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 : ... 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Torx Sigma
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:08:00 - [691]
 

The problem is that ccp dont understand how nullsec works.

1st: No large alliance will change their space because of sanctums or havens.
2nd: There is no bigger chance for smaller corps/ alliance to get nullsec space. Why shoud any corporation rent or get a worthless system?

The point is that CCP try to get the isk out of the game. I agree that it is to easy/ simple to reimburse a capital if its lost in a fight. I agree that there is to much isk in game. But that is not for all. There are smaller alliances/ corps trying to get nullsec space. Corp who pay a lot of isk for renting etc. They wont have a chance to pay for the systems if you chance the annos.

Simple change market prices... years ago ccp put a monument if a titan was lost. Today 10 titans are lost in 2-3 days and nobody speaks about because every alliance can get one. Same on carriers or motherships.

I think that this ships have to be unique ships which have to be much harder to reimburse. Years ago a battleship was a battleship, today bs`s are not worth to speak about.

Simpele change the game to the old days. Make that a titan is a titan but do not such stupid things.

zealot shakree
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:09:00 - [692]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
some of these posts are complete trolls. If you agree with this are you deluded? I think someone light Greyscales tampon becuase not enough people are funding their gameplay via credit card and thought "I know lets make it even more harder for them to have fun". **** this **** I have a wife and three kids to tender, do you really i think i can waste any more time "trying" to have fun whilst wasting time.

Jesus man will you ****ing listen to us... Understand who the **** is playing your game and understand their demographics before you can release something as backward as what you are promoting.

The game should be about having fun. make the AI more difficult, give higher bounties to higher truesec, make anomolies harder in higher truesec systems but dont affect the pay of them. lower truesecs should still give the shinys higher truesecs should give a lot more. "Eve is different becuase of the emotional attachment of the asset when your lose it", - agreed - BUT "Eve is a game" - WHY ARE WE BEING ASKED TO SPEND MORE TIME IN THE GAME TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME?


lol so far this is the most well based and logical argument AGAINST these proposed changes because this guys wife and kids are going to suffer for it.

I totally change my position

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:10:00 - [693]
 

Edited by: Frodo Teabaggins on 26/03/2011 22:11:54
Originally by: Kreshin
CCP,

If its working don't screw with it. The current system IS working.

i beg to differ. the current system may not have bugs or glitches... but it is not working as intended.
Quote:

You have problems needing immediate attention in Eve. Completely changing the 0.0 game mechanic and SOV is not a valid idea and in fact is game destroying.

yes, because they didnt do that before quite a few times... CCP giveth and taketh the **** away for a reason.
Quote:

Don't use a sledgehammer when a pair of tweezers is needed. Implement small changes over time to measure the results.

they arent trying to pick out your nose hair, hammers usually do the trick when putting carebears in line
Quote:

Stop the insanity.

WhY sO SerIOUS? =3

in all fairness, i think people need to stop crying about drastic game changes and try to adapt. all you are doing is making yourselves look like helpless tweens... im not trying to troll but tbh, when did begging and pleading get you anywhere in this game. man up and take charge or be content.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:11:00 - [694]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:50:11
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:45:28
Morning all,

Just wanted to drop a few points to think about in here now that I've had some sleep. I'm still mulling over the arguments presented, just wanted to add in some things to the discussion here so our though processes are more closely aligned.

- Assuming the same pilots-per-anom ratio, increasing the number of good anoms in a given area has no impact on the average ISK per pilot. It does affect the carrying capacity of a given system, and it does make it more cost-effective to ensure your space isn't over-saturated, but if a given alliance already has sufficient capacity for their players, then short of a major recruiting drive this change is just going to save them a bit of money at the alliance level by allowing them to pay for a smaller number of systems. Other than that it doesn't really have an effect on their income.

- Historically it's extremely rare that space will stand empty for any extended period ("claimed wastelands" have historically and AFAIAA been highly correlated with the presence of high-value moons, which is a separate issue). People live in Outer Ring. The population density/carrying capacity of low-value space can be affected, but I would not expect any area of space to be truly empty for long.

- Related to this, the current concern about low-value space as it relates to new alliances is that, because it can be upgraded to be almost as good as anywhere else in the game, there's little incentive to move along once you're there. Dominion worked well with getting these regions more useful and more occupied, but we're concerned that unless the current tenants have a good reason to want to leave behind the infrastructure they've built up and move on to better areas, the next crop of prospective alliances are going to find they have nowhere to go.

I think there was another point but I've forgotten what it was; I'll come back later if I remember.

{edit} Oh yes, I remember:

- Absolute sec status counts are somewhat misleading in this context, because with the proposed changes you only need a few good systems to balance out a lot of bad ones. Two upgraded -0.9 or lower systems are equivalent to a fully-upgraded constellation under the current mechanics. The thing we were looking at most when evaluating numbers for this was how many "good" systems a region had. If a region is 80% dross but you can support your entire alliances from the remaining 20%, then you're in a pretty decent place.


This is BS.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:11:00 - [695]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 22:22:19
Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 22:12:45
Quote:
I personally witnessed a 1500 person alliance +hundreds of other blue players function perfectly well with less than 5 systems with truesec ratings no better than -.40 when there was no such thing as anomalies, everyone was belt ratting. If your space isn't good enough for you then guess what? Time to train up some pvp skills, figure out some fleet concepts put some pressure on your alliance leadership and leave your ****ty pocket and go get some better space.


From the rest of your quote it is clear you are talking about providence, most likely LFA pocket. And good sir let me be the one who tells you: You are talking BS. Belt ratting was what was done to make some ISK when you had nothing better to do, but 90% of common grunts who lived in providence made their ISK with lvl 4 missions, either high sec or low sec. Always fun, especially considering the people claiming this will add better risk/reward stuff: Going from ****ty 0.0 to high sec for your ISK decreases risk and increases reward without anomalies.


Edit: Not to mention for the same cost as we have now just to have sov we had the entire region cynojammed and connected with JBs,.

Quote:
and try to adapt

And by adapting you mean making ISK in high sec instead of actually living in 0.0, that will make a better game :/

Silverskull7
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:12:00 - [696]
 

Originally by: The Offerer
Originally by: Silverskull7

NC:52k, nearest powerblock DRF: 26k

...


I personally find it interesting that majority of the people whining about this change are from the NC


Read what you wrote.
Now read it again.
Apply some logic.
If you can't, ask a friend to help you out.
If you still don't see the connection, then give up posting.


Originally by: Silverskull7
I personally find it interesting that majority of the people whining about this change are from the NC (in paticular the pet groups with crappier space)



Try not cutting off the "(in paticular the pet groups with crappier space)" bit, If you can't do this while quoting, ask a friend for help. Wink

Originally by: The Offerer


Nope. Highsec poster with a sense of logic. If that percentage of players in 0.0 space belong to one group, who exactly do you expect to post the most?

Think about it.


Being a highsec guy I spose you wouldn't understand this potentially affects the NC BFF coaliton no longer being BFF. Thus you have a lot of NC guys whining trying to mantain the current status quo.


amarr try
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:12:00 - [697]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:50:11
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:45:28
Morning all,

Just wanted to drop a few points to think about in here now that I've had some sleep. I'm still mulling over the arguments presented, just wanted to add in some things to the discussion here so our though processes are more closely aligned.

- Assuming the same pilots-per-anom ratio, increasing the number of good anoms in a given area has no impact on the average ISK per pilot. It does affect the carrying capacity of a given system, and it does make it more cost-effective to ensure your space isn't over-saturated, but if a given alliance already has sufficient capacity for their players, then short of a major recruiting drive this change is just going to save them a bit of money at the alliance level by allowing them to pay for a smaller number of systems. Other than that it doesn't really have an effect on their income.

- Historically it's extremely rare that space will stand empty for any extended period ("claimed wastelands" have historically and AFAIAA been highly correlated with the presence of high-value moons, which is a separate issue). People live in Outer Ring. The population density/carrying capacity of low-value space can be affected, but I would not expect any area of space to be truly empty for long.

- Related to this, the current concern about low-value space as it relates to new alliances is that, because it can be upgraded to be almost as good as anywhere else in the game, there's little incentive to move along once you're there. Dominion worked well with getting these regions more useful and more occupied, but we're concerned that unless the current tenants have a good reason to want to leave behind the infrastructure they've built up and move on to better areas, the next crop of prospective alliances are going to find they have nowhere to go.

I think there was another point but I've forgotten what it was; I'll come back later if I remember.

{edit} Oh yes, I remember:

- Absolute sec status counts are somewhat misleading in this context, because with the proposed changes you only need a few good systems to balance out a lot of bad ones. Two upgraded -0.9 or lower systems are equivalent to a fully-upgraded constellation under the current mechanics. The thing we were looking at most when evaluating numbers for this was how many "good" systems a region had. If a region is 80% dross but you can support your entire alliances from the remaining 20%, then you're in a pretty decent place.



To break it down:

Never ever will a small Alliance get space without consent of a big power block. EVER! (which is curently even difficult for medium size Alliance - on Top u need ISK - which u cannot get [poorer moonminz] and worse systems without ISK from taxes)
So u get a System a Powerblock ASIGN you.
Fight for Truesec? Laughing
Stop joking - only the blocks can and they allready have what they want.

As the rest of your train of thought:

get sobber please -.-

In the end the rich get richer and bigger; the small will be kept small and poor. And just because something is inhabitate it does not mean it's valueable (I offer a box for the homeless ... i mean ... they life in it ... same as a house - RIGHT? /s )

This basically cut every intention of small Alliances - and Corps - to get into 0.0
(and the corps will be in the Pet Allianze or RenterAlly ... so nothing will change - only the Income ... )


*dori dori*

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:16:00 - [698]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 22:16:35
Quote:
Being a highsec guy I spose you wouldn't understand this potentially affects the NC BFF coaliton no longer being BFF. Thus you have a lot of NC guys whining trying to mantain the current status quo.



Please for the love of god, we have had this again and again, but people keep coming back with this BS crap: Why would we possibly stop being BFF after this change? Because the guests want to rebel for better space? So then we can either fight with a few k vs the entire NC, or we can just stay BFF and invade delve, guess what the better choice is...



Why NC complains most? Well it isnt that strange considering NC is largest group, DRF is next and has top 8 truesec regions.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:16:00 - [699]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:17:47
Originally by: zealot shakree
Originally by: StuRyan
some of these posts are complete trolls. If you agree with this are you deluded? I think someone light Greyscales tampon becuase not enough people are funding their gameplay via credit card and thought "I know lets make it even more harder for them to have fun". **** this **** I have a wife and three kids to tender, do you really i think i can waste any more time "trying" to have fun whilst wasting time.

Jesus man will you ****ing listen to us... Understand who the **** is playing your game and understand their demographics before you can release something as backward as what you are promoting.

The game should be about having fun. make the AI more difficult, give higher bounties to higher truesec, make anomolies harder in higher truesec systems but dont affect the pay of them. lower truesecs should still give the shinys higher truesecs should give a lot more. "Eve is different becuase of the emotional attachment of the asset when your lose it", - agreed - BUT "Eve is a game" - WHY ARE WE BEING ASKED TO SPEND MORE TIME IN THE GAME TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME?


lol so far this is the most well based and logical argument AGAINST these proposed changes because this guys wife and kids are going to suffer for it.

I totally change my position


thats my point - no one has ever tried to understand the community of eve, where they are from, how old they are, how long they play for in an evening what type of jobs they have, what stops them from signing in. (oh wait this type of **** stops me from signing in), CCP is coming from the point of view that most people can spend 8 hours a day on this game to be able to go out and experience the only (in my opinion) end game scenario
which is PVP. I thought you wantmed more people in 0.0? now all your going to do is throw us all back to empire to do level 4's.... come to think of it - i suppose that is not a bad idea considering most systems can not support more that 800 in them unless its jita.

If space is the issue and small guys not being able to have their piece the make more space.

Sage Eveo
Trojan Trolls
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:26:00 - [700]
 

Edited by: Sage Eveo on 26/03/2011 22:26:55
CCP, you can't be serious?

Go check Pure Blinds (for example) pilot occupation prior to the Dominion changes; and compare that to now. You're nerfing the catlyst which has fueled the sustainability of these alliances, and their pilots. This hardly seems like a proactive manner to attract 0.0 residency, but rather a misguided understanding of what really fuels null-sec warfare in today's game.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:27:00 - [701]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:50:11
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:45:28
Morning all,

Just wanted to drop a few points to think about in here now that I've had some sleep. I'm still mulling over the arguments presented, just wanted to add in some things to the discussion here so our though processes are more closely aligned.

- Assuming the same pilots-per-anom ratio, increasing the number of good anoms in a given area has no impact on the average ISK per pilot. It does affect the carrying capacity of a given system, and it does make it more cost-effective to ensure your space isn't over-saturated, but if a given alliance already has sufficient capacity for their players, then short of a major recruiting drive this change is just going to save them a bit of money at the alliance level by allowing them to pay for a smaller number of systems. Other than that it doesn't really have an effect on their income.

- Historically it's extremely rare that space will stand empty for any extended period ("claimed wastelands" have historically and AFAIAA been highly correlated with the presence of high-value moons, which is a separate issue). People live in Outer Ring. The population density/carrying capacity of low-value space can be affected, but I would not expect any area of space to be truly empty for long.

- Related to this, the current concern about low-value space as it relates to new alliances is that, because it can be upgraded to be almost as good as anywhere else in the game, there's little incentive to move along once you're there. Dominion worked well with getting these regions more useful and more occupied, but we're concerned that unless the current tenants have a good reason to want to leave behind the infrastructure they've built up and move on to better areas, the next crop of prospective alliances are going to find they have nowhere to go.

I think there was another point but I've forgotten what it was; I'll come back later if I remember.

{edit} Oh yes, I remember:

- Absolute sec status counts are somewhat misleading in this context, because with the proposed changes you only need a few good systems to balance out a lot of bad ones. Two upgraded -0.9 or lower systems are equivalent to a fully-upgraded constellation under the current mechanics. The thing we were looking at most when evaluating numbers for this was how many "good" systems a region had. If a region is 80% dross but you can support your entire alliances from the remaining 20%, then you're in a pretty decent place.


This is BS.


LOW SEC. LOW SEC. LOW SEC - buff that to allow small and medium alliances to live and you may be on to a winner.

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:28:00 - [702]
 

Stu, i believe you are focusing on what keeps you from signing in, however you leave out what keeps you playing and that is that CCP makes a good game, it will be no different when this update goes live. players will still play because they adapt or die. thats the way it is and has always been. people quit over the nano-nerf. EVE is still here and yet was drastically changed.

The Offerer
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:28:00 - [703]
 

Originally by: Silverskull7

Being a highsec guy I spose you wouldn't understand this potentially affects the NC BFF coaliton no longer being BFF. Thus you have a lot of NC guys whining trying to mantain the current status quo.




Fine... whatever... but I hoped to live in nullsec. Right now, I've got the skills, I've got my agents, Incursions, LPs, Datacores,... One thing I don't have is PvP (occasional war decs here and there, but meh...). No matter what block I end up in, I'm pretty sure I'll have someone to shoot at. After all, that much mentioned NC currently fights the biggest war so far in the game with dozens of Titans lost.

Anyway back to my point. If the majority of space gets nerfed, how can I expect to survive living in 0.0 space if my income is worse than now? There will be a point when I would get bored of highsec and finally make my move, but if the move is against my interest or makes me unable to get enough ISK to survive, then guess I'll stay where I am until the game becomes too boring to be playable.

Shame... I really liked this game.

Renol
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:31:00 - [704]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 22:16:35
Quote:
Being a highsec guy I spose you wouldn't understand this potentially affects the NC BFF coaliton no longer being BFF. Thus you have a lot of NC guys whining trying to mantain the current status quo.



Please for the love of god, we have had this again and again, but people keep coming back with this BS crap: Why would we possibly stop being BFF after this change? Because the guests want to rebel for better space? So then we can either fight with a few k vs the entire NC, or we can just stay BFF and invade delve, guess what the better choice is...



Why NC complains most? Well it isnt that strange considering NC is largest group, DRF is next and has top 8 truesec regions.


-1 for CCP on stuff and thinking NC BFF will ever result in anything less.

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:35:00 - [705]
 

Originally by: The Offerer



Right now, I've got the skills, I've got my agents, Incursions, LPs, Datacores,...

how can I expect to survive living in 0.0 space if my income is worse than now? There will be a point when I would get bored of highsec and finally make my move, but if the move is against my interest or makes me unable to get enough ISK to survive, then guess I'll stay where I am until the game becomes too boring to be playable.

Shame... I really liked this game.


first paragraph... if you have all that you have a good base of ISK then and shouldnt have to worry about your wallet for awhile...

second paragraph... ISK will still be easily attained in 0.0 as it was done before... alot of players made good isk ratting in belts well before the anomalies gained weight. in a good system (even .3 or .4) you can make 40ish mil an hour with bounties alone.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:37:00 - [706]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:45:14
Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:42:20
Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:38:04
Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Stu, i believe you are focusing on what keeps you from signing in, however you leave out what keeps you playing and that is that CCP makes a good game, it will be no different when this update goes live. players will still play because they adapt or die. thats the way it is and has always been. people quit over the nano-nerf. EVE is still here and yet was drastically changed.


Yeah you are right - it is good to keep the game evolving but where as the nano nerf was to level the playing field - this null sec nurf is going to do nothing but create an endless pit of grinding. One in which i can see MANY MANY people going **** that. You can not even compare the nano nerf to this, if anything this nerf will further increase and welcome macro-ers and RMT-ing.

I know what i would choose if it was to add more space so that more people had a chance of getting their own turf or this i would much rather see new space being developed. with new riches and new things to go at.... that would be an interesting and incredibly viable story line.

edit: thinks ccp went into Damage control.

Reed Tiburon
Caldari
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:41:00 - [707]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
I'd also like to thank CCP for finally finding a way to boost lo-sec by making this change in connection with the dynamic agent quality change. I think we're about to see a new golden age of piracy and activity in lo-sec and for that I truly thank you.

Well done CCP, it took some guts to make these changes, and I hope you follow through by making all the high-end income sources dynamic, competitive and conflictable.

The recent devblogs are a major step towards the reversal of the "carebearisation" of EVE that we've seen over recent years, and genuinely give me hope that there are people in your game design team who understand that EVE is supposed to be about more then endlessly smooshing red crosses.

Don't stop here. Moons MUST be next (as many posters in this thread have pointedly argued). Moon materials should also change dynamically, with a weighting towards worse tru-sec. Let the alliances make choices - rats or moons. And make an end to passive incomes!

As you can see many are unhappy that you moved their cheese. All I ask is that you show a little faith in your players; they're more adaptable and resourceful than they pretend. Of course they're going to argue that it's wrong to take their cheese away, but at the end of the day, all will secretly admit that a game where everything is easy and everyone always wins isn't really much fun at all.


QFT. Rat bounties have become far too much of an ISK faucet, and though it hurts, this needed to be done. And hopefully this will shake up the stagnant everybody-blue-NAP-fest that is nullsec today.

Hold your ground on this one, Greyscale, don't let the whiners back you down.

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:46:00 - [708]
 

Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Originally by: The Offerer



Right now, I've got the skills, I've got my agents, Incursions, LPs, Datacores,...

how can I expect to survive living in 0.0 space if my income is worse than now? There will be a point when I would get bored of highsec and finally make my move, but if the move is against my interest or makes me unable to get enough ISK to survive, then guess I'll stay where I am until the game becomes too boring to be playable.

Shame... I really liked this game.


first paragraph... if you have all that you have a good base of ISK then and shouldnt have to worry about your wallet for awhile...

second paragraph... ISK will still be easily attained in 0.0 as it was done before... alot of players made good isk ratting in belts well before the anomalies gained weight. in a good system (even .3 or .4) you can make 40ish mil an hour with bounties alone.



Then either remove them completely, or don't touch them. I find it VERY convenient that a ****load of people who are favorable to these changes already live in good truesec, so you people are hardly qualified to judge these changes.


The proposed change will make the poor poorer and the rich richier. Either remove it all, or don't touch it. Don't just take it from the small guys and leave it in the hands of the big dogs.

Xiang Jiao
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:47:00 - [709]
 

I support this product and/or service.

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:48:00 - [710]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:42:20
Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:38:04
Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Stu, i believe you are focusing on what keeps you from signing in, however you leave out what keeps you playing and that is that CCP makes a good game, it will be no different when this update goes live. players will still play because they adapt or die. thats the way it is and has always been. people quit over the nano-nerf. EVE is still here and yet was drastically changed.


Yeah you are right - it is good to keep the game evolving but where as the nano nerf was to level the playing field - this null sec nurf is going to do nothing but create an endless pit of grinding. One in which i can see MANY MANY people going **** that. You can not even compare the nano nerf to this, if anything this nerf will further increase and welcome macro-ers and RMT-ing.

I know what i would choose if it was to add more space so that more people had a chance of getting their own turf or this i would much rather see new space being developed. with new riches and new things to go at.... that would be an interesting and incredibly viable story line.


adding space will only make the alliances that are well established bigger. if you think that new alliances will even have a shot at it you are high.

this WILL level the playing field, believe it or not. it will make systems that have lower truesec more desireable instead of everyone being equal. this game is revolved around fluctuation and value... what is the value of a -1.0 system when i can do the same in a -0.0? its not meant to be even. its meant so that players will strive to work toward gaining good systems instead of having them handed to them.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:51:00 - [711]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:52:04
Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Originally by: StuRyan
Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:42:20
Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:38:04
Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Stu, i believe you are focusing on what keeps you from signing in, however you leave out what keeps you playing and that is that CCP makes a good game, it will be no different when this update goes live. players will still play because they adapt or die. thats the way it is and has always been. people quit over the nano-nerf. EVE is still here and yet was drastically changed.


Yeah you are right - it is good to keep the game evolving but where as the nano nerf was to level the playing field - this null sec nurf is going to do nothing but create an endless pit of grinding. One in which i can see MANY MANY people going **** that. You can not even compare the nano nerf to this, if anything this nerf will further increase and welcome macro-ers and RMT-ing.

I know what i would choose if it was to add more space so that more people had a chance of getting their own turf or this i would much rather see new space being developed. with new riches and new things to go at.... that would be an interesting and incredibly viable story line.


adding space will only make the alliances that are well established bigger. if you think that new alliances will even have a shot at it you are high.

this WILL level the playing field, believe it or not. it will make systems that have lower truesec more desireable instead of everyone being equal. this game is revolved around fluctuation and value... what is the value of a -1.0 system when i can do the same in a -0.0? its not meant to be even. its meant so that players will strive to work toward gaining good systems instead of having them handed to them.



You cant do the same in systems that havent been upgraded. and people are working to grind out upgrades so try again.

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:52:00 - [712]
 

Edited by: Frodo Teabaggins on 26/03/2011 22:53:15
Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Originally by: The Offerer



Right now, I've got the skills, I've got my agents, Incursions, LPs, Datacores,...

how can I expect to survive living in 0.0 space if my income is worse than now? There will be a point when I would get bored of highsec and finally make my move, but if the move is against my interest or makes me unable to get enough ISK to survive, then guess I'll stay where I am until the game becomes too boring to be playable.

Shame... I really liked this game.


first paragraph... if you have all that you have a good base of ISK then and shouldnt have to worry about your wallet for awhile...

second paragraph... ISK will still be easily attained in 0.0 as it was done before... alot of players made good isk ratting in belts well before the anomalies gained weight. in a good system (even .3 or .4) you can make 40ish mil an hour with bounties alone.



Then either remove them completely, or don't touch them. I find it VERY convenient that a ****load of people who are favorable to these changes already live in good truesec, so you people are hardly qualified to judge these changes.


The proposed change will make the poor poorer and the rich richier. Either remove it all, or don't touch it. Don't just take it from the small guys and leave it in the hands of the big dogs.


we earned that space, we are still fighting and supporting our allies to prove that we deserve it, and lets not forget that most of nulli lived in providence or some other crap region some time along the line, and there is no reason you cannot make do with higher truesec status space. there should be more NRDS coalitions, it would make the game more diverse. walk in CVA's footsteps and open up the space for everyones enjoyment and charge the hell out of them for station services. all im saying is take the bad with the good and deal, it will make you a better player for it.

edit: whining that eve is too hard will not.

Ki Rathos
Minmatar
196 MPAD
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:52:00 - [713]
 

Man this post really exploded. -- Alright, we all see the needs for change , and I was kicking around some before finally falling asleep last night. So instead of griping lets post ideas to fix what needs fixed.

Okay
1 - Moons - Make the good goo available elsewhere or spread it out more. Scientifically it makes no sense that only certain elements are available in moons, when moons technically could have split fromt he plant they orbit. Well thats one theory anyways. But you see where im going. Now the addition to that would be , if it came from the planet, either it should be depletable, or the planet should have some - or both. Change the way moon harvesting works, make it require work and effort more than set up pos- fuel - get the stuff - move to another pos (or sell outright) - make limitless isk. Moon upgrades for ihub ? probably not a good idea, but not a bad one to distribute the stuff more evenly.

2. Allow better way for little guys to attack or harm power blocks through asymtetrical warfare. AKA - NOT TAKING my 100 pilots against their 500. You want strategy, allow me to claim their sov temporarily, after a time if they dont respond or defend they dont keep it. SBU are a joke in how long they take to set up , and bashing an IHUB or a TCU gives even more time for people to respond then bashing a pos. Have their upgrades transfer , even only half, to the new holders. You want conflict, there you go. Allow ways beyond endless bashing to take sov. Open to ideas here.

3. I know big picture , sov will be tied to to planets, with Dust. I also now that in iterative developement these things can take time. Why not start implementing something deployed planet side that shuts of upgrades or something, see above, asymetric warfare.

4. POS mechanics fail for security. I mentioned some of this in my earlier post .

5. Different levels of upgrades maybe to do different things. Maybe upgrade the Ihub itself - example. IHUB takes a freighter to move, level 5 upgrades to freighter to move (all done ok with JB - maybe thats the bigger issue) For the cost size etc of all the stuff you ultimately put in , it should be like a mini station or something, add a corp hanger maybe i dont know. Killing one is like killing a station for small guys, just a thought. Anyways, if your gonna strip havens , allow the ability to add them back in.

6 Wanna get real crazy, allow the little guy to somehow upgrade low sec to something in between, to make it more worth it. Maybe only non station systems, would also make sense why they pay concord at that point (read that earlier and thought hmm , interesting point.)

7. If the havens go, the [email protected] better to. Currently running my corp in a fully upgraded system for military. Cyno jammed etc. and yes unfortunately we rent because we have to not because i really wanted to. Its about the only choice you have given us, and most of the little guys

Would be interested to see what the indy upgrades will be .

What am I missing peeps. I complained last night lets fix it.

Nikgah Plz
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:06:00 - [714]
 

You need to do the opposite. At an average amount of sanctums is 2 and havens is 2. So we need more to spawn, especially for corps that only own a system or two.

Jack Oam
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:09:00 - [715]
 

CCP dudes, as many people already said these changes will make majority of 0.0 a wasteland and this is ****ing obvious for anyone who lived there.

Carebears (myself included) will just move out and seek income elsewere,
loosing on the way billions they invested in upgrading their systems.
This will make me(and many others) extremely unhappy and hurt,
which will have a negative impact on the game/ccp income i assure you.

Alliances will loose a lot of billions in rent->less ships to fight with.
====================================================================

I have another suggestion:

Why not instead of nerfing to buff the 0.0.
Take the current anomalies level and set it as a base,
and increase the number of hi-end anomalies in hi-end space.
In other words make hi-end 0.0 space more lucrative instead of
making low-end 0.0 a desert.

What will it acomplish?

No bad feelings among players.
More people in 0.0(more targets).
Easier to replace killed ships->more pvp/local conflicts.

And one other thing: please implement the space renting and sov transfer game mechanics already!


StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:15:00 - [716]
 

Originally by: Jack Oam
CCP dudes, as many people already said these changes will make majority of 0.0 a wasteland and this is ****ing obvious for anyone who lived there.

Carebears (myself included) will just move out and seek income elsewere,
loosing on the way billions they invested in upgrading their systems.
This will make me(and many others) extremely unhappy and hurt,
which will have a negative impact on the game/ccp income i assure you.

Alliances will loose a lot of billions in rent->less ships to fight with.
====================================================================

I have another suggestion:

Why not instead of nerfing to buff the 0.0.
Take the current anomalies level and set it as a base,
and increase the number of hi-end anomalies in hi-end space.
In other words make hi-end 0.0 space more lucrative instead of
making low-end 0.0 a desert.

What will it acomplish?

No bad feelings among players.
More people in 0.0(more targets).
Easier to replace killed ships->more pvp/local conflicts.

And one other thing: please implement the space renting and sov transfer game mechanics already!




Ill be honest even post dominion there is so much wasted land STILL that this is what needs addressing... Like the more rats you kill the higher the upgrades, the unactive systems will spawn bigger and better shinys for a limitted period.

Sebastian Hoch
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:17:00 - [717]
 

Edited by: Sebastian Hoch on 26/03/2011 23:22:37
Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Originally by: StuRyan
Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:42:20
Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:38:04
Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Stu,
adding space will only make the alliances that are well established bigger. if you think that new alliances will even have a shot at it you are high.




Not if the new space is not contiguous with current Null sec and is thus apart from the existing power blocks and is out of jump range from current lowsec and Nullsec. Think about it.

Seb

Tub Chil
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:21:00 - [718]
 

CCP Greyscale

you are
so ****ing wrong

that it feels ******ed to explain why exactly you are wrong
proving that you are wrong is like proving that cat is not a bird

Jesus christ have you even played the damn game?

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:23:00 - [719]
 

Originally by: Sebastian Hoch
Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Originally by: StuRyan
Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:42:20
Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:38:04
Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Stu,
adding space will only make the alliances that are well established bigger. if you think that new alliances will even have a shot at it you are high.




Not if the new space is not contiguous with current Null sec and is thus apart from the existing power blocks and is out of Cyno range from current lowsec and Nullsec. Think about it.

Seb


... why the **** even bother then? that makes you isolated and useless... out of cyno range.... win. GG.

Bung1
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:27:00 - [720]
 

Well reading the posts I guess its unanimous, ccp has got it wrong, AGAIN. They seem to have placed a great deal of importance on Anoms. They are useful tools within the game, but that is all they are, a tool. It appears that ccp would like to see more conflict within 0.0, but having lived in various regions of 0.0 I see plenty of it going on all the time. I note a mention of the difficulty in small alliances getting a foot hold in 0.0. This has always been difficult for small alliances, and can only be overcome by those alliances or corps growing themselves to a size that would make them more attractive to larger alliances or coalitions. For a smaller alliance to move into 0.0 usually happens by way of renting. Without the anoms, the smaller alliance has limited avenues to make isk to pay the rent, as the host alliance will retain the moons, so CCP just killed off renters, so we can expect to see smaller alliances re locating back to high sec.

I see earlier a mention of changes to moon goo and how it is distributed. Moon goo needs to be more evenly distributed, so that all racial regions have a share of all the racial goo's. Moons are the means that 0.0 alliances can afford to be in these areas. It costs an astronomical amount of money to live in 0.0, with the sov bills etc, not to mention, replacing ships lost in conflicts on a regular basis. The cost of Jump Bridges and system upgrades, not to mention the cost of an outpost, can only be done by large successfull alliances, who invest huges amounts of time ISK and energy into their respective 0.0 area.

To suggest that these allainces are going to give it all up, and move to another area because they dont have anoms any longer is ridiculous in the extreme.

I do not suggest I have the definitive answer to this situation, however I do know that I have personally invested a lot of time and money to play the game, not to mention the time and ISK in game to achieve the things that I have so far, but if I have to abandon my investments every few months to satisfy the wims of CCP, then I guess I would just be better off leaving and investing my money in another game.

I would hope that some common sense will prevail here, and that these proposed changes are put on hold and a great deal more thought be put into this situation. As we all know, once the changes are made, and even if reversed at a later time the damage will have been done.


Pages: first : previous : ... 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 ... : 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