EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 17:52:00 - [1] Brace for incoming tears, as people explain how nerfing something the game didn't even have 15 months ago will be the END OF EVERYTHING. Honestly though, this change does make sense; it's actually something close to the system that was originally expected. It's going to shake up renter-space like crazy, though. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 17:55:00 - [2] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player. Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly. You alliance has sufficient moon income to buy every member all the PvP ships they need. Why doesn't it? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:59:00 - [3] ITT: 0.0 powerbloc members explain why for the good of EVE, all their space must be be maximally valuable. The only hope that the "small alliances" everyone keeps yammering on about have for getting any space is that there is some space the powerblocs aren't interested in. Remember that at the moment there is only one single lonely particular non-powerbloc alliance that holds space, and that's Pandemic Legion. Pointing at PL and saying that "you must be at least this good to hold space" is not, I think, a particularly realistic bar to set. Remember also that 15 months ago, the game was getting along just fine without anomaly upgrades.... Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:14:00 - [4] Originally by: Cailais Part of the problem, at least as I see it, is that the current status quo is a 'flat' universe: the same in all locals so their is no value in moving to better ground. CCP Greyscales blog however also promotes a 'flat' universe in that it is unchanging. There is, perhaps, value in moving ground and chasing the higher value systems but only once. When the major powers have settled on the latest isk faucet they will simply become entrenched and EVEs conflicts will stagnate again. Sadly in the stampede a lot of smaller entities are likely to become squeezed out. Stagnant and eternal (i.e they never deplete) ISK faucets seem a poor choice in this case. If those faucets depleted however and new faucets could be discovered through exploratory efforts: then we would have a dynamic and volatile universe. Not a flat one. C. First useful criticism in the thread tbh. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:22:00 - [5] I'd also like to thank CCP for finally finding a way to boost lo-sec by making this change in connection with the dynamic agent quality change. I think we're about to see a new golden age of piracy and activity in lo-sec and for that I truly thank you. Well done CCP, it took some guts to make these changes, and I hope you follow through by making all the high-end income sources dynamic, competitive and conflictable. The recent devblogs are a major step towards the reversal of the "carebearisation" of EVE that we've seen over recent years, and genuinely give me hope that there are people in your game design team who understand that EVE is supposed to be about more then endlessly smooshing red crosses. Don't stop here. Moons MUST be next (as many posters in this thread have pointedly argued). Moon materials should also change dynamically, with a weighting towards worse tru-sec. Let the alliances make choices - rats or moons. And make an end to passive incomes! As you can see many are unhappy that you moved their cheese. All I ask is that you show a little faith in your players; they're more adaptable and resourceful than they pretend. Of course they're going to argue that it's wrong to take their cheese away, but at the end of the day, all will secretly admit that a game where everything is easy and everyone always wins isn't really much fun at all. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:48:00 - [6] However I would suggest the following tweaks to the change to soften the blow just a little. (1) Modify the maintenance costs for ihubs according to system trusec. Apart from recognising the existing investment that many players have out in to a system that is now devalued, it should still be at least marginally worthwhile to upgrade even a poor system. This would stop regions like Providence from becoming completely uneconomic. (2) Keep the faction spawn rate constant in a level 5 upgraded system. Even if a system has poor tru-sec and doesn't get many sanctums and havens, there should at least be a decent chance of faction cruisers or even frigates. (3) Keep the escalation chance rate constant. Even if people arent getting those fat 8/10s & 10/10s from sanctums and havens, some 6 & 7/10s frm the lesser anomalies will keep things worthwhile. (4) Even the lowest tru-sec systems should have a chance at a haven. Allow a 50% chance of a single Haven spawning each time the top anom in a class E system is cleared. (5) As a priority, we NEED to be able to have multiple outposts in a single system. Again, this should be linked to tru-sec; allow up to 5 stations in the worst tru-sec, 4 stations in the next worst, up to only a single station in the best systems. That will give a real value to low tru-sec systems, and it will also make their sov costs better value (if one set of sov costs allows 5 stations, the per unit cost falls). This will encourage and enable players to create genuine wealth rather than be forced to merely fountain ISK into an already overburdened economy. It will also help to adjust the unclimbable disadvantage 0.0 industry has over hi-sec. In short: dont reverse these changes, but refine them, and follow them through to their proper conclusion. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:54:00 - [7] Originally by: El'Niaga I don't see how you think these changes or the mission changes will lead to a new age of low sec piracy. I bet it leads to less. Because the agents in hi-sec will see a decline in quality, and the agents in lo-sec will see a corresponding rise. Couple that with a widespread reduction in ISK generation in much of 0.0 and it is obvious lo-sec and, to a lesser extent W-space, just got a relative huge boost. Lo-sec and W-space are the prime ares for piracy. These changes are therefore a piracy boost QED. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:09:00 - [8] Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: El'Niaga I don't see how you think these changes or the mission changes will lead to a new age of low sec piracy. I bet it leads to less. Because the agents in hi-sec will see a decline in quality, and the agents in lo-sec will see a corresponding rise. Couple that with a widespread reduction in ISK generation in much of 0.0 and it is obvious lo-sec and, to a lesser extent W-space, just got a relative huge boost. Lo-sec and W-space are the prime ares for piracy. These changes are therefore a piracy boost QED. Won't work will lead to less subscriptions. It shows a lack of understanding human nature. Given that subscriptions have remained flat or declined since system upgrades were introduced, I am not convinced by this argument. If we want EVE's PVE to be instrumental in attracting and retaining subscriptions, then the answer is not to make it into an ever-bigger ISK fountain, but to make it fun, challenging and interesting. That's a drum I've been banging for years. What if we completely replaced the anomaly generation from upgrades with rat-specific Incursion style events? Put in a level 5 upgrade and get a near permanent Guristas/Angel/Blood incursion style event? (Not necessarily a full on cyno-jamming thing, but something like an incursion in how you have to fight tough NPCs to beat it and get the reward) Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:48:00 - [9] Originally by: bloody johnroberts Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/03/2011 14:34:12 Originally by: Traska Gannel Many individual players rely on anomalies to pay for PVP ships. T2 fitted HACs, Recons, Command Ships and Battleships run 200 million ISK or more each (wide range but 100 to 250mil would be typical). Insurance only covers a fraction of the hull costs and none of the fittings. In addition, alliances depend on the tax revenues generated to cover the monthly costs of sov structures or to fund PVP ship replacement programs. Think about what you're saying here for a second. Players are relying on anomolies to get the ISK they need to throw away expensive ships in a fight. This is one of the problems I'm tired of seeing. Ship losses need to hurt more than an hour or two of ratting to make up for the loss. omg what are you saying if that is the case we would still blob but in rifters And that would be horrible because Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:00:00 - [10] Thanks for holding the course, Greyscale. I hope you'll closely monitor the situation and revisit the decision in a few months for fine tuning. Iterate. Iterate. Iterate. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.

Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:38:00 - [11] Originally by: Marconus Orion Edited by: Marconus Orion on 29/03/2011 11:16:59 Originally by: Abigail La'Fey As the CEO of a medium size renting corp, I have to say. This idea blows chunks. Your alliance is full of nothing but botters who go from belt to belt. How the ** is this change supposed to hurt your income? There are bots that can do anomalies now. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:31:00 - [12] Please contract all unwanted regions to Malcanis. Honestly the dishonesty (I prefer to believe that it's dishonesty, because it it's sincere then the stupidity is reaching core meltdown levels) in this thread is amazing. And so hyperbolic that it's impossible to take at all seriously. Listen carefully: If CCP removed system upgrades altogether, then regions like Pure Blind would still be a money-true. It was space well worth holding before Dominion, and it'll be space well worth holding after these changes. But as said, I will gladly receive any unwanted systems. eve-mail me in game and I will take over soverignty of all unwanted constellations (please dont bother me with individual systems while people who need to offload entire regions need my services). Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:16:00 - [13] Originally by: Lev Aeris Originally by: Jack bubu This threat feels like the "LVL 5 for lowsec only" devblog nerf the isk printing heaven and all the carebears will come crying to the forum and threaten to cancel their accounts (hint : they wont) Maybe. There is a pretty big difference between an empire mission runner and someone that pves in null sec. Insofar as the posts in this thread go... no, sorry, not seeing a difference. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:19:00 - [14] Edited by: Malcanis on 30/03/2011 16:24:18 New rule for this thread: anyone QQing about how PvPers in 0.0 wont be able to pay for their ships has to post a link to their own personal killboard to prove that they actually do any. EDIT: Oh man, poor Lev Aeris with his 101 lifetime losses in 3 years. How will he possibly sc** together the 77 million ISK per month he needs to sustain his losses now???? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:26:00 - [15] Originally by: taycuna GG. Already in process of downgrading from 5 accounts to 1 after reading the blogs. This is just the beginning, probably the next in line will be the patch with nerfing missions in the form of "Dynamic Agent Quality" **. I will not ragequit but for a casual player will be hard to sustain 5 accounts now. In my case 1 acc will be more than enough. Your search - battleclinic killboard taycuna - did not match any documents. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:00:00 - [16] Originally by: Lev Aeris Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 30/03/2011 16:24:18 New rule for this thread: anyone QQing about how PvPers in 0.0 wont be able to pay for their ships has to post a link to their own personal killboard to prove that they actually do any. EDIT: Oh man, poor Lev Aeris with his 101 lifetime losses in 3 years. How will he possibly sc** together the 77 million ISK per month he needs to sustain his losses now???? I'm going to disregard that you are just a troll here. Read my post. Graduate the 5th grade. Read it again. I never said anything about an end to pvp, I merely said it would be less frequent. Also note the lack of tears in my post. Maybe you see tears between the lines because you want to. Your delusions are not something that I can help you with. You will notice that I got by just fine before dominion, without sanctums. Trying to make the discussion a personal ** flinging contest is ignorant and anti-social. So are you straight up asserting that you personally will PvP less if this change goes through? Or is this a case of being offended on behalf of other people? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:49:00 - [17] Originally by: Xel Ra Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 17:27:52 Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 17:27:31 Originally by: Ace Frehley Tell me my dear whiners. Can you prove that you actully PVP or just calling a lame gatecamp somewhere as PVP? If you loved to pvp you will barly hang around in sanctums, you would be out pew pewing most time you onlined. It seems most of you dont meet this critea, you sit mostly in a sanctum to grind isk and when someone force you to pvp you bring a cheapass drake in massive blob. If you not in a massive blob and instead meet a equal gang you all get butcherd, whine about your stupid drakeloss and make it as an stupid excuse to sit and grind in a sanctum for 2 weeks. Get a grip people lived in 0.0 before without sanctums and people will, you just some of the biggest crybaby on Internet ever. Eve have never been about beeing easy, go back to wow or something instead and focus on that pve content, cuz that is ahell lot of better then EvE I just spent $1500 RL money on my first dedicated gaming computer (instead of playing on my laptop) so that I could pursue pvp'ing more aggressively, because living as a renter in nullsec allowed me to earn enough to fly a ship that could actually win battles. Before this my main was solo roaming in Tribute with a Stealth Bomber. So, your argument is **. Awesome. So you haven't really PvP'd much and you think you need expensive ships to "actually win battles". Man I'm not even gonna argue with you. Easier to let you learn by yourself. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:58:00 - [18] No, seriously though. Virtually all the people crying about how this change will "ruin PvP" or whatever are blatantly no kind of PvPers themselves and never will be. Check the facts before you listen to them. Even the few that do actually participate have losses so light that 3 hours of casual belt-ratting a month will replace those losses, and that's assuming that their alliances don't do any reimbursement at all. Which most of them do. Let's be frank here: the outrage in this thread largely originates from full-time sanctum huggers who are stockpiling ISK for a supercap to let them run sanctums even harder, just like they used to run level 4s in Motsu to buy X-type fitted Golems in order to run level 4s even more. It has absolutely nothing to do with "PvP" because they wouldn't know what PvP was if it gave them a business card that had "I am PvP" on it. Most of their alliances will almost certainly be glad to see the back of such CTA-dodging deadweight and their "fifty accounts" (all paid for by doing nothing but run Sanctums) Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:44:00 - [19] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Spartan dax Originally by: Malcanis No, seriously though. Virtually all the people crying about how this change will "ruin PvP" or whatever are blatantly no kind of PvPers themselves and never will be. Check the facts before you listen to them. Even the few that do actually participate have losses so light that 3 hours of casual belt-ratting a month will replace those losses, and that's assuming that their alliances don't do any reimbursement at all. Which most of them do. Let's be frank here: the outrage in this thread largely originates from full-time sanctum huggers who are stockpiling ISK for a supercap to let them run sanctums even harder, just like they used to run level 4s in Motsu to buy X-type fitted Golems in order to run level 4s even more. It has absolutely nothing to do with "PvP" because they wouldn't know what PvP was if it gave them a business card that had "I am PvP" on it. Most of their alliances will almost certainly be glad to see the back of such CTA-dodging deadweight and their "fifty accounts" (all paid for by doing nothing but run Sanctums) Lulz. Malcanis telling the truth in his usual succint way. Malcanis is a joke and a troll. But at least he always has his Kugu fanbase to plusrep him and make him feel like a big man on the Internet. It's important to have friends....somewhere. Since you don't have a single kill or loss on battleclinic, then my "joke and a troll" would seem to be 100% precisely correct in your case. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:47:00 - [20] Originally by: Jennifer Gemini I currently don't do much PVP because I'm still not yet at the point where I can do anoms quickly enough to generate serious income. What kind of "serious income" do you think you need in order to PvP? Seriously, no troll, I'm interested. A rough ISk-per-month figure: how much do you think need? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.

Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:50:00 - [21] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Malcanis Since you don't have a single kill or loss on battleclinic, then my "joke and a troll" would seem to be 100% precisely correct in your case. I know better than to feed the trolls. My posting alt is very good for doing just that. Keep on trying hard. You are good at it. But it's true though isn't it. You're not a PvPer, you dont PvP, and all this manufactured outrage about how PvP is impossible without santums is in fact complete rubbish, because it's nothing to do with why you're making all this fuss. Prove me wrong. Show me your active KB (that I couldn't find) where you're losing so many ships that you can't continue to PvP without that 70 mill an hour, all day every day. Or, you know, admit that this argument that sanctums are required to maintain PvP is a complete lie. Either is good. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:54:00 - [22] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Jennifer Gemini I currently don't do much PVP because I'm still not yet at the point where I can do anoms quickly enough to generate serious income. What kind of "serious income" do you think you need in order to PvP? Seriously, no troll, I'm interested. A rough ISk-per-month figure: how much do you think need? Why don't you educate us, since the Initiative proved how to be oh-so-successful at making a go in nullsec. Well I'm ever so glad you mentioned that. You see the Initiative lived in Venal, and then Vale - with no system upgrades or high-vlaue moons. None. Not one. And you know, somehow, we still turned out and fought every night, and did rather well thank you. Of course, we never matched the mighty combat record of... Aliastra? but still we managed to field HACs, Recons, T2-fitted BS Eventually we lost Immensea because we declined to join any other powerbloc, not that we didn't have plenty of offers, but such is life. Why dont you tell us about your awesome 0.0 record? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:56:00 - [23] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Malcanis Since you don't have a single kill or loss on battleclinic, then my "joke and a troll" would seem to be 100% precisely correct in your case. I know better than to feed the trolls. My posting alt is very good for doing just that. Keep on trying hard. You are good at it. But it's true though isn't it. You're not a PvPer, you dont PvP, and all this manufactured outrage about how PvP is impossible without santums is in fact complete rubbish, because it's nothing to do with why you're making all this fuss. Prove me wrong. Show me your active KB (that I couldn't find) where you're losing so many ships that you can't continue to PvP without that 70 mill an hour, all day every day. Or, you know, admit that this argument that sanctums are required to maintain PvP is a complete lie. Either is good. Seems to me someone is a little butthurt about getting kicked out of Catch and wants to spread the love. Misery loves company, eh, Malcanis? Seems to me someone is a little butthurt about losing their bot-farm rental income in Catch and wants to spread the love. And yes it does, whoever you are that's too gutless to stand behind what they say by posting with their main. So. Care to prove me wrong with the FACT of your killboard? Lost a few too many drakes recently, have you....? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:58:00 - [24] Originally by: oldmanst4r When I lived in null and ran sanctums I found them to be marginally more profitable than high-sec lvl4s at best. Sort of true... right up until you get a 10/10 escalation worth 500-1.5B Then they're vastly more profitable. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:51:00 - [25] Confirming that I am still willing to receive all worthless space. Please note that I will be unable to log in tonight, so there may be a short delay in processing requests. Thank you for your patience. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:53:00 - [26] Originally by: Tub Chil You know, removing sanctums is not as annoying the fact is that CCP has NO CLUE how their game works. they just don't know and that's **ed up. They could just say that they hate sanctums and remove them. It would be horrible reason and we would rage but it would at least make sense. Removing sanctums is not the end really. I was in FW before and have 8.5 standing (something like that) to caldari and around 5 to Amarr. I'll just plant hardwired clone somewhere in hisec and grind missions. Horrible thing is that game developers are detached from the game. Just FYI: they're not removing Sanctums. Hope this helps. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.31 10:28:00 - [27] Originally by: Tub Chil Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Tub Chil You know, removing sanctums is not as annoying the fact is that CCP has NO CLUE how their game works. they just don't know and that's **ed up. They could just say that they hate sanctums and remove them. It would be horrible reason and we would rage but it would at least make sense. Removing sanctums is not the end really. I was in FW before and have 8.5 standing (something like that) to caldari and around 5 to Amarr. I'll just plant hardwired clone somewhere in hisec and grind missions. Horrible thing is that game developers are detached from the game. Just FYI: they're not removing Sanctums. Hope this helps. they are removing them for me because I live in pure blind P sure that there will still be Sanctums even after the change. Even if not, money still falls from the sky in Pure Blind. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.31 11:56:00 - [28] Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash We will not be able to fight for better space. Then you dont deserve it. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous	Posted - 2011.04.02 11:17:00 - [29] Originally by: Hiroshima Jita I am embarassed by the dronning carebear whine in this thread. Some people are making good arguments. But the overall drone is becoming painful. The people who are quiting are worse. Meh. Very few of the whiners threatening to quit in this thread will keep their promise. Unfortunately. Hmmm, I wonder if this might make for a fun minor player event. I could do a betting pool on what percentage actually do quit (1%, 2% 3%...100%) with each pick costing 10 mill. I'll use the ISK to buy a faction ship for the prize. Then I'll tot up all the promises to quit that are listed by, say, page 80 (or 100 if it gets that far), and 30 days from patch day we'll see who's still in game. Closest pick gets the ship. Anyone in for this? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:04:00 - [30] Originally by: RabbidFerret Originally by: Imouto Tan Maxed with all relevant skills, mid-tier deaspace fit tengu, missile implants, I make about 25m ticks (75m/h) in Sanctums. (What some in this thread refer to as "blizting + nicely fitted gankboat, abundant skillset and intensive in game focus.") Think I can replace a 1.5-2B carrier in 2 to 3 hours? Hell, most nullsec grunts can't even do what I do. So what, if you can't PLEX your way into a maxed tengu toon a 1.5B HAM tengu, don't go into nullsec? The point is that Sanctums are already barely comparable to L4's, and anything below sanctums is significantly less. What CCP proposes is to thus make sure that empirebears have all the isk, because nullbears are now even LESS able to make isk by comparison, and are more likely to lose it. So, yes Lost'In'Space, he doesn't want to grind. He doesn't want to grind because 1) For the Nth time, Level 4's give a lot of ISK, and only sanctum COMPARES to it. Not even beats it by any reasonable margin, just merely holds up to comparison. Anything below, and you're better off with L4's. 2) 0.0 has more ISK sinks. 3) Go [explitive] yourself. -1/10 troll This is the most constructive comment I've seen so far. Except that, like most of the blatant liars in this thread, he's completely handwaving away the 10/10 escalations and faction spawns that appear in anomalies. Which, when I was doing them fairly casually last summer, were good for an extra bill a week or so Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.

Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:41:00 - [31] Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Elder Man Originally by: bp920091 On a second note, i would like to wonder why people are so concerned about inflation. Any reasonable economist KNOWS that inflation is not an issue (when it is below 50%, which it is NOWHERE near right now) because people make more and can spend more on items. Inflation is only detrimental to people holding capital, not making capital, as their purchasing power will not decrease by very much. Considering that inflation is roughly 4.1% (page 28 of QEN, with most of the inflation because of the noctis (page 27)) and the population growth rate is roughly 10.59% (page 11 of the QEN), this means that inflation should not be a problem at ALL. This is a common misconception of people who have not had any experience in economics, yet it seems to cause nothing but grief in most population, including the EVE population. Absolute load of crap. Go back to school and learn something useful. No basis of fact at all. Hmm, considering that i have had 3 economics teachers who have all told me the same thing, with them having doctorates in economics and real life experience, perhaps it is you that really need to "Go back to school and learn something useful." I will go into more detail about this here, since you obviously do not understand much about inflation. Inflation essentially means that the purchasing power of money decreases. If the income sources into an economic system were stagnant, or increasing at a lower rate than inflation, then inflation means that people's money has less purchasing power. The only problem with inflation is when it becomes Hyperinflation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation, i know, it is wikipedia, but it does give you the general idea of what hyperinflation is). Considering that the rate that money is coming into the EVE economy is 11% higher (page 18 of QEN), and inflation is below this, isk is actually buying more ships than ever before. While this may not be true for you, from a Macroeconomics perspective, the EVE economy has no danger from inflation, and inflation will not be an issue until it becomes out of control (>50% per year, and that is being VERY conservative). in fact, this means that the average person can buy roughly 2% more ships than they could before (11% increase in money, 9% increase in people, 11-9 = 2% gain per person, approximately). If you have other views, please express them and EXPLAIN them, providing general knowledge or cited sources, rather than just dismissing findings that you may not disagree with for seemingly no reason. Might I enquire how the Noctis produces inflation? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2011.04.04 21:00:00 - [32] Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Malcanis Might I enquire how the Noctis produces inflation? Of course, the noctis produces (not sure if that is the right word, but we will go with it) inflation because of the incredibly large amount of isk and minerals sunk into the production of the noctis (page 25), dramatically increasing the value of said minerals. If minerals are increasing in price due to a new ship that is created, (and 54,509 is a large number of ships (page 25), the isk value of these minerals will increase, due to there being the same amount of supply (roughly), which will increase the amount of inflation (as inflation means that isk has less purchasing power). Some data about how many minerals were used in production of the noctis in quarter 4 is as follows. Isogen, 3M units Mexallon, 18M units Pyerite, 58M units Tritanium, 209M units Some other interesting information is that about 16% of the "total quantity of Pyerite, Mexallon and isogen used for ship production in the month of december went toward production of the Noctis. The ratio was 14% of tritanium." This is a huge drop in the amount of minerals simply available for production in other items, thus increasing inflation as to buy the same amount of minerals, you have to pay more isk. That enough to make, what? 2 titans? 3? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2011.04.07 12:41:00 - [33] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. Thanks for holding the line, Greyscale. Keep on interating! o7 Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2011.04.07 12:51:00 - [34] Originally by: Kentai Samica Thanks CCP We are a small corp that rents from AAA and live in 2 systems ranging from -0.35 to -0.43. We no longer have sanctums just a single haven and some hubs. After your patch around 30%-40% of our members are no looking at 3 options. 1. Join a major power block alliance that has access to systems with 6-8 sanctums. 2. Return to empire and try level 4 misisons. 3. Give up and try another game. So much for increasing conflict and providing the motive for smaller groups to take better space. How do you expect a newer corp to keep members and make enough isk to even consider planning a sov campaign when our members are joining the huge blob alliances, leaving to empire or quitting game? Look at this guy pretending that there's no other way to make ISK than to farm Sanctums. Look at him! Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.05.11 18:29:00 - [35] Guys, come on, you need to up your game here. The tears in the JB tweak thread are already at 55 pages in 24 hours. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.08.02 21:58:00 - [36] In a surprising turn of events, now that 0.0 space is only worth 2-3 times on average what it was before Dominion, the mass exodus has not occurred. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.