| 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 .. 62 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
10862
   |
Posted - 2014.08.05 14:14:00 -
[1111] - Quote
Snot Shot wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not only has the OP'ster abandoned this thread, but CCP Fozzie stopped reading it as well as we have not heard from either in a while......  .
You should know better by now. I read everything.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
235
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 14:19:00 -
[1112] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Snot Shot wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not only has the OP'ster abandoned this thread, but CCP Fozzie stopped reading it as well as we have not heard from either in a while...... . You should know better by now. I read everything.
So, new side gig at the NSA I see?
;^)
Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
870
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 14:19:00 -
[1113] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Snot Shot wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not only has the OP'ster abandoned this thread, but CCP Fozzie stopped reading it as well as we have not heard from either in a while...... . You should know better by now. I read everything.
cool then please tell Rise too get back to his HAC thread please.. also besides battleship tweaks .. are we getting anything else ??
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Anthar Thebess
635
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 14:20:00 -
[1114] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Snot Shot wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not only has the OP'ster abandoned this thread, but CCP Fozzie stopped reading it as well as we have not heard from either in a while...... . You should know better by now. I read everything.
Any hints when and what can happen?
Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
Snot Shot
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
834
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 14:24:00 -
[1115] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Snot Shot wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not only has the OP'ster abandoned this thread, but CCP Fozzie stopped reading it as well as we have not heard from either in a while...... . You should know better by now. I read everything.
I knew I could get you out from under your bridge....
.
Twitter = @Snot_Shot-á - GÇ£If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"
evesnotshot.blogspot.com |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
395
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 14:59:00 -
[1116] - Quote
Here's a few I have thought of off the top of my head and/or heard suggested outside this thread. I'm sorry if it has been mentioned before, and I haven't thoroughly examined them so they may be very bad.
- Attack Battleships with Capital Guns
- New Ship/Module that can cyno jam the system, unable to receive RR while jammer is active (works in lowsec)
- New EW module that reduces RR on a target
- AOE Web, used for countering fighters/drones?
- Warp disruptor, scram, bubble prevent / shut off cynos
- Slash all capital jump drives / bridges, jump bridges by 75%
- Bridging ships jump with the fleet to the cyno, not act as mobile stargates. (Homeworld?)
- Secret bases that need to be found? POS that sends no notification to sov holder and cloaks when not in use, no ships in range. Or.. unscannable base with corp. personal and ship arrays.
- Change sov to be based on activity instead of only HP grind. (Unattended system's control wanes as NPC pirates harass the locals & structures, rises with active hunting of the NPC bases & rats?)
- Separate sov & station control.
- Allow multiple stations per system.
- Allow stations be destroyed... via a long complicated method of course.
- Stations require freight loads of fuel/materials to operate. If fuel runs out station services & shields drop.
- Stations have shields which can be reinforced. Once shields/reinforcement timers are down, Dust/Legion mercenaries can be docked to take over the station.
- Allow structures (Stations, POCO, POS, stargates) to be built by combat engineers (T2 logi frigs?). Corporations working together with several such ships can speed up construction of a single structures.
- Allow structures, POS, POCOs, to be captured or destroyed.
- Allow self destruction of said structures. Self destructed structures are hard to remove and require more effort to clear/rebuild (scorched earth policy?)
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cult of Mooby
224
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 16:48:00 -
[1117] - Quote
Idea: Improve Null Sec for the large power blocs by screwing over WH'ers with jump spawn mechanics that favor large entities. This will make it even easier for Goon alts and the rest of Null sec to expand into wormholes and bring their super exciting play style of "Slumdog Millionare" to the J-space.  |
Kira Hizu
PH0ENIX COMPANY
Northern Associates.
7
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 06:13:00 -
[1118] - Quote
The changes should be tested and try out before we do anything now. Last few changes to null sec, we cry for more changes. Tweats would be best idea for now. Here are some ideas...
Large alliances must defend their space period....
Ihub, stargates, stations, starbase all get max of 12 hour timer MAX. You only get one timer.
All of them get reduce hit points -50% for. Bring your gang of 25 guys and take that system in 12 hours.
Make it harder for people to hold space if they can't defend it out side the timer hours they should not be able to afk. We want more fights and less waiting for fights. Force their hand faster no longer and wait days for nothing to happen.
Next local in null sec can be easy changed. I seen people use ESS around wormhole space, and it would say person enter system. To counter this just kill the module unit on star-gate.
Other thing I would like to happen is Sov on star map be removed, if it's not clamed it should not be seen at all. Use eve dot map and check to see if the system is being used that easy for intel now indays. You clam it the system it should show it on the star map.
Last but least hacking star gate routes. People should be able to hack a star gate and point it at other system .
Corp should not have a standing system only alliances should have this option. Since you pay upkeep fee for alliance you should have to do the same for settings per mount 1-5 50 million and 5-10 100m per month. |
Anthar Thebess
637
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 07:16:00 -
[1119] - Quote
I think the overall goal of what people state here is that : timers are depended on alliance members activity in the system.
The more people do in a system - the longer timers ( or even more adjustable timers ) and more EHP on structures.
Ownership of some system infrastructure can shift to most active corporation in this system.
On the opposite : if there is no activity, or activity in the system is minimal timers become shorter and shorter.
Structure EHP drops , and system is easy to take by any one within few hours.
What kind of activity we are talking about :
Active:
- Ratting
- Mining
- PVP
Passive:
- Science and industry on a station / pos
- Poses
Of course active activities should be much , much more important than passive ones.
Why?
Because if CCP allow for indexes to be keep up while only passive activity is taking place then people will just :
- put some poses where they will be mining , reacting , researching
For example.
1.Create unskilled character, install corp ME jobs on small pos.
They will take ages to complete , and you will be just paying for the fuel of a smart pos , partially refunded by outcome Blueprint.
2. It is easy to find in a system a moon that will have 2 items you can react , very often this reaction will make up for the pos fuel costs, but it will not brining you any profit.
Remember also that for setting up a pos you don't need to have sov.
Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
86
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 09:21:00 -
[1120] - Quote
The discussion has degraded to just throwing random ideas.
Folks, before you change something - you set the goals for that change. Only after that it's reasonable to discuss any feats and perks that you suggest to see if they can accomplish the goals. You dont jump out and shout "my idea will change EVERYTHING, and for good of course!"
So what is your goal?
- To have more fights? Alright, but no changes needed. Join FW and you have them.
- Assist people to build their own homes? Then you should explain exactly why a hostile TCU prevents them from doing it.
- Want more engaging industry? (Yes, that was mentioned in the OP among the other things.) Hell yeah, let's change mining first!
Or what? |
Anthar Thebess
638
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 13:44:00 -
[1121] - Quote
This are random ideas.
Because CCP is not talking with us.
Not asking what things we think about certain approach or change.
It is not asking what kind of holes players can find in system they are designing BEFORE putting a lot of time an money into creating it.
Here you have ideas of people that actually play in this game.
You have information what is broken, or what could bring something new to the game.
You stated : more pvp - join FW.
For me this is a bit unacceptable NPC nullsec and Lowsec are totally different.
For example, i will gladly join FW when CCP remove/ allow in Lowsec :
- gate/station guns ( why some NPC say i cannot shoot to any one?)
- allow dictor / hictor / anchorable bubbles.
- bomber bombs
etc
Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
819
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 14:42:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:The discussion has degraded to just throwing random ideas.
Folks, before you change something - you set the goals for that change. Only after that it's reasonable to discuss any feats and perks that you suggest to see if they can accomplish the goals. You dont jump out and shout "my idea will change EVERYTHING, and for good of course!"
So what is your goal?
- To have more fights? Alright, but no changes needed. Join FW and you have them.
As far as I can tell, the goal is to make nullsec more vibrant, increase the possibilities for a much larger cross section of the population without necessitating joining the two current powerhouse blocs, increase the probability of encountering pvp content, make the pursuit of wealth and industry more viable in nullsec, reduce the ability to have sov sprawl and reduce the ability of large coalitions to travel everywhere in EVE quickly to make fleet positioning more tactical whilst not adversely affecting the other areas of EVE, namely WH, low sec, high sec and non-sov null.
You're massively over simplifying the goal here. You can't just break it down to individual disconnected goals and say "hey, you can do something similar so you're already fine! Quit whining" because most of the goals are interconnected. Whilst I'm fairly certain that various play styles will be affected, some adversely, by the changes which are inexorably coming to nullsec, it needs to be a net improvement overall. From what I've read of your comments you're likely to be one of those adversely affected but don't fret, you won't be alone. I probably will be too but it still needs to be done.
Skia Aumer wrote: - Assist people to build their own homes? Then you should explain exactly why a hostile TCU prevents them from doing it.
- Want more engaging industry? (Yes, that was mentioned in the OP among the other things.) Hell yeah, let's change mining first!
Or what?
I've noticed over a lot of your posts in this thread that you seem to confuse owning a system with living in a system. There is a difference. In the latter, you're a nomad living in someone else's space (NPC or sov owner) and no one can really affect you unless you put all your stuff in their station and they lock you out of it (if sov - if NPC there's nothing anyone can do short of hellcamping the station you're in). If you just live there, from a POS, NPC station or whatever, you don't own the system even if you and your friends terrorise those who own the sov. You're still just a nomad. In the former you own the system and any stations in it so you can actually be forced out. You can have your system taken from you. There is significantly more risk to owning a system than just living in it. One might argue that sov if a pointless waste of time due the additional risk but then one can also argue that it's worth it to have jump bridges, outposts, system upgrades etc. It's all a matter of perception and choice.
Whilst this distinction might not mean anything to you it does to some people which is fine. The fact that we have lots of people with different opinions on what defines "winning" makes for a more vibrant and fun game, frankly. |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1253
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:17:00 -
[1123] - Quote
The only thing that I want to keep harping on (apologies), is that continued conflict needs to be directly tied to ISK generation at the atomic level of any new SOV 2.0 mechanic...
If you harness the motivator of ISK and greed, (starting with base nerfs to all ISK generation in null and restoring it through conflict-driven buffs or awards), you will really be onto something.
The details don't matter in truth, as long as you get that core design philosopy correct, that at the alliance level there is always friction & drive to attack someone else's held systems to get moar ISK for your alliance.
This is the key. IMHO.
F
Would you like to know more? |
Shalmon Aliatus
Bluestar Enterprises
The Craftsmen
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:51:00 -
[1124] - Quote
Some random Ideas from someone who knows next to nothing about null:
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Deklein#npc24
If you take a look at the dotlan map, you see that you got 10k+ NPC kills D-AWFI constellation. We all are used to NPCs not being very smart, but you would think if you kill 60k+ NPCs in a constellation, that you would get some kind of change. The change at the moment is an increase in the military level, which allows you to shoot at more NPCs.
I am glad that I am not a member of the NPC pirates, because it seems like they like to throw their pilots into a meatgrinder.
Same goes for the industry level. If you dig gold in a gold mine, it will be empty at some point. In EVE the goldmine gets bigger (regular belts get smaller, but you get gravi sites, which always have the same amount of ore in them)
Here are my suggestions for the new mechanics:
1. Every Null-Sec (including NPC null) System startst at Military Level 5. Industy Level 5
2. If you do mining or ratting up to a certain point, the level decreases
3. Systems with lower True-Sec regenerate their Level faster
4. At Level 4+ (or 5) a NPC site spawns every 4 hours, cyno-jamming the system (except for black-ops cyno) until it is killed.
This will motivate players to spread out, if they want Lvl 5 all the time, or farm a system until it reaches Lvl 4 and move on to the next system (if they do carrier ratting they have to clear the cyno-jamming site first. Small corp or alliances won't get the lvl of the system low enough and if they do, they probably got enough members to claim another system. Big alliances are forced to keep at least their logistic route clear from the cyno-jam sites, making logistics and force projection a little harder, but I am sure they can manage it. Depending on Military Level and True-Sec the site gets harder (I was thinking about Incursion-site hard, maybe with a HQ Site for -1.0)
With systems cyno-jammed by default, unless you do black-ops or take a fleet there by gate travel and clear the site, I also see an opportunity for the rorqual to be useful again. Give it an industrial counterpart of the cyno and the jump portal, so it can jump fleets of mining ships. With the prospect ORE has a covops frigate to set up the industrial cyno, the rorqual can bridge ships to the cyno and jump on it (expect for usual cyno, a very small ship maintenance (5 hulks, rly ?) and the clone bay that puts me in an empty clone that I will have to destroy after the mining op). The mining op can be dropped by black-ops or other mining fleets (I know there are guys who will do this in battleskiffs :D), unless you kill the cyno-jamming site.
So thats just me writing some stuff, tell when I am missing something (like I said, I don't live in null, )
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Mordus Angels
1973
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 23:04:00 -
[1125] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
You should know better by now. I read everything.
I'm sure much of the playerbase would find it reassuring to know your general thoughts on the matter in very broad strokes. You may have noticed some of the recent threads that cropped up from certain disgruntled parties.
Things like: "we would like to implement a facwar-like system that focuses on many small engagements" or "we will work within the framework of a single monolithic engagement, but are considering reducing structure ehp and timer duration." Not asking for numbers, even something as simple as "yes, we think ihub ehp is excessive" would be nice to hear.
In that light, you may get some useful (and focused) feedback so that you don't get the backlash you've seen from wormholes with your 20km or w/e cap spawning idea. That feedback may improve the end product, and it may serve to reassure disillusioned vets about the future of their favorite game. |
Anthar Thebess
640
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 06:43:00 -
[1126] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:[quote=CCP Fozzie]
" Not asking for numbers, even something as simple as "yes, we think ihub ehp is excessive" would be nice to hear.
Something more or less im trying to get here.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=362677
The real question should be :
- can we get fast rebalance of those structures.
All EHP / Timer Length is stored in database, you can replace them during a DT to create some ease for players , or spark some new conflict that will provide us some fun , until rest of the changes arrive.
Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
296
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 08:15:00 -
[1127] - Quote
A lot of my friends have been quitting nullsec to join faction war. Not only sov-holders but also guys who live in NPC nullsec. I'll probably be doing this myself soon, as even NPC null seems to be getting stale.
CCP take note, players are having fun with FW, not with nullsec.
When my corp lived in Stain, we controlled a number of systems. Of course we didn't have a TCU or own the stations, but we did actively patrol the area and try to hunt down and kill any intruders. So we controlled those systems by projecting what force we had and actually living in and using those systems. All without silly structures with millions of EHP and timers.
Don't Panic.
|
Marox Calendale
Human League
28
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 08:48:00 -
[1128] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Snot Shot wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not only has the OP'ster abandoned this thread, but CCP Fozzie stopped reading it as well as we have not heard from either in a while...... . You should know better by now. I read everything.
So when are you working Fozzie? Or don-¦t you have any Family to spent time with? Reading all this stuff may take so much time, that there might be not enough for doing anything else |
Anthar Thebess
640
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 09:13:00 -
[1129] - Quote
Or just create script , that notifies you about every post where it find specific string ;)
Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1264
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 13:43:00 -
[1130] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:The only thing that I want to keep harping on (apologies), is that continued conflict needs to be directly tied to ISK generation at the atomic level of any new SOV 2.0 mechanic... If you harness the motivator of ISK and greed, (starting with base nerfs to all ISK generation in null and restoring it through conflict-driven buffs or awards), you will really be onto something. The details don't matter in truth, as long as you get that core design philosopy correct, that at the alliance level there is always friction & drive to attack someone else's held systems to get moar ISK for your alliance. This is the key. IMHO.
p.s.
Super-gates, any new SOV v2.0 needs to include Super-gates. (No, not just gates for 'supers', but super-duper-big-to-new-places gates as envisioned by CCP...)
F
Would you like to know more? |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
840
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:28:00 -
[1131] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:The only thing that I want to keep harping on (apologies), is that continued conflict needs to be directly tied to ISK generation at the atomic level of any new SOV 2.0 mechanic... If you harness the motivator of ISK and greed, (starting with base nerfs to all ISK generation in null and restoring it through conflict-driven buffs or awards), you will really be onto something. The details don't matter in truth, as long as you get that core design philosopy correct, that at the alliance level there is always friction & drive to attack someone else's held systems to get moar ISK for your alliance. This is the key. IMHO. p.s. Super-gates, any new SOV v2.0 needs to include Super-gates. (No, not just gates for 'supers', but super-duper-big-to-new-places gates as envisioned by CCP...) F
Oh so you want to delay the overhaul of the current sov mechanics until the super gate stuff is ready? Yeah, great idea man 
Seriously the sov issue solution can be summerized in a few words: Residence based sovereignty. In other words; you can't claim to own a system if you don't actually use said system and are never there. It's an idea that has been mentioned since Sov was first introduced and it's still how Sov should be working.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 18:12:00 -
[1132] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Snot Shot wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not only has the OP'ster abandoned this thread, but CCP Fozzie stopped reading it as well as we have not heard from either in a while...... . You should know better by now. I read everything.
I'll try to make this short and to the point. I will probably leave some points out for simplicity's sake. There are a ton of ideas in this thread that I didn't read, so sorry if some of this is repeating.
Current Sov System - My Perspective
Before suggesting a bunch of new changes, you need to look at the Idea of Sov space and the current problems preventing that idea from being a reality.
Sov Space Should:
- Generate more rewards than high/low sec
- Have higher risks, such as no CONCORD security
- Be a goal for players and groups to claim "their own space"
- Promote destruction (consumption) by rewarding attacking and defending
- Enable alliances to build footholds in space where they have an established presence.
Current Sov Space:
- Provides income via r64 moons, even if an alliance has no sov in that system
- Allows alliances to control vast regions of space with little or no daily presence (see: PL). This space is then rented for a fee.
- Provides nearly no incentive to go to war.
- Does not allow for newer groups to successfully establish themselves in 0.0 (aside from renting- not a function of the game)
- Serves as a deterrent for newer players- a few powerful groups effectively control all of 0.0 space.
There are some major problems with the current sov system. r64 moons providing huge amounts of income for very little persistency investment allows for large entities to easily snipe those moons without actually having a presence in that space. Once an existing coalition controls an r64 moon, it is extremely to take it away from them in the current state of the game.
Renting is also a major issue- entities are able to control huge amounts of space and rent that space without having any sov rights or presence in those systems. Aside from the gigantic income earned from renting, the lack of presence by the controlling alliance means that there are less points of conflict in those systems. Forcing alliances to have presence in systems to reap the advantages leads to more destruction and consumption, which benefits everyone. If you don't believe me, check out the Deklein killboards lately.
Mittani has made this point several times- we have no reason to go to war to try to take more space, because the incentive just isn't there. Grinding timers to take sov is incredibly boring and takes hundreds or thousands of man hours. It is not fun, and no one wants to do it. All the current coalitions control renting territory, and a war to take sov would cost significantly more than it would benefit either side.
How do you expect to advertise Eve as "Endless Opportunities*" in the current state of Sov? Endless Opportunities.... unless you want to live in 0.0, because then you're stuck in Provi (which has sub par space) or forced to pay an existing coalition rent in a system that you have nearly no control over. The current sov system provides no feeling of "ownership" or investment- players want to be able to invest their resources and energy to provide meaningful benefits in space that they own.
Proposed Changes:
- Remove r64 as a major source of income. Add more moons, require sov in null to mine r64s, etc.
- Require a presence in systems to control sov. Otherwise, make sov more expensive with a reducing cost based on how much activity is there.
- Provide more incentives for working in and upgrading your sov space. Look at FW for an example of tiers, combat possibilities, mission running, etc. (These incentives should provide more value to corps/alliances than existing rental income, or make the rental mechanic more costly to provide less income).
- Create a Sov based LP system that allows corps/alliances to purchase upgrades for their territory or to purchase specialized ships or equipment (or permanent teams?). I hate to even say this name, but look at how WoW implemented guild upgrades- I'm positive that CCP can do better than that.
- Alliances should function like a faction when they have 0.0 sov. Make war decs meaningful in 0.0. Perhaps you can only take sov space while at war, and perhaps being at war is more meaningful than the current state?
These are just some ideas. There are a lot of other good ones that I've quickly browsed through in this thread.
The end goal of these changes is not just to fix the situation for the major coalitions. We need more new players in Eve. More players leads to more consumption, which benefits everyone- even if they want to spend their entire eve careers shooting rocks. We need people to "grow" from high-sec to 0.0 because there are real, meaningful, incentives there. We need more wars. Things blowing up drives the economy - even if you're not part of a war, you are affected by it. Also, wars are great publicity.
If Fozzie wants to respond- is CCP actively working on something for Sov, or are there just ideas on a white board? This is a major issue, and I hope that CCP realizes that these issues are some of the most impactful in the game and for CCP as a company.
So much for this being a short post! |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots
Black Legion.
96
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 18:30:00 -
[1133] - Quote
Yep, pretty much all of null is locked up between two entities.
As a member of a revenant non-sov-holding nullsec alliance, I would even doubt it if we could take or hold any space ourselves.
Good luck for any new alliances to try. We couldn't even keep Q-CAB from co2! Err, actually goons took that one for co2. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
396
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 18:32:00 -
[1134] - Quote
Here's another:
Ships jumping/bridging to cyno have a 1min sensor recalibration timer. |
Anthar Thebess
643
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 18:40:00 -
[1135] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Here's another:
Ships jumping/bridging to cyno have a 1min sensor recalibration timer.
Not enough.
Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
Tyrone Cashmoney
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
106
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:45:00 -
[1136] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:revenant
Is there something we should know? |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots
Black Legion.
96
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:45:00 -
[1137] - Quote
Traffice control timers and TIDI. I'd like to see these timers be enforced and amplified by any TIDI in system, and implemented for any titan-bridging or jumping into a system with TIDI.
This would certainly slow down any hamster-stroke-inducing dogpiling into a system, and likely result in more stuff exploding. Expoding stuff is good. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots
Black Legion.
96
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:46:00 -
[1138] - Quote
Tyrone Cashmoney wrote:SFM Hobb3s wrote:revenant Is there something we should know?
Oops I meant to say relevant....my bad  |
Tritis Mentari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 22:39:00 -
[1139] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I am watching this thread with great interest and am very happy to see the discussion it's spawning.
It's very interesting to compare the ideas being discussed here with concepts we're discussing internally.
You've read 55 pages without giving players any feedback whatsoever (other than a single post antagonizing a player for rightfully thinking you weren't paying attention). Some people have put a lot of thought into how do deal with nullsec and CCP hasn't lifted a finger to respond, either to say "This idea is in line with our thinking" or "That idea is nothing close to what we want.".
When do you plan on talking about what your specific goals for nullsec are? Why let this thread continue if you yourself don't even have general parameters for nullsec changes in mind? Such as:
- How many simultaneous pilots should live in a system/constellation?
- How much income should be generated by a nullsec character compared to low/hisec?
- How many person-hours should be involved in acquiring SOV?
- Should renters organically take SOV control in their system?
- Do you want a reminaged SOV to also address the massive battles that cause TIDI? (such as splitting fights between systems in a constellation?)
- Should individual players be able to cause a noticeable effect on SOV? (Other than forgetting to pay bills, or pushing disband).
- Does reimagined SOV require supercap DPS to capture?
- Should SOV be in a constant flux from war or is cluster wide stretch of peace desirable?
CCP Seagull did a Q&A on reddit recently (No idea why, you have your own forum with your own users who would love to ask questions). She didn't respond with any substance relating to SOV.
Does CCP even know what the goals they are striving for? Or what specific parameters you even want? |
thetwilitehour
GoonWaffe
275
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 01:29:00 -
[1140] - Quote
Tritis Mentari wrote:[quote=CCP Fozzie]
Does CCP even know what the goals they are striving for? Or what specific parameters you even want?
So yeah, do you have an actual vision for null sec and sovereignty?
Because if not, get one pretty quick, tia. |
| |
|
| 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 .. 62 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |