Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
323
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:50:00 -
[271] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote: There is a very good incentive to leave the npc corp, lower taxes, better atmosphere, more safety, and more. If highsec players are anything, they are risk averse and that will propel them into player corporations. They might try to avoid the wardec via leaving the corporation but then they lose easy of access to some space and still might not be safe if the wardecing corp is part of the opposing FW. It provides more risk and as a consequence makes highsec player's decisions more meaningful as there is more at stake.
The reasons you give for players to want to leave NPC corps already exist. That being the case if these are to be the fundamental motivators, why is any change needed and how would it be expected to be effective? Because NPC corps come with their own incentives (wardec immunity) that are counterproductive to EVE both from a business and gameplay perspective. They need to be removed. The NPC corp channel can carry on independently of the NPC corp, don't worry. That was directed at his proposed changes regarding enrolling NPC corp characters in FW corps. While you present the same motivation, to which I don't necessarily disagree, it doesn't answer how this changes the current situation for many characters. I personally have no reason to leave under his suggestion. I imagine there are many who feel the same. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
1926
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:52:00 -
[272] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Why does access to a corp channel justify wardec immunity? You can join channels independently of being part of a corp already. Being able to join channels and being given a channel while you may not even know where the channel button is are 2 different things. Not really, the idea of making a character join a channel on chargen is trivially simple. No wardec immunity needed.
Quote:Those that benefit from this are those that benefit for roughly the same reason they benefit from wardec immunity, not knowing what to do and how to do it be it general gameplay or defense. This is false. I can hang on the other side of a rookie system jump gate and suicide gank some newbie and all his short life's savings NPC corp or no NPC corp with the cheapest of ships. And of course, if they leave to join their first player-run corp and do some of that fun stuff they read about, they're fair game. NPC corps only serve to protect the PvE alts (or mains) of veterans with ships in the hundreds of thousands of EHP. Not new players.
Quote:While veterans lingering is problematic the protection and advise offered to new players is, I believe, quite valuable to retention as well prior to a player being truly familiar with the idea of joining a corp much less even knowing the qualities of a good corp. Keep the channel, remove the wardec immunity 'features'. Then newbies get all that vital legitimate advice you say is so necessary and the veterans have reason to move on. |
Ginger Barbarella
State War Academy Caldari State
167
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:56:00 -
[273] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Ginger Barbarella wrote:Revamp the difficulty of rats in high-sec belts. Seeing frigates in .5 and then battleships in .4 and lower is just silly. Have progressively harder rats the further down in high sec you go. Battleships & BCs in .5, BCs in .6, cruisers and BCs in .7, and so on. Good lootz, good salvage.
That might also make the anti-mining losers happier, too... but naw, that means they'll probably have to start fighting things that shoot back, easy as they are. So newbies should only be in 1.0 systems then ?? Because with your advocted change to belts rats, they would get butt f***ed (without lube), and then most likely uninstall the game permanantly.
And your problem is? No, they won't get violated as you suggested, rather a change and tactics and more willingness to join a corp (just as likely as your "violation" note above). If I recall the thread was about adding risk to high sec, with an obvious unspoken slam on miners. Well, they just got buffed rather well as you guys love pointing out, so have at it.
Quit trying to coddle the players, INCLUDING the newbs and gankers. They are the two single most hand-held groups in this game: one for good reason, the other because they haven't made the choice many others, INCLUDING NOOBS, have long since made. If they quit after losing a ship then this obviously isn't the game for them. And no, that statement has NOTHING to do with big, bad gankers and baddies. It has to do with playing the game handed to them on a silver platter.
Edit: YOU chose to suggest newbs should be "stuck" in 1.0; I say that's a boolshite attitude. people looking for the easy button will stay in 1.0: so be it. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Tactical Vendor of Services and Goods Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
1777
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:59:00 -
[274] - Quote
I will go ahead and give a very specific example of when the risk should outweigh the reward.
Murder. Killing someone for no reason at all other than to take their stuff. So...ganking.
Working as intended. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:17:00 -
[275] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella it's obviously quite clear it's a very long time since you were completely new in eve. Eve, by it's design, is a massively complex game You do not get to understand eve in 5 hours You do not to 'rush' end content in a few weeks There is so much content available it can take a week just to discover what most of your options are. Clones, Skilltraining , Fitting Skills , Core Skills and Tanking Styles are just some of the basics that you take for granted as 'given knowledge' ... but how long did it take you to aquire that 'given knowledge'. was it weeks or months ... when did you STOP learning.
You cannot detrimently affect the completely new players to the game, just because you dont like how some people continue to play after several months or even years in some cases.
New players are potentially, the future bittervets of a few years down the line, but not if hisec is changed to exclude them from 90% of it. They simply will not stay in the game, new players are needed and your a fool if you think otherwise.
CCP realise that people need time to get to grips with the game, thats why there is a blanket ban on griefplay ONLY in starter systems ... because if you grief them within their first f ew hours (and there are braindead retards in this game that would) they will quit, and it is not hand holding. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
323
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:23:00 -
[276] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Not really, the idea of making a character join a channel on chargen is trivially simple. No wardec immunity needed.. This isn't joining a channel independently.
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:This is false. I can hang on the other side of a rookie system jump gate and suicide gank some newbie and all his short life's savings NPC corp or no NPC corp with the cheapest of ships. And of course, if they leave to join their first player-run corp and do some of that fun stuff they read about, they're fair game. NPC corps only serve to protect the PvE alts (or mains) of veterans with ships in the hundreds of thousands of EHP. No, it's actually quite true as you are limited in your means of aggressing them. Granted it only limits one way, but any but of assistance helps. Add to that the fact that the method you mention at least causes you to incur loss in both ships and security status and you've reduced its viability as a full time occupation to many.
I've already agreed with you on the point of veterans, but allow me to now state explicitly that "Those that benefit from this" being "being given a channel while you may not even know where the channel button is" refers directly to new players and as such complaints about veterans aren't terribly relevant.
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Keep the channel, remove the wardec immunity 'features'. Then newbies get all that vital legitimate advice you say is so necessary and the veterans have reason to move on. I think we may be at a disagreement here as to whether genuinely new players are deserving of any protections. Correct me if I am wrong here.
|
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:29:00 -
[277] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Kitty Bear wrote: Can you prove "tanked Hulk can't be profitably destroyed in hisec" is not true?
I fixed this, because the point has always been about profit.
Yeah, it's never been just about the lulz.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
1927
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 01:40:00 -
[278] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:No, it's actually quite true as you are limited in your means of aggressing them. Granted it only limits one way, but any but of assistance helps. Add to that the fact that the method you mention at least causes you to incur loss in both ships and security status and you've reduced its viability as a full time occupation to many. Still false. All benefits newbies receive from NPC corps, veterans also receive, and receive more of. Newbies and newbie-accessible ships have the least EHP of anyone, which is the only mitigator in committing to a suicide gank. It's absurd to assert that something that puts new players at an effective disadvantage is for their benefit.
Quote:I've already agreed with you on the point of veterans, but allow me to now state explicitly that "Those that benefit from this" being "being given a channel while you may not even know where the channel button is" refers directly to new players and as such complaints about veterans aren't terribly relevant. Again, an npc corp channel can just pop up with chargen. With that in mind, "the npc corp channel" s a poor justification for all the other problems NPC corps bring to EVE - NPC corp channels can exist independent of NPC corps themselves, new characters just automatically log into them.Quote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Keep the channel, remove the wardec immunity 'features'. Then newbies get all that vital legitimate advice you say is so necessary and the veterans have reason to move on. I think we may be at a disagreement here as to whether genuinely new players are deserving of any protections. Correct me if I am wrong here. I joined my first random player run corp within 14 hours of signing up for the game and I'm still here 5 years later. So I don't exactly buy it when I'm told that sheltering some 5 year old player grinding plexes in a officer fit faction ship or their multiboxed t2 mining barge fleet is vital to 'protecting newbies'. What you and I consider 'protection' is the difference I take it. |
Touval Lysander
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
281
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 01:49:00 -
[279] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: As pipa said, drakes have lost 7 mil after the changes
Caldari fuel has lost almost half of its value after the barge changes.
Pfft... Prices, prices, prices....
FACT >> Drakes USED to sell for 23m...
Come on, we can use ANY time span and we can find an argument for justification.
Check this out....
ICE Ice was artifically inflated (by death and by speculation) and the price at the height of that period is being repeatedly used to compare to today. For a TRUE comparison, what was it BEFORE the ice interdict?
FACT (Rens market) I graphed up on all 4 isotopes, I see the prices have ice have returned to +- 10% over a year.
Plot interdict (6 months), well, look at that, it spiked. SURPRISE!!!
And if I errr..... plot over 3 months, OH NOES, Bring back gankers!!!!
MINERALS - just one example Ganking is neccessary to retain market prices. Bring back ganking!!!
FACT (Rens market) Trit - 3 months - OH NOES!!!! Bring back gankers!!!! Trit - 12 months, I'm going mining... do dah, do dah. (3.2 >> 5.5)
DRAKES Drakes are falling in price. Bring back ganking!!!
FACT (Rens market) Drake - 5 days - Trending UP Drake - 10 days - Trending UP Drake - 1 month - Trending UP Drake - 3 months - Trending DOWN (announcement of missile nerf?) Drake - 6 months - Trending DOWN (?)
Drake - 12 months - WOW!!! (less than 25m each >>> 47m)
I could go on. Pick a statistic, ANY statistic gankers and run with it.
The market has a LONG way to go before the claims made here get any traction.
Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine..... I lost countless ships and millions of isk on gank attempts. I did not blame CCP, Concord or the miner. I blamed me for bothering. I made more money.......... mining.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
324
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 02:00:00 -
[280] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: Still false. All benefits newbies receive from NPC corps, veterans also receive, and receive more of. Newbies and newbie-accessible ships have the least EHP of anyone, which is the only mitigator in committing to a suicide gank. It's absurd to assert that something that puts new players at an effective disadvantage is for their benefit. This would only stand true if suicide ganks were the only way of getting at these players. They aren't. I at no point claimed they protected from all types of aggression, but they do protect from one. The one you mention is again odd because being in a player corp in no way makes you more or less susceptible to a suicide gank. So let me ask, why does suicide ganking even matter since it can be done to both veterans and new players of player corps and NPC corps alike? How does this draw any distinction? If it doesn't, it is irrelevant. and even if it did it does not negate the fact there is some value in spending time as a new player not locked down by wardecs.
Quote:Again, an npc corp channel can just pop up with chargen. With that in mind, "the npc corp channel" s a poor justification for all the other problems NPC corps bring to EVE - NPC corp channels can exist independent of NPC corps themselves, new characters just automatically log into them. A good solution, but then what becomes the new system in which new players are to be introduced to the game as being a part of?
Quote:[quote=Nicolo da'Vicenza]I joined my first random player run corp within 14 hours of signing up for the game and I'm still here 5 years later. So I don't exactly buy it when I'm told that sheltering some 5 year old player grinding plexes in a officer fit faction ship or their multiboxed t2 mining barge fleet is vital to 'protecting newbies'. What you and I consider 'protection' is the difference I take it. I'm not sure what this is a response to, so I'll simply repeat my statement: "I think we may be at a disagreement here as to whether genuinely new players are deserving of any protections. Correct me if I am wrong here." and add this question to it: What is the intersection you see here between new players and 5 year old accounts running plexes? I'm don't think there should be many occupying both groups so when I say "New players" why do you respond about protections to veterans. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2435
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 03:53:00 -
[281] - Quote
Quote:
Working as intended. The devs clearly stated recently that suicide ganking ships like miners was never intended to be profitable.
Ganking a lone freighter hauling very valuable goods may be. Ganking a PVE pimpboat may be.
But it wasn't intended to be. It's a sandbox - so you certainly have the freedom to incur the loss of ISK and standing you will suffer to gank a miner. But you seem to be complaining that it's not profitable. It's not DESIGNED TO BE! Never was.
Yet I can gank any other fitted ship that has no tank fitted and make a profit off nearly all of them. Also CCP said ganking the hull shouldnt be profitable, not a fitted barge with no tank. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2435
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 04:16:00 -
[282] - Quote
Touval wrote:
Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine.....
My production profits have halfed in the last few months because the markets are flooded with raw materials. Your numbers in fack back up what I am saying as they show a big rise in value at the start of the year then a drop off after the sumer changes. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 04:41:00 -
[283] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Touval wrote:
Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine.....
My production profits have halfed in the last few months because the markets are flooded with raw materials. Your numbers in fack back up what I am saying as they show a big rise in value at the start of the year then a drop off after the sumer changes.
That big rise was caused by CCP removing material flood from drone regions. No, it wasn't because of gankers. Unless you're saying that you were there flooding the market with gun mining... |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1440
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:27:00 -
[284] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Touval wrote:
Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine.....
My production profits have halfed in the last few months because the markets are flooded with raw materials. Your numbers in fack back up what I am saying as they show a big rise in value at the start of the year then a drop off after the sumer changes. That big rise was caused by CCP removing material flood from drone regions. No, it wasn't because of gankers. Unless you're saying that you were there flooding the market with gun mining... Just to be clear, you're saying when supply went up, prices went up.
That's not correct.
Value = Demand / Supply
So when supply goes up, value goes down if demand is constant.
I hope this was helpful. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:33:00 -
[285] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Touval wrote:
Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine.....
My production profits have halfed in the last few months because the markets are flooded with raw materials. Your numbers in fack back up what I am saying as they show a big rise in value at the start of the year then a drop off after the sumer changes. That big rise was caused by CCP removing material flood from drone regions. No, it wasn't because of gankers. Unless you're saying that you were there flooding the market with gun mining... Just to be clear, you're saying when supply went up, prices went up. That's not correct. Value = Demand / Supply So when supply goes up, value goes down if demand is constant. I hope this was helpful.
When people were gun mining in drone regions and reprocessed their meta 0 mission loot there was way more materials in market (= high supply) and that caused prices to stay low. |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1440
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:35:00 -
[286] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Touval wrote:
Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine.....
My production profits have halfed in the last few months because the markets are flooded with raw materials. Your numbers in fack back up what I am saying as they show a big rise in value at the start of the year then a drop off after the sumer changes. That big rise was caused by CCP removing material flood from drone regions. No, it wasn't because of gankers. Unless you're saying that you were there flooding the market with gun mining... Just to be clear, you're saying when supply went up, prices went up. That's not correct. Value = Demand / Supply So when supply goes up, value goes down if demand is constant. I hope this was helpful. When people were gun mining in drone regions and reprocessed their meta 0 mission loot there was way more materials in market (= high supply) and that caused prices to stay low.
You conveniently neglect the reactionary flood of materials from speculators sitting on large supplies.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful posting. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:37:00 -
[287] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:You conveniently neglect the reactionary flood of materials from speculators sitting on large supplies.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful posting.
If drone regions weren't the problem then why did CCP remove drone stuff?
It clearly was a problem. |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1440
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:38:00 -
[288] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:You conveniently neglect the reactionary flood of materials from speculators sitting on large supplies.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful posting. If drone regions weren't the problem then why did CCP remove drone stuff? It clearly was a problem. In an attempt to lower supply for the future.
Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future.
Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:40:00 -
[289] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:You conveniently neglect the reactionary flood of materials from speculators sitting on large supplies.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful posting. If drone regions weren't the problem then why did CCP remove drone stuff? It clearly was a problem. In an attempt to lower supply for the future. Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future. Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly.
Then can you prove supply is currently the same as it was before removal of drone stuff and meta 0 loot?
|
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1440
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:44:00 -
[290] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:You conveniently neglect the reactionary flood of materials from speculators sitting on large supplies.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful posting. If drone regions weren't the problem then why did CCP remove drone stuff? It clearly was a problem. In an attempt to lower supply for the future. Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future. Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly. Then can you prove supply is currently the same as it was before removal of drone stuff and meta 0 loot? We can watch prices and not only predict what the supply is, but also the demand, through market history.
At the end of the day, vast speculative mineral stores were opeend up when the game changed in a way that favored selling them at inflationary prices.
I believe some of those reserves still continue to have an impact on prices, for the time being. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9814
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:45:00 -
[291] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Then can you prove supply is currently the same as it was before removal of drone stuff and meta 0 loot?
Same old strawman.
Why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:48:00 -
[292] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:We can watch prices and not only predict what the supply is, but also the demand, through market history.
At the end of the day, vast speculative mineral stores were opeend up when the game changed in a way that favored selling them at inflationary prices.
I believe some of those reserves still continue to have an impact on prices, for the time being.
That would cause prices to go down, not up like they did. Tier 3 BSs are still at ~250M (~150M before the change).
And no, hisec "mining bots" can't keep highend supply as high as it was before the change. Remember that drone regions were great source of highends.
Tippia wrote:Why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying?
He says that supply of materials has gone up after removal of meta 0 loot and drone stuff.
In reality supply of especially highends has gone down. |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1440
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:57:00 -
[293] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:We can watch prices and not only predict what the supply is, but also the demand, through market history.
At the end of the day, vast speculative mineral stores were opeend up when the game changed in a way that favored selling them at inflationary prices.
I believe some of those reserves still continue to have an impact on prices, for the time being. That would cause prices to go down, not up like they did. Tier 3 BSs are still at ~250M (~150M before the change). And no, hisec "mining bots" can't keep highend supply as high as it was before the change. Remember that drone regions were great source of highends. Tippia wrote:Why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying? He says that supply of materials has gone up after removal of meta 0 loot and drone stuff. In reality supply of especially highends has gone down.
Your causality is broken and I see the cause of your misconception now.
I say supply will go up without end because there isn't sufficient risk to prevent success at certain high-sec activities anymore.
Which is a statement about two things:
1) The propensity for humans to take the easy, low-risk, common-denominator option and
2) The principles expressed in Value = Demand / Supply.
There's a difference between saying supply went up due to something that obviously cut it off long-term but caused a brief spike, and another thing entirely which can adequately be predicted to increase supply ad infinitum.
I hope I've clarified my position. Thanks again for your thoughtful post. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
1928
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:00:00 -
[294] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: Still false. All benefits newbies receive from NPC corps, veterans also receive, and receive more of. Newbies and newbie-accessible ships have the least EHP of anyone, which is the only mitigator in committing to a suicide gank. It's absurd to assert that something that puts new players at an effective disadvantage is for their benefit. This would only stand true if suicide ganks were the only way of getting at these players. They aren't. I at no point claimed they protected from all types of aggression, but they do protect from one. The one you mention is again odd because being in a player corp in no way makes you more or less susceptible to a suicide gank. So let me ask, why does suicide ganking even matter since it can be done to both veterans and new players of player corps and NPC corps alike? Your argument is that NPC corps need to stay in place because 'they protect newbies'. I point out that newbies and their ships are totally susceptible to things like suicide ganking at negligible costs for the ganker. The question is, if anyone can kill newbies for any reason without any real difficulty or warning, then NPC corps are really **** poor at fulfilling the purpose you say justifies their existence, right? And if they aren't doing that, then why bother keeping them considering all the harm they do? Remember, the helpful chat channel can easily exist outside the gamebreaking wardec-immune supercorp.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: Again, an npc corp channel can just pop up with chargen. With that in mind, "the npc corp channel" s a poor justification for all the other problems NPC corps bring to EVE - NPC corp channels can exist independent of NPC corps themselves, new characters just automatically log into them. A good solution, but then what becomes the new system in which new players are to be introduced to the game as being a part of? I imagine them as freelancers, able to be dec and be decced as individuals, going about their business however they like while asking questions in some NPC corp chat channel. Newbies and casual players wouldn't be worth the dec, while the AFK autopilot freighter alt would be. It'd be up to the players to decide whether they wish to take their chances and fight their battles alone or join a group and work towards collective security. You know, a sandbox. As opposed to now where it's the small newbie player-run corp that doesn't know about decshields and NPC corp PvE alts that are eating the brunt of the griefdecs (more ways that NPC corps harm newbies and should be removed). Zipping around in a noobship with no safety net isn't a big deal. Heavily ratting with a officer-fit pimpboat might be another story though ;).
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:I joined my first random player run corp within 14 hours of signing up for the game and I'm still here 5 years later. So I don't exactly buy it when I'm told that sheltering some 5 year old player grinding plexes in a officer fit faction ship or their multiboxed t2 mining barge fleet is vital to 'protecting newbies'. What you and I consider 'protection' is the difference I take it. To be specific, I'm talking about protections to new players only, not veterans.[/quote] The 'protections' afforded to 'genuinely new players' by NPC corps are pitiful. Again, anyone can roll out with a catalyst and snuff out the t1 hull carrying a new player's worldly goods at any time for any reason, wardec or no, NPC corp or no. That's not real protection, it doesn't even come close to justifying the gross harm and distortion a wardec-free mode in EVE does. In practice, NPC corps serve to protect experienced players able to afford ships with buckets of EHP that remove the threat of ganking in all but the most extreme of pilot error. Players that can't exactly hide under a cover of 'noobness' as justification for exemption from wardecs that everyone else in EVE has to deal with. Players like yourself. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:00:00 -
[295] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:There's a difference between saying supply went up due to something that obviously cut it off long-term but caused a brief spike, and another thing entirely which can adequately be predicted to increase supply ad infinitum.
Supply was way higher when people could "gun mine" in drone regions.
Oh, and could you give me a location of hisec asteroid belt with ABCs in it? I pay you 30M. |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1440
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:05:00 -
[296] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:There's a difference between saying supply went up due to something that obviously cut it off long-term but caused a brief spike, and another thing entirely which can adequately be predicted to increase supply ad infinitum. Supply was way higher when people could "gun mine" in drone regions. Oh, and could you give me a location of hisec asteroid belt with ABCs in it? I pay you 30M. Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production.
To the point, the vast majority of low-end minerals come from high-sec mining.
Also, "way higher" doesn't matter if models of causality predict a rise in supply ad-infinitum.
Infinity is greater than "way high." Runaway supply is bad for Eve's market health (and arguably Eve itself).
Risk adds value. Taking risk away removes value.
In real life that can be a real bummer.
Fortunately we're HTFU'd immortal humans in another galaxy in this game. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:07:00 -
[297] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production.
If drone regions didn't have any effect on supply why prices stayed low for years?
Drone stuff was also good source of lowends for those who think mining is boring. |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1440
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:09:00 -
[298] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production. If drone regions didn't have any effect on supply why prices stayed low for years? Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:11:00 -
[299] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production.
Drone stuff was also good source of lowends for those who think mining is boring. |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1440
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:12:00 -
[300] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production. Drone stuff was also good source of lowends for those who think mining is boring. It doesn't matter how high supply of anything was.
Infinity is higher than that.
Regardless of where we happen to be right now. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |