open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Blog: Upgrading and Upkeep of Sovereign Solar Systems in Dominion
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 87 88 89 90 [91] 92 93 94 95 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.09 23:50:00 - [2701]
 

Originally by: Tesal
Originally by: Itzena

To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money?


Nothing worth fighting for?

I don't like you. I want to see you die and your empire burn.


We goons have bath tubs to fill with sweet, sweet isk. These bathtubs are president Taft size and we really don't care what insults are thrown unless attacking you is going to steal your bathtub of isk to fill ours.

Static Kinetics
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.11.09 23:50:00 - [2702]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Static Kinetics

why are u such a ****ing ******, ccp said dominion would cause a mass exodus to 0.0, people here are saying that wont work cuz the upgrades are ****, and costly. your on here telling ppl to go to highsec if they dont like it? do you not see a conflict with your statement and with what ccp has said it is trying to accomplish?
do u think exodus part two, 0.0 players moving to highsec, is what ccp wants to see? because they have stated otherwise. why are you even posting here?

as a sidenote, vivian azure, you too are a ****ing ******, the world wars werent very big huh? the gulf war wasnt about resources huh? shut the **** up and quit posting, do you think throwing an emoticon after everything stupid you say makes it any less stupid?

and then theres the mutant, another person for the changes, another lvl 4 carebear that has never been to 0.0, stating lvl 4 missions (which are so abundant in 0.0) pay more than they do in highsec, you too, are an idiot.


I absolutely don't care about what CCP says or their intentions are nor I do care about their ill obsession to populate 0.0 with bears.

This is what they are going to release, this is what wil happen. Adapt or whine.


since you never plan on leaving highsec, and dont care about ccps "ill obsession", once again, why the **** are you posting here?
ps, these changes are not final, they are not on tq yet, and we are hoping to see ccp take some feedback from its player base and for them to do a bit of adapting too.

Alexander Knott
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.09 23:50:00 - [2703]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
This is what they are going to release, this is what wil happen. Adapt or whine.
That's a pretty stupid thing to post in a feedback thread.

Isaac Starstriker
Amarr
Frontier Venture
Posted - 2009.11.09 23:51:00 - [2704]
 

Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 09/11/2009 23:53:52
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Mobius Q
how can you say communism works when you don't use it


Oh, come on, saying that communism works without any reference to anything other than bad theory is an old and noble tradition among a certain class of idiots. How else do you explain the 1960s?


Communism does work actually...


If your not all a bunch of greedy, corrupt, self-centered people that care about only themselves. (Not that I'm accusing anyone of this)

(BTW, I'm being sarcastic, geez)

At this point, I'm not surprised CCP hasn't responded yet, they'll get flamed whether or not they make a serious/unserious/"troll" post.

Would you?

--Isaac

Zastrow
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.09 23:53:00 - [2705]
 

if you truly believe that the GREAT SANDBOX of 0.0 is intended for communist gameplay please stop posting forever

Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.09 23:56:00 - [2706]
 

Edited by: Crias Taylor on 09/11/2009 23:58:29
Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Mobius Q
how can you say communism works when you don't use it


Oh, come on, saying that communism works without any reference to anything other than bad theory is an old and noble tradition among a certain class of idiots. How else do you explain the 1960s?


Communism does work actually...


If your not all a bunch of greedy, corrupt, self-centered people that care about only themselves.


Get out of my space captilism game.

--Isaac

Vivian Azure
Posted - 2009.11.09 23:58:00 - [2707]
 

Originally by: Crias Taylor
Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Mobius Q
how can you say communism works when you don't use it


Oh, come on, saying that communism works without any reference to anything other than bad theory is an old and noble tradition among a certain class of idiots. How else do you explain the 1960s?


Communism does work actually...


If your not all a bunch of greedy, corrupt, self-centered people that care about only themselves.


Get out of my space captilism game.


Yeah, capitalism... and see where we currently ended up with it. Laughing

Kayl Breinhar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:02:00 - [2708]
 

Betting Vivian Azure is LadyScarlet. Just a hunch.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:02:00 - [2709]
 

Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Mobius Q
how can you say communism works when you don't use it


Oh, come on, saying that communism works without any reference to anything other than bad theory is an old and noble tradition among a certain class of idiots. How else do you explain the 1960s?


Communism does work actually...

If your not all a bunch of greedy, corrupt, self-centered people that care about only themselves. (Not that I'm accusing anyone of this)


Yes, if you're not human, communism works just fine. Termites love it, I hear.

Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
At this point, I'm not surprised CCP hasn't responded yet, they'll get flamed whether or not they make a serious/unserious/"troll" post.

Would you?


CCP devs made a few dozen posts in this thread, and only three or four got seriously ridiculed(and the ones that did deserved it). When they said things that weren't stupid, the thread was more or less fine with it.

And in conclusion, Carthago delenda est
YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:03:00 - [2710]
 

Originally by: Alexander Knott
That's a pretty stupid thing to post in a feedback thread.


Actualy not.

I do not imply any personal gains on new system and comment on raw functionality only. Truth hurts, I guess. I have already stated that space upgrades need to be tuned down first since they yield potentional to make 0.0 a grindfest or another moon goo.

All you can read from Goons is a cry for L4 rewards which is completely baseless, unconstructive and meaningless.




Gordon Reiss
Double-Down
Demolition Notice
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:06:00 - [2711]
 

Originally by: Vivian Azure

In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE.


Originally by: Vivian Azure

Are you really incapable of reading and understandug what I wrote there?

I said, that in 0.0 there SHOULD be 100% tax, not that we actually have 100% tax.
The statement that it works for us is in regard to the assets needed for fleet-ops being paid by the alliance.

Maybe that makes it more clear for you.


Not really. You were ambiguous at best, certainly not CLEAR. But then I'm guessing you're just a Troll anyway. And I'm bored, too.

Bored in 0.0.
Bored with incomprehensible blabbermouths & pseudo-mathematicians.
Bored waiting around for CCP to make the Mechanics match the Vision.

Isaac Starstriker
Amarr
Frontier Venture
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:12:00 - [2712]
 

Originally by: Isaac Starstriker


(BTW, I'm being sarcastic, geez)




Keyword of my post btw. Sheesh, some touchy people. Need some more love around here ConfusedRazz

Alice Celadon
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:13:00 - [2713]
 

Edited by: Alice Celadon on 10/11/2009 00:15:50
!THREAD SUMMARY!


I just read the whole thread. I'm going to try to be helpful.
Let's list the points that aren't being disputed in this thread.

1. Having upgraded space is going to be more costly than just holding sov.
2. Nullsec point source income (moon mining) is getting nerfed (CCP Soundwave's earlier comment about this is baffling).
3. Living in 0.0 will provide less(maybe equal) income for an individual player at much greater risk than living in 0.5+.


It is amazing that no one is arguing over #1 and #2. The Goons, PL, Atlas, AAA don't care that their almost effortless isk is getting the nerfbat. As an empire dweller myself, I find this acceptance of change both commendable and amazing (although it's understandable; I'd be bored silly with content-devoid moongoo after 5 years). If someone was taking the bat to my invention/manufacturing business, I would flip.

The rest of the arguments are over point #3, and boil down to the following two statements:

I. The greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.0 should exceed the greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.5+

VS.

II. 0.0 life should be about wars and conquest and danger, not about making isk. Individuals should be willing to sacrifice time and isk for the perk of living in 0.0

Finally, CCP seems to have already sided with I.(see CCP Chrons posts), but doesn't seem to have laid out a picture consistent with 0.0 being more attractive after a risk assessment than 0.5+.

Zastrow
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:13:00 - [2714]
 

Edited by: Zastrow on 10/11/2009 00:13:42
I'm going to plug myself now.

zastrow.nanoaugur.net

Look at my latest post. I drew up this sweet whiteboard during a discussion at the CSM3 summit about why 0.0 sucks. As you can see I not only made the same risk:reward (cost:benefit) argument that's been happening in this thread, but I made it 2 months ago and live in-person at ccp. So basically I represent your interests vote for me thanks

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:21:00 - [2715]
 

Originally by: Alice Celadon
Edited by: Alice Celadon on 10/11/2009 00:15:50
!THREAD SUMMARY!


I just read the whole thread. I'm going to try to be helpful.
Let's list the points that aren't being disputed in this thread.

1. Having upgraded space is going to be more costly than just holding sov.
2. Nullsec point source income (moon mining) is getting nerfed (CCP Soundwave's earlier comment about this is baffling).
3. Living in 0.0 will provide less(maybe equal) income for an individual player at much greater risk than living in 0.5+.


It is amazing that no one is arguing over #1 and #2. The Goons, PL, Atlas, AAA don't care that their almost effortless isk is getting the nerfbat. As an empire dweller myself, I find this acceptance of change both commendable and amazing (although it's understandable; I'd be bored silly with content-devoid moongoo after 5 years). If someone was taking the bat to my invention/manufacturing business, I would flip.

The rest of the arguments are over point #3, and boil down to the following two statements:

I. The greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.0 should exceed the greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.5+

VS.

II. 0.0 life should be about wars and conquest and danger, not about making isk. Individuals should be willing to sacrifice time and isk for the perk of living in 0.0

Finally, CCP seems to have already sided with I.(see CCP Chrons posts), but doesn't seem to have laid out a picture consistent with 0.0 being more attractive after a risk assessment than 0.5+.


Congratulations! :)

1) Strategical upgrades are a bit costly but base fee for sov holding depends on space upgrades. Those are not even on test server yet so until then, there is not much to discuss.
2) Moon mining isn't getting such nerf. R64 income is getting diluted into lower rarity moons. In worst case, you will have put up more mine arrays. In 'best' case there will be new bottleneck to milk.

Itzena
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:22:00 - [2716]
 

Edited by: Itzena on 10/11/2009 00:22:57
Originally by: Kayl Breinhar
Betting Vivian Azure is LadyScarlet. Just a hunch.

Nah, he's Jade Constantine.

E: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.

Kayl Breinhar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:23:00 - [2717]
 

Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 10/11/2009 00:23:47
Originally by: Alice Celadon
Edited by: Alice Celadon on 10/11/2009 00:15:50
!THREAD SUMMARY!


I just read the whole thread. I'm going to try to be helpful.
Let's list the points that aren't being disputed in this thread.

1. Having upgraded space is going to be more costly than just holding sov.
2. Nullsec point source income (moon mining) is getting nerfed (CCP Soundwave's earlier comment about this is baffling).
3. Living in 0.0 will provide less(maybe equal) income for an individual player at much greater risk than living in 0.5+.


It is amazing that no one is arguing over #1 and #2. The Goons, PL, Atlas, AAA don't care that their almost effortless isk is getting the nerfbat. As an empire dweller myself, I find this acceptance of change both commendable and amazing (although it's understandable; I'd be bored silly with content-devoid moongoo after 5 years). If someone was taking the bat to my invention/manufacturing business, I would flip.

The rest of the arguments are over point #3, and boil down to the following two statements:

I. The greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.0 should exceed the greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.5+

VS.

II. 0.0 life should be about wars and conquest and danger, not about making isk. Individuals should be willing to sacrifice time and isk for the perk of living in 0.0

Finally, CCP seems to have already sided with I.(see CCP Chrons posts), but doesn't seem to have laid out a picture consistent with 0.0 being more attractive after a risk assessment than 0.5+.

0.0 already *is* about sacrificing time (alarm clocking, POS timers) so...

Shawna Gray
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:24:00 - [2718]
 

Originally by: Tesal
Originally by: Itzena

To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money?


Nothing worth fighting for?

I don't like you. I want to see you die and your empire burn.


What empire? Do you mean the jumpbridge network?

Alice Celadon
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:31:00 - [2719]
 

Edited by: Alice Celadon on 10/11/2009 00:35:32
Edited by: Alice Celadon on 10/11/2009 00:33:05
Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Alice Celadon
Edited by: Alice Celadon on 10/11/2009 00:15:50
!THREAD SUMMARY!


I just read the whole thread. I'm going to try to be helpful.
Let's list the points that aren't being disputed in this thread.

1. Having upgraded space is going to be more costly than just holding sov.
2. Nullsec point source income (moon mining) is getting nerfed (CCP Soundwave's earlier comment about this is baffling).
3. Living in 0.0 will provide less(maybe equal) income for an individual player at much greater risk than living in 0.5+.


It is amazing that no one is arguing over #1 and #2. The Goons, PL, Atlas, AAA don't care that their almost effortless isk is getting the nerfbat. As an empire dweller myself, I find this acceptance of change both commendable and amazing (although it's understandable; I'd be bored silly with content-devoid moongoo after 5 years). If someone was taking the bat to my invention/manufacturing business, I would flip.

The rest of the arguments are over point #3, and boil down to the following two statements:

I. The greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.0 should exceed the greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.5+

VS.

II. 0.0 life should be about wars and conquest and danger, not about making isk. Individuals should be willing to sacrifice time and isk for the perk of living in 0.0

Finally, CCP seems to have already sided with I.(see CCP Chrons posts), but doesn't seem to have laid out a picture consistent with 0.0 being more attractive after a risk assessment than 0.5+.


Congratulations! :)

1) Strategical upgrades are a bit costly but base fee for sov holding depends on space upgrades. Those are not even on test server yet so until then, there is not much to discuss.
2) Moon mining isn't getting such nerf. R64 income is getting diluted into lower rarity moons. In worst case, you will have put up more mine arrays. In 'best' case there will be new bottleneck to milk.



(1) is something CCP said they want...for this improved space to cost more than regular space. I'm guessing it will, and no one's been arguing that much.

Hmm. Maybe (2) can be disputed. However, if CCP said "we're going to add three more layers to invention" and I had to treble my inventing to achieve the same revenue, I would call that a definite nerf (my profit would decline, btw). POSes need upkeep, maintenance, not to mention defending, so 2x or 3x as many...definite nerf. And again, no one's been arguing this point...(3) has been the hot issue for about 60 pages now.

Holly Hotdrop
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:44:00 - [2720]
 

Originally by: Anahid Brutus
**** it, i'll do your job for you.

First off, you need objectives that people want to fight over. Not useless grindy **** that absolutely NO ONE wants to do and can't even be fought over, so here's the solution:

- Leave R64s as large scale alliance objectives. If the income is too high(which it probably is), simply lower the dysp/prom reqs on T2 construction jobs. Problem solved. No need to tear apart the whole system with your terrible, terrible large-scale switch-around solution that will just frustrate players. No need for your completely terrible and overly complex alchemy either.

- Reintroduce static plexes as small-gang objectives. Active income, can be fought over without a 200 man fleet. Worth the effort compared to L4s in empire, reduce the number of them if they aren't being fought over.

- For individual income then make deep 0.0, ie. 2-3 carrier jumps out of low-sec, all perfect true sec, increase rat spawn rates/quality/bounties by 50%(no frig/cruiser spawns 50 jumps from jita, ~3m bounty rats), make all BS rats scram you(if you're out of scram range then they tank really hard, so no kiting) and now 0.0 is kinda risky, yet rewarding enough to be worth the effort. You definitely won't have solo ravens being able to rat and just cloak up whenever someone comes through, but some active, organized defense and you'll be making isk worth your while.


Sov shouldn't be important since let's be honest, no one really gives a ****(money motivates people, not some gay towers or something), and as such it really shouldn't be the focus, but:
- remove cyno jammers
- make the sov holding structure something with dual reinforcement timers that orbits the sun, no maint costs needed, but it needs to be reinforceable by a 20 man bs fleet in a reasonable amount of time. the limit on the size of empires will be that disrupting sov will be doable by small groups of players, not some arbitrary maintenance fees.(don't make it an outpost since people will just sit on undock with their carriers like big gays)

oh and kill exploration/wormspace, that **** is just anti-social.
qft

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:46:00 - [2721]
 

Originally by: Alice Celadon

Hmm. Maybe (2) can be disputed. However, if CCP said "we're going to add three more layers to invention" and I had to treble my inventing to achieve the same revenue, I would call that a definite nerf (my profit would decline, btw). POSes need upkeep, maintenance, not to mention defending, so 2x or 3x as many...definite nerf. And again, no one's been arguing this point.


I suppose I am lazy to run calcs at this hour but you have to consider that while you will lose fuel cost reductions, you will also need less starbases in general so it might actualy not be that bad.
And again, space upgrades will play a role here. So far, it seems undecided wheter they are supposed to be focused on personal income(as it is now 10 anomalies for 20M per day) or corp/alliance level ISK flow(proposed 1m per day).

Natalia Kovac
Minmatar
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:50:00 - [2722]
 

I think the prices really need to come down, A LOT, before this is viable for smaller alliances like us.

WhiteSavage
Gallente
Ever Flow
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2009.11.10 00:57:00 - [2723]
 

Edited by: WhiteSavage on 10/11/2009 00:58:27
Originally by: Vivian Azure


In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE.


vivian azure get out. You are not welcome here! If anything was left up to you EVE would be the worst game of all time. Go back to doing your thing in EVE and rl and PLEASE NEVER POST HERE AGAIN.


Smoky McGee
Posted - 2009.11.10 01:03:00 - [2724]
 

Edited by: Smoky McGee on 10/11/2009 01:03:30
This thread has enlightened me to something-

0.0 space and alliances in general are ass-backwards in this game as it stands.

Most people who currently live in 0.0 enjoy the fleet battles and pvp that eve offers. To restate, the people who live in 0.0 and fight over the space there do so essentially just for the sake of the fight.

Miner/Industrial/PvE players don't go into 0.0 because it makes less money (more chance of loss).

I suggest reordering things such that Miner/Industrial players can make enough isk in 0.0 to pay for the ships/salary of pvp pilots to protect them, as well as make a slightly higher profit than they would in highsec (even after the inevitable ship loses).

This would lead to a more capitalistic game where industrial players hire the best pvpers they can afford and strike out into 0.0 to reap the benefits found there.

I may be way off, as I dont live in 0.0, but I am an industrial player who has thought about moving out there...

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.11.10 01:14:00 - [2725]
 

I'd argue that the original implementation of nullsec was flawed. The tool they used to determine a system worth was Truesec. It's how this Truesec value was given to the systems throughout nullsec, which is illogical at best, and leaves the greatest portion of New Eden worthless to utilize. Now, in the beginning, most nullsec was profitable and even more so when they introduced moon mining and the start of the T2 production chain. When you start to see how moons are distributed throughout New Eden, you again see flawed implementation - albeit they might have been thinking these high valued moons might be the catalyst for nullsec conflict - but they never thought twice about dumping 30+ r64's into single regions. Whatever.

I still think the most dominant issue with nullsec is how worthless most of it is. While it WASN'T worthless when people first started colonizing nullsec, CCP just hasn't updated the profitability to that of much safer, more remedial activities in empire.

Most of the people on the EveO forums think the nullsec alliances are full of greedy no gooders who only want their moon-goo. This couldn't be further from the truth and unfortunately that's what the debate has started to digress too. What we DO want is for nullsec to be the gold mine that it SHOULD have been. Nullsec is where you go to risk it all for riches and glory, at least that's the impression I got when reading one of EveO's descriptions of lawless space when I started. YES, it was the place where you could find these riches and glory but we are working with a dynamic, player driven economy and inflation has caught up to us.

Dominion was supposed to be the answer. It was supposed to alleviate the need to control 3 regions because the upgrades to our core systems would allow dozens of pilots to make money in each system while the Alliance drastically reduced it's dependency on moon-goo to keep the engine running. This is where things went wrong. We were given a bill of goods, which nearly EVERYONE liked (yes, even the part about no jammers and sov4 protections) but it ended up being a system where we would be forced to drop sov in the majority of our systems and the ability to remove the 250 sov towers we have deployed to hold the space. That's about all this is doing for us, that's it. The promise of being able to cut back to 2-3 constellations and rid ourselves from holding 3 regions is gone. The prospect of increased isk-density in systems suddenly morphed into this instant re-spawn anom thing - which CCP is ******ed because this will get abused to hell and back. Our hopes and dreams of nullsec mining becoming something that is profitable are quashed. The prayers of mining Veld in nullsec would finally be more efficient than buying 20k citadel torps and repro-ing them in your refinery station are dashed.

Again, the only thing that will change is the visual on the Sov map. Atlas will still control and defend the 3 regions it holds so we still have the 15~ish decent systems to rat in so our members can make money.

Mkiaki
Gallente
Progressive Business Solutions
Posted - 2009.11.10 01:24:00 - [2726]
 

92 pages, epic cryathon guys.

Karte Vagor
Posted - 2009.11.10 01:34:00 - [2727]
 

YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.

Future Mutant
Republic Military School
Posted - 2009.11.10 01:40:00 - [2728]
 

YES OR NO: CAN I HAVE YOUR STUFF?

WatchWatch
Posted - 2009.11.10 01:45:00 - [2729]
 

If you dont benefit from living in nullsec more now or after these changes than you would from grinding lvl 4 missions in highsec....you should improve your own strategy.

Tripling the upgrade costs and requirements and quadrupling the upgrade benefits could be even nicer. Would add more economical warfare in nullsec and concentrate home areas.
Intruders should be able to disrupt the financial basis of space-holders heavily, but if the space is sucessfully defended, the holder really deserves a super nice (active) income.
CCPs concept boosts active income, simple as that.

NRDS will find strategies to survive for sure either way.

Generally spoken: New strategies, yes please.

Fyrkraag
The Knights Templar
Posted - 2009.11.10 01:55:00 - [2730]
 

Originally by: Quesa
I'd argue that the original implementation of nullsec was flawed. The tool they used to determine a system worth was Truesec. It's how this Truesec value was given to the systems throughout nullsec, which is illogical at best, and leaves the greatest portion of New Eden worthless to utilize.



Originally by: Quesa

I still think the most dominant issue with nullsec is how worthless most of it is.



Originally by: Quesa

Nullsec is where you go to risk it all for riches and glory,



I live in that part of nullsec you're talking about that is worthless, and I defend it, along with the rest of my alliance, with our blood daily.

I thought Dominion would allow us to make something of our space, but now even us small alliances are going to yoked with Game Punishments. The end result is that systems with good true sec become more enviable, a tragic worsening of the very problem you're talking about.

Originally by: Quesa

were given a bill of goods, which nearly EVERYONE liked (yes, even the part about no jammers and sov4 protections)



It's true, you can only bash so many POS's before your eyeballs fall out.

Originally by: Quesa

regions is gone. The prospect of increased isk-density in systems suddenly morphed into this instant re-spawn anom thing - which CCP is ******ed because this will get abused to hell and back.



We've already laid plans to abuse it.

Originally by: Quesa

Again, the only thing that will change is the visual on the Sov map. Atlas will still control and defend the 3 regions it holds so we still have the 15~ish decent systems to rat in so our members can make money.


So nothing changes. I can see it now, the dream of every capsuleer in Empire will be to go out to 0.0 and become a despised renter. This is CCP's vision of the future?




Pages: first : previous : ... 87 88 89 90 [91] 92 93 94 95 ... : last (119)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only