These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Proposal: Shuffle moon goo!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#41 - 2014-10-08 00:48:38 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
What you also failed to realize is the large amount to smaller groups that'll happily take advantage of the situation and try to grab a piece of land for themselves.
Maybe grab a moon for themselves, but land? My guess is that they'll still get curb stomped by the large coalitions. I really think the solution here is to stop beating the player base with the damn stick and instead focus on the carrot. Does an alliance of 1,000 guys need an entire region? [1] Right now yes. Why not make it so that that same alliance can live in a constellation or 2? Provide an incentive to shrink vs. holding an entire region to get access to the few good systems in that region. Something where the more a group of players use their systems/constellations the better they get. Beating us over the head with the stick and ignoring the carrot just pisses us off and so far we've shown to be rather clever at screwing up whatever goal the Dev's have in mind. [1] I'll note that not all regions are created the same, some regions can support larger number of pilots than other regions mainly because that region has more systems and even more quality systems (relative to total systems) than others.
I see you as a puppet w/ that Baltec guys hand up your patoot. There is a ton of easy isk out in null. I only see one group that is active in null. The rest is just full of un-used anoms. You don't need more and you don't need different. You need stuff for folks to fight over. You want to be able to more densly pack your subjects? Gee that sounds about as fun as null is now. This thread is about bringing back pvp to null. And you come in here? Please go start a "Let's turn eve into farmville" thread and you elites can discuss 'pubbie packing' there to any depth you want. This thread is about creating conflict and PVP - carrots and player density discussions are not welcome here. Shoooo.... just go away!


The idea of increasing density is for the following reasons:
1. More people in every system, on average, means more people to shoot at...at least in theory.
2. Having null systems offer good rewards, for being undocked and doing something in that system means you can have more people to shoot.
3. Given 1 & 2 it also gives people a reason to try and shoot you too.
4. Given 1, 2 & 3 even if alliances band together to form coalitions it is unlikely you'd have null with 2 or 3 big blocks, and instead many smaller blocks which would make politics alot more complicated.
5. Given 1, 2, 3, & 4 the idea of roaming actually becomes something fun. Block warfare could become quite interesting and fun.

Now just go ahead and attack my motives vs. dealing with my arguments as it makes you look oh so mature and logical.


Current null mechanics suck. Most of it is empty. There are already 10's of thousands of red plus signs not being shot as I type this. More or different red plus signs will change nothing - it still won't be fun to have zero chance of aquiring ones own space. Packing more folks into your radius of control doesn't add fun or pvp to the game.

You're motivations don't matter to me. Your idea is just bad. So bad that it won't change anything. Adding missions or whatever won't draw folks out to live in your crappy holdings.

Folks don't like it out there and aren't playing out there.... YOUR AMUSEMENT PARK TOTALLY SUX - 1 MORE ROLLER COASTER ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE THAT. Hell, the owners aren't even playing out there. They are playing other games until they get a timer of interest.

I'm not being mean or attacking you personally - you didn't make it suck, but it sux out there. It's about actual mechanics, not about 'we need more pve'
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#42 - 2014-10-08 01:00:10 UTC
Busta Rock wrote:
AFK isk faucets (moon goo) are the ROOT of the problem. NOT any perceived issue with power projection via long-range capital jumping. frankly, the moon mining situation should have been dealt with YEARS ago, via implementing PI mechanics to moons, and full-on redistribution of ALL materials that are not biological in nature across all cesestial body types in the cluster... planets, moons and asteroids should ALL have the full range of T1 and T2 raw materials (as well as the non-biological PI materials) present in them, but in varying quantities. asteroids might have substantially more of the T1 and T2 mats (with T2 in much rarer asteroid types or only in roid anoms), while PI mats would be found more easily on moons and planets, but there should ALWAYS be overlap.



Your idea takes the aquisition of moon goo out of the pvp arena. You're just changing it to 'free stuffs for everyone'

I think your approach it bad. I think goo has great potential to generate pvp. This game is about pvp.

The big coallitions keep pushing more pve (missions or whatever). That's why null sux atm. It's being run by a bunch of bowties crunching numbers. Player density, isk streams, on an on. We need more things to start conflicts, not make them free and equal for all.

Passive is not good. Monopoly is not good.

Conflict is good. PVP is good.

In all these threads I strongly recommend everyone ignore any ideas that talk about improving player density, isk streams, incentives and any other corporate buzzword bingo stuff. If there isn't a valid (which is very different than plausible) pvp outcome for an idea, it's not what null sec needs right now.
Busta Rock
The DawnSoarers
#43 - 2014-10-08 01:24:01 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Your idea takes the aquisition of moon goo out of the pvp arena. You're just changing it to 'free stuffs for everyone'

I think your approach it bad. I think goo has great potential to generate pvp. This game is about pvp.

The big coallitions keep pushing more pve (missions or whatever). That's why null sux atm. It's being run by a bunch of bowties crunching numbers. Player density, isk streams, on an on. We need more things to start conflicts, not make them free and equal for all.

Passive is not good. Monopoly is not good.

Conflict is good. PVP is good.

In all these threads I strongly recommend everyone ignore any ideas that talk about improving player density, isk streams, incentives and any other corporate buzzword bingo stuff. If there isn't a valid (which is very different than plausible) pvp outcome for an idea, it's not what null sec needs right now.


how the hell does redistributing moon goo (as well as all the other non-biological materials) equal removing it from the pvp arena? if anything, distributing it more widely, such that it can be acquired by any of the mechanics, (PI/moon mining/asteroid mining) means that there will be MORE pvp. more miners, more escorts protecting miners, more pvpers looking to kill miners and their escorts to get quick and easy loot, MORE conflict between corps and alliances. my suggestion is far and away superior to the current paradigm of 'anchor POS, turn on isk faucet, refuel POS and transport ISK once a month' that it is now.
Sindjin Hawke
Distant Light Syndicate
#44 - 2014-10-08 01:55:25 UTC
Busta Rock wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Your idea takes the aquisition of moon goo out of the pvp arena. You're just changing it to 'free stuffs for everyone'

I think your approach it bad. I think goo has great potential to generate pvp. This game is about pvp.

The big coallitions keep pushing more pve (missions or whatever). That's why null sux atm. It's being run by a bunch of bowties crunching numbers. Player density, isk streams, on an on. We need more things to start conflicts, not make them free and equal for all.

Passive is not good. Monopoly is not good.

Conflict is good. PVP is good.

In all these threads I strongly recommend everyone ignore any ideas that talk about improving player density, isk streams, incentives and any other corporate buzzword bingo stuff. If there isn't a valid (which is very different than plausible) pvp outcome for an idea, it's not what null sec needs right now.


how the hell does redistributing moon goo (as well as all the other non-biological materials) equal removing it from the pvp arena? if anything, distributing it more widely, such that it can be acquired by any of the mechanics, (PI/moon mining/asteroid mining) means that there will be MORE pvp. more miners, more escorts protecting miners, more pvpers looking to kill miners and their escorts to get quick and easy loot, MORE conflict between corps and alliances. my suggestion is far and away superior to the current paradigm of 'anchor POS, turn on isk faucet, refuel POS and transport ISK once a month' that it is now.


Not a bad idea really. The problem with the current moon goo arena is that it breeds the huge conglomerate monopolies we see today which has caused huge stagnation for PVP. All you have is a huge blob fest which almost everyone wants to avoid unless you're the other blob trying to take the other blobs moon goo.

Keeping it the same way won't help anything at all.

I see a lot of pilots having hard times making the ISk they need to feel secure enough to start accepting losses in PVP. So instead they spend all their limited game time grinding in high sec. Where if they had better ways of earning quicker easier ISK perhaps they would take the risk and venture out into low and null and actually play the game rather than the spreadsheet grind.


Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#45 - 2014-10-08 21:23:24 UTC
Busta Rock wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Your idea takes the aquisition of moon goo out of the pvp arena. You're just changing it to 'free stuffs for everyone'

I think your approach it bad. I think goo has great potential to generate pvp. This game is about pvp.

The big coallitions keep pushing more pve (missions or whatever). That's why null sux atm. It's being run by a bunch of bowties crunching numbers. Player density, isk streams, on an on. We need more things to start conflicts, not make them free and equal for all.

Passive is not good. Monopoly is not good.

Conflict is good. PVP is good.

In all these threads I strongly recommend everyone ignore any ideas that talk about improving player density, isk streams, incentives and any other corporate buzzword bingo stuff. If there isn't a valid (which is very different than plausible) pvp outcome for an idea, it's not what null sec needs right now.


how the hell does redistributing moon goo (as well as all the other non-biological materials) equal removing it from the pvp arena? if anything, distributing it more widely, such that it can be acquired by any of the mechanics, (PI/moon mining/asteroid mining) means that there will be MORE pvp. more miners, more escorts protecting miners, more pvpers looking to kill miners and their escorts to get quick and easy loot, MORE conflict between corps and alliances. my suggestion is far and away superior to the current paradigm of 'anchor POS, turn on isk faucet, refuel POS and transport ISK once a month' that it is now.


If you make it like PI or an asteroid - no one will fight over it. No one currently fights over PI or asteroids. Sure folks in k space and LS fight over poco's, but not over the material itself. I don't like monopolies, but I do like that control of the resource can be fought over.

There will still be ganks, but it won't be corps/alliances fighting each other. It will be a55hat5 like me ganking individuals here and there. We need to keep reasons for alliances to fight each other. It just has to be too dificult to monopolize. Depleting and respawning seem to be the best option to keep the goo moving to different folks.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2014-10-08 22:13:14 UTC
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:


- New Alliances will be able to get into Nullsec as the empires are distracted, finding their AFK ISK faucets again.


How is this a good thing in any way?
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#47 - 2014-10-10 17:50:07 UTC
The deeper into null you go, the better the resources.
Previous page123