These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Player Owned Customs offices in Hi-Sec

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#121 - 2013-10-01 17:58:28 UTC
W0wbagger wrote:
Hi - please don't make the wardec restriction apply to low and nullsec - we frequently buy pocos and not being able to because the corp is at war is just a needless nerf for us - there is no reason for this restriction to exist in low/null and just screws over Pocos in this area

As a potentially more important issue- in the current situation - what is to stop me a neutral, flying up to a poco being bashed in highsec in a hauler/orca whatever with his own poco in the hold - locking it up, waiting for it to die and then deploying his own? - basically means its fastest finger first which is a bit unfair on the guys who have paid to do the wardeccing.
This is of course also the case in low/null with the difference that you can just blow up said hauler meaning the mechanic was never too much of an issue.

Note you can deploy a POCO anywhere near the planet. It does not have to be where the last one was. That makes sniping the planet even easier.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#122 - 2013-10-01 18:00:26 UTC
pmchem wrote:
The doom-and-gloom posts in this thread miss two broader points:

1. CCP has stated repeatedly in dev blogs and fanfest talks that they want to increase "player interactions". Removing a NPC-seeded part of the game and replacing it with a player construction is one step along that path. This is a MMO and it benefits from social interactions. Why do you think that stargate picture is being shown again and again?

2. PI will continue to thrive, but in a different manner. If the easy, convenient COs people had been using come under new ownership or are destroyed, what happens? The player can (a) continue attempting to use that planet, (b) move to a less fought over area, or (c) exit the market. If (a) then no big deal, maybe a price increase passed to consumer. If (b) then GOOD, we have lots of systems in Eve which need more traffic. If (c) then no big deal, some other player will see the decrease in supply lead to a price increase, and enter the market himself.


Flaw in #1: In general I agree with the notion to give players more and more control, but not at the cost of unecessarily losing areas to test out features of the game or do your business independently from other players' will. Highsec is that and should remain that. Giving people control over what belongs to NPC and should stay with NPC in order to provide people with an independent area to explore the game and its contents. Pitting in new people right away in entities and environments like CFC just makes them bad players.

Flaw in your point #2: There are no alternatives to Plasmas if you are tight on planets. Blueing up all the game just to be able to PI cannot be a solution, can it? (Obviously it can because CCP does exactly that). I also disagree on the more-traffic-idea. Null should not become as busy as highsec. There need to be and have to be a lot of deserted and dead areas piling up with treasures.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Aliath Sunstrike
#123 - 2013-10-01 18:01:02 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Nullsec gets handed siphons to steal moongoo and nullsec says nothing as that is funny what will promote some fun at the expense of our income.


Highsec gets handed POCOS and flips out because they want to play farmville in peace without those nasty big alliances clubbing them over the head.

The rabbit hole is much deeper than people seem to realize in this thread. We have three plans. Only one of which anyone is focusing on at this point. You should be worried far more about your fellow highsecer than us. While we are interested, this is fairly small income to us outside certain select cases. Worry more about your neighbors.



The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.

The answer lies in economics and math just as it always has.

Anarchy isn't the way and Socialism (space carebears isn't either). Go ask Dr. E what he thinks of Nash and game theory.

Einstein said it as well. Paraphrasing, "You do what is best for yourself AND the group and you get the optimal outcome. If we really are playing internet spaceships second life here, then that is THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER HERE. Any new CCP "feature" to come out should meet both these criterium.

Continuous player since 2007.
Elana Maggal
Chandra Labs
#124 - 2013-10-01 18:01:03 UTC
Andski wrote:
Elana Maggal wrote:
Andski wrote:
maybe you can compete with the big alliances by starting a big alliance of your own


Maybe I want to play in a sand box that I can do my own thing without goons dictating what I can and can't do and monopolizing key game play elements.



oh you must be confused, a sandbox means that powerful groups can have influence because it's exactly that: a sandbox, and not an instanced game

perhaps there are instanced games more suited to your needs


Influence - monopolize no.
Daenna Chrysi
Omega Foundry Unit
Southern Legion Alliance
#125 - 2013-10-01 18:02:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Daenna Chrysi
Callic Veratar wrote:
I noticed an inconsistency with POCOs. In nullsec, you must have sov to anchor a POCO. In lowsec, nobody cares. In highsec, you don't need standing with the faction to anchor.

Lowsec doesn't matter either way since no mechanic exists there, but anchor rights should be consistent in highsec and nullsec. Either require sov/faction in both or in neither. If I need faction to anchor a POS, why don't I need it to anchor a POCO?


This is actually a valid question, one would imagine that if just setting up a POS in empire space needs them to like you enough to lt you set one up to begin with. Then why the empires are a ok with people setting up customs offices that allow capsuleers to tear apart the very planets of that faction, without any standings demands? Adding even some standings demand would make sense and limit the abuse of the pocos. Perhaps also a separate skill that limits how many pocos a corp can hold, based on the skill of the CEO of the corp?

"oh you are 0.01 away from being shot on sight by our military, sure go right ahead and do what you want with our planets full of innocent citizens, but dont you dare to set up a lab or two around one of our barren moons before you have worked your ass off to make up for all the damages you have caused and earned our trust"

Another question, how will the anchoring work in 0.8-1.0 sec? afterall POS stuctures cant be anchored in those sec. but POS would be ok?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#126 - 2013-10-01 18:02:46 UTC
Elana Maggal wrote:
Influence - monopolize no.


who says we're aiming to monopolize anything

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Elana Maggal
Chandra Labs
#127 - 2013-10-01 18:04:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Elana Maggal
Michael Turate wrote:
Superb changes, you little anti-social guys need to pick a side and then buy a microphone. Remember that CCP makes the sandbox and the dimensions and rules of the sandbox are down to their designs. There has been YEARS of notice that high sec changes were coming and that the sandbox would be adjusted to make co-operative play work better than lone wolfing. Eve played as a socially co-operative experience was always the stated aim of the developers, the game is much better played that way in any case. This is the future and there's no going back now, more to follow I'm sure, explosions incoming.


So any computer player who plays solo is now an "anti-social guy"?

WTF? Really? Is this the long term vision of Eve Online - screw over solo players? Yeah - that will increase subscription rates ... (Yeah we got a sandbox - but only if you kiss the ass of some goon alliance sociopathic leader. And we're making sure the sandbox rules support the sociopath! Forget solo play.)
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#128 - 2013-10-01 18:04:55 UTC
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:


The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.

The answer lies in economics and math just as it always has.

Anarchy isn't the way and Socialism (space carebears isn't either). Go ask Dr. E what he thinks of Nash and game theory.

Einstein said it as well. Paraphrasing, "You do what is best for yourself AND the group and you get the optimal outcome. If we really are playing internet spaceships second life here, then that is THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER HERE. Any new CCP "feature" to come out should meet both these criterium.



Quoting for the ages. I have never seen so much ill-conceived pseudo-intellectual prattle mish-mashed into one post before.

This **** needs to be on t-shirts.

Also, this poco change completely makes up for the tos and blink stuff. Thoroughly enjoying Eve Online: Forums today.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#129 - 2013-10-01 18:06:08 UTC
Don't we already have a skill for tax reduction? Accounting? Why not just use that?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Aliath Sunstrike
#130 - 2013-10-01 18:07:01 UTC
Michael Turate wrote:
Superb changes, you little anti-social guys need to pick a side and then buy a microphone. Remember that CCP makes the sandbox and the dimensions and rules of the sandbox are down to their designs. There has been YEARS of notice that high sec changes were coming and that the sandbox would be adjusted to make co-operative play work better than lone wolfing. Eve played as a socially co-operative experience was always the stated aim of the developers, the game is much better played that way in any case. This is the future and there's no going back now, more to follow I'm sure, explosions incoming.



OBVIOUS CCP ALT

Go do what you are paid to do and work on fixing the game we all pay for instead of trolling.

P.S. Why change Hisec? Isn't hisec for learning the game. Then we all "graduate" to 0.0 as was told to us years ago. ::rolls eyes::

Continuous player since 2007.
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#131 - 2013-10-01 18:08:07 UTC
Nom nom nom!

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar
Aliath Sunstrike
#132 - 2013-10-01 18:09:39 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
CCP Paradox wrote:
Philpip wrote:
Can I get clarification on the anchoring please (and sorry if this has already been asked).

Do you have to have local faction standing to anchor like you would a pos?


No, no restrictions like that.


Now see ---THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.

WHY THE HECK DOESN'T A CORP NEED STANDING TO ANCHOR A POCO LIKE A POS??!

That would fit with all the past lore in game and only make sense and REWARD players for grinding standing. REWARD industrialists for their hard work. Small indy corps would have purpose.

But we can't have that can we (null alliances)....err CCP.


fyi

this will not save you

we have high standings alts just like you

anchor with alt -> transfer to goonwaffe



Ahh good point. But it does make it a bit harder.

Also - as I mentioned in another post but will restate here, I don't care about hisec POCO's personally, I just want to see EVE balanced for all instead of dying a slow death to one.

Continuous player since 2007.
Josef Djugashvilis
#133 - 2013-10-01 18:10:51 UTC
Michael Turate wrote:
Superb changes, you little anti-social guys need to pick a side and then buy a microphone. Remember that CCP makes the sandbox and the dimensions and rules of the sandbox are down to their designs. There has been YEARS of notice that high sec changes were coming and that the sandbox would be adjusted to make co-operative play work better than lone wolfing. Eve played as a socially co-operative experience was always the stated aim of the developers, the game is much better played that way in any case. This is the future and there's no going back now, more to follow I'm sure, explosions incoming.


If I may paraphrase you:

Sandbox, join a gang or quit.

This is not a signature.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2013-10-01 18:11:38 UTC
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Nullsec gets handed siphons to steal moongoo and nullsec says nothing as that is funny what will promote some fun at the expense of our income.


Highsec gets handed POCOS and flips out because they want to play farmville in peace without those nasty big alliances clubbing them over the head.

The rabbit hole is much deeper than people seem to realize in this thread. We have three plans. Only one of which anyone is focusing on at this point. You should be worried far more about your fellow highsecer than us. While we are interested, this is fairly small income to us outside certain select cases. Worry more about your neighbors.



The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.

The answer lies in economics and math just as it always has.

Anarchy isn't the way and Socialism (space carebears isn't either). Go ask Dr. E what he thinks of Nash and game theory.

Einstein said it as well. Paraphrasing, "You do what is best for yourself AND the group and you get the optimal outcome. If we really are playing internet spaceships second life here, then that is THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER HERE. Any new CCP "feature" to come out should meet both these criterium.



I don't disagree with most of what you said really. I spend a great deal of my "EVE" time inventing ways to make our collective richer, more secure, more powerful, or have more fun. So we do indeed pursue the optimal outcome for our group. Yes, if you are outside the group you will not benefit from those actions but all richness and content must come at the expense of something or someone. That is the nature of sandboxes and to some extent all MMO's.

The major thing to remember is none of our plans are short sighted in the least. We just don't do that because it isn't efficient when trying to coordinate even our own alliance, much less CFC.

Our plans are generally multi-year plans. Or research for plans. People need to take the time to really think about these changes with a long view. The kneejerk reactions happening in this thread are what is short sighted.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Aliath Sunstrike
#135 - 2013-10-01 18:12:23 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:


The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.

The answer lies in economics and math just as it always has.

Anarchy isn't the way and Socialism (space carebears isn't either). Go ask Dr. E what he thinks of Nash and game theory.

Einstein said it as well. Paraphrasing, "You do what is best for yourself AND the group and you get the optimal outcome. If we really are playing internet spaceships second life here, then that is THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER HERE. Any new CCP "feature" to come out should meet both these criterium.



Quoting for the ages. I have never seen so much ill-conceived pseudo-intellectual prattle mish-mashed into one post before.

This **** needs to be on t-shirts.

Also, this poco change completely makes up for the tos and blink stuff. Thoroughly enjoying Eve Online: Forums today.


WOW! You actually succeeded in bashing your own post! Great intelectual comeback bra....you mad?

Continuous player since 2007.
Evil Incarn8
Evil's League of Evil
#136 - 2013-10-01 18:12:52 UTC
Daenna Chrysi wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
I noticed an inconsistency with POCOs. In nullsec, you must have sov to anchor a POCO. In lowsec, nobody cares. In highsec, you don't need standing with the faction to anchor.

Lowsec doesn't matter either way since no mechanic exists there, but anchor rights should be consistent in highsec and nullsec. Either require sov/faction in both or in neither. If I need faction to anchor a POS, why don't I need it to anchor a POCO?


This is actually a valid question, one would imagine that if just setting up a POS in empire space needs them to like you enough to lt you set one up to begin with.



I am going to agree with this point as well, Why do I require high faction standings to put up a POS, (or not able to at all in the highest of security systems) but I can anchor a POCO anywhere I like regardless of my standings with the owners of the system?

I think Corperate standings tot eh sysytem owners should be added to this feature, perhaps not quite as steep as those required for a POS, but certainly no trifling amount. Effort results in reward.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#137 - 2013-10-01 18:16:13 UTC
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:

The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.

i didn't start out able to buy and sell you hundreds of times i worked my way to the top

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Aliath Sunstrike
#138 - 2013-10-01 18:17:11 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Nullsec gets handed siphons to steal moongoo and nullsec says nothing as that is funny what will promote some fun at the expense of our income.


Highsec gets handed POCOS and flips out because they want to play farmville in peace without those nasty big alliances clubbing them over the head.

The rabbit hole is much deeper than people seem to realize in this thread. We have three plans. Only one of which anyone is focusing on at this point. You should be worried far more about your fellow highsecer than us. While we are interested, this is fairly small income to us outside certain select cases. Worry more about your neighbors.



The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.

The answer lies in economics and math just as it always has.

Anarchy isn't the way and Socialism (space carebears isn't either). Go ask Dr. E what he thinks of Nash and game theory.

Einstein said it as well. Paraphrasing, "You do what is best for yourself AND the group and you get the optimal outcome. If we really are playing internet spaceships second life here, then that is THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER HERE. Any new CCP "feature" to come out should meet both these criterium.



I don't disagree with most of what you said really. I spend a great deal of my "EVE" time inventing ways to make our collective richer, more secure, more powerful, or have more fun. So we do indeed pursue the optimal outcome for our group. Yes, if you are outside the group you will not benefit from those actions but all richness and content must come at the expense of something or someone. That is the nature of sandboxes and to some extent all MMO's.

The major thing to remember is none of our plans are short sighted in the least. We just don't do that because it isn't efficient when trying to coordinate even our own alliance, much less CFC.

Our plans are generally multi-year plans. Or research for plans. People need to take the time to really think about these changes with a long view. The kneejerk reactions happening in this thread are what is short sighted.



Thanks for the reply and compliment. Back at ya - you guys are great at planning. I was just sticking to the here and now. Long term, honestly, I will just stop playing if it becomes so unbalanced. All politics is local is the old saying, this is sorta the same thing. The battle is the small here and now.

Again, I like the long term plans too, just saying, keep this in mind as you will eventually run out of poor in game. Like W. Buffett said recently, "The rich can't get richer until the poor do." I am not saying Goons are out for monopoly, just warning against it for your own space-fun benefit.

Continuous player since 2007.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#139 - 2013-10-01 18:17:36 UTC
Quickly scanned through thread and didn't see this being asked:

Has any provision been made for new player PI access as part of the NPE?
Josef Djugashvilis
#140 - 2013-10-01 18:19:04 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:

The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.

i didn't start out able to buy and sell you hundreds of times i worked my way to the top


Or perhaps you just climbed to the top of your ego. Smile

This is not a signature.