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 : ... 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:41:00 - [1021]
 


I do think that anomaly changes are quite good and anyway they can be tweaked, and after all ratting anomalies are only one form of income (there are also mining sites and complex, and those are worth a lot), but I am quoting this for truth:

Originally by: Hermosa Diosas
Originally by: Ryans Revenge
This has the completely opposite effect realisticly..

Big alliances use moon goo. Small alliances/corps use anomalies. You've just killed off the smaller corps income. Well done.


This ^^ ITS MOON GOLD THAT NEEDS TO BE SORTED!!



Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:41:00 - [1022]
 

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.

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.


Well said Clav!

Kenjie94
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:54:00 - [1023]
 

CCP what weed you are taking?

•Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space

we dont want those space anyways!!!


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

eve lost 40+ TITANS and 50+ Super Carriers plus hundreds of carriers and dreads!!! on 1st quarter of 2011 alone!!! FIX LAG FIRST IF YOU WANT MORE CONFLICTS!!!


•Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
I REALLY BELIEVE THAT CCP ARE TAKING SOME WEEDS!!!


•Coalitions will be marginally less stable
BFF FOR EVAHHHHH!!!

•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)

THE DEVELOPER WHO DON'T KNOW THEIR GAMES!!!



FIX LAG FIRST!!!



StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:56:00 - [1024]
 

Originally by: Hardin
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.

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.[/quote]

Well said Clav!


Just wanted to highlight and say that it will be worthless to everyone.

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:06:00 - [1025]
 

Anomaly changes have to come.. this is a weak start, hopefully those upgrades get nerfed to oblivion sooner rather than later.

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:34:00 - [1026]
 

Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath
Originally by: Liang Nuren

Ed: Also, laugh my ass off at anyone who wants to tell us all how elite 0.0 pros are, and then threaten to head back to high sec to make their ISK. What, low sec scares you? YARRRR!!


It's said to be better nowadays with unprobeable T3 missionrunning, but I have not tried that one yet as 0.0 anoms in their current form were sufficient for covering my expenses getting about ~10% better income off them than from hi sec level 4 missions (~90 to 120 mil / h). I stopped doing low sec when the new probing system was introduced same as all other low sec missionrunners who had a clue (a while before T3 were in game). Before dominion I was funding myself with hi sec level 4 missions and had only pvp/capital alts in 0.0.

On average I do 5 level 4 missions per hour. Average LP payout is a bit under 5000 LP in hi sec. I rarely decline level 4 missions although I have enough alts / chars to not have sit idle if I get few I really dont like in a row. That is with faction pimped Nightmare/Golem/CNR/Nighthawk (whatever happens to be the best tool for the mission) and running two accounts. Ofc factiom pimp is applied only where it makes sense (i.e., damage) and keeping in mind to not be attractive gank magnet.

In case of low sec in particular in my experience it stinks as rewards are smaller than alliance controlled 0.0 and risks are higher. It usually does not make economic sense to be there. Lev 5 missions and the FW missions are said to have made low sec more attractive but I cant comment on that as I have had no need to go find out. I mean why jerk around in low sec when you can skip the zoo and instead head out to NPC 0.0 if you are already willing to risk your skin and T3 cruiser. Doing missions in anything other than unprobeable (or at least hard to probe) T3 in low sec is just asking for trouble ofc.

The way I see the current change is that it just nukes to current population density support that 0.0 has. So the local population will either "starve" or have to find new ways to support themselves. The easiest way of avoiding starvation is to spread out as each system just supports somewhat less people than before. Meaning that current big alliances will need more territory. Holding territory is not that expencive still unless you install cyno jammers. So I expect nontrivial number of smaller alliances to be expelled from the 0.0 as actual holders of said space (the ones with the mothership blob) will need more room for their own members. That will not be sufficient so some people will have to send their isk making alts somewhere where game can support the population densities at higher level. In the case of pew-pew iskmaking characters this is more often than not NPC missions.


Your whole problem is that you are focusing on two things:
1) maximizing isk from shooting NPC's
2) being safe

Shooting NPC's was a poor mans (or PvP-centered players) option. Now it's the other way around, and the whole "being safe while making isk" mentality now plague this game.

At least when I started this game, having people hunt you while you belt rat was a nice chance to get a fight. Me and my friends flew with PvP fits and shot belt-rats inbetween roams, make isk and possibly get fights was damn nice. That has completely died off.

A decent 'fix' to this would be to drasticly reduce NPC bounties, from all sources, and look at means to increase the value of low- and nullsec mining.

FellRaven
Minmatar
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:36:00 - [1027]
 

My immediate response is what an idiot you are and how out of touch with the game realities you are.

YOU NEED TO FIX SOV WARFARE - that's it fix the Sov Warfare mechanics and you'll have conflict these changes you propose are totally meaningless. You have stated that you want more people in 0.0 well why don't you look at 0.0 population distribution and then ask yourself why that is.

In the Jita Park Corner section I've already proposed some solutions for you but I'll put them here as well.

Deep 0.0 needs to be accessible to attack, the north already has this because of Venal, and the south has Stains but there is nothing similar in the west of east. The east Drone lands is where the issue really hit home because of the sheer size of the space there with very few entry points.

Sov Times - you pick the best time for you plus or minus 3 hours. That is so lame there are three timers so for now lets just randomise it. (We can fix the whole Sov Machanics latter)

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:38:00 - [1028]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 28/03/2011 10:45:16
Or just get rid of Local in Null sec.

Its a pitty Wormholes take so much time to scan down and get going in, i'm sure most small corps and alliances can get a hold of their own space in a WH.

I am a firm believer that adding space on a periodic basis will cause conflict, new space, new shinys and new space to conquer.

If anything make sov make sov bills exponential so that the more space owned the more expensive it is. [not sure how it does it atm but i believe it is a static increase between # of systems owned] ?

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:53:00 - [1029]
 

Originally by: Hardin
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.

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.


Well said Clav!


Agree.

DahMoustacheMan DMM
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:56:00 - [1030]
 

This is a relayed text msg for Mr Norman Adolf Greyscale:

Norm, we have received worrying reports from your neighbouring roommates in our community psychiatric sheltered housing.
The continual noise from your pacing up and down, and wall banging is upsetting Beryl downstairs (you know she suffers from stress induced incontinence).
Gary in Room 734b says that he saw you babbling nonsense about null sex and other unmentionables into your television screen again.
You were also warned several times last week about smoking "herbal substances" inside the building as well as impersonating game developers online (you know what trouble you caused with Hello Kitty Online last time).
In light of all this disturbing behaviour,Nurse Janice will be contacting you to arrange an emergency appointment for a blood test to check that you have been taking all your medications.as agreed with your care team.
Until she contacts you, please step away from your mouse immediately. This is for your own good.
Dr. P. Issedoff.

Tub Chil
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:02:00 - [1031]
 

Sanctums are stupid, they should go from the game. introduce some other PVE content instead. 0.0 shouldn't be a carebearing heaven with 0 risk
BUT!
even the worst 0.0 system should be as profitable (if not better) as a good agent in hisec. why? risk vs reward.

I'll post longer version later if I have time

luzhisheng
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:05:00 - [1032]
 

ban all bot. thats what you need to do.
nerf nullspace? joke.
ccp develop team doing more and more footle now.

Doris Dragonbreath
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:11:00 - [1033]
 

Originally by: Misanth

Your whole problem is that you are focusing on two things:
1) maximizing isk from shooting NPC's
2) being safe

Shooting NPC's was a poor mans (or PvP-centered players) option. Now it's the other way around, and the whole "being safe while making isk" mentality now plague this game.

At least when I started this game, having people hunt you while you belt rat was a nice chance to get a fight. Me and my friends flew with PvP fits and shot belt-rats inbetween roams, make isk and possibly get fights was damn nice. That has completely died off.

A decent 'fix' to this would be to drasticly reduce NPC bounties, from all sources, and look at means to increase the value of low- and nullsec mining.


Well thats what you do when making isk. You maximize isk and minimize the risk. Then you take that isk and go have fun with it. Mining is btw way too easy to disrupt with few well placed cloakers and small black ops gang.

It's not that I particularly care about shooting NPC's for my isk. I do what it takes to get my isk for having fun. I started as a miner but switched into shooting NPC's at 2006 as it got better than mining around second half of 2006 per account. I had only single account back then. For various reasons, like introduction of exhumers and especially after opening of drone regions. Nowadays I would have to spend half a year skilling up rest of my accounts for mining if thats what it would take to make isk.

From reliable consistent income sources shooting NPC's is still quite luractive, not only the "poor mans way" of getting isk. There are things that can give you better rewards but the rewards are usually either not consistent (like complexses) or have some other issues (like trading). Just grinding away at NPC is very predictable way of making isk. Well as preditable as mining actually.

But yeah I'm carebear. I do not pvp. I blob. Minimise risk, maximise propability of sucsess, play to win. This is EVE afterall, a dark unforgiving place. No need for chivalry and duels. When you have overwhelming superiority you apply it and be done with it. And afterwards I have fun with all the little personal projects that float my boat in EVE. Be it then building another station, a supercapital or find a way to squeeze out that last per cent of still-cost-effective-effectivity from empire missionrunning. Someone needs to build all these sand castles so other people would have something to knock over afterall ;)

missminer69
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:34:00 - [1034]
 

I really do not think it is the space that someone fights over, it is the values and belief. e.g. Capitalism versus Statism. NC versus DRF.

What the game needs is more new space on a perodic basis with new shinys. That to me is what will help the small guys get on the map but as it happens what about WH-ing.

Killing peoples methods to ISK is what will end the game for many people as I believe there are few that can spend Hours upon Hours grinding isk.

Again this comes down to researching the player base and understanding those that play the game in 0.0.

Wabs
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:46:00 - [1035]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


i totally agree with this! fix it! Cool good job in pushing thru even with the negative response, its better in the long term... Smile

Tariana Eve
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:54:00 - [1036]
 

Sweet!
CCP suppose to be God's, they can do it, so leave the game as is BUT ADD more stuff to it, more rats more opportunities space around instead of nerfing just certain areas.


Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:06:00 - [1037]
 

Edited by: Super Whopper on 28/03/2011 12:12:15
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.

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.


So right. People move out to 0.0 to mine veldspar, because it's unavailable in high sec Rolling Eyes

When a 10k man entity has the choice to fight over sanctums or moons they're going to choose sanctums, because you can really fund a cap fleet with ratting.

FellRaven
Minmatar
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:08:00 - [1038]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


After all CCP have such a good record in pushing through game enhancing changes, SOV system anyone.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:08:00 - [1039]
 

Originally by: Wabs
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


i totally agree with this! fix it! Cool good job in pushing thru even with the negative response, its better in the long term... Smile


I agree too.

CCP, don't fix guns, don't fix moon imbalance, don't fix the super cap problem (which was created by you), don't fix PI, don't work on WH's, don't work on FW, don't fix BO's, don't fix any of the problems in the game, nerf 0.0 instead.

When enough people have left shareholders will show you lot the exit.

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:16:00 - [1040]
 

Edited by: Misanth on 28/03/2011 12:18:58
Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath
Well thats what you do when making isk. You maximize isk and minimize the risk. Then you take that isk and go have fun with it. Mining is btw way too easy to disrupt with few well placed cloakers and small black ops gang.


Exactly what I'm talking about. The mentality. Since you are aware of how mining degraded massively around 2006, then you should also know that missioning was worse than beltratting, and beltratting was worse than mining (ahead of that point, that is).

Look at it this way: PvPers can't mine, they can't produce, they can play the market but obviously not very effectively. They can run exploration sites if they expand a wee bit on their skills. CCP have stated "PvP is not a profession", so the primary income for a combat pilot, should and will be to shoot NPC's in the face.

Shooting NPC's in the face should be lowest on the carebear scale. Right now, the only profession that is reasonable for a PvPer, have been made to a safe haven for carebears, and in the same wim, it killed off beltratting which was a great source for fights (both in offense, and defence).

Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath
It's not that I particularly care about shooting NPC's for my isk. I do what it takes to get my isk for having fun. ..snip/etc..

From reliable consistent income sources shooting NPC's is still quite luractive, not only the "poor mans way" of getting isk. ..snip/etc..

But yeah I'm carebear. I do not pvp. I blob. Minimise risk, maximise propability of sucsess, play to win. This is EVE afterall, a dark unforgiving place. No need for chivalry and duels. ..snip/etc..


Exactly what I'm talking about. You, and the people with your carebear mentality, have taken over the only reasonable isk source that was for combat pilots. Not only that, CCP have made it completely blobtastic and supersafe. It's damn hard for a small group of people to enter an upgraded, usually crowded, system, probe and hit dscan same time to try pin which anomaly they are in.

For what it was worth, beltratting was never great income. It had the odd faction spawns, and officers (while they were still soloable in subcaps), but apart from that it was also a great combat ground.

Nerfing anomalies to oblivion would do nothing against carebears, they have other aspects in this game they can thrive on. And combat pilots would go back to the belts.

Edit; and what I posted previosly - mining really needs love. Five years ago. Come on CCP, give the carebears some love where they need it. Especially for low-, and even more so, in nullsec. Here's a great incentitive for boosting different truesecs as well.

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:20:00 - [1041]
 

Originally by: Tariana Eve
Sweet!
CCP suppose to be God's, they can do it, so leave the game as is BUT ADD more stuff to it, more rats more opportunities space around instead of nerfing just certain areas.




that's what i said. i'm all for a tiered system, but this is the wrong direction. the bare minimum people (individuals) should be able to make in null should be just above what they would make in hi/lowsec. the alliance does have to pay for SOV and upgrades afterall.

so, make officers not span at all in -0.4 and below and have them spawn very frequently in -1.0... plus, make the average earnings maybe 50% higher in those systems.

as for the pre-dominion comments: i didn't play back then, so correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding is that ship insurance was better, most of null was fairly empty and thus had less risk and there were less operation costs (alliances currently pay for SOV, upgrades, outposts, jammers, etc) and there weren't so many $$$$$ toys to be had.

Nelios Ran
Caldari
New Eden Regimental Navy
Rebel Alliance of New Eden
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:22:00 - [1042]
 

This will definately have a negative affect on smaller alliances. Ratting is a huge income source for the small groups as we don't get to have the uber-value moons. Which means, nerfing this will reduce the overall income a corp/alliance can generate to pay for upgrades, rent to landlords, POS fuels. There is a whole slew of things that become out of reach to a small group.

This will not generate conflict, it will turn people from 0.0 more and will help to keep population living in high sec because they can do lvl 4 missions all day and not actually risk anything but make enough money to do what they want.

Jenn aSide
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:25:00 - [1043]
 

I think this idea is all wrong. 2 things might fix it.

A) keep the SITEs as they are, but change the value of the rats. For instance (in angel space) in "good" truesec space you'd get malakims and cherubims in a sanctum, in "bad" true sec system, only commander and warlords. Sanctums would still be viable, but people would still have a reason to pursue better space.

or

B) Fix the damn "filler" sites, make more on the level of the "Forsaken" anoms (Forsaken Hub and rally points are the ONLY non-haven/sanctum anoms worth doing). The filler sites are just taking up space (pun intended), make them less useless somehow and it makes taking away the good stuff more palatable.

oh, and C) learn how your own game works ccp. Anoms let individual players play in 0.0, because we don't get access to our alliance's moon goo.....

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:28:00 - [1044]
 

Originally by: Misanth

Exactly what I'm talking about. You, and the people with your carebear mentality, have taken over the only reasonable isk source that was for combat pilots. Not only that, CCP have made it completely blobtastic and supersafe. It's damn hard for a small group of people to enter an upgraded, usually crowded, system, probe and hit dscan same time to try pin which anomaly they are in.



so you're effectively saying that them playing smarter shouldn't be rewarded? that people who are just like "weeee pew pew weeeeee" and ignore all other aspects of the game should be the ones to get the rewards?
look, the simply fact of the matter is that people who have more ISK will win. there is no way to change that. how do you get more isk? you do isk-making activities; a.k.a. what we've dubbed carebearing.

to me the entire point of null is acquire space which can make you massive amounts of isk, but you have to defend. which sounds exactly like the status quo. alliances grow, they need new space, they go after the nearest neighbor whom they dislike. no matter how the dynamic changes this will be the simple truth. at some point this will even happen within the NC. i know some of you would like that sooner than later, but maybe try finding a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for you.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:47:00 - [1045]
 

Originally by: Arnakoz
Originally by: Misanth

Exactly what I'm talking about. You, and the people with your carebear mentality, have taken over the only reasonable isk source that was for combat pilots. Not only that, CCP have made it completely blobtastic and supersafe. It's damn hard for a small group of people to enter an upgraded, usually crowded, system, probe and hit dscan same time to try pin which anomaly they are in.



so you're effectively saying that them playing smarter shouldn't be rewarded? that people who are just like "weeee pew pew weeeeee" and ignore all other aspects of the game should be the ones to get the rewards?
look, the simply fact of the matter is that people who have more ISK will win. there is no way to change that. how do you get more isk? you do isk-making activities; a.k.a. what we've dubbed carebearing.

to me the entire point of null is acquire space which can make you massive amounts of isk, but you have to defend. which sounds exactly like the status quo. alliances grow, they need new space, they go after the nearest neighbor whom they dislike. no matter how the dynamic changes this will be the simple truth. at some point this will even happen within the NC. i know some of you would like that sooner than later, but maybe try finding a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for you.


I, too, would like to find a way of playing EVE without ever having to log on, because logging on involves CCP doing it for me (providing me with tools to play the game the way I feel like).

But it seems you have found a way of doing exactly this. Do tell how you do it.

knobber Jobbler
Holding Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:05:00 - [1046]
 

Edited by: knobber Jobbler on 28/03/2011 13:10:11
Poorly thought out CCP.

Your proposals show just how little you play the core game i.e. internet spaceships. Of all the changes that would help 0.0 and new corps get in there this is about the worst. Its even worse that some of the half baked dumbass ideas we see on the forums.

1. These changes will severely hurt the more casual 0.0 resident and really harm the smaller corps.

2. These changes will encourage botting and RMT, which you should be spending your resources on combating. I don't think you realise CCP that many people are 1 step away from doing the botting and RMT thing because of you're complete inaction over it.

3. This will just mean alliances go and take the better space and stay there just like they do now. In the short term your changes will just shift a few power blocks around but in the long term the same people in the same alliances will control the best space. You'll just have to do this again next year.

4. This won't help smaller groups get a 0.0 foothold. There is crappy space already they can go and live in. They'll have even less chance of getting any decent space if you make these changes and they certainly won't be able to make much money in them since you're going to nerf there income.

5. Nerf wormhole income. Where do you think all the non botted supercapitals are made?

6. Smaller alliances will still get squashed if they are near a bigger alliance.

CCP Greyscale, do you realise that smaller organisation need those anomolies to make money? Do you realise that large ones power themselves using moongoo?

Do you realise that the only way to make money for ships in 0.0 for the average player is anomolies and Sanctums?

Do you realise the risk vs reward factor? This isn't high sec carebear land where I face no risk but can make 50m per hour doing AFK missions? I can actually get killed in 0.0 and you want to nerf where I live? If you're going to screw up 0.0, at least add in some more ISK making content as I don't want to ever run missions ever again.

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:06:00 - [1047]
 

Edited by: Arnakoz on 28/03/2011 13:11:31
Originally by: Super Whopper

I, too, would like to find a way of playing EVE without ever having to log on, because logging on involves CCP doing it for me (providing me with tools to play the game the way I feel like).

But it seems you have found a way of doing exactly this. Do tell how you do it.

eh, ... ok. i'm not sure where you are going with that, or what it has to do with the topic at hand.

maybe you;re trying to say that the mere fact that you can log on to play is CCP winning for you??
if so, then you're probably good with people just playing like "hey, CCP give me lots of ISK please!" and them doing it. but rather, they have to "[find] a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for [them]." much like i suggested.

but if you're talking about my specific lack of activity over the past few months: i play occasionally, but started an entire new career recently, in software, when my education is in structural engineering. so eve hasn't been high on my priorities. i fiond a few minutes here and there to troll the forums, but playing takes larger chucks of time than i've had. now that i'm more comfortable with my work i'm getting back into it though. i'll be sure to say hi if i see you Cool

edit: besides, i'm still not sure how, in either case, it has to do with the topic of this thread.... ?

knobber Jobbler
Holding Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:11:00 - [1048]
 

Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player.

Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly.


But CCP doesn't understand this as none of them actually play EVE. To busy eating pickled fish and thinking of cool things to do that don't involve internet space ships.

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:16:00 - [1049]
 

Originally by: knobber Jobbler
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player.

Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly.


But CCP doesn't understand this as none of them actually play EVE. To busy eating pickled fish and thinking of cool things to do that don't involve internet space ships.


someone in this thread mentioned that "printing isk" would be a bad idea. they may be right to some degree. but to a degree i also agree with you here. losing a ship should cost a player of a few hours of grinding to replace, as incentive to win. but on the other hand, making ISK too easy to come by would make getting titans and the likes too easy, and make it feel like there isn't much of an end goal. and if loosing ships doesn't hurt, then mining tears wont even be as fun. TBH, i think the rate of income presently is just right. losses hurt, but don;t take weeks to replace (depending on the ship, of course) ... so plenty of room for pew AND tears.

Iohet Nolafew
Star Frontiers
Ignore This.
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:20:00 - [1050]
 

Edited by: Iohet Nolafew on 28/03/2011 13:20:34
So some areas get some negatives, but there are other resources in those regions that are better than regions that gain from this. Balance is good.


Pages: first : previous : ... 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 ... : 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