| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
104
   |
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:27:00 -
[421] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:[quote=Jenn aSide]0.0 is over: we and PL/N3 won. We need a better 0.0 game, yes, but we also need a 'restart' to a certain degree even if its not going to get any better.
I-¦m pretty sure there is a name for games where two or more people get awarded first place. Sometimes even everybody gets a trophy.
You didn-¦t win you just made sure you will not loose by not competing against each other. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:28:00 -
[422] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Why make things worse when you could examine the thinking that lead to 'now' and just not do that again?
That's what I'm always saying in these discussions, it doesn't have to lead to a crappy outcome, but you can't expect to keep thinking the same way (ie "anything has to be better than this") and get a different result. I was around pre-Dominion and it'd like Deja Vu all over again.
we are: we've put lots of time into thinking what the best changes are and poking holes in bad proposals and thinking through why certain ones are worse than others and what is and is not a good change, a good guiding philosophy, etc - we have our one shot and want it to be as good as possible
but what I'm saying is that the fear of making things worse should not play a role because that's not really any possible: we are in a situation where you must do something so the right answer is to pick the best option, not wait to see if you can top that one |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
958
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:30:00 -
[423] - Quote
How about with the next patch CCP breaks the patch and a universal standings reset. That might help break up a lot of these coalitions and larger alliances and bring back the small ones.
But somewhere on an earlier page, i saw a post about player limits. CCP really needs to rethink the corp management skills and max corp sizes and max alliance sizes.
Also bigger alliances do need bigger fees. not linear but exponential increase on fees and fees for each upgraded indice for the system. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1370
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:30:00 -
[424] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:The Mittani wrote:
NPC 0.0 in Every Sov Region
We believe that regions which contain several unconquerable NPC systems and stations generate platforms for small-scale PVP content and launching points for smaller alliances. We believe that Fountain provides superior gameplay for both sovholders and guerillas than Omist. We wish to see small footprints of NPC 0.0 seeded in every conquerable region which lacks them, from Tenal to Omist.
Translation: It's going to suck for us when destructible player stations are introduced. Better get some NPC stations where we need them while we still have time. Mr Epeen 
And on the flipside, groups without their own outposts (most often the small ones), have a safer place to be a nuisance from. |
Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:32:00 -
[425] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up?
Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end moon goo that suddenly turned up on your moons.
Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:32:00 -
[426] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:I-¦m pretty sure there is a name for games where two or more people get awarded first place. Sometimes even everybody gets a trophy.
You didn-¦t win you just made sure you will not loose by not competing against each other.
we get a trophy
you don't
you go home and cry while we can determine for ourselves the particulars of how we rank against each other while agreeing that we rank above all the worthless shitheels we've ground in the dust, but ain't nobody interested in playing "grind the other half of the map", an insanely unfun game |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8380
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:33:00 -
[427] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:
You seem to be writing as if having NPC nullsec seeded around within jump range of each other to simplify logistics is a negative thing.
It is. Because it's the same kind of thinking as this was: Quote:tl;dr There's now a reason to fight for better space again: sov upgrades will spawn better cosmic anomalies in lower truesec space; cosmic anomalies spawned by methods other than sov upgrades are unaffected.
The whole idea here is to make null sec more active, more chaotic, more 'fun' and 'accessible but small groups'. NPC null in every region does the opposite. It makes traveling safer (no more having to sneak a cyno into hostile space or light a cyno in low sec space that everyone and thier space-mommas are in super cap range of) and it gives allainces someplace to store material and ships that can never be taken away.
It makes the big guys stronger while not doing jack for the little guy. Every new npc null constellation should be named some variation of 'Malcanis' (Malcanium, Malcanistan etc) because Malcanis' law will reign supreme lol.
I'm not jumping on the 'selfish conspiracy' bandwagon. I think Mittani and the rest have good intentions with these ideas, but I think these ideas are fatally flawed. |
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
11454
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:33:00 -
[428] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:This suggestion serves one purpose: to allow the current power holders to condense their large empires into small, unpenetrable fortresses (cynojam, lot of friendlies in fleet 1-2 jumps away) where they can rat in complete safety, regions away from anyone who could theoretically harm them.
In the meantime both their own PvP-ers and current pirates are pacified by offering them regions full of terrible players who are easy to farm (these are dubbed as "new alliances").
The result: CFC, N3 and PL are ratting in Nyxes in 3 far corners of the universe without any risk of losing them. No more SRP to pay as fleets barely have losses (see PL losses against HERO/Provi), no capital subsidies as there is no need for capital fleet and greatly decreased Sov costs. So alliance leaders could keep the whole alliance income to themselves without the members giving a damn.
So you're saying that the CFC and PL/N3 would become weak and be promptly thrown out of their space as a result. That sounds like a good outcome to me.
Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."
-á-á - Abrazzar |
javer
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:33:00 -
[429] - Quote
+1
I can only support the current set of changes as proposed |
Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows
Tactical Narcotics Team
44
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:36:00 -
[430] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Ereshgikal wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:No. The price of T2 would fall. EVERYONE in null would be able to get the mats to make T2. But those materials would random and not fixed like they are now. They would also deplete and then respawn as something different.
You break the monopoly on T2 production and you will see major changes in the game cause prices will fall. You are a special cookie, but I will try to explain it in simple words. A single POS mining a single type of moon goo yields a specific amount of moon goo per month. If the moon goo drains after one week there will be a period of looking until someone else finds the new moon producing the moon goo. This means there is lost "mining time", meaning there is less moon goo available. Sure, this could be addressed by increasing the number of moons seeded with each specific moon goo. Then you have reactions to consider. Today reaction farms churn 24/7 having set up suppliers and buyers. Disrupting the flow of moon goo means disrupting the reaction farms; this in turn means more overhead for reaction farms (changing production, finding new suppliers, or dismantling the POS). In the end this will translate to less material being available to build T2 components from...and then the prices will go up. Sorry about the multiple-syllable words, but I hope you understand them despite previous evidence to the contrary. Nice attempt at being insulting. You will have to try harder. As for your attempt to explain things. You're argument is based around the idea that it would require effort. Sorry bout that is exactly what I purpose. Moons are what make the alliances money. This is what needs to be broken up. Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up?
You claim I try to insult you and yet you did not understand what I wrote. :hopecrushed: |
|
|
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp
Intrepid Crossing
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:41:00 -
[431] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up? Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons.
Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo. |
Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:44:00 -
[432] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons. Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo.
There was another question in that quote. Why do you expect that your alliance would suddenly change policy and allow you to keep your high-end moon goo?
In addition to your response: Why exactly would prices drop if people have to expend more work?
Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |
Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows
Tactical Narcotics Team
44
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:46:00 -
[433] - Quote
Obsidian Hawk wrote:How about with the next patch CCP breaks the patch and a universal standings reset. That might help break up a lot of these coalitions and larger alliances and bring back the small ones.
But somewhere on an earlier page, i saw a post about player limits. CCP really needs to rethink the corp management skills and max corp sizes and max alliance sizes.
Also bigger alliances do need bigger fees. not linear but exponential increase on fees and fees for each upgraded indice for the system.
Yes, awesome idea. 'cause re-establishing standings is so impossible. No one will ever remember who their friends were!
Artificially limiting the amount of players gathered under a banner is another splendid idea. I have heard it is totally impossible to cooperate unless one is in the same corporation or alliance.
...please, use a plastic bag as an exit method. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:48:00 -
[434] - Quote
i do not get what you think you're getting at with this post because it literally applies to any change where thought has been put into it
that ccp was manifestly wrong before when they supposedly thought things through means...
Jenn aSide wrote:Quote:
but what I'm saying is that the fear of making things worse should not play a role because that's not really any possible: we are in a situation where you must do something so the right answer is to pick the best option, not wait to see if you can top that one
What exactly is the big rush? EVe has survived much worse than anything currently going on now. Doing something just to be doing something is never the answer when you can spend an extra 15 seconds and get it right. In my real life experience, when someone has said to me "it can't possibly get any worse than this" it got worse, and in a hurry.
then you haven't been paying attention. like I said, eve is in a point of terminal stasis. the end point has been reached, the winners determined, no more change is possible. that is what you're not getting, and that is why your "wait lets think about this a little longer" is absolutely wrong.
the game is over. it is ended, we have declared winners, and there is nothing left to conquer. eve cannot persist like this because it is incredibly terminally boring.
there must be change or the game we're going to play will be Not-Eve, instead of 0.0 with some new rules that cause a shakeup |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night
Of Sound Mind
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:53:00 -
[435] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up? Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons. Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo.
Look. With current moongoo prices, either it's a strategic asset (R32s and R64s) because it requires a strategic defense, or it's barely worth fueling the towers to keep the reactions running. R32s and R64s would continue to be strategic assets because they'd be worth at least as much, and they'd still require full-alliance defense efforts, and sub-R32s might rise a bit in price because people would be even less arsed to do the effort to harvest them for a limited period of time (because towering and detowering sucks).
Also, who do you think actually does moon scanning? (Hint: It's not random line members unless some sort of bounty is put out.) I suspect you have no idea how nullsec sov alliances actually work. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
659
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:55:00 -
[436] - Quote
Thomas Hurt wrote:If Goons came up with it, it can't be good, IMO
Yeah, goons wrote evemon. Obviously, it is bad for the game, stop using it. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:57:00 -
[437] - Quote
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin.
So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable?
The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential? |
Janeos
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:03:00 -
[438] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin. So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable? The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential?
It wouldn't be ours to give. We don't live there; the renters live there. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2795
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:03:00 -
[439] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up? Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons. Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo.
Do you also expect everyone to pay 50m for an Interceptor? |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:04:00 -
[440] - Quote
Janeos wrote:X Gallentius wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin. So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable? The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential? It wouldn't be ours to give. We don't live there; the renters live there.
You extract rent from them already even though it's their sov. What would change? |
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13404
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:04:00 -
[441] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:
So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable?
Same reason we campaigned to nerf tech when we had a monopoly on the stuff.
X Gallentius wrote:
The overall income in null sec is already very high.
You earn more running high sec level 4s.
X Gallentius wrote:
Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential?
They support at most 10 people and they earn less than if in low sec or high sec.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows
Tactical Narcotics Team
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:11:00 -
[442] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Janeos wrote:X Gallentius wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin. So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable? The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential? It wouldn't be ours to give. We don't live there; the renters live there. You extract rent from them already even though it's their sov. What would change?
I think you should read up on who owns Northern Associates, Brothers of Tangra, and Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere (PBLRD). Then you will understand who owns the SOV. |
HeXxploiT
Little Red X
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:14:00 -
[443] - Quote
What a bunch of horsecrap. This is like Exxon Johnson & Johnson and Monsanto putting forth suggestions on how to run the economy.
Keep nulsec difficult to get to. Sporadic Npc space in nulsec is great but but having it everywhere is like having highsec in nulsec and sort of defeats the purpose.
Packing solar systems with trillions of isk worth of profits would only prevent nullseccers from spreading out. Nulsec is not supposed to be safe. Risk vs reward remember? Make them earn their money. There is plenty of isk to be made in nulsec.
Really not concerned about what the mega alliances and coalitions(the talking heads) think would be good for eve. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
104
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:14:00 -
[444] - Quote
Nullsec already has more than enough farming available, you can make a lot more doing missions, escalations, etc... in safe nullsec than you can in highsec. It's just that the big alliances shaft their own playerbase by renting out the prime areas, and leaving over the scraps. Now codewords like "density" are used to call for buffing the scraps as well. Of course this will just lead to more renting, and not make the rank and file members any better off.
What null really needs is mechanics changes to compel larger fleet battles, and to shatter some of the larger powerblocs. Also the whole renting fiasco needs to be overhauled. The suggestion do precisely nothing to alleviate this situation, and are solely made to provide for even easier nullsec farming. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13405
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:20:00 -
[445] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Nullsec already has more than enough farming available, you can make a lot more doing missions, escalations, etc... in safe nullsec than you can in highsec.
Null sov has zero missions, escalations are rare and anoms earn less than level 4s in high sec and every time a neutral enters local all pve activity stops(when did this last happen in high sec).
X Gallentius wrote:
It's just that the big alliances shaft their own playerbase by renting out the prime areas, and leaving over the scraps.
So who is renting S-D in Dek?
X Gallentius wrote:
What null really needs is mechanics changes to compel larger fleet battles, and to shatter some of the larger powerblocs. Also the whole renting fiasco needs to be overhauled. The suggestion do precisely nothing to alleviate this situation, and are solely made to provide for even easier nullsec farming.
We are literally asking for CCP to make it impossible to hold 80% of our current empire.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:28:00 -
[446] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
The whole idea here is to make null sec more active, more chaotic, more 'fun' and 'accessible but small groups'. NPC null in every region does the opposite. It makes traveling safer (no more having to sneak a cyno into hostile space or light a cyno in low sec space that everyone and thier space-mommas are in super cap range of) and it gives allainces someplace to store material and ships that can never be taken away.
It makes the big guys stronger while not doing jack for the little guy. Every new npc null constellation should be named some variation of 'Malcanis' (Malcanium, Malcanistan etc) because Malcanis' law will reign supreme lol.
I'm not jumping on the 'selfish conspiracy' bandwagon. I think Mittani and the rest have good intentions with these ideas, but I think these ideas are fatally flawed.
This is exactly what I was thinking. The only people this is good for is the few major alliances. How does it improve 0.0 if goon can drop supers in a system and gain control at any time?
All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.
baltec1 wrote:We are literally asking for CCP to make it impossible to hold 80% of our current empire.
No, you are literally asking CCP to let you drop your massive cap/super fleets in any system and take control at any time. |
Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
883
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:33:00 -
[447] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.
What do you mean "even more"? the signatories already own 90% of nullsec and the remaining 10% only exists with their good graces.
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:34:00 -
[448] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:
All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.
please point out on a map the spots we have not taken over
don't worry, I'll wait |
Prince Kobol
2214
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:35:00 -
[449] - Quote
The thing is all this discussion is pointless because CCP will never make such sweeping changes, not because they are scared to (though they problem are as no matter what they do they will most likely **** off 50% of the player base) but because I believe they simply do not have the manpower or expertise any more to do so.
Look at the majority of changes they have made in the last 2 years. There has been nothing which would / has constituted major coding work.
What has been been proposed and many other idea's like would be a massive undertaking involving a huge amount of man hours. Essentially it would be a Jesus feature, something which many people here have argued against many times in the past.
I simply do not believe that CCP have the experience or technical expertise or the will any more to pull something like this off. You look at all the staff that has left in the 12 - 18 months.. all that experience and technical expertise gone, who has replaced them?
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:36:00 -
[450] - Quote
Goonswarm Federation: 11k members, Sovereignty 232 systems. 11k/232 = 47 players / system. You're pretty much there already aren't you? Why do need more income?
Why continue to rent? Competitive pressures, still super lucrative.
Why continue to rent?
1. Look at "Renting vs. Asakai" chart.
2. GÇ£As much as we hate renters, we hate the idea of being on a losing end of a war more, so it's a natural move.GÇ¥
Goonswarm and others will likely be forced to be maintain their rental empires simply because the other guys will as well.
What you may likely do is put your Western Co-Properity Sphere alts wherever another side is trying to take your rental sov. You'll also move your pvp guys to the same area as well. Rental empire maintained - at greater rates of return than now.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |