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 : ... 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Kovid
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2011.03.31 03:58:00 - [1921]
 

Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 03:58:25
Originally by: Tania Russ
Originally by: Kovid
Originally by: Tania Russ
And make it possible to view all of a player's alts. Then we can clearly see and easily find the pirate corporations' indy alts botting away in highsec, and wardec them, and kill their hulks. Good times.


But then you would have to post with your main or at least be responsible for your words and actions because clearly you speak of your corporation investing in upgrades. Last I checked Pator Tech School hasn't upgraded any null sec systems.





We don't cheat. We actually (gasp!) mine. And we manually run these sanctums and havens for isk to support PvP.

On the other hand, 5 years experience with this game has taught me that very likely your PvP alliance DOES cheat. You don't manualy mine. You use VMs and software. Or you run belts with VMs and software. And your massive capfleets and laughed at momship losses bear that up - plenty more isk from the robots tomorrow. Which is what makes folks like you such hypocrites for applauding these changes. I use thw words "you" and "your" generally to describe the big alliances out there who seem to have 23/7 to run around griefing and always have lots of PvP ships magically provided for them to do so. Elitist *******s, cheating to grief. Maybe Rapture doesn't do this. I know most do.


Your 3+ years in Pator Tech School has taught you to lump all big alliances as pvpers who run around griefing 23/7. I am guessing CCP pays more attention to more sensible arguments and not some people posting as silly multiple alts with wild accusations.


Nikita Keriget
Posted - 2011.03.31 04:03:00 - [1922]
 

How about CCP makes PvP more affordable by seeding stations with ships and modules for 100 isk each?

How long should it take to replace a T2 fit HAC?

Kovid
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2011.03.31 04:12:00 - [1923]
 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
Originally by: Kovid
Life existed before sanctums and no one is forcing people to upgrade their systems for anomalies.


That's true - it's all about "choices having consequences". However people already have upgraded the systems (both the ihub+upgrades and working to improve the military index) based on the choice they were given by the game. They are now being forced to have the results of that choice taken away from them. Not by a hostile action that they chose to not defend against, not by dropping sov by choosing to not have enough ISK allocated to the right wallet, but by the choice of a developer to change the rules after their decision was made.

That's my biggest issue with this (followed closely by not seeing a good causal link backed up with real data between the stated changes and the expected consequences), that EVE prides itself on the "choices have consequences" aspect. Problem is that if you make your choices, invest your ISK, time, and effort into that choice, and then have a dev take away any benefit that you would have reasonably expected, then the game play becomes arbitrary - make a choice and hope the consequences aren't changed by some out-of-game influence at random.


The game changes and people adapt to new trends, play styles and even balances that CCP brings about. People adapted after the nano change and may have even picked their character and skills just to follow that.

These changes are not random. They have posted the upcoming changes. It's not like Greyscale got drunk one night and flipped a switch.

"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. "
-Grayscale

They have previously said it multiple times. But some people Imigo seem to think that the more they complain and louder they do so that wt will stand out more and make CCP change their mind. Remember the days of Falcons at 150+ km?

I honestly believe people have sunk too much effort in this thread into making it seem like 0.0 without sanctum equals unlivable or any change is unconcionable since it was put in for a time. As if CCP can not make changes. And people already got hand over fist isk. Greyscale addressed your concerns about low value space already in his last post.


Galerak
Posted - 2011.03.31 04:28:00 - [1924]
 

Originally by: Kovid
Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 03:20:51


I support the changes.

Life existed before sanctums and no one is forcing people to upgrade their systems for anomalies. Life will still be too easy after the fact. Only the really really careless have and will continue to get caught doing them. It is easier to kill people in high sec. Does that sound right?

If there truly are less people in 0.0 after this then it's obvious they were not cut out for 0.0. They had a special grace period in 0.0 that let them pay taxes to their overlords during that time. If their overlords were lucky maybe they got them to come to a few CTAs in Drakes when they could be bothered to stop running sanctums or wait till a roaming gang leaves their space while in POS shields or station.


Next remove local, please.





Life existed quite well in my opinion before sanctums but after having them and relying on them for personal income, the status quo has changed. As has been pointed out the small alliances who need the income as a mainstay for their pilots wont have them yet the power blocks who have other resources will still have sanctums and havens as a financial resource for their pilots. This will dissolve many smaller alliances as they rely on their pilots individual stability to field ships for combat. As has also been pointed out the space will probably not remain empty. Either the large alliances will spread out to fill these systems or they will become revolving doors as new alliances take the territory only to find these systems do not provide enough resources to fund the security necessary to hold them and are forced out and the cycle repeats. Either way these systems will continue to be buffer zones for the major power houses which will remain mostly unaffected.

ADDRIA XIUHCOATL
Stargate SG-1
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.03.31 04:36:00 - [1925]
 

ok SERIOUSLY CCP, now your just looking for ways to screw the game up for ppl.

WHAT IN THE HECK MAKES YOU THINK HAVENS AND SANCTUMS MATTER?!?!?!?!?!?!?

They are there for corps and individuals to make isk to function in the game.

You say they matter to an alliance as a whole, HELL NO THEY DONT!!!

Moons matter! Strategic locations MATTER! Sec status matter TO A POINT as the members of the alliance can be more profitable in those systems!!! UPGRADES OF HAVENS AND SANCTUMS DONT MEAN CRAP ON HOW ALLIANCES ARE GOING TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT AND WHAT GOALS THEY HAVE!!!

Your worried that not enough big battles are going on in 0.0 space, thats because many major alliances/ coalitions have been fighting for the last yr straight, borders have stabilized for the most part now because the larger alliances/coalitions that lost their space are rebuilding, the ones that WON are taking a break from all the fighting.

NATURAL CYCLE OF THINGS, larger alliance will rebuild, stabilize their current space and then try to reclaim, SO THE FIGHTING WILL START ALL OVER AGAIN.

All your doing with this COMPLETELY IGNORANT ASS IDEA is chasing most ppl out of 0.0 space because their isnt enough to support their living there anymore.

DAMN IT CCP THINK A LITTLE BEFORE SCREWING THE GAME UP, the goal overall is to INCREASE PLAYERS, and eve has been stagnent, maybe loosing players overall BECAUSE YOU KEEP NERFING THE GAME SO ONLY THE MOST POWERFUL AND WEALTHY PLAYERS IN GAME CAN ENJOY IT, all the new people are too intimidated to even try anymore.

Id just love for ccp to think of the players and not just whats best for the major powers in game that all of ccp have alts in.

Kovid
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2011.03.31 04:38:00 - [1926]
 

Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 04:41:48

For small alliance who can not adapt...

Who' fault is it if the alliance can not support themselves? Is it the leaders or the individual pilots who can not do anything in null sec besides rat in sanctums? These pilots can not probe plexes, wormholes, rat in the age old belts, mine, etc... If so many people will be leaving null sec, or these alliances fall apart then they don't seem to be much an alliance or player in the first place.

I imagine some players will find new homes in larger alliances that have better space, better leadership, more robust and active pilots, etc..


Those people in null sec should ask their alliances to distribute some isk from moon goo to the players right?



Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.31 05:19:00 - [1927]
 

Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 31/03/2011 05:19:46
Originally by: Xel Ra
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Bitter? I'm so loaded running sanctums feels like a waste of time.

Bored and wanting to see space burn for the giggles more like it.


I know what you mean, I had a great vantage point to watch Catch and Tenerefis burn while you guys bailed out with your tails between your legs.

Yeah. I relished every moment of it, from the start when your alliance lost dozens of baby-supers and the tears until the very end when **** finally was gotten in order.

(And unlike you I'm not talking in an ironic sense, I actually _DO_ like the chaos and destruction even when I am in the middle of it)

Xel Ra
Posted - 2011.03.31 05:43:00 - [1928]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 31/03/2011 05:19:46
Originally by: Xel Ra
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Bitter? I'm so loaded running sanctums feels like a waste of time.

Bored and wanting to see space burn for the giggles more like it.


I know what you mean, I had a great vantage point to watch Catch and Tenerefis burn while you guys bailed out with your tails between your legs.

Yeah. I relished every moment of it, from the start when your alliance lost dozens of baby-supers and the tears until the very end when **** finally was gotten in order.

(And unlike you I'm not talking in an ironic sense, I actually _DO_ like the chaos and destruction even when I am in the middle of it)


Wow, Rakshasa, you're so evolved. What real life acumen you bring to the game. Your a regular footsoldier of Mars, and the earth quakes in the wake of your pixels. I'm glad you've found some "chaos and destruction" to be inspired about and feel powerful. It's just a little bit funny, though, that it's in front of a computer screen. Still, nice melodrama. I give it two thumbs up.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.31 05:46:00 - [1929]
 

Originally by: Xel Ra
Wow, Rakshasa, you're so evolved. What real life acumen you bring to the game. Your a regular footsoldier of Mars, and the earth quakes in the wake of your pixels. I'm glad you've found some "chaos and destruction" to be inspired about and feel powerful. It's just a little bit funny, though, that it's in front of a computer screen. Still, nice melodrama. I give it two thumbs up.

Better than crying over pixels.

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.31 05:46:00 - [1930]
 

Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 31/03/2011 05:47:49
Why are people complaining to each other about these changes? After the first five days i was upset but now i've cooled down, and so should everybody else.

Although we'd definatly want a 300 page threadnought to show how the overwhelmingly majority of the community is against this change, i can't see a reason as to why there are people going back and forth.

Ten people things one way, and another person things it another way. Neither side should be judging the others based on their opinions, so just chill out. Both sides.

F'C
Posted - 2011.03.31 06:00:00 - [1931]
 

There is a significant playerbase, even in 0.0, that doesn't follow dev blogs or the forums. April 5th will be an interesting day for them. "Hey, you know all this **** you spent billions of isk upgrading and used freighters to haul into 0.0? Yeah... that's all worthless now. Have a nice day!"

Levistus Junior
Caldari
Trojan Trolls
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2011.03.31 06:05:00 - [1932]
 

Edited by: Levistus Junior on 31/03/2011 06:07:04
Originally by: Kovid
Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 04:41:48

For small alliance who can not adapt...

Who' fault is it if the alliance can not support themselves? Is it the leaders or the individual pilots who can not do anything in null sec besides rat in sanctums? These pilots can not probe plexes, wormholes, rat in the age old belts, mine, etc... If so many people will be leaving null sec, or these alliances fall apart then they don't seem to be much an alliance or player in the first place.

I imagine some players will find new homes in larger alliances that have better space, better leadership, more robust and active pilots, etc..


Those people in null sec should ask their alliances to distribute some isk from moon goo to the players right?





The problem is that those small alliances(without significant moon goo) would have to pay Dominion sov costs with pre Dominion income. Before the sov changes, the costs of holding sov in a region nobody wanted was ridiculously small (you could get away with as little as 1 POS per system). Now it's a completely different matter.

Ella Scorpio
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2011.03.31 06:06:00 - [1933]
 

It's sad the CCP isn't willing to engage, either in this thread or with the CSM, to determine if the assumptions in their model are correct. I'm guessing they are just chocking this thread up to complaints from player effected, and aren't noticing that most people are agreeing with the fundamental logic of the change, just challenging the way it is being done. The incorrect assumptions seem to be

1) that anoms besides havens and sanctums are worth anything (they are frigate filled, actually more dangerous in nullsec because of scramming frigates, and take just as long as havens)--given the risks of nullsec, a haven-only system would barely equal level 4 mission running in highsec
2) that players who invested time and isk in upgrading systems (and even dropping outposts in the middle of bad truesec space) will still believe anything is worth doing in Eve after the way this was done
3) that this is just a rollback of part of Dominion, rather than a fundamental new dynamic for nullsec with its own set of unintended consequences
4) that isk faucets and drains can be analyzed independently of the dynamics of large alliances and the hodge-podge truesec geography
5) that this can be implemented and its effects evaluated in any reasonable amount of time--players won't make decisions quickly because they now no longer trust that CCP won't reverse course again, or do some other wacky nullsec changes. So you won't see a mass exodus of players from nullsec or Eve...it will be a slow trickle until suddenly it is too late, and by the time CCP realizes what they have done, it will be too late...

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.31 06:22:00 - [1934]
 

Originally by: Kovid
"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. "
-Grayscale

They have previously said it multiple times. But some people Imigo seem to think that the more they complain and louder they do so that wt will stand out more and make CCP change their mind. Remember the days of Falcons at 150+ km?


Indeed - I'm all for making changes to improve the game. What I'm against is:


  • BS reasons. I like the expected consequences, but I struggle to see how the proposed changes will have that effect

  • Double Standards. Does this "long-term big picture" include the removal of T2 BPOs, particularly those that were illegally spawned? What about the apparent lack of action against macro use - what is being done there? There are plenty of things that have a much bigger effect (and being similarly small fixes as changing anom spawns) on the long-term big picture that seem to be being left alone in spite of a lot of players wanting something done about them.

  • Poor PR. CCP: "We really value your feedback", Players: "We really don't want this change, nor do we believe that it will have the effect you expect.", CCP: "Thanks for your feedback, we're ignoring it". Not a good look for a company that promotes how engaged it is with its player community



It could very well be that the ihub upgrades that spawn complexes might be fixed to work as they were supposed to as part of this change. In that case then it's not so bad. However, that's not mentioned in detail, all we get is what's here regarding "More Pirates, Shiny Treasures".

Again, this could be a simple matter of poor PR and a lack of communication. Here's hoping.

Scapogo
Amarr
5 Inch Incorporated
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.03.31 07:08:00 - [1935]
 

Edited by: Scapogo on 31/03/2011 07:08:27
It will be nice if so awesome CCP listen to players.

Do you remember this? http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1216357&page=2#60

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.03.31 07:09:00 - [1936]
 

Edited by: Mara Rinn on 31/03/2011 07:13:06
Originally by: Selpy

People seem to be getting what I meant in my post yesterday about this being a money grab. You have to step back and look at the whole picture, not just how PLEX is applied in 1 part. CCP have really stacked it in their favor, and it's going to get much worse. This nerf is about getting people to buy more PLEX for money, nothing more.


You haven't been listening to CCP's economist. There are too many ISK faucets, not enough ISK sinks. Closing off some of the bigger faucets is not a move to push people into RMT, it is an attempt to reduce the flow of some ISK faucets.

For those of you lacking creativity, consider reading the Making ISK guide for some ideas on raising funds to support your PvP. You could also consider flying cheaper ships. The forms of ISK-making that are least likely to get nerfed are the ones that increase the monetary velocity of the system (i.e.: those mechanisms that involve you gaining some stuff that you trade for someone else's ISK).

It may also be worth your time enumerating to CCP (via the CSM) the reasons why null sec industry is too hard. You shouldn't need to be shipping all your resources down from hisec.

Real Mayers
Caldari
Varnos seserys
Posted - 2011.03.31 07:27:00 - [1937]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn
Edited by: Mara Rinn on 31/03/2011 07:13:06
You haven't been listening to CCP's economist. There are too many ISK faucets, not enough ISK sinks. Closing off some of the bigger faucets is not a move to push people into RMT, it is an attempt to reduce the flow of some ISK faucets.



Kill bots -> BIGGEST ISK faucet killed, no need for upgrade nerf -> everybody wins(except bots)

Does it looks so simple only for me?

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.03.31 07:32:00 - [1938]
 

Originally by: Scapogo
Edited by: Scapogo on 31/03/2011 07:08:27
It will be nice if so awesome CCP listen to players.

Do you remember this? http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1216357&page=2#60


Interesting that you would link the post where CCP Soundwave said:
Quote:
In terms of rewards, it shouldn't pump an amount of money into the system that is bad for EVEs economy compared to other moneymaking activities. The anomaly content is accessible by selecting this over another similar activity.


So what happened? People chose the most profitable upgrade for their play style, which is the one capable of injecting unlimited ISK into the economy. Who wants more DEDs or wormholes when they can have Havens on tap instead?

What if CCP made entrapment arrays a strategic upgrade, so nullsec systems could have sanctums on tap or have cyno hammers, but not both?


Kovid
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2011.03.31 07:37:00 - [1939]
 

Originally by: Ella Scorpio
It's sad the CCP isn't willing to engage, either in this thread or with the CSM, to determine if the assumptions in their model are correct. I'm guessing they are just chocking this thread up to complaints from player effected, and aren't noticing that most people are agreeing with the fundamental logic of the change, just challenging the way it is being done. The incorrect assumptions seem to be

1) that anoms besides havens and sanctums are worth anything (they are frigate filled, actually more dangerous in nullsec because of scramming frigates, and take just as long as havens)--given the risks of nullsec, a haven-only system would barely equal level 4 mission running in highsec
2) that players who invested time and isk in upgrading systems (and even dropping outposts in the middle of bad truesec space) will still believe anything is worth doing in Eve after the way this was done
3) that this is just a rollback of part of Dominion, rather than a fundamental new dynamic for nullsec with its own set of unintended consequences
4) that isk faucets and drains can be analyzed independently of the dynamics of large alliances and the hodge-podge truesec geography
5) that this can be implemented and its effects evaluated in any reasonable amount of time--players won't make decisions quickly because they now no longer trust that CCP won't reverse course again, or do some other wacky nullsec changes. So you won't see a mass exodus of players from nullsec or Eve...it will be a slow trickle until suddenly it is too late, and by the time CCP realizes what they have done, it will be too late...



1) Running a mission in high sec is possibly safer than a sanctum or anomaly of anyone paying attention. Anoms and the risk of null sec are one of those things people like to throw out just becuase there are some really really clueless people out there.

2) Anything besides an outpost is a wash. The upgrades for anoms are static installs and 180 mil a month for sov is something they would want anyways and get tons of other stuff including belts and already random plexes etc... You don't need an outpost for anoms or anything. And you can support the space just as well without them. Putting up an outpost directly relating to the ability of your members to make isk solely of sanctums sounds silly. It's not strategic, or anything else? If it's a place to dock for sanctums that sounds like the silliest luxury item ever.

3) They are reducing sanctums and havens in lots of space, increasing it in some, increase the types of plexes out there and might actually increase plex spawns overall. New loots with the plexes. We'll have to wait and see how that works. Everything will have unintended consequences. Not like people can predict everything.

4) Why can't we talk about isk faucets in terms of true sec? Doesn't true sec also factor in mission payout, and plexes in general? Sounds like it should have been that way before.

5) Your idea of reasonable is always going to be different from some one else. People trusting CCP is another issue. If you really think this is going to cause a slow trickle to killing eve ... really?

But then look at me I got trapped into arguing from someone in the Science in Trade Institute for 2 months. Your not even willing to put your main behind what you say like so many others.





Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.31 07:50:00 - [1940]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn
So what happened? People chose the most profitable upgrade for their play style, which is the one capable of injecting unlimited ISK into the economy. Who wants more DEDs or wormholes when they can have Havens on tap instead?


Personally I'd much rather actually get a nice Pith Penal Colony or Maze than any anomoly, but that upgrade was bugged and didn't work properly. Havens and Sanctums are good because they're actually there.

Originally by: Mara Rinn
What if CCP made entrapment arrays a strategic upgrade, so nullsec systems could have sanctums on tap or have cyno hammers, but not both?


Now that would be something to "choose more carefully".

Tub Chil
Posted - 2011.03.31 07:51:00 - [1941]
 

You know, removing sanctums is not as annoying the fact is that CCP has NO CLUE how their game works. they just don't know and that's ****ed up. They could just say that they hate sanctums and remove them. It would be horrible reason and we would rage but it would at least make sense.

Removing sanctums is not the end really. I was in FW before and have 8.5 standing (something like that) to caldari and around 5 to Amarr. I'll just plant hardwired clone somewhere in hisec and grind missions. Horrible thing is that game developers are detached from the game.

Ophelia Ursus
Posted - 2011.03.31 08:01:00 - [1942]
 

Edited by: Ophelia Ursus on 31/03/2011 08:01:55
Originally by: Imigo Montoya
What I'm against is:


  • BS reasons. I like the expected consequences, but I struggle to see how the proposed changes will have that effect

  • Double Standards. Does this "long-term big picture" include the removal of T2 BPOs, particularly those that were illegally spawned? What about the apparent lack of action against macro use - what is being done there? There are plenty of things that have a much bigger effect (and being similarly small fixes as changing anom spawns) on the long-term big picture that seem to be being left alone in spite of a lot of players wanting something done about them.

  • Poor PR. CCP: "We really value your feedback", Players: "We really don't want this change, nor do we believe that it will have the effect you expect.", CCP: "Thanks for your feedback, we're ignoring it". Not a good look for a company that promotes how engaged it is with its player community



Re: botting - Fanfest security presentation
Re: PR - "we value your feedback" is not the same thing as "we will make your feedback the sole determinant of our actions." Look at how the playerbase responded to the suggestion that motherships should be toned down. Look at what happened as a direct result of that. Now tell me, with a straight face, that the existence of a giant ragethread automatically means that the proposed changes are bad (or at least worse than the alternatives that are on the table).

NexyJita
Posted - 2011.03.31 08:06:00 - [1943]
 

This is the worst idea i have ever seen come from CCP. Wth are you thinking?? This will do more harm then good in every way!

Yey for making some key systems the cloakies can sit and afk camp! And we can do nothing about them. Like many others have said, leave the rats alone! They have done nothing to you. Go after the moons instead..

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.31 08:18:00 - [1944]
 

Originally by: Ophelia Ursus
Edited by: Ophelia Ursus on 31/03/2011 08:01:55
Originally by: Imigo Montoya
What I'm against is:


  • BS reasons. I like the expected consequences, but I struggle to see how the proposed changes will have that effect

  • Double Standards. Does this "long-term big picture" include the removal of T2 BPOs, particularly those that were illegally spawned? What about the apparent lack of action against macro use - what is being done there? There are plenty of things that have a much bigger effect (and being similarly small fixes as changing anom spawns) on the long-term big picture that seem to be being left alone in spite of a lot of players wanting something done about them.

  • Poor PR. CCP: "We really value your feedback", Players: "We really don't want this change, nor do we believe that it will have the effect you expect.", CCP: "Thanks for your feedback, we're ignoring it". Not a good look for a company that promotes how engaged it is with its player community



Re: botting - Fanfest security presentation
Re: PR - "we value your feedback" is not the same thing as "we will make your feedback the sole determinant of our actions." Look at how the playerbase responded to the suggestion that motherships should be toned down. Look at what happened as a direct result of that. Now tell me, with a straight face, that the existence of a giant ragethread automatically means that the proposed changes are bad (or at least worse than the alternatives that are on the table).

Don't know if you remember or are just spouting stuff out to kiss ass, but the SC proposals involved stuff like making them dockable, and giving them more RR or something absurd. The final product was voted "well, not optimal but better than the horse **** that was proposed earlier." But CCP procrastinated to the last second (*ahem*) so didn't have a chance to get it balanced just right before pushing it out the door half assed.

Amanda Ugnkiss
Posted - 2011.03.31 08:30:00 - [1945]
 

Some people are gonna love this:
AFK cloaky %ags - less systems to bother camping.

If you wanna increase pvp in nullsec, nerf empire mission running and force more people to band together to fight for some nullsec space to make isk in.
Nullsec should be about higher reward for higher risk, which this nerf will kill.
I can imagine a loss of people who finally came out to 0 sec for once will go back to empire missions for better isk.

I think the consensus here is don't nerf nullsec.
Playeres wanna make isk faster so they can pvp better and more.
Less isk = less fighting.

Kovid
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2011.03.31 08:37:00 - [1946]
 

Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 08:43:45


This thread is amazing. People telling CCP they have no idea how their game works. But apparently they know better. People complaining about afk cloakers will wreak havoc in congested systems.

This is ridiculous. And yet the people who want the changes are laughing at people like you for your inability to function without them and the claims you make. At least the people who complain on their mains have some class.

I'd like to see someone admit that there is no realistic way to get caught in a sanctum in alliance held territory with intel networks, or hell just look at local and warp out. for someone who is paying attention. This is nullsec right?

On top of the fact if the isk faucet is toned down a bit then inflation might actually take a hit and things might be cheaper. But heh the tech barons might just increase the prices to compensate and pass the buck. Go shoo the tech barons then maybe.

How many of the general null sec grunts who rat for income never see a dime for the moons even if not technitium in their systems? Hrmmmmm....... Who's fault is that? Are they going to blame CCP for that? Do your belts ever get ratted? Do you probe for wormholes? Do you do plexes? Is your alliance too big and full of people who can not support themselves?

And half of the complainers are alts.


DarthMopp
Gallente
I.D.I.O.T.
Sev3rance
Posted - 2011.03.31 08:48:00 - [1947]
 

Edited by: DarthMopp on 31/03/2011 09:02:12
Edited by: DarthMopp on 31/03/2011 08:53:10
Originally by: Kovid


I'd like to see someone admit that there is no realistic way to get caught in a sanctum in alliance held territory with intel networks, or hell just look at local and warp out. for someone who is paying attention. This is nullsec right?



Right. This is nullsec. And yes, given the fact that the pilot is not a complete moron and at least has an eye on Local then he is pretty safe in an Anomaly. (Blue Tackles left aside..as well as those morons ratting in Caps and Supercaps)

I really think that most of the complaining does originate from the way CCP want to sell this nerf to us. Couldnt they just say "Hey...the Faucet/Sink Gap is way too ****ing huge. One problem to solve this is to remove Sanctums and Havens from crappy truesec, the other solution will be to nerf the mission Agents in HighSec. We are sorry about that but theres no other way at the moment."

Some more honesty would be awesome.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.03.31 08:51:00 - [1948]
 

Confirming that I am still willing to receive all worthless space.

Please note that I will be unable to log in tonight, so there may be a short delay in processing requests. Thank you for your patience.


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.03.31 08:53:00 - [1949]
 

Originally by: Tub Chil
You know, removing sanctums is not as annoying the fact is that CCP has NO CLUE how their game works. they just don't know and that's ****ed up. They could just say that they hate sanctums and remove them. It would be horrible reason and we would rage but it would at least make sense.

Removing sanctums is not the end really. I was in FW before and have 8.5 standing (something like that) to caldari and around 5 to Amarr. I'll just plant hardwired clone somewhere in hisec and grind missions. Horrible thing is that game developers are detached from the game.



Just FYI: they're not removing Sanctums. Hope this helps.

Tub Chil
Posted - 2011.03.31 09:02:00 - [1950]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Tub Chil
You know, removing sanctums is not as annoying the fact is that CCP has NO CLUE how their game works. they just don't know and that's ****ed up. They could just say that they hate sanctums and remove them. It would be horrible reason and we would rage but it would at least make sense.

Removing sanctums is not the end really. I was in FW before and have 8.5 standing (something like that) to caldari and around 5 to Amarr. I'll just plant hardwired clone somewhere in hisec and grind missions. Horrible thing is that game developers are detached from the game.


Just FYI: they're not removing Sanctums. Hope this helps.

they are removing them for me because I live in pure blind


Pages: first : previous : ... 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 ... : 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