|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Starkiller Adams
   |
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:26:00 -
[1]
YOU ******S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are going to turn my alliances work into getting our own constilation in fountain into a worthless action.
You clearly dont know what the hell your doing nor do you care about small alliances. Most of my corp has been homeless for a ****ing year now your going to take away our new BMW and give us a god dam Geo Metro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and no lie after we poured billions into upgrading our systems!!!!!!!!!!!!!if this crap goes through im done with eve 30.00 bucks a months richer i'll be
|
Starkiller Adams
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:23:00 -
[2]
Guys guys if we want to have cool new turrent models apparently we need to give up our sactums and havens
|
Starkiller Adams
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:34:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: sylvester stallowned
Love this change! nullsec carebare risk free isk generation needs a nerf so bad...
Remove Jumpbridges too please <3
no then we will go gank your high sec carebear ass for isk
|
Starkiller Adams
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:51:00 -
[4]
Originally by: sylvester stallowned
Originally by: Pyrostasis
Originally by: sylvester stallowned
Edited by: sylvester stallowned on 28/03/2011 20:34:11
Love this change! nullsec carebear risk free isk generation needs a nerf so bad...
Remove Jumpbridges too please <3
Hell yeah then everyone can simply go back to empire and make isk safely chain running 4's and you see a significant drop in overall 0.0 participation.
The power block will still exist, but both sides will see a reduction in overall players as they move back to empire. For those that want pvp and targets to shoot this is pretty much a bad idea and its not even close.
Less people in 0.0 = less targets to shoot = less kill and less pvp.
Less people making money = less people buying ships = less ships to shoot.
That power block is still going to be a power block, the smaller guys just wont be able to field ships
There will always be things to shoot in 0.0, if this change reduces the blobs and spreads out 0.0 population then its for the better IMO
Still the change that really needs to be made is removal of JB's.. more traffic = more fun ;)
Clearly your an idiot it would just cram high sec enterences and cluster people into the systems with sactums jump off a bridge plz
|
Starkiller Adams
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:04:00 -
[5]
Can we keep sanctums and havens if u take the drake out of the game?
|
Starkiller Adams
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 22:39:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat
They don't do refunds for that kind of thing. Your corp/alliance has already reaped the benefits of the ihub and upgrades.
not if we have only had them for a ****ing weeek
|
Starkiller Adams
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 07:24:00 -
[7]
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
|
|
|
| |
|