These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP, save EVE

Author
Cade Windstalker
#21 - 2016-09-27 14:46:18 UTC
Oh gods these are terrible...

Teddy KGB wrote:
- remove local in null-sec / low-sec
- remove tactical destroyers at all (this is the dumbest ship in EVE ever)
- remove anomalies like haven, sanctum, etc. resp in sov space by military hub
- remove rapid launchers or nurf it
- change cyno mechanics
- replace NPC bounty with loot only except belts and mission rewards
- double up the mineral cost of capital ships
- boost Battleships
- rebalance T3 cruisers closer to T2 cruisers (their main distinction must be their flexibility but not overwhelming parameters)
- replace armor/shield repair bonus with ammount bonus for subcapital ships




  1. Would **** off Null and WH space players. No local is a characteristic of Wormholes, not Null.
  2. This is just a terrible idea in general. "I don't like this, remove it" is a good way to **** players off not retain them. T3Ds need a rework, not removal.
  3. Yes, because this wouldn't totally **** off all of Null... this sounds like an "I'm bitter that I can't get out into null and farm ISK" suggestion.
  4. How, exactly? lol
  5. This is just economically terrible to a ludicrous degree, not to mention is sure to **** people off.
  6. This sounds like a pissed off miner suggestion, and would also seriously **** off players.
  7. Battleships are fine, they're not meant to dominate the game. They get strong and consistent use in pretty much all areas of the game, they don't need a big buff.
  8. There's already a T3C Tiericide rebalance yet to happen. Complaining that T3 Cruisers are imbalanced before they've gotten their scheduled rebalance is like complaining that water is wet.
  9. This is just a terrible suggestion in general. It removes a solidly useful bonus for a questionably useful one that's almost functionally identical to a resist bonus *except worse* because it doesn't help remote repair. This effectively makes the game less interesting and more uniform.


Suggestions like this to 'save' the game are why I'm glad we have CCP as a filter against bad ideas...
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2016-09-27 14:50:06 UTC
Teddy KGB wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
All doubling the mineral requirements on capital ships would do is further cement the power of large groups that already have more of them than they can count. In one swoop you've dramatically increased both the value of their assets and the difficulty of trying to compete with them.

you mean that if capital price will double up than the loss for big alliance wont be more expansive?


It will be more expensive for everyone, but the big guys can better absorb that loss because they already have massive piles of cap ships, and they already have massive piles of ISK, so they can afford to replace the ones they lose. It will hurt smaller entities far more, because they have neither the ships nor the ISK to absorb the losses as readily. You'd actually tighten the stranglehold on null by the largest entities because eventually, they'd be the only ones who could afford to build caps in any kind of numbers

Contrary to popular belief, making things cost more does far less harm to large entities because they can spread the cost around more. It's the small groups that get shafted.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#23 - 2016-09-27 14:56:43 UTC
Getting rid of local in null would **** of null bears. WH pilots would be overjoyed. The split would be the null players w/ wh characters. Not sure where they would fall out.

You seem more worried about pissing off players than making the game interesting and viable for the long haul. You can't build a legacy on instant gratification.
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#24 - 2016-09-27 15:00:32 UTC
You guys are being too harsh.

Unlike many posters, this OP managed to consolidate all of his horrible ideas into one easily ignored (or mocked, whatever you're into) thread.

There's a certain degree of nobility in that, I think.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2016-09-27 15:22:31 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Getting rid of local in null would **** of null bears. WH pilots would be overjoyed. The split would be the null players w/ wh characters. Not sure where they would fall out.

You seem more worried about pissing off players than making the game interesting and viable for the long haul. You can't build a legacy on instant gratification.


I'd actually love to see local tied to sov. I seem to remember seeing something about CCP considering that idea.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#26 - 2016-09-27 15:38:04 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Getting rid of local in null would **** of null bears. WH pilots would be overjoyed. The split would be the null players w/ wh characters. Not sure where they would fall out.

You seem more worried about pissing off players than making the game interesting and viable for the long haul. You can't build a legacy on instant gratification.


I'd actually love to see local tied to sov. I seem to remember seeing something about CCP considering that idea.



No local. Period. There is nothing that large blocks can't purchase or grind. If you tie local availability to anything you're just hurting the little guys and boringass business as usual for the big guys. There NEEDS to be a mindset change away from tying things to SOV, SOV upgrades and that sort of thing. CCP got talked into trench warfare a few years back and that's when things started to get sour.

Eve would be a lot better off down the road if the ONLY benefit to owning SOV was the ability to say "I own this, come at me bro"
Angelink Liffe
Doomheim
#27 - 2016-09-27 16:21:39 UTC
ccp, dont kill pvp content! change cyno mechanics!
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2016-09-27 16:54:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Dior Ambraelle
The only thing I can agree with is the fact that the EVEOffline's statistics are sad. I don't think killing half the current "endgame" content would solve anything, more like make the older players quit - with all of their alts.
Everyone is complaining about T3Cs, they probably need some rework, I didn't tried them yet personally.
T3Ds are the coolest ships in the game with all of their transformations. OP said they should be removed, I say add 4 more: neuter/nosfer bonus for amarr, drones for gallente, railgun-sniper for caldari, rockets/missiles for minmatar to put them in their-
(now we're both wrong - probably)
According to some people on twitter (which is the most reliable source, as we all know) there were 1.5 million newly registered players last year, half of them dropped the game within 2 hours. The problem isn't the endgame, but the early game content, which is being reworked by ... CCPGhost maybe? I don't remember this for sure.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Vic Jefferson
ElitistOps
Snuffed Out
#29 - 2016-09-27 17:32:43 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
The only thing I can agree with is the fact that the EVEOffline's statistics are sad. I don't think killing half the current "endgame" content would solve anything, more like make the older players quit - with all of their alts.
Everyone is complaining about T3Cs, they probably need some rework, I didn't tried them yet personally.
T3Ds are the coolest ships in the game with all of their transformations. OP said they should be removed, I say add 4 more: neuter/nosfer bonus for amarr, drones for gallente, railgun-sniper for caldari, rockets/missiles for minmatar to put them in their-
(now we're both wrong - probably)
According to some people on twitter (which is the most reliable source, as we all know) there were 1.5 million newly registered players last year, half of them dropped the game within 2 hours. The problem isn't the endgame, but the early game content, which is being reworked by ... CCPGhost maybe? I don't remember this for sure.


It's a year later and you haven't tried them? Oh gosh... where to start.

No. No more T3 anything. Part of the fun of EvE online is that you have a wonderfully deep and wide array of ships that can all interact with each other, and all fly differently, with trademark strengths and weaknesses. The curse of the T3D is that they do everything better - they simultaneously invalidated frigates, destroyers, and cruisers.

Everything wrong with EvE can trace itself back to diminishing the diversity of ships. Jump fatigue, AegisSov, and Citadels basically made capitals terrible. Carriers were interesting, and forced a good segue into a cap fight, but they axed that too. T3Ds basically took T1 frigates. destroyers. and cruisers out of the game. Warp speed changes basically took BS out of the game.

We want to play EvE online. We are given instead a handful of ships. Therein lay the problem.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#30 - 2016-09-27 17:44:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Teddy KGB wrote:

- replace NPC bounty with loot only except belts and mission rewards.


CCP had this before. Drone poop loot and better loot drops on non-drone rats.


Drone poop pulled by miner request, it was a fair amount of minerals. As I recall a few drone missions and you could roll off a BC from the assembly line at least if you made them yourself. This how I fed my production lines a little back in the day as I built and ran missions.


Mission loot nerfed to the ground by miner (again) and pure industrialist types requests. Former, mineral whines again. Latter hated t1 dropped. Some half assed line of logic since rats drop it no one is buying it. Half assed being no one buys t1 anyway, meta is better and even noobs learn this fast. By and large the only people who use t1 are t2 builders. And by and large we have our own t1 bp's for the base t1 item anyway...needed for invention copies at the minimum. Why the hell would I pay someone else to make my stuff. especially post industrial change where importance of ME was castrated. We all make at same ME now.


Sales spike this did not create. As instead of low balling buy orders for t1 loot drops (or using our own if we ran missions too, I did) when this happened we just made our own t1 items.


that and blitzing is common for mission runners anyway. Its about the lp//hour a lot in mission running. Looking at the get the quafe mission for example. Simple enough, grab the supply of quafee. Drop in fast, open can, leave. You can kill the rats in this mission if desired. For blitz purists, the payout not there to do this.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2016-09-27 17:59:04 UTC
But most of those changes just massively diminish quality of life in nullsec?

How is that going to save anything? Hell, I'm not even talking about the local changes, I'm talking the 'remove ratting sites and make everyone go back to running belts lol!!1 but now there's no bounties and you have to haul everything!11' nonsense...
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#32 - 2016-09-27 18:02:36 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Zan Shiro wrote:


Mission loot nerfed to the ground by miner (again) and pure industrialist types requests. Former, mineral whines again. Latter hated t1 dropped. Some half assed line of logic since rats drop it no one is buying it. Half assed being no one buys t1 anyway, meta is better and even noobs learn this fast.


Incorrect. It wasn't nerfed for the benefit of T1 module sales, it was nerfed because the mineral output from reprocessing Meta 0 battleship rat drops oversupplied the market, making actual mining even worse than it is today (and it's still pretty terrible).

It was initially soft-nerfed with a module volume increase, and when that didn't solve the issue, hard-nerfed with "metal scraps".

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2016-09-27 18:16:48 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:

It's a year later and you haven't tried them? Oh gosh... where to start.

Cruisers 5 takes a lot of time, I think it's better to focus on the weapon support skills for a bit longer.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#34 - 2016-09-27 19:03:08 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:


Mission loot nerfed to the ground by miner (again) and pure industrialist types requests. Former, mineral whines again. Latter hated t1 dropped. Some half assed line of logic since rats drop it no one is buying it. Half assed being no one buys t1 anyway, meta is better and even noobs learn this fast.


Incorrect. It wasn't nerfed for the benefit of T1 module sales, it was nerfed because the mineral output from reprocessing Meta 0 battleship rat drops oversupplied the market, making actual mining even worse than it is today (and it's still pretty terrible).

It was initially soft-nerfed with a module volume increase, and when that didn't solve the issue, hard-nerfed with "metal scraps".



Some industrialists were complaining they couldn't get a good start in production because of the t1 source from loot drops. Rabble rabble can't make any money to start up t2 production, selling ammo sucks, ships sales hard to start up in, rabble rabble. Me...I said run missions for the seed money for this myself. had to in the old days when data core collection (empire, non-FW) more viable before FW changes shifted core emphasis to that. Blitz for standings, made some isk in addition to the more dedicated real rat killer in the process and got me level 4 research agents....win win win.


The only valid gripe from this was cap charges imo. these did drop like rain in a typhoon I won't lie. CCP could have dropped charges no complaints. Or they could just not have made these lol. Common sense not so common as they say.


Mining has always sucked. It will never be fixed. I did it for 1.5 years before I got my head out of my ass lol. That and I am a patient man, I always find in time someone who will sell for cheap when I need/want mins (empire low ends anyway). They don't want to haul to a hub, the money is right there...

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#35 - 2016-09-27 23:12:54 UTC
Teddy KGB wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Good luck getting CCP to look at any of this.

You've made absolutely no solid argument at all other than 'this is what I think', but what you think is no better than what someone else thinks, even if it's different to yours.

You'll need more credible arguments and details than that.

all argues in separate threads, kid.

If you think you've made argues [arguments] in other threads, you're sorely mistaken.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#36 - 2016-09-28 00:11:25 UTC
Teddy KGB wrote:
correct. first of all ccp should remove all mistakes they did before. those mistakes that killing eve now. except local. it was always but it got into bad stuff with time, so no it should be removed. WH space was a step to it but ccp forgot to spread it further.
as i told i was talking about many suggestions in other topics. like a cyno rebalance here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=492415


The problem with your explanation is that growth stopped in 2011. Some of the things you complain about did not even exist or the connection to the lack of growth or even the decline in players is unclear. For example, sanctums and havens....what is the connection there? Local in NS? Again, not seeing it. Local has been there all along even when the game was growing? So what is the connection? Cynos have already been nerfed with fatigue and jump range reductions. In fact, some point to these changes as to why they are leaving, so again...what is the argument here?

This laundry list looks like a list of things you'd like to see changed vs. actually helping with player retention.

In fact, I would argue CCPs mistakes are not introducing new ships or sanctums or havens, but is in fact making HS PvP a less viable play style. Now you either gank freighters and retrievers or you camp trade hubs and periodically roaming the pipes between the hubs. Things like removal of the watchlist was a mistake. The various rounds of freighter ganking were likely a mistake as well. And the thing is I don't think you can go back from these mistakes. One adaptation to the removal of the watchlist were mass wardecs. If the watchlist were put back in, I don't think it would stop mass war deccing, but it would mean you'd have these large war dec organizations who could hunt down targets all over New Eden--i.e. if you thought war decs were a problem before...put the watchlist back in and watch things turn into a complete **** show.

Here is another issue with the argument of "because of svipul". There has been a number of Ship-of-the-day or the like. Back in 2008 or so it was nano hacs zipping around at speeds like 3,500m/s or faster. Out running missiles and so forth. Did that slow game growth? Maybe, but the game grew despite this. Then there were other examples as well. Ships and modules can be balanced so I'm just not seeing the argument here, but feel free to go ahead and give it a shot.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Kiriana Beoulve
Brotherhood of Shadow Omega
#37 - 2016-09-28 06:11:20 UTC
Removing things isn't the way to go. Personally I think they need to add more highend PvP, and give Carebears more progression past Marauders. They should add a ranked PvP system where 1v1s, 3v3s, and 5v5 ship combat is a thing (With no outside interference!). Let people set price ranges for the battles as well. It's great that Eve has a huge sandbox, but letting more controlled outlets for ISK sinks and making more blown up ships is a good thing. T1 frigate teams would be super fun in PvP!

The game is going to have a really rough time with the renewed space sim genre. Combat and gameplay itself has never been a strong point in Eve, and the draw away from Microsoft Excel in space is only getting stronger. Meanwhile, new players are far from being Wowed by the click intensive combat that was built on limits that existed over a decade ago. Lets be honest, Social aspects are the only thing holding the game together.
Teddy KGB
3200
#38 - 2016-09-28 09:02:39 UTC
Quote:
Cynos have already been nerfed with fatigue and jump range reductions. In fact, some point to these changes as to why they are leaving, so again...what is the argument here?

This statement is a widespread delusion and deservs a big discussion. The fatigue and jump range brought a big boost of defense. Using caps in small battles in home regions got very safe against subcapital fleets and small-mid scale roams. When you know that there are no anycapital forces around you can easily drop couple carriers into a battle without fear of being counterdropped. So it's a very safe and cheap way to kill a ranodm roam in your home system. Cheap because the cost of fitted carrier is equal to price of fitted marauder. Another delusion is that one falcon switch of a carrier, because in fact carrier in 99% times used as additional force to existing fleet, so this type of argue is pretty result oriented and polarized.

Quote:
sanctums and havens....what is the connection there?

Sanctum and havens have killed DEDs exploration. Nobody struggle for 10/10 anymore. DEDs allways used to be an escalation point for PvP content. Your fleet came in system, see ships on d-scan, you come there, if they just left the DED you didn't fly away but ran that DED as a compensation, while very often people who were kicked out of it came back regrouped and this made PvP in space. This all happened coz there was something to fight for, now DEDs cost dropped from 1.8 bil to 0.6 bil in maximum chance of loot drop. At least you can leave sanctums but remove the escalation that it gives, as it devalues DEDs.

Quote:
Here is another issue with the argument of "because of svipul". There has been a number of Ship-of-the-day or the like. Back in 2008 or so it was nano hacs zipping around at speeds like 3,500m/s or faster.

There is a little difference between svipul nowadays and nanoishtar in 2008 and it's the price. Maybe you remember the price for t2 polycarbon rigs that days? considering the inflation the price of that nano ships was just huge. for instance dominix cost ~60mil in 2008 while t2 policarbons cost about 80mil.
Teddy KGB
3200
#39 - 2016-09-28 09:04:13 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:

If you think you've made argues [arguments] in other threads, you're sorely mistaken.

i don't even need to read your post, coz i see your killboard.
Dantes Wolf
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2016-09-28 09:23:47 UTC
It's not as much a "delete this or that" as it is: "Provide Endgame Options" - Most pilots who live here, hasn't got much to do: If stuff like "DED 10-20" sites were added, we'd go a long way - higher sites in null, for capital (and capital team RR options) we're introduced, we'd have a lot to do also.

Lastly; if monthly payments we're skipped, and cut down to optional Plex-buying for cash, we'd be a long way also..

Not that the later's gonna happen; CCP is a greedy corp, and they need to make ends meet, but if they made the game FFA, we'd see membercounts sky-rocket.

There's the solution to saving EVE, but.. Greed will be the downfall of the game, that's my verdict.

D.

"Before you diagnose yourself with low selfesteem and depression, you should first make sure, that you are not just, in fact, surrounded by assholes".