| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (27)

Posted: Sep 4th 2011 6:17PM Khai mann said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
A problem in 0.0 is the loot you get from faction rats. I remember that first time I lived in 0.0 I killed over 20 faction spawns and didn't even get 1 single faction mod.... That's just stupid. Faction rats should have a higher chance of dropping good loot.

Maybe a good idea might also be to expand NPC 0.0 and create low-sec islands in the middle of 0.0.

Posted: Sep 4th 2011 6:23PM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Khai mann We used to call them "tag and ammo spawns" when we lived in nullsec because that's all they bloody dropped :p
Reply

Posted: Sep 4th 2011 6:32PM EdmundDante said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Some cool ideas. It's going to be hard for some players to let go of "local" but adding more tactical choices for scouting etc - should make the game more interesting and have more variety than just a fleet of BS's versus BS's or Super Carriers vs Super Carriers.

What would make nul-sec PvP even more interesting is if the frigs became more dangerous to CAPS (you know, like what you see in Battlestar Galactica or Star Wars). Then a large alliance sending out a bunch of super-carrier pilots wouldn't be enough. You would require more fleet disposition, anti-frig ships to protect the caps. It would allow less skilled pilots to be useful too ...

Posted: Sep 4th 2011 6:47PM EdmundDante said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
To expand just a little on the frigs good against caps idea. Here would be a breakdown.

Caps (and their drones) good against: other caps & BS's, terrible at frigs and Cruisers doing almost no damage at all.

BS's somewhat good against caps, good against other BS's, somewhat good against cruisers, terrible at frigs.

Cruisers good against Cruisers, somewhat good against BS's, very good against destroyers, so-so against frigs.

Dessies frig killers

Frigs - very good against caps and Battleships. Somewhat good against Cruisers. Awful against Dessies and Frigs fitted anti-frig.

So there you go. This setup would lead to far more interesting big fleet engagements than the simple slugfest that goes on now. Combined Arms would be far more important - not any one ship type would command a field. Scouting would become even more important. Variety of ships more important.


Posted: Sep 5th 2011 3:34AM Unverfied B said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@EdmundDante
There are already cap-killer frigs... stealth bombers. When i was still playing we've done a couple of 70+ SB hotdrops (using BO jump portals) on enemy caps and killed quite a few carriers/dreads at some point, almost got a mothership too but a hac gang saved it.

Added bonus points for having 70 stealthed pilots in local driving enemy FCs crazy :P
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 10:13AM EdmundDante said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Unverfied B To some degree you are correct - but Stealth Bombers take some training to get into (covert cloaking etc) and are not as inexpensive as normal frigs.

My thoughts are that there needs to be a stronger emphasis in some way of caps being vulnerable to Frigs. If you're following me. So that large fleet battles include the use of Frigs and in fact - frigs ought to be the ships you see the most of - instead tons of caps or even tons of BS's. You could do it by altering the ISK - but it would seem more tactically interesting if you tweaked the PvP dynamics more - by making normal frigs - even Rifters - far more useful in a cap fight. For example - make caps far more susceptible to "rockets" - so any frig with rockets is going to get a huge multiple effect on caps -

The idea then is to create an engagement dynamic where you can't just bring caps on the field and win - you'll need to think about defending your caps heavily against a squad or two of frigs. And then if you bring dessies - you'll need to have ships that protect your dessies - and so on.

The big penalty will be bringing an imbalanced fleet ....



Reply

Posted: Sep 4th 2011 6:54PM EdmundDante said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Maurader and perhaps some newly introduced ships would allow PvE'rs to continue to enjoy their play without having a mixed fleet.

Posted: Sep 4th 2011 7:05PM heerobya said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
They have to figure out ways for the big players/corps/alliances to not notice and/or not care about average Joe who wants to make some more money and maybe even fight against other average Joes on equal footing.

Gate camps have to go, one way or another. The entire idea of only have one way in or out of a system that is easily scanned/camped is absurd. You are either on the "approved" list or get to see the cloning facility. Why? Because camps are bored stupid.

They also need to COMPLETELY and I use all caps for a valid reason, COMPLETELY revamp the CC mechanics that make it impossible to ever run away from anyone... ever...

I should be able to jump into a dangerous system, see there is trouble and get the hell out of there, if they even choose to come after my small little self. Now? Scanned, tagged, locked down, podded.

Big fleets and attack groups aren't looking to jump in and run, to just make it through.

It's sad and funny really, there is NOTHING open and vast about EvE because of the gate system and how they do CC and as the article states, the GOD mode of /local.

They really need to remove/completely change the CC and completely remove gate travel - free form flight in/between systems.

That right there solves a lot of problems and would/will allow small fish to slip in and out not harming anyone, but still give the danger of getting caught/having to make a run for it.

Posted: Sep 4th 2011 9:26PM psycros said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@heerobya : gates still make sense for ships that don't have jump drives. For that matter so do civilian carriers that could transport you and your ship between systems: why must it only be lowsec vessels that can do this? What has never made sense is the idea of an undefended but invincible stargate which anyone can camp at will. Why is this allowed? It completely destroys all suspension of belief. Shouldn't CONCORD or somebody be insuring free passage for all? If not, then shouldn't their be a mechanism by which a corp can legitimately "own" a system, perhaps aligning itself with an empire or independent faction? Or what about hiring NPC mercenaries to guard the gates, with their behavior configurable by a security officer or the like? So much in EVE has been broken, unfinished or unbalanced since launch, or simply makes no sense. Meanwhile the devs toil over a shooter that nobody will play, and a store that nobody wants. Sooner or later an EVE-like competitor will arise and do it right - and then its goodnight, CCP.
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 1:36AM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@heerobya I personally believe that the biggest change CCP could make to bring players into nullsec would be to make every stargate the size of a region-wide gate. When the choke-point gates were increased in size, all that happened was that the camps moved back to systems further inland. With no alternative way for the average pilot to get from that first system to others deeper in, most neutrals don't stand a chance of making it into nullsec.

Something severe also has to be done about warp disruption bubbles and interdictors. If you've ever led a PvP roam into nullsec, you'll know how pointless it is to lead a highly mobile gang when an interdictor pilot can click a button and half your gang is stuck at the gate. It's effortless, unbreakable warp disruption that even catches cloaked ships and guarantees pod kills. They can be smartbombed, but no gang is going to carry a smartbomb ship just to deal with standard interdictors.

If CCP wants more people to go to nullsec, they'll have to provide the average pilot with the means to actually get there. We can't all fly cloaked, interdiction-nullified strategic cruisers full of warp core stabilisers to get through camps.
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 4:17AM heerobya said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@psycros

No I'm saying remove gates... make every ship capable of either jumping itself OR make flight between systems free form - as in if you are in system A near planet X you just input a destination in a near by system, say station Y or planet W in system B and you align yourself and warp - just like inter-system travel.

That way there really are no choke points to deny entry/exit to a system and a good 60,70% of your game's content lol.

It's funny, in FFA games it always the community itself that denies the playerbase from ever expanding by all the a$$-hole behavior. Why Alliance members with 60+ million skill points should lock/scram/pod a 2-3 million SP newbie w/o an Alliance affiliation... just bored a$$holes.

Throw in things like ramming to bounce ships out of cloak etc. and it's very obvious how much work CCP still has to do, and yeah - completely wasting their time and money on cash shops and FPS no one will play.

They are stuck in the past, stuck in their own snobbery, something. The moment a viable competitor with a more modern take on things and focus come into the genere... bye bye.
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 12:46PM EdmundDante said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@heerobya It is to some extent showing that CCP has been skimming a little too much on the golden goose EVE game - to pay for developing to other game developments. Now - it is a smart move to attempt to expand your company - but two major game developments at once? With no guarantee that either will come to fruition?

In the meanwhile - EVE itself has been on a development diet. Nothing significant to write home about. Only recently do they seem to be getting around to much needed improvements/enhancements - after the huge broo haha over Incarna development - CCP claiming nothing else would be done for what? half a year to a year?

Clearly a cash shop has been planned for some time - and given Dust 514 is going to be ALL cash shop - and will be using the same currency as EVE ISK - who isn't fooled by the longterm agenda?

I'm not sure a cash shop is entirely bad for a game - but it is a slippery slope, that could lead to an MMO being all about spending more rather than just enjoying your alternate universe. It would need careful tuning - but if bean counters are in control of development goals - where do you think the priorities will be?

I know CCP will likely claim that over last a year or two that some major upgrades have taken place - but those of us who play every day - for example, in Faction Warfare - realize little has changed. Or who manufacture every day, we're using the same production system we used 2 years ago - next to nothing has changed.

The last big change in module types were in the rigs for small and medium. But what new changes has there been in modules? What new ship types have been introduced? Have they expanded their POS types or even graphics? What more has been done to planetary Interaction after the 2nd cycle they went through? They did two dev cycles and that was it? What about new PvP mechanics, new ways to engage your enemy - such as new weapon types are armor?

What seems to me is development has mostly been on life support - while a great deal of resources have been spent on DUST 514 and the other Vampire game they are developing - not to mention the new CASH shop and social Web tie in to the game - and API - all to make more money for the company but ignoring the actual meat and potatoes of the game itself.

My two cents - and probably worth that much as a comment.





Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 1:09PM Keeop said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@heerobya I agree with a lot that you have said, and while gate-camping is certainly nothing new, it is what it is and has been since 03. The one thing that always makes this ancient but somewhat solid argument flake is the fact that a 2-3 million sp player has no business in certain far-reaching sectors. None. If you're flying what you can afford to replace, and if you're avoiding end-game areas that aren't dominated by people who have been flying 8 years longer than you have, then you won't find yourself feeling emo when you get podded. Although there is an impression of 'sandbox' or 'open-world' to the game this doesn't mean you get to take your level 2 Warlock straight to the Lich King. Contrary to casual-player opinion Eve can be a tiered experience. Cheers.
Reply

Posted: Sep 6th 2011 8:36AM heerobya said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Keeop

Exactly. It's a tiered experience... but because there is no skill cap really and you don't actually actively gain skills you just... wait...

You will NEVER catch up in SP. Now, you don't have to, just have to catch up in enough skills to fly a decently fit ship you can afford to replace, but the guys with millions more SP can not only out fly you but also make a boat load more in income, so they out spend you.

It really is an incredible difficult game to get into, and just when you get to the point where you start to feel like a bad @$$ you realize you are not getting into any of the "fun" low/null sec for another few months and have nothing to do but grind ISK on missions or go get podded a lot in Frigates/T1 cruisers...

So unless they majorly and I mean majorly revamp everything.. it's exactly what Yukon Sam says:

Accept that everybody who wants to be in nullsec is already there, and move on.

After 6 months... Moving on... to not waste money on this quote "game" at all.
Reply

Posted: Sep 6th 2011 10:46AM Calfis said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@heerobya

I started in 2010 and I'm in nullsec as part of a player coalition. As long as you respect the pecking order you can move into nullsec and "move on up" through hard work and merit. Not all alliance leaders are from 2003 or 2004, in fact a lot of the big alliance leaders in my coalition are from around 2007.

As for why can't random Joe run into 0.0 without getting killed is because a lot of large alliances already have spy issues and issues with awoxers (friendlies who tackle other friendlies for hostile gangs). If you start letting every random person in then the security headaches would be magnified 10 fold. The way they see it, better to shoot everyone who isn't friendly than to deal with policing every person who wants in.

There are groups that disagree with this view of course, but they are in the minority and are almost always overshadowed by the big alliances in terms of military strength.
Reply

Posted: Sep 6th 2011 3:25PM Kalex716 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@EdmundDante

I think people are not giving the EVE playerbase themselves the credit we deserve...

Design intent by ccp is one thing, but how the players warp and twist features to their own devices is something else entirely.... It is the nature of the sand box for the players of EVE to game things so hard and bend them to the point of breaking that causes the futility of null sec to entirely be their own fault.

No matter what ccp tries to do to make null a place for everybody, you can rest assure the players themselves will break it so it only favors a semblance of exclusivity like it does today.
Reply

Posted: Sep 4th 2011 7:54PM Scuffles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I always considered the Chat to be a security issue.

But removing it only to convolved the game with a mechanism that provides the exact same intel ......

So the scouts will need to spend an extra week with a new skill in their queue ...... and we are right back to square one. Which begs the question.... why bother?

Sure right now anyone can do it .... and a week after they make the change anyone who still wants to do it will still be able to do it .......

And are they going to start up skills that block the skills that detect that which they removed?

Posted: Sep 4th 2011 11:26PM Seldra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh lol, for a second there I thought ccp would go crazy and make nullsec consensual pvp.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 1:05AM smg77 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Seldra
Why would they ever do anything that stupid?
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 11:20AM GW2waiting said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
*Disclaimer: I dont/wont play EVE so if I am off the mark, sorry in advance*

To all EVE players. Be very very careful what you wish for. At the moment EVE is renowned for it hardcore sandbox element, that "you never know what's round the corner" play style. From what I seen above, there are a few comments of suggesting toning down a few elements of the game to appeal to a more casual audience, or making it 'easier' to do this or that. This type of game modification is a slippery slope.

There is another saying "You dont know what you've got, til its gone". If you want to see where that slippery slope can lead, read the Massively article:

"The slippery slope: Analysing the decline of World of Warcraft "

Here was a game that on first release appealed to both types of gamers, the casual questers and the dungeon runners. As the years progressed, people started asking for harder content, and magically it appeared. Then players were saying it was too hard; so they nerf it. Then players were saying it was too easy; so they added harder Raids and dungeons; but people said it was inaccessible to casuals to get groups, so they added LFG and rage-filled PUGs became the norm.... etc etc etc...

Now WoW is a hodge-podge of endless gear grinding dungeons/raids and/or boring leveling content because the devs forgot the genisis of the original game and tried to please too many people and ended up pleasing no one.

From what I've seen, I think you have an amazing game, one that stands outside the norm...

Just be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.......

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW