|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
21
   |
Posted - 2011.10.18 19:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
I think this may be the worst idea from CCP in a long while! And worse ever is that they seem to have been wasting resources on this secretly that should have been put on all the other things they have already promised and never delivered.
Why is this a bad idea? It makes low sec even less accessable to the "little guy"! Instead of making those "care bears" that everyone wants to tempt to go into spaces with greater risk it eliminates on element in Eve that was making them temp fate, dip their toe into some risk. PI. Now PI will be yet another thing too risky as compared to the reward in low sec, just like mining has become. No one mines in low sec because it isn't worth the risk and now no one will PI in low sec for the same reason.
If you have an alliance with the "chops" to get what you need to build one of these structures and defend it you aren't wasting your time in low sec, you are out being awesome for much bigger rewards in null sec. But if you are a big alliance with a bunch of caps you no longer fight with because of recent nerfs and love to grief (sound like anyone?) you will start "Custogedeon" and make popping these things your new hobby.
I think this could make sense as part of a null sec revamp, the idea that you could also control the planets in the area you control makes total sense, but this is just yet another bad idea for low sec, CCP stop the hating on low sec!!
CCP, I no longer have confidence you are capable of creating a future for your game. I was till now, but I see you really don't get it. Please, everyone in CCP that likes this idea form an orderly line and jump into the nearest active volcano.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
27
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 23:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
The closest CCP has come to an idea that made low sec interesting agan was PI. I was actually finally getting some of our members interested in joining me in low sec again to see more isks from PI planets in the low sec near where we operate. For a smart induistrailst with a sneaky transport ship you could make some isks there. Not alot, but enough to make it worth dealing with folks that want to mount your corpse on their buffer panels.
Now CCP is going to show us what they clearly think.
1. They don't understand their own game. They are working on poorly conceived changes in secret that stand to ruin Eve for solo and casual players. We can only expect there are lots of other really bad ideas in the production pipeline at this moment. These bad ideas are way more important to CCP than delivering on the other things they have already promised us but secretly given up on.
2. CCP thinks all players have to be in corporations, or more correctly allinaces with giant super cap fleets. If you aren't CCP considers an irrelevant loser.
3. CCP has an economist but he must be in charge of auditing the coffee fund because he certainly isn't being involved in changes in game mechanics that will have devestating effects on the markets.
4. Even though CCP has deliberately (and seemingly with great pride) created a game that makes the most noble folk act like rat bastards they continue to expect "the next change" to make these same folks already driven to feral behavior and canabalism to join hands and sing "kumbiah" and introduce a new era of harmony and cooperation. Here is something that should be on every wall at CCP".
EVE ONLINE MAKES EVEYONE EVIL IN THE END!!!
5. CCP in the end only really cares about "end game/power blocks/null sec/shooting people in the face" but they still can't even get those things right!
These proposed changes have never more clearly demonstrated that
- CCP does not "get" or care about casual or solo play
- Have a clue as to how to fix low sec and make it a desirable element in Eve
- Understand event the most basic elements of Eve that drive actual player behavior in Eve
- CCP will continue to work on new things in Eve in secret while promising and failing to deliver what they already have committed to us
I want to clarify that I have gone on the record as aksing for CCP to "work on things in secret" and surprise us. I still want that but they need to think things through a lot more than they did with this craziness before they commit resources to their "new" ideas.
This idea should have been killed in the first meetings because it fails in the following obvious ways when implemented anywhere other than nulsec where it might make sense.
1. Increases risk while providing no increase in reward.
2. Creates yet another static target to shoot.
3. Fails on the economics almost immediately.
4. Doesn't make and sense from an RP perspective.
5. Assumes behavior not found in Eve (non-evil cooperation and partnering)
6. Increases the difficulty of the small organizations or solo players for no reason
So CCP please please please rethink what you are thinking of doing. You won't make Eve any better in the end if you go on and do this. I have a way to change your idea that I will put in a seperate post.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
27
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 23:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
OK, how to make this a "better" idea.
1. Deliver to plan in null sec. I think letting planets be part of what you fight over there is a good idea.
2. Review and posttibly change the tax rate in high sec for customs offices. Just doubling them sounds like a lazy first guess.
3. Make the COs in low sec be owned by and tied to the pirate factions in the systems. So that using them and your tax rate depends on your standings with those normally to many of us NPC pirate types. I think this would then make the care bears have to engage in some challenging activities around getting the right standings while not messing up their other standings. Put the missions you need to run to get those standings in low sec. More mission runners in low sec, more targets for the player pirates that like to shoot mission runners! Win/Win!!
Do those things and be sure to balance the tax rates and I think you actually will improve Eve in the end.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
28
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 23:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bodega Cat wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:The closest CCP has come to an idea that made low sec interesting agan was PI. I was actually finally getting some of our members interested in joining me in low sec again to see more isks from PI planets in the low sec near where we operate. For a smart induistrailst with a sneaky transport ship you could make some isks there. Not alot, but enough to make it worth dealing with folks that want to mount your corpse on their buffer panels.
Now CCP is going to show us what they clearly think.
rabble rabble rabble...
whine whine whine...
Issler Come on man really, you just wasted a whole bunch of time not really posting anything constructive, just a total whine fest. You clearly like doing what you are doing right now, post some ideas about how they can still preserve what you are doing by dipping your feet into low sec to do some PI but still having choke points that can be contested by entrepreneur that wants to play space over lord? You are overly trivializing the problematic design philosophies of the desired goal here by just plain old calling CCP incompetant. Surely you've got some brilliant ideas. Contribute.
I did offer specific suggestions in a seperate post immediately after. Feel free to comment on those.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
28
|
Posted - 2011.10.19 01:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Rees Noturana wrote:
1. There was very little risk and none in high sec. This is being corrected.
2. The other option is to remove the customs offices entirely and rely on improved rockets. Having a static point provides for a possibility of hostile player interaction. If there is a structure it needs to be destructible.
3. I agree. The costs for a customs office seems quite high compared to likely income. I'd like to see the cost of these structures reduced to allow for profits sooner considering they are such a visible target.
4. It makes more sense than magically appearing structures, especially in w-space.
5. Greed is good. As an industrialist I'd rather collect taxes that just attempt to starve people out. If they use 'my' planet I get money. If I build an offices then I'll have them open. The only problem is figuring out a tax rate that makes it worthwhile.
6. PI has been fairly easy ISK. Just read back for all the people that fund their accounts with it. II think it's too easy to fund accounts with in-game money in EVE which is eventually going to trash the economy, but I'm not an economist, so my opinion doesn't matter much on this point.
I think the main issue they need to balance is the cost of the structure and balance the alternative so that smugglers can rocket their products off planet. Maybe look at dropping commodities to colonies too but personally I'll be doing my advanced production in empire.
1. The risk to reward won't be right in low sec.
2. I would support bigger rockets as a possible alternative in low sec. Again, just get the risk/reward right, this proposal doesn't.
3 :-)
4. OK, WH it doesn't make much sense either. WH should be like nul sec however this gets implemented.
5. More folks seem to about the starving other folk as compared to the income. The nature of Eve.
6. I am OK with PI getting more challenging. This proposal is not the way to make that happen.
So one other thing that this causes, a whole new class of necro structures, these things need to die on thier own if their owners don't visit them. We have all seen the dead corp POSs on moons. These will be a new type of "ghosts of dead corps" things to litter space that will need to be blown up to clear planets that they park on.
So to be clear parts of what this idea intends to accomplish make sense, but the low sec part as proposed makes no sense to me.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.19 19:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Spanking Monkeys wrote:i cant belive this is something you have worked on for a while CCP owen. this is a badly thought out structure driven boring activity, rather than just a boring activity. started offlining pos's already cos theres no way currently to absorb the extra costs involved. glad i have 3 months worth of fuel stored for 6 towers. i now have 18months for the 1 that will stay.
i just dont see why you at ccp are always trying to **** over the smaller guys/corps/alliances. this is directly what your doing here, have no doubt about it.
This is exactly why I've continued to run for the CSM to try and make CCP consider the "little guy". The solo player, the little indy corp or alliance. Clearly someone in the CSM needs to advocating for that segement of the pilots of Eve because this is another example of how CCP just doesn't get it!
Once again CCP screws the "little guy" and continues its focus on driving us to the "end game" when there is no "end game" in a sandbox MMO with a player dirven ecconomy!
This idea make low sec even worse, ruins an activity a lot of Eve players enjoyed, risks messing up a lot of the Eve ecconomy and shows how little CCP actually accepts the nature of the players in its own game. The profit motive and alturistic nature that CCP expects to be present in the wasteland of low sec doesn't exist! The folks there are going to blow up anything not defended and drive the few remaining residents of low sec out (maybe entirely out of Eve).
CCP you don't understand stick and carrot, this idea has neither, this is marshmellow/flounder.
Here is what really scares me about this idea. It clearly has been in the works for a while, it has had resources applied and sounds close to complete. It sounds like it wasn't disucssed with the CSM (or we have another reason to worry about the CSM). This was done while CCP failed to work on other unfinished or broken content. What other things are in the "bad idea" queue CCP?
What other seriously half baked game breaking "features" have you developed instead of finishing or fixing all the other things here in the 'verse?
So to the critics that say I am just being negative here is how you fix this idea.
1. Null sec and WH's work as planned.
2. Structures have to be "serviced" every 30 days by the owners or the shields and structure drop to 0 and be single shot popped.
3. High sec taxes can rise but only after the correct numbers have been determined after real study, not just a lazy doubling.
4. Low sec CO belong to the pirate faction dominant in the system they are in. To access them you have to work out your NPC pirate issues.
5. Rockets get a lot bigger and you are allowed to drop supplies to the planet.
6. Rocket launches and orbital deliveres happen at the launch facilities, not the command center.
7. I can hack a CO and steal whats inside in WH and Null, I can in low sec but I have to fight off an NPC pirate spawn to do it.
Do that and I think I can endorse your product or service.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.19 19:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
Cailais wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:
This idea make low sec even worse, ruins an activity a lot of Eve players enjoyed, risks messing up a lot of the Eve ecconomy and shows how little CCP actually accepts the nature of the players in its own game. The profit motive and alturistic nature that CCP expects to be present in the wasteland of low sec doesn't exist! The folks there are going to blow up anything not defended and drive the few remaining residents of low sec out (maybe entirely out of Eve).
I'd certainly consider setting up POCO structures as a means of generating an income. I think others will too. C.
I'd like to think that there would be lots of folks like you that would give it a try. I have to say unless you have a pretty big combat fleet that can be on 23/7 in the low sec where I live your CO will be shot to bits every day. We have standing 20+ ship roaming pirate fleets as a standard part of life here and they are always looking for something to shoot. Most of the time they never even loot what they kill, they just like to 'splode' stuff.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
34
|
Posted - 2011.10.19 19:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:Spanking Monkeys wrote:i cant belive this is something you have worked on for a while CCP owen. this is a badly thought out structure driven boring activity, rather than just a boring activity. started offlining pos's already cos theres no way currently to absorb the extra costs involved. glad i have 3 months worth of fuel stored for 6 towers. i now have 18months for the 1 that will stay.
i just dont see why you at ccp are always trying to **** over the smaller guys/corps/alliances. this is directly what your doing here, have no doubt about it.
This is exactly why I've continued to run for the CSM to try and make CCP consider the "little guy". The solo player, the little indy corp or alliance. Clearly someone in the CSM needs to advocating for that segement of the pilots of Eve because this is another example of how CCP just doesn't get it! It's odd because this change has me wanting to push up my plans to start a corp to place these in out of the way locations and try to get lucky and setup on a planet that is actually used. And I'd be one person doing it for the most part. And even if I don't get a decent opportunity to place and use them at least i could probably sell a few. Who knows. But I can't be the only one who sees this as a potential solo opportunity.
If you try in any of the low sec I spend time in you will be throwing isks down a rat hole. The locals will pop you CO as soon as you put it up. A single person corp can't possible keep a CO alive for long in most low sec.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1101
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 18:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
So clearly based on feedback in this thread, part of this change "might be something good!" while other parts very well "might be something bad!".
I am waiting to get a sign from the team that owns this that they see they haven't got this change nearly right yet and to clarify when they will be inflicting this "wonder" on the 'verse?
So "Team Planetary Infarction", are you listening? Will you be open to changing how this will work? When should we expect this?
If they have already answered this sorry to ask something "asked and answered" but I couldn't see that we've had any feedback about our feedback.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1101
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 19:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
Lolmer wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Hundo Kay wrote:I have scanned the topics, and I still have not seen any response to the question of what happens to the PI goodies stored inside when the POCO goes Boom.
Do we get a drop like everything else at 50/50 for each item batch, or nothing?
This single question will determine the long term survivability of the POCO.
If the drop rate is 0% then when the newness of ganking these things wears off, they should become more stable.
If on the otherhand, there is a drop potential, I can see a lot more people having an incentive to not only knock these things around like Loot Pinatas, but also to maintain a small PvP force around them for the 24+ hours of reinforcement.
We already know people can still get their stuff out before it pops, but will there be an incentive to maintain a force at the POCO while popping it?
So please CCP, fill us in on the details of what happens when these things go "POP". No drop, the items are just destroyed. What kind of ******** idea is that? Why won't items drop after we destroy the "container"? That's not how EvE works! Even PLEX drops, and items in POS' drop, why would items in the POCO not drop?
Yet another example of how poorly thought out this idea is. Do the folks on the team working on the new CO even play Eve?
Issler |
|
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1101
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 23:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Scrapyard Bob wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Earlier you were talking about how people would be taking theses down just for the sake of grief play. If that's the case, not having them drop anything is smart move. It ensures that taking these down is not a profitable venture, increasing the chances they will be left up or only taken down by someone with the intent to replace them. To what degree it will be effective is anyone's guess, but the fact that they cut that off in the thought process suggests that yes, they do play this game, to the point that they know exactly what you were thinking.
The thing is - how often do people really leave PI goods sitting in the customs office? W-space? Likely, because logistics out of the hole can be an issue some weeks. Lo-sec? Not as likely, unless the planet was full and it wasn't safe enough to haul. If POCOs are destroyable, people will not leave their stuff in the POCO for longer then necessary. Therefore, whether they drop stuff is not going to have much effect on destroying them to get at the stuff inside. The vast majority of the time, when you blow up a POCO there is going to be nothing there to "get". POCOs should be destroyable, and they should have the same drop mechanics as other destroyable containers. But POCOs also need the possibility of setting up defenses equivalent to a medium POS at a minimum. (I suspect the reason why CCP is not doing this is more to do with code-complexity rather then "should" or "should not".) You may well be right on the point of needing defenses for the POCO's, I'm not going to debate that as it wasn't the aspect I was replying to. The point of my post is to emphasize how, considering that most of the posts saying this won't work simply because of grief play in lowsec, it makes no sense to be surprised by or complain about CCP listening to then and taking steps to remove obvious incentives to destroy the POCO's. It makes even less sense to say that it's evidence of CCP not knowing their game. If anything it shows that they are making game mechanics bend to give this some possibility of working, which means they have foreseen at least one of the problems it can cause.
I complained because this is now inconsistent with virtually everything else in Eve and is a lame bandaid on a very bad idea. Making them drop stuff makes them even better in nulsec. Even if they don't drop stuff blowing them up just the heck of it will be the new low sec hobby of griefers when they get bored camping the gates.
Also the more I think about this in WH the less sense it makes. There is no community of folks living cooperatively in WHs. There is usually one dominante group and everyone else is there to steal the WH or kill you.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1101
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 09:57:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nyla Skin wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:Lolmer wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:
No drop, the items are just destroyed.
What kind of ******** idea is that? Why won't items drop after we destroy the "container"? That's not how EvE works! Even PLEX drops, and items in POS' drop, why would items in the POCO not drop? Yet another example of how poorly thought out this idea is. Do the folks on the team working on the new CO even play Eve? Issler It makes perfect sense. Its meant to discourage people destroying the COs for fun and profit. I approve of it. CCP wants the COs to stick around and be a 'political tool'.
I'd wager the majority of folks 'splode stuff just for the fun of it. Making stuff drop in null sec makes these something interesting for system holders to want to defend. In low sec it would be a bonus but these things will be a low sec gankers new spare time hobby.
Issler
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1101
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 00:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
Parts of this idea are good, but they really need to rethink low sec!
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1101
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 21:25:00 -
[14] - Quote
So it seems despite all the feedback to CCP that the concept was broken for low sec we see on SiSi it implemented as blogged?
They really don't get it.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1101
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 20:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:War Kitten wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:
There's no free rides here. They pay the customs office taxes like everyone else does. This deos indeed take away people's abilities to do PI as they choose. You put control of planets into corporations and offer no recourse whatsoever to those that choose to enjoy the comforts of npc corps. Without being able to fight for their PI rights, you'll have even less people venturing into low. Well, maybe low sec is over-crowded enough as it is and would be better off with the population, even the transient ones, reduced, hmm?
The only people this provides a disincentive to venture into lowsec are the ones that only dip their toes in the deep end of the pool in a non-catchable cloaky transport and quickly head back out. Those people are adding nothing to the lowsec population anyway, and we don't much care if they stop visiting. And if they DO continue to visit, they can pay our taxes. We, they, our... ah, ok. Now it makes sense. You're one of the ones looking to take advantage for your own benefits. I'm thinking of Eve as a whole. We'll never agree. You've been arguing from the standpoint of a wormhole dweller that your thoughts are good for lowsec. I'm arguing that as a lowsec dweller, lowsec will be just fine with CCP's changes. Who has a more experienced opinion?
As a person that has lived in lowsec for over 5 years I totally disagree, with low sec today largely being filled with random griefers CO popping will become the new griefer hobby.
CCP's idea is TERRIBLE for low sec!
So as a long time committed low sec dweller (and someone that has repeatedly run for the CSM as a low sec focused candidate) I say CCP's changes are bad for low sec.
I have a more experienced opinion! 
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1101
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
I still believe the change as currently planned is way wrong for low sec. Low sec COs need to stay some variation of NPC controlled otherwise all they are is a the new roaming pirate gank hobby and little guy PI in low sec is over. Done like dinner.
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1101
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
CCP!!!!
Please change your plans for low sec COs!!!
You will ruin PI for many and just add new static pirate hobby targets!
You will once again screw the little guy with your low sec CO plans!!!
Issler |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1101
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 01:59:00 -
[18] - Quote
So the new "responsive to the players" after 85 pages of responses, most being negative and against aspects of this change, many containing well constructed finacial models where these things can't pay for themselves has decided to ignore all feedback.
Awesome!
Can't wait to see the next way CCP can find to drive all the small corps, casual and independent players out of their game. Actually this is even worse, you can be hard core and large and the numbers just don't work.
How about this CCP, tie ammo damage and resists to the size of your alliance! Or transaction taxes! Let's get rid of those pesky players that won't just up and join a huge alliance!
This from the only game company with a full time ecconomist!
A sad example of how the "new responsive to the players" CCP appears to be anything but.
Issler
|
|
|
| |
|