Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aeronwen Carys
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:13:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Jita Bloodtear So the Greyscale plan is to remove primary ISK sources to the game, starting with 0.0 havens and sanctums. This is veiled under various other excuses, but the goal is to decrease inflation and limit ISK sources.
For all those who are for this, what would your opinion be about removing level 4 missions from empire space and moving them solely into lowsec space? After all, level 4 highsec missions receive the same income as 0.0 sanctums, except you really are at no risk of gankage. What say you?
Level 4 missions no longer provide anywhere near the same level of isk. Fail troll is fail. Try again.
|
Arnakoz
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:16:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Breaker77
Do you really think a handful of systems can support 5000+ players?
While they might hold the rare systems, they will still want the other systems as well for reasons other than just botting ISK.
that's the point. there wont be room for very many players. the few areas with good systems will have just the powerhouses in them, stocked to the brim with the defense, and there will be no way for newcomers to compete, since they have no way to ever amass the amount of isk it would take.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:17:00 -
[33]
Maybe too early to go into specifics but fact of the matter is that there's way too much ISK entering the economy.
This signature is brought to you by Nvidia(tm) |
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:23:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Sokratesz Maybe too early to go into specifics but fact of the matter is that there's way too much ISK entering the economy.
This and the fact that hundreds of supercaps are being built each month. While there is nothing wrong with owning supercaps in general, I'm willing to bet that having a 5000 man alliance with 4000 supercaps wasn't part of the original plan CCP had when releasing them.
|
ivar R'dhak
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:30:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Terminal Insanity The reason 0.0 is getting nerfed is because of the influx of newbs who dont know how to play eve and live in highsec their whole life.
No, THAT is a good thing. It¦s called learning by doing.
It¦s getting nerfed because they all make TOO much isk so the whole EVE economy is flooded with it. It¦s called inflation.
But like in our RL economies, instead of decreasing the income of the rich(technetium moons) they want to solve the problem by totally killing of grunt income. Same shortsightedness as in RL, it¦s like they have an economist telling them what to do. ______________ Mal-¦Appears we got here just in a nick of time. What does that make us?¦ Zoe-`Big damn heroes, sir.` Mal-¦Aint we just.¦ |
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:33:00 -
[36]
Originally by: ivar R'dhak
Originally by: Terminal Insanity The reason 0.0 is getting nerfed is because of the influx of newbs who dont know how to play eve and live in highsec their whole life.
No, THAT is a good thing. It¦s called learning by doing.
It¦s getting nerfed because they all make TOO much isk so the whole EVE economy is flooded with it. It¦s called inflation.
But like in our RL economies, instead of decreasing the income of the rich(technetium moons) they want to solve the problem by totally killing of grunt income. Same shortsightedness as in RL, it¦s like they have an economist telling them what to do.
Can you explain to me how Tech moons introduce ISK into the economy? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Voogru
Gallente Massive Damage We Are John Galt
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:41:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Breaker77 For example, if there was 100 trillion ISK in the game, what happens when the number of players double?
There would be twice as many players with 100 trillion ISK in the game. There would be less ISK per player.
The amount of players is irrelevant. It's the amount of products that exist to buy with the 100 trillion ISK. If the amount of items that exist fall, you have higher prices. If the amount of items increase, prices fall.
If you double the players, eventually the amount of products will also double, resulting in prices falling by about half, meaning every player would only need about half the ISK to buy stuff they want.
If the game has 100 trillion ISK and every player has 280 million ISK, it's no different than the game having 100 billion ISK and every player having 280,000 ISK.
Stop focusing on the amounts.
The difference though is, those holding large amounts of ISK will in effect have their purchasing power increase as the game gets more and more players.
|
Dulcia Anduin
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:46:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Terminal Insanity
Originally by: Dulcia Anduin So unless you're suggesting MM, RAZOR, or the goonies are about to attack one another, I think you'll find that statement is rediculous.
If you dont like them making so much isk all alone and safe, then why not start hotdropping them? Ask TEST alliance about their troubles with blackops drops in their new found bearing constelation. They've been losing expensive ships nearly every day to a single cloaked bomber pilot who lights a cyno now and then.
The game is a sand box. If one kid is hogging one corner, perhaps you should start digging under him and collapse his castle? Stop crying to mommy and daddy and do something about it yourself.
If they're bearing it up for days on end without any risk, then it sounds to me that is a ripe spot to attack. they've become overconfident and probably neglecting their local list by now.
Ask TEST if they're loosing isk over this periodic nuisance. They aren't. Also, ask PL how they fancy a go at the NC (they won't because they realize a prolonged war against the NC requires more resources than anyone else can bring to bear).
Saying "just fight them," is rediculous under the current sov. mechanics. Sure, you can pop some of their ratting ships, but at the end of the day if you actually invade to do something meaningufl, you're going to loose. They will simply blob you out of the system. And if you happen to have any space after that, you'll loose it in a similar manner.
|
Mr Kidd
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:51:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Terminal Insanity
bounty-wise Sanctums and lvl4's make the same ammount (if you are in a good lvl4 area and pick/choose your missions)
However, sanctums SHOULD pay better, due to the fact you're risking your ship in 0.0 space to do this. It is more difficult and therefore should have a better reward. The reason 0.0 is getting nerfed is because of the influx of newbs who dont know how to play eve and live in highsec their whole life.
Non-sequitor. You can't live in hisec all your life and go to 0.0. So, if they're going to 0.0 its to do something more worthwhile.
Also, nullsec is not as dangerous as lowsec or say w-space. The only thing to fear in nullsec is the blob. Me and a bud came into a nullsec system from w-space today and spent 2 hours exploring and killing rats. With local, the boogieman never got us. Try that in w-space and you'll be lucky if someone doesn't sneak up on you and whack you over the head.
Nullsec needs a nerf. Losec most deservedly needs a buff.
|
Arnakoz
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:14:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Mr Kidd
Non-sequitor. You can't live in hisec all your life and go to 0.0. So, if they're going to 0.0 its to do something more worthwhile.
Also, nullsec is not as dangerous as lowsec or say w-space. The only thing to fear in nullsec is the blob. Me and a bud came into a nullsec system from w-space today and spent 2 hours exploring and killing rats. With local, the boogieman never got us. Try that in w-space and you'll be lucky if someone doesn't sneak up on you and whack you over the head.
Nullsec needs a nerf. Losec most deservedly needs a buff.
hrm. myself having been in atlas space when PL arrived, and losing everything i ever owned when my POS went bye-bye, has to disagree that null has little risk. in lowsec you can store all your junk a non-conquerable station, which you dont even have to pay for, and you will always have access to! so why should it have better returns?
as for WH, yeah, definitely more risk there. but there are also much greater rewards.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |