|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
permion
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. Arataka Research Consortium
31
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 02:35:40 -
[1] - Quote
At first it was an exciting read, then it got more and more disappointing.
It's like the past year or two of updates before this future one, were designed to defeat any benefit these structures could provide. It's actually kind of disappointing watching CCP plan for years all the other content in the game, then utterly fail to have foresight or any sort of a plan for industry.
It seems like the only reason these structures exsist is to give a new thing for PvPers to loot and KM up. As if industrialists didn't have enough PvPer to worry about on just the market itself.
It's like CCP hasn't even played industry where they've had over a decade of time where you were encouraged in all ways and with all mechanics to play industry like it was a small farm (sure you might bring on farm hands, but they were just hands). Any other mechanics that encouraged larger group play were closer enabling game play, rather than the core feedback loop. The small industrialist is so core to your design that YOU PUNISH PLAYERS FOR EVEN WORKING IN THE SAME SYSTEM.
_________________
Right now there are probably a lot of industrialists that have played the game you've wanted them to for the past decade, wondering if they're stuck trying to join another social network or just tossing industry to the side. Because their current one/group/network is NOT "we're industrialists it's what we do", they're probably closer to "we're X type of players, that has an industrialist or two that also like the first X type of play".
you're requiring a massive change in player interactions(and trust). This point is the bigger of the pain points(with the new system), especially when CCP has explicitly designed previous mechanics against playing as a group of industrialists. |
permion
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. Arataka Research Consortium
32
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 11:52:07 -
[2] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Vald Tegor wrote: EC's are not the solution you are looking for. They are for people coprorations who turn over billions on a daily basis.
I can just see Obi Wan Kanobi waving his hand at the solo and small group industrialists going "These are not the space structures you are looking for. Move along." Well... There is lots of things in EVE you cannot do solo or in 'small group'. For many things you MUST BE part of bigger and stronger group. Looks at Keepstars. Do you think you could have it with your 'small group of players'? But for industry it is somehow should be different? Why? I think that is ok have reasons for people to group. Be it more complex stuff of higher profits.
Because for the past decade CCP has punished their players for being an industrialist in a group. Core mechanics have made it so that if you were building somewhere besides a station you were unable to work with someone because of trust/risk issues. More recent updates have made it so that you're severely punished for even having one other person working in a system.
If you look at PvPer they've pushed the envelope at number/group requirements. experimenting with super high EHP structures, core mechanics rewarding N+1, and similar.
The extent of these updates are comparable to adding friendly fire(or even interception but no damage) to rail/beams/missiles if it's ray/flight path touches an ally, and adding slight spectrum leakage to Ewar modules. Essentially all the N+1 mechanics that players have been rewarded for in the past are now gone, and that part of the player base would be just as in arms. |
permion
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. Arataka Research Consortium
33
|
Posted - 2016.10.17 01:40:57 -
[3] - Quote
Can there be a rig that reduces vulnerability time for each allied citadel in the system?
A rig that allows other structures to assign fighters or similar to it? |
permion
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. Arataka Research Consortium
33
|
Posted - 2016.10.18 00:13:21 -
[4] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks, thanks for all the replies so far. I'm going through everything and I'll be making a big Q&A post with answers at some point soon. No hurries, we wait. Still waiting.
Still Waiting. |
permion
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. Arataka Research Consortium
37
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 22:28:29 -
[5] - Quote
I can see a handful of people to get the numbers to work now. even faster if you decide you don't need to run every service.
It even solves some of my biggest gripes with industry where new/only-friendly(IE trustable, but not billions worth trustable) players that wanted to do industry in an industry corp, they couldn't be allowed to actually interact with corporate assets because of the risks. Basically cutting them out from a lot of the player-interaction loop that keeps them in game.
Though they're still a major nerf. especially since you've spent the past decade and a half brainwashing your community to not use industry in the way you're trying to make them use it now(in groups). And actual defenses are just way worse, with more incentive to actually attack them.
Keeping POSes around as long as you're going to is going to keep them nerfed a bit worse as well I imagine, since after all the market/player forces adapt I imagine there will be a lower ice demand if people actually do group up in a New-Structures a bit more than they do with Old-Structures. Hard to tell if they're actually going to with how hard you trained them with old systems. |
|
|
|