|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Cailais
Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 19:44:00 -
[1]
Originally by: ukiyo e Less desirable space will become empty again as nobody will want to live in or purchase upgrades for a system that has no resources. Smaller alliances will be pushed out of 0.0 because they won't be able to afford the ships to defend their space, and defending that space won't be worthwhile anyways. This is a horrible decision.
Sorry what? If the space isn't worth defending, surely its not worth attacking? If its not worth attacking why do you need loads of isk to buy ships to defend it?
Your post makes 0 sense.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Cailais
Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:54:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Master Gotama
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: ukiyo e Less desirable space will become empty again as nobody will want to live in or purchase upgrades for a system that has no resources. Smaller alliances will be pushed out of 0.0 because they won't be able to afford the ships to defend their space, and defending that space won't be worthwhile anyways. This is a horrible decision.
Sorry what? If the space isn't worth defending, surely its not worth attacking? If its not worth attacking why do you need loads of isk to buy ships to defend it?
Your post makes 0 sense.
C.
hi, you must be new here. in EVE, people attack you to see your ship explode. people defend space because it is valuable. see the difference??
2006. The argument here is why people attack 'space' - i.e with the aim of conquering a system. If that system has limited perceived value then it aught to follow that it wont be attacked with the intent of capturing that space. If the attacker has no financial motive or desire to gain that space then obviously its completely irrelevant what the value of that space is.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Cailais
Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 22:13:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Cailais on 25/03/2011 22:14:09 Part of the problem, at least as I see it, is that the current status quo is a 'flat' universe: the same in all locals so there is no value in moving to better ground.
CCP Greyscales blog however also promotes a 'flat' universe in that it is unchanging. There is, perhaps, value in moving ground and chasing the higher value systems but only once. When the major powers have settled on the latest isk faucet they will simply become entrenched and EVEs conflicts will stagnate again. Sadly in the stampede a lot of smaller entities are likely to become squeezed out.
Stagnant and eternal (i.e they never deplete) ISK faucets seem a poor choice in this case. If those faucets depleted however and new faucets could be discovered through exploratory efforts: then we would have a dynamic and volatile universe. Not a flat one.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Cailais
Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:18:00 -
[4]
A quick 'counter blog' post with my generic thoughts on Greyscales dev blog. For those who are interested in such things
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Cailais
Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:50:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ascendic
Originally by: Tiligean
Originally by: Orianda well.. actually... boost the quality of systems with low truesec (-0.6 to -1.0) will cause mor wars....
but nerf system with a bad truesec (0.0 to -0.4) will cause a massive exodus of players to the Hi-Sec... because they cannt afford PVP anymor.... so this Idea is PURE CRAP!!!
You are right. How dare anyone consider PVP in anything less than a T2 or Meta 4 fit HAC.
You are right, it is infallibly stupid that players who live in 0.0 space and spend billions of isk fighting to keep it should be richer than empire mission runners who are bundled with blankets and have padded hangars with billions in ships that never go pop unless they get suicide ganked.
My density meter off the charts captain!
Depends. Are players fighting to get rich? Or fighting because players love fighting? Wars are expensive.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Cailais
Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:18:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Royaldo BTW, this change reminds of me of the static complex's.
Exactly.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Cailais
Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:15:00 -
[7]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:50:11 Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:45:28 Morning all,
- Related to this, the current concern about low-value space as it relates to new alliances is that, because it can be upgraded to be almost as good as anywhere else in the game, there's little incentive to move along once you're there. Dominion worked well with getting these regions more useful and more occupied, but we're concerned that unless the current tenants have a good reason to want to leave behind the infrastructure they've built up and move on to better areas, the next crop of prospective alliances are going to find they have nowhere to go.
I think it's good that you're considering migratory pressures, but with your current proposal those pressures are fixed - you can apply them once and migration will occur but will quickly reduce as a new equilibrium is reached. (Of course within this Im assuming that you anticipate a steady migratory flow from high sec into null sec).
Ideally I think you need to consider resource springs that bubble up and then are consumed over time. Once such a spring begins to dry up the local population will stabilise as migratory pressure forces some to seek green pastures (new resource springs elsewhere).
I think you have the capability to achieve this based upon what we've seen in terms of PI, Incursions and exploration mechanics. Simply re setting the 'sweet spots' on the map will only have a short term impact. You will have to repeat the whole process all over again in a few months time (in essence this has already happened before with the removal of static 10/10 plexes). You could do this of course, but it will require constant CCP management which, as many comments here demonstrate, opens you up to claims of favouring certain existing entities or disadvantaging others in a deus ex machina manner.
Far better imho that you build in a fluctuating mechanic that works with less of a 'hand on the tiller' approach?
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Cailais
Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 20:01:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Malcanis Utterly, utterly shameless CCP fellatio
Get ****ed.
Forcing people who hold bad 0.0 space to move to empire to get anywhere near the same income is not a good change. It means fewer people living in 0.0, which means fewer people able to respond when roaming gangs come through, and fewer incentives to go out roaming anyway (since there's nobody out there to shoot).
Why wouldn't you compete for the better systems? To much hard work?
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
|
|
|