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 : ... 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Lost'In'Space
Posted - 2011.04.05 02:32:00 - [2761]
 

Originally by: bp920091
Small alliances simply cannot hold this wasteland, it is not profitable when compared to highsec, and even if they have the industry base to keep their members alive, they will be completely wiped out by large alliances whenever they feel like it.

There is nothing in 0.0 that is more profitable than anomaly? Wouldn't lower rent cost help some new alliance to move in?

I do agree that I don't see how this will help a new small alliance in any way, I thought it might help if they have something to do in 0.0 other than anomalies. Wouldn't the rent go down by 10 fold?

bp920091
Killer Koalas
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2011.04.05 02:41:00 - [2762]
 

Edited by: bp920091 on 05/04/2011 02:45:28
Originally by: Lost'In'Space
Originally by: bp920091
Small alliances simply cannot hold this wasteland, it is not profitable when compared to highsec, and even if they have the industry base to keep their members alive, they will be completely wiped out by large alliances whenever they feel like it.

There is nothing in 0.0 that is more profitable than anomaly? Wouldn't lower rent cost help some new alliance to move in?

I do agree that I don't see how this will help a new small alliance in any way, I thought it might help if they have something to do in 0.0 other than anomalies. Wouldn't the rent go down by 10 fold?


While anomolies are not the only way for people to make cash out in 0.0, it is the way that the average 0.0 pvper does make cash (those who run DED complexes, have a highsec trading alt, or run about in wormholes are mainly highend pvpers) through anomolies. even if you have a small number of very good pvpers, small alliances simply will not make the cash to pay for rent from any large alliance (or sovereignty bills for that matter), and since these small alliances will not have the decently large number of pvpers needed to hold space, they will be evicted in short order, whether by force or by themselves.

Kogh Ayon
Posted - 2011.04.05 02:44:00 - [2763]
 

Originally by: bp920091
Originally by: Kogh Ayon
Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 05/04/2011 02:12:48
Originally by: Philana Moon
Edited by: Philana Moon on 04/04/2011 20:23:04
Edited by: Philana Moon on 04/04/2011 19:52:31
-1

This patch sucks. Lot of small alliances have no chance to survive. They pay lot of isk to hold 0.0 space. Rest of the money goes to pvp. Most 0.0 space are useless now, Geminate, Insmother,
Cloude Ring, Paragon Soul, Providence, Pure Blind, large part of Scalding Pass, Tribute. The biggest winner are the drone
russians and goonswarm federation at deklein.

So CCP Greyscale you're a russian or old goonie?


if you think, that the players have to much money. Cancel the ship insurance, decrease the mission reward at 20%, lower the drop rate at officer and death space items. Cancel the moon gold ****. NC has over 120 tech moons, they make over 1.000b each month for nothing.. 'Ello 'ello 'ello, wot's goin' on ?

if you think that we have to many super capitals, adjust the refining rate at railguns.

But, don't sh*t on small alliances and take them the chance to grow at 0.0

+1 CCP

This change will definitely increase the chance for small alliances to survive in null. Currently any a system is very profitable and the big alliances just took everything and recruits renters and farmers. Small alliances, once they got a system then it will be thrashed by heaps super-caps just because this system can be re-leased for profit.

Now it is not profitable to take many a systems even some regions, the small/industry alliance now can find a easy system to keep their sov without much trouble from big alliances: Will the NC. try to take control of providence now? lol


How on earth does this change allow small alliances to hold 0.0 space? All this does is turn a large portion of 0.0 into wasteland (undisputed fact, whether or not good truesec covers it is not the question I am adressing). Since it is a wasteland in terms of pve content, the only people who can feasibly survive is small industry alliances. These will also not stay very long, as you do need people to be able to pvp.

Since a good portion of industry players are not as good at pvp as people who spend all of their time pvping (Again, some exceptions, but in general, pvpers dont do much industry), these alliances will not be able to hold this space when a major power block will decide to kick them out, which they will do if they take space in a tactically important region/pose a threat if they side with an enemy, or this will just be a space for big powerblock pvpers to farm killmails.

Small alliances simply cannot hold this wasteland, it is not profitable when compared to highsec, and even if they have the industry base to keep their members alive, they will be completely wiped out by large alliances whenever they feel like it.

Nobody will pay rent+sov.cost for a 'hub-only' system.

If u want people to rent, people will withdraw, if you want to keep these systems on yourself, u will losing money.Bring a super-cap fleet to down providence for fun? kk u're welcome since hold a system there only need a level-3 pirate-detection which is not really hard.

Tiara Xiuhcoatl
Posted - 2011.04.05 04:01:00 - [2764]
 

ok so CCP is nerfing the game and screwing things up which seems to happen more often then not. BUt good things have come from most of what they have done.

HOWEVER, I seriously dont get somthing here CCP, why would you even let alliance buy and install upgrades into systems that they are not going to be usable for now. Why come up with a system then a little over a year later take it away WITHOUT anything that will compensate the alliances/corps for the now garbage upgrades they installed. OR for that matter adjusting the Sov bills accordingly.

AS i see it CCP your taking away something that affects the individual players alot that live in 0.0 while handing everything to the ppl living in highsec, but cant even at least balance the loss with the decrease in expenses.

You decided Sov was something to charge lots of ISK for, and added different things accordingly to make it worth paying for sov, then you remove a large part of it.

If your going to screw ppl around without warning and be pretty imature and unprofesional fine, but for f u c k sakes, at least do it in a half way balanced and fair way. 0.0 is supposed ot be more profitable than highsec, being the risks of living there, now you force out large numbers of the 0.0 population.

Not sure the exact reason, but I cant help but wonder, is this to also cut back on large fleet fights basically because those large numbers will no longer be fielded because they dont exist?

Just give us real answers, give us soemthing to show its not to blaintely screw over every small alliance that doesnt have the good fortune of being a main part for a major power block.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.05 04:04:00 - [2765]
 

Originally by: Kogh Ayon
Nobody will pay rent+sov.cost for a 'hub-only' system.

If u want people to rent, people will withdraw, if you want to keep these systems on yourself, u will losing money.Bring a super-cap fleet to down providence for fun? kk u're welcome since hold a system there only need a level-3 pirate-detection which is not really hard.

And in the downtime they'll be using those moms to belt-rat in provi, so all this talk of this change giving the little guy a chance at 0.0 is lol.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.05 04:09:00 - [2766]
 

Originally by: Tiara Xiuhcoatl
If your going to screw ppl around without warning and be pretty imature and unprofesional fine, but for f u c k sakes, at least do it in a half way balanced and fair way. 0.0 is supposed ot be more profitable than highsec, being the risks of living there, now you force out large numbers of the 0.0 population.

Adapt or die?

That has always been the way of EVE.

Originally by: Tiara Xiuhcoatl
Just give us real answers, give us soemthing to show its not to blaintely screw over every small alliance that doesnt have the good fortune of being a main part for a major power block.

If you're renting, then this does screw you over. If you're a small alliance that isn't renting, then this is good for you as all those renters will be heading to high-sec.

Grow a spine, play eve like every other small 0.0 alliance did before Dominion.

Ella Scorpio
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2011.04.05 04:46:00 - [2767]
 

So Greyscale said they would implement the change and then evaluate it. So I think it is worth having a discussion about how to evaluate the change.

I don't think watching how quickly people drop sov or move to get better space are good short term criteria, because now that CCP has shown how fickle they are, some people will try to wait it out. A far better measure will be how much time people who live in bad truesec 0.0 spend logged in. This is a critical measure for CCP, because it also suggests how much they are in danger of losing a subscriber.

Another good measure will be what happens to rents, and how quickly pure renter alliances lose membership.

Fundamentally, I think CCP's error here is not recognizing that people want stuff to do in a game. So if they keep the number of sites but proportion the bounties based on truesec, people will grumble, but still login to do their sanctums...but they might start eyeing a neighboring system's truesec and figuring out how to take it.

The critical error here is taking away something to do, while still having profitable and engaging (to some) level 4 highsec missions. Make the anoms more interesting and varied (if less of an isk faucet) in nullsec, and you will have a vibrant player base in nullsec, and plenty of fighting to get better space.

Keep with what you are planning, and you will just have empty space punctuated by big alliances...

QueenOfHotDrop
Posted - 2011.04.05 04:50:00 - [2768]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab


Grow a spine, play eve like every other small 0.0 alliance did before Dominion.


Before Dominion the biger aliance had no 10 sanctums which made ​​them stronger than in other ,remove them all sanctums and it's ok.

UberDeathDealer
Steel Fleet
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.04.05 04:57:00 - [2769]
 

This is yet another example of CCP using the sledgehammer approach when a scalpel is needed.
GG

Malus de'Adomena
Posted - 2011.04.05 05:16:00 - [2770]
 

This is going to kill null sec

Lost'In'Space
Posted - 2011.04.05 05:19:00 - [2771]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Tiara Xiuhcoatl
If your going to screw ppl around without warning and be pretty imature and unprofesional fine, but for f u c k sakes, at least do it in a half way balanced and fair way. 0.0 is supposed ot be more profitable than highsec, being the risks of living there, now you force out large numbers of the 0.0 population.

Adapt or die?

That has always been the way of EVE.



I think CCP should compensate those who spent isks and upgraded their system recently to get high end anomalies in the soon to be worthless systems. Unless CCP actually going to adjust this later, and maybe make the high end anomalies spawn, even if the frequency is less.

Didn't CCP gave back the halo implants or something when they nerfed nano? Maybe they should do the same here.

Originally by: QueenOfHotDrop
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab


Grow a spine, play eve like every other small 0.0 alliance did before Dominion.


Before Dominion the biger aliance had no 10 sanctums which made ​​them stronger than in other ,remove them all sanctums and it's ok.


WTF, you can have 10 sanctums in fully upgraded system at any time?

Degara Farat
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.05 05:30:00 - [2772]
 

So according to QEN...

Total population increase 695,693 to 768,373 (10,45%)
Total bounty increase 67,6T to 75,7T (11,9%)

Numbers are matching there. QEN doesn't tell exactly where the bounties are coming from.

Since its called inflation when the costs increase faster then your income, I wonder what inflation does when you keep the player market at current levels and remove player income.

bp920091
Killer Koalas
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2011.04.05 05:45:00 - [2773]
 

Edited by: bp920091 on 05/04/2011 05:50:17
Originally by: Degara Farat
So according to QEN...

Total population increase 695,693 to 768,373 (10,45%)
Total bounty increase 67,6T to 75,7T (11,9%)

Numbers are matching there. QEN doesn't tell exactly where the bounties are coming from.

Since its called inflation when the costs increase faster then your income, I wonder what inflation does when you keep the player market at current levels and remove player income.


when you keep the player market at the current levels and increase the number of people flying ships, this means that the actual value of isk will increase. This is only good for people who hold large amounts of isk, not people who hold actual modules, which are immune to inflation.

It is called deflation, btw, which is the opposite of inflation.

/edit Oh, by the way, this is also good for people who make things (ie. industrialists), as ships are physically worth more, as there is less ships per person.

Aurelia Rei
Posted - 2011.04.05 06:31:00 - [2774]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

Your position doesn't make a lot of sense - ultimately because of Malcanis' Law. Consider:



I'm not sure how Malcanis' Law makes my position any less tenable than the position of the current changes, unless you're saying that following Malcanis' Law, it doesn't matter what is done, whether CCP's current changes or anything else that could be proposed, because it will always screw over the little guy?

I'm afraid I missed the meeting ratifying Malcanis' Law as some sort of absolute truth; as an extreme example, if the proposed change was to delete all characters over 1 year old (rapid aging syndrome due to use of clone technologies), how exactly do richer, older players benefit from that? The example is obviously a little silly, but surely with some thought and discussion, it is possible to devise changes that do benefit newer players more than older. I really don't understand the defeatist attitude.

Originally by: Liang Nuren

- Nobody has mentioned being willing to take more PVP risk while they're running their sanctums. In fact, the biggest whine up to now was how people that weren't even at their computer (AFK Cloakers) were ruining their ISK making because they might bridge a fleet of bombers in on top of them.



I really couldn't care less what other people are or aren't complaining about. If you're referring to my statement that there were some good ideas in this thread, it was meant as a starting point and not an end all be all. Otherwise, I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

Originally by: Liang Nuren

- Decreasing the amount of ISK and increasing the amount of LP/loot/salvage would still benefit larger entities with better support infrastructures over smaller entities with low/almost non-existent support structures.



Come on, dude, one issue at a time. When I argue that the changes hurt small entities more than large, you argue that the issue is the enormous raw ISK pumping into the economy. When I suggest a change targeting that very issue, you take the stance of my initial argument. Be reasonable; I don't get paid enough to come up with a full, multi-tiered and all encompassing solution for your entertainment.

Originally by: Liang Nuren

- Furthermore, I don't know how you want to go about adding PVP risk to deep 0.0 PVE. And really, if you think this whine was epic... Laughing



Well, considering the main complaint seems to be that large coalitions have systems blued up to 40 jumps away, then affecting change that would limit the demarcation of such large territories would be a good start.

... continued.

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.04.05 06:43:00 - [2775]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:

This simple logic is flawed.

The fabled good pilots don't go after ISK, they go after achievement and fullfillment of their aspirations.
I have had the honor of knowing several totally epic guys, they never cried for ISK (they were good at making them) and being able making enough ISK is a discounted factor among the "good pilots" (this falls in the decade long and all MMOs encompassing "Good Player" topic).

The Good Pilots who are after PvP, will join the good PvP corps / alliances and there's a bunch of well established ones that naturally attract talents.

Your failure seeing this as the true drive for such individuals is what will keep them out of reach for the dime a dozen half assed alliances that struggle fielding 20 PvPers.


So these "fabled good pilots" do they stuff piles of real life cash into the game or use macros miners/ratters to make the ISK to "go after achievement and fullfillment of their aspirations."?

Aurelia Rei
Posted - 2011.04.05 06:55:00 - [2776]
 

... continued.

Originally by: Liang Nuren

While I don't hesitate to say that you can pull 100M ISK/hr in high sec (I've done it), it isn't easy. It requires a lot of attention - both to what you're doing in the mission and to the overall market. The debates continually rage in Missions & Complexes over LP conversion rates and how much time should be accounted for when converting your LP. And really, converting your LP is annoying - to the point that even 60M/hr is considered ridiculous to almost all L4 runners. Contrast that with 135M ISK/hr bounties only with a Mach (the largest I've seen claimed with a single character) and the bounties only screen shots I've seen posted of 100M+ with Golems.

So... Yes, it is possible. No, it's not easy. Or common (just as I'm sure 120M+ isn't terribly common in 0.0).



Let's just agree to disagree on this matter. I find it *very* tiring to argue semantics on what is easy and what is not. I also find it quite disingenuous of you to focus almost entirely on the upper bound of the range I gave. Perhaps you missed the earlier, pointless debate with another person concerned with how difficult I find mission-running to be, but I did state that if I'm lucky with the mission offers, I can hit the upper bound of that range, but usually it's somewhere in between.

Perhaps mission runners are so combative over this because they don't want CCP going anywhere near their income stream. You're right, blitzing L4s is SO difficult. Finding a sustainable high LP exchange rate is SO annoying. It's a terrible life us mission runners have, and we have to worry about being suicide ganked too!

Answer me this: does it make sense to you that with these changes, the best anoms (Hubs) in ~43% of nullsec will provide a rate of return (per hour, per account) far less than running L4s? Any alliance new to nullsec would probably rather run L4s in the safety of highsec than Hubs to pay for their ships, while the bigger alliances retain access to Sanctums. How exactly does this help diversify nullsec?

Originally by: Liang Nuren

Basically, the personal income of an individual in 0.0 has nothing at all to do with whether its populated with coalitions or small alliances.

-Liang


Um, okay.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.04.05 07:27:00 - [2777]
 

Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 05/04/2011 07:40:55
Quote:

So according to QEN...

Total population increase 695,693 to 768,373 (10,45%)
Total bounty increase 67,6T to 75,7T (11,9%)

Numbers are matching there. QEN doesn't tell exactly where the bounties are coming from.

Since its called inflation when the costs increase faster then your income, I wonder what inflation does when you keep the player market at current levels and remove player income.



The bounty increase comes from carrier / Mom etc. ratters.

The population increase is mostly off new players and they surely don't farm 9 trillions within a quarter... (*)

(*) 9 T *increase* actually, that is 9T is the most conservative estimate in the unlikely case anom farmers made *0* before that quarter.


Quote:

So these "fabled good pilots" do they stuff piles of real life cash into the game or use macros miners/ratters to make the ISK to "go after achievement and fullfillment of their aspirations."?



No, they play the full game and have industry alts, the corp leader lets them keep a little margin over Jita when giving stuff in corp, they trade in 0.0 hubs and much more.
Some even *gosh* had a L4 alt but most would do 0.0 missions (in NPC 0.0) or the already available complexes.
Plus we did corp ops to collectively make money.

When I was in Dark Rising we would grind about 4-6 Dreads (the Good Thing back in my times) in a week end.



Now how does it compare to a bunch of loonies each grinding a spawned anom in a Mom?


Why do they even use a Mom? It means they got too much money to waste if they do that. And CCP noticed this.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.04.05 07:33:00 - [2778]
 

Quote:

HOWEVER, I seriously dont get somthing here CCP, why would you even let alliance buy and install upgrades into systems that they are not going to be usable for now. Why come up with a system then a little over a year later take it away WITHOUT anything that will compensate the alliances/corps for the now garbage upgrades they installed. OR for that matter adjusting the Sov bills accordingly.



This is the typical hi sec bear mentality at work.

CCP owes you NOTHING.
You saw the glittering of Klondike/0.0 and accepted the challenge. You collectively HAD nine trillions handed to you and other renters in a quarter. You made probably more 9 trillions in this quarter. Now CCP decided to pull the ISK fountain off.

It's been good till it lasted, you are not entitled to anything. The EULA itself has it written.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.04.05 07:45:00 - [2779]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
This is the typical hi sec bear mentality at work.

CCP owes you NOTHING.
You saw the glittering of Klondike/0.0 and accepted the challenge. You collectively HAD nine trillions handed to you and other renters in a quarter. You made probably more 9 trillions in this quarter. Now CCP decided to pull the ISK fountain off.

It's been good till it lasted, you are not entitled to anything. The EULA itself has it written.



ITT: paying for a product doesn't mean you actually get it, unless you have access to Technetium.

I'd like to thank the people on SHC. May my name live on in infamy, while you revel in your bitter elitism. Your own arrogance, and inability to have a discourse on this matter (too busy not playing this game) have made yourselves irrelevant.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.04.05 07:46:00 - [2780]
 

Originally by: Aurelia Rei

I'm not sure how Malcanis' Law makes my position any less tenable than the position of the current changes, unless you're saying that following Malcanis' Law, it doesn't matter what is done, whether CCP's current changes or anything else that could be proposed, because it will always screw over the little guy?
...



That's exactly what I'm saying. Your contrived example really is just that - contrived. But even it would still be to the favor of older and wiser players that know how to play the game. You're saying to target the issues one at a time in some kind of effort to not give the advantage to older/wiser/smarter/blobbier players.

But it can't be done. Supposing that they must decrease the ISK faucet, then...
... they simply decrease the ISK faucet. Older/Bigger alliances move in and take what remains.
... they decrease the ISK faucets and make up for it with LP/Loot/Whatever. Older/Bigger alliances take the best space, and have better support infrastructures to deal with worse space.

What you should be learning here is that virtually any change can be deconstructed as being bad for the little guy. If you feel that's a bit defeatist... so sorry. Maybe you can try actually bending your mind to the problem instead of simply saying it can easily be done. Rolling Eyes

-Liang

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.04.05 08:06:00 - [2781]
 

Quote:
ITT: paying for a product doesn't mean you actually get it, unless you have access to Technetium


The "paying customer" and "paying product" is another typical pattern exhibited when CCP nerfed L4 loot and the affected bears flooded the forums.


Anyway you pay the right to spend TIME in the game, the content is solely property of CCP and they do whatever they want with it. You signed it.

Doris Dragonbreath
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2011.04.05 08:09:00 - [2782]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

CCP owes you NOTHING.



Ofc they do own me something. I'm here bcos of the sandbox you know and they own me sandbox with enough sand to build my castle. Even if other players manage to pee in that sand and my castle might smell funny.

So I have gone and erected my little sandcastle, killed all the other kids that look like they might want to **** on my sandcastle and now CCP comes and rains on MY parade. What they own me is consistent rules, and if rules must change they own me at least believable explanation WHY the rules need change.

The current reasoning does not float. I would really really like to see that "model" of theirs that predicts those changes mentioned in the devblog as a result of these changes that are going to be implemented tomorrow (as patch has been delayed a day). As my personal model, based on the experience of playing EVE Online past 6 years (and some excel tables) predicts a bit different outcome. It's ofc not complete model as there are areas in EVE where I am inexperienced even after these 6 years like wormholes, low sec piracy and ... umm ... faction warfare. Yeah I think those cover the things I have no experience with. I'm sure there are some white spots in my model even in the areas I'm well experienced with but I highly doubt these white spots would be big enough to fit the outcome predicted by CCP model for 0.0 through them. I like numbers and I like thinking so my models are not just "gut feeling". Where numbers matter there I have my little personal excel sheets. Like for example comparison of 0.0 average anomaly income vs empire level 4 mission running average income (for me in particual ofc, dont have data to generalize that in a meaningful way).

I can kinda understand why CCP models often fail to take into account everything while some player models have considerably better accuracy. I think the reason is that CCP works on tight schedule, so the devs just dont have time to sit down and really concentrate for a week on getting a good picture of the "landscape". Plus ofc the increasing inertia that comes with increasing number of devs. Take for example the issue with technetium, that was predicted by Akita T with very good accuracy while CCP is still seemingly hiding their head under sand. Setting up a good model needs two key components (1) very good understanding of the field (2) thinking everything through in a systematic manner and figuring out what is relevant and what is small enough to be negligible.

My current impression is that this CCP model is just some key devs "gut feeling" and not based on numerical data in meaningful way.

BIZZAROSTORMY
Posted - 2011.04.05 08:15:00 - [2783]
 

Ill post this again because a lot of people are making the same mistake.


This mass-nerf has nothing to do with isk sinks or faucets - nothing to do with income, nothing to do with deflation or inflation.

CCPs stated reason for the nerf is to increase goodfights. This was clearly stated in black and white. All other considerations are moot points.

So does ANYONE think this will increase 0.0 warfare? I rest my case.

Levistus Junior
Caldari
Trojan Trolls
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2011.04.05 08:21:00 - [2784]
 

Edited by: Levistus Junior on 05/04/2011 08:24:23
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

If you're renting, then this does screw you over. If you're a small alliance that isn't renting, then this is good for you as all those renters will be heading to high-sec.

Grow a spine, play eve like every other small 0.0 alliance did before Dominion.


And why would a small alliance maintain sov in crappy 0.0 after these changes? Why pay 2-300 mil/month for sov if there's nothing profitable in that system?

All of this assuming you're being left alone and no big coallition comes knocking and offering you the free choice between 'pay rent' and 'die'

Sorry, I'm really not buying into the fact that making some space so crappy that it's not worth holding will actually make people want to hold it.

Also, in regards to increasing fights, it's not going to happen. People go to war over moons, cause that's where the big money are, not over sanctums.

Crazy Craven
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.05 09:06:00 - [2785]
 

What I find so odd is all the people ingame you question about these changes are like... "Huh? What changes?" I was shocked how many people do not read the forums, kind of crazy, we will see such a crash of hate hit these boards when the change gets applied!

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.04.05 09:10:00 - [2786]
 

Edited by: Super Whopper on 05/04/2011 09:19:32
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
ITT: paying for a product doesn't mean you actually get it, unless you have access to Technetium


The "paying customer" and "paying product" is another typical pattern exhibited when CCP nerfed L4 loot and the affected bears flooded the forums.


Anyway you pay the right to spend TIME in the game, the content is solely property of CCP and they do whatever they want with it. You signed it.


You are so right, just because we 'signed' some arbitrary document it means they can do as they wish. Interestingly this attitude is costing Google a lot of money, as the Germans are still considering criminal proceedings against their Street View stupidity. And let's not even mention Facebook lol

So, how about we leave this game, because it's 'theirs' anyway and let them play their game themselves. It's 'theirs' after all, made by them for themselves.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.04.05 09:17:00 - [2787]
 

Originally by: BIZZAROSTORMY
Ill post this again because a lot of people are making the same mistake.


This mass-nerf has nothing to do with isk sinks or faucets - nothing to do with income, nothing to do with deflation or inflation.

CCPs stated reason for the nerf is to increase goodfights. This was clearly stated in black and white. All other considerations are moot points.

So does ANYONE think this will increase 0.0 warfare? I rest my case.


It has nothing to do with 0.0 warfare. It's about selling PLEX, nothing more, nothing less. If CCP wanted more wars they'd rebalance Technetium, but they don't want that, they just want to sell more PLEX and earn more fiat currency.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.04.05 09:36:00 - [2788]
 

Originally by: Super Whopper
Edited by: Super Whopper on 05/04/2011 09:19:32
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
ITT: paying for a product doesn't mean you actually get it, unless you have access to Technetium


The "paying customer" and "paying product" is another typical pattern exhibited when CCP nerfed L4 loot and the affected bears flooded the forums.


Anyway you pay the right to spend TIME in the game, the content is solely property of CCP and they do whatever they want with it. You signed it.


You are so right, just because we 'signed' some arbitrary document it means they can do as they wish. Interestingly this attitude is costing Google a lot of money, as the Germans are still considering criminal proceedings against their Street View stupidity. And let's not even mention Facebook lol

So, how about we leave this game, because it's 'theirs' anyway and let them play their game themselves. It's 'theirs' after all, made by them for themselves.


Google, Facebook and all those companies can be sued for so much because they made enormously more. Exactly with those arbitrary documents.

If you sue Facebook for 100M and they lose, they are down 100M out of many billions. It's risk capital, sometimes it goes well, sometime it doesn't, yet they are the richest out there, in Germans (and everyone else's) face.

Kahran Sjet
Posted - 2011.04.05 10:13:00 - [2789]
 

Edited by: Kahran Sjet on 05/04/2011 10:14:43
Look at this poll and cast a vote TELL CCP TO STOP THE NERF!

Rooli Pelaaja
Posted - 2011.04.05 10:22:00 - [2790]
 

Edited by: Rooli Pelaaja on 05/04/2011 10:22:48
you forget something, anomalies are NOT GONE from crappy space

so if you are in crap space:

-do hubs, 10mil bounty ticks still (OMGAD I CANT GET 60MIL PER HOUR ANYTIME I WANT WTFFFFFFFF) better than missioning or mining by far still

or

-stop being *****/htfu and move to better space or go conquer better space


Pages: first : previous : ... 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 ... : 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