Kazuma Saruwatari
   |
Posted - 2009.07.04 15:44:00 -
[1]
Leave it to Akita T to drop a thread of potential win/fail.
Akita T, you raise points that I, as a paying customer, always find as an inconvenient truth that the new "shinies" that CCP continue to add are unfortunately a bit off, or totally off the mark.
Whilst I cannot comment on Alchemy (for being a practitioner of the Art of Pewpew), I can agree wholeheartedly with FW.
Simply, FW has no point, other than bragging rights. There's no reward for the risk, and is currently an ISK sink for most FW participants. Sure it may be "fun", but remember, as fun requires ISK in EVE majority of the time...
I however do emote some resentment with your basis of "ISK making" in the form of highsec lvl4's. Highsec lvl4's have been a rather huge stain on the somewhat balanced risk/reward chart that EVE currently holds. Unfortunately, with the base cost of most of anything in EVE, Highsec lvl4's turn into the psuedo-baseline due to their isk vs effort ratio.
A lot of people have already given the malformed, and suspiciously convenient suggestion that moving lvl4's to lowsec would solve this glaring problem in the risk/reward balance, but in reality, would simply deny ISK from the system to begin with (and even reduce player numbers, with the sensible quitters opting to speak with their wallets instead of emorage posts).
There's a bigger issue with the risk/reward status quo than simply nerfing highsec lvl4's or boosting everything else. If you nerf 0.5+ lvl4's, you cut ISK from the system, increasing frustration levels amongst players, and more importantly, deny players the ISK to use for "fun" activities such as PvP.
On this note, not everyone has access to 0.0 to make their ISK, nor have the skills, connections (IRL and ingame), or even will (ohgo- scawy 0.0 >_< ) to make the jump to keep their ISK/hr up, so arguing the fact that people should just suck it up and head to 0.0 for isk is flawed.
Not everyone appreciates ANY change to risk vs reward status quo, especially that highsec lvl4's have been around so long, they're basically part and parcel of EVE as a whole. Change something that is essentially a fundamental part of EVE, you risk a playerbase reaction not dissimilar to the CU/NGE fiasco of SWG.
Now, lets see what would happen if you BOOST FW/Alchem/T3. You basically can do two things:
1. Make them ISK generators/attractors (ISK transferance).
2. Make them cost less ISK to get to the fun/end result.
Option 1 would essentially turn them into alternatives to a lvl4. True, the risk is there, but the reward is there as well. Lets say the current risk/reward for highsec lvl4 is 4 reward to 1 risk, 4/1 (yes, rough numbers, trying to get a point across here). If you, say, boost things so that the reward is 5, but the risk is 2 or 3, people may just decide to take the plunge and risk potential PvP and losses for greater gains.
Its the most basic law in keeping crowd interest. Carrot-on-stick. If you entice players with the carrot long enough so that he ignores the hard rough ground (and even spikes and sharp glass) along the way, he'll still try to go for the carrot. Let them have a bigger bite.
Option 2, to me personally, is a more viable and more EVE-centric approach. Basically, reduce the risk to match the reward. For example, FW currently rewards less than lvl4's for the potential losses akin to lowsec and empire wars. Reduce the risk then. Have FW NPC corps give out some T1 shipping, T1 modules, even pay for their insurance cost on their ship whilst they are part of the FW. This reduces the ISK sinkage for players up to a point (T2 of course, is not covered due to the large disparity between mineral cost vs market cost), keeping them in the fight and less in grinding back the ISK they've lost.
Just added my 0.02 isk, out of respect for Akita T's work in the skills section of the forum which has helped me greatly in the past for planning my current skillset.
-
|