|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:50:00 -
[1]
I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change.
We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional.
I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:40:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Weaselior
Originally by: Klam I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change.
We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional.
I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person.
i like it
Cool. Care to elaborate? I'd love to understand the logic behind the change more since CCP just said it will make things better without the reasoning as to why.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:56:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Weaselior
Originally by: Klam
Originally by: Weaselior
Originally by: Klam I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change.
We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional.
I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person.
i like it
Cool. Care to elaborate? I'd love to understand the logic behind the change more since CCP just said it will make things better without the reasoning as to why.
our space is really good
LMFAO ... oh that's awesome. Thanks for the reply.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:51:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Silk75 Edited by: Silk75 on 26/03/2011 01:13:36 Edited by: Silk75 on 26/03/2011 01:12:09 :CCP Greyscale: I sat immediately to your left in the 0.0 panel at fanfest and heard no mention of these pve changes, why?
This is quite telling... I think this shows he knows the fallout from this, but there must be a business reason they are pushing forward with it. Hurray for lack of transparency.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 07:30:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Marconus Orion Power bloc tears, best tears.
I find this funny.
So instead of the work and effort to create and maintain an opposing power block along with the joy of combat, strategy, and intel gathering necessary to taking down a power bloc. You would rather just sit back and cheer on CCPs dismantling of them via new game mechanics? Letting CCP do all the work seems to lack any satisfaction. Do you call your mommy to settle all your fights in RL too?
And before you start whining that taking out a major power is impossible ... I seem to remember a large power bloc that was recently wiped out. One that some thought would be around till they shut off the servers for good. This was accomplished by dedicated players, not sudden and disruptive game mechanic changes buy unseen game gods. If you want to bust up power blocs, join another power bloc and start some pew pew.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 08:55:00 -
[6]
Silly question...
Which is more important to CCP?
Subscriptions? or the hope that this change might make more conflict in 0.0? (more then already exists?)
Maybe I don't know SOV mechanics before Domininon... maybe there was a more dynamic SOV landscape... Before Dominion I was a high sec miner/mission runner. What I do know is that since Dominion I've had a great time in null-sec with the conflicts that have been going on... so much so I was able to convince 3 RL friends to start playing that stuck with it. They all also grabbed a second account during one of the "power of 2" promotions (one went crazy and has 3).
They play Eve casually, at most 2-3 times a week. But when on they gather some isk via sanctums/havens then go and PvP either roaming or CTAs. They don't pay for their accounts with isk. They save that for pew pew.
These guys could care less what power blocs are dominant ... they just like to pew pew when RL allows. This change will kill these guys. They will find something else to do with their time. And likely with their subscription money. Tolling around high-sec isn't appealing.
Dominion was supposed to get more casual players into 0.0 ... it did that. This change will at least for my group of RL friends erase that gain.
Some clearly have the opinion here that casual players shouldn't be allowed to enjoy null-sec. And they are cheering on this change to rid null of people who didn't enjoy it before Dominion. Somehow, we are unworthy to enjoy Eve. I disagree. If, CCPs new mantra for 0.0, "it's only for the most elite not the casual". Then, I hope you elite folks enjoy less people in 0.0 and eventually EVE. Most of us who've gotten a taste of 0.0 will find something else to do instead of high-sec.
----
Two more big points that I'm going to add again...
1) Power blocs can fall without this change. Off the top of my head, since Dominion... CVA (hell providance has switched hands many times since dominion), Goon got ****d from the inside out and then had to move, IT/BoB got the boot, Geminate has been on fire a few times, PL has gone on more then a few campaigns of devastation clearing out what some thought were strong alliances. I guess my point is: What more does CCP really expect out of this? What's the measuring stick for "not enough conflict, we need to mix things up" ?
2) CCP history on unthoughtful changes to "improve" conflicts in recent memory points squarely at the Mothership -> SuperCarrier change. Talk about killing the small alliances' chances to hold their own.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:07:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Quote: ... people wanna be able to do passive stuff so that they can log in and go pew pew, not endless grinding
So you're basically suggesting FPS Eve? Because all the other parts of it would simply cease to exist (or be meaningful) if what you're suggesting was ever allowed to happen. Maybe you guys have become too carebear and lazy out there in 0.0 space basking in the incredible ISK fountain.
There's a BIG difference between negligible re-spawn such as WoW's armor damage/repair and the full ship/implant loss that is Eve PvP. As it stands now Isk Grind Time is still greater then PvP time for these casual pilots when they loose ships. They aren't as elite at making isk as you, probably never will be. They need to fit time in between other pursuits in RL for Eve. Does that mean they can't PvP in your vision of null sec? Sure sounds like it. Seems silly in my book as these guys are easy prey for someone like you. Loose them and there's less to shoot.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:13:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Klam on 28/03/2011 09:16:15
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Klam
2) CCP history on unthoughtful changes to "improve" conflicts in recent memory points squarely at the Mothership -> SuperCarrier change. Talk about killing the small alliances' chances to hold their own.
CCPs original plan for the Supercaps was very different. But the 0.0 players - just like you - argued differently. CCP listened to you then... unfortunately. They should have told you to HTFU, and I hope they'll do it this time instead of caving in.
Sigh ... You missed the point. Or I presented it wrong. Yes, we all know that the Super change went badly due to BOTH player and dev input. That's been beaten to death. My point is making a change in Eve to do X often has the impact of Y. Doesn't matter the intentions. That's what happens in Eve. This is another change they are hoping to cause X, but most of us expect Y. We are afraid it's going to happen again.
And for the record I wasn't rallying on the super change. Whole thing seemed silly to me. The old Mom had a purpose, just not one for giant fleet fights.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:01:00 -
[9]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Hey everyone,
It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.
We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.
Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week -Greyscale
Hi again,
Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.
We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.
We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.
That's all for today, -Greyscale
Care to share your models with the rest of us? I've getting very sick of the "take our word for it."
Do they also account for all the casual players that will leave null sec? And likely leave your game as they don't want to go back to high sec? You remember, those new casual players you enticed into null-sec with dominion and thought to keep around with the learning skill change.
The problem is that simply "monitoring the situation" won't solve the subscription drop you will likely have over this. Once casual players leave over something like this, they don't come back.
So much for the "Sandbox." To paraphrase EQ's old tagline. "Your in CCP's world now. Your actions don't mean jack in the long run."
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:22:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Woodiex3 this is how this dev's came up with this.
database search... subscribers in 0.0 40,000 accounts players buying plex with isk 50,000 accounts players buying plex with $ 10,000 accounts
(internal debate takes place) "to many free loaders in 0.0" solution remove the isk
projection... subscribers in 0.0 27,000 accounts players buying plex with isk 5,000 accounts players buying plex with $ 10,000 accounts - players buying plex with isk in 0.0 kept to a minimum. "we dont want them"
numbers spell it out.
If this was the reason given then it would make some sense. This isn't the reason they have given.
And the logic is flawed anyway. PLEX doesn't fall out of the sky, it's created when people pay CCP real $$. So these "free loaders" already paid. Maybe the real issue is the trust fund fools out there flooding the market with PLEX. I'm not talking about a hard working guy who sells some plex from time to time because he doesn't have the RL time to earn the isk in game. I'm talking about the people who bulk buy PLEX. It's our fault the casual player that CCP can't manage it's budget?
But again this isn't the official reason given... it is to promote more dynamic 0.0 space... even though thanks to SOV mechanics taking SOV is a long process.
|
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 03:21:00 -
[11]
Greyscale seems set in his ways at destroying what 0.0 has become since dominion to roll it back to pre-dominion levels. Sadly they aren't rolling everything back to pre-dominion. SuperCaps are still devastating ways to project power. I don't see "small alliances" holding their own against some of the muscle that has grown of that change.
Those of you posting for this change. I ask that you come forward and stop hiding behind alts. Some of you have been posting quite a bit of "oh no big deal I used to make X pre-dominion" from an alt in NPC corps. Show who you really are and who you are aligned with, till then your posts don't hold much weight.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 02:43:00 -
[12]
Another thing that's quite telling of this mess...
Anyone else just get the recent newsletter?
There's a list in it of the March dev blogs... this dev blog isn't in there. More hiding this change from the Eve community. First it's not discussed with the CSM, now it's not published in the newsletter. Very shady.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 16:04:00 -
[13]
Originally by: R0RSCH4CH Edited by: R0RSCH4CH on 30/03/2011 15:32:50 Well, maybe time for giving perpetuum a try :)
EvE with Mechs.
Linky
Interesting... It's not just an MMO with Mechs ... it really is Eve Style MMO with Mechs. Thanks for the link.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 21:40:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Ed: And apparently I must have spent 14 hours a day for 3 solid years belt ratting in 0.0 to pay for all my PVP ships.
14 hours a day ratting? No. 14 hours a day on the forum instead of actually playing. Quite possible.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:09:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 16:46:03
When the amount of ISK entering the game drops, the price of everything will drop - including the alliance leader's moon goo, which will directly affect your alliance leader's moon goo income. Potentially, his income may drop more than yours as it becomes harder for "the grunts" to replace thousands of T2 ships per month. I think that's a point that's been widely missed in the thread.
What are you basing this on? Pure conjecture?
This is the problem with the entire change. There's no hard facts to backup these claims by supporters or by CCP.
This is Greyscale's supposed Motto: "One half of game design is having solid, well-reasoned opinions about everything. The other half is figuring out why theyÆre wrong."
Give us the factual why ... not conjecture. Not "Because I say so since I've got years of hidden experience running 0.0 on a pilot I won't post with."
Many people posting against this change are FOR making truesec more distinctive and even for reducing havens, sanctums in low end truesec. You say dominion went too far. We say ok, maybe. But this change is going too far the other direction. Drop the number of sanctums, havens available in lowend truesec. And see if it changes anything. Of another note, havens and sanctums aren't "free" they took effort to purchase and move the expensive upgrade modules. Many people worked hard to achieve those upgrade modules. Many have implied that sanctums and havens were just handed to players, and the facts show otherwise.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 21:01:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Klam
What are you basing this on? Pure conjecture?
This is the problem with the entire change. There's no hard facts to backup these claims by supporters or by CCP.
This is Greyscale's supposed Motto: "One half of game design is having solid, well-reasoned opinions about everything. The other half is figuring out why theyÆre wrong."
Give us the factual why ... not conjecture. Not "Because I say so since I've got years of hidden experience running 0.0 on a pilot I won't post with."
That's actually a result from applying a fairly simple economic theory: supply and demand: You have less ISK => You can't buy as many HACs at current prices => the price of HACs goes down => the price of moon goo goes down
-Liang
You are making assumptions quite a few assumptions there your economic theory is also based on real life models, not that of facts gathered from Eve. Eve has shown to not follow economic models of the real world.
You are assuming that those with moon goo won't trickle it into the market at it's current prices. Forcing an artificial lack of supply. Since you are a fan of real world economics... ever take a look at the diamond market?
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 21:32:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Klam
You are making assumptions quite a few assumptions there your economic theory is also based on real life models, not that of facts gathered from Eve. Eve has shown to not follow economic models of the real world.
You are assuming that those with moon goo won't trickle it into the market at it's current prices. Forcing an artificial lack of supply. Since you are a fan of real world economics... ever take a look at the diamond market?
A few points: - Your alliance leader control the production of 80% of the moon goo in Eve and thus will simply be cutting his own throat by withholding his moon goo. - Moon goo is looking down the barrel of a nerf right now. Stockpiling what is likely to be soon-worthless moon goo would be pretty stupid. - There isn't the same amount of raw ISK flowing so the overall price point for how much people are willing to spend on his product drops. Assuming some kind of collusion, the price per unit can be raised by withholding moon goo, but the total income (and thus profits) is going to go down.
-Liang
More baseless assumptions.
- Controlling the flow of a product is beneficial to the long run of an entity in control of that product. Again see diamond markets. So this isn't a "cutting one's own throat"
- Moon Goo itself is getting the nerf? or the way it's mined supplied to eve is getting the nerf? Care to supply evidence to this?
- Based on your other arguments that people can make enough isk to PvP without sanctums and havens, HACs will still be bought in quantity as people learn to make isk via, exploration, belt ratting mining, PI, mid class moon mining ect. Again this is your own argument that people can make isk just fine without sanctums/haves since they did before dominion. How about you do a price comparison of frequently used HACs before dominion and now? I think that would be a factual argument to help your case. Is it a 20% difference in price? or a 2-3x difference in price?
|
|
|
|