These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dont change the 2/10 plexes!

First post First post
Author
Robinton Jax
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#381 - 2013-01-12 10:26:05 UTC
Bump....
Kane Rizzel
NovaKane Incorporated
You've got RED on you
#382 - 2013-01-12 13:19:58 UTC
To be honest guys, I think we're beating a dead horse here.
CCP don't care as we are a small demographic, their PvE content is so bad they would rather hide it than let the players take it and make it interesting via PvP. Kind of defeats the whole sandbox concept that eve and CCP were famous for.
While farming has always been a problem and I agree that highsec static plexes were not the smartest idea, lowsec plexes were controlled via the players who had the tools available to deal with farmers. Anyone who tried to farm the gusandall plex can tell you, they learnt a lesson in a very violent fashion, but of course CCP won't include that into their 'metrics'

I'm not even upset anymore, just very disappointed.

[URL=http://novakaneinc.blogspot.co.uk]A Pirate's Perspective[/URL] [URL=http://community.eveonline.com/community/fansites.asp]Official EVE Online Fan Site[/URL]

Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#383 - 2013-01-12 15:38:19 UTC
Yeah, I kinda have same feelings as Kane for a couple of days now.

I don't believe dev responsible for this change was so frikking sick or busy with daily duties to not have even 5 minutes to post some response here. And what Fozzie posted was just utterly stupid. Sorry but "our metrics show farming in hisec" is not an explanation why you butchered non-FW lowsec pvp. And yeah, "all places in Eve are dedicated to pvp" Roll

So this is last kick from me. If keeping thread alive for over a month with participation of lowsec dwellers from all over New Eden didn't do the trick I have no fking idea what will.

Invalid signature format

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#384 - 2013-01-12 15:44:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
I really dont get what CCP gains from making PVP less accessible to new players, nerfing one of the few income sources in lowsec and annihilating one of the largest small gang and solo pvp communities.
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#385 - 2013-01-12 16:55:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Sugar Kyle
For 20 pages we have said a lot of words. We have nursed the topic back to the top of the sub forum, storm twitter, posted in blogs, complained to the CSM and in general done our best to not just push our agenda but define what and why it is. We've answered questions, answered criticism and hopefully enlightened people.

At this point there isn't a lot more to say other then the waiting for a response type of thing. Fozzie did post and it was the expected "Not getting it back". He is not in charge of this project and his massive, growing threadnought for the BC changes is where his attention lays.

So we sit here, with a point of notice but no nudge to what may be.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
#386 - 2013-01-13 14:58:07 UTC
I think we can bump this thing for a year and it wouldn't change anything. If we could think of a way to start doing damage with enough publicity so the bears and "new players" know why it's happening then we might see a lil love.

Venture gankfest might shake up some attention to our actual numbers if we worked together. I think this change was also a push for all of us to join FW but turning instead towards high sec?...on their new bearbarge? I doubt that was part of their "metrics". With our luck it'll probably just cause a venture ehp buff but who knows. They do tend to snap into some kind of action when we start to cause cancelled accounts in "secure" space.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed so others may have better ideas on what could be done but from what I've seen the time for talking is over...CAN YOOOOUUUU DIG IT.
Angelus Ryan
One Ronin
#387 - 2013-01-13 15:45:49 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
I really dont get what CCP gains from making PVP less accessible to new players, nerfing one of the few income sources in lowsec and annihilating one of the largest small gang and solo pvp communities.


Maybe they thing it will drive more people to null or something, or actually increase lowsec population by reducing the areas where pirates can well....pirate?

That, or they just don't give a damn about the non-aligned people, those who do what they like when they like to do it and don't like being pushed around, CTA'ed, sent to bash PoSes and so on.

We have no real voice in the CSM, mainly because organizing us is like herding cats, and we're a tiny minority of players, so we are easy to ignore. The fact that we "misused" a game mechanic to create our "life style" (in reality we turned a turd PvE element into a gold mine of "emergent gameplay" - I guess you can polish some turds, until they get replaced into complete crap) is just a testament of how under-represented the solo and small scale frig/dessy lowsec pirate is and how little CCP cares about our play style in general.
Kane Rizzel
NovaKane Incorporated
You've got RED on you
#388 - 2013-01-13 16:37:37 UTC
Welcome to EVE, where you can be anything you want to be, but only what we say you can be and as long as it fits with our metrics, which much like our logs, show nothing.

[URL=http://novakaneinc.blogspot.co.uk]A Pirate's Perspective[/URL] [URL=http://community.eveonline.com/community/fansites.asp]Official EVE Online Fan Site[/URL]

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#389 - 2013-01-13 21:10:39 UTC
So who's the bad developer that championed this extremely poor change?...
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#390 - 2013-01-13 22:00:21 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
So who's the bad developer that championed this extremely poor change?...


Its not fozzie, although fozzie drew the short straw in being forced to come here.
Miss Carry
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
#391 - 2013-01-14 08:22:58 UTC
Hmm, this is an interesting discussion.

So it's not just about the gate-mechanics, but
also about something to fight over.

Putting the gate back in doesn't seem to cut it
as i can tell from the responses.

So what we want is some "unfarmable" kind
of treasure that's tempting enough for people
to go there and fight over it?
With ship restrictions and all.

I think the sad faces are less about the old plex,
but more about a lack of shinies to fight over.
And the DED's served that role, even with it's flaws.

It would be an opportunity to rework non-fw
lowsec in general but that would take a long time,
considering ccp has other projects in queue.

The suggestion of putting them back in
without treasure is one step towards us,
wich i appretiate, but not enough.

Let's keep making suggestions and be optimistic
and not be grumpy :)
Turgesson
Gorillaz In The Mist
#392 - 2013-01-14 14:52:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Turgesson
Miss Carry wrote:


Let's keep making suggestions and be optimistic
and not be grumpy :)



You know as well as I do that isn't going to work. We can sit here and talk about it until we're blue in the face and we will still get "arenas" designed without our suggestions. If you want your stuff back you better start shooting things they don't want you to shoot and force this issue to the top of the wipeboard in these "planning" meetings.

I like the Venture idea...no herding cats needed. It's cheap, you can do it solo at -10, they are everywhere, 2 shots off a thrasher usually strips the ship and cracks the pod before the cops show up and "new players" are the ones who will whine the best for us to be returned to our natural habitats. Add in scan boats to round out the preferred target list to what 90% of potential new subscribers fly in their first few months and sprinkle with autopiloting pods.

I wouldn't consider taking some kind of action as being grumpy and it doesn't have to stop us from giving suggestions. Really everything that can be said has been and if the past is any guide talking does nothing. DOING something has an effect.



(CCP Bettik was the one who worked on this stuff. I've been telling everyone I gank it's his fault they lost their stuff and he says they should go back to WoW until he's finished making "interesting pve experiences" for them.)
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#393 - 2013-01-14 15:06:53 UTC
Turgesson wrote:
(CCP Bettik was the one who worked on this stuff. I've been telling everyone I gank it's his fault they lost their stuff and he says they should go back to WoW until he's finished making "interesting pve experiences" for them.)


Heheheh, waiting for "CCP Bettik ganked my venture" on GD :)

I know I said I won't post here anymore but my metrics don't show enough farming on forums.

Invalid signature format

Caldain Morrow
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#394 - 2013-01-14 18:53:48 UTC
Has anyone thought of keeping the static 1,2/10 plexes and have them drop only pirate faction loot in stead of deadspace loot and open them up for exploration as well and have the exploration sites drop the deadspace loot? We keep our existing dueling space with a little less farming potential but open up the DED sites to entry level explorers. Doing a 3/10 in a Dessie is difficult never mind a 4/10. MOAH emergent game play not less.
Vincent R'lyeh
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
#395 - 2013-01-14 22:04:14 UTC
Caldain Morrow wrote:
Has anyone thought of keeping the static 1,2/10 plexes and have them drop only pirate faction loot in stead of deadspace loot and open them up for exploration as well and have the exploration sites drop the deadspace loot? We keep our existing dueling space with a little less farming potential but open up the DED sites to entry level explorers. Doing a 3/10 in a Dessie is difficult never mind a 4/10. MOAH emergent game play not less.


To late this thread is no longer about the reinstatement of the 2/10's and is instead about how we will plan our revenge starting with a few 'CCP Bettik caused this Gank' roams in high-sec.....

I have deliberately developed an air of cynicism that I originally intended to make me appear somewhat louche and caddish but actually comes across as irritable hostility combined with the unspoken threat of sudden violence.....

Olleybear
Armed And Angry
#396 - 2013-01-14 23:18:08 UTC
Vincent R'lyeh wrote:
plan our revenge starting with a few 'CCP Bettik caused this Gank' roams in high-sec.....

You know, this right here is just another reason why I love this game. Both because someone came up with the idea to blame a specific dev for hi-sec ganks and because CCP allows pilots to do this kind of stuff.

Big smile

When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life.

Sylvous
Bigger than Jesus
#397 - 2013-01-15 08:45:20 UTC
Miss Carry wrote:

Let's keep making suggestions and be optimistic
and not be grumpy :)


I would tend to agree with you on this one but I need to cut some slack for those who are ending their calm well thought conversation. Its been over a month since we first brought this up and still the DEV who is responsible for overseeing these changes has said nothing, if I were being ignored like that I would be pissed too and throwing $#!+ around as well... wait, I am being ignored aren't I?

At any rate the way I see it is that the players have done a excellent job listing their complaints, discussing ideas and suggestions to the problems, but we are being ignored. Without input from a DEV who is serious about tackling the issue discussion will flounder and eventually peter off until this is a forgotten topic at the bottom of the forums. Sad to say if CCP wants to execute this strategy they can, and it will work seeing as without DEV input we very quickly can cover all our ideas since they will not be met with the criticism needed from a DEV who cares about low sec and the vibrant PVP that these PVE complexes led to. Also if CCP doesn't want to do anything I suppose they don't have to since it is their product.

With the current prices of the potential drops from the DED 1 & 2 sites there will be many a assault ship wreck sitting around those plexes should they be reinstated. Honestly I find that this is a great opportunity for CCP to foster even more PVP. With the high sec versions gone, those seeking the "easy" isk will have to fight for the right to be able to get a chance at the loot, and with the prices so high, many people will want to take the risk to go after the possibility. The removal of the highsec complexes was a golden idea, and would have reinvigorated PVP in lowsec on a whole new scale. Though admittedly having removed them entirely for a time will only work to bolster the PVP had at these complexes should they be reinstated now since the supply of the DED modules is slowly dwindling.

Again I also advocate for some changes to the complexes to avoid the exploitation of being able to cloak and wait for the overseers to spawn in the final room and farm the complex at minimal risk, but that has been discussed in great detail throughout this thread.

To any DEV that has a interest in doing something positive for the community, take a good look at this thread and give it a read in its entirety. We the dwellers of low sec seem to have an idea on how these work, and how they can be improved, and if you disagree with us, give us your thoughts and opinions so we can either understand why these changes have been made or give us the opportunity to show you why you are wrong (we've put ourselves out there for criticism).

CCP boasts that the game is community driven, and that the players make significant contributions to the changes that effect the course of game development. The challenge that our community is trying to give you now is: MAKE THAT STATEMENT TRUE.

Sylvous
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#398 - 2013-01-15 16:16:36 UTC
Guys I appreciate you're really frustrated, but making the thread even more hostile than it already is isn't going to attract the developer attention you're looking for.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

Swifty Blowback
Doomheim
#399 - 2013-01-15 16:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Swifty Blowback
CCP Goliath wrote:
Guys I appreciate you're really frustrated, but making the thread even more hostile than it already is isn't going to attract the developer attention you're looking for.


Any hints as to what will?

Logical and reasonable questions / suggestions has thus far failed to garner any informative response from CCP (props to Fozzie for being the only dev to have a go though).
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#400 - 2013-01-15 16:32:33 UTC
I didn't realize we are hostile. Are you saying hisec ganking is no longer viable option and will be frowned upon? Oh boy, that escalated quickly.

Invalid signature format