Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 136 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Omgitsbears
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 15:29:38 -
[3541] - Quote
I'm glad to see how vocal people are against the changes to sov, and local delay. Both are terrible ideas that will hurt Eve-Online. This game doesn't need huge sweeping changes, if it wasn't fun to play then it wouldn't have the consistent player numbers it does have. Eve-Online is over 10 years old, at this point it just needs minor tweaks and more content. Not these gigantic sweeping changes that redefine the game. |
AfroFlipp Mabata
F-I-N-K PROPERTY Northern Associates.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 15:57:06 -
[3542] - Quote
Can you compress tears? I am running out of room! |
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:16:23 -
[3543] - Quote
AfroFlipp Mabata wrote:Can you compress tears? I am running out of room!
Says the renter? |
Roofdog2
Penn Industries
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:21:09 -
[3544] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:AfroFlipp Mabata wrote:Can you compress tears? I am running out of room! Says the renter?
whaz wrong with being a renter?
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:23:00 -
[3545] - Quote
Dominion, with its super-cap buffs could be called the "Death from Above" expansion. It sparked a super-cap arms race, and polar super-powers. Now, here's your "Death from Below" expansion, so that those super-powers can die deaths of a thousand cuts, and ownership of space pixels becomes accessible again.
These mechanics enable that, but they don't require it. Players will actually have to seize the opportunity. The psychology on display in this thread suggests that what might happen is - nothing, because rank and file players believe that nothing can overturn the big bloc's lock on power. As long as most players believe that, they'll continue belonging to one of the big blocs.
You'll know that the big blocs are dying a "Death from Below" if they start to bleed numbers, and participation. They'll have to, in order for newcomers to be able to stake a claim. Mechanics alone won't do that. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2843
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:30:33 -
[3546] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote: CCP wants to generate conflicts and they think that ratting in nullsec is the "driver" for conflicts. I think they are severly misstaken! CCP should tie in the R64 moons in the sov-equation, because they represent the least-effort and largest income (second to renting probably) for the power blocs. THEN we will have conflicts over sov worth the name!
One would think that fights over these moons and other static structures would be the source of huge fleet battles in the future...
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
DragonZer0
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:55:06 -
[3547] - Quote
I just got through listening to your chat with the members of the csm. Now your adding carriers & supers to some system boneus similar to wspace effects. Also hinting at removal of local from . If you planning on removing local/delay then remove ceptors bubble immunity and combat recon dscan and give t2 resist instead. I believe that a fair trade for that action.
As for sov in general the light fadeing fast. |
Vicar2008
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
128
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 16:57:25 -
[3548] - Quote
CCP Offices Monday morning.........
CCP Seagull: So.... Damage Control Jove Edition....
Would like to a be fly on the wall for this one. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
314
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:13:03 -
[3549] - Quote
AfroFlipp Mabata wrote:Can you compress tears? I am running out of room! New use for the rorqual? |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2736
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:17:18 -
[3550] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:It's not that hard: - Replace null sec anoms with missions -> Now a system can support hundreds of pilots and null sec powers will let go of 2/3 of their space (keeping the ones with the best moons of course)
- Make the sov laser exclusive to BCs (T1) and Command Ships (T2) -> Now Sov is for those that want it and not for trolls and you give purpose to a forgotten class of ships edit: oh and tie the prime time window to usage -> http://www.themittani.com/features/prime-time-variable-contest-windows That way everyone can have a part and even small alliances have a better chance of keeping their space. Big alliances with unused space have full 23 hour vulnerability windows
The bolded part would indeed make a lot more sense with the current changes coming.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
|
Baden Luskan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:34:48 -
[3551] - Quote
I had some suggestions to add to all of this:
Owning sov should give bonuses to corporations that actually own sov. An example would be an increase in moon goo production if you are the owner of the system the moon is in.
Instead of a 4 hour window that a structures are vulnerable to attack, there should be a 6 hour window that the structures are safe. Cover the time players are on the least for an alliance//corporation instead of a 4-hour window everyone is expected to be on for.
During the Freeport Station period, any entity that wants to compete for ownership at the end of Freeport mode should have to dock inside the station and "sign up" to be eligible for the battle to take the station.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
295
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:38:43 -
[3552] - Quote
My big thing is the potential for griefing that we've gone a dozen rounds on - if that's addressed, then good.
But I have to say, after listening to some of PGL's ideas (and through him, Grath's) for how this can be made to work, in conjunction w/xttz's thoughts on the index-based Prime Time, there's a lot of potential here.
Delayed local in nullsec - yes, this would be a major PITA... unless there's an IHUB upgrade to bring Local performance up to the level of its performance in Empire.
Deployable 'Mobile Subspace Inhibitors', like the Mobile Cyno Inhibitor, that can let you counter that upgrade on a grid.
An IHUB upgrade that allows for the disruption of cloaking devices (either all of them, or just those owned by people who aren't part of the sov-holding alliance) - maybe by positioning 'Scanning Nodes' around the system.
That could then even be hackable via either a hacking module (which, apparently, the entosis link was originally going to be) or a Link, to be used by hostiles if left unprotected.
I think there's a lot of potential here if the 'why do people hold space?' question is addressed - and addressed beyond simply 'because they make X ISK'. ISK is nonsense. ISK can be made anywhere in the game. If I was only about the ISK, I'd go back to w-space. Lawless space is NPC null. Sov null is not lawless - the sovholder is the law. Sov null is empire-building. JB networks are Railroad Tycoon. The big fleets, the big fights, those are my part of the game - running the logi for a massive multi-fleet subcap encounter is just one of the most enjoyable things I've encountered in the game. Supercapitals Online is boring as hell, and everyone knows it - especially the bloc-level FCs on both sides of the current cold war.
Here's how the basic framework needs to work:
You don't need to give individual pilots reasons to hold sov. Individual pilots don't hold sov.
Give alliances reasons to hold sov - they'll take care of their pilots. Make holding sov one of the ways they can do that - give the alliances ways to not just make the space more profitable, but better to live in, ways to make the space desirable to live in, not just someplace to afk-rat. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
295
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:42:01 -
[3553] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:AfroFlipp Mabata wrote:Can you compress tears? I am running out of room! New use for the rorqual?
Actually, Grath apparently had a really good idea for a rorqual repurpose - actually make it a capital ship used for mining. Give it another use with its deployment module where the ship absolutely devours asteroids. It would mean there's a reason for it to be on-grid in the asteroid field, give it a use in really helping w/the industry index (which helps w/system defense), and (much like mining operations in w-space) give a reason for pilots to be online arrayed around the rorqual and system in a defensive picket / CAP array. |
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Retribution.
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 17:52:38 -
[3554] - Quote
I have to say if anyone is going to kill eve off its ccp fozzie. Completely clueless. Sorry. |
Josef Djugashvilis
2911
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 18:23:38 -
[3555] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:I have to say if anyone is going to kill eve off its ccp fozzie. Completely clueless. Sorry.
I doubt CCP Foggie works alone, it is probably a team effort for good or bad.
This is not a signature.
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
288
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 18:26:53 -
[3556] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Drogo Drogos wrote: Super pilots /unsub Multiple nullsec accounts /unsub Nullbear hardcore ratters ( i know guys who own up to 25 active accounts to rat ) /unsub
Maybe CCP just wants to downsize on alts and us bitter 0.0 vets. Give some more realistic "account" numbers when logging with way less alts...
CCP only wants to turn profits and make money. It's not rocket science. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 18:35:18 -
[3557] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:I have to say if anyone is going to kill eve off its ccp fozzie. Completely clueless. Sorry.
Now if someone could just compare him to ****** this thread could be over. I think this has been said about every single dev who introduced changes that are perceived to be a threat to the status quo. I hope that at least some folks recognize that fozzie is just the messenger here. I seriously doubt that fozzie was sent off to "figure out how to fix nullsec" on his own. He's announcing these changes, and explaining as best he can the thinking behind them. That doesn't mean that all of that thinking is his alone.
CCP has something that none of the rest of us have. Data. They can see how much isk is flowing, and into whose wallets its flowing. They have hard data on who is fighting, and who is avoiding meaningful fights. They're probably not too impressed with a gang-bang going on in Catch while most of the "blue donut", and the passive isk that flows with it, is safer than empire.
Predictably the apex stakeholders in the game right now don't want to see the status quo threatened. Their surrogates will be out in force lobbying against anything that might threaten the "New Eve Order". If those folks liked these changes, it'd be a pretty good indication that they were worthless.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
820
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 18:49:09 -
[3558] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Predictably the apex stakeholders in the game right now don't want to see the status quo threatened. Their surrogates will be out in force lobbying against anything that might threaten the "New Eve Order". If those folks liked these changes, it'd be a pretty good indication that they were worthless.
Frankly this is a ridiculious standpoint. The "apex stakeholders" have been lobbying for literally years to improve nullsec, mostly in a way that wouldn't benefit ourselves. We lobbied about Technetium when we sat on the largest supply and were the one most likely to lose out, we've lobbied for the hammering of the Supercap "apex force"; us, the winners of the largest Supercapital brawl in the game, and therefore yet again, the one with most to lose. And it was us who first spoke of occupancy sov. We want the game rebalanced to address the things wrong with the current system (which is why, if you paid the slightest attention, we have not opposed the principle, just the utterly ******** loopholes in it).
Quite frankly, every time someone pipes up "the indication its good is because you oppose it" frankly only displays your own bias, that you have no intrest in a balanced system, you just want the guys on the top knocked off their perches, and to hell with what that does to the game.
Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us.
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2911
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 18:56:45 -
[3559] - Quote
[quote=lilol' me]I have to say if anyone is going to kill eve off its ccp fozzie. Completely clueless. Sorry.[/quote
I thought CCP Greyscale was responsible for killing the game?
This is not a signature.
|
Grytok
KL0NKRIEGER
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:12:54 -
[3560] - Quote
I fully endorse all the supposed changes to sov and supercapitals made by CCP during the last week.
This is exactly what I wanted to see for aslong as I can remember playing this game - allmost 10 years.
I'm finally looking forward to join a 0.0-corp again with these new sov-mechanics. |
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:18:37 -
[3561] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Frankly this is a ridiculious standpoint. The "apex stakeholders" have been lobbying for literally years to improve nullsec, mostly in a way that wouldn't benefit ourselves. We lobbied about Technetium when we sat on the largest supply and were the one most likely to lose out, we've lobbied for the hammering of the Supercap "apex force"; us, the winners of the largest Supercapital brawl in the game, and therefore yet again, the one with most to lose. And it was us who first spoke of occupancy sov. We want the game rebalanced to address the things wrong with the current system (which is why, if you paid the slightest attention, we have not opposed the principle, just the utterly ******** loopholes in it).
And yet, look at the map. Stasis through mutually assured destruction. The changes that you are talking about did not change the status quo, and aren't likely to do so.
Quote: Quite frankly, every time someone pipes up "the indication its good is because you oppose it" frankly only displays your own bias, that you have no intrest in a balanced system, you just want the guys on the top knocked off their perches, and to hell with what that does to the game.
My bias is against stasis. In the world, order and stability is good. In a game, it's death. Eve has been around a long time now, especially for an MMO that is PvP based. Games like that usually succumb to "mudflation" eventually. Right now, you could fit the people who actually control the direction of 0.0 in a minivan, and half of those seldom if ever actually play the game. They just own the game.
From CCPs perspective, they have to look at hard data. Participation which grew for years, is falling now, post "blue donut". They need to do something, and that something needs to be radical enough that it causes the big power blocs to bleed numbers to smaller, more nimble entities who engage in meaningful fights more often.
Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us.
I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it.
|
Drogo Drogos
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:25:05 -
[3562] - Quote
Quick recap of the metashow and the toughts / idea's given by The Mittani / PGL / Lazerus Telraven / Nystrik
Sov warfare:
playerbuild module in space: "Warning Intel sensor" who gives a warning when neutrals enter your system - can be hacked and shut down by warping to it and hacking it shutting it down across a whole constellation.
playerbuild module in space: "Local intell sensor", shows who is in local just like now. can be hacked and shutdown by hacking it disables it across a whole constellation.
playerbuild module in space: "Status Effect module" This module can set to an effect to give positive or negative effects for fleets entering your sov, this forces enemy to fight your style and your doctrines with buffs, failure to fight in the ships the sov holder enforces gives your fleet a great disadvantage as in wormholes.
Smaller entitys can now force attackers to weird ship doctrines were the defender has trained for and are far more expirienced in then the attackers.
Capital ship Rorqual - the devour of rocks ( grath's idea ) The Rorqual can now swallow up rocks in siege mode. This vessel needs protection from pvp pilots and gives a better purpose then letting it rot in a POS.
Many more ideas were given in The Metashow that were outright awesome and would make eve a much better mmo.
I wished CCP would have seen it and have a suprise for us in June that most of that stuff would be implemented.
|
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:35:00 -
[3563] - Quote
I bet if they eliminated the white noise from highsec scrubs this thread would drop to 50 pages |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:49:35 -
[3564] - Quote
Princess Cherista wrote:I bet if they eliminated the white noise from highsec scrubs this thread would drop to 50 pages
"I've found your sleazebag.
She is at Jita IV - Moon 4 - Caldari Navy Assembly Plant station in the Jita system, Kimotoro constellation of The Forge region."
Iroooooony |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10140
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:51:11 -
[3565] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:After reading Fozzie's comments on EVE Down Under, *snip* Abuse of CCP employees will not be tolerated. ~ ISD Decoy
He wants supers to be some kind of force multiplier giving some type of bonuses, instead of damage ships. He wants delayed local in nullsec. He wants to remove fleet warp. He wants to nerf combat probing. And he thinks nullsec has enough incentives as it is.
I'm starting to get seriously pissed off at CCP. Way to completely flip the bird to some of your most loyal subscribers.
We shouldn't be surprised that a company is somewhat out of touch lol, the problem I keep having is seeing the same kind of thinking employed at a situation and yet expecting a different result. That smacks more of emotional thinking and pride than it does of evidence based thinking. Bottom line, CCPs assumptions are the things that are faulty here not the system(s) they want to put in place.
At this point all I feel that can be done is let them screw it up and hammer the point home to them about how it doesn't work (and was never going to work in the 1st place). Of course when yoo do that you end up linking a 4 year old blog all the time that perfectly reflect the flaws in current thinking only to have it ignored
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6569
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 19:56:47 -
[3566] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us. I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it. As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way
ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 20:14:53 -
[3567] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:davet517 wrote:Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us. I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it. As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess
I think there is no issue with coalitions like yours still existing, I personally would hate to see you guys fall as you bring in so much content, but what is needed is a vibrant small alliance battlefield, and please don't say low sec...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Duffyman
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 20:35:55 -
[3568] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:davet517 wrote:Quote: Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us. I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it. As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess I think there is no issue with coalitions like yours still existing, I personally would hate to see you guys fall as you bring in so much content, but what is needed is a vibrant small alliance battlefield, and please don't say low sec...
Never forget Malcanis Law:
"Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
Obviously if these changes go ahead as proposed, it'll be the current powers that will abuse it to hell. You'll see... |
Zakks
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 21:02:14 -
[3569] - Quote
As a newer player (2months), I am ready to quit after my sub ends this month. There is no place for, how you say, 'scrubs' in this game. I have never seen such a sense of entitlement by a group of veteran players! Having read some of this topic has done nothing to change my thoughts. This game will die, because of your status quo thinking, unless the game developers flip you the bird and shake things up. I mean really change it big time. But you will cry and moan about it, and then try and destroy it for everyone. Because you can.
So come and wreck my game, if that what gets your jollies. You really should be ashamed. |
Vicar2008
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
128
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 21:14:03 -
[3570] - Quote
Zakks wrote:As a newer player (2months), I am ready to quit after my sub ends this month. There is no place for, how you say, 'scrubs' in this game. I have never seen such a sense of entitlement by a group of veteran players! Having read some of this topic has done nothing to change my thoughts. This game will die, because of your status quo thinking, unless the game developers flip you the bird and shake things up. I mean really change it big time. But you will cry and moan about it, and then try and destroy it for everyone. Because you can.
So come and wreck my game, if that what gets your jollies. You really should be ashamed.
When you have players 5 to 11 years vested into a game, most would point yourself to groups like Brave Newbies or EVE Uni to learn and enjoy the game, so when a thing you love is being (in my opinion) being screwed with in a bad way, older players have to have a say also. Game is not for you, no probs move on, some off us have a harder time letting go though. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 136 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |