Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ima GoodGirl
Black Ballers
151
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 01:15:50 -
[1] - Quote
In her latest blog article, Sugar has raised some valid questions:
http://www.lowseclifestyle.com/2015/10/taboo-questions.html?m=1
In GD in particular, we often see the sort of things she mentions, calls for change but no substance more than "CCP should change it".
So if you had a chance to redesign/introduce one substantial thing in highsec, what would it be and how would it improve the game?
I'll add my response later. I'm just on my phone right now. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14622
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 01:52:23 -
[2] - Quote
Facpo would be gone. I suppose you could call that a redesign of sec status mechanics.
It would introduce the opportunity for meaningful gameplay that isn't overridden by NPCs who are faster, stronger, and react more quickly than any group of players ever could.
It would improve the game because it would let pirate playstyle characters interact with highsec in more than just cheap, disposable ships, improving the potential for player interaction a hundredfold.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
955
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 03:07:32 -
[3] - Quote
Complete PVE mechanic rewrite to replace or exist parallel with current mind numbing red dots shootem up.Massive changes in mining as well.
Changes in space travel like being able to warp without interacting with any object.
Massive investment in PI
like creating planetary currency that is used to build planetary infrastructure,population,politics,economy planet to planet travel,transport tourism another fresh and new EVE realm running on parallel track with rest of the game.
Civilian activity,more visually convincing space. rotation and weather changes on planets and moons more hi def planets nebula's that are not backgrounds dust clouds meteors and other phenomena occurring sun damage ships.
Updating sansha inc AI to be less static and more engaging for all players fluxes in security status of space,live events new space expand universe.
Or in other words invest plenty as one can that's the only way to move it forward at fast enough inertia to matter ignore it and it will be like any other thing one ignore.
i believe that changes would just expand eve and not infringe on anything that is already here and would bring more ppl in.
Also mandatory remove and or buff ganking because that will totally fix all things for everyone.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1848
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 03:50:17 -
[4] - Quote
nerf it... I feel like I'm stacking exploits or something the way I'm running right now. it used to be fine, but burner missions and standings mechanics are just stupid. Other content just isn't worth doing.
Missions: I've always liked missions as a way to log in, not worry about stuff, blow up some ships, and not worry about taking orders. they are a nice solo activity for when you only have a little bit of time. However a number of changes have happened in the last few years that have created some very silly situations.
First Nerf concord LP, being able to stockpile concord LP and convert to any empire LP is stupid. Kills incentives to run for certain corps. Hopefully this would come with some sort of buff to the concord LP store, I imagine as is that would be too much LP for it to handle. Maybe restrict concord LP to navy stores (maybe that is too evil)
second. normalize LP payouts based on sec bands and not system sec. Overall this would probably be a reward/LP nerf. the sec status based payout just leads to clustering. there are like 4 agents in highsec that are worth using. Getting rid of agent quality was a great first step, but there have been enough changes since we have problems again.
third. normalize jumps for missions. overall they are pretty okay, but there are some silly situations. Warp speed implants being the best implants for mission running and regularly spending more time in warp than in mission is silly.
4th give navy style stores some sort of usefulness. having all the same stuff as navy stores means LP floods happen whenever that side is up. I had 1mil+ lp with CPF that I have been slowly using up when anything near 1k isk/lp shows up in the CN lp store. Looking at fuzzwork there are mostly 1 and 3% implants on the front page, with a few ammo choices. Suppose I could dump an ammo market but those markets are so flooded it is hard to maintain any decent trade.
The mission changes all go together as there are a few agent that might be worth using, but because they are in a high truesec any incentive of a special LP store is wiped out because of CONCORD convertible LP, or they are a navy corp and the LP trade out is bleh, or where they are leads to a bad jump pattern. Some aspects of the current system are desirable like systems rich with targets for ninjas or giving traders opportunities to create small regional hubs. I used to stock Irjunen with a large selection of goods, and made some nice profit doing so. however with all the changes irjunen completely dried up (speaking of that maybe CCP should make PI available there given there is almost no load on that node).
when it comes to missions I'll never be able to go back to normal, massive hordes of red icons that I can faceroll (speaking of that, sounds a lot like null anoms, not sure I could ever live in null either).
additionally maybe even buff lv1/2 missions. the amount of newbs that get sucked into mining because at day one it seems like best income when they could be shooting stuff instead is too high!
incursions: pretty much no comment, don't run them enough. flying a whole bunch of jumps just to wait around, and log in the next day to do another whole bunch of jumps. I don't know that I have too much of a problem with the content. I like the team up aspect, and think more content should require multiple people. Although the roflicer fits that you see get killed every once in a while make me wonder.
trading: multibuy/sell is awesome! since so much of trade is player driven not much to say on it as a mechanic.
mining: imo the whole system needs a revamp. as is CODE is doing community service work by discouraging mining. If anything I feel like mining barge HP got buffed too much.
production: would be nice if BS cost a little less to build in jita. most of the other stuff I make the fee doesn't even matter. hauling is a pain in the arse, would be nice to not have to haul like mad just to move stuff around.
ganking/wars: not much to say, pretty happy with the way things are. I found a post it with forum post ideas from years back and one said nerf concord, although if I remember right it came with the stipulation insurance payouts got nerfed. well that happened, and I'd say most ships got buffed enough *cough*destroyers*cough* that concord got nerfed so good job ccp
wormholes: why do highsec holes to thera not allow battleships
contracts: would be nice to be able to search thera as a destination for courier contracts.
Standings: maybe make them mean something again.
if a ccper wants me to talk to them about mission specifics I'd be happy to. but in general I'm going to stay a little vague at least for now, I expect some patch to dump on me soonGäó and when that hits I have like 8 backup plans of things I want to do. Until then I'll be rolling in my filthy pile of iskies.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate
1504
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 03:52:35 -
[5] - Quote
Fix wardecs... it makes no sense whatsoever that a corp or alliance can wardec 20 to 30 others at once with few available counters to encourage fighting back... There needs to be some way to hit these corps where it hurts... destroy a certain item or certain value of things, and CONCORD immediately invalidates the war and more amusingly, denies the original aggressor any additional wars for say, 2 weeks. |
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
687
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 04:08:38 -
[6] - Quote
If there was a single area of highsec I would fix, it would be the mission running mechanics to remove metagaming and scripting. In addition, I would develop it to encourage a fleet dynamic and indirect competition for mission goals. Give players a better taste of competition.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
311
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 04:35:57 -
[7] - Quote
Train an AI based off solo-PVPers that's used for burner missions. |
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
555
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 04:38:55 -
[8] - Quote
Mining Indices for high sec
|
Ima GoodGirl
Black Ballers
152
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 04:58:28 -
[9] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:Fix wardecs... it makes no sense whatsoever that a corp or alliance can wardec 20 to 30 others at once with few available counters to encourage fighting back... There needs to be some way to hit these corps where it hurts... destroy a certain item or certain value of things, and CONCORD immediately invalidates the war and more amusingly, denies the original aggressor any additional wars for say, 2 weeks. Yeah, but how and what benefit would your suggestion bring?
Just saying "fix ABC" doesn't really offer much, since it's still just a call for CCP to do something rather than proposing anything useful.
I know we aren't game designers, but you must have some idea of what you would like to see in a redesigned wardec system.
Like for me for example:
Allow/Require the aggressing Corp/Alliance to declare victory conditions to CONCORD at the start of the war (not known to the defender, but all military operations work to a clear objective known to the attacker and since the wardec system involves paying CONCORD to turn a blind eye, CONCORD should probably have some way to measure whether that is worth continuing or not).
Those could be 'victory' conditions, or a weekly objective.
At the same time, allow Defenders to declare a victory condition too (so they don't just stay docked or logged off for the week, etc.).
Then each week, CONCORD measures against the victory conditions:
- If defender meets victory condition and attacker doesn't, CONCORD sides with the defender and invalidates the war.
- If Attacker meets victory condition and defender doesn't, CONCORD continues to side with the attacker and reduces the cost of the war
- If both Attacker and Defender meet the victory condition, CONCORD increases the war cost significantly for it to continue, or invalidates it.
All recruitment would be stopped for a Corp at war and no one can leave a Corp at war.
How it would improve on the current situation?:
It allows attackers to continue to do what they currently do and gives them benenfits for being successful in terms of reduced costs to maintain the war. At the same time, it provides incentive to the defender to be active in order to see the war ended.
The overall risk would be no different to now, but both attackers and defenders would have incentive and attackers wouldn't face the situation of dissolved Corps, Corps leaving Alliances causing new costs to maintain aggression in future weeks, etc., while defenders have the opportunity to control the outcome of the war more than they do now.
It also encourages interaction and social play, which seems to be much more natural in low/null/WH play.
That might be totally crazy and there might be a ton of holes in it, but how would you do it differently that provides balanced gameplay for both attackers and defenders and doesn't just nerf highsec aggression? |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1850
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 06:50:37 -
[10] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:Fix wardecs... it makes no sense whatsoever that a corp or alliance can wardec 20 to 30 others at once with few available counters to encourage fighting back... There needs to be some way to hit these corps where it hurts... destroy a certain item or certain value of things, and CONCORD immediately invalidates the war and more amusingly, denies the original aggressor any additional wars for say, 2 weeks. meh, I have no problems with weak corps getting dunked. That said highsec wars seem to turn into games of catch the idiot who doesn't pay any attention, and shoot each other on a station till someone does something stupid and loses a ship. I have little patience for either, freaking weaponized boredom at its finest. I feel like worst case a wardec is an invitation for a corp to go play in low/null sec for a week and not even care about the wardec. As signal-cartel calls them "wardorks" Perhaps there needs to be some better explanation about creating/joining a corp for new players somewhere? At the same time I feel like if wardecs got removed the game wouldn't really lose anything.
Rawketsled wrote:Train an AI based off solo-PVPers that's used for burner missions. I mostly do want to see that, but in the end it is still pve and I imagine it will still get cheesed.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
|
Oxide Ammar
216
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 08:30:30 -
[11] - Quote
We need to be clear here, nerfing hisec to the limit that you wanna shove them to lowsec or nullsec won't happen in numbers you are thinking about but mostly these people will be out of the game totally.
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Do Little
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
176
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 08:48:32 -
[12] - Quote
At the extremes we have PVP players arguing that highsec is too safe, they see a target rich environment and want easier access - forgetting that those targets are paying subscribers who have just as much right to enjoy the game as anyone else. Then we have carebears who argue it's too dangerous, non-consensual PVP should be restricted to low or nullsec - forgetting that if you remove the risk, you also remove the reward. I believe the playing field is tilted in favor of PVP at the moment, penalties for ganking are minor and choke point systems provide a steady supply of victims but I freely admit my opinion is biased!
So, what would I like to change that, hopefully, doesn't require a massive amount of development effort? Actually, not much. As a hauler, I would like to see Vecamia and Olettiers upgraded to 0.5 creating alternate routes between trade hubs. As a builder I would like to see loot drops restricted to salvage, components and blueprints - everything else should be player built.
I think the best thing CCP can do is continue to improve opportunities for builders in nullsec - give highsec industrialists incentive to move. |
Anthar Thebess
1317
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 10:18:28 -
[13] - Quote
Downgraded systems between all major factions so you cannot move between Caldari and Amarr space without passing a lowsec system.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
398
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 10:30:51 -
[14] - Quote
Mina Sebiestar wrote:Massive investment in PI This. Currently I can build a colony in 30 min - fun part. Then milk it - boring part. With introduction on citadels and their fits why not same setup with planets? Then interact planet - ships on orbit. Distant future I presume.
"(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
|
Leila Meurtrier
Why Am I Not Surprised
31
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 10:56:56 -
[15] - Quote
The biggest buff to highsec will come through halt on buffing unreasonable places with unconvincing mumble about risk vs reward.
One way I see it is direct multipliers (Both reductions and increases, like FW/Incursion system wide effects) based on player ISKs destroyed in the system. No PI effects (Stuff got only very short window to screw up the operation), but ratting (Increased bounty, officer spawns tied to it rather than security level) and mining (Increased yield, better ores) coupled with better and more frequent anomalies spawn. That gives? 1)Backwater systems being actually goddamned backwater. Is it safe? It is crap nobody wants. Players, off course, will find something average, but this system will liquefy plain cheap ISK havens. 2)Hardcore PvE'rs and PvP'rs being in one basket. Basically, guys who won't leave EVE just because of one simple loss and guys who is after someone suffering that loss. 3)Serious "Taxation" on officer and faction modules. Because after 3-6 cycles of destruction loot fairy don't smile but grins. 4)It gives incentive for organized groups to dominate on a fireball. Trouble is, they can't reliably give that fireball for rent, forcing them to do stuff by themselves.
Other thing is FW. Plex mechanic is a bull. Remove it completely, tie system capture to mission running, allow to choose destination system, apply the same "hotspot" system to them. |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
501
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 11:09:09 -
[16] - Quote
I wish CCP would make more missions as the current ones have already been done a million times. |
Max Fubarticus
The Scope Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 11:22:53 -
[17] - Quote
I read the SK blog and found nothing new or Eve shattering that points to a specific issue (s) that require High Security space to be buffed / nerfed. So this thread is nothing more than a continuation of earlier ones lamenting Wardecs, gankers and other nonsense. Lets put this in the proper perspective. "Eve is a PVP centric game you moron!" That is a quote from a player yesterday in Amarr space who was engaged in a heated debate with others in local. The subject? You guessed it! F1 monkeys versus carebears ideology. The problem is not that a particular aspect of HS is broke. It is the narrow mindset from both groups of players.
" Leave me alone, I just want to mine and build stuff. I don't want to socially interact with you. I don't like to PVP." OR "come out and fight! Stop whining and dropping Corp to avoid me. Risk averse babies"
Neither side is right or wrong. Their argument is "you are not playing the game as I see it" What's wrong... the incessant whining and infantile arguments that have nothing to do with Eve game play as a WHOLE. Exit soapbox------>
Max |
Hir Miriel
Elves In Space
238
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 12:13:59 -
[18] - Quote
Ima GoodGirl wrote:In her latest blog article, Sugar has raised some valid questions: http://www.lowseclifestyle.com/2015/10/taboo-questions.html?m=1 In GD in particular, we often see the sort of things she mentions, calls for change but no substance more than "CCP should change it". So if you had a chance to redesign/introduce one substantial thing in highsec, what would it be and how would it improve the game?I'll add my response later. I'm just on my phone right now.
My own little piece of Eden.
~
~~
Thinking inside Schrodinger's sandbox.
~~
~
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
339
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 13:33:09 -
[19] - Quote
I would add someting akin to a Chamberlain Office for players who handle all station affairs and change the way you get missions handle PI and contracts.
Mission agents are removed and in their place is a system that offers opportunities to the Chamberlain. The capsuleer can accept these remotely and have all needed info send to him. Incase that nothing needs to be brought to a station, they can also be completed remotely by contacting your Chamberlain office to handle the paperwork. The new missions are corporations or people asking if a capsuleer can do something and then handing out dynamic missions with rewards based on the time it took for someone to accept the opportunity and the assumed difficulty of the task.
The flow would be something like this:
1. a Corporation Station/Office or important individual creates a task. [tasks are what will become opportunities for players] 2. Said corporation office/station or person than tries to hand out their task in the system the task is created in by sending it out to registered Chamberlain offices in the station. 3. a Capsuleer gets a notification from his Chamberlain office that they have an opportunity for him and if he has an interest to accept it. A description is given with the info needed and the rewards offered. 4. if the Capsuleer accepts the task, he now has a new opportunity and a mission to do. 5. With the opportunity completed, he contacts his Chamberlain office. 6. Chamberlain office checks if all things are done right (items in right location/things shot etc. as the green V's do now), contacts the corporation and gives the reward to the capsuleer.
If a task is not taken in the same station, it's get send out system wide, if it's not taken system wide it's send out to the constellation. The longer a task is not done, the higher the reward will be but if it takes too long for a task to be accepted by a capsuleer, it is deleted from the system to make room for new ones.
Tasks spawn often, but in systems with a lower acceptance rate (quieter), there will be more work (tasks) to do at a higher reward.
In systems with a lot of Chamberlain offices, a lot of tasks will be created, but there should be a max rate at which they are created and handed out. Making it worthwhile to spread out. Accepting more missions for a corporation gives you access to better opportunities (like missions work now) and their Chamberlains will recieve tasks before they're sent out to pilots who the corporations didn't know yet. Corporations like dealing with capsuleers who do their jobs well.
Hiring a Chamberlain Office is required to accept tasks and run missions and should cost some isk (and perpaps trade goods, like tobacco. People like cigars), but not much. Players can have more than one Chamberlains office, but not more than one per station.
The Chamberlain office can also be used to do other work. Auto renewal of expired contracts, Setting extraction cycles on PI extractors and manage import/exports to the POCO when a player is out of system. If CCP implements the NPC hauler for players, have it deliver items to and from the chamberlain office remotely (like moving modules from a hub to the chamberlain office or vice versa) and perhaps have something like a deliveries hangar for purchases/contracts.
Baddest poster ever
|
Eternal Bob
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 13:37:27 -
[20] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Facpo would be gone. I suppose you could call that a redesign of sec status mechanics.
It would introduce the opportunity for meaningful gameplay that isn't overridden by NPCs who are faster, stronger, and react more quickly than any group of players ever could.
It would improve the game because it would let pirate playstyle characters interact with highsec in more than just cheap, disposable ships, improving the potential for player interaction a hundredfold.
Translation: "I want to gank noobs with no consequences" |
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
40456
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 14:05:24 -
[21] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:I wish CCP would make more missions as the current ones have already been done a million times. Did you read the blog that Sugar wrote linked in the OP?
She makes some good observations about that.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Cidanel Afuran
Chickenhawk.
289
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 15:27:01 -
[22] - Quote
Not just in HS, but comet mining.
Comets have Ice as an outer layer, once that is gone there are minerals, once minerals are gone there is moon goo at the core. They have a trail of gas that can be mined as well.
They travel 1000 m/s, can be webbed to slow them down and cause damage over time to any ship near them. Spawns randomly in any system and must be scanned down. |
Otso Bakarti
Filial Pariahs
325
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 15:44:28 -
[23] - Quote
Ha! Turn high sec into null/low? Yeah, right. PvP-ers traditionally can't find a game they like completely. Invariably, it's because not enough people PvP to satisfy that appetite. THEY ALWAYS (therefore) try to pressure game management into making changes to FORCE other people into their playstyle - or what they're really looking for but cannot find - exclusive PvP. Why? So then there'll be tons of people they can gank*...er....fight.
Here, you can see a group has latched on and is giving it the college try to PUSH this game into a place they couldn't push any OTHER game. Call it: Desperation. Why is there no pure PvP game this late into gaming's lifetime? Because, whether they like it or not, or like to admit it or not, PvP-ers are a MINORITY. No business can stay in business long catering to a minority.
The exception to that rule is "exclusive". However, exclusive is very expensive, and another feature of the average PvP-er is, they don't want to pay. They love EVE 'cause they can pay in PLEX. That, as I don't have to tell EVE's accounting department, is NOT real MONEY. Therefore (once again), it is bad business practice to cater to PvP-ers. Cry about it. Shout about it. Deny it all you want. The math says so.
That being said, were I to suggest something management bothered to CONSIDER, it would be to tighten up the concept of "Sovereignty" by the major factions. If it is THEIR territory it's in their interest to FIGHT crime, not to just react to it. The so-called "carebear" is WHY we keep traffic lanes open. It is WHY we maintain a solid currency and cogent trade practices, AND
It is also why the factions (unless they're insane, or stupid) DON'T BROOK PIRACY IN ANY FORM.
It is a crime that negatively impacts the advancement of their civilization. It is also a crime enemy factions can foment and support to undermine a faction's stability and ability to respond to hostility. SO, this shoot at the criminal then let a timer go off and all is like it never happened crap is counter-intuitive and as incoherent as Dethro Jethro's contribution to culture.
COMMIT AN ACT OF PIRACY IN HIGH SEC AND:
1.) No station can be entered until a hefty fine is paid. (Have your ship blown up by CONCORD and sit outside a station in your pod until you PAY UP. ) Hefty fines. Fines that make a criminal go OUCH! THAT HURT! And, well it should.
2.) Jump gates are property of the states. No criminal can use one. No NONE NEVER. (Until he/she has paid the above mentioned HEFTY FINE.)
3.) Three strikes rule. Three criminal acts in one sovereign territory and the offender is persona non grata. He/she may never enter that faction's space, or use their jump gates ever again as long as their little clone shall live.
4.) Any spamming about it on the forum results in a forum privilege suspension.
Stick that in your ganker pipe and smoke it.
*Gank - To attack someone materially disadvantaged, for a sure kill and lawls; i.e. someone who effectively has no chance to fight back.
Back from the 90-day suspension for speaking truth to power.
|
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
809
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 15:57:43 -
[24] - Quote
Spice up missions by.....removing the mission briefings. The agent just gives a location and who the mission is against. New missions don't have to be created, you just make it so you don't know what is coming. |
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12580
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 16:08:38 -
[25] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Spice up missions by.....removing the mission briefings. The agent just gives a location and who the mission is against. New missions don't have to be created, you just make it so you don't know what is coming.
That just ends up with everyone using cookie cutter omni-tank fits (and usually missile or drone ships that can select damage on the fly) like wormhole space or incursions. Same goes for when people say "just randomize spawns", it sounds cool, but y7ou end up stifling creativity rather than encouraging it.
On the bright side, people who farm Rattlesnake BPCs would get freaking rich. |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
525
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 16:36:08 -
[26] - Quote
Increase the strength of the faction police to help protect nubbin FW pilots. Reduce incursion payouts by 50% and replace that faucet somewhere else in game. |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1547
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 17:35:33 -
[27] - Quote
Some good observations in the article. There is a fixed population, who has fun in Highsec PvE ....so I propose two measures: 1) make PvE/lore more fun and engaging, and 2) nerf Highsec income into oblivion. There should be no other reason to stay in Highsec than personal fun and security.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Roberta Gastoni
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 17:40:04 -
[28] - Quote
My 2 Cent on the Topic:
1) Changing High Sec mechanics to turn it into a low sec kind of space is not the way to go. In EvE there are 4 kind of space, High Sec, Low Sec, Null Sec and WH Space, all with their rules and game play style,someone might like them or not, but no one should be entitled to destroy the other players sand box of choice. I would probably limit the number of active wardecs based on the size of the corporation / alliance that is declaring them, but looking at the new structure mechanics, someone must really bring friends to tear down your citadel. I really want to see the finished work with citadel and capitals before saying more on the topic.
2) Mining and Ice mining in High Sec are really too mechanical, not simply because you point your laser and mine, without any real interaction beside changing asteroid once one is depleted, but because Ore and Ice belts are always in the same spots or systems. I found it really disappointing too see ice miners fleet multiboxed by someone, camping a system knowing that a certain ice belt will respawn at a certain hour, with a know composition of ice that will be strip mined in minutes. This is not about mutliboxed mining fleet, but it's about something being 100% predictable in a game where the thrill should come from "the great unknown", and not by an alarm clock.
I would really love to see High Sec Ice Belt changing system inside a constellation, with the need of being probed down, a variable quality / quantity of Ice and a proportionate difficulty in scanning them down based on their content, like the Limited Sleeper Caches are at the moment in high sec.
In terms of developement time I don't think it would take a lot, and still will make mining more active and nomadic, less bot aspirant, like some people would say.
3) Standing and LP store are too generic, the average mission runner do not really feel the need of changing system or corporation once they have found a decent L4 agent with a LP store offering a good LP/ISK conversion. For those not really into mission, there are mainly 3 kind of LP store inside every major empire faction, with some differences, but rarely enough to justify you dropping everything and moving to somewhere else. Not to mention, hauling everything you have into a freighter to move out is rarely a good idea. My idea would be to:
-- a) Slim down and make more specific LP stores, themed with the corp you are working with. At the moment I see LP stores ranging from 137 items (Garuon Investment Bank) to 312 items (Federation Navy), while the Gallente Federation has 31 corps to run missions with. Give a tiny pool of common items (stat implants, charters and such) to everyone and then make specific LP stores. -- b) Give standing toward a corp a real meaning, gate some of the rewards with reputation and balance their cost accordingly. I'm not sure, but I think that's already a Faction Warfare LP store thing. I would also say remove or consolidate faction tags for LP, but I'm not sure about the first option myself, I'm totally in favour of the second due to simplicity sake. -- c) Make standing cappable, without diminishing standing increase (or decrease) the higher you go. This should helps the people to enter in the mindset of "I'm done here" and move on, and this should mix well with the LP store changes.
These are the 3 things I would change, and I wouldn't mind some more epic arcs for the other empires (see Khanid, Intaki Syndicate and Ammatar) |
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
1042
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 18:17:58 -
[29] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:Increase the strength of the faction police to help protect nubbin FW pilots. Reduce incursion payouts by 50% and replace that faucet somewhere else in game.
Working towards that goal.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12580
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 18:28:33 -
[30] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:Thanatos Marathon wrote:Increase the strength of the faction police to help protect nubbin FW pilots. Reduce incursion payouts by 50% and replace that faucet somewhere else in game. Working towards that goal.
Which goal, Faction police or incursions?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |