|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 07:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Okay so originally I asked these questions to or rather suggested them to the person who was seeking help on what people of highsec may want. I never received a response from him despite spending a fair amount of time before reading up on the issues and condensing them down enough to not be such a headache to read. So anyway without further ado here is some edited copy pasta to see what you think about them.
Personally I think that industry really needs a great big revamp, specifically the mining side of industry. To summarize a thread post that I was reading not too long ago it talks about how to improve mining to the point in which it could potentially be enjoyable and require skill to do properly. The ways in which to make mining more GÇ£funGÇ¥ also increase the difficulty of making a botting program that does everything on its own. Some of the things in this forum post include: Visual differentiation of asteroids up close in order to see a better yield, system wide belts (finally), Much larger difference in yields of ore essentially giving more use to the survey scanner along with the visual cues to show the difference (i.e. Instead of having there be 2 better yields of 5% per ore instead have 5%, 50%, 100%, 200%, etc.), remove drone mineral drops and replace them with higher bounties, remove t1 drops and instead have rats drop bpcGÇÖs (This one IGÇÖm unsure about but itGÇÖs mostly going towards only allowing players to acquire minerals through mining), and finally having probing mechanics assist you in finding this higher yield ore.
Those are just some of the things mentioned within the thread that I believe have some merrit.
The thread can be found here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=672496#post672496
Also anyone who considers the mining system in ME2 to be anywhere near "good" seriously needs to reconsider what you find fun and worth your time.
The second suggestion that I mentioned was the removal of "tiers" and instead having roles instead for each type of ship in Eve. There are a fair amount of T1 ships all across the board that are never used because there are just direct upgrades to them. This should be fixed and can be done by adjusting the ships into their own specific roles. There honestly isn't much more to say on the issue and in my original post suggesting this I started to ramble. So anyway here is the thread post, however it does take a fair amount of reading compared to the other one to find some of the better posts in it.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24582
Anyway those are the two biggest things that I would like to know out of pretty much all of the candidates, you seem like one of the more likely ones that may win running partially for highsec.
|
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 07:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
ceyriot wrote:Joyitii wrote:Also anyone who considers the mining system in ME2 to be anywhere near "good" seriously needs to reconsider what you find fun and worth your time. Wasn't saying it was good, just wanted to say that it is something that could be done, relatively easily. (I think) Also, it would add more variation to the long-stagnant process of mining. I suppose you have me there but I've forever had a gripe with how terrible that system was for mining. At least unlock how fast you can spin the damn planet. : / |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 09:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Joyitii wrote:Mining thoughts.... Checked out the thread. Textural mapping or spin rate variation to distinguish between asteroids that are named the same on overview, but contain varying amounts of ore is brilliant. It is perhaps the most beautiful solution to the problem I've seen so far. And developmentally, this makes a lot of sense. We've just overhauled planets, nebulas, warp tunnels, and now the ships themselves.....leaving asteroid belts as sadly one of the most graphically outdated features in the game. It makes absolute sense to me to build a "captcha" into the markings of the asteroids, their shape, or their motion, and solve the botting issue without even having to do much more work than they should be doing anyways to keep up with their artwork schedule. DEATH TO ALL BOTS. I favor solutions that elevate mining as a profession. I also believe in addressing problems at their root. Currently mining is not a well-respected profession, despite it being such a critical part of the EvE economy. One of the root causes of this is that the game mechanics are so simplistic that artificial intelligence can substitute for human intuition. This is not the fault of the players. The resulting arguments over who is botting and who isn't absolute tear the EvE community to shreds year after year. It fuels griefing, it causes massive distrust amongst all sorts of player entities, even reaching the CSM itself. This is in no way the kind of "good conflict" that drives game activity and keeps things fun. It's quite the opposite. If we can convince CCP there's an accessible solution to the bot problem, that they can even sell well as part of an expansion (customers love new shineys!) I think its a win-win-win for the entire EvE community. Consider this a solution I can push to the developers if elected, until someone shows me something better. (...) My apologies if i am being thick, but, that change would then mean that survey scanners would be gone? Not necessarily, they would still tell you how many minerals are in the asteroids. Just not if they're good or not. : ) Also read the thread that he is talking about if you don't want to be confused. |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 09:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Joyitii wrote:Mining thoughts.... Checked out the thread. Textural mapping or spin rate variation to distinguish between asteroids that are named the same on overview, but contain varying amounts of ore is brilliant. It is perhaps the most beautiful solution to the problem I've seen so far. And developmentally, this makes a lot of sense. We've just overhauled planets, nebulas, warp tunnels, and now the ships themselves.....leaving asteroid belts as sadly one of the most graphically outdated features in the game. It makes absolute sense to me to build a "captcha" into the markings of the asteroids, their shape, or their motion, and solve the botting issue without even having to do much more work than they should be doing anyways to keep up with their artwork schedule. DEATH TO ALL BOTS. I favor solutions that elevate mining as a profession. I also believe in addressing problems at their root. Currently mining is not a well-respected profession, despite it being such a critical part of the EvE economy. One of the root causes of this is that the game mechanics are so simplistic that artificial intelligence can substitute for human intuition. This is not the fault of the players. The resulting arguments over who is botting and who isn't absolute tear the EvE community to shreds year after year. It fuels griefing, it causes massive distrust amongst all sorts of player entities, even reaching the CSM itself. This is in no way the kind of "good conflict" that drives game activity and keeps things fun. It's quite the opposite. If we can convince CCP there's an accessible solution to the bot problem, that they can even sell well as part of an expansion (customers love new shineys!) I think its a win-win-win for the entire EvE community. Consider this a solution I can push to the developers if elected, until someone shows me something better. (...) My apologies if i am being thick, but, that change would then mean that survey scanners would be gone? Not only that, but he is completely ignoring the fact that a majority of the minerals harvested in the game DON'T come from mining; they come from mission and drone loot, reprocessed into raw minerals. There are issues of supply that need to be solved before we need to go into some kind of Turing-test campaign for mining in belts. Again I would like to say that you should go and read the thread that he is talking about. It talks about removing all drone mineral loot and all T1 drops from missioning effectively removing all mineral sources other than those from mining. |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 09:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:I hate to say it (lol) but I have one more question.
Your character's security status is -4.8.
How are you representing the players of hisec, and the people who seek entry-level PVP there? In his giant 20 page pdf file he mentions that he wants locked low-sec status decreases to end at 2.0 since it doesn't stop going down if you keep shooting people there. It doesn't mean that he was shooting people in highsec. |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 10:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Joyitii wrote:Mining thoughts.... Checked out the thread. Textural mapping or spin rate variation to distinguish between asteroids that are named the same on overview, but contain varying amounts of ore is brilliant. It is perhaps the most beautiful solution to the problem I've seen so far. And developmentally, this makes a lot of sense. We've just overhauled planets, nebulas, warp tunnels, and now the ships themselves.....leaving asteroid belts as sadly one of the most graphically outdated features in the game. It makes absolute sense to me to build a "captcha" into the markings of the asteroids, their shape, or their motion, and solve the botting issue without even having to do much more work than they should be doing anyways to keep up with their artwork schedule. DEATH TO ALL BOTS. I favor solutions that elevate mining as a profession. I also believe in addressing problems at their root. Currently mining is not a well-respected profession, despite it being such a critical part of the EvE economy. One of the root causes of this is that the game mechanics are so simplistic that artificial intelligence can substitute for human intuition. This is not the fault of the players. The resulting arguments over who is botting and who isn't absolute tear the EvE community to shreds year after year. It fuels griefing, it causes massive distrust amongst all sorts of player entities, even reaching the CSM itself. This is in no way the kind of "good conflict" that drives game activity and keeps things fun. It's quite the opposite. If we can convince CCP there's an accessible solution to the bot problem, that they can even sell well as part of an expansion (customers love new shineys!) I think its a win-win-win for the entire EvE community. Consider this a solution I can push to the developers if elected, until someone shows me something better. (...) My apologies if i am being thick, but, that change would then mean that survey scanners would be gone? Not only that, but he is completely ignoring the fact that a majority of the minerals harvested in the game DON'T come from mining; they come from mission and drone loot, reprocessed into raw minerals. There are issues of supply that need to be solved before we need to go into some kind of Turing-test campaign for mining in belts. The OP already adressed that, not very brightly, by calling to remove alloy drops from drones and replace BPC drops for the module drops from NPCs. Frankly I don't buy the missions part, BPC are the most useless thing for a mission runner (we blow stuff, don't build it!). Anyway, upon further thinking about the visual captcha, i just found it to be born dead. Why? Because a bot has got all the time in the world to waste hitting empty asteroids until meeting the one-in-ten. Even worst, it would be simple as hell to teach the bot to unlock and remove from list any asteroid that wouldn't yield mineral after a cycle. As long as a bot can fly to a bookmark and eventually hit gold, it's gonna be enough to justifiy the use of such bot. But then, expecting noobs to find gravimetrics on their own before as much as mining could be a return to the "learning cliff". Rendering miner bots obsolete is gonna be a tough thing to do. I'm just going to say this. You haven't read the whole thread. It's quite a read I admit but what you're talking about is addressed and honestly this isn't the tread that it really needs to be discussed on. |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 12:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:I've been reading the whole thread, and I'm thinking more and more that he is not a very good option. Candidate A claiming people shouldn't vote for candidate B? Well I never! I was wondering why he was being so critical over something so trivial. vOv |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 12:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
So what do you want? For him to answer questions? If so grab a ticket and wait in line till he gets off work and has some actual free time. Honestly you're making more of a fuss here than any goon has... |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 04:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Seleene wrote:Anyway, I'm just a visitor in your thread and like talking about this stuff. No no, I'm totally glad you stopped by, this is great for the voters to hear. Ask me anything you'd like! I hope I never implied I wanted to limit the potential for all that Faction Warfare can be, I'm merely trying to be sensitive to the order in which these things are done. I've been honking the "rank is meaningless" horn for a long time myself, so we both envision a lot more for the feature than exists. My primary concern has always been with the decreased activity levels the warzone as scene year after year. I think all the bells and whistles should come, but they should come once the core motivational concerns are addressed and enough player interest exists to justify adding a lot more development into the future. That was my objection to the "remove all high sec navy" idea tossed out by Soundwave, because I feel you need to drive activity level first, than expand FW's overall scope. Otherwise, you risk stretching an already-strained player community even thinner. It sounds kind of counterintuitive, but I think right now should be about making FW a bit smaller, rather than larger. Hats are great, but the pilots I know want the fights more than the hats. I think that even if changes like moving LP rewards to plexing victory shrinks the battlefield somewhat (because players make their money and fight each other using the same activity), you actually benefit the community by making the PvP more fun and accessible. Getting people moving again, than taking the time to spread them back out, is really important to most of us who engage in Faction Warfare under current conditions. Thanks again for the good conversation! I hope the voters find it valuable as well. I did find it valuable and learned a few new things about how FW should be implemented. Thanks to both of you! |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 05:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:When I suggested using monetary means to stave off war, conceptually what I support is that players that seek passive activities such as mining, industry, and trade, should have more tools at their disposal to use financial means to combat aggressive war decs. Yes, simply allowing a defensive corp to pay more to increase the cost to the declaring corp is a solution that favors wealthy corps, and would be insufficient on its own to defend smaller corps. I did not intend to suggest it as the sole solution to high sec war decs.
Iam Widdershins wrote:You seem unaware of the fact that people who engage in hisec PVP intentionally often have FAR stronger sources of income than their targets, which is what enables them to engage in the expensive activities of PVP in the first place. Plus, this means that larger corporations that would actually be able to defend themselves effectively if they tried can more easily afford to pay out of the problem -- meaning that only corporations who end up having wars of a length worth speaking of are the ones that are unable to defend themselves, turning wars in hisec into a farce of grief that drive people out of the game. This is a very bad mechanic.
I hope you will consider and understand what I am saying. I would just like to point out his last sentence in the paragraph that you quoted.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I did not intend to suggest it as the sole solution to high sec war decs. |
|
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 10:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Joyitii wrote:I would just like to point out his last sentence in the paragraph that you quoted. Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I did not intend to suggest it as the sole solution to high sec war decs. Yes, but he did suggest it as PART of a solution for hisec wardecs, when it would in fact only serve to exacerbate a problem that already concerns a lot of people. If you want to pay your way out of a war, you should talk to the people you're fighting against. For further explanation, I would like to point out some sentences of my own, if you are up for reading them this time: Iam Widdershins wrote:...larger corporations that would actually be able to defend themselves effectively if they tried can more easily afford to pay out of the problem -- meaning that only corporations who end up having wars of a length worth speaking of are the ones that are unable to defend themselves, turning wars in hisec into a farce of grief that drive people out of the game. So much venom in every single one of your posts. I'm not going to definitively say anything for him but what it seems like is that he supports this idea of people having another way to protect themselves against a wardec. He is using it as an example for something that he would support. He literally says that it is conceptually something that he supports, not necessarily that specific idea. The worst thing that I can see out of his example is less war targets for mercs/privateers to prey on. Mind you this is only in highsec you're still free to roam in low/nul and pew to your hearts content. |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 14:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
May Ava wrote:Nice post matey
Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0
We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how
Good luke matey
CCP was talking of making it easier to vote in elections. People have wanted an in game voting system put in place. |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 14:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
Kaver Linkovir wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote: If you stop for ten seconds to give it some actual thought, you may note that if nobody else plays the game any more, I don't have a game to come back to either. I am glad you brought this up. After noticing a pattern in highsec declaration of war I started a little mapping project. As far as I have been able to track it a marginal number of EVE players (500 to 1000 players) are responcible for over 90% of "griefer" declarations of war. Your Project Nemesis among them. You and players advocating targeted "griefing" and "tear extraction" cost EVE players that might have flourished without your pressure. This is primairily tied to the targeted nature of a declaration of war. Anybody can shrug off a gank that results in concord retaliation, most can appreciate the skill in the assasination of a blinged out mission ship but the targeted and continued prosecution caused by griefers piling on the wardecs put a huge strain on all but the best managed corporations. Sure, it's darwinism, but this is also a game people play for enjoyment. A minority prolongedly crushing enjoyment that might have been had by a majority warrents attention and thought. In my opinion you and yours have cost CCP an enormous amount of subscriptions and have cost EVE a huge amount of players that might have furtherd EVE were they not smothered in their cribs. I would love data on the actual rate of increased subscription loss tied to prolonged and repeated "griefer" declarations of war. I would hope that the "griefer" vote goes to more deserving and more well rounded candidates that don't advocate and champion an erosion of the EVE playerbase we all depend on. On a side note: loved the Gallente ice interdiction. I lost my first Retriever because of the interdiction. Funniest thing ever considering I had the freaking post open and was just about to read that they had expanded to the Caldari systems as well. I didn't have a chance at that point. xD |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 16:08:00 -
[14] - Quote
Doctor Eezee wrote:Joyitii wrote:May Ava wrote:Nice post matey
Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0
We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how
Good luke matey
CCP was talking of making it easier to vote in elections. People have wanted an in game voting system put in place. How is that a good idea? That would just lead to idiots voting randomly instead of making an informed decision. I'm all for more advertising of the voting process, but don't let people vote that won't even go to the forums to read about the candidates. Be that as it may there have been a fair amount of people complaining on the forums about how confusing it is to figure out where to vote for someone. I never said it was a good idea however if everything was more localized in the game then there would end up being more voters overall. Not sure how that's a bad thing. |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 12:50:00 -
[15] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:To help clarify my vision for high sec I have begun work on my next blog post, which will focus specifically on providing a stand-alone summary of where I stand on the various high sec-specific issues that have been brought up so far. I want the voters to have a clear idea of the activities I believe should thrive in high sec, the nature of how safety should be provided, and the type of war that should and should not be encouraged by the mechanics. I appreciate your patience with this, look forward to its publish in the next few days. Here is the link to my blog where you all can follow and keep in touch.
|
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:56:00 -
[16] - Quote
Indius Lux wrote:Belts should spawn, get mined out, and despawn. Static belts that grow make no sense anyway. There should be more reliance on the Survey Scanner, one way to do this is to have diminishing returns on yield. Keep miners busy, require some intelligence to get a decent yield, and have something shooting at you all the time; asteroid belts should be a great place for criminals to hang out. They should have bars there. I disagree a few of these points. There should be belts that spawn but I believe that a system wide belt that requires you to scan down and find better yield asteroids would be much more "epic." Survey scanners I believe should tell you exactly what it does now i.e. how much of whatever mineral is in the asteroid. Also they should have all the names of the asteroids as "Asteroid" so you need to look at or use a survey scanner to determine what type of mineral you will get. Mining is usually considered as a semi afk activity and there are lots of out crys that I've seen saying that they want it to stay more or less that way. It is a fairly relaxed profession and should reflect that, leave the high isk out in low/nul where people are much more willing to pay attention and aren't doing homework/cooking/laundry or what have you. By all means voice any and all concerns about mining in the thread below. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=59357&find=unread |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 17:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Joyitii wrote:Mining is usually considered as a semi afk activity and there are lots of out crys that I've seen saying that they want it to stay more or less that way. It is a fairly relaxed profession and should reflect that, leave the high isk out in low/nul where people are much more willing to pay attention and aren't doing homework/cooking/laundry or what have you. This is a decision regarding to mining development that has to be considered extremely carefully. I understand that some miners enjoy the semi-afk game play it allows, but this is also the same quality to mining as an activity that makes it a prime target for griefing. Miners who want to protect mining as a semi-afk activity must also relinquish their rights to complain when the Goons come and kill their barges, or Hulkageddon keeps them docked for a week or two. Some do, most donGÇÖt. I think weGÇÖve all settled with mining as being a boring, afk activity only in the absence of CCP offering something much more engaging. I think most miners would prefer to spend a couple of hours with an entertaining feature that requires their full attention, than spend half the day babysitting something valuable that can be taken from them in a momentGÇÖs notice and jeopardize all the profit they could have earned had they been at their computer. IGÇÖm trying to approach the mining issue with respect to the negative impact it has had on the entire social fabric of EvE for years now. The mining/ganking/botting argument circle has been going around and around endlessly and I feel itGÇÖs such a waste of time when we could simply come up with something fun to play instead. Mining remains one of the most outdated professions (along with industry) in terms of development; I see no virtue in preserving a relic from the past if CCP can be convinced to dedicate the resources needed to iterate upon the core system. A large reason that it is griefed is also due to miners not fitting any tank whatsoever and then the very small crowd of loud people complaining about it all over the forums. There are PLENTY of people who suck it up and take the risk or tank up their battle hulks and don't complain about it on the forums because they know how and why their ship got blown up. On the post that I mentioned earlier there are complaints about mining turning into some kind of minigame or quicktime event. Changing the things that I've mentioned would in my opinion keep things closer to the core of what eve is. Player made content - risk of being scanned down and being shot up. Going to low and null and taking those big risks of a ship being blown up. I know that the player made content comment is going to get me flamed all to high hell but I think that keeping the mechanics of mining (Point laser - Shoot rock) close to being the same but the logistics (Having to scout out the best part of a belt to mine from) behind it all much more deep will satisfy the most amount of people. |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 17:05:00 -
[18] - Quote
Indius Lux wrote:Joyitii wrote:I disagree a few of these points. I don't think we disagree, I'd be happy to see more emphasis on scannable sites. The spawning sites I mentioned would be on overview, but their migration and distribution around system would decrease the can fields we see currently. We don't disagree on what the Survey Scanner should do; I just think that a big rock might have no ore in it and a small rock might have a lot. The only way to tell that should be via the Survey Scanner, but currently it doesn't really matter what rock you mine, it all puts out the same amount per cycle just the quantity before it's exhausted is different. And I'm sure that those making their income off of mining would put up a fight over making their job more complicated, but I don't think there's anyone who thinks mining is anything other than boring. Turning a boring activity into an interesting one should have a net positive effect on the userbase. As you mentioned, there's a thread for this kind of stuff, and this probably isn't the place to get into a detailed and exhaustive analysis of mining. I just saw a trivit about rocks smashing into each other and physics engines which got me off on a tangent: I don't mine because it's boring, I don't PvE because it's boring, it can be fixed and Hans is my candidate (though I'm sure I'd rather he push iterating security and getting FW some love before fixing things I don't do because they are boring) Carebears and Pirates for Jagerblitzen! I'm glad that we agree on more than I had initially thought! The comment about rocks hitting each other rubbed me the wrong way too. I however decided to stay quiet since I thought that there were starting to be too many posts in this thread about mining where it could better be discussed elsewhere. Anyway here I go on another one... |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Mortromain wrote:Cearain wrote: I don't think many people in low sec are deterred from ganking you due to the anti-pvp ss mechanics. Either they have decided they will not shoot neutrals, or they likely blow up your ship if they think they can get away with it.
Also he is not trying move all of low sec to the sisi. Ships and modules will still cost isk so PVP will still have consequences.
I aggree that people in low sec already made their choice about whether they will shoot neutral or not. However, they will either have to forget about high sec at some point or to stop. and many people don't come to low sec because of this SS system. These changes might make casual piracy too easy. This could be good (i mean more people = more fight), but low sec should be a place where people live, not some sort of toilets where people come doing **** and leave. I'm afraid of a lowsec becoming as dangerous as nullsec. FW already is an arena for consensual PvP. I think you are probably right that this will bring more people into low sec looking for pvp. This in turn might mean that pvers will have more people looking to kill them per system. That would likely mean somewhat fewer pvers. I tend to think it would be a net increase for low sec though. However if this happens ccp could do at least 2 different things to offset this. 1) they could make more low sec systems like they did with black rise. This would mean there are no longer more people per system and pvers could still find a quieter system for pve. 2) They could give some increases in the rewards pvers get in low sec. The end result would mean more people are in low sec doing what they want to do. I do really think that they should increase the number of lowsec systems too. It'll make it harder to track down people in those systems and add a false sense of security to have more people come out and stay a while. Personally I'd love to mine in lowsec but at the current time there are just too many people roaming the systems at pretty much all hours. Plus more systems adds to the already large universe which I have a feeling may become fairly cramped if all things on the horizon go well. |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 16:31:00 -
[20] - Quote
HELIC0N ONE wrote:Vordak Kallager wrote:Kethry Avenger wrote:Cool Stuff This is a pretty cool idea. I don't presume to dictate what nullsec'ers want or need, but I think having some kind of smaller-fleet objectives that influence the greater sov-war mechanics can only be a good thing that creates more diversified and frequent PvP. The point of taking 0.0 space is access to valuable resources that you can choose to exploit, not forcing people to meet ratting quotas to maintain infrastructure. Enforced PvE, which is what Kethry seem to suggest, is a poor way of determining ownership. Admittedly I guess that's not a million miles away from how it works in FW but as has already been discussed in this thread, the incentives for doing so are pretty much limited to bragging rights so its not as though anyone loses out all that badly. I mean, the idea of invading a hostile system with hulks and out-mining the defenders to take their sov is amusingly surreal, but I don't think it would actually make for entertaining gameplay beyond the novelty value of doing it the first couple of times. I'm really glad that Goonswarm has been so respectful during Hans entire campaign however I really don't know where you pulled that out of. : / |
|
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 03:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote:this is not a bump. Really now? |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 07:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
Voting time already? Best of luck to you Hans! |
|
|
|