| 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) |
iP0D
    |
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:10:00 -
[181] - Quote
@ CCP Greyscale
First of all, let me say I am thoroughly impressed with your sense of historic pretext and context, and secondly I am intruiged by seeing a few glimmers of sociological angles shining through between the lines 
Crowd Control Productions hehe.
But, to get to one point in particular with two questions...
While not much is known at this point about the Treaty system that should accompany these changes, I find myself worrying a bit about one particular very human and also historical trend: people teaming up in support of objectives, with methods none other then superior manpower, without any vigor to engage in pvp on a grid through any other means of focusing manpower.
In simple terms: people are sheep who flock and most often ward off the wolves by grouping together as a wall of hot warm bodies among which the wolves can't even grab a single one out of without getting trampled or stampeded.
Titans have been a historical trend of excess, and accumulative trauma, even with the prospect of the cynojammer changes people still believe and insist that they kill pvp. Whereas it is more clear that group behaviour kills pvp, and Titans themselves are a mere factor because of player excess.
As such, question number 1:
With the removal of the area effect doomsday, which has over the years found a focal point in being the only factor which prevents blind blobbing and stampedes just for the sake of stampedes, what new and alternative role for combat (direct or strategic) is envisioned by CCP for Titans?
Granted, it is subscriber insanity which has gone nuts with doomsdays, but as the area effect has arisen to be the only factor (unlike cost, time, etc.) that discourages blind blobbing, I would have expected a different approach at dealing with the excess (for example through elements found in the storylines of limitations of number of such ships in a system, or proximity to moons and such), rather then opening the door to a succession of 2K+ pilot records in one system 
I realise that there may very well be mechanisms or details which we as players do not see that are intended and very well could serve as a similar factor of blind blob discouragement, but I can't see how those would be effective if based on factors of cost or time.
With which we arrive at question number 2:
Is it possible to shed some more light on what the vision is to discourage the traditional "easy way out" of simply combining a few thousand pilots to ground a system to a halt? |
Kayakaue
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:12:00 -
[182] - Quote
if it's possible that the big alliance rent some system is wrong.
If you would like to change the 0.0, you need to change you do you make money. If you change that the big alliance with only fighter will be dead shortly (i hope).
The first. The moon mineral must be dynamic ( you found some R64) on the moon for 3 or 4 week.
Impossibility to rent a system.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:14:00 -
[183] - Quote
 Originally by: Jack Gilligan
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.
"Soft" alliances will we think pop up the way they have traditionally - by claiming empty space (rarely), by diplomacy, and by being hard alliances and then going soft (cf the Deklein curse).
I agree that there's probably no way to place hard limits on numbers. We can however move towards various soft limits ("is a 500 man fleet really worth the effort in this situation?"). It's also the case here that our specific implementation here WRT large alliances is strictly a scaling cost system, which fits the same role as the corruption mechanics in Civ2 (albeit hopefully easier to understand).
Capital ships will still have uses, they'll just be less omnipresent than they are now. I'd hang onto them if I were you.
|
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:15:00 -
[184] - Quote
Originally by: The Mittani
also we'll need to know in advance how much % you intend to nerf r64s by, rather than just finding out on patch day.
That seems counterproductive, potentially, since the goal does appear to be to stimulate vacuums in space which provide room for newer or just different organisations. Giving the old money groups the perfect insight into how much they need to adapt beforehand so they can do the math on retaining control versus cost over breaking points does not seem to be in line with shaking things up for the purposes of getting new blood and money sucked into vacuums.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:17:00 -
[185] - Quote
Originally by: Kayakaue
The first. The moon mineral must be dynamic ( you found some R64) on the moon for 3 or 4 week.
Yea, that's sounds like a great idea! Lets replace on horrible grind with another, perhaps even more boring one. Every week, go and scan 500 moons, how fun.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Draco Argen
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:17:00 -
[186] - Quote
Ok, initially was upset at lack of detail. But after reading both complimentary and critical replies I really like this post. As long as we are genuinely involved in this apparently early stage of thinking.
It does show an understanding of the issues in 0.0. It does show insight into what is working well in the fluid nature of Eve. It also shows a good premise of not just replacing the foundations with equally rigid ones but putting in something ultimately flexible, so it can be pulled into what ever shape is needed. Even if they screw it up, they can fix it quicker than if they went back to POS warfare.
My tuppence.
T2
Be dam careful in reducing the value of moon minerals. I can only guess you are looking at increasing the availability of them, as has been suggested previously here. I find this likely since your describing more human involvement required, so perhaps a turret based moon miner with much lower yield. If so, could work.
This said, T2's expense is far too high. It causes a rift between new and older players, in terms of being able to replace 80-90% of their investment. So anything that can bring it down will ultimately be a good thing, even if it causes temporary chaos for the rich moon miners, empire industrialists who buy and make T2, and players who never venture into 0.0 but use T2. Players will adapt, we always have.
Timezones
I'm very glad to see timezone play in your thinking. I believe this was addressed by the variable amount of stront in the existing POSes, but still causes Timezone havoc. I have NO idea how you can provide a suitable resolution to this in the new Non POS system. I think I should voice what works and doesn't for me/us in the existing system to help CCP see what we like and don't. I do like the fact that if our POS goes down I usually have a day or two to extract everything in a panic before the reds come back and we either loose the POS or save it. So the longer timeframe between shifts on stuff that stores equipment, resources or salvageable materials is good. I don't like how POS warfare usually dictates you come back at 16:23 (eg) to play your game. With smaller alliances you have trouble getting every timezone covered by PVPers.
0.0 system Tools
If we are looking at increasing the number of civilian miners,haulers,etc in a given 0.0 system can we have some tools to help manage these guys. e.g. Scouting is commonly done by alts in bottlenecks to constellations or through ways. Could we have a very simple tool to shout intel (in a chat channel?), e.g. "location: Ship, low standings entered gate." Possibly not even the ship type. Something very easy to blow away, allowing reds to mask what, but not where or when there coming. Balance this however you like. It should provide less intel than an attentive pilot. But I find restricting intel like this to those Rich enough to have two accounts and a PC capable of running them pretty unfair. Providing an auto mechanism for displaying simple intel doesn't detract from raiders success. We yet again lost a pilot who didn't follow the intel channel last night. Alternatively its a boring job for some pleb to sit there doing nothing but watch. There must be a host of possible tools we could get for better system management. I encourage people to voice ideas and let CCP choose.
Within this, dear god can we have better item management. Using station containers is barely acceptable in Outposts. But not being able to organise many items into different groups is a nightmare. I'm 100% positive if you implemented some way of organising your items within a given container, with no bonuses to m3, no other benefit other than grouping, you would massively reduce the number of items in your database. I loose so much crap from it being bundled into one cargo hold, hangar or heaven forbid POS hangar. I cant segregate my salvage from someone else's when i haul, unless i use GSCs, which dont always match the size I need
|
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:21:00 -
[187] - Quote
Originally by: Lusulpher
Originally by: teji
Anywho, can I get a CSM rep in this thread to vaguely give their impressions of the changes CCP has on paper?
(snip)
Come on CSM, I could swear the info was supposed to go both ways.
The specific details are not exactly known at this stage, and should we know them, we wouldn't be at liberty to disclose them.
However I'll tell you this. CCP approached CSM 2 and had a very long brainstorming session on the subject of 0.0 revamp.
It became clear directly that CCP had (and still has) a good grasp on the current situation in 0.0, both in terms of warfare, isk generation, population, etc.
They threw some of the ideas they had at the time with us and requested feedback on them. Upkeep, improveable systems, military vs carebear alliance presence in 0.0, among other things (the remaining ones not having been devblogged yet, I can't mention them). But the objectives they pursued are the ones described in this devblog and, so far, most if not everything in the features the intend to implement should deliver the promises mentionned.
As far as practical impact on the existing alliances in 0.0, there will be a shrinking of the land controlled. Some overly military alliances will have to rethink themselves (relying on moon income will no longer be sufficient). Just like dreads in siege cap coast before jumping out when necessary, these alliances may be able to retain some momentum due to the sheer size of the wealth amassed over time, but after a bit they'll either have to jump or die.
From the information we were given, alliances will be given time to adapt (so no "here are the details, everything changes in two weeks"). Should that not have been in CCP's plans, and we have no reason to think that, the CSM made it very clear to CCP that we will NEED time to adapt. So stay hopeful :-)
All CSM discussions are made public, except the ones CCP wants covered by NDA. It is unfortunately mandatory that some discussion remain out of the public eye lest everyone gets either needlessly disapointed over features that are not going to happen or needlessly enthusiastic (and then disapointed) when the features happen not to match things that were mentionned as possibilities.
You'll have time to adapt...
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:28:00 -
[188] - Quote
Originally by: The Mittani
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.
On renting, the flipside of that is that, even if the treaties have to wait a few months, I suspect the alliances who are willing to administer things "the old way" in the interim will gain something of a first-mover advantage in terms of available renters. I also have a suspicion that many alliances will want a month's grace period to re-organize before they start seriously bringing in new blood. We're planning for the long-term here - if it takes six months or a year for things to fully settle into place, well, that's not a long time in EVE terms.
Moon changes should be made available prior to release. That's the plan, anyway.
On the crop rotation thing, that's a nice-sounding but badly-worded metaphor - the problem for said alliances isn't really mastering the principles of agriculture, it's learning to deal with the labor force you need for pre-industrial agriculture. I'm not aware of any alliance having successfully merged continued military excellence with a large PvE-minded workforce.
Originally by: iP0D
As such, question number 1:
With the removal of the area effect doomsday, which has over the years found a focal point in being the only factor which prevents blind blobbing and stampedes just for the sake of stampedes, what new and alternative role for combat (direct or strategic) is envisioned by CCP for Titans?
With which we arrive at question number 2:
Is it possible to shed some more light on what the vision is to discourage the traditional "easy way out" of simply combining a few thousand pilots to ground a system to a halt?
1) I don't think the doomsday has ever served to reduce fleet sizes. Either people bring the full blob or they bring nothing - I don't know of anyone saying "let's only take half the fleet in case we get doomsdayed". As to specific changes, this will be explained shortly.
2) I think the "easiness" of getting a couple of thousand fleets to work in anything like a co-ordinated manner is often overstated That said, the general strategy for making fights more manageably sized is to move towards a situation where alliances don't have so many pilots on call because they don't have as many bored allies. This is all approached via "soft" measures to try and create situations where that huge blue list isn't needed, rather than hard restrictions which artificially limit the options available to players.
|
|
Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:37:00 -
[189] - Quote
great hype blog and letting us see into the minds that the devs are brainstorming about. Combined with earlier statments with this being foundational and buildable off of makes me even further exicited as furture changes can be easily implimented instead of rewriting thus 'future proofing' it.
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 1SEP09
|
Ne0tr0n
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:40:00 -
[190] - Quote
Edited by: Ne0tr0n on 15/09/2009 13:41:51
nice blog
but my question is
if alliance a resides next to allaince b and both are able to upgrade their space with no significant differences
why should i say "o hai i take your space now"???
roaming is fine... but not only roaming
sov wars (except blob wars and pos bashing) are still the best things in eve when you have an opponent with some rich stuff in their space you want to claim.
how is that going to work in dominion?
why should we consider taking someones space, or just remove someone from their space when we allready have some cool rich space?
what will be the reward?
|
|
yunger
Big Guns Inc.
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:44:00 -
[191] - Quote
Right now my worries are falling down to pretty few points as the dev communication falls in but still worried about 3 points.
1, logistics, I live in the ass of space far from empire, to get stuff I need to jump a lot of cyno arrays to empire. A few of them being far from our space deep in allied space, also with alternative routes so we donFt get our arrays camped or get logistic problems if one falls.
Will this expansion be a nerf for all alliances that live in deep space forcing all our logistic pilots to get a bunch of cyno alts? (5 cyno points to empire and back with a carrier taking the shortest way)
2, And if we will be able to hold only a limited amount of space will we be able to upgrade before we are forced to withdraw? Our alliance peaks at close to 400 members online when there is no pvp going on that might be 100+ people out ratting, (not many regions can support that). If system is bellow -0,4 or has less then 7 belts doing level 4 missions earns you more cash. So will we be able to upgrade some space fairly quickish or will we be forced move to empire with half our chars and while upgrading systems with tlowers trusec 0,05 pointsv upgrades that takes 3 months each level, for 2 years first.
3, lack of cap fights :( never did like roaming around with small ships IFm all in for the epic cap slugfests.
|
Draco Argen
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:47:00 -
[192] - Quote
Quick one.
@Grescale you mentioned in one of your replies "what might help NRDS style play" in 0.0 (unless i read wrong)
One simple answer, The ability for a player to share/borrow standings outside any existing Corps, Aliances. Or at very least "switch to" the standings of another Aliance. In other words replace CVA's home brew KOS checker with a standing system you can look at, at a glance, in game. It should abandon your normal standings, In empire Jim may be your enemy, but in X Aliances space you must play nice. I fear "treaties" will just be big boy politics and cut out the natural qubiling that goes on within social groups or entities.
This would allow very flexible politics. Not just NRDS, but more complex NBSI, etc. Not necessarily bound to alliances themselves.
And can we ask that we clean up this "A whole Alliance cant have standing to a corp, or player" thing, yes we can. Just Eve wont let us set it lol.
Thanks for your time.
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:52:00 -
[193] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
1) I don't think the doomsday has ever served to reduce fleet sizes. Either people bring the full blob or they bring nothing - I don't know of anyone saying "let's only take half the fleet in case we get doomsdayed". As to specific changes, this will be explained shortly.
I perhaps should have clarified. Doomsday as area effect has, and this increasingly, result not in reductions of fleet sizes, but in splitting up the humongous fleets into multiple semi independant fleets. The usual result being phased entries into systems, or diversions, fleets covering multiple objectives within the same relative timeframe, etc.
Also, it is quite common in the most vile situations of player insanity (say, 12 titans under a jammer) to make the pets jump in first, or a support wave of dictors, or a bs bait wing, etc. Same with warping to a grid held by or secured by titans.
Recently in such a situation a Titan nearly died, with fleets dodging doomsdays from supporting Titans, and the Titan that did get nailed only survived because people hadn't read the blog on desync adaptations (and thus not succeeding in preventing the ship from getting to safety through bumping)
What the doomsday as an area effect does, or I should say what the doomsday has over the past year grown into is a mechanisms which forces people to think, as opposed to just jumping or portalling in with 2k people. Granted, the last year we have also seen how doomsdays have become ineffective, even under cynojammed conditions, but this is in great part because people have to think before jumping or warping.
Looking forward to more information, soon! 
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
2) I think the "easiness" of getting a couple of thousand fleets to work in anything like a co-ordinated manner is often overstated That said, the general strategy for making fights more manageably sized is to move towards a situation where alliances don't have so many pilots on call because they don't have as many bored allies. This is all approached via "soft" measures to try and create situations where that huge blue list isn't needed, rather than hard restrictions which artificially limit the options available to players.
Hehe. True indeed, but coordination is not the factor unfortunately, the term "meatshield" has gotten several new meanings
I understand the notion of "soft" measures, like providing a framework of guidance to more optimum choices. But the biggest excess by players over the years has come from a combination of mentality and aversion to taking risks.
I get the difficulties with the perception of hard artificial limits imposed on players, especially because of the focus on players driving events and thus EVE. But, there are breaking points where the traditional paradigms of Risk and Reward no longer serve as a method of balance or incentive. These past few years of 0.0 warfare have made this clear, I do find myself wondering if it is really such a bad idea of building in (to a degree) a third pillar of Pain, since neither cost (finance) nor time (manhours) appear to fill their roles within "Risk vs Reward" when it comes to how crazy we players get with pixels.
Never underestimate that insanity. Remember that cost of isk is never a problem, people think it exists to spend anyway, only a cost of pain seems to have an impact.
|
zelalot
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:56:00 -
[194] - Quote
any sneak preview on how we are to upgrade the space we occupy?
|
zacuis
Great Big Research
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:57:00 -
[195] - Quote
TOTAL AWSOME
i loved this blog u are basically about to do everything ive been saying needs to be done to 0.0 for the last 2 years( since i left ).
massive props really cant wait.
|
Jarne
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:57:00 -
[196] - Quote
Originally by: Harotak
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
THIS is a very nice idea! Also would be fairly easy to implement I think.
-
Success=Achievements/Expectations
 |
Sigras
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:59:00 -
[197] - Quote
Edited by: Sigras on 15/09/2009 14:00:57
I have to say that the best way to fix the dysprosium problem is to either
1. change the alchemy reactions from r16-r64 to r8-r64
OR
2. add a reaction to change r8 materials into r16 materials
I have to say, i dont know why in the first place CCP chose to use r16 moons which, even before alchemy, were used in more reactions than any other material, and are now, partially due to alchemy, worth more than some *cough* technetium *cough* r32 moon mats.
I think they had a good idea with invention, its a pressure release valve, when the T2 BPO's cant create enough to meet demand, invention steps in and basically soft caps the price.
The reason this works for invention and not for moon mats is that you can make a virtually unlimited number of copy/invention slots by putting up new towers, but there is a static number of moons with the correct materials, and those materials were already valuable because they are in three different reactions besides alchemy anyway.
Basically if the price of T2 ships goes up because demand is greater than the BPOs for that ship can supply more and more people will invent it because it will become more and more profitable, but if the cost of r64 moon mats goes up and all of the r16 moons are already taken, no new supply can be created.
|
Papa Digger
OEG
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:03:00 -
[198] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Quote:
A reduction in the value of moon minerals
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.
If details not finalized, can you at least say direction? Is it just balancing two other r64 moon mat. in high-end reactions or "work hard to get profit" (large alchemy boost maybe with infrastructure upgrade)?
And two question about 0.0 warfare.
Any chance to remove local in 0.0 so ratting bots don't logoff and pvpers can kill them somehow?
Don't you think that removing claim from moon POSes to one "claim structure" will not remove same problems when 1000+ pilots come to system to fight for it and it will be another big lagfest? (details for new sov changing will be great!) :)
tia.
----
ex-CEO. |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:11:00 -
[199] - Quote
I'm compiling a list of moon-mining ideas over in this thread for easy viewing. I encourage people to talk about it there, not here, so this thread can remain on topic (motivation, not implementation).
---
34.4:1 mineral compression
ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |
De Guantanamo
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:14:00 -
[200] - Quote
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
I'm compiling a list of moon-mining ideas over in this thread for easy viewing. I encourage people to talk about it there, not here, so this thread can remain on topic (motivation, not implementation).
don't cross post
|
|
Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:22:00 -
[201] - Quote
Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 15/09/2009 14:23:31
Originally by: Draco Argen
Quick one.
@Grescale you mentioned in one of your replies "what might help NRDS style play" in 0.0 (unless i read wrong)
One simple answer, The ability for a player to share/borrow standings outside any existing Corps, Aliances. Or at very least "switch to" the standings of another Aliance. In other words replace CVA's home brew KOS checker with a standing system you can look at, at a glance, in game. It should abandon your normal standings, In empire Jim may be your enemy, but in X Aliances space you must play nice. I fear "treaties" will just be big boy politics and cut out the natural qubiling that goes on within social groups or entities.
This would allow very flexible politics. Not just NRDS, but more complex NBSI, etc. Not necessarily bound to alliances themselves.
And can we ask that we clean up this "A whole Alliance cant have standing to a corp, or player" thing, yes we can. Just Eve wont let us set it lol.
Thanks for your time.
So, an ability to look up an entity's (faction/alliance/corporation/pilot) self set standings and with a quick right click select to copy those standings to yourself or your corporation/alliance depending on your privileges. A nice idea.
----------------
Mr. Science & Trade Institute
 |
Wrayeth
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:23:00 -
[202] - Quote
OMG...I may finally have a reason to get back into the 0.0 game if this pans out the way the blog describes. The expansion is starting to sound like it's going to be made of win and awesome.
-Wrayeth
n00b Extraordinaire
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Tony Unrau
Caldari
Knights with Honor
Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:29:00 -
[203] - Quote
Most game's reach a point where the Dev's decide it is time for a change after years and years of the same. At this point most games pretty well lose half their player base for the changes they make.
I for one have to say, I don't think this will be the case with EvE! 
The proposed ideas sound AWESOME! I have always thought that sovereignty was too complicated and POS bashing to be mind numbing.
I alway's thought aswell "wouldnt it be cool if all kinds of smaller alliances/corps could come out into nullsec and take and hold their own space?" This should be the case with these new changes!
Looking forward to it,
Tony. 
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels. Zymurgist |
Dave Meltdown
Capital Construction Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:36:00 -
[204] - Quote
so greyscale we have to wait 1.5 years for this becasue u only decided recently to redecorate your house?
|
Relyen
Foundation
Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:38:00 -
[205] - Quote
Edited by: Relyen on 15/09/2009 14:42:50
It will be interesting to see how the system upgrades will really affect it's sustainable population density.
Right now, a really good system can really only support 3-10 people maybe. A few ratters, several miners (and that can run out in a day or so). Maybe a some exploration. But then that is it, you are maxed out for the most part. Sure you might be able to squeeze another ratter or two into a tight system, but then people just want to start looking else where for things to do (when they aren't pvp'ing).
The honest truth is that solar systems feel extremely small. You would think if we compared it to some sort of real life solar system, it should be capable of supporting billions of people. Then they would feel BIG. Obviously this is a bit of a stretch for EVE. But the blog stated itself that the vast majority of EVE players are in empire.
But the idea is doable in EVE, when systems can really actively sustain a few hundred people, you'll see a different 0.0. Although even star systems that can actively handle 50+ people would be great.
And the pvp will be oh so delicious :P
So, hopefully the upgrades that can be done to systems will have a real effect on how many people the system can really support.
________________________________
I am own. |
Hrodgar Ortal
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:38:00 -
[206] - Quote
Originally by: Jack Gilligan
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!
Your idea of the rise and fall of the Roman empire is to say the least simplified and mostly incorrect.
The basis of all warfare is money. You need three things to wage war, Money, Money and more Money.
Which should have the money for war? The "barbarian horde" (or military alliance) or the industrialists?
Which have over time managed to keep together?
The Mongols managed to conquer the largest stretch of land and empire the world has seen including places such as India and China (at the time probably having about more than 50% of the worlds wealth). When Ghengis Khan died it all fell apart. There is very little that remains of that empire, China is still China and didn't get affected to any significant degree.
But back to Rome, what made Rome great wasn't the Legions. It was the ability to adapt and assimilate the populations around it using culture and wealth. The Barbarians at the gate sometimes managed to break through but the fall of Rome probably had more to do with the changes in the economy, lack or space to expand (legions were traditionally payed in farmland) and logistics. Germania wasn't as easy to navigate and move supplies in as Mare Nostrum.
So the main reason Rome at all managed to become a empire is economics rather than military. Money has always in the end beat the sword for building and defending empires.
|
jst tstng
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:40:00 -
[207] - Quote
Good read.
Just one question
Quote:
the dust has settled
Shouldn't this be "the dust have settled"?
|
Ana Vyr
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:40:00 -
[208] - Quote
Good blog.
I seems to me that these changes may increase the value of carebears to the folks who like blowing stuff up, opening up the 0.0 game for industrialists and explorers a bit more. In order for the PvP folks to increase the value of their space, it sounds like they'll need some indy guys working the systems, and thus may need to protect them while they do so, potentially increasing the PvP content for themselves in the process.
Can it possibly be a win/win for everyone?
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 14:42:00 -
[209] - Quote
There are two assertions being made about the state of nullsec today. The first one is actually brought up in the last paragraph (postscript) where you claim the system doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I disagree with that, because the underlying theory of why we do this or that, and how it affects players is sound.
The implementation is the real issue, and CCP has never been able to stat-balance systems where a big part of said balance depends on player actions and perceptions. For example: The current sov system is fair and balanced in the sense that everyone has an equal opportunity to fight for sov. But when you factor in things like fun and reason, its not. The only ones who fight over sov now are the ones who want to; no one does it because they need to in order to make money / survive. In any case, I don't have a whole lot of faith that a new system - just as equally reliant on factoring player activities and perceptions - is going to be any more balanced. My initial hunch is that its going to be more fun, but not as fair or sensible.
Beef number two..
Is the assertion that empire shouldn't be messed with, in order to avoid the risk where empire gameplay is ruined. I find that offensive and ironic, as its through the addition of this empire gameplay which rendered nullsec so flaccid to begin with. 0.0 is essentially crap because nobody needs to put up with the difficulty, risk or drama to get ahead. For all but a very small percentage of powergamers (grindmonkeys who can't pace themselves), 0.0 is a place to go when you're bored and want those big wars. It's not a place to go because you need to make money faster. I've not seen someone wholly disinterested and apathetic towards big war feel a pressing need to continue fighting for survival in a very long time.
There is less money in empire, but its safe and guaranteed. These two things have great meaning when you're new and without allies, experience, and a pool of wealth. I've recruited newbies who broke a billion isk in their first month, while those who barely played and worked at anything had enough to get by and pvp. You may be able to make 0.0 more compelling in combat and resource harvesting, but that doesn't change the economic truth. People think rationally, and at the margins.
"What do I get for all that extra risk and hassle?" - If the person doesn't place value on the politics, drama and combat, and is only looking for monetary reward for the purpose of character advancement, the answer is always "not much". Looking at the latest QEN proves this. The difference in wealth between the three zones in EVE is maybe 20-30% tops, while the difference in risk and effort is exponential. And even if you were to boost rewards and incomes of 0.0 by a factor of 5, it would be trading one problem (demographic) for another (economic).
90% of people living in empire on a long term basis can accumulate hundreds of millions simply because its guaranteed money that is rarely threatened or challenged. Hundreds of millions is not a lot, but its enough to afford most ships and mods in EVE. If the cutoff were a bit lower - lets say the average person in empire had 50-100mil in their wallet, there is a significant portion of content and newness waiting for them on the other side of that dark crossing.
Temptation.
Incentive.
And most of all, a basic need to fulfill which anybody can understand, even if its only subconsciously.
You're wrecking down the masion to build a castle, while forgetting its still on an island sorrounded by sharks. People who don't have helicopters and yachts aren't going to swim to it no matter how pretty your ball room is. Instead of removing the sharks, or pimping the mansion, how about you take the quality of life on the mainland down a notch or two?
EVE may have hyper-capitalistic systems, but its progression design is as communist as it gets.
|
Professor Dumbledore
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:02:00 -
[210] - Quote
So Greyscale you are expecting us to take some stupid patch in 3 months times with little to no detail on anything going on it any and think its just ****ing fine? You are delusional man, you guys couldn't even get a ****ty little patch correct last week what makes you think in 3 months you will get a huge sov change without terrible consequences. How about work on it for 6 months and get back to us on 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 |