| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|

CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1468

|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ring mining might have to move back in favor or re-doing POSs.
In the meantime, I'd really just like to alchemy every single tier of moons (like it was done with 64s). |
|
|

CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1471

|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Denidil wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Ring mining might have to move back in favor or re-doing POSs.
In the meantime, I'd really just like to alchemy every single tier of moons (like it was done with 64s). So what exactly is Ring mining? and while i think OP's idea for creating shifting environment in nullsec to prevent stagnation won't work, i think the concept of something to prevent stagnation is a good idea. something needs to keep huge regions of nullsec from becoming huge mutually blue blocks
Ring mining would be getting moon minerals through collaborative PVE. It would take it out of the hands of the alliances and into the players hands. Realistically, the same people making ring mining are working on POSs, so doing them both at the same time seems to not be viable.
I'm not entirely sure I trust a system of dynamic resources in a game that's so built around settling down and carving your own piece of space. I think we could do it, but my issues are 1: is moving around fun gameplay? Does a 3000 man alliance want to ferry their stuff around every few months? 2: Is there any reason to invest in space if you know you have to move? Will territorial conquests become "seasonal" if players know a resource will move shortly? 3: is territorial conquest based on a certain resource, or are there other factors in play? (like do you choose where to invade because it's possible for an alliance of your size, do you choose your enemy because you don't like them etc).
I think there are a lot of questions to be answered and I'm not sure EVE is a game that would benefit from dynamic resources. I'd much rather invest in a system where we encourage conflict through social dynamics. Where you go to war because you dislike someone and want to e-stab them with your ship. |
|
|

CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1472

|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: I think there are a lot of questions to be answered and I'm not sure EVE is a game that would benefit from dynamic resources. I'd much rather invest in a system where we encourage conflict through social dynamics. Where you go to war because you dislike someone and want to e-stab them with your ship.
While this is true, nothing creates the sort of social dynamics that break up powerblocs and encourage bad feelings like how to divide up valuble resources - just think PL's "for funsies" fights over prom/dyspro with the old NC that basically fomented a permanent split. There was also severe tensions in the NC over tech distribution - you can point to Goonswarm's hatred of Stella Polaris that started over a dispute over a tech moon. You can't rely on people just hating people for no reason, you've got to ferment the hatred.
No disagreement there. But what if we based it on a system where you for example could upgrade your space at the expense of someone elses space? Let that simmer for a while and people will be fighting in no-time 
I'd rather rely on a mechanic where people poke each other than moons. |
|
|

CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1477

|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:No disagreement there. But what if we based it on a system where you for example could upgrade your space at the expense of someone elses space? Let that simmer for a while and people will be fighting in no-time  I'd rather rely on a mechanic where people poke each other than moons. But moons are the only real conflict driver left in 0.0 (everyone is too rich to care about trusec, mining, or rat type) and so you need to make sure the system works and works well before you rip out moons.
I'd question if this is the case though; So we basically have a situation with an ultra valuable resource that's ostensibly a conflict driver, yet the claim seems to be that 0.0 is static. If those moons aren't providing interesting content, surely they can't be conflict drivers?
That's really the big thing I'm thinking about right now. Are they conflict drivers? Or even more importantly, are they a good conflict driver? Is the degree people fight over them (which doesn't seem to be much right now) worth the amount of money they provide? If we cut down on the income from moons, that also means we might deal with the issue of unlimited pockets, which I think would do much more in terms of interesting combat. |
|
|

CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1477

|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Also wow we've gone two pages talking about a fairly controversial topic and the discussion is still really good. I'm impressed, let's keep this conversation going. |
|
|

CCP Spitfire
C C P C C P Alliance
1510

|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Also wow we've gone two pages talking about a fairly controversial topic and the discussion is still really good. I'm impressed, let's keep this conversation going.
What he said. Some offtopic posts were removed, so please let's maintain a civil and constructive discussion. 
CCP Spitfire | Russian Community Coordinator @ccp_spitfire |
|
|

CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1479

|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote: Yes. Unlimited pockets = bad. More importantly, are you THINKING about removing all moon goo income with Ring mining or just reducing it? I think the economy of moon goo will become bad quickly when you consider the cost of running a moon vs profits and it will probably die off in the face of ring mining. just throwing that out there. I'd be totally cool with removing almost all moon goo to ring mining. But I guess that's a tough answer from an economic stand point.
Just to quickly grab this one: I haven't entirely decided yet, but I'd like to take out all the moon mining and move it into ring mining. I'm not sure having a tower that basically mines money is a good idea compared to having a group of people doing an activity that the alliance then has some tools to tax.
That's another issue, making sure your alliances health/money is linked to your members. Right now it really isn't and I think EVE would be a better game if alliances would benefit more directly from their members actions, rather than a tower sitting somewhere. |
|
|

CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1483

|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:I really liked the idea of POCOs being the conflict drivers, but unfortunately they are a bit too distributed. Their hitpoints are too high to have a small gang come through and mess with them, and nobody likes repping that much armor/shields either. They are poor substitute to having moons to fight over.
I like the idea of resources moving about to a certain degree, but it cannot be via moons (which take forever to scan), or pocos (which are designed with being 'static' in mind!), or truesec, cause who cares now. I thought maybe ring mining might be some sort of solution for that, but that will just get the industrialists happy.
Allowing stations to be destroyed though? That might drive some conflict. Who needs more of a reason to attack someone else more than 'We will burn down your entire territory.'
I think POCOs require a certain minimum traffic to be interesting. If we let them be taken over in High Sec (which I desperately want to do), they'd become a lot more interesting.
Edit: Yes, stations should be destroyable. |
|
|

CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1497

|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:33:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vokanic wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Bloodpetal wrote: Yes. Unlimited pockets = bad. More importantly, are you THINKING about removing all moon goo income with Ring mining or just reducing it? I think the economy of moon goo will become bad quickly when you consider the cost of running a moon vs profits and it will probably die off in the face of ring mining. just throwing that out there. I'd be totally cool with removing almost all moon goo to ring mining. But I guess that's a tough answer from an economic stand point.
Just to quickly grab this one: I haven't entirely decided yet, but I'd like to take out all the moon mining and move it into ring mining. I'm not sure having a tower that basically mines money is a good idea compared to having a group of people doing an activity that the alliance then has some tools to tax. That's another issue, making sure your alliances health/money is linked to your members. Right now it really isn't and I think EVE would be a better game if alliances would benefit more directly from their members actions, rather than a tower sitting somewhere. You'd better make this ring mining the single most exciting thing to do in EvE, else it will kill off nullsec. As it stands, moon mining pays for space that alliances hold. It frees the members to log in and do what they want. Shackles etc. Granted tech lets stuff like burn jita and hulkageddon happen at zero cost to the aggressors, but that's not the point. If you change that to: 'Mine X hours per member to keep your space'.. well it won't end well. (either they stop logging in, or sreegs gets to go on an all new bot banning rampage)
Might also force people to only hold as much space as they actually need :) |
|
| |
|