|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 07:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
What is the measure of "occupancy base"?
I've read about this before. System index (and sov) strengthen with occupancy, rats killed, ore mined etc. Doesn't anyone see a bit of a problem with this? If you want to drop someone else's index, all you have to do is camp it (cloaked). People don't tend to rat or mine with reds in system do they.
Whilst we're at it let's go back to basics: What is the point of "sov" anyway? |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: There is plenty of room out here, most of null is all but abandoned. We also would not be taking rent off these new alliances as we wouldn't own their space.
Oh come on, do you think we're all fools? You don't need a "sov mechanic" to shake players down in a protection racket. CODE do it all the time in high sec. You say "pay us and we won't farm you". You have an apex force. You can do whatever you like.
Eve is fundamentally broken. What broke it wasn't sov mechanics, it's players like Mittani re-creating the kind of society and systems in game you play video games to get away from in the real world. It's Lord of the Flies all over again. I don't know why people go along with it but they do. There's a psychology thesis somewhere here I'm sure.
When I look at CCP marketing with their "100,000 v 100,000 people isn't this amazing!" BS, it's clear to me that Eve is kind-of finished as development potential. It's matured and we're at the end game. |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Is it risk aversion or mutually assured destruction?
If there's a balls to the wall war and someone loses, they get disbanded (or lose the advantage for good, due to apex forces making it increasingly hard for them to start a new war and win). But the winning side loses too, because the blue dohnut would be +10, implying a break-up of the original alliance into factions for content or subs and numbers dropping.
Goons could have gone on the offensive after BR. Why didn't they? If the idea was to win and winning is controlling space, they showed how much they wanted to control that space by signing an agreement with the enemy just after destroying a good size of their opponent's force.
So what's all this talk about sov mechanics really about apart from people thinking up ways to make renting more profitable? The game is totally broken and it can't be fixed because player behaviour and the external channels they use to manage and control it cannot itself be controlled by CCP. |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
Get rid of static resources and make them dynamic, including:
(a) Moon goo (b) Truesec status (c) Rat types
So over a period of time say, six months, the environment changes. One day you're in a really rich area, a few weeks later it's resource poor and your grunts want to move elsewhere. Renting empires would fall because (a) you won't be holding sov over one area for years, (b) you'd find it hard to rent to players when the systems they're in go from rich to poor or poor to rich. When they're rich you want them for yourselves. When they're poor nobody wants to rent them.
The "Null Deal" is idiotic. Static wealth generation is the problem. Stop it from happening.
Whilst I'm at it, get rid of all asteroid belts. Just make them go away. All content should be dynamic.
Now get coding.
|
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Regatto wrote: How does it exactly hurt them so much?
They hold sov by power not presence and the absence of npc stations makes work of attackers much harder especially when they have to fight guerilla warfare.
They hold sov with the threat of presence. |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: The idea here is to lower the bar for entry, condense the larger groups into smaller space and limit how far the larger groups can project themselves. Occupancy based sov means you don;t need to put billions of isk in space assets out for people to destroy, you just need to show up in an area and start playing. I think the idea needs a lot of work, but its certainly a step in the right direction and shows CCP the type of change that the null groups would most support.
It's an absolutely terrible idea. How about we limit force projection and not increase the value of systems? Maybe Goons or PL or whomever will have to, you know, not be so large in the first place if they want to keep all of their pilots happy. And whilst we're busy nerfing nullsec, let's make sure resources are no longer static. Let's make it so that if you want all the stuff, you have to keep fighting for it. CCP can make regional value dynamic and ever changing, including true sec and moon goo.
Why am I the only one suggesting this? How does dynamic content not force the blob to become dynamic too? If they want to make BOTLORDII, BOTLORDIII, BOTLORDIII, BOTLORDIV fine. Destroy the game you enjoy if you want. Nobody really cares all that much.
|
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: And make resources dynamic? That would then mean you need a means of moving between content, so having billions of isk in structure you have to keep putting up and taking down seems to go against that, so sov needs to be tied to something else, like say activity?
Yes, effort. No, not activity. Activity can easily be subverted by for example, camping. Indeed camping will become the primary way in which you subvert someone's sov if it isn't already. You can make their space have zero value with the constant hotdrop threat. Another CCP "innovation" that wasn't fully thought through.
Lucas Kell wrote: The thing is, you can happily say move moon goo around and move true sec around and force people to have to run around all over null, because it doesn't affect you.
No, it would affect me. And when I said dynamic I didn't mean dynamic like PI, I meant over a longer period of time, like six months. And the value of that doesn't have to be as it is now. You can change the frequency and amplitude to fit. You don't have to keep everything else the same whilst fiddling with just that 1 variable. For example I think CCP really want to replace POS with something better. Well OK, fold that into the design.
Lucas Kell wrote:Because without changing the way sov is held, they can;t be dynamic.
What's the point of holding sov anyway? You get to name the station? Who cares.
Thanks for responding to my ideas. I've struggled to persuade on this even though I've had these ideas since CCP first released dynamic content (anoms) a looooong time ago. |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:What effort would you consider as the solution? If someone was happily playing away in their area, and we came over and hellcamped them for 2 weeks, would they still hold the sov?
My suggestion nerfs or boosts various areas of nullsec dynamically, meaning that your huge alliance, currently sitting on the best content in game suddenly finds itself sitting on space not much better than low sec. How would that not drive conflict?
Lucas Kell wrote:So people would still follow around the content, and the complaint would turn from "CFC or N3/PL own all of the null space!" to "CFC or N3/PL own all of the good content in null space!".
The plain fact is it's CFC and N3/PL who've destroyed nullsec, together - a kind of MAD - by snowballing into these two huge alliances that nobody can take on. Some say this is the endgame with CCP's model and I'm inclined to agree with them on this if things remain the same. There's *nothing* CCP can do to change the situation if both of these large blocs are determined not to go to war. The Null Deal doesn't change this fact and neither does my proposal. But I think at least mine has the potential to be a conflict driver between the large blocs. Null Deal certainly isn't.
Lucas Kell wrote:Reduced POS fuel cost, restrictions over who can and cannot dock, Market/refinery/repair taxes, system upgrade (ihub) control.
All of those things except POS fuel cost are about owning stations, not some nebulous absurdity called "sov". Who needs an ihub control if content is dynamic? POS fuel cost buff is a hangover from the days when you needed to spam POSes to "win" a system. What's the point of it now? Have fewer POS. Have more POS but make them cheaper. All potentially solvable problems.
People always imagine the solution in the context of all the other game mechanics remaining the same. I think you can change more than one thing at once, and slaughter a few sacred cows at the same time.
|
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote: We (i.e. the CFC) own half of conquerable nullsec. Unless your system is rigged in a way that moves the vast majority of "value" (for whatever metric you want to use) out of our half into N3's, or vice versa, I don't see a meaningful conflict driver.
Do you? Or do you mean to say that some corps have access to the best systems (lowest truesec) and the others can go **** themselves? I think that's what you mean isn't it. How would they feel about the CFC if certain corps barged their way into their space because it was one of the hotspots?
See what I mean about driving conflict? It's not so hard now is it.
|
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
For those of you who're interested, here's how something like a Perlin Noise Plasma evolves over time.
Now imagine that was truesec and moon goo spread across the universe. CCP can tweak the frequency, amplitude (including in the time dimension to make it evolve fast or more slowly). Notice how "hotspots" form in different regions of the map at different times. Different frequencies produce more or fewer hotspots of different sizes. See what works and what doesn't.
This is how I imagine dynamic content should look and I think (personally) that dynamic content would drive conflict. |
|
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Ms Forum Alt wrote:Do you? Or do you mean to say that some corps have access to the best systems (lowest truesec) and the others can go **** themselves? uh yeah maybe you've not noticed but branch has different truesec from pure blind but somehow it still works out???
It does now. But with my idea it might not in 3 months time. Someone would come along and tell you to GTFO wouldn't they. Would that annoy your line members? Having to move out for another corp in your alliance? I submit that it would.
Again, it drives conflict. |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:37:00 -
[12] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote: So, we have different levels of truesec held by our coalition now, and it works fine. And, under your proposal, we'll also have different levels of truesec held by our coalition in three months, but for some reason everyone will suddenly start clawing at each other's throats then. Sounds reasonable.
Not so. If there were, say, two hotspots there's a 25% chance you won't have ANY decent truesec if you own half of space. Now what are you going to do? Wait six months for it to come around again? Maybe it won't. You might go and join the other bloc and start leeching players because they've got the hotspots. Are you still just going to sit there and wait?
If that's the attitude then I suppose there's absolutely no helping the Eve community. But it seems to me that you're determined to keep everything static. It's a kind of neurosis in Eve as a whole and I think it started on day 1 with asteroid belts that were just there day after day, in the same place! |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
Let us just leave it at whatever toys CCP throws into the sand pit, the players will eventually break them and we'll be back here all over again.
The game is finished because the two largest blocs are too chicken to declare war on each other.
And those Something Awful DW say it's only a game. You'd think they'd revel in the chaos and destruction. That's why I believe someone is earning coin from the status quo. It's quite inexplicable otherwise. |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:56:00 -
[14] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Ms Forum Alt wrote:The game is finished because the two largest blocs are too chicken to declare war on each other. Where's the point? There's nothing fun about shoving 1500 people (each side) into a system and have them slug it out at 10% tidi in soul-crushing lag.
I know, it's true. That's why I said the game is broken, end-game, finished, done for. |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:The change that goons supported was a considerable detriment to them, and was a leading factor in why they had to create a rental empire to recover funds they lost in that nerf.
It really wasn't because they were losing the ISK war anyway. That's why they changed policy towards renting. So you know, the pea under the thimble, etc.
|
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 23:08:00 -
[16] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote: perhaps this thread can be stickied in its place to reflect the topic's obvious importance and to acknowledge the open letter's mass endorsement by some of the most well respected leaders and content creators in eve online
Oh do give it a rest. It's CCP's game and everyone who plays it has an interest in it, not just "leaders" (much arrogance?) and "content creators" (double-speak given that they have an agreement not to create any content any more).
|
|
|
|