These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1061 - 2014-04-16 23:28:45 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Honest question. What form of eve do you envision that supports the current levels of activity and interaction in highsec without highsec?


Back at the time I have posted a very long proposal on suggestion forums. It involved a structure similar to other PvP games, with smooth "security status gradients", player driven Concord (that is a sort of embryo of null sec sov organization with elements taken from a pre-made organization, so new players actually learn how it works) and much more.

I also covered a lot of other things and consequences but that's now part of history, it's useless to repeat it here.



Marsha Mallow wrote:

You need to have a bit more faith Blink
Our devs are only really silly every few years - don't be so jaded from other games. Seagull looks capable of keeping them in line. And really, if you're concerned to the point you think indy interests are under-represented on things like the CSM, why not run yourself, or endorse a candidate? There's at least 5 people I can think of active in MD with the influence to sponsor a pure indy candidate (across various blocs). Considering the last one was LVV (?) and he was recruited by CCP, there is a gap. It's not going to get filled unless some of you use that accrued influence for collective benefit.


I have already had various contacts of multiple kinds (!) with CCP, most very appreciated.
However I am so busy with my RL that I can't really contribute to EvE in a meaningful way.
It's actually years since I had to leave my beloved PvP corp because I thought my limited playtime would hurt them.

Also - talking about employment - their wages are famous for not being exactly stellar, the place is kinda cold and far away. I currently live on a tropical island where I enjoy the fruits of my RL trading (and other activities) efforts, the idea of going to work under some project manager and related hierarchy does not even compare to how I am living now Blink


EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Darkopus
Perkone
Caldari State
#1062 - 2014-04-16 23:30:34 UTC
To balance things out CCp shopuld now remove JF and make moving freight around need proper logistics and support convoys. This will mean that the newbie indy's inm Hi sec can still make a living (albeit a shoddy one) without getting forced out by null sec cartles moving massive stock into hisec and flooding the markets with goods at a price the small time new indy's can't ever hope to match.

Null sec talk about risk v reqard all the time so lets ee where your money is. Remove JF and make hauling out of deep null an actual proper risk that requires the freighters to have proper escort / protection rather than they current method that allows market flooding with impunity and relatively little risk.

I have no problems with cutting the balls off hisec but at least make it viable for the small timers to make a small living in their corner of hisec.

Another point is that once this all goes through it will become actually next to impossible to over throw any of the established cartels in sov. They have cemented their positions off the back of moon goo and now they wuill effectively become fully self contained resulting in shortened supply lines. Thus for a new army to arise to take them on fighting against full vertically integrated self contained industry with short supply lines will mean blue donut central within 6 months tops post summer expansion with the scraps left for any insignificant day trippers to stop CCP from shaking it up for the confortable cartels.

Industry needs a massive overhaul yes, but I am not entirely sure this is it or if this will even be healthy for the longevity of the game. Sure it will create a lot of content for hisec gankers / POS muggers.

I guess we need to see the rst of the blogs to formulate a more educated assesment, but so far this is not a solution to some of the more deep seated issues with new eden's industry.
Aeonidis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1063 - 2014-04-16 23:39:29 UTC
Cassandra Kazan wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Of course, the typical null sec line member will be paying a slot tax (as I predicted many months ago) directly to the station owners aka the cartel leaders. And in the meantime, the true high sec industrialists will be in very dire straits, as any null sec industrialist can for example, fill his jf with 100,000 DC II's and flood Jita with them at no price that no high sec player can match.


...and if all of this is true it will be extremely good for the game.

The tradeoff for the advantages that CCP is trying to give nullsec is risk. Risk, risk, risk.

If people do more stuff in lowsec or nullsec because it is advantageous, they are forced to take a risk. Pos can be shot, ships moving items can be shot*, stations can be shot and captured, people's space that they have upgraded can be shot at and destroyed or captured, transport and travel within nullsec and between points in nullsec can be harassed, detained, or otherwise interfered with (also through shooting) and so on. It is correspondingly much harder to do most of these things in highsec -- shooting pos requires wardecs and long hours, shooting ships requires the same (or expensive suicide ganking which was nerfed in the past year), and stations are much more difficult to interfere with.

I think you'll find that members of your purported "nullsec cartel" in general favor a gameplay style that rewards risk-taking and support any idea which increases both the risks and the rewards of nullsec. (Hell, one of Goonswarm's own CSM candidates favors destructible stations -- hardly a fantastic idea for an alliance with a hundred trillion ISK of assets locked up in VFK-IV.)

The reason that these players support risk is that risk creates content. If you take a risk, it means that someone else can come shoot at you and that is the draw for these players. CCP's goal isn't to create a progression from highsec to nullsec necessarily -- it is to motivate players willing to take risks to do so and thereby create more content as people fight over nullsec's resources.

* Jump freighters, and more generally any capital which can dock at a station, are currently quite difficult to interfere with. They are key to life in nullsec right now but if all of these changes go through as planned and lead to nullsec having a more sustainable economic model then changing them should be on the table for the same reasons.



the point of this expansion is, quite obviously, not risk. its to create an ISK sink in high sec industry and to frustrate large Industrialist using many alts accounts thereby making room for smaller (perhaps one account) industrialist to get a foothold into that part of the game with a bonus effect, at the same time, of pushing the major indy players with massive capital into lower security space. I would have thought that was completely obvious.
Elmoira Dreszka
Delta Academy
#1064 - 2014-04-16 23:42:11 UTC
I read about the impossibility to launch jobs in POS from BPO locked in station. The reason should be to make the BPO vulnerable to pvp players.
The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1065 - 2014-04-16 23:43:35 UTC
Elmoira Dreszka wrote:

The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?

"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1066 - 2014-04-16 23:51:27 UTC
I'll ask again in a different way.

Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why.

What do you think the consequences for this change will be? Cause I think this will just allow established power blocs to choke up and comers more easily. (You want new players to have a chance to get settled in and form new groups right?)

Do you think there should be mechanics in place that help make Highsec a unique area of space? Should Highsec be the area of space for new players to have some advantages compared to older established groups?

Do you honestly believe that removing standings requirements makes for more interesting landscape in eve? or do have metrics that show social groups that first form in highsec never make it to low, null, wh so there is no reason to give them advantages anyway?

I personally think you should add standings to POCO use, and add taxes based on standing in lots of highsec interaction. While at the same time I do think the most profit and function should be in Null, WH, then Low then High. Nullsec should be able to out compete highsec but they just shouldn't be able to live there easily. If the CFC as a whole wants to work on standings to live in high more power to them but their should be some choice involved instead. Take all the best things in all sectors of space with no variation not so interesting to me.


I see a lot of people without standings and null sec groups praising this change but I see a lot of Highsec industrialists saying they don't like this. If you don't like this set of questions CCP other people have asked in a different way.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#1067 - 2014-04-16 23:58:17 UTC
Kethry Avenger wrote:
I'll ask again in a different way.

Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why.

In my opinion, it is an un-fun mechanic that adds nothing to gameplay. It also hinders players from becoming industrialists.

Plus, a POS will (probably) no longer be essential for industry.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1068 - 2014-04-17 00:05:34 UTC
Hopefully a POS will be beneficial although with it's risks and additional effort to run.

On a side note I do make them should any new industrialist want one post summer release :)
Rollo Brinalle
Imaginary Rats.
#1069 - 2014-04-17 00:10:01 UTC
Querns wrote:
Elmoira Dreszka wrote:

The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?

"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content.


So then when CCP said in the blog. "Our goal in making the changes to invention are to ...." by your definition this is not a sanbox game? Just trying to get clarity here so we are all on the same plane for further discussions.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#1070 - 2014-04-17 00:30:25 UTC
Rollo Brinalle wrote:
So then when CCP said in the blog. "Our goal in making the changes to invention are to ...." by your definition this is not a sanbox game? Just trying to get clarity here so we are all on the same plane for further discussions.

You are confusing a development goal vs. a game-play paradigm (for lack of a better word) that lacks goals.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1071 - 2014-04-17 00:34:39 UTC
Rollo Brinalle wrote:
Querns wrote:
Elmoira Dreszka wrote:

The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?

"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content.


So then when CCP said in the blog. "Our goal in making the changes to invention are to ...." by your definition this is not a sanbox game? Just trying to get clarity here so we are all on the same plane for further discussions.
That quote is kinds meaningless for the statement being addressed, not to mention I can't find it to even see what it is alluding to. I assumed it was from this dev blog, but if not, I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction. As it stands I'm not even sure what you are getting at.

That said it's clear from the POS change section that CCP expects conflict around POS's based upon these changes and anticipates both fight and flee responses. So what you must ask yourself is this. If changes are made to promote conflict within a sandbox, would that not mean that conflict is part of the sandbox?
Macker Momo
The Big Moe
#1072 - 2014-04-17 00:42:26 UTC
I remember when my young corp decided to move the POS from one side of Eve to the other, requiring that we all work together to grind standings. My months old character joined the crusade to earn at least 7.0 Gallente standings and help anchor the POS. It was fun working together as a team towards a common goal. We helped each other fight the evil Angel Cartel and marveled at the difficulty of those level IV missions. I feel that altering the standing requirements is a mistake. CCP you're removing a primary reason to mission, and robbing new corps of one way to grow together.

As an older player, I now understand that my CEO could have chosen to buy standings or eject everyone from the corp except the one player who had 7.0 towards Gallente, but he chose to show us the value of teamwork using a well-designed game mechanic. We appreciated our new home because we had to work for it.

There is no right or wrong here. This is solely my opinion based on some fond memories of my early time in Eve.

Life is short. Have fun.
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#1073 - 2014-04-17 00:55:17 UTC
Quote:
This is what I am fighting against since so many years, I can't play a fake sandbox that in reality is a canned path game.


People like you always seem to confuse the concepts of "viable" and "optimal". Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean it's not viable. Highsec will be sub-optimal in some respects, but that doesn't mean it won't be viable as an industrial location.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#1074 - 2014-04-17 01:01:09 UTC
Daenika wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Allison A'vani wrote:
Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY.

the reason to put cost scaling on a pos is because otherwise i would replace the eight component assembly arrays on my pos with a single one because slots are now infinite

so you make it so that it's basically free if i install ten jobs but ramps up after that, if it's done right having two assembly arrays will mean that i can install basically 20 free jobs, etc etc

like seriously people use some brains here

Have fuel use scale with active slots.


They did *away* with that very system a few years back because it made logistics a freakin nightmare.

That's a shame because it could solve both the abandoned POS and slot limitations. Decreasing 'idle' POS fuel use significantly would make it easier to keep a POS online for longer. You could then take a harder line to decrease offline EHP, making it easier to clear abandoned POS in highsec.

It really isn't hard to monitor fuel requirements by script or app. You will need new calculations anyway to account for the effect of fluctuating NPC load fees on cost anyway.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
AFK Hauler
State War Academy
#1075 - 2014-04-17 01:52:45 UTC
Few things...

1. Can't wait for a FW corp to hang a POS in an opposing faction system because there are no standing requirements!
- Bad decision IMHO to remove standing for anchoring in empire... This is the worst of the features I have seen yet.

I can see it now - Sit in your POS just inside the shield and spawn NPC navy ships for your POS to blap all day long. Have an alt sit outside the shield and salvage till the cows come home. Go AFK with an MTU and salvage drones just to make it that much more of an insult.

Bad idea, really.


2. Risk/reward do not account for losing billions in materials having to take down your assembly or POS in the middle of a manufacturing run to save your multi-billions in BPOs. I can see that the copy speed feature will help save the BPOs, but not the materials lost in stopping a manufacturing run...
- Give back all the materials from stopping a manufacturing run to turn on the guns and defend my space because some large 0.1 standing corp wants my 0.6 system moon! It takes smaller corps a long time to farm the standing to anchor in systems that are out of reach of large corps and are able to manufacturer in that system to feed the machine.

Must feed the machine.


I don't like a few other changes, but I can learn to deal with them and maybe exploit them (as intended).
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#1076 - 2014-04-17 01:59:24 UTC
AFK Hauler wrote:
Few things...

1. Can't wait for a FW corp to hang a POS in an opposing faction system because there are no standing requirements!
- Bad decision IMHO to remove standing for anchoring in empire... This is the worst of the features I have seen yet.

I can see it now - Sit in your POS just inside the shield and spawn NPC navy ships for your POS to blap all day long. Have an alt sit outside the shield and salvage till the cows come home. Go AFK with an MTU and salvage drones just to make it that much more of an insult.

Bad idea, really.

Just get rid of faction navies. They are a blight in a supposedly player-driven sandbox anyway.

I am delighted that standings are being stood down, as it were. They are annoying, artificial mechanics.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
Controlled Chaos
#1077 - 2014-04-17 02:05:24 UTC
I see a big backlash from the industrialists. They will quit. Lots of small to mid size indy corps with large amounts of BPOs will cease to function effectively and they will go off and look for a new game. And the price of everything will go up ridiculously.
Nerfing reprocessing will cause the price of everything to go up some more.
Reducing barge efficiency a bit will push prices up more. Maybe make mining a bit more profitable so that may counter that increase.

Reducing the standing requirement for high sec POSes will infuriate those groups that worked to achieve the standings to be able to launch them. If newbs want to use POSes right away they can join a corp that has one.
AFK Hauler
State War Academy
#1078 - 2014-04-17 02:08:53 UTC
Zappity wrote:
AFK Hauler wrote:
Few things...

1. Can't wait for a FW corp to hang a POS in an opposing faction system because there are no standing requirements!
- Bad decision IMHO to remove standing for anchoring in empire... This is the worst of the features I have seen yet.

I can see it now - Sit in your POS just inside the shield and spawn NPC navy ships for your POS to blap all day long. Have an alt sit outside the shield and salvage till the cows come home. Go AFK with an MTU and salvage drones just to make it that much more of an insult.

Bad idea, really.

Just get rid of faction navies. They are a blight in a supposedly player-driven sandbox anyway.

I am delighted that standings are being stood down, as it were. They are annoying, artificial mechanics.




The standing requirement serve the purpose to segregate smaller corps from larger ones. Large corps cannot hope to grind standings for a 0.6 or 0.7 system so they head to low or nulsex when no moons are available. Now we will have even less players heading to low or nul - or at least delaying their exodus.

Removing the standing to hang a tower mean that the space trash will stick around in empire and just be obnoxious.

BTW, if you don't like off line towers in empire, wardec them and remove them yourself. Having an offline tower in a 0.6 or 0.7 space serves a purpose for corps that need to expand capacity without having to re-grind sec status to re-anchor a new POS.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#1079 - 2014-04-17 02:16:16 UTC
AFK Hauler wrote:
The standing requirement serve the purpose to segregate smaller corps from larger ones. Large corps cannot hope to grind standings for a 0.6 or 0.7 system so they head to low or nulsex when no moons are available. Now we will have even less players heading to low or nul - or at least delaying their exodus.

That may have been the original intent but it certainly does not work this way in practice. If a larger corp wants a highsec POS a single member with appropriate standings can just start a new corp, anchor, and then transfer membership/join alliance. This change will have bugger all effect on 'exodus to nulsex'.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
George Wizardry
Asian P0RN
#1080 - 2014-04-17 02:16:40 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
Industry plays a central role in EVE Online and thus the developers have put their focus on improving the whole industry landscape in New Eden - the user interface, game mechanics, features, accessibility ... just everything gets examined, polished and reworked.

CCP Ytterbium comes with news of massive changes in EVE Online's Industry in Summer 2014 and beyond.

Read all about these suggestions and ideas in CCP Ytterbium's latest dev blog Building better Worlds.

Please all reply with your constructive feedback, thank you!


An overview of dev answers to common questions



I can see eve becoming a pure PvP universe so why not remove all the security zones now and get on with it?

Within the EVE universe I have no interest or desire to kill other players, real life is a different story......