Local Comms Blackout - Discussion Thread - Part Deux!

EVE Information Portal Announcements
,
3685

One wonders what would happen if an actual iterative compromise was enabled by CCP.

Say…only numbers in local. Want to see who it is? Get eyes.

Or perhaps a 2-5 minute delayed local.

Seems a simple and reasonable compromise offering real risk-v-reward for both sides of the local equation :thinking:

~eve is hard~

3686

For all the excellent proposals that been brought forth in this discussion, none will be implemented. Get used to it.

3687

Possibly…

But of all that’s ever been put to the tables, do you believe local cutoff was anywhere near the top 10?
I don’t even remember talking about that more than once. And dude! I talk a lot!

People just repeat what others say without even looking into it…

“It’s too safe”… I mean, ffs! who the hell said that? we have examples of stagnancy within entities just because a group decided to perma camp with a cloaked Nemesis. People who echo that argument have never been in such situation.

or “instant intel” wtf!!!? It’s always been that way, still there are successful hunters who can bring entire constellations to a halt.

If they can, why others just whine about it?
Because that’s what they are, whiners and laid back trolls. For them, it’s easier to type than to game.

I suggest to go ahead and try on hunting for real, get good at it and stop the crap. Believe me, with 10% of the effort and organization it takes for PVErs to build up production in Null, any PVP squad can do decently on the KB.

3 Likes
3688

The CSM found out the day before, so yes.

Yes, but that’s not been the core of ‘null is safer than highsec’ we’ve been hearing for the last few years. That’s all been about the supers. The hunters get the same local intel that the defenders do: the ability to see the other guy.

Which is why there were rorqs and capitals dying every day before the Blackout, right? Because it was perfectly safe? You know, usually ‘perfectly safe’ doesn’t include people getting blown up.

Hey now… don’t make me get even more pedantic! :slight_smile:

Well duh. It’s CCP. They only listen so they know what to reject out of hand.

@Black_Pedro did, among others.

4 Likes
3689

I admit, I hardly play anymore. So I’m not one to talk. My hunting days are over. The rug got pulled out from under us a long time ago.

3690

I knew it!! Of course it had to be someone who’s never been in such situation!

3691

After the last 2 months of whining from Null sec, you really can’t take anything they say without laughing.

3692

you can’t deny login numbers have been down a lot since blackout. ccp need to make money

3693

I want to see them recognize this and their stupidity publicly, on official forums. It will teach them to be dumb

1 Like
3694

So I am seeing @CCP_Falcon had the time to lock a thread, but still no time to make an exciting announcement regarding the end of blackout…

3695

Null sec hasn’t written it yet.

3696

That’s fair, it is your right as a consumer…

4 Likes
3697

I disagree, I think the collapse in the money supply was worrying CCP. That kind of thing doesn’t end well. Just a a rapidly rising money supply can cause inflation and be a serious problem for a game, the opposite is true too.

2 Likes
3698

Biggest problem is CCP just turned control of the game over to 12% or so of its population.

That will cost them a lot more in the long term than the BO ever would have.

3699

IDK Perhaps dealing with bots with a generic action should be forbidden.

Maybe that way, any further exercise applied to the many will be treated as such and not used as void argument to justify selfish agendas.

There are tools designed specifically to deal with illegal actions. I don’t know if any other game has ever done anything similar, openly affecting a bunch of people in pursuit of a handful, in case it’s true that BO was about bots.

I suggest CCP to finally inform if this episode was against bots because TBH I’ve heard it many times but not from them.
AFAIK, they stated that it caused some problems to bots but they adapted. Afterwards, CCP was silent about the topic.

Also, CCP should limit itself to the existing tools and design new ones if necessary to deal with illegal actions but never shall these pests be dealt with in-game if it’s not direct to the account in question.

If bots are dealt with in regular maintenance, why people insist that BO was an action against them?

I think that BO was never about bots unless CCP says so, and if someone has anything about it, please link it.

The rest is strict BS.

1 Like
3700

I’m an early 2004 pilot who has seen a lot of change in the game.

I celebrated as we passed 10,000 concurrent users and I watched space fill up and stories get written, I have many of my own.

I’ve been a fan of bringing no local to nulsec but I think I misunderstood how the player base has changed since the accumulation of changes and adaptations to the game over the years.

I remember the focus back in the day was “how do we get people to use Nulsec”? The answer seemed to be “We need to improve the risk : reward ratio in nulsec versus other parts of space”.

The removal of Blackout is a recognition that the game has changed -

  1. The balance of power in play styles has gone from organized PVP to organized scale PVE.
  2. The number of hulls to fly has grown dramatically but scale PVE has made the top tier ships more affordable to all.
  3. Nulsec can pack more people into a solar system to generate income than in the old days. I remember fights over which Alliance mate got to the best ratting space.
  4. Players have always put earning ISK first and PVP creators need a reason to fight to drag their members into big F1 pushing fights.
  5. I remember what happened to Corporations and Alliances when an active FC would leave. The only people worth recruiting are active FC’s but they need something to go hunt/kill/destroy.
  6. The power of numbers has gone from n+1, to n+1 x S plus T+1 (where “S” is Skill Injectors and “T” is Titans)
  7. Eve online media is dominated by the leaders of nulsec blocks and they set the narrative for many of the players who end up on CSM – back in the day there was CAOD, your Alliance web site and a couple of others.
  8. There is too much information – I can use 4 or 5 third party sites, that are outside of Alliances, to dramatically reduce risk to me in space and opposing FC’s can do the same using even more powerful tools to assess if it is worth “taking the fight”.

So, “what do?”

At this point the more ideas we can stick on the ceiling the more likely CCP will land on something good. I would make a terrible game designer but I’ve been a pretty good supporter of this game for 15 years of my life; maybe some of the stuff below is of use, I’m not sure any of it is new but I wanted my turn to spitball.

  1. Vary the location of faucets, so that players have to move around to get the gold – in Regions and across the Galaxy.
  2. Bring back Region specific resources to create manufacturing bottlenecks, so that players have to fight for dominance of the most important resources (Super production should strongly rely on this mix).
  3. Introduce a randomized comet/meteor etc that when mined produces extreme wealth – hide it from player knowledge so that players have to find it – Gold Rush.
  4. Stay strong on enabling whale hunting, so that there is a risk to mining – balance the Rorq to be more easily engaged but leave its reward high.
  5. Stagnation - All that will fracture a 1,000 Titan entity is internal division. A possible side effect of the black out is that players responded to a wealth nerf by leaving the “safe” nulsec areas and going back to high sec, or leaving the game entirely. Facilitate the building of nations in space but ensure mechanics allow for betrayal and provide a more equal wealth in other parts of space – do not confuse a desire to nation build with a desire to maximize ISK. Find ways to make wielding a 1,000 Titan force more difficult, or make 1,000 Titans more vulnerable in a fight than 200 Titans with 800 subcaps – introduce dependencies (and maybe changeable “weather effects” to randomize the field of battle). Is it technically possible to limit the mass allowed in a certain piece of space?
    I haven’t posted in a number of years but the recent failure cascade has alarmed me sufficiently to grab the mic.

Q

10 Likes
3701

Or making them as expensive (isk or things) as fortizers to maintain combat ready with a long warm up cycle if they are mothballed. Model the game more like a real navy-- big ships cost a lot of upkeep and aren’t good at all things.

2 Likes
3702

As Blackout arrived my 12month sub just ran out…
Did single month sub in fear that blackout will end quick.
Now I was so close to do another 12 months but things got cleared out!

Bye everybody!
o7

1 Like
3703

There’s a lot to fix but I suggest to start with SOV which should only be bestowed according to activity.
More activity= bigger stuff, bigger ships and bigger fights and the right to expand but with limits. Forget entosis. Entities should only relinquish SOV when they cannot muster the required numbers and or indexes to hold it.

If donutbrellas are an issue as everyone claims, end the SOV crap and force ownership to divide. It’s better to have more entities actively working for their property, giving new players something to look up to, than the stagnation itch no one seems to scratch on the spot.

1 Like
3704

I’m trying real hard to not be like “them”. Them being those not so smart people who rejoiced when the pve players threatened to unsub when black out happened.

It’s harder than I thought. What happened to all that ADAPT and HTFU? Or is that just for other people?

Many have not learned the primary lesson in of eve. It’s not “don’t fly what you can’t afford to lose” as many think, it’s “never ever celebrate ccp screwing over people you don’t like, because you WILL be next and you WILL look like and idiot when you cry tears as salty as the people you told to HTFU”…

Ccp giveth and ccp nerfeth away.

5 Likes