|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 43 post(s) |
Jekyl Eraser
|
Posted - 2011.08.03 14:46:00 -
[1]
Sounds nice you're asking for ideas so soon.
One thing that struck me first as i read it:
Quote: Cost is a useful variable to tune but an unwise thing to rely on to enforce scarcity or balance - players will always be richer than you think
You have forgot to put maintenance cost on the elite stuff. Capitals might use fuel just like POS. Would add ISK cost and logistics tasks into having them.
|
Jekyl Eraser
|
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:43:00 -
[2]
Some thoughts about what i think 0.0 should be:
Moon and planet income should be dynamic. If there is static content players will behave static after the first war. It is incorrect to think 'rarity of resources crete conflict'. Rarity only limits how many afford to live in 0.0. All systems should be good places for individuals in 0.0 with some golden eggs(moons and planets) moving around galaxy for corps and alliances to fight for.
Your income should not be destructable (havens, sanctums).
It shouldn't be possible(nor smart)(bridges and jumps) to bring half galaxy to one fight. If you bring the fleet to the other side of galaxy, your home should be vulnerable for many hours. Currently those huge cooldowns make sure you are safe.
Hotdropping is too fast.... jumping shouldn't be instant.
Your implants shouldn't be destroyed so easily by bubbles. Bubbles slows every 0.0 resident skilltraining.
|
Jekyl Eraser
|
Posted - 2011.08.03 16:34:00 -
[3]
New alliance has trouble coming to 0.0 because their home and income is a sitting duck. Any bigger can any time and from anywhere come and destroy it because. If someone can, it is sure someone will after enough time passes.
Sanctums and havens shouldn't give better income... all they should give is safer and provide income for larger population. If they provide superior income they nerf all other 0.0 systems. No point for a random guy come ninja ratting.
|
Jekyl Eraser
|
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:14:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Jekyl Eraser on 03/08/2011 17:14:57
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Jekyl Eraser Some thoughts about what i think 0.0 should be:
Moon and planet income should be dynamic. If there is static content players will behave static after the first war. It is incorrect to think 'rarity of resources crete conflict'. Rarity only limits how many afford to live in 0.0. All systems should be good places for individuals in 0.0 with some golden eggs(moons and planets) moving around galaxy for corps and alliances to fight for.
I'm still yet to be convinced about dynamic resources. We generally want players to claim space, settle down, develop it etc, and if doing so means their space becomes worthless, what's the point? Specifically with the "random moon movement" thing, I'd also be concerned that some little corp will have claimed a dead-end constellation in the middle of nowhere and developed it, only to have a major moon appear, followed by a big alliance who turfs them out to get at the moon.
I'm not dead-set against the idea, I've just not seen a really good argument as to why it's sensible.
Most of the rest of this I agree with, and the bubbles/implants thing is an interesting point.
Alliances operate at a large area. I was kinda thinking the big picture of alliance owning the moons, not corporations. There would probably be many good dynamic resources on the area but the ones that appear at the border of 2 alliances migth wanna fight for it. You can build the POS anywhere. Maybe hard to defend but it might be a nice staging ground for a little few day war, a nice little staging ground to see who is who. You also mentioned that some big alliance might wanna turfs the small out of the way of a new rich moon in a negative manner when the conflict is really what you want!? It is true tho that the home base moon might dryout.
|
Jekyl Eraser
|
Posted - 2011.08.04 10:52:00 -
[5]
Sov should only indicate influence or power, not determine when, what, how or how much you can do.
Then you could build a castle next to your enemy home base <-- I think that is essential if you remove bridges and limit jumping.
Sov is currently a set of arbitrary rules set to lawless space.
|
Jekyl Eraser
|
Posted - 2011.08.11 18:34:00 -
[6]
One problem is that there is only one way to play 00. One sov system, one way to play. This applies to solo players, small corps/alliances who enter 0.0, pirates and industrialists. Sov system and 0.0 is made for large entities and becoming large is quite impossible.
Making science needs assets and if your assests aren't safe you will lose it eventually. Inductrialists need safety more than ratters who only risk few ships and some modules. Industrialists have multiple POSses and materials worth billions of which to produce from. POS is subject to corp theft also. Small new corps/alliances can't defence their base in any way, they are a sitting duck.
some random ideas -stealth base for small corps -stealth factories -mobile factories -way to make a system into hisec -way to save materials when under attack
|
|
|
|