Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Strike Severasse
Red Dead Redemption
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 21:38:00 -
[331] - Quote
PARD0 wrote:Null is just like high, but much worse, because of alliance obligations, capital abuse, gatecamps, napfests, logistics etc. etc.
Pvp is either non existant or pure **** (I don't understand in all honesty how the endless stream of cloaky roamers manage to stay awake during their roams. Nor why ganking some afk n00b every other day is considered such a big feat. The other common form of pvp, gatecamp, manages to be even less fun than the roams.)
So there's no point in "repopulating" something that is so clearly broken. Convert half the sectors to lolsec and WH and be done with it. Null dwellers wont even notice the change since they use 1/10 of the sectors they "own" anyway/
What your saying is Null is the same old thing, caught in time. Oldies doing the same thing over and over. What you need is fresh blood that has not been trained by these oldies, you need High sec and to get them, you need to buffer the amount of deaths somehow.. so figure the path to let LOTS of people into Null
The worlds are diff yet with some middle buffer ground, they can mix for the better of both sides.
Yeah yeah and you killmail whores, how'd you like blobs of BC from high descending on you?
Say YES to mixing worlds or go hide deeper in Null where the oldies lifestyle has not changed.. yet. .... gates are like roids, dont give in to beer camping
now lets welcome the high sec in with open arms, err open gates, then slowly close the doors behind them... hooked on excitement again...... while the old carebear and camper doze zzzzzzzz ! |
Caldari Acolyte
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 22:18:00 -
[332] - Quote
Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit. Null shouldn't be a bluefest like it is now. |
Adelphie
Paradox Collective
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 22:20:00 -
[333] - Quote
Caldari Acolyte wrote:Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit.
This is good in theory but not practice as it's too easy to get around.
Someone else said it earlier "Turn corp tickers on overview lads, don't shoot xxx"
|
Caldari Acolyte
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 22:35:00 -
[334] - Quote
Adelphie wrote:Caldari Acolyte wrote:Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit. This is good in theory but not practice as it's too easy to get around. Someone else said it earlier "Turn corp tickers on overview lads, don't shoot xxx"
That may or may not be true in some instances, but the main reason is to limit the size so that Alliances can't hold on to huge pockets of null because of the sov cost simply because of less income. Tech moons should be redistributed in null evenly to help this situation |
Xpaulusx
Hosti1e Traff1c Control
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 22:39:00 -
[335] - Quote
Caldari Acolyte wrote:Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit. Null shouldn't be a bluefest like it is now.
Exactly what needs to be done. CCP are you listening? |
Adelphie
Paradox Collective
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 22:45:00 -
[336] - Quote
Xpaulusx wrote:Caldari Acolyte wrote:Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit. Null shouldn't be a bluefest like it is now. Exactly what needs to be done. CCP are you listening?
Can't tell if sarcasm mode was on there
I think it's clear that something needs to be done to make large entities less appealing, but putting artificial constraints just won't work as they're too easy to game.
See the post I made earlier about making unused sov more expensive - This would compact large alliances into smaller areas, which will cause backbiting and bitiching and naturally breakdown powerblocs, whilst opening the door to new alliances to claim space.
|
Strike Severasse
Red Dead Redemption
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 22:55:00 -
[337] - Quote
Adelphie wrote:Xpaulusx wrote:Caldari Acolyte wrote:Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit. Null shouldn't be a bluefest like it is now. Exactly what needs to be done. CCP are you listening? Can't tell if sarcasm mode was on there I think it's clear that something needs to be done to make large entities less appealing, but putting artificial constraints just won't work as they're too easy to game. See the post I made earlier about making unused sov more expensive - This would compact large alliances into smaller areas, which will cause backbiting and bitiching and naturally breakdown powerblocs, whilst opening the door to new alliances to claim space.
A max alliance size, yes!! but... they would just have joined alliances, still the not blue would help make null a more player place then a few gangs owning it.
+1 .... gates are like roids, dont give in to beer camping
now lets welcome the high sec in with open arms, err open gates, then slowly close the doors behind them... hooked on excitement again...... while the old carebear and camper doze zzzzzzzz ! |
coolzero
CZ empire Resource Extraction
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 23:08:00 -
[338] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:This thread is pretty awesome. You guys will get a few 0.0 changes this winter, smaller ones that should improve quality of life.
One thing I'm thinking about, but not entirely sure about is this: Putting bounties on drones instead of minerals. Mining used to be a viable way of making money in nullsec, but the increase in available minerals has driven the price down. I'm wondering if putting bounties on drones won't give mining a bit of a revival and put some life back in 0.0.
yes that would help...but also inc a say t3 mining barge..no need for more yield just a better tank to at least give us miner some better life out in o.o
|
Vigilant Archer
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 23:50:00 -
[339] - Quote
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:When CCP fixes industry and logistics in null sec, who will go there until null sec alliances fix their "come live in null sec" scams?
Which one do you folk living out in null sec have control over? We have a bunch of industrialists in our alliance but they do just about everything industry related in empire space. If CCP manages to make nullsec industry worthwhile they will relocate. As for pubbie industrialists...idgaf Mara Rinn wrote:You could try GÇö just as an example GÇö talking to the folks to do industry in null sec. Learn what their pet peeves are. Learn something about the processes required to produce the replacement ships that you love so much. Talking to them isn't going to change the fact that it is always more efficient to do industry in highsec and ship the finished goods to nullsec. Mara Rinn wrote:While your attitude is that you're doing people "favours" by destroying their freighters and industrial base that they were hoping to contribute to your alliance, you are your own worst enemy: you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Like I said we already have plenty of people in our alliance doing industry so who cares if some random pubbie corps don't trust us...that freighter massacre in EC- was hilarious.
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
159
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 00:02:00 -
[340] - Quote
What turns me off to nullsec is just how carebearish sovereignty is. Chaining belts, pirate-attracting sov structures, et cetera. Couple that with the fact that I would be just one more cog in the profit machine of a major alliance and I have no interest in being there. It sounds like a tedious and uninteresting life compared to what I do now. |
|
Vigilant Archer
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 00:15:00 -
[341] - Quote
Vigilant Archer wrote:Skunk Gracklaw wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:When CCP fixes industry and logistics in null sec, who will go there until null sec alliances fix their "come live in null sec" scams?
Which one do you folk living out in null sec have control over? We have a bunch of industrialists in our alliance but they do just about everything industry related in empire space. If CCP manages to make nullsec industry worthwhile they will relocate. As for pubbie industrialists...idgaf Mara Rinn wrote:You could try GÇö just as an example GÇö talking to the folks to do industry in null sec. Learn what their pet peeves are. Learn something about the processes required to produce the replacement ships that you love so much. Talking to them isn't going to change the fact that it is always more efficient to do industry in highsec and ship the finished goods to nullsec. Mara Rinn wrote:While your attitude is that you're doing people "favours" by destroying their freighters and industrial base that they were hoping to contribute to your alliance, you are your own worst enemy: you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Like I said we already have plenty of people in our alliance doing industry so who cares if some random pubbie corps don't trust us...that freighter massacre in EC- was hilarious. seriously wtf, I had just typed up a nice list of ideas and such I click post and all it does is quote this guy qhich I intended to quote to make a point but it comes out with thus and nothing of what I typed up this is the third time something like this has happened to me it's so annoying.
Btw. I'm not going through the trouble of typeing my long list of ideas again. |
Xpaulusx
Hosti1e Traff1c Control
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 09:10:00 -
[342] - Quote
Adelphie wrote:Xpaulusx wrote:Caldari Acolyte wrote:Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit. Null shouldn't be a bluefest like it is now. Exactly what needs to be done. CCP are you listening? Can't tell if sarcasm mode was on there I think it's clear that something needs to be done to make large entities less appealing, but putting artificial constraints just won't work as they're too easy to game. See the post I made earlier about making unused sov more expensive - This would compact large alliances into smaller areas, which will cause backbiting and bitiching and naturally breakdown powerblocs, whilst opening the door to new alliances to claim space.
That's actually a good idea but to get that started, CCP needs to limit Alliance sizes, enough with these huge power blocks in there privilaged santcuaries, null needs to burn. |
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 09:47:00 -
[343] - Quote
Just my 2+º about blobs...
Stacking penalties.
Blobs are the only bonus in EVE that hasn't got stacking penalties. The more ships the better, always and forever.
That should change so a smaller fleet could wreak havoc on a fleet too big to be proficent.
Just sayin'. |
Adelphie
Paradox Collective
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 10:52:00 -
[344] - Quote
Thanks for the suggestions so far. I've updated the OP with some of the frustrations/changes. Happy to see CCP Soundwave giving suggestions on changes which might take place - and it would be great if CCP comments kept on coming.
I firmly believe that we, the players, hold the knowledge and key of how to make this game better - so let's keep this thread going. You never know we might actually get listened to |
Raastul
Dopey Swordfish
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:38:00 -
[345] - Quote
What would bring me to null?
* I don't want to be a mindless pawn in a large blob fleet (ok its fun for a few times, but I get bored of it fast)
* following the first point: make smaller fleets a viable option in null sec
* enough isk oportunities (we need to make isk, to make up for losses we get in null sec, this is really a no-brainer), and make it so that smaller alliances/corps can earn iskies in proportion with their size
Bottom line: I like smaller amounts of ppl, because you know them better. In this case you don't drown in a sea of other ppl where they consider you meaningless. |
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:50:00 -
[346] - Quote
BTW, wouldn't it help if asteroid fields were removed from nullsec and were replaced with gravity sites?
That would remove the giant "go here, gank miners" sign of stationary asteroid fields and also would make life harder for botters...
Just sayin'. |
Perramas
Pan Caldarian Ventures
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:51:00 -
[347] - Quote
Bronden Neopatus wrote:Just my 2+º about blobs...
Stacking penalties.
Blobs are the only bonus in EVE that hasn't got stacking penalties. The more ships the better, always and forever.
That should change so a smaller fleet could wreak havoc on a fleet too big to be proficent.
Just sayin'.
That kind of mechanic would be abused by the really large alliances. All they would have to do is have their alts target their main fleet so the enemy would have an automatic stacking penalty.
|
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 12:10:00 -
[348] - Quote
Perramas wrote:Bronden Neopatus wrote:Just my 2+º about blobs...
Stacking penalties.
Blobs are the only bonus in EVE that hasn't got stacking penalties. The more ships the better, always and forever.
That should change so a smaller fleet could wreak havoc on a fleet too big to be proficent.
Just sayin'. That kind of mechanic would be abused by the really large alliances. All they would have to do is have their alts target their main fleet so the enemy would have an automatic stacking penalty.
It would depend upon mechanics. I am inclined to providing some kind of "rating" to every ship in your color that shoots at the opposite color (not jsut sit there, but shoot). "Rating" would have a constant value that would be class dependant and a variable value proportional to the damage inflicted, and the higher the combined rating the worst the stacking penalty. That should be carefully simulated so a larger fleet holding fire to prevent a increase in their "rating" could not use a "hold and engage" tactic in defeating a smaller fleet. Also bringing in reinforcements beyond a certain ratio of the initial fleet should be penalyzed, so if you start as 500 vs 300, and end 300 vs 200 and then jump in another 200, your rating will be worst being 500 vs 200 than if you had started that way.
in perfect balance, "rating" should work so a subcapital fleet was less hurt by their firepower than what a capital fleet would be hurt by their ship class. (Say, 1 supercarrier have higher rating just by being there than n BS by firing, but also 1 BS have worst class rating than n cruisers firing) |
xCassiopiax
Hosti1e Traff1c Control
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 13:16:00 -
[349] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:This thread is pretty awesome. You guys will get a few 0.0 changes this winter, smaller ones that should improve quality of life.
One thing I'm thinking about, but not entirely sure about is this: Putting bounties on drones instead of minerals. Mining used to be a viable way of making money in nullsec, but the increase in available minerals has driven the price down. I'm wondering if putting bounties on drones won't give mining a bit of a revival and put some life back in 0.0.
I approve and endorse this product or services, but it would be interesting on getting the Russian perspective on such a dramatic change. Cool thread BTW +1
|
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Universal Consortium
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 16:05:00 -
[350] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Rellik B00n wrote:null is just pointless. Take it all away and replace it with an equal number of wormhole systems. Problem solved.
But what will the nullbears do without their sanctums?
They would quit and contract all their stuff to me.
I A/F/K cloak in Jita. Does that count? |
|
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Universal Consortium
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 16:35:00 -
[351] - Quote
Ogi Talvanen wrote:Who cares what highsec/WH players think of null?
Who cares what nullsec lemmings think of highsec/WH?
I A/F/K cloak in Jita. Does that count? |
Khira Kitamatsu
243
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 16:36:00 -
[352] - Quote
I do not wish to participate in null-sec, zero interest. I prefer where and how I play now. Why do some of you insist that "players" must play in null-sec?
I really wish CCP would do an experiment. Make the whole game like null-sec and see just how fast this game would die - because it would. Look at every game that ever had the type of game play null-sec has and it is pretty much devoid of players. Why do you think UO changed soon after it was launched? Why do you think Mordrid server crashed and burned after a month. Why do you think games like DF and MO are barely scrapping by?
Not everyone likes full on FFA/PVP. In fact I'd say that is the least favorite game style you can find in an MMO(leaving off RPG because this game is not an RPG).
So do some of us a favor and stop trying to cram your play style down our throats. If you do not wish us to be here, just make all of EVE like null-sec and have at it. I'll join the other 80% of the player base as we move on to other games. Ponies!-á We need more ponies! |
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Universal Consortium
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 16:52:00 -
[353] - Quote
Ogi Talvanen wrote:For me to move to WH space they would have to get working local, jump bridges, gates and stations.
Spoken like a true 1337 h4rdc0r3 end-gamer! Very good, I expected no less, lemmie. I A/F/K cloak in Jita. Does that count? |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 17:49:00 -
[354] - Quote
Adelphie wrote:Thanks for the suggestions so far. I've updated the OP with some of the frustrations/changes. Happy to see CCP Soundwave giving suggestions on changes which might take place - and it would be great if CCP comments kept on coming. I firmly believe that we, the players, hold the knowledge and key of how to make this game better - so let's keep this thread going. You never know we might actually get listened to
Just to give a completely outside idea, what if the executor corp mechanic was done away with (if it even could be). Now hold on, let me give my probably flawed, misinformed, ignorant reasoning here.
I agree with what many have said that you can not just arbitrary limit the size of an alliance, there are too many ways around that and besides it's just arbitrary. But what if you removed the executor corp (if you could?) and replaced it with a treaty system instead? Make the alliances more "loose" in their membership. That way the assets the mega alliances have now would still exist, but they would be in the hands of the corps that actually controlled them, and they would have to be given to the alliance voluntarily. Couple this with some way of needing to actual occupy a system to have SOV over it, and give that SOV to the corp not the alliance, and the mega alliances would start to have huge internal pressures on them if they grew to big. Why would X corp now fly 30 jumps to protect Y corps moons, if Y is getting most of the income (or suspected to be hold some back from the alliance). Sure they might still, but they also might think twice out it. Or if the treaty that set up the alliance permitted it, X corp, could even attack Y corp to fight over assets within the alliance.
I don't know if this would even fix the problem at all (perhaps corps would just become the new alliances) but it was the line of thinking I was going down to spread power around a bit and make null a little more intresting. |
Xam Nesse
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 17:53:00 -
[355] - Quote
First off, awesome thread. Tons of opinions well presented.
So, how can we help repopulate 0.0 with HiSec players?
As there is no "unclaimed" space allowing for new Corp/Alliance any ready access without being a renter, how about the current major alliances look at themselves and how they use their space?
1. Very few "soverign" areas have had an increase in their industry Index. 2. Current Sov alliances want to bother with industry, their style is PvP. 3. Many HiSec corps are Industry heavy.
So, why not recruit some of these HiSec indy-corps and help set them up in one of your backwater systems/constellations. I have spoken with at leave a dozen Indy Corp CEO and most would be willing to do this and mine like moles, pay for the industry index upgrade and learn how to contribute to the alliance.
There would be a good bleed over of these indy pilots hopping in PvP ships to help defend the alliance.
Or, am I way off base and Null-Alliances don't want industrial corps, just more PvP players only?
|
Xam Nesse
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 17:58:00 -
[356] - Quote
Manssell wrote:Adelphie wrote:Thanks for the suggestions so far. I've updated the OP with some of the frustrations/changes. Happy to see CCP Soundwave giving suggestions on changes which might take place - and it would be great if CCP comments kept on coming. I firmly believe that we, the players, hold the knowledge and key of how to make this game better - so let's keep this thread going. You never know we might actually get listened to Just to give a completely outside idea, what if the executor corp mechanic was done away with (if it even could be). Now hold on, let me give my probably flawed, misinformed, ignorant reasoning here. I agree with what many have said that you can not just arbitrary limit the size of an alliance, there are too many ways around that and besides it's just arbitrary. But what if you removed the executor corp (if you could?) and replaced it with a treaty system instead? Make the alliances more "loose" in their membership. That way the assets the mega alliances have now would still exist, but they would be in the hands of the corps that actually controlled them, and they would have to be given to the alliance voluntarily. Couple this with some way of needing to actual occupy a system to have SOV over it, and give that SOV to the corp not the alliance, and the mega alliances would start to have huge internal pressures on them if they grew to big. Why would X corp now fly 30 jumps to protect Y corps moons, if Y is getting most of the income (or suspected to be hold some back from the alliance). Sure they might still, but they also might think twice out it. Or if the treaty that set up the alliance permitted it, X corp, could even attack Y corp to fight over assets within the alliance. I don't know if this would even fix the problem at all (perhaps corps would just become the new alliances) but it was the line of thinking I was going down to spread power around a bit and make null a little more intresting.
This may have some serious merit as corps would not be the "faceless masses" of the alliance as they appear to be now. CEOs could actually run their corps instead of just passing orders along. Of course, this might birth a whole now type of corp, purely a logistics corp .. or could that be the roll of the "former" executor corp? |
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Universal Consortium
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 18:01:00 -
[357] - Quote
NullSec would be teh winsauce--if it weren't for the NullSec'ers.
Thanks, mates, you can have it:
I'll stick to making as much/more ISK, much more quickly, in a wormhole, PvP'ing in a small/fast moving gang with my mates whom I've actually gotten to know, like, and trust, and can play a game I ******* pay for how/when I want, not being a faceless serf amongst serfs in an endless, scripted, stilted, predictable circle-jerk of zit-faced 17-year-olds fluffing their pathetic little egos at everyone else's expense.
NullSec as I see it now, is hopelessly broken, and it's the people who own it who've made it that way.
Solution: Ban and biomass them all, and redistribute their assets
Joke! Kidding! But not by much... I A/F/K cloak in Jita. Does that count? |
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Universal Consortium
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 18:02:00 -
[358] - Quote
NullSec would be teh winsauce--if it weren't for the NullSec'ers.
Thanks, mates, you can have it:
I'll stick to making as much/more ISK, much more quickly, in a wormhole, PvP'ing in a small/fast moving gang with my mates whom I've actually gotten to know, like, and trust, and can play a game I ******* pay for how/when I want, not being a faceless serf amongst serfs in an endless, scripted, stilted, predictable circle-jerk of zit-faced 17-year-olds fluffing their pathetic little egos at everyone else's expense.
NullSec as I see it now, is hopelessly broken, and it's the people who own it who've made it that way.
Solution: Ban and biomass them all, and redistribute their assets
Joke! Kidding! But not by much... I A/F/K cloak in Jita. Does that count? |
Ines Tegator
Project ELT
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 18:09:00 -
[359] - Quote
Manssell wrote: I agree with what many have said that you can not just arbitrary limit the size of an alliance, there are too many ways around that and besides it's just arbitrary. But what if you removed the executor corp (if you could?) and replaced it with a treaty system instead? Make the alliances more "loose" in their membership. That way the assets the mega alliances have now would still exist, but they would be in the hands of the corps that actually controlled them, and they would have to be given to the alliance voluntarily. Couple this with some way of needing to actual occupy a system to have SOV over it, and give that SOV to the corp not the alliance, and the mega alliances would start to have huge internal pressures on them if they grew to big. Why would X corp now fly 30 jumps to protect Y corps moons, if Y is getting most of the income (or suspected to be hold some back from the alliance). Sure they might still, but they also might think twice out it. Or if the treaty that set up the alliance permitted it, X corp, could even attack Y corp to fight over assets within the alliance.
+1. This idea has profound merit. It would completely restructure alliance politics, and give individual corps an important role in holding space. It would reward great leaders and not just great slave drivers. I approve. It could mesh with the "smallholding" idea that the devblogs were brainstorming a while back also. |
Perramas
Pan Caldarian Ventures
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 18:23:00 -
[360] - Quote
Scrap the way moon mining is done now and replace it with a PI style system that can be taxed from the new custom houses. Nerf and I mean really nerf the amount of minerals you get from reprocessed modules. Add more low end minerals to 0.0. A new class of T3 mining barges/exhumers. These new ships would have the same mining yield as current ships. These new ships depending on what the pilot wanted could be configured to get one or more abilities such as: increase shield/armor, unprobable, faster align time and getting into warp, cloak or any other number of ways to increase their survivability. Give bored PvPers more to do than shooting poor miners. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |