Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PracticalTechnicality]

I do not think either the dissolution of sov nor the removal of jump drives will particularly skew the balance of power.  Concentrate it?  Force it to form more widespread, less regulated coalitions?  Certainly.  But the one thing CCP cannot nerf is organisational ability, and current groups have it in spades. 

A serious shake up of the meta is something even those in power in null are hungry for - after all, all of them started in similar ways, starry eyed hopefuls aiming to take stars for themselves.  Removing jump drives and sov will do little but make holding power more painful at all levels, with the current disorganised complainants finding it even harder to get a foothold as the entities large enough take out their frustrations on anyone who dares to try and capitalise on their logistical exposure. 

We need some iterative thinking - blue sky end goal with an iterative road map from the here and now.  Removal of local is something I support, jump drives could be a lot more situational - maybe with some form of 'jump point' in systems that has to be away from celestial objects (or beyond the orbital path of the outermost) like in some other scifi - forcing people to form up to defend jump points and making intel more than a 'X alliance went shopping and jumped home - welp' feed of pointless text.

Space?  Well, I have little to no desire to hold space, but I have a vested interest in seeing certain people continue to do so, so changes there I would like to be clear, concise and communicated MONTHS before their final form is deployed.  No stealth patching, no 'features' - this kind of shake up affects everyone.  This means ccp doing more than their usual obfuscation to slow down adoption of optimal strategies to game new content - it requires the development of sov content that inherently derives from the intentions of those taking/holding/defending space - a human element that only high penetration intel of the opposition can give a perfect algorithm to (and even then one which is subject to change). 

Now this is basically just a requirements analysis - with some very shaky prepositions.  But I wholeheartedly oppose the institution of sov removal or any other form of 'ad hoc' null - it will fix nothing, remove a financial pressure from the big boys and they will continue to be the most driven and organised force - with even more reason to persecute high sec thinking 'they are to blame for this'.  More carrot, less stick, better design, less dreaming - this should be a CCP mantra at this point. 

[Publius Valerius]

@PracticalTechnicality

Sorry for any typos:

I dont think anybody had talk about removal of sov mechanic. I even dont think this is possible, as the current interest of most people is in that direction. My critique is that CCP fundamentally hadnt understand anarchy and individual motivations.

I do not think either the dissolution of sov nor the removal of jump drives will particularly skew the balance of power.  Concentrate it?  Force it to form more widespread, less regulated coalitions?  Certainly.  But the one thing CCP cannot nerf is organisational ability, and current groups have it in spades. 

This is one the many problems of "the way of thinking" I see. Which sees again the world in a macro-macro view (tongyistic), in other words: Group X vs. Group Y; instate of individuals in a group vs. individuals in another group. I know it sounds weird. Let me explain.

As I said here: In the latest battles I felt nothing. Zero. I was even irritated when people cheer to loud (as it fucking made my hear bleed ), when he capital was going down. Even if it makes great PR, for me it was just a hanger clean out (and now, I just ramp up stuff... before I leave most likely forever.). All the time I only thought "why Iam here? And why should I care?". I was almost close to: "What Iam doing with my live?" As mention before in this thread as well as here: I would love if CCP finds a way to make me care about stuff. Like for example: "Group/alliance X vs group/alliance Y", or as you mention "a serious shake up of the meta", but I doubt it. As it doesnt effects me as player or my char, thats the sad thing. And this is the micro-level in which CCP needs to think: Individuals. As for me, as I told; I just need new dead threats, and I need new incentive to care about stuff. But as I said in the other topic: IT IS JUST ME.


Off topic. Does someone goes to Fanfest? If so can he/she ask the "economist guy" how the total amount of money in circulation has change over time period of a year? Or to make it easier, lets say this (all for the period of a year):
What was the total amount of money/isk in circulation?
What was the average velocity of money/isk?
What was the sum of all traded goods times the price (price level) was, or lets say the real value of all transactions (or real GDP Q. What he likes the best.)?

In other word is this statement true:
M↑↑*V>P↑*Y↑ (over the last year)

A flood↑↑ of isk** on one side and on the other a weaker grow in the price level↑ and real value of all transactions↑ (or real value of final expenditures): Aka inflation. Or even short: Those he thinks there is to much isk in the system?



____
** luckily without any grow in the velocity of money (it is most likely constant).

Edit: Link.

[Lyn Farel]

Not surprising for WoD. Saw it coming from miles away, like most people.

Too bad, no malkavian with road signs obsessions for me then. :/

While I can't claim to be a total Vampire the Masq fanboy, I can at least say I have enjoyed the few times I've played it.  I think overall it's a good IP and it deserves a good dev team to give it a go in the MMO world.  I used to believe that CCP was that dev team.  What little tidbits they did let leak gave me hope.  The persistent threat of violence much like the EVE universe along with the sense of unknown that I think CCP are good at putting into their games fit well into a Vampire universe.  That being said, everything outside of the actual GAME side of these games appears to be one giant pile of wankfail and I don't see that improving anytime soon.  I think CCP learned A lesson during the whole mass protest, Incarna bomb but it remains to be seen if they learned the right lesson.

I think my biggest sadface is that outside of CCP, I can't think of a development studio that would do the storyline, gameplay and overall feel of a Vampire game well.

Yes, pretty much.

And I believe that they learned wrong.

breathe new life into the space-taking game of EVE (which has become tired and old, even for the entities that do it).

I've been under the impression that Burn Jita, Blue Donut, et cetera are things precisely because the sovereignty system is out of step with the realities of nullspace, i.e. mechanics that were built for a playerbase a fraction as large and with a fraction of the resources. If we 'give the babies their bottle' in the short term by focusing on fixes such as expanding the cluster, increasing force projection costs, and utilizing a non-linear cost model for holding sovereignty, wouldn't that give the highsec boo-hoo'ers much more reason to focus on their affairs back at home?

Another option would be to eliminate the sov mechanic entirely, since it is a forced mechanic for placement of flags, starbase maintenance cost reduction, and services that could just as well be based upon the fact it is null-sec (versus additional investment).

Sov becomes a matter of living in the space you want to hold.  If you don't live in the system, then be prepared for others to occupy that space.

Yes, it could be the best way to go. I just guess that they also want to diminish a bit the potential for exploit that was already here before Dominion, with alliances big enough to control half or more of nullsec space. They wanted iirc to allow smaller entitites to get inside the business (and failed terribly at it).

That's the exact issue with FW. They went for too convoluted rules that eventually become so obnoxious that there are exploit holes everywhere. CCP has really well managed to create innovative, complex and deep mechanics, but never really managed to also make them elegant and simple.

I have an idea to go along with your removal of sov mechanics.

Remove local. All of it. Everywhere.

Trust me, once you're used to it, it makes the game way more interesting.

Jade was once in the first CSM a big proponent of it. It has its pros and cons, especially in high sec.

The way communication works in eve could still see a nice rework though, with more interesting mechanics. It could be different depending on the region you are in.

Now this is basically just a requirements analysis - with some very shaky prepositions.  But I wholeheartedly oppose the institution of sov removal or any other form of 'ad hoc' null - it will fix nothing, remove a financial pressure from the big boys and they will continue to be the most driven and organised force - with even more reason to persecute high sec thinking 'they are to blame for this'.  More carrot, less stick, better design, less dreaming - this should be a CCP mantra at this point.

So uh... let's not go this way because it might antagonize nullsec lobbies and make the community atmosphere even more obnoxious than it already is ? 

[Elmund Egivand]

So CCP is picking up speed in their fall from the heights.

Oh, and while we get rid of sov. mechanics, could we please get rid of (most) jump drives too?

I say, instead they should shorten the range of jump drives and make it alot more costly to actually activate. Even more fuel needed maybe?

[Lyn Farel]

Increasing fuel price would only favour rich groups (like nullsec alliances) compared to smaller entities for who isk might still pose a problem (unlike for nullsec alliances).

[kalaratiri]

Let's just make everything really cheap.

[Publius Valerius]

Just drive by and left a link: http://www.ccpgames.com/media/47894/ccp_hf_financial_statements_december_31_2013.pdf


/o/ Moves back into the shadows.

[Victoria Stecker]

Quickly heading off topic, but Eve's null issues imo have and always will be related to how easy it is to move things (ships, supplies), instantly from A to B with zero consequences or difficulty. 

Here on Earth, when you fought a war you had to make a decision between leaving your troops at home, or going off and attacking something.  Supply chains mattered.    These are things that were attacked and effected strategy.  Far off campaign? Better hope your neighbor doesn't attack.  Supply chain ambushed? Good luck feeding the front line. 

Being able to do those things instantly and safely in EVE is the sov problem to me.

There was a monster threadnaught over on FHC about a proposed limit to how far you could move jump-capable ships in a day. The problem ended up being something like this:

 - You can't live in Null without access to hisec. There is stuff you need in order to survive that simply isn't available in Null. You gotta be able to make Jita runs.
 - If you live in the far reaches of Null, this means doing JF runs that cross half the cluster or more each way.
 - Pandemic Legion bases out of Amamake because it's roughly the middle of the cluster, allowing them to move ships anywhere they want in the least amount of time possible.

Result: You're trying to hit a balance where you stop PL from being able to hot-drop the entire cluster without making it impossible to live in the far reaches of Null. This may not actually be possible.

Conclusion: You need to complete the Nullsec resource revamp, making it possible to actually live out there without doing JF runs to Jita, before you nerf the ability for ships to jump across the cluster.

NOTE: That was my conclusion. Other people disagreed and thought that you could stop force projection without making the far reaches of Null unlivable. I found their argument unconvincing.

[PracticalTechnicality]

Lyn, I do not appreciate the flippant disregard you showed my initial clarifying statements but will reply to clarify further.  Your listed reason is NOT the reason not to do it.  The reason NOT to do it is that there is no net gain in any form, with only the listed downside (not a reason in itself, but a part of the equation). 

We'd be trading one system with a minority in control for another system with a minority in control, with a vested interest in hugging close to borders as much as possible and ensuring no one gets beyond them. 

This is a process of constant analysis and an ever wary eye on the meta.  In the listed case, the meta would remain - deny access if you can't 100% exploit it.  100% exploitation is itself denial, but in the moon era we saw satraps set up to hold space but not the things of value in it, on behalf of the borderline monopolies.  This would do the same, as force projection would become a matter of numbers 24/7 even more so than now - just via conventional travel.

[Silas Vitalia]

Can we get a magic thread-master to split this baby, topic wise?


The null/sov/game issues can also be boiled down to "consequences." or 'lack' of consequences for current game mechanics.

Right now, there is no real consequence for hot dropping (in most cases).  There's no consequence for taking 100 capital ships from point A, safely and invulnerably moving them to point B, killing something, and then immediately moving safely back to point A.   Rinse, wash, repeat, anywhere in the galaxy.  No consequences, extremely little risk.

This is a broken game mechanic.


The proliferation of capital and supercapitals has also tilted the null gameplay probably irreversibly at this point.   If you remember the RTS game genre - they make it a point that nearly every 'unit' in the game has a purpose, rock -paper-scissors style.   These big capital fights have nearly nothing for smaller ships to do.   CCP should introduce gameplay elements for the smaller subcap pilots to participate in.  What that is, I don't know? Ship sub-systems, capturing mechanics, starbase mechanics, I don't know.  What you want is the ballet of a huge fleet battle, not 500 beached whales with everyone else not contributing anything except for bubbles.   Should a frigate be able to torpedo and destroy a giant ship like the death star? Probably not. But fleets of subcaps should be able to help pick off turrets or jump drives or something, I don't know.

In fictional naval battles (of the space variety), usually there's more of a 'dance' involved when two fleets are fighting. There's positioning, feints, exploiting weak points in their lines, etc.  Eve capital combat gets more into the 'ok everyone wait.... doomsday'  ok everyone waiiiiit...... doomsday"

I would love it if 'formations' gave you tactical bonuses or some other important thing that you had to try and maintain.  Keeping your fleet organized should matter somehow *shrug*

[Dessau]

Just drive by and left a link: http://www.ccpgames.com/media/47894/ccp_hf_financial_statements_december_31_2013.pdf


/o/ Moves back into the shadows.

Huh, so game and related sales are up, but that 2013 R&D expense really nuked the revenue last year. That couldn't all be WoD, but it's understandable why they'd want to cut it off I guess.

Then again I'm no expert at reading financials.

[Silas Vitalia]

Just drive by and left a link: http://www.ccpgames.com/media/47894/ccp_hf_financial_statements_december_31_2013.pdf


/o/ Moves back into the shadows.

Huh, so game and related sales are up, but that 2013 R&D expense really nuked the revenue last year. That couldn't all be WoD, but it's understandable why they'd want to cut it off I guess.

Then again I'm no expert at reading financials.

Plot Twist:  They donated the entire R&D Budget to Star Citizen kickstarter 

[Publius Valerius]

Just drive by and left a link: http://www.ccpgames.com/media/47894/ccp_hf_financial_statements_december_31_2013.pdf


/o/ Moves back into the shadows.

Huh, so game and related sales are up, but that 2013 R&D expense really nuked the revenue last year. That couldn't all be WoD, but it's understandable why they'd want to cut it off I guess.

Then again I'm no expert at reading financials.

Plot Twist:  They donated the entire R&D Budget to Star Citizen kickstarter 

Sadly I havent much time. Even if the assets for WoD before were to high: [irony] Hilmar can still do his job for two more years. As the company is still worth 48 mio.[/irony]

Facts I didint know:
-Hilmar is also the fourth largest shareholder. 
-They made 4.7mio 2012.
-As Dessau says: R&D 56mio 2013. The thing is, that the operating profit/lost would be even almost the same 2013 if we would take the 2012 research and development expenses (16mio). Marketing would eat up 2mio more, but other costs are lower.
-Cash and cash equivalents are going down for 7mio to 14mio.

Edit: Something I forgot to mention before. I think CCP should had aimed lower on the whole WoD thing. Like bring out first a cheap single player RPG, then take the profit and built another one. And again and again, then make a MMO. It would also help to see how much the IP is still in peoples mind. And that is whats counting almost the most, as both WoD and EVE are niche-games (for a small target audience. Which you have to find. And those early steps would help to collect those peoples.). EVE wasnt built in one day too. Second, the same counts for me for Valkyre. Moreover, that it unlike the others, it is even more niche, as there are currently just a hand full private OR owners. To niche your self in the corner, would be here less of a problem if you aim low. I hope those OR-players (moreover their money) will come 2015.... Which I doubt.

Edit2: With little more time in hand: They had to write in some past cost which now will not be capitalized in the future, those are listed as R&D cost. Cant think that all of it is WoD, maybe some Carbon or Dust stuff?

[Lyn Farel]

Lyn, I do not appreciate the flippant disregard you showed my initial clarifying statements but will reply to clarify further.  Your listed reason is NOT the reason not to do it.  The reason NOT to do it is that there is no net gain in any form, with only the listed downside (not a reason in itself, but a part of the equation). 

We'd be trading one system with a minority in control for another system with a minority in control, with a vested interest in hugging close to borders as much as possible and ensuring no one gets beyond them. 

This is a process of constant analysis and an ever wary eye on the meta.  In the listed case, the meta would remain - deny access if you can't 100% exploit it.  100% exploitation is itself denial, but in the moon era we saw satraps set up to hold space but not the things of value in it, on behalf of the borderline monopolies.  This would do the same, as force projection would become a matter of numbers 24/7 even more so than now - just via conventional travel.

Sorry then...

I have difficulties to follow your train of thoughts. :/

[PracticalTechnicality]

No worries, I'll try and structure my argument better in a little while; didn't realise it was coming across that way.