|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:10:00 -
[1]
Power bloc tears, best tears.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:52:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Proats Power blocs have the ability to take the valuable regions from any of the small or mid-sized entities easily, or already control those regions anyway. Why would they have any selfish reasons to care about these changes?
Originally by: Vertisce Soritenshi You clearly have no idea what you are saying when you say that. The Power Blocks don't and will never give a damn if this change goes through because this will do nothing but give them even more ISK off Havens and Sanctums. The power blocks have the lower true sec systems. The ones this will effect are the smaller alliances who are pets, rent or are guests of the larger alliances and don't have systems with the lower sec status.
Seriously...people...get a clue.
"Alliance living in **** region, you are to stay blue with us and be a nice buffer to keep us safe while we farm Sanctums all day, cool?"
"What incentive is there for me to do that?"
"So we can still be friends!"
"So you want me to be a buffer while you get fat and rich?"
"Yes. Remember, I allow you to exist. You can go to high sec and farm missions... oh wait. Those are nerfed too so you have to be a buffer for me."
"Well now there is no incentive to be blue with you."
"Sure there is. You get to tell people that we are friends. That is all the incentive you need. Pass me another turkey leg..."
"How about we switch regions. We will take the good one and you take the **** one. After all if we are frie.."
*COUGH!* *COUGH!!*
"HORRIBLE IDEA! We were here first so no point in changing now. Pass that gravy over. Now get you ass back on those gates and make sure if a non-blue comes though, you let us know so we can get our ships safely out of the Sanctums. MOVE IT!"
So why should an alliance who lives in a 'not so great' region want to stay blue with an alliance living in a 'great' region?
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 05:05:00 -
[3]
It is funny to see people tear up about not having Sanctums and haves to farm in every region 23/7.
I do have some suggestion though.
Make sic costs for upgrades and bills be relative to the amount of members in an alliance. That way if the area is not that great, you won't be paying out the nose for a small alliance. Maybe even have the true sec factored in as well.
That being said, the cost to member ratio should include blues as well so we don't have a tuck ton of micro alliances in a coalition.
If a small time alliance wants to make in null sec without joining some super coalition, in some craptastic region, they should not be having to devote all of their income just to pay for sov upkeep and have nothing left to defend against evil neighbors.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:25:00 -
[4]
ITT: Coalition members in good true sec space are praying that their buddies in ****ty true sec space will still want to be BFF so they don't become a target.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 08:45:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Renan Ruivo A long time ago we also had NO Strategic Cruisers! So its OK TO REMOVE THEM!!
No more risk free bonuses? Cool.
Originally by: Renan Ruivo A long time ago we also had NO Titans! So its OK TO REMOVE THEM!!
**** SuperCapitals-Online.
Originally by: Renan Ruivo A long time ago we also had NO Planetary Interaction! So its OK TO REMOVE IT!!
This will not be missed.
Originally by: Renan Ruivo A long time ago we also had NO AVATARS! So its OK TO REMOVE THEM!!
My ship is my avatar. There is no game play with avatar anyways. So until there is, why have them?
Originally by: Renan Ruivo A long time ago all we had were a few ships per race, and the biggest and baddest one around was the battleship.
Every race also has a craps ton of ships that are not used because the newer ones outclass them in every way. So the battleship will be with flying again ehh? Cool.
I like your expansion. Where do I sign?
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 09:16:00 -
[6]
I don't like the idea of a cap on the number of corps in an alliance or the number of blues. The formula for sov cost should involve the true sec of the system and total number of alliance members and blues. This should equate to where someone in a huge coalition would be paying more for sov per person than a small alliance setting up shop in some craps region.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 09:30:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Malcanis 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.
QFT
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 10:47:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Marconus Orion on 26/03/2011 10:52:36 All of you that are saying you will be quiting the game, feel free to contract me your stuff. I promise to have fun with it.
Also for those of you not keeping up on high sec mission running thinking they will be more profitable than crap null sec regions, you should know that players will now have to search high and low to find agents that have not been recently molested with mission runners to get the same ISK/hour you are thinking of. The more they are mission, the rewards keep dropping. The less an agent is used, the rewards go up. So your argument that high sec will be infinity more profitable is not applicable.
Also a big LOL at those who think their unknown agent will not be found by those willing to look for better paying agents. I know many people who hate high sec mission runners who would love to advertise your agent location so it gets mission down to nothing. Hell there are some that would run missions from your agent just to grief your payout. Don't like them doing that to you? Go to low sec or null sec. War Dec them too. Oh wait, that means conflict right? This is a PvP game you know.
Now low sec agents will become worth the risk due to a high payout. The juice will finally be worth the squeeze.
The current null sec landscape is like 80% have vs. 20% have not. Not very balanced. Now imagine 20% haves vs. 80% have not. What makes for a more exciting fight? 4 battleship vs.1 cruiser or 4 cruisers vs.1 battleship? Sure troll my analogies if you want but there you have it.
All these sanctum farming tears just reinforce CCP is taking a step in the right direction. Granted the step could use some tweaking, a step in the right direction none the less.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:07:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Cyaxares II not a serious suggestion anyways...
corps formed alliances way before these were supported in-game and people already use external tools to circumvent the lack of being able to share standings across alliance borders (e.g. the old CVA KOS list).
As mittens said, you can't prevent people from being friends and all a limitation of alliance size or number of blues would achieve would be to make people circumvent these restrictions with OOG tools.
I do understand people will try to use OOG tools to try and get around standings. They would at least have to put forth effort. If they wanted to be friends with someone without standings then they won't have the luxury of the in game tool.
Also remove the corp and alliance ticker off the overview. Come up with a more intuitive directional scanner and nerf the living **** out of the instant intel that is the local window. You want to know who exactly is coming in and out of system that is a threat? Then put a scout on the gate and have them relay what he sees. Simply being in a system docked or neck deep in an anomaly should not mean you can scout as well.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 13:45:00 -
[10]
So many tears about paying rent to coalition overlords and now now Sanctums to farm. Stop paying rent to them and being a buffer FFS..
|
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:54:00 -
[11]
Look at all these noobs who think if they can't farm sanctums, havens or suck off moon goo there is no way to make isk in null sec.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 16:47:00 -
[12]
The NC says they care about their BFF in those regions that will get a nerf, but what they are truly worried about is renters/guests from giving them the finger on rent. That or finding better space and not being a free buffer zone for them. They could give two ****s about how much money you are making as long as you are a nice buffer paying rent. Thats it. The change would mean some areas players will refuse to pay rent on because it will not be possible to make any decent money there if they have to pay homage to NC. Thus, the end effect will be less alliances will to be blue to them. Simply because being blue with them will have zero benefits.
"You stay here and pay us rent and make sure no one interrupts me while I farm Sanctums all day, ok? And no, you can't come in our space to get some Sanctum action either. Go ratting in a belt renter! BFF right?"
No self respecting alliance will want to be blue with that. Thus, the numbers NC are able to blob anyone with the 30 alliances totaling 49,227 blues they have(as of five days ago) according to their official list here. There will be less buffer to defend their extensive coveted jump bridge network that is here. They depend on that jump bridge network for logistics and power projection heavily. And before you think that people will still go to the destination via the gates, sure... some will. Others will log/afk/whatever but the same number of people willing to take gates will be less than those willing to take the jump bridges. That is a fact!
"But we need their jump bridges to be able to survive!"
No you don't. Before jump bridges people lived out there before jump bridges and they didn't have jump freighters, covert blockade runners and covert bridges to get supplies in. They require more effort than the jump bridge network but it is feasible.
So as the number of alliances willing to pay rent or leave for greener pastures happens, the number in their coalition goes down. Again, they absolutely do not care you will not be able to make the money they can. All they care about is you paying rent, being a buffer to protect them from enemies and you x'ing up to smash your ships on non-blues.
True they will have the money, but the man power will go down. Ever seen 30 Rifters go after a single battleship? The battleship is worth a whole lot more but the Rifters will be too much for him. This is exactly what they don't want to happen. What they want is for any entity that wants to set foot in null to have to check in with them for their blessing. Granted that is not really the case now, but if you don't and settle anywhere remotely close they will drop on you with those 49k+ blues. That number will be far less without all the guests they have now because they will have left/went independent.
So when the change happens and you still want to be BFF with the NC, just tell them in order to compensate for the change, you wont be paying rent anymore. See how they react. You not needing them is what they are scared of. Take this for what you want. Keep paying that rent and being a buffer for them as they farm Sanctums and drink Tech moon goo while you rat in a belt and watch for non-blues for them. Sounds more like a slave than a friend to me.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:13:00 -
[13]
Originally by: bloody johnroberts do you have any clue of how a 0.0 alliance works jumpbridge removal will not change force projection we all use staging systems and we have titans to bridge us. why all the hate did we deny your application ???
You going to have a titan on standby 23/7 in all of those systems waiting to open up a bridge for a single ship? Two ships? Wait, wait, what about a hauler? I call bull**** on you saying titans will slide in and do the exact same thing the jump bridge network is accomplishing right now. If they remain untouched, they will help yes, but it will not be anywhere close to what the network currently is.
And for future note, I am for a nerf of jump bridges, not a flat removal. And, I am for an overhaul of resources in regions so residents are not required to have a jump bridge network or escort freighters non-stop every day. Anyways, continue with your, "We will have titan pilots mimic the the same network and be on 23/7 willing to bridge any blue that comes along even if they are in a frigate!" argument.
Go ahead, please convince me you have titan pilots on standby and will do this non-stop... Don't forget about those cyno pilots on standby too...
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:34:00 -
[14]
The inteligence in this thread reminds me of this.
Good time for a Spaceballs clip regardless!
... you know your going to watch the whole clip, and possible any related ones.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 01:01:00 -
[15]
Greyscale,
What everyone is saying is farming level 4 missions needs a massive nerf. Hard! Farming level 4 missions in the safety of high sec should not be better than the worst region of null sec for income.
Bring on the high sec mission runner nerf with dynamic agent quality. The more a specific agent is ran, the potential profit keeps going down, and down... Forcing players to spend time looking for agents that are currently doing nice payouts. Notice someone keeps farming the same agents as you and causing the income to keep going down? War dec them or higher someone to do the dirty work for you. Viola! More conflict in high sec.
The agent quality should be allowed to be pushed out to low sec. Thousands of players want to farm missions in high sec. Fine. Let them and watch the possible income of high sec agents drop and low sec agents go up. Then, if players want to make the really good money, they will have to venture out into low sec to get those agents. Who's payout will be really high. Viola! Low sec boost in traffic. Pirates will love it. High sec players will work together to be able to survive out in low sec (We know this is possible because of Incursions, thank you!) and we get more conflict.
Those high sec players who like flying with each other now form a corp and live in low sec. Later as they grow, they like the idea of growing into an alliance and making a mark on the map.... They look towards null sec.
Conflict! Conflict! Conflict! Conflict! This is what it is all about.
Do not back off on your nerf as some power blocks are screaming. All they are worried about is their precious sanctums and being best friends forever.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:57:00 -
[16]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Hi again,
Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.
We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.
We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.
That's all for today, -Greyscale
Just be sure to not be so quick to reverse the change. There will be many BFF that will try and hold their breath as long as possible trying not to do any conflict to skew the results. If they still refuse to fight, amplify the nerf more or introduce more incentives to fight your local neighbors.
Thanks for not caving into the bears. <3
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:27:00 -
[17]
The tears after that second post from Greyscale are the most divine yet! Please keep them coming.
NOM NOM NOM !!!
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:31:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Renan Ruivo Ok then, i'll wrap up and scrap whatever plans i had as a independent, small alliance and join one of the big five.
I'm sure many are thinking of doing that. Just remember, that is more hungry Sanctum farmers fighting over the same Sanctum. Conflict!
Do you honestly think they will just let all of you guys pour into the ranks and dilute the local resources and not care?
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 09:35:00 -
[19]
I bet not a single player that has threatened to quit because of this change actually does.
Also let us not forget this is not the only change that will happen. So going all ape **** over one of several changes to come is a bit over the top.
/gets afk cloak alt ready to put in one of the overcrowded future sanctum systems w/ cov cyno...
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 11:15:00 -
[20]
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 affect your income?
|
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 11:51:00 -
[21]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale You're seeing this first because it was an obvious target that's relatively easy to implement. We're conducting an ongoing review of nullsec issues at the moment, with items on the agenda including force projection tweaks, conquest mechanic adjustments and improvements to the nullsec industrial landscape.
As you can see, it is not like other issues are not being looked at. So stop QQing all over the place and be try to give feedback that is more than, "FU CCP! I quit!"
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 15:15:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Commander Hold Yes I am sure the only ones that are happy are the old holders of provi. Once again they will be able to claim their useless space back with out contest. Its the only way they can get it back is when its useless and no one wants it.
That is a contradiction... If no one is interested in the space, then no one is willing to claim it.
For some players, claiming space is the only motivation they need to live there. Deal with it.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 00:05:00 -
[23]
LOL @ ALL THE HARD CORE NULL PLAYERS THREATENING TO QUIT THE GAME OR GO BACK TO HIGH SEC BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FARM SANCTUMS ALL DAY!
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 20:14:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Selpy Edited by: Selpy on 30/03/2011 20:09:51 Double post. Please disregard
Can we disregard your post above that too?
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 20:42:00 -
[25]
This is disheartening. Have EVE players really become this soft?
h+t+f+u
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.03.31 19:54:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Skaarl this change is directed at isk faucets. it is intended to create more sov warfare. I can't figure out how greyscale comes to this conclusiong but there it is.
FYP
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 19:12:00 -
[27]
for the nerf!
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 03:44:00 -
[28]
So when you all go back to high sec to farm level 4's and then CCP nerf those too; Are you going to let the tears flow again for that?
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.03 11:41:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Antigue The first bigger alliances have already claimed their right for 32er Moons and ordered their renters to dismantle POSes there. Yeah it¦s getting more and more vibrant and interesting MR. Greyscale. And wohoo I heard of exactly 0 and I repeat for you dumb.ass ZERO alliances that called in their members to resettle and start a war for better sanctum systems. What does that tell you Mr. Greyscale?
Can¦t wait for the day til this epic failure gets booted.
Way to lay down and let your landlord drill you in the ass. You should have told them to kindly **** off and put 9+ shield hardeners on all the towers and stront time them for some enemy cap fleet to crush them when they come to finish a tower. You know, instead of being a colossal ***** and just giving up like that.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.03 12:29:00 -
[30]
Originally by: CBBOMBERMAN
Quote:
I reckon a propper Capfleet will be most impressed by your hardeners. Smart idea +10
I dont they have a chance against a whole coalition XD not that the hardners are gonna prevent the invitable.
I was assuming it would be more than one tower. About 20 towers with a lot of hardeners on. Then listen in on comms to hear the moaning about having to siege all of them. Watch as the amount of people willing to x up goes down more and more. Then, hot drop them with DRF and watch from the safety of the POS as many dread pilots get punched in the *******.
Granted you still will be kicked out but at least you didn't go down like a *****. Or am I thinking some of these renters have a spine?
|
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 00:51:00 -
[31]
Somewhere in null sec...
Sanctum Nerf 2011
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 04:11:00 -
[32]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale What's next?
You're seeing this first because it was an obvious target that's relatively easy to implement. We're conducting an ongoing review of nullsec issues at the moment, with items on the agenda including force projection tweaks, conquest mechanic adjustments and improvements to the nullsec industrial landscape. Keep your eyes peeled for more updates as the year progresses, and let us know in the comments if there are any other areas in need of some love that you'd like to see brought to the top of our priorities.
Just going to leave this here.
So funny to see you all conveniently forget about this part of the dev blog because it does help your argument. So there goes your *****ing and moaning argument about how they are ignoring moons, sov system, logistics and industry. But please keep QQing in here. It has been most entertaining.
|
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 05:01:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Kitty Strokum Only the rich players get moons... most moons are left for 'alliance' or 'corp' not the individual.
Players make up a corp. Corps make up an alliance. What happens to a players wallet will have an effect on the alliance and on a larger scale, the coalition.
If you corp/alliance/coalition leaders are keeping all the profits from moon goo and not helping the grunts out who help acquire and protect said moons, then your a fool for staying. Unless you like role playing being a slave.
Whatever happens to the individual players DOES have an impact on coalitions.
|
|
|
|