Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Norahb
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 19:37:00 -
[451]
This forum has been very insightful and enlightening for me . Several of the posts on here have given me perspectives that I would have not had otherwise . This quote below I found especially interesting .
Originally by: Terrible Karma Carebears Need 0.0 Survial Support
CCP must end its overt support of griefing. As long as piracy PVP (and PVP vs. 'carebears' in general) is dominated by players that get their thrills from ruining the gaming experience of others, 99% of carebears (i.e., empire pilots) will stay where it's safest. Getting podded and THEN having local fill with vial insults is a complete fun killer (we play for entertainment not stress). In the words of Han Solo: "No reward is worth this!"
I never thought of it like that but if you are new player coming into the game and your first PvP experience is with a gate camp when you try to do a low sec courier mission or getting your last 3 weeks worth of mission loot high sec ganked by someone that had to risk almost nothing to gank you and take 3 weeks worth of work away from you then I could see how you would be adverse to trying PvP . Yes there are a certain number of people that will PvP no matter what and another percentage will not PvP not matter what . But for the people in the middle I can see the current game mechanics forcing a higher percentage of new players to retreat further into the safety of high sec and wanting less and less to do with risking any PvP contact . The only solution that I can see to this is a game mechanic that allows players to ease into PvP at what ever rate they are comfortable with .
Another thing that I have seen a lot of discussion on is the risk versus reward thing . This is so multifaceted I don't even know where to start . First off people will PvP with , or risk PvP interaction with , ships that they can afford to loose . Also keep in mind that this is a player driven economy so the only real commodity is a persons time spent playing . Any effort to change the cost of things will only effect the number that you see in the market place . Meaning how much a ship costs means nothing without knowing how long it takes the average player to earn that amount . So if you cut what a ship costs in half but at the same time cut earning potential in half then the net result is no change but the number in the price column . Therefore it would seem to me that any change which reduces the amount of RL time spent in game to purchase ships and equipment would increase PvP and any thing done to increase that would seem to reduce PvP activity . These large capital fleet battles have been funded by the moon mining isk printing .
One last point is that the in game economy is totally interdependt . So any change to any one type of player effects all others . If carebears make less isk then pirates have less to steal and the moon miners and null sec ratters have less customers which causes reduced demand . Same thing goes the other way if moon materials are worth less than fewer people will be willing to put forth the effort . Price will seek equilibrium and reduced producers leads to reduced competition and higher likelihood of gouging . Please CCP keep the big picture in mind .
|
argolighthand
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 23:20:00 -
[452]
What i fail to see is how it would work except for those already in null sec. Inquiries have been made and most times the response is negative to allowing people to move there , most responces are your too small. I am very critical of some changes but change is needed, many hi sec people just are not in the kiss ass mood, to beg do be a part of something.I like the idea of revamping sov so that if you want to claim it then you should be liable for its upkeep.The big boys complain about hi sec capsuleers, but they offer lil to the lil guy. Theres absolutly no reason short of quitting game for small corps to go there. Small corps cannot compete with the big dogs,in anyway shape or form so what are thier options? They stay where they can actually play the game in thier own comfort zone.People dont want to be owned and they dont want to be pets that are thrown a bone or two every now and then. If you created a need for small corps in low sec, id say it would work but you havent and irregardless of your intent none of the big dogs are not going to give up anything.Even the roman empire had a need for serfs to maintain the empire at its peak.I have played eve for over 3 years now, i have dreamed of someday going to null sec. Unless you refine your intent , and give players more detail your doomed to failure , you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink. If the new changes are not acceptable and balanced it is easier to either stay in empire or more drastically to go to a new game. Personally id rather see eve grow and prosper, be decisive but fair listen to ideas and in the end make your own choices . Guess what im getting at greyscale go for it young man! Br Argolighthand
|
Maglietto
Amarr Redarmy Special Forces
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 10:17:00 -
[453]
Originally by: Scouty McScoutersenIt seems like there's two contradictory goals: trying to get more people to come to 0.0, and bringing a breath of fresh air to space holding and pvp.
I'm all for 0.0 becoming more of a pvp paradise, but making sov more volatile would make 0.0 a lot riskier than it is already since ratters will have less assurance of happily carebearing away in sov3 fortress regions, and people in empire would be hesitant to come down to 0.0 where their assets could disappear into a hostile station - why bother doing all that when you can just run missions and mine in empire for a lot less risk? quote
Okay, how about this idea: Carebears get the interface of hiring mercenery corps. This would look like an interface, with an ability to choose and set the objectives for a corp, and payment for completing the objective or a part of it (For example: OBJ#1 - Defend the system for 2 weeks. Sub objective - Reach presense in the system up to 30 hours, 2nd sub objective - kill 10 interdictors, 120 HAS and 10 recons. Mission reward: For each ship killed you get an ammount of money, considering the ship type. If presence in the system is not reached by the ammount of time spent The objective is counted by hours spent.). And other objectives could include patrols of area, atacks on certain coordinates or corp, disrupting other corps businesses and all that. So It would give rich carebears the power to defend and even attack, and at the same time will give mercs an ability to earn money better, making everybody happier. Right now it is possible to hire merc, but not all mercs have the fame or not all carebears want to seek for them in forums, and what's more important - the interface of such an action will give an ability for more clear control over some certain points. Also, it could be set as a mission, which will be attractive to other carebears. But the prey would be not NPC, but a real objective, not necesserily requiring killing somebody, if they do not prefer. And it will motivate players alot. -RSF- |
Kushmir
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 12:30:00 -
[454]
Just increase the level of isk an average O.O player can make in comparison to a hi-sec mission runner. O.O has inherently more risks than hi-sec and players should be rewarded when they take risks. No need to directly nerf hi-sec missioners and cause an uproar.
|
Maglietto's slave
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 13:48:00 -
[455]
Originally by: Kushmir Just increase the level of isk an average O.O player can make in comparison to a hi-sec mission runner. O.O has inherently more risks than hi-sec and players should be rewarded when they take risks. No need to directly nerf hi-sec missioners and cause an uproar.
Isks are not everything. Many players play for the magic word, which is FUN. Which is composed by pvp action, pve action, exploration, mining, trade, wars, experiencing new things et.c.
|
Selassie M
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 16:55:00 -
[456]
Edited by: Selassie M on 24/09/2009 16:56:11 I think, but I might be wrong, that the devs actually play this game. For one hour of spare time, or for testing.
Lolz, let's grab a 20 men SB fleet and kill some noobs. That's how they play this game.
As such they have understanding of the PVP gameplay, but no idea whatsoever how it is to plan and invest years and billions in a project like the big alliances do.
So they favour what they know, immediate pew pew fun without having the big picture in mind.
|
Norahb
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 00:04:00 -
[457]
Originally by: Selassie M
So they favour what they know, immediate pew pew fun without having the big picture in mind.
Ya that does seem to be the case to a point . In this game where everyone holds up the high cost of death as the " Holy Grail " that separates this game from others I find it weird that the Devs talk about increasing PvP with no discussion on decreasing the cost of ship loss . The thing that makes PvP so hard to come by is the high cost of death . That high cost is claimed to be what the PvPers love about the game . I see no way to increase one without decreasing the other . If you want more PvP then you need to make ships and mods cheaper . If you make them cheaper PvP will happen more but be less special . The Devs who can obviously give themselves isk when ever they want seem to be out of touch with this dichotomy .
|
NexExigo
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 04:20:00 -
[458]
Quote: For one we find this stuff really interesting for its own sake, and figured that a few of you might too, and for another we've found internally that a lot of the things we're doing make no sense until you have the "why" of it explained.
This is the sort of thing that drew me into EVE as my first and only MMO after 3 decades of gaming. Thanks!
|
SirxAmoc
Joint Ventures Limited
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 15:29:00 -
[459]
I look forward to the new changes. If you look at the overall picture of EVE things have gone static and stagnant. Monster alliances are only getting bigger and smaller alliances are more likely to fail when entering 0.0.
EVE is about balance this I think puts things back in balance. Monster alliances who shun care bears will have to take another look at their PVP only policies. Alliances that like to charge rent now will be less likely to do this since if they want a system occupied they will have to have someone live in it.
My one wish that I would like to see in the new upcoming EVE changes is the ability for capital ships to be able to enter Hi Sec space. The limit here would be that capital ships would have DED place weapons inhibitors on them so they could not be used in fights.
Nerfing Dooms Day - Briliant!!
|
Little Feathers
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:04:00 -
[460]
Originally by: Kushmir Just increase the level of isk an average O.O player can make in comparison to a hi-sec mission runner. O.O has inherently more risks than hi-sec and players should be rewarded when they take risks. No need to directly nerf hi-sec missioners and cause an uproar.
You're looking at the 'Reward' end of the Risk vs. Reward ratio too hard. The most powerful incentive to remain in hi-sec is convenience, not simply the isk one can earn.
|
|
Inferno Styx
Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 18:02:00 -
[461]
the other idea that has yet to be brought up. How about revamping the NPC's fittings and AI? Replace the mission AI with Sleeper AI and give them different ammo to cover a wider spectrum of dmg. This results in the fact that the missions become much more difficult pushing the risk/reward ratio of missions towards a balance. It also means that more ships will be at risk of being destroyed.
|
Lector Delmordaine
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 09:02:00 -
[462]
CCP fails at this once again. Why the change... because of high sec care bears crying they cant get into 0.0 come what about the allainces that have been around a long time or the new ones that have but trillions and billions of isk in towers... is CCP gonna reimburse them for all those deathstars and mods? I think not... chalk another one up for CCP... CCP = Fail once again with these new changes... it was not broken so why are you changing it???
Just my opinion.
|
Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 11:30:00 -
[463]
If there is one question I wish to ask CCP about the upcoming changes to sov and infrastructure, it would be, to ask if they acknowledge that ship vs ship combat mechanics is the core of eve online, and more importantly if they acknowledge that ship vs ship combat mechanics should be taken into concideration when developing new content.
I worry that CCP lack a vison to explore new ideas that could specifically enhance the way ship to ship combat is played out in terms of movement and positioning.
Though, I can accept that discussing any specifics probably is neither interesting nor suitable for speculation at this particular point in time prior to releasing Dominion.
|
Medidranda Livoga
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 15:47:00 -
[464]
I really hope CCP fixes 0.0 so that everyone is getting at least double the income you can make in highsec running missions (in upgraded system). Preferably more. Then you might actually see people spending time there when they feel their time is well spend.
|
FreakishDude
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 03:08:00 -
[465]
I'm in a small alliance that has no chance of entering 0.0 without the support of CCP and their new expansion. I for one am pretty excited about this because the alliances that are holding sov for kicks and laughs is getting irritating...
|
Kiri Serrensun
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 16:15:00 -
[466]
Originally by: Lector Delmordaine it was not broken so why are you changing it???
Do we have someone who actually enjoys shooting / fuelling towers? I thought people like you were myths.
|
Caldor Mansi
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 09:26:00 -
[467]
Originally by: FreakishDude I'm in a small alliance that has no chance of entering 0.0 without the support of CCP and their new expansion. I for one am pretty excited about this because the alliances that are holding sov for kicks and laughs is getting irritating...
And what makes you think that small alliance will be able to have their little part of 0.0 space after the expansion?
|
Vyanr
Minmatar Professors On Steriods DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 09:27:00 -
[468]
Originally by: Yon Krum
Originally by: Grath Telkin What about local?
You've had a ******edly broken game mechanic in that was originally not intended to be the all seeing eye that it is, and yet, after all this time, that same broken mechanic is still in place, still helping bot ratters, and still making basic small gang roaming OR any kind of strategic roaming virtually impossible.
Fix that in Dominion, and the expansion will be a hit no matter what else you do.
My dream:
A module anchored in SOV space that makes delayed local into the current, real-time local, sorting low-standing pilots to the top.
Delayed local for all non-boosted 0.0 space.
Watch the macros go poof!
--Krum
How about a use of the old System scanning array you can find on the test server, hint hint, wink wink.
Also, I'll be in favor of system upgrades if we can deploy racial sentry guns to the racial outposts with caps depending on the level.
Like, freshly hatched egg, 2 guns, next level 4, next 8, etc.
In addition, Perhaps if you have a surplus of T1 ships (or if you're really rich, T2) You can start an NPC police force of sorts, that acts as not only a border guard, but an early-warning system.
The alliance mail would get a mail message saying 'Security forces at gate x in system blah are under attack/destroyed.' much like the current POS under attack messages.
Of course, you could pull these ships off and transfer back into Alliance-controlled hangers inside the Station for pilots to use. Police would be limited to Battleships, unless you 'donated' a fleet command ship, then maybe a carrier on the gate max? who knows.
|
1337fknThor
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 11:01:00 -
[469]
Originally by: Caldor Mansi
Originally by: FreakishDude I'm in a small alliance that has no chance of entering 0.0 without the support of CCP and their new expansion. I for one am pretty excited about this because the alliances that are holding sov for kicks and laughs is getting irritating...
And what makes you think that small alliance will be able to have their little part of 0.0 space after the expansion?
Freak is right "Lets hold some space because we can, we don't really need it but hey the more space we hold around our super cap production the less chance that something bad can happen" What's the point in holding systems simply for the sake of Sov besides growing your alliances pretty color on the map? I would like to see one sov holding "super alliance" that can tell me they utilize the systems they hold to their fullest potential... We can just skip right over that because I don't think one exists. Not to mention all this BS renting space that no one even holds claim to in the first place, and this actually happened to us at one point. Alliance A "Come on out and setup pay us rent" Alliance B "We don't care what they say this isn't there space to rent" Alliance C "Pulls down pos" Wait no one claimed sov here so who's space is this? And off we go back to low sec to deal with kiddies who think they can "own" low sec. I appreciate the changes being made to Sov and I think people need to embrace them and move on. I hope that CCP takes full advantage of all the players in this thread and take everyone's opinions into account. Were getting our peace of Null regardless but I think this patch will help.
|
Mantra Achura
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 22:07:00 -
[470]
This economic way of opposing finacial gain and costs will be of course the main issue coming with Dominion and is much more realistic than the mechanics implemented now. I really appreciate this step, but I'm also pretty concerned about how to perform those changes in a right manner...
I thought through the Issues posted under this topic:
Population density - If population density goes up, how the carebears should earn there money? Ratters are searching calm systems to chain there rats. The new Expansion could make the systems too crowded. Miners are also involved within this issue. The Number of belts is limited.
I could imagine solutions as follow: - System architecture is static ofc, so number of belts and moons can't rise. Making resources dynamically upgradeable could be as follow: 1. More dead spaces for plexers and miners -> Problem: Try to Scan out a free suitable signature in your system out of hundreds 2. Higher respawn rate of rats and more valuable ore to be found in belts -> of course possible but not a very creative solution 3. mission agents in nullsec -> Oh no! I don't want to see mission agents in nullsec, cause I'm there to make new discoveries instead of dealing with empire mechanics. 4. Fight against NPC for you right to settle down -> one of the posts above made a quite well suggestion to create different scenarios to banish large organised bunches npc pirates out of the system and dealing with NPC invaders. Thats of course the most creative solution I have heard. A topic worth to be dealing with. Security of industrial system - If alliances are planning to invest a huge amount of ISK to establish industrial infrastructure (to wear the costs of the military to be built later) quite shortly after the expansion they expect an short ROI (Return on Investment). How could CCP assure that millitary alliances does not overwhelm those systems imedially after the infratsructure establishment? Industrial systems would likely be the main entry point for ruthless invaders to starve out the enemy. Shouldn't those industrial systems be protected by the military upgraded systems? - automated defenses (sentry guns) at their own stargates -> nice idea so far - A small gang of cloakers and highly skilled PvPers can severely hurt both logistics and morale of the sitting alliance -> a special kind of scanning array as system upgrade for decloaking vessels within a system could help here (no mobile scanning arrays please! Otherwise PvP doesn't make sense any more with cloaky.)
Travel - paying for gate travel -> bad idea to go roaming
[...]
|
|
Mantra Achura
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 22:13:00 -
[471]
[...]
How to gain money 1. Taxes - I suggest three taxiation types could really get a major income of an alliance level beside renting, if population density is going up. a. Raters and plexers are taxed based on bounty prices -> Drone regions could drive really bad in this case. b. Also traders are taxed on station by a FIXED percentage of the buy order and sell order value, especially in case station mature to vast trading hubs. c. Miner taxiation is done by delegation of a refining station to ref the ore and the alliance keep a percentage. The question is: "How many carebears I need to break even the system costs?"
2. Passive income a. boni on moon harvesting output-> the ole moon issue, but should be no problem in case supply and demand is well balanced soon. b. boni on production / alchemy line output
Some questions: - Is there any way how a single char could invest his money into nullsec infrastructure to gain money out of the usage of established modules or will the infrastructure business be driven on Corp / Ally level? - I could also imagine an alliance would like to earn money without the nerving administartion of renters. There must be an option to get income out of the upgraded systems i.e. with huge production / alchemy lines pushed by system upgrade boni. In my opinion passive income is alright, but you have to invest money and carry the risk to gain the nuts... System upgrading - Are upgraded systems able to be downgraded to maintain dynamic adaptations? I would like to propose not to destroy infrastructure after a take overof a system. If invaders would be able to pillage the infrastructure without the need to holding the space there would be an nice chance of PvP in viking style.
Petition to CCP: Please try to make EVE to be worth to make long-term investments! Every where i see nerfs nerfs nerfs having chaotic influences on market and economic conditions. I don't know where to invest any more... Give the people a guarantee that their investment is worth to be paid and they will invest...
|
Ava Santiago
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 05:33:00 -
[472]
Originally by: Caldor Mansi
Originally by: Ava Santiago /snip
What makes you think that people who value safety and stability of the high sec system the most will suddenly change their mind set and will become eager for better profit risking loss of their assests or months of work completely?
Sometimes it is not the amount of the risk but the "what is" of the reward. A diabetic tends to be a better customer of the insulin merchant than the sugar merchant. If the PvP oriented characters would stop trying to sell the diabetics sugar.... they might get more sales?
The other major part of the issue is demand for the activities that 85% of the playerbase think is "fun".
The last time I talked to a 0.0 corp about heading to 0.0 I volunteered to put up and maintain a PoS, manufacture ships, and sell them at the local outpost. They told me I needed to develop additional missile skills because I lacked the required PvP capabilities for the gate camps, Alliance raids, and fleet and gang activities they expected of their members. They needed bodies to throw at pointless pvp activity to keep an alliance leader happy while I wanted a chance to have customers I knew that valued the things I made. (This is a very polite paraphrase of the conversation.)
Some people keep score on killboards. I don't care about killboards, I care about designing, building, and operating business models. High Sec allows this play style. Due to the need for high end moon control, 0.0 does not value this play style beyond the inner core of the most powerful corps in the primary alliances.
In other words, you need about 20 industrialists in Goonswarm - one of which who needs to know what he is doing. If 20 people can manage the industrial needs of 5K, how much demand for anything but PvP really exists in 0.0 space?
There is fun to be had in Eve from other sources besides PvP. Until such time as non-PvP activities are valued in 0.0, people further up Maslow's pyramid than the base level - who are not self-identified as PvP Pilots - will seek other activities in Eve and they will find them outside of 0.0. Dominion has the power to create a situation where non-pvp activities are valued.
I'm hoping this leads to more fun - and types of fun.
Concord doesn't provide consequences. Concord provides insurance payouts. |
cedeon
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 16:27:00 -
[473]
Personally i love this new talk of emergent gameplay, shaping the galaxy etc etc. The idea seems brilliant and im sure its going to work
My question to CCP is:- 'Why stop at nullsec!?'
It seems like common sense to me that such an elegant resolution to sov mechanics could be used everywhere to not only shape nullsec but also NPC controlled null, lowsec and yes.. even empire space.
Think about this... maybe i like Serpentis.. i want to help make their space better.. i want to join their corp and belong in their space.. i want to help create change that resonates through the entire galaxy.. and embellish the constantly evolving storey of an npc corporation.
Or maybe im a die hard Gallente... i want more than faction warfare.. i want to make the gallente empire the best most lucrative faction in the game.. i want jita to fail and dodixie to flourish. I want my mission running to make a difference.
Surely CCP what you started in null... with dominion can be expanded to the entire galaxy.. the mechanics are now there... with a little weighting based on the fact that someone in the HUGE faction of gallente has less of an impact than a guy in a 300 man alliance would have... surely if its weighted correctly.. this emergence you speak of can be felt through the entire EVE universe?
That, in my opinion would make this game truely great... new people wouldn't dream of one day going into null and playing some emergent game.. they would feel the appetiser from day one and hunger for more of an impact.
Cedeon
|
Otin Bison
Gallente Bison Industrial Inc
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 15:03:00 -
[474]
paraphrased ... Quote: Alliances that like to charge rent now will be less likely to do this since if they want a system occupied they will have to have someone live in it.
I would have to disagree with this statement as, in my opinion, the mega-allainces will spend the first few weeks of the new sov system staking out their 30-40 important systems where they can continue to print ISK from moons. They will then still charge "rent" for smaller alliances/corps to live near them or they will grief them out of existance.
I could be wrong or just a bit jaded on null-sec but, in any case, i can't wait to see what this will bring.
Nothing especially witty to say at this time. |
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 13:55:00 -
[475]
Originally by: Terrible Karma Urgent! Please Read!
[yellow]Dear CCP Greyscale,
Aralis, CEO of CVA, and many others argue that your proposed sov. mechanics and 0.0 changes will "cut the ground from under [their] feet." If you like CVA and NRDS I urgently plead that you read what he has written in this thread!
Snip
Dear god you're insane. Aralis didn't argue anything. He spent 3 posts emo whining that the dev's rebalance the game as they go and that it isn't 2004 anymore. I'm sure he's fine with Cavalry ravens being gone and nanophoons but he'd quite like to see no change to the game balance ever on things which he and his have personally benefitted.
Epic whine about NRDS being ruined and how only cva have ever run it. what?! Apparently Aralis has a huge input to make as he's been playing a long time. Moon nerf? not whining too hard because provi moons suck but meh. T2 BPO nerf - most people should know by now but there are a number of people in the provi bloc command with some very good T2 BPO's. Cyno jammers - contrary to the general belief and opinion of most 0.0 denziens that they are boring as hell and screw with game play, Aralis would like more of them and Terrible Karma thinks they help small alliances. Rubbish. All they do is mean you bring 80-100 bs instead of 80-100 dreads. If you're relying on a cyno jammer to defend you against a larger opponent you're already dead. A whole load of other stuff about why it wont be cost effective to be in 0.0 if you're here for the RP reason of claiming the region for the amarr empire and how he can make a lot more isk in lowsec / empire.
Here is an idea then. IF you genuinely feel that CVA could be more profitable in empire, why not go and take over a bit of minmatar lowsec space? or why not all of it? You could do exactly what you do now, keeping it open to neutrals and running it nrds and you could all take the sec hits for it as well.
Before someone post a rant about that, yes i'm being ridiculous, the point being, arguing that RP is a reason not to adapt the game is ******ed. If CVA want to stay in Providence then they need to find a way to make the system out there work once the changes come in. Sir Prime seems to have a significantly more balanced out look on life and ability to look at the problem and move forwards and I have no doubts that in the future we will see a sensible and balanced business model from CVA on how they survive in Providence (Assuming they don't get anhillated etc)
Treaties should be a huge boon to nrds and i've nfi what Terrible Karma's problem is with the fact that they've decided to wait till it is ready rather than bringing it out half assed? They wont build a brand new system when they already have one mainly finished so find a way to make constructive comments to that end.
finally, wtf is with whinging that people with low sec status get insurance? 0.0 is not empire. Sec status is only related to empire not to 0.0 space. Null sec is dangerous. Get that in your head and learn to only undock in a ship you can afford to lose. If you want to carebear, as stated, empire is more profitable, go there. If you want to do industry in nullsec it CAN cost you less than empire and be more profitable. The risk is significant however. If you can't handle it, you get the lower profit.
/counter-rant
|
Precisionist
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 04:16:00 -
[476]
Originally by: Professor Dumbledore
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
3) Less cynojammers may mean more cap fights. We'll see what happens.
You know the only reason people even fight is over resources and the only one that exists to fight over is high end moons right? So if you take those away why would anyone ever fight?
Is it me or are all goonfleet guys crying like a baby who got their favorite bottle taken away.
You obviously have no idea what CCP is trying to do with EVE(I know we all can't have high IQ's).
IMO they are trying to get people to fight more local wars, and not hold as much land, well because it will cost them money and more security. Also, as he stated, they are aiming at SMALL FORCE COMBAT. So I know it is hard for zergers who like -500 fps battles to cry a lot, but lets face it. This will make EVE a lot better game. You will probably see alliances breaking up after awhile or just rage quit like half of goon sound like they are going to do. Either way good change.
I kind of want to know how will they stop the Highsec alts making more money then low seccers who actually risk something for reward. If they made low sec more rewarding then highsec(only level 3 missions in highsec tops and low paying ones at that) then this with the null sec change will make this game platinum x 100.
|
Maglietto
Amarr Redarmy Special Forces
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 18:24:00 -
[477]
Edited by: Maglietto on 07/10/2009 18:24:40
Originally by: Vyanr
In addition, Perhaps if you have a surplus of T1 ships (or if you're really rich, T2) You can start an NPC police force of sorts, that acts as not only a border guard, but an early-warning system.
The alliance mail would get a mail message saying 'Security forces at gate x in system blah are under attack/destroyed.' much like the current POS under attack messages.
Of course, you could pull these ships off and transfer back into Alliance-controlled hangers inside the Station for pilots to use. Police would be limited to Battleships, unless you 'donated' a fleet command ship, then maybe a carrier on the gate max? who knows.
Look here, i think this decidion is better than creating more and more npcs in eve, where the problem actually looks like "finding people" : http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1185163
Mag. -RSF- |
Gunther Nhilathok
Caldari Warsmiths
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 21:57:00 -
[478]
\o/ Professional Material Re-Allocation Technician |
Kanatta Jing
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 10:25:00 -
[479]
Edited by: Kanatta Jing on 13/10/2009 10:35:31
Originally by: Prof Fail
I dont think you have a clue about eve. Of course good moons means its good space. You cant keep a decent 0.0 alliance running via npcing. Who cares beltrats omg.
This here is true and a very good argument in favor of the up coming changes.
When the value of 1.8 mil triple BS and 100M trit hauler spawns are derided it's time to change some stuffs.
|
Minuki Zedra
Omega Engineering Inc. DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2009.10.15 10:54:00 -
[480]
Modules that increase the number of NPC rats and plexes that spawn in a system seems wrong to me. The goal of establishing sovereignty in a system is surely to make the area more secure and safer for your corporation/alliance. It would make more sense if a module increased the security status of the system, and made adjoining nullsec systems rats/plexes more prolific (divided accordingly between multiple adjacent systems.)
What if you could eventually gain 0.5 security status or higher and apply to CONCORD for recognition as a true Empire system? Or to one of the major Factions as a Fiefdom for them? (I'd imagine CVA would love that ]
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |