|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Wildly Inappropriate.
   |
Posted - 2011.03.28 08:22:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Automa
I think that the number of -0.9 to -1.0 is *very* small indeed. I also think the number of -0.0 to -0.25 is very large. VERY LARGE.
CCP's state that they...
1. We want 0.0 to work better, more people in 0.0 etc, more battles (but spread out battles).
2. We want to differentiate 0.0 space so some is better than other space (to give something to fight over)
3. We want newer corps/alliances to be able to get a foothold.
Yeah. And what these proposed changes do is opposite to this goals. I agree with other posters in that what these changes are doing is nerfing the income of an average nullsec grunt, while leaving the big alliances unaffected. The poor get poorer, and relatively rich get richer because of that. You make small and new corps/alliances life harder because they consist of precisely those average pilots and are unable to reap good benefits out of sov mechanics and upgrades anyway. (Ive been there) If you want to help small corps/alliances, then improve life in the -0.0 .. - 0.25 range, DON'T nerf it! If you want to give big alliances stuff to fight for, then change the space that they inhabit, not everywhere else! Change the upper end of the spectrum.
For the life of me I don't understand why game designers repeatedly think that doing something to A is going to create changes in B. Are you guys stupid or too immersed in your own fantasy world to see clearly?
Honestly scrap this idea and think it over.
Quote:
Isn't the solution obvious? As other posters have said, leave -0.0 to -0.25 alone and buff -0.75 to -1.00 to be better. That will give you the difference you seek whilst not nerfing the income for a huge number of 0.0 pilots personal income.
This.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:55:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:56:15
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:55:35
Originally by: Lord Zoran
Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way.
Seconded. Difficult = more work. Thats what it means. Thats what all the crapsack world attitude means. Having eve life more difficult is not going to make me fight more pvp, I can tell you that. If I get bored, I will stop subscription.
The biggest fail of this CCP plan is that they think this will make alliances fight more over territory..
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 21:54:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
{edit} Oh yes, I remember:
- Absolute sec status counts are somewhat misleading in this context, because with the proposed changes you only need a few good systems to balance out a lot of bad ones. Two upgraded -0.9 or lower systems are equivalent to a fully-upgraded constellation under the current mechanics. The thing we were looking at most when evaluating numbers for this was how many "good" systems a region had. If a region is 80% dross but you can support your entire alliances from the remaining 20%, then you're in a pretty decent place.
And noone will rat in those systems because theres a big flashy sign over them saying "get your carebear tears from here". People will overall look into alternate methods of making isk, some will rat at belts, several will go back to grinding missions in empire.
Overall, there will be less roam targets around nullsec in practise. Great job.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 06:36:00 -
[4]
Originally by: ovenproofjet
I would jsut like to point something out...
CCPs own economist said in the latest QEN that there need to be more isk SINKS in Eve, not less isk faucets. I have to say I agree, Eve has lost massive isk sinks in the last year, the main one being NPC sold goods...this just seems like the completely wrong idea to solve isk inflation in Eve
Mind you if CCP can't even listen to their own employees then how can we expect them to listen to players, let alone the CSM? I really am amazed with the ability of one single minded and blinkered employee to affect such large swathes of a companies customer base.
I agree with eve needing more isk sinks. The most elegant solution which I think nobody would oppose would be to introduce more NPC-sold goods again. I hope there are lots of them coming in incarna. And I think changing your appearance at station shoud cost isk etc.
The other thing would be to reduce insurance, or heck, remove it completely. I just don't want isk-faucets being removed from where they are needed the most to keep nullsec active and happy.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 09:15:00 -
[5]
Originally by: nano bobcat
go for better space then if your income is farming sanctums. That easy.
Sigh. All thats needed is for me to plant a cloaky covcyno alt in that 'valuable' system 24/7 and lets see how many people actually go out and try to farm those 'valuable' anomalies. The problem in that there are so few of them is this. Easy to disrupt.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 14:35:00 -
[6]
Originally by: nano bobcat
You are not, as it seems you whine after your sanctums, unable or unwilling to adapt to the new eve world.
I don't. I just can't suffer stupidity when I see it, and this patch and supposed ideas behind it are an epitome of stupidity. This patch propably doesn't affect me much personally, but there will be less people joining roams and less targets for those roams since people will be busy trying to make isk elsewhere. Null fleets are going to suffer a slow attrition of personnel, and those ****-out-of-luck renters who are struggling with their sov upgrades are just going to pack it and leave. I fail to see what good this does to the game. This patch most certainly isn't going to make big alliances move a muscle, something that was supposedly the prime reason behind it.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 14:45:00 -
[7]
Originally by: nano bobcat
Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 14:42:18if the pet shell crumbles, those "big alliances" get into trouble easily. This is a good thing, go get your share out of that.
And this promotes more fights how? If there are fewer people, there is effectively less conflict.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.04.16 09:43:00 -
[8]
Try using proper quotemarks please..
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.04.16 10:14:00 -
[9]
you could have edited th quotes in yourself..
|
|
|
| |
|