EVE Search - CCP, save EVE

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

CCP, save EVE

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente 46	Posted - 2016.09.27 09:20:54 - [1] - Quote EVE is dying and no use to argue. Those who doubt - just follow the link and spend couple minutes http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility Well i think that CCP realize it. So befor my post turn into TLDR i write my suggestions to prevent death and make this game attractive again. Most of my suggestions had individual post allready and i want to bring it all in one. Here they are: - remove local in null-sec / low-sec - remove tactical destroyers at all (this is the dumbest ship in EVE ever) - remove anomalies like haven, sanctum, etc. resp in sov space by military hub - remove rapid launchers or nurf it - change cyno mechanics - replace NPC bounty with loot only except belts and mission rewards - double up the mineral cost of capital ships - boost Battleships - rebalance T3 cruisers closer to T2 cruisers (their main distinction must be their flexibility but not overwhelming parameters) - replace armor repair bonus with armor ammount bonus for subcapital ships also i'd say some more about sov space. i dont like current hub system. i mean i don't like that its too dumb. i think it should work for constelation, but not for one system. for example military hub could rise the chance of officer spawn in belts, plus the ammount of DEDs in it. also DEDs and mining anomalies should be explored as it was before. it will make people to move in region instead of sitting in one system. so let the hubs just rise the density of DEDs and mining signatures up to x2-x4 among regular null-sec and also this will attract pilots to come in this sov space to run DEDs. more fights more player versus player content. thanks for your attention, and lets discuss it and bring up your suggestions here.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1078	Posted - 2016.09.27 09:34:28 - [2] - Quote So your solution to make the game more interesting is: remove remove remove That doesn't seem very exciting to me. Maybe some more detail about how you think all of these will actually help, since you seem to be blaming falling numbers on just a few ships and mechanics. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente 47	Posted - 2016.09.27 09:51:33 - [3] - Quote correct. first of all ccp should remove all mistakes they did before. those mistakes that killing eve now. except local. it was always but it got into bad stuff with time, so no it should be removed. WH space was a step to it but ccp forgot to spread it further. as i told i was talking about many suggestions in other topics. like a cyno rebalance here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=492415
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1078	Posted - 2016.09.27 10:00:16 - [4] - Quote Good luck getting CCP to look at any of this. You've made absolutely no solid argument at all other than 'this is what I think', but what you think is no better than what someone else thinks, even if it's different to yours. You'll need more credible arguments and details than that. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Rivr Luzade Viziam Amarr Empire 2755	Posted - 2016.09.27 10:01:58 - [5] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: - replace armor repair bonus with armor ammount bonus for subcapital ships. But the shield boost bonuses on ships in combination in particular with Cancer ASB are fine? UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1252	Posted - 2016.09.27 10:46:31 - [6] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Teddy KGB wrote: - replace armor repair bonus with armor ammount bonus for subcapital ships. But the shield boost bonuses on ships in combination in particular with Cancer ASB are fine? One of the things I have never understood is why I can fit 3 ASBs but no more than one AAR. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente 47	Posted - 2016.09.27 11:06:03 - [7] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Teddy KGB wrote: - replace armor repair bonus with armor ammount bonus for subcapital ships. But the shield boost bonuses on ships in combination in particular with Cancer ASB are fine? no not fine. forgot to mention shield, corrected.
Yodik Dwarfed ORE 18	Posted - 2016.09.27 11:07:02 - [8] - Quote also remove random holes and keep just statics, except thera. -Æ -+-Ä-¦-+-¦ -+-¦-+-+-+-Å-é-+-+-¦ -ü-+-é-â-¦-å-+-+ - -¦-¦-ç-¦-¦ Prospect.
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente 47	Posted - 2016.09.27 11:07:40 - [9] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Good luck getting CCP to look at any of this. You've made absolutely no solid argument at all other than 'this is what I think', but what you think is no better than what someone else thinks, even if it's different to yours. You'll need more credible arguments and details than that. all argues in separate threads, kid.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1252	Posted - 2016.09.27 11:15:27 - [10] - Quote All doubling the mineral requirements on capital ships would do is further cement the power of large groups that already have more of them than they can count. In one swoop you've dramatically increased both the value of their assets and the difficulty of trying to compete with them. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente 47	Posted - 2016.09.27 12:29:58 - [11] - Quote i understand that it's impossible to ask to remove tactical destroyers, but at least they should be tweaked. large signature radius, slower speed, less lock range, bigger price etc..
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 1011	Posted - 2016.09.27 12:53:14 - [12] - Quote You need to re-name your topic to Teddy KGB Want This - CCP Make It Happen. There is nothing on it I agree with. And for the record the T3 in all forms needs to be removed from the game, there is no way to balance them because the basic concept and/or the implementation is flawed.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1421	Posted - 2016.09.27 12:59:07 - [13] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: i understand that it's impossible to ask to remove tactical destroyers, but at least they should be tweaked. large signature radius, slower speed, less lock range, bigger price etc.. You do know that only one t3 destroyer is very unbalanced and "SURPRISE" it is not from the technological more superior race whom invented shields in the first place. The Jackdaw and the hecate did come pre-nerfed. The Confessor is fine. An Ibis is not a proper ship to engage a Confessor, zee end. What would be nice though is if the Caldari, the Gallente and the Amarr would get an interdictor destroyer class ship. The sla- errm minmatar have had one for years. It would be time now to introduce the other ones.. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Merchant Rova Pathway to the Next 41	Posted - 2016.09.27 13:14:41 - [14] - Quote I seriously think this is the dumbest thread of all time. Yodik wrote: also remove random holes and keep just statics, except thera. You understand how statics work right? P-NXT is recruiting.
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente 47	Posted - 2016.09.27 13:15:22 - [15] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: You need to re-name your topic to Teddy KGB Want This - CCP Make It Happen. There is nothing on it I agree with. And for the record the T3 in all forms needs to be removed from the game, there is no way to balance them because the basic concept and/or the implementation is flawed. and they should. i've allready was one who told them to make t2 logistic frigate and they did and it was not bad at all.
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente 47	Posted - 2016.09.27 13:19:36 - [16] - Quote Elenahina wrote: All doubling the mineral requirements on capital ships would do is further cement the power of large groups that already have more of them than they can count. In one swoop you've dramatically increased both the value of their assets and the difficulty of trying to compete with them. you mean that if capital price will double up than the loss for big alliance wont be more expansive?
Yodik Dwarfed ORE 18	Posted - 2016.09.27 13:21:01 - [17] - Quote Merchant Rova wrote: I seriously think this is the dumbest thread of all time. Yodik wrote: also remove random holes and keep just statics, except thera. You understand how statics work right? until u dont warp on them, yes. remove that option too and make static available from both side all period. -Æ -+-Ä-¦-+-¦ -+-¦-+-+-+-Å-é-+-+-¦ -ü-+-é-â-¦-å-+-+ - -¦-¦-ç-¦-¦ Prospect.
Yodik Dwarfed ORE 18	Posted - 2016.09.27 13:27:01 - [18] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: Elenahina wrote: All doubling the mineral requirements on capital ships would do is further cement the power of large groups that already have more of them than they can count. In one swoop you've dramatically increased both the value of their assets and the difficulty of trying to compete with them. you mean that if capital price will double up than the loss for big alliance wont be more expansive? explain them first, which permits need for supers building. -Æ -+-Ä-¦-+-¦ -+-¦-+-+-+-Å-é-+-+-¦ -ü-+-é-â-¦-å-+-+ - -¦-¦-ç-¦-¦ Prospect.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 26909	Posted - 2016.09.27 13:27:09 - [19] - Quote The only thing needed to get a full bingo card is something something AFK cloaking. Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. New Player FAQ Feyd's Survival Pack
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 2236	Posted - 2016.09.27 14:35:41 - [20] - Quote If he adds in: "remove cyno jammers and system upgrades" "remove citadel space magic and put the contents of destroyed player made structures in a loot table or scrap heap" I'd be willing to give it a shot. It looks like a lot of his ideas are about kicking botting in the goji berries and putting some actual risk back into the game. I can see where the average null bear will hate all of his thinking. Killing of the cash cow and all. Big picture, if they don't get the game back on its original track to success, but keep going with the gimmicky stuff - we're pretty much riding this thing to the fast approaching end of the line. SOV null has been stale and boring for years and just too damn safe. That drives bored players away AND allows a few large power blocks to basically cockblock new groups from entering sov null as independents. So HS is filling up w/ guys who won't live under the SOV null establishments thumb and SOV subscriptions are falling off due to boredom. Another good idea for the game would be to make the loss rate of supers > production rate of supers. For as long as it takes to remove the APEX fleet reality from the game. I get that some folks get off on it, but the majority of the game would rather do without it (and based on active players logging in they are voting with their feets) These things may seem like suck for some for the current day, but at some point if you want to be bitching on the Eve forums 10 years from now, some of the bad stuff in the game (even if you currently benefit from it) has to go. CCP needs to throw away the short term goggles and get back to the long game. (alpha clones and ship skins are not going to get this done)
Cade Windstalker 560	Posted - 2016.09.27 14:46:18 - [21] - Quote Oh gods these are terrible... Teddy KGB wrote: - remove local in null-sec / low-sec - remove tactical destroyers at all (this is the dumbest ship in EVE ever) - remove anomalies like haven, sanctum, etc. resp in sov space by military hub - remove rapid launchers or nurf it - change cyno mechanics - replace NPC bounty with loot only except belts and mission rewards - double up the mineral cost of capital ships - boost Battleships - rebalance T3 cruisers closer to T2 cruisers (their main distinction must be their flexibility but not overwhelming parameters) - replace armor/shield repair bonus with ammount bonus for subcapital ships Would ** off Null and WH space players. No local is a characteristic of Wormholes, not Null. This is just a terrible idea in general. "I don't like this, remove it" is a good way to players off not retain them. T3Ds need a rework, not removal. Yes, because this wouldn't totally off all of Null... this sounds like an "I'm bitter that I can't get out into null and farm ISK" suggestion. How, exactly? lol This is just economically terrible to a ludicrous degree, not to mention is sure to people off. This sounds like a pissed off miner suggestion, and would also seriously ** off players. Battleships are fine, they're not meant to dominate the game. They get strong and consistent use in pretty much all areas of the game, they don't need a big buff. There's already a T3C Tiericide rebalance yet to happen. Complaining that T3 Cruisers are imbalanced before they've gotten their scheduled rebalance is like complaining that water is wet. This is just a terrible suggestion in general. It removes a solidly useful bonus for a questionably useful one that's almost functionally identical to a resist bonus except worse because it doesn't help remote repair. This effectively makes the game less interesting and more uniform. Suggestions like this to 'save' the game are why I'm glad we have CCP as a filter against bad ideas...
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1253	Posted - 2016.09.27 14:50:06 - [22] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: Elenahina wrote: All doubling the mineral requirements on capital ships would do is further cement the power of large groups that already have more of them than they can count. In one swoop you've dramatically increased both the value of their assets and the difficulty of trying to compete with them. you mean that if capital price will double up than the loss for big alliance wont be more expansive? It will be more expensive for everyone, but the big guys can better absorb that loss because they already have massive piles of cap ships, and they already have massive piles of ISK, so they can afford to replace the ones they lose. It will hurt smaller entities far more, because they have neither the ships nor the ISK to absorb the losses as readily. You'd actually tighten the stranglehold on null by the largest entities because eventually, they'd be the only ones who could afford to build caps in any kind of numbers Contrary to popular belief, making things cost more does far less harm to large entities because they can spread the cost around more. It's the small groups that get shafted. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 2237	Posted - 2016.09.27 14:56:43 - [23] - Quote Getting rid of local in null would **** of null bears. WH pilots would be overjoyed. The split would be the null players w/ wh characters. Not sure where they would fall out. You seem more worried about pissing off players than making the game interesting and viable for the long haul. You can't build a legacy on instant gratification.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 2348	Posted - 2016.09.27 15:00:32 - [24] - Quote You guys are being too harsh. Unlike many posters, this OP managed to consolidate all of his horrible ideas into one easily ignored (or mocked, whatever you're into) thread. There's a certain degree of nobility in that, I think. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1253	Posted - 2016.09.27 15:22:31 - [25] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Getting rid of local in null would **** of null bears. WH pilots would be overjoyed. The split would be the null players w/ wh characters. Not sure where they would fall out. You seem more worried about pissing off players than making the game interesting and viable for the long haul. You can't build a legacy on instant gratification. I'd actually love to see local tied to sov. I seem to remember seeing something about CCP considering that idea. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 2237	Posted - 2016.09.27 15:38:04 - [26] - Quote Elenahina wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Getting rid of local in null would **** of null bears. WH pilots would be overjoyed. The split would be the null players w/ wh characters. Not sure where they would fall out. You seem more worried about pissing off players than making the game interesting and viable for the long haul. You can't build a legacy on instant gratification. I'd actually love to see local tied to sov. I seem to remember seeing something about CCP considering that idea. No local. Period. There is nothing that large blocks can't purchase or grind. If you tie local availability to anything you're just hurting the little guys and boringass business as usual for the big guys. There NEEDS to be a mindset change away from tying things to SOV, SOV upgrades and that sort of thing. CCP got talked into trench warfare a few years back and that's when things started to get sour. Eve would be a lot better off down the road if the ONLY benefit to owning SOV was the ability to say "I own this, come at me bro"
Angelink Liffe Angels of xXRevivaLXx EMPIRE OF LIBERTY 1	Posted - 2016.09.27 16:21:39 - [27] - Quote ccp, dont kill pvp content! change cyno mechanics!
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 11	Posted - 2016.09.27 16:54:53 - [28] - Quote The only thing I can agree with is the fact that the EVEOffline's statistics are sad. I don't think killing half the current "endgame" content would solve anything, more like make the older players quit - with all of their alts. Everyone is complaining about T3Cs, they probably need some rework, I didn't tried them yet personally. T3Ds are the coolest ships in the game with all of their transformations. OP said they should be removed, I say add 4 more: neuter/nosfer bonus for amarr, drones for gallente, railgun-sniper for caldari, rockets/missiles for minmatar to put them in their- (now we're both wrong - probably) According to some people on twitter (which is the most reliable source, as we all know) there were 1.5 million newly registered players last year, half of them dropped the game within 2 hours. The problem isn't the endgame, but the early game content, which is being reworked by ... CCPGhost maybe? I don't remember this for sure.
Vic Jefferson Stimulus Rote Kapelle 1097	Posted - 2016.09.27 17:32:43 - [29] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: The only thing I can agree with is the fact that the EVEOffline's statistics are sad. I don't think killing half the current "endgame" content would solve anything, more like make the older players quit - with all of their alts. Everyone is complaining about T3Cs, they probably need some rework, I didn't tried them yet personally. T3Ds are the coolest ships in the game with all of their transformations. OP said they should be removed, I say add 4 more: neuter/nosfer bonus for amarr, drones for gallente, railgun-sniper for caldari, rockets/missiles for minmatar to put them in their- (now we're both wrong - probably) According to some people on twitter (which is the most reliable source, as we all know) there were 1.5 million newly registered players last year, half of them dropped the game within 2 hours. The problem isn't the endgame, but the early game content, which is being reworked by ... CCPGhost maybe? I don't remember this for sure. It's a year later and you haven't tried them? Oh gosh... where to start. No. No more T3 anything. Part of the fun of EvE online is that you have a wonderfully deep and wide array of ships that can all interact with each other, and all fly differently, with trademark strengths and weaknesses. The curse of the T3D is that they do everything better - they simultaneously invalidated frigates, destroyers, and cruisers. Everything wrong with EvE can trace itself back to diminishing the diversity of ships. Jump fatigue, AegisSov, and Citadels basically made capitals terrible. Carriers were interesting, and forced a good segue into a cap fight, but they axed that too. T3Ds basically took T1 frigates. destroyers. and cruisers out of the game. Warp speed changes basically took BS out of the game. We want to play EvE online. We are given instead a handful of ships. Therein lay the problem. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 839	Posted - 2016.09.27 17:44:07 - [30] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: - replace NPC bounty with loot only except belts and mission rewards. CCP had this before. Drone poop loot and better loot drops on non-drone rats. Drone poop pulled by miner request, it was a fair amount of minerals. As I recall a few drone missions and you could roll off a BC from the assembly line at least if you made them yourself. This how I fed my production lines a little back in the day as I built and ran missions. Mission loot nerfed to the ground by miner (again) and pure industrialist types requests. Former, mineral whines again. Latter hated t1 dropped. Some half assed line of logic since rats drop it no one is buying it. Half assed being no one buys t1 anyway, meta is better and even noobs learn this fast. By and large the only people who use t1 are t2 builders. And by and large we have our own t1 bp's for the base t1 item anyway...needed for invention copies at the minimum. Why the hell would I pay someone else to make my stuff. especially post industrial change where importance of ME was castrated. In short order we all make at same ME now. Sales spike this did not create. As instead of low balling buy orders for t1 loot drops (or using our own if we ran missions too, I did) when this happened we just made our own t1 items. that and blitzing is common for mission runners anyway. Its about the lp//hour a lot in mission running. Looking at the get the quafe mission for example. Simple enough, grab the supply of quafee. Drop in fast, open can, leave. You can kill the rats in this mission if desired. For blitz purists, the payout not there to do this.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 4819	Posted - 2016.09.27 17:59:04 - [31] - Quote But most of those changes just massively diminish quality of life in nullsec? How is that going to save anything? Hell, I'm not even talking about the local changes, I'm talking the 'remove ratting sites and make everyone go back to running belts lol!!1 but now there's no bounties and you have to haul everything!11' nonsense...
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 2353	Posted - 2016.09.27 18:02:36 - [32] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Mission loot nerfed to the ground by miner (again) and pure industrialist types requests. Former, mineral whines again. Latter hated t1 dropped. Some half assed line of logic since rats drop it no one is buying it. Half assed being no one buys t1 anyway, meta is better and even noobs learn this fast. Incorrect. It wasn't nerfed for the benefit of T1 module sales, it was nerfed because the mineral output from reprocessing Meta 0 battleship rat drops oversupplied the market, making actual mining even worse than it is today (and it's still pretty terrible). It was initially soft-nerfed with a module volume increase, and when that didn't solve the issue, hard-nerfed with "metal scraps". "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 11	Posted - 2016.09.27 18:16:48 - [33] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: It's a year later and you haven't tried them? Oh gosh... where to start. Cruisers 5 takes a lot of time, I think it's better to focus on the weapon support skills for a bit longer. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 839	Posted - 2016.09.27 19:03:08 - [34] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Zan Shiro wrote: Mission loot nerfed to the ground by miner (again) and pure industrialist types requests. Former, mineral whines again. Latter hated t1 dropped. Some half assed line of logic since rats drop it no one is buying it. Half assed being no one buys t1 anyway, meta is better and even noobs learn this fast. Incorrect. It wasn't nerfed for the benefit of T1 module sales, it was nerfed because the mineral output from reprocessing Meta 0 battleship rat drops oversupplied the market, making actual mining even worse than it is today (and it's still pretty terrible). It was initially soft-nerfed with a module volume increase, and when that didn't solve the issue, hard-nerfed with "metal scraps". Some industrialists were complaining they couldn't get a good start in production because of the t1 source from loot drops. Rabble rabble can't make any money to start up t2 production, selling ammo sucks, ships sales hard to start up in, rabble rabble. Me...I said run missions for the seed money for this myself. had to in the old days when data core collection (empire, non-FW) more viable before FW changes shifted core emphasis to that. Blitz for standings, made some isk in addition to the more dedicated real rat killer in the process and got me level 4 research agents....win win win. The only valid gripe from this was cap charges imo. these did drop like rain in a typhoon I won't lie. CCP could have dropped charges no complaints. Or they could just not have made these lol. Common sense not so common as they say. Mining has always sucked. It will never be fixed. I did it for 1.5 years before I got my head out of my ass lol. That and I am a patient man, I always find in time someone who will sell for cheap when I need/want mins (empire low ends anyway). They don't want to haul to a hub, the money is right there...
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1085	Posted - 2016.09.27 23:12:54 - [35] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Good luck getting CCP to look at any of this. You've made absolutely no solid argument at all other than 'this is what I think', but what you think is no better than what someone else thinks, even if it's different to yours. You'll need more credible arguments and details than that. all argues in separate threads, kid. If you think you've made argues [arguments] in other threads, you're sorely mistaken. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5279	Posted - 2016.09.28 00:11:25 - [36] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: correct. first of all ccp should remove all mistakes they did before. those mistakes that killing eve now. except local. it was always but it got into bad stuff with time, so no it should be removed. WH space was a step to it but ccp forgot to spread it further. as i told i was talking about many suggestions in other topics. like a cyno rebalance here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=492415 The problem with your explanation is that growth stopped in 2011. Some of the things you complain about did not even exist or the connection to the lack of growth or even the decline in players is unclear. For example, sanctums and havens....what is the connection there? Local in NS? Again, not seeing it. Local has been there all along even when the game was growing? So what is the connection? Cynos have already been nerfed with fatigue and jump range reductions. In fact, some point to these changes as to why they are leaving, so again...what is the argument here? This laundry list looks like a list of things you'd like to see changed vs. actually helping with player retention. In fact, I would argue CCPs mistakes are not introducing new ships or sanctums or havens, but is in fact making HS PvP a less viable play style. Now you either gank freighters and retrievers or you camp trade hubs and periodically roaming the pipes between the hubs. Things like removal of the watchlist was a mistake. The various rounds of freighter ganking were likely a mistake as well. And the thing is I don't think you can go back from these mistakes. One adaptation to the removal of the watchlist were mass wardecs. If the watchlist were put back in, I don't think it would stop mass war deccing, but it would mean you'd have these large war dec organizations who could hunt down targets all over New Eden--i.e. if you thought war decs were a problem before...put the watchlist back in and watch things turn into a complete **** show. Here is another issue with the argument of "because of svipul". There has been a number of Ship-of-the-day or the like. Back in 2008 or so it was nano hacs zipping around at speeds like 3,500m/s or faster. Out running missiles and so forth. Did that slow game growth? Maybe, but the game grew despite this. Then there were other examples as well. Ships and modules can be balanced so I'm just not seeing the argument here, but feel free to go ahead and give it a shot. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Kiriana Beoulve Brotherhood of Shadow Omega 1	Posted - 2016.09.28 06:11:20 - [37] - Quote Removing things isn't the way to go. Personally I think they need to add more highend PvP, and give Carebears more progression past Marauders. They should add a ranked PvP system where 1v1s, 3v3s, and 5v5 ship combat is a thing (With no outside interference!). Let people set price ranges for the battles as well. It's great that Eve has a huge sandbox, but letting more controlled outlets for ISK sinks and making more blown up ships is a good thing. T1 frigate teams would be super fun in PvP! The game is going to have a really rough time with the renewed space sim genre. Combat and gameplay itself has never been a strong point in Eve, and the draw away from Microsoft Excel in space is only getting stronger. Meanwhile, new players are far from being Wowed by the click intensive combat that was built on limits that existed over a decade ago. Lets be honest, Social aspects are the only thing holding the game together.
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente 60	Posted - 2016.09.28 09:02:39 - [38] - Quote Quote: Cynos have already been nerfed with fatigue and jump range reductions. In fact, some point to these changes as to why they are leaving, so again...what is the argument here? This statement is a widespread delusion and deservs a big discussion. The fatigue and jump range brought a big boost of defense. Using caps in small battles in home regions got very safe against subcapital fleets and small-mid scale roams. When you know that there are no anycapital forces around you can easily drop couple carriers into a battle without fear of being counterdropped. So it's a very safe and cheap way to kill a ranodm roam in your home system. Cheap because the cost of fitted carrier is equal to price of fitted marauder. Another delusion is that one falcon switch of a carrier, because in fact carrier in 99% times used as additional force to existing fleet, so this type of argue is pretty result oriented and polarized. Quote: sanctums and havens....what is the connection there? Sanctum and havens have killed DEDs exploration. Nobody struggle for 10/10 anymore. DEDs allways used to be an escalation point for PvP content. Your fleet came in system, see ships on d-scan, you come there, if they just left the DED you didn't fly away but ran that DED as a compensation, while very often people who were kicked out of it came back regrouped and this made PvP in space. This all happened coz there was something to fight for, now DEDs cost dropped from 1.8 bil to 0.6 bil in maximum chance of loot drop. At least you can leave sanctums but remove the escalation that it gives, as it devalues DEDs. Quote: Here is another issue with the argument of "because of svipul". There has been a number of Ship-of-the-day or the like. Back in 2008 or so it was nano hacs zipping around at speeds like 3,500m/s or faster. There is a little difference between svipul nowadays and nanoishtar in 2008 and it's the price. Maybe you remember the price for t2 polycarbon rigs that days? considering the inflation the price of that nano ships was just huge. for instance dominix cost ~60mil in 2008 while t2 policarbons cost about 80mil.
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente 60	Posted - 2016.09.28 09:04:13 - [39] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: If you think you've made argues [arguments] in other threads, you're sorely mistaken. i don't even need to read your post, coz i see your killboard.
Dantes Wolf White Dragon Mining and Holdings 85	Posted - 2016.09.28 09:23:47 - [40] - Quote It's not as much a "delete this or that" as it is: "Provide Endgame Options" - Most pilots who live here, hasn't got much to do: If stuff like "DED 10-20" sites were added, we'd go a long way - higher sites in null, for capital (and capital team RR options) we're introduced, we'd have a lot to do also. Lastly; if monthly payments we're skipped, and cut down to optional Plex-buying for cash, we'd be a long way also.. Not that the later's gonna happen; CCP is a greedy corp, and they need to make ends meet, but if they made the game FFA, we'd see membercounts sky-rocket. There's the solution to saving EVE, but.. Greed will be the downfall of the game, that's my verdict. D. "Before you diagnose yourself with low selfesteem and depression, you should first make sure, that you are not just, in fact, surrounded by assholes".
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 26917	Posted - 2016.09.28 13:22:32 - [41] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: If you think you've made argues [arguments] in other threads, you're sorely mistaken. i don't even need to read your post, coz i see your killboard. hurr durr killboard... Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. New Player FAQ Feyd's Survival Pack
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 2241	Posted - 2016.09.28 13:52:15 - [42] - Quote Dantes Wolf wrote: It's not as much a "delete this or that" as it is: "Provide Endgame Options" - Most pilots who live here, hasn't got much to do: If stuff like "DED 10-20" sites were added, we'd go a long way - higher sites in null, for capital (and capital team RR options) we're introduced, we'd have a lot to do also. Lastly; if monthly payments we're skipped, and cut down to optional Plex-buying for cash, we'd be a long way also.. Not that the later's gonna happen; CCP is a greedy corp, and they need to make ends meet, but if they made the game FFA, we'd see membercounts sky-rocket. There's the solution to saving EVE, but.. Greed will be the downfall of the game, that's my verdict. D. Once eve is free and 100,000 new players join and daily server load is 130,000 - what are you going to pay for the required server upgrades with??? Free to play is great for small dorky games like forge of empires that don't have much depth to them. Eve is a beast on the hardware end. If it rises in popularity down the road - it would be even beastlier. That costs real money. A lot of you free to play guys remind me of the corporate guys where I work. You sit in a vacuum, come up with an idea and don't really think it through sufficiently. Seriously - if Eve is free to play - how will CCP maintain (little lone improve) it?
Cade Windstalker 564	Posted - 2016.09.28 16:06:36 - [43] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Eve would be a lot better off down the road if the ONLY benefit to owning SOV was the ability to say "I own this, come at me bro" I'm really not sure where this idea got going. Tying Sov to things is useful mechanically because it creates a limiter for CCP to use (on things like Super Capital production, for one) and it also helps justify sov bills, which are a significant ISK sink which is very economically useful. Take away the mechanical benefit and people will basically either stop caring and that'll become the meta, or they'll hold just enough Sov to put their name on the map and then live wherever because why pay money for something with no mechanical benefit? Vic Jefferson wrote: Everything wrong with EvE can trace itself back to diminishing the diversity of ships. Jump fatigue, AegisSov, and Citadels basically made capitals terrible. Carriers were interesting, and forced a good segue into a cap fight, but they axed that too. T3Ds basically took T1 frigates. destroyers. and cruisers out of the game. Warp speed changes basically took BS out of the game. We want to play EvE online. We are given instead a handful of ships. Therein lay the problem. This is demonstrably untrue. Eve's ship meta was at its least diverse pre-tiericide which didn't start until 2012 and the majority of user growth was before this. Also Capital Ship use is going up, not down and even with the post-Citadel changes Carriers are seeing more use than they did before Citadel and performing better as well. Also Battleship use hasn't changed much historically with Battleships holding the same 90 day and all-time rankings on zKillboard and almost the same 7-day ranking. On a related note, non-T2 Cruisers are still the most used hull class in the game, and Frigates are number 2 over the last 90 days. I'm not disagreeing that T3Ds and T3Cs are a problem, but CCP acknowledges that as well. I think the main point of disagreement here is whether they have a place in the game at all. Personally I think "jack of all trades, master of none" is a pretty good idea in theory, we'll have to see if it holds up in practice. They certainly haven't removed Frigates and Cruisers from PvP in the game though. Personally I think both you and the OP are massively over-simplifying a complicated problem at the core of which lies the fundamental truth of any form of entertainment, that people will eventually get bored. Every MMO shows this kind of boom and bust cycle. Eve had a good half a decade or so buoyed by a lot of positive changes to the game and some really wide ranging press, but at the end of the day it's not everyone's game and not everyone who likes it stays subbed all the time. If Eve does have a systemic problem it's certainly not going to be fixed by people whining on the forums about simplistic solutions...
Merchant Rova Pathway to the Next 45	Posted - 2016.09.28 17:12:58 - [44] - Quote Yodik wrote: Merchant Rova wrote: I seriously think this is the dumbest thread of all time. Yodik wrote: also remove random holes and keep just statics, except thera. You understand how statics work right? until u dont warp on them, yes. remove that option too and make static available from both side all period. Thats literally what statics are. If you remove K162 holes there are no more statics. Have you tried ever leaving Thera? P-NXT is recruiting.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5280	Posted - 2016.09.28 21:28:42 - [45] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: Quote: Cynos have already been nerfed with fatigue and jump range reductions. In fact, some point to these changes as to why they are leaving, so again...what is the argument here? This statement is a widespread delusion and deservs a big discussion. The fatigue and jump range brought a big boost of defense. Using caps in small battles in home regions got very safe against subcapital fleets and small-mid scale roams. When you know that there are no anycapital forces around you can easily drop couple carriers into a battle without fear of being counterdropped. So it's a very safe and cheap way to kill a ranodm roam in your home system. Cheap because the cost of fitted carrier is equal to price of fitted marauder. Another delusion is that one falcon switch of a carrier, because in fact carrier in 99% times used as additional force to existing fleet, so this type of argue is pretty result oriented and polarized. And prior to that force project was one reason you had a vast swaths of NS that were essentially abandoned but were held as buffer zones. Force projection, marching giant fleets across the map very quickly, along with Dominion Sov created a map that looked like this, vs. the one we have today. Yes, it does give a home field advantage, at least in theory, but considering that super capitals and even capitals do not appear to be as handy in Aegis Sov as Dominion Sov with fatigue and jump range restrictions I do not find that view very compelling. To be clear, we have yet to see super capitals and capitals being the deciding factor in sov warfare so far. Maybe it will become that way some day, but right now...not seeing it. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5280	Posted - 2016.09.28 21:36:19 - [46] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: Quote: sanctums and havens....what is the connection there? Sanctum and havens have killed DEDs exploration. Nobody struggle for 10/10 anymore. DEDs allways used to be an escalation point for PvP content. Your fleet came in system, see ships on d-scan, you come there, if they just left the DED you didn't fly away but ran that DED as a compensation, while very often people who were kicked out of it came back regrouped and this made PvP in space. This all happened coz there was something to fight for, now DEDs cost dropped from 1.8 bil to 0.6 bil in maximum chance of loot drop. At least you can leave sanctums but remove the escalation that it gives, as it devalues DEDs. Why can't you do this with things like sanctums, havens and escalations? Set up temporary base in the system and run their sites until they can get a large enough group to make a fight? Teddy KGB wrote: Quote: Here is another issue with the argument of "because of svipul". There has been a number of Ship-of-the-day or the like. Back in 2008 or so it was nano hacs zipping around at speeds like 3,500m/s or faster. There is a little difference between svipul nowadays and nanoishtar in 2008 and it's the price. Maybe you remember the price for t2 polycarbon rigs that days? considering the inflation the price of that nano ships was just huge. for instance dominix cost ~60mil in 2008 while t2 policarbons cost about 80mil. Yes, and the ships/modules were rebalanced not removed. And ISK is a horrible thing to balance on because obtaining ISK is very easy. Lots of people skilled for and used nano HACs, so much so that it was nerfed. Removal is pretty extreme when simply re-balancing can work. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 12	Posted - 2016.09.28 22:41:43 - [47] - Quote 2 quick ideas to fix the T3 problems: - T3Ds killed frigates problem: new high level DED sites, which would be a serious challenge for a solo T3D, and the acceleration gates only allow frigates to pass. People would need a small fleet of frigates to do these. - T3Cs by general problem: now that CCP has good statistics about the most/least common configurations, they could do an actual rebalance, by erasing every numbers on every subsystems and starting to rebuild them from 0. Sure, it's much harder than nerfing something - again... If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente 63	Posted - 2016.09.29 13:53:19 - [48] - Quote Quote: Why can't you do this with things like sanctums, havens and escalations? Set up temporary base in the system and run their sites until they can get a large enough group to make a fight? whats the point in running sanctums? the problem i was talking about is that sanctums made DED useless, as its loot got cheap..
aldhura United Miners of New Eden 101	Posted - 2016.09.29 18:54:01 - [49] - Quote This thread is based on facts from years of research , I like it. Elvis lives thread
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5282	Posted - 2016.09.29 19:50:54 - [50] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: Quote: Why can't you do this with things like sanctums, havens and escalations? Set up temporary base in the system and run their sites until they can get a large enough group to make a fight? whats the point in running sanctums? the problem i was talking about is that sanctums made DED useless, as its loot got cheap.. So are you butthurt over cheaper loot or that they have reduced PvP? "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18215	Posted - 2016.09.29 19:58:06 - [51] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Teddy KGB wrote: Quote: Why can't you do this with things like sanctums, havens and escalations? Set up temporary base in the system and run their sites until they can get a large enough group to make a fight? whats the point in running sanctums? the problem i was talking about is that sanctums made DED useless, as its loot got cheap.. So are you butthurt over cheaper loot or that they have reduced PvP? Cheaper loot methinks.
Cade Windstalker 566	Posted - 2016.09.29 21:20:28 - [52] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: 2 quick ideas to fix the T3 problems: - T3Ds killed frigates problem: new high level DED sites, which would be a serious challenge for a solo T3D, and the acceleration gates only allow frigates to pass. People would need a small fleet of frigates to do these. - T3Cs by general problem: now that CCP has good statistics about the most/least common configurations, they could do an actual rebalance, by erasing every numbers on every subsystems and starting to rebuild them from 0. Sure, it's much harder than nerfing something - again... These are both kind of lousy solutions. The problem with T3Ds isn't PvE content, it's when someone in a T3D looking for small gang, solo, or even large-fleet small-ship combat meets an equal or even slightly larger number of Frigates the T3Ds pretty much win. They're also strong enough to beat out larger ships designed and run away from anything that might actually threaten them. Putting in PvE content for frigate groups doesn't do anything to fix T3Ds. Wiping out and starting over from scratch only sounds like a good idea to someone who has never done balance work before. For a start you completely lose the reference point of all of that data you've got. If you want to use the data you can't actually wipe everything out as a starting point, you have to change and tweak based on what you've already got. Also wiping things out creates problems for players who have trained skills and want them to still be useful similarly to how they were before. If the players get pissed CCP has to either work out a refund for the SP or a conversion or something and that's more work for them, which means less work to spend on other things. Generally speaking the problem with T3s is one of magnitude not of general concept. The problem isn't with the idea of a ship that's a bit better at things than T1 but not as good as T2 and has to decide how it's going to fit, the problem is when you wind up with a ship that's functionally a lot better than T1 and slightly better than T2, either in absolute terms (T3Cs with tank and gank) or in some semi-oblique way because of being slightly better at two things creating a ship that's very much better in one general way (10MN T3Ds). Unfortunately that's a kind of hard balance problem to fix without either failing to fix it or creating something that's been nerfed too hard, neither of which is desirable.
DEXTRAMF Universal Prime Syndicate Wild Souls 0	Posted - 2016.09.29 21:49:38 - [53] - Quote This is my first post on the forum, because the problem really exists. Overall, I totally agree with TeddyKGB. In 2013, the playing process was really interesting. There was a balance of ships, was pvp action and it was interesting to fly in solo and in a gang. Now all of this is disappear. The current reality is that you can fly one hour, two or three, and not find a fight. You can fly for hours and die on the drop of capitals. Cyno drops capital and masers. Capitals currently have everyone. People are moving out from systems and come together in large groups of people and there are sitting in the dock just waiting for your dissapeareance. No Pvp Content. Just find another blob and die from capital cyno drop WTF??? No point in making complexes 10 \ 10. Farm anomaly in the pet system, and nothing else to do. As a result, people are sitting in the home system, no roaming and does nothing. Playing bored. Content is not present. Therefore, if -í-íP do not make a cyne and capital nerf - online will fall further. It's obvious. Just not fun to fly and die from the capital drop. For example, "entozis Fozzy Sov" and with the introduction of the strongholds - it's not necessary. What for??? Large-scale battles "blob to blob" it is simply not profitable, just sit and farm green anomaly. T3D Svipul everything does better, no need to use frigates\AF\Crus type. It's just casual player's point of view and I hope CCP do all their best to find out a general solution to fix it up. Thanks.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 12	Posted - 2016.09.30 02:46:31 - [54] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: The problem isn't with the idea of a ship that's a bit better at things than T1 but not as good as T2 and has to decide how it's going to fit, the problem is when you wind up with a ship that's functionally a lot better than T1 and slightly better than T2, either in absolute terms (T3Cs with tank and gank) or in some semi-oblique way because of being slightly better at two things creating a ship that's very much better in one general way (10MN T3Ds). Maybe I misunderstand something, but isn't the whole meaning of tiers is that each of them is better than the previous? So T2 is better than T1 and T3 is better than T2 and much better than T1? Also, I never made game content before, so I don't know how hard it actually is to balance the T3Cs' 5 subsystems, which makes 1024 possible subsystem-combinations for each of them (wait, what?) but if you can get me into the game development, I'd like to try it. DEXTRAMF wrote: The current reality is that you can fly one hour, two or three, and not find a fight. ... No Pvp Content. ... Content is not present. Isn't EVE supposed to be a PVP-based sandbox game? As much as I understand, this means that players should be creating the content through PVP actions. And PVP is definitely present, I saw CODE destroying a freighter today in hi-sec (and I managed to get some t2 salvage too), so the content is definitely there, maybe you're just looking for it at the wrong place. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1425	Posted - 2016.09.30 04:01:21 - [55] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: ...Cade... Maybe I misunderstand something, but isn't the whole meaning of tiers is that each of them is better than the previous? So T2 is better than T1 and T3 is better than T2 and much better than T1? This is the law! Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5284	Posted - 2016.09.30 04:40:34 - [56] - Quote DEXTRAMF wrote: This is my first post on the forum, because the problem really exists. Overall, I totally agree with TeddyKGB. In 2013, the playing process was really interesting. There was a balance of ships, was pvp action and it was interesting to fly in solo and in a gang. Now all of this is disappear. The current reality is that you can fly one hour, two or three, and not find a fight. You can fly for hours and die on the drop of capitals. Cyno drops capital and masers. Capitals currently have everyone. People are moving out from systems and come together in large groups of people and there are sitting in the dock just waiting for your dissapeareance. No Pvp Content. Just find another blob and die from capital cyno drop WTF??? This is not new. I have gone on roams where you see nothing for system after system. As for capital drops I recall on one roam we were dropped by a super carrier well before fatigue and jump range nerfs. So no, this is not something new. Quote: No point in making complexes 10 \ 10. Farm anomaly in the pet system, and nothing else to do. As a result, people are sitting in the home system, no roaming and does nothing. Playing bored. Content is not present. Therefore, if -í-íP do not make a cyno and capital nerf - online will fall further. It's obvious. Just not fun to fly and die from the capital drop. Please, the OP is butthurt over the drop in the value of the loot and nothing more. Want some PvP, go take a solid fleet to somebody's system and camp a popular ratting system. We used to do this with Goons when I was in IT Alliance years ago, they'd eventually form up and we'd have a running fight with them. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1426	Posted - 2016.09.30 05:14:37 - [57] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: ... Please, the OP is butthurt over the drop in the value of the loot and nothing more. Want some PvP, go take a solid fleet to somebody's system and camp a popular ratting system. We used to do this with Goons when I was in IT Alliance years ago, they'd eventually form up and we'd have a running fight with them. I like it! Or if you find some newbs trying out sov and it turns out that you shouldn't take sov when you cannot defend it or someone who can will take it. But in my defense, it just happened. And I am so glad that taking sov doesn't involve 3000 supers anymore and you have a lot of small gang action. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1089	Posted - 2016.09.30 13:45:46 - [58] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: If you think you've made argues [arguments] in other threads, you're sorely mistaken. i don't even need to read your post, coz i see your killboard. That's a Dracvlad level of dumb. Instead of engaging your epeen, you should try engaging your brain instead; and start making coherent and good argues [arguments]. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 12	Posted - 2016.09.30 19:09:00 - [59] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: ...Cade... Maybe I misunderstand something, but isn't the whole meaning of tiers is that each of them is better than the previous? So T2 is better than T1 and T3 is better than T2 and much better than T1? This is the law! Yay, another chart to remember! \o/ Okay, so navy ships are upgraded T1 ships, the logi cruisers got a huge improvement on their DPS, nice work, really nice! Pirate ships are the best "unspecialized" ships, T2s are more specialized, need a lot more skills to use but still somewhat weaker and a lot cheaper. The T3s should be about as good as the navy versions... what does "generalization" mean exactly? I mean in this context? I can imagine 2 possible things based on this picture: A: the ships' basic abilities are about the same as the navy versions' but with the proper combination of subsystems and equipment and with the related skills maxed they could become about as good (maybe slightly better) than the T2s. I imagine this as the basic concept, even if the delivery resulted OP ships. or B: take the average stats of the navy ships and give them the rookie ships' bonuses, multiplied by the level of the "Strategic Cruisers" skill. I know that the strategic cruisers' biggest advantage should be the ability to completely change their roles using a mobile depot, but for this much money and skill learning, I don't see a reason to make them much weaker than the T2 variants. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3540	Posted - 2016.09.30 23:03:54 - [60] - Quote Think of them as being able to combine two or more abilities into a single ship but with not as much power. E-war t3's are a good example. Recons get volleyed off the field easy in big fights so people use t3's. They have more tank but their e-war is not as strong. Another good example is cloaky t3's. They can be bridged to covert cynos and are the toughest covert ships, but they don't do as well in a straight fight. What has definitely gone wrong though, imo, is the combination of subsystems that give the t3's the gank and tank of command ships/battleships with the resist profile and mobility of hacs and interdiction nullification to boot. Ccp have said, a long time ago, that they want t3's to be 'jack of all trades, master of none'. And they've also said words to the effect that t3's are not all bad. There are just a few subsystem combinations that are too powerful. Probably the above mentioned. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 12	Posted - 2016.10.01 02:40:23 - [61] - Quote I was reading the abilities of the different subsystems and there are a few things that I would do differently. I'll may actually start to think about it when I'll have more time, but here are a few things I thought: The offensive subsystem kind of seems like the primary function, so I would switch the cloaking ability from the offensive systems and the remote rep ability from the defensive: - the cloak could be combined with a leveling sig-radius reduction so the ship will become more fragile without tank bonus, but also more slippery. - the remote rep ability should be "offensive" so you have to decide if you want to be top DPS or top healer, this could have cap reduction instead of the the armor resistance bonus. Also, I think the warfare links should either be offensive or electronic systems (mostly electronic) - if you want to be the fleet booster then you shouldn't be brawling in the front line. Yes, I know this mechanic will somewhat change soon. Even if you want to combine abilities, you should decide your primary function first. The Legion's neuter ability also seems more like an offensive system, rather than electronic. Poor Legion also missing the remote cap-recharge transfer and/or cycle time reduction bonus subsystem, which would be sweet if we could combine it with the energy vampire bonus. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Wachutu Perkone Caldari State 9	Posted - 2016.10.02 08:30:23 - [62] - Quote remove yourself and EVE will be better such idiot ideas lol....
Dictateur Imperator Ab origine fidelis Southern Sitizens 31	Posted - 2016.10.02 08:43:55 - [63] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: - remove local in null-sec / low-sec - remove tactical destroyers at all (this is the dumbest ship in EVE ever) - remove anomalies like haven, sanctum, etc. resp in sov space by military hub - remove rapid launchers or nurf it - change cyno mechanics - replace NPC bounty with loot only except belts and mission rewards - double up the mineral cost of capital ships - boost Battleships - rebalance T3 cruisers closer to T2 cruisers (their main distinction must be their flexibility but not overwhelming parameters) - replace armor/shield repair bonus with ammount bonus for subcapital ships Remove local , and only loot no bounty => go to wh. Remove anomalie => Remove player who live in 0.0 and farm ... nice to save eve i can continue but you're post is like " i can't kill people, and they make money, please CCP nerf all and you will save MY game". Sorry for you if you done all this change you just kill eve.
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives 13016	Posted - 2016.10.02 09:58:10 - [64] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: And for the record the T3 in all forms needs to be removed from the game, there is no way to balance them because the basic concept and/or the implementation is flawed. If you can't definitively say one way or the other on this, then your idea is fundamentally flawed Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi . Bumble's Space Log
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente Galaxy Spiritus 70	Posted - 2016.11.20 02:45:39 - [65] - Quote Hey! What about if Sansha incursions will jamm the local communication system? i know that CCP can't afford such a huge change (i mean remove entire local chat member list in eve), but can be fun to test it by incursions. what do you think guys?
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 894	Posted - 2016.11.20 06:40:32 - [66] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: - replace NPC bounty with loot only except belts and mission rewards - double up the mineral cost of capital ships - boost Battleships. You are aware item 1 brings back drone loot poop, right. CCP got rid of that for a reason. And how does this help eve when it cuts down on the income of most players in the game. With markets going to crap with already abundant loot drops sales....there'd be no money here. Even I as a grrr care bear melt down a decent percentage of my stuff. Its not worth taking to a hub to sell. Also CCP gimped loot drops to offset mineral intake from rat killing the miners were ranting about. You are negating a change ccp made for a reason. Cap ship change....and with this on patch notes for 1-2 months out ....we'd see the biggest pre patch rush ever in eve. Whether for cheap fleet replacements post patch or...very nice resales. If this to fix being too space poor to fly caps...its not working. The people and crews who are rich would load up on these pre-patch. The space rich would get richer and the space poor would be get poorer to keep up cap fleets. You have me confused with boost BS'....when in the same thread you have nerf or remove rapids. We have a weapons system for missiles that addresses a shortcomings of BS' versus smaller ships...and you want it gone. You see imba here, please do tell how there wont be imba when another solution is presented to make BS better in general. Since you have not said what is wrong with them to being with. As they are more than fine at their roles as BS and cap shooting, decent for structure bash in numbers.....leaves the usual rant rabble rabble I blind jumped into a gate camp with 20 cruisers and frigs and they killed me. Why you blind jumped the gate...that's what I'd be wondering about. Fly BS' with support...many of their "problems" go away. Other issue would be fix the warp times I have seen. As beat to death in tother threads...but le met go poof you have it. Now BC and below get their warp times fixed too. CCP had a vision here....small ships go zoom zoom, Mid sized ships go zoom, large ships go...well I will get there when I get there, hold your horses y'all. So voila...cruiser/frig/dessie roams still are favored for even faster speed meta. With the fun side effect of we now have hacs warping like frigging inty's now (no mods or rigs fit even to do this).
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5528	Posted - 2016.11.21 01:18:24 - [67] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Teddy KGB wrote: - replace NPC bounty with loot only except belts and mission rewards - double up the mineral cost of capital ships - boost Battleships. You are aware item 1 brings back drone loot poop, right. CCP got rid of that for a reason. And how does this help eve when it cuts down on the income of most players in the game. With markets going to crap with already abundant loot drops sales....there'd be no money here. Even I as a grrr care bear melt down a decent percentage of my stuff. Its not worth taking to a hub to sell. Also CCP gimped loot drops to offset mineral intake from rat killing the miners were ranting about. You are negating a change ccp made for a reason. Cap ship change....and with this on patch notes for 1-2 months out ....we'd see the biggest pre patch rush ever in eve. Whether for cheap fleet replacements post patch or...very nice resales. If this to fix being too space poor to fly caps...its not working. The people and crews who are rich would load up on these pre-patch. The space rich would get richer and the space poor would be get poorer to keep up cap fleets. You have me confused with boost BS'....when in the same thread you have nerf or remove rapids. We have a weapons system for missiles that addresses a shortcomings of BS' versus smaller ships...and you want it gone. You see imba here, please do tell how there wont be imba when another solution is presented to make BS better in general. Since you have not said what is wrong with them to being with. As they are more than fine at their roles as BS and cap shooting, decent for structure bash in numbers.....leaves the usual rant rabble rabble I blind jumped into a gate camp with 20 cruisers and frigs and they killed me. Why you blind jumped the gate...that's what I'd be wondering about. Fly BS' with support...many of their "problems" go away. Other issue would be fix the warp times I have seen. As beat to death in tother threads...but le met go poof you have it. Now BC and below get their warp times fixed too. CCP had a vision here....small ships go zoom zoom, Mid sized ships go zoom, large ships go...well I will get there when I get there, hold your horses y'all. So voila...cruiser/frig/dessie roams still are favored for even faster speed meta. With the fun side effect of we now have hacs warping like frigging inty's now (no mods or rigs fit even to do this). Not only that but with the games extremely stunted banking industry having new money enter the economy is probably a good thing. Keep in mind that any ISK sitting in your wallet is not circulating. Any ISK in a player's wallet who is inactive is not circulating. The higher orders of money one would find in a RL economy do not exist in game. Hell the most narrow definition of money M1 is not even really applicable IMO. It is not applicable because if I have 10 billion in my wallet it cannot be lent out. It is essentially not in circulation and not really a factor in terms of inflation. Thus, zeroing out rat bounties could very well result in deflation, maybe substantial deflation. An economy can withstand some deflation, but large deflation...it can be devastating. If I can earn 10% doing literally nothing...why bother doing something? This is what happened during the Great Depression, the deflation rate was so high consumer spending completely collapsed. Fun anecdote my family a few generations back had a business preparing and selling meat. My grandmother talked about eat top of the line meat because nobody was buying it, so the family would eat it. Everyone was trying to spend as little as possible so they were going for the cheapest cuts of meat. Ship prices have already risen quite a bit and mineral prices are already above what they were back in 2008/2009, well above those prices. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5528	Posted - 2016.11.21 01:20:24 - [68] - Quote BTW, people should just throw this notion of "if we make it 2x as expensive people will work 2x as hard to get it" right in the rubbish bin. People do not do that, they will often end up making do with what they can afford vs. what they might have bought if prices were lower. If the price of steak goes up I don't worker longer or harder, I switch to chicken, pork or fish. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Piugattuk Lima beans Corp 553	Posted - 2016.11.21 06:48:12 - [69] - Quote Remove everything, all ships will be Ibis, then nerf Ibis so that fitting more then 1 gun is impossible, remove the drone from the Ibis, make is so that only on Tuesday only characters who's name starts with a "C" can fly between the hours of 06:00 hours and 12 noon, but only if the pithi arrogato comes out to the belt on Friday, then you would have a fizzbin, but only at night.
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 175	Posted - 2016.11.21 12:35:36 - [70] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: EVE is dying and no use to argue. Those who doubt - just follow the link and spend couple minutes http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility Well i think that CCP realize it. So befor my post turn into TLDR i write my suggestions to prevent death and make this game attractive again. Most of my suggestions had individual post allready and i want to bring it all in one. Here they are: - remove local in null-sec / low-sec - remove tactical destroyers at all (this is the dumbest ship in EVE ever) - remove anomalies like haven, sanctum, etc. resp in sov space by military hub - remove rapid launchers or nurf it - change cyno mechanics - replace NPC bounty with loot only except belts and mission rewards - double up the mineral cost of capital ships - boost Battleships - rebalance T3 cruisers closer to T2 cruisers (their main distinction must be their flexibility but not overwhelming parameters) - replace armor/shield repair bonus with ammount bonus for subcapital ships also i'd say some more about sov space. i dont like current hub system. i mean i don't like that its too dumb. i think it should work for constelation, but not for one system. for example military hub could rise the chance of officer spawn in belts, plus the ammount of DEDs in it. also DEDs and mining anomalies should be explored as it was before. it will make people to move in region instead of sitting in one system. so let the hubs just rise the density of DEDs and mining signatures up to x2-x4 among regular null-sec and also this will attract pilots to come in this sov space to run DEDs. more fights more player versus player content. thanks for your attention, and lets discuss it and bring up your suggestions here. Cyno should be changed yes. Why remove the local in low/null-sec ? Why removing the anomalies /how should the income in 0.0 be generated ? Why are rapid launchers brocken ? Why is the T3D the dumbest ship in EVE ever ? Which loot should the NPC-¦s drop in change for the bounty ? Why double the cost of the Capital ships ? Your ideas raise more questions than it answers. -1
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 895	Posted - 2016.11.21 22:01:43 - [71] - Quote Piugattuk wrote: Remove everything, all ships will be Ibis, then nerf Ibis so that fitting more then 1 gun is impossible, remove the drone from the Ibis, make is so that only on Tuesday only characters who's name starts with a "C" can fly between the hours of 06:00 hours and 12 noon, but only if the pithi arrogato comes out to the belt on Friday, then you would have a fizzbin, but only at night. Basically. I have taken this idea even further in the past. Here is the most balanced, honest and fair pvp game ever made. Pong..... 2 bars of equal size, 1 ball. Bounce it back and forth till someone misses the block. there ya go. I got blobbed by caps (guessing basis for cap cost to make change)....solved. I got covert cyno ninjya gang hot dropped by recons and bombers....solved. Player x has more money than I do....solved. fact that its boring as hell I will not argue. I will argue this is the most balanced pvp that has ever existed. Assuming good hardware its all on the player's skill.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5532	Posted - 2016.11.21 22:21:08 - [72] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Piugattuk wrote: Remove everything, all ships will be Ibis, then nerf Ibis so that fitting more then 1 gun is impossible, remove the drone from the Ibis, make is so that only on Tuesday only characters who's name starts with a "C" can fly between the hours of 06:00 hours and 12 noon, but only if the pithi arrogato comes out to the belt on Friday, then you would have a fizzbin, but only at night. Basically. I have taken this idea even further in the past. Here is the most balanced, honest and fair pvp game ever made. Pong..... 2 bars of equal size, 1 ball. Bounce it back and forth till someone misses the block. there ya go. I got blobbed by caps (guessing basis for cap cost to make change)....solved. I got covert cyno ninjya gang hot dropped by recons and bombers....solved. Player x has more money than I do....solved. fact that its boring as hell I will not argue. I will argue this is the most balanced pvp that has ever existed. Assuming good hardware its all on the player's skill. I actually played pong when it first came out....and you are right, all these problems solved and boring as Hell. That is why I argue those things some players complain about actually make the game interesting...but hey some people like watching grass grow. But we should not listen to people who like watching grass grow...no matter how loud and obnoxious they are. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.