Originally by: Ship Type

---

In eve, you apparently cannot avoid PVP if you want to play with friends.

The only way to avoid PVP is to stay in the NPC corps to avoid war decs, obviously avoid low sec, and now you must avoid null sec. Previously, people who were not into PVP could go to 0.0 and avoid it all for the most part.

This is also why almost every person I've asked to come play this game has said they didn't like it.

---

Originally by: xttz

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 10/05/2011 20:16:58

Originally by: Ship Type

---

In eve, you apparently cannot avoid PVP if you want to play with friends.

The only way to avoid PVP is to stay in the NPC corps to avoid war decs, obviously avoid low sec, and now you must avoid null sec. Previously, people who were not into PVP could go to 0.0 and avoid it all for the most part.

This is also why almost every person I've asked to come play this game has said they didn't like it.

---

It should be difficult to avoid PVP in nullsec. Right now that's relatively easy due to jumpbridges being so convenient and easy to use. The downside is that nullsec, an area that should be our pvp flagship, is relatively boring and lifeless when it comes to pvp, apart from territorial conquests. Hopefully this will shake it up a bit and create more opportunity for pvp.

---

Read my post then re-examine your flawed reasoning

---

Originally by: mvrck22

---

Originally by: xttz

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 10/05/2011 20:16:58

Originally by: Ship Type

---

In eve, you apparently cannot avoid PVP if you want to play with friends.

The only way to avoid PVP is to stay in the NPC corps to avoid war decs, obviously avoid low sec, and now you must avoid null sec. Previously, people who were not into PVP could go to 0.0 and avoid it all for the most part.

This is also why almost every person I've asked to come play this game has said they didn't like it.

---

It should be difficult to avoid PVP in nullsec. Right now that's relatively easy due to jumpbridges being so convenient and easy to use. The downside is that nullsec, an area that should be our pvp flagship, is relatively boring and lifeless when it comes to pvp, apart from territorial conquests. Hopefully this will shake it up a bit and create more opportunity for pvp.

---

Read my post then re-examine your flawed reasoning

---

He is still right however, simply because EVE is based on destruction rather than creation. Both are present, but too much depends on one, and changing it would require not just amazing game design, but also resources which are not available to EVE as a venture.

Best hope there, is for the balancing act which HAS to follow these changes coming later this year. But hey, that is what you have a CSM for, right?

---

Originally by: mvrck22

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

is what you have a CSM for, right?

---

The CSM have gotten the first peek at a highlevel direction for 0.0, and they seemed pleased. Once they've been up here to talk practical details, we should be able to diverge more.

---

Originally by: Lynn Deniera

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 10/05/2011 20:16:58

Originally by: Ship Type

---

In eve, you apparently cannot avoid PVP if you want to play with friends.

The only way to avoid PVP is to stay in the NPC corps to avoid war decs, obviously avoid low sec, and now you must avoid null sec. Previously, people who were not into PVP could go to 0.0 and avoid it all for the most part.

This is also why almost every person I've asked to come play this game has said they didn't like it.

---

It should be difficult to avoid PVP in nullsec. Right now that's relatively easy due to jumpbridges being so convenient and easy to use. The downside is that nullsec, an area that should be our pvp flagship, is relatively boring and lifeless when it comes to pvp, apart from territorial conquests. Hopefully this will shake it up a bit and create more opportunity for pvp.

---

It's really not as simple as that. Right now it's relatively easy to catch a hostile roaming fleet in your space, because you can catch up via jbs. However as an individual pilot travelling from point A to B on your own; travel is safe.

There's a difference between good pvp and bad pvp. You're ignoring that distinction. A fleet of a dozen killing a lone pilot travelling is not good pvp; for either party.

You're also ignoring the overall impact. This is a simply more hurt for the average pilot in nullsec - but barely affects big alliances. It's a straight up nerf for normal players, which means less of a reason for average players to go to nullsec, which means less people to have pvp with, making nullsec even more empty and dead.

Still, hopefully by the end of all these changes we will have a better nullsec, and it's great that you're finally focusing on it again!

---

Originally by: Zamiq

---

Again, you have not told us why this change will increase the chances of this non-consensual pvp that you keep talking about. I mean the people with an intel channel and a JB will stay as people with an intel channel and a JB and it does not take a genius to figure out that if a roaming gang has been spotted 3 jumps away from a JB location then its not safe to go there.

---

Originally by: FellRaven

---

The biggest issue with PvP in 0.0 are bots that warp to safes and cloak when a hostile enters local, roam in RMT space and you'll see what I mean.

Get your priorities sorted

---

Originally by: ModeratedToSilence

---

Originally by: Vile rat

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

The CSM have gotten the first peek at a highlevel direction for 0.0, and they seemed pleased. Once they've been up here to talk practical details, we should be able to diverge more.

---

We have seen a high level outline that to a great extent outlines the major problems with 0.0 life, from what the goals should be that motivate you to live there, to the major problems that make most players say "Screw this". It's a very insightful outline and I think it would provide the top to bottom overhaul that people almost universally feel should happen. I'm critical as all get out on what 0.0 is, and has become, because it needs a complete enema not tweaking the edges. They get this and if the guiding principles we've seen hold true 0.0 will indeed own once implemented.

What that actually is going to be remains to be seen because details haven't been introduced on any level. Next week we begin discussing this and hopefully my tentative endorsement holds true then.

---

Wouldn't it make more sense for CCP to:
1. Discuss long term with the CSM
2. Get CSM feedback regarding the long term plan
3. Outline the long term plan to the player base
4. Break the long term plan down into patch sized steps
5. Implement the steps.

What is happening in this thread is reactionary rather than proactive and it is happening on other forums and forms of communication as well. No one will agree with every change that needs to happen. Everyone agrees that 0.0 needs to change. By essentially blindsiding the player base with a change that addresses 1 random issue CCP are creating anenvironemnt of dissent.

---

Originally by: Laminar Septimar

---

tl;dr

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

[...]while upping the fuelbay to 30.000 (3x)[...]

---

Anyone from CCP can confirm that the new capacity of Jumpbridge-modules will be 30k m¦ ?

---

Originally by: Smoking Blunts

---

Originally by: Vile rat

---

Originally by: Smoking Blunts

---

what is the point in the csm if you can not speak for us on changes that are stupid

---

We did.

---

so what is the point of the csm if ccp dosnt listern to them on stupid changes they push through?

---

Originally by: Purrp Ledone

---

Originally by: Weaselior

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

I think we're doing this in terms of longer scale development, at least to some extent. We're developing the plan, which we'll share with the CSM this month, and hopefully we'll be able to show the players shortly after that.

This is an isolated change that has been slated to happen for a while.

---

seriously why wasn't "removing guns from JB pos" considered since it's stupid easy to do, does a better job than your proposal, and doesn't increase tedium

---

CCP Soundwave, can you elaborate on whether this option was considered, and if so, why it was rejected?

---

Originally by: Cynthia Ysolde

---

As someone who spends 90% of my time in eve doing exactly this, it's a whole lot more effort than pretty much any other kind of PVP and is incredibly risky. While people do absolutely get ganked on them all the time, it's almost entirely because of laziness on the part of the gankee. I can't tell you how many times I've seen myself or my alts reported in channels over and over and still having carriers etc. jump in to the jumpbridge/cynogen I'm camping. This isn't because it's ~so easy~ to camp cynogens, it's because people are stupid and don't read intel channels. If people actually read intel and scout themselves, it's nearly impossible to catch them.

---

Originally by: Svennig

---

A "neutral" structure which imposes its own mechanics onto fleet fights that take place at it? Are you high right now? You're forcing gate games onto people. If you did it at an ungunned POS it would be a much more neutral fight.

---

Originally by: WisdomPanda

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

A wide range of options were considered, among those, different levels of guns on the POS. Everything from changing the fitting requirements to stripping them entirely. At the end of the day, I'm not entirely thrilled about basing smaller scale pvp around POSs. I really like the idea of having it out on the open, at a "neutral" structure like gates. It's much more visible than having to track down a POS that will still give your opponent an advantage.

---

Is this an official endorsement that gatecamping = CCP's idea of PvP?

---

Originally by: xttz

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Originally by: Svennig

---

A "neutral" structure which imposes its own mechanics onto fleet fights that take place at it? Are you high right now? You're forcing gate games onto people. If you did it at an ungunned POS it would be a much more neutral fight.

---

A POS where the defender has access to the shields and has exclusive right to bringing in reinforcements through the bridge? No, we'll definately not agree that a gate is as safe as a friendly POS, even without the gun.

---

You seem curiously intent on putting all of the risk onto defenders rather than attackers.

Why shouldn't a roaming gang be baited and attacked by reinforcements, after the territorial owner went to the effort of setting up, fueling, and paying the tower?
0.0 wasn't designed for consensual pvp. You are not entitled to a fair fight where everyone lines up 10 ships of equal type to fight like gentlemen. You'll get both ganks, fair fight and massive cap ship fights, but there is no guarantee you can always chose exactly which one. We're not an instanced game that offers battlegrounds and I don't see any reason we should be.

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Originally by: Needa3

---

Now put the jump bridges near a gate or on a planet instead of a pos so they cant go hide in the safety of a pos.


Still don't get why it is so hard to remove the damn things.

Before they were there every alliance managed to its logistics just fine. Now people don't even now how to fly through a gate. It seems like "jump bridge in game" = "no brains needed outside game"

If you ask me, those things should never have made it into the game anyway.



so, when do we get destructible stations or station ping pong? it is time Eve starts getting rid of the "easy mode"

---

Well then at least we can agree on removing unprobable ships from the game, no more easy mode.

---

Originally by: Ay Liz

---

F
On to the great plan you have. Like others already pointed out, we haven't seen your outline for 0.0 and only see you taking away things that make our lives easier. Maybe you should add something new.. Incentives to live in 0.0 as you called it. Taking away all the good stuff (anomalies, now convenient JB networks) and making our lives miserable until you decide to add something new in 2 years doesn't sound very appealing to anyone.

---

Originally by: Zamiq

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Originally by: Ay Liz

---

F
On to the great plan you have. Like others already pointed out, we haven't seen your outline for 0.0 and only see you taking away things that make our lives easier. Maybe you should add something new.. Incentives to live in 0.0 as you called it. Taking away all the good stuff (anomalies, now convenient JB networks) and making our lives miserable until you decide to add something new in 2 years doesn't sound very appealing to anyone.

---

Won't be two years. You'll hear the early parts of it before this month is up.

---

Hear being the key word. We wont actual see it for two years if ever. Half your content is either undeveloped or underdeveloped.

---

Originally by: Indy Rider

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Originally by: Ay Liz

---

F
On to the great plan you have. Like others already pointed out, we haven't seen your outline for 0.0 and only see you taking away things that make our lives easier. Maybe you should add something new.. Incentives to live in 0.0 as you called it. Taking away all the good stuff (anomalies, now convenient JB networks) and making our lives miserable until you decide to add something new in 2 years doesn't sound very appealing to anyone.

---

Won't be two years. You'll hear the early parts of it before this month is up.

---

Forgive us if we dont take your half finished expansion liking word for it.

Give us the entire story now.

---

Originally by: Patty Patrick Patterson

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Originally by: Indy Rider

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Won't be two years. You'll hear the early parts of it before this month is up.

---

Forgive us if we dont take your half finished expansion liking word for it.

Give us the entire story now.

---

We'll be looking at 0.0 this winter. We're hammering down the principles we'll work by as we speak, and they're being reviewed by the CSM. Once they've had their chance to give feedback in person (later this month), I'll happily post the groundwork for everyone to see. From there on, detailed designwork and implementation.

---

Keep up the good work. 0.0 needs change.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

No disagreement. Better resource distribution, more pvp goals etc.

---

Does this mean that you might take a look at current moon goo locations and/or T2 production pipelines?

-Liang

---

Originally by: Feyleaf

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

No disagreement. Better resource distribution, more pvp goals etc.

---

Does this mean that you might take a look at current moon goo locations and/or T2 production pipelines?

-Liang

---

Yes, those are most definately prime candidates. Things like trit and datacore supplies, production slots etc.

---

Why are the jumpbridges a priority.. and being implemented on such short notice?

---

Originally by: Sister Bliss

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

We'll be looking at 0.0 this winter. We're hammering down the principles we'll work by as we speak, and they're being reviewed by the CSM. Once they've had their chance to give feedback in person (later this month), I'll happily post the groundwork for everyone to see. From there on, detailed designwork and implementation.

---

What the **** have you been doing for the past 18 months? No, I mean seriously.

---

Originally by: Feyleaf

---

Originally by: Balthamel Eval'Raman

---

Still waiting for one good reason why this isn't being deployed in the winter package.

---

---

Originally by: Mithfindel

---

Edited by: Mithfindel on 11/05/2011 07:30:00

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Originally by: Liang

---

Does this mean that you might take a look at current moon goo locations and/or T2 production pipelines?

-Liang

---

Yes, those are most definately prime candidates. Things like trit and datacore supplies, production slots etc.

---

Moving more things to exploration, perhaps? Admitted, having "jackpot" sites appear too often might not be desirable, but having sites with okay amounts of resources with a "jackpot" site appearing every once in a while might be interesting. These would of course need be monitored, and if needed, balanced. Which should be doable, as they're essentially dynamic resources. Some work for the good doctor to play god?

Some random thoughts about resources and small objectives

E: I fail at quoting.

---

Originally by: Lev Aeris

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Yeah, I'm not entirely happy with the state of sig sites, who would definitely drive more people into space. If we were to put some resources into something, I think that would be an ideal candidate.

---

Good morning Soundwave. Do you have any thoughts or comments on the posts regarding super capital force projection? I know wasn't part of your Dev blog but I think there are a few well stated posts in here demonstrating why Super Carrier proliferation is the biggest problem in null sec right now.

Originally by: cpt tunguska

---

Big surprise: Power projection is not done by sending useless subcap-fleets through jb highways. It ist done by moving around untouchable, huge supercapblobs. Supers can hold hundrets of thousends fuel isotopes and dont really need alot of supply like ammo (supercarrier need none). One super equals a whole fleet of subcaps while it is very very mobile. One mouseclick can move you through whole regions. Cyno in and smash every enemy...with no effords. You just need to regain some more cap and you can cyno again. Also the huge dps/tank allows you do do things in no-time subcaps would need hours. And cause they dont need any supplies the can be in space and move around forever. If day's work is done they just log off and vanish. Next day they log back in in the party of destruction goes on.

---

Originally by: David Hassan

---

This is a nice start. Next I think you need to look at Super capital spamming. People move in super fleets, only to log off and disappear from game. No required logistics, no beachheads, just phantom force projection. Please make it so that Ships never disappear from space, and force super cap spammers to maintain the infrastructure for their doomsday weapons. Super capitals are way to easy to use, people fly them like battleships. Holder alts are cheesy, if you want godlike power then you should actually have to put forth some ::effort::

Also, remove the ability for capital ships to use cloaking devices, something that large (especially supers which in the lore bend gravity wells) shouldn't be possible to cloak.

---

---

Originally by: Flesh Slurper

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Originally by: Lev Aeris

---

Good morning Soundwave. Do you have any thoughts or comments on the posts regarding super capital force projection? I know wasn't part of your Dev blog but I think there are a few well stated posts in here demonstrating why Super Carrier proliferation is the biggest problem in null sec right now.

---

We're not really looking at that currently. My own personal thoughts about supercaps is that it's a shame there are all these meta-requirements in many alliances. Streamlining the ability to travel, so anyone in a supercap can join a fleet instead of "join fleet if you have a carrier and x number of skills at x level" would probably be a good way to encourage interaction. But yeah, not touching that just now.

---

This proves how fail CCP is at understanding their game and properly balancing it. Nerfing subcap movement while allowing supercaps massive projection and minimal downside. The subcaps were already at a disadvantage and now are much worse off.

---

Originally by: El'Niaga

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 11/05/2011 10:05:08

Originally by: Flesh Slurper

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

We're not really looking at that currently. My own personal thoughts about supercaps is that it's a shame there are all these meta-requirements in many alliances. Streamlining the ability to travel, so anyone in a supercap can join a fleet instead of "join fleet if you have a carrier and x number of skills at x level" would probably be a good way to encourage interaction. But yeah, not touching that just now.

---

This proves how fail CCP is at understanding their game and properly balancing it. Nerfing subcap movement while allowing supercaps massive projection and minimal downside. The subcaps were already at a disadvantage and now are much worse off.

---

Not at all talking about nerfing/allowing more projection, I'm talking about dealing with the situation that someone owns a carrier but can't participate in a cap fleet because of x skill requirements.

---

Did it ever occur to you that there are x skill requirements to participate in a cap fleet for a reason? I mean the person has to be able to jump to the location (that can require a minimum JDC skill level), there might be a need to help provide logistics to subcaps or caps (thus a minimum level in remote repairing), weapon or damage types preferred to counter enemy etc.

So now you want to dictate for us who can and can't be in fleets?

You also realize that a standard carrier will last less than 15seconds against a supercarrier right?

---

Originally by: Hitomi Fargazer

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Yep, and I don't like those requirements vOv. They're a horrible way of excluding players from playing with their corps/and alliances, and I'd love some of the basics to be streamlined, like travel distance. Not necessarily nerfed, but similar to the extent that your jump range isn't the factor that keeps you from playing EVE.

---

sooo you dont like skill prerequisites for capwarfare so you nerf subcaps? makes perfect sense...

---

Originally by: Mitchello

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Originally by: Hitomi Fargazer

---

Originally by: CCP Soundwave

---

Yep, and I don't like those requirements vOv. They're a horrible way of excluding players from playing with their corps/and alliances, and I'd love some of the basics to be streamlined, like travel distance. Not necessarily nerfed, but similar to the extent that your jump range isn't the factor that keeps you from playing EVE.

---

sooo you dont like skill prerequisites for capwarfare so you nerf subcaps? makes perfect sense...

---

Two completely unrelated subjects. Someone asked me about caps and I answered.

---

If we could throw unrelated subjects together, people might as well be asking here whether we get kittens in Incarna v0v (though I think we really need those but meh).

Anyhow, these are good changes to start with. Not too drastic, not as deep as what will be required, and sure there is a long time between phase one and followup (as required) but it's time. EVE is based on destruction, creation is derivative to that. Different from many other games, but hey, EVE is more than just a game.

---