Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
KenFlorian
Jednota Inc
34
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 15:04:49 -
[1291] - Quote
How do I sort this thread on a; number of years in game and b; number of hours played?
I haven't got time to do anything more or less than that. |
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
17
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 15:17:51 -
[1292] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The problem is that it doesn't solve the issue which is that chasing around evasion fitted ships for hours on end is not fun.
I still don't understand why people chase ceptors. You just undock an alt when they have been capturing for 50 minutes and ECM them.
No chasing implied.
|
Arla Sarain
631
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 15:57:51 -
[1293] - Quote
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:baltec1 wrote:The problem is that it doesn't solve the issue which is that chasing around evasion fitted ships for hours on end is not fun. I still don't understand why people chase ceptors. You just undock an alt when they have been capturing for 50 minutes and ECM them. No chasing implied. Apparently entosis capture does not decay same way FW plex timers don't rollback.
Also persistence. It causes people to babysit anything entosisable. Entosis mechanics whilst solid in principle, detract from the primary sov gameplay. Monetising sov requires that players engage activities completely unrelated to its defense and protection, which requires that someone takes one for the team and makes sure the trollceptors don't ninja the occupants sov. |
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
17
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 17:36:06 -
[1294] - Quote
After testing the new timers to capture nodes I think that this solution is not good enough.
24 minutes is a short time for the effort to raise a system to ADM 6, if you are willing to defend it.
At the same time, is a lot of time to sit idle as attacker if nobody shows up to defend.
I think that the best system would be one where each cycle is faster than the precedent, so if you are hacking a node unmolested it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to cap a node, for an ADM 6 system, as attacker. And the same for the defender. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6726
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 19:33:56 -
[1295] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:There is nothing to be confused about. Then why are you confused?
Arla Sarain wrote:But it can work in SOV, because contrast to FW, Corps and Alliances determine who becomes a member and therefore who gets to enjoy the passive source of wealth. Again, adding passive income doesn;t fix the crappy mechanic, it just gives you a reason to put up with it. Like I said earlier, it's a way of saying "we know the gameplay is ****, so have some isk until you shut up about it". The fix is to make sov capture mechanics fun in themselves, not to just blindly add passive income until people are earning too much to want any changes.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Arla Sarain
631
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 23:28:23 -
[1296] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:There is nothing to be confused about. Then why are you confused? We playing THAT game?
Maybe your confusion is causing a loop that breeds your falsehood about me being confused.
Stop being confused bro. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6726
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 23:56:34 -
[1297] - Quote
Uhh, OK. If you say so. I'm playing no game though. As far as I can see you legitimately confused yourself. I note your selective quoting has missed out the actual point though so conclude that you are in fact a troll, so I think I'll just ignore you and move on.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16613
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 07:35:52 -
[1298] - Quote
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:
I still don't understand why people chase ceptors. You just undock an alt when they have been capturing for 50 minutes and ECM them.
No chasing implied.
We already went over ECM and its at best just a boring at worst useless.
We want more fights, more roaming gangs, more content. Your solution is just as boring as chasing off the ceptor.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2327
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 09:23:42 -
[1299] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
We want more fights, more roaming gangs, more content.
No ... you don't. You want impenetrable Fortress Goon where you can nullbear your lives away.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
18
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 09:28:51 -
[1300] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:
I still don't understand why people chase ceptors. You just undock an alt when they have been capturing for 50 minutes and ECM them.
No chasing implied.
We already went over ECM and its at best just a boring at worst useless. We want more fights, more roaming gangs, more content. Your solution is just as boring as chasing off the ceptor.
If you troll the trollceptors, they will stop coming. And that's what you will get if in ten minutes you destroy more than an hour investment in the part of the trollceptor. Weaponizing of boredom, I know, but time is in the part of the defender, not the attacker, so I don't see the need to nerf the ceptors. Let the children something to play with.
The enemy coming in force to create some content is a completely different matter. And that's really the problem. It seems there is a lot of people in EVE that doesn't wont to fight.
And, as the strongest group in EVE, it is unprovable that somebody comes to invade, so the way to go is the Provi way. |
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
18
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 09:44:46 -
[1301] - Quote
Talking about another thing, I thought that destroying the iHub would reset the ADM and looking at Providence it doesn't seem so.
Another reason not to fight, if the fleet that you risk to defend the iHub is several times more expensive than the 300Misk of the iHub and your ADM is not seriously affected. |
Ozz Burtus
Stryker Industries
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 10:11:17 -
[1302] - Quote
These changes are great for J-space; bored, feckless null-bears are moving in. Stryker is having great fun providing lessons in the associated "learning process" :). |
Arla Sarain
631
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 10:20:20 -
[1303] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: I note your selective quoting has missed out the actual point though so conclude that you are in fact a troll, so I think I'll just ignore you and move on. The selective quoting didn't miss out on anything. It filtered out the "the actual point" you already presented 2 posts back.
I sympathise with sov holders who believe that chasing ceptors detracts from the current intended exploitation and monetisation of sov and propose an explicit shift in priorities to allow more time to troll the trollceptors back.
I don't sympathise with owners that believe they should smite anyone who would question their claim for some backwater systems by piling on a space coffin BC, which ironically will not incite big and fun fights you so impatiently try to fabricate by forcing people into a 60mill hull, as opposed to a 20mill. Keep telling yourselves that you want people to commit assets - the reality is you just want a killmail to follow the notifications.
In a sandbox you make your own fun with the selection of abstract tools you are given. To demand that sov wanding gets fun is like asking for PvP arenas to spawn whenever you press F1. Sov wanding is a formal declaration of wanting your space, but nobody owes you a fight for it. The growing exhaustion of PvP is seen throughout all walks of the game. It's just how it is. Trap your enemy like everyone else does.
To address the concern of ceptors moving out of range by the time a defense gang lands - inverse POS shields around entosisable objects, entosis-active ships can get in but not out until the cycle ends. This at least isolates the location of the aggressor, whilst still giving him the opportunity to outmaneuver and escape. |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
972
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 12:22:07 -
[1304] - Quote
I was suprised the system works as well as it did and I had fun playing it.
However jump fatigue is still f*cked and my supers is now even more useless, who would have figured that would be possible.
Not today spaghetti.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16614
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 13:08:06 -
[1305] - Quote
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Talking about another thing, I thought that destroying the iHub would reset the ADM and looking at Providence it doesn't seem so.
Another reason not to fight, if the fleet that you risk to defend the iHub is several times more expensive than the 300Misk of the iHub and your ADM is not seriously affected.
Dotlan is having issues with that
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
1045
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 13:51:54 -
[1306] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:I don't sympathise with owners that believe they should smite anyone who would question their claim for some backwater systems by piling on a space coffin BC, which ironically will not incite big and fun fights you so impatiently try to fabricate by forcing people into a 60mill hull, as opposed to a 20mill. Keep telling yourselves that you want people to commit assets - the reality is you just want a killmail to follow the notifications. Well, he proposes basically NPC null mechanics with player structures instead of NPC stations and numbers system to determine "flag on the map" as opposed to any form of sov wanding, so I don't see how is that "forcing people into space coffins".
Meanwhile I cannot find a good argument against an idea that if entosis is here to stay (it most likely is), then initiating the process of sov transfer / structure destruction should only make sense if you are intending to go through it entirely.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6726
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 14:44:14 -
[1307] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:baltec1 wrote:We want more fights, more roaming gangs, more content. No ... you don't. You want impenetrable Fortress Goon where you can nullbear your lives away. If theat were the case, we'd support he new system fully.
Arla Sarain wrote:I sympathise with sov holders who believe that chasing ceptors detracts from the current intended exploitation and monetisation of sov and propose an explicit shift in priorities to allow more time to troll the trollceptors back. It's nto taht it detracts from anything. It takes moments of time to deal with. The issue is that it's a based around broing mechanics. The gameplay isn;t fun for anyone. Aggressors do it because they feel rewarded by making the defender respond and defenders respond to keep their space. The actual gameplay behind it is crap. As the novelty wears off, less and less people will
Arla Sarain wrote:I don't sympathise with owners that believe they should smite anyone who would question their claim for some backwater systems by piling on a space coffin BC, which ironically will not incite big and fun fights you so impatiently try to fabricate by forcing people into a 60mill hull, as opposed to a 20mill. Keep telling yourselves that you want people to commit assets - the reality is you just want a killmail to follow the notifications. Don't be ridiculous. BCs already make it into our space and do fine, and "backwater systems" won't have defenders, so ship type is irrelevant. The only reason to support frigates is so they can run away with ease when engaged. Bigger ships will be worth defending, so aggressors would be encouraged to actually engage in a fight.
[quote=Arla Sarain]Sov wanding is a formal declaration of wanting your space, but nobody owes you a fight for it./quote]Except of course that most people doing it don't want the space. Sov wanding is a dull mecanic. The only difference between it and the old structure shoot is that aggressors need to commit next to nothing to do it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
120
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 15:46:11 -
[1308] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Sov wanding is a formal declaration of wanting your space, but nobody owes you a fight for it. The growing exhaustion of PvP is seen throughout all walks of the game. It's just how it is. Trap your enemy like everyone else does. The ship doing the sov wanding is already tackled by the mere act of doing what it's doing (activating entosis on a thing), so you don't even have to work as hard as has been implied to "trap" them, especially now with the 4k speed limit.
Ceptor Toasters are the great goat herders of sov. Only when you have gone too far is it actually effective. |
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
74
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 02:32:37 -
[1309] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: We want more fights, more roaming gangs, more content..
if that was the case you would unblue your whole coalition. |
Cati
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 04:33:30 -
[1310] - Quote
http://i11.pixs.ru/storage/9/4/2/fozzijpg_8859910_18628942.jpg
CCP Fozzie & FOZZISOV---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHcXlyhgzHM C¦¦C¦¦P¦¦ ¦¦F¦¦o¦¦z¦¦z¦¦i¦¦e¦¦ & ¦¦F¦¦O¦¦Z¦¦Z¦¦I¦¦S¦¦O¦¦V¦¦---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvB2nRGMl2c |
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1843
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 09:44:48 -
[1311] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:baltec1 wrote: We want more fights, more roaming gangs, more content..
if that was the case you would unblue your whole coalition. No, not that much fight. Besides, most of the alliances in CFC would crumble on their own, and an exodus of unprecedented magnitudes to CONDI would take place in order to keep the safety and security big numbers provide.
To be quite frank: Before the great financial crisis in the USA and Europe, I could have seen CFC crumble under its own weigh. Some signs were there with several alliances getting kicked out or merge with others. But since this crisis, people are first and foremost interested in safety and stability, even at the expenses of less fun and excitement (just look at the closure of -FA- and where most of its corps went afterwards, the big ones in particular). CFC provides these things, which makes them self-preserving under these new circumstances. I think that the majority there would rather unsub than leave CFC for more uncertain entities.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6726
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 10:46:50 -
[1312] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:No, not that much fight. Besides, most of the alliances in CFC would crumble on their own, and an exodus of unprecedented magnitudes to CONDI would take place in order to keep the safety and security big numbers provide. To be quite frank: Before the great financial crisis in the USA and Europe, I could have seen CFC crumble under its own weigh. Some signs were there with several alliances getting kicked out or merge with others. But since this crisis, people are first and foremost interested in safety and stability, even at the expenses of less fun and excitement (just look at the closure of -FA- and where most of its corps went afterwards, the big ones in particular). CFC provides these things, which makes them self-preserving under these new circumstances. I think that the majority there would rather unsub than leave CFC for more uncertain entities. It's got nothing to do with real world financial stability, nor does in have anything to do with safety. If we wanted to be safe and make loads of isk, we'd just move to highsec and smash high income PvE.
We are part of these big groups because we like being part of these big groups. That is what entertains us. For many people, that was what EVE had over other games. Of course people would rather unsub than be forced to play a game in a way they don't like. For years EVE has had supporting mechanics and areas for big groups, small groups, singleboxers, multiboxers, PvE players, PvP players, socials, anti-socials, etc. Now it seems that certain parts of the community want everything stripped down to prioritise small groups everywhere.
If CCP goes too far down that road, then the can expect the players who enjoy playing in big groups to leave. No sane person would continue playing a game that they no longer enjoy. The problem with that is that the biggest draw to EVE for many years has been that it's a single shard where you play with thousands of other players allowing for these monolithic battles. You might be thinking "yeah, quit , can I haz stuff" and so on, but I think you underestimate the number of players that would mean are leaving. The PCU already looks terrible and goons haven't even quit yet.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1844
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 13:28:47 -
[1313] - Quote
I am not arguing against that people want be part of big groups. DARK is a big group, Solar, Stainwaggon are big groups. What the aforementioned groups have in common is that they have no way whatsoever to obliterate the entire Null sec at will. 1 other group, on the other hand, due to its size and organization, can provide a level or stability and safety that functions as such a strong magnet for more and more people join them to seek that safety and easy gameplay instead of seeking a more risky and adventurous gameplay. People "enjoy" this safe gameplay, yet you still argue for more conflict and argue that you do not avoid risk. Fights take place in Providence or Querious, Immensea or in Uedama, not at their door steps. What irks me is that hypocrisy of the players expecting safety and stability on the one hand and fun and excitement on the other at the same time. If you need to deploy 2 large alliances to Curse from Branch to stir some air, in my opinion something is really wrong.
And in my opinion, the crisis we experience for years now is very much one big factor that drives this development. Big groups of the sizes of DARK or even Stainwaggon are one thing, they can influence a limited area of the cluster effectively anc cause much trouble there. What they cannot do is just go to the other side of the universe in large force, stir a lot of air there, while having their assets at home safe and secure, and return completely unscathed and unopposed. Big groups are fine. But CFC is beyond big. And it is an unhealthy huge. Accept that or not, I do not care, but this problem is not solvable with any kind of mechanic sans really drastic measures -- and that would lead to your suggested unsubbing of people who "enjoy" this safe gameplay style. Besides: You already do go to High sec to make ISK. That's a moot point on your end. I currently watch parts of one of EXE's mining corps sit around in Domain, see CFC Rattlesnakes in Tash-Murkon fly around for missions, among other things. If I flew around Forge, Citadel and Lonetrek more, I would probably see an even worse image. And this is only the people that are in CFC itself doing this stuff.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16617
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 13:31:52 -
[1314] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:baltec1 wrote: We want more fights, more roaming gangs, more content..
if that was the case you would unblue your whole coalition.
We have 90% of eve set as hostile.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6726
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 13:54:51 -
[1315] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:I am not arguing against that people want be part of big groups. DARK is a big group, Solar, Stainwaggon are big groups. What the aforementioned groups have in common is that they have no way whatsoever to obliterate the entire Null sec at will. So your problem is that a group is bigger and better than the other big groups? You realise this will always be the case right? Someone will always be the winning group.
Rivr Luzade wrote:1 other group, on the other hand, due to its size and organization, can provide a level or stability and safety that functions as such a strong magnet for more and more people join them to seek that safety and easy gameplay instead of seeking a more risky and adventurous gameplay. People "enjoy" this safe gameplay, yet you still argue for more conflict and argue that you do not avoid risk. Fights take place in Providence or Querious, Immensea or in Uedama, not at their door steps. What irks me is that hypocrisy of the players expecting safety and stability on the one hand and fun and excitement on the other at the same time. If you need to deploy 2 large alliances to Curse from Branch to stir some air, in my opinion something is really wrong. Except of course that being in a group where the majority of the rest of EVE wants you dead is nowhere near as safe as staying in highsec. Hell, it's not even as safe as living in NPC null. People can show up and take away a station with billions and billions of isk worth of my stuff in it. That's mechanically impossible to do in NPC null.
Rivr Luzade wrote:And in my opinion, the crisis we experience for years now is very much one big factor that drives this development. Big groups of the sizes of DARK or even Stainwaggon are one thing, they can influence a limited area of the cluster effectively anc cause much trouble there. What they cannot do is just go to the other side of the universe in large force, stir a lot of air there, while having their assets at home safe and secure, and return completely unscathed and unopposed. Big groups are fine. But CFC is beyond big. And it is an unhealthy huge. Accept that or not, I do not care, but this problem is not solvable with any kind of mechanic sans really drastic measures -- and that would lead to your suggested unsubbing of people who "enjoy" this safe gameplay style. And in my opinion the game has different areas for different activities and what you're after is the ability to take our area away from us by having the mechanics unbalanced in your favour. I don't believe there is a "crisis" beyond EVE having too many players unwilling to put in the effort to achieve what they want.
Rivr Luzade wrote:Besides: You already do go to High sec to make ISK. That's a moot point on your end. I currently watch parts of one of EXE's mining corps sit around in Domain, see CFC Rattlesnakes in Tash-Murkon fly around for missions, among other things. If I flew around Forge, Citadel and Lonetrek more, I would probably see an even worse image. And this is only the people that are in CFC itself doing this stuff. I make my isk in highsec, yes, as do most people who are remotely sane. Nullsec income is terrible. Surely if i wanted safety I would live in highsec too though, not fly around in nullsec where I can be shot at any moment.
And lol, it's definitely not safe in highsec if you're watching people in CFC corps flying around highsec. You know how many wardecs we get?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1844
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 14:04:05 -
[1316] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:And lol, it's definitely not safe in highsec if you're watching people in CFC corps flying around highsec. You know how many wardecs we get? At the moment? Unfortunately not nearly enough. High sec was a much better place when Marmite was deccing CFC's alliances indefinitely.
With regards of ISK making, I do not see how 200M ISK earned in 2-2.5 hours is bad ISK making. But we obviously have different standards here. Also, thank you again for proving that you like to avoid risk. It is not sane to say that sane people make ISK in High sec when they have Null sec holdings running.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
712
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 14:04:44 -
[1317] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:No, not that much fight. Besides, most of the alliances in CFC would crumble on their own, and an exodus of unprecedented magnitudes to CONDI would take place in order to keep the safety and security big numbers provide. To be quite frank: Before the great financial crisis in the USA and Europe, I could have seen CFC crumble under its own weigh. Some signs were there with several alliances getting kicked out or merge with others. But since this crisis, people are first and foremost interested in safety and stability, even at the expenses of less fun and excitement (just look at the closure of -FA- and where most of its corps went afterwards, the big ones in particular). CFC provides these things, which makes them self-preserving under these new circumstances. I think that the majority there would rather unsub than leave CFC for more uncertain entities. It's got nothing to do with real world financial stability, nor does in have anything to do with safety. If we wanted to be safe and make loads of isk, we'd just move to highsec and smash high income PvE. We are part of these big groups because we like being part of these big groups. That is what entertains us. For many people, that was what EVE had over other games. Of course people would rather unsub than be forced to play a game in a way they don't like. For years EVE has had supporting mechanics and areas for big groups, small groups, singleboxers, multiboxers, PvE players, PvP players, socials, anti-socials, etc. Now it seems that certain parts of the community want everything stripped down to prioritise small groups everywhere. If CCP goes too far down that road, then the can expect the players who enjoy playing in big groups to leave. No sane person would continue playing a game that they no longer enjoy. The problem with that is that the biggest draw to EVE for many years has been that it's a single shard where you play with thousands of other players allowing for these monolithic battles. You might be thinking "yeah, quit , can I haz stuff" and so on, but I think you underestimate the number of players that would mean are leaving. The PCU already looks terrible and goons haven't even quit yet. Please, even you honestly can't believe that clap trap.
The Imperium is all about safety in numbers.
Quit don't quit, just don't try to say The Imperium is anything more than the jurassic park of new eden, dinosaurs grimly hanging on to life in a universe that is not suited to them . Your threat "If CCP go to far down that road" that many of those who choose to hide in mega groups will quit - Good - No-one really wants your stuff, biomass it along with your characters.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6726
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 14:15:28 -
[1318] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:At the moment? Unfortunately not nearly enough. High sec was a much better place when Marmite was deccing CFC's alliances indefinitely. If you truly believe that, feel free to pay them. Personally I think they were a bit weak as they only patrol around hubs.
Rivr Luzade wrote:With regards of ISK making, I do not see how 200M ISK earned in 2-2.5 hours is bad ISK making. But we obviously have different standards here. Also, thank you again for proving that you like to avoid risk. It is not sane to say that sane people make ISK in High sec when they have Null sec holdings running. lol? You should seriously look into high end higsec income. Not only can you earn more than nullsec, but it's easier to scale with alts as you don't have PvP concerns.
I make isk in highsec because the only way to reliably make the largest volumes of isk is through trading. It's not risk aversion to strive for the most you can get. Again, why would I cripple myself by limiting how I make isk to only nullsec activities, when I can make significantly more elsewhere passively on an alt to support my main?
Sgt Ocker wrote:Please, even you honestly can't believe that clap trap.
The Imperium is all about safety in numbers. If I wanted safety I'd be in highsec, not in a group that is universally hated and living outside of concord.
Sgt Ocker wrote:Quit don't quit, just don't try to say The Imperium is anything more than the jurassic park of new eden, dinosaurs grimly hanging on to life in a universe that is not suited to them . Your threat "If CCP go to far down that road" that many of those who choose to hide in mega groups will quit - Good - No-one really wants your stuff, biomass it along with your characters. Grr.
I take it you don't like EVE then? I'm fairly sure that if all the people you hate in the "mega-groups" quit, they'd discontinue EVE.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1844
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 14:27:33 -
[1319] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:With regards of ISK making, I do not see how 200M ISK earned in 2-2.5 hours is bad ISK making. But we obviously have different standards here. Also, thank you again for proving that you like to avoid risk. It is not sane to say that sane people make ISK in High sec when they have Null sec holdings running. lol? You should seriously look into high end higsec income. Not only can you earn more than nullsec, but it's easier to scale with alts as you don't have PvP concerns. Wow, that last part is fantastic. I wholeheartedly thank you for that line.
I, too, make ISK in a lot of different places. However, I do not complain about High sec. CFC, on the other hand, regularly grabs pitch forks and torches and tirades about how risk-averse High sec people are and how the remove themselves from PVP, among other things. I would have a lot less problems with CFC being in High sec if they were not so hypocritical.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6726
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 14:30:48 -
[1320] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:With regards of ISK making, I do not see how 200M ISK earned in 2-2.5 hours is bad ISK making. But we obviously have different standards here. Also, thank you again for proving that you like to avoid risk. It is not sane to say that sane people make ISK in High sec when they have Null sec holdings running. lol? You should seriously look into high end higsec income. Not only can you earn more than nullsec, but it's easier to scale with alts as you don't have PvP concerns. Wow, that last part is fantastic. I wholeheartedly thank you for that line. I, too, make ISK in a lot of different places. However, I do not complain about High sec. CFC, on the other hand, regularly grabs pitch forks and torches and tirades about how risk-averse High sec people are and how the remove themselves from PVP, among other things. I would have a lot less problems with CFC being in High sec if they were not so hypocritical. No problem.
Surely these things go hand in hand though. The reason we are in highsec is because the rewards are better compared with the risk than in nullsec. That tells us that there's either too little reward/too much risk in nullsec, or too high reward/too little risk in highsec. If these were all in balance there would be no reason to choose highsec. Surely the fact that most null groups do their high end income earning in highsec shows that there's a serious balance issue there.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |