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 : ... 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.28 17:53:00 - [1081]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale



You don't understand the game that is clear. This will not lead to more into 0.0 it will lead to less. You wanted more folks out in 0.0 and they spent billions on upgrades and stuff and now you pull the rug out from under them. So now your telling them, oh your spent billions and well we don't want you to stay there so since you aren't moving around and attacking people we are going to take away what you paid for so you make even less and thus have less chance of surviving any attack on any power block.


You thought Dominion would break up the power blocks. You thought wrong. Your wrong about this to but by the time you figure that out you'll just nerf something else. What evaluation process did you use? Some focus group that's never played the game or been in 0.0? Some group that has no clue about what motivates wars and battles?






Melkie
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:00:00 - [1082]
 

In the words of my man cheeseburger eddy . . . This is baby back bull****!

Klam
Amarr
FACTS on EVE
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:01:00 - [1083]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale



Care to share your models with the rest of us? I've getting very sick of the "take our word for it."

Do they also account for all the casual players that will leave null sec? And likely leave your game as they don't want to go back to high sec? You remember, those new casual players you enticed into null-sec with dominion and thought to keep around with the learning skill change.

The problem is that simply "monitoring the situation" won't solve the subscription drop you will likely have over this. Once casual players leave over something like this, they don't come back.

So much for the "Sandbox." To paraphrase EQ's old tagline. "Your in CCP's world now. Your actions don't mean jack in the long run."

WoodieRens Garemoko
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:07:00 - [1084]
 

Come on gray admit it you want to reset 0.0
this is what its all about.
it as fk all to do with more pvp

you really wiling to gamble with the 0.0 subscribers ?

plz post how this will create a better 0.0 ?

or is this grayscale an hacked dev account ?

Armaos
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:16:00 - [1085]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale


I wonder, why do you even bother giving us the ability to comment ??? You could have ended the Dev Blog with: THIS DECISION IS FINAL. NO DISCUSSION. So we would not have wasted our time with this thread.

The only "positive" thing that can come out of this is that we will get to see the quality of the new CSM......

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:18:00 - [1086]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 28/03/2011 18:25:28
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale

I take it those were the same causality models that predicted that Dominion sov system would be a boost to small alliances? You wouldnt recognize a correct model if it slapped you repeatedly in the face. How freaking hard is it to understand: When you add more reasons for conflict people defend against that by forming larger powerblocks. Only way this would decrease NAPs is by an exodus to high sec, decreasing the overall 0.0 population.

But luckily CCP will continue to monitor it and adapt if needed, kinda like iterating huh, something CCP always promises and never does...


Quote:
The only "positive" thing that can come out of this is that we will get to see the quality of the new CSM......

Considering the old CSM was never informed of this, and the devblog was conveniently placed right after the 0.0 fanfest discussion, I dont think ccp really cares about the opinion of the CSM.

Starkiller Adams
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:26:00 - [1087]
 

You are going to turn my alliances work into getting our own constilation in fountain into a worthless action.

You clearly dont know what the hell your doing nor do you care about small alliances. Most of my corp has been homeless for a year now your going to take away our new BMW and give us a god dam Geo Metro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and no lie after we poured billions into upgrading our systems!!!!!!!!!!!!!if this crap goes through im done with eve 30.00 bucks a months richer i'll be

minek nevezzelek
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:29:00 - [1088]
 

Originally by: Starkiller Adams
You are going to turn my alliances work into getting our own constilation in fountain into a worthless action.

You clearly dont know what the hell your doing nor do you care about small alliances. Most of my corp has been homeless for a year now your going to take away our new BMW and give us a god dam Geo Metro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and no lie after we poured billions into upgrading our systems!!!!!!!!!!!!!if this crap goes through im done with eve 30.00 bucks a months richer i'll be


Can i have your stuff?

Morp p'LLoran
Silver Snake Enterprise
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:35:00 - [1089]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale


Civil manner? How about a big FU for making EVE a more boring place again, with less 0.0 players and less pvp. Your so-called response is a barely disguised slap in the face for your customers. If you are SOOOOO SURE that you and your so-called model is right and all your customers are wrong, then please right another dev-blog to show hoe 'dynamic' o.o space holding was before the changes, how 'static' it was after the changes (good luck on trying to fudge that data) and how 'dynamic' o.o space holding will be after the change.
PS Please also tell us if you are going to give the popular lvl 4 missioning systems their own servers to support the coming lag-fests with the exodus back to empire.

Amras Arnatuile
Gallente
Element 115.
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:41:00 - [1090]
 

Instead of wasting time on this why don't you fix gallente??? They are obviously broken. New Star Wars MMO is coming out soon, time to go play that instead.

Donovin Orly
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:46:00 - [1091]
 

And here I thought the end of the world wasn't supposed to come until 2012.

Skilo
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:50:00 - [1092]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale


Arrogance killed many Companys and games!!!

Not listening to customers killed many Companys and Games !!!

Screwing customers and destroying months of "work" killed .... you got the picture

Keep up the good work

Soon (tm) .... soon


Muppets Biatch
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:51:00 - [1093]
 

There is a report button next to each post. Why not ask everyone to press the report CCP Greyscale post button and see if we can have Internal Affairs investigate this idiot to see which other MMOPG he has been employed by to make players leave EVE.

If say the makers of Star Trek online wanted to hurt this game and try and get people to leave then bunging this idiot a few grand seems like the way to go.

Nurgl3
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:52:00 - [1094]
 

Originally by: Amras Arnatuile
Instead of wasting time on this why don't you fix gallente??? They are obviously broken. New Star Wars MMO is coming out soon, time to go play that instead.


Hey hey. they are Working as intended. they just are useless as hell.. just like most of 0.0 after CCP Greyscales new "fix" to 0.0 warfare.
did you know that being useless is an intended function of most Gallente ships.

I wonder how much space the powerblocks will be forced to take up in order to keep the playerbase the have?

hip hip horray "Brother" v4 is comming soon!!!

Minerus Prime
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:53:00 - [1095]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale


You my friend are an Idiot.
Have you ever even played Eve, yet along lived in 0.0?

Tasha Voronina
Caldari
Caldari Navy Reserve Force
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:56:00 - [1096]
 

Edited by: Tasha Voronina on 28/03/2011 18:57:48
You've got to know something is wrong when there are (almost) no more replies after a statement like that. Neutraljudgement reserved until 24h have passed

But, we'll wait and we'll see what good comes of this (simple logic outlined in this thread suggests 'little' as the answer). "Nerf-bat" doesn't quite describe the tool used anymore. Unless of course overall income levels (from isk funnels) across the whole game are significantly reduced, in which case, well, there's no telling really what will happen.

I'll finish this with as good a quote as I can summon up from the fanfest stream: "Predictions are always hard, especially when they concern the future" (if anyone remembers better what Dr Eyjo (pardon the (mis)spelling) said, I'd welcome corrections).

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:57:00 - [1097]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale


Just be sure to not be so quick to reverse the change. There will be many BFF that will try and hold their breath as long as possible trying not to do any conflict to skew the results. If they still refuse to fight, amplify the nerf more or introduce more incentives to fight your local neighbors.

Thanks for not caving into the bears. <3

Woodiex3
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:01:00 - [1098]
 

this is how this dev's came up with this.

database search...
subscribers in 0.0 40,000 accounts
players buying plex with isk 50,000 accounts
players buying plex with $ 10,000 accounts

(internal debate takes place)
"to many free loaders in 0.0" solution remove the isk

projection...
subscribers in 0.0 27,000 accounts
players buying plex with isk 5,000 accounts
players buying plex with $ 10,000 accounts
- players buying plex with isk in 0.0 kept to a minimum. "we dont want them"

numbers spell it out.

Gabriel Grimoire
Amarr
Ascendent.
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:03:00 - [1099]
 

CCP, this is the dumbest sh*t I've ever heard.

If you do go through with these absolutely nonsensical and generally opposed changes, I will discontinue my subscription.

Simple as that.

SizeDoesMatter
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:08:00 - [1100]
 

Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:13:02
Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:08:57
CCP Greyscale you are completly missing the point. Players in this thread arenīt against changes to 0.0 ! They actually want you guys from CCP to change stuff !
But you are not coming up with a real solution for the problems.

What has to be changed is the access to moon minerals. Moons have to deplete, instead of giving the holder non stop ISKs, because that makes corps and alliance to stay at one place. Once the moon is depleted there has to be a random timer when the "mineral" spawns again in some random moon. Dont make it constellation based, try it with region based.
And so the players have to spend time and ISK to scan all these moons from time to time to find new spawns. (Iam not talking about spawning new moons, i am refering to a spawn of minerals in the moon, regardless of this moon is being mined already)
This will increase the fighting and the movement of troops, because neutrals and/or hostiles will scan your territory and if they find a moon before you do it, they will place a "death star" and defend it for that time. And the defending force will try to interrupt them from getting the ISK out of the moon. This will hopefully lead to incursions into hostile space.

problem solved.
home in time for tea and crumpets.
i tell ya, iam wasted here.
Very Happy

Aquana Abyss
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:12:00 - [1101]
 

Greyscale,

If you'd outlined the issues, your plan for tackling those issues and then a way to review it properly afterwards that would be fine.

However you (And CCP in general) have what seems to be a dart at a board approach to developing the game with regards 0.0 then forget about it until the next dart throw lands there. You systematically add more and more road-blocks and hurdles to what was essentially "player-driven" content without ever properly consulting (or listening to as in this case) the players. May I just enlighten you with a basic fact of Eve:

MORE HURDLES AND EFFORT REQUIRED IMPLIES LESS PEOPLE WILL DO IT!

The mess that is current 0.0 and sovereignty with everything so static is BECAUSE you made folks pay a shedload of ISK (which is actually playing time for a lot of people) just to stick a flag on the map saying "we are here" - A feature that people used to be able to do effectively for nothing except some POS fuel. I remember pointing out back then that the more you make people "invest" in a system the more they will stay put in that system and ruin the dynamism of 0.0, however like all other sensible comments then and now - we get ignored.

I stopped paying my subs a year or two ago now and only play using PLEX because I dont think you're worth my real money; it is a shame because I did love the game, but your bumbling foolish manner of developing certain areas of the game and then making them worse like with 0.0 going all the way back to introducing POS Sov, but then ignoring other poorly developed areas of the game(mining, POS, FW etc) that badly need attention makes me believe your game is in the wrong hands and on the slippery slope to failure.

You personally are behind some of the worst changes, your communication is awful and you should probably move aside for someone at CCP with some better, fresher ideas.

But thats just my feedback. Not that you care.

Muppets Show
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:13:00 - [1102]
 

Originally by: SizeDoesMatter
Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:08:57
CCP Greyscale you are completly missing the point. Players in this thread arenīt against changes to 0.0 ! They actually want you guys from CCP to change stuff !
But you are not coming up with a real solution for the problems.

What has to be changed is the access to moon minerals. Moons have to deplete, instead of giving the holder non stop ISKs, because that makes corps and alliance to stay at one place. Once the moon is depleted there has to be a random timer when the "mineral" spawns again in some random moon. Dont make it constellation based, try it with region based.
And so the players have to spend time and ISK to scan all these moons from time to time to find new spawns. (Iam not talking about spawning new moons, i am refering to a spawn of minerals in the moon, regardless of this moon is being mined already)
This will increase the fighting and the movement of troops, because neutrals and/or hostiles will scan your territory and if they find a moon before you do it, they will place a "death star" and defend it for that time. And the defending force will try to interrupt them from getting the ISK out of the moon. This will hopefully lead to incursions into hostile space.

problem solved.
home in time for tea and crumpets.
i tell ya, iam wasted here.
Very Happy


Sack CCP Greyscale and employ this guy

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:14:00 - [1103]
 

Originally by: SizeDoesMatter
Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:13:02
Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:08:57
CCP Greyscale you are completly missing the point. Players in this thread arenīt against changes to 0.0 ! They actually want you guys from CCP to change stuff !
But you are not coming up with a real solution for the problems.

What has to be changed is the access to moon minerals. Moons have to deplete, instead of giving the holder non stop ISKs, because that makes corps and alliance to stay at one place. Once the moon is depleted there has to be a random timer when the "mineral" spawns again in some random moon. Dont make it constellation based, try it with region based.
And so the players have to spend time and ISK to scan all these moons from time to time to find new spawns. (Iam not talking about spawning new moons, i am refering to a spawn of minerals in the moon, regardless of this moon is being mined already)
This will increase the fighting and the movement of troops, because neutrals and/or hostiles will scan your territory and if they find a moon before you do it, they will place a "death star" and defend it for that time. And the defending force will try to interrupt them from getting the ISK out of the moon. This will hopefully lead to incursions into hostile space.

problem solved.
home in time for tea and crumpets.
i tell ya, iam wasted here.
Very Happy


This

Also changes that run counter to player wishes and then arrogance in delivering the message was what killed SWG.....so I'd find some humility before its brought to you.....

amarrian clone
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:16:00 - [1104]
 

its going to cause even more lag by moving ratters into certain pockets that is even worth making isk in and also dooming empire dwellers by having hundreds more people in them and constant complaints even with the agent qualities going away.

but still cluster ****ing the 0.0 pve players into low true sec spaces wont be good and that is also forcing pvpers who want to kill these bears to be spamming systems with their numbers

and pet alliance will demand better space and while non-pets wont allow that because they are the "top dogs" and they want things for them of course.

just dont understand what you are trying to do, if u allow any 0.0 space to be upgraded fully that would make anyone be tempted to go into 0.0 make a home and start a life doing whatever it is.

the ONLY upside i see of this is having noobie alliance having control over worthless space and not have anyone try and take it from them caus eof how ****ty it is even w/ all lv 5 upgrades in it.

theres my rant...lol Evil or Very MadTwisted Evil

Tania Russ
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:18:00 - [1105]
 

Can we get a petition started to scrap this idea? I think anyone who plays EVE can agree that removing the only good isk making feature of the vast majority of nullsec is a crappy idea.

Klam
Amarr
FACTS on EVE
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:22:00 - [1106]
 

Originally by: Woodiex3
this is how this dev's came up with this.

database search...
subscribers in 0.0 40,000 accounts
players buying plex with isk 50,000 accounts
players buying plex with $ 10,000 accounts

(internal debate takes place)
"to many free loaders in 0.0" solution remove the isk

projection...
subscribers in 0.0 27,000 accounts
players buying plex with isk 5,000 accounts
players buying plex with $ 10,000 accounts
- players buying plex with isk in 0.0 kept to a minimum. "we dont want them"

numbers spell it out.


If this was the reason given then it would make some sense. This isn't the reason they have given.

And the logic is flawed anyway. PLEX doesn't fall out of the sky, it's created when people pay CCP real $$. So these "free loaders" already paid. Maybe the real issue is the trust fund fools out there flooding the market with PLEX. I'm not talking about a hard working guy who sells some plex from time to time because he doesn't have the RL time to earn the isk in game. I'm talking about the people who bulk buy PLEX. It's our fault the casual player that CCP can't manage it's budget?

But again this isn't the official reason given... it is to promote more dynamic 0.0 space... even though thanks to SOV mechanics taking SOV is a long process.


Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:22:00 - [1107]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale


At this point it's hard not to call you all hypocrites, and say that what you really want is to help the big coalitions. Ok then, i'll wrap up and scrap whatever plans i had as a independent, small alliance and join one of the big five.

That's all for today.

skewbamatt
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:26:00 - [1108]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale



You don't understand the game that is clear. This will not lead to more into 0.0 it will lead to less. You wanted more folks out in 0.0 and they spent billions on upgrades and stuff and now you pull the rug out from under them. So now your telling them, oh your spent billions and well we don't want you to stay there so since you aren't moving around and attacking people we are going to take away what you paid for so you make even less and thus have less chance of surviving any attack on any power block.


You thought Dominion would break up the power blocks. You thought wrong. Your wrong about this to but by the time you figure that out you'll just nerf something else. What evaluation process did you use? Some focus group that's never played the game or been in 0.0? Some group that has no clue about what motivates wars and battles?








Exactly! we have spent a good chunk of isk fixing up a certain system and for what now? NOTHING! Might aswell went to Jita handed it out to the noobs.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:27:00 - [1109]
 

The tears after that second post from Greyscale are the most divine yet! Please keep them coming.

NOM NOM NOM !!!

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:31:00 - [1110]
 

Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Ok then, i'll wrap up and scrap whatever plans i had as a independent, small alliance and join one of the big five.


I'm sure many are thinking of doing that. Just remember, that is more hungry Sanctum farmers fighting over the same Sanctum. Conflict! Wink

Do you honestly think they will just let all of you guys pour into the ranks and dilute the local resources and not care?


Pages: first : previous : ... 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 ... : 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