These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#1541 - 2014-04-22 22:17:56 UTC
that'll be funny actually..so many hints about what's to come and so much speculation...can't wait :D
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
#1542 - 2014-04-22 22:33:24 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
highsec should not be more profitable than null, it should have activities that are at a different place on the risk/reward/effort spectrum

afk mining, afk mission running, trade hub .01isking, all of these things are at a very different point on the risk/reward/effort spectrum and are more 'profitable' than many nullsec activities once you factor in effort (which highseccers never do)

every time you hear someone bleat "but people can gank me in highsec and its harder to gank you in null" they're always, always, always ignoring effort. once you factor in effort the argument evaporates like a fart in the wind.


High Sec will ALWAYS be more profitable than null. When (if ever) it is not it will result in or from at least one of two things happening:

1. Secure space in null.

2. This game loosing many many players that currently do industry in high security.

I trust you know why.

Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown

Anders Madeveda
Usque Ad Mortem
#1543 - 2014-04-22 22:35:41 UTC
The Alienator wrote:
I'm going to preface this by getting a few points out there about my own experience in the game, in hopes of avoiding the "nullsec is awesome and elite and everyone else are scaredy-noobs" trolls.

I've been playing the game since late 2008. I have five active subscriptions which I actually PAY for.

I have lived and pewed in nullsec, lowsec & w-space for extended periods (about a year each). I've done FW. I've built & researched almost everything. I've done trade, industry, mining, exploration, etc.. I was a ninja-salvager with Suddenly Ninjas for years. Until recently I was part of Marmite (largely highsec PvP). I've ganked and been ganked. I've infiltrated corps and had corps infiltrated. I've even taken "a break" and once left the game completely for half a year. I have done it all, enjoyed most of it, made good friends and given CCP a LOT of money in exchange for that.

Change happens. I've seen it countless times. Sometimes I benefited from the changes, sometimes I lost huge amounts of ISK. I've lucked into situations where changes saved me months of skill training, and have trained alts for specific purposes only to have a change render months of training useless for my purpose. Sometimes change is great. Sometimes it sucks. Get over it. :)

These industry changes, though, are a symptom of a larger issue that has been making Eve much less fun for me over the last few years.

Mabrick captures it well: Building Better Worlds for Whom? Though I completely disagree with his idea that we should stop ganking in highsec, his other points are IMHO bang-on.

Ultimately it comes down the the fact that CCP has been gradually and relentlessly trying to FORCE me to play in nullsec, partially through efforts to make highsec safer & more new-player-friendly (let's nerf ninja salvaging and add safeties to our ships). These industry changes, however, won't help drive new subs and will probably have the opposite impact by making production in highsec very low-profit (if profitable at all). CCP has been clear that they want to promote "risk vs reward" which really means "let's force experienced players to nullsec". What CCP is doing is making it impossible for me to choose to play this "sandbox" game in a way that I enjoy. They are (and have been, slowly over time) eliminating my options and effectively forcing me to play the way THEY want me to, or quit. That sucks. Look at Skyrim's success. Look at Civilization. Look at Eve's early success... Now look at *insert game with strict linear story-line here*. Remember it? No? Because they fail! People like choice and hate being forced into things. We get enough of that in RL.

I've done nullsec & IMHO it sucks. If I wanted to be part of some mega-organization with a management structure driven by 20-somethings with power/self-esteem issues, I'd quit the game and spend my free time at work instead. I didn't join Eve to have that experience. I didn't join Eve to pay "rent" to a mega-corp for the privilege of getting access to a third-rate system with an empty local or to spend 12 hours in a TiDi slow-mo battle. I joined Eve to be my own person - I joined to explore a sandbox, make my own decisions, build relationships, make stuff, buy stuff, sell stuff, profit and to destroy other peoples stuff. I've been to nullsec. I've got the t-shirt. It's not fun for me.

And that's ok. There are lots of people out there that have a different opinion of nullsec. It's their choice to live and play in nullsec. It's my choice to live in highsec and make forays into low, null and w-space when I want to. That's the key word here, CHOICE. Changes like this and CCP's 'risk vs reward' piling-on of benefits for nullsec play, have gotten ridiculous. I thought it was bad when they led all those lambs to slaughter during that live-event a few months ago, but it just doesn't stop. And nullsec is not nearly as "risky" as some like to claim. Nullsec can be very very dull and in some instances safer than highsec (depending on how/where you play).

If it would drive new subs I could buy into changes like this (or at least chalk it up to 's*** happens, get over it'), but these changes aren't about that. They're aimed squarely at FORCING experienced players into null.

Three of my accounts are focused on the highsec industry value-chain I've built and love managing. I can pick it up when I have a few spare minutes (unlike PvP, which I only do when I have time to do it properly). I have 100+ billion invested in BPO's, towers, mining ships, stock & transport ships but even without the details I can see that the only way to maintain these activities profitably is to move to null. Not by choice, but as a direct result of the changes CCP is proposing. Since I don't enjoy doing industry in nullsec my choices come down to maintaining an unprofitable/borderline business in highsec or leaving the business and focusing on other stuff.

I'm resigned to leaving the business - my free time is too valuable (cost & risk vs reward).

When the game time runs out on those three industry-focused accounts they won't be renewed. I've stopped training my industry and transport toons and am breeding toons on those accounts for sale. The stations are on the market. The BPO's will be researched until after the summer changes, then sold.

I'm not rage-quitting - I'm keeping 2 accounts for PvP - but Eve no longer gets my (frequent) casual game time. In the last week alone I've bought The Stick of Truth, Total War and other games. They give me CHOICES and are a really fun way to spend 30-60 minutes a day.

Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad.


Probably the most articulate post in this entire thread!
Rain6637
NulzSec
#1544 - 2014-04-22 22:38:01 UTC
meaning the person has been very specific and accurate in describing a bad attitude
Anders Madeveda
Usque Ad Mortem
#1545 - 2014-04-22 22:47:47 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
The Alienator wrote:
Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad.

your entire post can be summarized as "you can't have rewards in nullsec, because I am in highsec!"

a player now who wishes to do industry must be in highsec. post-patch, a player faces a choice with tradeoffs, and can be in either null or highsec

you are whining up a storm over this new choice and trying to paint it as a choice elimination. it's not, you're just whining because highsec industry is no longer better in every way than 0.0


I guess we read different posts, my takeaway was completely different. Nobody who pays attention disagrees that Null Industry needs some love, but giving love to Null Industry did not have to include a nut shot to HS Industry. Alienator's position is well founded, no amount of carrot and stick will migrate players to Null simply because Null is its own crown of thorns. CCP's heavy handed tactics will serve to force players with limited play times and specific play styles to decide if Eve is the game for them anymore, thats not progress and any gains that Null realizes will be more than offset in HS sub losses.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#1546 - 2014-04-22 22:53:59 UTC
Anders Madeveda
Usque Ad Mortem
#1547 - 2014-04-22 23:47:49 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses.


I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style.

There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1548 - 2014-04-23 00:18:23 UTC
Anders Madeveda wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses.


I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style.

There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision.
What are these new limitations you keep talking about? All I see are limitations being removed. Basically it seems from your post like your evaluations about being successful were wrong and your profits simply propped up by artificial barriers which are now being torn down and are forcing you to actually compete with a wider range of individuals.

Another entertaining bit was claiming no emotional influence yet feeling the need to resort to name calling.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#1549 - 2014-04-23 00:27:26 UTC
Anders Madeveda wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses.


I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style.

There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision.

and my argument is simply against yours for the sake of it, cuz two can play that game
Camladar
Iridescent Space Creatures
#1550 - 2014-04-23 00:28:07 UTC
I've just read the blog and and very interested to see how it works out. I'll not waste days reading all of the comments - which inevitably are full of bitches and moans - but just wanted to counter all of those posts and say thanks for what you're doing! It's certainly going to shake up things a bit. The new manuf. window looks amazing. Perhaps a little busy, but amazing nonetheless.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#1551 - 2014-04-23 01:02:40 UTC
Anders, i made a picture to illustrate what the current situation is like, and why the slots thing should provide some enjoyment to new, more players, by providing infinite research slots.

http://i.imgur.com/0M5IRDK.jpg
Flay Nardieu
#1552 - 2014-04-23 01:06:18 UTC
My view on this is generally positive. The industrial setup has needed an overhaul for quite some time, however I do feel that forcing placement of BPs in POS arrays or POS corporate hangars will add even more difficulty with asset management. Additionally one key aspect of the whole POS research/manufacturing that has always been a real annoyance doesn't seem to even be addressed, allowing corporation or even alliance member the use of arrays with their personal BPs

Another thing in the upcoming changes is the removal of standings in anchoring, granted this change will allow many POS sets by corporations otherwise excluded from high-sec deployment because of have a diverse composition of members. The side effect is that corps who vested massive amounts of time in running missions for the Empires to get the standings to set their own towers will lack such motivation keep it in addition to agents hostile to an empire to set in systems (which irronicly no established power would tolerate). I suppose it would be a boon for pirate/ganker PvP groups...

And as a side note;
It seems to me (apparently others as well) the all improvements or changes to Eve comes with some social engineering tacked on it to give players a "push" to move high-sec to low-sec styles whether that is their choice or not. I fail to see any balance, low and null should be more profitable for those that embrace the risk, high-sec should be less profitable but with the security that more casual players enjoy.
Anders Madeveda
Usque Ad Mortem
#1553 - 2014-04-23 02:03:06 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Anders Madeveda wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses.


I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style.

There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision.
What are these new limitations you keep talking about? All I see are limitations being removed. Basically it seems from your post like your evaluations about being successful were wrong and your profits simply propped up by artificial barriers which are now being torn down and are forcing you to actually compete with a wider range of individuals.

Another entertaining bit was claiming no emotional influence yet feeling the need to resort to name calling.


I don't think I mention "limitations" once in any post I've thrown up here. The argument none of you null inhabitants has addressed regards play style. I have zero issue with how anyone in any space earns their isk and reaps enjoyment from the game. Gank, scam, pvp, etc to your hearts content, I welcome attempting to elude your efforts to blap me. The central argument is not Null vs High, nor their respective advantages. The central argument that all of us should be concerned about is CCP's efforts to force a play style/area on the player base.
Anders Madeveda
Usque Ad Mortem
#1554 - 2014-04-23 02:13:51 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Anders, i made a picture to illustrate what the current situation is like, and why the slots thing should provide some enjoyment to new, more players, by providing infinite research slots.

http://i.imgur.com/0M5IRDK.jpg



Lol, seen it, probably gonna have a T-shirt made with it. Doesn't change the base premise that CCP is pushing people into a style of play that they don't want to play.
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
#1555 - 2014-04-23 02:18:49 UTC
We, as high or null players, get wrapped up in the RvR argument every expansion. But people should, as others said, need to look if CCP is changing the "sandbox" to the bigger paying customers sandbox and not all its players sandbox. Every sandbox has something different in it.

The game has changed over my 10 years of play, but certain changes that are really driven to push or mold the sandbox in a direction that does meet my idea of that sandbox makes think about why i have multiple accounts.

Am I going to rage quit and biomass, no! i will take another break (last one was two expansions and change). After many other games I found that EVE is still my game. Big smile

It is what it is right now.... NEED MORE INFORMATION! Roll
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1556 - 2014-04-23 02:20:00 UTC
Anders Madeveda wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Anders Madeveda wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses.


I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style.

There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision.
What are these new limitations you keep talking about? All I see are limitations being removed. Basically it seems from your post like your evaluations about being successful were wrong and your profits simply propped up by artificial barriers which are now being torn down and are forcing you to actually compete with a wider range of individuals.

Another entertaining bit was claiming no emotional influence yet feeling the need to resort to name calling.


I don't think I mention "limitations" once in any post I've thrown up here. The argument none of you null inhabitants has addressed regards play style. I have zero issue with how anyone in any space earns their isk and reaps enjoyment from the game. Gank, scam, pvp, etc to your hearts content, I welcome attempting to elude your efforts to blap me. The central argument is not Null vs High, nor their respective advantages. The central argument that all of us should be concerned about is CCP's efforts to force a play style/area on the player base.

"When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play."

This was the crux of your complaint. Some imaginary detriment to your "playstyle" by way of it becoming more limited. So the question still stands, what is that limitation? And where is this effort to force people to play in null? How does this manifest? I can say I honestly don't expect a real answer as you are as horrendously un-objective as they come.
Anders Madeveda
Usque Ad Mortem
#1557 - 2014-04-23 02:24:20 UTC
Banko Mato wrote:
I have the feeling, this turns into a "grr null" vs. "grr hisec" trench warfare...
Although i am heavily invested in highsec industry around T2 production, i really welcome the basic ideas behind the proposed changes (and unfortunately agree with a good portion of the goony statements). But (and that's a freakin huge BUT) on the other hand, until CCP provides us actual hard numbers, i keep being afraid, because this has a damn big potential on backfiring in epic ways if implemented poorly...

Therefore i dearly hope, that the next blogs on the list get out soon (without the ™), so we can have a knowledgable discussion instead of the bitching about why a certain area of space is inferior/superior/poorer/lamer/safer/whatsoeva

So please CCP, throw out more information!



This...CCP needs to release the rest of this quickly or people will start passing out from hypoxia!
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#1558 - 2014-04-23 02:33:28 UTC
On a slightly different tack from everyone else here, What about these changes promotes cooperative game play? Everything ive seen, detracts from any real organizing of industrialists,

- Unlimited slots in stations makes it less likely that i want to put up pos in the first place as lab slots in a pos was the main reason to have one in hisec.
- Reduction of standings requirements means that new players have no incentive to join my established corp for the use of pos slots
- Moving pos research to exclusively pos lab based hangers means that my bpos' are less secure then in station based corp hangers from corp theft (as roles for placing items into pos mods are the same as placing pos mods)

While the last one might be intentional, changing the way research in a pos works without first changing how pos works is a terrible idea,

But please tell me how the changes in this blog encourage team game play, i am curious if i am correct on this.

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.

Urziel99
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1559 - 2014-04-23 02:43:33 UTC
Well, you were all busy while I was at work, and since Malcanis never came back I guess I'll deal with those who had the stones.

Aryth wrote:
The best part of this thread is when people admit they don't know the first thing about nullsec mechanics. After having been arguing the merits of a change that impacts null and highsec. If you want to be successful in this game or at least successful at arguing the mechanics within it, perhaps it might be useful to actually know mechanics beyond your small corner of the game.

Shocking concept I know.


That's all well and good for most of them. But when you speak to me, you speak to someone who has lived, mined and built in nullsec for most of the last 3 years.

Weaselior wrote:
yeah i think we can all agree on MAKE WITH THE REST OF THE BLOGS AAAUGH


For once you say something I can agree with.

Rain6637 wrote:
meaning the person has been very specific and accurate in describing a bad attitude


If by bad attitude you mean having the audacity to play a sandbox game his way, by his own rules, then you are correct.

Anders Madeveda wrote:

I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style.

There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision.


This guy gets it. It's not rocket science people.

Anders Madeveda wrote:

What are these new limitations you keep talking about? All I see are limitations being removed.


The loss of remote jobs vastly increases the value at risk for any pos related industry work with BPO's. That is a giant nut crusher when you have multiple 1 billion isk plus BPO's in process at any one time. In the meantime we know exactly **** all about any changes to bonuses for POS arraysd and CCP having the audacity to charge us isk on top of already paying for POS fuels. And just because they haven't broken things enough, BPO's can't be locked down in a control tower.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#1560 - 2014-04-23 02:47:41 UTC