EVE Search - Why the rig Patch is bad.

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Why the rig Patch is bad.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Trebor DeCaldar	Posted - 2009.07.07 17:15:00 - [31] THIS BLOWS!!! I was expecting a decrease in effect with decrease in size and the option to fit all sized rigs to all sized ships!!! Large rig = what we have now Med rig = 20 % of Large effect Small = 40% of Large effect Can be fitted to any ship so if you still wanted to put larges on your Frigate, help your self. If you were cheap and only wanted to fit smalls on your BB, go for it. THIS BLOWS BIG TIME!!!
Vherkin Amarr Lucis TechnoCustodia	Posted - 2009.07.07 17:37:00 - [32] I dont support this, its like crying about why low slot module are so cheap, now i cant choose to let them empty. Obviously, if you want to pay more than any other person to rigs your ships, fit tech 2 rig. Its not like its remove reward for isk, tech 2 rigs are like 10 to 20 times more costly than tech 1. And its actualy give more diversity in pvp: Do i fit tank, capacitor, cpu, powergrid or dps rigs ? Sure you will never use tank shield rig on an armor tank fregate but you can choice to add some dps rig or on a ships with low tank but high dps, make him more resistant. Not only "Tank armor ---> Armor rig.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.07.07 18:29:00 - [33] Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 07/07/2009 18:30:21 Not supported. The new change is great and I can only wonder why was it not done sooner. The only legitimate issue, that even remotely needs discussing is what is the correct ratio of cost between different rig sizes. Your "solution" would be a fine addition to the size system, so each size class would also have different quality rigs, but a horrible subsititute to the CCP plan.
Ms Murda	Posted - 2009.07.07 19:18:00 - [34] "The alternative which makes more sense to this is simple... more expensive rigs with greater bonuses" I like this, but- isint there already T2? maybe make a T3 and even out the prices?
Verys Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.07.07 19:52:00 - [35] I don't think the rig patch is a really bad idea. Rigs overall add more diversity it's not like your going to fit every BS you come across with trimark's or every cruiser you come across with polycarb rigs (maybe some people do but they aren't thinking when they "make" a setup). The level of this diversity ended up being mostly limited to t2 or BS ships because of the price. Not all people have billions in their pocket so they wouldn't rig anything cruiser or frigate size atm. This patch however creates a much bigger market for salvaging parts (which will also lead towards the rise of the price in the end). This patch will make rigs more common which is a good thing because more customisation is always good. This patch however will not lead to loads of cookie cutter setups.You can fit every upgrade you wish in the rig slots (everything from ecm boost to tank boost) so what it boils down to is that its a load of modules which aren't limited except for the number of how many you can fit (and the calibration max which you will never reach). So this means (if you are not copying a setup) that you really need to choose to max out the potential of your setup. The op is also comparing individual ships and we all know 1 vs 1 almost never happens in eve and if it happens it is never fair. -------------------- Support a change in the blueprint locking mechanics! Click Me
Rajere No Trademark	Posted - 2009.07.07 20:15:00 - [36] Edited by: Rajere on 07/07/2009 20:18:43 Quote: I was expecting a decrease in effect with decrease in size and the option to fit all sized rigs to all sized ships!!! let me know how much Armor EHP you get from Small Trimarked Rigged Punishers or Medium Trimarked Rigged Ruptures because i'm pretty sure it's less than I get out of a (large) Trimarked Rigged Armageddon already. reducing % is stupid when the ship sizes already scale the rigs appropriately. The only rigs that won't scale appropriately are speed rigs, which are used exclusively on small ships already, very very rarely on medium sized ships. So interceptors rigged for speed will maintain the same speed as before, it'll just cost less, instead of getting their speed nerfed, which is what would happen if you scaled it, since they will no longer be able to fit large rigs. That'd create a situation where the ships rigged pre-patch are irreplaceable and flatly superior to the ones rigged post patch. Basically this thread is a whine about nothing. Boohoo you won't be spending 50mil in rigs for a ship costing 15mil anymore. Or are you worried the plebes will finally be able to match your 'leet' pvp skill ie your wallet when they're as fast as you are? The only class of ships this patch effects is interceptors, everything else already scales appropriately. Seriously OP should cry us a river then drown himself in it (in game). The opinions expressed in my posts do represent my corp -------------------------- NOTR
Fille Balle Dissolution Of Eternity Event Horizon.	Posted - 2009.07.07 20:43:00 - [37] Your logic is flawed. Increased demand = price increase. In the earlier stages more people will fit rigs to smaller ships, but as time progresses, the price will go up, and then suddenly it's not the norm anymore. Besides, saying that it removes diversity is pretty dumb. People won't fit trimarks to frigs, because it reduces the speed of the ship, which is the best way to tank a frig. You won't get a lot of armor hp out of it either, since it's % based, so you're effectively reducing your tank. I think it'll do the excact oppposite: increase diversity. Now you have the option to increase grid without sacrificing a lowslot, and without dishing out 15mil for a grid rig. This means that people will do it in order to maximize dps for bigger guns, and people can fit AB's with speed rigs, thus making AB's viable in pvp. /Not supported
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.07.07 20:48:00 - [38] It's always been a no-brainer. No one rigs t1 frigs and cruisers. Everyone rigs t1 BS and t2 cruisers and t2 BC. The ONLY ships where there was actually real choice as to whether to fit rigs or not were t2 frigates t1 BC. This is an improvement on the current system.
Yaay The Players Club	Posted - 2009.07.07 20:50:00 - [39] Edited by: Yaay on 07/07/2009 20:52:39 Originally by: Rajere Edited by: Rajere on 07/07/2009 20:18:43 Quote: I was expecting a decrease in effect with decrease in size and the option to fit all sized rigs to all sized ships!!! let me know how much Armor EHP you get from Small Trimarked Rigged Punishers or Medium Trimarked Rigged Ruptures because i'm pretty sure it's less than I get out of a (large) Trimarked Rigged Armageddon already. reducing % is stupid when the ship sizes already scale the rigs appropriately. The only rigs that won't scale appropriately are speed rigs, which are used exclusively on small ships already, very very rarely on medium sized ships. So interceptors rigged for speed will maintain the same speed as before, it'll just cost less, instead of getting their speed nerfed, which is what would happen if you scaled it, since they will no longer be able to fit large rigs. That'd create a situation where the ships rigged pre-patch are irreplaceable and flatly superior to the ones rigged post patch. Basically this thread is a whine about nothing. Boohoo you won't be spending 50mil in rigs for a ship costing 15mil anymore. Or are you worried the plebes will finally be able to match your 'leet' pvp skill ie your wallet when they're as fast as you are? The only class of ships this patch effects is interceptors, everything else already scales appropriately. Seriously OP should cry us a river then drown himself in it (in game). First of all, your an idiot who would rather talk than read the OP. Secondly, the issue is that the changes they're making are not anywhere near the original intent of rigs. Rigs were about choice. Do I choose to fit these to my ship or do I choose to keep the price down. It has so little to do with the actual buff any rig may give. It's about peoples decision to fit rigs in the first place. They're removing the option and creating the mandate to fit rigs just like every other slot on the ship is basically manditory to fit. Ever wonder why people get laughed at for not fitting that last high slot, or those 2 mid slots.... nobody cared if you had rigs or not because it was about choice. I'd be all for the premise of this patch if price weren't so drastically reduced. But when I can fit a Taranis with rigs for less cost than an Ion blaster t2, then there is a huge problem. It completely removes the edge people gained in the past by using rigs. What next, you going to argue for the drastic reduction in cost of Implants because it's not fair someone else can use them but not you. Are you going to ask for the drastic reduction in cost of Titan skill books because someone else can train for it but not you. Are you going to argue that it's unfair that someone else can tank 20x better with faction that cost a fortune so you should get that luxury too? When you start making everyone the same, the game get's dull. Ever played paper rock scissors? How dull would it be if you removed rock from the game? DD changes Docking PVP games
Dex Nederland Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems	Posted - 2009.07.07 21:37:00 - [40] Not supported. Quote: The issue I have with this patch is, it's removing the choice to fit rigs and replacing it with the necessity to fit rigs. At such low cost per rig, the Choice not to fit a rig becomes as irrelevant as someone choosing not to fit their last high slot, or someone who has a 6 slot tank on a geddon. First off those module choices aren't irrelevant; certain setups may only be able to afford (isk, CPU, power, cap) the setup if they leave that certain slots empty or suffice with not having max of one thing to get another. Will people "lol" at those who don't fit rigs? Maybe, or maybe they will realize that they only won the fight narrowly because of those rigs. Maybe it will drive the loser to purchase rigs. People could laugh at a sub-meta 4 module setup. What will be interesting is the rig fits. Some players may choose to further expand the ships specialty, while others may decide to make the ship more well rounded. These are the choices and variety that will be created. Quote: By doing this, not only are smaller ships going to be very easy to rig so much that it will be stupid not to rig them, But large rigs will likely drop in price drastically too because the demand on that grouping of rigs will drop heavily when frigs and cruiser will be using a different set for much lower cost. You may have a price change on the large (current) rigs, but as its components go up in price (due to higher demand for higher turn-over small & medium rigs) the price for the large will stablize at what the market can hold. A 425mm Railgun cost more than a 125mm Railgun; they have different material and time cost. They also have a different turn-over rate, fewer pilots fly Battleships than Frigates. Overall, your concern seems misplaced. You are talking about keeping the status quo because it will keep rigs expensive and provide an edge to those with deep wallets. The edge for deep wallets is in T2 equipment (to include rigs) and having substantial skills (like appropriate rig skills to 5!) that minimize any negatives you may suffer. In-Game Browser : http://ldis.caldari-made.net
McDaddy Pimp Minmatar	Posted - 2009.07.07 21:45:00 - [41] Quote: Overall, your concern seems misplaced. You are talking about keeping the status quo because it will keep rigs expensive and provide an edge to those with deep wallets. The edge for deep wallets is in T2 equipment (to include rigs) and having substantial skills (like appropriate rig skills to 5!) that minimize any negatives you may suffer. this. NOT SUPPORTED
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.07 22:16:00 - [42] Originally by: Yaay Ever played paper rock scissors? How dull would it be if you removed rock from the game? But not if they added tissue, grovel and diamond to replace rock. You talk about removing options in the sense of "should I rig or not". How about "should I rig this, or this, or this, or this". CCP did mention a rebalance of underused rigs.
Sytoru Hiroshyma SkillzKillz	Posted - 2009.07.07 23:12:00 - [43] Hmmm. To support or to not support, I've very mixed feelings on this as it stands. Guess I'll make my post and decide at the end. Firstly, I'd like to take issue with a couple of statements that have been made so far. 1) Yes, some people do rig T1 cruisers and T1 frigs. I happen to be one of them. 2) No, rigging ships is not a way to PVP through isk. I may rig T1 frigs but I do so to save ISK, not extend my e-peen. I seem to have the impression that when rigging is discussed it is always assumed to be focussed around the cost for the top end rigs. Trimarks, CCCs, SMCs etc.. With these highly priced ones there are certainly good reasons not to fit them to frigates (T1 or otherwise). Seriously, how many extra armour points are you going to get from a trimark if you fit it to a frigate? Yuh. No where near worth it at the current prices. But what about other rigs? Let's take the Rifter as my example and whack some Projectile Ambit Extension rigs on it. Sure they're still expensive and certainly ludicrously expensive when compared on cost per item as a percentage of hull cost, but what does it give me? Well, it gives me survivability and/or increased dps depending on the circumstances. With a pair of ambits and 200mm AC IIs I can fire barrage at 10km at still hit for acceptable dps. So for frig on frig encounters I am basically a hell of a lot more survivable and the ~15M cost of the rigs pays itself back through keeping the same ship. I proved this point to a corp mate in a Brutix fit with blasters. I was able to stay outside of his range and still break his tank after taking out his drones. There is no way that would have happened if I was unrigged (I could have still shot him from outside of his range, but I wouldn't have had the DPS to break him). Is that a case of winning through ISK? Maybe, but it's not a massive amount of ISK tbh - just an extra L4 for the rigs. I'm really unhappy with the concept of "salvage alchemy" as well. The markets have still to fully recover from the introduction of "alchemy" with the last expansion and I feel that this is going to lead to a large increase in salvage prices which will knock on to the cost of rigs. However, the supply of salvaged material is much more fluid than the supply of moon materials is so this should flatten out eventually. Overall I think that different rig sizes with scaled levels of advantage/drawback would be the way to go without restricting hulls to certain rig sizes. Those that believe there is an acceptable benefit in the largest/costliest rigs can still pursue that path whereas those that don't want to risk their ISK can play safe with the minor mods. Hell, if the alchemy side of things kicks off in a sensible way we can even add T2 rigs into the mix outside of super-caps and pimped mission boats. I guess this means it get's a thumbs up.
Gartel Reiman Civis Romanus Sum Pax Romana Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.07 23:58:00 - [44] Not supported. Originally by: Yaay I've yet to hear anyone say how this patch will diversify pvp more. I'm disagree with your point that this will diversify PvP less. In fact, in your own words: Originally by: Yaay As for your last paragraph, it'll be the exact same as it is today, but with people rigged. Speed cruisers will get more speed, Tank cruisers will get more tank, range cruisers will get more range, cap cruisers will get more cap.... The only difference is that you can assure yourself they'll have rigs rather than have to guess. That doesn't sound like there will be less diversity, since you're basically admitting that ships with have exactly the same roles and functionality with and without rigs. The only difference in the situation you mention is the performance of the ships, not the diversity. However, having three extra slots that can now viably be used can introduce diversity, by allowing ships to take on roles that were just not feasible without rigs. Remote Repair Augmentors, for example, can now feasibly be fitted to T1 cruisers (asides from the Oneiros) making remote repairing on these ships a more viable than it is today. Many ships could fit falloff/range boosting rigs while they have trouble justifying TEs/TCs over other modules, due to limited slots and module effectiveness. Dynamic Fuel Valves can push speed ships to permarun that couldn't do so previously. I strongly disagree with your sentiment that giving people effectively more slots to fit a variety of performance-enhancing rigs to their ship, is something going to reduce diversity. In the absolute worst-case, the slots are used to improve the ship in exactly the same role it has now, so nothing has changed, and in every other case more diverse fittings become feasible. So definitely thumbs down on this one.
Wannabehero Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2009.07.08 00:09:00 - [45] I think you need to reevaluate your concept of omph for ISK And take this into consideration also with the other rig changes, beside sized rigs. thumbs down -- Don't harsh my mellow
Yarik Mendel Amarr Privateers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.08 02:50:00 - [46] Edited by: Yarik Mendel on 08/07/2009 02:52:06 -more people using rigs means more isk sink no matter how you cut it -this sounds like a whine from the same people who said T2 ships and mods should be artificially kept at a higher price so everyone don't fly it, cause you want the advantage over "scrubs" sadly, your argument is simply a lie, what ccp knows through statistics is that rigs are not used nearly as much on frigates and cruisers as much as they are used on battleships and capitals with rigs changing the limits of these ship classes, their uses and capability only increases
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Coalition of Free Stars	Posted - 2009.07.08 04:03:00 - [47] I fully support this thread. I'm really quite confused as to why CCP did it this way - the natural solution was rigs that can be fitted to any ship with variable cost and effect - if all you need on your battleship is 5% cap recharge, fit a CCC-Small. If they were doing the proposal I had seen somewhere of class-specific rigs(i.e., "This rig can only be fit to Exhumers") then I could see why they were going to a fitting-restriction model, but when it's just done by ship size, it's silly. And the dumbing down of T2 rigs is also the wrong move - those things are the officer mods of the rig world, they are supposed to be scary expensive. I don't want them any cheaper. I do support the re-examination of subpar rigs, and I hope they come up with some sort of implementation of all the proposals for moving rigged ships around(especially now that there are going to be so many more of them). But I think that they made the wrong call on sized rigs.
Ann Hunter	Posted - 2009.07.08 11:25:00 - [48] Originally by: Yaay First of all, your an idiot who would rather talk than read the OP. Talking down to anyone who happens to disagree with you, really hurts any credibility you might have otherwise had.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.08 12:24:00 - [49] Not supported.
Forge Lag Jita Lag Preservation Fund	Posted - 2009.07.08 14:19:00 - [50] Edited by: Forge Lag on 08/07/2009 14:21:40 The issue lies entirely with the categorization of ships. Cheap rigs for T1 frigs and T1 cruisers are ment to help newer players and do not affect the power scale too much. Yet Drakes do not need 5x cheaper rigs or they become auto-include, Ceptors do not need full rig job cheaper than single module or they become auto-include. The division should be small: T1 frigs, T1 destroyers medium: T1 cruisers, T2 frigates and destroyers large: T1 BC+, T2 cruiser+ This preserves the current ballancing as close as possible while giving new toys to new players; lowering rig costs makes rigs still not automatic include but more plausible option. The result is richer EvE, contrary to the rough draft CCP has now, that spends dev time to take choices away.
Yaay The Players Club	Posted - 2009.07.08 15:06:00 - [51] Originally by: Forge Lag Edited by: Forge Lag on 08/07/2009 14:21:40 The issue lies entirely with the categorization of ships. Cheap rigs for T1 frigs and T1 cruisers are ment to help newer players and do not affect the power scale too much. Yet Drakes do not need 5x cheaper rigs or they become auto-include, Ceptors do not need full rig job cheaper than single module or they become auto-include. The division should be small: T1 frigs, T1 destroyers medium: T1 cruisers, T2 frigates and destroyers large: T1 BC+, T2 cruiser+ This preserves the current ballancing as close as possible while giving new toys to new players; lowering rig costs makes rigs still not automatic include but more plausible option. The result is richer EvE, contrary to the rough draft CCP has now, that spends dev time to take choices away. It's not a rough draft 1 month from launch DD changes Docking PVP games
Kaylan Jahlar Minmatar Industrial Limited	Posted - 2009.07.08 15:11:00 - [52] I don't see the problem with this change, and actually encourage it. It's not because rigs will be made more affordable (and not just a luxury for the elite player) that everybody will use them. You gotta remember that rigs are skill intensive. You pretty much need to train a different skill for each type of rig. Most players will probably start training them, but not everybody will. Also, I don't think rigs will all of a sudden become that affordable. It will however increase the demand for salvaged materials greatly! I think rigs are great because they add a certain level of customization to ships that you can't have otherwise. I'm welcoming this change with open arms. ________________ Kaylan Jahlar The Assembly Hall needs your support!
Bunzan Cardinal The Artists	Posted - 2009.07.08 15:51:00 - [53] not supported. I like the idea and would welcome the idea of being able to fit cheap rigs on cheap ships.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.07.08 16:15:00 - [54] Not sure about the whole topic, but I agree that the proposed material requirements for small and medium rigs are probably too low and are likely to make rigs into no-brainer options rather than (at a probable cost of less than 1m each for a small polycarb or aux thruster, who wouldn't rig every interceptor they owned?). However the difference in salvage requirements aren't set in stone and there's still time to tweak the numbers on the rigs (and hopefully fix some of the currently broken ones).
Xenon Barinade Caldari Helix Protocol	Posted - 2009.07.08 16:25:00 - [55] Originally by: McDaddy Pimp All i see is a rig manufacturer who doesn't want to lose money and waste all those researched (now large) rig BPOs. Good try though. And also rich ppls who pvp with isk... I agree with this, but imo it is a good thing for them since now theres more variety, personally I found rigs very sticky to deal with. I think there will be alot more people happy with the patch and possibly the few that dont like 'change' that will cry but get use to it. Prices change based on demand and stock, while it is true the market (which has already happened) will go crazy for rig related stuff it also means there's more stuff to work with and a challenge after the patch.
steave435 Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.07.08 23:27:00 - [56] On T2 ships, rigs are already mandatory for anyone that isn't ****ed, possibly except for frigates, so what this comes down to is basically adding a choice as to if you want to rig your T1 ship or not. 2-3m may not be alot of money, but on a T1 frigate, which are usually only flown by newbies to whom 2-3m is alot of money, or by old players that want a super cheap disposable ship they can loose any number of without caring. Adding 2-3m could quite possibly double the cost of loosing the ship. Same applies to cruisers. You're now talking roughly 12m for a set of trimarks. When fitting a T1 cruiser, that's quite a significant increase in price compared to what it would cost unrigged. Cruisers have roughly 12-13 slots each on average, average price for a T2 mod is about 1m (some are lower, some higher, should balance out somewhere around there), add in ship cost and you've again double the cost of loosing one. What this patch will do is lower the price of T2 rigs to a possibly viable level, while increasing the cost of the base materials since the use in T2 rigs will drive up the price. That means that after the patch, you get to choose in the isk VS efficency not only once for the rig slots, but twice: You have the cheap throwaway setup with no rigs, the average setup, not overpriced, but still not at full capability with T1 rigs, and the full price max performance setup with the now viable T2 rigs. Do you want to "pay for more oomph?" if yes, how much do you want to pay for how much oomph? And finally, even if I'm wrong somehow and rigs become mandatory on all ships, you've still added more versatility: each ship gets 3 more slots that they can use to fine tune their ship to whatever they want: Do you want to go all out with that thorax and bring its gank to the next level with dps rigs, or maybe speed rigs to get in ** range faster, or perhaps you'd like to fix its lack of buffer by fitting damage rigs and some tank in lows, or by simply adding tank rigs. At the same time as that is going on in the T1 tier, it's still mandatory to fit atleast T1 rigs in the T2/T3 ship tier, but you now get a real choice as to if you want to only fit T1 rigs, or pay for the extra oomph and go with T2 instead. Not supported, the patch as proposed is great and exactly what's needed.
Lladar Gallente Gamers Haven	Posted - 2009.07.08 23:51:00 - [57] This is just like every other game I have ever played before. The people who have played so long they like the way things are hate it when the noobs have access to similar stuff. Lets just play out a scenario... Lets say for pretend that there is only a +6 implant and no +1 or +2 etc... Of course it would be very expensive and only the most elite, powerful, or rich able to have it. CCP now says they are going to release a +1 - +5 so now everyone can have at least a little boost to attributes. Of course this is awesome, I would fully support that kind of patch. Now the new players can level up their skills lightly faster at a small cost and the Old players are whining about it on the forums. Sound similar? This is just about the same. A dumbed down item that noobs can now have. Boo hoo, go cry to your f****ng mother. :D If it wasn't obvious, I do not support this sillyness. lol
Yaay The Players Club	Posted - 2009.07.09 01:20:00 - [58] Edited by: Yaay on 09/07/2009 01:21:21 Edited by: Yaay on 09/07/2009 01:20:18 Originally by: Lladar This is just like every other game I have ever played before. The people who have played so long they like the way things are hate it when the noobs have access to similar stuff. Lets just play out a scenario... Lets say for pretend that there is only a +6 implant and no +1 or +2 etc... Of course it would be very expensive and only the most elite, powerful, or rich able to have it. CCP now says they are going to release a +1 - +5 so now everyone can have at least a little boost to attributes. Of course this is awesome, I would fully support that kind of patch. Now the new players can level up their skills lightly faster at a small cost and the Old players are whining about it on the forums. Sound similar? This is just about the same. A dumbed down item that noobs can now have. Boo hoo, go cry to your f**ng mother. :D If it wasn't obvious, I do not support this sillyness. lol you're arguement makes about as much sense as a new player flying a battleship after 1 month sporting medium sized gear. This game is about learning and stair stepping to bigger and better things. It's not about being handed a platter, it's about making your own damn food. CCP has more and more catered to fast ways to equalized new players because apparently, not power leveling in 10 days is a bad thing about this game. I'm tired of the dumbing down of game play to pander to the asshats who always whine about why they can't do something. Guess what, it's a game that's not ment to let you do everything in a day, if you don't like, it, go find WoW and pay some *** to level you to 80 tomorrow. god forbid in this game it might take you an extra day to run missions or rat to get the same rigs joe schmoe millionaire got faster because he's one of the lucky s with a T2 BPO. I have like 0 income in this game. My income comes from effort, not from luck, not from industry. So why people think I am some rich asshat who just wants to keep the curve in his favor is beyond me. I just want this game to have some uniqueness to it for a smidge longer until some of the new MMO's come out, then I could GIVE a ** what CCP does, because capitalism will play people like me out of this product and on to something I deem better Just like it has with so many Vets who were there from long ago when this game required work. Eve was a harsh environment, now it's progressed into so much less. God forbid some of us want it to retain it's old qualities. DD changes Docking PVP games
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Coalition of Free Stars	Posted - 2009.07.09 01:20:00 - [59] Originally by: Lladar This is just like every other game I have ever played before. The people who have played so long they like the way things are hate it when the noobs have access to similar stuff. Lets just play out a scenario... Lets say for pretend that there is only a +6 implant and no +1 or +2 etc... Of course it would be very expensive and only the most elite, powerful, or rich able to have it. CCP now says they are going to release a +1 - +5 so now everyone can have at least a little boost to attributes. Of course this is awesome, I would fully support that kind of patch. Now the new players can level up their skills lightly faster at a small cost and the Old players are whining about it on the forums. Sound similar? This is just about the same. A dumbed down item that noobs can now have. Boo hoo, go cry to your f****ng mother. :D If it wasn't obvious, I do not support this sillyness. lol Yes, because HACs costing 5 mil to rig instead of 40 is clearly a change intended to make life easier for newbies, because newbies are the ones who keep a half-dozen Ishtars on hand to replace losses. Oh, wait...
Xiar Zhorr	Posted - 2009.07.09 01:24:00 - [60] I do not support this patch. It will decrease rigs from being high end modifications to common t1 crap. Why would anyone like to see their stuff majorly devalued, I wonder. Also the rig patch will remove a basis for income for small rig producers. Those who invested into expensive rigs get the kick in the butt. Those who invested into rig manufacturing get a kick in the butt. As usual CCP punishes any sort of long term planing. The only long term planning CCP will never touch is investment in T2 BPOs. I guess lucky if ya got a good lobby at CCP - and fu if you do not.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.