I think that CCP has made their bed and now WE are left to sleep in it. I don’t see any reasonable solution that involves huge nerfs to Capitals as you’ll have a player-base’s nuclear fallout that dwarfs the Triage Carrier - FAX change by 100 times. This Capital arms race has been going on for a while now, and if CCP were to suddenly shift their viability, then you will have effectively made a lot of people feel as if they’ve wasted a lot of time and money (this completely depends on the degree of nerfs).
I don’t consider there to be an easy response to what I consider is a huge blunder by CCP. The lack of insight on how changes have a domino effect on their game can be astonishing at times.
I don’t think it’s possible without completely driving a huge part of your playerbase into open revolt, but I’ll give it a shot:
I think any mechanical change that artificially limits the amount of Capitals being used is a bad idea
You require that nodes be entosis’d by Capitals (lol that would actually be hilarious)
Swap the Bridge to and Jump to positions on the radial and drop down menu for a month, then swap them back
Raising the mineral requirement for Capital production will only punish the smaller groups
???
I would love to hear what Capital ship subject matter experts have to say about Capital proliferation and their take on how to “fix” it. It might seem defeatist, but I believe CCP royally screwed up with this one. How do you think this issue can be fixed in a timely manner?
5 to 6 years ago, amongst EvE players, WoW was considered "EvE Online for Wussies". These days I hear more and more players turn to EvE for their PvP content and WoW for PvE. Should you make it on the CSM, maybe you can point a finger in the direction CCP needs to look if they want some idea’s.
Apparently neither can CCP so please do not let that deter you. After all, not being a game designer might be an advantage as this would mean you’re less likely to dismiss certain idea’s off the bat because all you can see are mechanics too difficult to implement. Besides, I doubt that designing "intricate and exiting PvE content" is something a single individual is capable of doing. Great concepts are usually a collection of idea’s brought forward by a group of people.
I’ve always had a feeling that the PvE content CCP introduces to the game is aimed towards “forcing” people to cooperate. Yet reading trough some of your suggestions, I have a sense they are all based on a principle of “encouraging” people to interact instead. I’m not sure CCP will be ready for the culture shock you’re about to release on them should you make it onto the CSM, but as a player, I’m very much in favour of your approach.
I endorse your sense of cruelty…!
This is quite an early opening shot at a CSM campaign but by all means a very good one. I shall be keeping an eye out for you (and apparently so will my freighter pilot…)
You’re not going to win this without the wormholers and a part of the highsec PvErs … who also deserve attention. Edit: and maybe low seccers. they’ve had the short straw since pretty much forever.
@Scipio_Artelius I can’t find your latest graph about the downtrend of ganking. Could you help out?
Also, I believe, this should be in here and might be of use for you:
I have other, more private plans for corpses that I intend to bring up to CCP.
I know.
I’ve also seen the graph showing where “new players” are being killed. I think it provides a compelling argument against those that think that wars and ganking are for some reason targeted at new players. That isn’t to say that CCP doesn’t lost a significant enough portion of players in Highsec, but a players reason is unknown to me.
If you read everything I’ve said you’ll see that I’m not just an advocate for Highsec PVP, but for everyone that calls Highsec their home. I think that with a revamped PVE system that allows players to directly effect the way Highsec works and behaves is a pretty interesting start to having content that allows all players to have a potential story. I think the ideals and values I hold in Eve Online are something that everyone can agree on if thought about from a reasonable point of view.
I have already discussed how my gameplay will be personally effected by some of the changes that I wish to see happen. There are a lot more that I’m not willing to openly discuss though for reasons.
Since Salvos’ troll campaign already imploded after two days or something, I’m delighted to find out this all encouraged you to run. You have all my votes without a second thought.
Yeah I’ve wanted to run for a few years now, and have had people urge me to run… so I’m going to give it a shot. I look forward to the challenge, and thank you for your kind words.
Thanks for a detailed reply. While I may not agree with all you stated, your reply shows some thought and willingness to think outside the current CCP dev box. As much as I like the idea of being able to influence your environment in HS through your actions, I wonder exactly what kind of HS experience you expect for the players. A 100% tax for being in a social corp? Good luck buying ships or mods running missions/site exploration. Many in HS are either solo or play with a FEW friends. Short of multiboxing a fleet like you did in WH, they cannot guarantee that their friends will always be on. Most don’t want to be cog #15 in a small corp; even less desire to be cog tooth #23-V in a larger one. What are going to offer these type of players; you know, the ones that are the possible (most probable) targets for PvPers like you in HS? The current gameplay opportunities are limited and stagnant within the players’ set gameplay style; are you saying change,accept as is, or GTFO?
In regards to bumping, if you want content have the first 6 minutes of bumping as is. After that, a suspect flag is placed on the bumper. After 12 minutes, a gate tractor beam holds the offender for 2 minutes (but offender’s modules all work except MJD) then releases them. The remaining 7 minutes of the suspect flag is as usual. This offers even more content, as any “ready 5” fleet will be on grid, allows for the bumper to push the envelope after 6 minutes because many people will just sit back and wonder if their suspect flag is just a trap, and allows the bumped ship to resume its journey after 12+ minutes (or another bumper has taken the first’s place). Course the exact times will have to be adjusted, but the idea is more content for all.
I find Dryson fun regardless if he’s seriously uninformed or successfully trolling. I’m not quite sure why this upsets you.
This is a really good statement to ponder on, because I’m sure each player has his own reasons for playing the game as well as their own interests. One of the central themes around my campaign is that I want the vibrant story-telling elements of Eve Online to enable all players to have a story to tell. I’m not all about how players can impact each other negatively, but I’m also interested in how players can has positive outcomes on the world of New Eden.
I will admit that one thing that I struggle with is dealing with and communicating with players that seem to have a defeatist and woe is me attitude towards the harshness of the game. This is something that as I broaden my circle of friends and associates, I’ve grown to have more compassion and understand for. I believe I’ve personally come a long way from even a year ago where I would have said that if you didn’t think the same way as me that you were wrong and you could die in a fire (in game of course).
Ultimately I want players to be able to login and have fun playing and interacting with others players. I understand that there are players that have very limited time, prefer to play alone, and/or with a small group of friends and I think that trying to balance around that as well is good.
I said that I agree that some kind of social corp should exist, but with certain constraints and the reason I did so is because I firmly believe that Eve Online shouldn’t be a safe game. I don’t have issues with different degrees of safety and risk management, but by allowing players to segregate themselves from everyone else and opt out of the dynamic player experiences that make this game unique just rubs me the wrong way… and then to not have restrictions on that game play just creates more friction for me.
Is 100% fair? Probably not, and it’s likely not a feature that players will take advantage of if they feel too “oppressed”. The figure that I used was more or less me expressing how much I don’t want a player to feel like he can just segregate himself from others. I’m very open to discussing how much rope players in social corps should be allowed to have.
I’ll start this by saying that I think it’s very inaccurate to assume that the most probable targets are those that are casual or however they are classified. In fact I believe that in my case I end up killing way more players from Nullsec and other areas of the space.
I’m assuming that the game play opportunities you’re referring to are the PVE stuff we have available to us. I would have to say no, I genuinely want players to have access to PVE content that they find fun and not something that is primarilly driven by feeling the need to grind or keep up with the Jones’. How would I go about developing PVE content like this, I’m not sure.
I personally feel these Rogue Drone sites are really neat, because they take very little time to run and are very easy. A casual player can login, run a few of these, then hop off. It’s doubly better because there’s a chance for player interaction!
“When an Eve Online player quits Eve to play World of Warcraft, the average IQ of both player bases goes up.” - This can be seen as harsh or demeaning but I find a lot of truth in it. Eve Online can be a very hard and very unforgiving game and while I don’t ever really want anyone to quit, I think it’s everyones responsibility to acknowledge that when something is tough that the struggle to overcome it is wonderful!
The primary people that are using bump machariels are those that are dedicated to ganking so much that it’s actually scary what ends they will go to in order to preserve their play style. I this because while I know the numbers surrounding your idea can be tweaked, I would circumvent your limitation by simply having (3) bump machariels. This isn’t out of the realm of possibility as I personally know gankers that already bump with 2-3… granted they have them in different systems, but if using all 3 in one system grantees that they keep the status quo then they’ll do it. So yeah, just rotate each machariel out at like 5 minutes.
I’m not against changes to bumping, but changes that are made need to be questioned, tested, and thoroughly ran through or else you’ll find yourself where players just find a work around or loop hole in order to achieve the same end.
I and others who bump professionally will keep something bumped no matter the length of the proposed timer. It won’t work. 2-3 bumpers isn’t enough? That’s fine, I have 6 machariel pilots. Nerf to ganking? No problem, I’ll multibox 20 gankers instead of 10.
Are miners willing to go to such lengths? Nope. But fortunately for them they don’t have to. A mining permit costs only 10m ISK.
I agree with you 100%. That’s why I’m skeptical about changes to ganking and bumping because unless CCP finds a way to make it impossible, you will adapt and find a way to make it happen. I would rather them spend that development time on something more productive.
The flip side of their argument that I 100% believe is what would it look like players like Australian, Kusion, and Siggy were anti-gankers? I 100% believe that you would have no issues stopping the ganks. Players like you guys that are driven don’t have issues overcoming odds.
This is one area where I’m willing to do the whole, “one more nerf” dance.
Well yes, part of that would be the vast resources they have from ganking all those freighters so they will not be working from the same constraints as AG players, their characters are focussed on ganking and PvP and they are not grinding in hisec to make their ISK or worried about security status impacts or being caught in a PvE ship doing missions due to kill rights. They have excellent knowledge of the mechanics and a massive army of alts.
It is comparing apples and pears… Sorry but your statement is meaningless.
My module suggestion which I raised in that ganking thread in C&P and which I will put in features and ideas will enable bumping but make it so it cannot be indefinite and prevent the type of play of B+2. It offers counter play and an end. Then you can bump up until you kill it, they get away or the freighter is going so fast that you can no longer affect it.
If the module is easy to implement then I have no issues with a module working in that way. I think that it can work to your favor if you take the steps to utilize it properly, but those steps I think are far too involved for the average player looking to haul and whatnot.
I don’t want to make this another ganker vs ag thread because that’s not my intent. I want to find reasonable balance in these systems so that there’s as much satisfaction as possible. The honest truth is that haulers and ag effectively need to play “catch up” with gankers and their resources and attitude (they are willing to go to extreme lengths to get the job done)
At the end of the day it’ll be a decision you make when fitting and loading your ship with cargo. If you opt to not use it and utilize it, then that’s on you. I agree.
I agree! More people interacting with each other is ideal!
I appreciate the discussion and comments so far. Lets keep it on topic though
I have read through the CSM minutes in their entirety and I’ll be working on a short blurb containing my thoughts and opinions.
)
