Posted - 2011.04.04 00:23:00 - [2581]

 

Being in a coalition that you have so many caps and son field you can easily rf ANY tower in 5 minutes or less. Thanks for the kill mails 2 days later.

BFF <

Originally by: Marconus Orion

---

Originally by: CBBOMBERMAN

---

Quote:

---

I reckon a propper Capfleet will be most impressed by your hardeners.
Smart idea +10

---

I dont they have a chance against a whole coalition XD not that the hardners are gonna prevent the invitable.

---

I was assuming it would be more than one tower. About 20 towers with a lot of hardeners on. Then listen in on comms to hear the moaning about having to siege all of them. Watch as the amount of people willing to x up goes down more and more. Then, hot drop them with DRF and watch from the safety of the POS as many dread pilots get punched in the *******.

Granted you still will be kicked out but at least you didn't go down like a *****. Or am I thinking some of these renters have a spine?

---

Posted - 2011.04.04 00:35:00 - [2583]

 

Originally by: Lonely Island

---

Problem is the Dominion changes encouraged the wrong type of player to set up shop in 0.0. ie Alliances such as FCON, FA, WTF, LAWN would have no business in 0.0 if they actually had to fight for their own space.

---

Now you're talking about something entirely different.

I remember when the provi-block was falling, and with no realistic chance of winning, FCON still fielded full fleets to give hell before they got kicked out. They went out in their ships and left in their pods (or woke in their clones).

0.0 has little to do with 'fighting for your own space' - I'm in absolute awe at anyone that thinks this is the case. Nullsec is about NAPs and blobs. Nothing more.

This change changes neither.

It does nothing other than take the people who have spent billions on the 'upgrades' system, and nerfs their purchases with almost no warning.

Posted - 2011.04.04 01:07:00 - [2585]

 

Edited by: bp920091 on 04/04/2011 01:12:50

Originally by: HaVoK023

---

I cant belive that here are people who agree with these changes.. They must live in High sec or wormholes.. because this anomalies changes are not good for anyone living in null sec.

Go do mission carebears and stop posting **** here.

---

You know, this is almost completely true. The people for this change fall into three categories, two of which will not be affected by this change at all.

1. People in highsecurity space, possibly jealous of the people out in 0.0, therefore wishing them harm. These people may not have ever travelled out into 0.0, so why should they feel the need to elaborate about what should happen out in 0.0.
2. People living in low security space, completely convinced that they are the "PVP masters of EVE" and they have nothing but hate and contempt for the people who live out in 0.0. These people should have no say in the matter, as they do not rely on sancutms/havens for ANY of their income
3. People living out in 0.0, getting rich off moongoo, or have a highly sucessful trading alt in highsec.

For the average alliance member in 0.0, this is a terrible change, it will wreck their ability to field ships that are actually effective (ever heard of a non logistics ship besides a carrier that was good at repping >500 dps?).

All this change will accomplish is a short term buying of plex, while good for CCP in the short term, will be incredibly detrimental in the long term.

Also what i find to frustrating about these changes is the fact that CCP is trying to be so underhanded about them. How they are being underhanded follows.

1. This change was never discussed with the CSM, or at least never made it into the minutes for the meetings
2. This never appeared in the developer blog newsletter, which describes the major developer blogs in the past month
3. this was released during fanfest, where a good number of the most enthusiastic players were not able to even really know about it until they got back home.
4. The reasons for this change that were listed never really made sense and were dismissed within the first 5 five (im being generous to CCP) pages of this thread.
5. The response from CCP greyscale after a few pages said that their models predicted overall good changes. Yet if these models did show good changes, perhaps showing them to the playerbase would be a good idea. Even if they didn't want to show us them, perhaps just describing what will happen, in a somewhat logical manner.

CCP used to be a company that listened to it's customers, developers were very active on forums, and the majority if not all people at CCP actually played the game itself. I am sorry to see that in recent years, all of these things have been occurring less. I personally think that everyone at CCP should be REQUIRED to play eve, just punish any developer that uses any out of game tools (ie developer tools) to improve their (or their friend's) gameplay. This would go a long way to resolving a lot of problems in EVE right now.

/edit. If you do not believe me about these people, feel free to check up on these people on killboards, go look for yourself if you do not believe me.http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/index.php

Oh, and i also forgot about people in WH space, they also will not be affected by this change.

Posted - 2011.04.04 01:50:00 - [2587]

 

Originally by: bp920091

---

You know, this is almost completely true. The people for this change fall into three categories, two of which will not be affected by this change at all.

2. People living in low security space ... These people should have no say in the matter, as they do not rely on sancutms/havens for ANY of their income

---

A few comments:
- It seems perfectly reasonable for me to have an opinion about the raw ISK that floods into the economy from 0.0 sanctums.
- People from all walks of life (in and out of game) create perfectly well reasoned opinions about things they have no direct involvement in.
- 0.0 PVPers frequently cry about how high sec missions should be massively nerfed.
- Intel channels and blueing everyone within 40 jumps guarantees that there's no risk in 0.0 PVE... except the risk of falling asleep in your sanctum.

Go run a sanctum about it.

Quote:

---

For the average alliance member in 0.0, this is a terrible change

---

In the short term, yes. In the long term, I suspect not changing things would be far worse.

Quote:

---

1. This change was never discussed with the CSM

---

The CSM has proven it cannot be trusted with large structural changes to Eve's economy.

Quote:

---

2. This never appeared in the developer blog newsletter, which describes the major developer blogs in the past month

---

They came out at near the same time. Its entirely possible this one simply didn't make it into this month's newsletter. Try not to attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence.

Quote:

---

3. this was released during fanfest, where a good number of the most enthusiastic players were not able to even really know about it until they got back home.

---

On the contrary - it allowed them the opportunity to discuss it face to face.

Quote:

---

4. The reasons for this change that were listed never really made sense and were dismissed within the first 5 five (im being generous to CCP) pages of this thread.

---

They don't make sense to a person burying their head in the sand... yes, I agree.

Quote:

---

5. The response from CCP greyscale after a few pages said that their models predicted overall good changes. Yet if these models did show good changes, perhaps showing them to the playerbase would be a good idea. Even if they didn't want to show us them, perhaps just describing what will happen, in a somewhat logical manner.

---

The players in this thread have proven beyond doubt that they aren't willing to listen to anything that disturbs their favorite ISK fountain and will only entertain ideas that further break the game.

Quote:

---

CCP used to be a company that listened to it's customers, developers were very active on forums, and the majority if not all people at CCP actually played the game itself. I am sorry to see that in recent years, all of these things have been occurring less. I personally think that everyone at CCP should be REQUIRED to play eve, just punish any developer that uses any out of game tools (ie developer tools) to improve their (or their friend's) gameplay. This would go a long way to resolving a lot of problems in EVE right now.

---

Amusingly, a lot of CCP people DO play the game. Someone in your own alliance probably helped come up with this change and is listening to you ignorantly rant about it on TS.

-Liang

Posted - 2011.04.04 02:17:00 - [2589]

 

WHEN WILL YOU RESPOND CCP.

all the forumtrolls are doing is beating a dead horse right now. give us something to read UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

Posted - 2011.04.04 02:36:00 - [2591]

 

Forget it fellow POD Pilots the change has been listed for the 5th of April another screw up with balancing the game. If your not in a blob your nobody you will never have space because S%&TTY space will be used as a buffer zone, no renters, no small alliances no conflicts go the NAP fest.

Posted - 2011.04.04 02:51:00 - [2593]

 

I have not lived in 0.0 for a few months now, however i dont see these changes doing anything good for anyone except the major alliances who will have larger buffer zones of useless space that does not need to be deffended in the same way as currently.

Surly it would make more sense to leave the anom's as they are and add higher quality anom's at lower true sec to encourage the capture and holding of these area's as opposed to making them the only area's where a player can fund their own PVP, 0.0 is very expensive when you are trying to take space and you do need a way of making isk, MoonGoo is for sov and other important things so we run anom's for profit as ratting to is to high risk for too low profit (profit equal to level 2/3 in high sec at best maybe)

If you go through with this better work on uping the player cap in high sec systems again because they are going to be a whole new kind of busy

Posted - 2011.04.04 03:33:00 - [2595]

 

Edited by: The Mittani on 04/04/2011 03:33:47
wow he actually wrote that alliances choose space based on anomaly or ratting reasons, and that we pick our staging systems in conflicts based on anomalies or truesec.

huh

i'd avoided reading this blog because it came out while i was geting ******edly drunk at fanfest and then for a few days after, but this is pretty disturbing stuff from greyscale, not gonna lie

you ccp guys do know most modern alliances reimburse fleet ships and so the actual trusec of a staging system has absolutely no impact upon the combat strength/ability to fight of an alliance at war, right?

85 page thread this post is gonna get lost in the shuffle but this is p. disturbing because of the ignorance it displays about the realities of how nullsec alliances work in practice

Posted - 2011.04.04 03:39:00 - [2597]

 

Originally by: The Mittani

---

yo fwiw i don't mind differences in space quality and think too much nullsec homogeneity is a bad thing, what worries me about this dev blog isn't the actual anom change itself but the apparent ignorance in the reasoning displayed to justify it, which indicates a much more far-reaching problem

deklein has the best trusec in the game p much so from a brass-tacks, my-own-alliance perspective idgaf, but when a dev makes a long post and the reasoning behind it is suspect, i get worried.

---

Maybe he figured it would go over worse if he said "you guys are making too much money which is bad for the economy, so we're going to make it harder for you to make money unless you fight for the good spots to grind ISK." Either way, I'm still happy with the change.

Posted - 2011.04.04 03:50:00 - [2599]

 

Originally by: The Mittani

---

Edited by: The Mittani on 04/04/2011 03:33:47
wow he actually wrote that alliances choose space based on anomaly or ratting reasons, and that we pick our staging systems in conflicts based on anomalies or truesec.

huh

i'd avoided reading this blog because it came out while i was geting ******edly drunk at fanfest and then for a few days after, but this is pretty disturbing stuff from greyscale, not gonna lie

you ccp guys do know most modern alliances reimburse fleet ships and so the actual trusec of a staging system has absolutely no impact upon the combat strength/ability to fight of an alliance at war, right?

85 page thread this post is gonna get lost in the shuffle but this is p. disturbing because of the ignorance it displays about the realities of how nullsec alliances work in practice

---

Potential income has to have some sort of impact for most alliance/corps in choosing space. The problem with this change is that it doesn't address moons and sov as well.

However, this change in and of itself is necessary and sane. Whereas leaving things the way they are (with near homogeneous space everyfrickenwhere) does not make any sense.

If people are going to have a ****ing heart attack over it, then I suggest CCP postpone this change so it can be rolled out in conjunction with _other_ changes that fix the other things in one fell swoop. Low quality null sec has place as an entry point for small corps/alliance, medium quality null sec where most day to day battles take place/buffer area, and high quality null sec as primary space for long term survival.

Posted - 2011.04.04 04:11:00 - [2601]

 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

What's next?

You're seeing this first because it was an obvious target that's relatively easy to implement. We're conducting an ongoing review of nullsec issues at the moment, with items on the agenda including force projection tweaks, conquest mechanic adjustments and improvements to the nullsec industrial landscape. Keep your eyes peeled for more updates as the year progresses, and let us know in the comments if there are any other areas in need of some love that you'd like to see brought to the top of our priorities.

---

Just going to leave this here.

So funny to see you all conveniently forget about this part of the dev blog because it does help your argument. So there goes your *****ing and moaning argument about how they are ignoring moons, sov system, logistics and industry. But please keep QQing in here. It has been most entertaining.

Posted - 2011.04.04 04:40:00 - [2603]

 

Originally by: Marconus Orion

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

What's next?

You're seeing this first because it was an obvious target that's relatively easy to implement. We're conducting an ongoing review of nullsec issues at the moment, with items on the agenda including force projection tweaks, conquest mechanic adjustments and improvements to the nullsec industrial landscape. Keep your eyes peeled for more updates as the year progresses, and let us know in the comments if there are any other areas in need of some love that you'd like to see brought to the top of our priorities.

---

Just going to leave this here.

So funny to see you all conveniently forget about this part of the dev blog because it does help your argument. So there goes your *****ing and moaning argument about how they are ignoring moons, sov system, logistics and industry. But please keep QQing in here. It has been most entertaining.

---

Only the rich players get moons... most moons are left for 'alliance' or 'corp' not the individual.

Posted - 2011.04.04 05:01:00 - [2605]

 

Originally by: Kitty Strokum

---

Only the rich players get moons... most moons are left for 'alliance' or 'corp' not the individual.

---

Players make up a corp. Corps make up an alliance. What happens to a players wallet will have an effect on the alliance and on a larger scale, the coalition.

If you corp/alliance/coalition leaders are keeping all the profits from moon goo and not helping the grunts out who help acquire and protect said moons, then your a fool for staying. Unless you like role playing being a slave.

Whatever happens to the individual players DOES have an impact on coalitions.

Posted - 2011.04.04 05:53:00 - [2607]

 

This is why so many people have a problem with you being chairman of the new CSM.... getting drunk and being flippant about serious issues while these things are pushed through. Stellar start to your reign. One earns respect - you don't get it by block votes.

Originally by: The Mittani

---

huh

i'd avoided reading this blog because it came out while i was geting ******edly drunk at fanfest and then for a few days after, but this is pretty disturbing stuff from greyscale, not gonna lie

---

Posted - 2011.04.04 05:59:00 - [2609]

 

This is bad for every 0.0 player. Do NOT do this. There is no reason to nerf the individual players income unless you want a lot of unhappy players. Having to press the bar for twice as long to get my isk pellet is NOT fun. And I need the isk pellets to fund my 0.0 conflict....you are defeating your own purpose...