Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
854
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 07:55:00 -
[211] - Quote
^ So we need each other?
You do know, the goons denounce and try to burn freeports right? As well as other groups probably would as well.
Perhaps, the idea of improving things is a bit wishy washy with how many players support burning stations and totally **** ******* other people in null. I'm not shitposting. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1035
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 13:53:00 -
[212] - Quote
If you want to nerf supercaps, do it by buffing Dictors and Hictors (or their bubbles, at least). The problem with letting supercaps tackle supercaps is that it further marginalises sub-cap involvement in supercap-level combat and turns it into a 2010-era 'check who has the most, side with less stands down' blueballfest since the only way to extract your tackled supercaps is the one dimensional DPS vs EHP numbers-game of killing the hostile tackling supercaps.
(Not that this thread is really a supercap nerf thread, nor that we needed another one, but here we are) Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5190
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 14:06:00 -
[213] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ So we need each other?
You do know, the goons denounce and try to burn freeports right? As well as other groups probably would as well.
Perhaps, the idea of improving things is a bit wishy washy with how many players support burning stations and totally **** ******* other people in null.
I support "burning stations". But I even more support stations worth building in the first place. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1038
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 15:32:00 -
[214] - Quote
Whilst I'm late to the party (another week til I get broadband installed in my new place :( ) this is exactly the sort of thing that we need to see more of from the CSM. Whilst a lot of the content seems to be common sense, common sense is a currency that has sometimes seemed to be in short supply in CCP, and sometimes even stating the obvious helps to keep the right people on the right track by reminding them what the obvious is. I'd be interested in seeing other 'critical issues' bought up using the same template as was used here by anyone who thinks they can make a worthwhile case for them (and to be honest, maybe the specific 0.0 / industry / POS discussions could be split awway into seperate discussions)
Perhaps the CSM or a CCPer could drop in here and update us on whether there has been a favourable response to this? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
LoRDa RaMOs
The Dark Space Initiative
22
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 15:40:00 -
[215] - Quote
Posting to support these suggestions from our costumer elected sounding board with stakeholder status
Only one comment: Although it would be somewhat against our best interests of seeing a shiny new EVE, it doesn't really take big features to have my satisfaction. I, for one, would like to see more work on existing features (eg. UI, feature corification) and somewhat forgotten professions (e.g. hacking, analysing) and fixing/swatting away useless stuff (e.g. Zainou 'Snapshot' Defender Missiles DM-806). |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
2026
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 16:35:00 -
[216] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Perhaps the CSM or a CCPer could drop in here and update us on whether there has been a favourable response within the company to this?
Believe me, we are very much looking forward to talking about everything that led to this document, how it was received and the resultant changes that may or may not have taken place because of it. The past few weeks have been extremely active between the CSM and CCP and I suspect that will continue up until the December summit.
The dates for the summit are 12-14 December, BTW.
Due to CCP's heavy planning right now, it's not our place to talk just yet about what they have in the pipe for 2013. I suspect we will get an even clearer picture at the summit. We are going to work very hard to get the summit minutes out, as well as release any and all information we can, ASAP. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
927
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 22:28:00 -
[217] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:This is a video game, folks. It's about having fun, not doing more work. There are two ways to make less supercaps exist - make them take longer to build (boring) or make them die faster (ridiculously fun). FYI production can be fun, mining can be fun. If it's not appealing to you personally - doesnt mean it's not for me as well. And this point stands regardless of supercapitals.
Do you, personally, mine?
If so, do you personally sit there monitoring your ship the entire time? Are you using a hulk to maximize your yield, or a mackinaw to make it easier?
If the answers to those questions are "No" and "mackinaw" then no, you do not find mining fun.
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Is it just me, or is it kinda hilarious that the CSM reps who are weighing in most heavily on nullsec issues are not particularly knowledgeable about nullsec? Hans. Issler. And to a lesser extent, Aleks.
You get your panties in a twist over the mere idea that Hans takes his marching orders regarding the game from Susan Black. Who's to say he's not taking marching orders - or, to be less insanely paranoid and hyperbolic, simply getting input - from players who are "in the know" about nullsec? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 00:59:00 -
[218] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Snow Axe wrote:
I'm sorry to keep harping on it, but your own presentation of the issue in this document suggests that you don't actually understand why mineral compression even exists, let alone what the positives/negatives of it are. That's something far too large to chalk up to "getting lost in the weeds".
I'm sorry too ;p Frankly, the way you keep on it suggests to me YOU dont know why mineral compression exists. It exists because way way way way back at the dawn of EVE (before cap ships, let along outposts and supers) CCP made Magic Modules that refine for a larger volume of minerals than the item itself. Today, players take advantage of this by buying these modules in empire and jumping them out to 0.0 where they are refined and reused for things that can't be purchased from empire (supercaps, for instance) as well as to fill in gaps in producing common daily needs (ammo) because there is no incentive to mine low end minerals in 0.0. This gap exists because CCP has neglected 0.0 broadly and its industrial self sufficiency in particular. You seem to be under the impression Magic Modules were intentionally put in by CCP to support 0.0 industry. Rather it was just a lack of foresight that players have been taking advantage of to compensate for the lack of 0.0 industrial capacity and viable 0.0 low end mining. If 0.0 had viable, high-volume sources of low end minerals that players would WANT to mine (which is exactly what the example which references mineral compression includes as its headline feature) there's really no reason for Magic Modules to continue to exist. As significant a portion of the player base would like compression removed for one reason or another as want it to stay; if the reason why 0.0 players "need" it were to finally get addressed, both groups could have their concerns laid to rest. This supports the approach/theme reinforced throughout the entire document: finally commit to addressing long standing sucking chest-wound level problems with EVE's core mechanics, and do so in a way that appeals to mutliple sections of the playerbase (both in activity area and demographic).It's unfortunate that message was lost in your attachment to a small part of one of three examples included to illustrate what that approach could look like in an actual EVE Online expansion. I am, however, thankful for your feedback and the feedback of the rest of the players on both the approach advocated and on the merits of specific recommendations. I would like to reinforce the points made by corestwo and Seleene that if a serious response from CCP is desired, keeping the discussion constructive and somewhat focused on forest vs the trees is important.
FINALLY! This has issue of mineral compression and the lack of bulk low end materials have made local mining of minerals for T1 ships impossible! This is a major barrier to entry for small alliances with a young industry back bone from entering into the nulsec life If some thing like this goes through PVPers will see more juicy targets to shoot at as the role of mineral supply is moved from the 1 man with a jump freighter and cyno alts to individual miners and multi box mining lovers.
I agree with this direction. --now to add my dream. I have always loved the idea of null sec being a place where minerals and Ore is Plenty, but since the riches are plenty in Null sec, refining is not common nor necessary. (deeper null sec rating has a negative effect on processing)(positive amount on ores amounts)
If any mineral compression would be from Null sec to High sec. Though more likely in the form of Ore Compression. As bulk ore is compress and jumped to High sec for better refining rates to sell the goods. Since the Refining of components would suck in Null sec, the export of completed ships would be coming out of empire vs random components.
Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1457
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 01:12:00 -
[219] - Quote
corestwo wrote:e: To put that in a somewhat more general sense, the ability and willingness of a CSM member to listen to the community is, to me, far more important than their individual knowledge of an aspect about the game (even if that's what gets them elected). You don't think that The Mittani, who's effectiveness on the CSM cannot be questioned, personally knew everything about every topic the CSM addressed, do you? I do not think he knew about every area of the game.
But he would flat out say "I don't know about this, nor do I care about it." He didn't try to be johnny-on-the-spot in areas of the game he didn't know much about, or had little stake in.
Amarr Militia |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
929
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 02:58:00 -
[220] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:corestwo wrote:e: To put that in a somewhat more general sense, the ability and willingness of a CSM member to listen to the community is, to me, far more important than their individual knowledge of an aspect about the game (even if that's what gets them elected). You don't think that The Mittani, who's effectiveness on the CSM cannot be questioned, personally knew everything about every topic the CSM addressed, do you? I do not think he knew about every area of the game. But he would flat out say "I don't know about this, nor do I care about it." He didn't try to be johnny-on-the-spot in areas of the game he didn't know much about, or had little stake in. You and I seem to know very different versions of Hans then. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1457
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 03:07:00 -
[221] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:corestwo wrote:e: To put that in a somewhat more general sense, the ability and willingness of a CSM member to listen to the community is, to me, far more important than their individual knowledge of an aspect about the game (even if that's what gets them elected). You don't think that The Mittani, who's effectiveness on the CSM cannot be questioned, personally knew everything about every topic the CSM addressed, do you? I do not think he knew about every area of the game. But he would flat out say "I don't know about this, nor do I care about it." He didn't try to be johnny-on-the-spot in areas of the game he didn't know much about, or had little stake in. You and I seem to know very different versions of Hans then. I was referring to your question on The Mittani ... the last sentence of the paragraph I quoted.
Amarr Militia |
Kropotkin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 03:56:00 -
[222] - Quote
Lord Maldoror's comments on recent User Interface design changes, starting around time 1:09:10 of Declarations of War Episode 38, raise an important point, to wit:
If it is true that player-created videos like the Rooks-and-Kings productions are important for attracting new players, then it is important that the health-of-enemy-ships, health-of-friendly-ships and health-of-own-ship displays be easy for not-yet-players to understand, without explanation, no matter how easy it would be for players-already to learn to understand those displays.
We need not-yet-players to see our videos and understand them well enough to decide, "Yeah! That's neat! I wanna try that!" |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 05:22:00 -
[223] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Do you, personally, mine? If so, do you personally sit there monitoring your ship the entire time? Are you using a hulk to maximize your yield, or a mackinaw to make it easier? Didn't want to answer, as we're going to personalities. Still, I do mine, I mine rocks - thus cant be afk, I use Mack and T1 strips, and I enjoy it. But you missed the crucial point in your interrogation: I mine in a fleet, cause if you dont - you're doing it wrong.
Yet the reason of my post is to highlight the issue with fleet mining. We dont have a tool to estimate participation of each member. While some folks mine purely for fun and donate the mined ore for corp needs, others (including new members, first of all!) make it for ISK. It would be really nice to give them a fair share of total mined ore. Could you, CSM comrades, bring it to devs attention? I suppose this could be important for social adaptation of new members.
As an idea of technical implementation, it could be logs of items that people put (and take) to/from Orca fleet hangar. These logs should be accessible via API. Then I hope we could forge an application, that calculates cubic meters mined by a specific player, and thus his share. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
930
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 21:38:00 -
[224] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:corestwo wrote:Do you, personally, mine? If so, do you personally sit there monitoring your ship the entire time? Are you using a hulk to maximize your yield, or a mackinaw to make it easier? Didn't want to answer, as we're going to personalities. Still, I do mine, I mine rocks - thus cant be afk, I use Mack and T1 strips, and I enjoy it. But you missed the crucial point in your interrogation: I mine in a fleet, cause if you dont - you're doing it wrong. Yet the reason of my post is to highlight the issue with fleet mining. We dont have a tool to estimate participation of each member. While some folks mine purely for fun and donate the mined ore for corp needs, others (including new members, first of all!) make it for ISK. It would be really nice to give them a fair share of total mined ore. Could you, CSM comrades, bring it to devs attention? I suppose this could be important for social adaptation of new members. As an idea of technical implementation, it could be logs of items that people put (and take) to/from Orca fleet hangar. These logs should be accessible via API. Then I hope we could forge an application, that calculates cubic meters mined by a specific player, and thus his share.
You're weird. And I mean that in the best way possible, as rarely do people say that they "enjoy" mining. But from the sound of it, maybe you're not so weird. To me it sounds like what you actually enjoy is an excuse to hang out with your buddies in corp shooting the ****, while (like most miners) being as hands-off as possible about the actual mining.
In your specific case, maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to be what may be the biggest problem with mining, and the point I was attempting to make - it is not, on its own, particularly fun or engaging, thus people opt to do it in a way that lets them be as AFK as possible so they can do other things. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 08:17:00 -
[225] - Quote
Structure Grind Can I get a further explanation of GÇ£The structure GrindGÇ¥?
I personally found the way the current grind is made, A blob of Dreads can kill anything in under 5 min jump to the next object and blow the next item in a matter of minutes. Then on the other hand for the small alliance to go after a small weak POS it takes 30 mins with 4 dreads.
Rewarding Blobbing with short easy grinds and punishing small group Structure shoots with increasingly long boring grinds.
I am afraid that GÇ£simply removing the grindGÇ¥ will turn eve into those flavor of the month mmo where content is just spoon fed, or may end up with a flip flop of Sovereignty Like in the old days
I am wondering if hate :towards a grindGÇ¥ is a more of a case an extreme number of people required to grind. From my experience in as a Null sec miner and structure repairer. A hand full of people working on a grind is tolerable, but when you get a group over 10 players (20+ accounts) an activity over 30 mins with out Major Dynamic action, the experience turns sour.
Would switching the structure shoots to requiring different play styles to be used in combo to provide an easier end result, where simple blobbing 1 activity results little reward beyond the first few ships. And that there is a decreasing returns on effect when more people are piled on attacking one structure vs splitting the group and attacking several structures simultaneously.
Brainstorming.....
Phase 1 dropping an exposed DCU much like current, except Defender of the systems. disrupted/destroy the DCU with ongoing damage over a period of time. This time can be shorten by several factors, Damage, Damage type, Special Module application on the DCU. A dreadknot or two. But having more than 20 people working on Destroying the DCU will have little effect on speed up the process. Phase 2 DCU Drop Successful Phase 2 Much like current timer before the Ihub comes out susceptible to attack. (The Aggressor towards the sovereignty) Starts a Sustained Damage over time, a base 1 dread two hours shoot can be reduced to 20 mins seeking a perfect balance Damage, Damage type, Special Module application on the DCU and A DreadKnot or 5.
Perfect Balance= Ship with Shield Destabalizer stops Structure Natural Regen Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Dreads) Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80% Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50% Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20% Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 5 Does 5% Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Battles Ship size weapons) Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80% (20% spill over to Dread Damage requirement) Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50% (50% spill over to Dread Damage requirement) Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20% (80% spill over to Dread Damage requirement) Etc Cruiser ship Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Cruiser Ship size weapons) Cruiser Ship Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80% (20% spill over to Larger Ship damage requirement) Cruiser Ship Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50% (50% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement) Cruiser Ship Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20% (80% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement) etc Frigate ship Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Frigate Ship size weapons) Frigate Ship Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80% (20% spill over to Larger Ship damage requirement) Frigate Ship Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50% (50% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement) Frigate Ship Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20% (80% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement) etc Placing Electronic warfare modules of each type will also reduce the sustained Damage over time duration, requiring the used of the Electronic warfare ships to be deployed for best effect.
So essentially having more than 30 people doing the structure grind won't produce additional effect. Leaving those other people of the alliance to guard or suppress the the opponent will the task is complete. For large scale conquest an invading force would have to, at the same time, take several groups of 30 to take out I hubs, working at the same time in multiple systems to conquest quickly though a campaign. On the other hand this opens up fights for the opponent who will try to save a few Ihub with hit and run attacks while the Conquering Alliance must shut down these hit and run attacks.
In the course of a night a Structure shoot crew 30 may end up hitting mayby... 2 hubs taking 2 hours in total (30mins involved in shooting for each site). Feeling tension during the entire time because they don't have the Blob to protect them as the blob is protecting 10 other location, (each having their own structure shoots) from attack from other hit and run defenders. On the other hand the Defender can blob, being able to save a few structures but loosing others because there were taken over by a handful of players left uncontested.
(oh.... I hope that brainstorming made sense) Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1458
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 09:10:00 -
[226] - Quote
Rastafarian Attack Ship
Amarr Militia |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1458
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 09:16:00 -
[227] - Quote
A couple critical comments ... and where have Hans and Aleks disappeared to? Shame. I had no idea they were that frail and delicate. Amarr Militia |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
166
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 10:04:00 -
[228] - Quote
I heard there was a major American holiday recently. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 10:34:00 -
[229] - Quote
Oh you changed your post, I liked the frail and delicate one
Edit: In all honesty they are probably starting work on the summit notes with it being only a couple of weeks away Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1458
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 11:07:00 -
[230] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Oh you changed your post, I liked the frail and delicate one [:lol: I keep forgetting that Americans have Thanksgiving this close to Christmas. It's kinda ********. No point trolling if they're all on holiday.
Amarr Militia |
|
Public Outcry
Ultra Right Wing Nutjobs
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 16:42:00 -
[231] - Quote
keep on trolling stanny boy. all you are doing is marginalizing yourself and that garbage blog of yours. now thats poetic justice |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1459
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 18:38:00 -
[232] - Quote
Public Outcry wrote:Keep on trolling, stanny boy. All you are doing is marginalizing yourself and that garbage blog of your's. Now that is poetic justice. You keep dreaming.
Amarr Militia |
mkint
921
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 02:44:00 -
[233] - Quote
I just want to throw this out there... consider what difference it would make if the ideal social entity in nullsec was about 400 people strong instead of thousands strong. If an alliance tended to fall apart out of sheer unweildly size. Consider as well if when an alliance fell apart that it's members were free to do as they will, politically, without losing assets such as real estate an such. What if, instead of an increased focus on entrenching and empowering incumbent alliances, incentives were given to their member corps to routinely backstab their greedy overlords?
I would propose that such a scenario would promote vast amounts of nullsec content, as well as interesting, subscription increasing stories. Maxim 34: If you're leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
802
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 05:22:00 -
[234] - Quote
Liked a Poetic post. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
fukier
Flatline.
164
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 17:40:00 -
[235] - Quote
me too... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 05:25:00 -
[236] - Quote
my spelling really sucks. sorry Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again. |
Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
88
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 18:10:00 -
[237] - Quote
I like a lot of the ideas they proposed, but I see a serious issue with the attitude towards devaluing high sec in favor of forcing people into null.
Even after two years of having characters subscribed I still don't understand why some people think everyone should have to go to null sec in order have an effective income stream.
I have no problems with null sec being more valuable and in fact I think the best way to attract subscribers into null is to ensure it stays the richest segment of the game. The CSM mention risk vs. reward but how much risk is truly in null sec for the huge alliances? You can't sit there and tell me someone who's 10 systems deep has to worry about getting ganked or attacked.
Rather than continue with pushing people out of high sec, which will more than likely just push them out of the game, the CSM should instead work on ways to get more population overall. Make PVE more fun and interesting. Make high sec safer for people that prefer PVE instead of PVP. At the same time make null sec more appealing to small alliances and new groups trying to carve out a niche.
The biggest detractor keeping me out of null sec is the fact I don't want to join a zerg force of thousands and be another mindless, buzzing drone following the queens orders. I want to be in a small group where I can make a difference.
I think the solution has something to do with making some systems in null incredibly difficult to attack, some which offer good rewards for those willing to fight for them, and some that are just used for large scale fights. Having some kind of home system which a small alliance can defend, resource systems with high returns but easy to attack, and having travel routes linking them all together would be a good way to go. Travel routes for skirmishes, resource systems for constant fighting, home systems which are pretty much immune as long as there are defenders to protect.
That puts some real risk vs. reward into null sec while still making Eve appealing to the people who prefer PVE. Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |
Mr John Smith
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 20:04:00 -
[238] - Quote
Quote:Modular Starbases (New Feature): Currently, POSes touch huge numbers of players over every conceivable demographic and leave them disappointed or worse, making this one of the most consistently requested and broadly supported updates to EVE. As one of EVE's unique selling points is the player-driven nature of the world, allowing players to own a tiny little part of space is hugely important. Modular Starbases can empower players and organizations to address PVP, industrial, and residency needs in a personal, scalable way. This feature will help unlock player economic power, develop infrastructure, express identity, and create new PVP and social opportunities for players of all ages.
This, more than anything else on the list, this needs to be a priority. Starbases effect every aspect of EVE and are so important to pretty much any kind of serious production you can think of; and yet they are so crappy to use and work with. Modular starbases would give us, the players, a place truly our own to call home. From changes and improvements to starbase mechanics CCP could gather behind themselves such momentum that I don't think we can really imagine what could come after.
As a citizen of newedan I call on the CSM to push this for the next expansion as hard as they can. |
Public Outcry
Ultra Right Wing Nutjobs
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.23 15:03:00 -
[239] - Quote
It is pretty sad to see that CCP is content to let this post just quietly die. Even sadder is the fact that the subscribers are complacent enough to let it happen. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1177
|
Posted - 2012.12.23 18:51:00 -
[240] - Quote
What are you expecting CCP to do with it, exactly? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |