EVE Search - CCP finally plans somthing against moon goo.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP finally plans somthing against moon goo.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Endeavour Starfleet 714	Posted - 2012.03.23 16:28:00 - [1] - Quote I have to admit I am impressed with that presentation in some ways. What I was most impressed about was the idea that he dared to call moon mining what it is. An ATM belching money. Finally something that atleast on its face has the potential to spur more small alliance development! Edit: Yes it is early but I like how they want to use Incursion grouping and planning as a basis for the new system of drops for everyone. 10 friends fishing a belt is 100X better than moon goo wars.
Endeavour Starfleet 714	Posted - 2012.03.23 16:33:00 - [2] - Quote Ladie Harlot wrote: Yet another reason to thank The Mittani and CSM 6. I would make a comment about how long it took them to convince CCP to do something about this and that it will be a year atleast before it happens. Yet hey atleast we have something now.
Endeavour Starfleet 714	Posted - 2012.03.23 16:38:00 - [3] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: I doubt the CSM had everything to do with everything CCP is doing. I am sure the majority of this was already planned and being worked on long before CSM6 came along. On a note of the content shown in the presentation...I almost cried...that stuff is going to be amazing! I was very impressed as well. Even tho I did not like the part where he stated that POS fixes are a 2013 thing. NO Pos and Corp changes need to be late 2012!
Endeavour Starfleet 714	Posted - 2012.03.23 16:43:00 - [4] - Quote Andski wrote: Axe risk-free high-sec incursions next. So the topic is about a system they hope to implement that is based on the success of hisec incursion grouping (Which isn't risk free BTW considering the actions against fleets in the past few days and the usual drunk/fail logi) And the first thing you say is the usual bs of "AXE TEH HISEC INCURSIONS NAO!!!" Y u so mad? Had some moon goo that didn't go to Goon standard funds?
Endeavour Starfleet 715	Posted - 2012.03.23 16:47:00 - [5] - Quote adam smash wrote: You guys have like memory issues? What has CCP gave us that was amazing? About all CCP gives us is bugs and server restarts. Amazing would be a game that has less bugs than world of tanks a F2P NEW mmo.... wtf. I mean ffs, you can't have 0 isk in your wallet now... What did they do to F that up? Super cap blobs.... Lowsec being nothing but 0.0 with out bubbles. Look at the the recent smart bomb titan... ***** like 50 motherships came to the fleet that took it down. ** up UI... ** up neo com Broke sec gains... Changed mod names for no reason IF they do anything with moon goo... I am sure they will f it up too. About all EVE is anymore is watching out for bugs, and releaning ** you should not have to. U mad brah? Funny how you consider name changes bad as well. Yep he mad.
Endeavour Starfleet 715	Posted - 2012.03.23 16:48:00 - [6] - Quote Andski wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: (Which isn't risk free BTW considering the actions against fleets in the past few days and the usual drunk/fail logi) "our worthless publogis cause us to die, there is marginal risk in our 9-digit incursions :(" Gonna chalk that one up as the usual bs from folk who don't run incursions. NEXT!
Endeavour Starfleet 715	Posted - 2012.03.23 18:27:00 - [7] - Quote Andski wrote: Taiwanistan wrote: heh even more worthless is the scrublord endeavfor butthurt who aint shiney enough to join them shiney fleets. oh those pirate bs fleets have web +more firepowre than my drake awwwww the funny thing is that you used to be able to join "shiny" fleets with a T2 fitted faction BS by just linking a fake "shiny" fit generated with EFT, but the autistic FCs caught on and started scanning ships, requiring skillboards to be linked, etc. because lol elitism over how you make ISK So FCs requiring honesty from players and rejecting the liars is elitism? Enough of you derailing this topic anyway. This is about Tech Moons going buh bye!
Endeavour Starfleet 717	Posted - 2012.03.23 18:55:00 - [8] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: 10 friends fishing a belt is 100X better than moon goo wars. Right, because 10 friends in a belt causes 2000 man fights like the moons currently do No it causes far fewer battles on site while the 2000 man battles happen over getting more territory to "fish" in for the collation. With a great deal more incentive for the individual pilots to fight and win.
Endeavour Starfleet 721	Posted - 2012.03.24 02:00:00 - [9] - Quote Ok folks seriously. Stop talking about incursions in this topic. People might want to read and discuss this idea and I rather them not have to wade through a ton of the same old incursion lies from people who cant resist attacking them at every chance. Zircon Dasher wrote: So long as CCP makes all the goo dropping roids limited in number and easily found I think it is generally a good thing. Limited numbers of areas and well marked locations of said roids is necessary to put groups in competition/conflict. CCP would be smart to create a crap ton more ways to compete with eachother inside the PVE content of the game. Now if players do not want to compete or provide the risk, like in Highsec Incursions, then so be it. They should suffer the negative consequences of such play, whatever those may be. The design must be made from the get go to screw over botting attempts. That right there removes most chance of it being easy to find or easy to run. Which is fine with me because the last thing we need is alliances replacing their moons with tech bots.
Endeavour Starfleet 723	Posted - 2012.03.24 06:49:00 - [10] - Quote Just going to say that I highly doubt most of the bots are in nullsec. Now with most large scale alliances having rules against blue bot reporting and the massive amount of RMT from nullsec.

Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 04:56:00 - [11] - Quote Lexmana wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: The design must be made from the get go to screw over botting attempts. That right there removes most chance of it being easy to find or easy to run. Which is fine with me because the last thing we need is alliances replacing their moons with tech bots. Best way to fight bots would be to remove hisec because that where the bots are. Bots are like incursion runners - they want CONCORD protection just like ATMs IRL. Hisec is here to stay. Fix nullsec before you decide to nuke most of the game from orbit.
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 05:11:00 - [12] - Quote Ladie Harlot wrote: DarthNefarius wrote: ok prove it so I can eat my tin foil hat... were do you get the numbers which say there are more bots there then in null? The data came directly from CCP. The data they can detect. I am no longer convinced they have even the remote ability to detect the smart bots that gets used by the nullsec RMT cheaters. And alliances run with "Don't report blues" that is why I don't think the "PLEX for video cards" is a good idea. This is why in my opinion the replacement for moon goo needs from the very start to be designed to foil even the smartest bots. So we don't have large alliances replacing their moon goo with bot goo.
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 05:20:00 - [13] - Quote Ladie Harlot wrote: Some of you need to take the tinfoil hats off and stop snorting so much coke before taking to the forums. The paranoia is getting ridiculous. If you don't see the potential for bots taking over this new system then I don't know how goons keep you around. Then again the idea that active players participating in anything besides CTAs (And thus asking for more in return) must be a nightmare for many nullsec alliances.
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 06:37:00 - [14] - Quote Andski wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Ladie Harlot wrote: DarthNefarius wrote: ok prove it so I can eat my tin foil hat... were do you get the numbers which say there are more bots there then in null? The data came directly from CCP. The data they can detect. I am no longer convinced they have even the remote ability to detect the smart bots that gets used by the nullsec RMT cheaters. And alliances run with "Don't report blues" that is why I don't think the "PLEX for video cards" is a good idea. This is why in my opinion the replacement for moon goo needs from the very start to be designed to foil even the smartest bots. So we don't have large alliances replacing their moon goo with bot goo. i love how you just don't stop harping on about that because you don't understand how a large alliance works because, lol, hisec Except I have been in nullsec. Many times. Why do you think I wrote my idea topic on adding balance to AFK cloaking? Because I wanted to laugh at people debating it? No it was because I was there I saw the imbalance and I wanted to discuss an idea to address it. Why do you think I talk about nullsec alliances? Because I was in that crap. I was in the constant CTAs. I did my part and got jack crap for it while good ole boys never had to worry about ships lost or income streams (Thinking back they likely were a group of botters themselves based on their attitudes on things) It was about the moon goo it was about the renter space. It was about everything except #1234 of Corp #3 Of mah epic alliance. So yes Mister Goon I know all about nullsec. That is why I left it and will continue to pressure CCP to fix the crap that makes it a den of good ole boys and RMT. So I can return and blow **** up again.
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 06:42:00 - [15] - Quote Ladie Harlot wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Ladie Harlot wrote: Some of you need to take the tinfoil hats off and stop snorting so much coke before taking to the forums. The paranoia is getting ridiculous. If you don't see the potential for bots taking over this new system then I don't know how goons keep you around. Then again the idea that active players participating in anything besides CTAs (And thus asking for more in return) must be a nightmare for many nullsec alliances. lol we don't have CTAs No you have a nice way to get people to use that crap of a forum so I guess atleast goons HAVE to be a little nicer to member #1234 A little atleast. No help for the people who cant or wont use that forum tho. Cyprus Black wrote: Ladie Harlot wrote: Yet another reason to thank The Mittani and CSM 6. I don't know why everyone thinks he's the devil. He's not a bad guy and he does make some good points. That being said, I didn't vote for him. I actually like him. I view him as a person that understands that nullsec is a shithole and works to get things fixed. His views on incursions are encouraging and If I had a spare vote I would have given it to him. (Was trying to give votes to good candidates that could beat Darius but thanks to the frakked up voting system two of em were wasted)
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 06:52:00 - [16] - Quote Just an FYI the cloaky's didn't run it me off (Only thing I ever lost to a cloaky was a salvage destroyer) It was my corp not giving two craps to support my ideas (Or any solution for that matter) on a solution "Meh we don't care we will just stay at the POS until later" I did not make the topic to support those lazy idiots. (Everyone has their bad corp or two in history) It was because it was a part of the general cake of dog crap that is nullsec that I decided to make my ideas heard on. If I can't respect my corp I don't support it. (Were idiots anyway I could have made off with half the assets because of the roles I kept getting showered with despite my requests not to as I hate roles)
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 06:59:00 - [17] - Quote Ladie Harlot wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Just an FYI the cloaky's didn't run it me off (Only thing I ever lost to a cloaky was a salvage destroyer) It was my corp not giving two craps to support my ideas on a solution "Meh we don't care we will just stay at the POS until later" I did not make the topic to support those lazy idiots. (Everyone has their bad corp or two in history) It was because it was a part of the general cake of dog crap that is nullsec that I decided to make my ideas heard on. If I can't respect my corp I don't support it. (Were idiots anyway I could have made off with half the assets because of the roles I kept getting showered with despite my requests not to as I hate roles) There you go...you were in a bad corp and that's what ruined nullsec for you. There are other options. As I have stated. I have been in Nullsec many times. The renter thing was because I was curious about it but it is as completely crap as the rest. (And worse because lazy ass renters rarely read topics that affect their future much less care to state their views on the subjects) The others were full on warring alliances. With the rest of the plate of dog crap that is nullsec. Now about your ship replacement moon goo. I actually believe yall on that. Mainly because it is stupid not to as being goons requires SA access. However, Can you not do the same thing with members doing that? Goons are a mix of just about anything so legitimately it should not seriously affect you. Especially if it helps to gut the funds of adversaries that are used to screwing over their memberbase.
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 07:15:00 - [18] - Quote Andski wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Now about your ship replacement moon goo. I actually believe yall on that. Mainly because it is stupid not to as being goons requires SA access. However, Can you not do the same thing with members doing that? Goons are a mix of just about anything so legitimately it should not seriously affect you. Especially if it helps to gut the funds of adversaries that are used to screwing over their memberbase. bat country, amok, ned-clan, OEG, monkey attack squad, pulsar inc, wildly inappropriate, sundering. these are all corps in CONDI whose members are not SA forums posters. they all get the same benefits that anyone in goonwaffe gets. That's nice. You take care of your friends. I never said goons were dumb. I am again just asking. Does this affect you at all? Do you not have legions of people that will do this to continue to keep the good stuff rolling in? While your enemies without said friendship try to force their's and epic fail?
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 07:23:00 - [19] - Quote Andski wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Andski wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Now about your ship replacement moon goo. I actually believe yall on that. Mainly because it is stupid not to as being goons requires SA access. However, Can you not do the same thing with members doing that? Goons are a mix of just about anything so legitimately it should not seriously affect you. Especially if it helps to gut the funds of adversaries that are used to screwing over their memberbase. bat country, amok, ned-clan, OEG, monkey attack squad, pulsar inc, wildly inappropriate, sundering. these are all corps in CONDI whose members are not SA forums posters. they all get the same benefits that anyone in goonwaffe gets. That's nice. You take care of your friends. I never said goons were dumb. I am again just asking. Does this affect you at all? Do you not have legions of people that will do this to continue to keep the good stuff rolling in? While your enemies without said friendship try to force their's and epic fail? cutting PvP reimbursements in favor of some ridiculous wealth redistribution system would just end badly with comedy tengu lossmails Controlling moons is controlling wealth currently. I don't see the difference. Members contributing with the new systems sounds great to me personally. And while you may see it as cutting PVP reimbursements I see it as empowering the #1234s in nullsec which is a good thing.
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 07:36:00 - [20] - Quote Andski wrote: Reimbursement programs serve two purposes - they allow members to reship and get back into the fight without worrying about ratting ISK back up to pay for ships, and more importantly, they encourage members for flying the right ships. Your plan would cost us both of those benefits. I just don't see how. I would assume goons would say. "Doing this allows us to help you. We show you how we spend the goo you give us." And I would assume goons would line up to go goo fishing. And considering the large glob of space you own I don't think fishing ponds would be in short supply.

Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 07:47:00 - [21] - Quote Andski wrote: i literally have no idea what you're going on about at this point delusional ramblings are amusing though please continue Not surprising you just don't get it. Just like with Incursions. Thankfully tho your CSM Chairmain Is quite different in that regard.
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 07:49:00 - [22] - Quote Ladie Harlot wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Andski wrote: Reimbursement programs serve two purposes - they allow members to reship and get back into the fight without worrying about ratting ISK back up to pay for ships, and more importantly, they encourage members for flying the right ships. Your plan would cost us both of those benefits. I just don't see how. I would assume goons would say. "Doing this allows us to help you. We show you how we spend the goo you give us." And I would assume goons would line up to go goo fishing. And considering the large glob of space you own I don't think fishing ponds would be in short supply. Are you wanting us to distribute technitium to everybody instead of using the money it generates to fund ship replacement? I honestly can't figure out what you're getting at. I want yours and everyone's members to make that call. Goons may do it right to start but in the end it needs to be the members that decide if they want to do the thing that gets the goo to make the SRF or make good ole boys rich.
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 07:55:00 - [23] - Quote Andski wrote: also those kinds of distribution programs would be a nightmare to audit, and would thus be hilariously prone to skimming and other bullshit i'm not a director and I'd say "**** that" That is for alliances to decide. In the end it is the members that get the goo tho. Don't mess with the members
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 07:59:00 - [24] - Quote Ladie Harlot wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Andski wrote: also those kinds of distribution programs would be a nightmare to audit, and would thus be hilariously prone to skimming and other bullshit i'm not a director and I'd say "**** that" That is for alliances to decide. In the end it is the members that get the goo tho. Don't mess with the members No it's for individual members to decide. If you don't like how your alliance's wealth is used then don't remain a member of that alliance. This is not a difficult concept. Also not a difficult concept to understand that if members decide not to fish for moon goo you wont get it. And thus change can happen from within instead of using other bullcrap to hold members in.
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 08:09:00 - [25] - Quote Andski wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Andski wrote: also those kinds of distribution programs would be a nightmare to audit, and would thus be hilariously prone to skimming and other bullshit i'm not a director and I'd say "**** that" That is for alliances to decide. In the end it is the members that get the goo tho. Don't mess with the members it benefits the non-participating nullbear types who do not go on fleets and opt to do nothing but run anoms for the purpose of getting bigger ships to run anoms in just as much as it benefits the dudes who actually get in fleet to defend our assets i can assure you that this kind of policy would be wildly unpopular in any alliance Better hope its not unpopular as once moon goo becomes fishing goo you will be without a good chunk of your funds. Yet atleast if the ship fund goes down it will because the members decided it.
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 08:12:00 - [26] - Quote Andski wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Also not a difficult concept to understand that if members decide not to fish for moon goo you wont get it. And thus change can happen from within instead of using other bullcrap to hold members in. they said nothing about removing the moon mining mechanic, balancing moon minerals or literally anything that will stop technetium from being retardedly broken space rocks that you mine for moon minerals with a ship would do nothing to solve the problem because it's a useless shotgun approach and it'd probably just make technetium go down to 50-90k isk/unit, which is still far more than the market value of neodymium (which would also hit rock-bottom) i.e. we'd still milk tech moons and fight hostile titan fleets over them Yes if you would watch the presentation again you will note his comparison of tech moons to ATMs spewing money. He would not have said that unless they plan on removing moon goo. And value of tech all depends on how easy it is to find in fishing expeditions, how hard it is to bot for said expeditions, and how much war is affecting ability to go on said fishing expeditions across most or all of territory.
Endeavour Starfleet 725	Posted - 2012.03.25 08:19:00 - [27] - Quote Andski wrote: IIRC they compared R&D agents to ATMs spewing money If I weren't so tired I would find the video of it and point it out however when he pointed out the moon reference he got a large applause from the crowd. I distinctly heard moon mining and I doubt the crowd cares about agents that much in comparison.
Endeavour Starfleet 752	Posted - 2012.03.27 02:35:00 - [28] - Quote Ok lets have a discussion about Moon goo instead of countless crap about the CSM. Yes moon mining going buh bye! Discuss...