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 : ... 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Locii
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:28:00 - [1681]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
Originally by: Evelgrivion
If too many people run level 4s, all level four agents should offer poor payout.

For force projection to work, capital ship cyno jumps need to take a notable amount of time to spin up and activate. Jump Portals need to take time to turn on as well. Jump Bridges need to stop being able to teleport entire fleets so long as they have the fuel to do so - which can be accomplished by adding a 10 second cooldown timer for each ship that hops through after the first five to ten, for example.

Jump range can be decreased, penalties for interrupted jumps can be added, and generally making a move with a capital ship can be made into a risky action.

If you can't deploy your heavy hitters flippantly, you can't take down alliances trying to make a name for themselves unless they're seen as a genuine threat that warrants the risks to their existing space and military hardware. That means those ships also need to be problematic to lose, which ties back to problems about easy ship movement, the quick acquisition speed of ISK, and other such issues. I meant it when I said the root cause of the game's ills is easy access to ISK, Minerals, and transportation.


You must be trollin'


Prove my argument wrong. The game existed in a state where it was hard to move materials and acquire materials in bulk once, and players existed in proportionately smaller organizations as a result of the living conditions.


just because it was harder to move mins about dosnt make the blue list shorter.
even if i was to have to move mins in a freighter gate by gate, it still wouldnt make sence to make systems worthless for anything except mining?

maybe instead of anom runners we will see a massive amount of miners due to the fact industry changes are not taking place with this change.

nerf the belts if you wanna use the excuse about linking it to true sec

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:30:00 - [1682]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
Originally by: Evelgrivion
If too many people run level 4s, all level four agents should offer poor payout.

For force projection to work, capital ship cyno jumps need to take a notable amount of time to spin up and activate. Jump Portals need to take time to turn on as well. Jump Bridges need to stop being able to teleport entire fleets so long as they have the fuel to do so - which can be accomplished by adding a 10 second cooldown timer for each ship that hops through after the first five to ten, for example.

Jump range can be decreased, penalties for interrupted jumps can be added, and generally making a move with a capital ship can be made into a risky action.

If you can't deploy your heavy hitters flippantly, you can't take down alliances trying to make a name for themselves unless they're seen as a genuine threat that warrants the risks to their existing space and military hardware. That means those ships also need to be problematic to lose, which ties back to problems about easy ship movement, the quick acquisition speed of ISK, and other such issues. I meant it when I said the root cause of the game's ills is easy access to ISK, Minerals, and transportation.


You must be trollin'


Prove my argument wrong. The game existed in a state where it was hard to move materials and acquire materials in bulk once, and players existed in proportionately smaller organizations as a result of the living conditions.


That would be all good and dandy , but jump bridges and **** ,supers already dominate 0.0, so this change wont do S*** to 0.0 wars, if anything smal entities wont have a place in 0.0, and will get stomped like they were in the good old days.CCP doing half planned measures makes me laugh in real life hard.I mean the DEV was at the fanfest and couldn´t check the data , after a couple of days ,he comes and says yup i was rigth,without providing the data and any proof what so ever of his research .

Yeah right..

Jennifer Gemini
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:30:00 - [1683]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
Originally by: Evelgrivion
If too many people run level 4s, all level four agents should offer poor payout.

For force projection to work, capital ship cyno jumps need to take a notable amount of time to spin up and activate. Jump Portals need to take time to turn on as well. Jump Bridges need to stop being able to teleport entire fleets so long as they have the fuel to do so - which can be accomplished by adding a 10 second cooldown timer for each ship that hops through after the first five to ten, for example.

Jump range can be decreased, penalties for interrupted jumps can be added, and generally making a move with a capital ship can be made into a risky action.

If you can't deploy your heavy hitters flippantly, you can't take down alliances trying to make a name for themselves unless they're seen as a genuine threat that warrants the risks to their existing space and military hardware. That means those ships also need to be problematic to lose, which ties back to problems about easy ship movement, the quick acquisition speed of ISK, and other such issues. I meant it when I said the root cause of the game's ills is easy access to ISK, Minerals, and transportation.


You must be trollin'


Prove my argument wrong. The game existed in a state where it was hard to move materials and acquire materials in bulk once, and players existed in proportionately smaller organizations as a result of the living conditions.


Few things:

- I didn't play back then
- Had I joined back then I probably wouldn't have stayed -- you might be like "Fine," but CCP cares, they want money.
- EVE was small back then as well, and the recent changes have encouraged more people (like myself) to actually play EVE. What do you think removing these beneficial changes will do?
- These changes hurt small alliances more than they help. Why would they take useless space that cannot sustain itself?
- If even the middle ground nullsec systems are about on par with highsec why even consider moving to nullsec?
- Alliances should be able to move freely in their own space. Large powerblocks exist because that's human nature. We are pack animals, we travel in groups. You can't overcome instinct with ****ty changes like these.
- Alliances paid for these upgrades, alliances paid for jump bridges and paid for pirate detection arrays, they invested thousands of hours of time into them. To have them taken away so easily is just BS. Why do anything in EVE if some idiot dev can just come along and be like "Ah I don't like that" and undo it all? When I pay for a game I expect some sort of security in what I do in it. I expect gradual changes where there is time to adapt but this is not gradual, it's quite extreme.
- It's game. It's supposed to be fun. When it's not fun anymore it's time to quit. Period.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:32:00 - [1684]
 

Originally by: Locii
just because it was harder to move mins about dosnt make the blue list shorter.
even if i was to have to move mins in a freighter gate by gate, it still wouldnt make sence to make systems worthless for anything except mining?

maybe instead of anom runners we will see a massive amount of miners due to the fact industry changes are not taking place with this change.

nerf the belts if you wanna use the excuse about linking it to true sec


Before anomalies existed, people farmed asteroid belts. When anomalies started showing up, people started probing for them. When infrastructure was added, people only had to press their onboard scanner to find sites that paid like the old 6/10 Deadspace complexes but with none of the difficulty.

The easy money will still be out there, it just won't be as gratuitous.

Locii
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:35:00 - [1685]
 

Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:34:59
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Locii
just because it was harder to move mins about dosnt make the blue list shorter.
even if i was to have to move mins in a freighter gate by gate, it still wouldnt make sence to make systems worthless for anything except mining?

maybe instead of anom runners we will see a massive amount of miners due to the fact industry changes are not taking place with this change.

nerf the belts if you wanna use the excuse about linking it to true sec


Before anomalies existed, people farmed asteroid belts. When anomalies started showing up, people started probing for them. When infrastructure was added, people only had to press their onboard scanner to find sites that paid like the old 6/10 Deadspace complexes but with none of the difficulty.

The easy money will still be out there, it just won't be as gratuitous.


the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one.

Pink Wasp
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:37:00 - [1686]
 

CCP Greyscale plz think again... meet up with somebody who acctual play's this game.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:41:00 - [1687]
 

Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
Few things:

- I didn't play back then

Then it might be wise to pay attention to the people who did.
Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
- Had I joined back then I probably wouldn't have stayed -- you might be like "Fine," but CCP cares, they want money.

I wonder about that. CCP set out to create the MMO that THEY wanted to play, and when they've focused on making the game they wanted, the expansions were always well received.
Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
- EVE was small back then as well, and the recent changes have encouraged more people (like myself) to actually play EVE. What do you think removing these beneficial changes will do?

People actually went and played Eve without sanctums, and they did it with eyes over their shoulders, adrenaline coursing through their veins and had fights that required nerves of ice to run properly, lest they lose too many ships that were difficult to replace. It was a different experience to the one you're used to, but people still played it BECAUSE it was thrilling.
Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
- These changes hurt small alliances more than they help. Why would they take useless space that cannot sustain itself?

How does it hurt a small alliance to create a pocket where they don't need to feed into a superblock who only wants you for a meat shield?
Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
- If even the middle ground nullsec systems are about on par with highsec why even consider moving to nullsec?

Because null-sec is about power. It's about playing with friends to take a chunk of space, claim it as your own, and then using the power you have in that space to take power away from other people. If you're only there to make money, you're there for all the wrong reasons.
Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
- Alliances should be able to move freely in their own space. Large powerblocks exist because that's human nature. We are pack animals, we travel in groups. You can't overcome instinct with ****ty changes like these.

I postulate that you can, in fact, overcome instinct to flock by stimulating the instinct of greed and self preservation. If everyone's happy, people get along. If people aren't happy, they don't. I disagree about the free movement in their own space as well; free movement encourages sprawl, and history has shown that this is not good for the game's health and enjoyability.
Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
- Alliances paid for these upgrades, alliances paid for jump bridges and paid for pirate detection arrays, they invested thousands of hours of time into them. To have them taken away so easily is just BS. Why do anything in EVE if some idiot dev can just come along and be like "Ah I don't like that" and undo it all? When I pay for a game I expect some sort of security in what I do in it. I expect gradual changes where there is time to adapt but this is not gradual, it's quite extreme.
They aren't being taken away. Did you even read the blog? The highest end sites are being nerfed because they're too damn good. There's no reason to want better space.
Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
- It's game. It's supposed to be fun. When it's not fun anymore it's time to quit. Period.

When CCP set out to create this game, they didn't have the attitude of the lackadaisical in mind. If you don't enjoy working for what you have and then seeing the power wrought by your hard work, then this really isn't the game for you. CCP shouldn't be trying to make it the game for you.


Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:43:00 - [1688]
 

Originally by: Locii
the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one.


Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it.

Locii
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:48:00 - [1689]
 

Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:48:21
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Locii
the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one.


Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it.


this dosnt make eve any harder, its just teh same as it always was. just instead of mission running before dom its anoms now. after this change it will be back to mission running.
this isnt harder this is the same just in a diffenet location.
the net result is mission runner alts, again.

nothing changes which why this is so short sighted.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:51:00 - [1690]
 

Originally by: Locii
Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:48:21
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Locii
the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one.


Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it.


this dosnt make eve any harder, its just teh same as it always was. just instead of mission running before dom its anoms now. after this change it will be back to mission running.
this isnt harder this is the same just in a diffenet location.
the net result is mission runner alts, again.

nothing changes which why this is so short sighted.


The amount of ISK people can make in an hour will go down, and there will be less money in Eve Online's economy. That is a change worth making, and one that will make a huge difference in the long term.

Skaarl
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:52:00 - [1691]
 

Edited by: Skaarl on 30/03/2011 12:55:11
Originally by: Locii
Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:48:21
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Locii
the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one.


Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it.


this dosnt make eve any harder, its just teh same as it always was. just instead of mission running before dom its anoms now. after this change it will be back to mission running.
this isnt harder this is the same just in a diffenet location.
the net result is mission runner alts, again.



nothing changes which why this is so short sighted.


actually it nets the same3 result, with fewer opportunities for obvious griefers like evol to shoot anything. CCP "we dont like risk: rewrad raitios, so we are going to drive most of the population to high sec level 4's where there is literally no risk whatsoever and make it easier to obtain the same rewards."

face it, the Devs that made eve great are working on dust. we have the C-team who haven't ever even logged into eve and think that sittin in a cubicle talking to their barbie doll constitutes a discussion about the game.

Ohai Kalkoken
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:53:00 - [1692]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
Edited by: StuRyan on 30/03/2011 12:41:58
Edited by: StuRyan on 30/03/2011 12:35:34
Originally by: Oguras
Sweet carebear tears ITT..

Well, null sec is right now carebear paradise with much greater reward/risk ratio than hisec. This attracts "average joes" from empire who prefer same low risk type of pvp (or only know this type) aka Blob.
It shouldn't be this way.

I approve this change, if You can't htfu and adapt, well maybe you shouldn't move from motsu in the first place.


You obviously haven't read any of this thread, most people if not everyone bar a few use ratting and plexing for isk to pvp. pre-dominion people paid for timecodes and then sold it to fund their pvp becuase it was impossible to ratit caused alliances to space out even more so that it could sustain more than 5 people in the system. This change is just going to cause all those issues again.

Greyscale is trying to whip up a storm - you gave people something valuable which was good for the game. When people can't have it they do 1 of two things try or join. I see blocks just getting even bigger somewhere along the lines there needs to be an entry level for alliances wanting their own land without the influence of blocks. this comes in the form of evolving and allowing people to do as they please with their land. It comes with having nothing and being able to do something with it. With the current model you get land with nothing and you will get nothing after months of hard work.

If you are wanting people to be able to claim space there needs to be an exponetial cost to owning systems that is influenced somehow by the number of people in the alliance / corp claiming.

AND PS: there is still a lot of unclaimed has annyone at CCP cared to find that information out?


I was there pre-dominion and I was able to prosper without sanctums.

They say 95% of eve players are male, I'd argue with that looking at this thread.
Do the Man thing: if the going gets tought, get toughter and deal with it.


Locii
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:53:00 - [1693]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Locii
Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:48:21
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Locii
the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one.


Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it.


this dosnt make eve any harder, its just teh same as it always was. just instead of mission running before dom its anoms now. after this change it will be back to mission running.
this isnt harder this is the same just in a diffenet location.
the net result is mission runner alts, again.

nothing changes which why this is so short sighted.


The amount of ISK people can make in an hour will go down, and there will be less money in Eve Online's economy. That is a change worth making, and one that will make a huge difference in the long term.


lol no it wont, belive me when i say i know how much i can make mission running and when you count lp its more than anoms

TNT Lottery
TNT GAME
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:55:00 - [1694]
 

I think that alot of the points made are important but the one CCP will understand most is:

More Players have more accounts because of sanctums. Remove Sanctums on such a grand scale, Less accounts. Less money for CCP in RL.

There are many who dont but i know since sanctums I have doubled the ammount of accounts i have just because i know ratting for a day or two will pay for the game time.

And believe me i wont hesitate in stop paying for the game time once this change comes into effect.

NO SANCTUMS NO EXTRA ACCOUNTS

Xune
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:56:00 - [1695]
 

I dont aprove at all :\ Will just increase the gap of players with multi billions being able to play the market games on large scale.
And those not rich enough to do so.

Rene Winter
Militant Mermen
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:58:00 - [1696]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Locii
Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:48:21
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Locii
the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one.


Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it.


this dosnt make eve any harder, its just teh same as it always was. just instead of mission running before dom its anoms now. after this change it will be back to mission running.
this isnt harder this is the same just in a diffenet location.
the net result is mission runner alts, again.

nothing changes which why this is so short sighted.


The amount of ISK people can make in an hour will go down, and there will be less money in Eve Online's economy. That is a change worth making, and one that will make a huge difference in the long term.


Question, If you only want less money in the economy would there be a problem with slashing bounties by a significant margin and replacing that with a roughly equivalent mix of loot/mins/sweet stuff? Or raising Sov bills so more ISK is sucked out of the economy? I would rather have either of those than the anom nerf.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.30 12:59:00 - [1697]
 

Originally by: TNT Lottery
I think that alot of the points made are important but the one CCP will understand most is:

More Players have more accounts because of sanctums. Remove Sanctums on such a grand scale, Less accounts. Less money for CCP in RL.

There are many who dont but i know since sanctums I have doubled the ammount of accounts i have just because i know ratting for a day or two will pay for the game time.

And believe me i wont hesitate in stop paying for the game time once this change comes into effect.

NO SANCTUMS NO EXTRA ACCOUNTS


No easy money means more long term players see value in sticking around for a long time, since consequences will mean something again, and CCP can get back to growing rather than stagnating at ~350,000 accounts because people don't want to play for years on end anymore.

Originally by: Xune
I dont aprove at all :\ Will just increase the gap of players with multi billions being able to play the market games on large scale.
And those not rich enough to do so.


Those players with multiple billions of ISK from market manipulation take the money of ratters to get rich. If there's less money from ratters, there are fewer billions in the hands of market manipulators. You won't suffer from this change.

Optimator One
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:01:00 - [1698]
 

Originally by: Locii

lol no it wont, belive me when i say i know how much i can make mission running and when you count lp its more than anoms

I agree.
The problem is also that alliances invested alot of isk into upgrades and moving them to their space.
Those upgrades will now get useless.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:02:00 - [1699]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 13:03:23
Originally by: Optimator One
Originally by: Locii

lol no it wont, belive me when i say i know how much i can make mission running and when you count lp its more than anoms

I agree.
The problem is also that alliances invested alot of isk into upgrades and moving them to their space.
Those upgrades will now get useless.


How can they become useless if they're still providing upgraded sites? All the changes do is remove sanctums from the low true-sec systems. The other, sites, while less valuable than sanctums, will still be there.

Originally by: Rene Winter
Question, If you only want less money in the economy would there be a problem with slashing bounties by a significant margin and replacing that with a roughly equivalent mix of loot/mins/sweet stuff? Or raising Sov bills so more ISK is sucked out of the economy? I would rather have either of those than the anom nerf.


CCP tried that once, and people compensated for reduced mission rat bounties by grinding more. The option has to not be there for these changes to have their desired effect; players always overcompensate with numbers and time if they can. Raising sov bills is a bandaid that maintains the high barrier to entry and power creep problems that were already in place, and force everyone to grind more to maintain the status quo. This change would hurt small alliances more than big alliances, in comparison to a game-wide change in anomaly mechanics.

Oguras
Gallente
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:03:00 - [1700]
 

Originally by: TNT Lottery
I think that alot of the points made are important but the one CCP will understand most is:

More Players have more accounts because of sanctums. Remove Sanctums on such a grand scale, Less accounts. Less money for CCP in RL.

There are many who dont but i know since sanctums I have doubled the ammount of accounts i have just because i know ratting for a day or two will pay for the game time.

And believe me i wont hesitate in stop paying for the game time once this change comes into effect.

NO SANCTUMS NO EXTRA ACCOUNTS


This is bs, you were extending gametime with plex wich had to be bought from ccp at one point; it will have effect on plex market but it doesn't mean that if you cancel your subscription ccp will be hurt.. less isk in game and smaller plex demand might be equal and ppl who use game time codes might not stop buying them..

Ofcourse IM anAlt
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:05:00 - [1701]
 

First day at CCP 2007.02.12
Title/Department Game Designer/Game Design
Motto One half of game design is having solid, well-reasoned opinions about everything. The other half is figuring out why they’re wrong
Bio It turns out that if you don’t bother doing any homework at school, you can go on to study a subject with no obvious applications at a really good university and then end up designing computer games in Iceland. I am not a good role model

CCP GREYSCALE bio on eveonline.com

this whole thread of CCP GREYSCALE telling us tough **** makes sence all of a sudden.
i cant even imagine the lag fest motsu gonna be when everyone move back to missions.

Skaarl
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:05:00 - [1702]
 

I would like to announce a mass protest of this decisions tomorrow, Thursday March 31st at 20:00 on the singularity server. If you disagree with the developers decisions and their lack of explanation of both their reasoning and models, or just want to watch the show, please show up. Quafe and exotic dancers will be in abundance so please show up and voice your concerns with this poorly conceived decision.

Latino lover
Minmatar
SEX WITH PENYS
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:07:00 - [1703]
 

Edited by: Latino lover on 30/03/2011 21:23:54
stop whining

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:08:00 - [1704]
 

Originally by: Skaarl
I would like to announce a mass protest of this decisions tomorrow, Thursday March 31st at 20:00 on the singularity server. If you disagree with the developers decisions and their lack of explanation of both their reasoning and models, or just want to watch the show, please show up. Quafe and exotic dancers will be in abundance so please show up and voice your concerns with this poorly conceived decision.


Other than making it harder for you as an individual to make lots and lots of money, how is this a poorly conceived decision? If your alliance has even a modest tax rate of 5% and an active member base of 20, the taxes should easily cover any sovereignty costs while leaving 95% of the space's income to you.

Skaarl
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:09:00 - [1705]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Skaarl
I would like to announce a mass protest of this decisions tomorrow, Thursday March 31st at 20:00 on the singularity server. If you disagree with the developers decisions and their lack of explanation of both their reasoning and models, or just want to watch the show, please show up. Quafe and exotic dancers will be in abundance so please show up and voice your concerns with this poorly conceived decision.


Other than making it harder for you as an individual to make lots and lots of money, how is this a poorly conceived decision? If your alliance has even a modest tax rate of 5% and an active member base of 20, the taxes should easily cover any sovereignty costs while leaving 95% of the space's income to you.


if you dont agree, dont show up. plain and simple. the fact that you feel compelled to even respam my post just shows that you really are nothing more than an internet troll.

Locii
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:09:00 - [1706]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 13:03:23
Originally by: Optimator One
Originally by: Locii

lol no it wont, belive me when i say i know how much i can make mission running and when you count lp its more than anoms

I agree.
The problem is also that alliances invested alot of isk into upgrades and moving them to their space.
Those upgrades will now get useless.


How can they become useless if they're still providing upgraded sites? All the changes do is remove sanctums from the low true-sec systems. The other, sites, while less valuable than sanctums, will still be there.

Originally by: Rene Winter
Question, If you only want less money in the economy would there be a problem with slashing bounties by a significant margin and replacing that with a roughly equivalent mix of loot/mins/sweet stuff? Or raising Sov bills so more ISK is sucked out of the economy? I would rather have either of those than the anom nerf.


CCP tried that once, and people compensated for reduced mission rat bounties by grinding more. The option has to not be there for these changes to have their desired effect; players always overcompensate with numbers and time if they can. Raising sov bills is a bandaid that maintains the high barrier to entry and power creep problems that were already in place, and force everyone to grind more to maintain the status quo. This change would hurt small alliances more than big alliances, in comparison to a game-wide change in anomaly mechanics.


there useless as the low lvl sites are worth less than lv3 missions. so you pay 3bil for your upgrades and you woudl be better off running lv3 missions in a drake. wow that sounds awesom.

all they had to do was change the value of the rats in the anoms. it really isnt that hard.
-0.5 the same
+10% as the sec increase by 0.1
-10% when it decreases by 0.1

by making massive chunks of -0.4 and below worthless people will go back to mission running any fool can see that, well unless your a ccp fool

bitters much
Nekkid Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:09:00 - [1707]
 

Originally by: mkmin
Originally by: helmeo
um, all those that are quitting can i have your stuffz?


That depends. If you're going to use it to suicide gank rookie systems, maybe.


I would use the surprise wealth to get me a fleet of AFK cloakers to sit in the few remaining high value systems Twisted Evil


Rene Winter
Militant Mermen
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:10:00 - [1708]
 

Originally by: Pesadel0
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: Jennifer Gemini
Originally by: Evelgrivion
If too many people run level 4s, all level four agents should offer poor payout.

For force projection to work, capital ship cyno jumps need to take a notable amount of time to spin up and activate. Jump Portals need to take time to turn on as well. Jump Bridges need to stop being able to teleport entire fleets so long as they have the fuel to do so - which can be accomplished by adding a 10 second cooldown timer for each ship that hops through after the first five to ten, for example.

Jump range can be decreased, penalties for interrupted jumps can be added, and generally making a move with a capital ship can be made into a risky action.

If you can't deploy your heavy hitters flippantly, you can't take down alliances trying to make a name for themselves unless they're seen as a genuine threat that warrants the risks to their existing space and military hardware. That means those ships also need to be problematic to lose, which ties back to problems about easy ship movement, the quick acquisition speed of ISK, and other such issues. I meant it when I said the root cause of the game's ills is easy access to ISK, Minerals, and transportation.


You must be trollin'


Prove my argument wrong. The game existed in a state where it was hard to move materials and acquire materials in bulk once, and players existed in proportionately smaller organizations as a result of the living conditions.


That would be all good and dandy , but jump bridges and **** ,supers already dominate 0.0, so this change wont do S*** to 0.0 wars, if anything smal entities wont have a place in 0.0, and will get stomped like they were in the good old days.CCP doing half planned measures makes me laugh in real life hard.I mean the DEV was at the fanfest and couldn´t check the data , after a couple of days ,he comes and says yup i was rigth,without providing the data and any proof what so ever of his research .

Yeah right..


I can agree with this 100%. Comming from a smaller 0.0 entity when I heard the details of this change my first thoughts were . . I guess it's time to find a large 0.0 entity to join. Giving small alliances crappy resources will not cause small entities to attack the large ones for better space, it will just cause the players who can switch sides to do so. And then commence the largley risk free curbstomping of the small guys.

Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:14:00 - [1709]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
...

There are a great many nerfs that improve the game. The nano nerfs, ECM nerfs, stacking nerfs, and more all improved the game.

...
I disagree. People find creative ways to counter purportedly over-powered ships. That is one of subtle joys of PvP in EVE.

When CCP wields the nerf bat like Thor swinging his hammer to "balance the game" nobody wins. The players using the fun ships lose. The PvPers innovating and finding ways to counter such ships lose. And the overall gaming experience moves closer to having a slow morphine drip in the IV feed.

Better Than You
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:18:00 - [1710]
 

Unless you have sov in null, then I suggest every single one of you trying to change how it works needs to have a nice tall glass of shut the **** up! There is a reason we are there and not you and it simply summs up to we are indeed better than you.

So instead of trying to fight us fair you cry to your CCP overlords to change the rules of the game to suit your favor. No one who does not have sov should even be allowed to have a say in what goes on there much less beg for nerfs to make up for their lack of skill!

So much for your leet honor that you like to brag about. Rolling Eyes


Pages: first : previous : ... 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 ... : 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