@CCP Staff - My feedback to you

@CCP_Falcon @CCP_Hellmar

I applaud you for the move to the blackout. This is a good move for the game. Now you should look into the following.

The first step should be to encourage player-grouping and interaction.

Improve the aspects of group-based game play. Abyssals are a great direction for this, but look at adapting the current systems:

  • Add a bonus for grouping together for missions, based on player count and size. Example, a bonus of 500% for mission rewards (standard missions L1-L5)
  • Change missions so that the reward is granted to all group members, instead of splitting it.
  • Move Level 5 into high sec, and investigate means to encourage nullsec.

The next biggest thing you need to focus on is the quality of corporations.

Look at ways to increase corporate accomplishments, the greatest of them should be stations.

  • Stations now are something that can be spammed by alt accounts. The value of this you are significantly ignoring. Stations could be done in a way that makes them hard to build and upkeep, but difficult to destroy, especially in high sec. **PvP does not have to be the end all for all things, and the best way to challenge pvers is through pve. so shift that challenge, that difficulty through pve. ** try looking at stations being upgraded through the phases, instead of having three station sizes (fort, keep, etc) This will add a huge sense of accomplishment. Make upgrades to each level cost a large amount of time (month first time, 3 months additional) but allow for the benefits to be active while it’s upgrading.

This could also benefit the economy if done correctly.try looking at a cycle, where players as a group need to contribute to the corp through activity and team work, but benefit from the station greatly. Introducing a “upkeep” mechanic to stations based on how many people use one station would be a good way to dispense population, which in return will blanket population over area’s, high sec, null etc. This may encourage more cooperation and team work by the corporations and its members.

an important and key point here is to understand that corporations cannot have 10,000 players to them. eve is limited in its population. as the break up takes place you need to reduce the size of corporations. This will make the game much more fair. Think about it, 10,000 players against say 300 average? is that fair? certainly not. But more importantly, when larger member count populations exist, the devalue the corporations, its interaction, and benefit.

You must understand how extremely vital this point is to revitalizing eve. I promise you, if you hear this point and act on it great things will come from it. Corporations must have purpose, the player needs, to need the corporation. Do not confuse this with the corporation needing to have players. When players need a corporation for progression, they search, and work, cooperation, and compete. this is vital to the future of eve.

While we are on this point a feature that would allow players to advertise themselves for recruiters to look through would be a good way to reverse - recruit. You could gui it in game like the guild recruitment forums but limit it to “player posts”. You should add the requirements that the corporations can select now for what they are recruiting, but also include “corporation located in xx region”.

Third, I know you dont want to hear it but

In your step to improve difficulty, you must destroy afk anything. People may log in to farm afk, but after a while, they will quit. Think about it, What is the key to a game feeling new? Why do we enjoy new games so much? The answer is because you dont know, or cannot predict what will happen, often that failure to predict results in death, and destruction. Fair to all, but cruel.

the easiest way to change mining that i can think of is to remove the names from the asteroids, rename them small, medium, large, huge asteroid, then spawn the mineral type/count in them randomly. Shift the mining rate of collecting ore in the hold very fast. and create a lot of travel/searching time, then add some environmentally based danger, like gas clouds that explode when your beam touches them, etc. with some careful calculations there should be little impact on the economy out side of invalidating the multi-box spam.

You must touch the pause code on mining and get rid of this. You should also look at capital to capital level of ratting, and removing sub-capital / capital engagements. This significantly improves the danger factor to capitals. If you have a need to fill cap to sub cap fighting, then create a bridge class, call it warship or what ever, and make it a sub cap class that is larger then battleship but capable and specialized in killing sub-caps, so you can keep capitals and sub-capitals in general (with this one exception) out of each others zones of influence.

Finally,

I will say this if you really care for this game and want fix the problems i encourage you to press on no matter how hard the feedback comes. Wait 6 months before you decide to reverse a change dont be hasty.

One of the signs of progress is upheaval and difficulty. You must recognize that any improvement to the game will come with some conflict.

Keep in mind, the people that benefit from the game existing like it does, are resistant to the change because of the loss of their power. ignore them. Your job is to fix eve, not cater to them.

2 Likes

Theres a lot here but Im a sucker for lowhanging fruit;

Whats the difference between being attacked by one 10000 man corp and 100 100 man corps if money is no object?

1 Like

This will be a ■■■■ show of a thread.

What’s the new scam angle Naari?

2 Likes

If you formed 100 corporations in my game, i’d ban you from it. you wouldn’t just get hit with an account ban, i’d hit you with a unique id ban. You would not be back.

btw, while we are on this topic is my opinion that eve should return to a cap of 3 war decs active against you at a time and i’d make war required in null to take space (as a form of immersion and isk sink).

1 Like

This Topic has been moved to Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Whats your Wardec pricing structure?

You said it, I wonder how long before he goes off the deep end again.

You mean like suggesting things like blackout?
“ccp will never listen to you” i do recall you saying something like that.

Remember when i was here and said “i’ll be here to tell you, i told you so?”
I told you so.

1 Like

Players have been suggesting no local in null for years, before this set of forums, before the old forums.

3 Likes

So, put alts in your fleet, gain more ISK? No thanks.

Move Level 5 into high sec, and investigate means to encourage nullsec.

No. The last thing EVE needs is more highsec farming and less incentive to get out and play the real game.

Think about it, 10,000 players against say 300 average? is that fair? certainly not.

Life is not fair. EVE is about survival of the fittest and ruthless destruction of your enemies, whining about how unfair it is that you have to fight a stronger enemy is missing the point entirely. And caps on corp size are a stupid idea, even if CCP imposes those limits the players will just create their own informal groups and bypass the limit (much like they created informal alliances before CCP added an in-game alliance mechanic).

so you can keep capitals and sub-capitals in general (with this one exception) out of each others zones of influence.

This is also a stupid idea. Having an entirely separate class of ships that can’t interact with other ships breaks fundamental concepts of EVE.

So your “solution” is arbitrary bans for legal activities that you personally don’t like? Seems reasonable…

btw, while we are on this topic is my opinion that eve should return to a cap of 3 war decs active against you at a time and i’d make war required in null to take space (as a form of immersion and isk sink).

So you want a system where every corp makes three single-man alt corps that never undock, declares war from those alt corps, and has complete immunity to war?

2 Likes

Alts are to be addressed by anti-alt mechanics, ie making the content non-mutliboxible, or afkable

Yea, well i dont agree. so who cares about your opinion

not according to its ceo in the recent interview, where he said he “wants the game to be fair”

Yes, my solution is ban kids who are destructive and work against the nature of my game, kids like you and the rest of goon scum who propagate “im here to kill your game”. I’d insta ban you on the spot for that statement.

Corps should have activity and upkeep systems that prevent alt corps from existing, period.

1 Like

Uh, sure, and how exactly are you going to prevent people from using multiple clients?

Yea, well i dont agree. so who cares about your opinion

My opinion aligns with the opinion of CCP. Yours doesn’t. All I’m doing is explaining why CCP is not going to give you your risk-free PvE farming game.

Yes, my solution is ban kids who are destructive and work against the nature of my game, kids like you and the rest of goon scum who propagate “im here to kill your game”. I’d insta ban you on the spot for that statement.

Fortunately you are not in charge of a game because you’d very quickly kill it with that kind of attitude.

Corps should have activity and upkeep systems that prevent alt corps from existing, period.

So you want to ban newbies from making corps? That sounds like a good way to convince them to stay in the game…

1 Like

Something called “intelligent design”. An example of how not to do it can be found with eve’s mining system which clearly allows afking.

Official reply for this please. Other wise your a liar.

No one is advocating for risk free farming, You just think the only solution is pvp. Which is why i am a prodigy designer and your mcdonalds quality at best.

No, I would not. Btw, a lot of companies use this or similar positions. Blizzard for example freely implements these practices. I said it before and i’ll say it again, i’d love to see you go to their game and spout some stupidity like “we are here to kill your game”. They’ll lob you right out of it, as would and do many companies. I’m pretty sure epic uses similar practices, and its industry standard to include this in eula clauses.

Listen captain failed-nefarious, your not smart and what you attempt to do by engaging me on forums will have no effect on my being here. Want to troll? i’ll flag you and move on. Its the game you play right?

lets be clear, i dont want the noobs to leave, i want people like you to leave, so the game is not full of egotistical 40 year olds like you, who have social issues and the only way you can feel good about yourself is by pwning some noobs on the interwebz. Go out side, get some sunlight, pick a flower, collect rocks and take a chill pill. who knows you might find one of your kind doing the same there and you can carry off in the sunset together with your flower picking and rock collecting adventures.

No, I want to add mechanics that require people to upkeep the corp, probably through isk or activity based systems. This will stabilize the economy, or retention rates (or both depending on how its designed).

1 Like

Either post a link to the games you have designed, complete with financial reports on how much money they have made, or stop lying. The fact that your mom said that she loves your work does not make you a prodigy.

You just think the only solution is pvp.

Because it is. PvE will never provide meaningful risk because NPCs are stupid and the players will always figure out how to farm them. The only way risk ever happens is through PvP.

i’d love to see you go to their game and spout some stupidity like “we are here to kill your game”.

Well that’s certainly setting new marks for dishonesty. “Players will make multiple corporations to get around the limit, your idea is bad” is not “we’re here to kill your game”. Please stop behaving like this.

No, I want to add mechanics that require people to upkeep the corp, probably through isk or activity based systems. This will stabilize the economy, or retention rates (or both depending on how its designed).

That’s odd, I would have thought that a “prodigy game designer” would have the ability to think through the consequences of a proposal. But let me help you with that:

If the requirements to make and maintain a corp are low enough that newbies are able to meet them then older players will have no problem making several alt corps to be their war dec shield.

If the requirements to make and maintain a corp are high enough to discourage older players from making additional corps then those requirements will be an impossible barrier for a newbie. And the result of impossible barriers like that is often leaving the game.

Either way your idea fails.

3 Likes

Pass and their aint ■■■■ you can do about it, btw, i still am light years a head of you, hellmar.

At least my mother loves me.

Wrong because i said so.

Strangly the industry metrics do not agree with this considering the majority of players are pve-focused. (by a large amount at that)

not if intelligent design is implemented.

Because you said so?

1 Like

So you admit that you’re lying about being a “game design prodigy”. Not that this is a surprise, of course, given how you previously lied about having CSM votes for your grand plan to get CCP’s management fired. The only question here is if you’re trolling or if you’re genuinely enough of a delusional narcissist to believe the things you post.

Strangly the industry metrics do not agree with this considering the majority of players are pve-focused. (by a large amount at that)

The fact that lots of players enjoy mindless risk-free PvE farming doesn’t change the fact that PvE can never have meaningful risk.

Because you said so?

Nice of you to dishonestly cut out the part where I explained exactly why your idea fails and pretend that it’s nothing more than “because I said so”. But that’s what we expect from a fundamentally dishonest person like you.

3 Likes

I half expect he is the kind of person to make a Mario or Zelda rom hack and suddenly is a wildly successful game designer because the hack was downloaded and played by a few people.

I see Mr Dunning and Mr Kruger are being proved right, again.

I think John Cleese said it best.

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.