These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Rebalancing EVE

Author
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-05-29 13:15:39 UTC  |  Edited by: masternerdguy
I present the official MNG solution.

Fixing Hi Sec

  • Remove level 4s from hi sec and move them to low.
  • Remove all asteroids except veldspar and move them to low.
  • Create hi sec islands by putting a thin line of lo sec between every empire and its neighbor.
  • Remove all DED complexes better than 1/10 and move them to lo sec.


Fixing Lo Sec

  • Reduce gate gun damage by 75% and remove their ability to switch targets at will.
  • Move all level 5s to NPC nullsec.
  • Remove all ores better than omber and move them to nullsec.
  • Remove all DED complexes better than 4/10 and move them to nullsec.


Fixing Nullsec

  • Add 15 new full sized regions of nullsec (8 sov null, 7 NPC null)
  • Buff sanctums, more bounties.
  • Remove local from sov nullsec until the system has been upgraded to support local.


'Nuff said.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-05-29 13:18:02 UTC
Yeh that would be bad.

That would pretty much kill EVE.

Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#3 - 2012-05-29 13:18:41 UTC
Bloody hell, are you serious ?

Oh wait, it's you again. nevermind.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#4 - 2012-05-29 13:19:15 UTC
Simetraz wrote:
Yeh that would be bad.

That would pretty much kill EVE.



Some people fear change.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Bunnie Hop
Bunny Knights
#5 - 2012-05-29 13:19:32 UTC
Well if the goal is the destruction of the game, then kudos. Other than that, really not well thought out suggestions. But I give you a C for the effort.
St Mio
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2012-05-29 13:20:30 UTC
Posting in a masternerdguy thread.
Hroya
#7 - 2012-05-29 13:20:49 UTC
Partially agree, some nice points and some not included. It's a start, now go a bit wilder.

You go your corridor but.

Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#8 - 2012-05-29 13:21:33 UTC
I have EVE sat on my desk, it doesn't need balancing, unless I tip the desk.

Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims.

Thor Kerrigan
The High and Mighty
Carebear Abortion Clinic
#9 - 2012-05-29 13:22:21 UTC
I don't get it, am I the only one who likes his ideas?

If at least the opposition mustered some counter-arguments... but they never do... they never do :(
Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-05-29 13:23:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Simetraz
masternerdguy wrote:
Simetraz wrote:
Yeh that would be bad.

That would pretty much kill EVE.



Some people fear change.


Hardly.
But as it is your idea.

Why don't take each point you made and tell us the ramifications of each item
(including the possible responses from the players and the impact on EVE)

You had to have some rationel in picking these changes after all., spell it out.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#11 - 2012-05-29 13:24:35 UTC
Simetraz wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:
Simetraz wrote:
Yeh that would be bad.

That would pretty much kill EVE.



Some people fear change.


Hardly.
But as it is your idea.

Why don't take each point you made and tell us the ramifications of each item
(including the possible responses from the players and the impact on EVE)



EVE is about low and nullsec, so those are the only areas that deserve content.

That's all.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-05-29 13:25:52 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Simetraz wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:
Simetraz wrote:
Yeh that would be bad.

That would pretty much kill EVE.



Some people fear change.


Hardly.
But as it is your idea.

Why don't take each point you made and tell us the ramifications of each item
(including the possible responses from the players and the impact on EVE)



EVE is about low and nullsec, so those are the only areas that deserve content.

That's all.


LOL in short you can't then, we are done here , next.
Bunnie Hop
Bunny Knights
#13 - 2012-05-29 13:27:53 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
I don't get it, am I the only one who likes his ideas?

If at least the opposition mustered some counter-arguments... but they never do... they never do :(


People are concerned over dropping numbers (though I am not), if you were to force people into low sec as these suggestions are designed to do, the people who don't wish to be in low sec will simply quit and then you will see terrible online numbers. You cannot change mechanics to force people into a play style they simply don't enjoy.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#14 - 2012-05-29 13:27:57 UTC
Oh, this thread again.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#15 - 2012-05-29 13:28:05 UTC
Simetraz wrote:


LOL in short you can't then, we are done here , next.


Fine. Ramifications.

1. It would force pretty much anyone who wants to play the game into unsafe space, and will cause a mass unsub of those not tough enough (good thing).

2. It would force industry into nullsec and lo sec simply because the resources to do it in hi sec do not exist (really good thing).

3. It would force people to work together as a team to survive in EVE (excellent thing).

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Darth Tickles
Doomheim
#16 - 2012-05-29 13:29:46 UTC
Buff ganking.

Nerf hulks.
Darth Kilth
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-05-29 13:30:09 UTC
Hahahahahahahaha....

oh wait, you are serious, let me laugh harder

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!


With 80% of the game population calling high sec home I doubt any of this would be healthy for the future of EVE as a Game.
Just another example why people who play the game shouldn't design the game.
St Mio
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2012-05-29 13:30:27 UTC  |  Edited by: St Mio
masternerdguy wrote:
Simetraz wrote:


LOL in short you can't then, we are done here , next.


Fine. Ramifications.

1. It would force pretty much anyone who wants to play the game into unsafe space, and will cause a mass unsub of those not tough enough (good thing).

2. It would force industry into nullsec and lo sec simply because the resources to do it in hi sec do not exist (really good thing).

3. It would force people to work together as a team to survive in EVE (excellent thing).

As Bunnie Hop said, if you force people to do things they don't want to do, they'll just quit. They're customers, and they're here on their own accord. You take away their toys, they're not going to hang around solely for your amusement.

Edit:
If you want people to move to null, then give them a reason to move there, don't take away their reason to be in other places.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#19 - 2012-05-29 13:31:17 UTC
Darth Kilth wrote:
Hahahahahahahaha....

oh wait, you are serious, let me laugh harder

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!


With 80% of the game population calling high sec home I doubt any of this would be healthy for the future of EVE as a Game.
Just another example why people who play the game shouldn't design the game.


You mean the nullsec and lo sec alts and the occasional genuine hi sec carebear.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
#20 - 2012-05-29 13:35:13 UTC
I completely disagree.
12Next page