These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#1381 - 2014-04-20 17:20:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
Vesago wrote:
This is so true, PvP takes zero commitment in regards to high sec war dec's. They are looking for easy targets. You can run a PvP fleet at your leisure, while maintaining an Industrial effort requires time, and ships that arent capable of defending themselves. A high Sec war dec means my Freighters stay parked. But the PvP corp has nothing but benefit from it. For there to be risk vs. rewards for all parties, There should be a mechanic that makes shooting industrials risky in some way. That will of course... never happen.

the entire and only advantage gained from declaring a war (as opposed to receiving) is choosing a target, an advantage which is paid for

all other advantage is provided by players' isk, experience and effort. equally for aggressor and defender
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#1382 - 2014-04-20 17:43:29 UTC
Freelancer117 wrote:
Freelancer117 wrote:

A) Could you explain please what the philosophy / lore behind this is when no more faction standing requirements are needed ?

It seems reasonable for all those engineers out there, to see their hard work grinding faction standing to pick the fruits of that.
This way it just copies losec, please consider faction standing to be involved when it concerns Starbase Charters requirements for hisec.

B) And the obvious question has to be asked ofc, will the industry changes be tied into CREST ?


B ) was answered by CCP Nullarbor (source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474947#post4474947);

"We will at the very least be updating the static export with new blueprint data, and I'll try and get this out to devs before the release."

A) is answered by CSM 8 vice-chairman Ripard Teg ;

"And here's the simple fact of the matter: guys, they do understand this. Hell, they haven't said so -- if they had, it would be NDA -- but I suspect that's the goal of the exercise.
CCP Greyscale (source: http://jestertrek.blogspot.nl/2014/04/traitor.html)
in particular has for years been the champion of the philosophy that doing some activities in some areas of space should completely suck and you would be dumb to do those activities there. In the past, the goal has been to make living full-time in null-sec directly correlate with higher player income than living in high-sec. I can easily see industry warping off in that direction come summer.





this is a misquote from jester treks blog, grayscale is implied to have this philosophy and is not quoted, nor is that last sentence attributed to him (grayscale)
the whole quote there is jesters thoughts on ccps philosophy and not a quote from grayscale at all.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1383 - 2014-04-20 17:47:08 UTC
Loraine Gess wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
I will probably never own a POS myself but I have to say that removing the standing requirement to anchor a POS in High Security is a very bad idea.

For as long as I've been playing this game, being able to place a POS in High Security is a badge of honor. If a change to the standing requirement is actually needed, (and it's not) then just allow the Corp members modified standing to be used in the Corp standing average. Opening up the rest of High Security to allow POS to be anchored is all fine and dandy but it needs to follow the original standing mechanic for anchoring, ie, same amount of corp standing as the system security level.

What I see happening here is an entire type of player run business being snuffed out of existence. This new change doesn't help the smaller corps and alliances that have worked hard at building up and maintaining Faction standings in order to have a POS in High Sec.

Opening up High Sec systems to anyone with no standing whatsoever to anchor a POS just means more moons for the big power-block Alliances to control.



DMC
Nothing stops me (or power blocs much much larger than me) from seeding every moon within 10j of jita with a large offline tower except my will to live


Nobody CARES about you

If that were true, then why hasn't it already been done ?

A better question to ask is why do you always go out of your way to troll post ?

Last and most importantly, your opinion is nothing more than typical asshattery anyway.


DMC
Caval Marten
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1384 - 2014-04-20 18:18:29 UTC
Not sure if it's been mentioned before but lowsec can be much more dangerous than null. I hope CCP takes this into account when balancing out the benefits of industry in the various security spaces.
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#1385 - 2014-04-20 18:28:30 UTC
Theo Sotken wrote:
Loraine Gess wrote:
Theo Sotken wrote:
.

I am also concerned that being wardecced is already a pretty cheap afk way of griefing an industry corp and adds no risk to the wardeccer while causing a lot of disruption and expense. I would like a mechanic that introduces a long consequence for the wardeccers rather than the current pitifully low isk payment.




lol


Learn to shoot back, you being terrible is not a reason to change game mechanics



And yet CCP seems to want to make industrialists more vulnerable and put more stuff at risk rather than tell pvpers be better?
and as for your advice 'Learn to shoot back' doesn't help the industry corp at all during the wardec period does it!




Having to destroy an online POS isn't risky enough?? Throw some guns on and you can easily outstrip the expected value for 99% of attackers. Your characters can easily drop/swap corps at any time to avoid wardecs, or easily fight back against the "ganker menace", but you choose not to and suffer as a consequence. This is not CCP's problem, it is yours.
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#1386 - 2014-04-20 18:29:56 UTC
D'Kelle wrote:
Loraine Gess wrote:
Theo Sotken wrote:
.

I am also concerned that being wardecced is already a pretty cheap afk way of griefing an industry corp and adds no risk to the wardeccer while causing a lot of disruption and expense. I would like a mechanic that introduces a long consequence for the wardeccers rather than the current pitifully low isk payment.




lol


Learn to shoot back, you being terrible is not a reason to change game mechanics


If you can shoot back 24 / 7 / 365 nice; do you have a family, work, eat and have a life? The rest of us have only an hour or so online as RL kicks in for the rest, CCP DO NOT consider when they make their changes, and that is the EFECTIVE game time players have at any one part of the day. More destructiveness is Possible in 2-3 Hrs by 4 - 6 players than can be countered by the same number of Constructive/productive players. That I believe is the imbalance that Theo is trying to put across.



http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/POS_Warfare#Reinforced_Mode

Wow you get to PICK AND CHOOSE the time your ultimate defense will take place... and the enemy still has to grind through millions of EHP + defenses


Soooo much risk
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#1387 - 2014-04-20 18:34:41 UTC
Vesago wrote:

This is so true, PvP takes zero commitment in regards to high sec war dec's. They are looking for easy targets. You can run a PvP fleet at your leisure, while maintaining an Industrial effort requires time, and ships that arent capable of defending themselves. A high Sec war dec means my Freighters stay parked. But the PvP corp has nothing but benefit from it. For there to be risk vs. rewards for all parties, There should be a mechanic that makes shooting industrials risky in some way. That will of course... never happen.




It costs >=50m to dec


That is risk


You can leave corp


That is risk


You can fight back

THAT IS RISK



If you bend over and let someone frag you, you can't then go and ***** that they did so - You are literally inviting wardecs. Saying "I will never fight back ever" and I will gladly come to kill you in an ibis, because it is entirely your own fault that you choose to lose in a PVP game.
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#1388 - 2014-04-20 18:37:41 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Loraine Gess wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
I will probably never own a POS myself but I have to say that removing the standing requirement to anchor a POS in High Security is a very bad idea.

For as long as I've been playing this game, being able to place a POS in High Security is a badge of honor. If a change to the standing requirement is actually needed, (and it's not) then just allow the Corp members modified standing to be used in the Corp standing average. Opening up the rest of High Security to allow POS to be anchored is all fine and dandy but it needs to follow the original standing mechanic for anchoring, ie, same amount of corp standing as the system security level.

What I see happening here is an entire type of player run business being snuffed out of existence. This new change doesn't help the smaller corps and alliances that have worked hard at building up and maintaining Faction standings in order to have a POS in High Sec.

Opening up High Sec systems to anyone with no standing whatsoever to anchor a POS just means more moons for the big power-block Alliances to control.



DMC
Nothing stops me (or power blocs much much larger than me) from seeding every moon within 10j of jita with a large offline tower except my will to live


Nobody CARES about you

If that were true, then why hasn't it already been done ?

A better question to ask is why do you always go out of your way to troll post ?

Last and most importantly, your opinion is nothing more than typical asshattery anyway.


DMC



See: Will to live


I have better things to do with my time than to go online 600+ towers, though it is entirely feasible to do so


I'd like to ask why you go out of your way to ignore the point entirely, how's that null-sec cartel going, dinsdale?
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1389 - 2014-04-20 19:14:30 UTC
Loraine Gess wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Loraine Gess wrote:
Nothing stops me (or power blocs much much larger than me) from seeding every moon within 10j of jita with a large offline tower except my will to live


Nobody CARES about you

If that were true, then why hasn't it already been done ?

A better question to ask is why do you always go out of your way to troll post ?

Last and most importantly, your opinion is nothing more than typical asshattery anyway.


DMC
See: Will to live


I have better things to do with my time than to go online 600+ towers, though it is entirely feasible to do so


I'd like to ask why you go out of your way to ignore the point entirely, how's that null-sec cartel going, dinsdale?

Lol

Sorry Charley, you're like way out there in left field barking up the wrong tree.




DMC

Vesago
Doomheim
#1390 - 2014-04-20 19:23:26 UTC
Loraine Gess wrote:
Vesago wrote:

This is so true, PvP takes zero commitment in regards to high sec war dec's. They are looking for easy targets. You can run a PvP fleet at your leisure, while maintaining an Industrial effort requires time, and ships that arent capable of defending themselves. A high Sec war dec means my Freighters stay parked. But the PvP corp has nothing but benefit from it. For there to be risk vs. rewards for all parties, There should be a mechanic that makes shooting industrials risky in some way. That will of course... never happen.




It costs >=50m to dec


That is risk


You can leave corp


That is risk


You can fight back

THAT IS RISK



If you bend over and let someone frag you, you can't then go and ***** that they did so - You are literally inviting wardecs. Saying "I will never fight back ever" and I will gladly come to kill you in an ibis, because it is entirely your own fault that you choose to lose in a PVP game.



It costs you 50 million to wardec me....

It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...

yep its fair.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#1391 - 2014-04-20 19:38:36 UTC
Vesago wrote:
It costs you 50 million to wardec me....

It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...

yep its fair.

Why stop mining? I don't. I just stay aware when mining, and change my tactics a little, like using Retrievers instead of Hulks and Orca.
Vesago
Doomheim
#1392 - 2014-04-20 20:18:42 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Vesago wrote:
It costs you 50 million to wardec me....

It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...

yep its fair.

Why stop mining? I don't. I just stay aware when mining, and change my tactics a little, like using Retrievers instead of Hulks and Orca.


We are diverging from the point of the discussion. I will deal with war decs, and probably never put up another high sec POS again. I will fly my procurers because they have a descent tank and the 3 man destroyer gank squad might go after someone in a hulk instead.

The small changes arent the big issue, its when all of it starts adding together. If it continues to become a situation where CCP wants me to be everyones favorite target then maybe ill do what they want me to do...

Ill be like everyone else and go gank people.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#1393 - 2014-04-20 20:20:17 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Vesago wrote:
It costs you 50 million to wardec me....

It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...

yep its fair.

Why stop mining? I don't. I just stay aware when mining, and change my tactics a little, like using Retrievers instead of Hulks and Orca.

Um, if you are under a wardec, they will pop your Retriever as soon as you undock from the station. No one with a brain does high-sec PVE activity while under a wardec.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#1394 - 2014-04-20 20:23:30 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Vesago wrote:
It costs you 50 million to wardec me....

It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...

yep its fair.

Why stop mining? I don't. I just stay aware when mining, and change my tactics a little, like using Retrievers instead of Hulks and Orca.

Um, if you are under a wardec, they will pop your Retriever as soon as you undock from the station. No one with a brain does high-sec PVE activity while under a wardec.

Why are you still mining in the same system?

Why are you not checking local?

Why are you not scouting?

I'm the one without a brain?
ChYph3r
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#1395 - 2014-04-20 20:35:51 UTC
In post https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4478787#post4478787 how can a ISD edit a DEV's post......clearly ISD has too much power!

Want to find all the podcasts around EVE Online visit http://evepodcasts.com @chyph3r  on Twitter

Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#1396 - 2014-04-20 20:38:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Azami Nevinyrall
ChYph3r wrote:
In post https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4478787#post4478787 how can a ISD edit a DEV's post......clearly ISD has too much power!


I agree with this...

IB4 Delete for discussing moderation by *Insert ISD here*

...

Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1397 - 2014-04-20 21:36:26 UTC
Back from my weekend in the real world.

Still would like an explanation on why the change to Standings requirement.





_____________________________________________________________________

Had some ideas when thinking about this.

One, I think standing requirements should be added to more mechanics in High-sec space.

POCO use, etc.

Two, I like the idea of opening up 0.9 and 1.0 systems but think they should still be gated with standings.

Three, if one wanted to make standings more meaningful choice I would say you should implement an element of decay into them for Standings with NPC's. Such as the loss of one average level 4 storyline missions worth of standings every week or faster depending on desired balance.

This would further help keep highsec for highsec players as it would help weed out the ability of null-sec one man alt corps from taking the space. Since it could be difficult for them at time to be active with their mains during a war in null-sec and maintain their standing for their alt industry POS in the best highsec location.
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
#1398 - 2014-04-20 23:01:20 UTC
So after 45 pages of reading and 10 years in Industry I have mixed feelings on this patch.

Standing changes I am happy for, always thought it was a stupid grind

Open Slots everywhere is a major change, but really what it will do is cause office charges to raise more than anything. I guess the only question is: Does the congestion charge have a max? Or does it just keep going?

The rest of the stuff is major "hurry up and wait". Need more DEVBLOGS.
Zappity
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1399 - 2014-04-20 23:18:05 UTC
Caval Marten wrote:
Not sure if it's been mentioned before but lowsec can be much more dangerous than null. I hope CCP takes this into account when balancing out the benefits of industry in the various security spaces.

This bears repeating. I am guessing that lowsec rates will sit between highsec and nullsec. I am not sure that this is an accurate reflection of risk vs reward.

Unfortunately, there seems to be very little thought given to lowsec by either CCP or the CSM, although this will hopefully change in CSM9.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
#1400 - 2014-04-20 23:37:30 UTC
LOWSEC will always be a non used area of EVE compared ti High/Null. RvR is not there for most people that like to keep their stuff in one piece and the others who want to blow up other players (PvP) just join one of the big 3 and they have what they want. Leaves noobs and pirates...and bored Null bears.