|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration
   |
Posted - 2011.03.25 22:52:00 -
[1]
Anything that makes one part of space different from another is a step in the right direction.
That is all.
"A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie." |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:10:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Better Than You
This is your final warning CCP! You better reverse the Sanctum change or else. You want to lose thousands of subscribers?! If so then keep this **** up. I was under the impression you wanted this game to thrive? If so then why do you slit its own thought with this patch? What the **** is wrong with you all?!
ROFL!
ahhh... you guys are getting too comfortable out there in Null. I'm looking forward to anything that increases conflict. It's better for everyone in the game. You have too much pie. CCP is just giving us more slices... they aren't removing any pie from the game. You guys just don't want to share the pie... but the rest of us are hungry.
Now if we can just get a jump bridge nerf....
"A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie." |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:30:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Antigue
Just let¦s make a small poll:
For coming up with this idea Greyscale should
[ ] (a) get a promotion at CCP and a big hug from the CEO
[ ] (b) Nerf jump bridges next so logistics, pre-positioning, and travel time become actual tactical factors to think about.
[X] (c) both (a) and (b)
[ ] (d) pander to the children's forum tears
Your choice guys
Fixed |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 20:17:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Levistus Junior
First of all they are removing pie from the game. The total number of good anomalies across the cluster is dropping, so yeah, there will be less ISK entering the game via anomaly ratting
Secondly, if you weren't getting any pie before, the odds of getting some now are even lower, as the pie will be concentrated in the hands of a few pretty powerful alliances.
Thirdly, if you think this change increases conflict, think again. Go look through pre-Dominion EVE history and try to find a single conflict that was fought over ratting space.
First and second, the slices are smaller in the low end and fatter in the high. It'll be balanced... it's just that with more slices it'll be easier for the little guy to get any. As it stands now, they get zero... b/c the big alliances gobble it ALL up. I'd rather have a sliver of pie than none at all. ...and the idea here is maybe the fat alliances won't bother with the sliver of pie because it does nothing to maintain their body's fat content.
Thirdly, so much has changed since the pre-Dominion times that a comparison falls flat. That said, true-sec was a factor in the locations of big alliances. BOB didn't rule Delve because the name was cool. Fail-alliance Xelas (remember them?) moved into fountain in part because of all the carebear corps in it wanted a crack at the back systems which had decently low true-sec. There are a lot of factors in taking space though... and moon goo is a bigger one than true-sec, I'll admit. This is just the start of the null sec changes though. The issue at hand isn't elusively true-sec, it's the principal that space should be different and offer a reason to move around and conquer different areas. It keeps alliances from becoming static, lethargically sucking up ISK in boring and repetitive ways. The alliances today are to the envisioned alliances of tomorrow as miners are to PvP'ers. The idea here is not to just find any space and merely develop it... staying in one area all the time. Rather, it's to provide aggressive and growing alliances a path to galactic domination that requires movement and more conquest. I think a lot of the crying going on in these forums is a reaction to that. Yes the major alliances will have a huge advantage in initially taking the "good" space. However, after this and other changes they will be more localized, and everyone is going to be constantly gunning for them. The idea that an alliance can grow to a certain point, collect a bunch of carebear renters, and just sit there will give way to a tighter alliance with a few specialized renter corps that feed their war machine, leaving the bulk of carebear corps and alliances to the reduced gains of poorer space. It's going to force the great alliances to become leaner and tougher, and at the same time provide the carebears with a foothold so that they can stop being carebears and become strong. ...increasing carebear alliance greed and frustration will motivate them to take more lucrative space. More ships will be lost. The economy will grow. I will have more active logistics and shipping lanes to camp. Some haulers might be carrying pie. I shall enjoy that pie. I think this vision is the path to smaller, more vicious, and bloodier wars. In a way, I think it will expand the game. The alliances are just upset that the lazy days of ruling are coming to an end. As an analog to market efficiency, we can call forthcoming changes a drive toward "political efficiency."
"A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie." |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 20:51:00 -
[5]
Originally by: CBBOMBERMAN
There are no words to descrive this. People have been saying for ages that CCP does not really understand their game. I always thought it was a joke. The reality is much worst. Rich alliances are only gonna get richer and the middle tear to lower alliances are gonna get screwed with this new change. This is by far the worst ever change/idea. How is this gonna force out the bigger alliances out? I mean they are already monsters, they are only gonna get stronger with this new change. Its the smaller and mid alliances that already have spent fortune in upgrading their systems and even then they still hav to deal with ho expensive its for them sov maintenanc on top. Whats gonna happen is that they willl have to leave for high sec or low sec cos they cant afford anything and they can make more money without hassle and bills in high sec. Who ever thought of this, defently lost it or has no clue about the game or plays another game thats not eve.
CCP claims to hear what people say...Let just hope they listen better than they can hear. Based on how long this thread has become and has not shown any sign of slowing yet, it is clear that CCP has really have A LOT of support on this change!!!
Good luck to all capsulers o/
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have just stated the base of dissenting arguments as succinctly as anyone, so lets talk about it.
- The Rich Alliances are only gonna get richer - Not true. Renters aren't going to pay what they are paying now for lesser space. In fact, they may not want to pay anything for it. Renter corps will therefor defect from their non-agression / support pacts because it's just not worth it. This will reduce the size of great alliances, and have a negative impact on the number of available pilots and amount of resources available to them.
- How is this gonna force out the bigger alliances (redacted)? - It's not. Those corps that no longer can afford to rent will covet the larger alliances space, and if those bigger alliances drop their guard for a second alliances that might otherwise have been renters will pounce on them like a fat kid on a cupcake.
- Its the smaller and mid alliances that already have spent fortune in upgrading their systems and even then they still hav to deal with ho expensive its for them sov maintenance on top. - While it's true that those smaller alliances will suffer from reduced gains, I think greed will now motivate them to break from their now far less attractive non-aggression pacts and instead take what is "rightfully theirs". It's about reducing comfort zones, increasing paranoia and fear, and instigating conflict.
Yah... CCP is breaking up your band so that more people can rock. Everyone SEEMS to be complaining about how this screws the little guy... but looking around I see the whiners more often than not in large alliances. While your concern for those former renters and future competitors is touching, I question your motivations.
~Fly dangerous...
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 22:38:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CBBOMBERMAN
ofcource the large alliances ar gonna get richer. you were just told that the space ith the highest 0.0 number is going to get a buff while the lower is gonna get a neft. Thats simpl mathmatics there.
On the second point, how is it the smaller alliances are gonna take out these monster alliances? Are you mad? If they havent taken them out now that they have almost equal number for the sanctums, how is it you think they can afford to do so when they have less isk....Or are you suggesting we all go and buy plex to fund an invasion that can take several months?
On the third. You think you can take whats "rightfully yours" when you are outmatched in very sence of the way to these large coalitions alliances? You can sur pvp but you wont have th allet to found a campaign specially against a blob and all today restrictions with large numbers in system.
Obviously you think you can go and attack the NC by yourself with an alliance and think you will get even a portion of their space and somehow in vs a huge economy, and vs huge numbers and vs all time zone coverage? I think you need to think this throught more.
o7
Dang dude you can't even type. Well... maybe YOU will have trouble figuring it out, but a competent alliance leader will not. The larger alliance will become smaller because renters will defect. Read - the - post. K? Just read it. Then re-read it, instead of sputtering poorly thought out drivel. The Larger alliance will have more bang bang per capita, because yah they are now smaller (read: less mouths to feed means more isk for them on a pilot to pilot level) and making more (again, relatively speaking... they'll actually making less gross though since there are less pilots overall generating isk, and really complexes are but a small fraction of what any respectable alliance takes in), but from a macro level they will have lost numbers. This will encourage other former renters to band together to take them out. It'll be kind of democratic in that way, and keeping neighbors (at least most of them) happy will be of greater concern to those with power. Yes alliances in poorer space are going to have a tough time cracking a more powerful alliances shell. That's why the more powerful alliance is there... and why those other alliances even want it. That may require a coalition of some type be formed to take them out. They will not be attacking superior numbers with their coalition anymore since the coalitions will be made up of defectors. That pretty much addresses every concern in your lame post, G money. Just take a deep breath and use your noggin. You'll figure it out and perhaps be successful if your plotting and planning are on, or you will be unsuccessful if you pick and choose what to cognate as you seem to be doing with my post.
[:p
"A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie." |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration
|
Posted - 2011.04.18 18:10:00 -
[7]
Now that everything has come to pass, I would be interested in knowing what effect this has had on the alliance types out there in null sec. Is anything changing?
"A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie." |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration
|
Posted - 2011.04.19 00:35:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Danastar
well it seems that CCP will not disclose the true reason for implemenitng this nerf - that is to remain a subject for specilation. one thing is for sure though - it has nothing to do to with the reasons stated by grayscale in his dev blog
What makes you say that?
I live in low sec. I camp haulers at gates. It's easy work. |
|
|
| |
|