| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1199
   |
Posted - 2014.07.05 09:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:7 minutes across the universe sure is kind of stupid for a ship like an archon when an interceptor need an hour.
Yeah, pretty much this. New Eden is far too small with the current mechanics.
More broadly, I WANT to want to go to null. But the current options of join the blob, bow the knee or rent have zero appeal for me. And no, I don't know how to fix it :)
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1205
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Just a few thoughts.
Premises
1. Sprawling empires are bad. This is bad because it makes it more difficult for smaller entities to get into the null game.
2. Dependence on a large number of players/allies to survive is bad. There is only one logical endpoint to this after a period of coalescence: two enormous coalitions which balance each other (see point 1).
3. Alliances would not form coalitions if they did not have to. I am assuming that lack of fights and a desire for independence would be enough to stop coalition formation if point 2 (i.e. survival) was solved.
Actions
1. Nerf power projection.
2. Institute GÇÿdynamic true secGÇÖ to increase rewards for active space and decrease rewards for inactive space against an unmodified sec.
3. Institute GÇÿdynamic defence indexGÇÖ to increase the defensibility of active space and decrease defensibility of inactive space. Somehow.
Results
Rental empires will be maintained as long as it is possible to defend multiple parts of your empire simultaneously over great distances. Nerfing power projection will increase the probability of successful rebellion and territorial wars. This will continue until the optimal empire size is achieved, i.e. small enough to adequately defend all borders.
Alliances need the ability to grow GÇÿupwardGÇÖ instead of sprawl GÇÿoutwardGÇÖ and this must include both rewards and defence. A GÇÿtallGÇÖ, active alliance should be very difficult (impossible?) to dislodge from a small area of the map. If an alliance chooses to grow upward (focus their activity in a smaller area of space) then they should attain greater income (GÇÿdynamic true secGÇÖ), preferably player-generated rather than moon-generated. They should also attain greater security as a natural consequence of concentrated force but also from sov mechanics (the GÇÿSomehowGÇÖ above), allowing them to defend against a stronger force (GÇÿdynamic defence indexGÇÖ).
Conversely, if an alliance chooses to grow outward then their reward is rental income. Power projection nerfs mean that such an alliance would be inherently unstable, vulnerable to coordinated attacks.
A potential problem with this approach is that an active rental alliance would also grow in defensive strength. Maybe that is alright if the renter would need to be involved in sov defence. If they are strong enough and good enough to repel a strong invader then the chance of rebellion would also be increased.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1216
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 00:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:Querns wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:The goon tag under his name basically put a lot of salt on any opinion he states defendign the status quo. Deconstructing a single idea due to its poor design is not the same thing as "defendign the status quo." I am not rejecting any changes to the status quo out of hand; merely attempting to cinch off an obviously faulty line of thinking before it gains traction and infects others. Goons are my Grrr space enemies but they are just people , good people playing a video game together as a community.
They are not being particularly constructive in this thread, though. After all, to say that you are only capable of punching holes in other people's theories is also saying that you are not imaginative enough to come up with solutions of your own. Such is tiring to read and liable to misinterpretation.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1229
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 07:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
Yeah, gotta say it's time for a blue F&I sticky. Everyone is disenchanted about sov and the discussion will not be productive for long. It has all been said too many times with bugger all actually done about it.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1229
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 08:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:Zappity wrote:Yeah, gotta say it's time for a blue F&I sticky. Everyone is disenchanted about sov and the discussion will not be productive for long. It has all been said too many times with bugger all actually done about it. Crius is a big first step to redoing nullsec. They have to attack the industry side first before they hit power projection and sov.
Yes, I agree. Crius is released tomorrow and invention will be dealt with subsequently. If power projection and sov is next it is surely time to start talking about it.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1229
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 08:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:Zappity wrote:Yeah, gotta say it's time for a blue F&I sticky. Everyone is disenchanted about sov and the discussion will not be productive for long. It has all been said too many times with bugger all actually done about it. Crius is a big first step to redoing nullsec. They have to attack the industry side first before they hit power projection and sov. Sorry , but this is not a reason why people should keep play eve , for next 17 or more months. People are asking for : - fixing sov - power projection - bridging I ask simple question : " WHY people should keep playing until current issues are fixed ?" I'm just saying CCP give us reason. People are angry , people are leaving. You cannot say "we will try to fix those issues within 2 years" 2 years is a lot of time. Half of a year is a lot of time. CCP needs to find a way to fix at least some issues , without this it will just bleed more and more players.
I think that CCP engaging seriously about upcoming changes WILL stop a lot of people leaving. Seeing the 'light at the end of the tunnel' will help.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1247
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 21:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
You might want to check out Seagull's Reddit thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2bp2cp/i_am_andie_nordgren_ccp_seagull_the_new_executive/
There are some interesting comments about null.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
1293
|
Posted - 2014.08.16 07:25:00 -
[8] - Quote
I have a prediction: Step 1 will be to greatly decrease sov structure EHP in systems with low indexes. Maybe make player-built stations destructible too. Step 2 will be support systems (corp roles, structures, POS etc as per Seagull's slide). Step 3 will be Sov 2.0 with player built gates and all the rest.
I think CCP understands the urgency and already have a plan for the next 12-18 months. But they won't make us wait that long without any changes at all. They will lead with tweaks designed to start shifting the player mindset in preparation for the eventual changes.
Come on Fozzie, 'fess up.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
| |
|