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 : ... 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:37:00 - [721]
 

Originally by: Bung1
Well reading the posts I guess its unanimous.


you guessed wrong. and CCP is right on this one. if anyone thinks otherwise they have been coddled too long.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:39:00 - [722]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 23:46:16
why is everything that CCP post a reaction.

Why can you not think of something practively. Dominion was such a proactive upgrade and has given many people the chance to live in a system and play the game.

This is nothing but a reaction to those people that say null sec is broken. The only thing that is broken in null sec is the endless sov mechanics and "territory" warfare. the thing is, if regions are static once you have settlers then what is the point in moving... Truesec certainly is not the answer. Remember dominion was suppose to support a large number of people living in a confined space - if you dont think this has happened then you are playing the game wrong. even now fully upgraded systems are a pain in the arse to live in becuase everyone wants the sanctrum or the heaven. You should make these spawn more in fully upgraded systems then may just may be people wouldnt need to spew terriotry so they could survivie.

Moon goo....... ITS BSm currenltly there are only a limitted number of moons to cap that are worth the time and effort. and it is a funny pardigm that this is a static passive - you wonder why people dont move?

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:41:00 - [723]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 23:43:25
now there is a thought - sanctrum free regions no decent moons and a sov bill enough to kill the enjoyment of the game ..... worth having!

Retsil Evad
Caldari
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:42:00 - [724]
 

Does CCP have any clue as to how 0.0 alliances work? Have they lost that much touch with their user base? Are only the squeaky wheel of empire huggers being listened to while dismissing the existing null sec alliances as being greedy?

This pile of dog doo that CCP is planning gets a big thumbs down.

Strange Kid
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:43:00 - [725]
 

Consequences:
1) There will be no incentive to move into nullsec as a low end renter since highsec missioning will make more isk than low end sites.
2) Nullsec will lose a good deal of the population.
3) Less ratter targets.

Fix:
Instead of removing sites from the low end systems, there could be a respawn timer on the anomalies depending on the truesec of a system. Let's say 3 hours for sanctums/havens in a high truesec and steadily improving from that.

+pirate detection upgrades aren't worthless in low end systems
+high end systems are still better
+low end systems can support lone ratters but get worse when cluttered
+incentive for ratters to be in nullsec, more pvp

Sem Nan
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:47:00 - [726]
 

Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Originally by: Bung1
Well reading the posts I guess its unanimous.


you guessed wrong. and CCP is right on this one. if anyone thinks otherwise they have been coddled too long.


Yes he guessed wrong, but not too wrong. It might be not unanimous, but 20 pages of 10:1 against the change naturally gives that impression.

Before you call us whiners, learn to read all the arguments that were raised and try to counter them Smile.

Life Tilt
Valor Inc.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 23:59:00 - [727]
 

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

- 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.



Just a note from your largest group that inhabits Outer Ring.....we want out. It ain't party central around here.

But at this point why move? After this change, what is there in sov space for my pilots that they do not currently have? A name on a map and a Cyno jammer. This corporation, now an alliance has had the goal of opening up Nullsec to the new pilot since its inception, 3 years ago. The membership wants to hold space. It is ready to hold space. The options available at the entry level for Alliances of this size are few, even with how things stand now. The options, with your changes may increase, but will no longer make long term financial sense for my pilots. What is the point of moving them to the "end-game" of Player 0.0 if they have to put mission running alts in highsec to do it? For the middle-sized Alliances that do not play supercaps-online, is NPC 0.0 the intended end game? There should be a measurable and significant change when one moves from lowsec or NPC nullsec to holding sovereignty somewhere. Perhaps not necessarily at first, but as the system is upgraded, like they are now. I simply should not be able to mission and plex and mine and rat more effectively long term anywhere else. Its even fine if its a break-even situation for the pilots. Taking the steps to secure SOV and holding it successfully should NEVER be a downgrade.

Ancyker
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:02:00 - [728]
 

Originally by: Life Tilt
But at this point why move? After this change, what is there in sov space for my pilots that they do not currently have? A name on a map and a Cyno jammer. This corporation, now an alliance has had the goal of opening up Nullsec to the new pilot since its inception, 3 years ago. The membership wants to hold space. It is ready to hold space. The options available at the entry level for Alliances of this size are few, even with how things stand now. The options, with your changes may increase, but will no longer make long term financial sense for my pilots. What is the point of moving them to the "end-game" of Player 0.0 if they have to put mission running alts in highsec to do it? For the middle-sized Alliances that do not play supercaps-online, is NPC 0.0 the intended end game? There should be a measurable and significant change when one moves from lowsec or NPC nullsec to holding sovereignty somewhere. Perhaps not necessarily at first, but as the system is upgraded, like they are now. I simply should not be able to mission and plex and mine and rat more effectively long term anywhere else. Its even fine if its a break-even situation for the pilots. Taking the steps to secure SOV and holding it successfully should NEVER be a downgrade.


qft

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:02:00 - [729]
 

Originally by: Sem Nan
Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Originally by: Bung1
Well reading the posts I guess its unanimous.


you guessed wrong. and CCP is right on this one. if anyone thinks otherwise they have been coddled too long.


Yes he guessed wrong, but not too wrong. It might be not unanimous, but 20 pages of 10:1 against the change naturally gives that impression.

Before you call us whiners, learn to read all the arguments that were raised and try to counter them Smile.


ironically, my success ratio on battleclinic for all time is 10:1. <- fun fact (although its actually been higher since ive made my return a couple months back).

i would like to see these people who are posting with one of their 2 alt toons to show who they really are and really play.

and before you think im not reading all the arguments. i am. im just tired of shooting each one down over and over. there is more than one way of making ISK in 0.0, it doesnt revolve 100% around sanctums... be intuitive because i know plenty of people who make more isk than doing sanctums and dont need a high true-sec status to do it. As for botters and RMT, its against the rules. if CCP did or didnt do something based on the fact that it would have an increase of those activities then the RMTers win and we cannot have that. (that was to address the people trying to use that as an angle)

if there is anything else i missed ill gladly clarify my stance on it when i wake up. til then cheers (and safe sanctuming while you still have them).

Iron Breaker
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:06:00 - [730]
 

I am pretty new to nullsec, but everything out there costs a lot. Every pice of tec two gear is a million isk. No one is going to be able to afford to go to nullsec given the cost of replaceing lost ships and gear. Also, all the miners and builders will lose their coustiomers once everyone is broke.

Most of the people I talk to feel this is a way for CCP to take some Isk out of the game so fewer people can pay for their accounts with PLEX.

shado20
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:07:00 - [731]
 

the only thing i have to say is, why was this not implemited the first time around!
yes the better systems need to be BETTER than the rest.
its a shame that if we hold one of thos -0.9 systems, its no better than the -0.1 and thats a shame!
i see alot of negitive post here, CCP please dont lisen to them! no one likes it when you take away there candy and acuoly make players work for better space.

this shuld also have a inpact on thos nasty bot runing players, as corps will want to move into the better space and thos pore bots will half to take the space no one wants.


how to kill a 0.0 bot! - get 6 or more of your friends, get into a system with a bot and everyone take a belt. log off. wate 5 minits or more in rare cases. everyone logon at the same time using teamspeek to cordinate this. when you log on at the belt, if you have the bot at your belt, tackle it. have all your friends come to help you kill it in the 2 minits you have. easy as pie!

Zan Talos
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:24:00 - [732]
 

OMG when did all these whiners start playing Eve, This is a perfect re-balance of 0.0 right now I know for a fact that with the current system there is ZERO reason for any alliance to move into "better space" because all you have to do is throw some isk at whatever space you own and bam! you pretty much got -1.0 space. This is very wrong making 0.0 into nothing but a nap fest of carebears. The only thing that the current changes will do is make the space like Pre-Dominion.

Now lets looks at what we do get the keep and thats the ability to upgrade the systems some say up to Hubs for -.1 - (-).5 well yes you dont have Havens and Sanctums but you can still make 10mil an hour easy ratting hubs in a Hac or Command. So Really just stop complaining and adapt.

Ella Scorpio
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:28:00 - [733]
 

As others have pointed out, the problem isn't the central idea (truesec status should make a difference) but the way the banding works. The worst nullsec system when upgraded should still be better than sitting in Dodixie running level 4 missions. So the worst nullsec system should at least have 1 haven and 1 sanctum (when upgraded), and it should go up from there. But as I said before, the real problem is in the design of the anoms. Hubs are OK, everything below that is crap whatever your skill level or ship type. Entrapment arrays don't work. There's so much other stuff to fix first before you do this and make nullsec a ghost town populated only in great truesec systems by giant alliances and bots.

Melkie
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:31:00 - [734]
 

**** Idea, not rebalancing just making an awesome place quite horrid

Col Ethix
Amarr
Element 115.
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:33:00 - [735]
 


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

lmao are you kiding me ??? this wont effect coalitions... they rely on moon income 1. 2 newer alliance wont get a foothold due to the fact that larger alliances will hold the good space leaving no room for those "smaller" or "newer" alliance able to grow, they will jsut be easy pickings for the big dogs. 3 this may increase conflict yes but eves main power blocks SC NC and Russians will hold the most valued space in game. They've been holding current and some spaces for nearly 6 years now and you think this will change anything. I'm sorry your sadly mistaken. Thank You

// Col Ethix
E115 CEO

Lost'In'Space
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:41:00 - [736]
 

Originally by: Silverskull7

NC:52k, nearest powerblock DRF: 26k



Who are DRF? for those of us who don't pay much attention to 0.0 politics, but now I want to know.

Tarasina
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:43:00 - [737]
 

Edited by: Tarasina on 27/03/2011 00:53:33
Originally by: Iron Breaker
I am pretty new to nullsec, but everything out there costs a lot. Every pice of tec two gear is a million isk. No one is going to be able to afford to go to nullsec given the cost of replaceing lost ships and gear. Also, all the miners and builders will lose their coustiomers once everyone is broke.

Most of the people I talk to feel this is a way for CCP to take some Isk out of the game so fewer people can pay for their accounts with PLEX.


Being able to DOCK in a station in 0.0 is a problem. You are only guaranteed to be able to do that in NPC 0.0. In addition to gear costing twice or thrice the prices in Hisec.

How does fewer ppl playing via PLEX change anything? PLEX = CCP already got the money anyway!

What it would do for me is fewer accounts or no accounts at all if I couldn't play via PLEX (currently 2 accs).

I don't live in 0.0 because solo, it is not worth it. Lowsec is much better for that.



People making less isk means either more time grinding or more bots/RMT.

At a certain point a game should be more fun than grind. If it is 8 hours of grind for 2 minutes of fun, I don't see the point in playing. The bigger the difference between time of "fun and games" and time invested to grind, the more ppl will leave or go to illegal means.

I mean, people wading in isk would go out there and just shoot sheet up for no reason, you would have 100 times more PVP.


The biggest problem with Eve is that it is too centered on isk to begin with. Either you have fun or you have isk. In simple terms.


Sebastian Hoch
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:48:00 - [738]
 

Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins


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



As long as you allow empires to exist they will keep weaker powers from developing and exploit them when they can. So you need a place or way in which new powers can grow outside of their dominance. Low sec does not work to incubate new alliances because moving from null to low means major changes in game play and there is no money to be made there. Players that want to live in nullsec join a nullsec corp/alliance. They don't join a low sec corp or alliance hoping to be strong enough to move to null in a year or so. So you have to make it so empires cannot exist, or you give the little guys a place apart from them to grow. Taking out empires from the game would be a major blow to the sandbox.

Seb

Van Ketris
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:49:00 - [739]
 

I like how nulli secunda, who just moved into what would become one of the best area's with this change is arguing loudest for it.

Ancyker
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:50:00 - [740]
 

Edited by: Ancyker on 27/03/2011 00:56:11
If you really must do this, make the current system the baseline for -0.1 with -0.9 being about twice as good. I'd rather have the rats in the sanctums and stuff based on the truesec than have the truesec affect what sites are available. Shooting at 20k ISK cruisers is boring. While shooting at 500k battleships isn't that great either, it beats shooting at useless ships that take me longer to lock than to kill.

Nerfing is not the way to go. ISK amount doesn't really matter much to be honest. What things are worth time wise is going to be constant, it will take a while for things to catch up but overall this changes nothing except makes things look cheaper. Less ISK means less buyers means prices go down... eventually. Short term this inconveniences a lot of people and for what? Cosmetics? You want a smaller number? Is that prettier?

Things in EVE are like the value of gold in real life. The value of gold has remained relatively constant, while the value of money has decreased, so it takes more money to buy the same amount of gold. New changes that make it take more time to get the same amount will cause the value of the currency to increase while the value of items remains about the same. So what do these series of changes from CCP actually mean? The economy is going to be completely f*cked for months while it adjusts. The time you spend now to get an item will be about equal to the time you spend a year from now. But who wants that? Who cares really?

See it this way (just an example):
- Item X costs 100,000,000 ISK right now
- Average player makes 10mil/hour
- The income of players per hour is reduced by a factor of 10.
- Average player now makes 1mil/hour
- Months pass by ... economy adjusts
- Item X now costs 10,000,000 ISK
- What changed? Nothing. Just a (very large) inconvenience for all current players for a change new people joining a year from now won't even notice.

Good time to horde liquid ISK, as if these changes to go into effect the value of ISK will increase. This is contrary to the expected outcome and how the real world works. In the real world, usually hording products secures your financial security. For example, your house (if maintained) increases in cost as the value of money decreases.

Don't tell me this is for the new player either, I just joined about 6 or 7 months ago and had no issues getting started in EVE. I do like the ideas of no agent quality/dynamic agent quality and anoms based on truesec, I don't like the proposed way to implement those changes.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.27 00:59:00 - [741]
 

surely a Recession is bad for the game?

John Haldane
Posted - 2011.03.27 01:09:00 - [742]
 

Greyscale - thanks for the reply. The thing about all the arguments advanced in your reply is that they ignore the extremely concentrated and clustered nature of low-trusec 0.0. It's not that some _systems_ get nerfed; it's that whole _regions_ get nerfed. Pure Blind has -one- -0.45 system. That's as good as it gets, for 85 occupied systems. How many people can we pack into those two sanctums?

You also seem to be surprised that people are upset. Well, you've just reversed course from the Dominion changes, without any significant notice.

What's more, you've also gotten people to sink a lot of ISK into immobile infrastructure that will never justify even its upkeep expenses. Even better, the people you claim to want to encourage are the ones you're screwing over.

To you, all that's just another ISK sink -- but people actually worked to build all that. Naturally they're upset. It's hard to make good long-term decisions when the rules change without warning.

Changing subjects slightly:

What are you ACTUALLY trying to achieve with this change? Unlike others in this thread, I don't think you or CCP are stupid or ignorant.

Therefore, I think your initial explanation was extremely economical with the truth. Shake off the shackles of the PR department and level with us.

Pedro Snachez
Senex Legio
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2011.03.27 01:12:00 - [743]
 

Hopefully I have been trolled, but I'll bite because I'm bored...

Originally by: Zan Talos
The only thing that the current changes will do is make the space like Pre-Dominion.


So... make the space able to support a fraction of the current population, just like in Pre-Dominion. That sounds great Rolling Eyes The whole point of the anomaly system was to allow more people to live in less space in 0.0. These proposed changes essentially roll back that entire (good) concept while ripping off anyone who invested anything in a non -0.9 system. It's hard to promote conflict in 0.0 when nobody's living there.

Originally by: Zan Talos
Now lets looks at what we do get the keep and thats the ability to upgrade the systems some say up to Hubs for -.1 - (-).5 well yes you dont have Havens and Sanctums but you can still make 10mil an hour easy ratting hubs in a Hac or Command. So Really just stop complaining and adapt.


Wow. A whole 10 mil an hour?! I, for one, can't wait to have to grind for 15 hours to T2 fit a HAC. Any space, even the worst truesec 0.0 in existence (which I happen to live in), should provide more income than level 4 missioning. CCP loves risk vs. reward, and these changes don't reflect any of that whatsoever. The idea of having to jumpclone out of 0.0 to make money to defend your 0.0 space is ridiculous.

Alliances fight for and with moon goo. If CCP wants to shake things up, then they should make existing Tech moons deplete and new Tech spawn on other moons. If the new tech moon pops up in renter space or other space occupied by a less powerful alliance, then you have created strain as one friendly entity needs to exert control over another.

As for Havens/Sanctums, the way you create friction between friendly entities is to create a "grass is greener" scenario. All 0.0 should be able to support as many people as it currently does. However, lower truesec should provide more wealth. Currently, all grass is equally green, and this system does not create any jealousy within power blocs. Conversely, implementing the current CCP plan makes a small minority of grass extremely green while completely eradicating ~60% of everything else. People in low-quality 0.0 should be able to live comfortably, certainly better than in highsec, but should look to their high-quality space-owning neighbors with some jealousy, thinking man, it must be nice to be able to fly those ships all the time... That's what CCP should be aiming for, in my opinion.

KaraflasXAM
Posted - 2011.03.27 01:15:00 - [744]
 

This is so wrong it defies belief.

Not only you openly admit that all the time and effort we spent upgrading systems goes to waste but at the same time you make hi-sec mission running more profitable than the vast majority 0.0 !!!

More plexes will be the answer ??? You must be joking......








Redwind Thrawn
Posted - 2011.03.27 01:34:00 - [745]
 

Lets see where this lands. CCP is gunna do it. I hope it works out. Count my vote for it won't work and a large population will leave.

Good luck CCP.

Wokou John
Posted - 2011.03.27 01:39:00 - [746]
 

If ccp truly want more conflict they should be injecting more isk into all of null-sec, not screwing over the majority players and especially the smaller alliances. We're going to have the ludicrous situation of heading out of null-sec to make isk. Whats the point of holding sov on systems if they have no value?

Personally I don't have the time to spend 40 something hours grinding for a plex and more to the point why would I want to? Spend all the time I get to play eve grinding so I can buy a plex so I can grind some more

Great job CCP

Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.27 01:53:00 - [747]
 

While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through.

There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had.

Clearly Providence residents did not have access to the riches that anyone with sov and an ihub does now. Despite it being one of the consistently most violent regions residents still managed to replace ships. So counter arguments based around being unable to afford PvP have little merit from where I sit.

I guarantee that if you make vast tracts of 0.0 "worthless" in the pre-Dominion Provi sense, you will still have people staking a claim there. These people will still (as-always) be at the mercy of the big powers knocking over their sand-castles. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over.

So called "little" corps/alliances in this thread worry they won't have a chance in null sec because they won't be able to make their rent? They could grab this "worthless" space that supposedly no one would want and save on rent!

I do agree that CCP really don't understand their game so this is a right change for the wrong reasons. The reason for the influx of people to 0.0 is not because there is suddenly more isk to be made there. The reason for the increase in 0.0 population is that current mechanics provide an incentive for the great powers to offer security in exchange for rental fees.

Unfortunately the double edged sword of making all space desirable rental property, is that you reduce the diversity and quality of conflict in 0.0. The best conflicts are ones in which both sides are in the same class, and where numbers on both sides allow it to be playable. Sov battles between two renters of neighboring superpowers will inevitably escalate into full block warfare.

Lots of "worthless" space allows what some may term "cripple fights" and encourages gathering of coalitions of the same "class" rather than a superpower that can maintain balance with other superpowers and it's sea of renters.

Yes NAPs and power blocks will always remain in a sandbox game, but all space being equal value (combined with the ease of projecting power, and the ability to knock over empires in a fortnight) encourages power blocks to grow as long as they can find renters to fill their conquests.

Making space "worthless" to top tier power blocks encourages the formation of more independent middle and low tier blocks. Mix that with making projection of force more difficult and you have things going in the right direction as far as encouraging variety in 0.0 conflict.

Deumos
Posted - 2011.03.27 02:16:00 - [748]
 

This is ludicrous i have been in 0.0 and if you restrict the systems that have sanctums the big alliances that hold the space they will just take those systems and i see no point going back to 0.0 really.I would much rather keep things as is but increase the amount of sanctums in the better systems currently to reward those that took the space.

Pedro Snachez
Senex Legio
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2011.03.27 02:35:00 - [749]
 

Originally by: Clavius XIV
While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through.

There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had.


Yeah, but that was before sov costs and POS fuel went through the roof, making it much harder to spam sov and have enough belts to support residents. What has been said about CVA already in this thread was true of many 0.0 powers before the Dominion changes: Highsec mission alts were common for someone who wasn't already wealthy. Mission on the alt, log the main in to spend the alt's Highsec money. Now, people tend to do both with their main characters, meaning that people don't need multiple accounts or to jump back and forth between 0.0 and Empire to survive. Anomalies tie 0.0 residents to 0.0, and that's ultimately a good thing.

The huge boom in 0.0 population (which I see nobody complaining about) post-Dominion was due to the ability of a small amount of space to provide good income for more people, especially those that didn't have fully-trained alts or secondary accounts. The issue I have with your argument is the fact that you have quotes around worthless. The truth is, upwards of 60% of all of 0.0 will not be worth the sov costs to hold. The possible income from the resources there would not be enough to even hold sov. Forget big power blocks or new alliances, if the math doesn't work then the math doesn't work. Period.

People keep arguing about 0.0 being about goodfights, but that's bull. Goddfights happen because of good money. All the PVP gumption in the world won't make a ship appear out of thin air. Well-funded 0.0 residents fight and die in expensive ships, and if you make the real life time cost of making ISK in 0.0 skyrocket, then people will either move back to highsec or blob even harder to create situation in which they can't lose. The question is simply this: Should 0.0 residents of all sizes and locations have access to enough ISK to actually make it worth defending space, or are those who don't hold awesome truesec space there as Highsec-living tourists who jump out for a "good time" every couple of days? CCP wants more people to live and actually stay in 0.0, and this "fix" does the opposite.

Estimated Prophet
Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe and Trading Company
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2011.03.27 03:02:00 - [750]
 

There's a major, fundamental difference between the real world and game worlds that CCP have missed, and I think is the root cause of the conflict here.

In the real world, lack of resources drives conflict. If you don't have enough food, or water, or land to grow food, you die. So you go war to get it, or die trying.

In game worlds, and EVE in particular, lack of resources stifles conflict. Lack of resources doesn't cause death, at worst it causes boredom; we fight for excitement, not survival. How many times have you heard these words in your Alliance chat/forums: "How do I make ISK so I can afford to PvP?" Look at Geminate; who's fighting? The NC vs the Drone Regions, two of the richest power blocks in the game. Before that? The Cluster**** vs IT. And that only happened after Goonswarm had been in Deklein long enough to recover from the financial disaster of a year ago. And now that the Goons have recovered financially, they're reimbursing all PvP losses, not just strategic operations.

tl;dr: If you want to increase conflict in EVE you need to reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor, not increase it.


Pages: first : previous : ... 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 ... : 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