Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2605
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 03:38:00 -
[721] - Quote
Querns wrote:There's a thread of entitlement that seems to be percolating through this forum thread, and I'd like to put it to rest before someone who isn't actually beholden to such irrational thoughts takes it as fact.
Grinding standings does not entitle you to permanent benefits. Your payment for grinding the standings once (or purchasing a standings character on the Character Bazaar) has been years and years of benefit. For some, this is nearly a decade of uninterrupted benefaction. Now, the old, clunky mechanic has been put to rest. While your benefaction is being drawn to a close, you can't simply ignore all the benefits it's given you.
Incidentally, if any of you have characters that have 9.0+ standings with Caldari State and are so oft-put by these changes that you're going to sell your character, contact me privately.
This, this, many times this.
Signed - someone that ground out ~6.8 faction-to-player standings with the Gallente Federation, including the first 5.1 purely by storyline missions because I didn't know better at the time.
There is no reason that future players should have to suffer from the utterly un-fun mechanics of standings grinding just to put up a POS. (I also think standings should not have any impact on trading for this very reason, let PVE content have its own rewards, not be prerequisites to participate in the non-PVE aspects of EVE). https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 03:52:00 -
[722] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:It's happening! I am very scared of this.
Way too many changes coming all at once. I highly doubt CCP has considered the second and third order effects of all of these changes. The easy ones to see are only the beginning. Lock downed BPOs are now doomed to pay the extra fees for being researched or built from as they will be highly unlikely to be actually in a POS since they can't be locked down.
Mineral prices are going to go up as a major source of them will be heavily nerved, reprocessing. And you are nerfing the retrievers and mackinaws a bit too. I see 8-10 isk per grit chunk soon. Maybe that will make mining more profitable, but even as a maxed out miner I rarely mine as it is mind numbingly dull. I just see PVP getting even more expensive.
Also my Corp required standings to facilitate a High Sec POS and that looks like its been a major waste of time. thanks... I have several years worth of star base charters saved up...another waste
Ok I do like the RAM changes. That makes sense.
Not a big fan of the extra materials either although I think i would rather keep that and my repro rates of loot drops.
Slot removal sounds interesting, but that really lessons the point of a research POS, which is then totally killed off by the not being able to remote research lock downed BPOs in a NPC station.
More commentary in a future post |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 03:55:00 -
[723] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:[quote=GreasyCarl Semah]The station slot changes are what justifies the POS changes. Without the station changes the POS changes are just unnecessarily punitive to POS owners. And without the POS changes the station slot cost scaling can be risklessly bypassed.
Now we are going to make the case that POSes have zero risk. I don't even know why I bother reading the garbage in these threads.
|
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
106
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:04:00 -
[724] - Quote
CCP please surprise me and respond to this post.
I really like almost all of this blog.
However.
STANDINGS.
this will be the second or 3rd change to standings that is removing an element from the sandbox.
I would like to see you give standings more meaning and importance. Especially in Highsec. I think it is an interesting mechanic that adds depth to the game-play and creates variety in identity and groups in the game.
It adds a value to the player or corp that has worked to gain standings to anchor a POS in highsec. It used to mean something in FW, and it used to be able to give RP players another layer to judge other players in game.
It seems in regards to standings you keep making the game easier (and I hate to say it but it certainly appears with the direct benefit of assisting the nullsec alliance players.) One of the good balance points was most Nullsec entities were limited in high sec or forced to use smaller alt corps or higher mercs to have a safe highsec POS or industry wing.
I absolutely think that there should be more risk and reward for all activities that occur in Nullsec, but they don't need easier access to run rough shod over highsec. Standings is a good mechanic to help vary the power bases into different areas of the game and I think you should reconsider this change.
Also I did not see you give any good reason for removing it and I think I have presented some good reasons for keeping it.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:08:00 -
[725] - Quote
I am entirely supporting of removing the standings grind. I don't think grinding should be part of the game at all.
If you could buy standings (as in tags for sec status) then I wouldn't mind retaining the standings requirement. But not if you have to grind those mind numbing missions. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Nick Bete
The Scope Gallente Federation
282
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:32:00 -
[726] - Quote
There's really no point in giving any "feedback"on any of this as it's a fait accompli and will be released as presented.
What I see here is a lot of stick and very, very little carrot. Looks like Dinsdale was right about the slow nerfing of high sec and CCP's dogged insistence on forcing players into low and null space. |
Nathalie LaPorte
Republic University Minmatar Republic
242
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:36:00 -
[727] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
Now we are going to make the case that POSes have zero risk. I don't even know why I bother reading the garbage in these threads.
Running an empty POS in highsec is extremely low risk. Focusing on minutia is what creates the garbage in these threads. You ask for elaboration, then pick on one unimportant detail. You should be thanking him for answering your question, instead.
Nick Bete wrote:]What I see here is a lot of stick and very, very little carrot.
I see a field where you can grow carrots, or sticks.
Perhaps we're each seeing what we want to see.
Why do you want to see a stick so badly? |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:36:00 -
[728] - Quote
Boltorano wrote:Utremi Fasolasi wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense. Nanites. Where does the nanite paste come from? That stuff isn't cheap you know. Considering that there are Remote Armor and Remote Hull Repair modules that run on Capacitor only, I don't think that it is a stretch to assume that free Repair in distant areas of space are based on the same mechanic :) |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:42:00 -
[729] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:CCP please surprise me and respond to this post.
I really like almost all of this blog.
However.
STANDINGS.
this will be the second or 3rd change to standings that is removing an element from the sandbox.
I would like to see you give standings more meaning and importance. Especially in Highsec. I think it is an interesting mechanic that adds depth to the game-play and creates variety in identity and groups in the game.
It adds a value to the player or corp that has worked to gain standings to anchor a POS in highsec. It used to mean something in FW, and it used to be able to give RP players another layer to judge other players in game.
It seems in regards to standings you keep making the game easier (and I hate to say it but it certainly appears with the direct benefit of assisting the nullsec alliance players.) One of the good balance points was most Nullsec entities were limited in high sec or forced to use smaller alt corps or higher mercs to have a safe highsec POS or industry wing.
I absolutely think that there should be more risk and reward for all activities that occur in Nullsec, but they don't need easier access to run rough shod over highsec. Standings is a good mechanic to help vary the power bases into different areas of the game and I think you should reconsider this change.
Also I did not see you give any good reason for removing it and I think I have presented some good reasons for keeping it.
One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1252
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:45:00 -
[730] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. This is extremely important so please deliver some news on it.
Removing the standing requirement means it is trivial for a large alliance to simply drop an unfueled small pos on every single moon in highsec and starve people out. Wardec costs will be huge for anyone trying to remove the pos'es while the alliance doesn't have to spend a cent on fuel for them to lock down the slot.
So there needs to be a way a small corp can get a slot without paying a massive wardec fee. If that is turning wardec costs on their head so that it's based on the size of your alliance, not the size of your target, so small corps can nibble cheaply around the edges of a large alliance. That works. A hacking mechanic also works. A decay mechanic also works. All three of these idea's also work together.
But there needs to be something. |
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2607
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:47:00 -
[731] - Quote
Caldari 5 wrote:One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space.
You are aware that a nullsec alliance can simply pay a standings service a few ISK (200m is the going price IIRC) to get them to create a new corp with 7.0 faction standings, have a member that's trusted with 5b take complete control of that corp, set up the 20 or whatever number HS POSes the alliance wants, and then admit the corp to join the alliance?
That is - exactly the same process that most (in the know) highsec research POSes are established with too, minus the part about joining the alliance. Only difference is, a tower bearing the alliance ticker "Goonswarm Federation" is more likely to be subject to wardecs and attacks than one bearing the ticker "Mission BLITZ".
Which is fine, because Goons can (if they care enough to bother) mount a fairly serious POS defense in highsec. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Unkind Omen
Next Day Sun
39
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:59:00 -
[732] - Quote
That's quite a bunch of great changes there. However, would you be so kind to NOT remove empire standing requirements for POS installation in high-sec, but decrease those by 2 instead, so that you can anchor POS at 0.5 with 3, 0.6 with 4 and so on. Please don't dumb the current EVE meta around corporation trading and at least some effort to have a POS in high-sec. Otherwise you will see people dodging offwars by just moving between corporations with no risk involved in the process of manufacturing.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
6336
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:59:00 -
[733] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Zifrian wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? It takes too long. 25 hours is GÇ£too longGÇ¥? Yeah, no. You're going to have to come up with something far better than that. What you're saying here is that the solution is ample, but you're simply too impatient. That's your problem, and not sufficient reason to change anything. Quote:The pos is abandoned or the corp doesn't care enough about it to fuel it and online it. It is literally taking up space for no other reason than to "save a spot". Yes? And? That's as good a reason as any. It's a resource, and they've claimed it. You can try to take it from them by starting a war, same as with any other large asset they have. If you're in a rush, have you tried making an offer to the corp for the spot? Quote:Change the rules: Abandoned POSs can be attacked with suspect flag. How do you determine what counts as GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥? It forces a pointless grind on the players for no benefit to any relevant party. It all makes sense, if the parties are actively defending it, since it gives them a chance to protect their assets and creates an opportunity for a fight between the attacker and the defender. An abandoned POS is an admission by neglect, that they have no interest in defending that asset and therefore the attacker is just forced to waste money and time on a grind, that doesn't make the game better, the attacker hates to do and the defender doesn't care about. The game will be better if there is a simpler and more convenient way to remove or re-purpose such assets by active players. There is a minor fringe where people might have temporarily forgotten their POS fuels and accidentally caused them to be "abandoned", but such cases could be easily handled by having a grace period before total defense shutdown on the POS, if you're inclined to cater to that fringe group. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:19:00 -
[734] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Caldari 5 wrote:One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space. You are aware that a nullsec alliance can simply pay a standings service a few ISK (200m is the going price IIRC) to get them to create a new corp with 7.0 faction standings, have a member that's trusted with 5b take complete control of that corp, set up the 20 or whatever number HS POSes the alliance wants, and then admit the corp to join the alliance? That is - exactly the same process that most (in the know) highsec research POSes are established with too, minus the part about joining the alliance. Only difference is, a tower bearing the alliance ticker "Goonswarm Federation" is more likely to be subject to wardecs and attacks than one bearing the ticker "Mission BLITZ". Which is fine, because Goons can (if they care enough to bother) mount a fairly serious POS defense in highsec. Personally I'd like to see that loophole closed, so that if a Corps Standings dropped below the required amount for more than 7 days then the Faction navy Turns up and starts shooting the POS(or other similar effect) |
E6o5
Tyler Durden Demolitions
262
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:22:00 -
[735] - Quote
Quote:Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course).
Are there still restircted to moons or how is anywhere defined exactly? I don't agree with the removal of standing requrements:
- it kills a mini profession (corp creation, tower setup service)
- it removes consequences from the game (you can have terrible standings standings with a faction by having fought them for years but can setup a tower in their territory)
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:32:00 -
[736] - Quote
E6o5 wrote:Quote:Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course). Are there still restircted to moons or how is anywhere defined exactly? I don't agree with the removal of standing requrements:
- it kills a mini profession (corp creation, tower setup service)
- it removes consequences from the game (you can have terrible standings standings with a faction by having fought them for years but can setup a tower in their territory)
Yes, still restricted to moons. Flick through the dev posts for confirmation.
I am very pleased standings are being removed. I don't like having to interact with any NPC in game, least of all the awful missions for grinding status. It is entirely artificial and a complete waste of time. NPC grinds is not what should define EVE. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
E6o5
Tyler Durden Demolitions
262
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:47:00 -
[737] - Quote
Tetania wrote:Ok. I'm intrigued and I'll wait patiently for the rest of the plan to be unveiled.
As someone who builds Titans I'd just like to get another voice behind considerations for POS building.
Reducing copy time would certainly be viable for Hull Building after a brief delay to get copies started after the first post patch build that will be fine.
Components tho. Assuming a 1man corp which is going to be a must without lockdown. You still need to keep either 30Bil of BPOs in a POS anc choose betwen gambling on a successful defense or destroying around 20Bil in minerals to retrieve the BPOs while the POS is being reinforced. Or drastically increase your hauling from Refine minerals in station and haul to POS in system. To Refine minerals in Station and haul through a stargate to an Amarr station and then haul components from station to POS to build the ship off a BPC.
I already use 8 freighters multiboxed and consider the existing movement excessive. This would be hundreds of trips.
Upping the copies on a component BPC to 45-50 would be start as long as copy time is <= build time.
Otherwise allowing mineral recovery when jobs are cancelled would be an option but it forces a very very high attention level on POSes and makes eve a literal job to avoid catastrophic loss of assets.
I know supercap builders are the 1% but please don't make the extreme edge cases of ****** mechanics worse for us.
Death to all supers :P |
Ming The Merciless
Orbital Reclamation Services
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:50:00 -
[738] - Quote
I tried really really hard to read all the comments up to this point. So please forgive me if I missed where any of my questions or points where answered.
We(my corp) own a lot of BPO's, and we've spent a very very large amount of time and Isk(fuel/bpo cost) researching the ME and PE of those BPO's(like a crazy amount of time/research). We currently have a research and production POS setup. The BPO's live in a station, and are free to use for the members of the corporation remotely at the POS. We(the corporation) own and bought them, and we(the corporation) did the research to get them to where they are today. They are extremely valuable. For that reason they are locked down, non-removable from the station where we have our corp office. Nobody besides the CEO is trusted to be able to take/move them.
It is my understanding that with the changes proposed, we will no longer be able to copy or research the BPO's using our POS without them being moved to the POS because the station were our corp office is does not have copy or research slots(and i didn't see anywhere in the current announcement that they where adding all flavors of slots to all stations, maybe 4th blog that happens). In fact, there are only 32 stations in all of the Metropolis region that have copy/ME or PE research slots. 32 stations out of 432 stations in the region.
I'm also going to guess that of those 32 stations a majority have their corp office rosters full or nearly full so moving to them is not currently really an option.
So if all of that is correct, what I see for my loyal employees and corp mates is an end to the way we operate. We will not be moving our BPO's to our POS - One extended illness or a two week holiday could result in returning to what has literally taken years and hundreds of man/woman hours to build and research destroyed by medical treatments or vacation.
We won't be moving our BPO's to a new corp office in another place because those places are few and far between, and I'm guessing the moons will be just as scarce in those systems.
Even if we moved the low value BPO's to the POS the "POS" isn't a thing, it's a collection of separate containers that would need blueprints moved around depending on what somebody was trying to do, ME/PE/Invent/Build because that's where the slots were/are open.(Future dev blogs may explain how that might be mitigated). As CEO I like my guys;however, i don't trust them as far as I can hit with 1400 artillery so I would have to be out there moving them around for them. Not what I signed into do all day in my "game".
So lucky me I guess. I(as CEO) will be the sole person who can use our BPO's with any semblance to the way things used to be. I can sneak them out to the POS and put them in a secured division hangar of whatever module I need them in, and use them and sneak them back to the corp office at the station when I'm done. But it will be me and me alone because...
1. Only a small number of stations can do copies/me/pe research, and we don't live at/near one. 2. Our POS would need the BPO's at it to do ME/PE/Copies and that isn't worth the risk or micro-management.
Did i interpret the proposed changes correctly based on my current scenario?
Not looking for non-constructive feedback from nullsec sov holding, blue doughnut living-in "industry guru's" I acknowledge ahead of time we play the game differently and that's Ok; However, I believe(maybe wrongly) that many high/low/nullsec small time Indy groups will be affected similarly. |
Royaldo
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
103
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:51:00 -
[739] - Quote
Its good, industry needed some help. However, I am a little ... well not impressed.
Tbh it sounds like a boring expansion. "Volvo, its boxy but good". Kinda like that.
The last good expansion was the wormhole one. Cus it added new CONTENT. SEXY CONTENT.
Just saying, this is a bit dry and boring. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
314
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:11:00 -
[740] - Quote
Ming The Merciless wrote:I tried really really hard to read all the comments up to this point. So please forgive me if I missed where any of my questions or points where answered.
We(my corp) own a lot of BPO's, and we've spent a very very large amount of time and Isk(fuel/bpo cost) researching the ME and PE of those BPO's(like a crazy amount of time/research). We currently have a research and production POS setup. The BPO's live in a station, and are free to use for the members of the corporation remotely at the POS. We(the corporation) own and bought them, and we(the corporation) did the research to get them to where they are today. They are extremely valuable. For that reason they are locked down, non-removable from the station where we have our corp office. Nobody besides the CEO is trusted to be able to take/move them.
It is my understanding that with the changes proposed, we will no longer be able to copy or research the BPO's using our POS without them being moved to the POS because the station were our corp office is does not have copy or research slots(and i didn't see anywhere in the current announcement that they where adding all flavors of slots to all stations, maybe 4th blog that happens). In fact, there are only 32 stations in all of the Metropolis region that have copy/ME or PE research slots. 32 stations out of 432 stations in the region.
I'm also going to guess that of those 32 stations a majority have their corp office rosters full or nearly full so moving to them is not currently really an option.
So if all of that is correct, what I see for my loyal employees and corp mates is an end to the way we operate. We will not be moving our BPO's to our POS - One extended illness or a two week holiday could result in returning to what has literally taken years and hundreds of man/woman hours to build and research destroyed by medical treatments or vacation.
We won't be moving our BPO's to a new corp office in another place because those places are few and far between, and I'm guessing the moons will be just as scarce in those systems.
Even if we moved the low value BPO's to the POS the "POS" isn't a thing, it's a collection of separate containers that would need blueprints moved around depending on what somebody was trying to do, ME/PE/Invent/Build because that's where the slots were/are open.(Future dev blogs may explain how that might be mitigated). As CEO I like my guys;however, i don't trust them as far as I can hit with 1400 artillery so I would have to be out there moving them around for them. Not what I signed into do all day in my "game".
So lucky me I guess. I(as CEO) will be the sole person who can use our BPO's with any semblance to the way things used to be. I can sneak them out to the POS and put them in a secured division hangar of whatever module I need them in, and use them and sneak them back to the corp office at the station when I'm done. But it will be me and me alone because...
1. Only a small number of stations can do copies/me/pe research, and we don't live at/near one. 2. Our POS would need the BPO's at it to do ME/PE/Copies and that isn't worth the risk or micro-management.
Did i interpret the proposed changes correctly based on my current scenario?
Not looking for non-constructive feedback from nullsec sov holding, blue doughnut living-in "industry guru's" I acknowledge ahead of time we play the game differently and that's Ok; However, I believe(maybe wrongly) that many high/low/nullsec small time Indy groups will be affected similarly.
Not to mention having to lock/unlock 100s of BPOs everytime you decide to move because of changes in prices or whatnot,
|
|
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:22:00 -
[741] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Alyxportur wrote:You didn't explain how the price scaling will or will not be implemented for sovereignty nullsec. Does this mean that outposts will be forced into this pricing scheme? or will they remain a manually specified cost? or will we have the ability to choose between one or the other since, as it is nullsec, we own the outpost. They did: outposts have the same cost scaling mechanic and that part goes into a sink, the station owner can also manually specify a cost. What was not specified is how fast they scale up - if, say, an amarr station with 100 simultaneous jobs has the same cost as a highsec station with 100 or if its lower, and I assume that will be mentioned when they also mention what they're doing with the slot bonus upgrades.
Perhaps the upgrades reduce the scaling costs by a %.
It would be nice if players were able to use the mechanic to dynamically calculate fees though. It would mean an empire's income could automatically adjust to wherever production and research occurs in their space stations. Such income doesn't compare to renter or moon income, so it doesn't seem likely to cause too much contention. Even if players don't get to use it, I suppose many of us are curious to know the actual algorithm for calculating the ISK sink fees. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:31:00 -
[742] - Quote
At the risk of giving poor Dinsdale an aneurism, what about allowing TCUs (or whatever) in highsec? These would not affect gameplay in any way other than giving the TCU holder a share of the industry fees that currently go to NPCs. For bonus points, allow the TCU holder to apply an additional percentage above the weighted 0-14% rate defined by usage.
It would definitely fuel highsec conflict. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:33:00 -
[743] - Quote
Royaldo wrote:Its good, industry needed some help. However, I am a little ... well not impressed.
Tbh it sounds like a boring expansion. "Volvo, its boxy but good". Kinda like that.
The last good expansion was the wormhole one. Cus it added new CONTENT. SEXY CONTENT.
Just saying, this is a bit dry and boring. You have clearly not done much industry. It badly needed an expansion. Or two. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
George Wizardry
Asian P0RN
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:35:00 -
[744] - Quote
Hi, I think modifying the game to allow more is great but........
To my untrained MMO eye it appears as if all the latest changes/additions to Eve are pushing more and more towards a pure PvP environment and so far away from the true sandbox of equal mix PvP/PvE as possible.
Creating POS's in all high sec just gives the PvP's a chance to wardec your corp and blow them up.
Variable costing of jobs sounds good but have a hard coded upper limit or make it that each job type will take a specific amount of time e.g copying takes 1 week + 1 day per copy
If CCP really wants to have more PvP in the game that's ok I'll stop playing but I have a better idea :)
With-in High/low and null-sec create solar systems ( preferably chained together so it is possible to avoid them ) dedicated PvP and PvE and mixed area's. PvP high sec has a timer that takes concord 2 or 3 times as long to respond and low and null sec the same as now. The PvE high/low/null area's players are unable to shoot at any other player unless shown as a criminal red tag. But the pirates/npc's are exponentially harder than the existing mixed area's e.g high sec gets pirate cruisers as standard, low sec gets pirate bc's and null gets pirate battleships along with making missions more difficult etc
For me this makes a lot more sense in that the sandbox is still open to all and includes all the changes you want to make while making a lot more ppl in both PvP and PvE groups happy :)
Just my $0.02isk worth |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:44:00 -
[745] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:El 1974 wrote:No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution. Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec?
EHP also needs to come down. The clutter in wormhole space tells us the problem is not limited only to highsec protection. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2609
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:53:00 -
[746] - Quote
Caldari 5 wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Caldari 5 wrote:One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space. You are aware that a nullsec alliance can simply pay a standings service a few ISK (200m is the going price IIRC) to get them to create a new corp with 7.0 faction standings, have a member that's trusted with 5b take complete control of that corp, set up the 20 or whatever number HS POSes the alliance wants, and then admit the corp to join the alliance? That is - exactly the same process that most (in the know) highsec research POSes are established with too, minus the part about joining the alliance. Only difference is, a tower bearing the alliance ticker "Goonswarm Federation" is more likely to be subject to wardecs and attacks than one bearing the ticker "Mission BLITZ". Which is fine, because Goons can (if they care enough to bother) mount a fairly serious POS defense in highsec. Personally I'd like to see that loophole closed, so that if a Corps Standings dropped below the required amount for more than 7 days then the Faction navy Turns up and starts shooting the POS(or other similar effect)
Why do you think that the game would be better if only the hardcore round the clock PVE players have access to highsec POS research?
Why not also impose other arbitrary grinds, like "You may not inject skillbooks for capital ships until you have completed 170 incursion sites", or "You may not copy blueprints until you have defeated 25 players in solo PVP?", or "You may not sit in a Hulk until you have suicide ganked four Hulks".
All of those requirements are significantly less onerous than the "your corp's average faction-to-player standing must remain above 7.0", and all are just as arbitrary.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2609
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:57:00 -
[747] - Quote
George Wizardry wrote:Hi, I think modifying the game to allow more is great but........
To my untrained MMO eye it appears as if all the latest changes/additions to Eve are pushing more and more towards a pure PvP environment and so far away from the true sandbox of equal mix PvP/PvE as possible.
Creating POS's in all high sec just gives the PvP's a chance to wardec your corp and blow them up.
Variable costing of jobs sounds good but have a hard coded upper limit or make it that each job type will take a specific amount of time e.g copying takes 1 week + 1 day per copy
If CCP really wants to have more PvP in the game that's ok I'll stop playing but I have a better idea :)
With-in High/low and null-sec create solar systems ( preferably chained together so it is possible to avoid them ) dedicated PvP and PvE and mixed area's. PvP high sec has a timer that takes concord 2 or 3 times as long to respond and low and null sec the same as now. The PvE high/low/null area's players are unable to shoot at any other player unless shown as a criminal red tag. But the pirates/npc's are exponentially harder than the existing mixed area's e.g high sec gets pirate cruisers as standard, low sec gets pirate bc's and null gets pirate battleships along with making missions more difficult etc
For me this makes a lot more sense in that the sandbox is still open to all and includes all the changes you want to make while making a lot more ppl in both PvP and PvE groups happy :)
Just my $0.02isk worth
Every single element of EVE has always been PVP, including the PVE. This isn't changing.
The other miner in the belt is competing for your asteroids. The other inventor in the system is competing for limited copy and invention slots. The other mission runner will loot Faint Epsilon Warp Scramblers every now and again, and each one they loot reduces the profit you get selling your ones. And that other mission runner is buying ammo, pushing up the price you pay for it. Every mission NPC you down adds more ISK into the overall game economy, contributing to inflation and thus hurting every single player with a positive wallet balance.
And that's not even touching on players shooting each other.
If you want non-PVP 'EVE', log into the test server, where the market is seeded by NPCs so you don't have to deal with real-loss PVP in trading. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2609
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:01:00 -
[748] - Quote
Zappity wrote:
EHP also needs to come down. The clutter in wormhole space tells us the problem is not limited only to highsec protection.
I don't have a problem with POS EHP in general, a large POS takes about eighty dreadnought-minutes to destroy - short enough to not drag, long enough to drive conflict.
It's disposing of POS clutter in areas where dreadnoughts are not allowed (highsec) or not realistic to field (C1-3 WH space and maybe C4) that is the problem. Instead of 80 dreadnought-minutes, you need 500 battleship-minutes. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Deep Space BORG Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:01:00 -
[749] - Quote
Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
That brings up some very important questions for me, as we currently have our blueprints "locked up" at a station that has neither production or research slots currently. Also the process of locking and unlocking them is a super huge hassle.
Will it be possible to lock them up at pos structures? We use this system to make them publically available to the corp, without the risk of them being stolen or taken away. With your new system it would be impossible to keep them locked up, what means they are gone from the avaiability for all. What is a very viable thing as we use them together, as something we worked for, and earned for all of us. Now we get them taken away cause of those changes?
Or will the lock up system changed dramatically, so it is easier to lock and unlock them in bulks? To lock and unlock them on starbase structurs, and that quickly enough to be unlockable if a starbase is under attack?
By forcing the blueprints to be within the starbase structure, you make the "locking up" mechanics unusuable. We would need a system to make them as save as currently for "public usage" within the corp, yet still preserve the ability to instantly take them out if the structure is in danger. How are you making this possible? How are you compensating for that?
Just thinking about having to unlock all of our corporation BPOs and to relock them somewhere else makes me cringe. This locking system is pure torture.
We need a new locking system for blueprints, that makes them save on starbases, yet also allows emergency takeout if it is under attack by authorized persons like CEO or directors. Without this system you are making blueprint ownership as a corporation that makes them available for all members a huge hassle that breaks some valuable "we earned this BPO together in a corporation event and now have it available for all" gameplay.
How are we supposed to use the advantage of our starbase, if we cannot provide the blueprints in the same way as before to everyone? Also our station has not a single rroduction or research line currently, so we also cannot use those to make copies to take out to the starbase.
And unlocking hundrets of BPOs with the current system, to transfer them to a station that has those lines, to lock them back up there? No thanks.. may we open tickets for GMs to do that for us? You after all force us to move them out..... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5354
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:07:00 -
[750] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: CCP, some slack???
First off, I fail to see how this is a huge nerf to Supercaps Online. A POS with BPO's in it has still less risk of being hit than a tower with a CSAA, since a CSAA is a beacon.
We still don't know about how heavy the impact of the new changes will be, so it's too early to get all hissy & pissy.
But what I know NOW is that I am surprised you compare and value a "mere" supercap risk with the risk losing its BPO, which has epically huge research costs.
Any alliance, actually any individual who's vaguely efficient (including me) can buy some supercaps "just because", ISK is not so hard to farm. But time is. Time is the most valuable commodity in game (and in RL), it's way more strategically important to efficiently employ time - including getting BPOs ready - than the mere products which cost a lot, but cost a disposable commodity (money).
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: And we all know that supercap mfg towers are seldom hit, though it does happen. goons don't even ALLOW their renters to make supercaps, and the goons have their industrial might buried deep in very safe enclaves.
They'd be totally dumb if the allowed that.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Don't compare Eve to Wow. You know better than that.
I don't compare them. I talk by difference. EvE is the one MMO meant to be "hardcore PvP sandbox", WoW is the casual player, mild paced (for most) theme park.
Yet it's in EvE that we find a whole totally non sandbox, protected area where one may entertrain in the most mild way.
Anyone who has been in Crossroads at level 10 and got PKilled for 1 hour trying to do their quests, knows this simple concept I am saying.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: These changes, along with the subsequent blogs, are targeted at wrecking high sec industry. If the CSM's goal with these changes was to reduce the amount of casual players subscribing to the game, they certainly have achieved it.
I have had to guard POSes in low sec and NPC null sec. It's a bit harsher than doing the same in hi sec, I doubt everyone will scramble to Goon-happy-lands (sov) or NPC null.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |