|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 31 post(s) |
Innominate
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
   |
Posted - 2011.05.10 18:51:00 -
[1]
Oh ****, we accidentally made 0.0 almost worth living in!
JUST.
NERF.
EVERYTHING. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 19:29:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: xttz
Originally by: CCP Fallout
WeÆre currently looking into a long term plan for 0.0. I say long term, not because itÆs planned for 2014, but because the work will begin this winter and hopefully go on for a while
You're nerfing a key part of nullsec in June. You're starting work on our consolation prize 'this winter', meaning it'll be at least 9 months before we see any improvement. Nine months as people move away from living in from vulnerable conquerable stations with little benefit to NPC 0.0 stations with no downsides.
scumbag CCP: Break 0.0, plan to fix it in 9 months. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:28:00 -
[3]
Originally by: WilliamMays
I am amazed at how quickly you impliment the bad ideas, without even thinking through all the side effects
Didn't you read the blog? They've thought of the side effects and totally plan to fix them in 9 months. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:33:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Innominate on 10/05/2011 20:35:53
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 10/05/2011 20:16:58
0.0 wasn't designed for consensual pvp. You are not entitled to a fair fight where everyone lines up 10 ships of equal type to fight like gentlemen. You'll get both ganks, fair fight and massive cap ship fights, but there is no guarantee you can always chose exactly which one. We're not an instanced game that offers battlegrounds and I don't see any reason we should be.
Mini-objectives are a pretty obvious point for us to look at this winter. As I mentioned, we'll be looking at that in the months to come, hopefully we can make a bigger announcement when the CSM have been here. But yes, you're right, we should have mini-objectives, and hopefully we will.
I also didn't say that fighting didn't occur on POSs, but my point is that it's a lot more difficult than just getting a few friends together for a roam. POSs aren't invincible, but having the skillpoints, money, expertise to do it properly far exceeds how accessible open world pvp should be.
I like how you totally ignored the last(and most important) section. (Original Post)
|
Innominate
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:52:00 -
[5]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: mvrck22
Diverge, or divulge? =P
Divulge, jesus I butchered that.
I suspect you were more correct the first time.
|
Innominate
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:48:00 -
[6]
Originally by: xttz
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Svennig
A "neutral" structure which imposes its own mechanics onto fleet fights that take place at it? Are you high right now? You're forcing gate games onto people. If you did it at an ungunned POS it would be a much more neutral fight.
A POS where the defender has access to the shields and has exclusive right to bringing in reinforcements through the bridge? No, we'll definately not agree that a gate is as safe as a friendly POS, even without the gun.
You seem curiously intent on putting all of the risk onto defenders rather than attackers.
Why shouldn't a roaming gang be baited and attacked by reinforcements, after the territorial owner went to the effort of setting up, fueling, and paying the tower?
0.0 wasn't designed for consensual pvp. You are not entitled to a fair fight where everyone lines up 10 ships of equal type to fight like gentlemen. You'll get both ganks, fair fight and massive cap ship fights, but there is no guarantee you can always chose exactly which one. We're not an instanced game that offers battlegrounds and I don't see any reason we should be.
Boosh.
|
|
|
| |
|