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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 118 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:47:00 - [1321] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Galerak Originally by: Evelgrivion Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in. That being said, I'm not a fan of moons. So the value of t2 materials will go down due to lack of demand for t2 ships. The lack of demand stemming from the INCREASED combat this change is supposed create? Assuming there is a lack of demand from this change, the change itself will have failed in its purpose. If combat does actually increase the demand for t2 ships will remain the same or increase accordingly and thus the profits from moon goo held by the power blocks will remain essentially unchanged. Your logic fails. I never said it would outright increase the amount of combat taking place, but let's assume for a moment that it does. Even if the demand goes up for material, if there's no money out there to pay for it, there will become a cap on how much people can actually pay for the stuff. Tech I stuff will increase in popularity, Jump Freighters will become much more valuable assets, and at the same time, the cost of everything will go down in proportion to the reduced amount of ISK. My logic does not fail - the logic in the posts hasn't list absolutely everything about the subject needed to derive a complete conclusion. At the end of the day, other than the fact that the number of places where you can create extremely large quantities of ISK will be reduced by this change, everything in these threads is pure speculation. You didn't say it... it was in the dev blog as one of the expected consequences. You might start by reading that.
Ado Rotcod	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:53:00 - [1322] Wohoo way to destroy individual players wealth. The big guys will still collect the rent, just more for systems that spawn sanctums and same for all the others and the small guys will have to npc longer to make the same isk or leave there smaller alliances and join one of the big boys. Even bigger blobs and less overall people in nullsec is my guess
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:55:00 - [1323] 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..
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:00:00 - [1324] Originally by: Imigo Montoya ...For the ~45% of poor trusec (0.0 to -0.25) they are completely taking that away - people install the expensive ihub upgrades to get havens/sanctums... Which says what about Sanctums exactly? The infinite easy money that the system upgrade represents has injected ludicrous amounts of ISK into the system. Instead of climbing the walls and screaming like children, enter a dialogue to give those poor areas some benefit unavailable elsewhere. Supercharged mining upgrades or increase to general industry outputs for instance. Would yield a nice real world equivalent of small/few financial centres and a whole swath of agriculture/manufacturing areas. Add ways to disrupt either (no, not AFK cloaking ) and you have scorched earth option, attrition, supply chain breaks and what not (dependent on force projection changes). Don't know who the moron was who convinced everyone that it is their Goddess given right to be able to make 100M/hr minimum in Eve .. whomever it was should be shot.
steejans nix Amarr 0beron Construct	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:03:00 - [1325] CCP's way of fixing lag, instead of getting the job done by coding they just reduce the number of people that can afford to fight in the big battles so often, next thing will be a return to the old DD, one push of the button and 200 players die reducing the numbers on grid. Btw another small guy that will prob have to get a alt running lvl 4 or FW missions, if so many of us need to get lvl4 or FW missions to fund 0.0 doesn't that show a inbalance there, if we can't pull the isk needed out of 0.0 to fight for it then it is a sad job, making high sec more worthwhile than a lot of 0.0 has broken the ( already broken) game.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:05:00 - [1326] Originally by: Zey Nadar 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.. Personally I don't have such an issue with difficulty, it's boring grind that I have a problem with. PvE is the boring grind in whatever form it comes in, PvP (which is much more difficult) is the only continually fun aspect of this game.
skewbamatt	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:09:00 - [1327] ^i agree 100%^
Abdiel Kavash Caldari Paladin Order Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:20:00 - [1328] CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly" Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech" CCP: "Meh" CCP rebalances TII components Tech price shoots in the sky CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built" Players: "People will reprocess them for profit" CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that" CCP makes POS stuff player-built People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies" Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0" CCP: "We know what we're doing" ...can you see where this is going? --- Originally by: Sporked EVE IS DYING RUN TO THE HILLS! WE MIGHT HAVE TO ENGAGE WITH OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS MMO! THEY MIGHT SHOOT AT US WHILE WE ARE BUSY HOLDING HANDS AND FROLICKING! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
qlko1	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:22:00 - [1329] Originally by: Abdiel Kavash CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly" Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech" CCP: "Meh" CCP rebalances TII components Tech price shoots in the sky CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built" Players: "People will reprocess them for profit" CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that" CCP makes POS stuff player-built People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies" Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0" CCP: "We know what we're doing" ...can you see where this is going? I agree with that ^
Starkiller Adams Gallente Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:24:00 - [1330] Edited by: Starkiller Adams on 29/03/2011 07:24:32 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Imigo Montoya So same ISK coming in, less ISK going out = more ISK in the economy = inflation = bad. The number of potential sanctums is dropping quite dramatically. I wouldn't really expect the same ISK input to the system. Quote: Point 2. I've had this discussion with Ernest Adams before (the Game Designer and co-founder of the International Game Developer's Association, not the baker) and his position is that the game mechanics are a effectively contract between dev and player and should be changed only under the most dire of circumstances and preferrably with player consent. In fact he's writing a thesis on the topic (I'm sure he'd be interested in consulting in this case - well worth the investment if you ask me). The problem is that players are proven to be very bad at balancing, and taking away someone's silver spoon will always **** them off. They will never, ever give you consent to fix the game. They'll demand boosts elsewhere, even though it will always result in massive amounts of boosting of everything to get the same result. In a complex system, that kind of boosting is very dangerous and radically destabilizes the whole. Quote: My position was that the devs should make the choice that is best for the game, but I was referring to things like player imbalances (eg benefiting older players "just because"). I can very much see his point. The changes made in Dominion were the dev's offer, and purchasing of upgrades and paying of bills by players was the acceptance. To completely take that away from large numbers of those (mostly small) alliances without any compensation would be a major breach of trust between the developer and community. Two things: - They are not completely taking that away. They are modifying it. - Obviously, Dominion is not working out as they had originally envisioned it --- or they have discovered that how they originally envisioned it was fatally flawed. Expecting uninformed players who don't understand the basics of the economy to grasp that is asking a bit much though. -Liang your a republican arent you

Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:26:00 - [1331] Originally by: Starkiller Adams your a republican arent you Not even a little bit. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Iseult Kross	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:27:00 - [1332] Originally by: Imigo Montoya Originally by: Zey Nadar 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.. Personally I don't have such an issue with difficulty, it's boring grind that I have a problem with. PvE is the boring grind in whatever form it comes in, PvP (which is much more difficult) is the only continually fun aspect of this game. Ya and the PvP in this game is fun because there is actually something at stake. If you lose your ship and and are able to replace it without any trouble, where is the risk? Can't afford losing pimped out t3's or whatever it is that you need mass amounts of isk for, then fly something you can afford until you're good enough to not die so often. Or alternatively figure out another way to make money, although at first this might actually take some effort, again making those shiny ships you worked so hard for seem all that more significant when they go pop.
Armaos	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:29:00 - [1333] This is a much better idea* to make a loss hurt as hell and create a huge isk sink since you think there is too much in game CCP. Let us DESTROY OUTPOSTS. Drops according to the contents of the individual and corp hangars, clones destroyed, you in station when it blows up ? You DIE. You cancelled your sub and left your **** in a Station that got blow up ? TOO BAD. NPC Stations should REQUIRE positive standings BEFORE allowing you to dock. Anyone else up for TOTAL WAR ? * An old one i should add.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:31:00 - [1334] That isn't an isk sink since only minerals and whatever ships etc are destroyed.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:39:00 - [1335] Originally by: Iseult Kross Ya and the PvP in this game is fun because there is actually something at stake. If you lose your ship and and are able to replace it without any trouble, where is the risk? Can't afford losing pimped out t3's or whatever it is that you need mass amounts of isk for, then fly something you can afford until you're good enough to not die so often. Or alternatively figure out another way to make money, although at first this might actually take some effort, again making those shiny ships you worked so hard for seem all that more significant when they go pop. The PvP is fun regardless. The extra kick of meaningful loss is just very tasty spice. Besides, it doesn't really matter whether you have a million ISK spare or 10 billion (I've experienced both) - in nullsec losing a ship is a hassle simply from a logistical perspective. More noobs in nullsec means more fights can take place. As my colleague from ev0ke has stated most systems on a roam are populated, which makes for more fights. I would be very interested to see CCP's "causality model", and see how much hard data is backing it up. In particular I'd like to know what metric CCP is using to measure "conflict". Were more ships destroyed before Dominion, or after it?
Armaos	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:42:00 - [1336] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat That isn't an isk sink since only minerals and whatever ships etc are destroyed. I stand corrected.
Carniflex StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:44:00 - [1337] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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. Yup. That sound like black ops, electronic attack frigates, motherships, "fixing" the cross corp pos lab use (it's what close to 4 years by now?) and follow up revision of faction warfare. Sad thing is I will have to start again dragging my corpmates up to level 4 standings (with connections 3 it takes 30 level 4 missions split in half for a character to reach L4Q18 agent, without connections skill 40 missions) and answer to questions like "what should I use to cash in my LP". So yeah - my model of 0.0 space predicts this change will not be a good one. But whatever, you guys have obviously made up your mind. Under positive scenarios it will not be as catastrophic as the new probing system was to low sec mission running before T3's were in game. People will adabt as always. It's just not a good change.
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:44:00 - [1338] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Instead of climbing the walls and screaming like children, enter a dialogue to give those poor areas some benefit unavailable elsewhere. Supercharged mining upgrades or increase to general industry outputs for instance. Fantastic. I'm living in nullsec because I wanted PvP, and now I'm forced to take a shovel and dig the rocks? It's like buying a ticked for the biggest, scariest roller coaster just to be transferred to a kiddie merry-go-round. Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Don't know who the moron was who convinced everyone that it is their Goddess given right to be able to make 100M/hr minimum in Eve .. whomever it was should be shot. Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier.
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:56:00 - [1339] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier. I can't remember who it was, but he claimed he used three accounts to achieve this. Carrier/Logi/Salvage combo. Income per account involved would therefore be more like 33M/h. Don't some miners earn more solo?
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:57:00 - [1340] Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 29/03/2011 08:01:15 Originally by: Darth Gustav Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier. I can't remember who it was, but he claimed he used three accounts to achieve this. Carrier/Logi/Salvage combo. Income per account involved would therefore be more like 33M/h. hmm... that's still one dps ship. I know that Guristas space have bad loot and salvage, but never thought it was that bad.

Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:00:00 - [1341] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Fantastic. So you want something for nothing? Once upon a time PvP meant sweat as well as blood .. it has become 'meh' at best with all the revenue streams available. Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums... Raises hand Although not in Sanctums, the one size down yields much better ISK/hour .. double bonus for more cruiser sized modules which has better ISK/m3 and being able to run them in a PvP fit HAC/T3. In short: Your grinding/ratting leaves something to be desired.
Pineapple Bill	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:01:00 - [1342] I have taken some time to calm down and post, at first i was very upset and just wanted to post a your a f*cking moron to CCP. But I have calmed down a bit so here we go. CCP if your goal is to generate more conflict in 0.0, then this is not the way to do it. Your purposed changes will increase the grind time for the people that do PVP in 0.0, we will have to grind much longer to generate the isk to replace our ships, which means less PVP in null sec. This change will not generate conflict over the better null sec systems, the large power blocks will just take them all for there members so there people can replace ships, how does that help the smaller alliances? Many of the smaller alliance or corp that rent space will lose there income to rent that space, and not to mention have to grind for more hours to generate the income required for PVP, so much for small corp/alliance ship replacement programs. By the look of the purposed changes it seems a little one sided, you are nerfing the PVE but not the industry, if you are going to make changes you should make them balanced, IE... the same systems that will not get havens or sanctums will not spawn ABCS,M ore in them either, and the systems that get 2 and 3 times the havens and sanctums also get 2 and 3 times the ABCS,M ore as-well. Seeing as the changes will be making the rich richer and the poor poorer might as well, even it out so your not just nerfing the PVE people, the only right and proper thing to do. If you truly want to improve null sec and get more conflict there, i would suggest the following. Redistribute the moongoo.( Evenly )(Better yet remove it all, and switch over to system similar to PI for the t2 components) Make some changes to black ops, allow them to jump other ships as well based on size ie...cruisers and below, and give them some range to there bridge. Null sec needs a resource that can only be gotten in null sec. Add a treaty system and charge a treaty maintenance fee. (Should be based on number of members in initiating corp/alliance) Ability to drop more than one station in a system. Remove the ability for a titan or super carrier to enter a POS shield. Tie activity into sovereignty (You have to occupy it to keep it) Remove ability for non sovereignty holding corps/alliance to declare war on sovereignty holding corps/alliance. Allow corporations to hold sovereignty. I think the above changes would permote a vibrant null sec, with a thriving population. Speaking of fixing things, how about fixing POS's, list bellow. Anchoring/unanchoring queue. Onlining queue. Ability to set better members access to the POS Ability to let all blues use the POS. A fitting window to drag and drop mods. Ability to set Owner to POS. I think most everyone that lives in null sec would agree the changes you purpose are not going to permote any conflict with the null sec alliances, the only conflict I see it causing is more conflict with your paying subscribers. Thanks, Currently a paying subscriber, and null sec dweller.
Armaos	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:02:00 - [1343] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 29/03/2011 07:49:34 Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Instead of climbing the walls and screaming like children, enter a dialogue to give those poor areas some benefit unavailable elsewhere. Supercharged mining upgrades or increase to general industry outputs for instance. Fantastic. I'm living in nullsec because I wanted PvP, and now I'm forced to take a shovel and dig the rocks? It's like buying a ticket for the biggest, scariest roller coaster just to be transferred to a kiddie merry-go-round. Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Don't know who the moron was who convinced everyone that it is their Goddess given right to be able to make 100M/hr minimum in Eve .. whomever it was should be shot. Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier. You are using the wrong ship. BS+ would net you close to 60M/H without taking into account loot/salvaging or corp tax using only one account. Gallente carrier will earn you more..
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:10:00 - [1344] Originally by: Pineapple Bill Redistribute the moongoo.( Evenly )(Better yet remove it all, and switch over to system similar to PI for the t2 components) Make some changes to black ops, allow them to jump other ships as well based on size ie...cruisers and below, and give them some range to there bridge. Null sec needs a resource that can only be gotten in null sec. Add a treaty system and charge a treaty maintenance fee. (Should be based on number of members in initiating corp/alliance) Ability to drop more than one station in a system. Remove the ability for a titan or super carrier to enter a POS shield. Tie activity into sovereignty (You have to occupy it to keep it) Remove ability for non sovereignty holding corps/alliance to declare war on sovereignty holding corps/alliance. Allow corporations to hold sovereignty. Wow... a couple of ideas that are actually worse than Grayscale's devblog Congrats for the effort, I know it wasn't easy.
Kalle Demos Amarr Helix Protocol	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:24:00 - [1345] 0.0 isnt about being fair, it isnt about "hi lets NAP", NC are soo worried about losing their renters they are raging. This is a good change, CCP go ahead with it, it will make 0.0 valuable again, you can clearly see from the comments that anoms are what making it easier to NAP, easier to bot and easier to rage. Oh and 0.0 has been crawling with supercaps and dull wars, having people work for their ISK for a change makes sense, MAKE THIS CHANGE HAPPEN NOW!! . Im not Bismaru, im better!
Pineapple Bill	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:24:00 - [1346] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Originally by: Pineapple Bill Redistribute the moongoo.( Evenly )(Better yet remove it all, and switch over to system similar to PI for the t2 components) Make some changes to black ops, allow them to jump other ships as well based on size ie...cruisers and below, and give them some range to there bridge. Null sec needs a resource that can only be gotten in null sec. Add a treaty system and charge a treaty maintenance fee. (Should be based on number of members in initiating corp/alliance) Ability to drop more than one station in a system. Remove the ability for a titan or super carrier to enter a POS shield. Tie activity into sovereignty (You have to occupy it to keep it) Remove ability for non sovereignty holding corps/alliance to declare war on sovereignty holding corps/alliance. Allow corporations to hold sovereignty. Wow... a couple of ideas that are actually worse than Grayscale's devblog Congrats for the effort, I know it wasn't easy. I think of my ideas would permote a better null sec, and be much better than CCP purposed changes, but then again I am not a null sec power-block member, I am one of the little guys that the changes CCP are purposing will screw. I can totally understand why folks like yourself would think my ideas are bad or worse than CCP purposed changes.
Kalle Demos Amarr Helix Protocol	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:28:00 - [1347] Originally by: Abdiel Kavash CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly" Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech" CCP: "Meh" CCP rebalances TII components Tech price shoots in the sky CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built" Players: "People will reprocess them for profit" CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that" CCP makes POS stuff player-built People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies" Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0" CCP: "We know what we're doing" ...can you see where this is going? You do know CCP ONLY introduced these anoms in Dominion yeah, you have only had these bot havens just over a year AND 0.0 never even gained any population, removing them would hardly result in losing players. This will also stop the supercap mass production and FINALLY kills will mean something, if you have a problem with this ask your leaders for better space, but dont complain to CCP about making space worth something. Next you will say "its unfair that Jita has more more activity than Amarr", EVE isnt fair and was NEVER meant to be balanced, you have an issue take it up with Kim Jong Lau NOT CCP!! Besides you will still make alot of ISK in 0.0 from other sources, not everyone needs to bot. . Im not Bismaru, im better!
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:31:00 - [1348] Originally by: Kalle Demos Originally by: Abdiel Kavash CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly" Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech" CCP: "Meh" CCP rebalances TII components Tech price shoots in the sky CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built" Players: "People will reprocess them for profit" CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that" CCP makes POS stuff player-built People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies" Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0" CCP: "We know what we're doing" ...can you see where this is going? You do know CCP ONLY introduced these anoms in Dominion yeah, you have only had these bot havens just over a year AND 0.0 never even gained any population, removing them would hardly result in losing players. This will also stop the supercap mass production and FINALLY kills will mean something, if you have a problem with this ask your leaders for better space, but dont complain to CCP about making space worth something. Next you will say "its unfair that Jita has more more activity than Amarr", EVE isnt fair and was NEVER meant to be balanced, you have an issue take it up with Kim Jong Lau NOT CCP!! Besides you will still make alot of ISK in 0.0 from other sources, not everyone needs to bot. how will this effect scap production? this only reduces teh isk income for teh small players and corps. id bet this actually increases scap production as there corps stuck with now fully upgraded **** systems have to replace that income
Raven Kahn	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:36:00 - [1349] It is funny to see all the empire people in here screaming about go ahead with the changes...Of course your for the changes don't hurt your game, you don't live in 0.0 Do all the 0.0 people a favor and shut the hell up, the only reason you running your heads is because you don't live in 0.0, and if these changes take place a lot of us will not be living in 0.0 any more either. If these changes take effect i would love to see all the 0.0 alliances NAP each other and spend the next 6 months war decing all the empire corps in and around the trade hubs and lvl 4 mission systems. Let's kill the ** out of all the empire alliances and corps till CCP gets a clue. Raven Kahn (**ed off 0.0 resident)
Jita Tradedrone	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:41:00 - [1350] Originally by: Abdiel Kavash CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly" Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech" CCP: "Meh" CCP rebalances TII components Tech price shoots in the sky CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built" Players: "People will reprocess them for profit" CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that" CCP makes POS stuff player-built People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies" Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0" CCP: "We know what we're doing" ...can you see where this is going? Oh so true. especially the post in the middle saying **** you all. We're doing it.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 118 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.