EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Nullsec Development: Design Goals

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Nullsec Development: Design Goals

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)

CCP Fallout	Posted - 2011.08.15 10:33:00 - [1] CCP Greyscale and Team BFF's newest dev blog details the current design goals for nullsec. DE RU ~~Update: CCP Fallout is Failboat and published before creating the feedback threads. We'll get this done shortly :)~~ Update: Feedback threads have been created and can be found here. Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us


Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2011.08.15 10:41:00 - [2] Yummmy! /c Secure 3rd party service \| in-game 'Holy Veldspar' Now /w voice

ChromeStriker	Posted - 2011.08.15 10:56:00 - [3] fake edit: ibc... **** - Nulla Curas
Jack Paladin Solar Storm Self Destruct.	Posted - 2011.08.15 10:59:00 - [4] Originally by: ChromeStriker fake edit: ibc... ****
Vice Admiral Spreadsheet Caldari	Posted - 2011.08.15 11:01:00 - [5] Money chart!
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics K162	Posted - 2011.08.15 11:06:00 - [6] FASTER ____ New Ships Wishlist
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2011.08.15 11:07:00 - [7] nice :D Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman
Jupix Minmatar MuroBBS United	Posted - 2011.08.15 11:07:00 - [8] That was a great read. I guess now zerozero has a chance of someday becoming something I'd like to play in.
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation	Posted - 2011.08.15 11:23:00 - [9] Nice blog, made downtime pass by much quicker. I hope you keep this level of communication up. Cheers.
Har Harrison Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2011.08.15 11:55:00 - [10] Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...)

Smoking Blunts	Posted - 2011.08.15 12:01:00 - [11] so you intend to make t2 production in empire? cost more, harder to do, less efficent, pointless?
Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.08.15 12:06:00 - [12] Wow, that's a whole lot of work you're setting yourselves up for. I'm pleased to see plans (or pre-plans) of this scope and depth being discussed but to be quite frank, before I spend any effort in making detailed suggestions, I'd like to see some concrete assurance that the resources to implement even a small fraction of what you're talking about here will be made available. In short: that's some fine looking pie but please can you explain why it's not pie in the sky? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
The Economist Logically Consistent	Posted - 2011.08.15 12:40:00 - [13] Now we can all play: http://lurkertech.com/buzzword-bingo/

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2011.08.15 12:42:00 - [14] Originally by: Har Harrison Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...) I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though.

Walextheone The Red Circle Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.15 12:44:00 - [15] Edited by: Walextheone on 15/08/2011 12:44:30 Originally by: Smoking Blunts so you intend to make t2 production in empire? cost more, harder to do, less efficent, pointless? Seriously dude. Low risk - low reward High risk - high reward You have like "5" years to adjust to this anyway
Zagdul Gallente Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.08.15 12:44:00 - [16] If you wanna move away from structure grinding and towards the PvP aspect of things. my 'constructive' post... I was there, in fleet the other day with a few friends and we all started brain storming on ways we'd enjoy sov and the ability to make it less focused on structures and more focused on pvp. What we came up with were player driven incursions. You have alot of the code written and to implement it would be pretty cool. Basically, we've got acceleration gates already that limit ship size. Now when an attacking force launches an incursion, they do so by planting the acceleration gates in systems which deploy a dead-space "flag" that needs to be defended or destroyed. Each level of the player driven incursion allows for an attacking force to implement larger acceleration gates which would escalate an engagement. Sov is now defended on a sliding scale (similar to incursions) where disruption happens, not to the level of incursions, but it's something that a defending force definitely wants to take part in and enjoys doing it. This benefits everyone in null sec in that, when you defend the initial stages of an invasion, smaller alliances who are skilled with small gang warfare can do so and it benefits them. In terms of resources such as moon-goo and the likes. This will still create reasons and things to fight over so I don't forsee stagnation happening. Rather, making player driven incursions on a sliding scale of who dominates a system and comes out more powerful in the end. Things like defending the accelleration gates to make sure your fleet can get through to fight for the flag. Less blob as you'd put a "size" limit (similar to wormholes) on the defending and attacking gates. These structures can be used in a manner like POS's where there's a password which a specific role is necessary to change (config starbase etc.) which keeps in line with the whole fun espionage of EVE. You still need to "defend" the acceleration gate to get your fleet to the "flag". By limiting the mass on the gate, you'll see decisions made where "hey, **** ahacs, lets do 200 rifters!" Meanwhile, the opposing side if decided to do ahacs, would have to fend off 200 rifters with a fleet of something like 20 ahacs. Depending on the skill of the FC's, this could go either way. EDIT: And in the system where the gates are, there would be different types of fleets fighting to try and kill off the "assault" fleets before they make it to the acceleration gate. I think one of the components to my post was the sliding scale aspect of it and escalation of the encounter. Possibly I didn't explain the idea behind it much. Basically, if an attacking alliance can win the first parts of the 'incursion', they would go into a new phase where they can then anchor/online/add larger gates that have greater mass allowances. Maybe they just get upgraded... I really don't know here. ok, I'm gonna go on a brain storm here. SBU's are replaced with acceleration gates, incursion style. So the mechanic of 51 percent of the system needs to be covered in order to start the incursion. Similar health, similar deals with these gates. Ihubs/TCU's are replaced with a deadspace flag in a system that is only reachable by anchorable gates. Sov level determines how many gates a holding alliance can maintain in a system. Gates are anchored in a system as a pos structure (maybe?) outside etc... similar to jump bridges. I posted more on k.com where I went into how systems are based on "levels"... Level 1 the attacker drops gates that are small forcing small fleet combat and the winner of each round decides if they want to keep upgrading gates or keep em small. Super cap heavy organizations will want to upgrade, where smaller alliances who are good at small gang warfare can hold with small ships. http://tinyurl.com/44bhaal http://tinyurl.com/3tnu9sj
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy Spreadsheets Online	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:16:00 - [17] Quote: Logistics should be a weakness for larger organizations of players. It should avoid being tedious, but it should remain a major point of concern as size increases, and be one of the primary drawbacks of growing beyond a certain size. Yet you nerf jumpbridges and therefore everyone ought to use gates and therefore there's no differentiation. Quote: For further discussion. The best agents in the game should all be in nullsec, in keeping with the "richest area in the game" theme. There should be a clear margin of value for nullsec agents that acts as an enticement for mission runners to move there. Except for agents in player 0.0 which is the majority of 0.0. Quote: Groups running regular small fleets should find it pretty straightforward to move their base of operations. This allows them to "go where the action is", and allows any given part of the cluster to get a much more regular rotation of "local gangs", which in turn should lead to more combat variety for the average player on both sides of the fence (ie roaming groups and defense gangs). Yet jump bridges got nerfed. Quote: Smaller fleets should have some avenue via which they can have some impact on larger fleets, without just getting killed. There should be some sensible way to defend against this with some sensible amount of effort on the larger fleet's part. A smaller fleet should not feel that it simply has to run away from a larger one, but neither should it be able to have a disproportionate impact on a larger one. Perhaps anytime there's a large number of ships in a grid there's some sort of 'gravity' effect that has the effect of pulling them all towards each other. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe.
dgastuffz Caldari Hell's Revenge	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:17:00 - [18] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Har Harrison Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...) I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though. so in lets say 6 years from now on are you kidding me?
Smoking Blunts	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:37:00 - [19] Originally by: Walextheone Edited by: Walextheone on 15/08/2011 12:44:30 Originally by: Smoking Blunts so you intend to make t2 production in empire? cost more, harder to do, less efficent, pointless? Seriously dude. Low risk - low reward High risk - high reward You have like "5" years to adjust to this anyway so all r&d agents are getting moved to 0.0 also cos other wise its just more pita. not fused about it being in empire or 0.0 as i live in 0.0. just increasing logistics for no real reason isnt what im after. moon mins will have to be redistrbuted as some parts of the map wont have all(tech) the stuff needed. tbh all i see this doing is upsetting empire bears, and making more work for people in 0.0. atm its a short trip to jita and an empire pos. soon will be many trips in empire to collect cores, then many pos's to get all the reactions in 0.0. more work for teh same results, yay
Nomad III	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:38:00 - [20] Industry If 0.0 pilots are able to be selv sufficient, it's breaking the greater rules of acting together. That means every modern society depending on global rules of trade. But according to those ideas we are on the way back to the middelages. I propose a different strategy: Make trade between hostiles in 0.0 possible so that the interconnection between all pilots is visible and has consequences. Logistics Don't make logistics tedious. It takes more than enough time. We want shoot each other not preparing to shoot each other.

Ralavina Vivicide	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:40:00 - [21] Hi CCP Fallout / Greyscale To remove permanent marker from a white board, simply scribble over it with a normal board marker - the oils in the board marker will react with the permanent marker "ink" and you'll be able to rub it off with a normal board cleaner, without the need to use special sprays / cleaners. -- Ralara's banned again so this is my alt :p
Kotami Minmatar	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:41:00 - [22] I read the whole blog. Comprehensive and interesting, but there was only one recurring theme throughout: "I want my cake and eat it too." Good luck with that.
Renan Ruivo Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:48:00 - [23] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 15/08/2011 13:50:09 U I HAVE ____________ Originally by: CCP Guard Nobody gets to ruin EVE but us!
stoicfaux Gallente	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:53:00 - [24] Lots of great ideas in the whiteboard blogs, however... Does CCP have enough resources to actually implement any of them in a reasonable time frame? Meaning, it's one thing to shift existing game features around (minerals, ice, agents, etc.) but some of the more interesting ideas have that "pie in the sky" aspect that would require serious re-work and would require a lot of follow up tweaks for balance and gameplay. ----- CCP's NeX Pricing Tiers Affordable: One PLEX Mid: 3-4 PLEX Deluxe: Only for "flamboyantly rich capsuleers" Exceptional: ??
Black Dranzer Caldari	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:56:00 - [25] Hmm Haa. Well, it all looks very impressive and encouraging, but, like you guys say, it's just a roadmap. It's a good roadmap, but that's only worth so much. The real test of this will be how much bang for your buck you can get in how short a time. All the cool plans in the world don't mean a trit if nothing ever comes of them. Communication's good. Communication is part of what people want. Just remember that, more than anything, people want to see results. Here's my advice, skimmed over though it will no doubt be: Change something core. Something integral. Some vital thing which touches on everything else. Even if its impact is so far reaching you're not even sure if you can accurately judge what its impact will be. Worst comes to the worst you create chaos and alters the game like nothing else. But frankly? That might be just what this game needs right now. Right now, you need change.
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.08.15 14:08:00 - [26] Edited by: Tippia on 15/08/2011 14:12:01 Just one thingà Originally by: CCP Greyscale Decisions beat numbers It should always be the case that inferior numbers can win with superior decision-making. Large fleets should be much less about who has the most ships and much more about who has the smartest commanders and sub-commanders. àgood luck. For this to happen, you're going to need to implement a pretty sophisticated damage stacking penalty or equivalent mechanic, so you can actually have to apply your force tactically to get the most out of it. Otherwise, larger numbers = more DPS on target + more HP to chew through, and no amount of smarts will change that simple fact. There must be a good reason to split your fire so people start doing that, and only then can it become a matter of how to split it intelligently. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
kano donn New Path	Posted - 2011.08.15 14:23:00 - [27] Edited by: kano donn on 15/08/2011 14:25:44 Most excellent. I love this new direction. edit: This is completely off topic but to remove permanent marker really easily. Take your dry erase marker, color over the permanent entirely. Then when you erase it, it will come off. Try it, works wonders.
Delianora	Posted - 2011.08.15 14:25:00 - [28] Are you removing ice from hi sec low sec--seems like it based on the above?
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2011.08.15 14:34:00 - [29] Really enjoyed this one, there are some great design guidelines in here. I look forward to the community discussion on these topics. ______________________ "The world as we know it came about through an anomaly (anomou)" (The Gospel of Philip, 1-5)
kdsjfjhiskhfs	Posted - 2011.08.15 14:51:00 - [30] Edited by: kdsjfjhiskhfs on 15/08/2011 14:51:45 I hope you will consult your drug visions with your CFO, because these changes will destroy all alt industry (manufacturing) corps which are located in hi sec. When you will implement these changes from my point of view I will pay you 180 eur instead of 2120 per year - this will mades your CFO very sad. Because I will cancel 7 of 8 my accounts which makes ISKs for 8th account which is pvp toon.

Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2011.08.15 14:55:00 - [31] Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 15/08/2011 15:04:13 It is surprising to me the idea being proposed of removing ICE mining from hi-sec - as it will certainly have a considerable impact on many hi-sec manufacturers/industrialists. As a rule of thumb in MMOs, nerfing activities or current abilities is a big no-no. Instead of nerfing ICE mining in hi-sec, why not improve something in null-sec, add something new - to make null-sec more appealing. Instead of constricting the hi-sec player, make null-sec more enticing by enhancing. My two cents.
Wacktopia Sicarius. Legion of The Damned.	Posted - 2011.08.15 15:01:00 - [32] Edited by: Wacktopia on 15/08/2011 15:01:31 So... what's under the painted over section on planets from the white board? Edit: Yes I read the footnote - just trolololing
Coco Caine	Posted - 2011.08.15 15:01:00 - [33] I wish you good luck with this, but honestly, it is far too early to comment on anything - lots of visionary stuff can be written on a whiteboard, yet any concrete change to nullsec unlikely to happen before deep into 2012. Give me back the 5 mins i wasted on this dev blog.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2011.08.15 15:06:00 - [34] In that pic, why did you block out what was written under planets? Originally by: CCP Zulu Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience.
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2011.08.15 15:39:00 - [35] Originally by: dgastuffz Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Har Harrison Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...) I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though. so in lets say 6 years from now on are you kidding me? Beat me to what I was going to say. FW and lowsec can't wait until after Comrade CCP's marvelous and farseeing 5 year plan.
Evil Incarn8 Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2011.08.15 15:48:00 - [36] Ok, a few points I would like cleared up. The last item under the mining heading, "better than other passive income", how is mining a passive income unless you are botting? Again under Industry, "Sole source of Ice / Highends", this is a really bad idea, high ends should be available in wh space and in smaller quantities in losec as it is now, Ice should also be available in losec and with base poor quality ice in 0.5 sec. Under territory and conquest, what does "T2 safe" mean? Overall I like the ideas, you will/are scaring a lot of people, but they need a good shakeup out there. Industry should be a profession, not something you have an alt do.
Vincent Athena	Posted - 2011.08.15 15:51:00 - [37] I worried that you want to force players who enjoy high sec to leave via a massive high sec nerf. If you do that you better give them someplace to go. The average high sec player is in high sec because they do not enjoy PvP combat. Will you change things so alliance leaders will welcome such players into null? Otherwise, you may well force such players out of high sec, and right into a different game. Right now a pure industrialist / PvE player is not welcome in null. I see nothing in your roadmap that would encourage alliance leaders to recruit such players into their alliance. You should fix that.
Bloodpetal Mimidae Risk Solutions	Posted - 2011.08.15 15:53:00 - [38] Edited by: Bloodpetal on 15/08/2011 15:53:26 Shameless Plug : http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1565324 I really don't think inverting null and high sec is an option or a reality - but taking world forming into consideration, making certain regions be more viable for trade opportunities by null sec centralization can make that "asymmetry" of value. Consider some spaces of null-sec are very valuable logistically, but very poor industrially, and you can end up with people holding up logistical central points, but requiring other areas to bring in materials and resources to make use of those logistically valuable locations. This would promote free-trade outposts for profiteering (taxes, etc) - and create positions for centralization. Perhaps that would translate into allowing more public forms of system improvements. Maybe not only a Cyno Jammer, but also a Bubble Jammer to stop warp bubbles in systems. This can go on to add other tools for people who want to promote an open space policy - public jump bridges and so forth. I guess that's the main thing I would say has been defining null sec development in EVE, ways to DEFEND your space, so that's what people do. Give people the tools to OPEN THEIR space and they will do that too. Build it and they will come. Think about it! AURUM NOSTRUM NON EST AURUM VULGI
Nonnori Ikkala Love for You	Posted - 2011.08.15 16:00:00 - [39] Great! I love that you're thinking about these big issues, and that you're telling us about your thoughts and process. The upgrade in detail from the last blog is sweet. So... when can we expect the list of null sec features to be included in patch-the-next? :)
Bloodpetal Mimidae Risk Solutions	Posted - 2011.08.15 16:02:00 - [40] On the matter of null sec agents being the best, I think that using much more In Space Agents in Null sec for various corporations is very viable. Don't make all those agents Pirates - not everyone wants to be an NPC Pirate, but that doesn't mean that Republic Fleet has no interest out there, or whatever. I think another possibility for null sec missions is more of a "mission board" ability. Imagine you're walking around Incarna and you walk up to a Mission Board in a Pirate NPC system - you can see missions from Republic Fleet, Amarr navy, Guristas, etc. Also provide an option for those who dont want Incarna to interact with such... You can associate the mission with an Agent in Hi Sec specifically - so it's a kind of remote mission being done in null sec. Alternately, provide some small time pirate missions in Hi Sec to lure people out to Null Sec pirate agents. Use the Establishments "black market" to provide this NPC content - you have to go off grid since clearly Republic Fleet would never let Angel Cartel openly allow missions to be fed to hi sec. This could also apply to Republic Fleet missions in Angel Cartel space, etc based on standings. AURUM NOSTRUM NON EST AURUM VULGI

Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2011.08.15 16:11:00 - [41] 0.0 residents should not have the feeling that speed-running lvl 4 missions in highsec is a good and hassle-free source of income. You will need to move lvl 4 agents to low-sec or reduce high-sec mission bounties a good bit. High-sec had an risk/reward ratio way out of ballance for years. It's time to stop that. All what lvl 4 missions do right now is pumping risk-free ISK into the economy. You'll have to plug that hole sooner or later, since rising the 0.0 rewards high enough to be in line with highsec-no-risk rewards is not an option. So why not do it first? You will have a lot more people considering going to 0.0 (again) right away (including me) with little effort. Let the carebears cry, they'll adapt. If they get their pimped up faction BS in 1 month or 2, who cares. Otherwise - nice roadmap. Sure it's the perfect game world and we will most likely never get it, but why not strive for excellence.
Orakkus Minmatar m3 Corp	Posted - 2011.08.15 16:18:00 - [42] I have a question regarding the smallholding. Is it the intent that various small alliances/corporations/individuals could actually share a nullsec system and still get particular benefits from doing so? I only do diplomancy because I haven't found you.. yet.
Astomichi	Posted - 2011.08.15 16:28:00 - [43] :words: Exciting words, granted, but CCP has a history of giving lots of good :words: then completely failing to deliver the product - ever.
Digital Gaidin Gallente	Posted - 2011.08.15 16:35:00 - [44] Movement and logistics As long as Jump Freighters remain in the game, and/or Titans able to easily move fleets of freighters using Jump portals (and yes, almost every pet entity has Titans available to some rich members today), how is this going to be achieved? The more people the more opportunity for spies, so people will just do things themselves (as always) or the path of least resistance (blob gate, jump freighters, warp to POS with Titan inside it, jump, total op time <10min). From the larger fleets perspective, as long as I can drop a cyno and move N-carriers/dreads/supers/titans anywhere I want, how do bigger ships move slower? As long as I can bridge my fleet anywhere, how does this slow down larger fleets? Also, if you do slow them down, coming home 27 jumps to your base of operation turns into a nightmare and people often would rather get killed and podded then flying that often enough. PvE The main reason groups suck in nullsec PvE is due to the bursts of high payouts and the often large amounts of time that are spent getting to that point. If the max payout for the night is going to be a couple non-escalating plexes totaling under 100million, why do you want to split this 5-ways? It's great if a nice BPC drops and it wasn't a waste of everyone's time, but as it is its often a waste unless you're there for the social aspect and not making some ISK. NPC nullsec Short of declaring a max hanger size inside the station to prevent fleets of ships moving into NPC nullsec stations, how do you prevent a large mercenary force (alliance) from moving into an NPC station, basing out of here for operations (indefinitely), and effectively being immune to the effects of Sovereignty warfare while waging a Sovereignty war themselves? It sounds like you are suggesting that you plan to limit the use of the major sovereignty holders from using NPC nullsec as a safe way to wage war (we all do it when basing remotely), but is this more of an idea or are you serious about providing a clear incentive not to use it? Small Combat Can we please make this better than "causing the enemy to dock up or safe up". As long as local exists as an intel tool, that disruption lasts the duration of the fleet in system + 5-10seconds. Large Combat Diverse Fleets - Why bring other ships if one uber-tanked battleship can track nearly everything it needs to kill, use of tactics leads to warp-ins quickly being formed on any fleet outside of range, and a few T3 tacklers dealing with anything small enough that you can't kill in short order? As long as a single tactic-type of ship (Alpha, Hellcat, etc.) can be used to deal with most situations, why fly any other type of ship? Value For All - Logistics already act as a "healing" role in EVE, and has changed the fleet dynamics in EVE from DPS fleets facing off to tanked fleets with legions of Logistics keeping them alive. While I am a logistics pilot in almost every fleet that calls for a Guardian, is keeping more people on the battlefield alive longer really what this goal implies? Isn't more destruction better, not less? Decisions Beat Numbers - Is this more than "who brings the FOTM wins"? How do you plan on making diverse fleets combined with battlefield tactics lead to victories over a uniform fleet of the FOTM doing a carbon-copy tactic? Territory and Conquest The main question I have: Is Sovereignty going to be changed so its beneficial and fun to own? Currently, the vast majority of sovereignty owned is being rented to anyone willing to pay because organizations want to expand their sphere of influence but running the space... sucks. Mine the moons, collect rent, thrown down some CSAA's and wage war elsewhere. There is very little in the way of fun with managing and running an empire, and the monetary rewards linked to sovereignty are more in line with renter corporations, rather than where the real monetary reward is (resources not linked to sovereignty, taxes, capital building/sales)
Digital Gaidin Gallente	Posted - 2011.08.15 17:29:00 - [45] Edited by: Digital Gaidin on 15/08/2011 17:37:54 Follow-up as above text was limited in size. There is no point of doing trade/industry in non-NPC 0.0 with the exception of major base locations in highly secure space of an established alliance because: * Blueprints/Construction will be trapped upon invasion * Trade goods will be trapped upon invasion, especially if invading alliance does not stick around and no one to buy your trapped goods * Moving/Retrieving valuable blueprints is very dangerous and prone to theft/destruction (enterprising individuals can work around this at higher risk for the reward) Capital fleets will remain cheap to operate as long as Ice exists in High Sec space. When they become more expensive to operate, the major players in capital warfare will remain unaffected and only the poorer alliances will be drastically hindered in operation (unless the price becomes outrageous to fire a DD, bridge a fleet, or jump a Dreadnought/Carrier fleet). Only then will Capitals become a tool to be used sparingly. Low Sec will continue to suck until pilots can effectively defend themselves without taking Concord hits and/or being shot at by gate guns. Jita will control all trade until there is a path of less resistance to getting what you need quickly and cheaply. Buy ships/modules, afk through empire in NPC corp freighter alt, drop modules at jump location, jump to destination. It cannot get easier. Empire stations will reign supreme as long as you can refine, build, trade and research there safely and cheaply. A 25% build time increase and use tax non-negatable by skills or reputation might be in order? What major sovereignty holder never imposed taxes when there was so much money to be gained? What bureaucracy ever operated at the same efficiency as highly optimized organizations? (Lowsec, NPC nullsec should be included with possibly slightly lesser penalties!) If 25% penalties don't get you there, keep raising them. Risk vs. Reward. Removing empire POS's would have drastic effects as well on LowSec/Nullsec operation. Removing the ability to use Blueprints in station and forcing them to be IN A POS would as well. Empire missions will reign supreme for reliable money making for most entities as it is a reliable and consistent source of income that matches what most can make in 80% of nullsec space without significant risk/investment. Either nullsec must become more profitable (in all areas) or level 4 agents need to be LowSec only to provide risk for the reward. Mining will remain relatively pointless as long as mission running loot in empire (and drone alloys) controls the price of minerals. Alternate mining options (Wormholes) should be taken into account when deciding the fate of nullsec mining! Less entry of minerals into the system would have drastic effects. Maybe refining modules produces low end salvage instead? Food for thought? Last but not least, good luck making Nullsec more profitable than incursions...
Zirse Minmatar Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.08.15 17:33:00 - [46] Wonderful devblog, thanks.
Victoria Wolfe Caldari	Posted - 2011.08.15 17:33:00 - [47] From what I can tell, a good portion of this blog is focused on dragging high sec players to null. The reality is, most in high sec want to be there. It's no secret you can make way more ISK in null and in relative safety if you can get into a large power block. Many in high sec play there because they don't want to PVP and/or are casual players want a more relaxed environment. They may also be those who don't play often enough or seriously enough to want to be bothered living outside Empire space. So if you take away the principle past times of these people the result will not be a mass migration to null, but instead these players will get bored of the game and leave. So my advice if you want to revamp, liven up, enhance null is not to do it to the detriment of the other areas. You won't get more people out there, you'll just get fewer people. ___ "Speak for yourself sir, I intend to live forever" - Commander William Riker
FugginNutz Caldari Trolls From Outer Space	Posted - 2011.08.15 17:34:00 - [48] Gonna copy/pasta from another forum that sums everything up perfect: Quote: OK. Now deliver. Max
wizzard66 Gallente Evolution The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:02:00 - [49] Reading this blog scared me. It scared me that there seems to be CCP employees that do understand this game, the playerbase and the needs we have towards game development. If only it could be made like it was on that board...
Asuka Solo Gallente Stark Fujikawa	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:09:00 - [50] I noticed your section for planets in the bottom right hand side was empty. Here are some ideas for you demigods of coding and brainstorming.

Aineko Macx	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:31:00 - [51] Quote: 99% self-sufficient by volume For further discussion. People building things in nullsec should only need to travel to empire (or more than a couple of regions across nullsec) for low-volume supplies. This requires that industrialists have a ready supply of low-end minerals available nearby in nullsec, without breaking other systems or goals. (Likely means some way of mining low-ends in a massively more rapid manner compared to current tools.) Like others pointed out, it shouldn't be 99% self sufficient. Resources should be regionalized enough so that 0.0 to empire and 0.0 to 0.0 transactions need to happen. For T2 production this specifically means that moon type availability should have a strong regional bias (ofc demand should be roughly equal among the moon minerals in a given rarity class). ________________________ CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation.
Sassums Gallente	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:38:00 - [52] all the mining information sucks.
Diomedes Calypso Aetolian Armada	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:45:00 - [53] Quote: òAccessible ◦Pretty much anyone with a little seed capital (~10m ISK) should be able to establish some small, semi-permanent presence in nullsec. Not everyone wants to get involved in nullsec, but every player that feels even a slight interest but never quite takes the plunge represents a failure of design that we should fix. You ment 10 BILLION isk, didn't you? I had close to 15 million after week 2 in the game running and salvaging the sisters of eve in mostly a t1 frigate (needed to come back for the last couple, but the isk figure still stands for the point up to there)
Myxx Atropos Group	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:47:00 - [54] Removal of ice from highsec? No thanks. How about you put more ice/better ice in nullsec/lowsec, and leave what ice remains in highsec -- Originally by: CCP Explorer (and if you guys would also stop using Drakes it would be really appreciated, kthxbye). Originally by: Tom Gerard Then again... I am a moron.
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei Butterfly Effect Alliance	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:52:00 - [55] Many people who left 0.0 did not leave it for the lack of rewards or things to do, but because they despised the 0.0 politics, the who-is-the-biggest-douchebag-of-all-competition between alliances and leaders, the growing supercapital blobs, the fact that had to kiss the arse of the douchebags mentioned before and so on.. Shoving all the high level rewards into their rear ends with high pressure will makes things only worse. Quote: Disclaimer: All mentioned above contains my opinion and is therefore an absolute truth (for me anyway, my universe, muhahaha.....ok, done
Erinyes Nazgul	Posted - 2011.08.15 19:04:00 - [56] Remove ice from high sec? Awesome and long overdue. At the very minimum, make ice pop. No more unlimited ice fields. Perhaps have ice only in low sec, 0.0 and WHs. Regardless, I like the idea.
Digital Gaidin Gallente	Posted - 2011.08.15 19:09:00 - [57] Originally by: Deviana Sevidon Many people who left 0.0 did not leave it for the lack of rewards or things to do, but because they despised the 0.0 politics, the who-is-the-biggest-douchebag-of-all-competition between alliances and leaders, the growing supercapital blobs, the fact that had to kiss the arse of the douchebags mentioned before and so on.. Shoving all the high level rewards into their rear ends with high pressure will makes things only worse. Just a hunch, but I expect that they are trying to get those exact same people back into nullsec with this next expansion.
Diomedes Calypso Aetolian Armada	Posted - 2011.08.15 19:12:00 - [58] Originally by: Myxx Removal of ice from highsec? No thanks. How about you put more ice/better ice in nullsec/lowsec, and leave what ice remains in highsec Quoted in support ^ I've never mined ice and only mined that green ore for a couple missions I accidently took...but - it seems to me some people like mining in a sort of 'bag of chips" sort of way.. probably doing it while watching tv etc...but maybe also enjoying the IRC part of the game (----don't discount the value of chat retaining people, and being social about something meaningless is good escape from more stressful social interactions at work and home----) - connected to above xxxxxxxxxxx many of those people don't really want the attention and the stress of low sec or 0.0 ... Don't drive players from the game by forcing them to do things they don't want to do . Ice mining is important to high sec industrilist, and many of thost guys are the type of players that ... prefer to be self sufficient as just a FUN semi role play .. the nutheads actually have their datacore alts assigned to the very cheapest cores because they need the rather than making expensive ones, selling them and buying what they need and having 90% of the isk left over --- operative word is FORCING .. carrots not sticks Also. it isn't a balance of PvP vs PVE...and many try to cast it that way. --- you'll force people out of the game more than you'll create more pvp --- i do support stuff like Hulkageddon that provides some occasional risk in High sec.. just a fairly low odds risk and generally preventable with a minor amound of caution even as a lone player wanting a bit of low key support. xxxx Don't fall into an easy trap of thinking you'll get more small gang warfare by forcing people who are looking for a bit of low key relaxation into danger......HOWEVER... if they sorta get a spark in their eye and have a lust for highe rates per hour, and random rewards (a few sleeper artifacts? popping randomly from ice in low and null sec?) you rightly point to as exciting.. well .. even they will know that .. they took a chance and got ganked trying to get greedy.
Diomedes Calypso Aetolian Armada	Posted - 2011.08.15 19:21:00 - [59] I'm reading between the lines, but I think you're alluding to some *limited* way of making some isk while online in 0.0 hoping for friends to come on line to group with. I know people hate WoW reference but the "Daily Quests" were a fairly workable solution to easing certain types of grinds (of course some felt those became mandatory too.. but thats a matter of other types of balance, not the concept itself) I know that with the use of alts people can get around any limits but it can be a partial barrier--- it certainly provides some friction and those with handfuls of accounts have already discovered many ways to EVE fortunes. --- forcing that might even make spotting botters through intial profiling a bit easier (profiling to follow up, not assume guilt first) seeing a line of characters being signed into from the same computer.
inexistin Rubbish and Garbage Removal	Posted - 2011.08.15 19:33:00 - [60] Originally by: Myxx Removal of ice from highsec? No thanks. How about you put more ice/better ice in nullsec/lowsec, and leave what ice remains in highsec Removing Ice from highsec will only end up crashing the market and making it near to impossible to fuel 0.0 POSs for a few weeks/months, crashing pretty much all of nullsec for that period or even longer. Don't remove it, rather, as Myxx said, make it more feasable to mine it from less secure areas. And in more feasable I mean hugely more feasable, so much that people would frown upon you if you told them you wanted to import it from Jita. _________________________________________________ Small-scale pew pew!? Lies, yo' blob is on intel!!1

Tobias Sjodin Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.15 19:56:00 - [61] Here's a very premature FUCK YES. HABIT
Mashie Saldana Minmatar Veto Corp	Posted - 2011.08.15 20:49:00 - [62] Good ideas, now lets hope the senior management actually will provide you with resources to implement this instead of :awesome:.
Darth Vapour	Posted - 2011.08.15 20:55:00 - [63] I can tell you that this is one of the moments where we look at what the developers do and less of what they say.
Ana Vyr Caldari	Posted - 2011.08.15 21:00:00 - [64] Edited by: Ana Vyr on 15/08/2011 21:00:32 I don't want to play in nullsec. In order to do that (with any efficiency at all) you have to belong to an alliance. I tried that style of play and it kinda sucks. What's the alternative to alliance play? A highsec with crap missions and insane ice and mineral prices (due to them being removed from highsec)? You guys need to come up with a way solo players can participate somehow. I do not want to belong to a collective. I do not want to have somebody telling me how to spend my game time (as is the case in alliance gameplay).
Cailais Amarr Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United	Posted - 2011.08.15 21:10:00 - [65] Finally. I've been waiting for nigh on 5 years (yes YEARS) for this type of road map. That's right CCP you are currently 5 Years behind. That's an insane amount of development time wasted, squandered and lost. But of course we will judge you on what you do, not what you say. C.
SilentSkills Gallente Tax Evaders Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.15 21:31:00 - [66] Originally by: Pattern Clarc FASTER The Monocle Definition CCP - Originally by: Imuran Cannot code properly
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.08.15 22:03:00 - [67] What will be left to do in hisec after the expansion? I like to do exploration, research & production, some mining and missions running, most of which seems to be a complete waste of time after the change. Exploration as it is now is only worth doing because of the chance to get some good items, i don't think anyone is shooting frigs because they think it's great fun. T1 production is a joke on multiple levels, with the market flooded with named meta items you can't really sell anything and the skills you can train are mainly used for T2/T3 production. Mining is already pretty bad, if it gets much worse there is no reason not to trade the exhumer for a battleship and just buy ore with the isk you can make from mission running. Will there be any viable game play options left in hisec, except for mission running?, i can't see myself paying for the game if that is the only content i can play. I liked the idea of eve being a sandbox game, but being forced to join a corp/alliance and moving to nullsec, is going to take most of the sand out of my sandbox.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2011.08.15 22:13:00 - [68] For whom are these missives written? The dumbasses that will question every change and how it relates to them, while simultaneously ignoring the big picture? **** the players. Decide changes first, then explain how you came to that conclusion. You will get feedback whether you like it or not. If you have vision and know exactly what you're doing, the only things that will sway you are sound and logical arguments - not the tsunami of butthurt players who will suddenly have to play differently. I'm not seeing that vision though, which is why these blogs read like platitudes without content. If it's even there, it is certainly being castrated by people who would prefer to keep EVE in maintenance mode. A mode where you play musical chairs with game mechanics to keep things seemingly fresh, but don't really change the fundamentals in any real way. I could improve your 0.0 and EVE experience drastically, with one patch and zero new content. I could do it without touching a single thing in 0.0. The reason I can do all that is because I know why that angsty feeling exists; the one where players feel that "things suck" but can't put it into words. Here it is: Corporations and alliances don't matter. Wars don't matter. Wealth doesn't matter. Nothing they do or have matters. The reason it doesn't matter is because, at the end of the day, everyone has what they want. Nobody is being denied or excluded from anything meaningful. So players who try to do some meaningful things eventually become frustrated. They can't win because they can't lose, and everyone is rewarded just for showing up. Why do you think this is the case? You have to be seriously **ing blind if you can't see where two thirds of players reside, and what activity they waste two thirds of their time on. And how much resource competition do they face? Zero.** Infinite supply/demand curve in a completely safe environment. The only factor is TIME. So what do you expect most people would reasonably decide to do? Safe and steady at an acceptable pace, or GAMBLE and possibly get REAMED by players who are BETTER? Just because it's a game, doesn't mean players are going to start thinking and acting differently from how they would in life - even though they ought to try it some. EVE has no credible player competition. It has death and pvp, but it's meaningless if the damage inflicted is the equivalent of running back to your corpse. Yes, even Titans, that 0.000000001% of all ship loss is a total wash. CCP owners are essentially the reflection of their own problem here. EVE is growing slow and steady. It could be a better and bigger game with some risk - or, they keep the status quo and dabble in something new after all these years. One patch is all you need to reverse the course set by a thousand stupid solo-player-friendly changes that have undermined the sole reason this game exists today. You'd have to mess with the structure of corporations, the role of standings, the rules of war, the purpose of insurance, the mechanics of travel, and the economic costs of safety. People would cry tears of anger and joy; sometimes at once. When you've got 0.0 "fixed", you can start messing with it directly to make it the most interesting place to be, and not just the most economically sensible one. Yes, I am still that guy. Maybe some devs at CCP started like that, before they got tired of being that guy and settled on keeping their extremist minority views in check. Maybe they even convinced themselves that design by committee works, and that player feedback is important. L O L Fortunately(?), I'm not getting paid to be part of the team, so I will continue to be that guy and whip that pink elephant in the room. ps: I've seen the don't worry this is only the first step line so many times it makes me ill. Not only is it a horrible lie, but it's not even a convincing one. Seriously, stop it.
Smertrios Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2011.08.15 22:20:00 - [69] Quote: Also also, "U I HAVE" is in permanent marker and we haven't got round to cleaning it off yet Trick for you. Write over the permanent marker with a non-permanent marker and then wipe and it removes the permanent mark... quite handy really ;)
Gripen	Posted - 2011.08.15 22:29:00 - [70] Originally by: DigitalCommunist stuff This wins "longest post I'm agree up to the last letter with" award.

Ramman K'arojic	Posted - 2011.08.15 22:30:00 - [71] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Har Harrison Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...) I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though. Though this is a 0.0 story: to truly understand how 0.0 fits within the Eve trichotomy with Low and high (plus off to one side Worm Hole); the high level post-it notes design concept of the those need to be done. This will give you context to do null. Also on the money chart; I reckon your money chart is actually 2 charts What it is currently (fact based) What you want it to be (model / thumb suck) Cheers & Beers Ramm
Renak11	Posted - 2011.08.15 22:32:00 - [72] It's a common refrain to hear '0.0 pve should make more because there's more risk to living in 0.0'. But the reality is that simple is not true. It's far more dangerous to run missions in highsec in a faction fit tengu than it is to do any form of pve in the same boat in 0.0. Concord may provide 'consequences' (meaningless as they are), but there's nothing one can do 'before the fact' in highsec, which is what makes suicide ganking a trivially easy activity. Compare to 0.0 where all you have to do is keep local chat open: nonfriendly appears in local->safe up. It's 100% safe for people of even the barest level of competence. As such, it's quite unclear to me why 0.0 should 'naturally' make more isk because of some illusion of greater risk.
Alexzia Sevic	Posted - 2011.08.15 22:48:00 - [73] Edited by: Alexzia Sevic on 15/08/2011 22:54:16 Originally by: Renak11 It's a common refrain to hear '0.0 pve should make more because there's more risk to living in 0.0'. But the reality is that simple is not true. It's far more dangerous to run missions in highsec in a faction fit tengu than it is to do any form of pve in the same boat in 0.0. Concord may provide 'consequences' (meaningless as they are), but there's nothing one can do 'before the fact' in highsec, which is what makes suicide ganking a trivially easy activity. Compare to 0.0 where all you have to do is keep local chat open: nonfriendly appears in local->safe up. It's 100% safe for people of even the barest level of competence. As such, it's quite unclear to me why 0.0 should 'naturally' make more isk because of some illusion of greater risk. Its not safe to assume that the method of intelligence gathering will remain unchanged. I, for one, hope they remove the ability to see a non-blue and local and then safe up. And your statement about there is 'nothing you can do before the fact is not entirely accurate. One can simply fly a less valuable ship. That will instantly mitigate the risk of suicide ganking. The same cannot be said in null sec. You make it sound like PvE is 100% safe in null sec. I'm not sure the kill boards would back you up. How do the Dev's see WH space in this picture? Is it to become more or less profitable then null sec, or remain about as it is currently?
Lykouleon Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.08.15 22:54:00 - [74] Needs moar money charts Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER SO THAT I CAN HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD
Riveting Tale Sibling	Posted - 2011.08.15 23:29:00 - [75] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Har Harrison Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...) I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though. Just wanted to quote Soundwave here.. How long have you been promising to take a good hard look at Low-Sec? Instead, all of a sudden, we get an almost entirely Null CSM, and you want to massively overhaul the game to the detriment of everyone else? Have fun losing subscriptions, again.
Alexzia Sevic	Posted - 2011.08.16 00:46:00 - [76] Originally by: Riveting Tale Sibling Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Har Harrison Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...) I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though. Just wanted to quote Soundwave here.. How long have you been promising to take a good hard look at Low-Sec? Instead, all of a sudden, we get an almost entirely Null CSM, and you want to massively overhaul the game to the detriment of everyone else? Have fun losing subscriptions, again. How is balancing risk vs reward, one of the central dogmas of Eve, to the detriment to everyone else? Also, is there anything in the dev blog that can even be conceived of as detrimental? I bet your one of the people that cried and moaned about Incarna, said they should work on FiS features. Now CCP is working the aforementioned and still the whining continues.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat	Posted - 2011.08.16 00:58:00 - [77] The people that enjoy mining or enjoy building or enjoy missions, the stereotypical carebears, are not going to move into lowsec or nulsec. They'll just leave EVE. The stereotypical PvPer also has no interest in industry or the market (Mittens has stated as much). Industry requires safety and stability. That is why it has flourished in hisec. I'm all for improving nulsec, and even making industry more feasible there, but I fear nerfing hisec so harshly could be a crippling blow to EVE from which it might never recover.
Sassums Gallente	Posted - 2011.08.16 01:31:00 - [78] Why are those of us living in wormholes being controlled by the carebears in Null Sec? Please explain to me how mining in a randomly spawning wormhole system is any less dangerous than hiding behind 10 gate camps well within your alliance's controlled space? Now tell me how it's any less dangerous to try to move those minerals out through the worm hole? Wormhole space is just as, if not more dangerous than Null Sec and we should have just as large of a say as they do.
Har Harrison Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2011.08.16 01:48:00 - [79] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Har Harrison Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...) I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though. So that will be what - 5 years from now??? Faction Warfare has many bugs/issues that need addressing to just make it reasonable to use, yet 0.0 is getting new features added without the FW bugs being addressed. Incursion plexing mechanics were fixed within a very short time of release, yet FW has not been touched for ages...
Dex Ironmind	Posted - 2011.08.16 02:51:00 - [80] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Har Harrison Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...) I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though. Herein lies the problem with your road map and design concept for 0.0. You can't look at one element of the universe (i.e, 0.0) without impacting the other elements (LOW and HI). Will LOW and HI have to wait for five years for that kind of attention, all the while having to suck it up on the disaster that some of these concepts will hit them with. That makes very little sense, especially considering that you have a persistent universe, where the various aspects are space are directly related. 0.0 is not an island unto itself - and you are treating it as such with this road map. While some of the concepts in your road map seem to make sense for 0.0 in and of itself, and might even be fun depending how you implement them, your roadmap must have a very clear picture of what you plan to do with LOW sec and HI sec before you begin any design changes for 0.0. You should then put those plans out for your player base to give you feedback on too before you begin on the NULL strategy. One will inevitably impact the other. One more major concern is that a road map like this suggests that you guys plan whole updates that focus on the one element of the playerbase, and do little for other elements of the playerbase. This road map says, in general, that you want to herd all the cattle into NULL, making it the place to be. What about those who like LOW sec or prefer HI sec. Your road map suggests that those are merely stepping stones to NULL??!!! Is that what you mean to do? If not, then tell us what you plan to do in LOW and HI. In other words, WHAT IS THE BIG PICTURE??? That should impact your road map for 0.0 in a big way. Additionally, if it will take five years of work to implement your NULL plan, that means LOW and HI will be ... well... left with the chicken scratch of dev time in terms of improvements there. LOW in particular has been relatively abandoned. You see, while the improved communication is good, this road map does nothing to motivate me to invest the time to see these changes implemented. There is not something for everyone in these changes, only nerfs to LOW and HI (and even WH space), to improve NULL. Bad design concept. You need a general road map and a strategy of implementing it that includes something for everyone!!! Dex was here. ;-)

Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.08.16 03:04:00 - [81] I always read it as 'the lowsec/highsec guideline concepts will be done after the nullsec conecpt is done', not '...after the nullsec concept is fully implemented'.
Tron Flux Caldari Midnite Madness	Posted - 2011.08.16 03:33:00 - [82] So let me get this straight. High sec missioners think that high sec miners are care bears. Low sec pvpers think everyone in high sec is a care bear. Everyone in 0.0 thinks everyone in low or high sec is a care bear. And everyone whose ever been in a wormhole thinks everyone else is a care bear. Question: who do high sec miners think are care bears? Seriously, I like the blog. I like to see the team thinking in broad, philosophical terms about the nature and purpose of 0.0. And I think the general criticisms would serve more purpose if people position them as comments about whether or not a given nerf or buff actually reflects the purpose or the idea that it's intended to support. In this blog, I don't see anything blatantly illogical in the way the items are introduced. But then again, I'm a care bear to anyone but high sec miners. I see "null sec should be more profitable because it's more risky" >>> here are ways to make it more profitable. I think the heart of that issue isn't whether or not ice or abc should be in high sec or w-space. The heart of the issue is a philosophical one. Is null sec really more risky? Perhaps assuming that it is more risky is a simply assumption that shouldn't be made. What are the reasons for making that assumption? Lack of concord has to be up there on anyone's list. Well, couldn't you argue that live players acting as police are more effective because they can take out a potential threat before it acts? Perhaps that makes null sec more safe for those who control it properly. I'm not saying it's true. I'm say that people arguing about some specific item for one reason or another are missing the point of the conversation the dev's are trying to have right now. They are talking about a roadmap of ideas. So debate the idea, not some specific instance of it that bothers you.
Gevlin Minmatar Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners	Posted - 2011.08.16 03:36:00 - [83] love the thinking and idea process. I wish you the best of luck on the revamp.... just would not know where to start here we go again!
Dek Kato Amarr Delusions of Mediocrity	Posted - 2011.08.16 03:57:00 - [84] FFS, was this written as an actual design document, or a bunch of nullsec dwellers circle jerk material? Oh wait, its the NC/Goon CSM. There's my answer. Basically it boils down to; remove everything from ANYWHERE ELSE. Ice? Null. High ends? Null. Moon minerals? Null! Best PvE? Null. PvP? Null! Lets force the ENTIRE GAME to revolve around null, and separate null from any other region by making it "self sufficient". Great idea. So other than sleeper materials, why is there any reason to live anywhere else? Aren't you guys still nerfing the last time you tried to make null "worth living in"? (Anom nerf was directly pointed at Dominion changes) You screwed moon minerals with Technetium, now you're going to screw the ice and mineral markets as well? As to the whole "risk factor" thing, nullsec is as safe, if not safer than low or some highsec. The only way to actually guarantee a fight is to engage in sov warfare, which even assuming a TOTAL revamp, will still no doubt require numbers to fight the stupid blobbing that comes with it. If someone decides not to fight, its as simple as docking in the station that only you can dock in when you hear on the intel channels that raiders are incoming from 20 jumps away. Then you just wait for a fleet to form and 1000 of your friends to blob in by jump bridge. I fail to see where the "risk factor" comes in that should result in the removal of anything that matters from any other place in the game. The only way I can see this being any sort of acceptable is something along the lines of complete removal of jump bridges and cyno jammers, or any sort of defensive upgrade in nullsec. If you get everything, you get no guarantees of any protection. There's my nullsec modest proposal to go with this one. Originally by: CCP Shadow Thread locked due to troll convention.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2011.08.16 04:12:00 - [85] Originally by: Tau Cabalander Edited by: Tau Cabalander on 16/08/2011 01:09:12 The people that enjoy mining or enjoy building or enjoy missions, the stereotypical carebears, are not going to move into lowsec or nulsec. They'll just leave EVE. The stereotypical PvPer also has no interest in industry or the market (Mittens has stated as much). Industry requires safety and stability. That is why it has flourished in hisec. I'm all for improving nulsec, and even making industry more feasible there, but I fear nerfing hisec so harshly could be a crippling blow to EVE from which it might never recover. Oh boy, like I haven't heard that one before. It's only been used by every forum posting carebear since 2003. No, EVE is not going to die if it becomes harder. It will get even bigger. EVE is only alive today because it was ***-hard and people liked it that way. In fact, they loved it that way. It grew off that premise alone, despite* being broken in almost every other way. This battleship NPC PVE grind in Empire nonsense only began in late 2004 / early 2005 with Exodus, almost two years into retail. By then we already had alliances live and die, and several major 0.0 wars (including the Great Northern War, aka EVE WW1). Before Exodus, the best you could do for income in high sec was mine Scordite, Plagio or Veldspar with a battleship. You were lucky to pull 300-500k an hour. Maybe 800k if you were really pimping it with Harvesters and Miner II's. Getting a cruiser with casual play was a week or more. A battleship was a month or more. After Exodus, it became tens of millions per hour. Have things changed since? Nope. Even with repeated nerfs to agents and repeated boosts to 0.0, there is no longer any semblance of prior sanity. The increase in risk in going from High Sec -> Low Sec -> Null Sec is real. The increase in rewards used to be exponential, now they are linear and marginal at best. You can make 0.0 as pimp as you want. It wont change the fact that high sec is "good enough" for the vast majority. Which means the baseline rate is too good. Making money is a complete joke. Why would you need to compete against people if you don't even need to work with them? This is basically the number one problem with the game, by a wide margin. Fixing it is worth a decade of new content and features. And no, people will still have the option to do what they are currently doing. Nothing and nobody will ever force you into leaving empire, joining a corp, or risking your ass. The only difference is that it will no longer be the rational economic decision it is today. Anyone who ragequits because they have some sort of mental barrier that prevents them from losing pixels they could replace a thousand times over will be swiftly replaced. All games have churn anyway. I imagine the same people who whine about the change will be playing the game a lot longer than they would have otherwise.
Soldarius Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2011.08.16 05:01:00 - [86] Got to start somewhere I suppose. Force Projection: The jumpbridge nerf wasn't the right answer. Large nulsec organizations should have the benefits if they put the effort into their territory. Bridges are fixed, and not easily changed. Locations are easily found and can be camped. I personally feel jump bridges have been balanced for quite some time. IMO the problem is with jump drives and portal range. A titan sitting in 6VDT can cover nearly all of fountain, and can also reach to Outer Ring, and Aridia. That is ****ed. Cut that crap in half. It's a mountain of a ship. Make it's range, and that of other capital ships, shorter. Force projection issues mitigated. Maybe then a smallish fleet can engage without worry of getting super blobbed every time. Mining: Greater risk = greater reward. The biggest problem with mining is the regrowth of fixed belts, and the mindless nature of the task. I think the types of ores available are fine. But the best stuff should only be available in the riskiest or hardest to find places/ways: grav sites. More grav sites, less belt regrowth. This should curb mining bots to some degree, and encourage exploration. Nulsec mining is not as profitable as it could be due to mineral compression rates and the amount of time and effort required to haul vs mine. (This is also linked to jump drive range.) One solution would be to have much higher yield ores in nul. I believe this could easily be achieved by adjusting the units to refine for certain ores. The stuff like Arkanor that gives high end mins should stay the same, while stuff that gives trit and such should be boosted. Mfg in nul is a pain. Flat out. Make it easier. Don't care how. POS refinery module sucks. Why is refining in a station instantaneous and limitless in volume, while the POS module has a timer and volume limit? **ed. In fact, POSes suck so bad that alliances are dropping stations as staging bases instead. Is this working as intended? Sov sucks. What is sov, really? The mechanics are a waste of program lines. Sov in and of itself is meaningless. Its the efforts and investments of the players put into infrastructure that have meaning. The only part of the structure shooting paradigm that works is the IHUB. This structure actually does something other than mark a pin a map in your color. It is actually worth defending. That and stations. Nothing should ever be invulnerable. But for timezone considerations, I suppose we can make some exceptions. Speaking of stations, make them destructible. These are the things large gangs of supers/titans should be shooting at. Not fleets of subcaps. Attackers shoudl have the option of either flipping the station or destroying it entirely. First timer is for defense. Second is for flip. Third, well... Infinite and limitless moongoo on a regular schedule needs to go. More like PI me thinks. Why of all the resources in eve was moon mining made into an alliance level resource, while everything else in eve is not? The entire concept needs to be revisited from the ground up. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage missiles**." - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 amended
I'm Down	Posted - 2011.08.16 05:22:00 - [87] Edited by: I''m Down on 16/08/2011 05:25:48 Quote: THIS WILL ALL TAKE A LONG-ASS TIME TO HAPPEN There's your problem... the game is 8 years old and you let it get so out of whack, now you want us to wait years more so that it's playable again. I know it's gotta be painful to watch the Server numbers in free fall atm. And as your comments already pointed out, you did lose a **** ton of FC's which is why the game is suffering even more now. All that thread does is explain common sense that hasn't been used for 8 years. So what are you doing, asking us to wait and see? I mean ffs, you could probably have had Supers fixed last month if you'd have spent lest time writing blogs and more time just doing it.
Komen Gallente Capital Enrichment Services	Posted - 2011.08.16 05:23:00 - [88] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Har Harrison Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...) I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though. This is facepalm worthy. Seriously. You're planning to redo these things and yet you tackle them separately, without a clear role for low-sec in place as you go revamp null. Furthermore, looking over the list of things nullsec will do, low-sec seems to be left without a purpose, so either you'll have to fabricate a whole new one (see level 5 missions and how well that's turned out), or just leave it as it is now, a mix of the worst qualities of both null-sec and high-sec. The lack of a holistic approach to this revamp is what will defeat it in the end, and that you don't see this problem is itself a problem.
Dex Ironmind	Posted - 2011.08.16 06:05:00 - [89] Originally by: Komen Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Har Harrison Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...) I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though. This is facepalm worthy. Seriously. You're planning to redo these things and yet you tackle them separately, without a clear role for low-sec in place as you go revamp null. Furthermore, looking over the list of things nullsec will do, low-sec seems to be left without a purpose, so either you'll have to fabricate a whole new one (see level 5 missions and how well that's turned out), or just leave it as it is now, a mix of the worst qualities of both null-sec and high-sec. The lack of a holistic approach to this revamp is what will defeat it in the end, and that you don't see this problem is itself a problem. QFT - well said. Dex was here.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2011.08.16 06:39:00 - [90] I have some issues with your current plan. The biggest issue I have is the total lack of deployment scheduling. Now I don't mean delivery dates or anything of that nature. What I mean is at what order and place should the changes be implemented. My fear is that you'll do the easy part of ~~ruining~~ altering and removing content and gameplay immediately, give promises of delivering the replacing systems soon and 3 years from that there will still be threadnaughts asking when is the promised content going to come. This is a major weakness in your feature delivery system and your plan needs to acknowladge this weakness. What I suggest is that you bundle the features in groups that need to be ready for the new system to function properly and adopt a principle that the new or replacing systems have to be ready for deployment before you remove or change the existing systems in anticipation. If the new systems needs a cluster of core features to function properly then all of them should be ready before you make the change. Point being don't fudge up the game or remove content until you have the replacemement ready to deploy. And I mean ready to deploy, not "it's a priority" or "we will look at it soon", since you know you can't often keep such promises. It's understandable, but it's a bad thing and you can mitigate it's negative affects by taking it into account in your planning. This sort of leads to the issue of your lack of vision for the entirety of EVE. It doesn't have to be as detailed, but you need some basic concepts made, so you know how they will fit in your grand vision for EVE. Everything is interconnected in EVE, so only having a plan for one part of it creates a high propability for failure or ruining the gameplay experience for other areas. Do it atleast to those areas that you are intentionally gimping, because you want to boost the 0.0 equivalent and couln't do it without taking things away from other players. This leads to the last small issue of your plan to totally remove ice. Removing content from players entirely is a horrible thing in general. Have no mistaken ideas about that, you are removing content from players even if it stays in the game. The only content that exist for a gamer is the one he has access to where he plays. He may still have good reasons to stay in the area you removed content from, so for him you've just taken away content from him in your expansion. A more sensible and less painful way to achieve the same thing might have been to limit the supply of easy ice to something that can only meet a fraction of the demand. This way you leave the content for the players willing to compete over it without seriously affecting your plans for the ice market in general. Anyway good luck in getting it all done. I have my doubts that you can do it all, but most of it seems good and certainly an improvement over what we have now.

catinboots Minmatar Vintage heavy industries	Posted - 2011.08.16 06:43:00 - [91] NO NO and NO You are giving the nul sec alliances even more power and a bigger monopoly in industry You are going to kill off alot of small coporations( 4to 8 people ) You are going to force more coporation into nulsec. As renters where they will be exploited by the big null sec alliances You will kill off the solo industrial player and the solo mission runner You will even create longer witing ques at research facilities If these ideas are to get more people into nul sec it will not work, you are only giving the null sec alliances more power and a bigger sandcastle In my opinion you will only scare away. Players As a final note the risk vs reward theory , it is fine but this blog is about. All about risk and getting exploited by some idiots with nothing betters to do than playing eve Bad idea. Very bad idea ________________________________________ Minmatar are like jedi knights, we use ductape as our force, it has a darkside and a sticky side
Walextheone The Red Circle Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.16 07:24:00 - [92] Originally by: Zarnak Wulf Originally by: dgastuffz Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Har Harrison Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...) I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though. so in lets say 6 years from now on are you kidding me? Beat me to what I was going to say. FW and lowsec can't wait until after Comrade CCP's marvelous and farseeing 5 year plan. Learn to think. A five year plan for nullsec does not mean that you can't have parallell plans for other areas like; low sec / highsec or whatever. Can't see CCP drop everything else in five year and ONLY focus on 0.0
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2011.08.16 08:36:00 - [93] Originally by: Walextheone Learn to think. A five year plan for nullsec does not mean that you can't have parallell plans for other areas like; low sec / highsec or whatever. Can't see CCP drop everything else in five year and ONLY focus on 0.0 I'm thinking just fine. CCP has a long history of ignoring issues for years. The nano nerf obsoleted electronic attack ships and started Gallente on a downward spiral - three years ago. That downward spiral turned into a freefall with the projectile buff which was a year ago. Dominion - two years ago. No treaties that were promised. Very few upgrades if any. Empyrean age - three years ago. Faction Warfare has stagnated since. Shall I go on? CCP has proven through many, many actions that they are more then happy to let us wait years for fixes.
Lunce Caldari	Posted - 2011.08.16 09:00:00 - [94] Most of the points that I am highlighting here have largely already been brought up by others, but deserve to be reinforced by repetition. What the devs are doing by setting up a comprehensive 'wish list' for what they want 0.0 to be is fine. Throwing it out to the community for feedback is fine. But it's important that everybody understand that this feedback serves two main functions. First, it's a reality check on the devs vision, and secondly, all this feedback serves as a source of ideas that they can plunder and steal, then mold into their vision of EVE. It's invaluable. It should not, however, be construed as design by committee (at least not the EVE community), and the devs certainly should not be influenced by special interest groups and other whiners. So far, the dev's 'wish list' shows a vision of EVE that, if implemented, has the potential to attract and hold many new players to EVE (which is what CCP wants and which is a positive for the community.) The big problem with this whole redesign 'movement', however, is that changes so fundamental and sweeping cannot be limited only to nulsec. This same process MUST be simultaneously implemented in highsec, lowsec, and WH space. Otherwise the devs will find that they have ended up causing more problems than the ones they were trying to fix. EVE is too big to try fixing piecemeal.
Jejju	Posted - 2011.08.16 09:28:00 - [95] Edited by: Jejju on 16/08/2011 09:28:57 How does this relate to the upcomiong winter expansion focusing on nullsec? This review of the design goals for nullsec is going to take at least a couple of months to complete. If you wait until it is complete you won't have enough time to implement and QA the features in the winter expansion. On the other hand, if the features in the winter expansion are already being implemented, doesn't this undermine the fundamental review of nullsec?
Walextheone The Red Circle Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.16 09:49:00 - [96] Originally by: Zarnak Wulf Originally by: Walextheone Learn to think. A five year plan for nullsec does not mean that you can't have parallell plans for other areas like; low sec / highsec or whatever. Can't see CCP drop everything else in five year and ONLY focus on 0.0 I'm thinking just fine. CCP has a long history of ignoring issues for years. The nano nerf obsoleted electronic attack ships and started Gallente on a downward spiral - three years ago. That downward spiral turned into a freefall with the projectile buff which was a year ago. Dominion - two years ago. No treaties that were promised. Very few upgrades if any. Empyrean age - three years ago. Faction Warfare has stagnated since. Shall I go on? CCP has proven through many, many actions that they are more then happy to let us wait years for fixes. We all know that many areas in this game have a dire need of an overhaul. I'm saying that that logic to think the plans can only be serial is faulty. With all possibility there will plans in parallel for different areas.
Clansworth Good Rock Materials	Posted - 2011.08.16 10:21:00 - [97] So, in summary, this dev blog is detailing your comprehensive analysis of the F&I forum topic list from five years ago?
Tobias Sjodin Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.16 11:16:00 - [98] It's simple. High stakes, high gain. Low stakes, low gain. If you don't like it, I'm sure there's another game you can shoot invulnerable structures and protest in a central market hub in. HABIT

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2011.08.16 13:51:00 - [99] Originally by: Ralavina Hi CCP Fallout / Greyscale To remove permanent marker from a white board, simply scribble over it with a normal board marker - the oils in the board marker will react with the permanent marker "ink" and you'll be able to rub it off with a normal board cleaner, without the need to use special sprays / cleaners. Holy cow this works. Thanks Originally by: DigitalCommunist Oh boy, like I haven't heard that one before. It's only been used by every forum posting carebear since 2003. No, EVE is not going to die if it becomes harder. It will get even bigger. EVE is only alive today because it was ***-hard and people liked it that way. In fact, they loved it that way. It grew off that premise alone, despite* being broken in almost every other way. I don't follow your reasoning here; in particular I'm not clear how you're extrapolating the existence of a large audience for early-EVE-type gameplay in 2011 based on the existence of a small audience for it existing in 2003. Originally by: Victoria Wolfe From what I can tell, a good portion of this blog is focused on dragging high sec players to null. The reality is, most in high sec want to be there. It's no secret you can make way more ISK in null and in relative safety if you can get into a large power block. Many in high sec play there because they don't want to PVP and/or are casual players who want a more relaxed environment. They may also be those who don't play often enough or seriously enough to want to be bothered living outside Empire space. So if you take away the principle past times of these people the result will not be a mass migration to null, but instead these players will get bored of the game and leave. So my advice if you want to revamp, liven up, enhance null is not to do it to the detriment of the other areas. You won't get more people out there, you'll just get fewer people. Yup, we're very much aware that a decent chunk of players aren't interested in nullsec, and we don't want to be looking like we're trying to force them to move (because that's pointless). What we do want to make sure of is that everyone who's even vaguely interested has a strong reason to try it out. Where exactly that balance lies is something we're still determining, hence (among other things) these blogs Originally by: Aineko Macx Like others pointed out, it shouldn't be 99% self sufficient. Resources should be regionalized enough so that 0.0 to empire and 0.0 to 0.0 transactions need to happen. For T2 production this specifically means that moon type availability should have a strong regional bias (ofc demand should be roughly equal among the moon minerals in a given rarity class). To be clear, that's 99% by volume and within a couple of regions, not just in one system. The exact percentage is up in the air, but the thrust here is that people shouldn't need to be hauling massive volumes of stuff like low end minerals back and forth as they are today. We want to keep the trade, but we'd like it to be in the area of a handful of freighters a month rather than in the area of a dozen a week. Originally by: Diomedes Calypso Quote: òAccessible ◦Pretty much anyone with a little seed capital (~10m ISK) should be able to establish some small, semi-permanent presence in nullsec. Not everyone wants to get involved in nullsec, but every player that feels even a slight interest but never quite takes the plunge represents a failure of design that we should fix. You ment 10 BILLION isk, didn't you? I had close to 15 million after week 2 in the game running and salvaging the sisters of eve in mostly a t1 frigate (needed to come back for the last couple, but the isk figure still stands for the point up to there) Great. Why shouldn't you be able to build your own little hangar in nullsec in your first month?

Mnengli Noiliffe	Posted - 2011.08.16 14:07:00 - [100] I think after the NeX store fiasco CCP got angry on all the carebears who refuse to buy all the virtual clothing and decided to get rid of them once and for all. I approve. Only niche players who only want to pvp should play this game. servers are overstressed by all the carebears running the silly missions all the time. That hardware is needed for the other projects so EVE population needs to decrease by several orders of magnitude. Overall, this is a positive direction towards core 5% player base's best interests.

Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2011.08.16 14:32:00 - [101] Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 16/08/2011 14:45:34 If T2 production is removed from hi-sec, I will end my subscriptions with Eve. I'm not going to spend hours each day trying to build items only to have some adolescent dweeb blow it up for giggles. There is a reason why so many players T2 manufacture in hi-sec, so they don't waste their game play time. If you think game players enjoy spending hours working on making stuff only to have it easily destroyed without profit, that is seriously reetarded. There are other ways to make nul-sec more enticing - rather than forcing hi-sec manufacturers to build there at gun point. T1 production only for hi-sec is just - silly ... If you want to make nul-sec better place to play, then make it a better place to play - but don't do it by ruining the game for many players who have been manufacturing in hi-sec now for years in real time. Who have spent considerable time and resources setting themselves up etc.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises	Posted - 2011.08.16 15:17:00 - [102] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Great. Why shouldn't you be able to build your own little hangar in nullsec in your first month? I like this. Has CCP been thinking about the idea of cynos scaling to fleets? You have various sized wormholes that destabilize after a certain mass passes through them. Why not various sized cynos that do the same? Small, medium, large, perhaps XL. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Apollo Gabriel Mercatoris Etherium Cartel	Posted - 2011.08.16 16:17:00 - [103] I'd like to throw this out there one more time ... please change the way local intel works guys. I'm all for a we own this system to X level, so we get intel, but why does everyone? If you want more conflict remove the intel of local, it works great in w-space, lots of spontaneous pvp. Originally by: CCP Soundwave I'll tell you what I believe we should never sell; Anything that messes with the competitive balance of the game. No + stat ammo, no + stat ships and anything of that type.
Apollo Gabriel Mercatoris Etherium Cartel	Posted - 2011.08.16 16:19:00 - [104] Originally by: catinboots NO NO and NO You are giving the nul sec alliances even more power and a bigger monopoly in industry You are going to kill off alot of small coporations( 4to 8 people ) You are going to force more coporation into nulsec. As renters where they will be exploited by the big null sec alliances You will kill off the solo industrial player and the solo mission runner You will even create longer witing ques at research facilities If these ideas are to get more people into nul sec it will not work, you are only giving the null sec alliances more power and a bigger sandcastle In my opinion you will only scare away. Players As a final note the risk vs reward theory , it is fine but this blog is about. All about risk and getting exploited by some idiots with nothing betters to do than playing eve Bad idea. Very bad idea as long as theft remains as simple as it is, and prevention tools as weak as they are (you mean I can't lock my orca!) Corps will remain small. Originally by: CCP Soundwave I'll tell you what I believe we should never sell; Anything that messes with the competitive balance of the game. No + stat ammo, no + stat ships and anything of that type.
Dmitri Krylov Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.16 16:30:00 - [105] One thing that would be good for any pilot would be a mechanism such as eve metrics had. Just like checking into the Wall Street Journal or logging into Morningstar, pilots looking to do business can get information on market activity and trends. I know the market windos have some information but this is really lacking. If there was no need for this kind of information then there would have been no need for players to create sites like eve metrics, eve market, eve central market and so on. This is an important tool that reflects RL business practices. Actually, a good rule of thumb would be, if a player-made site is offering a popular service (Dotlan, EVE Central Market, Eve Marketdata) then that's probably a weak point in the game. I know some of these designers tried to get CCP to take sites over or run the same software. Eve Metrics did this. CCP just didn't believe it was needed and that was foolish. It's already built and already works. Use it. Player bases tend to make some really awesome stuff. Just look at games like Red Orchestra as an example, voted one of the top 100 games of all time by PC Gamer. Most of the content was player designed and produced.
Dmitri Krylov Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.16 16:44:00 - [106] Also, nullsec industry is hampered by RL reasoning. This is an ugly comparison so I'm sorry if people get offended. I'm not trying to offend by using a RL comparison. However, nullsec industry is stupid for several reasons. The biggest would be the risk to production and supply for no real reason. I would not build an ammunition factory in Lybia. I would build it in Italy and ship it to Lybia. Thus highsec manufacturing/shipping/low or null sec sales for the bulk of the market. Military weapon shows do not take place in Somalia. They take place in secure areas where the sale orders are then taken. Nobody builds sidewinder missles in Afganistan. They just build IEDs with materials that are readily available, If that "factory" is lost, it's just moved to a different house. There isn't any set up involved. Lose a Boeing plant and you are out of the fighter business.
Dmitri Krylov Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.16 17:01:00 - [107] Lastly, markets in nullsec are hampered by a couple factors. It's difficult to limit sales to just your Alliance or corp without contracts. It can be done, but it isn't very secure or efficient. A separate market board would be nice. POS's and stations have security settings that limit market availability. Also the various corp and alliance settings limit availability. The biggest issue though also goes to RL examples. You never sell a tank you can't destroy or missles you can't shoot down. Thus, the best weapon on the market will alway be "pretty good" but not the best. The weapons you sell will probably end up being used against you. This chokes availability and selection. I think the recent supercap debacle in the North is example enough. They made lots of money selling such tanks that they couldn't destroy. Those same tanks burned the NC to the ground. Smart marketing means nullsec will always be crap for shopping and nothing will change that. No matter what CCP does, these things will not change. EVER.
Byron D GoneMental	Posted - 2011.08.16 17:09:00 - [108] Screw all that, when are we getting fedora hats on nex ? I wanted to buy a monocle, but without a fedora hat it's simply no fun.
Lady Zarrina	Posted - 2011.08.16 18:41:00 - [109] So let me get this right, you want null sec to be the best place for everything BUT T3 production. You guys really need to start understanding your player base. I fully understand making null sec desirable, but as I have said before it does not have to be the best for everything. How many people actively search out places like somalia, sudan or congo to set up important manufacturing or trade hubs. Seriously CCP, what is this failtastic fasination with null sec manufacturing and trade hubs. Null sec should be fun and exciting, focus on that. You need to do lots of work there.
Dmitri Krylov Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.16 19:11:00 - [110] Fedora hats? Truly, a gimp hood would be the hottest selling item in this game. Short of d*ck goggles that is. As for the other regions being sought out (like Somalia) I agree. They are sought out as trade hubs, but not factory settings. Still making ammo in Italy and shipping to Lybia in every scenario. Sure somebody might try to build an ammo factory in Lybia, but that just leads to news footage of HUGE explosions in the war zone.

Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.16 20:12:00 - [111] Dear CCP , I really like where you are going with these blogs. Alot of bitter vets are passing off these blogs as alot of talk and no substance. I can somewhat agree with this statement however im a optimist. With that said I think optimism is fading fast with the community. I cannot stress enough that this next expansion be a major step back in restoring the trust with the community that CCP gets what its customers want. Get it right and I think Eve will thrive and grow once more get it wrong and I think the final nail in the coffin will be cast. With the above said these past few blogs have shown that you are finally listening to us . That CCP is REALLY trying to think about things organically from a players perspective. This seems to be a clear change from trying to release some new and shiny feature in hopes that it will capture attention. Design milestone and technical achievements are cool for a company to look upon as a measurable achievement. However us the paying customer usually don't share the same view. We want to log into a immersive environment where we have liberty to do a multitude of things and the game mechanics cultivate interaction at every level. Here is my list of top problems. Risk should always match reward - Currently it does not 0.0 should be the beacon that most players are lured to for income potential. If you think about how we as humans lay out our societies you will notice that Eve is completely different. In real life rural areas ( 0.0 ) are where resources are collected/grown/harvested. Whereas cities (low/high sec ) are commerce centers and production centers. The MAJOR majority of resources as in 85% should stem from 0.0 or wormholes. Whereas 85% of commerce & production should be in low/highsec. Trying to create realistic commerce in 0.0 is unrealistic as demand sets markets. However 0.0 isn't a open market due to "not wanting hostiles having access to your stations or not wanting to aid a enemy". The goal should be to create lots of interaction between zones. Because with this interaction comes opportunity for loss / gain / pvp / diplomacy / metagame. Thus is how humans have crafted society for millenium's . Stacking penalties - It is one of the greatest features of Eve. It defines how we fit our ships etc it places reasonable and artificial limits on things that we as players would otherwise abuse. This should extend to most facets of the game. Bigger should not always be better. It is my view that If you have a very large alliance you should have lowered attributes in other areas. Less standings , weaker structures , logistics should be harder for larger organizations as they have a larger pool of players to accomplish these task. My idea on how to accomplish this in a fair and balanced way is a by assigning organizations a pool of points with many things in which to allocate those points. Organizations will have to make conscious choices on how they allocate those points based on there structure or organization there needs and desires. Examples would be a large organization would allocate more points into allowing there alliance/corp to include more characters. A smaller sov holding alliance might put points into how many positive standings they have to pool strength with other like minded organizations. Or a organization might place more points into increasing the defenses of their sov. As in POS's with greater defense capabilities or hardened sov structures etc. Perhaps a organization is more interested in resource harvesting & collection perhaps they would points into that area that would allow their mining harvesters to collect more ore. Nomadic entities might put points into making there capitals use less fuel or have better range. The overarching point of this mechanic is it allows diversity and specialization. Instead of bigger is better mentality. Organizations could reassign points at a cost as needs change. ________________________________________________
Dmitri Krylov Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.16 20:26:00 - [112] Actually, I'm one of the bitter people you speak of. I would love to see CCP get on track with EVE and fix stuff. I'm not even worried about any big improvements if they just went and fixed some of the stuff that's been broken for years. I don't have faith in that anymore though. I have a little hope that they might, but not faith. I hope it does get better but as it is tomorrow is the last day of my last subscription so I wish you best of luck!
Lunce Caldari	Posted - 2011.08.16 20:31:00 - [113] Originally by: Manfred Sideous Dear CCP , Risk should always match reward - Currently it does not 0.0 should be the beacon that most players are lured to for income potential. If you think about how we as humans lay out our societies you will notice that Eve is completely different. In real life rural areas ( 0.0 ) are where resources are collected/grown/harvested. Whereas cities (low/high sec ) are commerce centers and production centers. The MAJOR majority of resources as in 85% should stem from 0.0 or wormholes. Whereas 85% of commerce & production should be in low/highsec. Trying to create realistic commerce in 0.0 is unrealistic as demand sets markets. However 0.0 isn't a open market due to "not wanting hostiles having access to your stations or not wanting to aid a enemy". The goal should be to create lots of interaction between zones. Because with this interaction comes opportunity for loss / gain / pvp / diplomacy / metagame. Thus is how humans have crafted society for millenium's . This!
Dex Ironmind	Posted - 2011.08.16 20:36:00 - [114] I disagree with this RISK should match reward philosophy as applied here. Balance the sandbox. That suggests that NULL is much more dangerous than HI or LOW, making the game NULL centric. It suggests that NULL is the endgame and that every player should end up in NULL. Does a sandbox really have an endgame? Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw. CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit. Drop the herding mentality. Go after BOTS, especially those buried in NULL that are inflating the economy and making supercaps and titans seem like rifters and drakes. Make the tools better. Continue to improve the UI. Give us cool, new content. Add more dynamics to the sandbox. Do this, and you will add more players to EVE in general. Frankly, I think if you fix the bridge to NULL - that being LOW sec, you will also go a lot further in wetting an appetite for NULL content. However, this NULL-centric concept is very unbalanced. Make your updates about something for everyone and you will please a lot more of your player base. Dex was here.
Dmitri Krylov Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.16 20:44:00 - [115] There should never be an absolute in any system like there is no absolutes in RL. The potential should be greater for singular events that create huge rewards but not with bsolute certainty. Sometimes things don't always go as planned. Columbus landed in America but thought he was in India. His crew was just about ready to kill him and turn back. I'm not saying it shouldn't be better, just not certain. That's the adventure part! Otherwise you're just grinding missions in nullsec. High, low and null security areas should never be exclusive to themselves anyway. Then it just gets stupid and boring. If null has full industry then where is all the planned fighting at gates? No need for shipping that much. If high sec has everything then no need for low or null. Low sec already has nothing really good in them and we can already see the effect of that. By not making each area self supportive then you get movement and trade. It makes for an economy that permits many ways to get rich and lots of ways to choose poorly. That supports everybody's game style. It also continues the drive to control areas for industry AND traffic AND access all because of movement.
Ranka Mei Caldari	Posted - 2011.08.16 20:52:00 - [116] ◦ It is critical that some low-effort, decent-reward solo activities are available to players in nullsec. This class of content gives players a reason to stay online if nobody else is around, and it's only by getting people to stay logged on that it stops being the case that nobody else is around. Guess all y'all shouldn't have nerfed my unprobable Tengu then. :P -- "All your monies AUR belong to us." -- CCP
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.08.16 22:15:00 - [117] Edited by: Amber Villaneous on 16/08/2011 22:15:25 Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe Only niche players who only want to pvp should play this game. servers are overstressed by all the carebears running the silly missions all the time. That hardware is needed for the other projects so EVE population needs to decrease by several orders of magnitude. Overall, this is a positive direction towards core 5% player base's best interests. I think my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning. That was sarcasm, correct?
Rainus Max Fusion Enterprises Ltd Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.08.16 22:24:00 - [118] Cool start (I hope) Out of curiosity how much of this are you hoping/aiming to get in the winter patch? Are we going to get anything significant or just tweaks?
Herping yourDerp	Posted - 2011.08.17 05:43:00 - [119] so highsec becomes worthless and low and nullsec get all the good stuff. how do i unsub again? i dont wanna be in nullsec coalition borefest and i dont really like the idea of living in a lowsec pirate hangout. highsec it fine give lowsec more to do nullsec just needs coalitions to break down Eve online next expansion details
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.08.17 05:50:00 - [120] Originally by: Herping yourDerp so highsec becomes worthless Based on what? Did you read the blog? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki

El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.08.17 10:16:00 - [121] You guys are going to so screw this up I can already tell that. Following on the heels of the ever present Incarna disaster and the Greed is Good blowback I hope this won't be your NGE.

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2011.08.17 11:39:00 - [122] Originally by: Dex Ironmind Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw. CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit. This is a good argument.

Calistai Huranu Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.17 11:59:00 - [123] Will we be getting a list of what we will/may actually get with the winter expansion alongside a date you're hoping to deliver on? Afterall, winter's not far off now. Four month's is not very long at all. I can tell you that this is one of the moments where we look at what CCPers do and less of what they say.
Cryten Jones Gallente Advantage Inc The Matari Consortium	Posted - 2011.08.17 13:15:00 - [124] Smallholding.... This is what I have wanted since day fricken' one! My corp and I nearly made this work in a wormhole as we were in danger but there was no sov balls to worry about. Only thing that messed it up was the lack of community within the WH because of the moving holes. IMHO what is needed here is a 'shop' module to put up that allows you to trade with neighbours and build that wild west feeling some more. How about making NPC 0.0 only colonised via Small holding to further allow for the growth of grades heading out to true 0.0. Also this would allow the SOV to be blocked without a major change to mechanics. -CJ Originally by: Nogap toosmall and your understanding of probability is on par with a radish.
Cailais Amarr Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United	Posted - 2011.08.17 15:55:00 - [125] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Originally by: Dex Ironmind Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw. CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit. This is a good argument. One of the means you could avoid the 'null sec slant' is to better utilise the current 'security rating' of systems. For example in terms of 'sovereignty' simply do away with an absolute measure and look at a % measure of influence (we had the old influence maps if you recall). In High Sec the NPC powers already hold 99% of the available 'influence', a value which might drop as the security rating drops. This creates a natural vacuum which could be filled by players, passing to them "control" over certain mechanics according to their relevant influence in a system (a reward). The sand box gets sandier (and less concrete) as you move deeper into lawless space. C.
Dmitri Krylov Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.17 16:36:00 - [126] Dex Ironmind is very much correct. It's supposed to be a sandbox so let it be a sandbox. There are 2 problems with this post already though. CCP and posters all try to look to the Incarna update's terrible performance OR the lack of content OR Monaclegate (tm) OR Greed is Good or the fact the CCP Zinfandel probably shouldn't be left alone with an email account. These helped pull the pin but aren't the cause exclusively. THey're all long term issues that keep getting stated over and over and just ignored or BS'ed by CCP. The problems stem from CCP long term practices. This blog for instance offers "all this stuff we want to do!" but you aren't going to do all that. Some of it's not even possible since you can't program in player actions. Later, CCP will say they never planned on that or we're still working on it and just let it drift off. Faction Warfare is a classic exaple but not certainly not the only thing that has gone unfinished and ignored. I know this would be a complete review of how communications are handled, expectations are managed and even understanding what has made EVE successful at all but it needs to be done, We're trying to do the same thing at my job since things have gone from really good to really bad. Problems can't be ignored but the situation has proven to be a bigger issue than we thought. Ithink CCP is in the same boat. Thus, this blog is already being seen as unachievable and misguided in various degrees. CCP will not understand the complaining that follows this dev-blog later but will try to brush it off as it just being angry about NEX prices and they will be very wrong. Stop trying to think these reactions are just singular events. They aren't. That's why each time these things go wrong (summer of rage, etc.) they get worse. Try sarting with this dev blog. It's as good as any place to begin. Basically, please don't act like things are going to get done that won't get done. People respect an honest answer a bit more than you may think. As stated earlier, plese keep it a sandbox. Don't try to herd us into playing it how a board meeting felt we should be playing. Try just fixing the broken ends. They aren't sparkles and rainbows but they make for a better game and thus a better product. For the sake of clearing up some of these question posts, just tell the forums if you guys are never working on Faction Warfare again. I don't even do FW but they have been waiting a long time for a real response with a solid answer. Keep the content simple and on target for things you can ACTUALLY achieve. Do a litttle research into what's really been going wrong between CCP and it's player base. Bring in somebody who knows how to do this if you need to. Don't ignore it or the game just slowly dies over time. We all might just need a bit og counseling. That's it for me sorry for the wall. I hope things work out. Like I said earlier, this is my last sub and now my last day. I hope things get better. The history for it doesn't look good for CCP though (see above). It could work though with effort. Last toon, last day, last post. Out.
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.17 18:15:00 - [127] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Originally by: Dex Ironmind Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw. CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit. This is a good argument. The problem with Hi-Sec as I see it is ISK can be made to easily there with little to no risk. As it stands mission runners incursion runners and giant mining corporation exist in hi-sec. The reason being is they can make there isk without much in the way of real risk. That isk they make is almost on par with isk that can be made in 0.0. Should be: Hi-Sec (AKA Commerce zone)- Major Commerce center , minor mining/resource collection , minor mission running , minor production Lo-Sec (AKA Industry zone)- Major production center , minor mining/resource collection , medium mission running , minor commerce 0.0 Wormhole (AKA Rural zone) - Major mining / resource collection , major mission running , minor production , minor commerce This would create dependency and interaction between zones without eliminating any activity in any zone. The idea is different zones have there own unique strengths and weakness's. So a guy/girl that wants to mission or mine in safety can do so in hi-sec but his/her return is lower than low-sec which is lower than null-sec. A guy/girl who wants to do production can do so safely in hi-sec/0.0 but its limited or they can do it in lowsec and have higher/better production rates which = more return. A guy/girl wanting to be a marketeer can do so in any zone but major commerce zone is in hi-sec although some commerce opportunities will be available on open but more dangerous low sec markets or even more dangerous and closed market 0.0. Wormholes still retain the benefit of being the wild west uncharted and uncontrollable where unique commodities are harvested & collected. With this template you have interaction on all levels. Goods will need to be harvested and collected of which some areas will be better or worse than others. Groups will seek to take these areas from eachother. These areas will need policing so that materials and commodities can be collected. These areas will be ripe for raiders to come pillage and kill the unprotected or to skirmish with the policing force within. Commodities will need to be transported out to production and commerce zones. That will require logistics and protection for that logistics which also creates opportunity for pvp and metagame & a host of other possible interactions. Within lowsec commodities will need to be moved in and goods out. Logistics will need to be protected and pirates will **** and pillage the unweary and unprotected. Groups will form that specialize in production but they will need to interact with a police force that will protect them so they can carry out there task. Missioning pilots will be able to tap into better return and rewards for doing missions in this area. Mining will be noticeably better then Hi-Sec but more dangerous. Within highsec all major markets exist this is where the bulk of all resources , commodities and goods are traded and sold. There is huge potential for profit through marketing and manipulation. Mining and missioning are also possible here and are very safe but the return is halved of lowsec which is halved of nullsec. Production is also possible here but the efficiency is half of that of lowsec & the same as 0.0 The idea is to take nothing away from any area but to make it more ideal to do a certain activity in a certain area. This will not limit activity but encourage it in focused points. ________________________________________________
Alexzia Sevic	Posted - 2011.08.17 18:33:00 - [128] Originally by: Dex Ironmind Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw. CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit. I don't see how any of this constitutes herding. Making the intended profitable area of space profitable doesn't push anyone anywhere. Only you can decide to jump through that gate out of hisec, CCP can't make that decision for you.
Dex Ironmind	Posted - 2011.08.17 20:47:00 - [129] Originally by: Alexzia Sevic I don't see how any of this constitutes herding. Making the intended profitable area of space profitable doesn't push anyone anywhere. Only you can decide to jump through that gate out of hisec, CCP can't make that decision for you. Let me try and develop the thought a bit further... All games have some degree of progression, but the whiteboard/wiki roadmap Team BFF (hence, the FIS crew) has come up with for this proposed 5+ year null expansion makes NULL sec the end of the progression. That defies what I understood the game to be .. the ultimate space sandbox! I agree that a player has to choose to jump out of HI SEC. However, if that is where the natural progression of the game leads you by design, then it is "herding." The roadmap CCP has tentatively drawn up and put out for our feedback trends in that direction. It seems to emphasize NULL to the neglect of low, hi and WH. It's specific ideas "herd" us toward NULL. For example, if NULL is the most profitable section of space, then NULL become the natural progression. Why does a sandbox have to have a most profitable section? As can be clearly demonstrated, the profit should not be based on what section of the sandbox you choose to live in, but by what you do in that particular section of the sandbox. Frankly, living in any sector of space has its risks. But risk should not be the driving force of reward. Risk just adds to the excitement of the game. Security status should drive risk, but not reward. If I want to play in the part of the sandbox that has no laws, then I go to NULL. If I want some laws, I go to LOW. If I want to live under laws, then I stay in HI. That should be left to a player to choose, not CCP. Don't reward RISK, let the excitement be the reward for RISK in and of itself. Their roadmap resonates with the idea that NULL is the endgame, with HI sec as the starter and LOW as some kind of midgame (unfortunately, LOW sec has been the odd man out in terms of development). I am arguing that this a bad direction for a sandbox game. There is no endgame in a sandbox! Endgame is when someone picks up their toys and goes home! So, if CCP is genuinely developing a sandbox for us to play in, then they need to keep that as their guiding principle. They need to keep making/improving the toys for all sections of the sandbox. Then we, the players, can play with them how our imagination sees fit. That is the mindset behind a sandbox. Give us sand and Tonka trucks and we will go to town. This NULL-centric focus puts a lot of emphasis on one section of the sandbox, offering nothing new, or even taking away toys from the other sections of the sandbox. Why is necessary to do that? Add elements, or fix elements of NULL, without taking away toys from the other areas of the sandbox. Add/Fix elements that impact all sections of the sandbox. Do this with each update, then you will please more of your playerbase. I do have some practical ideas that I will post next that will elaborate on this, since we know CCP_Greyscale is listening in , but I do hope this explains where I am coming from. Dex was here. [8)
Dex Ironmind	Posted - 2011.08.17 21:52:00 - [130] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Originally by: Dex Ironmind Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw. CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit. This is a good argument. Thanks for listening Greyscale! It is appreciated. I hope I will not overstay my welcome, so to say, but I wanted to put forth a few more practical ideas that build upon this concept. FOCUS ON CORE GAME MECHANICS. Core game mechanics still need some critical attention. Things like corp and alliance management are serviceable, but barely. Empire building requires these tools. There are tons of great suggestions in the CSM posts on this and elsewhere in these forums. But, if you devs give us the best empire building tools out there, we will use them to build great empires. NULL would be enhanced greatly by simply fixing these two UI's. Work out the details on modular stations. Privately owned stations should be available to all. But someone should be able to turn them into Corporately owned stations. In turn, let them be turned into Alliance owned stations. This fixes a broken element and gives everyone in all sectors of space new toys to play with in the sandbox. If you make them intuitive, cool and interactive, folks will use them. EXPAND, DON'T ISOLATE. Does NULL need some work? Sure it does. But don't isolate it to fix it. Expand it. Do this while expanding all elements of space. Instead of moving stuff from HI and WH into NULL, add new stuff to NULL. Add new stuff to LOW at the same time. Let me illustrate in very generic terms (not completely thought out in any way)... I guarantee you folks would go bonkers for a new line of ships (frig to battleship, and beyond). How can you do that? Well... expand the story line. Let the various races find some kind of super-minerals in space. The combining of these super-minerals allows for the building of a unique line of ship hulls. That gives combat a boost in all sectors. These ships don't necessarily need to be more powerful, just different, cool and fun. It will give all of us some new toys to fit out and fly in the sandbox. You can even add some new modules. Now, give alliance warfare a boost. Make these various mineral types available only in certain parts of space. Make it regional, or even super-regional. Dispurse them in some way that folks have to fight or cooperate to control. Limit some of these superminerals to LOW sec and WH space to add value to those systems. You can eve do this based on some factor(s) of space. In any case, give folks something to fight for control of and over. Now, that will stir the sandbox up! If you do this. The incentive is then to control that area of space. This gives value to certain elements of space, without reshuffling old minerals. It expands instead of isolates. It gives something to all, instead of something for just NULL. You can simultaneously use this to expand and improve mining. New lasers, new skills, new markets, new opportunities. How can you go wrong? Besides, this would be a good opportunity to make mining more dynamic and interactive and use it to mix things up for BOTTERS (see my post in the botting dev blog comments for those thoughts). Everyone, from every sector of space will tell you that mining needs some serious love. Can anyone say ... mind-numbingly dull. Balance the elements of space making each sector, uniquely, but equally interesting, with various things to do and fight for and folks will go and play there. Keep "herding" us around and we will stop saying "mooo" and go find something else to do. Dex was here.

Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.17 22:41:00 - [131] Originally by: Dex Ironmind TL ; DR screw lowsec screw nullsec don't nerf my risk free high sec uber income ________________________________________________
Dex Ironmind	Posted - 2011.08.17 23:14:00 - [132] Edited by: Dex Ironmind on 17/08/2011 23:15:18 Originally by: Manfred Sideous Originally by: Dex Ironmind TL ; DR screw lowsec screw nullsec don't nerf my risk free high sec uber income LOL. I agree with one part of your tl;dr. Don't unnecessarily nerf any segment of space to attempt to enhance another, particulary in a sandbox. As for your assessment of NULL and LOW, well... try again. Balance the game. Apply some balance to the various sectors of space. Do it by enhancing, adding, giving us toys. Don't just redistribute wealth. Forced redistribution of wealth, or the potential to be wealthy, never works. Give folks the tools and let them figure the wealth part out on their own. Dex was here.
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.17 23:32:00 - [133] Originally by: Dex Ironmind Edited by: Dex Ironmind on 17/08/2011 23:15:18 Originally by: Manfred Sideous Originally by: Dex Ironmind TL ; DR screw lowsec screw nullsec don't nerf my risk free high sec uber income LOL. I agree with one part of your tl;dr. Don't unnecessarily nerf any segment of space to attempt to enhance another, particulary in a sandbox. As for your assessment of NULL and LOW, well... try again. Balance the game. Apply some balance to the various sectors of space. Do it by enhancing, adding, giving us toys. Don't just redistribute wealth. Forced redistribution of wealth, or the potential to be wealthy, never works. Give folks the tools and let them figure the wealth part out on their own. Dex was here. Thats exactly why different zones of space should be better at different things then others but all things should be possible in all parts of space. Much like society IRL or do you think its logical to run a strip mining operation and a farm that harvest resources in a urban center? Do you also see factories next door to wall street? You can do so but it isn't optimum. Thus the rational behind my suggestion. My suggestion does not take any tools away from anyone it only entices activities in different zones that will cause interaction and interdependency . Is my suggestion finite - no not at all but the nice part is you can tweak and balance. Its not adding some fancy bell or whistle in hopes it will create interaction. Its taking existing content and molding it to a more logical societal structure. Humans have functioned this way for millenia. As of right now you farm/collect/harvest produce sell/trade/buy almost everything in 1 zone. So within the boundaries of New York for example they would grow all the resources build all the goods and sell all the goods from within the boundaries of that location. Really is that even logical even fathomable? ________________________________________________
Dex Ironmind	Posted - 2011.08.18 00:01:00 - [134] Originally by: Manfred Sideous Thats exactly why different zones of space should be better at different things then others but all things should be possible in all parts of space. Much like society IRL or do you think its logical to run a strip mining operation and a farm that harvest resources in a urban center? Do you also see factories next door to wall street? You can do so but it isn't optimum. Thus the rational behind my suggestion. My suggestion does not take any tools away from anyone it only entices activities in different zones that will cause interaction and interdependency . Is my suggestion finite - no not at all but the nice part is you can tweak and balance. Its not adding some fancy bell or whistle in hopes it will create interaction. Its taking existing content and molding it to a more logical societal structure. Humans have functioned this way for millenia. As of right now you farm/collect/harvest produce sell/trade/buy almost everything in 1 zone. So within the boundaries of New York for example they would grow all the resources build all the goods and sell all the goods from within the boundaries of that location. Really is that even logical even fathomable? We are really not too far apart on this. I see what you are saying. I just do not think SECURITY STATUS should determine reward. The sectors of space should have different toys, but they also should have similar toys. Notice in my super-mineral suggestion, I did not include HI sec as getting any of the super-minerals. Why? HI already has an abundance of the base minerals that make the world go round. Don't take away... add. Expand, don't isolate. One area does not need to be more lucrative than another. This is where balance comes into play. Then a noob can go make a living in null as quickly as he can hi sec. He does so just because he likes the lawless environment of null more than hi. However, null and hi should have some things that distinguish them besides the security status, but REWARD should not be one of them. Security status is about PVP laws. It has nothing to do with RISK vs. REWARD. Make all areas of space lucrative in their own way ... hence, balanced ... and then let the players figure out which they want to do most. Make that lucrativeness based on cooperation or conflict, but make it symbiotic (albeit in a volatile way) in that the sectors depend on one another too achieve greater degrees of success. I don't want to log in to play real life. I want to log in for fantasy, sci fi and fun. Hence the need for volatility. Dex was here.
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.18 00:48:00 - [135] Originally by: Dex Ironmind I don't want to log in to play real life. I want to log in for fantasy, sci fi and fun. Hence the need for volatility. Dex was here. So are you spaceship captain , Miner , Marketeer , Soldier in real life? Because in Eve you can be all of these things and much more. What im saying is different areas should be predisposed to certain endeavors better than other areas. However ALL ACTIVITIES should be able to take place in ALL AREAS. Just that if you do activity X in zone that has a bonus to activity X you will earn/yield/produce etc etc more. Im saying empire/high-sec ( pick your term) is more like a urban center in a urban setting you wouldn't see things like a logging operation , a strip mine a farm those things would be in a rural setting. You wouldn't normally see factories and industry in a rural setting they would be closer to logistic lines and well supplied markets. Empire - Urban Low sec - Industrial area null sec - rural area ________________________________________________
Erik Finnegan Gallente Polytechnique Gallenteenne	Posted - 2011.08.18 03:11:00 - [136] Give us a volatile system faction/security status - everywhere. Based on player action ( fight AND industry ). A less static universe is needed. The effects of positive & adverse standing of yourself/corp/alliance towards the system's majority are to be determined.
Alexzia Sevic	Posted - 2011.08.18 03:26:00 - [137] Originally by: Dex Ironmind I agree that a player has to choose to jump out of HI SEC. However, if that is where the natural progression of the game leads you by design, then it is "herding." The roadmap CCP has tentatively drawn up and put out for our feedback trends in that direction. It seems to emphasize NULL to the neglect of low, hi and WH. It's specific ideas "herd" us toward NULL. For example, if NULL is the most profitable section of space, then NULL become the natural progression. Why does a sandbox have to have a most profitable section? As can be clearly demonstrated, the profit should not be based on what section of the sandbox you choose to live in, but by what you do in that particular section of the sandbox. Frankly, living in any sector of space has its risks. But risk should not be the driving force of reward. Risk just adds to the excitement of the game. Security status should drive risk, but not reward. If I want to play in the part of the sandbox that has no laws, then I go to NULL. If I want some laws, I go to LOW. If I want to live under laws, then I stay in HI. That should be left to a player to choose, not CCP. Don't reward RISK, let the excitement be the reward for RISK in and of itself. I'm a WH resident, so I support your stance that null-sec should not be the most profitable area of the game :D That said, I can't agree with your premise that all areas of space should be equally economically rewarding. I don't think CCP plans do forbid any activities in any area of space (other then pvp). That would be taking tools out of the sandbox. However, making a continuum of increased income potential across areas of space is a healthy design decision. If all the areas end up being the same, it leads to a dull and uninteresting dynamic. I believe CCP has also said, and I can't find the quote so I'll ask you to accept it on faith, that players will do what is easy rather then what is exciting. Given this, if one can make the same income in hisec as null, it will be easier to stay in hisec and that is where all the players will stay. I believe this in effect would 'herd' all the people to hisec, as there is no economic reason to go anywhere else. Put it this way. In order for me to go to null sec, I need to have the expectation that it is possible for me to make enough isk to replace the ship I may lose while generating said income. If that isn't the case, I'm not going to go. I believe that CCP is trying to generate a risk vs reward structure where I can say 'yes, that is possible'. With regards to industry, I believe the same should hold true. Going back to the manufacturing of ammo example, if I set up my factory in a lawless region it should be cheaper for me to produce. I don't have to buy the land, pay taxes, discard my waste properly or any other number of cost saving measures. Thus it should be cheaper to produce the lower in security status you go. That said, I believe you should be able to manufacture any item anywhere. I just believe it should follow the same risk/reward dogma.
Jekyl Eraser	Posted - 2011.08.18 08:14:00 - [138] You forgot to mention how allaince population affects alliance sov affects allaince power which would give alliances the motive to attract players to 0.0. You're looking the problem wrong way ie 'how can we make people come 0.0' instead of 'how can we make people want to lure/force/pribe/pay/... other players to join 0.0'.
El 1974	Posted - 2011.08.18 11:45:00 - [139] "Nullsec conflict destroys large amounts of manufactured goods, which drives the EVE market" CCP wants 0.0 to be the place where you can go out, have fun and leave your mark. They incourage people to risk losing ships in 0.0. Either design 0.0 as a place where you lose isk OR make sure the rewards make up for the risks. You can't have both.
gfldex	Posted - 2011.08.18 14:19:00 - [140] Edited by: gfldex on 18/08/2011 14:21:49 Originally by: CCP Greyscale I don't follow your reasoning here; in particular I'm not clear how you're extrapolating the existence of a large audience for early-EVE-type gameplay in 2011 based on the existence of a small audience for it existing in 2003. It's no wonder you can't follow Digis reasoning because he doesn't provide as such. Instead he refers (rather sloppy) to how corps _felt_ in 2003/4 and to some degree in 2005 (in Digis case that would be m0o and Evol). Corps had programs to get ppl into BS. There was corp mining to get Jim and Jack their first Apoc. That has changed. There is simply no need to work together anymore to get ppl into ships. Heck, you can run Incursions now for 2 days and get the ISK to buy a fully fitted Carrier. (Capitals where meant to be corp assets. A plan is a list of things that wont happen, right? To bad that you can't pull ppl out of corp ships, even when they quit the game. Mostly because there is no way to mark a ship as being a corp assets.) By making getting and moving stuff ever easier in EVE the need to help or to offer help has been removed. As a result the player base has changed over time. Nowadays you don't need to build a convoy to move your BS from Agil down to Stain. You just jump them down there and don't carrier (please note the fine pun) how the other guy is going to solve that problem. In fact you just fill your jumpy ship up to the brim and stick the stuff you don't need yourself on the market to happily drain ISK out of the wallet of your fellow corpies. The whole concept of a co-operation where ppl work together (hence the name) is pretty much not there anymore. The only reason you may need to rely on your corp is to form a blobby blob. -- IF YOU PLAY WITH SONY YOU PLAY WITH ******!

gfldex	Posted - 2011.08.18 14:41:00 - [141] Originally by: Tau Cabalander The people that enjoy mining or enjoy building or enjoy missions, the stereotypical carebears, are not going to move into lowsec or nulsec. They'll just leave EVE. I wonder where all those outposts in 0.0 come from. They must be randomly spawn every time a PvPer farts. -- IF YOU PLAY WITH SONY YOU PLAY WITH ******!
Ithilien Undomiel	Posted - 2011.08.18 14:52:00 - [142] Since I've read the problem does not seem to make more attractive the 0.0, but how to force people to move 0.0. I play by some years and sometime this problem return like that now. Eve has the advantage that if you only do PvE / small / massive you can do it, ditto pvp. If none in recent years has led populated null-low, I think the answer is one and only one: a solid base of players just do not want the 0.0 or low or can not for various reasons (time-game goals etc.) I think it absurd every time the only idea to populate the null-space is make poor of content the empire. I know the " I camp SIVALA 8hrs at the gate so I'm shooting ppl afk graeatest pvper is a common idea" Btw if ppl have no choice ... I mean you go or to null or you're bored and do not play in the Empire many accounts will be closed ... I simply make populated goal is failed. I imagine the scene: New û very relaxd player "hello can I join the corp?" Pro-nerd "Yesàwe want 30m sp capital pilot capble etc. 8hrs roaming for nothing is mandatoryö New "I have not / roaming 8hrs every day is boring at all/ I can0t log 8hrs at dayö Pro" Good stay bored in empire, pay a year of fees and convo me next year" New ->> close client ------>> acc. Man -----> delete account A few months ago there were agents with quality and usually high quality agents were in low-null, now we have no qualityà..so we need news to force ppl to go nullà.or pirates have not preys I think better , instead research what remove from empire, to think what add to null. At lastàat all null is already more lucrative than empire ( outlaws corpà.beltsàsiteàratsà) simply it lacks of ppl to shoot or that deserveà.btw a lot of null-citizens have empire alts for safe isks à..or boring time So whatÆs the problem?
gfldex	Posted - 2011.08.18 15:00:00 - [143] Originally by: DigitalCommunist And no, people will still have the option to do what they are currently doing. Nothing and nobody will ever force you into leaving empire, joining a corp, or risking your ass. The only difference is that it will no longer be the rational economic decision it is today. I would like to elaborate a bit on that. Years ago I did the recruitment for a 0.0 based corp. Beside rejecting halve of all applicants it was my job to remove all members that didn't come online anymore. I had to observe a very dominant pattern. Folks showed up at our doorstep because they finished skilling for their BS. They did so in highsec getting some ISK while shooting lvl4 NPCs. It felt sensible for them because them nice +4 imps improve skill time quite a lot. Most of them tried to move their BS into fountain solo at prime time. They didn't even reached 0.0 thanks to the Aridia population. We told them _again_ that we can build ships for them in our home system. They join us and got their new BS. We had pvp ops daily and as a result all those new members lost ships. Pretty much all of them quit the game after they lost the 3rd BS in the same week. They never learned to keep the balance of gaining ISK and loosing ISK. Thus they never learned to lose a ship _properly_. They didn't learn it because _they_never_had_to_ while being big buddies with their lvl4 agents. -- IF YOU PLAY WITH SONY YOU PLAY WITH ******!
Dex Ironmind	Posted - 2011.08.18 18:39:00 - [144] Originally by: Manfred Sideous Hi-Sec (Commerce zone); Lo-Sec (Industry zone) 0.0 Wormhole (Rural zone) I went back and reread what you wrote. While this is very clean, from an organizational concept, it fails to acknowledge the PVP reality. Let's say I really like mission running, but I don't like PVP. Based on your plan, in order to progress in mission running, I have to go to NULL SEC, which is designed for massive PVP. Why would I want to bring my very expensive, pimped out mission running ship to NULL and blow up the BIGGER BORG without jumping in the deep end of the PVP pool. More ISK? Meh. As was pointed out by Alexzi Sevic above, players will gravitate toward easier in this instance. This design also means CCP is "herding" me move to NULL with their game mechanics and into a PVP centric area of space when that is NOT what I want to do. They are essentially making me play a certain way in the SANDBOX. Sandbox becomes very UN-FUN for me at that point. I take my toys and go home or stay discontent in HI SEC. Poor game design. SECURITY STATUS is just that - PVP SECURITY. That is good design. CCP doesn't need to change that at all, nor herd people to one place or the other. If you want GUNS free, go to NULL. If you want to be a PIRATE, go to LOW. If you want little to no PVP, stay in HI. PVP is not the problem. Current game mechanics in NULL and LOW (and those that intersect HI SEC) are the problem. That is what needs to be balanced. Each sector needs to have its attractions, but due the persistent nature of the world and global economy, there needs to be interdependence between the sectors. Balancing this is the trick. I am suggesting that they not just shuffle "old" stuff around to do this, but create new and cool stuff. You want to give NULL stuff, tie it to their EMPIRE building in a lawless land. That is what NULL is all about, isn't it? Going out and forging your own EMPIRE. The EMPIRE builder gets to make the LAWS! Giving someone cool tools to build something and then dare another kid in the sandbox to come and kick it over -- now that is cool game design. No other game has it the way EVE has it. The problem is, the kids in NULL need some seriously cool toys to build their EMPIRES with. Don't take toys from the HI-SEC kids so the NULL-SEC kids have more to play with. Don't try and HERD the HI-SEC kids to NULL. When the NULL kids build their EMPIRES, the HI-SEC kids will get envious and want their own EMPIRES, which will drive them to NULL naturally, rather than "herding" them by linear game mechanics or RISK vs. REWARD mechanics. However, because PVP is the core element of NULL, give the EMPIRE builders a reason besides their little KINGDOMS to MIX it up a bit. GIVE one sector of NULL something the OTHER ONE needs (something like super-minerals). LOW needs some of this serious love too. You should be able to EMPIRE build in LOW too, just with the reality that there are some laws involved that must be ... err.. broken to do so. LOW is really the space in-between NULL and HI where the PIRATE kids hang out. They cut into the trade between HI and NULL. LOW is that SHADY area where all the illegal stuff is. So, the EMPIRE BUILDING there need not be solely about making their own laws, but breaking laws too. LOW is the land of PIRATES! Give the PIRATES tools to build their EMPIRES. Everything in LOW should be about the DARKER SIDE OF EVE - shadier agents, risky venture, drugs, prostitution, etc. That will naturally pull folks in to LOW SEC that want their lives to be all about that! HI SEC has its EMPIRES - C, G, A, M. HI SEC already has its laws. Those who want to live there abide by those laws. They can prosper there too. They don't need to be the poorest kids on the block because they want to be lawful. However, the things that go on in NULL and LOW might be just attractive enough to pull them out of HI and spur them to naturally gravitate in that direction. More thinking out loud to come... Dex was here.
Dex Ironmind	Posted - 2011.08.18 18:44:00 - [145] As far as the SANDBOX is concerned, CCP's focus should be to keep the toys we get to play with in our little make-believe worlds bar none the best that the gaming world has to offer! They don't need to "herd" us. Just give us toys and tools that are cool, fun and challenging, and we will come and play in it how we want to -- and even pay a pretty penny to do so. CCP needs to place a major focus on killing the things that pollute the sandbox. Things like BOTTING, RMT and exploiting. Otherwise, they need to let us kids figure the rest out. With that... it kind of brings to mind the modular station concept (Private, Corporate, Alliance, Empire)... For NULL, allow those stations to scale to full fledged stations like the HI SEC stations are. However, these stations should be fully destructable - Gives TITANS some real purpose ... eh! As these stations develop, allow them to bring in agents for their own mission running. Instead, of EMPIRE footing the bill, they have to. Keep everything else out there, but give the NULL WANNA-BE KINGS the tools to attract HI-SEC players and new players out to their lands. Let the players run their EMPIRES as they see fit. You don't have to move any of the NPC stuff that is already in NULL out of NULL to do this. Just expand the toys in NULL to include this. The same thing in LOW. Let the stations scale, perhaps not to those as big as HI, but let the PIRATES and CROOKS build thier own shady hangouts! Let them have their crime syndicates. Make these destructable also. Let them draw agents out into their world, and let them foot the bill. Let them be shady types of missions that require law breaking to achieve. HI sec needs better station tools too. Make the private station the focus of NULL. Even let them scale into corporate and alliance stations. Just leave the EMPIRE stations out of it, since the current occupiers of that space won't have it. To do that, you need to go where the laws allow it. Make it so trade between NULL and HI is essential. That makes it win-win for all sectors of space. WH space is just that, the land of exploration. That already has its own features. However, they would benefit from all the tools of the space station too and the WH has its own inherent limitations by virtue of access to them and their moving entrances/exits. They can be fought over and occupied. Just limit the type of station that can be built there by the class of the hole somehow. Okay...done thinking out loud for now. If you read this far... you are a brave soul! Dex was here.
ITSAssassin Red Bull Manufacturing	Posted - 2011.08.18 20:46:00 - [146] You guys really think everyone is going to jump on board mining in null without a local? That's the stupidest idea CCP has put forth. You're gonna double or triple the PPU of Ice, and the high end minerals, and totally **** up the entire market. Have your "uber" economist look that one over before implementing this change. It just doesn't make sense. ______________________________________ ISKAssassin - IN A DARK ALLEY NEAR YOU
Erik Finnegan Gallente Polytechnique Gallenteenne	Posted - 2011.08.18 23:08:00 - [147] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Originally by: Seraphina Amaranth I think the principle Quote: "Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3" won't work. A better principle would be "highsec is for all goods, but expensive to produce, low-sec is for cheaper production but riskier transport, and null-sec is for more profitable, faster production, provided you can build the infrastructure" Yup, this is the direction I'm increasingly leaning in, based on the feedback we've been getting here. ^ This. Over at the industry thread. And what Dex writes about the Sandbox needing tools; not herding.
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.18 23:24:00 - [148] Originally by: Erik Finnegan Originally by: CCP Greyscale Originally by: Seraphina Amaranth I think the principle Quote: "Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3" won't work. A better principle would be "highsec is for all goods, but expensive to produce, low-sec is for cheaper production but riskier transport, and null-sec is for more profitable, faster production, provided you can build the infrastructure" Yup, this is the direction I'm increasingly leaning in, based on the feedback we've been getting here. ^ This. Over at the industry thread. And what Dex writes about the Sandbox needing tools; not herding. Greyscale this is a good compromise but I truly believe there needs to be more interaction and dependency between zones. I think empire should have a bonus to X activity Lowsec to Y activity and Null Sec to Z activity. Whereby all activities are possible everywhere but rational would suggest they be conducted in the area that is best/ most efficient. I really like my analogy of null sec being a rural area lowsec being a industrial area and empire being a urban area. ________________________________________________
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2011.08.19 09:45:00 - [149] Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 19/08/2011 09:47:04 Originally by: CCP Greyscale Originally by: Dex Ironmind Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw. CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit. This is a good argument. At least it should be made clear to everybody that zero sec is NOT the end game of EVE. That kind of crappy game concept goes straight against the idea of a sandbox. Also, we should not make a system where veteran and well established players get a lincense to print ISK while new players have to beg; do not forget Malcanis Rule. -- Mr. Science & Trade Institute - EVE Lorebook - Mysteries of W-space
Billy Endashi	Posted - 2011.08.19 12:55:00 - [150] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Originally by: Dex Ironmind Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw. CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit. This is a good argument. indeed it is.

Billy Endashi	Posted - 2011.08.19 13:04:00 - [151] this all reeks of nullsec by nullsec:ers.
Rocky Deadshot	Posted - 2011.08.19 15:58:00 - [152] Ice mining is by far one of the more boring things in eve. By moving it to null sec only, you would take away the one thing that IS appealing about it... you can set it up and go do something else for awhile. I'm a college student and I ice mine while I do homework, take away ice and during the school year I'll have little reason to log in other than to chat and ship spin (oh wait can't do that). Before enacting, or even talking about, something involving the complete removal of something from high sec, why don't you do a study in how much effect it would have. I'm curious to know how much ice comes from high sec... and I'm also curios how many of these dedicated ice miner wouldn't follow ice into null sec. Also... ice mining isn't lucrative... so why the hell would you mess with it.
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.19 18:16:00 - [153] Empire people wanting to retain all the income and gain no risk :nonshocker: All of this Nullsec isn't endgame talk is nonsense. It has nothing to do with endgame it has to do with Risk vs Reward. Why is it that nullsec people risk all for less return then empire where the only risk is a suicide ganker? Where is the thrill or sense of accomplishment of getting reward where no risk was levied? Nullsec is dieing as is. Without some remap to draw people (not force) to it it will surely die. Currently there is no reason to go to nullsec other than PVP. Which you can get in empire in more controllable palatable increments for younger players than nullsec. Except the epic space battles CCP use as a marketing tool all happen in low/nullsec. Risk vs Reward is way off in Eve Online and has been for some time. Stop deflecting the conversation to "Endgame" because in a sandbox there is no endgame but what you make. Less risk Less reward More risk More reward.
Rocky Deadshot	Posted - 2011.08.19 22:32:00 - [154] Originally by: Manfred Sideous Less risk Less reward More risk More reward. Seems to be what all the nullsec cry babies and CSM keep saying.... In high sec the most rewarding thing is lvl 4 missions (ignoring trading and industry and pirate actions) which makes anywhere from 25mil/hr to 40mil/hr depending on alot of factors. The next thing is mining ore which right now is either pyrox or veld and a nice hulk with a gang boosting orca could easily make something around 14mil/hr, lastly is ice mining which makes under 10mil/hr. Whats the reward for ice mining.... mind numbing boredom... so why should they increase the risk of it. Nullsec should have higher pay out... or a new type of ice that yields higher return or something. But Ice miners arent gonna move to nullsec and ****ing with the POS fuel market is a terrible idea.
Korvin Gallente Shadow Kingdom Best Alliance	Posted - 2011.08.20 00:34:00 - [155] Whine'O'Meter _____________ 4th term 5th term
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers B O R G	Posted - 2011.08.20 09:54:00 - [156] Originally by: gfldex I would like to elaborate a bit on that. Years ago I did the recruitment for a 0.0 based corp. Beside rejecting halve of all applicants it was my job to remove all members that didn't come online anymore. I had to observe a very dominant pattern. Folks showed up at our doorstep because they finished skilling for their BS. They did so in highsec getting some ISK while shooting lvl4 NPCs. It felt sensible for them because them nice +4 imps improve skill time quite a lot. Most of them tried to move their BS into fountain solo at prime time. They didn't even reached 0.0 thanks to the Aridia population. We told them _again_ that we can build ships for them in our home system. They join us and got their new BS. We had pvp ops daily and as a result all those new members lost ships. Pretty much all of them quit the game after they lost the 3rd BS in the same week. They never learned to keep the balance of gaining ISK and loosing ISK. Thus they never learned to lose a ship _properly_. They didn't learn it because _they_never_had_to_ while being big buddies with their lvl4 agents. Thats pretty clear evidence that risk > reward currently in 0.0. (Im semi-serious about this)
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2011.08.20 16:55:00 - [157] Originally by: Zey Nadar Originally by: gfldex ... Thats pretty clear evidence that risk > reward currently in 0.0. (Im semi-serious about this) More like they experienced the wonderful world of being the new grunt on the block; even if you invested untold hours in the effort to take over that technetium moon you will never see any of that income in your personal coffers. -- Mr. Science & Trade Institute - EVE Lorebook - Mysteries of W-space
Dalilus	Posted - 2011.08.20 22:07:00 - [158] More people like to carebear in high sec than pvp in low or null sec. That's just the way it is. If it were the other way around there would be tons of players in low/null sec and high sec would be a graveyard. Nullsec alliances would have thousands upon thousands of noobs begging to be let in and lemming event cannon fodder roams would be the norm. Imagine the killboards stats full of rookie ships. If CCP wants to lure carebears into low/null sec with the way the game mechanics are set up right now, not gonna happen. Ever heard of ganking? For example, why do carebears run such pimped up ships? Believe me, its not for the bling or bragging rights about epeen size, its because you can finish a mission in a fraction of the time. Running a Blockade or Extravaganzza in a regular tech 2 fit ship with +3 implants easily takes 2 - 3 hours or more but fly an all faction fit regular battleship with +5 implants and you can finish the mission including salvaging in an hour or less. Am I going to take a 4+ billion isk BS to lowsec, never mind nullsec, to be scanned, ganked and paraded on a killboard? Sure, right, dream on. Don't get me started on thinking about flying a 12+ billion isk officer fit marauder to run lvl 5s in low/null sec. That marauder has turned into an expensive hangar queen with no use at the moment. I left my mommie's house many years back and I don't need a substitute like a FC, corp CEO, or anybody else telling me how to fleet up, what ship to fly, what time to be online, how long to be online and least of all complain when I choose to make isk instead of going on a roam. Why? So I can purchase that Pith-X type shield boost amplifier I need for a battleship and maybe save for months for a couple of Estamel's modified invulnerability fields. More solo content please, a lot MORE solo content please. Not everyone likes to sit in a circle and circle jerk while saying gf, gf, gf...rawr or whatever. There was a time when the CSM was run by carebears that did not care or understand nullsec. Their bad. Now that the worm has turned and the loons are running the asylum we find that the CSM is run by nullsec alliances that don't give a squat or understand high sec - eventhough that's where most of EVE players reside, live and die - except to turn it into a killing ground so their members can amuse themselves while PVPing. Anyways IMO the way CCP is thinking about implementing NPC nullsec sounds interesting in principle, maybe set it up so that it feels more like wormhole space that regular nullsec? Get rid of local? Make it so that the solo players can carve out a niche without being hot dropped by a bored blob who has not seen a target in a couple of hours?
Alexzia Sevic	Posted - 2011.08.21 00:25:00 - [159] Its funny how people keep complaining that they want more solo/PVE content in hisec. Go play Xbox. This is a massive multiplayer online game. Its fine that CCP wants to develop the parts that involve players interacting with other players. Thats the entire premise of the genre.
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.21 04:33:00 - [160] Originally by: Dalilus Edited by: Dalilus on 20/08/2011 23:05:04 More people like to carebear in high sec than pvp in low or null sec. That's just the way it is. If it were the other way around there would be tons of players in low/null sec and high sec would be a graveyard. Nullsec alliances would have thousands upon thousands of noobs begging to be let in and lemming event cannon fodder roams would be the norm. Imagine the killboards stats full of rookie ships. If CCP wants to lure carebears into low/null sec with the way the game mechanics are set up right now, not gonna happen. Ever heard of ganking? For example, why do carebears run such pimped up ships? Believe me, its not for the bling or bragging rights about epeen size, its because you can finish a mission in a fraction of the time. Running a Blockade or Extravaganzza in a regular tech 2 fit ship with +3 implants easily takes 2 - 3 hours or more but fly an all faction fit regular battleship with +5 implants and you can finish the mission including salvaging in an hour or less. Am I going to take a 4+ billion isk BS to lowsec, never mind nullsec, to be scanned, ganked and paraded on a killboard? Sure, right, dream on. Don't get me started on thinking about flying a 12+ billion isk officer fit marauder to run lvl 5s in low/null sec. That marauder has turned into an expensive hangar queen with no use at the moment. Not everyone can play EVE for several hours a day. I left my mommie's house many years back and I don't need a substitute like a FC, corp CEO, or anybody else telling me how to fleet up, what ship to fly, what time to be online, how long to be online and least of all complain when I choose to make isk instead of going on a roam. Why? So I can purchase that Pith-X type shield boost amplifier I need for a battleship and maybe save for months for a couple of Estamel's modified invulnerability fields. More solo content please, a lot MORE solo content please. Not everyone likes to sit in a circle and circle jerk while saying gf, gf, gf...rawr or whatever. There was a time when the CSM was run by carebears that did not care or understand nullsec. Their bad. Now that the worm has turned and the loons are running the asylum we find that the CSM is run by nullsec alliances that don't give a squat or understand high sec - eventhough that's where most of EVE players reside, live and die - except to turn it into a killing ground so their members can amuse themselves while PVPing. Anyways IMO the way CCP is thinking about implementing NPC nullsec sounds interesting in principle, maybe set it up so that it feels more like wormhole space that regular nullsec? Get rid of local? Make it so that the solo players can carve out a niche without being hot dropped by a bored blob that has not seen a target in a couple of hours? I think its about time players that live in nullsec stop being disingenuous and understand, accept, come to grips or what have you that if their preference is to spend their hard earned isk blowing up and getting blown up in shiny internet space ships while doing PVP so be it. But stop whining that they never have isk because that is their free-will decision. We carebears prefer to spend and risk our isk and shiny ships in other ways. I some times think the end game of nullsec alliances is force CCP to give them free ships so they can pvp to their hearts content at no cost to themselves because they "promote the game". PS. Bring back ship spinning in hangar? If 0.0 doesn't improve im moving to empire with friends and will spend all my time suicide ganking people just like you. ________________________________________________

Loni Elahhez	Posted - 2011.08.21 17:26:00 - [161] Smells like a nullsec plot, made by a nullsec'er that wish more ducks to shoot out of the water. Listen less to the nullsec'ers please.
Riveting Tale Sibling	Posted - 2011.08.21 23:31:00 - [162] Originally by: Manfred Sideous Empire people wanting to retain all the income and gain no risk :nonshocker: All of this Nullsec isn't endgame talk is nonsense. It has nothing to do with endgame it has to do with Risk vs Reward. Why is it that nullsec people risk all for less return then empire where the only risk is a suicide ganker? Where is the thrill or sense of accomplishment of getting reward where no risk was levied? Nullsec is dieing as is. Without some remap to draw people (not force) to it it will surely die. Currently there is no reason to go to nullsec other than PVP. Which you can get in empire in more controllable palatable increments for younger players than nullsec. Except the epic space battles CCP use as a marketing tool all happen in low/nullsec. Risk vs Reward is way off in Eve Online and has been for some time. Stop deflecting the conversation to "Endgame" because in a sandbox there is no endgame but what you make. Less risk Less reward More risk More reward. Says the leader of AAA, Says the leader of Cascade Imminent, Says the Common Pandemic Legion Grunt. I guess it's easy to argue for all the rewards when you blue everything.
Defiah Kadeyooh	Posted - 2011.08.22 01:27:00 - [163] Originally by: Viceroy Travel times are too short and travel (especially logistics) is too safe and convenient for a meaningful economy to develop in 0.0 space. This was always the case, but it became worse over time first with instajump bookmarks, then with warp-to-zero and obviously with the current ridiculous jump-drive mechanics. Every one of these changes made EVE smaller and safer and thus less meaningful, mostly to satisfy ADHD-ridden carebears (see: short-termism) who wanted to get everywhere and do everything before they went to bed. This has made it impossible to develop a meaningful economy in 0.0. It really isn't an issue of rare resources being available in 0.0 only, or how those resources are distributed, or who has access to them, when all of those resources are 30 minutes away from being exported to Jita with a good set of cyno alts and Titans and/or JFs. If you seed BPOs or skill books in 0.0, some dude in a JF is going to seed the entire empire market in under 15 minutes of work. It also doesn't matter if you give 0.0 producers advantages or access to better resources or other incentives when everything can be bought from a much safer, much more efficient and much more competitive market that is again, at most 30 minutes away. On top of that, you can buy hundreds of thousands of m3's of stuff in a single short trip thanks to freighters. Jita will remain the supermarket of EVE as long as travel is so conveniently safe and fast. For economies to develop in 0.0, the travel time to empire has to be measured literally in DAYS rather than minutes and loopholes like jump drive logistics and portals have to be plugged. But DAYS? That's insane. People would die of boredom. Not necessarily; people would travel less if travel times were much slower than they do right now. WHAT? Well, right now it's more convenient to invest another 15-30 minutes of travel to get to Jita than it is to produce locally or give an incentive to someone to produce locally or any other complex solution that would involve local economy. Screw it and tell your alliance JF dude to ship it in. If the travel times were much slower, you'd likely be making the trip from empire to 0.0 once, and would carefully plan your logistics accordingly, knowing that it's probably a one way trip. After that, the time you would normally invest in going to empire to pick stuff up would be distributed among more engaging activities, such as, you know, BUILDING A LOCAL MARKET (either through buying stuff or actually producing stuff knowing that you won't be out-competed by a JF alt). This wonÆt only affect the market hubs! PvP would be changed in numerous ways and for the better through making you less mobile. #1 Force Projection even through supcaps is a major problem of EVE today. Blobbing is so easy when traveltimes are low. If moving is more painful, then less people will bother taking the trip and the blobs will be smaller and gameplay for those involved will be less of a slideshow. #2 It makes different shipclasses more distinct. Today the small alignmenttime between the shipclasses means they are almost equally fast moving around. Having to deal with flying 10-15km per warp as well to the gate would make the classdifference bigger while moving. That could let a nimbler gang of smaller ships outmaneuver and spread out a gang of bigger ships. #3 Reinforcementtimes would increase in lowsec and in 0.0. Today you have to kill quick or be overrun by hostiles. If traveltime goes up, ppl would get more time to kill before reinforcements a few jumps out would get there. Combining this with a nerf to jumpbridges and titanbridges, as well as possibly changing the way supers move as others suggested in the other thread, conflicts would be much more local and big powerblocks wouldnÆt be able to spread their influence so far away and at the very end not be able to respond as quick and with such force as it is today. Life in 0.0 needs to become tougher again. Also, someone wrote a long post years ago about the eve economy and how easy it was to gather isk: ôItÆs the economy, stupidö. AS DC wrote, ISK shouldnÆt be as easy to makeà
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.22 07:35:00 - [164] Originally by: Defiah Kadeyooh Life in EVE needs to become tougher again ________________________________________________
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2011.08.22 07:52:00 - [165] Empire space is much more important than 0.0. Both in terms of population and in terms of market. Just look at how many ships are killed there (dotlan stats). Easily three times more shipkills in empire than in 0.0. So, why is Empire (highsec) so popular? Is it because 0.0 is so bad with no opportunities? Or is it because Empire is such a good place? I think one major point, which was never mentioned so far, is the extreme diversity you have in Highsec. You can find tons of new people, new things to do, new ways of life. In 0.0 you always hang around with your same group of people that have more or less all the same mindset and do more or less always the same stuff. Maybe people are just bored with that uniformity?
Billy Endashi	Posted - 2011.08.22 12:32:00 - [166] Edited by: Billy Endashi on 22/08/2011 12:35:13 once we realized that every damn decent moon was taken, we decided null/ls was not for us. a small corp has no place in null. you can try to change that if you wish. not all of us want to be under the thumb of some alliance boss. now if you could reclaim all the moons and issue mining rights for say 3/6/12 months at a time to the highest bidder, then we would have something. a small corp like ours could buy the mining rights to a few moons in ls, set up shop and do our thing. people could blow up our pos, but they could not mine that moon, because they dont own the rights to it. a sov holder would also be able to issue right to moons on their property. ofc, if they lose a system, that right would be null/voided. so there would be more risk.
Balcor Mirage	Posted - 2011.08.22 18:47:00 - [167] Outlaw Space (0.0) Future Vision Through the implementation of a useful sovereignty index, award of sovereignty points, activity indexes (PVP, PVE, Industry) systems can be claimed & improved. Through disuse and neglect, sovereignty can be lost. If an alliance spends too much time away from their systems while conquering others, they may lose what they started withà at the very least, their systems will suffer as indexes decline. This type of system assures that an alliance only holds what they can effectively maintain. Using a war mechanic as a way to conquer systems as opposed to shooting structures will allow for many types of invasions since all types of activities would count towards taking over a opponents system. Having constellation capitals can allow for more localized trade hubs as more sovereignty points can then be spent by the alliance holding the title. Following is a breakdown of how this system can workà 1.)The base truesec value of all systems should be 0.0. This value can improve through the increase of sovereignty index. 2.)Sovereignty Index û There should be 10 levels of sovereignty instead of 5. Sovereignty index should increase or decrease through use & activities not time. If there is no activity, sovereignty can be lost in a system altogether. Aggregate Sov index within a constellation will eventually provide a constellation capital. a.PVE Index û as this index increases, better anomalies & combat signatures should spawn. PVE index affects the sovereignty index. As the sovereignty index increases, the truesec of a system improves from -0.0 all the way to -1.0 which will improve the quality of NPC spawns in standard belts. b.Industry Index û Mining, PI, moon harvesting, building & commerce in a system will increase or diminish the industry index. The Industry index impacts the sovereignty index. As the sov index increases, the trusec of a system improves from -0.0 all the way to -1.0 which will improve the quality of Ore in standard belts. c.PVP Index û Killboard statistics (yes, make them count for something) for a system will improve or diminish the sovereignty index of a system. 3.)Sovereignty Points û Points should be awarded for maintaining systems & constellations at various sov levels each week. These points can be held in escrow by an alliance or spent in any held system for improvements & defense items such as: a.Gate Guns b.Station Guns c.NPC police force d.Gate warp interdiction bubbles e.Deep space probe facilities which will discover the location of cloaked ships over time f.Planet defense (Dust 514 integration) g.Station & Station Upgrades h.Super Carriers & Titans 4.)War (what is it good for)- Declaring war on a sov holder is the mechanism which will directly capture sovereignty of a system. Winning a war will award sovereignty points. a.PVP index multiplier will hasten the increase or decrease of sov level in a system. Winning or losing a war (pvp statistics in the war zone) provides a bonus which will increase or decrease sov level in a system. If the index reduces to 0 during a war, the system is conquered. Note: Reducing sov index also reduces the quality of the truesec value. b.Aggressor mining in a system during war will decrease the sov index of the owner. Also, completing any professional sites will reduce the sov index. c.Aggressor PVE activity during war will decrease the sov index of the owner. Also, completing any combat sites will reduce the sov index of a system. d.Aggressor Moon harvesting during war will decrease the sov index of the owner. cont...
Balcor Mirage	Posted - 2011.08.22 18:49:00 - [168] ...part 2 5.)Supercaps & Titans û These ships become sovereignty items and are tied to the system in which sovereignty points are spent for their construction. Keep in mind that spending points allows for the placement of the ship in a system, not the ship itselfà which must then be built/reactivated. If the sovereignty index begins to decay, these ships will begin to shut down. They can be reactivated as the index increases, and additional sov points are spent. 6.)Stations and Station Upgrades û Instead of one size of outpost with upgrades, have a small & medium outpost & a station option with an upgrade path. If the sovereignty index begins to decay, these facilities begin to shut down. They can be reactivated as the index increases, and additional sov points are spent. Spending sov points allows for the placement of these facilities, but they still must be built/reactivated. a.Small outpost û provides alliance docking facility with personal hangars, market & repair facilities. Upgrade path is to a medium outpost through the spending of sovereignty points. b.Medium outpost û these are the current types of outposts in the game along with the current upgrade types. Upgrade path is to a station through the spending of sovereignty points. c.Station û Large facility which through upgrades includes the highest level of services currently provided for by all four racial outpost upgrades, i.e. Offices, research facilities, production and refining. 7.)NPC police force û Sov points can be spent to deploy an NPC police force. These forces could help defend a system during lower login periods for the alliance. Loss of police force vessels would count against the PVE index, thus impacting the sov index. 8.)Deep space probe facility û This structure can be used to scan a system grid by grid to hunt down cloaked ships. A grid search pattern can be laid in to prioritize what areas get scanned first. This facility will require additional skills to operate. If the sovereignty index begins to decay, this facility will go offline. It can be reactivated by spending additional sov points when the index is high enough to support it.
Kuroki Meisa Kennedy	Posted - 2011.08.22 22:21:00 - [169] Players should be drawn to nulsec to have fun. Not to be rich. Also do not underestimate the players who want to fly solo or in small groups. These should have a place in nulsec and there should be a way big alliances would welcome them. As it stands it fire first questions later.. This makes me a sad panda
Issler Dainze Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord	Posted - 2011.08.23 20:59:00 - [170] CCP and sadly, the current CSM are taking the illogical postition that the majority of Eve players, the casual, solo, small gang, highsec mission runner/miner/PvE-ers living in Empire or heaven forbid, the WH ABC miners (!!!) are somehow screwing up the "way Eve should be played" by playing Eve wrong and having fun doing it! They are committed the the position that "they must be stopped!" by farking up aspects of the game that the majority find most appealing. Wake up CCP, unless you find a way to break the stranglehold large alliances have on 0.0 and make it possible for smaller corporations to survive in 0.0 then that majority will never go to 0.0. And honestly, every suggestion that might help with that goal will die a horrible death in the current CCP/CSM world because it would take away all the things that make 0.0 so screwed up! Nerfing Empire to drive the content players that enjoy life there to 0.0 will fail. The folks in empire are there because they don't want to deal with the imbalance and political baggage of life in 0.0. Their enjoyment of Eve and their play styles can't work in 0.0. And talk of "end game" in a constantly changing dynamic MMO is nonsense. Eve isn't linear with and end. But currently Eve decision makers seem to think that in the end all that matters is making folks live in a part of space that is lorded over by huge groups that have infinitely deep pockets because of immense capital fleets paid for by isk printing moons and safe locations for massive botting. Continue to nerf Empire and all you will do is drive the majority of your players out of Eve. You really want to make 0.0 work. Be brave enough to make the following changes. Capital ships changes to remote support and logisitics hubs. Make the biggest ship what can matter in terms of direct damage the battleship. Carriers and Super Carriers become huge hangars to jump in and repair (in hangar only) fleets Super Carriers are just bigger carriers with clone bays to support real mobile assaults. Dreadnaughts go back to POS warfare and infrastructure assault. As fleets grow past a certain size the effectiveness of their weapons and targeting diminish, this can be reduced with appropriate fleet composition that includes smaller specialized ships. Once and for all end blob warfare. The largest capitals turn into jump-able outposts with defensive weapons only and can allow other capitals to dock. Introduce a POS trading module to allow docking and services that can be also put in low sec. Get leases created to allow real 0.0 renting with real insurance amounts that are paid if the renters are attacked by the landlords or other terms of the lease are violated to make a smaller group more able to consider a 0.0 venture. Make valuable moon minerals dynamic and move from moon to moon throughout 0.0 and low sec. Remove the permemant isk printing machines and make the bigger alliances have to constantly fight to maintain the most valuable resources. Make all 0.0 content fluid and migratory. Basically make it so there is no more "most valuable region". Eliminate jump bridges. Eliminate warp bubbles and replace them with an area effect that is centered on the interdictor that would have normally launched the bubble. One active pilot per bubble. Add deployable gate guns that can be attacked and destroyed. Are those the 0.0 answer? Some, maybe, bottom line, here is what CCP needs to make the key concepts of fixing 0.0. 0.0 offers a large range of unique and dangerous enviroments. 0.0 is dynamic and changing. 0.0 is the source of greatest wealth 0.0 requires constant effort and movement to be most profitable 0.0 does not provide an isk printing machine 0.0 is not the "end game of Eve" Issler

Soldarius Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2011.08.24 05:10:00 - [171] Ugh, there's some crazy ideas up there. Sov-points and leases? There is nothing in game to even approximate that. The time required to design and program something of that kind of administrative magnitude would be soul-crushingly long. We already have 3 indices: strategic, military, and industrial. These are maintained/improved/degraded by usage or lack thereof. They work well. No need to reinvent the wheel. However, some tweaks could be beneficial. For example, I would support seeing anchorable gate and station guns. We can deathstar a POS and not a station? Seriously? We already have anchorable bubbles. No need for a sov-tied module that does the same thing. It would never get used. Quote: Introduce a POS trading module to allow docking and services that can be also put in low sec. Already implemented. It's called a hanger array, or ship maintenance bay. Quote: Eliminate warp bubbles and replace them with an area effect that is centered on the interdictor that would have normally launched the bubble. One active pilot per bubble. Again, already implemented. It's called a Heavy Interdictor (HIC). Each race has one. Eliminating jump bridges won't appreciably change things. Home defense will change. nulsec empires may shrink a bit, which may not be a bad thing. Probably would be better for pvp. But might make holding space vs the super blob almost impossible. Reducing the range of titan bridges and jump drives (other than blops and perhaps jump freighters) would be more effective in reducing (super)cap projection. They are huge ships. It can be explained by saying that the tech just can't deal with the massive amount of mass involved as effectively. Just because you change the flag in the territory doesn't mean all the infrastructure has to be taken down and rebuilt. On the other hand, one needn't shoot a station to replace an enemy's flag with your own. Sov is sov. Indices (other than the sovereignty index) should be separate. In this way, attackers have the choice between disrupting an enemy's activities, destroying infrastructure, and attempting to flip sov. Give us the option to flip or destroy structures. I want to capture it? Cool. Currently, we have to destroy it and take sov just to put up something of our own. And stations need to be both destructible and defensible. Can you imagine an array of Citadel Torpedoes or even a doomsday weapon on a station? That would be epic. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage missiles." - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 amended
Issler Dainze Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord	Posted - 2011.08.24 08:14:00 - [172] Originally by: Soldarius Ugh, there's some crazy ideas up there. Sov-points and leases? Quote: Introduce a POS trading module to allow docking and services that can be also put in low sec. Already implemented. It's called a hanger array, or ship maintenance bay. Quote: Eliminate warp bubbles and replace them with an area effect that is centered on the interdictor that would have normally launched the bubble. One active pilot per bubble. Again, already implemented. It's called a Heavy Interdictor (HIC). Each race has one. When I was in the CSM CCP said there were working on something like a lease in 0.0 as a "treaty" so I just want them to deliver that they promised some time back. A hangar array does not allow anyone to dock and buy/sell. Heck it won't even allow real alliance asset sharing. I want to be able to make a POS a market hub. No way to do that today. Basically I want every warp bubble to require a logged in active pilot and only one bubble active per pilot at a time. I think you lost the point of the idea. Also none of what I suggested was tied to "sov". I think in general "sov" is a bad idea. Either you own the space by actually controlling it or you don't. We absolutely need to reinvent the wheel for 0.0, that was my point, it is too broken to just nerf every place else and then tweak the drek that 0.0 already is. It needs to be totally changed to break up the power block blob isk printing groups that dominate what the majority of players consider the worst place in Eve. Issler
Soldarius Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2011.08.24 09:32:00 - [173] After rereading my post I think I came off as an ass again. My apologies. I'm working on that. I think some of your ideas, primarily the ones I pointed out, are not feasible. Pilots aren't going to sit on grid in an uncloaked ship just to bubble a gate for hours. While anchored bubbles are somewhat of an easy mode, they enable lone pilots with minimal skills to be somewhat effective interdictors. Bubbles can be easily avoided by those with fairly little experience, and can be destroyed easily. Warp disruption probes expire after 30 seconds. And a HIC, while well-tanked for a cruiser, isn't exactly a paragon of firepower. They seem balanced to me. As far as nulsec trade goes, we have stations. I think trade could be implemented at a POS. But more functions of POSes? They are borked up enough as it is. I believe the main reasons for stations are the refinery, refitting, repair, clone bay, and trade functions. Certain cap ships can do most of those functions, as can a POS. The only thing neither can do is trade functions. So I'm not surprised to see you asking for it. This would especially benefit w-space dwellers who do not benefit from stations. Personally, I think we should leave the trade functions in stations. This makes them special and worth fighting for. They are alliance level assets, and trade in nulsec is an alliance level activity. None of what I want is tied to sov, either. But people want a way to plant their flag and see their colors on the map. Therefore we will have sovereignty in Eve. So we may as well make the most of it. I just don't think the assets and infrastructure should be tied to it. Seriously, why should a station ever be flatout invulnerable to attack? Why is an IHUB invulnerable to attack without SBUs? When nation A invades nation B, do they have to literally destroy all the water and power plants in order to assault the capitol? No. Sov needs to be separated from infrastructure. A nation is conquered when the invading force has military control over it's territory, and the defending force no longer contests their claim. You want someone's sovereign space? Anchor your own TCU and destroy their's. Now it's yours, technically. All the sov benefits that were their's are now your's, except any stations. This does nothing to the infrastructure. Infrastructure is maintained by the IHUB and the 3 indices. The invading force's very presence will affect the indices because without the attendant activities being performed (mining, ratting, etc) those indices will drop. Personally, I'd like to see the IHUB go away as well. An undefended basket of eggs sitting in space that is only protected by the ridiculous invulnerability of the mechanics? Just... wow. Change those infrastructure improvements into POS mods. Now they are defended, and not all dropped into a single gigantic target with massive HP. Which POS you gonna shoot? Or none? Your choice. Kill the POS and you get free system upgrades. Sounds like something that is worth fighting for. Currently, cyno jammers are very high priority targets. So there is precedent for putting valuable infrastructure modules at a POS. And its not like you can anchor an infinite number of them. Only 5 of each type per system, plus the jump bridge and cyno jammer. Or we could just get rid of them all together and use only the indices. Use the system, get the benes. That is all. On an aside, Quantum Flux Generator. Who the hell wants more wormholes in their sov space? Seriously? Who thought of that one? Did anyone at CCP even think about that? OR was there nothing else available? Looking at the list of upgrades, I think probably not. Par for the course. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage missiles." - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 amended
Balcor Mirage	Posted - 2011.08.24 17:28:00 - [174] Quote: None of what I want is tied to sov, either. But people want a way to plant their flag and see their colors on the map. Therefore we will have sovereignty in Eve. So we may as well make the most of it. I just don't think the assets and infrastructure should be tied to it. Seriously, why should a station ever be flatout invulnerable to attack? Why is an IHUB invulnerable to attack without SBUs? This is why I suggested attacking the indexes directly as opposed to attacking structures. To do that however, you need to tie the indexes to the sov index... thus making a system conquerable by dominating it militarily or by stripping raw material.
Issler Dainze Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord	Posted - 2011.08.24 20:46:00 - [175] Originally by: Soldarius lots of reasonable stuff. Thanks for taking the time to respond (both times) with some reasoned observations related to my suggestions. I agree there is value in seeing that "your flag" is associated with some part of space as a result of your efforts. I'd like to see something like that remain. I think however I'd like to see that creating trade in your area be an element of how space is declared "owned". Maybe I should skip the how and go to the way I think 0.0 should be. Fluid - no static free isk machines like the moons today Rewarding - the best opportunitie should be in 0.0 Dangerous - there needs to be "balanced" risk that match the rewards Unique - there should be things there you can only see there What I think ruins what we have for 0.0 today: PvP is all about capitals and blobs - Capital ships need to be redesigned to be infrastructure for mobile fleets and remote bases, not offensive weapons. PvP needs to be totally redesigned to make blobs undesireable and to make success more reliant on fleet composition and tactics. This also should help with the overall experience by reducting lag. Static resources that provide huge wealth without any active management need to be removed. Static golden moons need to changed to someting mobile and dynamic. No more "my alliance owns tech moons so even our noobs have a titan". The way 0.0 works today there is no way to establish market hubs and trade routes, these are key to the Eve universe and totally absent from what CCP seems to want everyone with more than a million SP to move to. There is no industrial element to 0.0 other capital ship construction. 0.0 should let someone build other "only built there" items without having to have SOV and a giant alliance to protect a huge shipyard. Just some thoughts, again while I had our corp in 0.0 for a time and have been back briefly several times since I don't claim to know the answer. My comments are based on why we (and most folks I know in Eve) aren't interested in returning. Every time we think about nullsec and how we could operate there it quickly becomes obvious I can't provide the experiences to my corp members there that brought them to our corp in the first place. We have never been able to count on alliances that offer to "rent" and I don't see the type of fun loving casual player that makes up most of our corp (and Eve in general) ever wanting to focus on elements of Eve they don't enjoy to allow us to be self sufficent there. The few things that are interesting to us as industrialist and traders (build an outpost for example) can't be done because of the screwed up SOV system and the need for massive fleets of ultra costly capitals to keep anything we do there safe for even a moment. When I think back and look at the "big picture" it became obvious as all the attempts to make nullsec civil and accessable to all have failed (first one we saw and were committed to was "Big Blue"). Eve is designed to bring out the worst in everyone and it succeeds very well at that. The way 0.0 works today makes kicking over someone's sandcastle far too easy once you own all the sand. And CCP has made it so only a limited number of very large and organized groups can own the sand. Now it seems that CCP thinks the solution is to move all the sand into the box already occupied by the bullies and in addition make the folks losing their sand have to pay the bullies for the sand they used to share with their other friends. In addition CCP thinks this will make the kids losing their sand want to move to the bullies sandbox knowing that the bullies will just delight in taking their lunch money and providing wedgies at every opportunity. Somehow CCP thinks those other kids will learn to love that or just change their nature and join the bullies. At some point a lot of folks will look for a new playground. Issler "worried about our sand" Dainze
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.24 21:50:00 - [176] Originally by: Issler Dainze Originally by: Soldarius lots of reasonable stuff. Good Poast This is me a veteran Eve player who has lead corporations , Alliances , coalitions , Owned Sov, Built Stations , Pilot Supercarrier & Titan mostly agreeing with everything you say. Despite being a *****y bittervet & member of elite pvp organization I still care about and love this game. The sandbox offers something no other game can deliver. Drama Politics metagame however the sandbox is in need of MAJOR overhaul because it is severely broken. I log into other MMO's that are well engineered and have miticulous scripted content and think to myself if only Eve was engineered this well or had this production quality. Fix my sandbox! ♥Manny ________________________________________________
Tentboy Rust	Posted - 2011.08.25 05:00:00 - [177] An interesting idea for sovereignty, and the way capturing territory works. Also helps the idea of localism. Some sort of beacon, low health, low armor, that you must have x number of (3-4) in order to be in control. These beacons though can be anywhere in the system, allowing players to hide them in various places (asteroid fields, anomoly areas) and have them be found through the scanning function. But also have it be so that they can only be found while being semi close to them. How close being dependant on the local features of where they were hid. For ex. a beacon hidden in an ice cloud can be found from x-y distance whereas the beacon in the asteroid field can be found in the y-z distance. Where one not hidden can be found from any distance.
Halarach Amarr Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.08.25 05:35:00 - [178] HI CCP I THINK U DESERVE AN AWARD FOR FINALLY FIGURING OUT WHAT UR GAME SHOULD BE LIKE SINCE 8 YEARS LOL. ALSO U CAME UP WITH REALLY INNOVATIVE IDEAS LIKE HIGH RISK = HIGH PAY, AND ALSO LOW RISK = LOW PAY. THE WAY UR GOING TO IMPLEMENT THIS ARE CLEARLY STATED WHICH IS ALSO A BIG PLUS. I THINK DESPITE HISTORY PROVING OTHERWISE (DOMINION, OOPS LOL), THIS TIME U'LL GET IT RIGHT AND THE 5 YEARS ROADMAP IS REALISTIC SO I'M REALLY WILLING TO SPEND 2x 655 EUROS FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS TO SEE IT GETTING DONE, MEANWHILE I'LL JUST SPIN SHIP, WAIT NO I CAN'T, LOL
Khaka Ohino	Posted - 2011.08.25 06:03:00 - [179] How is Nerfing Highsec and WH space going to get 0.0 dewellers to actually mine and produce? I know this may come as a surprise, but every player doesn't what to be in 0.0! Some of us are very happy not dealing with bubbles and bombs. As a matter of fact, I think that's the majority of the playerbase according to the (now defunct Quarterly report). Didn't they move the High Ores out of empire? Yeah, moving them to exclusively 0.0 has really improved things. -KO
pussnheels Amarr Vintage heavy industries	Posted - 2011.08.25 10:07:00 - [180] I really appreciate how youasked for our ideas and opinion about changing nullsec with all the feedbackthreads I would be very interested what kind of influence those feedback threads will have on further development of this game It is obvious that alot of people are intersted in buffing null sec but not while nerfing high sec For me it is also obvious after reading some of those threads that some of your ideas like ice removing from high sec and wh abc nerf aren't appreciated by a majority of the poster nor is making nullsec self sufficient a good idea But yeah i would really like to know what the devs learned from those feedbackthreads ---------------------------------------------- God knows everything but a true amarrian knows everything even better

4N631	Posted - 2011.08.25 11:16:00 - [181]
zoltar pdp WALLTREIPERS	Posted - 2011.08.25 15:30:00 - [182] Until you don't realize the worst thing in EvE is the state of impunity that botting and ISK-selling has right now, you will keep losing old players as soon as they realize what the ones that decided to break the EULA has been able to get. Just my 2 cents with the reason I stopped playing.
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.25 18:22:00 - [183] Originally by: Khaka Ohino How is Nerfing Highsec and WH space going to get 0.0 dewellers to actually mine and produce? I know this may come as a surprise, but every player doesn't what to be in 0.0! Some of us are very happy not dealing with bubbles and bombs. As a matter of fact, I think that's the majority of the playerbase according to the (now defunct Quarterly report). Didn't they move the High Ores out of empire? Yeah, moving them to exclusively 0.0 has really improved things. -KO Nobody says you have to leave empire. This is a carrot approach not a stick approach. Meaning that if you are a player who likes to undertake this activity then you can do it anywhere however if you wish to make more isk doing so then nullsec dangles a giant carrot in front of your eyes calling to you " Come to me my lovely and I will yield to you bounty beyond your wildest imagination". IMHO the overarching strategy is to make all activities everywhere however some areas are better at certain activites than others with each unique area having its own Strength. If you get production happening in 1 place resource collection in another and commerce and research invention in another then you end up with interaction between those places which imo makes the game more diverse and immersive. ________________________________________________
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.25 21:20:00 - [184] Sov needs to be exponentially expensive whereby instead of just a flat fee it scales the more you have. Same with cynojammers , Jumpbridges , Cyno Beacons. I have been preaching the idea that Different Zones ( nullsec , lowsec, empire) Should have bonuses to different activites. Much like real life 0.0 is like a rural area where rescources are collected/harvested. Lowsec is like a industrial area where you would see facotries & production whereby Empire is like a urban area where you would see Science & Technology & Markets. 0.0 Changes Mining Lasers yield X% more per cycle ( suggest 20%nullsec 5% lowsec -10%empire) Stations become wreckable where no functions work other than dock you cannot store items only remove previously stored items Sov becomes exponentially expensive whereby a formula calculates sov cost by the number of claimed system Modules such as CSAA , Cyno Generator Beacons , JumpBridge , Cynosaurel Jammer increase sov cost based on same formula as Sov payments are calculated Local chat is changed to delayed mode , Constellation chat stays the same , Directional Scanner is reworked for better functionality and its functions are macroable via hotkeys You can now increase military index to support many more players however index's deterioration happens at faster rates when underutilized Loot from NPC's is higher meta level then empire and the same as lowsec. Treaty system is introduced which makes rental agreements better NPC Nullsec Mining Lasers yield X% more per cycle ( suggest 20%nullsec 10% NPC nullsec 5% lowsec -10%empire) Datacores are rewards from pirate factions Local chat is changed to delayed mode , Constellation chat stays the same , Directional Scanner is reworked for better functionality and its functions are macroable via hotkeys Loot from NPC's is higher meta level then empire and the same as lowsec. Lowsec Changes Production is X% more time and material efficient (suggest 20% lowsec 0% nullsec 0% empire ) Local chat is changed to delayed mode , Constellation chat stays the same , Directional Scanner is reworked for better functionality and its functions are macroable via hotkeys Treaty system is introduced where parties can pay tribute to pirate or anti-pirate organizations to protect or not attack them in a specific area. Booster production is possible here with new and stronger types of boosters. ( mining boosters) Loot from NPC's is higher meta level than empire and same as nullsec. Empire Changes Invention is possible here @ X% success bonus ( Empire 10% Lowsec 0% Nullsec -10%) Research/Copy is X% faster here and there are X% more research slots per station (Empire 20% Lowsec 0% Nullsec -10%) Buy/Sell is greatly enhanced here with the availability of more buy/sell orders than lowsec/nullsec tax is also lowest here than lowsec/nullsec Loot from NPC's is limited to meta 1 & 2 Global Changes All corporations & alliances are assigned a resource pool of points which they can allocate to customize there organizations. Baseline corporation size XX members Alliance XXX expandable from level 0 to level 10 Baseline corporation standings limit 2 Alliance 4 Baseline corporation hanger divisions 2 Baseline amount of corporations allowed in a alliance X expandable from level 0 to level 10 Optional Alliance hanger Division expandable from default 0 to 5 Mining laser yield 0% scaling to 10% across 10 levels Production Efficiency and Material wastage scaling from 0% efficiency & -10% wastage to 10% efficiency & 0% wastage (Note* NPC corporations are default setting) Research/Copy efficiency scaling from 0% to 10% (Note* NPC corporations are default setting)
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.08.25 21:24:00 - [185] Continued Booster Production efficiency scaling from 0% to 25% effciency Sov structures have a baseline 25% hp value of current structures expandable to 100% of current hp value Player operated structures have a baseline reinforce timer of 50% of current expandable to 150% Player operated structures have a baseline powergrid and cpu 50% of current expandable to 150% Moon Harvesters have a baseline HP's 50% of current and are expandable to 500% and are now on the exterior of the structure POS Fuel usage default @ 10% more than current values expandable to 15% less than current values Corporation & Alliance upkeep cost with concord expandable to 0 cost ( dont pay or dont put points into this and after 90days delinquency POOF) Capital Ship Fuel Usage Efficiency scaling from 10% more usage to -10% usage Free Bi-Annual resource point re-allocation. Additional re-allocations available for purchase via concord at a scaling rate. Smuggling & Black Market Trading can be concealed from concord @ scaling % from level 1-10 (CAN LITERALLY KEEP ADDING TO THIS MECHANIC TO CREATE MORE CONSCIOUS CHOICES BASED ON A ORGANIZATIONS NEEDS/DESIRES) Global Changes cont. Dreadnaught Siege timer reduced to 5 minutes fuel requirement reduced by 50% can receive remote rep/energy Xfers whilst in siege Black Ops can warp cloaked Jump range increase by 25% Supercarriers no longer have the ability to launch drones only fighters & fighter bombers. Titan turret tracking reduced by 25% Jumpfreighter range reduced to titan range Hybrid turret falloff increased by 30% Electronic attack frigates receive assault frigate resist bonus T3 subsystems can now be refit at a ship maintenance array All moon resources are depleteable and randomly shift the probability of higher tier resources is based off of truesec status Comets are introduced as exploration sites moon goo can be mined by a new type of mining fitting complete with T2 & Faction variants Bounty Hunter and Merc button in all stations players can place want ads with rewards and Bounty Hunters & Mercs can list services & rates whereby want to hire & want to be hired contracts can be issued. Age of Nano is restored giving small gangs the ability to disengage against overwhelming odds. Logistic ship have range bonus reduced by 50% HP's increased by 30% The idea is to give corporations and alliances a talent point tree (if you will). With this they can specialize there corp alliance to fit there needs. Because as is there is 1 template bigger = better. I say if you are bigger than there should be some balance to that to make the playing field more level. Being bigger should be because of community not because huddling more numbers is win. So if you want a bigger alliance you spec for a bigger alliance but it takes points from other areas. You are forced to make conscious decisions to fit your needs. Perhaps by increasing the amount of members your alliance can hold you have weaker sov sttructures. Or perhaps you wont put points into industry related things because you are pvp focused. Or for a nomadic entity perhaps they would want to be able to use less cap fuel or have better/increased range. The tradeoff for speccing that direction is they won't have points to put elsewhere. As things are now. The big fish gobbles up all resources and stymies any potential of growth for new organizations. The only way to enter 0.0 as is by being a pet or renter or living in NPC space. This is why 0.0 has become less and less populated. Show me a alliance that owns sov that has succeeded without being a pet or renter in the last 3-4 years. ________________________________________________
Issler Dainze Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord	Posted - 2011.08.26 01:38:00 - [186] Looks like you gave that some thought Manfred, but I have to fundementally disagree. That is just twisting the knobs on an old TV set that has long since stopped working. 0.0 has to change completely if there is any hope of making it relevant to the majority of Eve. Capitals have to be dramatically changed from an "I win" button for wealthy giant alliances to something that provide logisitcs, transportation and support for mobile navies. Which will be required because... All static sources of extreme value must be finite and respawn someplace else! Get rid of the "most valuable" region concept. Isk printing moons must go! Alliances wanting to maximize their wealth based on resource gathering will be forced to follow those resources as they move. The new roles of capital fleets will be to support those strategic movements. Sov needs to be about building a true home in all respects, that means trade and actual occupancy. Any structure the exists today just to provide sov needs to be thrown into the nearest star. You earn sov by etablishing a presence, building a useful infrastructure and ATTRACTING pilots and trade to you area. Sov will only be gained if you actually are using and occupying the space and then making it attractive for traders. Sov holders would be able to earn with taxes and fees. You can still take over some space and keep everyone out but shouldn't be as rewarding are creating a real "space nation" that matters the the rest of Eve. This probably means introducing something that allows "ports" and shipping lanes that can be maintained and controlled by the sov holders to allow establishment of trade routes. PvP needs to totally change so that at some reasonable fleet size there is a negative affect on results and that balanced fleets and tactics win the day. No one would watch the allinace tournaments if each team could use a thousand ships, what makes it interesting is seeing really clever fleets engage in a balanced fashion combining the best of multiple types of ships. 0.0 needs to have unique elements you can only see there and they need to be special enough to make folks want to go see them. Early in Eve CCP tried to make stuff in space worth visiting. I spent a month just seeing the sights and it was really enjoyable. Bring back eye candy content and unique encounters, and put the really special ones in 0.0! CCP, be brave enough to scrap 0.0 as is and rebuild it like that and I expect you will finally see the migration to null and the real empire building that sov should produce begin. As for low sec, make that to semi-quote Captain Reynolds "a place for naughty men to slip about"! Make low sec where you can engage in smuggling and drug manufacturing! Put in bribable Concord elements and disreputable NPC agents where high risk but high reward missions with chances of being cheated by the agent or even cheating the agent exist. Let low sec be where I can iteract with the pirate factions and really be a "pirate". Expand what it means to be a criminal so that bad deed in low sec could result in interesting experiences in high sec. For example random gate encounters with "agents" that might even confiscate non-contraband goods or better yet, point me at other smuggling opportunities if I provide the correct gratuity! Again, these are just how I Eve being a better place. In the end though, I expect something like Manfred will be what CCP does, we'll open up the back of the set, put some tin foil on the rabbit ears and bang on the top of the TV set that is 0.0 to try and find a show that the neighbors will like, and when that doesn't work CCP will just burn their houses down to force them to come over and watch the static and wiggley lines on the tube... Thanks to anyone taking the time to read this thread, I hope we can see some more folks share their ideas about what "Sandbox II" should look like. Issler
Dark Cloud Dancing	Posted - 2011.08.26 14:34:00 - [187] Loving these discussions and looking forward to seeing how 0.0 (and EVE) develops over the next 5 years. Love the ideas on smallholding, and on exploration. Strongly agree with those posters who say EVE is too small û expand our universe please! Here are my thoughts (some of which is picked out of other people's posts): 1.Link security status to local population The more people there are in a system, the more "secure" it should be. True 0.0 should be the wild unexplored (unsettled) frontier; the more people there are there, the less wild it should be. This would encourage people to spread out more û because you would get better rats and plexes in less populated (i.e. lower sec) systems. You could apply this throughout EVE, not just to null; just set out where the borders of each faction are, then let the sec numbers float û so you could end up with what are currently hisec systems turning into lowsec and eventually null if no-one goes there for long enough (but still technically empire, so no corp sov or caps etc). Or you could end up with what are currently high population nullsec turning into lowsec then highsecà This makes sense (especially in Empire) û an Empire should be interested in protecting its population. If lots of people are using a system, the relevant Empire would naturally increase its presence there. Whereas if no-one lives in Backwatersville, you'd maybe just send a deputy through once in a while. 2.System Tax based on sec status If you live in a 1.0 system you get the best protection in EVE. But currently you don't pay for it. So how about a "local income tax" based on system status? At 0.0 the tax is 0%, rising by 1% for each 0.1 increment in sec status, to max 10% in a 1.0 system. This would apply to all ISK transactions in that system, e.g bounties, mission rewards, contracts and market trades. Potentially allow standings to affect (but not eliminate) tax rate; good standings reduce tax rate, bad standings increase tax rate. This provides an extra incentive for people to spread out and move to lower sec systems û pay less tax. And linking 1 and 2: as an example, Jita would be 1.0 sec status and if you choose to do all your trading there you're going to lose 10% to tax. If you choose to trade in a local 0.0 hub however, you pay no tax. Makes it more profitable to trade in null, increases incentives for local / regional trading. This would also provide an additional ISK sink. Note that this is in addition to existing taxes (corp tax, refining tax, trade tax) û after all, in RL we pay income tax as well as VAT, fuel duty etc; and our businesses pay corp tax and royalties for utilisation of an empire's natural resources too. In EVE we are currently under-taxed. If you want the security of living in Highsec, that comes with a price. 3.Link sovereignty to actual presence / activity in system. So if there are (over the course of 1 EVE-day) 100 people in system X all doing the same thing, of whom 60 belong to Corp B, then Corp B has sovereignty of that system by default. You'd also need to include some "timer" dynamic so sovereignty doesn't just flip-flop on a daily basis û for example you capture sovereignty by being the largest presence in system for (say) 7 consecutive days. The exact mechanics would need to be carefully thought about; simple "man hours in system" would be too open to abuse (afk alts and bots), but if you weight it to take into account number of individuals in system, how long they're online for, and what activity they're doing, it could get interesting. So maybe you get 1 point per hour per person just for being logged on in system; if you're running missions / ratting / mining you get extra points; and if you're killing enemy player ships you get even more points. So just holing up in your POSes in large numbers wouldn't guarantee you'd retain sov, even against smaller numbers of invaders. cont...
Dark Cloud Dancing	Posted - 2011.08.26 14:36:00 - [188] ...cont 4.ALL resources should deplete over time if overexploited (planetary resources, moon goo, ore and ice, also belt rats, anomalies and complexes). And respawning probability should be linked to 1 above û i.e. a sec status based on population. This would mean if you overexploit the resources in your local system, gradually you end up getting less of that resource and they start popping up in underpopulated systems instead. Again this would encourage people to spread out more and move around to get the best resources. Of course there would have to be a "floor" û you should never have a zero % chance of resources respawning in a system. This one I think will upset people, because let's face it we're all lazy and would rather have the goodies handed to us on a plate than have to go hunting for them. This would also increase the tension between alliance interests (maintaining sov by keeping your people together) and individual interests (wanting better personal income which would come from travel to less populated systems). This might help to limit corp / alliance size and make it easier for small entities to gain a toehold in null. Dynamic resources, dynamic sec status, dynamic sov would make for a much more fluid nullsec û people would naturally move around more, which would make for more conflict. Which should appeal to at least the small scale PVPers. 5.Sov Upgrades WTF is this anyway in its current incarnation? Who exactly are you paying who can magically make better roids appear in your back yard? I didn't know God could be bribed that way. And are you paying the pirate factions to set up their plexes in your system, just so you can blow them up? They must be dumber than I thought. Seriously. Sov upgrades yes, but they should be linked to infrastructure not resources. Things like local cyno jammers or cloak jammers; improved intel; sov-holder controlled gate guns; improved manufacturing / refining / research facilities etc. So you could build up your sov space to be the uber research spot in the universe, and charge people through the nose to use those facilities. Just my 0.02 ISKies.
Lolion Reglo Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2011.08.26 18:50:00 - [189] So im curious if Greyscale and Team BFF have taken alot of the ideas players have said and have updated their white board yet? if so i would love to see a new dev blog taking points the players have mentioned and seeing which direction CCP wants to take and if the players agree. perhaps even idea mining us some more and using the community to flesh out mechanics or goals as we have been?
rajaniemi	Posted - 2011.08.26 21:22:00 - [190] One of the things that came up here was the idea that players should own residences in space and that it could be integrated with Incarna. This got me thinking and very excited about the idea. There are many areas of the game that would benefit from giving individual players the ability to build small homes in space to cache ships and supplies. Player-owned dwellings have the potential to open up many new avenues of emergent game play and contribute to the development of null, low and high sec. Here's my full proposal: PROPOSAL: Player-Owned Dwellings

Jade Greenfire	Posted - 2011.08.27 07:10:00 - [191] Nice idea, but CCP CEO already said": "eventually you will be able to walk around in a POS and maybe ships & not just stations". So in effect POS's and their associated modules will fill the role of what your talking about, just they wont be cloaked as you suggested. The problem though is that POS's are Corp controlled and various corps have rules/restrictions over players being able to have their own POS's. A POS is supposed to be a player owned structure, not a corp owned structure, so if your idea was to work, then CCP would have to re work POS roles so that corps dont have control over them, unless it was a corp specific owned POS and that decision would have to be made by the person ancorhing & onlining the POS. Non corp controlled POS's would also lead to a increase of POS's in 0.0 and could prove to be a source of encouragement for players not to be in large corps/alliances unless their needs aligned. Giving individual players control of POS's instead of corps, could also benefit Industry as they would therefore not be dependant on using station services for researching and copying blueprints as well as manufacturing. In 0.0 you have capitals, so the arguement of moons becoming cluttered with offlined/unattended POS's should not be relevent as a capital could kill it and it would be up to the individuals responsibility/risk to ensure that did not happen or to defend it.
rajaniemi	Posted - 2011.08.27 20:13:00 - [192] The key differences between my "dwelling" and a POS: 1) Dwelling is player-owned, not corp-owned. 2) Dwelling is defenseless and relies on being hidden. It's a bit like a smuggler's den. 3) Dwelling does not have the scale of capabilities of a POS, only the ability to cache ammo and modules, dock a few ships, and perhaps light industry for building ammo, drones, etc. 4) Dwelling can be new code that eventually becomes the basis for a POS overhaul, killing 2 birds with one stone.
Sangard Firebrands	Posted - 2011.08.28 21:22:00 - [193] a little hint for your white board permanent marker problem "U I have". Just use a normal white board pen, overwrite the letters and clean it. You'll will see, it's magic ;)
Donald MacRury Gallente LankTech	Posted - 2011.08.29 06:50:00 - [194] I personally have no problem with the risk vs reward concept here. But I fail to see how nerfing lvl4 mission or mining ICE in hi sec helps 0.0. I assume that lvl4 mission runners are the primary users of super expensive faction loot that can be found by ratting in low sec/0.0. If missions are nerfed wouldn't that demand go down and cause poeple ratting in dangerous space to make less isk. Also in regards to ICE, if its completly removed wouldn't it have a negative impact on industry in hi sec, and not just T2 but also T1. So if hi sec industry goes down hill who are the 0.0 miners going to sell there abc's ore's with less demand in hi sec. At best I could see a situation where vet players that already have researched BPOs could get by but new players that want to try even T1 industry will be stuck waiting years just to research a frig BPO that is competative. I'm also under the impression that most of 0.0 is made up of PVP'ers that have very little interest in mining and industry. So even here at best I see a situation where 0.0 will mine or build just want they need to replace ships/modules and to keep there POS'es fueled. The end result that I see is that nerfing hi sec stuff will probably not increase the profitability of 0.0 in the long run and will just result in more people being unhappy and a drop in subs. I don't know how everyone else feels about this and I can only speak for myself. But its not risk keeping me out of 0.0 its politics and attitudes. I have an interest in gathering resources and developing/manufacturing them into useful ships and modules. But unless a 0.0 allows is going to allow any indy player into there fold to do these things then there is no point in being there. So my solution would not to drastically change mechanics but to change attitudes and ideas to get people to 0.0.
pussnheels Amarr Vintage heavy industries	Posted - 2011.09.01 07:27:00 - [195] @ manfred While you do have some good points , these changes are not only about statistics alone, if you want more industrialist into nullsec there has to be a mentallity change. Among the nullsec pvp player base aswell Most industrialist i know in game will not gointo nullsec for several reasons Gung ho pvp only mentallity of most nullsec players Why would you need miners and industrialist while my mongoo and ratting bots can provide me with enough iskies to buy everything i want Second security why would you as a pvper watch over a bunch of hulks mining while you could be doing some plexing instead of being bored as hell And thirdly nerfing high sec industry / mining while buffing nullsec that will not be used no matter how good you buff it will only alienate more players I will be very happy if they come up with a system that will reward the nullsec alliances that have a balanced numbers of players in both industry and pvp players, without nerfing highsec to death No what is really needed is a mentallity change not a nerf highsec industry to death for the glory of nullsec RMT profits ---------------------------------------------- God knows everything but a true amarrian knows everything even better
Alabugin	Posted - 2011.09.01 14:45:00 - [196] Originally by: Alexzia Sevic Its funny how people keep complaining that they want more solo/PVE content in hisec. Go play Xbox. This is a massive multiplayer online game. Its fine that CCP wants to develop the parts that involve players interacting with other players. Thats the entire premise of the genre. OMG THANK YOU!!! This is so true guys - this game is NOT about running mission after mission BY YOURSELF. There are plenty of console games to satisfy your solo experience. Even "solo" PVP still requires another player/players to kill/run from. I say dont move ice to 0.0 - but move it to lowsec. There are plenty of completely ****ing dead lowsec ice systems that moving ice out here would spice things up a bit. Moving ice to null would only make the Russians richer =). Either way...I see lots of mackinaws on my killboard in the future =)
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.09.01 20:55:00 - [197] Originally by: pussnheels @ manfred While you do have some good points , these changes are not only about statistics alone, if you want more industrialist into nullsec there has to be a mentallity change. Among the nullsec pvp player base aswell Most industrialist i know in game will not gointo nullsec for several reasons Gung ho pvp only mentallity of most nullsec players Why would you need miners and industrialist while my mongoo and ratting bots can provide me with enough iskies to buy everything i want Second security why would you as a pvper watch over a bunch of hulks mining while you could be doing some plexing instead of being bored as hell And thirdly nerfing high sec industry / mining while buffing nullsec that will not be used no matter how good you buff it will only alienate more players I will be very happy if they come up with a system that will reward the nullsec alliances that have a balanced numbers of players in both industry and pvp players, without nerfing highsec to death No what is really needed is a mentallity change not a nerf highsec industry to death for the glory of nullsec RMT profits The idea is to provide incentive for different activities in different places whilst not eliminating the possibility of any activity anywhere. Furthermore with the "Talent Tree" mechanic it would mean that you would want to have industrial specialized corps because they are specced in that direction. Because PVP corps won't be able to do the same functions efficiently. This builds inclusiveness and interaction. Both of which are cornerstones of a MMORPG. I am a team player if the organization I was with decided to do mining because it made sense we would need to protect it. That protection gives incentive for the possibility of aggressors to attack. This causes content and interaction. Back in the day before high-sec was boosted to hell these types of things were common occurrences in nullsec. You cannot force people to do any activity. However if you dangle a big enough carrot people will do it. Proof of this statement is the Titan it was supposed to be a costly beast with a huge logistical barrier to construct one. However players saw the benefits and made it happen. The same prinicpal applies here. The only difference is CCP has made mechanics that has made us all soft. Everything is too easily obtainable and in that convenience we have lost interaction the need to function as a team to make isk or gather resources. I have seen so many game developers do the same thing " Cave to whiners" that want everything easy. Games slowly die when interaction is no longer fostered when everything becomes easy mode. Sure RMT and Bots need to be curbstomped into oblivian I also agree that there is a huge shift of mentality in players. However that can only be accomplished by reshaping things. Take the easy Independence / passive / no risk isk away. Create incentive for people to work together and interact make nullsec groups want to include industrialist and productionist in there groups. ________________________________________________
Akiriy Azuriko Gallente Demon Theory Tragedy.	Posted - 2011.09.08 18:28:00 - [198] " Objectives and incentives Smaller fleets moving through enemy space should always have something to do, and doing that something should make them feel like they've achieved something worthwhile even if they didn't get any actual fights. This means having things to do that are both satisfying and deliver some kind of long-term value (ideally things with tangible ISK-relative value as well as intangible strategic value) to offset the opportunity cost of a roam. We want people out PvPing, and if they're thinking "I wish I'd stayed at home and run missions" then something is wrong. " :D i love you ccp. i forgive you for everthing


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.