These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

CCP, is this what you really wanted?

Author
Arronicus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2015-03-19 11:24:30 UTC
Not sure if giant troll thread, or giant troll thread, but what's the problem with outrunning missiles when you can out-track guns? It's exactly the same thing.
Varathius
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
#22 - 2015-03-19 11:32:48 UTC
Veryunstable wrote:
You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it.
Sofar you lost about what, 5% of subscriptions because of key broadcasting.
1. You talk a constant plan of ship balancing and at the same time you bring out a destroyer that can outrun missiles with cruiser sized prop mods.
2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless.
3. I guess you want more fighting, which I can agree with, but the reason there is so little of that now is because there are basicly only 3 or 4 giant sized alliances that don't really want to tangle with each other. Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition. But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights.
4. One other way to cause more fighting would be to put a set amount of minerals on the R32 and 64 planets, say like enough for 4 to 6 months worth at non stop mining. Then when it runs dry, another of the same kind would respawn randomly somewhere else. By randomly I mean NOT ALWAYS in CCP's friends corner. Like what seems to happen with pricely blueprints and etc.
At the rate of speed you are going, I would almost bet the basic death of EVE within a few years.
Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think? Sad


well, the whole fozziesov thing is a big mistake on his behalf anyway. In his own words he basically did say, that taking sov will be easier for smaller type organizations not so fortunate until before the fozziesov. He, I guess thought that the big alliance will then loose a big part of the pie to some new less fortunate guys that finally have their null sec systems too. I guess what he forgot was that it will not really be easier for the less fortunate, but it will now be much easier for the big alliance to take even more systems, because that is what well organized and big alliances will be able to do most successful. I guess his intention of hurting big alliances will actually just make them stronger. Well, as always, we just have to adapt and play it out.
Charlie Jacobson
#23 - 2015-03-19 11:37:25 UTC
I'm extremely happy about input broadcasting being banned. In general I'd like to see more changes that promote single account play rather than being coerced into multiboxing.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#24 - 2015-03-19 11:38:18 UTC
Veryunstable wrote:
If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000


Let me stop you right there...
2Sonas1Cup
#25 - 2015-03-19 12:10:18 UTC  |  Edited by: 2Sonas1Cup
tl;dr

qq giv mah isboxer back
qq a bad guy killed my megathron in a t3 destroyer
qq i run this site 3 times and it didnt even drop an A type invu
qq i hav no friends
qq i wish i was in goonswarm alliance
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2015-03-19 12:47:09 UTC
Of course this is what they want. If they didn't make all these changes, you would have never posted this thread. That means less forum traffic, and as Eve is just a basic feeder system to keep this forum somewhat alive, we can't have less traffic.
Serene Repose
#27 - 2015-03-19 13:16:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Serene Repose
Varathius wrote:
well, the whole fozziesov thing is a big mistake on his behalf anyway. In his own words he basically did say, that taking sov will be easier for smaller type organizations not so fortunate until before the fozziesov. He, I guess thought that the big alliance will then loose a big part of the pie to some new less fortunate guys that finally have their null sec systems too. I guess what he forgot was that it will not really be easier for the less fortunate, but it will now be much easier for the big alliance to take even more systems, because that is what well organized and big alliances will be able to do most successful. I guess his intention of hurting big alliances will actually just make them stronger. Well, as always, we just have to adapt and play it out.
Where this logic falls down is, with the new design nobody has to "let" anybody do anything. In the greatest tradition of warfare, someone has to "prevent" someone from doing something.

What has the big guys bothered is, you don't have to be a big guy to challenge the big guys. If the big guys are "holding" space, but not occupying it or developing it, then the smaller guys have a real shot at wresting it from their control. The big guys are now faced with holding what they can hold, or moving to wrest back what was wrested, whilst leaving something else thinly defended.

What this will do is force EVERYONE to only claim what they can physically hold. The "Inflation Bubble" method of play the Goonwaffles have perfected then becomes obsolete, and then we discover Goonwaffles' true size. (Naturally, they're going to claim it only looks small 'cause it's COLD! Brrrrrrr.)

Those reading along, it would do well to remember: Some of these "heartfelt" and "sincere" criticisms are merely cloaked attempts to hang onto the status quo, as that is "WINNING" to some. With the new changes, the winners just aren't going to be WINNING unless they can actually hold what they claim they own. Ipso facto, hey PRESTO CHANGE-O and that CAN'T be bad.

....unless of course, you're a Goonwaffle! (I'll have mine with pecans, please.)

We must accommodate the idiocracy.

Captain Awkward
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2015-03-19 14:10:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Awkward
Varathius wrote:
well, the whole fozziesov thing is a big mistake on his behalf anyway. In his own words he basically did say, that taking sov will be easier for smaller type organizations not so fortunate until before the fozziesov. He, I guess thought that the big alliance will then loose a big part of the pie to some new less fortunate guys that finally have their null sec systems too. I guess what he forgot was that it will not really be easier for the less fortunate, but it will now be much easier for the big alliance to take even more systems, because that is what well organized and big alliances will be able to do most successful. I guess his intention of hurting big alliances will actually just make them stronger. Well, as always, we just have to adapt and play it out.


Currently you need a lot of dps to take sov. Even if you can bring enough people to take sov as a smaller enity, you are most likely not able to attack multiple system at one. Which makes it very easy to defend for the large sov holders.

In the new system, threatening sov will be mutch easer. 20 People can easily attack sov of 40 system a day. Can a big alliance defend their space. Of course they can. Is it likeley they will chase 20 people for hours about space that they do not care about ? No, unlikeley.

The big alliances will lose the sov in systems they do not realy care about. And they will hold sov in the systems they do care about.

Thats the intended change.
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#29 - 2015-03-19 17:07:21 UTC
Captain Awkward wrote:
Varathius wrote:
well, the whole fozziesov thing is a big mistake on his behalf anyway. In his own words he basically did say, that taking sov will be easier for smaller type organizations not so fortunate until before the fozziesov. He, I guess thought that the big alliance will then loose a big part of the pie to some new less fortunate guys that finally have their null sec systems too. I guess what he forgot was that it will not really be easier for the less fortunate, but it will now be much easier for the big alliance to take even more systems, because that is what well organized and big alliances will be able to do most successful. I guess his intention of hurting big alliances will actually just make them stronger. Well, as always, we just have to adapt and play it out.


Currently you need a lot of dps to take sov. Even if you can bring enough people to take sov as a smaller enity, you are most likely not able to attack multiple system at one. Which makes it very easy to defend for the large sov holders.

In the new system, threatening sov will be mutch easer. 20 People can easily attack sov of 40 system a day. Can a big alliance defend their space. Of course they can. Is it likeley they will chase 20 people for hours about space that they do not care about ? No, unlikeley.

The big alliances will lose the sov in systems they do not realy care about. And they will hold sov in the systems they do care about.

Thats the intended change.

It's fine though, since the reason to sit on the sov is so enemy can't get it.

But if you and the enemy both leave it as a useless no-man-land it's also a stable outcome.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#30 - 2015-03-19 17:08:50 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
What this will do is force EVERYONE to only claim what they can physically hold. The "Inflation Bubble" method of play the Goonwaffles have perfected then becomes obsolete, and then we discover Goonwaffles' true size. (Naturally, they're going to claim it only looks small 'cause it's COLD! Brrrrrrr.)

Are we discussing the size of northernassociates dot?

They may have some very large sized er... wait

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Jenshae Chiroptera
#31 - 2015-03-19 18:40:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Eli Stan wrote:
2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless..
Burn system, flip to Free Port.
Wait for new residents.
Burn.
Repeat.

(Mean while hold the moons and make the real ISK)

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#32 - 2015-03-19 18:56:21 UTC

The Op's post makes my head hurt...

I'm simply making a post to let CCP know they are doing a good job and to keep up the hard work. Don't listen to the craptastic rant of the Op.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#33 - 2015-03-19 18:57:44 UTC
Veryunstable wrote:
You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it.

Usually if the soup has been in the fridge for years, even rose-tinted glasses wont make it taste any better than it was before.
Reiisha
#34 - 2015-03-19 20:08:59 UTC
Veryunstable wrote:
You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it.
Sofar you lost about what, 5% of subscriptions because of key broadcasting.
1. You talk a constant plan of ship balancing and at the same time you bring out a destroyer that can outrun missiles with cruiser sized prop mods.
2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless.
3. I guess you want more fighting, which I can agree with, but the reason there is so little of that now is because there are basicly only 3 or 4 giant sized alliances that don't really want to tangle with each other. Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition. But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights.
4. One other way to cause more fighting would be to put a set amount of minerals on the R32 and 64 planets, say like enough for 4 to 6 months worth at non stop mining. Then when it runs dry, another of the same kind would respawn randomly somewhere else. By randomly I mean NOT ALWAYS in CCP's friends corner. Like what seems to happen with pricely blueprints and etc.
At the rate of speed you are going, I would almost bet the basic death of EVE within a few years.
Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think? Sad


1) They addressed the Svipul and already mentioned a balance pass.
2) If it means an actually fun system instead of an utterly boring and mind destroying grind - Please! If it means that massive AFK empires can't hold space without actually defending it anymore - Please!
3) Sov changes will take care of this.
4) Agree. Depletable moons, when they do deplete, the resource moves to a random other place.

Otherwise, take off your tinfoil hat and help make the game actually fun instead of complaining about details and arguing to keep massive blunders of game design.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#35 - 2015-03-19 23:55:10 UTC
Quote:
1) They addressed the Svipul and already mentioned a balance pass.


Could we get a source on that? I heard about T3Ds in general, but in what light it was said - hard to tell. Smile
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#36 - 2015-03-20 00:35:45 UTC
Veryunstable wrote:
You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it.


We can stop right here. Your fundamental assumption is based entirely on your personal preferences. The evidence is that EVE was "perfect" is not one shared by many people and the suggestion that EVE should act based on your personal opinion is ludicrous.

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.

Rain6637
NulzSec
#37 - 2015-03-20 00:51:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
A plausible reason why CCP would suddenly be willing to cut off the fat would be the possibility that a player will only purchase one copy of special edition things like the CE (which is dirt cheap now), regardless of their number of accounts. If the business model is adjusted slightly from monthly subscriptions to microtransaction vanity items, it makes complete sense for CCP to wean itself from multi-account (per player) income.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#38 - 2015-03-20 00:58:36 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
A plausible reason why CCP would suddenly be willing to cut off the fat would be the possibility that a player will only purchase one copy of special edition things like the CE (which is dirt cheap now), regardless of their number of accounts. If the business model is adjusted slightly from monthly subscriptions to microtransaction vanity items, it makes complete sense for CCP to wean itself from multi-account (per player) income.
Alts will exist as long as there are viable play denial tactics

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Rain6637
NulzSec
#39 - 2015-03-20 01:01:37 UTC
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#40 - 2015-03-20 01:56:54 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
I'm gonna go way out on a limb and disagree with just about everything you said OP.

Have a nice day.


I like your hair.

OP has no hair at all!


I like your post. Don't give a fuk what the op thinks.
Previous page123Next page