Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 15:09:00 -
[361] - Quote
Arkady Sadik wrote:A somewhat more arcane request:
Could we please get some good story background on the Interbus customs offices? My alliance has been discussing whether we want to shoot down Interbus COs (they're neutral, why would we?), and even whether we consider others shooting Interbus COs as piracy (they're shooting corp property of a peaceful entity, so yes; CONCORD doesn't care at all, so no?)
It's a lovely discussion, but there's awfully little backstory on the issue, so it's not easy to actually discuss the ethical ramifications. *Some* background would be nice :-)
I've read a draft from an upcoming chronicle about this, it is awesome.
From a game mechanics point of view, you wont take a security status hit for shooting the Interbus ones. CCP Nullarbor | Exotic Dancer (and occasional programmer) |
|
Zleon Leigh
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 15:46:00 -
[362] - Quote
Could still approach the epic stupidity of WiS, but they still have a shot to eclipse!
Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |
Scarlett Ninja
Section 5
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 16:50:00 -
[363] - Quote
Is the same person who was responsible for all the fail fits in the CCP "fleet of DOOM" doing PI now? |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 19:19:00 -
[364] - Quote
Said it in another thread, but maybe CCP reads this one.
Low-sec is about piracy. Null-sec is about fight for resources/territories.
Pirates/grievers in low-sec mostly won't be bothered with building and using POCOs. Yes, pirates would get more targets to shoot, but pirating can't exist without juicy targets. And non-PvP people are already at disadvantage there due to danger from pirates and absence of null-sec class protection and resource concentration. Such players would lose more interest in low-sec, pirates would lose targets, low-sec would lose its meaning. So POCOs won't improve gameplay of low-secs.
And as concentration or resources is higher in null-sec, building POCOs in low-sec won't be as lucrative as in null-sec. So POCO builders would probably leave low-sec for null-sec.
Destroying structures/claiming resources - that's null-sec. So introducing POCOs to null-sec is probably fine, but introducing them to low-sec means replacing low-sec gameplay at least partially with null-sec's.
It is often helpful for solution analysis to consider boundary conditions. If you starting to replace NPC structures with player-owned ones in low-sec - just imagine going further, replacing NPC stations with player stations. What's that going to be? Just another null-sec. Where is low-sec idea there? |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
171
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 19:57:00 -
[365] - Quote
Exer Toralen wrote:Said it in another thread, but maybe CCP reads this one.
Low-sec is about piracy. Null-sec is about fight for resources/territories. Counterpoints: moon-mining in lowsec, and 0.0 roams hunting ratters. The first is about resources, the second as close to piracy as it gets.
Quote:Pirates/grievers in low-sec mostly won't be bothered with building and using POCOs. Yes, pirates would get more targets to shoot, but pirating can't exist without juicy targets. And non-PvP people are already at disadvantage there due to danger from pirates and absence of null-sec class protection and resource concentration. Such players would lose more interest in low-sec, pirates would lose targets, low-sec would lose its meaning. So POCOs won't improve gameplay of low-secs. You talk like you know a lot about lowsec. Did you get all that knowledge when your mining osprey got blown up?
PI haulers are not targets for pirates. Most of them are cloaky, so uncatchable, and the others are boring to shoot at. People who defend their POCOs are far more interesting to the lowsec ecosystem.
|
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 21:48:00 -
[366] - Quote
The point is: Every single game patch has to be improvement. But how destroyable COs and POCOs would improve low-sec play-style?
Consider only gameplay aspect. Increased taxes in hi-sec would stimulate people to move PI from hi- to low- and null-sec. Introducing another grab&hold element would add another objects to care about in null-sec. But what would it improve in low-sec?
Most people here complain about low-sec effects of destroyable COs, few actually think it would affect hi- and null-sec citizens much.
Introducing null-sec gameplay elements to low-sec is hardly an improvement. People willing to fight over stations able to leave for null-sec at any time. Forcing people to such fights in low-sec means limiting them.
To improve low-sec, you have to improve piracy as source of income (do not care about grievers). For that you have to make low-sec more lucrative to increase traffic. Or split core hi-sec into pieces putting low-sec systems between them, not just at the edge. POCOs would make low-sec actually less profitable place negatively affecting piracy as whole reason behind low-sec.
Unless CCP could explain POCOs as improvement for low-sec, they should reconsider introducing them outside of null-sec/wormhole space. |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
333
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 22:18:00 -
[367] - Quote
This is with out a doubt yet another thing to drive the last of the non-pirates out of low sec.
It is a HORRIBLE idea.
Watch it all you want CCP but you are days away from permanently driving yet another group out of low sec.
Issler |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
171
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 22:25:00 -
[368] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:This is with out a doubt yet another thing to drive the last of the non-pirates out of low sec.
It is a HORRIBLE idea.
Watch it all you want CCP but you are days away from permanently driving yet another group out of low sec.
Issler Why? No, really, what group is going to be driven out of lowsec and why? |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
333
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 02:23:00 -
[369] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:This is with out a doubt yet another thing to drive the last of the non-pirates out of low sec.
It is a HORRIBLE idea.
Watch it all you want CCP but you are days away from permanently driving yet another group out of low sec.
Issler Why? No, really, what group is going to be driven out of lowsec and why?
Independent players, small industrial corps and basically anyone that can't defend or replace COs in low sec when the COs become the new nothing else to 'splode targets for the local roaming pirates. Just today I watched a super cap drop in a mostly empty low sec system just to mess with a few locals because there wasn't anything else handy to shoot. If there were player owned CO's there they would been targeted for sure.
Low sec will be a PI ghost town.
Issler
|
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 02:54:00 -
[370] - Quote
Don't mind Jack. He seems to be trolling. |
|
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 04:54:00 -
[371] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:[From a game mechanics point of view, you wont take a security status hit for shooting the Interbus ones.
But you do get that warning about attacking a hostile entity. |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 06:23:00 -
[372] - Quote
Exer Toralen wrote:POCOs would make low-sec actually less profitable place negatively affecting piracy as whole reason behind low-sec.
Issler Dainze wrote:This is with out a doubt yet another thing to drive the last of the non-pirates out of low sec.
Hey if you lowsec people all get your act together and agree whether will HELP or HURT piracy maybe people would take your posts more seriously. Right now you're arguing at opposite angles, I guess POCOs might be balanced, eh?
Lowsec is a ghost town and you guys are fearing ANY change. Because it will hurt piracy! Because it make it so only pirates live there! AAAAAA maybe you all should just hold your turf and hang around and enjoy the new feature.
I assure you, big nullsec alliances like mine do not care about lowsec at all. Maybe we come take a tech moon now and then, it's a far different scale and POCOs won't make us think any differently about lowsec. |
Chicken Pizza
Penumbra Institute Inver Brass
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 08:16:00 -
[373] - Quote
pmchem wrote:Exer Toralen wrote:POCOs would make low-sec actually less profitable place negatively affecting piracy as whole reason behind low-sec.
Issler Dainze wrote:This is with out a doubt yet another thing to drive the last of the non-pirates out of low sec.
Hey if you lowsec people all get your act together and agree whether will HELP or HURT piracy maybe people would take your posts more seriously. Right now you're arguing at opposite angles, I guess POCOs might be balanced, eh? Lowsec is a ghost town and you guys are fearing ANY change. Because it will hurt piracy! Because it make it so only pirates live there! AAAAAA maybe you all should just hold your turf and hang around and enjoy the new feature. I assure you, big nullsec alliances like mine do not care about lowsec at all. Maybe we come take a tech moon now and then, it's a far different scale and POCOs won't make us think any differently about lowsec.
What are you smoking? Can I have some?
What makes you think any educated EvE player is going to take anything someone in your alliance says seriously? The validity of your opinions was forfeit the day you joined.
Nobody cares what you say you will or will not do, especially since you're all just a bunch of scammers. You can't even keep your drop fleet ninja looters under control.
To assist you with your comprehension skills, both of those quotes supported that it's a detriment to piracy.
My arse sometimes ninja loots my belly, but at least I can check my logs. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
171
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 11:21:00 -
[374] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:Independent players, small industrial corps and basically anyone that can't defend or replace COs in low sec when the COs become the new nothing else to 'splode targets for the local roaming pirates. Just today I watched a super cap drop in a mostly empty low sec system just to mess with a few locals because there wasn't anything else handy to shoot. If there were player owned CO's there they would been targeted for sure. They don't need to.
The whole point of the tax idea is this: the people who live in a system and have control over it get to tax the "tourists". So those independents and small corps will have to pay taxes to the local PVP corps. Those PVP corps will have zero interest in doing PI themselves, so their POCOs will be mostly open. POCOs are cheap and don't need any maintenance, so I don't see why people wouldn't put them up.
The one thing that might discourage them from putting them is the pure pain that is repping them after chasing off the attackers. That's one aspect of structure fights CCP really needs to look into, as it takes much longer to repair than to destroy.
Exer Toralen wrote:Don't mind Jack. He seems to be trolling. I may not be the world's expert in lowsec, but I've spent two years in there, as a -10 (and I'm on my way back down). I have made money in lowsec, both doing exploration and industry, running 4 towers for mining and reactions in my home system. I've been on the receiving end of several supercap hotdrops.
Your entire lowsec experience consists of the aforementioned mining osprey. So who is trolling? |
Archit3ct
Eve Global Invest Group
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 11:34:00 -
[375] - Quote
Bye bye lowsec, wormhole(s) here I come |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 13:02:00 -
[376] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:I've been on the receiving end of several supercap hotdrops.
And that makes my point invalid... how?
If you could justify POCOs as low-sec attractiveness improvement - lay down your arguments. Braggery is irrelevant. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
171
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 13:07:00 -
[377] - Quote
Exer Toralen wrote:If you could justify POCOs as low-sec attractiveness improvement - lay down your arguments. Braggery is irrelevant. If you can control/secure a lowsec system, now you can profit from it. Simple as that. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 15:01:00 -
[378] - Quote
Quote:If you can control/secure a lowsec system, now you can profit from it. Simple as that.
Ok. That's still replacement of low-sec gameplay with null-sec one, but let's discuss it.
You do not get profit from POCOs just by controlling system. You get it from other people visiting your POCOs. And they do that because a) it is profitable for them to use your POCOs or b) they do not have other choice.
Right now people in low-sec engage in PI activity because they just can. It is easy to spend 15 minutes a day to get some profit on the side if you use planets in your home system or 1-2 jumps away tops. And it costs like nothing in NPC CO taxes. With destroyable COs you get: 1) more jumps to do as not all planets are going to have POCOs 2) higher taxes As a result, low-sec PI is going to become less interesting than it is now.
About not having choice. As I see it, people engage in PI because of: 1) direct profit from selling goods 2) indirect profit from fueling their own POSes with self-made cheap and close fuel 3) T2/T3 manufacturing of theirs requiring PI goods
POCOs are going to make PI less profitable and some PIers would either switch to other activities or leave low-sec. People owning (and protecting) POSes should be able to own and protect their own POCOs, though it is going to be more annoying for them. T2/T3 manufacturers are either able to substitute self-made PI goods with market-obtainable or already use null-sec as base because of higher resource concentration there. Do not see steady flow of POCO customers here either.
Not saying POCOs are going to destroy low-sec PI completely. Can't predict how people would adapt. But such change would decrease low-sec PI attractiveness compared to current one. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
172
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 16:13:00 -
[379] - Quote
Exer Toralen wrote:Ok. That's still replacement of low-sec gameplay with null-sec one, but let's discuss it. I still don't know what you think lowsec gameplay should be. Especially as you seem to distinguish between "pirates" and "griefers".
About the rest of your post, I have no doubt some people will cry about CCP moving their cheese and go sulking back to highsec. POCO owners will have to find the balance between getting isk, driving away customers, and getting people interested in attacking their offices. Producers will adapt, prices will go up, profits will go up despite taxes. They always do.
In the meantime, lowsec will get more fights away from gates and stations, which can only be good.
Quote:P.S. Doubt that POCOs are going to be profitable in null-sec. People won't be able to make more money on their blues than they already do, non-blues would be denied access to POCOs anyway This will be an issue for 0.0, but then it'll just make lowsec PI even more valuable.
Quote:and whole POCO-thing would be most likely just another cash-sink for rich corps there. But at least that would be extension for gameplay already in place (grab&hold playstyle) and economy might require cash-sink. The isk-sink from POCOs is minuscule (10 million each from the LP store). |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 17:26:00 -
[380] - Quote
You have different playgrounds: high-, low- and null-sec. People start in high-sec so have to be inclined to leave for other zones. Incentives for that are profit and different gameplay. Zones with higher profit must be more difficult. Else everyone would leave high-sec for null-sec. So we do have:
High-sec: base profit, relative safety. Low-sec: higher profit, no CONCORD. Null-sec: highest profit, no CONCORD, not every system has stations you can use, people have to protect their assets, higher organization level required to survive.
Low-sec = no law = free PvP. Free PvP is: a) "fair" fights just to prove you are better than the other guy (duels) b) ability to kill everything inferior to you on sight just because you can (not always, but usually just griefing) c) ability to shoot juicy targets to rob them and earn money (piracy)
Duels are minority and do not define low-sec. Griefers do not need anything other than some way to blow things and would function anywhere. That's why I'm naming piracy the only low-sec proprietary gameplay. Null-sec is more about military operations, "grab & hold" gameplay, while low-sec is "hit & run".
Here we come to two things:
1. To run successful extortion business you must have someone to extort. Extorting another extorter just won't work - there is no source of income. So piracy won't function by itself, it needs isk-generating players in low-sec. The more you drive them away from low-sec - the less interesting the defining low-sec's gameplay would be, the less populated low-sec is going to become.
2. Different playgrounds with different gameplays should have about same level of profit per month. That way willing people would simply leave starting hi-sec for playgrounds with most appealing gameplay.
Yes, there is inequity in null-sec where some have tech moons and other only have Call To Arms to defend those moons. But general level of income in null-sec is higher than in low-sec. That's why we have low-populated low-sec same time as having massive lag-causing battles in null-sec. Make low-sec as lucrative as null-sec and people would spread evenly, some leaving organized null-sec warfare for organized low-sec crime. But make low-sec less attractive and we get (at boundary condition) empty systems with only transports passing by on their way between null-sec and hi-sec.
So every change to low-sec has to improve financial attractiveness of this zone unless you are going to abandon it. And POCOs would just make low-sec's gameplay look more like null-sec's and decrease low-sec PI's attractiveness, both leading to degradation of low-sec as unique playground. |
|
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 17:58:00 -
[381] - Quote
Exer Toralen wrote: High-sec: base profit, relative safety. Low-sec: higher profit, no CONCORD. Null-sec: highest profit, no CONCORD, not every system has stations you can use, people have to protect their assets, higher organization level required to survive.
...
So every change to low-sec has to improve financial attractiveness of this zone unless you are going to abandon it. And POCOs would just make low-sec's gameplay look more like null-sec's and decrease low-sec PI's attractiveness, both leading to degradation of low-sec as unique playground.
"hey, nullsec is highest profit"
then
"hey, lowsec needs to be more profitable to be popular, and POCOs make lowsec look more like nullsec, and are therefore bad for lowsec"
seriously, your arguments are terrible. Jack Dant seems to be the only lowsec guy that "gets it". POCOs will be profit opportunities for local pirates and breathe some life back into piracy gameplay and turf fights for lowsec industrial-minded groups.
re-read Jack's posts for good lowsec posts. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
172
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 18:10:00 -
[382] - Quote
Exer Toralen wrote:Low-sec = no law = free PvP. Free PvP is: a) "fair" fights just to prove you are better than the other guy (duels) b) ability to kill everything inferior to you on sight just because you can (not always, but usually just griefing) c) ability to shoot juicy targets to rob them and earn money (piracy) The thing is, you never know which one you are engaging in. What seems like a fair fight might just be a guy in his first battleship he can't fit. The lone noobship might be someone's alt with a capital ship skillbook in cargo. Or the expensive ship you are about to gank is actually pimped to the top and sends your gang home in pods.
Actually, the thing that defines lowsec, mechanics-wise, is accesibility. It's trivial to get in and out of lowsec in the right ship. A corp can claim to control a system or a station, but has no way to actually stop other players from coming and going. Even gate/station camps are easy to avoid. Now, that is why people were doing PI in lowsec and not (so much) in NPC 0.0. Even a cloaky hauler is easy to catch in null, but barring keyboard accidents, it's 100% safe in lowsec.
For that reason, in the previous thread, I advocated against letting people close down lowsec POCOs. You can easily make some RP reason to explain it, and it fits the lowsec spirit better. But I'm not even sure people will restrict them anyway. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 18:26:00 -
[383] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Actually, the thing that defines lowsec, mechanics-wise, is accesibility.
And destroyable COs would make it less accessable in terms of PI because absence of CO limits launch choices and not every planet is going to have CO. That's even if every POCO is going to be accessable by everyone.
Sure, that's not decisive degradation, but each one pushes low-sec further into being profitless and lifeless. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 18:35:00 -
[384] - Quote
I have counteroffer for CCP. Don't make COs destroyable. Let people build some destroyable installation per system to increase PI profit (resource concentration/powergrid/CPU/provides remote CO and launch management/something else). Autoincrease CO taxes in such systems by some factor (have to be balanced with utility installation provides to be attractive for PIers). Give share of those taxes to owner of such installation.
That would improve profit for PIers and provide profit for installation owner without degrading existing gameplay. As if there is no such installation - numbers simply revert to current state. |
electrostatus
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 20:23:00 -
[385] - Quote
So according to the taxes mentioned here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/CustomsOffice and on sisi, import taxes are 5% of that, export is 10% and command center export is 15%. Or 1*10% of those values for export, 0.5*10% for import and 1.5*10% for command center export. Why am I saying it that way? So it matches the info on the launchpads and command centers. Part of that has been fixed, but not so for the command centers, see here: http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4296/20111127040322.jpg See where it says import and export on the launch pad. I suspect those numbers are truncated and should really say 0.5 ISK and 1.0 ISk. The command center still says 3 ISK on export when it should really say 1.5 ISK so it matches what is really going on. PI Profit Calculator: calculates your profits and taxes of any PI product depending on how you built them! |
Zeronic
Zero Core Labs United Abominations
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 01:50:00 -
[386] - Quote
I'm so disappoint by CCP wit this one. So if say something like what happen the last time the Dev release something the community didn't like happen will it be removed?
I call for an All Hand on Deck to sign the death of this feature. This is getting pushed in to the winter expansion. Either do it right or not at all.
/signed Removal of Feature. |
Gorilla Moose
ProtoStar Trading
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 02:59:00 -
[387] - Quote
Signed for Removal |
gargars
Cohesion Inc Beyond-Repair
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 04:14:00 -
[388] - Quote
Zeronic wrote:I'm so disappoint by CCP with this one. So if say something like what happen the last time the Dev srelease something the community didn't like, will it be removed?
I call for an All Hand on Deck to sign the death of this feature. This is getting pushed in to the winter expansion. Either do it right or not at all.
/signed Removal of Feature.
/ signed for Removal - nothing I like about it... and am concerned this is the return of the steam-roller approach they have apologized for in the recent past if people don't like their 'fantastic new thing'. |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 04:31:00 -
[389] - Quote
You guys are signing to remove a feature which you haven't even bothered to test. A feature that makes the game more player-driven, in a game that is marketed as the ultimate sandbox with player-driven emergent content.
Where is your sense of adventure? Give it a try~ |
Chicken Pizza
Penumbra Institute Inver Brass
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 04:38:00 -
[390] - Quote
/signed for removal. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |