread i see from now on about sov changes that asks "what the heck were you thinking?" im gonna link to this blog.
Miasia The Guardian Agency Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:19:00 - [160] - Quote Edited by: Miasia on 15/09/2009 11:21:41 How could CCP achieve to lower the value of moongold? In my opinion there are 3 possible options: Raise the available R64 sources. Seed more R64 mats on the available moons Lower the demand for the R64 mats. Change the values in the BPOs. Change the materials needed in the BPOs. So that other less needed R64/R32 mats are used. In my personel opionion CCP will change the demand of the materials in the BPOs/BPCs. What do you think about their options? Best Regards Miasia

Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:21:00 - [161] - Quote Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 15/09/2009 11:22:36 Originally by: Lusulpher Anywho, can I get a CSM rep in this thread to vaguely give their impressions of the changes CCP has on paper? ... Come on CSM, I could swear the info was supposed to go both ways. O hi, CSM here. We dont know a whole lot more than you do at this point. I am convinced CCP is on the right track, and I would like to think this dev blog and CCP Abathur's devblog have also convinced the players. At least, those players that agree with the problems and goals of 0.0 as identified by CCP Greyscale in this blog. If you don't agree then... well frankly, you're just **** out of luck. I realise its frustrating not to get any specifics, but CCP will release more information when they have it. Not to mention the upcoming SiSi mirror and possibly deployment of the first dominion features tomorrow. There will be plenty of time for existing 0.0 holders to transform their holdings to the new system: CCP has already stated that there will be grace period of some kind. So be patient. I would like to know all the details as much as you, but CCP cannot give us all the details right now unless you want them to make empty promises and features that will be changed before release anyway. There is still plenty of time to go until the expansion, and I'm sure more yet will be reveiled in the coming weeks and especially at FanFest. Which you should attend. Because its awesome. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Kayakaue	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:25:00 - [162] - Quote About moon mining, the best way for me. Have some module to scan the system : - probe (same then now) - Pos module (only when you have the souverainty) Quantity of the moon mineral with one harvester R8 - 32 week qty about 512k R16 - 16 week Qty about 256k R32 - 8 week Qty about 128k R64 - 4 week Qty about 64k If you scan the moon after the end of the exploitation it's possible to find some new mineral New barge to mine the moon directly. About mining ore. Decrease the loot in mission and farming by 50 % but increase the bounty by about 50 % That for decrease the ore quantity by refinning in the market. Wormhole : Put some perma belt with common ore ( veld, scordite , kernite ,pyro , plagio ,omber).
Sigras	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:26:00 - [163] - Quote this blog gives us a unique opportunity. We can now discuss if we as players think CCP is headed in the right direction with their vision, which so far in this thread it looks like most people on the forums do agree with it. When the blogs discribing how come out, (i hope soon as i am not a patient man) we can discuss whether or not what they are doing is going to make their vision (which we mostly agree on) happen. sry for the two posts and wall of text, on my phone.

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:27:00 - [164] - Quote As a general extra comment before I start answering stuff, there are some things here that are still mostly unknowns for us. We've got predictions for most of them, but not at a level where we're confident enough to commit to specific design directions based on them. This is mostly because in certain respects nullsec today is just too far from the area we'd like to move it towards to get a good gauge on how things will pan out when we get closer to the target. Originally by: Evelgrivion Quote: A reduction in the value of moon minerals How is this going to be achieved? Is it tied to the resource density improvements mentioned in the blog? Details not finalized yet, but for me at least it's one of the two biggest problems with nullsec today (the other being doomsdays), so I'm pushing hard for a good resolution. Originally by: ArmyOfMe what makes you think that the current owners of dysp/prom moons will actually ever manage to loose their current isk in the first place? they already have so much isk that they can replace cap fleets the same way smaller alliances could replace a cruiser fleet This is a "not 100% sure" area. The two extremes - they spend so much money they run out, or they spend so little it doesn't have an impact - solve themselves, but the middle ground where they spend a lot but have enough to keep that expenditure up, well, that's something we're going to have to watch and react to. It's a reasonably similar situation to the "old T2 BPO money" situation, so it's not a totally new phenomena - just on a bigger scale, obviously. Originally by: Haradgrim The first question that popped into my head was, well what does this mean for curse and syndicate? I'm very curious about this resource density improvement concept, but my mind keeps coming back to the question of; how are they going to devalue moon minerals and will it break the t2 economy? For the first iteration, NPC space will not be involved. I don't know if this will change down the road, but it's out of scope for now. Originally by: Soleil Fournier So CCP....pleeeease....can we get a blog or someone post some tidbits on the capital combat and super capital changes (moar mothership info!)? Yes. Originally by: Daan Sai OK, exacly 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?? Initially there's no mechanics to support that, no. Again, it's something where to some degree we need to see what players do before we act ourselves. That said, one of the things that we've had to accommodate throughout the design is that, unless you give defenders a game-breakingly overwhelming advantage, the nature of "sandbox" means that if someone significantly bigger than you decides that they want you specifically gone, and you have no friends, there's not a whole lot we can do mechanically to change that outcome. Initially at least, and in I'd expect at least a majority of cases, the key to getting settled in nullsec will likely be, as it always has been, diplomacy - talking to people. The nullsec political landscape owes as much to diplomacy and personal interactions as it does to military power, and while land-grants or outright renting are not where most people want to end up, they're a very common first step. That I know of, for example, Atlas got their first proper nullsec foothold from a drone region land grant, Goonswarm obviously owe at least some of their current circumstances to their deal with RA, and Razor and Morsus Mihi both moved into their current space after supporting a G/Iron campaign in that area.

Mirei Jun Space Cavaliers Republic Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:28:00 - [165] - Quote Edited by: Mirei Jun on 15/09/2009 11:31:12 This last dev blog is by far the most interesting I have read so far. It shows two things. First of all, you understand the problem that is plauging null sec in Eve and was clearly going to ruin the game if not solved. Second, you are willing to take the very unprecedented and extreme, yet very warranted and needed steps to solve this. While we cannot be certain what your exact plans are, or if they will be successful, the fact that you clearly understand the issue means we can know that the state of your game will improve. You have also made it clear you understand how unknown the territory Eve has passed through, and is entering is. At this point CCP is in many ways "sailing by dead reckoning alone". You may very well go astray, but so is to be expected as one travels through uncharted waters. So excellent job! It appears I will be stuck giving CCP $14.95 USD per month for years to come.

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:41:00 - [166] - Quote Originally by: Typhado3 so how bout giving some tools to help defend so it's not all on the attackers side. 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). Originally by: Cpt Constantinus So instead of station pingpong, which will be thankfully avoided, we probably get system pingpong? That's very much not the intention. The plan is that the sov system is descriptive but still timezone-proof. Any sort of ping-pong* is not something we want to reoccur. In the strict definition where it's talking purely about overnight changes as opposed to 2-3 day ones Originally by:* Vyktor Abyss I can honestly (unbiasedly) say it restores my faith in the long term ambition of Eve/CCP to see you do something like this. I will however point out and add that for several years in my opinion the only true "creators" of an emergent 0.0 environment have been CVA in Providence. Obviously we can't, won't and plain don't want to play favorites or give special treatment/consideration of any kind. I will however say that CVA's apparent success in Providence was a big boost for us early on in this process as it showed that something like what we're aiming for could actually be done, even in the current environment. Originally by: Smyrk I get the impression that it's more the latter; that you hope to motivate large alliances to include smaller groups in their activities, but that the smaller groups would not be independent (or even mostly independent) nullsec operators. But I'd like to be wrong. For now, at least, yes, that's how it's probably going to have to pan out. As previous post though, independence is something that alliances work towards, but not necessarily something they achieve straight away. Originally by: Kersh Marelor Secondly you say that player's decissions are waht matters. What if the alliances made the decission NOT to want any people form other parts of New Eden live in their space? What if the do NOT want to interact with the small groups you are so concerned about? That probably doesn't matter to CCP, which sort of contradicts the idea of player's decission being important. We're not stopping anyone from doing that, it just may end up being very expensive. If all decisions lead down equally easy paths they become less meaningful.


CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:49:00 - [167] - Quote Originally by: Stuart Bruegel That's not entirely true if the goal of the blog was to elicit a reaction from the player base. If you disagree with something Greyscale said, now's the time to say so. If you didn't have any objections and just want details, wait for them - they'll come. My guess is that by stating their goals, Greyscale is trying to use this as a public litmus test to determine if they've misinterpreted what the player base wants. It doesn't do them a lot of good to start dumping specifics of how they're planning on implementing it if 90% of us don't agree with the "why" behind the "how". Based on the reaction so far, I'd have to say that's not the case. Sounds a lot more like people are interested in the details because they're at least somewhat interested in the concept that's been laid out being successfully implemented. And, if I had to guess, that's what Greyscale was looking for. That's not to say that the "how" won't have problems (I'm sure it will), but by posting the "why" ahead of time, you can separate the means from the end so that it can be debated without diving into minutiae. I don't blame anyone for being irritated that they can't just dump the details on us now, but I can see why they don't. The change they're contemplating is potentially game-ending for them (if they really misread the player base) and I'm pretty sure they want to be as deliberate about it as they can be. Qing this F T. Originally by: Gripen Maybe it would be worth it to ask a question: how are you going to promote "small-fleet combat" and increase population density at the same time? To expand a bit on themes in the blog here, there's two levels. Firstly, more population density leads to more targets per system, which, all other things being equal, is a good thing for roamers. However, killing PvE players is not IMO the epitome of PvP excitement. The second thing we get out of this system is that, by making the PvE players valuable to spaceholding alliances, there's an incentive to go chase off the hostile gang rather than just telling everyone to dock up. Added to this, a higher PvE player density results in a higher potential PvP player density, which in turn gives defense gangs more targets and more incentive to stay active. It all ties together. Hopefully. Originally by: Franga I'm assuming there will be a blog fairly soon regarding what/how you are able to upgrade your space? This is what most interests me. It's not written yet so no ETA, but we absolutely intend to document this sort of thing in blogs at some point. Originally by: Fuujin Should be interesting to see how things pan out...I hope they start testing on SiSi soon if they want to be ready to roll it out by november. If everything goes to plan, this will start happening soon. Originally by: Sponde Interesting blog. I agree that something new and innovative must be done to tackle the root of the problem in 0.0. With that being said however my question is what is the mechanism to control the increasing profitability of "upgraded space"? My understanding is that each solar system has the ability to be as profitable as the next. Therefore there are a couple of possibilities: The latest plan is to ensure that there are still value disparities between different regions. Having "best" and "worst" areas of the map both drives conflict (we want a better bit of space than we currently have) and gives weaker entities somewhere to start out (big alliances generally don't bother with certain regions because they're "worthless").

zelalot	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:50:00 - [168] - Quote question - how exactly are we to improve our systems?

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:55:00 - [169] - Quote Originally by: Adunh Slavy CCP, The choice between Descriptive and Prescriptive Game play ... it's going to need both. For one, as stated, the ping pong game. And secondly, there should be more to conquest than simply holding the field at the end of a battle. Many times through history this has been shown to be the case, though one side may win most of the battles, it does not mean it will win the war. "Sovereignty" needs two layers. On the top, the descriptive layer, where an alliance can plant its flag. The under layer will need to be more prescriptive, and the expression of this layer could be "legitimacy". As a quick example - an Army marches on a city and takes it over, they hoist their flag. But they do not have legitimacy over the population of that city. The population is hostile to the new "government". Only after many years can the new government claim any sort of legitimacy. And only then can the full productive fruits of the population be realized. Should the previous government return to reclaim and fight for the city, before the new government has legitimacy, the population may very well rise up against the occupiers. Wait 1000 years, though and the population won't care so much. We know Dust is coming, and we know there are habitable planets. These planets would logically have some sort of population. I would suggest that, "legitimacy" can be built up over time, simply as a result of having planted the flag. The less legitimacy an alliance has over a system, the more it would cost to maintain that system, or at least the fewer resources it would give, and the more difficult it would be to defend that system against the previous holders, the "legitimate" alliance. Legitimacy is earned over lengthy periods of time and does not reverse quickly. I can think of a few ways to do this, but won't ramble, and let you CCP guys do your thing. Have fun :) This is something I'm going to go away and think hard about. I can't promise that the results will make it into Dominion, but you may see facets of this in a future update. Maybe. Originally by: CopyCatz 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. !!!WARNING MAY NOT BE AN ACTUAL UPGRADE!!! IC: "This upgrade adds additional armor to all civilian* traffic in this system. The local pirates respond to this by increasing the lethality of their local patrols" OOC: "This upgrade makes the system spawn better rats" * As in, non-capsuleer traffic that you can't see because it's conveniently filtered out of your camera feeds Originally by: Blazde Excellent :walloftext: Digesting this. NRDS administration in particular is a problem I haven't had to deal with personally. What are the problems (beyond the obvious "lol maintaining standings is a PITA")? It's possible that the treaty system may address at least some of them, and the better we understand the issues the better we can set up tools to mitigate them. On moons, static plexes etc - thinking about this, but not 100% sure how to attack it without falling back to "your most valuable resource only needs half a dozen people to run it". 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 ... This is something that we're thinking about and hoping to monitor, but at this stage we're not specifically addressing this in Dominion.

Jack Gilligan THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.09.15 12:03:00 - [170] - Quote While I agree in principle with the intent of the proposed changes, CCP definitely has some questions to answer, and, I think needs to think of the consequences of their possible actions. First off, this intent of allowing "carebear, pvp poor" alliances to exist in sov holding space again. How? Fact of the matter, unless you make the stuff these guys build so impossibly mind numbingly hard and boring to destroy (which takes us back to dreads pounding towers every night, or whatever replaces them) they are ALWAYS going to be at the mercy of those who are skilled for, and experienced in fighting. As well they SHOULD be. The Romans were great builders, they built what was probably the greatest Empire in history, that was so advanced it took us well over a millenium to equal again. What brought it down? It got soft, it went "carebear" so to speak, it quit fighting for itself and started depending on the hungry barbarians that coveted it's wealth and advancement for themselves. It fell as a result. Same thing has happened in EVE with every "rich carebear" alliance and I see no way to change this, nor do I see any reason to WANT to change this! 0.0 space has to be EARNED with blood and broken spaceships. Secondly, numbers. Numbers are ALWAYS going to rule one way or another. The blob cannot be "solved" unless you start introducing arbitrary limits to how many people can get on a grid, system, etc, and all that's going to do is hand victory to whichever side blobs it first. By making things harder for the alliances with the huge numbers to hold space, you are making it that much HARDER for the small and medium sized alliances to do so. I'd like to hear how you plan to deal with that. Any activity that you make harder will naturally be easier for those with numbers to do. Thirdly, capitals... Yes, I, like many have learned that flying the big ships isn't all glory. I lost count of how many times I fell asleep at the keyboard pounding towers in Etherium Reach in the recently concluded ED+IRC vs EVE war. Ok, so what do we do with them now? I have many BILLIONS invested in my capital ships. What do I do, sell all of them except my jump freighter? What am I going to do with them now? Need more details please.

Henri LeChasseur	Posted - 2009.09.15 12:05:00 - [171] - Quote Edited by: Henri LeChasseur on 15/09/2009 12:05:17 This devblog reads like a copypasta of every whiny carebear noob who couldn't be asked to lift a finger to take any space for himself, but felt fine complaining on the forums about it. Nice job pandering to the non-players of eve. The people who play around in high sec and make excuses about not being able to do anything else. The ones who don't contribute to this game in any meaningful way. You know what will happen? They will think this is great. Yeah all these back slaps and high fives going around will last for a while, and then it will come out, and if you've even left a shread of dignity in the system and required the most minimal amount of work, they will slowly start to turn on you and find some part of this system to complain about. The same alliances and structures will remain with their huge areas of land, because they want it, and because they work for it. The only way you will get these idiots into null sec to stay is by making it indiscernible from high sec.
zelalot	Posted - 2009.09.15 12:15:00 - [172] - Quote question - how exactly are we to improve our systems?
Gartel Reiman Civis Romanus Sum Core Factor	Posted - 2009.09.15 12:23:00 - [173] - Quote Originally by: Memphis Baas We're paying rent on the gates but we're not getting anything FROM the gates You're not paying rent on the gates at all. According to the blog you're responding to, the charges are "an upkeep system for the space you hold and develop". While the first blog mentioned gates in the context of upkeep, people seemed to take it that you're paying for the gates themselves when I thought it was clear that you're paying for the upkeep of the system. Hopefully all the requests about being able to control gates (which would be bad for the game in any capacity) will die out, but somehow I doubt it. Originally by: Memphis Baas 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 [leaders] to continue playing Actually there isn't anything here about empire, it's all 0.0. And if people were willing to put time and effort into building up an alliance before - I can't see them giving up at precisely the time they get a lot more tools at their disposal to do this, and a lot more potential rewards from it. The changes in Dominion if anything will be bringing more diplomacy to 0.0, and more ability to succeed and thrive without having to destroy eleventy billion control towers, so that's definitely going to be a plus point for the kind of people you're describing. Quote: 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 A reversal plan? If the dev blogs were to mention such a thing, it would definitely weaken my faith in it. And why would one be needed? The concept is valid. The concept is clearly miles better than the current system. Even a "pre-nerfed" version will be much better. The exact details will need balancing, but the idea of dropping the concept altogether is crazy. Plan B, if you like, is to take note of the parts of the new system that aren't working quite how CCP intended after deployment, and patch them so that they do. Just like it is with every change... Quote: 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. I wouldn't say that's necessary. However hard the developers have been working, it won't be changed by the description of it in a devblog. And it's not like we're stakeholders in the design process at all, above and beyond offering commentary on the released information which may or may not be taken on-board by CCP. Frankly, it's irrelevant how many platitudes we get about how hard the devs are working - what matters is how good the expansion will be when it hits TQ, which is completely unaffected by how hard we think the devs are working now. Originally by: Cassidy Usaro a quick, easy and instabil conquer mechanism will lead to the situation were all gimicks you throw in on the "build empires and improve ressources in your space" side are rendered meaningless. Nobody will invest billions in perks if they are not substantially safeguarded by a fortification. The write-up sounds to me just like stationpingpong2 with the differences that the pingpong is about your own investments instead of game created assets. I didn't take that from the blog at all, quite the opposite. In fact Greyscale even explicitly stated the devs are aware of the problems with pingpong and will be avoiding it. Rather, it sounds like the "descriptive" method of gaining sov means it will be harder to beeline straight for the minimum technical steps to gain it; you'll have to actually exert control over the system, actually push the other guys out. Details pending, of course.
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.15 12:32:00 - [174] - Quote Edited by: The Mittani on 15/09/2009 12:33:15 make sure that the initial implementation of these ideas isn't staggered in development hell. you're trying to alter the incentive structure, great - but if the formalization of renting is left out for months, yet the r64 nerf/sov changes go in first, you're just going to see alliances hunkering down/slimming down and waiting for the rest of the changes to go through. also we'll need to know in advance how much % you intend to nerf r64s by, rather than just finding out on patch day. i don't know how you intend to do this without borking the supply of moon gold; perhaps you'll 'fix' alchemy (which is hard, mind you, because at its core alchemy is a monstrous amount of effort) or you can double/triple the supply of r64 output. Probably a combination of supply increase + alchemy fix, rather than an across-the-board reduction in r64 product use for every t2 item in the game, heh. as an aside, this won't make a major impact on PL, which is being nattered about a lot itt; you can cut R64 income in half and their upkeep are still minimal and their territorial footprint small. other aside: military alliances not 'getting' crop rotation is a false dichotomy and if you base your game design around it, it'll bite you in the ass. this isn't the feudal era. every major 0.0 alliance has logistics and production divisions and specialists who handle those aspects of nullsec, just as they have specialists focused on grand strategy, fleet combat, and war in general. Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter
Bado Sten Minmatar Dead poets society The Laughing Men	Posted - 2009.09.15 12:32:00 - [175] - Quote Originally by: Smyrk As I mentioned in feedback to the previous sovereignty dev blog, I'd be interested to see w-space used as a gate to regions of nullsec that are not connected to current k-space. Wormholes provide a bottleneck that would keep the current nullsec empires from easily taking over such new space, giving it a level playing field and potentially even scoping those nullsec pockets for smaller-scale sovereign states. Oooh, I think I just wet myself there Something like that could be awesome
Caztra Tor	Posted - 2009.09.15 12:33:00 - [176] - Quote Having left 0.0 after 4+ years there, I see the changes as a good thing. I left because it was boring. When I did get into a good fight it was small (20-30) fleet battles that were my second favorite, my fav was the occasional mano et mano. But it grew to where the one on ones were virtually non-existent and the 20-30 ship battles were replaced by lagfests with a titan on top. (think dessert) I am ready for the main entree again when 0.0, for whatever reason, had multiple ways to make a lot of money. Oh, and no purely military organization should be able to exist in 0.0 without a solid military industrial complex to back it up. As it is, I am running choice missions saving enough money to make losing widows childsplay. In the end, I don't care what you do with 0.0 because I am coming regardless of the systems organization or rules. But it would be nice to have something to fight for other than lost causes. I would like to know how the rent is going to be spent? It would be rent for basic station services and gate operation so should it just disappear? Maybe some of the money could be reinvested in low-sec too. Bigger gate guns and more security in the belts. LOL (That was the only joke, really should the isk just disappear?) I have been playing for a long time. September 2004 in fact, yet I can't fly anything over a battleship. Yet, I too wonder what will become of the carriers, dreads, and the (expletive deleted) titans.
Sharkk Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.09.15 12:39:00 - [177] - Quote Great Blog.. forcing 0.0 holding alliances to rent systems for income, great idea... rather than relying on high value moons to provide all the income an alliance will ever need systems of little strategic importance for an alliance can be rented for extra income for the alliance and a nice little home for a random corp. and penalizing alliances for holding huge chunks of empty space cause no can take it off them is also great make them, make strategic choices about what systems they can hold and maintain a profit by doing so alliances will make a living of protecting their renters from raiding parties ...do it successfully and be rich from the taxes of your surfs..fail and watch your income move to better better protected space.. but watch out, that corp renting one of your less used constellations has decied to plant flag and rebel against the nobility brilliant
Patripassion	Posted - 2009.09.15 12:56:00 - [178] - Quote While I don't doubt that you can bust the alliances in 0.0 now, I do doubt that you can fix 0.0 with your head in the clouds approach to new mechanics. So I'm a little worried.
Gallic IronBorne Caldari Paradoxical Anomoly Apocalypse Now.	Posted - 2009.09.15 13:04:00 - [179] - Quote qouted from greyscale Obviously we can't, won't and plain don't want to play favorites or give special treatment/consideration of any kind. I will however say that CVA's apparent success in Providence was a big boost for us early on in this process as it showed that something like what we're aiming for could actually be done, even in the current environment. I do not agree with this statement. CCP has and still does play favorites with large alliances in 0.0..... if you look at eve tv almost every single show have reps from goon swarm plus goons and other very large allaince are talked about in the official news blogs. I have nothing aginst a success full corp/alliances. But at least give some light to the other allainces and corps of a smaller size and activly seek them out and talk with them and expose them to the same sun bathing in the spot light. War is a mythical happening... Where else in humam experience, except in the throes of ardor... do we find ourselves transported to a mythical condition and the gods most real? [img]http://i292.
Harotak THE FINAL STAND The Final Stand.	Posted - 2009.09.15 13:07:00 - [180] - Quote Edited by: Harotak on 15/09/2009 13:07:37 Instead of corps taxing their pilots (which makes no sense, employers dont tax employees), why not make it so that alliances implement system-wide tax for the space they hold Sov, so that the alliance makes isk from everyone that rats in their space, regardless of what corp/alliance they are a part of

	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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.