Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:01:00 -
[1]
So, I've been a little out of the loop for the past two months, but I've read the devblogs and tried catching up on the various bits of news.
So far, from what I've seen, Destiny is new sov mechanics. Cool, highly needed, definitely wanted.
But, is that it? Seriously? They've said they have no interest in doing an industry-only expansion, since it ignores the 0.0 pvpers too much. But are they cool with doing a 0.0 pvper-only expansion?
Not trying to be acerbic with this post, just genuinely wondering...am I missing something here in this expansion that's addressing any of the highsec player's concerns, or even just a bone thrown to them? ----------------
|
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:12:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Khemul Zula on 15/09/2009 15:12:10 There are non-pvpers in 0.0.
Plus they seem to be trying to give more reasons for high-sec players to move to 0.0 (less POS warfare, ability to actually build space up, conflict for a reason), so it could be argued that it is high-sec player content also.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:12:00 -
[3]
Excuse me?
First changes to 0.0 in YEARS and you ***** about not having a storefront or some such nonsense?
Go back to missioning.
|
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:18:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Khemul Zula Edited by: Khemul Zula on 15/09/2009 15:12:10 There are non-pvpers in 0.0.
Plus they seem to be trying to give more reasons for high-sec players to move to 0.0 (less POS warfare, ability to actually build space up, conflict for a reason), so it could be argued that it is high-sec player content also.
"Giving you a chance to go to 0.0" definitely counts as a great feature, but it's one for 0.0 players. Just 0.0 players who are stuck in highsec.
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain Excuse me?
First changes to 0.0 in YEARS and you ***** about not having a storefront or some such nonsense?
Nope, I'm very glad they're revamping sov. It's a needed change, and I wouldn't remove it from the expansion even if I had that ability. You're misunderstanding the tone of my post. Rephrased: Yay sov revamp! Good expansion! But, for people who are happy staying in highsec, what is there to look forward to from this expansion, from a selfish standpoint? ----------------
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:22:00 -
[5]
Considering the nature of the changes, adding anything else would most likely put unneeded strain on the Devs and GMs.
Ask your I.T. guys if they would like to support a bunch of little changes concurrent with one enormous, systems-altering change.
I bet they'd string you up.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:27:00 -
[6]
Well if it moves more players out of empire, there'll be more veld roids for you to suck on.
|
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:27:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain Considering the nature of the changes, adding anything else would most likely put unneeded strain on the Devs and GMs.
Ask your I.T. guys if they would like to support a bunch of little changes concurrent with one enormous, systems-altering change.
I bet they'd string you up.
It's a fair argument - if they weren't devoting resources to a new in-game browser concurrently. Again, I wouldn't pitch out sov changes even if it meant getting every highsec issue fixed perfectly in one swoop. Sov is the bigger issue, needing fixing worse, and benefits the games "core values" the most. But with many highsec issues being minor codefixes/ui tweeks, I have to question the resource allocation priorities that picked a new browser as the other project of this expansion. ----------------
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:27:00 -
[8]
Just an FYI, Destiny isn't the name of any changes. Destiny is already the name for the physics engine .
The Devblog was talking about Density, never mentioned anything to do with Destiny. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
|
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:32:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Blane Xero The Devblog was talking about Density, never mentioned anything to do with Destiny. The expansion coming is Dominion.
Thank you. Like I said - been out of the loop, reading blogs trying to catchup. Replace "destiny" above with "Dominion" ----------------
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:36:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Lui Kai
Originally by: Blane Xero The Devblog was talking about Density, never mentioned anything to do with Destiny. The expansion coming is Dominion.
Thank you. Like I said - been out of the loop, reading blogs trying to catchup. Replace "destiny" above with "Dominion"
No problem.
To be honest, anything that allows for more people to take advantage of 0.0 space, and makes individual systems capable of hosting more players (as opposed to right now where one player can cycle ten belts themselfs, where i find most systems only HAVE between 10-15 belts) is a good thing. Its a boost to everyone.
Its also going to force alliances to Consolidate their sov and work on the systems they do own to increase their worth...Meaning more space for "Industrial" alliances to take some space, earn some isk to hire PvPers (Or even host PvPers) to protect themselfs.
More entities and growing room in 0.0 = A massive boost for EVERYONE. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
|
|
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:44:00 -
[11]
Given the interdependant nature of the eve market (and player base at general) that argument would fly for any positive change for any sector of the playerbase. ----------------
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:52:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Lui Kai Given the interdependant nature of the eve market (and player base at general) that argument would fly for any positive change for any sector of the playerbase.
That doesn't disregard the validity of the argument though. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:18:00 -
[13]
The name they have chosen for the expansion kind of gives away its focus.
So far we have heard a little about how new sovereignty will work and are having rather heated discussions with lots of drooling over the pirate/navy ship revamp.
Sovereignty sounds like it will be a modular affair with industrial as well as military add-ons.
High-sec players have had lots of bones the past many expansions while null-sec was treading water. Now CCP finally figured out a solution and are going at it with a vengeance ...
Hints have been dropped about additional mission types being added where fast and nimble will be better (speed-boat missions) and arcs will probably be in it as well.
In short: Nothing directly/solely relating to high-sec has been announced so far, but nothing of any real substance has been announced about anything else so all is well in the tear-bucket.
|
tookar
Amarr Accipiter raiding inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 17:07:00 -
[14]
I think there won't be many more highsec players moving to 0.0 where the existing alliances. Denser resources will just mean the people there already will hoard them and make a lot more money than before. which I'm all in favour of. Although your average ratter can make more than your average mission runner now anyway, well from my experience at least.
I think 0.0 getting more densely populated will take away the whole wilderness feel. I like being able to go a couple jumps and pretty much be on my own all day.
On a more bizarre note, I actually like POS bashing. there's usually a huge fight beforehand, and I like nothing more than fighting in a giant blob of RR DD proof battleships with titans whizzing around.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |