|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Pattern Clarc
Blue Republic
   |
Posted - 2009.11.07 14:56:00 -
[1]
CPP Greyscale, what happened  ?
People get attracted to 0.0 for a whole bunch of reasons, but eventually they will still have to make isk.
There's little currently in your proposal that provides more intensive for the average grunt to stay in 0.0 and make the isk, as opposed to returning to there level 4 agent.
1) There isn't more isk to be made in 0.0 for the average grunt.
2) It's less convenient to make isk for the average grunt in 0.0.
3) It's more risky to make isk for the average grunt in 0.0.
Fix 2 out of 3 of those issues and you'll probably solve the problem and make a bunch of people happier...
Anyway /o\
____
Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Pattern Clarc
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 19:14:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Zastrow
this was on goonfleet dot com
QFT
____
Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Pattern Clarc
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 20:08:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Quote:
5) Why is 0.0 not more profitable than level 4 missions, even after the upgrades?
Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding.
The most important part of a 0.0 fix been left out of the 0.0 fix???
Could you just not delay the patch until you had this content built in???
____
Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Pattern Clarc
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 22:08:00 -
[4]
Originally by: pi squad
Edited by: pi squad on 07/11/2009 21:54:06
you're literally a dip**** if you thought the csm would actually accomplish anything and this thread is incontrovertible proof
Looks like your right.
We made it explicitly clear that unless the risk vs reward balance was fixed, they wouldn't solve anything.
Seems like they have just flat out ignored this advice and not made it the priority it should have been.
____
Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Pattern Clarc
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 22:55:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Narahn
Originally by: Vadinho
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
excellent clarity of vision I must say!
It is true and something we said from outset that unbalanced alliances who are 95% PvP/Fleet and 5% industry will be most affected by this as we are reducing their dependency on passive point sources and introducing greater active resource density to allow for passive income to take over.
The alliances who will benefit most are those who have or aim to have balanced compositions of people with different playstyles or even act as enforcers or protectors of the space with multiple rental agreements if they wish and we will add tools as we call the treaty system to help facilitate that.
"YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running."
^^ This.
I actually believe CCP is on the right track here, but the rewards must balance the risks. A reply from CCP is warranted.
____
Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Pattern Clarc
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 23:36:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Static Kinetics
YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
/bandwagon
____
Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Pattern Clarc
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:32:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Military experts are calling this a Threadnaught.
I lol'ed
____
Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
|
|
| |
|