| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cyaxares II
   |
Posted - 2011.03.26 09:20:00 -
[31]
that blog made me wish I had voted for mittens
|
Pres Obama
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 09:26:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Pres Obama on 26/03/2011 09:29:55
These changes are such a freaking joke. They want more people to be able to get into 0.0... fine. Now tell me why someone is going to form an alliance to take over some piece of **** system with a bunch of hubs in it? Seriously get ****ed ccp.
|
Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 09:32:00 -
[33]
 Originally by: mkmin
No, if you want sov to be less stable, CCP needs to make it more easy to disrupt.
Makes the most sense right there.
By the way, real men biomass when they emoragequit.
|
Xtreem
Gallente
Power of All
AAA Citizens
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 09:46:00 -
[34]
if they increased the better system even more i could live with it, but killing the lower ones will make alot of people leave 0.0.. and thus alot less people fight.
tbh i think its all a very bad idea.
|
Drykor
Minmatar
Aperture Harmonics
K162
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 09:51:00 -
[35]
I think this is a good start, but to really get more conflict in 0.0, the defender advantage needs to be lowered
---
Drykor - AHARM |
Pres Obama
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 10:00:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Drykor
I think this is a good start, but to really get more conflict in 0.0, the defender advantage needs to be lowered
Could you explain why this is a good start? Some people will just give up on 0.0 when they find out they can only run a few hubs. What's the point of being down there if you can't make enough money to support pvp operations? Ships aren't very cheap.
|
UniqueOne
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 10:05:00 -
[37]
Edited by: UniqueOne on 26/03/2011 10:06:26
The only way this change would promote fighting would be for it to come with a second change that limit's blues and alliance sizes.
There will be no new fighting from this for the simple reason that noone has the resources to win.
Lagging out systems until one side gives up and leaves is not PvP. Increasing the number of players that can enter a system (the current war on lag method) just makes the problem worse. The only way we will ever have a fun sov system is if there are limits! Until this happens it is pointless to even think about these sorts of anom changes.
Fix the actual problem, then reassess the situation.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 10:11:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Spartan 019
...Also, wtf is CCP wasting resources working on something like this when there are a ton of other more demanding issues to be figured out!?
What, prey tell, is more important than making null worth living and dying for again?
The blog clearly states that is a tentative first step in what is going to be a massive undertaking ..
General Advice: Bet this change will register low on the impotent e-rage meter when everything is done so save some bile for future blogs.
|
Zargoth Deon
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 10:49:00 -
[39]
Dear GMs - are you aware that drug usage is illegal? Furhtermore - you should try to have some good time at Fan Fest - not wash your brains out with some fancy goo.
The moment that took my breath away (read couldt't stop laughing) was when i hit "Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec". Yes they will, you are right abt it, and why the hell would they wanna do that? They will have option:
a) spend tones of isk to upgrade wasteland that is not going to be profitable (but hey - they are in 0.0, having the time of their lives)
b) attack the strongest power blocks and take their high end systems. (yeah right...)
I sincerely hope no one is that ******ed.
I also hope that when you get sober, you will see the immense imapact that this brilliant idea is going to have on the game. Right now the only things that you have to be thinking are fixing lag and RMT issue. Well - I admit you are spending some eforts on the first one, as for the second you are epic fail. It is even worse, as implementing this idea is not going to affect botters, only it will make life hell for the regular subscribers. I really dont have to waste more words on explaining how bad this decision is - you know it and we the palyers know it. If you do insist on making this real, my only logical conlcusion is that you want to force real money paid subscriptions. Even better - ppl will still have to buy GTC and try to convert them to isk cause i doubt that the majority of the players will grind them selves to death on lvl4 missions. This action is going to boost RMT sites and botting industry as well, as ppl will try to seek easier ways to get isk. But who cares since CCP's green $$$ monster is going to choke with cash right?
Readin my post, you may wonder if i am p i s s e d of. You are wrong. Don't get me wrong - hopefully for me, by the time this genious plan kicks into action i will have enough isk, so that i can spend an year or two not bothering myself how to earn isk. I am just disappoited. I am disappointed by the lack of ability of CCP to make decisions. You are screwing the game once again. This time, big time.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 10:53:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Pres Obama
These changes are such a freaking joke. They want more people to be able to get into 0.0... fine. Now tell me why someone is going to form an alliance to take over some piece of **** system with a bunch of hubs in it? Seriously get ****ed ccp.
Do you know how CVA managed to turn Providence into a NRDS region where any kind of small entity could establish themselves?
Because the space was **** and yet people still lived there.
|
Caldrion Dosto
Excrutiating Dirge
Merciless.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:26:00 -
[41]
Oh the tears, the tears! i love it.
And also tbh this might force alliancces tos tart using some of the moon goo on alliance reimbursment programs instead of the ever groving supercap fleets.
Yay.
Also will be interesting to see how this impacts the morale of the "blobbers" who loses 300+ ships/engagement, lets see if drakes and amelstroms are "free" after this.
I like this and it¦s not one day to soon. Also might now make it harder for ratting titans and supercarriers to claim a wholy uppgraded system for anomaly running =)
|
Geralden
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:26:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Pres Obama
These changes are such a freaking joke. They want more people to be able to get into 0.0... fine. Now tell me why someone is going to form an alliance to take over some piece of **** system with a bunch of hubs in it? Seriously get ****ed ccp.
Do you know how CVA managed to turn Providence into a NRDS region where any kind of small entity could establish themselves?
Because the space was **** and yet people still lived there.
That was PRE dominion, so they didnt have to pay BILL's each month, for having IHUBS.
It was before the massive ICE bot's took over all ice harvesting, so beeing an ICE miner could actually pay off. Try it now, try living in Providence without the anom's to support your pilots. There may still be moons worth having, but that is rarely shared amongst the pilots - is it?
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:30:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 26/03/2011 01:22:36
Exactly. No sane small alliance will throw themselves at the lion's mouth to try and take better truesec systems.
Smaller groups become larger groups.
PI POS fuel process flow chart v1.0 |
KurnKuku
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:37:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 26/03/2011 01:22:36
Exactly. No sane small alliance will throw themselves at the lion's mouth to try and take better truesec systems.
Smaller groups become larger groups.
They could also easily make larger groups small groups, by exponentially increase the cost of upgrades etc.
|
Emperor Ryan
Amarr
The Illuminatii
Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:38:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Pres Obama
These changes are such a freaking joke. They want more people to be able to get into 0.0... fine. Now tell me why someone is going to form an alliance to take over some piece of **** system with a bunch of hubs in it? Seriously get ****ed ccp.
Do you know how CVA managed to turn Providence into a NRDS region where any kind of small entity could establish themselves?
Because the space was **** and yet people still lived there.
This is probably one of the most decent arguments I've seen so far, CVA did in fact take **** space and do well with it, But their initial capital came from Aralis wallet himself which funded their first few outposts, which they opened to all and used the taxes on docking in stations and using their services however CVA stated many times that they never made a return on their investments and the amount of stations Built by CVA and the rest of the provi block attracted the players and that was what made that a success.
The second reason that worked is because there are no r64's in Providence at all, So there organically was no desire for the space not even for the sake of moons so they were able to establish themselves even with the war with U'K
The third reason for the the success of providence was because of the distance it is from major player hubs such as Amarr and also near the low sec pvp areas. this made it easy to enter the region with minimal risk as a neutral.
Realistically the only places that are close to provi as far as true sec goes would be Pure blind which has 68 systems which are -0.20 or higher and is also home to an abundance of tech moons as well as some r64's. that being said it is never going to be a providence and there is no where in eve where a 'CVA example can be replicated other than providence.
- Emperor
|
firepup82
The Penetrators
The Laughing Men
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 16:35:00 -
[46]
seems like another idea to increase mathematical complexity of the game... shades of grey... true sec levels... blah.
ccp needs to focus on game play and not spreadsheet wars. Now it will be, who holds the region with the most profitable permutation of true sec space....
c'mon
|
Vena Cera
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 18:00:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Vena Cera on 26/03/2011 18:01:04
Utter bullcrap, my corp rents our system how the hell are we meant to pay our rent with no ratting going on in havens or sanctoms (our system is -.19 true sec). This is meant to try and get new corps into 0.0 but will just force out people like us cause we cant afforrd to pay our rent anymore. So 'just rent another system' well, we considered that but we only just moved in a put up the upgrades costing alot of isak so we cant afford to yet.
If this goes into effect there is no point being in 0.0 unless your in a big alliance that controls these low true sec systems, which could become overcrowded.
Worst idea from CCP ever.
Edit: posted as my alt dammit
|
Dani Nardieu
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 18:22:00 -
[48]
I don't see the big problem, no matter how crappy a system you think might be, somebody wants it. Making parts of space relatively less valuable and a pain for a bigger group to bother with is one way to make it available for smaller startup entities.
In short, can i have your stuff (systems) ?
|
VicturusTeSaluto
Metafarmers
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 18:23:00 -
[49]
oh noes your changes will affect my second job/single player in a multiplayer game!!!
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 18:50:00 -
[50]
Originally by: VicturusTeSaluto
oh noes your changes will affect my second job/single player in a multiplayer game!!!
Yeah. Good thing every alliance is more than willing and capable of paying their member's personal PvP habits and other expenses.
|
Fulmar Muse
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 19:25:00 -
[51]
january this month they introduced rather good carebear content, cant remember wat it was called 
perhaps u havn't tried that yet... i hear that these mysteriously named things can net u really stupid amounts of isk, for next to no effort (ty FCs lol)
i now have enuf liquid isk to handle my PvP (which is very much like, "there's a bantam?.. ON THE GATE???.... WHAT!!! BOOOOOOOOM!"... this make sme **** myself with contentment, unlike triple wat I have in my account.. whicch ironically accounts for nothing.. u may have just bought a plex.. derp
"Keep on doin what you doin, do it gud.. huuh!"
Super fly] |
Bodrul
Caldari
The Illuminatii
Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 19:32:00 -
[52]
sometimes i wounder if the Devs know anything about their user base?
they spend all this time to get people to go down 0.0 space and now they want to nurf most of it
which genius comes up with these stupid changes.
............
"you dont need a reason or a three piece suit to argue the truth"
Game Reviews |
Miss Fit2
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 22:42:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Miss Fit2 on 26/03/2011 22:42:54
I feel that if this stupid idea goes ahead many people will be forced to go back to highsec and try sc**** a living there and get totally pi**ed of and leave the game full stop. I have heard this from several people so far and that is only in the past 24 hours, wot will it be like as the time comes closer. Silly silly idea. He who thought of it should be demoted back to the broom cupboard.
|
Jaigar
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 03:17:00 -
[54]
Think about it this way:
If you are playing musical chairs and there are the same number of chairs as players, everyone gets a seat and no one is scrambling to find one. When you remove some chairs, you get more people fighting over the chairs.
|
Jason Marshall
Gallente
Mad Bombers
Merciless.
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 03:24:00 -
[55]
Combat at the Alliance level seems to be moon driven. I don't see anyone invading anywhere just to get sanctums.
|
Jason1138
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 05:53:00 -
[56]
"Worst update a CCP dev has ever released. Congradulations mate, you have ruined the game for the majority."
the majority of players in this game live in high sec, so i doubt it
|
Hecatonis
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 06:22:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Vena Cera
Edited by: Vena Cera on 26/03/2011 18:01:04
Utter bullcrap, my corp rents our system how the hell are we meant to pay our rent with no ratting going on in havens or sanctoms (our system is -.19 true sec). This is meant to try and get new corps into 0.0 but will just force out people like us cause we cant afforrd to pay our rent anymore. So 'just rent another system' well, we considered that but we only just moved in a put up the upgrades costing alot of isak so we cant afford to yet.
If this goes into effect there is no point being in 0.0 unless your in a big alliance that controls these low true sec systems, which could become overcrowded.
Worst idea from CCP ever.
Edit: posted as my alt dammit
i will let you in on a little something. you cannot pay for the rent you ether
a) leave and they will try to get someone else to rent that space that cannot make the money
b) tell them to lower the rent to a manageable level and live as per the norm
c) flush as much money out of your system for the time being and leave
all options are an adapt or die situation. so.....
__________________________________________________
stop acting like tw*ts and use your brain |
Shang Fei
The Illuminatii
Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:05:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Jason Marshall
Combat at the Alliance level seems to be moon driven. I don't see anyone invading anywhere just to get sanctums.
As much as this might be true, it is also true that alot of peoples personal incomes are thanks to anomalies. And nerfing these will make alot of people sad, as you've probably seen if you read the forums.
Also People will want to be able to evolve, and some alliances doesn't have the funds to provide these bigger ships for individuals, so for this havens and sanctums are great tools for evolving into a pilot who can fly more and more expensive ships for pvp and such.
I feel that this "change" (it IS still just a dev blog) will be a very poor decision if they want people to stay in nullsec.
and NO English isn't my first language, deal with it  |
Pandadora
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:43:00 -
[59]
So, can we have Providence back than please? 
|
ORLICZ
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:47:00 -
[60]
+++++++++++++++
very good change but... one condition
in the same time CCP provide nerf hi sec missions
or 1/3 0.0 eve population goes to hi sec :P
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |