|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 31 post(s) |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 19:37:00 -
[1]
Wouldn't it make more sense to nerf bridges AFTER you've fixed nullsec industry?
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 19:47:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Purrp Ledone
Originally by: Ravcharas Wouldn't it make more sense to nerf bridges AFTER you've fixed nullsec industry?
Wait, we're trying to make sense now?
A girl can dream.
I predict the same result as always; The medium to small sized alliances will suffer because of the changes implemented to make things easier for medium to small sized alliances. All the while the large and well established sov holding alliances and coalitions have enough resources and manpower to make do anyway.
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:36:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Mini-objectives are a pretty obvious point for us to look at this winter. As I mentioned, we'll be looking at that in the months to come, hopefully we can make a bigger announcement when the CSM have been here. But yes, you're right, we should have mini-objectives, and hopefully we will.
So 24 months from now, what are the chances we'll be begging you guys to please implement the rest of the nullsec tweaks cause you're killing us here?
You know, like with faction warfare, treaties...
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.05.11 10:08:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Ravcharas on 11/05/2011 10:08:54
Originally by: CCP Soundwave Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 11/05/2011 10:05:08
Originally by: Flesh Slurper
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Lev Aeris
Good morning Soundwave. Do you have any thoughts or comments on the posts regarding super capital force projection? I know wasn't part of your Dev blog but I think there are a few well stated posts in here demonstrating why Super Carrier proliferation is the biggest problem in null sec right now.
We're not really looking at that currently. My own personal thoughts about supercaps is that it's a shame there are all these meta-requirements in many alliances. Streamlining the ability to travel, so anyone in a supercap can join a fleet instead of "join fleet if you have a carrier and x number of skills at x level" would probably be a good way to encourage interaction. But yeah, not touching that just now.
This proves how fail CCP is at understanding their game and properly balancing it. Nerfing subcap movement while allowing supercaps massive projection and minimal downside. The subcaps were already at a disadvantage and now are much worse off.
Not at all talking about nerfing/allowing more projection, I'm talking about dealing with the situation that someone owns a carrier but can't participate in a cap fleet because of x skill requirements.
This is gonna be you guys changing the prereq for jdc from jdo5 to jdo4, right? Cause I'm done with jdo5 in three days, so it's about due.
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.05.11 13:29:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Don Pellegrino Yes, this will make gatecamps more frequent, but it gives a way to small gang pvpers to force 0.0 residents to form up (by bubbling a chokepoint) and go fight them instead of ignoring them like they do right now.
It's not *right* that 0.0 residents can simply ignore intruders.
They won't go fight them in the same vaga and cynabal ten man gang setup you use, they'll come with three or four or five times your number and chase you away. Cause they're not there to dogfight. And then you'll go back to npc null. You know, where you're safe.
I like roaming around as much as the next guy, but why is it *right* that twenty guys should be able to get a fight out of sov holding alliances whenever they feel like it? Where's that sense of entitlement coming from?
Until we have a 'crops and fields' mechanic in place, one way of getting roaming gang fights is to set them up with other people who "don't enjoy the horrible structure shooting and the lagtastic 500v500 battles."
|
|
|
|