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 : ... 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Erichk Knaar
Caldari
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:38:00 - [1141]
 

Don't forget moongoo needs serious attention too.

ADMIRAL ALLEXCAT
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:40:00 - [1142]
 

HELLO FRIENDS!
FROM WHAT I'VE OBSERVED HERE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOME GREAT GENIO OF CCP WALKED LOOKING (FOR LACK OF CREATIVITY) THE PAST ADMINISTRATORS GREAT GAMES! AND ARE REAPING IDEAS OF GUIDELINES, WITH THE PLAYERS.
READY IT SEEMS THAT THIS LAUNCHED THE GREAT STONE THAT WILL SINK A BEAUTIFUL GAME! START MAKING LIST OF ADDRESSES OF YOUR FRIENDS TO JOIN IN THE NEAR FUTURE GOOD GAME ONLINE! EVE GOES THE WAY OF A SPACE IN THE HISTORY OF THE GREAT GAMES ALONGSIDE MANY OTHERS WHO ENDED UP!

HOW MUCH MORE IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO OBTAIN FUNDS, DESTROYS THE MEANS BY WHICH WE GET!
SORY FOR BAD INGLES! YES PLAY EVE IM BRASIL!

sylvester stallowned
Trotters Independent Trading
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:46:00 - [1143]
 

Originally by: Pyrostasis
Originally by: sylvester stallowned
Edited by: sylvester stallowned on 28/03/2011 20:34:11
Love this change! nullsec carebear risk free isk generation needs a nerf so bad...

Remove Jumpbridges too please <3


Hell yeah then everyone can simply go back to empire and make isk safely chain running 4's and you see a significant drop in overall 0.0 participation.

The power block will still exist, but both sides will see a reduction in overall players as they move back to empire. For those that want pvp and targets to shoot this is pretty much a bad idea and its not even close.

Less people in 0.0 = less targets to shoot = less kill and less pvp.

Less people making money = less people buying ships = less ships to shoot.

That power block is still going to be a power block, the smaller guys just wont be able to field ships


There will always be things to shoot in 0.0, if this change reduces the blobs and spreads out 0.0 population then its for the better IMO

Still the change that really needs to be made is removal of JB's.. more traffic = more fun ;)

Rene Winter
Militant Mermen
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:48:00 - [1144]
 

Originally by: Tegho
The anomaly system was designed to bring people out to null sec, which it clearly has done. Now you're planning to remove a large portion of the anomalies that are available to run? And you expect everyone to go where?



Offhand I would say they expect any mid/high SP pilots busting ass trying to forge a new 0.0 alliance to quit and join an established powerblock and everybody else to go home.

The only thing I can think of is that major alliances will not be able to charge rent for such systems because the profits are so low nobody would pay anything for them. Of course the consequence of that will probably just be that larger alliances/blocks would rather not take any isk for the systems just so they could beat the ever loving hell out of the residents.


Terianna Eri
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:48:00 - [1145]
 

CCP: Here's an awful idea
Playerbase: 30 pages of generally articulate feedback why the idea is awful in many different ways and will accomplish the opposite of what it intends to do AND reverse the entire point of the Dominion expansion (getting people into 0.0)
CCP: nope we know better and we're doing it anyway
Playerbase: would you like to explain why
CCP: no



I wish there were a middle finger emote. This is disgusting.

AngusThermo
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:49:00 - [1146]
 

Well, I actually just needed this arrogant answer from Greyscale.

You cant have my stuff, but im off to a game that treats the players with less arrogance and contempt.

It really looks like Grayscale is not CCP but hired by another gaming company, to scare as many vet's away as possible.

I'll proberly not be missed, since Im one of the lucky few that have enough isk. It's not what it's about, but the approach that CCP is having in this matter is destructive to our alliance as a whole.

The resons for the change are all utter crap - all of them are made up, and lies.
A gaming company that lies to it's players is garbage, and i will not be a part of it.

/peace out.

Starkiller Adams
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:51:00 - [1147]
 

Originally by: sylvester stallowned
Originally by: Pyrostasis
Originally by: sylvester stallowned
Edited by: sylvester stallowned on 28/03/2011 20:34:11
Love this change! nullsec carebear risk free isk generation needs a nerf so bad...

Remove Jumpbridges too please <3


Hell yeah then everyone can simply go back to empire and make isk safely chain running 4's and you see a significant drop in overall 0.0 participation.

The power block will still exist, but both sides will see a reduction in overall players as they move back to empire. For those that want pvp and targets to shoot this is pretty much a bad idea and its not even close.

Less people in 0.0 = less targets to shoot = less kill and less pvp.

Less people making money = less people buying ships = less ships to shoot.

That power block is still going to be a power block, the smaller guys just wont be able to field ships


There will always be things to shoot in 0.0, if this change reduces the blobs and spreads out 0.0 population then its for the better IMO

Still the change that really needs to be made is removal of JB's.. more traffic = more fun ;)



Clearly your an idiot it would just cram high sec enterences and cluster people into the systems with sactums jump off a bridge plz

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:54:00 - [1148]
 

No, you cannot have my stuff.

Yes, my four subs will not be renewed.

That is all.

Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:57:00 - [1149]
 

Greyscale,

Any comment on how the 'effective truesec' in pirate controlled space will affect this mechanic? Am I a noob in thinking that this still exists for belt rats (my experience has made it seem so). Any thoughts on eliminating that mechanic entirely? Seems that it should only apply to the NPC owned systems anyway.

Argus Sorn


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

sylvester stallowned
Trotters Independent Trading
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:00:00 - [1150]
 

Originally by: Starkiller Adams

Clearly your an idiot it would just cram high sec enterences and cluster people into the systems with sactums jump off a bridge plz


Clearly your alliance was a lot more fun when they lived in syndicate...

LittleGee
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:00:00 - [1151]
 

"The CSM are an invaluable stakeholder that help ensure CCP‘s focus on the current issues and concerns of EVE‘s most valuable person, the player." ... and so were they consulted in this major game change? No.
CSM where are you? Please tell me you are furiously communicating your disgust at lack of involvement in this and considering your resignations in recognition of the fact that CCP are blatant hypocrites by sidestepping you and us in this way.
Remind me again why we were all encouraged to vote for our opinions to be represented if they in turn are not included in major game changes.

"we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner" - what was wrong with the previous 30+ pages of well articulated numerous reasons given? Do they not count? You may as well said "carry on as you all were, it won't change a damn thing but if it makes you feel a little more valued as customers, please feel free to post away"

Why give people the ability to express opinions and even refer to their representatives as "invaluable stakeholders" if you are not prepared to consider the possibility that this volume of experienced players MIGHT JUST HAVE VALID POINTS and that the few of you MIGHT JUST HAVE MESSED THIS UP.

As for "civil manner"...hah. Funny.


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:00:00 - [1152]
 

Thanks for holding the course, Greyscale. I hope you'll closely monitor the situation and revisit the decision in a few months for fine tuning.

Iterate. Iterate. Iterate.

knobber Jobbler
Holding Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:02:00 - [1153]
 

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


How can you be serious? This really is the daftest idea ever in eve. All you'll do is encourage rmt and bots. Alliances fight over tech moons. At best all you'll see is pvpers making high sec mission running alts.

Until you deal with bots and rmt your going to hurt the average eula abiding player who'll have to work harder for isk which will help the dishonest botter in claiming null sec space as isk is not a problem for them.

I really hope the csm fight you every inch of the way on this.

Oh and while you have the nerf bat out, do something sensible with it and nerf wormhole income.


Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:04:00 - [1154]
 

Originally by: Tiligean
Edited by: Tiligean on 28/03/2011 19:58:00
With all the rage here, I want to know one thing - and I'd love to hear it from someone who lived in nullsec both before and after Dominion was released.

How did you make ISK before Dominion gave you Sanctums?...

That's a fair question.

Before Dominion, I used to go belt ratting, find the occasional exploration complex and when Apocrypha hit, clear out a w-space system every now and then. But another main generator or in-game ISKies was GTCs sold on this site. The expense of needing the right ships and various conflicts surrounding me and my corp kept my null-sec earning low enough that I opted to put RL cash into one of my main forms of entertainment.

After Dominion, I was able to earn some decent ISK in a fully upgraded, but relatively poor true-sec null-security system and then subsequently in another fully-upgraded system with another corp. When not fighting in various campaigns, I was able to re-charge the wallet using sanctums and a minor amount of belt ratting. I didn't need to rely upon GTCs nearly as much. I also learned to diversify my earning sources, splitting activities between null and high-sec.

In the future, I can see much more empire-based activity if null-sec income potential dries up. And that is one of the reasons why this change bothers me. I like null-sec life. I like playing and interacting with my null-sec corp mates at all levels of the game. PvP. PvE. Whatever.

Spending a larger portion of my time in high-sec trying to earn ISK so that I can maintain a hangar of fun and functional ships is not a fun prospect for me. Neither is purchasing more GTCs to fund things.

I believe CCP is interested to see how many null-sec focused players opt to supplement their ISK generation with RL cash. I appreciate CCP's interest in RL profit, but not at the expense of my continued playing enjoyment.

I also feel for those entities (big AND small) who have invested billions upon billions of ISK into a style of play that could be pulled out from underneath in a single game design change. All of those TCUs, IHUBs, upgrades and even Outposts put into areas of space that will be rendered worthless relative to current valuations.

Was there risk in installing all of this infrastructure? Sure! But I bet that people were looking at which blob might attack them next rather than the blindside from CCP which makes their surrounding space a pile of burning dung.

Very ****ty treatment of your customers CCP. Very ****ty, indeed.

Starkiller Adams
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:04:00 - [1155]
 

Can we keep sanctums and havens if u take the drake out of the game?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:05:00 - [1156]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 28/03/2011 21:10:35
Originally by: Malcanis
Thanks for holding the course, Greyscale. I hope you'll closely monitor the situation and revisit the decision in a few months for fine tuning.

Iterate. Iterate. Iterate.

I know you are in favour of this change, yet you make an argument against it, I wonder if it is intentional or not (dont tell me you seriously think CCP is going to iterate).


Quote:
With all the rage here, I want to know one thing - and I'd love to hear it from someone who lived in nullsec both before and after Dominion was released.

How did you make ISK before Dominion gave you Sanctums?...


Well two things, first I lived in providence, which meant less ISK was needed since there were no conflicts going on regarding providence (the small gang pvp was awesome, but it had nothing to do with conflicts). We lived in best truesec of providence, so sometimes I did some ratting if there was nothing going on, or some exploration (although really provi was too busy for that, exploration is better for the kind of 0.0 CCP wants, deserted). That payed in general for the occasional BC or similar loss.
But as my real income for more serious stuff (t2 ships, BS, caps, etc) I used lvl 4 missions, first in low sec, then I realised I made as much in high sec riskfree, so high sec lvl 4 missions. When dominion came I could spend way more time in 0.0, well untill we got invaded.

And nop agent changes wont affect my high sec lvl 4 backbone, got two agents from different corporations that are barely used by anyone and have very few lower level security agents, so their quality should remain fine.

Kalain ap'Sulen
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:06:00 - [1157]
 

Just a quick follow up to my original statement on page one.

Obscenity removed. Spitfire

Galerak
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:09:00 - [1158]
 

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


All the faith in the world doesn't make your model accurate nor will it save your job when the power blocks expand and it's realized you've only made things worse. Maybe your successor will have more sense and a clearer understanding of the social dynamics of the sandbox.

nubos
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:09:00 - [1159]
 

So when are premium accounts with 2x faster training for 30$ per month coming? Along with Item Mall and another stuff for draining money out of people? Maybe you should make your game f2p for greater profits?

TV Evangelist
Imminent Ruin
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:09:00 - [1160]
 

****ing ******ed ********ing cumguzzling ***gots CCP

omgdutch2005
Gallente
Advanced Planetary Exports
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:10:00 - [1161]
 

Edited by: omgdutch2005 on 28/03/2011 21:18:11
Are you too disgusted by the idea of getting rid of havens/sanctums in most if not all systems of IEGEX !! ?

If so --> http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html - sign the petition now!

in case your wondering what it all is about... Read about it at: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=883 and http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1487231&page=1

Vote now! Boost the systems, not NERF THEM!

Thank you

Omgdutch2005
IEGEX Alliance Director

Galerak
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:12:00 - [1162]
 

Originally by: Terianna Eri
I wish there were a middle finger emote. This is disgusting.


i use nlnn as a visual representation

Aeron Kinkade
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:12:00 - [1163]
 

Got a comment here..... Call me what you will for it. But really CCP!? Why must you constantly be messing with stuff? Just when things settle down and people get adjusted to the "NEW BETTER" changes that are made. If that's what you want to call them. Incursion is nice but yet a good example. It took forever to launch and when it did it was dragged out for so long it was nuts. Patch after patch. Yet, has anyone ran the incursions? They are beyond sickening. Instead of messing with null sec CCP how about you fine tune those incursions you made us wait so long for. There are major balancing issues there. Of course what do I know. I'm still considered by the old and dusty a new guy.

Kimentor
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:12:00 - [1164]
 

You have to love a company that makes a statement that enrages it customer base, see's 33+ pages of hatred, and then does whatever they want anyway.

Guess they don't think having paying customers is important. Pretty soon this game will be filled with just Jita alts and russian bot runners in the belts.


Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:14:00 - [1165]
 

Originally by: knobber Jobbler
...

I really hope the csm fight you every inch of the way on this.
Yeah, there's little surprise why CCP Greyscale snuck this change in with the chaos of FanFest and the changing of the guard with the CSM.

Originally by: knobber Jobbler
Oh and while you have the nerf bat out, do something sensible with it and nerf wormhole income.
Christ, why nerf a decent means of earning some scratch. Worm holers work hard for their ISK and don't need CCP messing with yet another aspect of the game that might generate some sort of enjoyment.

CCP's nerf bat is already swung too often in a daft manner. Rolling Eyes

And, no, I do not live in w-space. YARRRR!!

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:14:00 - [1166]
 

Originally by: Kalain ap'Sulen
Just a quick follow up to my original statement on page one.

Obscenity removed. Spitfire



Why Goat?

Also to the guy a few posts ago, have we seen CSM Response on this yet? The thing is pretty much stacked NC / DC and they have the most to lose while their reds get maybe half the loss. I looked on Assembly hall and speakers and I'm not really seeing anything...

How much your region is getting screwed

Supercap markup - i.e. How much profit per build.

Hermosa Diosas
Ministry Of Mining And Industry
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:15:00 - [1167]
 

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


Really? You dont think 39 pages of negativity, warrants a rethink? Nice one..

TommyMc88
Minmatar
Native Freshfood
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:15:00 - [1168]
 

Terrible blog for a terrible idea.

Fail.


nubos
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:18:00 - [1169]
 

Edited by: nubos on 28/03/2011 21:18:45
Originally by: Tiligean
Edited by: Tiligean on 28/03/2011 19:58:00
With all the rage here, I want to know one thing - and I'd love to hear it from someone who lived in nullsec both before and after Dominion was released.

How did you make ISK before Dominion gave you Sanctums? Because I'm wondering what you did to make that (averaged) 75m isk/hr that you can't live without now? Or did you make do with less than 75m isk/hr? How ever did you survive with less? And if the average rate of isk/hr on a Sanctum is 75m, what's a haven? 50m? what's a hub? 20m? what's a port? 10m?

Seriously. Everyone here is frothing at the mouth because CCP is going to reduce the number of systems where you can make 75 million ISK/hr.

Seriously?



there were much less people in 0.0 and people mostly made their isk via agent 4 running in empire/nullsec, plexing and hunting in npc region or in systems with low true-sec. (I don't count bots, they won't suffer just make less money per hour)

Aeron Kinkade
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:21:00 - [1170]
 

Oh and another side note here..... CCP...WHY DON'T YOU WORK ON HIGH SEC SOME FOR A CHANGE INSTEAD OF KILLING THE ONLY GOOD PART OF THIS GAME? IT'S DULL REPETITIOUS AND BORING UP THERE. BRING SUPER CAPS AND CAPS BACK INTO HIGH SEC. GIVE IT A CHALLANGE AGAIN. INSTEAD OF DOING WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING. ADDING NEW USELESS CRAP AND MESSING WITH THE GOOD STABLE PARTS! HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN WHERE YOU STARTED OFF AT? WHAT IT WAS LIKE IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN EVE FIRST LAUNCHED BEFORE YOU GOT ALL BIG AND RICH!!!???

And no you can not have my stuff either. You say you listen to the player base so start acting like it.

That is all.


Pages: first : previous : ... 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 ... : 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