Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1375
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:05:00 -
[541] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Rowells wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Rowells wrote: no. the big will always prey on the small. no change in mechanics or anything is going to stop that.
So, what you're saying is that with current incentives people will keep joining the two largest coalitions so that they too can "win" by being big? Won't you just be back in 6 months, after the novelty wears off, complaining that nullsec is still stagnant? "With current incentives" meaning nothing changed just the map layout, yes. And I'm assuming you play to win as well? will we see you in CFC some time soon? Most likely not. For whatever reason you and your alliance decided to literally do the opposite of 'join the two largest coalitions so that they too can "win" by being big'. Winning for some people isn't just being part of the biggest bloc in the game. See but that isn't true. A casual look at dotlan will show that people have left MoA for the larger coalitions. One of the larger corps - Epsilon Lyr, for example, recently left for nulli secunda. Likewise, I suspect many in the cfc wont be happy if all of the content they get for the next couple years is what remains of MoA. Or you could take a look at a larger sample than the last 2 weeks and see your alliance is above the numbers it had at the start of the year and had a very long period between April and August where you were almost twice as big as the beginning. Even HERO has been seeing a very decent net gain over the same period of time. At the same time, goons lost a chunk mid year and have remained stagnant. People don't always choose their comrades based on numbers and statistics. Even if those numbers and statistics drive their gameplay styles to the core. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6272
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:06:00 -
[542] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Let me put it another way: You're bored shitless right now because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. That same 90% of nullsec (coalitions and renters) will still refuse to shoot each other after the proposed changes. You'll still be bored shitless. I get bored shitless when 3 hours of fighting is stretched to a period of 23 hours to be honest. If we just started shooting each other tomorrow, this is literally what we'd be stuck with. A fair and valid point. But when N3PL crams all their dudes and renters into a handful of systems, you'll have the exact same problem: TiDi practically guarantees a 23 hour fight in these densely populated home systems. So you have the same problem: You're bored shitless because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other.
They won't be forced to cram all of their dudes in to a handful of systems though, that's the entire point. To hold space it will have to be used. Plonking a bunch of people in to a system without actually using it won't allow them to retain sov & as an added bonus, it makes having massive coalitions detrimental to any war effort or skirmish due to the existence of TiDi.
Nullsec not shooting each other will cease to be a thing because holding vast areas of space will cease to be a thing. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1375
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:09:00 -
[543] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Let me put it another way: You're bored shitless right now because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. That same 90% of nullsec (coalitions and renters) will still refuse to shoot each other after the proposed changes. You'll still be bored shitless. I get bored shitless when 3 hours of fighting is stretched to a period of 23 hours to be honest. If we just started shooting each other tomorrow, this is literally what we'd be stuck with. A fair and valid point. But when N3PL crams all their dudes and renters into a handful of systems, you'll have the exact same problem: TiDi practically guarantees a 23 hour fight in these densely populated home systems. So you have the same problem: You're bored shitless because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. Thats why this isn't a single dimensional problem. Simply looking at sov and saying "thats your problem there" is not enough. The argument delved down into very specific area of debate in this thread and doesnt seem to be getting out any time soon.
Like for instance the idea to nerf logi. Throw that into the equation and, yes for the first portion of the fight its a tidi slugfest, but as people start dying it becomes less and less crowded until the losers have fled or died to the last man.
We need to keep in mind the other solutions and problems floating around while we disect one subject apart until it is a gory , unrecognizable mess on the table. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:12:00 -
[544] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Let me put it another way: You're bored shitless right now because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. That same 90% of nullsec (coalitions and renters) will still refuse to shoot each other after the proposed changes. You'll still be bored shitless. I get bored shitless when 3 hours of fighting is stretched to a period of 23 hours to be honest. If we just started shooting each other tomorrow, this is literally what we'd be stuck with. A fair and valid point. But when N3PL crams all their dudes and renters into a handful of systems, you'll have the exact same problem: TiDi practically guarantees a 23 hour fight in these densely populated home systems. So you have the same problem: You're bored shitless because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. They won't be forced to cram all of their dudes in to a handful of systems though, that's the entire point. To hold space it will have to be used. Plonking a bunch of people in to a system without actually using it won't allow them to retain sov & as an added bonus, it makes having massive coalitions detrimental to any war effort or skirmish due to the existence of TiDi. Nullsec not shooting each other will cease to be a thing because holding vast areas of space will cease to be a thing. You lost me. Are you saying that increasing population density won't increase the population density?
Dense "vibrant ecosystems" were proposed and supported. I interpret this to mean that instead of 10 dudes across 200 systems, you have 200 dudes across 10 systems. Which, when combined with standing fleets and so on will lead to a lot of people in system. Am I missing something here?
Dense population --> any attack results in tidi and 23 hour fights --> You're still bored shitless because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6406
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:26:00 -
[545] - Quote
Good to see we've now shifted over to a TiDi discussion. Which wasn't mentioned, a glaring lack. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:29:00 -
[546] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote: Wrong. Anoms are 90 mil/hr per pilot while blitzing L4s are 110mil/hr+ per person.
I just said that.
Gevlon Goblin wrote: That being said, highsec income is too high. But the solution is nerfing it and not increasing nullsec income 10-folds to make PLEX 6-7B. Hyper-inflation is bad.
Which is why buffing anoms is not the way to go, missions are. They inject less isk, scale infinatly, can lock out carriers, will offer higher reward than high sec and are relatively easy for CCP to implement. [/quote]
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:34:00 -
[547] - Quote
Rowells wrote: Thats why this isn't a single dimensional problem. Simply looking at sov and saying "thats your problem there" is not enough. The argument delved down into very specific area of debate in this thread and doesnt seem to be getting out any time soon.
Like for instance the idea to nerf logi. Throw that into the equation and, yes for the first portion of the fight its a tidi slugfest, but as people start dying it becomes less and less crowded until the losers have fled or died to the last man.
We need to keep in mind the other solutions and problems floating around while we disect one subject apart until it is a gory , unrecognizable mess on the table.
A good point, but lets take a look at the article in question. It raises 3 points (occupancy, npc stations, population density) and then provides an impressive list of supporters. Do all of those signatories also support a logi nerf? I suspect not. This is CCP we're dealing with. You handed them a mandate - it's anyone guess if they'll listen. But if they do, given that it is CCP, it's not exactly likely that they'll search out other proposals and heed them as well.
I take and criticize the proposal in a vacuum because it is presented in a vacuum. CCP won't see a logi nerf or any other proposed changes in the document in question. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:39:00 -
[548] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Rowells wrote: Thats why this isn't a single dimensional problem. Simply looking at sov and saying "thats your problem there" is not enough. The argument delved down into very specific area of debate in this thread and doesnt seem to be getting out any time soon.
Like for instance the idea to nerf logi. Throw that into the equation and, yes for the first portion of the fight its a tidi slugfest, but as people start dying it becomes less and less crowded until the losers have fled or died to the last man.
We need to keep in mind the other solutions and problems floating around while we disect one subject apart until it is a gory , unrecognizable mess on the table.
A good point, but lets take a look at the article in question. It raises 3 points (occupancy, npc stations, population density) and then provides an impressive list of supporters. Do all of those signatories also support a logi nerf? I suspect not. This is CCP we're dealing with. You handed them a mandate - it's anyone guess if they'll listen. But if they do, given that it is CCP, it's not exactly likely that they'll search out other proposals and heed them as well. I take and criticize the proposal in a vacuum because it is presented in a vacuum. CCP won't see a logi nerf or any other proposed changes in the document in question.
They can find it in the thread about the CSM meeting, it has been debated in that thread for that last month at least. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
105
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:44:00 -
[549] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote: Wrong. Anoms are 90 mil/hr per pilot while blitzing L4s are 110mil/hr+ per person.
I just said that. Gevlon Goblin wrote: That being said, highsec income is too high. But the solution is nerfing it and not increasing nullsec income 10-folds to make PLEX 6-7B. Hyper-inflation is bad.
Which is why buffing anoms is not the way to go, missions are. They inject less isk, scale infinatly, can lock out carriers, will offer higher reward than high sec and are relatively easy for CCP to implement. [/quote]
Of course 10/10 DED sites, etc... are way more than that.... C5 wormholes are 200 mil + an hour, etc.... No one is leaving nullsec to come run L4 missions....I see about 100 people in local while running SOE L4s, and most of them are career highsec folks. Obviously the people in null are finding ways to make isk already. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6272
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:58:00 -
[550] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Of course 10/10 DED sites, etc... are way more than that.... C5 wormholes are 200 mil + an hour, etc.... No one is leaving nullsec to come run L4 missions....I see about 100 people in local while running SOE L4s, and most of them are career highsec folks. Obviously the people in null are finding ways to make isk already.
The thing with high level DED sites is there is a very limited amount of them available at any given time & the chance for an escalation from an anomaly is extremely low, also add in that whether high value loot drops or not is entirely random. You can spend a few hours running the 4 parts of No Quarter & end up with nothing to show for it.
A lot of null people have highsec alts for mission running & incursions due to the fact that high levels of income require a lot of money to begin with & there aren't enough worthwhile anomalies to go around. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
|
Carl Stonewall
Dirty Old Bastards Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 06:17:00 -
[551] - Quote
Okay so read the letter... first off:
Quote:These entities who have signed this document are historically the most bitter of foes...
Quote:We have put aside our many differences and brutal rivalries...
Let me just sit comfortably in my chair, wai..- WHAAAT!? Brutal enemies... bitter rivals... are you for real???
Goons and PL are effectively allies, and we all know goons wrote this precautionary damage control... they refuse to attack eachothers sov... is this supposed to be some kind of troll?? Bitter rivals my @-ú$ - you havent touched eachothers sov for.. what... 3 YEARS!?
Okay second... what will happen if these changes becomes reality? - Nothing... this proposal is only good for one group, and that is renters... thus indirectly good for Goons and PL (suprice suprice)
Think about the 3 points proposed
1. Occupancy sov.
Ok renters win, they use the systems... what would happen if some new entity tries to take some renter space... yep... you guessed it... 99 supers will land on their face GG... but then again... they can just rent from goon/PL empire and live in happy space harmony, yay... \o/
2. more NPC space...
Nice idea, but what does it have to do with broken 0.0? say a small alliance wants to take some space, deploying in NPC space... what happens when they take the space... yep... you guessed it 99 supers jump across the map in 5 min. and blow them up... but... again, they can just rent guys... no worries...
Basicly sim city general best bro coalition aka goons and PL are bored to death and want CCP to spawn content for them, cause they too scared to figh themselves, we all know it... even goons know it lol.
3. Player density
Again, what does this have to do with broken 0.0??? say this goes into effect, and all of goonswarm can rat in the same system... does anyone seriously believe that new alliances refusing to pay rent, wont get blabbed by 99 supers before you can say "blue donut"??
Its like these guys are deliberatly taking the cart before the horse... a new alliance will never even get to the point of taking advantage of occupancy sov or perks of density system... it will never get to that , they will still be forced to rent from you guys, cause if not... there is 99 supers sitting 70 jumps out, that will be on grid in 5 minutes
All this is, is a precautionary damage control by Goons and PL, luring other sov holders on by proposing generic sound good ideas, that really wont have any significant impact on 0.0 other than incentivising renting even further. Hopefully CCP nerfs capital mobility hard and adress the issue and not this hot air... for all i care make caps jump through gates, that would solve 0.0 before you can say "death to supers"
|
Emma Muutaras
State War Academy Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 06:43:00 -
[552] - Quote
while i do still support the idea i feel it needs to be if you don't use it you lose so if a system is being under used sov should drop and any station(s) in the system should be locked down as in no one can dock at these stations until the sov if claimed again.
also i would add if a system does drop sov said system should appear on scope news (i.e captains quarters of every player, and on the billboards) after all being a sov holder is kinda like being a government currently in power if that government collapsed its news worthy.
This hopefully will lead to conflict and content as corps and alliances try to get there foothold.
personally i would even have concord said out a eve wide mail to inform all players of a sov drop and the system is available for new claims.
as for destructible stations no just no i can see already that it will lead to massive amounts of players losing everything on the first day its in place and just quitting. it will be a case of needing enough supercaps to defend a station as a bench mark to enter null which i feel is kinda the opposite of what this idea is about.
lets be honest if they made stations destroyable tomorrow how long do you think it will be before a pl/n3 or cfc supercap fleet goes round just to burn stations off the map. my guess not very long and if i had to guess provi and catch would be the first targets of the new station burning as both groups (provi/hero) realistically cant come close (at the moment at least) to fight and defend against super caps.
i feel there should be some sort of safeguard in the new system to limit the size of rental empires cuz lets face most the space in eve now is rental space for the super powers and its got beyond a joke. im not saying ban rental empires but they need to be regulated better.
|
Trii Seo
Sabotage Incorporated Executive Outcomes
667
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 06:43:00 -
[553] - Quote
You know something needs fixing if enemies actually agree that it needs fixing. And yes, they're actually enemies, contrary to the opinion of some.
I'm a bit mixed on the NPC regions bit - it seems like a step away from diversifying regions. The one thing EVE lacks today in terms of space alone is diversity and can't help but agree that it'd make staging capitals into a region much easier were a power projection nerf to hit.
With this much buildup and claims of dedication, I'm actually slowly starting to hope that CCP amazes us with something awesome and tops the introduction of Wormholes. And, while at it, provide the catalyst to the greatest, biggest, meanest and most epic space-war this universe has ever seen. Is it Hotdrop O'Clock yet?
Covert pilots unite! Safer working conditions, less accidental limb loss due to unfortunate Cyno accidents! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=258986 |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2798
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 07:57:00 -
[554] - Quote
I like how big boys come here en masse to say how they won Eve and it is boring and they need sth else to win at. I seem to recall more or less same people telling everybody on various occasions that Eve is a sandbox and in sandbox you make your own goals and wins so maybe they should take their own advice and try to win at something else than 'who can collect more cubic meters of space' competition?
Or maybe just frakk off and go play sth else. Isn't that another advice you love to shove in other people throats every time when somebody expresses doubts about Eve?
"We the people...", the hubis of that... Invalid signature format |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11460
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:02:00 -
[555] - Quote
Carl Stonewall wrote:ughhhhhh wall of text
So why would we (and PL) completely ruin our diplomatic credibility by conning most of nullsec into putting their names on a proposal that would be completely against their interests? Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |
yogizh
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:06:00 -
[556] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:@baltec1
No. To fix it You need to slice the coalitions/aliances - not make them more powerfull in 1 place. Small alliances will not attack hundreds that are bunkered in one place.
They need to nerf null income so no srp. No ability to create crazy number of ppl in one alliance/coalition.
Over 300 corps in goonswarm alone - this is normal for You? Do You know how much content there would be if 300 corps would fight each other? Nerf null income? Its already below high sec income, who in their right mind would want to live in null if it got any lower? Ppl that want to fight not farm. It would exclude goons but noone would care :D
I am willing to believe that when I see you uncloaked in space fool.
|
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
692
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:45:00 -
[557] - Quote
Look, average lowsec/highsec scrump - Pizza/Pasta likes to pick on the sov empires more than most, and I can honestly tell you that these changes would make our life a lot easier and probably lead to more entities like us popping up around the map. Do you think thats something the blue doughnuts want? I personally don't think so, but the fact that people like N3 and PL are asking for NPC null space in the east and goonies would be okay with it in the north should make you wake up and realise they aren't in it for personal reasons.
When people suggest things that are directly detrimental to their own coalitions income for the sake of the game, I think it's pretty safe to assume they aren't trying to pull a fast one on you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:46:00 -
[558] - Quote
I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:52:00 -
[559] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying.
Which just shows why this change is so badly needed. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:09:00 -
[560] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |
|
KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:40:00 -
[561] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions
Creating a 3-rd party, 4-th party, n-th party instead of 2 giant gravity wells to polarize null-sec. Sadly, EVE is too much of a game that promotes "big is better" and no matter what CCP will do, they won't be able to nerf friendship.
|
Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
308
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:45:00 -
[562] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote: Wrong. Anoms are 90 mil/hr per pilot while blitzing L4s are 110mil/hr+ per person.
I just said that. Gevlon Goblin wrote: That being said, highsec income is too high. But the solution is nerfing it and not increasing nullsec income 10-folds to make PLEX 6-7B. Hyper-inflation is bad.
Which is why buffing anoms is not the way to go, missions are. They inject less isk, scale infinatly, can lock out carriers, will offer higher reward than high sec and are relatively easy for CCP to implement. [/quote]
And missions take place in deadspace pockets so all your AFK Ishtar ratters are nice and safe from those pesky ceptor roams. AM I right?
I'm glad at least some people can see though the bullshit. The hypicrisy of Mittens, Grath and the other few dozen people responsible for the blue donut and botlord, and the stagnation in nullsec is astonishing. That they then have the brass neck to presume to dictate to CCP how to fix the game which they ruined.
Lets say that CCP did do what Mittens want's, and lets face it CCP always does in the end. We get an occupancy-sov system. How is that going to make the CFC and N3 suddenly disband? It won't. How is that going to break up the massive AFK renter empires? It won't.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1661
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:04:00 -
[563] - Quote
I do not like the concepts of using missions. I still think other kind of anomalies or better belt rattign stuff woudl be the way to go economically.
Something simple would be the more time pirate NPCs are alive in a system the more the alliance lose claim to that system. You need to effectively keep the systems rather clean to keep sov claim.
The economic issues can be balances as well as they would with missions.
on NPC statiosn YES. please. those woudl be very important.
Another thing needed is DESTRUCTABLE outposts. Outposts are aplague now in 0.0. Back in my time each reagion had 4-5. Now you cannot even count. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1661
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:06:00 -
[564] - Quote
Emma Muutaras wrote:
as for destructible stations no just no i can see already that it will lead to massive amounts of players losing everything on the first day its in place and just quitting. it will be a case of needing enough supercaps to defend a station as a bench mark to enter null which i feel is kinda the opposite of what this idea is about.
No need. Just make simple rules. During the first month, all stuff in destroyed stations are moved to nearest low sec station, that will give time to everybody LEARN about it. Also make that any character Unsubscribed has their stuff always moved when they outpost is destroyed.
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:29:00 -
[565] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
And missions take place in deadspace pockets so all your AFK Ishtar ratters are nice and safe from those pesky ceptor roams. AM I right?
Feel free to try that in a level 4.
Speedkermit Damo wrote: I'm glad at least some people can see though the bullshit. The hypicrisy of Mittens, Grath and the other few dozen people responsible for the blue donut and botlord, and the stagnation in nullsec is astonishing. That they then have the brass neck to presume to dictate to CCP how to fix the game which they ruined.
Just to point out, the exact same thing has happened on the chinese server. It not us that caused this its the mechanics, the current situation is inevitable.
Speedkermit Damo wrote: Lets say that CCP did do what Mittens want's, and lets face it CCP always does in the end. We get an occupancy-sov system. How is that going to make the CFC and N3 suddenly disband? It won't. How is that going to break up the massive AFK renter empires? It won't.
It will cause at least 80% of sov to drop and would make it impossible for just two powers to dominate EVE. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:33:00 -
[566] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:I do not like the concepts of using missions. I still think other kind of anomalies or better belt rattign stuff woudl be the way to go economically.
That won't fix the issue of hosting an alliance/corp in a single system as there will still be a low limit on the amount of people a single system can host. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:34:00 -
[567] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Emma Muutaras wrote:
as for destructible stations no just no i can see already that it will lead to massive amounts of players losing everything on the first day its in place and just quitting. it will be a case of needing enough supercaps to defend a station as a bench mark to enter null which i feel is kinda the opposite of what this idea is about.
No need. Just make simple rules. During the first month, all stuff in destroyed stations are moved to nearest low sec station, that will give time to everybody LEARN about it. Also make that any character Unsubscribed has their stuff always moved when they outpost is destroyed.
sounds complicated and bit unrealistic. Dunno how they wanna make this but I still havent heard any specific idea how they want to implement it. Removing players ability to build stations would prove interesting....leaving us with what we have built :D
On the other hand stations exploding with players assets may prove interesting way how to slow down inflation and money stockpilling in eve. |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
429
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:34:00 -
[568] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions Creating a 3-rd party, 4-th party, n-th party instead of 2 giant gravity wells to polarize null-sec. Sadly, EVE is too much of a game that promotes "big is better" and no matter what CCP will do, they won't be able to nerf friendship.
TEST tried to form their own mega coalition and failed. To claim they did anything else is naive.
What some of you simply do not get it is people will gravitate towards each other for mutual benefit. Unless CCP gets rid of standings entirely - which they simply will never do - you will always have coalitions. It's just human nature showing up in a sandbox game.
The ideas suggested as the Null Deal will simply mean those coalitions contract leaving empty space to be taken by smaller entities (who will no doubt have alliances and agreements between them, it's the meta game which is in fact what makes EVE, EVE) and it will not serve the purpose of the large coalitions to gas them out of existence. |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:45:00 -
[569] - Quote
Get rid of static resources and make them dynamic, including:
(a) Moon goo (b) Truesec status (c) Rat types
So over a period of time say, six months, the environment changes. One day you're in a really rich area, a few weeks later it's resource poor and your grunts want to move elsewhere. Renting empires would fall because (a) you won't be holding sov over one area for years, (b) you'd find it hard to rent to players when the systems they're in go from rich to poor or poor to rich. When they're rich you want them for yourselves. When they're poor nobody wants to rent them.
The "Null Deal" is idiotic. Static wealth generation is the problem. Stop it from happening.
Whilst I'm at it, get rid of all asteroid belts. Just make them go away. All content should be dynamic.
Now get coding.
|
Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
308
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:47:00 -
[570] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:
And missions take place in deadspace pockets so all your AFK Ishtar ratters are nice and safe from those pesky ceptor roams. AM I right?
Feel free to try that in a level 4. Speedkermit Damo wrote: I'm glad at least some people can see though the bullshit. The hypicrisy of Mittens, Grath and the other few dozen people responsible for the blue donut and botlord, and the stagnation in nullsec is astonishing. That they then have the brass neck to presume to dictate to CCP how to fix the game which they ruined.
Just to point out, the exact same thing has happened on the chinese server. It not us that caused this its the mechanics, the current situation is inevitable. Speedkermit Damo wrote: Lets say that CCP did do what Mittens want's, and lets face it CCP always does in the end. We get an occupancy-sov system. How is that going to make the CFC and N3 suddenly disband? It won't. How is that going to break up the massive AFK renter empires? It won't.
It will cause at least 80% of sov to drop and would make it impossible for just two powers to dominate EVE.
And that 80% of dropped sov is going to be filled by who exactly? It's going to be more renters isn't it. Of course they won't "technically" be renters. They'll just have to pay you or PL or N3 protection money, or else.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |