These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

the 0.0 end game is upon us...

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rashnu Gorbani
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2014-02-16 14:52:42 UTC
Ralen Zateki wrote:
Culture

If you heard about 4chan it's the same bunch of people so there's the culture. Pedos and all kinds of weirdos and whatnot.
Mittani is a fail lawyer that now lives off the advertisments on his site (same guy that publicly encouraged suicide of some depressed eve dude).
Vile rat the CIA guy.
Numerous CCP devs.
It is a disturbing thought how far /b/ people can reach, or how low some, seemingly 'normal' people can get.
It is apparently a powerful group with RL resources. The successes draw more and more ignorant people towards them.
I'm only surprised the russians allied with them, of what I know they used to be a somewhat independant group of people, it's weird that they would accept the rule of an american group self proclaimed as a**hole of the internet.
Ralen Zateki
Gladiators of Rage
Fraternity.
#82 - 2014-02-16 15:34:29 UTC
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:


Just because a system will eventually seek a balance on it's own shouldn't deter from designing a better system. You first should ask if the current entropic cycle is even a desired one.

What is under question is the scope of that success, impact on the rest of null. The in-game mechanics that allow, support and/or encourage the blob.




Point taken. Could be an interesting debate about "better" and "desired." Both are subjective qualifiers. But in the more general sense this bull about a huge blob "killing EVE" is just that. Bull. Something will give... be it internal or external and the system will change only to go on to re-organize itself. As you point out, the question is the scope and impact. I doubt very seriously CCP will allow something to destroy the game as long as they continue to be invested in it and enjoying a healthy return.

Exactly how that's going to go down remains to be seen... but my sense is that the reality for most players is that they'll hardly feel the effects.... and most won't know they are being effected even if they are.

Rashnu Gorbani wrote:


The successes draw more and more ignorant people towards them.



I don't know squat about them. If your observations are true it wouldn't surprise me. I've noticed more than a few... let's say odd... quirks that have raised an eyebrow just in the way their members communicate and this Mittani guy writes.

But it's not surprising about the draw. There's plenty of examples of it. Bigger point is that most people want to be led. They crave it, and are often willing to look past all kinds of crap to get it. Mainly because effective leadership - even of a perverted nature - is so rare, but it fulfills a sense of purpose in people that isn't otherwise fulfilled. Most can't articulate that, but I believe it's what's going on.

From my perspective... questionable in the sense of values or not... I haven't seen an alternative that is as effective... and as most things of this nature come down to leadership.... well... there you go.

If I had to predict, the timeframe for how long it can last will likely correlate to one of two things... the members ability to be satisfied with the status quo... or if that fails the iron fist of force that keeps it together.

I think it likely that it won't last long.
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#83 - 2014-02-16 15:35:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Seven Koskanaiken
Sov needs fixing, but shouldn't be touched in a way that affects anyone or anything. The dominion system, even though released incomplete, works exactly as intended, which is utterly horrible, but that's good.
Tesco Ergo Sum
#84 - 2014-02-16 15:55:56 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Sov needs fixing, but shouldn't be touched in a way that affects anyone or anything. The dominion system, even though released incomplete, works exactly as intended, which is utterly horrible, but that's good.


Apologies in advance as I wasn't playing when the change went live but in what way was Sov in Dominion incomplete?

It sounds like there was an expectation of what was going to be released but what is currently in place is somehow different?
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2014-02-16 16:14:03 UTC
Tesco Ergo Sum wrote:
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Sov needs fixing, but shouldn't be touched in a way that affects anyone or anything. The dominion system, even though released incomplete, works exactly as intended, which is utterly horrible, but that's good.


Apologies in advance as I wasn't playing when the change went live but in what way was Sov in Dominion incomplete?

It sounds like there was an expectation of what was going to be released but what is currently in place is somehow different?



Yes, if you dig up the dev blogs from pre-Dominion they had all sorts of plans to be implemented later.

Issue is that they did next to none of them.

Its still the best trailer IMO, but that is about it.
Taal Khurin
Acorn Harvesting
#86 - 2014-02-16 16:38:09 UTC
Caviar Liberta wrote:
GOB the Magician wrote:


doughnuts are delicious, what's the issue again?


Glazed or with sprinkles?

I'm more of a fan of the jelly filled.


Indeed, jam filled doughnuts are the best. Although freshly made ring doughnuts are pretty nice too.
Abortion Engine
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers
#87 - 2014-02-16 16:56:54 UTC
I love anything that makes me fatter.
Tesco Ergo Sum
#88 - 2014-02-16 17:22:04 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Tesco Ergo Sum wrote:
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Sov needs fixing, but shouldn't be touched in a way that affects anyone or anything. The dominion system, even though released incomplete, works exactly as intended, which is utterly horrible, but that's good.


Apologies in advance as I wasn't playing when the change went live but in what way was Sov in Dominion incomplete?

It sounds like there was an expectation of what was going to be released but what is currently in place is somehow different?



Yes, if you dig up the dev blogs from pre-Dominion they had all sorts of plans to be implemented later.

Issue is that they did next to none of them.

Its still the best trailer IMO, but that is about it.


Thanks, I'll dig and read! (doing so now)

Hmmm, a body of work (or at least ideas) available with some (out of date) feedback but change seems to be the greatest fear...

The players generally follow the path of least resistance so that would place the ball with CSM (players, mostly affiliated so small chance) or CCP (combination of affiliated/unaffiliated ex-players and developers with varying shades of neutrality).

I think slow and steady change holds the most promise here and there are many possible ways CCP could change, I'll give them more time before heading back out to BlueSec.
Buck Futz
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2014-02-16 17:48:11 UTC
I for one eagerly await the coming of the blue doughnut.

That day may never arrive, but I can hope.

Without serious rivals in nulsec, more Goons would be free to deploy their considerable resources towards tear extraction in highsec.

When nulsec is pacified, the noble crusade against the highsec carebear scourge remains.
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#90 - 2014-02-16 17:48:42 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Clearly goons just want to be blue with everyone.


different shades of blue. they have made real sov warfare irrelevant with NIP. but there will still be pvp.

what is dead is actual meaningful sov warfare


Several regions get conquered yet sov warfare is dead.

Huh.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#91 - 2014-02-16 18:15:12 UTC
Isn't one of the root issues that force projection especially of capitals is too easy? Circumvent tue front lines and its a trifle to deploy a response force to your location. Technically an entrepreneur could have led an alliance of 200 people in to venal and branch and conquered a few back yard systems but for the fact that defense is only a jc away.

A couple of helpful changes might come in the form of tighter volumes on pos and increasing their fuel consumption considerably to make running more pos unfeasible or at least a logistical burn out. Limit the number of pos by alliance.

If sov null is intended to accurately reflect real military at certain levels then fundamentally understanding and enforcing the idea that not every region can support entire fleets of dreads needs to happen. Physical locations of flerts should be much more important. While limiting the number of ships an individual can own is a bad idea forcing him to create and manage their storage could be a passive pressure focal point and make an undefended back line more susceptible to invaders.
Lady Katherine Devonshire
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#92 - 2014-02-16 18:26:49 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
the only question is will ccp finally fix this?


Why should they? It is not their problem. They gave players mechanics to fight over null security, and instead it's inhabitants decided to be 100% risk adverse and create the legendary "blue doughnut" instead. The players have spoken, and CCP is simply giving them what they want.

My only complaint is that it is precisely these same people who always bemoaning high security for being "too safe." Their hypocrisy is simply mind blowing at times.

The sound of the Amarrian heart
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#93 - 2014-02-16 18:44:49 UTC
Sorry, guys.

My goon alt didn't get the CTA to this forum circle jerk. Logging him in now.

Mr Epeen Cool
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#94 - 2014-02-16 18:46:30 UTC
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
the only question is will ccp finally fix this?


Why should they? It is not their problem. They gave players mechanics to fight over null security, and instead it's inhabitants decided to be 100% risk adverse and create the legendary "blue doughnut" instead. The players have spoken, and CCP is simply giving them what they want.

My only complaint is that it is precisely these same people who always bemoaning high security for being "too safe." Their hypocrisy is simply mind blowing at times.


Keep in mind, the people that are whining "high sec must be nerfed because it is so safe", don't actually BELIEVE that.
The vast majority are actual pilots inside the cartels, or their posting alts.

Their campaign is based on cynicism, and greed.
The more nerfs to high sec, the more people driven into renting from null sec cartels, (what, only 2 left when N3 falls?) , and the more income streams for the cartel leadership.

They know precisely how safe null sec is compared to high sec, but they also know the fact that if you say a lie loudly and long enough, it is eventually accepted as fact.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2014-02-16 18:54:55 UTC
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
the only question is will ccp finally fix this?


Why should they? It is not their problem. They gave players mechanics to fight over null security, and instead it's inhabitants decided to be 100% risk adverse and create the legendary "blue doughnut" instead. The players have spoken, and CCP is simply giving them what they want.

My only complaint is that it is precisely these same people who always bemoaning high security for being "too safe." Their hypocrisy is simply mind blowing at times.



Guess you missed the super graveyard in B-R.


No one says that high is too safe, we say that is pays to much for the safety that is granted.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#96 - 2014-02-16 18:56:19 UTC
Dinsdale, wtf? It took you 5 pages to show up for this? You are slipping.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#97 - 2014-02-16 18:57:37 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
the only question is will ccp finally fix this?


Why should they? It is not their problem. They gave players mechanics to fight over null security, and instead it's inhabitants decided to be 100% risk adverse and create the legendary "blue doughnut" instead. The players have spoken, and CCP is simply giving them what they want.

My only complaint is that it is precisely these same people who always bemoaning high security for being "too safe." Their hypocrisy is simply mind blowing at times.



Guess you missed the super graveyard in B-R.


No one says that high is too safe, we say that is pays to much for the safety that is granted.


Well, I say that, in a roundabout fashion.

Highsec is both too profitable and too safe. One of those needs to get cut down a bit. Whichever it is, is meaningless. But fix wardecs, either way. The existence of dec dodging is quite frankly shameful.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#98 - 2014-02-16 18:59:01 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Isn't one of the root issues that force projection especially of capitals is too easy? Circumvent tue front lines and its a trifle to deploy a response force to your location. Technically an entrepreneur could have led an alliance of 200 people in to venal and branch and conquered a few back yard systems but for the fact that defense is only a jc away.

A couple of helpful changes might come in the form of tighter volumes on pos and increasing their fuel consumption considerably to make running more pos unfeasible or at least a logistical burn out. Limit the number of pos by alliance.

If sov null is intended to accurately reflect real military at certain levels then fundamentally understanding and enforcing the idea that not every region can support entire fleets of dreads needs to happen. Physical locations of flerts should be much more important. While limiting the number of ships an individual can own is a bad idea forcing him to create and manage their storage could be a passive pressure focal point and make an undefended back line more susceptible to invaders.



Good idea, it would also have other spin offs too such as ending the dominance of Jita as a trade hub, as not every ship in system would be able to fit inside the 4-4 dock. I think this would be a good thing.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2014-02-16 19:00:07 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
the only question is will ccp finally fix this?


Why should they? It is not their problem. They gave players mechanics to fight over null security, and instead it's inhabitants decided to be 100% risk adverse and create the legendary "blue doughnut" instead. The players have spoken, and CCP is simply giving them what they want.

My only complaint is that it is precisely these same people who always bemoaning high security for being "too safe." Their hypocrisy is simply mind blowing at times.



Guess you missed the super graveyard in B-R.


No one says that high is too safe, we say that is pays to much for the safety that is granted.


What if no matter how much you nerf it people still go there?

Because what you thought was an issue of quantity, was actually an issue of security and ease?

And if the players then go to low sec instead of staying in null.... do we nerf low sec too?
Do we balance the game around the convenience or sustainability of the null sec status quo? especially in light of them being the vast minority of players? Shocked

... or do we IMPROVE NULL ...

which is what the real issue is?

There is the smart way, the hard way,

and then you have the "hurf nerf highsec!" way,
which misses the point entirely.

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."
Tesco Ergo Sum
#100 - 2014-02-16 19:05:01 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
the only question is will ccp finally fix this?


Why should they? It is not their problem. They gave players mechanics to fight over null security, and instead it's inhabitants decided to be 100% risk adverse and create the legendary "blue doughnut" instead. The players have spoken, and CCP is simply giving them what they want.

My only complaint is that it is precisely these same people who always bemoaning high security for being "too safe." Their hypocrisy is simply mind blowing at times.


Keep in mind, the people that are whining "high sec must be nerfed because it is so safe", don't actually BELIEVE that.
The vast majority are actual pilots inside the cartels, or their posting alts.

Their campaign is based on cynicism, and greed.
The more nerfs to high sec, the more people driven into renting from null sec cartels, (what, only 2 left when N3 falls?) , and the more income streams for the cartel leadership.

They know precisely how safe null sec is compared to high sec, but they also know the fact that if you say a lie loudly and long enough, it is eventually accepted as fact.


Sorry Dinsdale, I'm normally even more a 5th columnist than you but I'm calling you on this one.

You know full well how many posters have highsec alts and it isn't so much a question of "safe" as of "unchanging" and CCP realise this and know retention is higher with more variation or more "shades of grey" between High and BlueSec.

The nullsec cartels also aren't the only powerful entities in the game, just look at the financial powerhouses but I suppose you could (rightly) question their motives and how they use their influence. Conflict is good for their business also so the invisible hand drives the game in the "right" direction.

If you really want to make a change join the chorus for BLOPS buffs, you know it makes sense Twisted