open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

cpu939
Gallente
Volatile Nature
White Noise.
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:23:00 - [271]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
let us know in the comments if there are any other areas in need of some love that you'd like to see brought to the top of our priorities.

-Greyscale


yes for you guys to learn how we play the game and not to make expected consequences the bases for your changes.

your idea of the null sec nerf is wrong! if your idea is to make true sec better buff it give it 6 high sites or 8 but leave the rest alone.

Taize Kal
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:25:00 - [272]
 

Originally by: Lord Calimari
Originally by: Iree
Hmmm, quite a few complaints. But you know i must be missing something. A lot of people here dont like that they will make less Isk, which i suppose is fair (or unfair as the case may be). So when the change goes through... why not go take someone else's richer space? Then you'll be fine right? Confused




Ummm ya I guess you are missing something... The whole point is the Rich (those who have these high end systems) will be able to afford to defend their space using supperior ships and anyone that does NOT have these high end systems will not be able to afford strong enough ships to take them, nor will they be able to replace their loses as effectively, so once again the poor get poorer and it will be even harder for others to take these high end systems without having the finances to do it.

I love PVP, but if my combat pilot cannot sustain the ISKs I need to replace my loses I will not PVP anymore, I will end up in high sec running missions, until I eventually get bored of doing that over and over and eventually stop playing all together. And if I hear correctly and there nerfing them too.... then I guess I will be bored very quickly indeed.

Worst change EVER by ccp...


Lol, ok. So why are you making money currently? So you can buy good ships and not invade someone? And last time i checked a pretty standard ship for fleet pvp was the drake, your not going to tell me you cant afford one of those right?
Plus have you ever tried living in lowsec and pvp'ing. I lasted a week before going inactive. So i moved to wormholes and you must know that those places are just money printers basically. Is there any particular reason you cannot do any of this?

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:26:00 - [273]
 

I'm surprised at how incredibly short sighted some people are.

Proats
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:28:00 - [274]
 

Edited by: Proats on 26/03/2011 01:34:34
Edited by: Proats on 26/03/2011 01:33:53

Smaller entities will not be able to control low truesec systems obviously, insuring that the bigger alliances are perpetually making much more isk than they are. How are these small alliances supposed to fund their PVP against the bigger entities now?

Originally by: Monkey M3n
Why is it that only the major power block kids are complaining in this thread?


Well considering most major power blocks already have the good truesec systems, and will continue to hold them, especially with the increased funding they will get from them, it doesn't even really bother the big alliances much anyways. It just hurts the little guys that will be stuck with the leftover systems no one wants.

Xanatia
Vengeance Imperium
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:37:00 - [275]
 

Major Alliances generally hold a number of valuable R64 moons, and use the income from these moons to keep all the sov upgrades payed for, jump bridges fuelled, and manage all the other little things that make alliances tick over.

Corporations within Major alliances generally hold a number of the less valuable moons, and use the income from them to fund any pet projects they might have.

Indicidual pilots within major alliances generally rely on income from ratting or mining to afford their ships, and while most major alliances have ship replacement, after a loss from PvP you are still out of pocket.

Smaller Alliances, tha don't have the numbers or hitting power of the major alliances can only generally survive in 0.0 by aligning themselves with a major alliance. this usually takes the form of renting space. and normally this is space that the large alliance doesn't want to develop themselves. they will usually keep the valuable moons for themselves, so smaller alliances are generally funded by the individuals within the alliance through direct taxation.

While i can see the intent of he changes, and to a certain extent agree with them, major alliances will not see a significant reduction in their income, if any. Corporations in those alliances will not see a significant reduction in their income, if any. Individuals within the alliances will see a significant reduction in their income. as will smaller renting alliances.

If living in 0.0 becomes unaffordable to many, then they will simply move on, major alliances with a stable and predictable income will just maintain their space, and tr to make the best of the changes that they can. the only people that will be hurt are the small people, and by that i mean, small alliances, and individuals within large alliances

Lord Lightcloud
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:37:00 - [276]
 

CCP, can you waste your time on attempts to fix actual problems, instead of wasting your time in making this game worse.

Seriously, how have you guys run this company for so long. You are terrible.

Lady RAWR
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:42:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog.


CCP Greyscale is the terrible. He is going to ruin this game, he should go play World of Warcraft and leave us alone.

Good thing the new Star Wars game is coming out. We can all go play that instead of EVE now.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:42:00 - [278]
 

Edited by: mkmin on 26/03/2011 01:44:50
/me has no motivation to undock again until CCP responds that it was a stupid idea and isn't going to happen.

edit: anybody else notice in a recent interview with an MMO site a dev said "star wars games always suck"? Hmm... strategically trying to dissuade your users from jumping ship (while giving them incentive to do so)?

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:43:00 - [279]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Expected consequences
  • Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space

  • In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals

  • Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec

  • Coalitions will be marginally less stable

  • Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)



Expected consequences (rebutting CCP Greyscale's expectations):
  • Some Alliances will immediately no longer want to to pay the sov/upgrade bill for the space they have already fought for.

  • In the short term there will be more fighting as small alliances get kicked from their good truesec systems by the bigger alliances. In the long run, less fights will happen once this reshuffle has settled in.

  • Newer alliances will be able to take low quality sov space because the big boys don't want it anymore, but they won't because they'll get the same benefit from moving to NPC 0.0 where they won't have to pay for sov.

  • Coalitions may have a little bit of internal struggle as they decide who should get what space, then settle down again.

  • Alliances will have to make different choices about what systems they use and what they use them for, only because the rules have just been changed again. They won't have to choose more carefully at all.


Further consequences:
  • Macro use and RMT will increase as established players with passive income won't be effected, but newer/active players who make isk to support their PvP habit by ratting will have to find other ways to make ISK (the mere prospect of grinding Hubs and below is depressing).

Honestly, I can see this being a serious blow to the PvP area (nullsec) of EVE - a PvP game at its heart.

At Alliance level who cares? Alliances live off moongoo. This will hurt the average player who makes their ISK by ratting, the kind of player who is active.

Raph Koster on macros: "Looking at what parts of your game players tend to automate is a good way to determine which parts of the game are tedious and/or not fun."

Ratting is not something people do for fun (at least, not after the first time you've run a sanctum). To relax perhaps (like mining), but the main reason most people decide to spend their time ratting is to make ISK. Simply removing that reason (ie making the amount of ISK made from ratting poor truesec systems sufficently low), people will either choose to not do it (go to empire, and PvP less), or automate it (ie marco). That is unless they're in a big alliance which has access to good truesec.

What really shows that this is a terrible idea is that people who are bitter enemies in game are all agreeing that this will not have the "expected" outcomes.

We can all agree that better truesec systems should be more sought after, but completely removing the only cosmic anomolies worth doing from poor truesec is definitely not the way to do it

Herr Nerdstrom
Caldari
Havoc Violence and Chaos
Merciless.
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:44:00 - [280]
 

Edited by: Herr Nerdstrom on 26/03/2011 01:47:20
Edited by: Herr Nerdstrom on 26/03/2011 01:46:41
The isk earning potential with low risk is already why so many people are not interested in joining 0.0. So how does reducing earning potential in 0.0 help attract new players there?

I must admit that in reading this devblog I really have no idea what CCP is thinking. 0.0 should be upgraded more so that it provides unique opportunities and a balanced risk/reward that makes going to 0.0 a worthwhile venture. As it stands now, many alliance pilots just go to highsec to make isk, and these proposed changes will only further that.

How about adding some upgrades in this 'flexible upgrade system' that will actually help the pilots who play the game? Instead of nerfing sanctums already in existence, how about leaving all as is, and improving the quality or payout of sanctums in better truesec systems (via a new upgrade would be fine)? This won't affect the average pilot's ability to buy more pvp ships, but will further entice the better systems, and have a rebalancing at the same time.

Proats
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:46:00 - [281]
 

At least right now the smaller entities can go ahead and grab a few systems, and get a stable source of funding for their PVP. After these changes, the only systems they will get are ones with garbage anomalies, greatly limiting their PVP abilities.

John Maynard Keynes
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:48:00 - [282]
 

I hope that this blog is a bad joke.

While the idea is not wrong, the implementation is simply stupid.
What will happen?
Since Havens and Sanctums are the only anos that give you a bit more money than L4 missions, no one will live in space with bad true sec. Not even the small alliances you try to support. The people will simply farm L4 missions instead. The rest of 0.0 population will be squeezed in fewer systems so that blobbing becomes even easier.

How it would work!
Leave the sanctums/havens as they are for systems with 0.0 to -0.2 and improve them for systems with lower true sec.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:53:00 - [283]
 

Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Liang Nuren
some words

It may surprise you but most people are not as SUPER ELITE GOOD AT MAKING ISK WITH EVERY POSSIBLE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WAY that you are.

To those of us who are not good at the market or turning LP into isk, and dont have a lot of time to PVE, anomalies are a godsend.

This should be obvious to someone as "knowledgable" as you.

This change flat out completely ruins my ability to reliably make decent isk in 0.0. This is not negotiable. The only rational option to make isk at that point is to return to empire.


Originally by: Dev Blog

In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more.



Here are some observations:
- The dev blog states that there is currently a limit of 4 Sanctum/Havens (2 Sanctum/2 Haven) from sov upgrades for all 0.0.
- The dev blog states that -0.0 to -0.249 will have no Sanctums or Havens spawned by upgrades (but that they will continue to "naturally" spawn from exploration)
- The dev blog states that -0.250 to -0.449 will have 4 - 2? = 2? Sanctums/Havens
- The dev blog states that -0.450 to -0.649 will have 4 - 1 = 3 Sanctums/Havens
- The dev blog states that -0.650 to -0.849 will have 4 + 1 = 5 Sanctums/Havens
- The dev blog states that -8.50 to -1.0 will have 4 + 6? = 10 Sanctums/Havens.
- Previous dev blogs state that they are adding many more plexes to 0.0.

It might end up looking something like this (pure speculation):
- 0.000 to 0.249: 0/0
- 0.250 to 0.449: 1/1
- 0.450 to 0.649: 1/2
- 0.650 to 0.849: 2/3
- 0.850 to 1.000: 5/5
- Lots more plexes in 0.0
- ???? with regards to high sec missions. Some agents are undoubtedly going to see a 70% drop in rewards. Who knows about the rest as people spread out?

-Liang

Lord Calimari
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:55:00 - [284]
 

Originally by: Taize Kal
Originally by: Lord Calimari
Originally by: Iree
Hmmm, quite a few complaints. But you know i must be missing something. A lot of people here dont like that they will make less Isk, which i suppose is fair (or unfair as the case may be). So when the change goes through... why not go take someone else's richer space? Then you'll be fine right? Confused




Ummm ya I guess you are missing something... The whole point is the Rich (those who have these high end systems) will be able to afford to defend their space using supperior ships and anyone that does NOT have these high end systems will not be able to afford strong enough ships to take them, nor will they be able to replace their loses as effectively, so once again the poor get poorer and it will be even harder for others to take these high end systems without having the finances to do it.

I love PVP, but if my combat pilot cannot sustain the ISKs I need to replace my loses I will not PVP anymore, I will end up in high sec running missions, until I eventually get bored of doing that over and over and eventually stop playing all together. And if I hear correctly and there nerfing them too.... then I guess I will be bored very quickly indeed.

Worst change EVER by ccp...


Lol, ok. So why are you making money currently? So you can buy good ships and not invade someone? And last time i checked a pretty standard ship for fleet pvp was the drake, your not going to tell me you cant afford one of those right?
Plus have you ever tried living in lowsec and pvp'ing. I lasted a week before going inactive. So i moved to wormholes and you must know that those places are just money printers basically. Is there any particular reason you cannot do any of this?


Did you not read my last post... "but if my combat pilot cannot sustain the ISKs I need to replace my loses I will not PVP anymore". This is the point, how can I fight them if I cannot replace my ships. Also you obviously don't live in 0.0, about 75% of PVP is simply to "kill" people and pad your kill board stats and have fun doing it. And lets assume i was making ISK to invade someone, thats the whole freaking point ---- If I "can't" make the ISK to get good ships, how the hell do I invade them.

Would you use a drake to fight a faction fit Loki???? You missing the basic point... T1 ships are fine for PVP if your fighthing equivilant ships... but who in their right mind is gonna go up against a T3 faction fit gang using T1s unless you drastically outnumber them. Your comment about wormholes is actualy the same argument were all using about doing missions instead of anoms, so in one hand you are agreeing with us but then in other hand you argue against us... pick a side.

Makumba Aki
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:55:00 - [285]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Brace for incoming tears, as people explain how nerfing something the game didn't even have 15 months ago will be the END OF EVERYTHING.

Honestly though, this change does make sense; it's actually something close to the system that was originally expected.

It's going to shake up renter-space like crazy, though.




The idea is not bad...


However turning tha majority of 0.0 space useless is kind of pointless.

Take providence, I don't think that NCDot and friends have significant income sources besides the anomalies. Without them Provi would become useless.

Why would someone want to hold space without sanctums and havens? Those are the only two anos that are more profitable than lvl 4 missions.

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:56:00 - [286]
 

Edited by: Kalia Masaer on 26/03/2011 02:05:04
I will give the example of Providence, pre-dominion it was next to worthless because of its poor true sec rating and no one really cared about it as it also didn't have any number of moons of any real value. The alliances living there succeeded because they were dedicated but not overly powerful when you started comparing them to any major powers, and spamming POS's was something that dedicated people could beat less dedicated but more powerful people at.

Post Dominion crushing sov in a few systems for a major power group against a weaker group became an insignificant time commitment. Also space that had formerly been worthless suddenly became valuable to the major powers in the galaxy as something that could be rented out or sold because of the infrastructure improvements. Ironically this leads to the opposite of what CCP intended a more peaceful galaxy dominated by super powers, because they do not wish to be at constant war so their renters will actually be willing to rent the territory they have claimed. Renting is the real alliance financial well now.


These changes will not really repair the situation but they will help a little bit. What needs to happen again is it must become difficult to fight a weaker more dedicated enemy willing to put in the time to win, there needs to be some space with virtually no value to rent out but is 0.0 where sov can be claimed so that there is a formative place for fresh alliances to develop and possibly eventually challenge existing powers.

Us people in CVA liked having Providence worthless because we could run NRDS without anyone caring about our space, but Dominion suddenly added a huge Sov bill but we got none of the benefits because neutrals collected most of it, Our space suddenly became worth something so people actually wanted to take it, but it wasn't worth so much that it could provide the isk needed to fight space with better moons. Dominion was a cruel joke to us sadly.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:59:00 - [287]
 

Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Liang Nuren
some words

It may surprise you but most people are not as SUPER ELITE GOOD AT MAKING ISK WITH EVERY POSSIBLE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WAY that you are.

To those of us who are not good at the market or turning LP into isk, and dont have a lot of time to PVE, anomalies are a godsend.

This should be obvious to someone as "knowledgable" as you.

This change flat out completely ruins my ability to reliably make decent isk in 0.0. This is not negotiable. The only rational option to make isk at that point is to return to empire.


I feel its also worth pointing out that I have never been shy about telling people how to grind less and make more. Maybe you could try listening instead of *****ing about how it's the end of the whole ****ing world...

-Liang

Homshar Chal
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:59:00 - [288]
 

All that has been said is very true. As casual player, less than 15 hours per week, I want to come on, make some isk and return to my family. Participate in alliance or corp activities when able. I pay for the game and expect to play.
If you nerf the game as expected it will be near to impossible for those like me to make any isk in order to play. Only those with a big enough power base will be able to grab the most valuable (and rare) systems. You will only concentrate power and wealth.

Sebastian Hoch
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:00:00 - [289]
 

Incredibly bad idea.

"damper on conflict"

Your kidding right? We have been engaged in wall to wall PVP for six months straight with no breaks, 3-5 fleets per day per timezone. If you don't see conflict, your not looking. I think what you really mean is you don't like large coalitions.

Coalitions are the result of constructive meta-gaming and really the only way to establish security for an alliance, especially in the face of destructive meta-gaming. Diplomacy, and collaboration are a natural result of any game that attempts to simulate a strategic conflict. Attack and limit the scope and desire for people to collaborate and you attack lots of reasons to play this game--ie the clash of empires. Normally this is not a problem in wargaming as one side eventually wins, or victory is settled by points and conditions, and the board is reset or boxed up and put in the closet. Eve just goes on forever--or until we stop paying. I get why this is a problem-how like real life that Eve has unresolvable consequences. This is central to the game you created and don't expect to change it just by tweaking sov, anomalies, or something else because when you get right down to it, the security and strength a coalition offers players, corporations, and alliances is worth far more than anything you can or would be able to take away.

Seb

fatherted1989
Red Horizon Inc
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:04:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Liang Nuren
some words

It may surprise you but most people are not as SUPER ELITE GOOD AT MAKING ISK WITH EVERY POSSIBLE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WAY that you are.

To those of us who are not good at the market or turning LP into isk, and dont have a lot of time to PVE, anomalies are a godsend.

This should be obvious to someone as "knowledgable" as you.

This change flat out completely ruins my ability to reliably make decent isk in 0.0. This is not negotiable. The only rational option to make isk at that point is to return to empire.


Originally by: Dev Blog

In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more.



Here are some observations:
- The dev blog states that there is currently a limit of 4 Sanctum/Havens (2 Sanctum/2 Haven) from sov upgrades for all 0.0.
- The dev blog states that -0.0 to -0.249 will have no Sanctums or Havens spawned by upgrades (but that they will continue to "naturally" spawn from exploration)
- The dev blog states that -0.250 to -0.449 will have 4 - 2? = 2? Sanctums/Havens
- The dev blog states that -0.450 to -0.649 will have 4 - 1 = 3 Sanctums/Havens
- The dev blog states that -0.650 to -0.849 will have 4 + 1 = 5 Sanctums/Havens
- The dev blog states that -8.50 to -1.0 will have 4 + 6? = 10 Sanctums/Havens.
- Previous dev blogs state that they are adding many more plexes to 0.0.

It might end up looking something like this (pure speculation):
- 0.000 to 0.249: 0/0
- 0.250 to 0.449: 1/1
- 0.450 to 0.649: 1/2
- 0.650 to 0.849: 2/3
- 0.850 to 1.000: 5/5
- Lots more plexes in 0.0
- ???? with regards to high sec missions. Some agents are undoubtedly going to see a 70% drop in rewards. Who knows about the rest as people spread out?

-Liang


liang via dotlan crosscheck just how MUCH of 0.0 falls into that 'no sanctums for you' category - added plexes will not in any way accommodate for the pilots without a way to casually earn isk

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:04:00 - [291]
 

-Liang

How do you see the screen and post with Greyscale's **** in your mouth?Rolling Eyes

gw777
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:05:00 - [292]
 

Expected consequences

Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)


So... ccp makes everything more even in an attempt to make things better for new alliances to come in... then turns around and makes them even more uneven... WTF make up your minds

The anoms are not even the part keeping people out of 0.0 it is the insanity of the current sov mechanics that prevent people from moving in. most people need a HUGE fleet to take a good system currently, and even that requires several days minimum to take control(usually more like a week to a month for a good/Key station system).

Any coalition, if it really wants to, can prevent ANY small alliance from controlling their 0.0 without their say so and this new mechanic change just makes the space that they might have a better likelihood of getting that much worse and the major coalitions will still hold onto them even if they dont make money off them just to keep smaller alliances out of their hair

I don't know but it looks like CCP is just hurting the individuals or smaller groups on this one not the coalitions really at all

Subuotah
Amarr
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:06:00 - [293]
 


Hello? CCP? Anyone at home? Take the brains out of the mixer! Rolling Eyes

Dhaul
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:10:00 - [294]
 

Keep trollin' and trollin' and trollin'

Snyderm
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:11:00 - [295]
 

So as a 0.0 living player, I would have to either compete with 100 other players for a few havens/sanctums, or go back to highsec.

As far as I can tell, you are just making 0.0 support fewer players. I need my own source to make pvp ships. The smaller scale pvp ops that I truely enjoy in this game are not reimbursed by any alliance. Its up to me to fund my pvp habit.

Out of necessity, this change would require me to live in highsec to make money. How is this good for 0.0?


Likin11
Executive Intervention
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:12:00 - [296]
 

Originally by: gw777
Expected consequences

Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)


So... ccp makes everything more even in an attempt to make things better for new alliances to come in... then turns around and makes them even more uneven... WTF make up your minds

The anoms are not even the part keeping people out of 0.0 it is the insanity of the current sov mechanics that prevent people from moving in. most people need a HUGE fleet to take a good system currently, and even that requires several days minimum to take control(usually more like a week to a month for a good/Key station system).

Any coalition, if it really wants to, can prevent ANY small alliance from controlling their 0.0 without their say so and this new mechanic change just makes the space that they might have a better likelihood of getting that much worse and the major coalitions will still hold onto them even if they dont make money off them just to keep smaller alliances out of their hair

I don't know but it looks like CCP is just hurting the individuals or smaller groups on this one not the coalitions really at all


Well if you can't beat em, join em. Cool
And +1 to what seb said.

Jitizen
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:12:00 - [297]
 

epic threadnaught of negative comments and CCP does not post a WORD in it's defense. my acct runs out in may IDK if I'm gonna keep going since my alliance will probably fall apart.

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:14:00 - [298]
 

A formative alliance needs to bring 100 ships to kill a station in the time a 10 super carriers can which a major alliance can field effortlessly. It is truly laughable to think there is any room for any alliance to claim space without the backing of one of the major powerblocks, with the current sov mechanics which you can't kite into your timezone and that take an eternity to do without a massive fleet, super carriers or dreads, the dreads of coarse likely won't survive. Then once the system is claimed try and hang onto it, against 200 man+ fleets often including super caps.

No null-sec has no room for the independent little alliance anymore, the only way to get in is to be a serf with virtually no way to gain power without getting slaughtered because you are getting to powerful.

Xuallus Arkanum
Senex Legio
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:17:00 - [299]
 

This has to be a joke, they can't possibly be that stupid...

Skaarl
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:17:00 - [300]
 

proof positive... CCP employees ******s as devs.


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (118)

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