[devblog] tech nerf

[Hilmar Keller]

However, you suggest to redistribute the resources:

This will only move the Goons around or whoever gets to own it.

Sounds to me you are doing
Attachment 3157
and think it is clever.

Your other suggestions are interesting, but I fear that it will lead to trench warfare and makes people turtle up in 0.0 where one can knock them down more easily.

Holy shit you're retarded. Did you bother to read the sentence which follows the sentence you quoted?

Basically, around Caldari space you'd have prom and tech. These two items would be the base for creating materials around Caldari Tech 2 products and weapon systems.

Boom. Tech is no longer a bottleneck for T2 production in general, just for Caldari products and weapon systems (I presume missiles). This makes it significantly less valuable.

E: Also, another boss-tier post from Zagdul, o7

[Whitehound [banned]]

This makes it significantly less valuable.

And the point of this is?

[ihaveahelmet]

And the point of this is?

The point, sir, is this:

Holy shit you're fucking retarded, never post again.

[Whitehound [banned]]

The point, sir, is this:

Holy shit you're fucking retarded, never post again.

No, you are. You want less fights over resources. Factional warfare is a fight over territory. 0.0 is a fight over resources.

You want to make 0.0 resources less significant in their value?

[Hilmar Keller]

No, you are. You want less fights over resources. Factional warfare is a fight over territory. 0.0 is a fight over resources.

You want to make 0.0 resources less significant in their value?

Key word there is 'resources' because right now there's only one resource in 0.0 worth fighting for and that's Tech. Zagdul proposes a lot of different resources (production, mining, moon goo) that are all worth fighting for.

Also, wow you're fucking retarded.

[Whitehound [banned]]

Key word there is 'resources' because right now there's only one resource in 0.0 worth fighting for and that's Tech. Zagdul proposes a lot of different resources (production, mining, moon goo) that are all worth fighting for.

Also, wow you're fucking retarded.

So over all your anger and frustration do you actually want to have less fights. You want to give everyone out there something of value and not just have one most valuable resource as it currently is. One that has caused many fights over the years.

Do you know what a retard is?

[Hilmar Keller]

So over all your anger and frustration do you actually want to have less fights. You want to give everyone out there something of value and not just have one most valuable resource as it currently is. One that has caused many fights over the years.

Do you know what a retard is?

Oh hey go lose a freighter to a solo Vaga in highsec and then argue that 0.0 would be better if that couldn't happen

[McDerp]

So over all your anger and frustration do you actually want to have less fights. You want to give everyone out there something of value and not just have one most valuable resource as it currently is. One that has caused many fights over the years.

Do you know what a retard is?

Whitehound

------

Also, love Zagdul's Ideas. Will they ever reach CCP's ears or will this stay in Kugu like most Ideas that were created here?

[Whitehound [banned]]

Oh hey go lose a freighter to a solo Vaga in highsec and then argue that 0.0 would be better if that couldn't happen

Quoting a retard! \o/

Whitehound

I was not asking you... Quoting another retard! \o/

THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT QUOTING RETARDS.

Quote me!! \o/

[Manfred Hideous]

Quoting a retard! \o/

I was not asking you... Quoting another retard! \o/

THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT QUOTING RETARDS.

Quote me!! \o/

Dude, you're not going to live this shitposting/freighter loss down quickly. Step back, take a deep breath, and for god's sake don't go to the movies.

[ihaveahelmet]

Dude, you're not going to live this shitposting/freighter loss down quickly. Step back, take a deep breath, and for god's sake don't go to the movies.

Don't listen to him, Whitehound. Go to the movies. Maybe you'll get shot in the face!

[Phineas Freak]

Don't listen to him, Whitehound. Go to the movies. Maybe you'll get shot in the face!

how inappropriate of you, hang your helmet in shame!
and whitehound should just join any dayz server with his kugu name.

do this like real men would do. just you, an axe, and zombies @ dawn.

[Mira Z]

Basically... It does it all.

Not quite: You'll still have to introduce mechanisims to make it easier to build shit in 0.0 like more manufacturing slots in outposts and such. Industrial system upgrades would be a good idea too, especially if they forced alliances to make a choice between industrial capability and military capability. Otherwise people will continue to simply export raw materials to Jita.

Personally I'd include an inefficiency factor in the calculation of sov index - the more space you hold the harder it is get indexes up to 5, or possibly the further away as system is from the centre of your holdings the harder it is to get up to 5. The fringes of a really big space empire should be especially vulnerable to being raided and having people make off with your stuff.

[Hilmar Keller]

Personally I'd include an inefficiency factor in the calculation of sov index - the more space you hold the harder it is get indexes up to 5, or possibly the further away as system is from the centre of your holdings the harder it is to get up to 5.

The workaround to that is having a collection of alliances (Goons1, Goons2, Goons3) holding pieces of sov. Yeah, it seems ass-backward, but CCP has always been hesitant to impose hurdles on large alliances because it's too easy to metagame your way over them.

[Mira Z]

The workaround to that is having a collection of alliances (Goons1, Goons2, Goons3) holding pieces of sov. Yeah, it seems ass-backward, but CCP has always been hesitant to impose hurdles on large alliances because it's too easy to metagame your way over them.

I'm not 100% convinced that spliting up your alliance like that would work in the long term. People being people, and the Internet being the Internet, the leadership of Goons2 and Goons3 would probably start feeling resentful about being pushed around by the leadership of Goons1.

I guess they could always form a council? or something like that...

[kiresays]

Zagdul I've been trying desperately for the past few minutes to find holes to shoot in your ideas, but haven't been able to. You should send your shit to the CSM's you know and see what they think about it.

[tgr]

Personally I'd include an inefficiency factor in the calculation of sov index - the more space you hold the harder it is get indexes up to 5, or possibly the further away as system is from the centre of your holdings the harder it is to get up to 5. The fringes of a really big space empire should be especially vulnerable to being raided and having people make off with your stuff.

I hate it whenever this kind of suggestion rears its head.

[ranbo das]

I'm not 100% convinced that spliting up your alliance like that would work in the long term. People being people, and the Internet being the Internet, the leadership of Goons2 and Goons3 would probably start feeling resentful about being pushed around by the leadership of Goons1.

Except the leadership of Goons1-3 would probably be the same people. There's not much reason to not just use alts to lead these corps and treat them as one unit. Same services, same leaders, just more hassle for the players to get around in-game mechanics.

[Malcanis]

Except the leadership of Goons1-3 would probably be the same people.

Exactly.

[Jacabon Mere]

Except the leadership of Goons1-3 would probably be the same people. There's not much reason to not just use alts to lead these corps and treat them as one unit. Same services, same leaders, just more hassle for the players to get around in-game mechanics.

Its quite the logistical nightmare as well. Pos's, JB's, corp hanger segregation. i guess it will make leadership/logistics have 3 x as many alts. Yeah probably a solid plan for some more money for ccp.

[Whitehound [banned]]

Except the leadership of Goons1-3 would probably be the same people. There's not much reason to not just use alts to lead these corps and treat them as one unit. Same services, same leaders, just more hassle for the players to get around in-game mechanics.

Why so complicated? Replace Goons1, Goons2, Goons3 with Goons, TEST and PL and reread the comments.

[tgr]

The reason I hate it whenever this idea crops up is, we have this in the game already. The CFC is run by us goons, and all the small alliances which own the various regions can be thought of as "goons1 goons2 goons3".

Or were you thinking of making the act of holding a whole region require multiple alliances, too? One constellation pr alliance before the costs escalate?

[Hilmar Keller]

Why so complicated? Replace Goons1, Goons2, Goons3 with Goons, TEST and PL and reread the comments.

Then it would be Goons1-3, TEST1-3, and PL1-3.

Get out of this thread please.

[Whitehound [banned]]

Then it would be Goons1-3, TEST1-3, and PL1-3.

Get out of this thread please.

TEST..1..2..3 *lol*

Yes, that could work.

[Mira Z]

I hate it whenever this kind of suggestion rears its head.

What a coincidence...

[Night]

Except the leadership of Goons1-3 would probably be the same people. There's not much reason to not just use alts to lead these corps and treat them as one unit. Same services, same leaders, just more hassle for the players to get around in-game mechanics.

Not even that. Most of these other alliances could be purely notional, with maybe 25 or 40 actual characters, alts of the original leadership. There's no reason to put actual people in them, you can just populate their space with people from the real alliance and use people from the real alliance to fight their wars.

[tgr]

What a coincidence...

It's a shit idea, it's been a shit idea the 12938752 other times it's been proposed, and it's been debunked as a shit idea the same 12938752 times. This makes it 12938753 times.

[Grim]

It's a shit idea, it's been a shit idea the 12938752 other times it's been proposed, and it's been debunked as a shit idea the same 12938752 times. This makes it 12938753 times.

It is a shit idea. People shouldnt be punished for owning too much space.

That being said, I would like to see more incentive to be active in the space you own.

[Zagdul]

Not quite: You'll still have to introduce mechanisims to make it easier to build shit in 0.0 like more manufacturing slots in outposts and such. Industrial system upgrades would be a good idea too, especially if they forced alliances to make a choice between industrial capability and military capability. Otherwise people will continue to simply export raw materials to Jita.

Personally I'd include an inefficiency factor in the calculation of sov index - the more space you hold the harder it is get indexes up to 5, or possibly the further away as system is from the centre of your holdings the harder it is to get up to 5. The fringes of a really big space empire should be especially vulnerable to being raided and having people make off with your stuff.

See that would come with my next expansion where I iterate on outposts.

Step one is adjusting moons and the process by making it valuable.

The following patch I'd introduce pirate platform upgrades for outposts and nerf the shit out of the mineral costs, by half, maybe more. The blueprints are found in 10/10 PLEX's.

Angel platform upgrades that boost manufacturing and office slots.
Blood - manufacturing and refining.
Sansha - Manufacturing and Research
Serpentis - office slots and refining.
Guristas - Research and Office slots.

[Mira Z]

It is a shit idea. People shouldnt be punished for owning too much space.

Why? In general, gameplay mechanics are all about trade offs.

The way I would envision it, is that if you hold a lot of space, you have access to a lot of raw materials through the moons you hold and such. If you hold only a little space, you wouldn't have nearly as much raw materials but you'd be able to stretch them further because you'd get better bonuses to industry and the like. It's not about penalising big alliances, it's about giving small alliances a boost.

As an aside, an alliance of alts wouldn't be a workaround because the alts wouldn't have a sufficient activity level to push the sov level all the way up.

[Whitehound [banned]]

It is a shit idea. People shouldnt be punished for owning too much space.

That being said, I would like to see more incentive to be active in the space you own.

Agreed. One should not be punished for holding too much space, but one should also not be rewarded for it. Sov mechanic allows to turn an empty piece of space into a strategic buffer zone. Without sov mechanics would it only be an empty piece of space and without anyone having a particular advantage.

[tgr]

Why? In general, gameplay mechanics are all about trade offs.

The way I would envision it, is that if you hold a lot of space, you have access to a lot of raw materials through the moons you hold and such. If you hold only a little space, you wouldn't have nearly as much raw materials but you'd be able to stretch them further because you'd get better bonuses to industry and the like. It's not about penalising big alliances, it's about giving small alliances a boost.

As an aside, an alliance of alts wouldn't be a workaround because the alts wouldn't have a sufficient activity level to push the sov level all the way up.

At which point does "small alliances with benefits" turn into "big alliances with impairments"?

[Mira Z]

At which point does "small alliances with benefits" turn into "big alliances with impairments"?

It depends entirely on how bitter they are

[tgr]

One constellation, then.

[Grim]

Why? In general, gameplay mechanics are all about trade offs.

The way I would envision it, is that if you hold a lot of space, you have access to a lot of raw materials through the moons you hold and such. If you hold only a little space, you wouldn't have nearly as much raw materials but you'd be able to stretch them further because you'd get better bonuses to industry and the like. It's not about penalising big alliances, it's about giving small alliances a boost.

As an aside, an alliance of alts wouldn't be a workaround because the alts wouldn't have a sufficient activity level to push the sov level all the way up.

A small alliance in need of more materials (moons, ratting space, etc.) should be forced into expanding to meet the needs of its members. On the flip side a bloated alliance with too much space and too few active members tends to lose its space (xdeath comes to mind). The way it works now is pretty decent. I wouldn't trust CCP to make it any better.

[Zagdul]

Why? In general, gameplay mechanics are all about trade offs.

The way I would envision it, is that if you hold a lot of space, you have access to a lot of raw materials through the moons you hold and such. If you hold only a little space, you wouldn't have nearly as much raw materials but you'd be able to stretch them further because you'd get better bonuses to industry and the like. It's not about penalising big alliances, it's about giving small alliances a boost.

As an aside, an alliance of alts wouldn't be a workaround because the alts wouldn't have a sufficient activity level to push the sov level all the way up.

You must not pay sov bills. You're already punished for holding space.

[Zagdul]

Oh, for dynamic resources...

The only thing that should be dynamic is the security status of a system. Players should have an effect on this. Highly ratted systems would go up in security status thus also lowering it's ratting value. Null sec would never go above 0.0 however.

Abandoned systems would be pirate heavens cause well, they're not policed.

[Grim]

Oh, for dynamic resources...

The only thing that should be dynamic is the security status of a system. Players should have an effect on this. Highly ratted systems would go up in security status thus also lowering it's ratting value. Null sec would never go above 0.0 however.

Abandoned systems would be pirate heavens cause well, they're not policed.

Crop rotation.

[Mira Z]

Oh, for dynamic resources...

The only thing that should be dynamic is the security status of a system. Players should have an effect on this. Highly ratted systems would go up in security status thus also lowering it's ratting value. Null sec would never go above 0.0 however.

Abandoned systems would be pirate heavens cause well, they're not policed.

But people will have to rat to keep the military index up, no? Or is that intentional?

[Hilmar Keller]

But people will have to rat to keep the military index up, no? Or is that intentional?

Sounds to me like Zagdul's proposal would do away with the 'military index' altogether. It encourages people to use the space they have instead of just the one -0.9 system in the constellation.

[Teh Ashen]

Make null sec better than Jita. That is all.

[Whitehound [banned]]

You must not pay sov bills. You're already punished for holding space.

It is not enough. ISK can be accumulated over time, but player numbers cannot. You hold space with the players you have, but you should not hold it with your wallet. It should not be possible to hold 0.0 space with ISKs made in high-sec for example. It is too weird. Nor should one be forced to pay for what one owns. Then there is the problem of holding actual space versus just holding the perimeter with the advantage being on the side of the larger alliances.

[Grim]

It is not enough. ISK can be accumulated over time, but player numbers cannot. You hold space with the players you have, but you should not hold it with your wallet. It should not be possible to hold 0.0 space with ISKs made in high-sec for example. It is too weird. Nor should one be forced to pay for what one owns. Then there is the problem of holding actual space versus just holding the perimeter with the advantage being on the side of the larger alliances.

You hold space by defending it. If your 20 jita-rich spartans can defend entire regions knock yourself out.

Money pays for upkeep. Its the people that allow you to take and hold it.

[Zagdul]

It is not enough. ISK can be accumulated over time, but player numbers cannot. You hold space with the players you have, but you should not hold it with your wallet. It should not be possible to hold 0.0 space with ISKs made in high-sec for example. It is too weird. Nor should one be forced to pay for what one owns. Then there is the problem of holding actual space versus just holding the perimeter with the advantage being on the side of the larger alliances.

Yeah, you're going on block. You're just too dumb.

[Teh Ashen]

It is not enough. ISK can be accumulated over time, but player numbers cannot. You hold space with the players you have, but you should not hold it with your wallet. It should not be possible to hold 0.0 space with ISKs made in high-sec for example. It is too weird. Nor should one be forced to pay for what one owns. Then there is the problem of holding actual space versus just holding the perimeter with the advantage being on the side of the larger alliances.

Players accumulated over time, I believe they call that growth. A difficult concept for some alliances that are shit. Do you belong to the southern bloc?

[Whitehound [banned]]

You hold space by defending it. If your 20 jita-rich spartans can defend entire regions knock yourself out.

Money pays for upkeep. Its the people that allow you to take and hold it.

No. Saying "20 jita-rich spartans" and then "its the people" is not the same. You do want fresh alliances with big numbers coming into 0.0 and fighting the good fight rather than seeing the same old dickheads with ever growing wallets dictating their way.

It is why CCP is now nerfing Technetium, when they should perhaps just limit the wallets.

[Zagdul]

Sounds to me like Zagdul's proposal would do away with the 'military index' altogether. It encourages people to use the space they have instead of just the one -0.9 system in the constellation.

Kind of... The military index still exists, but only to support the strategic index, no longer a factor on which military upgrades can be installed.

Just activity in a system should drive the security status up in my opinion. Haven't fully wrapped my head around it, but I feel that ratting in a single system is a dumb idea and people should be encouraged, not forced to rat in other systems.

Grim hit the nail on the head with the crop rotation comment.

[Whitehound [banned]]

Yeah, you're going on block. You're just too dumb.

I see you are giving up. (=> Retard)

Players accumulated over time, I believe they call that growth. A difficult concept for some alliances that are shit. Do you belong to the southern bloc?

No. One can sit in high-sec and make more and more ISKs. This does not get anyone to follow you. ISKs can grow in your wallet almost limitless, but keeping players together when there are not trillions of them and they do not drop as loot or being given as rewards is different.

[Zagdul]

Would have to go hand in hand with a nerf of refining or changes how production works, otherwise one could create minerals just by running manufacturing lines.

Tag manufcatured material with the alliance/corp it was built by. They've got the 64bit DB, it can handle this now.

then, add a column that now identifies the refining index on it. This would add maybe a quality to items and not just a meta level. Potentially down the road iterating on this and adding ships that get a slight benefit by being built in sov V systems.

Fuck, this is the new 'tier' system. Since they want to remove it from the way you skill and how you get in to the ships. Directly apply the tier level to the manufacturing process.

[Drooling Idiot]

Just do away with the indices in favor of influence. That way multiple alliances in the same area would conflict. Get rid of fixed sov and label it as controlled by whoever has the largest influence. Ratting/mining builds influence and it trickles into adjacent systems. TrueSec decreases as you shoot all the rats. Tower fuel consumption or extraction rate could vary based on the influence. Owning a premium moon on the other side of the map would be far less beneficial. Zagdul's idea with each R64 being used for each race would help as well.

Make stations mobile and towers scalable in size. Then allow arrays to be plugged into stations and towers to upgrade number of slots. Station upgrades would make slots faster and allow more arrays to be installed. That way you could turn those 10 useless research slots into 10 offices if you wanted. Maybe allow simple and complex reactors to be added to stations to perform reactions?

Moons would be worth far more to the people that lived near them so they would fight for the moons. No extremely annoying timers to deal with. To take a region you would actively deny the other group access to it as you build your own influence.