Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 119 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:00:00 -
[61] - Quote
^ Like how their faces, should be adjusted. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:01:00 -
[62] - Quote
Eh and there it is. |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
131
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:05:00 -
[63] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense.
There's a whole bunch of interesting in this bit.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
747
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:06:00 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted. Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments.
The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:12:00 -
[65] - Quote
^ I wish I made that much money, from dieing in missions. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
747
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:13:00 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable
And I'm already laughing at the hordes of carebears who will quote you out of context for the next year at least. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:14:00 -
[67] - Quote
Yeah CCP I was suiciding that drone outpost. It should definetly have modules inside, worthy of my domi dieing to take it out. My death was totally on purpose and your ruining this game saying it meant nothing. Well it meant something to ME. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:17:00 -
[68] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable And I'm already laughing at the hordes of carebears who will quote you out of context for the next year at least.
CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable
Ah finally a dev, with the carebear at heart. Can you put that on the soundwave soundboard, so I can listen to that, while going to bed. Yeah out of context as well. Like how predictable money making from suicide ganks is the same thing as hunting a place and studying the prey for a random occurence to make billions. Totally the same. Out of context, its so fun I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:19:00 -
[69] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:La Nariz wrote: Instead of giving mining ships a unique role and letting the miner determine which tool is the best for the job we're just going to make them all the same and let the trisomy 32 miners fly the 500mill isk ship that is clearly the best because it costs 500mill isk. so "mercoxit ship", "ice ship", "everything else ship" is letting miners determine which tool is better for the job? Well fancy that.
That's not what I'm getting at. The new rigs are a good thing. What I was getting at was selecting the ship and fitting properly for the task you want to accomplish. Like picking the ship with the biggest ore bay for solo mining, the ship with the highest yield for group operations, and the ship with the best tank for dangerous operations. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
747
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:21:00 -
[70] - Quote
Something tells me that unless this thread is locked soon, it will reach fifty pages in half a day. A dev slinging a comment like that is nothing less than the **** storm of the season. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
|
Implying Implications
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
171
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:21:00 -
[71] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable wat püåpüÉpüàn+P |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:23:00 -
[72] - Quote
WELL.
1. Get stuff 2. FIGHT!
I think CCP wants us to experience more of 2 and less of 1. ALL of us. Not just the guys that went and grabbed the Happy-Fun-Forever passes.
Jeez. -.- What's with you all trying to stop people from having fun?
And, I guess you guys overlooked the sig radius changes to the Procurer/Skiff and Retriever/Mackinaw too. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:23:00 -
[73] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Something tells me that unless this thread is locked soon, it will reach fifty pages in half a day. A dev slinging a comment like that is nothing less than the **** storm of the season.
It was inevitable really, suprised ya didn't see it coming really. It will be a shitstorm, a boring one. Suppose you will have fun though, trying to get a troll started. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
495
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:24:00 -
[74] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw. Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.
Suicide Ganking is only profitable if the Miners don't bother to tank their Hulks. Just like it's only profitable when Freighter Pilots and Industrial Pilots fill their ships with more stuff than their tank can protect.
Didn't you guys learn your lesson about Cost being used as a balancing factor after introducing Titans and Supers? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Denidil
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
317
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:25:00 -
[75] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted. Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments.
i think that the fact that it is profitably to suicide haulers above a certain cargo value to ehp ratio was an unintended side effect of suicide ganks being possible - but not an undesirable one.
However the suiciding the hulk was profitable on a cost-of-suicider vs profit-from-building ratio and that was undesirable - especially when the permanent state of war vs mining combined with removal of dronepoo caused a lot of ship value inflation making PvP more costly.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank.
now you're just QQ'ing like a *****. I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
pussnheels
476
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:25:00 -
[76] - Quote
First i resent the fact that you are calling a certain group of players stupid pigs and i will report you for that
Second the new barges are NOT gankproof far from , only difference is that you will need more teamwork to get one down it is a MMO afterall right and the hulk is unchanged and there always will be miners going for max yield
Thirdly Something had to be done to get people mining again especialy now when you can't mine with your guns anymore
So dear OP take your butthurt whinning somewhere else and accept the fact that there are other people who play different I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1788
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:26:00 -
[77] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted. Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments. The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank.
I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv |
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
833
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:27:00 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw. Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.
It's all good dude. Minerals for my supercap armada will be dirt cheap now.
I thank you for these changes. Gone are the days of expensive titans and super carriers!
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
747
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:27:00 -
[79] - Quote
Also, I just thought of something. If suicide-ganking wasn't meant to be profitable, wouldn't it make more sense to simply remove T2 salvage from exhumer wrecks, instead of giving them more EHP than the average armor-buffer T3 pvp fit?
Denidil wrote:now you're just QQ'ing like a *****. So you equate my promise that I will adapt to these changes and continue my activities to whining? Way to grasp at straws, little buddy.
CCP Soundwave wrote:I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv You most definitely will if marketing tells you to. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:34:00 -
[80] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Also, I just thought of something. If suicide-ganking wasn't meant to be profitable, wouldn't it make more sense to simply remove T2 salvage from exhumer wrecks, instead of giving them more EHP than the average armor-buffer T3 pvp fit? Denidil wrote:now you're just QQ'ing like a *****. So you equate my promise that I will adapt to these changes and continue my activities to whining? Way to grasp at straws, little buddy. CCP Soundwave wrote:I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv You most definitely will if marketing tells you to.
No because you are only looking at this from one perspective that of the ganker. |
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:36:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw. Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.
What about punishing people who fit poorly? This suicide ganking ship:ship ratio is only off because people refuse to change. This is a social problem not a balance problem. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1219
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:36:00 -
[82] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Denidil wrote:now you're just QQ'ing like a *****. So you equate my promise that I will adapt to these changes and continue my activities to whining? Way to grasp at straws, little buddy. CCP Soundwave wrote:I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv You most definitely will if marketing tells you to. Maybe someone else will do it instead. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
748
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:37:00 -
[83] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:No because you are only looking at this from one perspective that of the ganker. You're making a very large assumption right there. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1219
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:37:00 -
[84] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw. Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted. What about punishing people who fit poorly? This suicide ganking ship:ship ratio is only off because people refuse to change. This is a social problem not a balance problem. Using the balancing tool to compensate for a social problem is the way to go when you can put in the numbers but can't change the way people think/behave.
Unless you want to try "re-educating" them..
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1789
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:38:00 -
[85] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Also, I just thought of something. If suicide-ganking wasn't meant to be profitable, wouldn't it make more sense to simply remove T2 salvage from exhumer wrecks, instead of giving them more EHP than the average armor-buffer T3 pvp fit? Denidil wrote:now you're just QQ'ing like a *****. So you equate my promise that I will adapt to these changes and continue my activities to whining? Way to grasp at straws, little buddy. CCP Soundwave wrote:I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv You most definitely will if marketing tells you to.
rofl |
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:38:00 -
[86] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Didn't you guys learn your lesson about Cost being used as a balancing factor after introducing Titans and Supers?
This needs to be emphasized. Cost should never be used as a balancing factor. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:40:00 -
[87] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:La Nariz wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw. Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted. What about punishing people who fit poorly? This suicide ganking ship:ship ratio is only off because people refuse to change. This is a social problem not a balance problem. Using the balancing tool to compensate for a social problem is the way to go when you can put in the numbers but can't change the way people think/behave. Unless you want to try "re-educating" them..
Education is a good thing a simple fitting tutorial or mission involving some fitting choices would good. At least its something different from shooting red crosses with 0 risk involved.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1438
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:41:00 -
[88] - Quote
nobody suicide ganks hulks for a profit, it's for sport
but "suicide ganking shouldn't be profitable" is a bit of a newsflash when the game has these ship/cargo scanner boondongles that allow you to find officer-fit vexors carrying titan bpos a rogue goon |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:42:00 -
[89] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:La Nariz wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are. Clearly they aren't fine as they are or CCP wouldn't be devoting their time to re-balancing them. I know, I know, you and your ilk are far better equipped to determine what CCP should be devoting their time to than the people who actually run the company, but you're just regurgitating the same tired rhetoric over and over at this point. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time? Wow remember Incarna just because CCP does something doesn't mean its the right thing to do. Given the choice between you and your ilk determining ship redesigns or CCP taking on that role I think it's pretty obvious who the level-headed among us would choose. Protip: It isn't you.
It certainly isn't npc alts either. Which alliance were you in that we killed? |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
833
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:43:00 -
[90] - Quote
I mean... Hulks probably could have used a little more powergrid and CPU. Fitting those things was rough.
But this... this is comically overboard.
With the increased hull/shield/armor and these new fangdangled ore holds, will the cost to produce them also increase? I mean, their mass must have gone up with all this additional weight meaning more materials should be needed to produce them. The new bonuses must have added new sensory arrays to give them such awesome mining power.
Actually... no.. keep em cheap. I want another titan or 10.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 119 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |