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 : ... 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Cyaron wars
Fallen Angel's
White Noise.
Posted - 2011.03.31 09:10:00 - [1951]
 

Edited by: Cyaron wars on 31/03/2011 09:15:29
Please CCP, fire these dumb ****s you have hired for generating ideas or just ask them to STOP THINKING! You ****ed 0.0 more then enough. Why you guys love to nerf stuff, there's another option to fix things and it's called boosting. Have any of those ******s ever thought of boosting things instead of nerfing?

I call for CSMs. Biggest part of you are 0.0 representatives. People have chosen you to speak for them. 66 pages of rage from members of basicly all alliances living in 0.0 should be more then enough for you to udnerstand what we want. As player base representatives you MUST print this out and feed it to guy who came up with idea. you should do same to those who supported him as well.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.31 09:11:00 - [1952]
 

Originally by: DarthMopp
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.

even such a big change would be a dumb admission to giving up on stopping bots. It's saying bots get more isk so now everyone else has to get less in order to close up the gap.

James Razor
Amarr
Fallen Angel's
White Noise.
Posted - 2011.03.31 09:12:00 - [1953]
 

I lose more and more of my faith in CCP. The few recent changes they made all backfired.

The new Sov Mechanics provoke Blobbs more than ever (every fight is decisve now for the attacker, so its natural they throw everything and the kitchen sink into it).

They boosted Titans and SCs but forgot to adapt Dreads.

They changed T2 Production and boosted Technetium which did throw the entire 0.0 out of balance and boosted the NC to a level that it is hard for every other entity to go against them, simply because u will run out of money long before they run out of it.

And now they turn most of 0.0 into a worthless wasteland again which will ultimatley result in even more Empire-Carebears instead of 0.0 Inhabitants. It wont do nothing to break up the power blocks, it might result that the NC backstabs some pets, but thats all i expect to happen in that regard.

Same thing for the drone russians, which will lose a lot of their strength and income, because no one will want to rent out their systems anymore because the risk vs. profit wont pay out anymore. And the result of this will be, that the last block able to challenge the NC wont be able to do that anymore.

Also: It is very annoying that now CCP tells us the complete opposite to what the told us when they implemented the upgrade system. From my point of view CCP wants to FORCE us to behave in a certain way and that contradicts their *Sandbox Design*.

If this goes through, u can forget it to ever see this *Future Vision* come true. Because the game will be dead long before.

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.31 09:12:00 - [1954]
 

Originally by: Kovid
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.





Is main...

Mostly you get popped by people afk cloaking when the victim has the balls to try and call the bluff. Sometimes they are right and the guy is afk. Other times they end up horridly wrong. Since afk cloakers are invincible on a 1v1 since the 1v1 is usually Stealthbomber / t3 vs hulk these things happen. In an anom the same thing can happen. I live in vale, mr cloaker will almost always be in a hound as im running rediculous kinetic thermal so hes going to come with em exp and raep my raven.

As to your last paragraph. A lot of alliances after dominion grew to sizes that dominion can not support. Also with the new TCU system plenty of alliances have fractured the sov holders up. Granted this has its own issues like the rumours that someone in Stella Polaris got paid to drop sov in the station systems, but it allows for compartmentalization too. If the executor corp goes crazy and threatens to disband you can now switch the executor to a trusted corp and they cant disband, but if the exec corp had all the sov you are still hosed.

With that said a lot of alliances now give each corp their own home system(s) based on membership count. Which with the Current system it allowed each corp to happily make the isk they want/need and can leave the moons alone and not care if they get one or not. Take that away and suddenly all these corps are going to be out their primary income source.

Oh and I believe it was you that said something about stations being funded entirely of sanctums and havens? Pre domi my alliance at the time was trying to build one. after six months we had about 20 percent of the parts. Post domi when I found the now defunct Systematic Chaos we finished the other 80 percent in 1 month. Guess where the corp got that money as the alliance didn't give us a dime. (We even had to ask IT for titan bridges as ours wouldnt do it.)

Steel68164
Posted - 2011.03.31 09:16:00 - [1955]
 

I don't agree with CCP's action on removing sanctum's and such and putting them all in a select few systems. That will and is going to make for one hellish issue with players in them area and they will be farmed out 24/7 so good bye to isk for them that use that method to pay for the there game, So I guess CCP don't mind losing players ;)


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.

Kovid
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2011.03.31 09:19:00 - [1956]
 

Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 09:28:33
Originally by: Tub Chil
they are removing them for me because I live in pure blind

They are telling you the less fortunate, and the new people to null sec, get to go to lesser desired places. These places in theory should not be fought over by the people with the bigger guns.

If you do not consider yourself one of these people you can move and fight for a better spot against people with big guns and rightfully claim your reward should you win. In case of failure go back and take scraps, or empire space.

Another option is to apply for these richer space alliances and tell them about what assets you can bring to the table for them.

I like where this is going.


Levistus Junior
Caldari
Trojan Trolls
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2011.03.31 09:35:00 - [1957]
 

Originally by: Kovid
Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 09:28:33
Originally by: Tub Chil
they are removing them for me because I live in pure blind

They are telling you the less fortunate, and the new people to null sec, get to go to lesser desired places. These places in theory should not be fought over by the people with the bigger guns. If you do not consider yourself one of these people you can move and fight for a better spot against people with big guns and rightfully claim your reward should you win. In case of failure go back and take scraps, or empire space.


Have you ever been in a big sov fight? Do you even have the slightest idea what numbers and effort it takes to dislodge a non-incompetent enemy? It's delusional to think ppl would go through all that effort just for sanctums.



Originally by: Kovid
Another option is to apply for these richer space alliances and tell them about what assets you can bring to the table for them.

I like where this is going.




As in encourage blobbing and huge alliances?

Raptor GUN
Posted - 2011.03.31 09:39:00 - [1958]
 

to look. you can not find. not to be.

Why be boring? do people have this game to work, doing something he did not stay to look on a monitor, better to have less bounty rats but was not there

Hrdlodus
Gallente
Bohemian Veterans
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.03.31 09:54:00 - [1959]
 

i just counted up the usefull systems in regions:
Branch: 12, Cache: 8, Catch: 4, Cloud Ring: oh look 0, Cobalt Edge: 17, Deklein: 16, Delve: 11, Detorid: 4, Esoteria: 5, Etherium Reach: 16, Fade: 0, Feythabolis: 10, Fountain: 7, Geminate: 2, Immensea: 0, Impass: 1, Insmother: 6, The Kalevala Expanse: 13, Malpais: 17, Oasa: 13, Omist: 4, Outer Passage: 12, Outer Ring: 1, Paragon Soul: 3, Period Basis: 7, Perrigen Falls: 15, Providence: 0, Pure Blind: 0, Querious: 6, Scalding Pass: 2, The Spire: 21 O_o, Tenal: 9, Tenerifis: 2, Tribute: 0, Vale of the Silent: 5, Venal: 5, Wicked Creek: again 0
that's all for today folks
lets hope we all live tomorrow
☺/

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.31 09:55:00 - [1960]
 

Originally by: Hrdlodus
i just counted up the usefull systems in regions:
Branch: 12, Cache: 8, Catch: 4, Cloud Ring: oh look 0, Cobalt Edge: 17, Deklein: 16, Delve: 11, Detorid: 4, Esoteria: 5, Etherium Reach: 16, Fade: 0, Feythabolis: 10, Fountain: 7, Geminate: 2, Immensea: 0, Impass: 1, Insmother: 6, The Kalevala Expanse: 13, Malpais: 17, Oasa: 13, Omist: 4, Outer Passage: 12, Outer Ring: 1, Paragon Soul: 3, Period Basis: 7, Perrigen Falls: 15, Providence: 0, Pure Blind: 0, Querious: 6, Scalding Pass: 2, The Spire: 21 O_o, Tenal: 9, Tenerifis: 2, Tribute: 0, Vale of the Silent: 5, Venal: 5, Wicked Creek: again 0
that's all for today folks
lets hope we all live tomorrow
☺/


How much your region is getting screwed spreadsheet version of this post.

deconed
Posted - 2011.03.31 10:25:00 - [1961]
 

so lets all write an artical and submit it to all the major gamer sites and show everyone how ccp ignores their customers

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.03.31 10:28:00 - [1962]
 

Originally by: Tub Chil
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


P sure that there will still be Sanctums even after the change.

Even if not, money still falls from the sky in Pure Blind.

Tub Chil
Posted - 2011.03.31 10:39:00 - [1963]
 

Originally by: Kovid
Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 09:28:33
Originally by: Tub Chil
they are removing them for me because I live in pure blind

They are telling you the less fortunate, and the new people to null sec, get to go to lesser desired places. These places in theory should not be fought over by the people with the bigger guns.

If you do not consider yourself one of these people you can move and fight for a better spot against people with big guns and rightfully claim your reward should you win. In case of failure go back and take scraps, or empire space.

Another option is to apply for these richer space alliances and tell them about what assets you can bring to the table for them.

I like where this is going.



PAs a person who does not play 18/7 I have following options to stay in 0.0
1) Join another alliance who has a better space
2) find alternative source of income
3) Fight above mentioned alliances for sanctums (lol)
I hope you understand that current sov mechanics don't allow smaller alliances to fight bigger ones alone. To go to a sov fight you need a backup from a whole bloody coalition, so your first suggestion is not valid. NC will not fight dbf just to make me happier with anomalies.

It does not help newer players because no alliance will drop sov after changes. Why would they?


Jennifer Gemini
Posted - 2011.03.31 11:15:00 - [1964]
 

Why was there no mass test of this? It seems it's going in on April 5th but I've heard no mention of it being tested on Sisi. Greyscale, you claim it's not going to be "that bad", well maybe if you have given us a shot to test it we could know that for sure. Maybe you should put it off, upgrade every system on sisi with this update and let us try it out. Maybe it's not that bad, maybe it needs tweaks, in either case why isn't it going on the test server first?

Sarina Rhoda
Posted - 2011.03.31 11:33:00 - [1965]
 

Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 31/03/2011 12:13:21
Originally by: Cyrus Doul
Originally by: Hrdlodus
i just counted up the usefull systems in regions:
*** random figures about regions ****


How much your region is getting screwed spreadsheet version of this post.


Lol wtf that sheet is so incorrect its painful. Assuming that the your count for the number of systems in the true sec brackets is correct and that my understanding listed below of the dev blog is correct then your formulas are ****ed.

0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites
0.25 - 0.4499 = -1 site
0.45 - 0.6499 = no change
0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site
0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites

Your formula for change in sites should be
=(cx*-4)+(dx*-1)+(fx*1)+(gx*6)
(where x is the row number)


If you apply this formula to the spire for example you get change = +81 as opposed to your -12.


So all I can conclude from this is either you werenít entirely sure what you were doing when you built this spreadsheet or you are just trying to fuel unnecessary rage and ZOMG CCP YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING ARHGHGHGHGHGH.

(just want to add btw that my view on this is pretty neutral. I don't think the changes are anywhere near as bad as people are making out but at the same time i don't think they will result in the outcomes ccp are expecting.)


Herpes Sweatrash
Posted - 2011.03.31 11:33:00 - [1966]
 

Once this change goes through my alliance's space is completely worthless except for miners and maybe 1 person could live off plexing in our 3 allocated systems. We are not elite pvpers like Pandemics Legion or Goonswarm. We will not be able to fight for better space. This change will put an end to our 0.0 life I believe.

I would like to suggest an additional change if this is one is set in stone as it appears. Please make Concord provide security in npc area such as Venal. This way peaceful alliance such as mine can live in 0.0 space with the ability to do sanctums and haven in relative safety. Please take it into consideration.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.03.31 11:56:00 - [1967]
 

Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash
We will not be able to fight for better space.


Then you dont deserve it.

Lenthall Scorpus
Posted - 2011.03.31 11:59:00 - [1968]
 

So the question for me is this - CCP has the customer at heart (Bleh so they sayMad) yet this will directly affect my playing experience. I've been working towards a Golem to smack a few rats around but with the nerf coming I'm not sure I should bother.
A Tengu or a Iskhur for that matter will be more than sufficient for my 0.1 sec status. So now I've wasted 2 months of training BS 5 and Advanced Weapons 5 to get to a Golem only to have it proven OTT for the given game dynamic. So CCP Greyscale will you give me my sp back? We play for the fun yet what you are doing is taking our aspirations as players flushing it down the toilet and saying its for our own good, bleh bloody bleh CCP Greyscale ..!./

Herpes Sweatrash
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:04:00 - [1969]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash
We will not be able to fight for better space.


Then you dont deserve it.


I think with 50k member coalitions this gave is past the point whether people deserve to have space or not. Every paying customer should have equal and fair access to all end game content.

Titmando
Caldari
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:05:00 - [1970]
 

Edited by: Titmando on 31/03/2011 12:07:14
Edited by: Titmando on 31/03/2011 12:04:56
* Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in null sec

Who ever is employed to come up with these ideas needs sacking, f***'n monkeys could do a better job. How will removing sanctums from all but the best true-sec systems give "newer alliances" a better foothold, what possible incentive could these "newer alliances" have to go out to 0.0 and be c*** blocked by CCP jewing up sanctums.

If anything it will have the opposite effect, coalitions that have a foothold will not be effected much if at all and newer alliance will tear down there infrastructure and move back to care bearing in high sec or become merc's.

It's not going to make us fight each other for better space at all CCP you are wrong in saying we'll be de-stabalised, your going to find your member base dropping if this is a sure thing.

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv181/SeraphinFoad/MakeYourVoiceHeard.png - use this on your thread replies lads :D not that CCP will listen. They know best *cough* *ollock* *cough*

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:08:00 - [1971]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 31/03/2011 12:08:13
Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash
We will not be able to fight for better space.


Then you dont deserve it.


I think with 50k member coalitions this gave is past the point whether people deserve to have space or not. Every paying customer should have equal and fair access to all end game content.


^ this and has anyone ever thought about the average joe bloggs who already spends his life at a laptop.... I certainly don't wanna spend my free time grinding and grinding and grinding when i already spend 9 hours a day glued to a laptop.

Sarina Rhoda
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:09:00 - [1972]
 

Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 31/03/2011 12:11:22
Originally by: Cyrus Doul

How much your region is getting screwed spreadsheet version of this post.


Please go up 4/5 posts to see my initial post about this fail spreadsheet.
But taking his raw data about system true sec and putting in correct formulas Iíve managed to generate some **maybe** useful information for you lot to ponder over.

Overall % change of higher tier sites = -23%

regions of noticeable increase = spire (+28%), perrigen (+18.5%), cobalt (+17%) and etherium (+14.3%).

regions of noticeable decrease = PB (-94%), provi (-88%), tribute (-53%) and paragon (-52.3%).

TBH i still think this is a good idea just need to tweak the brackets. I would propose swapping the upper most and lower most bracket ie.

0.0 - 0.1499 = -4 sites
0.15 - 0.3499 = -1 site
0.35 - 0.5499 = no change
0.55 - 0.7499 = +1 site
0.75 - 1 = +6 sites

Basically shrinking the lower bracket and expanding the upper bracket to hold overall % change of higher tier sites at around 0%...... Mull it over before you reply with the usual tears.

Dymdr
proISKi Ltd
Red Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:15:00 - [1973]
 

Not supporting this change.

CCP, please start doing something that will actually make your customers happier instead of ****ing them off.

So as a customer Im saying that, no, I dont want this change to my spaceships game.
I dont want walking in stations.
I dont want planetary stuff.
I dont want bridges removal.

I want something to be done about macro users.
I want something to be done about lags.
I want something to be done about sov mechanics so I dont have to waste two hours shooting hubs and SBUs.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:16:00 - [1974]
 

Quote:

Please make Concord provide security in npc area such as Venal. This way peaceful alliance such as mine can live in 0.0 space with the ability to do sanctums and haven in relative safety. Please take it into consideration.



CCP did not want to make 0.0 a better version of high sec.

After reading about 60 pages it's clear that both Grayscale and the "customers" did not get it.
CCP's original intention should have been to give ISK faucets so the smaller alliances would actively fight and stuff.
But the ISK faucets attracted (also) a lot of not 0.0 grade people who would just go there to PvE and farm.

Now, these guys are exclusively filling EvE with inflation and not fighting. This is what the WoW era playerbases do.

The 0.0 PvE farmers seem to belong to hi sec, this is why they are getting nerfed and kicked back to high sec.

The others who are genuinely PvP players but have no moons, are those truly screwed.

This is where Greyscale failed: he wants to nerf Sanctum Bears but not Moons Sucking Bears.
Only by doing the latter there's ANY hope to see someone challenge the big blocks.

Only an heavy moons nerf would help. Making them depletable and their "load" spawning in another constellation / region would make space dynamic.
Sanctum nerf would send the fake 0.0ers back in hi sec.
L4 nerf will make the nerf on moons still make living 0.0 preferrable by those who are still up to moons mining.

Only downside of the above, a part of the customers would return back to their former MMO.

Sarina Rhoda
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:21:00 - [1975]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

CCP did not want to make 0.0 a better version of high sec.

After reading about 60 pages it's clear that both Grayscale and the "customers" did not get it.
CCP's original intention should have been to give ISK faucets so the smaller alliances would actively fight and stuff.
But the ISK faucets attracted (also) a lot of not 0.0 grade people who would just go there to PvE and farm.

Now, these guys are exclusively filling EvE with inflation and not fighting. This is what the WoW era playerbases do.

The 0.0 PvE farmers seem to belong to hi sec, this is why they are getting nerfed and kicked back to high sec.

The others who are genuinely PvP players but have no moons, are those truly screwed.

This is where Greyscale failed: he wants to nerf Sanctum Bears but not Moons Sucking Bears.
Only by doing the latter there's ANY hope to see someone challenge the big blocks.

Only an heavy moons nerf would help. Making them depletable and their "load" spawning in another constellation / region would make space dynamic.
Sanctum nerf would send the fake 0.0ers back in hi sec.
L4 nerf will make the nerf on moons still make living 0.0 preferrable by those who are still up to moons mining.

Only downside of the above, a part of the customers would return back to their former MMO.



THIS ...................... 100% this >.<

Proats
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:26:00 - [1976]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash
We will not be able to fight for better space.


Then you dont deserve it.
Right, so anyone not a part of one of the giant coalitions deserves no decent space. Nice job CCP.

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:31:00 - [1977]
 

Well it seems that CCP have made up their mind regardless of the overwhelming opposition to this porposal. But you should understand that a lot of the ISK faucets have been created due to the increase in PvE content within Empire and the neglect of the Drake Spam in 0.0. There are plenty of wars going on throughout Eve right now but due to the relatively low cost of Drakes compared to their high damage potential in large numbers, there isn't enough ISK being lost in order to conmpensate for the increased ISK generated by PvE content in Empire.

If you implement this whilst maintaining current superior levels of income in Empire, you will create an exedous from low value 0.0 space and increase in the numbers of people running higher value Incursions, Level 4 and 5 missions in order to fuel Empire wars. This will exacerbate the problem with too many ISK Faucets and not enough ISK sinks by a reduction in large scale warfare, where you have a high number of ISK absorbed through ship and/or pod losses as opposed to a comparative trickle of losses in Empire wars. 0.0 will be reduced to a handfull of Super Power Alliances who rent out the other space at a reduced cost safe in the knowledge that it's not worth the cost it would take to invade it.

Rather than nerfing 0.0 ISK value you should look to the problems with Drake blobs. Find incentives for people to use more expensive ships (why should I use my Legion when my Zealot does as good a job for a fraction of the cost?) which will increase the amount of ISK taken out of the economy. Make loyalty points available to buy for ISK whcih again takes ISK out of the system both directly with their purchase, and indirectly through the modules/ammo/weapons bought being lost in warfare. Make level 4 and 5 missions require a deposit that is lost if the mission is failed and make those missions tougher to complete. I know these suggestions won't be popular with Empire dwellers but 0.0 should have the biggest rewards by having the greatest risks associated by any reasonable pilot being able to jump in and gank some complacent ratter.

Sarina Rhoda
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:33:00 - [1978]
 

Originally by: John McCreedy
Well it seems that CCP have made up their mind regardless of the overwhelming opposition to this porposal. But you should understand that a lot of the ISK faucets have been created due to the increase in PvE content within Empire and the neglect of the Drake Spam in 0.0. There are plenty of wars going on throughout Eve right now but due to the relatively low cost of Drakes compared to their high damage potential in large numbers, there isn't enough ISK being lost in order to conmpensate for the increased ISK generated by PvE content in Empire.

If you implement this whilst maintaining current superior levels of income in Empire, you will create an exedous from low value 0.0 space and increase in the numbers of people running higher value Incursions, Level 4 and 5 missions in order to fuel Empire wars. This will exacerbate the problem with too many ISK Faucets and not enough ISK sinks by a reduction in large scale warfare, where you have a high number of ISK absorbed through ship and/or pod losses as opposed to a comparative trickle of losses in Empire wars. 0.0 will be reduced to a handfull of Super Power Alliances who rent out the other space at a reduced cost safe in the knowledge that it's not worth the cost it would take to invade it.

Rather than nerfing 0.0 ISK value you should look to the problems with Drake blobs. Find incentives for people to use more expensive ships (why should I use my Legion when my Zealot does as good a job for a fraction of the cost?) which will increase the amount of ISK taken out of the economy. Make loyalty points available to buy for ISK whcih again takes ISK out of the system both directly with their purchase, and indirectly through the modules/ammo/weapons bought being lost in warfare. Make level 4 and 5 missions require a deposit that is lost if the mission is failed and make those missions tougher to complete. I know these suggestions won't be popular with Empire dwellers but 0.0 should have the biggest rewards by having the greatest risks associated by any reasonable pilot being able to jump in and gank some complacent ratter.



pvp = isk faucet not an isk sink, therefore your whole argument is void.

Sarina Rhoda
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:35:00 - [1979]
 

Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 31/03/2011 12:40:09
Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 31/03/2011 12:38:34
Originally by: Proats
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash
We will not be able to fight for better space.


Then you dont deserve it.
Right, so anyone not a part of one of the giant coalitions deserves no decent space. Nice job CCP.


can see where your coming from but on the flip side your arguing that everyone deserves to be able to enjoy the best space, which they shouldn't.
Big fat alliances should be able to hold and prosper from the best space while small alliances pick up the scraps.

(I don't think these changes will make this happen but at least thatís the theory they are going for i think :S)

edited - re-worded
edited - spelling and spacing

Rene Winter
Militant Mermen
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
Posted - 2011.03.31 13:18:00 - [1980]
 

Originally by: Sarina Rhoda

can see where your coming from but on the flip side your arguing that everyone deserves to be able to enjoy the best space, which they shouldn't.
Big fat alliances should be able to hold and prosper from the best space while small alliances pick up the scraps.

(I don't think these changes will make this happen but at least thatís the theory they are going for i think :S)

edited - re-worded
edited - spelling and spacing



The scenario that CPP is trying to create with all these changes is already here . . .
Bigger Alliances have better space because they have better passive income and more effecient active income. So how is having to spend X (and I am not calculating) hous focused on active income just to keep parity with the passive income of another alliance not picking up the scraps. All things considered two alliances of equal member counts with members fully utilizing their space, the ones with the lower trusec come out ahead every time.

And perhaps what us small alliances were hoping with dominion is that larger alliances were holding more space than they need and not using it well. And/Or the large organizations focus on costly wars vs the small alliances focus on building a warchest would allow people to make a move when an oppertunity arised. Don't think for a minute that the smaller alliances don't covet that space we just are not ******s about facing down the well oiled and financed war machines of the major powers.




Pages: first : previous : ... 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 ... : 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