Ide Pleco
   |
Posted - 2011.03.26 10:49:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,
It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.
We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.
Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale
isn't the philosophy "risk vs reward"? if some areas of 0.0 become less profitable by removing sanctums and havens the players will mission in hi sec to get their income. the alliances won't suffer financially though may lose player numbers.
there is virtually zero risk when hi sec missioning so it being more profitable than 0.0 seems absurd. some 0.0 systems will have no players in them and others will have large numbers going after the same anoms.
this would mean that even in the best systems profitability would drop as players would be less able to complete sanctums solo or in pairs as others in the system would get pis*sed off. as the gang size increses the bounties are split and the profit drops.
your spreadsheets have probably told you that sanctums and havens are the most run anoms (by far) and so you've decided to nerf the availability. the result of this is not more people doing hubs or yards it is people missioning or ending their subs as they, like me, can't stand missions.
when this was originally announced i assumed that the better 0.0 would have improved number of sanctums available or they may get improved spawns or improved sites (similar to forlorn and forsaken hubs etc)
it's not clear in military upgrades will allow sanctum spawns in the worse 0.0 or not
in any case i think this is a bad idea which needs rethinking or scrapping
i hope CCP Greyscale had a good weekend making many people have a bad one lol
|