These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hyperion needs to be a comprehensive sov and supercapital overhaul

Author
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#61 - 2014-07-22 05:20:14 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
This is the single most important issue facing your game today. There is nothing else - PVE iterations, ship balancing, POS revamp, WiS or what have you - that is as important as upholding your promise to overhaul sovereignty mechanics. This is a promise you have made for years yet continually pushed to the side for pet projects and other easier, albeit necessary work. A comprehensive overhaul of sovereignty mechanics including a balance pass of supercapitals cannot come soon enough. It's desperately needed.


Nobody gives a **** about sov, supers or L4 missions


deal with it
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#62 - 2014-07-22 05:34:09 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
This is the single most important issue facing your game today.


No, it's not.

While I agree that sov mechanics should be shaken up a bit since it's been 5 years since the last major change (... wait... 5 years? I'm old Oops), it isn't the most important issue in my game or the game in general.

Pretty much the only thing that would make me care for nullsec at this moment would be if Vuk got back to the game and took over 4S for a new ride Twisted
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2014-07-22 05:47:56 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
if Vuk got back to the game and took over 4S for a new ride Twisted

Yeaaahhhhhh, that's not happening.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#64 - 2014-07-22 06:32:13 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
if Vuk got back to the game and took over 4S for a new ride Twisted

Yeaaahhhhhh, that's not happening.

I know Sad
Zachri
The Darwin Foundation
#65 - 2014-07-22 08:39:22 UTC
Taking on elements like sovereigny, supercapitals, pos and such is interesting, but it's merely addressing symptoms, not structural patterns in the emergent dynamics that comprise EVE.

It's about human behaviour on a group level, and about human behaviour on individual pathways, both of which CCP did a remarkable job of understanding during the first years when they still realised how very much they are an inclusive element to the whole (that is bigger than the sum of parts), but which got forgotten later on as part of CCP took distance, while the workfloor of CCP was increasingly required to look at matters on a level of detail, sql and abstracts.

It would be of severe interest to stop looking at features and content on those abstract & detail levels, but to step into the shoes of the next series of customer archetypes and approach it from a behavioural angle.

New Eden has grown quite a bit, and while there is a limit to that growth due to the battles for retention, conversion & return (which should be CCP's Holy Trinity of Marketing but alright) it still faces the same structural challenges which any human community does when it exists for extended amount of time. Things like the economics of it all are derivative elements, something CCP's economist finally figured out just a short while before he quit. The foundation is the frying pan of baseline human behaviour, both content and features are instruments, not pathways.

Only a few things make human communities tick enough to nurture growth: the ability to build, the ability to burn, and the ability to breed.

Now unless CCP comes up with a way for us to have kids (I'm not sure that is wise, incidentally), we're left with burning and building. One might think that we can burn plenty in New Eden, but when you look at it on a behavioural level it becomes clear that really we can't. What we perceive as burning is a recycle/replace layer of interaction, it transpires on the individual and group level, but does not rise beyond it.

CCP might want to have a look at the retention and conversion figures during the times where - albeit within much more limited feature sets - folks could both really build and burn out there. It's the fringe that grows the dynamic, not the foundation, humans got to go somewhere, reach out to somewhere. The foundation follows, even if it cracks sometimes.

Have a look at the days where folks built trailer parks of giant secure containers in nullsec (after you removed arkanor from empire). People didn't have much, nor could they do much, and when **** happened they lost much which couldn't instantly be replaced - but it did seduce people to get out there. Look at the days where folks were enabled to build homes out there, and look at how that has changed the map. See what happens when you entice people to build, but forget the basic premise of the underlying system (growth requires limits to resources but no boundaries to behaviour and geographics).

You'll quickly see that we've hit the walls, and our resources are known and keep on giving. On a behavioural level, you're dealing with a decline in incentives towards excesses of behaviour - and it is that which creates the deepest narratives, which is what creates the best marketing (by both customers and CCP). I realise that's a bit tough to contemplate following the IPO dream drama and the restructuring, but now that there is one horse (IP dude aside) one really should look at it from a behavioural level. When those who became CCP mortgaged someone else's house to start things off they didn't really know that they were on the right track, but they worked it on the behavioural level. Once they stopped doing that, things stumbled. Not a lot, but increasingly often. There's a very simple lesson in there.

I read a lot about the POS topic. I remember how during early CSM days people found out that some CCPians had done the work to replace it all, including testing & scaling, in their own private time since nobody understood the existing codebase. I'm glad to see something finally on the roadmap, but it is once again focusing on challenges from an externalised perspective, addressing symptoms and not the disease - proverbially speaking.

The same with the entire debate of supercapitals and sovereignty. You already know that volume and time beats all in New Eden, welcome to the human species - it's no longer about altering details or pathways, take a look at how ideas and memes (no, not the funny gifs) spread between subgroups. Take a look at what makes us tick behind the pixels, so our drive to overcompensate can create its own pathways. Otherwise you'll end up with a second decade similar to an arms race of constantly having to come up with new content and feature revisions while the archetypes you require to suck in for sustainable growth see not just EVE, but by that time competing entertainment as well. I'm certain Marketing has already done its strategic mapping of those.

It's pointless to argue symptoms. Go back to where things began, learn from that. Remove the walls, allow things to really burn, and consider how remarkable human growth is when one has to rebuild. Incidentally, please take a solid look at one of the factors that most affects the resource strata of emergent dynamics: point income / resource elements. They really should deplete, tech for it should be open to innovation, new sources shoul
Prince Kobol
#66 - 2014-07-22 08:59:39 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
This is the single most important issue facing your game today. There is nothing else - PVE iterations, ship balancing, POS revamp, WiS or what have you - that is as important as upholding your promise to overhaul sovereignty mechanics. This is a promise you have made for years yet continually pushed to the side for pet projects and other easier, albeit necessary work. A comprehensive overhaul of sovereignty mechanics including a balance pass of supercapitals cannot come soon enough. It's desperately needed.


If you're gonna rage about something do your damn research first. The roadmap for major overhauls was made very clear at FanFest.

1. Industry
2. Corp & Alliance roles and interfaces
3. Player Owned Structures and Stations
4. Sovereignty Mechanics
5. Player Built Stargates

Since Sov mechanics depend greatly on the previous two points, it makes sense those get done first. So it's on the planning. Just have patience.


lol fanfest


hahahaha
Zachri
The Darwin Foundation
#67 - 2014-07-22 09:04:45 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:


lol fanfest


hahahaha



lol roadmaps


I can't begin to count how often I've seen complete and utter reworking of roadmaps over the years :P
Prince Kobol
#68 - 2014-07-22 09:42:03 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
This is the single most important issue facing your game today. There is nothing else - PVE iterations, ship balancing, POS revamp, WiS or what have you - that is as important as upholding your promise to overhaul sovereignty mechanics. This is a promise you have made for years yet continually pushed to the side for pet projects and other easier, albeit necessary work. A comprehensive overhaul of sovereignty mechanics including a balance pass of supercapitals cannot come soon enough. It's desperately needed.


Total agree that Sov Mechanics / Power Projection / Supers needs a complete rethink however it will most likely change nothing.

Unless the changes are so significant that other groups then those we currently have today can have an effect nothing will change as the same small group of people who control null sec will still call the shots.

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#69 - 2014-07-22 09:51:11 UTC
CCP has made roadmaps before that have failed utterly.

The more I see the PCU plummet (and obviously, subs), and given the exodus from high sec that will only continue with Crius, CCP will have no choice but to ditch their roadmap and focus on overhauling sov to make it far more dynamic and non-cartel player friendly.

They can't wait for the 12 months, or whatever they had in mind, to fix all the other things that are oh so broken.

Even then, it will be interesting to see if Eve, and CCP, will survive, given the disastrous decisions to ruin high sec profitability.

If anyone reads mynnna' blog, who was the chief architect of this mess being installed now, he makes it pretty clear that mining is going to take a hit as minerals prices drop. And that is AFTER every mission runner who salvages just had his minerals cut in half. Given the huge overall inflationary spike (although some stuff, like capitals and supercapitals, are gong down in price) we are going to see, the high sec player is going to get hammered, again.

I think that Crius may finally be the proverbial breaking point for high sec. It sure seems that way with the PCU.

So CCP has written off the casual high sec player. That is clear.
So that means the only way they stop and reverse the steady drain of accounts is end the ennui in null sec, and that means breaking the stagnation of the blue blanket, and fast.

So bye bye roadmap.
Anthar Thebess
#70 - 2014-07-22 10:04:16 UTC
CCP is working on something : ETA 17 months.
Have nice play , don't forget to pay for your accounts.
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#71 - 2014-07-22 10:05:49 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP has made roadmaps before that have failed utterly.

The more I see the PCU plummet (and obviously, subs), and given the exodus from high sec that will only continue with Crius, CCP will have no choice but to ditch their roadmap and focus on overhauling sov to make it far more dynamic and non-cartel player friendly.

They can't wait for the 12 months, or whatever they had in mind, to fix all the other things that are oh so broken.

Even then, it will be interesting to see if Eve, and CCP, will survive, given the disastrous decisions to ruin high sec profitability.

If anyone reads mynnna' blog, who was the chief architect of this mess being installed now, he makes it pretty clear that mining is going to take a hit as minerals prices drop. And that is AFTER every mission runner who salvages just had his minerals cut in half. Given the huge overall inflationary spike (although some stuff, like capitals and supercapitals, are gong down in price) we are going to see, the high sec player is going to get hammered, again.

I think that Crius may finally be the proverbial breaking point for high sec. It sure seems that way with the PCU.

So CCP has written off the casual high sec player. That is clear.
So that means the only way they stop and reverse the steady drain of accounts is end the ennui in null sec, and that means breaking the stagnation of the blue blanket, and fast.

So bye bye roadmap.


Won't dropping mineral prices reduce this hypothetical handicap that hi-sec producers will now face?
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#72 - 2014-07-22 10:07:56 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
...

My theory is different.

My theory is based on the assumption that CCP isn't broken and neither is EVE - but rather the players themselves.

Think about it.


  • players are actually paying for "mining permits" in highsec
  • while we're at it, one dude creates a thread about asking for ISK so he can suicide gank stuff - and other players actually give the ISK
  • judging by the look of the sov map, the majority of players would rather pay ISK to other players in order to rent a system than fight for their part of space


When you look at the map, it's not a blue doughnut or a blue blanket. It's a couple of islands of real, wild and capable nullsec with vast amount of space packed by micro carebearing (no pun intended) entities. When you think about it, the whole system is fragile beyond repair, but it still exists and works better than ever before - which brings us to the last point:


  • lack of leaders in the game


I don't think any sov mechanic can change that.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#73 - 2014-07-22 10:12:23 UTC
Pheusia wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP has made roadmaps before that have failed utterly.

The more I see the PCU plummet (and obviously, subs), and given the exodus from high sec that will only continue with Crius, CCP will have no choice but to ditch their roadmap and focus on overhauling sov to make it far more dynamic and non-cartel player friendly.

They can't wait for the 12 months, or whatever they had in mind, to fix all the other things that are oh so broken.

Even then, it will be interesting to see if Eve, and CCP, will survive, given the disastrous decisions to ruin high sec profitability.

If anyone reads mynnna' blog, who was the chief architect of this mess being installed now, he makes it pretty clear that mining is going to take a hit as minerals prices drop. And that is AFTER every mission runner who salvages just had his minerals cut in half. Given the huge overall inflationary spike (although some stuff, like capitals and supercapitals, are gong down in price) we are going to see, the high sec player is going to get hammered, again.

I think that Crius may finally be the proverbial breaking point for high sec. It sure seems that way with the PCU.

So CCP has written off the casual high sec player. That is clear.
So that means the only way they stop and reverse the steady drain of accounts is end the ennui in null sec, and that means breaking the stagnation of the blue blanket, and fast.

So bye bye roadmap.


Won't dropping mineral prices reduce this hypothetical handicap that hi-sec producers will now face?


Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but you might want to check what just happened to min requirements for all T2 blueprints.

And dropping min prices help everyone making T1 items. While null sec benefits hugely with lowered prices because their supercaps become cheaper, the null sec cartel industrial consortiums will steer clear of razor thing margin items like T1 ships. They will leave those dregs to high sec. So yeah, any high sec manufacturer who is dumb/stubborn enough to hang around can make Dominixes, but he is still faced with the tiny margins, and increased hauling time and risk.

So no, high sec manufacturers gain no relative benefit for lowered min prices.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#74 - 2014-07-22 10:21:23 UTC
Dinsdale, you seem to overlook the possibility that casual players play this game casually which might mean they don't do anything for ISK but just for fun hence nothing really will change for them. I mine because I want to not because it makes me space rich, PLEX does that in a way that none in-game activity can match. And when I don't mine I run missions or derp around lowsec or troll forums or whatever. Casual doesn't mean space poor hobo.

Invalid signature format

Prince Kobol
#75 - 2014-07-22 10:22:36 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Dinsdale, you seem to overlook the possibility that casual players play this game casually which might mean they don't do anything for ISK but just for fun hence nothing really will change for them. I mine because I want to not because it makes me space rich, PLEX does that in a way that none in-game activity can match. And when I don't mine I run missions or derp around lowsec or troll forums or whatever. Casual doesn't mean space poor hobo.



You want to mine.. OMG quick get this person a doctor !!!!!
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#76 - 2014-07-22 10:23:11 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
...

My theory is different.

My theory is based on the assumption that CCP isn't broken and neither is EVE - but rather the players themselves.

Think about it.


  • players are actually paying for "mining permits" in highsec
  • while we're at it, one dude creates a thread about asking for ISK so he can suicide gank stuff - and other players actually give the ISK
  • judging by the look of the sov map, the majority of players would rather pay ISK to other players in order to rent a system than fight for their part of space


When you look at the map, it's not a blue doughnut or a blue blanket. It's a couple of islands of real, wild and capable nullsec with vast amount of space packed by micro carebearing (no pun intended) entities. When you think about it, the whole system is fragile beyond repair, but it still exists and works better than ever before - which brings us to the last point:


  • lack of leaders in the game


I don't think any sov mechanic can change that.


Oh, no doubt CCP has made a conscious effort to attract the worst kind of people to the game, and driven off the largest demographics of online game players. So yeah, the culture of the game of Eve is badly borked.

But if CCP is going to try to keep themselves as a profitable entity, they are going to have to engage in some major social engineeering, and change the psyche of Eve. And that means wrecking the sov mechanics that enable the cartels to exist.

As for high sec, I think they are too far down the path of destruction to salvage that, at least in the medium term.

Frankly, to do the things that CCP needs to do to reverse what is happening with the subs, CCP would have to fire a whole bunch of management and game designers and instill a whole new attitude in Iceland before there is any change to the "crush high sec" mentality that permeates their corporate culture, and by extension, the culture of Eve. And that ain't happening, baby.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2014-07-22 10:23:30 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
This is the single most important issue facing your game today. There is nothing else - PVE iterations, ship balancing, POS revamp, WiS or what have you - that is as important as upholding your promise to overhaul sovereignty mechanics. This is a promise you have made for years yet continually pushed to the side for pet projects and other easier, albeit necessary work. A comprehensive overhaul of sovereignty mechanics including a balance pass of supercapitals cannot come soon enough. It's desperately needed.




Player retention is still more important. Simpel things like removign empire within corp concord shield would help more eve population.

0.0 needs thsoe changes but they need to be MUCH more than what people think. Much deeper. The main problem are the players that followed human nature and packed in giant groups and now no changes will make 0.0 become fun again unless somethign terribly artificial is forced upon.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#78 - 2014-07-22 10:25:33 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:


  • lack of leaders in the game


This is a thing I hadn't considered but is quite obvious when you think about it.

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but you might want to check what just happened to min requirements for all T2 blueprints.

And dropping min prices help everyone making T1 items. While null sec benefits hugely with lowered prices because their supercaps become cheaper, the null sec cartel industrial consortiums will steer clear of razor thing margin items like T1 ships. They will leave those dregs to high sec. So yeah, any high sec manufacturer who is dumb/stubborn enough to hang around can make Dominixes, but he is still faced with the tiny margins, and increased hauling time and risk.

So no, high sec manufacturers gain no relative benefit for lowered min prices.


You mean industrialists might have to get out of hi sec and subject themselves to some actual risk to make profitable T2 items? Travesty.

Whole Squid: Get Inked.

Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#79 - 2014-07-22 10:33:07 UTC
How current sov mechanics are: Alliance plops down a tower in one big block.

How I envision sov mechanics: Alliance builds a tower out of many little pieces while enemies play Jenga.
Ohkewl
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#80 - 2014-07-22 10:39:03 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jovan Geldon wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
a balance pass of supercapitals cannot come soon enough. It's desperately needed.


what a momentous day, I never thought I'd see a Goon whining about supercapitals

Should I be honored that of all the numerous posts on the subject, mine is the first one you pay attention to?

Supercapitals have been a problem for a long time, and we've been saying so for a long time.



Isn't it the Goon way to abuse any mechanic they feel is broken untill cpp changes it?
So if supercapitals are broken, what's stopping you ??