|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 02:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: So your answer is to make space unentrenchable, meaning all of it becomes deserted and unused.
You're suggesting people will only hang out where they're safe?
That would explain the current circle jerk. |

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nuke everything in null and start over.
It's the only way to be sure. |

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:you seem to think that nerfing jump bridges would kill off large nullsec blocs, allow small alliances to settle in nullsec and magically fix the game
At least we're settled on the fact that the mega-blocks are the problem.
Unfortunately there's probably no real way around that as things stand.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Malphilos wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:you seem to think that nerfing jump bridges would kill off large nullsec blocs, allow small alliances to settle in nullsec and magically fix the game At least we're settled on the fact that the mega-blocks are the problem. Unfortunately there's probably no real way around that as things stand. Nullsec is about empires, worthless scum who complain about megablocks are nutjobs who believe they can cut it in 0.0 but are unable to make any friends and so they're left ranting that it's all ccp's fault that they're not king of a region this is much the same as cheetos-stained libertarians are sure they will be lords once big government gets out of the way
Time to get the thread locked, eh? 
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 18:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malphilos wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:you seem to think that nerfing jump bridges would kill off large nullsec blocs, allow small alliances to settle in nullsec and magically fix the game At least we're settled on the fact that the mega-blocks are the problem. Unfortunately there's probably no real way around that as things stand. First of all, it's blocs, not blocks. Second of all, it's not "the problem", "the problem" is that "the megablocs" have no proper casus belli to go to war against eachother.
Thanks for the spell check, my admin's out.
What you've identified is the claimed source of boredom (pretty well documented) for the major alliances.
I'm at least a little skeptical about that given the parallel claims that all the fighting is just for fun. Those claims seem to be counter to one another. If you're fighting for fun, there's always a reason. If you're not, the "problem" is even bigger than it seems.
And as I said before, I'm not sure it can be resolved as things stand.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 18:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kieron VonDeux wrote: Judging how much somebody had been in nullsec based upon the single character they happen to be posting with has always been folly.
much like anyone who discusses how nice the air is on the moon can be safely assumed to have never gone there, so too can anyone who claims jbs are used for force protection be safely assumed never to have been in nullsec
Just because spell checking seems to be all the rage: I think it's force projection, as in logistics and forward basing.
Stuff that no one would ever use JBs for.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 18:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:All of our stations are spread out, so we have to travel a lot more to do the same thing.It doesn't actually affect "the blob", power projection, or logistics, all of which are done through other means. What it does affect is when you want to get from point A to point B for a boring, routine thing and want it to take 3 minutes instead of 10.
There are some interesting definitions being used here.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 21:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Bane Nucleus wrote: Free intel that requires zero effort. God forbid you actually have to work for intel.
please elaborate on why making this process difficult or time consuming adds to the game please be specific, and be aware making things annoying is not an end in itself
It is however the community's preferred method of making changes.
No one ever suggests encouraging anything, they just suggest making all alternatives less enjoyable.
How do we get more people into null? Well obviously by making high sec suck more. If people are still in high sec, it obviously doesn't suck enough. How do we create more opportunity in null? By making is harder to hold space. If large alliances exist, it's obviously too easy.
Don't tell me you haven't noticed the pattern?
This place is a Russian joke.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 21:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Generally speaking the only thing that we want nerfed in highsec ...
QED
It's like a freaking disease.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Malphilos wrote:Weaselior wrote:Generally speaking the only thing that we want nerfed in highsec ... QED It's like a freaking disease. the idea nothing should be nerfed is stupid and wrong
Proof, please.
You'll excuse me if I don't genuflect and accept your opinion as the absolute truth.
The idea that something needs to be nerfed is a symptom of a base and mean intellect.
|
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malphilos wrote:Weaselior wrote:Malphilos wrote:Weaselior wrote:Generally speaking the only thing that we want nerfed in highsec ... QED It's like a freaking disease. the idea nothing should be nerfed is stupid and wrong Proof, please. You'll excuse me if I don't genuflect and accept your opinion as the absolute truth. The idea that something needs to be nerfed is a symptom of a base and mean intellect. We could of course tell CCP to just double the isk payout for rats etc,...
Why? As in: what's the objective?
Only slightly less depressing and common than the urge to kill everybody else's cows is the belief that throwing iskies at things is the solution.
To wit, if the isk generation in null is so horrible, why are people there? If it's not, why do people ever leave?
I suggest there's an elephant in the room.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:05:00 -
[12] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Talon SilverHawk wrote:Repeat after me.
You cant force players into areas they don't want to go, nerfing hi sec isn't the answer (not if they want to keep players). Making low and null more enticing is, then everybody wins.
Tal
more ignorant bleeting that ignores reality the career highseccer, petrified of loss, is not the target of a l4 nerf: it is the l4 alt of a 0.0 player
So your objective is to restrict income for people who do missions in high sec to finance their nullsec lives.
You wouldn't be sitting on another major income source, would you?
Would that all motives were so blatant.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:
my goal is for people to finance their nullsec lives where they live: nullsec
Without getting into why that matters to you: You're not able to do that?
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Malphilos wrote:Weaselior wrote:
my goal is for people to finance their nullsec lives where they live: nullsec
Without getting into why that matters to you: You're not able to do that? why it matters to me is critically important and has been posted in this very thread in the last few pages i have elaborated on all relevant points feel free to quote the ones you disagree with or do not understand
As you say, that's ground already covered. I'll ask again:
You're not able to do that?
I suspect the answer is obvious, which pretty much makes a hash of your other arguments.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: What do you think happens?
How many hours do I have?
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
Rer Eirikr wrote:Malph either read the goddamn thread or STFU. Now I'm getting irritated because you're just putting us off track for no reason.
Sorry, I'm less than impressed by "lets make the alternative suck so we can have more low level targets" as an important discussion.
And that's been the point all along.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
Rer Eirikr wrote:Malphilos wrote:Rer Eirikr wrote:Malph either read the goddamn thread or STFU. Now I'm getting irritated because you're just putting us off track for no reason. Sorry, I'm less than impressed by "lets make the alternative suck so we can have more low level targets" as an important discussion. And that's been the point all along. I refer you to the now 10s of pages where we discuss the importance of changing Null Sec Industry to promote a more active Industrial Core thus fueling the "Farms and Fields" mentality. The thought process behind nerfing L4s is to make NullSec pilots come back to Null to make their ISK, rather than the extremely easy process of setting up a L4 alt and just letting the cash roll in with no PvP environment being fostered.
While I like the idea of encouraging industry, I'm still rather unimpressed with the mindset of making things suck more to move people around.
I asked earlier why people were in null if it sucked so much, the response was that the things people wanted to do were there. Combine that with the loudest complaint about nerfing jump bridges, and it seems to me that the issue isn't isk/hr, it's simply hr.
You can encourage a few people to drop their L4 alts by reducing the reward, but I'll bet all you really do is reduce the amount of PvP overall. A ship loss represents a greater investment of time than money. CCP sells iskies. Time is the only limited commodity.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:47:00 -
[18] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Malphilos wrote: You can encourage a few people to drop their L4 alts by reducing the reward, but I'll bet all you really do is reduce the amount of PvP overall. A ship loss represents a greater investment of time than money. CCP sells iskies. Time is the only limited commodity.
none of this is remotely true, and evidences a complete lack of understanding of anything that has been discussed
Really? Where do you get more time?
See also: every other nerf that's failed to push people into null.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 01:36:00 -
[19] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malphilos: Since you've got CSPA on: moneymaking time.
Ah, sorry, and thanks.
|

Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 01:41:00 -
[20] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Malphilos wrote:While I like the idea of encouraging industry, I'm still rather unimpressed with the mindset of making things suck more to move people around. This is why I'm more for increasing risk rather then nerf reward by removing NPC corps and fixing wardec evasion as well as boosting industry. Because the issue at hand isn't merely making 0.0 more alluring to casual miners/small-indy players (although that is important too), but also make letting those carebears in more alluring to nullsec alliance leaders. Briefly put, the amount of incentives that a nullsec alliance leader would need to replace just getting a handful of guys with freighter alts in NPC corps to just load up in Jita with all the supplies (sold at cutthroat, rock bottom wholesale prices) they could possibly need and autopilot down to the deployment system 100% risk free and replace that with thousands of PVP-averse bears who need lots of protection and are free to charge a far higher price, would be gamebreaking. Incentivising in-house industry as a desireable alternate to trade hub supply convoys necessarily means making supply convoys less feasible to do, and that involves investigating highsec logistics, because highsec and nullsec logistics are for the most part the same thing. People moan about the nullsec logistics train that docks in a trade hub manhours of technetium and leaves with mandecades of low-end minerals to build things with, and how jump bridges help with that, but very few people question about why noone seems able to disrupt these highsec convoys despite these unprotected freighters taking nearly zero precautions.
This is interesting.
|
|
|
|
|