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 : ... 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

BIZZAROSTORMY
Posted - 2011.03.31 13:19:00 - [1981]
 

m'kay and another idea we had here at ccpidealab was to make all ships randomly explode after a random amount of time, while will have the effect of making pilots have to have more ships.

oh, oh and sometimes your wallet will simply empty because space ninjas stole your money. This will encourage pilots to not bother trying to get any money.




Skaarl
Posted - 2011.03.31 13:29:00 - [1982]
 

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...



actually that is an incorrect statement. "most" players do not in fact agree with the fundamentals of this change. CCP believes (and i have this as a petition response" that the suppport/disapporve ratio is about 50/50 but that is just a yay/nay guess on their part. when you discount the trolls and the people who think the change is good becuase it will have an effect totally different than what CCP is guessing it will (and its a bad guess) and the people who are happy about it simply cause it screws someone else over the number of people approving of this change because it will accomplish what was intended to do is very, very small.

Lonely Island
Posted - 2011.03.31 13:31:00 - [1983]
 

Originally by: Levistus Junior
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.


Well tbh a small alliance in poor truesec space such as yourselves will be better dropping sov (excluding outpost systems) in your space after April 5th. Doesn't 0.0 have potential for good income generation through high-class wormholes?? (and it isn't raw isk, no won't add to eve-inflation)

BIZZAROSTORMY
Posted - 2011.03.31 13:34:00 - [1984]
 

AND ANOTHER THING,

Next time you come up with some fancy idea involving upgrades that cost a lot of money and time and resources to put into place DONT expect people to get involved, as the general feeling will be "that will get nerfed so why ****ING bother."


Now lets all start packing up and moving to NPC space. Im sure the smaller alliances will just love the absolutely useless space left behind.

Rene Winter
Militant Mermen
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
Posted - 2011.03.31 13:43:00 - [1985]
 

Originally by: Lonely Island
Originally by: Levistus Junior
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.


Well tbh a small alliance in poor truesec space such as yourselves will be better dropping sov (excluding outpost systems) in your space after April 5th. Doesn't 0.0 have potential for good income generation through high-class wormholes?? (and it isn't raw isk, no won't add to eve-inflation)


Thats pretty much the conclusion I came up with, pay for sov in station systems and drop it everywhere else because ownership gains you nothing but a bill.

Levistus Junior
Caldari
Trojan Trolls
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2011.03.31 13:58:00 - [1986]
 

Edited by: Levistus Junior on 31/03/2011 13:58:31
Originally by: Rene Winter
Originally by: Lonely Island
Originally by: Levistus Junior
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.


Well tbh a small alliance in poor truesec space such as yourselves will be better dropping sov (excluding outpost systems) in your space after April 5th. Doesn't 0.0 have potential for good income generation through high-class wormholes?? (and it isn't raw isk, no won't add to eve-inflation)


Thats pretty much the conclusion I came up with, pay for sov in station systems and drop it everywhere else because ownership gains you nothing but a bill.


That's probably what's going to happen. After these changes, only reasons to have sov in most regions would be strategic (outposts, JBs, cyno gens etc.). I have no problem with that, although any naive dudes that would set up camp in an 'unclaimed' system only to see their stuff swiftly annihilated by 30-40 supercaps belonging to the de facto owners might.

What I do have problem with is:

-CCPs stated reasons for this change; they prove either ignorance of the game, or plain lying to the players
-The fact that 80-90% of the guys that used 0.0 anomalies to fund their PvP will no longer be able to move so, which will probably generate a move from 0.0 to high sec (or plain quitting for those that find high sec boring), which I fail to see how it will benefit the game.



Admiral Goberius
Amarr
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.03.31 14:04:00 - [1987]
 

Originally by: Levistus Junior

-The fact that 80-90% of the guys that used 0.0 anomalies to fund their PvP will no longer be able to move so,



Here are more facts:

97% of eve players will not care
85% of eve players will become more rich after the nerf
115% will be the net increase in conflicts after the changes

Facts.


- Gob

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2011.03.31 14:23:00 - [1988]
 

Originally by: Sarina Rhoda

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


Actually PvP is both. ISK is taken out by PvP which creates a demand for Industry to put ISK back in. It's one of the dynamics that drives the economic cylce. But the whole point of my argument, which you obviously overlooked in order to troll, is that the increased ISK is largely due to the PvE content that has been created over the last couple of years rather than leveling 0.0 space. That's lead to a redistribution where similar numbers of people are still residing within 0.0 but over a greater geographical area. This, as I understood it, was why CCP created upgrades in the first place. By reversing that decision based solely on the premise that it will increase PvP is a misconception that will result in higher concentrations of population within smaller geographical areas (i.e. the best regions) and, as a result, decrease large scale PvP because those who can't relocate to the best regions will migrate back to Empire where there's greater money to be made. It's this that will excacerbate the problem of too much ISK.

But how about a comprimise whereby if this is introduced, you'll redistribute the true sec systems so that there are no worthless Regions?

James Razor
Amarr
Fallen Angel's
White Noise.
Posted - 2011.03.31 14:24:00 - [1989]
 

Originally by: Admiral Goberius
Originally by: Levistus Junior

-The fact that 80-90% of the guys that used 0.0 anomalies to fund their PvP will no longer be able to move so,



Here are more facts:

97% of eve players will not care
85% of eve players will become more rich after the nerf
115% will be the net increase in conflicts after the changes

Facts.


- Gob



U are wrong. We ARE caring and most other players i know and talk to ARE caring and are NOT happy with CCP's plans or views in this affair.

And i am talking of a couple of dozens of players here, not just 2 or 3.

Admiral Goberius
Amarr
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.03.31 14:35:00 - [1990]
 

Originally by: James Razor
Originally by: Admiral Goberius
Originally by: Levistus Junior

-The fact that 80-90% of the guys that used 0.0 anomalies to fund their PvP will no longer be able to move so,



Here are more facts:

97% of eve players will not care
85% of eve players will become more rich after the nerf
115% will be the net increase in conflicts after the changes

Facts.


- Gob



U are wrong. We ARE caring and most other players i know and talk to ARE caring and are NOT happy with CCP's plans or views in this affair.

And i am talking of a couple of dozens of players here, not just 2 or 3.



So you talked to your friends and they agree with you *shocker*.

SirGorold
Posted - 2011.03.31 14:51:00 - [1991]
 

Cmon CCP, say something in defense, uve heard us!!!

Ella Scorpio
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2011.03.31 14:54:00 - [1992]
 

Originally by: Skaarl
actually that is an incorrect statement. "most" players do not in fact agree with the fundamentals of this change. CCP believes (and i have this as a petition response" that the suppport/disapporve ratio is about 50/50 but that is just a yay/nay guess on their part. when you discount the trolls and the people who think the change is good becuase it will have an effect totally different than what CCP is guessing it will (and its a bad guess) and the people who are happy about it simply cause it screws someone else over the number of people approving of this change because it will accomplish what was intended to do is very, very small.


I agree with you completely--I should have been more clear that the fundamentals that people agree with is that not all space should be be equal. But it already isn't, thanks to moons, and there's a lot of better ways to do this. I don't see the logic of wanting to encourage conflict for space by making 0.0 a ghost town.
I also think CCP should look at outposts deployed since Dominion--I know a lot of them were in the middle of what will now be very poor space by the small alliances CCP claims they are trying to help.

Mangala Solaris
Caldari
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2011.03.31 14:57:00 - [1993]
 

While I know there has been various numbers thrown around this thread, some of which make some sense, has anyone actually done a before and after in a very simplistic view?


Herpes Sweatrash
Posted - 2011.03.31 14:59:00 - [1994]
 

As I read the latest news of CSM corruption (uxadeath offer irl $$$ to NC player to drop sov) I again must wonder why cannot all subscribers have fair and equal access to end game content?

Must we all have spies through out every alliance like Pandemic Legion? Or pay players real cash to buy our space? Where will it end? Sell my body for a good true sec system?

Please think on this CCP.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.31 15:05:00 - [1995]
 

Originally by: James Razor
And i am talking of a couple of dozens of players here, not just 2 or 3.

So... we're talking between 0,003% and 0,01% of the player-base was consulted by you?

That's far from the 3% that care according to Admiral Goberius.

Mrs Pants
Posted - 2011.03.31 15:09:00 - [1996]
 

Ok lots of lovely thoughts and views (mostly against) but this whole thread is based on guess work and speculation from a developer (greyscale) who is probably better seated to make such speculation than most of us ordinary players, but it is guesswork none-the-less. I am a bit of a part timer. I love big blobs fighting big blobs and I don't really care for Sanctums etc but I know that most of the alliance that I am a member of do. This worries me. Other games are being bandied around on our corp. forum. Other things to spend money on and other pleasures to be had that are not eve... I fear that some now old and close trans-global friends may just disappear from the game all together over something quite ineffectual. I am no political genius, in fact I am no genius of any kind but I can see that these proposed changes are going to hit the small fry hard and leave the big boys totally un touched. This happens in life all the time. We immerse ourselves in virtual realities like eve to get away from it, not to see more of it. I propose a new plan to change 0.0 sec. Leave it alone. It is constantly changing just nicely as it is.

inmoratal4tw
Posted - 2011.03.31 15:19:00 - [1997]
 

I wanted to add here that i am also AGAINST this anom change.


Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.31 15:33:00 - [1998]
 

Originally by: Mrs Pants
I am no political genius, in fact I am no genius of any kind but I can see that these proposed changes are going to hit the small fry hard and leave the big boys totally un touched. This happens in life all the time. We immerse ourselves in virtual realities like eve to get away from it, not to see more of it. I propose a new plan to change 0.0 sec. Leave it alone. It is constantly changing just nicely as it is.

The big boys untouched?... Then why are they so up in arms whining like the world is ending?

No, even the big boys are going to feel this hard as their BFF network gets untangled by the need to allocate a now scares resource.

Sarina Rhoda
Posted - 2011.03.31 15:35:00 - [1999]
 

Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 31/03/2011 15:54:51
Originally by: John McCreedy
Originally by: Sarina Rhoda

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


Actually PvP is both. ISK is taken out by PvP which creates a demand for Industry to put ISK back in. It's one of the dynamics that drives the economic cylce. But the whole point of my argument, which you obviously overlooked in order to troll, is that the increased ISK is largely due to the PvE content that has been created over the last couple of years rather than leveling 0.0 space. That's lead to a redistribution where similar numbers of people are still residing within 0.0 but over a greater geographical area. This, as I understood it, was why CCP created upgrades in the first place. By reversing that decision based solely on the premise that it will increase PvP is a misconception that will result in higher concentrations of population within smaller geographical areas (i.e. the best regions) and, as a result, decrease large scale PvP because those who can't relocate to the best regions will migrate back to Empire where there's greater money to be made. It's this that will excacerbate the problem of too much ISK.

But how about a compromise whereby if this is introduced, you'll redistribute the true sec systems so that there are no worthless Regions?


I wasn't even trolling this time >.<
pvp is a mineral sink and a isk faucet. Isk is given out through insurance but no isk is removed from the game by pvp.

People who keep calling regions worthless annoy me.

Just because a region is worth less does not mean it is worthless.

Due to plexing, probing, belt ratting, wh-ing, cosmos agents, (lol) mining, gas harvesting, pi, margin trading and more that im sure i've missed no nullsec region will ever truly be worthless.

Also when i used to be apart of a sov holding alliance I used to make a fair bit blitzing hubs for 6/10 escalations. Albeit not as effective as sanctum running but still made more than enough iskies to support myself.

Again what i think are much more pressing issues than the sanctum changes are:
s-cap force projection,
static moongoo/tech bottleneck
and High sec income compared to low/null sec.(Mainly this one as a Hsec L4 nerf = indirect buff to low/null sec incomes and will *hopefully* stop a huge amount of these RAGE IMA GONA LEAVE tears we are currently seeing)

edited - spelling and grammar

Fejo
Posted - 2011.03.31 15:42:00 - [2000]
 

CCP why did you lure us to 0.0 ? we worked very hard and improved our systems. Now you slap us in the face and because our system doesnt have a very high true sec, we will have to leave because it wont support us. CCP what are you thinking ? how many will leave 0.0 because of this nerf ?

Proats
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.31 15:43:00 - [2001]
 

Can't wait for Guild Wars 2Wink

Mrs Pants
Posted - 2011.03.31 15:43:00 - [2002]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
The big boys untouched?... Then why are they so up in arms whining like the world is ending?

No, even the big boys are going to feel this hard as their BFF network gets untangled by the need to allocate a now scares resource.


Are they? Ok, but you therfore agree with the planned changes then? Because if you are right then Greyscale has hit it on the money with this one... I am not so sure but will bow down and watch.

Skaarl
Posted - 2011.03.31 15:44:00 - [2003]
 

Originally by: Ella Scorpio
Originally by: Skaarl
actually that is an incorrect statement. "most" players do not in fact agree with the fundamentals of this change. CCP believes (and i have this as a petition response" that the suppport/disapporve ratio is about 50/50 but that is just a yay/nay guess on their part. when you discount the trolls and the people who think the change is good becuase it will have an effect totally different than what CCP is guessing it will (and its a bad guess) and the people who are happy about it simply cause it screws someone else over the number of people approving of this change because it will accomplish what was intended to do is very, very small.


I agree with you completely--I should have been more clear that the fundamentals that people agree with is that not all space should be be equal. But it already isn't, thanks to moons, and there's a lot of better ways to do this. I don't see the logic of wanting to encourage conflict for space by making 0.0 a ghost town.
I also think CCP should look at outposts deployed since Dominion--I know a lot of them were in the middle of what will now be very poor space by the small alliances CCP claims they are trying to help.


thats just it, CCP is trying to force the alliances that moved to 0.0 post - dominion to move on, so other alliances can move into 0.0. and they think that we will do so... to obtain better truesec space. the exact opposite will happen. LOTS of players will return at least part time to high sec. less players in null will mean less people for guys like gobbins to kill means less conflict. it wont change the amount of sov conflict going on, it wont encourage "bad" space alliances to move to better truesec (i mean seriously??) it wont do anything but help to depopulate populous regions and decrease the amount of small gang pew.

Swearte Widfarend
Gallente
Aurora Security
Posted - 2011.03.31 15:59:00 - [2004]
 

Edited by: Swearte Widfarend on 31/03/2011 16:04:26
Originally by: Sarina Rhoda
pvp is a mineral sink and a isk faucet. Isk is given out through insurance but no isk is removed from the game by pvp.


This is incorrect. This would only be correct if the net balance of destruction/insurance/drop/salvage was 0 ISK, and it's not. At the very least, any rigs on a ship are lost in PvP destruction. Anytime a single module is destroyed, isk is removed from the game. Insurance is a net loss (most insurance does not even cover the build cost of a T1 ship now), so that is not an isk faucet.



-----
I've skipped the last 20 pages, so...
Here's the thing about all of the people whining about how they can't afford sovereignty after this change. If that's true, you are doing it wrong. I've done the math, and an iHub with a Pirate Array 1 (the lowest level) will spawn 4 Hub anomalies (yes, the poor, useless Hub). Did you know that the average ISK/hr for running a Hub is between 10-15 million? So (at worst level) that's 40 million ISK coming out of a Sovereignty 1 system with a Pirate Array (by the way, the Pirate Array 5 is something like 20 anomalies). If corp tax is an overbearing 10%, that means it takes 15 hours total ratting per day to afford your Sovereignty.

30 Days Sovereignty bill = 180 million (60 million per day)
15 hours ratting in 4 Hubs = 600 million ISK
10% Tax on ratting = 60 million ISK.

So if you have, in the span of 23 hours online, 60 pilots rat for 1 hour, you cover your sov bill. Stop whining about how you can't afford your sovereignty.

As for the individual pilot, they are only taking in about 10m isk/hr which is significantly less than the 75-100m isk/hr a carrier or tengu ratting a sanctum, but not far from what a Drake pilot gets (around 25m isk/hr) when doing one.

However, CCP is also updating and improving the spawns based on the Entrapment Array. These are the DED complexes, and the ones that spawn in nullsec (DED 6-10) have a higher chance of spawning in a system with an Entrapment Array installed. They are also bringing online an unknown number of previously unavailable Faction Modules that will drop in these DED complexes. I can't find great numbers, but it seems that the average DED complex can bring up to 200m isk/hr to the pilots running it - although they won't be as frequent as the Anomalies they also require combat/scan probes to get at, so are more secure to work in compared to an anomaly. In addition, this isn't a pure ISK faucet, since most of the ISK earned will be in loot/salvage compared to raw bounties in an anomaly.

It remains to be seen if the DED complexes will be utilized (or available) in such a way to balance out the earning capabilities of the individual pilot, but everyone complaining that you won't be able to afford sovereignty after this change is not researching the facts of these changes.

Facts folks - this isn't FOX News or MSNBC. You must offer facts, and most of you didn't do a bit of research before shooting off your mouth in this thread.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.31 15:59:00 - [2005]
 

Originally by: DarthMopp
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.


Nonsense. The reason why CCP are doing this is in the hope more people buy and sell PLEX. The more people buy and sell PLEX the more money CCP make. This is why it wasn't discussed with the CSM. CCP can see they are bleeding customers and money but instead of improving the game they are set on releasing unfinished content that never gets iterated on, because their data tells them it's better to be stupid and lose customers than do things differently.

I have no idea where management get these idiots from but they'll be in for a shareholder revolt in a while if they don't change their strategy.

Rene Winter
Militant Mermen
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
Posted - 2011.03.31 16:18:00 - [2006]
 

Edited by: Rene Winter on 31/03/2011 16:19:34
Originally by: Swearte Widfarend
Originally by: Sarina Rhoda
pvp is a mineral sink and a isk faucet. Isk is given out through insurance but no isk is removed from the game by pvp.


This is incorrect. This would only be correct if the net balance of destruction/insurance/drop/salvage was 0 ISK, and it's not. At the very least, any rigs on a ship are lost in PvP destruction. Anytime a single module is destroyed, isk is removed from the game. Insurance is a net loss (most insurance does not even cover the build cost of a T1 ship now), so that is not an isk faucet.



You totally misunderstand ISK faucets and sinks. You are equating material goods that are removed from the system to ISK which is incorrect. ISK faucets are instances where ISK is created by CPP (out of thin air) like bounties, insurance, NPC buy orders. There are not many of these in the game. ISK Sinks are things that cause money to be removed from a players wallet and don't end up in another players wallet, like Skillbooks, Clones, Insurance (nominally as more usually comes out), NPC sell orders, NPC manufacturing fees, PI export taxes . . . SOV bills

When a module is destroyed, really what was destroyed was the time and effort a player put in to create it. Which a player is willing to trade for some amount of isk, dependent on how stable he feels the currency is . . .

Skaarl
Posted - 2011.03.31 16:21:00 - [2007]
 

Originally by: Super Whopper
Originally by: DarthMopp
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.


Nonsense. The reason why CCP are doing this is in the hope more people buy and sell PLEX. The more people buy and sell PLEX the more money CCP make. This is why it wasn't discussed with the CSM. CCP can see they are bleeding customers and money but instead of improving the game they are set on releasing unfinished content that never gets iterated on, because their data tells them it's better to be stupid and lose customers than do things differently.

I have no idea where management get these idiots from but they'll be in for a shareholder revolt in a while if they don't change their strategy.


valid point concerning intel networks. but it doesnt change the fact that that will exist with or without anomolies, and that with LESS people in 0.0 doing mindless ratting you will have even a LOWER chance of catching them napping in an anom.

not to mention that all of the above, while some arguments may have merits, does not explain how the anomaly nerf will increase sov warfare. people are not going to go to the effort of taking a system for **** anoms, and they wont attack someone else for better anoms. its a non-nonsensical argument and the fact that greyscale thinks that THAT argument has merit should be of concern to all customers.

Sarina Rhoda
Posted - 2011.03.31 16:24:00 - [2008]
 

Originally by: Swearte Widfarend
Edited by: Swearte Widfarend on 31/03/2011 16:04:26
Originally by: Sarina Rhoda
pvp is a mineral sink and a isk faucet. Isk is given out through insurance but no isk is removed from the game by pvp.


This is incorrect. This would only be correct if the net balance of destruction/insurance/drop/salvage was 0 ISK, and it's not. At the very least, any rigs on a ship are lost in PvP destruction. Anytime a single module is destroyed, isk is removed from the game. Insurance is a net loss (most insurance does not even cover the build cost of a T1 ship now), so that is not an isk faucet.


Lord you are painful. I will read the rest of your post in a bit but Im going to try this one more time.

When a ship dies in pvp isk enters the game through insurance payouts. No isk is removed from the game. The items and the minerals/materials used to create them are removed, but still no isk has been removed from the game. You might have less isk in your wallet because you bought the items, but that isk now resides in someone elses wallet. Alas again no isk has been removed.

overall conclusion?

pvp = isk faucet and a mineral sink.

If your post was about pvp acting as a catalyst for the economy you would be correct. Pvp however does not stop in anyway shape or form the massive isk faucet that is sanctums.

However if ccps goal from this change was to reduce the sanctum isk faucet they could have done it simply by dropping npc bounties and increasing the loot drops. However I do not believe curbing the isk faucet was their primary intention from this change.

Skaarl
Posted - 2011.03.31 16:44:00 - [2009]
 

Originally by: Sarina Rhoda
Originally by: Swearte Widfarend
Edited by: Swearte Widfarend on 31/03/2011 16:04:26
Originally by: Sarina Rhoda
pvp is a mineral sink and a isk faucet. Isk is given out through insurance but no isk is removed from the game by pvp.


This is incorrect. This would only be correct if the net balance of destruction/insurance/drop/salvage was 0 ISK, and it's not. At the very least, any rigs on a ship are lost in PvP destruction. Anytime a single module is destroyed, isk is removed from the game. Insurance is a net loss (most insurance does not even cover the build cost of a T1 ship now), so that is not an isk faucet.


Lord you are painful. I will read the rest of your post in a bit but Im going to try this one more time.

When a ship dies in pvp isk enters the game through insurance payouts. No isk is removed from the game. The items and the minerals/materials used to create them are removed, but still no isk has been removed from the game. You might have less isk in your wallet because you bought the items, but that isk now resides in someone elses wallet. Alas again no isk has been removed.

overall conclusion?

pvp = isk faucet and a mineral sink.

If your post was about pvp acting as a catalyst for the economy you would be correct. Pvp however does not stop in anyway shape or form the massive isk faucet that is sanctums.

However if ccps goal from this change was to reduce the sanctum isk faucet they could have done it simply by dropping npc bounties and increasing the loot drops. However I do not believe curbing the isk faucet was their primary intention from this change.



considering they stated exactly what their "desired" outcome was you are correct. most people supporting this change ae doing so for hundreds of reasons.... none of which are the desired outcome.

face it, in no way shape or form will A lead to B as CCP greyscale is claiming. if their actual gola is C then all we have is CCP lying to their customers. again.

Rene Winter
Militant Mermen
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
Posted - 2011.03.31 16:46:00 - [2010]
 

Originally by: Skaarl
Originally by: Super Whopper
Originally by: DarthMopp
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.


Nonsense. The reason why CCP are doing this is in the hope more people buy and sell PLEX. The more people buy and sell PLEX the more money CCP make. This is why it wasn't discussed with the CSM. CCP can see they are bleeding customers and money but instead of improving the game they are set on releasing unfinished content that never gets iterated on, because their data tells them it's better to be stupid and lose customers than do things differently.

I have no idea where management get these idiots from but they'll be in for a shareholder revolt in a while if they don't change their strategy.


valid point concerning intel networks. but it doesnt change the fact that that will exist with or without anomolies, and that with LESS people in 0.0 doing mindless ratting you will have even a LOWER chance of catching them napping in an anom.

not to mention that all of the above, while some arguments may have merits, does not explain how the anomaly nerf will increase sov warfare. people are not going to go to the effort of taking a system for **** anoms, and they wont attack someone else for better anoms. its a non-nonsensical argument and the fact that greyscale thinks that THAT argument has merit should be of concern to all customers.


Seeing as Mining upgrades were not touched, perhaps their master plan is to have us nudge all players into a training plan that involves nothing but training hulk -> Carrier -> Supercarriers


Pages: first : previous : ... 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 ... : 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