| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Garandras
Black Aces
Against ALL Authorities
185
   |
Posted - 2014.06.03 23:16:00 -
[121] - Quote
In the end Renting is a player mechanic
And the only thing that will top renting is if player stop paying
no matter what way the SoV Mechanics are changed, renting will still happen as the 'land lords' will just change the terms to fit within the new system. As the renters are not paying for the space itself, they are paying to not be shot at. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
268
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 00:06:00 -
[122] - Quote
Andski wrote:Tauranon wrote:CCP did something about it, they nerfed moongoo value, so that systems were more valuable to empires as living quarters than they were as empty buffer space around very-important-towers (tm).
Why is it good for nullsec
(a) rise in population
(b) rise in corporation units that are sized for small gang warfare, that are not deployed to strategic objectives, and thus are not fleeted up in strategic sized units.
ie its likely that a good 5 man crew will get a fight or at least intercept some unwary traffic in Vale, without much fear that the CFC will order a cleanup on aisle 9 and eject you with 100 ships when you finally made someone angry by shooting the wrong afktar. In fact they only come when you start with the SBUs or their goo towers, they don't do local security.
One imagines that careful observations of NA regions would also locate regions that provide content for small gangs.
I do think this is an intermediate phase for the game, a phase where the average bear has the opportunity to lose his or her fear of null, and if you are a risk averse highsec bear, this may be the best time ever to try nullsec life.
On the other hand, small gang warfare is irrelevant to the bigger picture. A coalition doesn't collapse because some ratters got blown up or because they lost roaming gangs to gate camps or logoff traps. 0.0 has greater access, sure, but not many people want to play feudalism in space other than botters, independent supercapital builders and multiboxing ratters.
Sounds like your problems centralise around AFK behaviour. When I was in CFC I observed 70+ people online at any time, but to type in chat and get a response? Maybe 2 people actually say Hi back. That's a pretty serious problem. Maybe sov should be more dynamic like FW where you can whittle down control instead of necessitating massive structure grinds all the time. Making towers consume 4x as much fuel too might help in cutting down the extraanneous grinding.
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
268
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 00:10:00 -
[123] - Quote
Garandras wrote:In the end Renting is a player mechanic
And the only thing that will top renting is if player stop paying
no matter what way the SoV Mechanics are changed, renting will still happen as the 'land lords' will just change the terms to fit within the new system. As the renters are not paying for the space itself, they are paying to not be shot at.
Wasn't this what easily scannable and destroyable mobile depots were supposed to help in solving? i.e. creating launch platforms for groups to destroy enemy infracstructure one bit at a time from the inside out?
It just doesn't work. You gotta make defence much more active. Make towers and POCOs and other trash structures not give out attack notifications. This one simple change alone would completely reshape nullsec and lowsec because guess what? You won't get any notification of being under attack unless you're actually in the vicinity and checking.
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
DownTwisTeD
KaMiKaZes
4
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 00:23:00 -
[124] - Quote
Its all about the landlords now in eve, we gotta take eve back.  |
Adunh Slavy
1470
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 01:03:00 -
[125] - Quote
More like feudal tithe than rent.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-á-á- William Pitt |
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
10829
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 02:27:00 -
[126] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Sounds like your problems centralise around AFK behaviour. When I was in CFC I observed 70+ people online at any time, but to type in chat and get a response? Maybe 2 people actually say Hi back. That's a pretty serious problem. Maybe sov should be more dynamic like FW where you can whittle down control instead of necessitating massive structure grinds all the time. Making towers consume 4x as much fuel too might help in cutting down the extraanneous grinding.
Nobody watches corp/alliance chat
Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Adira Nictor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
57
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 02:31:00 -
[127] - Quote
Tradari wrote:personally i would like to see systems that are not being used automatically drop sov over time.
IE you need to keep mil 1 or industrial 1 within the first 7 days of taking sov or it drops back to default claimable null sec. it will force large alliances to spread out to enable to hold vast areas.
That wouldn't work. Back in the day, before dominion, we didn't keep sov in every system, just a pos in the important ones with good moon goo. Otherwise it was left unclaimed. If we happened to notice that a small upstart alliance claimed the space on the sov map, we would go stomp them out.
This would still be true if it wasn't for renting this space to people instead of just sitting on the good moons. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1120
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 02:38:00 -
[128] - Quote
According to CCP, "the outer regions are a swirling maelstrom of capsuleer empires rising and falling in titanic struggles for power".
The rental empires are an embarrassment for the game design.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Tradari
Latex-Cuffs and High Heels
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 04:27:00 -
[129] - Quote
arr yes i remember now but there were plenty more heads of states back then but now were down to 3, are we going the way of the first china server where all of null sec was owned by one alliance? (so the rumours had it)
- maybe lose the standing markings so you don't know who is blue till you chat to them?
lose local maybe?
remove notifications of attacks (previous suggestion)
vastly high costs the more space you own (this could put renting out of reach to be cost effective maybe forcing to control smaller areas.
can only fuel pos's if you own sov? and you need to hold either military or industry 1 for sov to be claimed. + other mech to hold too.
throwing things out there lets see if this thread can be turned into best fixes rather than ask for a fix. |
Saracena
Infinatech
The Scourge.
35
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 06:08:00 -
[130] - Quote
You're looking at this 'problem' the wrong way. Renters are delicious and the more of them there, the better.
|
|
|
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
10829
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 09:11:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tradari wrote:arr yes i remember now but there were plenty more heads of states back then but now were down to 3, are we going the way of the first china server where all of null sec was owned by one alliance? (so the rumours had it)
- maybe lose the standing markings so you don't know who is blue till you chat to them?
lose local maybe?
remove notifications of attacks (previous suggestion)
vastly high costs the more space you own (this could put renting out of reach to be cost effective maybe forcing to control smaller areas.
can only fuel pos's if you own sov? and you need to hold either military or industry 1 for sov to be claimed. + other mech to hold too.
throwing things out there lets see if this thread can be turned into best fixes rather than ask for a fix.
All of your ideas are 1) awful and 2) only diminish quality of life in 0.0 without solving any of the inherent issues
Alliances holding huge amounts of space would simply create puppet alliances if per-system bills were increased with the number of systems held. Removing local and changing the way standings work won't change a thing (and just pulls more people towards highsec - screwing 0.0 over isn't a solution)
Requiring sov to drop towers is stupid
Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3675
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 09:41:00 -
[132] - Quote
Linking the bonuses of system upgrades to structures that could be disabled by small to medium roaming gangs would force the sov holders to maintain a presence at home to defend against incursions instead of projecting all of it at any time in any one battle.
This would also force renters to defend their system(s) or lose the advantage of sov renting and rely on the sov holder to repair/replace the structures who may become annoyed when they have to do it the xth time in x days and just kick the useless renters out.
Also it would promote small to medium gang warfare within sov claimed space. Maybe even have those structures drop some spoils for the raiders to take home.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics |
Lifelongnoob
The Motley Crew Reborn
25
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 11:29:00 -
[133] - Quote
renting suits a lot of player's game styles
not everyone has time to play to constant timers and some players like to just rat / plex exploration sites or do industry stuff.
if the big super blocs want to make easy isk for doing feck all except defend a timer every now and again fair play to them as it makes sense.
renter pays for use of system and gets infrastructure defense from it's landlord.
it is upto the renter to defend his or her assets against roaming gangs but if their pos/sov structures are attacked it means a timer which the super bloc's will fight to defend cos they sometimes get gudfites or super kills from it.
it is a fair deal. safer from invasion but still risky vs roaming gangs. keeps the renter on it's toes |
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Retribution.
184
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 12:49:00 -
[134] - Quote
Lifelongnoob wrote:renting suits a lot of player's game styles
not everyone has time to play to constant timers and some players like to just rat / plex exploration sites or do industry stuff.
if the big super blocs want to make easy isk for doing feck all except defend a timer every now and again fair play to them as it makes sense.
renter pays for use of system and gets infrastructure defense from it's landlord.
it is upto the renter to defend his or her assets against roaming gangs but if their pos/sov structures are attacked it means a timer which the super bloc's will fight to defend cos they sometimes get gudfites or super kills from it.
it is a fair deal. safer from invasion but still risky vs roaming gangs. keeps the renter on it's toes
I think you are missing the point slightly |
Sato Page
BLOOGDORY
126
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 13:27:00 -
[135] - Quote
OP should AFK cloaky camp some low true sec ratting system.
Dinsdale Pirannha for CEO of CCP |
Strat Plan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:37:00 -
[136] - Quote
Sato Page wrote:OP should AFK cloaky camp some low true sec ratting system.
Screw that. Just go there and ninja rat without paying rent. |
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Retribution.
184
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:57:00 -
[137] - Quote
Strat Plan wrote:Sato Page wrote:OP should AFK cloaky camp some low true sec ratting system. Screw that. Just go there and ninja rat without paying rent.
Ok let's get back on topic, ta..
I do feel that perhaps it's too late. CAN would have to do something radical to make it change and I don't think they are prepared to. Which could actually be there downfall but given these 2 coalitions holds a large majority of eve subscriptions and vets with multiple accounts I can't see them shaking things up.
Removing the grind of taking so would certainly help, meaning I hubs etc could be taken down quickly without the reinforce mode.
But I think alliances should be restricted to.the amount of sov they own perhaps.
It would be really interesting to hear more ideas on what could make this better but still make nulls fun and dynamic |
Varathius
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
52
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 16:25:00 -
[138] - Quote
why would that worry you? What you see is peace and prosperity? Why do you associate that with being worried ? Are you mad? You must be mad. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
6649
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 16:36:00 -
[139] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:
But I think alliances should be restricted to.the amount of sov they own perhaps.
How would this make any difference. What's to stop an alliance from just making more and more 'shell' alliances to hod space like "Rentistan Associates I, Rentistan Associates II" etc etc.
Most if the times when we hear ideas about various aspects of the game, the people with the ideas seem to not take into account lots of 'meta' issue like people owning more than one account/having alts, outside automation and things like that.
I've heard people say "limit the number of blues/make people pay for blue status" but that only works if CCP takes over the whole internet and then prvents people from making web pages and sites accessible via the ingame browser that lists 'blues' lol.
As long as their is any advantage whatsoever to numbers, to 'blobbing', to bringing more guns to a gun fight etc, you will have people who will find a way to side step any kind of potential road blocks a game maker tries to set up. |
De'Veldrin
Saint's Industries
Brothers of Tangra
2109
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 17:42:00 -
[140] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:tiberiusric wrote:
But I think alliances should be restricted to.the amount of sov they own perhaps.
How would this make any difference. What's to stop an alliance from just making more and more 'shell' alliances to hod space like "Rentistan Associates I, Rentistan Associates II" etc etc. Most if the times when we hear ideas about various aspects of the game, the people with the ideas seem to not take into account lots of 'meta' issue like people owning more than one account/having alts, outside automation and things like that. I've heard people say "limit the number of blues/make people pay for blue status" but that only works if CCP takes over the whole internet and then prvents people from making web pages and sites accessible via the ingame browser that lists 'blues' lol. As long as their is any advantage whatsoever to numbers, to 'blobbing', to bringing more guns to a gun fight etc, you will have people who will find a way to side step any kind of potential road blocks a game maker tries to set up.
Really this is the key - you can't impact the meta game with game mechanics. In the end what would need to change this is to change how rapidly alliances can respond to an attack, and how rapidly they NEED to respond to an attack. Now, they only need to respond once every seven days to prevent loss of sov. Even a crippled monkey with one bad eye could manage to move a defense fleet into position in that kind of time.
The only thing that would cripple the rental feudalism we have no is if the renters suddenly had to defend the space they were holding because their landlords couldn't deploy their own forces fast enough. That's where the power projection nerfs come in. if the renters suddenly have to defend the space, they're not going to want to rent it, they're going to want to own it - they may as well, since they now have the headaches of sov defense.
GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. |
|
|
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
Advanced Amateurs
1301
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 17:49:00 -
[141] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Xavier Higdon wrote:Inxentas Ultramar wrote:I agree with the OP somewhat, in the sense that large coalititions owning all this space and renting it out just creates an even bigger hurlde to act in defiance of the renting principle. When I look at the effort involved in dethroning these alliances I run into a tiny little problem called having a life and basicly not caring enough about a video game to spend the time / effort required to even make a dent in their dominion. I guess it's the same for most other players, so nobody is going to realisticly stop them.
I have started Eve about 3 years ago, and untill this very day you will have to pay me handsomely to bother with anyone else's nullsec power fantasy. The one time I've been in a nullsec alliance I hated everything about it, from the impossible logistics for newbies to the raging sperglords making dubious demands. To me, nullsec isn't even part of the game I play. It's another game that exists next to mine and occasionally spills over. Whatever happens in nullsec... I just don't care, I'm never going back anyway.
Too much of a casual to give a ****. RL says **** nullsec. Are you arguing that because you don't play the game as much as others, CCP should reward you by making it easier for you to take and hold sovereignty? That's a terrible excuse for why you don't do anything in game. The people controlling null sec now put in the time and effort to take control of such huge swathes of space, and you should have to put in at least as much time and effort to take it from them, plain and simple. he didn't say things you arguing with
Thank you. I do indeed not think CCP should anything. I just don't care because it's simply something I lack the time for so it's not something I even remotely consider feasable or fun. And as such I abstain from caring about sov. Please don't jump to conclusions, I enjoy Eve Online in much smaller tidbits of playtime and have found a suitable niche for myself outside of hisec. I don't need nullsec to enjoy myself, but I'm glad it exists for others with more time to enjoy.
You know what I think about those people who do the effort? Chapeau, well done, I clap from the sidelines and enjoy the show on Youtube. Just don't expect me to do the same or overly care who owns what. For the sake of discussion, the effort involved is offputting enough to not desire the reward at all. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
1845
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 19:06:00 -
[142] - Quote
Slumlords Online.
Thanks Alot Goons.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan
4860
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 19:11:00 -
[143] - Quote
cool story
"A naughty sarcastic nun that's come to whip me with a ruler." - Domanique Altares
"If someone doesn't appreciate your presence, make them appreciate your absence." - Anon. |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
749
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 19:31:00 -
[144] - Quote
The real problem is everyone but the CFC is a raging sperglord.
CFC is pretty laid back and helpful.
So everyone who refuses to join the CFC b/c of some contrived hate for goons (deserved or not) is going to run into ragers and bosses.
Not today spaghetti. |
Alternative Splicing
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 20:41:00 -
[145] - Quote
Zappity wrote:According to CCP, "the outer regions are a swirling maelstrom of capsuleer empires rising and falling in titanic struggles for power".
The rental empires are an embarrassment for the game design.
Yes, but the rental empires are a symptom, not the disease. Power projection is the disease. If you reset the game with the present capital and sov mechanics you would most likely get the same result with different names. It's almost assuredly an unintended consequence and not deliberate design. The game could be so much more, and so much more interesting if the mechanics did not dictate the present state of affairs. |
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan
4864
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 20:42:00 -
[146] - Quote
When two rental groups have a disagreement, are they allowed to fight?
"A naughty sarcastic nun that's come to whip me with a ruler." - Domanique Altares
"If someone doesn't appreciate your presence, make them appreciate your absence." - Anon. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3698
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 20:47:00 -
[147] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:When two rental groups have a disagreement, are they allowed to fight?
They get herded into a deadspace area where they need to fight it out with ships given to them by their overlords and the whole thing is streamed live for the royalty's and the peons' amusement.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics |
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan
4870
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 20:57:00 -
[148] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Ramona McCandless wrote:When two rental groups have a disagreement, are they allowed to fight? They get herded into a deadspace area where they need to fight it out with ships given to them by their overlords and the whole thing is streamed live for the royalty's and the peons' amusement.
*sniff* truly it is a wondrous time we live in
"A naughty sarcastic nun that's come to whip me with a ruler." - Domanique Altares
"If someone doesn't appreciate your presence, make them appreciate your absence." - Anon. |
Trin Javidan
Caymen Labs
23
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 21:09:00 -
[149] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:I dont know about you guys, but this really worries me. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/influence.pngThe entire south has become just rental, hundreds and hundreds of systems. Is it just me that sees something fundamentally wrong here? I dont disagree with renting a few systems out you own, but literally taking over regions purely to rent is another thing. This surely goes against what eve is about? Coalitions just having to do absolute minimum effort to hold these regions, dont even have to live in them! But its only the huge amount of supers and titans that stops anyone else even having a slight chance. Trillions and trillions of isk, and it will only get worse as the more money the more supers and titans etc etc. Will CCP ever do anything about this? Is it too late to? is eve heading in the wrong direction. Personally i think something needs to change but i think its too late and eve is heading for a disaster. troll away or not 
I warned CCP about this issue about a week after they "Fixed moongoo" and made technetium the "new thing".
I warned them multiple times on this forum with several alts and good contructive feedback post.
I betted with friends that they were too not smart to do something about it.
And i was right. Not that i care anymore tbh, hardly play anymore.... but hey look it from the brite side; "There are moar carebear tears to farm!!"
It is the transition from the "small eve harsh game" to "larger softer game for a bigger audiance".
Unfortualy eve is a monatairy game where having ISK is everything (in short; having power). Once obtained a certain amount, there is a possibility to just getinto/buy/hire/bribe more isk inform of whatever new thing is to be implementend to inprove the old mechanics. Therefor the butterfly effect prevents EVE being a "small harsh environtment" ever again.
Haha CCP told you so!  |
Trin Javidan
Caymen Labs
23
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 21:12:00 -
[150] - Quote
Andski wrote:It's not as if it's untrue
3 of the 4 top alliances by systems held are renter alliances. PBLRD, NA. and B0T combined are nearly equal in membership to the 3 largest PvP alliances.
This is worse than technetium.
And ppl still wonder why the PLEX price is so high |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |