Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
312
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 09:48:01 -
[211] - Quote
Omg. Almost all proposal are so wrong I don't even know where to start.
Survey Networks and Entrapment Array
WTH? Explo sites spawn generator? Do you even know what exploration means? Those sites will be from the regional pool or added to regional pool? Because both ways are wrong. Added will flood the market, sucked from region will make them easy, riskless money for nullbears.
Quote:We will be keeping a close eye on the results of these changes to ensure that we donGÇÖt flood the market with the drops from these sites, and weGÇÖll step in and make more changes if needed. Bite me. You have no idea how to fix data sites loot and now you introduce devices to increase the spawn rate? Every time you mess with explo loot, sites become worthless for 3 to 5 months. Now you'll be keeping close eye...? Riiiight.
Pirate Detection Array Changes
What a wonderfull conflict driver... Alliance with huge amount of memebers don't need to conquer anymore, they just upgrade their own systems? What is the reason to go to war?
ESS Entosis Link? For real? Conflict driver?
Whoever you discuss those with think again. Ppl must have reasons to shoot each other, not hide in bubbled, fortified constellations, full of possibilities to make money.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1151
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 10:59:34 -
[212] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Whoever you discuss those with think again. Ppl must have reasons to shoot each other, not hide in bubbled, fortified constellations, full of possibilities to make money. Like hisec?
Better null income is better to get players into null and reward them for having to defend their stuff 4 hours a day. I can't claim to know whether this is the perfect balance of risk vs. reward, but certainly something needed to be done to get players actually to bother to take, upgrade and defend Sov rather than just ninja sites (like you seem to do) or stay in high/low sec and run incursions/FW missions all-day (which will still be a problem). |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative.
419
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 11:12:30 -
[213] - Quote
I still find it funny that you classify the "Quantum Flux Generator upgrades" as Upgrades rather than Penalties, Frankly I would never install this "upgrade" in any system that I actually intended to use for any form of PvE/Industry, Heck I would like to see an upgrade that does the reverse of this. |
Klyith
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
174
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 11:18:08 -
[214] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:At some point it should be noted that Sovereigny as a game system is faulty.
When you create a "race to the top" system, the natural outcome is someone on top too big to fall, followed by not-so-top forces too dangerous and bothersome to defeat, and a variable amount of fools who will never be top and can lose everything as soon as some of the top dogs focuses on them.
Of course, that mimics RL. We know that (enter rogue state) can not do anything meaningful to the USA and we know Russia and China are too big and dangeorus to mess with even if you're the USA.
What nobody said is that RL balance of power is *fun* or at all worthy to experience in a game...
In the past there were alliances / coalitions that were at "the top" who fell. Sometimes it happened because the guy at the top got lazy and weak, but at least once it was because a group of plucky heroes put in literally years of war and labor. It doesn't happen all the time. If you want to dethrone the king, you should need to put in at least as much effort at taking the throne as the king does at holding on to it. Not everyone can win.
The flip side is that when the balance of power does shift, it's an epic story that no other game can match. Most of the people now playing were probably attracted because they heard or read about one of those events and it caught their imagination.
The game does currently have a problem where the balance is tilted towards incumbents, but it's not in the Sov system (and fozziesov will be extremely level). The issue is in PVP balance and the way that the loser of a battle is generally crushed. There aren't moral victories these days where you can say that you lost but bloodied the other guy's nose. So the upstarts don't stick around through the hard times; they just get discouraged and leave.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
312
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 11:46:27 -
[215] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Like hisec?
Better null income is better to get players into null and reward them for having to defend their stuff 4 hours a day. I can't claim to know whether this is the perfect balance of risk vs. reward, but certainly something needed to be done to get players actually to bother to take, upgrade and defend Sov rather than just ninja sites (like you seem to do) or stay in high/low sec and run incursions/FW missions all-day (which will still be a problem).
becuase you OWN pirates datas or old relics in your space? Owning the space means you owe pirates in it? What a twisted concept. Do you pay them for a chance to shoot them? Ninja? Do you have problem with that? Come and get me. I'm chased by nullsec dwellers that actively hunt me. I have zero interest to be number in fleet etc. It's my gamestyle, like it supposed to be in the sandbox, what I see here is less playstyle opportunities than creating new ones.
This will be exactly like hisec but with far better income (because null income is sooo looow curenlty, right?). Do we need that? Where is risk vs reward here?
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1151
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 12:09:14 -
[216] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:becuase you OWN pirates datas or old relics in your space? Owning the space means you owe pirates in it? What a twisted concept. Do you pay them for a chance to shoot them? Ninja? Do you have problem with that? Come and get me. I'm chased by nullsec dwellers that actively hunt me. I have zero interest to be number in fleet etc. It's my gamestyle, like it supposed to be in the sandbox, what I see here is less playstyle opportunities than creating new ones. This will be exactly like hisec but with far better income (because null income is sooo looow curenlty, right?). Do we need that? Where is risk vs reward here? Like anything in Eve, those sites belong to a Sov-holding alliance if they can defend them. Unlike highsec, where CONCORD provides free protection, the only claim a nullsec dweller has to anything comes out of the end of blaster. They are completely responsible for their own protection and enforcing any claims to space that they make. As you say, there is no mechanism locking these sites to an alliance, nor any protection from someone coming to take them.
I am not sure what you are complaining about. If you are so confident in your abilities to outwit those dim-witted nullsec dwellers, you should have no problem grabbing those sites from under their noses.
Individual nullsec income has been significantly lower than what an individual can earn in wormholes, faction warfare or highsec incursions for a long time now. I agree you do not want unassailable ISK/resource fountains pumping non-stop into the economy, but it seems to me that FozzieSov has been designed to make space very easy to attack and therefore require constant effort defend. Let's wait and see how these changes shake out before the whining about how "safe" nullsec is begins again.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11719
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 12:18:17 -
[217] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote: Pirate Detection Array Changes
What a wonderfull conflict driver... Alliance with huge amount of memebers don't need to conquer anymore, they just upgrade their own systems? What is the reason to go to war?
This is the faulty thinking of the past.: Quote:Expected consequences
Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec Coalitions will be marginally less stable Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)
NONE of that happened, because NO ONE fights for anomaly and mining space. When CCP nerf anomalies and the upgrade system, we didn't fight for more space, we fought to see who was the fastest at making high sec incursion and Faction Warfare Stealth Bomber alts lol. Sov space became renter space because generally only renters (and scrub frontline alliance members to dumb to to get high sec incursion and FW alts) valued the space then.
CCP is partially fixing this by upping the amount of people who can actually live in a system. They aren't directly boosting null resident income (sure, you can use more alts to farm, but that means you have higher overhead in the form or more plex or subscription fees to pay), just making it space more livable by more people. More people in null means more chances for conflict because raiders WILL come into your space and WILL tackle ratting carriers and WILL form defense fleets to save said carriers etc etc, wormholes or not.
It amazes me after years of seeing the effects of bad thinking (like this example of thinking that keeping sov space nerfed in "Greyscale 2011" will drive conflict) people still cling to it. How many more years of proof do we need to see that something doesn't work?
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
313
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 12:46:11 -
[218] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Like anything in Eve, those sites belong to a Sov-holding alliance if they can defend them. Philip II of Macedon once sent a message to Sparta saying, "If I invade Laconia you will be destroyed, never to rise again," to which the Spartans sent back one word: "If." Most of them don't defend them, and I have completely opposite opinion who owns pirates...
Black Pedro wrote:I am not sure what you are complaining about. If you are so confident in your abilities to outwit those dim-witted nullsec dwellers, you should have no problem grabbing those sites from under their noses. First of all when CCP "take a look" at something, escacially loot I'm feeling insecure. Second what is the spawn mechanics here? Both above examples may lead to non good results. Third exploration should be seeking the sites not magnet them into you. This is suppose to be reward for 4 hour window? They won't have time to farm these, EvE is full of griefers, E-links will be used all the time.
Jenn aSide wrote: NONE of that happened, because NO ONE fights for anomaly and mining space.
and they will now? It's like more anoms, sigs etc. what will this change? The urge to log for 4 hour window and see where is entosis link in use? This will become tedious very fast. I liked E-links at start (good replacement for hp grind) but knowing the community it may become not entertaining at all.
Jenn aSide wrote: When CCP nerf anomalies and the upgrade system, we didn't fight for more space, we fought to see who was the fastest at making high sec incursion and Faction Warfare Stealth Bomber alts lol. It's the problem of incursions and FW that pay such amount of ISK.
Jenn aSide wrote:CCP is partially fixing this by upping the amount of people who can actually live in a system. What is the actual number of residents of all nullsec alliances? 12k goons only? Don't think so.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1152
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 13:14:21 -
[219] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Like anything in Eve, those sites belong to a Sov-holding alliance if they can defend them. Philip II of Macedon once sent a message to Sparta saying, "If I invade Laconia you will be destroyed, never to rise again," to which the Spartans sent back one word: "If." Most of them don't defend them, and I have completely opposite opinion who owns pirates... Yes, that is exactly what I said - those sites belong to the Sov holder if they can defend them. The reason they are in the game in the first place is to be something players can fight over. So go out there a generate some in-game content by stealing them instead of moaning on the forums about how unfair these changes are to you personally.
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Black Pedro wrote:I am not sure what you are complaining about. If you are so confident in your abilities to outwit those dim-witted nullsec dwellers, you should have no problem grabbing those sites from under their noses. First of all when CCP "take a look" at something, escacially loot I'm feeling insecure. Second what is the spawn mechanics here? Both above examples may lead to non good results. Third exploration should be seeking the sites not magnet them into you. This is suppose to be reward for 4 hour window? They won't have time to farm these, EvE is full of griefers, E-links will be used all the time. Yes, this ability to increase the spawn rates of sites is a reward for spending the time to defend and upgrade a system. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Whether they are new spawns, or taken from a pre-existing pool doesn't really matter - both will result in more sites being run as the sites will be found easier and thus cause a decrease in the value of exploration loot. More of that loot will go to Sov holders however as a reward for holding and upgrading a system.
PvE is there for there to be something to fight over, not your personal ISK printing machine. Adding the ability to control where those site spawn is a boon for a group of players taking space thus encouraging them to fight for the space in the first place. Whether this will work out as designed is really anyone's guess at this point, but this is clearly why CCP is making these changes. Perhaps you should wait and see how these changes play out before painting yourself as a victim of these changes.
|
Ijesz ToKolok
Harmless People
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 13:20:23 -
[220] - Quote
I noticed that the German translation for the dev blog has been posted on the forums. Figured I would go ahead and show you another way to provide the Germans their "must-read"s :)
Translation: https://de-de-w5ub09gv.app.easyling.com/news/dev-blogs/summer-of-sov-nullsec-pve-and-upgrades/
Reddit thread about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3cs7il/germans_of_eve_forum_thread_translation_this/
Note to CCP: if you need me to nuke the site out of existence, give me the word (preferably on reddit) - I read it more often. |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11720
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 13:40:27 -
[221] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: NONE of that happened, because NO ONE fights for anomaly and mining space.
and they will now? It's like more anoms, sigs etc. what will this change? The urge to log for 4 hour window and see where is entosis link in use? This will become tedious very fast. I liked E-links at start (good replacement for hp grind) but knowing the community it may become not entertaining at all.
Players don't fight over anomaly space. CCPs un-nerfing of the anomaly upgrades system (it is an un-nerfing rather than a 'buff') means pve players will be able to spread out a bit more from the "ratting hub" systems that were easily cloaky camped. This means more targets for roaming gangs as someone will slip up and not watch intel channels. More content like this is good for the game, and CCP didn't understand this when they nerfed system military upgrades in 2011.
Quote:Jenn aSide wrote: When CCP nerf anomalies and the upgrade system, we didn't fight for more space, we fought to see who was the fastest at making high sec incursion and Faction Warfare Stealth Bomber alts lol. It's the problem of incursions and FW that pay such amount of ISK.
Which CCP isn't going to fix. So since they aren't, they have to do something to make null livable for grunt pve pilots (which in turn makes null more attractive for roaming raiders, it's an eco system). More anoms is a step (but only a step) in the right direction.
Quote: What is the actual number of residents of all nullsec alliances? 12k goons only? Don't think so.
Goons have nothing to do with anything. |
Klyith
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
175
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 13:57:27 -
[222] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote: and they will now? It's like more anoms, sigs etc. what will this change? The urge to log for 4 hour window and see where is entosis link in use? This will become tedious very fast. I liked E-links at start (good replacement for hp grind) but knowing the community it may become not entertaining at all.
People fight because fighting is fun. And the ones who don't fight just for fun will fight because some other guy is hanging around in their space and they want to kick them out. Most of the people who are in null are there because they want pvp -- if they really wanted nothing but pve why not stay in empire. Many supposed "nullbears" are actually weekend warriors.
Jeremiah Saken wrote:What is the actual number of residents of all nullsec alliances? 12k goons only? Don't think so. Totaling up all the members of the alliances listed on dotlan holding at least 1 system equals 143,811 characters. Obviously that's a lot more than players or even active players. But the top 50 sov-holding alliances outnumber the members of the top 50 everyone-else alliances by almost exactly 2 to 1. The evidence says lots of people live in null.
But what's your point? The reason for increased density in nullsec isn't just to allow more people to live there in total. Even if not a single new person moves to null after this change, it's still a good thing. Increased density makes nullsec more interesting even if it means people clump up and more systems are completely empty. Clumps means you have targets on the map, and clumps mean ratters can switch to defenders easily. |
Duffyman
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 14:20:13 -
[223] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:Anomalies are not really very scalable. Ok you have more anomalies but you still have to travel to each one to find a vacant one.
Why not replace anoms with missions?
A few advantages:
- Totally scalable, you can have 200 guys living in a system - Forces mission runners to travel around to run the missions (make them never be in the same system as the agent) - Make life harder for botters (I'm no expert but it should be easier to program a bot to run anoms than to run missions) - Kill afk ratting, which is pretty much cancer to this game (although I abuse it as hell)
I'd like to see some discussion about this. Why not remove anomalies entirely and replace them with missions, like we have in NPC null space? |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1754
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 14:42:10 -
[224] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:Duffyman wrote:Anomalies are not really very scalable. Ok you have more anomalies but you still have to travel to each one to find a vacant one.
Why not replace anoms with missions?
A few advantages:
- Totally scalable, you can have 200 guys living in a system - Forces mission runners to travel around to run the missions (make them never be in the same system as the agent) - Make life harder for botters (I'm no expert but it should be easier to program a bot to run anoms than to run missions) - Kill afk ratting, which is pretty much cancer to this game (although I abuse it as hell) I'd like to see some discussion about this. Why not remove anomalies entirely and replace them with missions, like we have in NPC null space?
While they have teased agents in null (not NPC) stations it does present some issues. The main thing would be it requires a complete refactoring of LP rewards and ISK payouts for the missions themselves. Not a horrible task but not trivial either.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Duffyman
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 14:44:12 -
[225] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Duffyman wrote:Duffyman wrote:Anomalies are not really very scalable. Ok you have more anomalies but you still have to travel to each one to find a vacant one.
Why not replace anoms with missions?
A few advantages:
- Totally scalable, you can have 200 guys living in a system - Forces mission runners to travel around to run the missions (make them never be in the same system as the agent) - Make life harder for botters (I'm no expert but it should be easier to program a bot to run anoms than to run missions) - Kill afk ratting, which is pretty much cancer to this game (although I abuse it as hell) I'd like to see some discussion about this. Why not remove anomalies entirely and replace them with missions, like we have in NPC null space? While they have teased agents in null (not NPC) stations it does present some issues. The main thing would be it requires a complete refactoring of LP rewards and ISK payouts for the missions themselves. Not a horrible task but not trivial either.
True, it would require tuning, but the advantages I mentioned I think outweigh that.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
717
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 14:45:35 -
[226] - Quote
there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost |
Duffyman
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 14:47:05 -
[227] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost
That is a technical issue. It's up to CCP to solve it. I'm more concerned about the impact on the gameplay. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1754
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 14:53:02 -
[228] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost That is a technical issue. It's up to CCP to solve it. I'm more concerned about the impact on the gameplay.
I would rather see a mix. What we have today and adding agents. Perhaps a limit per region or const.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
717
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 16:11:50 -
[229] - Quote
yeah i can see like conquerable stations (read: stations in systems like NOL and VFK that are not player dropped outposts) in regions getting mission agents maybe? that would be a one time expenditure of effort and give some life back to stations that are currently 100% worthless |
Kant Boards
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 16:41:13 -
[230] - Quote
Gimme Guristas agents in VFK thanks. |
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
786
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 16:42:51 -
[231] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost The agent doesn't have to be installed in an outpost, they can be placed in space like the SOE epic arc Empire agents. Have the agent hang out around the I-Hub. Still have to go to actual Empire/NPC null space to cash in on the LP, like with the ESS (does anybody use those things?) There you go, no intern having to F5 for a new outpost, and the players decide if they want one or not by installing an upgrade in an I-hub.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves."
The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
313
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 18:10:13 -
[232] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Yes, that is exactly what I said - those sites belong to the Sov holder if they can defend them. The reason they are in the game in the first place is to be something players can fight over. So go out there a generate some in-game content by stealing them instead of moaning on the forums about how unfair these changes are to you personally.
Why do I get the feeling you have no idea how exploration looks like? How those new upgrades will work? How high will be the spawning bonus? They double it, but what is the base stat? What will happen if corp spawn all of them at max level all around one constellation? For example in Omist? Do they suck up all sites from region? What is the max spawn bonus?
If corp will suck up to a bubbled constellation it will be binary situation. Null corp will win here. I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there). You are focused at: "they hold sov, they should get the rewards". Exploration are not growing potatos or planting apples. It about finding the sites actively not growing them.
Black Pedro wrote:Yes, this ability to increase the spawn rates of sites is a reward for spending the time to defend and upgrade a system. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Whether they are new spawns, or taken from a pre-existing pool doesn't really matter - both will result in more sites being run as the sites will be found easier and thus cause a decrease in the value of exploration loot. More of that loot will go to Sov holders however as a reward for holding and upgrading a system. You are ignorat when it comes to the value of the loot. More sites spawned above the regional pool means the more loot is injected into the market. Which means they will be worth less. It will be like right after odyssey. You want that?
Black Pedro wrote:Perhaps you should wait and see how these changes play out before painting yourself as a victim of these changes. I will survive, there are plenty of space to explore for me, lot's of ways to earn money. I hope you are not some dev or csm alt, no hope then.
Klyith wrote:But what's your point? Point is how many players we can expect to be there.
Jenn aSide wrote:Which CCP isn't going to fix. So since they aren't, they have to do something to make null livable for grunt pve pilots (which in turn makes null more attractive for roaming raiders, it's an eco system). More anoms is a step (but only a step) in the right direction. Easiest thing: security agents in null. Unlimited players in system.
I'm kinda dissapointed with CCP proposals. I was hoping for agents in null. It would be mirroring hisec for pve content. Either there are some obstacles in the game code or devs lack imagination. Now they will waste resources on ESS...
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
718
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 19:17:28 -
[233] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Yes, that is exactly what I said - those sites belong to the Sov holder if they can defend them. The reason they are in the game in the first place is to be something players can fight over. So go out there a generate some in-game content by stealing them instead of moaning on the forums about how unfair these changes are to you personally.
Why do I get the feeling you have no idea how exploration looks like? How those new upgrades will work? How high will be the spawning bonus? They double it, but what is the base stat? What will happen if corp spawn all of them at max level all around one constellation? For example in Omist? Do they suck up all sites from region? What is the max spawn bonus? If corp will suck up to a bubbled constellation it will be binary situation. Null corp will win here. I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there). You are focused at: "they hold sov, they should get the rewards". Exploration are not growing potatos or planting apples. It about finding the sites actively not growing them. "sov is not something i have, therefore it should not have things" |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6719
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 03:32:36 -
[234] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote: I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there). Such defeatism.
They're not that prepared, they want to rat.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle
198
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 06:05:28 -
[235] - Quote
So basicly more income and safety for null sec and less content , less targets and more tedium for wh-space.
No local in null sec would fix everything!
Fleet warp proposal = the rubix cube is back into eve especialy the second part of the saying.
Wh players need to adapt, null sec players get the rules changed.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1153
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 11:49:20 -
[236] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:If corp will suck up to a bubbled constellation it will be binary situation. Null corp will win here. I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there). You are focused at: "they hold sov, they should get the rewards". Exploration are not growing potatos or planting apples. It about finding the sites actively not growing them. Yes, as I said several times before the nullsec alliance wins here. That is why CCP Fozzie released these devblog as part of sweeping changes to nullsec to make it more vibrant, active and fun. Part of that is making players want to live there and this is a reward to make players want to live in null.
Let me show you the man behind the curtain: all PvE, and I mean all, is in the game so you make yourself "in-game content" in your words. PvE rewards are the carrot that induces you to expose yourself to other players as a target. Exploration is no different. It is not there to allow you to earn ISK at no risk to yourself. It is there so you decide to make yourself "content" for other players in exchange for a reward. That is the social compact of Eve: you get a reward if you make yourself a target.
As an aside, this is why the current state of highsec incursions is so insidious - it is all reward with no player-driven risk (or any risk at all really), and thus provides only marginal content to the game. They should be nerfed/changed/eliminated immediately just like ISboxing was for the greater good.
But back to exploration, you stand a chance against them - embrace your inner ninja. If you don't want that risk, there are plenty of exploration sites in NPC null, low and wormholes which will provide you with an income. Don't let your selfishness make the game as a whole worse - we have enough of that already in these forums.
Black Pedro wrote:You are ignorat when it comes to the value of the loot. More sites spawned above the regional pool means the more loot is injected into the market. Which means they will be worth less. It will be like right after odyssey. You want that? I don't care. This is exactly how rewards should work, determined by the player-driven market. If exploration is too easy/common loot prices will drop and less people will do them. People will then do something else for an income. If it gets people living and fighting in null, that is good for the game. If CCP thinks it is a problem they can always nerf drop rates for certain items to increase their value.
This also is why ratting and incursions should reward primarily LP not mainly ISK so that there is a feedback regulating the impact of these activities on the greater economy. |
Marech Bhayanaka
The Night Crew The Night Crew Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 22:24:36 -
[237] - Quote
Edwin Wyatt wrote:CCP needs to understand their own game better.
An ISK faucets is an activity that require next to no player input. Prime example, Moon mining.
You need to understand Eve economics better. Anything that adds to the amount of isk in the game is an isk faucet. It has nothing to do with how hard someone worked to earn it, or how profitable it is.
Marech. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6721
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 02:22:15 -
[238] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Black Pedro wrote:You are ignorat when it comes to the value of the loot. More sites spawned above the regional pool means the more loot is injected into the market. Which means they will be worth less. It will be like right after odyssey. You want that? I don't care. This is exactly how rewards should work, determined by the player-driven market. If exploration is too easy/common loot prices will drop and less people will do them. People will then do something else for an income. If it gets people living and fighting in null, that is good for the game. If CCP thinks it is a problem they can always nerf drop rates for certain items to increase their value. This also is why ratting and incursions should reward primarily LP not mainly ISK so that there is a feedback regulating the impact of these activities on the greater economy. If there's tons of isk then prices of everything else goes up, which makes the ratting less worthwhile in terms of things you can buy...
Well if only it went far enough that people in nullsec would mine rather than rat but it seems you'd need a lot of inflation to push that, so start 'flatin'
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
313
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 08:40:27 -
[239] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:I don't care. This is exactly how rewards should work, determined by the player-driven market. If exploration is too easy/common loot prices will drop and less people will do them. People will then do something else for an income. If it gets people living and fighting in null, that is good for the game. If CCP thinks it is a problem they can always nerf drop rates for certain items to increase their value. Last time CCP messed with data sites loot value drop to the level of prechange lowsec sites. Why? Because they were buffing invention. Why there's no point of salvaging wrecks? Because of the flood of salvage materials coming from exploration sites. It's all connected. You can't just rise one value and call it done, it don't work that way. When you buff nullsec beyond some point, exploration sites everywhere in new eden and part of WHs space will get hit. For those doing exploration only it's no go. Market after odyssey never recover to the point before release (part of it is good thing, rigs are cheaper) but every antoher nerf to explo income won't do any good. Items from it are not reserved for exploration only, they can be obtained from other sources. When CCP telling me we will take look on them I know they are already fail, such as with data sites. Exploration is driven by ISK, low ISK and nobody will do it, just like data sites all around new eden.
To the part that giving big carrot for the null is good for the game. Really? Reducing the null WHs, increasing ISK earning possibilities, reducing jump drives range will made a perfect condition to grow safe regions. New sov with elink will be similiar to FW. Regions like Tenal or Omist will be very safe. Should they, Black Pedro? Why null is so great that it must deregulate whole new eden market?
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2260
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 09:08:32 -
[240] - Quote
Mmmm, Interesting change list. Lot of good stuff like the Incursion changes. More Anoms also increases population density nicely.
For the people talking rubbish about 100 people living in a single system, seriously, go to null, try and have 100 people farm a single system at once currently. Hell, try and have 10 people farm a single system at once now. If this turns active density from 10 to 15 in a system, that's progress, but it is certainly not the be all & end all.
As for Data/Relic sites & loot becoming cheaper. So it becomes cheaper..... Just move more volume, you will get the same income overall right? It's what you always tell miners. It will also actually become used loot if it is cheaper, and used loot is good. It increases destruction of said loot which provides a counterbalance to said production. High turnover is good for EVE, it means things are happening, low turn over is bad even if it's high value as it means things are quiet. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |