Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 275 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 41 post(s) |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
54
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 03:54:00 -
[4921] - Quote
Errors within the proposed plan. 1) Complexity of more timers and exponential sillyness. 2) Jump range changes completely breaking the accessibility of entire regions of space both sov and non-sov. 3) Capitals jumping through gates; this mechanically doesn't work if we're expected to jump large ships through gates as currently you can't warp a freighter to a gate without the risk of bouncing off of it. Much less a titan or multiple titans and the fleets to support them. 4) its not fixing any of the current problems with carriers which are the main reason this change is being implemented; the BOOT ARCHON and SLOWCAT doctrines are the primary reason for this change. Carriers should have been split into a combat platform and a logistics platform a long time ago which would have prevented this entire mass of insanity.
My opinion of CCP has gone through the gutter with this one, this proposal is one of the worst I've ever seen. It seems poorly thought out and seems to give light to why so many Devs have left for other companies in recent times. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 03:54:00 -
[4922] - Quote
smokeydapot wrote:
It's not easier POS logistics its necessary POS logistics or did you skim over the part where caldari POS's ARE THE ONLY ONES that you can do reactions on because of the CPU.
That is factually false. I use a Gallente tower just fine to run reactions. Is it ideal? No. Is a Cadari tower the only one you do reactions in? Absolutely not. But I will admit it is the best one to use for reactions. |
Kiryen O'Bannon
Thrall Nation Brave Collective
145
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 03:54:00 -
[4923] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Patty Loveless wrote:Wait-- I'm shocked... The CSM members representing that massive (super) capital-fueled blue donut in null security space don't want arguably their best defense against loosing their outter reaches of space to be nerfed?
I think CCP has commented on this before. They don't design by committee/popular vote, they do what is, in their decision, the best for the game as a whole. Vote with your feet if you feel so obliged. And what will your position on the matter be if indeed there is a mass exodus and your subscription(s) and the remaining subscriptions are insufficient to support the continuation of EVE Online? Again, if CCP developes EVE Online (in it's 11th Year) deaf, and blind to "committee/popular vote" then it's a fools errand. We play a sandbox for which the players emergent content is *the* sales pitch for any potential new player as well as current players. Failing to develop for the very content creators that help keep the game thriving, for a 'vision' of re-engineering a LIVE game is only traveling the same path of error that is memorialized by the likes of Star Wars Galaxies and their ilk. Stewardship not Dictatorship!
If CCP does things by popular vote, especially that of the vested interest of nullsec pilots afraid of dealing with change, the game will also stagnate and die. Popular vote is not a guarantor of emergent content (and keeping things as they are certainly wont). This thread is not a 'vote' in any case.
CCP is a business. It is in their best interest to keep player numbers up regardless. No matter what they do, someone will not like it, quit, and claim it will kl the game.
All you are doing is dressing up 'do what I want!' in the language of some sort of vague idea of social justice and stewardship, which will never be applicable. |
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
63
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 03:55:00 -
[4924] - Quote
Joey Zasa wrote:
"fallacious non sequitur"- is that the toon that offers hot chat for 20 mill a minute in Hek?
I caught a space herpe off of her!
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1290
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 03:55:00 -
[4925] - Quote
The more I think of these chance the more I think CCP grew tired of people using their cap all the time for pretty much any kind of operation they decided to upgrade their nerfbat to a wrecking ball. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Bull and Vitleysa
181
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 03:58:00 -
[4926] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:So, just like a tax payer is 'entitled' to functioning civil services, that address their actual needs; many feel that CCP/EVE Online have reached a point of maturity as an MMORPG that makes it incumbent on them to act as proper stewards of *our* game. And iterating through a CSM 'Advisory and Consent' mechanism that they themselves established - rather than OP-Dev-Crush-It-With-A-Viking-Hammer development style. If the difference between a video game and a public service is so small in your mind, you have really, really got to get outside. I'm not even joking with this, you need to cancel your sub(s), go outside, and actually live for a while. EVE is a game. A public service is generally a necessity for safe and healthy living. Cities and States and Countries provide services to people to allow those people to actually live. And EVE? EVE is a game.
It wasn't intended to be a hard *eve is real* comparison...
And your concern is appreciated - but unnecessary. I get out plenty enough, and my wife and 4 children keep me plenty busy :)
Which is also why, like others, I loath the idea of adding even more *waiting* to this game. I have friends that refuse to re-sub simply because they do not have the time to invest in the game as it is... this isn't going to make that issue any better for those of us that have any skills or desire to fly caps (and <3 Logibro's - God help you dudes) CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf |
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
63
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 03:59:00 -
[4927] - Quote
Petrified wrote:smokeydapot wrote:
It's not easier POS logistics its necessary POS logistics or did you skim over the part where caldari POS's ARE THE ONLY ONES that you can do reactions on because of the CPU.
That is factually false. I use a Gallente tower just fine to run reactions. Is it ideal? No. Is a Cadari tower the only one you do reactions in? Absolutely not. But I will admit it is the best one to use for reactions. Caldari is the only one that can achieve most of a multi-stage reaction, but it has to strip down all e-war and resists to achieve this. Everything can be done without caldari towers - I run the most demanding reactions in EVE in a Gallente. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Bull and Vitleysa
181
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:02:00 -
[4928] - Quote
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Patty Loveless wrote:Wait-- I'm shocked... The CSM members representing that massive (super) capital-fueled blue donut in null security space don't want arguably their best defense against loosing their outter reaches of space to be nerfed?
I think CCP has commented on this before. They don't design by committee/popular vote, they do what is, in their decision, the best for the game as a whole. Vote with your feet if you feel so obliged. And what will your position on the matter be if indeed there is a mass exodus and your subscription(s) and the remaining subscriptions are insufficient to support the continuation of EVE Online? Again, if CCP developes EVE Online (in it's 11th Year) deaf, and blind to "committee/popular vote" then it's a fools errand. We play a sandbox for which the players emergent content is *the* sales pitch for any potential new player as well as current players. Failing to develop for the very content creators that help keep the game thriving, for a 'vision' of re-engineering a LIVE game is only traveling the same path of error that is memorialized by the likes of Star Wars Galaxies and their ilk. Stewardship not Dictatorship! If CCP does things by popular vote, especially that of the vested interest of nullsec pilots afraid of dealing with change, the game will also stagnate and die. Popular vote is not a guarantor of emergent content (and keeping things as they are certainly wont). This thread is not a 'vote' in any case. CCP is a business. It is in their best interest to keep player numbers up regardless. No matter what they do, someone will not like it, quit, and claim it will kl the game. All you are doing is dressing up 'do what I want!' in the language of some sort of vague idea of social justice and stewardship, which will never be applicable.
If you like Corporatocracy then that's fine.... CCP should go public, let us buy shares, and then we can vote on the direction of the company?
Is that better? Would that type of *vote* be acceptable? CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf |
smokeydapot
MSE-corp Northern Associates.
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:03:00 -
[4929] - Quote
Petrified wrote:smokeydapot wrote:
It's not easier POS logistics its necessary POS logistics or did you skim over the part where caldari POS's ARE THE ONLY ONES that you can do reactions on because of the CPU.
That is factually false. I use a Gallente tower just fine to run reactions. Is it ideal? No. Is a Cadari tower the only one you do reactions in? Absolutely not. But I will admit it is the best one to use for reactions.
I will check this in more detail and redact my comment for now ( only because i'm going to bed ).
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:Petrified wrote:smokeydapot wrote:
It's not easier POS logistics its necessary POS logistics or did you skim over the part where caldari POS's ARE THE ONLY ONES that you can do reactions on because of the CPU.
That is factually false. I use a Gallente tower just fine to run reactions. Is it ideal? No. Is a Cadari tower the only one you do reactions in? Absolutely not. But I will admit it is the best one to use for reactions. Caldari is the only one that can achieve most of a multi-stage reaction, but it has to strip down all e-war and resists to achieve this. Everything can be done without caldari towers - I run the most demanding reactions in EVE in a Gallente.
same again redacted until further research but towers should not be bare while doing reactions nor striped down to a tower a few silos and a reactor to get the job done. |
Kiryen O'Bannon
Thrall Nation Brave Collective
146
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:07:00 -
[4930] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Nazri al Mahdi wrote: In context, I was claiming I was entitled not to be bored to death by a game. You and CCP are free to make your own life choices if you disagree with that simple statement. The fact of the matter is I am a subscribing game customer and am entitled to not be bored to death by their product.
Everything in the game is affecting everything else. Your easy logistics are part of the cause of null stagnation, causing boredom and frusteration for thousands. You are not entitled to any gameplay otber than whats is provided. We are all paying customers. You are entitled only to the access you paid for. Your level of enjoyment is your problem. You are welcome to play any other game of your choice. While not addressing Null Sec point(s), I want to point out that perhaps between 2003 - 2006 it would be appropriate to say that as customers we are only paying for access to 'their' game... but 11 sandbox years later, the creation of epic emergent content that has made CCP millions of real dollars, and many many statements about stewardship of EVE Online directly from CCP; makes your statement hollow. At what point does it stop being 'their' game, and start becoming 'our' game? The CSM, irrespective of it's makeup, 'should' be viewed by CCP as a body designed for an 'Advise and Consent' role - but is more an unwanted burden they have to bear because of past mistakes. So then they post a devblog like this, to say "Hey! See we're listening to you!", when in reality the development path is decided and our input only serves to gauge positive/negative reaction for some shinny graph created by an overworked ISD volunteer, while at the same time co-opting the community to poke holes in their theory crafting for them. If you are content with the perspective that this is 'their' game and you only pay for access, and they can do as they wish then you are entitled to that point of view for yourself. But the remainder of us might feel like we have put enough time, money, and effort into the emergent content of this game so as to be heavily invested in any proposed changes that seriously alter the meta-level workings that help make EVE Online what it is today; our proverbial blood, sweat, and tears. So, just like a tax payer is 'entitled' to functioning civil services, that address their actual needs; many feel that CCP/EVE Online have reached a point of maturity as an MMORPG that makes it incumbent on them to act as proper stewards of *our* game. And iterating through a CSM 'Advisory and Consent' mechanism that they themselves established - rather than OP-Dev-Crush-It-With-A-Viking-Hammer development style. Just a thought. Individual taxpayers are not entitled to services based on their personal wants and demands, but to what everyone is getting. Real taxpayers frequently engage in the same histrionics as mmo players of pretending that everyone agrees with them except the stupid government, with no evidence, as well. Part of CCPs stewardship, much like that of a real govrrnment is protecting the players from the tragedy of the commons. Much like real life taxpayers, players advocate for what they think is good for them, and,lacking real responsibility, simply pretend thats whats good for everyone. "...wants and demands,..." were your words I clearly stated *needs*, and 'their' is in the all encompassing generalized usage. Part of proper stewardship, as with proper and effective governance, is that the 'authority' act in the best interests of the citizen (in this case player). Starting with 'town hall' interactions at a local level (ie CSM), and from there offering Public Hearing(s) (ie Development threads that are real focus groups, as opposed to this farce), and then weighing the best options coming to a decision. CCP's current methodology is at odds with the stewardship concept they have stated in past. That's all I'm attempting to highlight. Except that it isnt. Stewardship has nothing to do with doing 'what the players want.'
In real life we accept less stewardship in government in favor of more response to popular demand. This is to limt governmental power - government frequently exercises poor stewardshop trying to make too many competing intersts happy, often none of which have the best interests of society at heart.
CCP has no responsibility of stewardship other than that they assign themselves. It is not dependent on accomodating what is popular. Their ideas may be good or bad but that is not a matter of threadnaught opinion. |
|
DragonZer0
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:08:00 -
[4931] - Quote
You know I've been looking at this more and more. CCP is Fing over the jump mechanic completely in this game that you might as well take gates w/e you want to go.
Looking further into this I came across some Low-slot mods called Hyperspatial Accelerator.
A stock carrier/dread it does about 1.5au/sec and aligns in the 20-30sec range. Extremely slow in other words.
Adding Three of the Prototype Hyperspatial Accelerator gives a new speed of 2.4au/sec combined that with some T2 inertia modifier and a 100mn mwd you get a 10sec align time.
If my memory serves me right you said capital can take the gate now with this possible new patch.
So with this your making capitals capable of moving in the range of an armored battle-cruiser speed. Doing this may slow the Apex force down in terms of jumping across the galaxy in under 20 minutes but at the same time making it so a group of 10 people flying carriers can move about there marry way any worry of a counter attack.
CCP as it stand all you have done is made the capitals ships of today the battleships of yesterday. What will you think up next |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:09:00 -
[4932] - Quote
smokeydapot wrote: same again redacted until further research but towers should not be bare while doing reactions nor striped down to a tower a few silos and a reactor to get the job done.
Oh, my Gallente towers are far from bare. But they get the reactions done. It would be shortsighted to put a tower up outside of High Sec without ensuring it had defenses. eve-mail me and I am willing to talk about it. |
Kiryen O'Bannon
Thrall Nation Brave Collective
146
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:11:00 -
[4933] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Patty Loveless wrote:Wait-- I'm shocked... The CSM members representing that massive (super) capital-fueled blue donut in null security space don't want arguably their best defense against loosing their outter reaches of space to be nerfed?
I think CCP has commented on this before. They don't design by committee/popular vote, they do what is, in their decision, the best for the game as a whole. Vote with your feet if you feel so obliged. And what will your position on the matter be if indeed there is a mass exodus and your subscription(s) and the remaining subscriptions are insufficient to support the continuation of EVE Online? Again, if CCP developes EVE Online (in it's 11th Year) deaf, and blind to "committee/popular vote" then it's a fools errand. We play a sandbox for which the players emergent content is *the* sales pitch for any potential new player as well as current players. Failing to develop for the very content creators that help keep the game thriving, for a 'vision' of re-engineering a LIVE game is only traveling the same path of error that is memorialized by the likes of Star Wars Galaxies and their ilk. Stewardship not Dictatorship! If CCP does things by popular vote, especially that of the vested interest of nullsec pilots afraid of dealing with change, the game will also stagnate and die. Popular vote is not a guarantor of emergent content (and keeping things as they are certainly wont). This thread is not a 'vote' in any case. CCP is a business. It is in their best interest to keep player numbers up regardless. No matter what they do, someone will not like it, quit, and claim it will kl the game. All you are doing is dressing up 'do what I want!' in the language of some sort of vague idea of social justice and stewardship, which will never be applicable. If you like Corporatocracy then that's fine.... CCP should go public, let us buy shares, and then we can vote on the direction of the company? Is that better? Would that type of *vote* be acceptable?
It would, but I am really not worried about a 'corporatocracy' consisting of one small video game company. If CCP thinks issuing public stock would be good for their bottom line, then they shod do so. They should not do so out of some sense of internet spaceship social justice.
|
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
309
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:14:00 -
[4934] - Quote
I've posted this in other threads and people have liked the idea in other threads.
I would propose the following to keep BLOPS doable but limit mass T3 fleets from being bridged across null sec.
Keep it simple ******************************************************************************************** - Make any jump/bridge to a covert beacon not accrue fatigue outside of T3s
- T3s can still be bridged but normal fatigue applies
- A Black Ops BS CAN bridge/jump to a normal Cyno but normal fatigue rules apply
This allows Black Ops to be done without it being used for mass bridging T3 fleets any more than you could with a Titan chain. A lot of players across New Eden love the doctrine and these changes really hurt it.
|
smokeydapot
MSE-corp Northern Associates.
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:16:00 -
[4935] - Quote
Petrified wrote:smokeydapot wrote: same again redacted until further research but towers should not be bare while doing reactions nor striped down to a tower a few silos and a reactor to get the job done.
Oh, my Gallente towers are far from bare. But they get the reactions done. It would be shortsighted to put a tower up outside of High Sec without ensuring it had defenses. eve-mail me and I am willing to talk about it.
Like I said redacted my comment for now my strontium is depleted need to go get more so I can carry on sieging this threadnaught.
Will check my comment when I return refreshed. |
ugly inside
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:17:00 -
[4936] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:I've posted this in other threads and people have liked the idea in other threads.
I would propose the following to keep BLOPS doable but limit mass T3 fleets from being bridged across null sec.
Keep it simple ******************************************************************************************** - Make any jump/bridge to a covert beacon not accrue fatigue outside of T3s
- T3s can still be bridged but normal fatigue applies
- A Black Ops BS CAN bridge/jump to a normal Cyno but normal fatigue rules apply
This allows Black Ops to be done without it being used for mass bridging T3 fleets any more than you could with a Titan chain. A lot of players across New Eden love the doctrine and these changes really hurt it.
0 links to other threads where your 3 or 4 followers liked the idea on the different topics making you feel big.. sooooo 0 $#!T$ given |
Ronin Silfar
Our Big Spaceship Gang
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:23:00 -
[4937] - Quote
TimeDrawsNigh wrote:Counter proposal for the jump delay timer. Link below is a google excel doc. of cumulative delay timer that incrementally gets longer with each jump. http://bit.ly/1rOpzTsItGÇÖs a logarithmic scale. ...snip...
Sounds reasonable enough. I'd be interested to see CCPs thoughts on it. |
Varos Kang
Conquering Darkness
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:26:00 -
[4938] - Quote
Polo Marco wrote:It seems that everyone has missed the point. It's not WHAT the megacorps do with these big shiny caps, it's WHY. And the answer is simple.... MONEY. It is more efficient for nullsec industrial entities, who usually handle daily belt raiders and ordinary roams on their own, to PAY for the heavy combat lifting. That is what rental space is all about. Before, the money was in the moons, so they became focal points, but now the money is in the SPACE itself.
If someone is gonna hurt you, and you get the rules changed to take away his gun, then it won't be long till he comes back with a knife. The only thing these changes will effect is the tools and methods of the overlords. Nothing being done here will change the actual status of nullsec at ALL. It just wastes a lot of valuable player time and limits the choices of every player in the game.
If you want to stop all this hot dropping, make renter empire UNPROFITABLE. Hit the mega corps where it hurts......
IN THE WALLET!!!
With just a few simple changes to CONCORD FEES, you can render uninhabited, low activity systems prohibitively expensive. Further, Increase the cost of ALL systems for sov owners above a certain number.
Examples:
a system with less than 5 active players (docked or in space..avg for 24hrs) and no industry/military/strategic index of at least one should cost ONE THOUSAND TIMES the base for every CONCORD sov bill to be paid.
ACTIVE systems, on the other hand...... with lets say.. over 30 pilots and with ANY index at 4 or higher, would pay the base costs for all facilities.
As for SIZE begin imposing sov cost increases for owners of... let's say.... 20 systems or more. Make them pay an extra 25% for ALL sov costs. 50 systems or more? PAY 50% MORE. Hey why not even give the REALLY small holder, like with only one or 2 systems a 50% cost break?
Now CCP, I can't mine the data like you can, so this is just an IDEA, but with a bit of adjusting, I'm willing to bet it will fix the blight issue. Smaller entities can them move in without the burden of rent, develop their own space and can spend the money they save on rent for SELF DEFENSE. Maybe, just MAYBE... no more nullbears.... Wow, what a concept....
Believe me , the megacorps will drop their vast tracts of nullsec blight like hot coals. with no rents there will be no mercenary reaction obligations. Pilots who have been forced to sit and wait all day for a fight wont get trigger happy and hot jump small roams simply out of desperate boredom. Those of you who whine about getting anvil dropped should remember that the guys on the other end must waste ENDLESS hours of their playtime simply waiting on your asses to come along......
All I'm seeing here is STICK. And I might ad a very clumsily wielded one. Maybe you have the wrong minds working on this problem..... I have always found that the CARROT not only works better, it leaves everyone with a more positive, constructive attitude as the process advances.
IN short, treating the SYMPTOMS doesn't get rid of the DISEASE..... you have to find a CURE.
This idea has some merit. Scratch that, it has a LOT of merit. If the cost of keeping these empty systems goes above what a null empire can get for renting it, they will drop it like a hot potato. Many small entities existing on the same landscape means lots of differing opinions, opportunities for diplomacy (particularly blaster diplomacy), and even the possibility of trade between relatively friendly neighbours. A richer Eve for everyone involved.
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
20870
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:29:00 -
[4939] - Quote
WTB pirate supers that can only travel by jump drive President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Bull and Vitleysa
182
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:30:00 -
[4940] - Quote
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
CCP has no responsibility of stewardship other than that they assign themselves.
Except...
Quote:P+¬tursson: I can't speculate that far. We just want EVE to continue to grow and prosper in its second decade. Ultimately I hope we have the stewardship to make it outlive us all.
Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/eve-interview-ccp-ceo-hilmar-veigar-petursson-on-the-future-of-the-eve-universe/
CCP stewardship isn't my invention - so the onus is on CCP, they took up that mantle all on their own. CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf |
|
Seer Aaron
42 inc. Bora Alis
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:30:00 -
[4941] - Quote
These changes are almost completely stifle logistics in NPC space, I tried to CCP themselves to sit on DF and go from NPC space in the nearest Lowsec, through the territory of a hostile alliances. If this decision has put the hands of the people of the CSM, I think this part of the CSM need to cancel and get a new one, because they by their actions spoil the game. Predict the mass loss of the number of people on the servers. At least in our Alliance about this many seriously thinking and looking in the direction of Star Citizen. I do not want to lose people, and especially to leave your favorite game. |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1146
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:38:00 -
[4942] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:I've posted this in other threads and people have liked the idea in other threads.
I would propose the following to keep BLOPS doable but limit mass T3 fleets from being bridged across null sec.
Keep it simple ******************************************************************************************** - Make any jump/bridge to a covert beacon not accrue fatigue outside of T3s
- T3s can still be bridged but normal fatigue applies
- A Black Ops BS CAN bridge/jump to a normal Cyno but normal fatigue rules apply
This allows Black Ops to be done without it being used for mass bridging T3 fleets any more than you could with a Titan chain. A lot of players across New Eden love the doctrine and these changes really hurt it.
How would this not shift the new status quo to mega blops fleets? redeemers are nothing to be laughed at these days, and when paired with stealth bombers for support, we would be back to the original damage projection problem, except now there would be a slightly different required skillset. Sure, the price would be a little higher, but you'd still have alliance fleets travelling from tribute to delve in under 40 minutes with either blockade runners coming along, or fuel depot poses set up along the way.
I'm all for fixing the clearly horrendous fatigue mechanic as mentioned, but I don't think this sort of exception is a good way to address it. Not to mention the potential difficulty in the code of distinguishing what type of destination was jumped to. |
Kiryen O'Bannon
Thrall Nation Brave Collective
151
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:39:00 -
[4943] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: Which is exactly what I said.
You do not then get to use that mantle of stewardship to demand they take action based on popularity. |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1146
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:39:00 -
[4944] - Quote
Seer Aaron wrote:These changes are almost completely stifle logistics in NPC space, I tried to CCP themselves to sit on DF and go from NPC space in the nearest Lowsec, through the territory of a hostile alliances. If this decision has put the hands of the people of the CSM, I think this part of the CSM need to cancel and get a new one, because they by their actions spoil the game. Predict the mass loss of the number of people on the servers. At least in our Alliance about this many seriously thinking and looking in the direction of Star Citizen. I do not want to lose people, and especially to leave your favorite game.
Star Citizen is a very different sort of game. At least look into Life is Feudal instead! |
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:46:00 -
[4945] - Quote
Seer Aaron wrote:These changes are almost completely stifle logistics in NPC space, I tried to CCP themselves to sit on DF and go from NPC space in the nearest Lowsec, through the territory of a hostile alliances. If this decision has put the hands of the people of the CSM, I think this part of the CSM need to cancel and get a new one, because they by their actions spoil the game. Predict the mass loss of the number of people on the servers. At least in our Alliance about this many seriously thinking and looking in the direction of Star Citizen. I do not want to lose people, and especially to leave your favorite game.
If it comes to that I will lose precisely zero people from my gaming community, as we all already play other MMO's together. I suggest you give that a try. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
187
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:47:00 -
[4946] - Quote
A couple of notes to all the people saying adapt or die:
First off people will adapt or die that's not really a choice it's more of a state of affairs. I think what you are completely forgetting is that adapting could mean very few people living much further than 5 LY from a system with a station and a high sec connection.
I haven't read every single post but I've scanned over more than half of this so far and my subjective opinion is as far as cap ship pilots it seems that more of the big alliances are applauding this and more of the small guys are saying it's not so good. Also combat pilots seem to be more happy with this than logistics pilots.
Sure some people will start moving stuff around with escorted industrials that will happen but most likely not at a rate to make up for all of the lost JF trips. I see no way you can increase the difficulty of moving freight around null by this much and not have it affect supply and therefore pricing. For those of you saying "yay high prices I get to make ass tons of isk" The prices will be high because the volume won't be there.
I see no way that you can have vibrant local economies without the ability to transport goods to other regions for trade. This tendency to move stuff to market hubs and then back out to the boondocks is not unique to eve nor is it new. Look at your history books. Also the Jita model is how Fed Ex and UPS operate today. They move everything to central hubs and then back out to the destinations from there.
I went to Spain a few years ago shortly after they had built this huge expressway system across the country. Towns near exits to the new express way were blowing up and booming. Then I went off those expressways and traveled the old 2 lane highways and saw towns shriveling and dying. Restaurants and gas stations boarding up and closing.
We had the same thing happen here in the states in the 50's when the Eisenhower highway system made old route 66 obsolete and it eventually just shut down.
CCP isnt' building an Eisenhower expressway system. They are tearing up route 66
And to the people saying that local economies will start supplying local pilots I am just going to predict that it does not happen that way. I'm saying for the record that barring some other unannounced changes that I am not privy to this will turn anything much more than 5 LY from a system with a high sec connection into more of a ghost town than it already is.
Destructible outposts I think will only make all of this worse.
You just can't have a lot of small gang PvP going on without supplying them ships to loose. These jump mechanics nerf hauling which will effectively nerf PvP.
There is only one real commodity in this game and that is time. I think if you want to predict how things are going to shake out in this game you need to break it down to time spent earning or building ships to time spent loosing them that ratio will tell you everything. These changes are going to mean more time spent hauling, waiting out timers and building all your own stuff and less time spent PvPing. |
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:49:00 -
[4947] - Quote
"I'm taking all my toys and going home over a 40min timer which I have several gameplay options to work with and around."
Looooool "The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain." |
Garandras
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
240
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:49:00 -
[4948] - Quote
The thing is that is also helping the bad hype.. is Dotlan
Dotlan doesn't use any gates..
This will of course mean that scouts may need to be used and people will have to be more effective in defending their space from enemy roams/camps.
The main thing that will come out of this is that JF will be slightly more vunerable to attack in null as unless they want to spend a long time moving stuff and hugging stations they will be more exposed to getting shot at |
Sral TBear
Stupidity will be punished
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:50:00 -
[4949] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:Seer Aaron wrote:These changes are almost completely stifle logistics in NPC space, I tried to CCP themselves to sit on DF and go from NPC space in the nearest Lowsec, through the territory of a hostile alliances. If this decision has put the hands of the people of the CSM, I think this part of the CSM need to cancel and get a new one, because they by their actions spoil the game. Predict the mass loss of the number of people on the servers. At least in our Alliance about this many seriously thinking and looking in the direction of Star Citizen. I do not want to lose people, and especially to leave your favorite game. Star Citizen is a very different sort of game. At least look into Life is Feudal instead!
Might be alot different, but its a dream comming true for many space gamer, dont underestimate that :) "I can tell you that this is one of the moments where we look at what our players do and less of what they say." (2011 shitzstorm-2014 capogeddon)
-- Eve CEO Hilmar |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Bull and Vitleysa
182
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 04:51:00 -
[4950] - Quote
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: Which is exactly what I said. You do not then get to use that mantle of stewardship to demand they take action based on popularity.
Again, popularity was your word - I never used it except to quote you in a sentence.
But Stewardship does necessitate that CCP chart a course that isn't at total odds with the emergent content the players have created.
Opposing 'OP-Crush-It-With-A-Viking-Hammer' development style isn't insisting an 'advise and consent' process intended to assist in development, and not stifle it, be some unreasonable popularity vote. CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 275 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |