Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sylveria Relden
75
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 14:44:00 -
[91] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Sylveria Relden wrote:I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something. Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously. ... or the middle security space idea where high sec has four islands and between that factions help you in certain systems if you have high standing with them and they send ships that will repair the first attacked ones and can be blown up as easily as other players.
Sorry, but I disagree and I think we should "go big or stay home" with this one, and here's the reason why:
The majority of threads I've seen for "deregulation" are "all or nothing" threads- and I think we should seriously let it happen. It will be good for the numbers- so we can actually determine just where everything truly sits without the constant smoke and mirrors "scheherazade".
We'll get a truly "definitive" answer- without skewed perspectives, suggestions or misdirection. Either markets will regulate, or they won't. People will engage- or they won't. The greatest thing about a "temporary" nerf is that it can always be removed without hurting the "lore" of the game, too. They can even make it a creative thing like some sort of EMP activity that disables security systems, etc. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
728
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 14:51:13 -
[92] - Quote
Sylveria Relden wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Sylveria Relden wrote:I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something. Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously. ... or the middle security space idea where high sec has four islands and between that factions help you in certain systems if you have high standing with them and they send ships that will repair the first attacked ones and can be blown up as easily as other players. Sorry, but I disagree and I think we should "go big or stay home" with this one, and here's the reason why: The majority of threads I've seen for "deregulation" are "all or nothing" threads- and I think we should seriously let it happen. It will be good for the numbers- so we can actually determine just where everything truly sits without the constant smoke and mirrors "scheherazade". We'll get a truly "definitive" answer- without skewed perspectives, suggestions or misdirection. Either markets will regulate, or they won't. People will engage- or they won't. The greatest thing about a "temporary" nerf is that it can always be removed without hurting the "lore" of the game, too. They can even make it a creative thing like some sort of EMP activity that disables security systems, etc.
We have a glimpse of this from history, where concord was tankable.
That ended with the devs directly intervening on TQ and scattering the players involved to the far reaches of the galaxy.
So whilst there may be an element of smoke and mirrors, there is historical precedent. |
Sylveria Relden
75
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 14:55:12 -
[93] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Sylveria Relden wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Sylveria Relden wrote:I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something. Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously. ... or the middle security space idea where high sec has four islands and between that factions help you in certain systems if you have high standing with them and they send ships that will repair the first attacked ones and can be blown up as easily as other players. Sorry, but I disagree and I think we should "go big or stay home" with this one, and here's the reason why: The majority of threads I've seen for "deregulation" are "all or nothing" threads- and I think we should seriously let it happen. It will be good for the numbers- so we can actually determine just where everything truly sits without the constant smoke and mirrors "scheherazade". We'll get a truly "definitive" answer- without skewed perspectives, suggestions or misdirection. Either markets will regulate, or they won't. People will engage- or they won't. The greatest thing about a "temporary" nerf is that it can always be removed without hurting the "lore" of the game, too. They can even make it a creative thing like some sort of EMP activity that disables security systems, etc. We have a glimpse of this from history, where concord was tankable. That ended with the devs directly intervening on TQ and scattering the players involved to the far reaches of the galaxy. So whilst there may be an element of smoke and mirrors, there is historical precedent.
Yes, but still no "official" policy... which is why (as definitive of itself) history repeats itself yet again.
People will continue to scream and whine until CCP intervenes- as before and it will be so again. They need to take an official stance on this one, IMO. We often see a lot of people talk about the players "balancing" the system- yet at the end of the day, how exactly is this happening?
This is why neither order nor chaos can exist without the other. You must have a balance of the two. |
ashley Eoner
408
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 17:42:11 -
[94] - Quote
Sylveria Relden wrote:You know, we see a lot of these threads going back and forth, all in the name of "buff lowsec" (nor null) or "nerf hisec" and it doesn't seem to be stopping. I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something. Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously.
- Mineral prices
- Ship/module prices
- PLEX prices
- SOV space blobs
- Lo-sec lack of interaction
etc. If the "gankers" are right, then they'll have more interaction in null/low security because hisec won't be a "safe" area anymore (therefore it won't matter where they go, right?) and the markets will somehow magically "stabilize" themselves in terms of isk. If the "carebears" are right- prices will be much higher than current, as availability will become more scarce. Oh and you won't see as many accounts logged in- because people won't bother subbing to the game. So CCP's income will take a dramatic loss as well. The numbers will speak for themselves- and then perhaps we can get an "official" stance from CCP regarding player whining and we can stop seeing these ridiculous threads over and over (and over) again. I'm speculating here- but perhaps that's exactly why we never see an official stance, because they know damn well what will happen. Yeah what could go wrong? Other then maybe a mass quitting as people don't want to deal with that ****.
This is a win win for the "gankers" as they get to harvest more tears and they get to watch CCP shoot themselves in the foot.. Bad idea doesn't begin to describe what you're suggesting.
We already know what it was like without concord. 24/7 curb stomping till you managed to get away from people and even then you were one station camp away from being unable to play.
CCP already knows the numbers and clearly they disagree with you and the others that want to hurt the game..
Sylveria Relden wrote:Yes, but still no "official" policy... which is why (as definitive of itself) history repeats itself yet again.
People will continue to scream and whine until CCP intervenes- as before and it will be so again. They need to take an official stance on this one, IMO. We often see a lot of people talk about the players "balancing" the system- yet at the end of the day, how exactly is this happening?
This is why neither order nor chaos can exist without the other. You must have a balance of the two. There's already an official stance and you can see it daily in how eve is setup. Tough crap that it's not what you want but we've already been there done that and have no desire to repeat stupid history just for the sake of repeating stupid history.
Don't like it? Stop being lazy and gank then or whatever it is you feel that highsec is missing. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
854
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 01:11:16 -
[95] - Quote
If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months.
There would need to be warning and very clear info.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Sylveria Relden
75
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 01:13:20 -
[96] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months.
There would need to be warning and very clear info.
That's the idea of the proposed time limitation. As I said- they can creatively call it a CONCORD strike or something. I think CCP could get some valuable info with the data regardless... how many people actively log in and play, how many subbed during the period of time, how many kills, prices in the market, etc. |
Sylveria Relden
76
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 01:24:53 -
[97] - Quote
As the saying goes.... "Be careful what you wish for...."
I think in terms of people's proposals- they'll learn that "consequence" has a whole new meaning in this game. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
854
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 01:25:17 -
[98] - Quote
Sylveria Relden wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months. There would need to be warning and very clear info. That's the idea of the proposed time limitation. As I said- they can creatively call it a CONCORD strike or something. I think CCP could get some valuable info with the data regardless... how many people actively log in and play, how many subbed during the period of time, how many kills, prices in the market, etc. Thing is it might still be a false reading. More people might return to EVE or be drawn in and that could take time to seep into the wider market. There might be knee jerk suspended accounts but people might come back and find they enjoy it, etc.
Trouble is it would be a large risk and still might not give a good reading.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Sylveria Relden
76
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 01:34:37 -
[99] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Sylveria Relden wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months. There would need to be warning and very clear info. That's the idea of the proposed time limitation. As I said- they can creatively call it a CONCORD strike or something. I think CCP could get some valuable info with the data regardless... how many people actively log in and play, how many subbed during the period of time, how many kills, prices in the market, etc. Thing is it might still be a false reading. More people might return to EVE or be drawn in and that could take time to seep into the wider market. There might be knee jerk suspended accounts but people might come back and find they enjoy it, etc. Trouble is it would be a large risk and still might not give a good reading.
And the "counter proposal" is?
I agree- that it may indeed be skewed by other mitigating factors... but without a test we'll never know for sure.
At the end of the day- I still believe in "balance" and moderation in all things. Too much of anything can be harmful.
But hey, if people want to stick their hand on the stove to see just how hot it is, more power to them. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
117
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 01:55:58 -
[100] - Quote
Sylveria Relden wrote:You know, we see a lot of these threads going back and forth, all in the name of "buff lowsec" (nor null) or "nerf hisec" and it doesn't seem to be stopping. I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something. Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously.
- Mineral prices
- Ship/module prices
- PLEX prices
- SOV space blobs
- Lo-sec lack of interaction
etc. If the "gankers" are right, then they'll have more interaction in null/low security because hisec won't be a "safe" area anymore (therefore it won't matter where they go, right?) and the markets will somehow magically "stabilize" themselves in terms of isk. If the "carebears" are right- prices will be much higher than current, as availability will become more scarce. Oh and you won't see as many accounts logged in- because people won't bother subbing to the game. So CCP's income will take a dramatic loss as well. The numbers will speak for themselves- and then perhaps we can get an "official" stance from CCP regarding player whining and we can stop seeing these ridiculous threads over and over (and over) again. I'm speculating here- but perhaps that's exactly why we never see an official stance, because they know damn well what will happen. While I like the idea as a concept the possible negative consequences for the game make this a really bad idea, if there were mass un-subs as a result CCP and the game may never recover.
Turn your idea 180 degrees and remove war decs and ganking from high sec for that period of time and se what the results are. While this may cause mass un-subs from the war dec and ganker communities the loss in number of players would be significantly less and would be more survivable for CCP and the game.
|
|
Sylveria Relden
77
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 02:39:18 -
[101] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: While I like the idea as a concept the possible negative consequences for the game make this a really bad idea, if there were mass un-subs as a result CCP and the game may never recover.
Thanks.
You see- that's exactly the "point" I'm trying to distinguish here. The reality is, people aren't thinking their "CTA" when it comes to "NURF HISECZ!!!!!!!" all the way through.
Hisec, Losec and Nullsec all exist for a reason. Without definition- the game becomes a completely chaotic mess of anarchistic types who think that there's some sort of "order" in what they're doing. The next dictator is just as bad as the last one, and soon they come to learn this. Doesn't matter if you AGREE with the reason- just that it exists for a reason. It's called "balance".
"It's bad for the game" is entirely the point I'm trying to make, yet the pessimistic bittervet neckbeard types will have you believe...
- The "premise of EVE" is that they should be able to get to shoot whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as THEY don't have to face consequences for their actions (AKA "bitter and cold environment", yada yada) and;
- That CCP will lose more subs and won't survive if things continue to go the way they are. (EVE is DYIIIIIINNNNNGGGGG!)
So let's see if they're right, shall we? How about we put it to the test. Then we can see who should HTFU (or STFU is probably more applicable in this case).
The eventual boredom of nullsec and lowsec isn't due to hisec being popular. It's due to the nature of "power" and those who wield it. Who's in charge of the alliances? Who's in control of the space? Why aren't there more battles for control- rather than the eventual blobbing together?
If everyone's so "itching" for a fight- why aren't they fighting amongst themselves to claim said space, instead of looking to hisec and moaning about it? Looking for "gudfites"? How about going where you know you'll find them?
Oh, but that requires effort on their part- and might actually have to risk their own belongings in the process, right? A little off-topic, but this is why I'm also a fan for removing off-grid boosting. People who "hide" their boosters aren't risking them in the field- yet they whine all day long about "risk aversion" when you get right down to it. |
Lathalia
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 09:27:10 -
[102] - Quote
I would like to see the npc corporations randomly wardeccing one or multiple other npc corporations. For the new players -> put them in new special newbie npc corporations where only characters less then 30 (or something like it) days are allowed. After that they got moved automatically to a normal npc corp. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
729
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 10:46:24 -
[103] - Quote
I'd like to see more parts of null actually fighting instead of maintaining the status quo.
Don't always get what we want though, right? |
Samillian
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
695
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 11:13:55 -
[104] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I'd like to see more parts of null actually fighting instead of maintaining the status quo.
Don't always get what we want though, right?
Your not wrong.
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi
1190
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 11:26:26 -
[105] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I'd like to see more parts of null actually fighting instead of maintaining the status quo.
Don't always get what we want though, right? You are alone there. That is not what the EVE populace wants. What the EVE populace wants is fights to happen but not on their doorstep. Problem is: there is too many doorsteps. |
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 20:26:47 -
[106] - Quote
Its simple really.
If you know someone who plays Eve is easier to make contacts and get into a decent corp.
If you don't know anyone...its a complete crap shoot. Where more often than not you just end up being the play toy.
And the stuff I have seen being done to players by vets and such I wont make the effort to leave my NPC/ private corp.
The vocal few abusers created this and now CCP has to figure out how to undo the damage.
10 years of beating up new players has dug a hole.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
856
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 02:20:56 -
[107] - Quote
I'd like to point out that I am generally considered anti-ganker.
I do not have a problem with high-sec I do not have a problem with NPC corps I do not have a problem with veterans in NPCs
I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is.
Donnachadh wrote:While I like the idea as a concept the possible negative consequences for the game make this a really bad idea, if there were mass un-subs as a result CCP and the game may never recover.
Turn your idea 180 degrees and remove war decs and ganking from high sec for that period of time and se what the results are. While this may cause mass un-subs from the war dec and ganker communities the loss in number of players would be significantly less and would be more survivable for CCP and the game. .... and watch how many more migrate to high sec.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
731
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 12:51:06 -
[108] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is.
Are wardecs that dangerous?
Because all I ever seem to hear is they are pointless, toothless and trivial to circumvent.
I don't think wardecs provide the risk you think they do. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
174
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 13:02:44 -
[109] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I'd like to point out that I am generally considered anti-ganker. I do not have a problem with high-sec I do not have a problem with NPC corps I do not have a problem with veterans in high secs I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is. Donnachadh wrote:While I like the idea as a concept the possible negative consequences for the game make this a really bad idea, if there were mass un-subs as a result CCP and the game may never recover.
Turn your idea 180 degrees and remove war decs and ganking from high sec for that period of time and se what the results are. While this may cause mass un-subs from the war dec and ganker communities the loss in number of players would be significantly less and would be more survivable for CCP and the game. .... and watch how many more migrate to high sec. Had a Goon I chatted to recently. He said his home system was really dangerous and he wasn't safer than in high sec, in the same breath as telling me he was AFK carrier ratting. So, had a look at the region on zkill and it was 0.75 of one page with kills. Looked at Providence and it was 4.5 pages of kills and it was still early in the day. Deklein bit over a page of kills for Feb 03 where as, Providence 6.25 pages. So, yes. Null Sec is still too safe in many places.
take a stroll though dek one day. You might understand why they can semi afk carrier rat.
Ps it has to do with the fact that unless its a big hotdrop the amount of support and help that will warp to you is massive, because of always being in standing fleet. You see it comes from them actually living in dek and defending there space with numbers. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
857
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 13:05:58 -
[110] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:take a stroll though dek one day. You might understand why they can semi afk carrier rat. P.S. it has to do with the fact that unless its a big hotdrop the amount of support and help that will warp to you is massive, because of always being in standing fleet. You see it comes from them actually living in dek and defending there space with numbers. I think the CCP vision is that they would be harassed by small groups that are eager to get a foot hold and larger ones would keep pushing at their borders.
Is there maybe not enough links between regions?
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
120
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 14:21:48 -
[111] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is. Then go make it "less" safe for those players and stop being lazy and asking CCP to do it for you. Players do not need to be in a player corp for you to gank them. As for war decs the only players that get killed in them are 1. ignorant of the options, 2. to lazy to take one of those options 3. the extremely rare war dec corp member that makes a stupid mistake. Yes I know you will forcefully deny this but the basis for your idea is to "force" players into corps that you can WD, why? Because that is the only real change the OP idea will have on the game.
As for the safety of high sec blame the players ( lIke you) who are to lazy or risk averse to provide the "dangers" that you think should come along with the rewards for being in high sec. I find it interesting that most people claim that we the players are supposed to provide the content unless that situation is the risk level associated with life in high sec then they want CCP to provide the risks.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Had a Goon I chatted to recently. He said his home system was really dangerous and he wasn't safer than in high sec, in the same breath as telling me he was AFK carrier ratting. So, had a look at the region on zkill and it was 0.75 of one page with kills. Looked at Providence and it was 4.5 pages of kills and it was still early in the day.
Deklein bit over a page of kills for Feb 03 where as, Providence 6.25 pages.
So, yes. Null Sec is still too safe in many places. So why are you complaining about high sec when what is supposed to be one of the more dangerous places in the game is actually as safe or possibly even safer than high sec?
Another interesting twist here is this. Over the years as the nul sec blocks have stabilized and the amount of fighting between those blocks has dropped there has been a corresponding increase in the calls to nerf income and increase risk in high sec. I find myself wondering what the connection is? And no I do not believe in coincidence there IS a connection between these two and it woul be interesting to be able to explore it more completely.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
174
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 14:22:51 -
[112] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:afkalt wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is. Are wardecs that dangerous? Because all I ever seem to hear is they are pointless, toothless and trivial to circumvent. I don't think wardecs provide the risk you think they do. From the original post: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:There are some related problems: - War dec mechanics- Freedom of choice for current players. The goal of this thread is to discuss ways of getting veterans to take the step out of NPC corps, get a group of other veterans friends with them, make new corps and nurture newbies into exploring more of the game. Lady Rift wrote:take a stroll though dek one day. You might understand why they can semi afk carrier rat. P.S. it has to do with the fact that unless its a big hotdrop the amount of support and help that will warp to you is massive, because of always being in standing fleet. You see it comes from them actually living in dek and defending there space with numbers. I think the CCP vision is that they would be harassed by small groups that are eager to get a foot hold and larger ones would keep pushing at their borders. Is there maybe not enough links between regions?
you know dek is behind other null secs right, it connects to 3 regions. One being NPC space the rest owned by friendly's. dek has alot of people living in it that defend there space. Where hostiles can't dock and its along way to empire or even low.
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
289
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 02:22:57 -
[113] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: Players do not need to be in a player corp for you to gank them. As for war decs the only players that get killed in them are 1. ignorant of the options, 2. to lazy to take one of those options 3. the extremely rare war dec corp member that makes a stupid mistake. Yes I know you will forcefully deny this but the basis for your idea is to "force" players into corps that you can WD, why? Because that is the only real change the OP idea will have on the game. Ganking has it's value but an emergent conflict between two entities is ideally perpetrated without intervention by NPCs. EVE is a player-driven sandbox based around conflict. You can draw a straight line between wardecs and the most basic idea behind the game.
Donnachadh wrote:As for the safety of high sec blame the players ( lIke you) who are to lazy or risk averse to provide the "dangers" that you think should come along with the rewards for being in high sec. I find it interesting that most people claim that we the players are supposed to provide the content unless that situation is the risk level associated with life in high sec then they want CCP to provide the risks. Highsec dwellers are very polarized. Some are trivially easy to keep docked up indefinitely while others are competent enough to mitigate almost the entirety of their risk. The frustration you see is related to the second group. Take our friend Veers for example and his bragging about being able to PVE all day. If you're able to fly around space for hours racking up ISK unimpeded with half the galaxy wanting you dead there is something wrong there. The problem though isn't that you can mitigate the risks, it's that there is no reason not to. You're viewing it as players asking CCP to provide the risks, but it's players asking CCP to provide the rewards for choosing to take risks.
~ Bookmarks in overview
~ Fleet improvements
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
122
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 03:03:21 -
[114] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The frustration you see is related to the second group. Take our friend Veers for example and his bragging about being able to PVE all day. If you're able to fly around space for hours racking up ISK unimpeded with half the galaxy wanting you dead there is something wrong there. Can we please separate the extreme minority of the high sec population that run Incursions from the rest of the high sec players when we discuss things of this nature. The Incursion groups/players are their own special breed and their actions and risks vs rewards are radically different than the average high sec player. For the record I tend to agree with those who claim that there is far to much reward for the level of risk involved in Incursions. Now I will get flamed by the Incursion forces that claim they take huge risks, and my response is rebalance your fleets and add a few more dps and a few more rep ships and most of that risk goes away.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The problem though isn't that you can mitigate the risks, it's that there is no reason not to. You're viewing it as players asking CCP to provide the risks, but it's players asking CCP to provide the rewards for choosing to take risks. Why? If you choose to violate EvE's rules of space conduct and become a criminal by ganking someone why should CCP reward you for it? If you choose to war dec a corp in high sec why should CCP reward you for that?
In high sec the risk is provided by players, yet they get nothing for it besides low sec status and whatever loot/salvage they can recover from their activities. Other than existing mechanics it is probably not a good idea for CCP to provide incentive/rewards for the players that choose to provide the risks because of the potential for the dreaded mass un-subs. They could easily ramp up the risks from non-player aspects of the game but just like the Incursion runners learned how to overcome so would the average high sec player would quickly learn to overcome these new threats.
And so we have the elemental insanity that is the whole concept of risk in high sec. What to do, well that depends on who you are and what you want out of this game. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
674
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 03:03:50 -
[115] - Quote
I disagee with almost everything you are asking us to stipulate as fact. I don't believe CCP has a problem with NPC run corps. They serve an important purpose in the game...even for the veteran who may easily fall out of a player run corp. I disagree the thought that empire should be a smallish noob only play region. I feel empire play, low sec, null sec, and WH space all need to be separate yet equally important in play viability. High sec should not be thought of as a traininig ground for null sec. The play should remain vastly different. Not everyone likes the same things; trying to drive players out of high sec will probably only succeed in driving players who enjoy this play from the game. If null sec is boring because 80% of the player base are somewhere else, maybe we need to look at null sec play instead of trying to kill other areas in order to grow null player base. ...not even null sectarians stay in null sec all the time - many split their time between high sec, low sec, and null.
-á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
862
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 17:02:31 -
[116] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is. Then go make it "less" safe for those players and stop being lazy and asking CCP to do it for you.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Donnachadh wrote:Actually, it is the concept of EVE minus one thing - someone there to harvest the fat sheep and remind them that it's not safe to be so fat. The prey is doing their part by being enticing. Do yours.
Donnachadh: - It makes me want to become one of the fat sheep. Round and round we go, where will it stop? Who knows!
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
862
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 00:18:44 -
[117] - Quote
More in the "role-playing" theme of things. NPC corps ban the use of pirate ships and other faction's navy ships.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
992
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 00:35:51 -
[118] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:More in the "role-playing" theme of things. NPC corps ban the use of pirate ships and other faction's navy ships.
How about we not make sweeping game changes based on roleplayers. Ever.
Unless we can also implement my roleplaying ideas as well, which includes space segregation of RP'rs in their own private forums and they can't post on the normal board. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
862
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 00:43:24 -
[119] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:More in the "role-playing" theme of things. NPC corps ban the use of pirate ships and other faction's navy ships. How about we not make sweeping game changes based on roleplayers. Ever. Unless we can also implement my roleplaying ideas as well, which includes space segregation of RP'rs in their own private forums and they can't post on the normal board. Still waiting for your perfect solutions to everything, ever.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
992
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 00:49:08 -
[120] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Anhenka wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:More in the "role-playing" theme of things. NPC corps ban the use of pirate ships and other faction's navy ships. How about we not make sweeping game changes based on roleplayers. Ever. Unless we can also implement my roleplaying ideas as well, which includes space segregation of RP'rs in their own private forums and they can't post on the normal board. Still waiting for your perfect solutions to everything, ever.
Oddly enough, I don't need to know how to build a perfect bookcase to know that hammering a nail into my hand is most definitely not part of the perfect procedure. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |