Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Keith F
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 22:18:00 -
[211]
I have noticed a few sites with deserted installations containing factories towers etc . How about the ability to capture those site TEMPORARALLY ie 7 days max. This could be done by flying in: Chief engineer- to oversee and establish ownership. janitors - to clean up: engineers - to repair: once deployed you can move them to/from each building needing repair at set speed per engineer ie 10 = 1 hour per 10%damage.100 = 10 minutes per 10% damage Miners - to operate mining equipment there and produce ore from surrounding roids. factory workers - to build from a few active slots (1-2):you would need to deposit new workers every job. researchers - to copy/ME/PE bpo slots ie 1-2 or even BPC research slots.same new reserachers every job.
These mini stations could be only available to the finder of the site and unconquerable and have there own PASSIVE defence. ie your cruise missile hits tower for 0.0 damage. and NO ability to attack back. They could have no soverenity affect and no ability to protect a fleet and be used as a staging post in hostile area's.
The finder and his gang members(maybe only 1-2) only could have access to the resourses produced for the period the stn is active (ie 7 days) but would need to supply fuel etc for power, but not HUGE AMOUNTS remembering this is a MINI station meant as a reward not DEBT to a player.
Explorers would need to carry 1-2 items with them to place inside the (TOWER) that triggers there ownership of that facility and locking down the site for there use then they have 1-2 hours to deposit repair crew or the site reverts to how it was with the next person able to lock it down. once repairs start the OWNER only, could DOCK with 1 only ship and be SAFE from hosilte actions to the station, and then able warp in/out with out fear of attack (1 ship only) At the end of this period he/she/they can then remove all loot and salvage the station back down to a wreck with salvager beams thus ending the cycle and after DT it ends.
this is only a suggestion, now lets see you all run with and improve on it. Remembering the site is Meant as a REWARD to the FINDER/EXPLORER that found it not a exploitable find.
|
Zam Branes
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 23:46:00 -
[212]
if you're trying to sink money you should target the players holding the phat wallets (greater than 10b over the last 3 months)
i'm not talking about making these players poor ... but a system that spreads the wealth out a little more
|
Macmuelli
Gallente Gallente Mercantile Exchange Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.04.01 21:39:00 -
[213]
Nice if missions changed in future to make them more interesting then now.
perhaps rewards like this?
It woud be much more nicer to see mods as reward in missions then isks. (Time to reset faction mods) High class mision(6-7) rewards coud be "officer near mods". Special T II faction imps, like pirate faction implant sets. Faction ship bpc or builded ships..
perecentage bonus to building stuff on the corp u work for. Like if u build a ship the needed mineral will be lowered. ( industrial specialized players will love it , when they have a certificate to have a 2-4 % bonus to the job )
invention bonuses of time reducing or percentage bonus to a positve job...
high end missions on lev 7 perhaps a share of the corp u work for?
which gives u a monthly dividende like a percentage bonus of minerals which are refined on this station etc...
There are endless ways to make all happy and open new ways to us.
Whats a human without dreams?.....
DEATH
"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "
|
Tarkan Kador
Amarr PanTarkan Kador Holdings
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 21:35:00 -
[214]
Inflation is a problem that can be managed far more easily than deflation. My concern is that this big change to mission payouts is going to create deflationary effects, where there is a shortage of ISK to go around.
Still, I have yet to be convinced that:
1) Inflation is a problem that affects the majority of players in EVE.
and,
2) Players want to buy more loots, goods, and mini-profession services on the open market.
Its not clear to me that the ones who have the ISK require much from the likes of those who need the ISK. Moreover, I'm not sure inflation is negatively affecting anyone's game, with the possible exception of CCP, who doesn't like young subscribers to be upwardly mobile without being connected to 2003 clout.
|
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.04.08 17:50:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Zam Branes if you're trying to sink money you should target the players holding the phat wallets (greater than 10b over the last 3 months)
i'm not talking about making these players poor ... but a system that spreads the wealth out a little more
Communism has been proven to be a poor system. Not saying that capitalism is perfect but it's obviously a lot better. -- (Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
Please don't read this signature. |
Jim Sharpe
|
Posted - 2007.04.09 19:42:00 -
[216]
This plan gives mission runners two options?
1. Running lvl 4s less reward for time spend.
2. Going to 0.4 and below and risk losing ship and fittings to pirates for a promise of marginally better rewards.
What about the third option: 3. Spending their RL money somewhere else? Expecting pilots to stay and pay RL money for something they don't want to do? Not going to happen. One thing that will happen, is when friends ask them about Eve, their comments won't bring Eve new pilots. It is folly to underestimate the hostility of pilots who have paid RL money to play Eve for years, then feels cheated and quits.
|
5amm
Caldari The Archaeological Squirrel Society
|
Posted - 2007.04.10 11:52:00 -
[217]
Its claimed that concord gives us "new" money, but what about the npc taxes on goods you sell, or the money thats paid to concord for wardecks? Billions get paid into wardecks constantly, wheres that money goin? So concord does a 180 and sucks money only? I ask because npc bounty hunting is my mini profession Its my eve livelyhood. It pays for everything I do. The bounty system is a very essential component in this game. I can give you many examples of how this is going to greatly affect the community in a bad way. The only isk printing machines are the t2 conglomerates, and you guys are fixing that. Did anyone stop and think.... Hey mabye the market is so damn cheap cause the t2 guys are done and they know it...... so they are dumping the market Nah, its those damn bounties We as a community at least deserve to know where all the isk paid into concord goes. Ok, I will shut up now.
|
Whiskey Girl
|
Posted - 2007.04.11 08:15:00 -
[218]
ccp is just lucky there isnt any direct competition in the space mmo area
|
Ischia
|
Posted - 2007.04.14 11:11:00 -
[219]
You feel we are abandoning missions and PVE in general.
Still worried; as far as I can tell, it will be impossible to engage in PvE at high levels without risking a high probability of PvP. I guess it will depend a little on how well you encourage player policing. I think this will be hard, and hard to make it effective.
You want the current Level 4 missions to stay as they are.
Not too worried about this so long as the market-like LP interface makes it into L1-L4 missions. Could be a very nice balancing factor. Dont want to lose ISKs from L1-4 missions tho.
You're taking away our ISK! We don't make that much ISK!
At least on the face of it, you still are: we can already make money from the things you quote, but it sounds like we will lose the ISKs from bounties. Happy if the LP system really does balance things for up and coming players.
Quote: We are forcing you into low security and PVP!
Not at all. EVE is about freedom of choice...
Problem is, at least from an uninformed perspective the choice is to (a) do PvE at high levels with PvP or (b) not do PvE at high levels.
This seems to be the choice between (a) a moth sandwich or (b) a mud pie.
As you suggest, player policing may be te key but without some more detail on the mechanics, I cant see how the incentives will work or how 24x7 protection will be afforded.
With the change in war status it might be appropriate for a state that likes someone to provide some level of protection in 0.1 to 0.4...not necessarily ships, but perhaps state-sponsored bounties: kill a person with standing 5+ get an automatic status adjustment of -50% and a state-sponsored bounty. Or something like that.
Missions are ISK-printing machines!
Well, yeah....most things: mining, manufactrung, research , ratting and missions are ISK pinting. What is the problem?
No problem with making L5+ missions based on non-ISK rewards. Sounds good even.
mini-professions
Hmmm....where are these documented and/or described?
Other factors
I posted a longer version of the following a day or two ago on the original thread. Most still seems relevant...
See my original post for fuller version.
1. As someone who lost interest in DDO due to lack of decently constructed solo content, any move away from "all missions can be solo'd" worries me a lot.
2. Blurring PvE and PvP seems good in concept, but the fitouts and play styles are totally different...
There is also a logical flaw here; the original article started out saying the game is *already* PvP, just a broader definition of PvP. So why change it?....
3. A black market corporate loyalty system is *very* welcome....
4. Changes to L4 missions....well if the new ones are not just upgraded L3 missions that will be very nice. *Except* that there are a lot of players who got rich on L4 missions and I (and future players) will now be deprived of that ability...
5. "Escalating Paths" sounds like a good concept, but consider giving us a way of pausing mid-escalation....
6. Low-Sec missions need to be carefully framed; last thing I want to do is fight to the end of some series of PvE encounters to be popped by a pirate who says "better luck next time"...
7. Not diectly related to the original post but a lot of level 3 missions run in DED zones.... will this still be the case?
8. Inflation: hmmm...economists today have as many models as they have PhDs. Not convinced the stated play will solve it.
9. I am not a researcher, but forcing researchers into low-sec for L5+ missions seems rude and unfair...
|
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.04.14 21:15:00 -
[220]
CCP wants us to get into more PvP?
Change mission rat aggro, if we are forced to pvp in a mission, only seems fair to force the Prat to PVE a bit. Fair, eh?
|
|
Riven Starkill
Caldari Regalis Industria Scientia Entreprendre Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.16 08:14:00 -
[221]
One of the biggest problems with CCP's plan to "slow march" us all into lowsec for our missions (as one poster rather aptly put it) is that there are currently no consequences to piracy. Ganking mission runners carries with it no real stigma - and CCP's only solution so far is to have players police the space around mission hubs themselves - but they have failed to provide ANY of the tools necessary to do this.
There have been numerous posts about what is needed to make anti-piracy credible - but few proposed changes to piracy itself. I just made a post in the features and ideas forum and then found this one. I will repost here - I hope that the mods dont crucify me for that - since I know that many people dont like following links...
Originally by: Riven Starkill Solving Piracy - Abolish player sec-status û replace it with Piracy Declarations (universal and faction specific); add Letters of Marquee for anti-piracy (the REAL Privateers!)
The problem with piracy is that there is currently no downside to piracy.
You implemented security status as a perceived downside to piracy û but this has been completely circumvented by alt accounts û and what alt accounts cannot do for the warp-to-0 solution solves (most of the time).
People can use alt accounts to SHOP in highsec, SCOUT in highsec (ever see a noob corp player sitting on a gate to lowsec in a shuttle??) and even conduct research and industry in highsec (again, thru and alt). If you want to improve your sec standing, simply go into 0.0 (someone please explain to me WHY CONCORD gives a ratÆs ass about sec standing in 0.0???) and shoot up a few rats. You make scads of isk while repairing your sec-standing. In short, there is NO impediment to a player wanting to engage in piracy.
I think a possible solution is to follow a historical model û eliminate the concept of player sec-standing. Just get rid of it.
1. Replace security status with Declarations of Piracy.
If you kill ships in Empire or lowsec you will eventually be branded a pirate. This changes your flag status, your ability to move and interact in Empire.
Piracy might also be faction-based. If you do enough harm overall, you might get a CONCORD sanctioned Declaration on your ass û that means you are a pirate in every Empire region of EVE. This would apply the penalties of piracy (described later) to you in ALL regions of EVE.
If you committed atrocities against only one faction û or engaged in piracy to a limited extent in the Empire space of only one faction, then you might be Declared Outlaw by that faction only.
This might be a nice segue (segway) into factional warfare for mission runners. Run too many missions for one side and that crappy standing you have with Gallente might just earn you a Declaration from the Federationà
2.The cost of piracy.
If you are declared pirate by a faction you cannot dock at ANY stations within the bounds of their empire. Period.
There is only one exception û pirate faction stations would need to be added to a few discreet lowsec systems and this would be the only place a pirate can dock. Alternatively, if CCP really hates the idea of allowing pirate NPC stations in Empire, then they could limit the docking of pirate (players) in stations of opposing factions only. For example û get a Minmatar Declaration of Piracy on you and you can only dock at Amarrian stations in Minmatar space.
All players with sufficient standing with the faction that has declared you pirate will be free to engage you IN ANY system of that factionÆs border. Eg: you got declared pirate by Caldari last week and you are cruising thru Caldari space when a player with high standing in Caldari decides to make a trophy of your ship. He has kill rights on you because you were declared pirate by a faction he had high standing with.
|
Riven Starkill
Caldari Regalis Industria Scientia Entreprendre Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.16 08:14:00 -
[222]
Continued
Originally by: Riven Starkill Ok, but what is different?
3 things so far:
1.Pirates lose docking rights except at pirate-faction stations. Finally û a CONSEQUECE to your actions!!
2.The threshold for becoming declared outlaw is MUCH lower. No more of this hovering at -1.9 bvllsh1t to avoid the consequences of your actions. If you get declared pirate û thatÆs it û youÆre a pirate.
3.The method for removing that declaration against you should be fraught with peril. One possible solution to your criminal acts would be to atone with CONCORD or the faction in question by running missions with no bounties on them and no reward. You shouldnÆt be rewarded for your crimes û you should have to repent!
Why have pirate stations in lowsec?
It adds further consequence to your criminal actions. Why should you be allowed the same freedoms and movements as law-abiding citizens? Those stations are owned by the same corporations that exist in high-sec û so why are they letting you dock in their lowsec stations? I can understand the corporate greed concept û but perhaps the Empire faction in question might not be too happy with them aiding and abetting the enemy û so the cost of allowing pirates to dock is simply too high.
From a role-playing perspective, I think it makes sense. It also plays to the desires of CCP to have missions pushed into lowsec û where players would take over the role of policing lowsec from CONCORD.
I like the idea of adding pirate-factions to Empire lowsec and forcing pirates to dock there. With so few possibilities for pirates to run and hide in (think of the Tortugas in the Caribbean for a historical example), it would actually give mission runners / player police forces a chance to corner their elusive prey. There currently is NO realistic way for anti-piracy to be engaged in on a large scale effort (as CCP wants us to do when they push missions into lowsec).
As is it now, a ebil pirate has his noob corp alt sit in a shuttle on the gate to lowsec and give him notice of anyone coming in. If there is opposition to his ganking û he runs and docks. Take away his chance to dock and he will have to SS. If he is a pirate, then maybe this is the same thing as perma-aggro û allowing players to scan out the pirate in question. Maybe they have to hide in a SS for ôXö minutes till they fade from Empire scanners and can safely log off.
Again û I am trying to put some real consequence into acts of piracy û and give anti-pirates the tools to fight back. Force pirates into a few ôpirate havensö and you give ôplayer police forcesö a chance to corner them. As it is now, only the brave or foolish pirates will fight when they cannot simply gank and run.
|
Riven Starkill
Caldari Regalis Industria Scientia Entreprendre Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.16 08:16:00 -
[223]
Final post...
Originally by: Riven Starkill Create a new role for players û Anti-Pirates û the REAL Privateers
FYI, this is modified from the Wikipedia post for ôPrivateersö
A privateer was a private ship (or its captain) authorized by a country's government by letters of marque to attack foreign shipping. ...The privateer was distinguished by the legal framework it operated inùauthorized to attack enemy shipping and be treated as prisoners of war if captured.
Soà if your faction standing was high enough, you could be granted a Letter of Marque to hunt pirates in that factionÆs space. This would let you hunt pirates in other faction spaces without fear of being branded a pirate by that faction. This would eliminate the pirates who engage in acts of aggression in border systems and then hop the border to avoid the consequences. This would give another role to mission running and play nicely into the proposed factional warfare. It adds meaning and depth to the concept of working for a faction (running missions).
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |