| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
All That
Minmatar
   |
Posted - 2009.11.20 00:29:00 -
[301]
 Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
These changes are great and really, I am quite pleased with it. The fact that grav sites are on par (or close to it) with Wormholes is insanely good.
--Isaac
Wormhole-quality grav sites in all upgraded areas of null sec seems to me that it will serve to drive down the profitably of mining per hour (as prices plummet) which will mean that running the plexes (or whatever turns out with the greatest reward/work ratio) becomes the "best" way to earn ISK. So, until things balance out, the smart miners in hi-sec will tend to stay in high sec, where there is still a pseudo "monopoly" on the minerals most in demand for every ship.
Introducing some sort of insane capital veldspar and scordite cruncher for lo sec and null sec may be a mechanism to alleviate this twisted situation. Imagine what that would do to loosen the logistical needs for capital-building alliances...
|
Ganthrithor
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 00:30:00 -
[302]
... Since large towers are a not-insignificant investment in terms of hardware and fuel, effectively mandating that upgrade modules be installed on their own larges should discourage people from deploying them too casually, while still allowing small cooperatives to realistically fund upgrades to shared systems. The idea that 100 people will share single ratting systems is absolutely absurd, but with these kinds of upgrades systems might be able to support 10 ratters / explorers instead of one or two.
Basically my complaints about your proposed changes boil down to this:
1. You've claimed you want to reduce the amount of POS shooting involved in territorial warfare; in reality all you've done is substitute different structures with similar EHP totals and degraded our ability to "time" engagements during timezone wars.
2. You've talked at length about "individual income" in 0.0 space and your intentions to take money-making operations out of the hands of alliance level programs (R64 mining) and enable individual players / small cooperatives to make more money. In reality what you are doing is nerfing alliance level income from R64s while completely destroying individual / small groups of players' abilities to run moon mining, ratting, and industrial POSes and their associated logistics modules. In Dominion I see R32s being nationalized alongside the R64s already mined exclusively by large alliances, individuals and small corps being forced out of the R16/R32 markets due to the massively increased operating costs incurred by your changes, and the net result of their being two "economic classes" in EVE-- the alliances which can afford to mine moons and make massive incomes, and "the rest," who will effectively become ratting/anomaly running slaves.
You've worked a long time building EVE into what it is today-- please don't ruin the experience by implementing a pointless + inferior new sov system while simultaneously stripping EVE's middle class of the ability to afford to run their own businesses. Not everyone enjoys spending their entire week crammed into a single, crowded system shooting AI controlled pirate ships. Leave the scope and complexity of EVE alone and leave EVE's middle class with more than one way to make a living in 0.0.
|
Myriand
Emperor's New Clones
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 01:03:00 -
[303]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Why do you think it would make a difference? In the latter case the same people would either make additional alliances, just to hold sov or shrink their sov area and rent their space.
Well, yes it would make a big diference! Not on the few firt weeks of the patch but i'm sure after a few months it would be very very different!!
The big alliances couldnt create phantom alliances. They need to have people there playing, so they knon when they are being attacked and so they can improve the systems.
So, that takes them to split the big alliance in a few small alliances. This will could generate a little problem over time. Players identify with the current alliance that they are in, not with the 'NAP' they have. Just look at NC. You could see all of them as a 'NC Alliance' but no one does that. They are WI, MH, MM, RAGE, ME.... And how many times you know that RAGE is being crushed by roaming ops and ME that is just a few jumps away doesn't do nothing to help?
When the big alliances split in smaller alliances, with time, they will end like that, diferent and smaller alliances having problems between them. And greedy will play is part and some of these smaller alliances that once were one big entity might end up fighting each other for the monopoly of some systems and some resources!
So, yes, phantom/shadow(you name it) alliances would work on the first weeks. But in months it would be just another alliance with no relation with is 'brothers'
|
Pointfive
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 01:32:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Actumarius
Remove level 4s from Hisec. Fix Game.
Remove moon mining from null sec. Fix Game.
I would gladly accept no more moon mining if level 4s were removed from high sec.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 02:50:00 -
[305]
Originally by: Pointfive
Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Actumarius
Remove level 4s from Hisec. Fix Game.
Remove moon mining from null sec. Fix Game.
I would gladly accept no more moon mining if level 4s were removed from high sec.
You do realize i would just farm lvl 3's and remain rich- while you would lose all your passive income and remain poor right?
|
Ranger 1
Amarr
Dynaverse Corporation
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 03:15:00 -
[306]
Originally by: teji
Originally by: Ranger 1
it will cost less with Dominion than it cost with POS Fuel!
Citation Needed
Quote:
and the rewards effectively doubled
Citation Needed
Eh?
I'm not sure who you are quoting in the first line, but its not me.
As for the second, its your own alliance mates that keep insisting that the only upgrade anyone will make use of is the anomalies, and now you get a max of 20 per system instead of the original 10 that was proposed.
Note, I don't believe this will have any effect on inflation in EVE as the money will simply be earned in a different location than now.
But really these things have already been pointed out by most of the older and wiser players in game already, including past and present alliance leaders. I know you'll recognize at least one or two of them. 
=====
If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Pointfive
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 03:17:00 -
[307]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Pointfive
Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Actumarius
Remove level 4s from Hisec. Fix Game.
Remove moon mining from null sec. Fix Game.
I would gladly accept no more moon mining if level 4s were removed from high sec.
You do realize i would just farm lvl 3's and remain rich- while you would lose all your passive income and remain poor right?
I am in a large alliance and rarely if ever see this passive income so what do i care. And if you can enjoy doing level 3s for the rest of your life sounds good to me.
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 05:23:00 -
[308]
large alliances so far farm moons. There will be adjustmetn with dominion
Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
ep1k
Minmatar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 06:55:00 -
[309]
Originally by: HeliosGal
large alliances so far farm moons. There will be adjustmetn with dominion
Consider not posting.
|
Typhado3
Minmatar
Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium
Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 08:37:00 -
[310]
Quote:
This upgrade provides a variety of salvage & archaeology sites to explore
No booster cloud upgrades? I remember finding maybe 1 gas site per system last time I was in 0.0. Please make sure there's a way to increase the number (and quality) of gas sites in system.
Quote:
A nearby alliance has developed one of their systems to have the most awesome mining available (Level 5 Industry). You mobilize, move in and take over their system......
Here's one point that I'm really disliking. I agree going straight for the good system is a nice strategy and probably one of the best as it should be. However the way it's implemented atm it's the only strategy that anyone is ever gonna use. There's no advantage to taking the surrounding systems first and pushing the enemy back, in fact there are only disadvantages to this as the system will lose quality. All we'll ever see is people jumping straight past all the enemies borders straight into the centre and storming it as quickly as possible. At least in the current system you might have some distance and a couple important systems between you and the enemy but now your encouraging us to bunch up all together.
Add in the fact that it's gonna be pretty easy to harass enemies now, cloaker gankers are gonna love systems with 20 anomalies in them. If the enemy has half a brain they'll be able to lock you down or force you to have half your alliance sitting in defence ships and even with that many defenders attackers they'll still have plenty of oportunities to attack efficiently (every hulk kill is worth 2 Stealth bombers and that shouldn't be hard to get).
tl;dr: The system is great for attackers and good for builders... defenders seem to be utterly screwed.
------------------------------
Just a crazy inventor
ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
|
|
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 08:48:00 -
[311]
Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 20/11/2009 08:51:03
Originally by: Typhado3
Add in the fact that it's gonna be pretty easy to harass enemies now, cloaker gankers are gonna love systems with 20 anomalies in them. If the enemy has half a brain they'll be able to lock you down or force you to have half your alliance sitting in defence ships and even with that many defenders attackers they'll still have plenty of oportunities to attack efficiently (every hulk kill is worth 2 Stealth bombers and that shouldn't be hard to get).
tl;dr: The system is great for attackers and good for builders... defenders seem to be utterly screwed.
I would tend to agree with you. It seems the economics of the upgrade were the main focus - and the subsequent military consequences as you describe and the impact seem to have been left out of the equation.
1) how many PvP'rs are going to enjoy babysitting carebears?
2) How many carebears are going to want to PvE with much greater risk in nul-sec, and see a percentage of their profits get taken away daily, given they can do same in hi-sec (or WH), safely and with no daily required upkeep expenses?
Raise your hands.
|
Kim Wilde
Gallente
Covenant
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:04:00 -
[312]
well having done the numbers i can say thx for making 0.0 expensive to live in
and dont even get me started on how badly you cf'd the capitals
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:17:00 -
[313]
Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 20/11/2009 17:23:35
Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 20/11/2009 17:21:12
Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 20/11/2009 17:20:03
You know, it does seem to be a curious phenomena in MMOÆs today, this odd emphasis on introducing
more grind û and assuming players will enjoy the additional grind.
I wonder how this mindset instills itself into a gameÆs development process or why a number of
MMOs end up often moving in this direction û increasing grind in the game? Is it because MMO
development is primarily computer programming û and the programmers have an undue influence that
assume grind is good? Is it just a kinda of unimaginative û less creative way to improve your
game without thinking about what is fun?
The new nul-sec changes û all I can see is an increase in more grind, and done in a rather bland û easy-mode
manner, i.e. simply rework tables for Pirates, Anomalies, Asteroids so the random generators of NPCÆs increase output. Not that difficult to program frankly. ItÆs as if whoever planned the new sov changes looked at the whole thing as an abstract spreadsheet expansion û without really thinking about what is ôfunö to people.
Fun: Something new, not the same oatmeal repackaged as if it is new. Fun: Not something where you get off work and then realize you are at work again û itÆs called ôgrindö. Fun: in nul-sec itÆs about PvP. Really. Why then in this expansion a huge emphasis on PvE in nul-sec? There's enuf of that in hi-sec. If you want to improve PvE, then do it where the PvE'rs are. Again û itÆs like some mechanical spreadsheet plan for Sov changes without actually thinking about why players will want to play a game.
Oh well. I donÆt think these changes will make me quit Eve. But some of them I think are disappointing. And I think many players did have their hopes up for the Sov changes only to see them dashed a few weeks before release - and whatÆs up with that, pulling the rug out from under your player base 2 weeks before release? Why the announcements of these significant changes on
such an incredible short leash to get real player feedback - claiming your listening, but really, the only choice now is to go ahead with said changes or make players wait another half a year?
|
Kanatta Jing
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:23:00 -
[314]
@Dante Edmundo
Curiously putting money into 0.0 in PVP form is kinda tricky
|
Changes Nogood
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:28:00 -
[315]
Just cut the maximum stronting time to 23 hours, so that stronting postpones the fight, instead of giving the other side enough time to gather everyone from their blue list...
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:30:00 -
[316]
Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 20/11/2009 17:32:53
Originally by: Kanatta Jing
@Dante Edmundo
Curiously putting money into 0.0 in PVP form is kinda tricky
I dunno. I've been playing space strategy games for decades on my computer. And all of them were fun and almost all of them depended on capturing "passive income" sources in order to fuel your empire. Remember Master of Orion series? Or Civilization?
I don't think any of those games had an R64 though that provided ungodly amounts of income on just
1 moon.
But I do recall them having plenty of variety of "passive income" sources that could be developed etc. that then you could fight over. But none of them required a daily grind - probably because the designers of the game realized this is not a particularly enjoyable activity.
I think most players grind in order to do something they enjoy. Maybe the problem is MMO developers look at stats and see everyone grinding and assume that's what players want to do?
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 20:02:00 -
[317]
Originally by: Pointfive
I am in a large alliance and rarely if ever see this passive income so what do i care. And if you can enjoy doing level 3s for the rest of your life sounds good to me.
Bobby thinks he is in a large alliance *snickers*
Also thanks for the permission, bob, if theres anything i can ever do for you (like explain disband mechanics) just let me know.
Back on topic- these changes are great- use them to the best of your ability- or lose the systems.
|
Orthaen
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 20:11:00 -
[318]
Originally by: Graysteel
Edited by: Graysteel on 19/11/2009 21:07:16
Edited by: Graysteel on 19/11/2009 21:06:04
Was wondering if it would be possible with the mining upgrades to provide ice.
Perhaps something like level 1 gives 1 ice belt with random selection of mixed ice with a small limited quantity in each iceburg.
level 2 gives a little more ice, more of a selection and so on...? (but only ever 1 belt, just more of it and more of a selection in that 1 belt.)
This would allow those that mine ice a place in their sov to mine ice.
This idea is fantastic, and should be rolled into the current mining upgrade. Start it at like level 3 or whatever, if you want. But it would be sweet.
|
Pointfive
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 20:53:00 -
[319]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Pointfive
I am in a large alliance and rarely if ever see this passive income so what do i care. And if you can enjoy doing level 3s for the rest of your life sounds good to me.
Bobby thinks he is in a large alliance *snickers*
Also thanks for the permission, bob, if theres anything i can ever do for you (like explain disband mechanics) just let me know.
Back on topic- these changes are great- use them to the best of your ability- or lose the systems.
I have never been in bob, but then again when have you be right about anything in this thread.
|
Aversin
Gallente
Universalis Imperium
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 22:05:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Zastrow
Originally by: Aversin
Something I haven't seen mentioned or asked, is the truesec system being ditched? For example if I upgrade a -.05 system fully will it be just as good as a -.91 system or will the truesec status of a system still have an effect on the anomalies, sites, and everything else that spawn?
the CSM asked CCP about this at the iceland summit. it's apparently a variable that cannot be easily changed because it's pre-loaded from the database at cluster startup or something like that
I guess I wasn't clear with my question, I'm not asking about changing the truesec status, I am asking if it will still have an effect on a fully upgraded system. Will there be any point in fighting for specific space other than for the moons, or will every system in eve be the same if it is fully upgraded?
Originally by: Razner Cerizo
They will never quit. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
|
|
|
Pointfive
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 04:42:00 -
[321]
Testing so far. The level one upgrade anomalies are cruisers/frigates. The income from them is less than belt ratting, but increases military index faster. Belt rats barely increase the index. So its a bit silly that upgrading your space to level 1 actually decreases income.
|
Kanatta Jing
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 04:45:00 -
[322]
What is the lvl 1 anomaly names?
|
Pointfive
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 05:08:00 -
[323]
rally point, yard, forsaken den, are all i really remember
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 05:20:00 -
[324]
are they level 1 sites or just 1 per level ? seems a bit weird u can get level 1 amols in low sec. Should be 4 00 amols or possibly lower level ones depending on spawn roll. per level
Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Pointfive
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 05:28:00 -
[325]
There are 5 of them at one time. But they can get bugged and then stop re spawning for the rest of the day.
|
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 06:33:00 -
[326]
You guys are missing the big picture.
Nullsec is for building an empire.
With this new Sov platform, you can upgrade nullsec to near the safety and cozy feeling as highsec.
Lowsec is the new lawless land if the "Corruption" changes go through. Dust514 is supposed to start there but end in null.
Eventually, actual empires will form with Treaties, culture, and security policies that are all flexible. And if you don't like them, harass them out of your neighbouring space, but you won't be doing it with moongold and dread/titan stockpiles.
This is the essence of the Wild West and reality. Yeah, real social activity in my EVE?! 
In 2 yrs this will be more than a game, it will be Chess.
7 |
Zahorite
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 10:55:00 -
[327]
Just wanted to post about the people that are saying that this could cause inflation in the game.
Sure it could. Of course if we look back historically in the game prices have actually been falling for items. For instance a lot of people are worried that eventually the price for Tech I ships will fall to such a point that you could buy one off the market, scrap it, and then sell the minerals for a profit.
If let's say all the players could double their isk per hour or basically make the equivlant of lvl 4 missions we won't see a ton of change. A lot of those players will spend the extra isk on pvp ships and get them blown up. In turn this will raise the prices for pvp ships, but manufacturing players will respond and start making more of them. Basically we may see a spike say a month after these changes that will last a couple months at most. And then it will probably stabalize at something like 10-20% higher prices. Of course since the isk will spread out in the economy a bit most people will be 10-20% better off anyway. The only exception would be the mission runners, who won't be making as much, but salvage should go back up a little bit if more people lose ships in pvp. That will probably balance any minor increase in the market overall.
|
Tinker1947
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 11:05:00 -
[328]
Couple of questions
When a system don't have a ice belt with upgrading will it get some Ice and if so, just the region type or all 4 types.
Are Jump Bridges still 2 per system max.
|
Tharrn
Amarr
Epitoth Guard
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 12:36:00 -
[329]
Sorry about not reading all pages (yet) but this strikes me as bad:
This upgrade provides a variety of salvage & archaeology sites to explore. Every level of upgrade will give you an increasing chance per level increase in being able to find one. These sites run on a 12 hour re-spawn delay.
Does this basically means those people who can be on right after downtime harvest these sites? Daily? That would be pretty bad. Needs some random factor IMHO.
-----
|
Elassus Herron
Caldari
Construction Cabal
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 14:53:00 -
[330]
Edited by: Elassus Herron on 21/11/2009 14:54:31
It seems there are two things I'd like to ask about, which I think would go a long way towards improving this system (though the improvement is vast over the first iteration):
1) allow the corp holding the iHub to set a system tax (and I agree, it should come out before the corp tax, to prevent circumvention). Have it show up on a line on the upper left, thus:
System: BL-AH
Held by: XYZ Alliance
Managed by: ABC Corp
Tax rate: 5.00%
Security Status: 0.0 (-0.15)
And have the PVE upgrades in force show up in the Show Info window, so visitors can know what stuff (CAs, Pro sites, mining sites, etc.) have been boosted.
There! Now all you alliances have a passive income source: the PVEers working your systems. They also know the tax rate, and how much they can earn there, so there's an automatic market mechanism in place to draw players to your space, and make ISK from them (obviously, the corp holding the iHub doesn't pay taxes to itself. That's dirty). Mining can be taxed easily through refine withholding, so that's no big deal. This allows NRDS alliances to invest in systems without having all their upgrades exploited.
Second: I also agree, that the mining upgrade should include ice. Even though we (theoretically) will have fewer POSs to fuel, I'd love to be able to get better ice to fuel them.
And I want to see the iHub get extra doodads on the model for the upgrades, because it's cool.
EH
EDIT: PS, all the pro sites I ever did (in nullsec, or anywhere) were terrible. I hope they get better.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |