EVE Search - Changes that need to be made to EVE.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Changes that need to be made to EVE.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zeknichov Realm Industries	Posted - 2008.10.02 05:16:00 - [1] Edited by: Zeknichov on 02/10/2008 05:20:57 First off, no one will take me seriously after they see the changes. But these changes are needed for the betterment of this game. - Cyno jumping any ship from 0.0 to low-sec or low-sec-low-sec should only be able to be done to a system within 3 jumps to empire. Optimally cyno jumping a ship should only actually be available to 0.0. But I doubt this would happen so here is a compromise. If people want to compromise more than the change only affects rokh and jump freighter. - Mineral Compression should not exist. - All reprocessing done to anything found in empire should only yield empire minerals. - All reprocessing done to anything found in low-sec should only yield low-sec-empire minerals. - All reprocessing done to anything found in 0.0 can yield all minerals. - Loyalty points need to be removed from all empire missions and only rewarded to low-sec/0.0 missions. These changes will help bring back the risk vs reward to this game and make EVE the game it once was in 2003, where pirates actually influenced the economy, rather then become a victim to it.
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2008.10.02 05:25:00 - [2] Yawn. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Paramite Pies Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.10.02 05:30:00 - [3] I'm glad you don't work for a game company. __________________ Yes, my other ride is a Slog.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.10.02 05:32:00 - [4] Originally by: Zeknichov Edited by: Zeknichov on 02/10/2008 05:20:57 First off, no one will take me seriously after they see the changes. But these changes are needed for the betterment of this game. - Cyno jumping any ship from 0.0 to low-sec or low-sec-low-sec should only be able to be done to a system within 3 jumps to empire. Optimally cyno jumping a ship should only actually be available to 0.0. But I doubt this would happen so here is a compromise. If people want to compromise more than the change only affects rokh and jump freighter. - Mineral Compression should not exist. - All reprocessing done to anything found in empire should only yield empire minerals. - All reprocessing done to anything found in low-sec should only yield low-sec-empire minerals. - All reprocessing done to anything found in 0.0 can yield all minerals. - Loyalty points need to be removed from all empire missions and only rewarded to low-sec/0.0 missions. These changes will help bring back the risk vs reward to this game and make EVE the game it once was in 2003, where pirates actually influenced the economy, rather then become a victim to it. So can I build something in empire and then reprocess it in lowsec to get the more expensive lowsec minerals? Also, , this is pretty dumb. __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.10.02 05:55:00 - [5] Originally by: Zeknichov Edited by: Zeknichov on 02/10/2008 05:20:57 First off, no one will take me seriously after they see the changes. But these changes are needed for the betterment of this game. - Cyno jumping any ship from 0.0 to low-sec or low-sec-low-sec should only be able to be done to a system within 3 jumps to empire. Optimally cyno jumping a ship should only actually be available to 0.0. But I doubt this would happen so here is a compromise. If people want to compromise more than the change only affects rokh and jump freighter. - Mineral Compression should not exist. - All reprocessing done to anything found in empire should only yield empire minerals. - All reprocessing done to anything found in low-sec should only yield low-sec-empire minerals. - All reprocessing done to anything found in 0.0 can yield all minerals. - Loyalty points need to be removed from all empire missions and only rewarded to low-sec/0.0 missions. These changes will help bring back the risk vs reward to this game and make EVE the game it once was in 2003, where pirates actually influenced the economy, rather then become a victim to it. Another set of "smart" suggestions to increase the logistic burdens on players and increase inflation. Try tor read and think a bit about the aftereffect of your suggestion before sprouting them.
Zeknichov Realm Industries	Posted - 2008.10.02 07:16:00 - [6] I know full well what these changes would bring about and they are good changes. There's too much isk in the economy and the value of goods haven't increased to accommodate the increase in isk, no they have actually decreased because the logistics in producing goods has become more efficient with little to no risk involved.
Artemis Rose Varion Galactic Accord Corporate Enterprise Syndicate	Posted - 2008.10.02 07:16:00 - [7] Edited by: Artemis Rose on 02/10/2008 07:16:43 Originally by: Zeknichov These changes will help bring back the risk vs reward to this game and make EVE the game it once was in 2003, where pirates actually influenced the economy, rather then become a victim to it. Your changes effect gate campers, pure and simple. Not all pirates are gate campers, nor should all pirates aspire to being gate campers. Edit: You forgot removing Warp to Zero. *** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Sisterhood of Galactic Sirens	Posted - 2008.10.02 07:18:00 - [8] This fails. I can tell so easily it hurts at how badly this fails. Try again....not. --Isaac
Zeknichov Realm Industries	Posted - 2008.10.02 07:25:00 - [9] So many defensive EVE players these days. I used to remember when a topic talking about increasing the risk vs reward would have been received in open arms. What happened to those days? No seriously, you guys should have seen the forums back in 2005. Oh well I'm sure someone will just say I'm a nostalgic loser while he's browsing the forums instead of playing and the last time he logged on was 3 days ago to switch his skill. Or he's always on an alt killing n00bs in low-sec because he doesn't want to log on his main and be forced to POS camp in his carrier repping shit. What's that over there I hear, someone who hasn't left empire in over a year complaining this would increase the price of his faction battleships? Or is that just a cry of an ex-WoW player complaining that he wouldn't be able hotdrop his carrier on some n00b in low-sec without a real risk?
Grimwalius d'Antan Aliastra	Posted - 2008.10.02 07:57:00 - [10] Originally by: Zeknichov Face it, the real risk in this game left years ago. Every one is just too caught up in making isk these days they forgot what it was like to risk losing it. No one engages in PvP anymore unless they choose too and those that do die without choosing to just neglected to use proper intel. I've been playing since early 2005 and the game has been that way all the time. The game is more accessible today, but the things you mention are not part of a recent trend. Today it feels a bit more like a game and a little less like a second job, and I prefer it that way. I agree with you that there is too much ISK circulating, that there aren't any exotic items and ships any longer (today you yawn when you see a machariel pilot). On the other hand, the gameplay is better than ever as a lot of people have access to really good items and ships... hmm... _______ Griefing is to ruin a friendly game, which Eve is not.

Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.10.02 08:51:00 - [11] Originally by: Zeknichov But these changes are needed for the betterment of this game. (1)- Cyno jumping any ship from 0.0 to low-sec or low-sec-low-sec should only be able to be done to a system within 3 jumps to empire. Optimally cyno jumping a ship should only actually be available to 0.0. But I doubt this would happen so here is a compromise. If people want to compromise more than the change only affects rokh and jump freighter. (2)- Mineral Compression should not exist. (3)- All reprocessing done to anything found in empire should only yield empire minerals. (4)- All reprocessing done to anything found in low-sec should only yield low-sec-empire minerals. (5)- All reprocessing done to anything found in 0.0 can yield all minerals. (6)- Loyalty points need to be removed from all empire missions and only rewarded to low-sec/0.0 missions. These changes will help bring back the risk vs reward to this game and make EVE the game it once was in 2003, where pirates actually influenced the economy, rather then become a victim to it. Originally by: Zeknichov So many defensive EVE players these days. I used to remember when a topic talking about increasing the risk vs reward would have been received in open arms. What happened to those days? No seriously, you guys should have seen the forums back in 2005. I always find very fun players like you that remember a golden age of EVE but avoid carefully to check the difference between what they remember and what was the reality (at least the reality depicted by the forum). Looking your memories through rose tinted lens make you see only the positive things and not the negative. Going to your suggestions, step by step (I have numerated them for that): 1) it has nothing to do with risk/rewards but simply with the fact you dislike capitals and jump capable industrial ships. Your problem. BTW: for a old player you seem to have missed a lot in this game, Rokh is a Battleship, I suppose you mean the Rorqual. 2) Enjoy the new size of your modules, as most of them have a compression ratio between 3 and 10. As an Amarr you can not consider the ammunition volume a problem, but without any compression 1 shot of Antimatter L is 0.182 m3, 18,2 m3 for 100; 100 cruise missiles almost 23 m3, and so on. Try any extended combat with that volume for the ammunitions. Enjoy moving around a mega pulse laser I with 859,92 m3 of volume. 3) reducing the material introduced in the system without reducing the isk = inflation. As people will stop looting it will produce some serious inflation. 4 and 5) Meaningless as the only 0.0 minerals is morphite, found in small quantity in the drone missions. 6) Again you show a lack of understanding of the game. Low sec is Empire. Another factor is that you want to remove a isk sink (LP store donÆt produce isk, it consume isk and LP to give items), so further increasing inflation.
Zeknichov Realm Industries	Posted - 2008.10.02 10:10:00 - [12] - I find what you find funny, funny as well. - Of course I meant Rorq. - Valid point on mineral compression, I admit defeat, some will have to exist without going into further changes that are not really necessary. Unless with the other changes this is a dominant problem which I doubt it would be we can just leave this alone. - I want to see inflation. THERE SHOULD BE INFLATION. That's the whole problem, there ISN'T INFLATION. - How is that final step useless when you just identified a mineral only found in 0.0? - In the sentence I used empire in it was obviously meant as hi-sec and anyone could have figured that out. I'll definitely edit those errors out though as to avoid confusion with anyone who's not on the same page as me. - You seem to think inflation is a bad thing? The game needs inflation badly.
Katana Seiko Gallente	Posted - 2008.10.02 10:26:00 - [13] Originally by: Zeknichov - I want to see inflation. THERE SHOULD BE INFLATION. That's the whole problem, there ISN'T INFLATION. [...] - You seem to think inflation is a bad thing? The game needs inflation badly. Err... You sure? Imagine paying $1,000,000 for a hamburger. That's inflation. What we currently need is more stuff that needs other things than Tritanium and Pyerite to build. The prices for the minerals are way off. If the higher end minerals raise in price, there will be more players in low sec space. But as long as 1m¦ Veldspar ist worth three times the value of 1m¦ Mercoxit... not going to happen. --- "Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind." -Terry Pratchett
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.10.02 10:32:00 - [14] Originally by: Zeknichov - I find what you find funny, funny as well. - Of course I meant Rorq. - Valid point on mineral compression, I admit defeat, some will have to exist without going into further changes that are not really necessary. Unless with the other changes this is a dominant problem which I doubt it would be we can just leave this alone. - I want to see inflation. THERE SHOULD BE INFLATION. That's the whole problem, there ISN'T INFLATION. - How is that final step useless when you just identified a mineral only found in 0.0? - In the sentence I used empire in it was obviously meant as hi-sec and anyone could have figured that out. I'll definitely edit those errors out though as to avoid confusion with anyone who's not on the same page as me. - You seem to think inflation is a bad thing? The game needs inflation badly. I'm trying to wrap my head around "inflation" in a game where there's no separation of income limitations. Anyone can pass the costs on, and there's nary a negative limitation or effect in the acquisition of the same resources. In short, inflation in a fantasy economy is good - so I agree with you.
Roshan longshot Gallente Ordos Humanitas	Posted - 2008.10.02 10:34:00 - [15] So, the the time spent, has nothing to do with rewards? If this was true the first Tech II BPO had more reward then risk associated with it (do you remember what that was?) Enough of the risk Vs reward bullcrap...your idea is a game killer. Damn you CCP! Why did you have to make such a good game?? Yes you drew me back AGAIN! Oh well wheres the Omber?
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.10.02 10:44:00 - [16] Originally by: Zeknichov - I want to see inflation. THERE SHOULD BE INFLATION. That's the whole problem, there ISN'T INFLATION. Explain why. You won't win arguments by saying 'because'. It's very hard not to view this entire post as 'I'm a pirate, I should have more targets, force people to come to me!'. Please come at this problem from a balanced point of view, rather than just your own personal tangent; if a pirate can say 'here's how I can pirate whilst allowing targets some chance of survival' and targets can say 'here's how I can have some chance of survival, but risk being pirated' then there's some chance of a balanced proposal. I actually have time for the notion that pirates should be preying on empire<->null-sec traffic, because this seems an obvious thing to do, and I agree that jump freighters have made this difficult. However, short of taking away those very expensive toys, which CCP won't do, I don't see an equitable solution for both sides. The LP store change is pointless and affects the wrong people. The core of mission-runners that are deeply into that side of the game won't come to low-sec simply because you move LP points. This just smacks of lashing out at a random target that you disagree with at a philosophical level, like most of the mission threads lately. Originally by: Zeknichov No one engages in PvP anymore unless they choose too and those that do die without choosing to just neglected to use proper intel. Why are you surprised by this? You've just described a self-evident truth. Either you have decent intel and avoid/win a fight, or you don't and you may lose. Only an idiot engages in combat on someone else's terms if they have an choice. This is a game, and both sides play to win. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.10.02 10:49:00 - [17] Originally by: Roshan longshot So, the the time spent, has nothing to do with rewards? If this was true the first Tech II BPO had more reward then risk associated with it (do you remember what that was?) Enough of the risk Vs reward bullcrap...your idea is a game killer. T2 BPOs have never had risk associated with them. They sit in hi-sec, in a station that can't be blown up, or looted, and outside of a database issue (which is correctable) or dev decision, they'll never disappear. The end product is the only thing that has risk associated with it, and generally only if you're moving it outside of hi-sec.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.10.02 11:24:00 - [18] Originally by: Christari Zuborov I'm trying to wrap my head around "inflation" in a game where there's no separation of income limitations. Anyone can pass the costs on, and there's nary a negative limitation or effect in the acquisition of the same resources. Firstly there is a difference between mineral inflation and ISK inflation. The two have very different sinks and sources, and effects, so it's important to distinguish between the two. I'm going to assume we're talking about ISK here. Secondly, inflation is not good for the game. If I 'earn' 10000 ISK and can buy 2 units of ammo, and a year later I 'earn' 10000 ISK and can only buy 1 unit of ammo (assuming constant supply and demand), that's not a good thing. My time investment is yielding less return, which means I must spend more time making ISK for the same result instead of something more interesting like PvP. Increasing inflation means that the time spent in the game shifts more and more towards ISK generation and away from ISK spending. Since the popular ways of making ISK are ratting and missioning, and these inject ISK into the economy, this could easily become a vicious circle. This in turn has an effect on the liquidity of the economy as relatively speaking less ISK changes hands for the same period of time. Most MMOs are deflationary, where an individual's buying power actually increases over time (i.e. prices drop as supply increases, more people build stuff, more people have loot spawning etc.). EVE has already experienced a fair amount of deflation - there was a time battleships required the combined effort of a corporation, and today they can be purchased solo. Rampant inflation isn't good. Rampant deflation is only a problem if the psychological results of deflation affect the actual experience of the game. For example, it could be argued that EVE is too deflationary because a lot of ships have become 'throwaway' - they are cheap enough to make that PvP changes in terms of habit. Alternatively many view the changes in PvP as a good thing because more are actually fighting. It's all about where your attitude lies and where CCP wants the game to go. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Thunderbird Anthares Crimson Star Empire CORPVS DELICTI	Posted - 2008.10.02 11:35:00 - [19] 1) the cyno restrictions are illogical and i see no point to them,if you dont like capships,your problem 2) mineral compression is OK considering the rorq is so vulnerable,if someone can secure the op let em have it 3) illogical and irrational - i wouldnt want to see what would happen to the economy 4) same as above 5) illogical - 0.0 missions are harder and yield lots more LPs have you taken your pills today? seriously this is the most ridiculous batch of ideas i ever saw ------------------------------------------------ When you get to the end of your journey,everything that really matters is the journey itself.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.10.02 11:49:00 - [20] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 02/10/2008 11:56:44 Originally by: Zeknichov - I find what you find funny, funny as well. - Of course I meant Rorq. - Valid point on mineral compression, I admit defeat, some will have to exist without going into further changes that are not really necessary. Unless with the other changes this is a dominant problem which I doubt it would be we can just leave this alone. - I want to see inflation. THERE SHOULD BE INFLATION. That's the whole problem, there ISN'T INFLATION. - How is that final step useless when you just identified a mineral only found in 0.0? - In the sentence I used empire in it was obviously meant as hi-sec and anyone could have figured that out. I'll definitely edit those errors out though as to avoid confusion with anyone who's not on the same page as me. - You seem to think inflation is a bad thing? The game needs inflation badly. "The game needs inflation badly." Most PvPers are screaming about the inflation (non existent in my eyes) so your position is a bit strange. I am favourable to a limited increase in price for minerals but a general inflation would have only negative effects. A interesting tidbit I had found some time ago is a thread dated 2003 or 2004 about the insurance fraud. Apparently it was rampant even at the start of EVE. The 0.0 step on refining is useless as the quantity of morphite found in the drone alloys from the drone missions or drone exploration sites is meaningless. Removing it would mean removing 30 or so unit of morphite from a kind of mission that most players avoid. The general refining nerf is pretty damaging as it will kill completely the gravimetric exploration sites besides unbalancing the goods production with the isk production. "In the sentence I used empire in it was obviously meant as hi-sec". Sorry but I disagree. While it was a credible interpretation there is people that want empire space (hi and low sec) nerfed, it was necessary a clarification. Limited inflation could be a not a problem, but when it start it is hard to keep it limited. Edit: Here it is , 2003 Insurance fraud and a question

Thunderbird Anthares Crimson Star Empire CORPVS DELICTI	Posted - 2008.10.02 11:53:00 - [21] inflation is bad,besides dont forget the people that buy timecodes for ISK,i used to buy them and the prices kept increasing until it was a unbearable waste of ISK instead of trading the values ------------------------------------------------ When you get to the end of your journey,everything that really matters is the journey itself.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.10.02 17:46:00 - [22] Originally by: Astria Tiphareth Originally by: Christari Zuborov I'm trying to wrap my head around "inflation" in a game where there's no separation of income limitations. Anyone can pass the costs on, and there's nary a negative limitation or effect in the acquisition of the same resources. Firstly there is a difference between mineral inflation and ISK inflation. The two have very different sinks and sources, and effects, so it's important to distinguish between the two. I'm going to assume we're talking about ISK here. Secondly, inflation is not good for the game. If I 'earn' 10000 ISK and can buy 2 units of ammo, and a year later I 'earn' 10000 ISK and can only buy 1 unit of ammo (assuming constant supply and demand), that's not a good thing. My time investment is yielding less return, which means I must spend more time making ISK for the same result instead of something more interesting like PvP. Increasing inflation means that the time spent in the game shifts more and more towards ISK generation and away from ISK spending. Since the popular ways of making ISK are ratting and missioning, and these inject ISK into the economy, this could easily become a vicious circle. This in turn has an effect on the liquidity of the economy as relatively speaking less ISK changes hands for the same period of time. Most MMOs are deflationary, where an individual's buying power actually increases over time (i.e. prices drop as supply increases, more people build stuff, more people have loot spawning etc.). EVE has already experienced a fair amount of deflation - there was a time battleships required the combined effort of a corporation, and today they can be purchased solo. Rampant inflation isn't good. Rampant deflation is only a problem if the psychological results of deflation affect the actual experience of the game. For example, it could be argued that EVE is too deflationary because a lot of ships have become 'throwaway' - they are cheap enough to make that PvP changes in terms of habit. Alternatively many view the changes in PvP as a good thing because more are actually fighting. It's all about where your attitude lies and where CCP wants the game to go. Thanks for the great reply. ISK inflation is controlled by player controlled supplies, while I would call mineral inflation more dev controlled. I wouldn't like to see ISK inflation, however, I would very much like to see mineral inflation or just simply more value established with minerals. The mineral market is completely broken and is in dire need of greater complexity.
Zeknichov Realm Industries	Posted - 2008.10.05 18:05:00 - [23] Alright time to tackle points. What we currently need is more stuff that needs other things than Tritanium and Pyerite to build. The prices for the minerals are way off. If the higher end minerals raise in price, there will be more players in low sec space. But as long as 1m¦ Veldspar ist worth three times the value of 1m¦ Mercoxit... not going to happen. - You are exaggerating. There are plenty of things that need more than just trit and pyerite to build. A shift from the amount of low-end minerals needed to an increase in hi-end is a good step to take, however. - You are correct with current mechanics even if prices shift to reduce the profitability of hi-sec, players will still not shift to low-sec unless it is a very dramatic switch. - Another solution is exactly what I've proposed. By restricting low-sec minerals to low-sec and null-sec minerals to null-sec, ideally the availability of those minerals in high sec will diminish and thus the prices of low-sec and hi-sec ore will increase as the demand increases. I say ideally however because in reality such a simple change will not effect the markets substantially because there exists far too many wealthy entrepreneurs who would capitalize on such a change and establish logistics to transport minerals from null-sec to empire relatively easily, risk free and in very high quantities. This is where my first change of restricting the movement of jump freighters and rorqs comes into play. By doing so this will also open up low-sec to becoming profitable for pirates. Essentially my changes would bring about: - Increase in prices of all items requiring low-sec, null-sec minerals and the minerals themselves. - Increase in profitability of transporting low-sec, null-sec minerals to hi-sec but at the same time not without risk. - Increase the profitability of low-sec pirating by increasing the risk and profit of transporting good or minerals from low-sec or null-sec to hi-sec. These changes would hopefully result in a player shift from hi-sec to low-sec and null-sec as a result because of the increased profitability of low-sec and null-sec such changes would bring about. You would take note that these changes would actually only benefit low-sec and hi-sec if they brought those minerals to hi-sec, it would actually be the transportation of the goods (and the risk associated with doing so) that you are paying a premium for, not so much the time spent collecting the minerals. As a result this would hopefully inject more risk vs reward into the game. Tech II BPO A bad idea, even CCP has admitted to it but at the time they didn't have any good alternatives. Explain why. You won't win arguments by saying 'because'. Because there will not actually exist inflation. All that will happen is prices will rise. That does not mean there's inflation, that means you're paying for something else, and that is security. The more risk involved in something the higher the rewards should be, so if you're purchasing an item in empire that item should cost more than if you were purchasing it in null-sec. The game is backwards, empire has cheapest prices of goods, yet it is also the safest.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.