Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
366
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:43:44 -
[1] - Quote
Am I wrong to believe that the new system involves a lot less destruction? In the old system - apart from stations, sov structures were being shot at and destroyed, which provided an engine for the eve economy. In the new system, basically you flash a light at a sov structure and it flips back and forth in a glorified game of tag, no destruction required. As a result, have we just lost a significant driver of the eve economy?
I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
368
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 22:15:16 -
[2] - Quote
Wall of text to follow: TLDR SOV changes are bad; there are simpler approaches that are less disruptive that will achieve similar results.
I recognize that now that its been posted CCP is likely hell bent on these "sov" changes no matter what the consequences. Nonetheless, I thought I would throw out my two cents - personally I cant see how these "sov" changes are a good idea for several reasons:
(1) I get that ccp wants to promote small gang fights, but historically its the big fights and unusual events such as the guiding hand event and b-r5rb that have brought in new players. For me, it was the reporting of the guiding hand event that lead me to give eve a try - not that I have ever done any of that stuff personally, but it was the freedom of game play represented by the incident that attracted me to the game. As for B-r5rb, people like to gripe about big fights, but people rushed to that fight because they wanted to be part of something; people get the impression that these big fights have meaning and influence the course of events in eve, and that "meaning" gets expressed to folk who have not tried the game, which in turn draws them to the game. Now, in my opinion, no one has ever been drawn into eve because of some frig fight in the back end ass of no where. It just seems to me that rather then embracing its strengths and unique attractions, ccp is just throwing them away, leading to less exposure in the game media and ultimately less new players.
(2) Ultimately these sov changes lead to less meaningful fights. If an alliance can only hold as much space as it can live in, there is no point in the alliance engaging in wars of acquisition. You will wind up with little grps of people sitting on their islands with no reason to step off of them.
(3) Sure people "hate" supers and capital ships in general, but they are integral to the eve economy. It takes tremendous effort to build a super. Hell, the concerted effort to build any capital ship is considerable - the ore/minerals required alone is enormous. By nerfing supers and other capitals, ccp reduces the demand for these items, which will ripple through the economy in numerous ways. The need for minerals, pi materials etc. . . will all be reduced significantly. Other things such as third party services will be hit hard, since there just wont be the same need to transfer super. And then there is the whole game play associated with capitals - such as fishing fleets etc...., all gone or reduced. What will these people, who have been building and flying capitals, do once their chosen play style is nerfed? Its hard to imagine that they will suddenly fall back into building and flying cruisers - its like asking a mlb player to go back to the minors.
Ultimately, I just cant be optimistic about the sov changes. It strikes me as overly complicated and needlessly disruptive. The fact that these idea come from the same folk that gave us industry teams and the minigame with its spew doesnt help. A simpler system would in my opinion be much more desirable. Sov decay would achieve most of the results that ccp is looking for without the disruption - what is sov decay? It is the idea that if enough people dont live/play in a particular system, they will progressively lose control over the system. As time goes on, npc events appear in the system disrupting game play, and if not responded to, ultimately besieging the system in an incursion like event. If the event is not defeated, the npc would take over the system rendering it contestable npc sov. To prevent these event from being farmed, the npc would not have any appreciable reward for killing them apart from control over the sov of the system. Because no alliance has the people to live everywhere, this type of system would naturally lead to npc sov systems spreading across the map, which would in turn give smaller alliances the opportunity to either stage out of the systems or to grab the systems to live in themselves. So sov decay achieves the same results of promoting access to null for smaller groups while limiting the size of alliances, all without the needless complexity and disruption.
I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
|