| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
329
   |
Posted - 2012.12.27 12:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
Some Rando wrote:Peter Raptor wrote:If CCP nerfs hisec, what have the hisec dwellers/industrialists got left A lot of other space to do business in. High-sec should be left to new players and the little coddled children who can't handle conflict in a PvP game.
any examples of "other space"?
i'm only aware of low, sov 0.0, NPC 0.0 and wormholes. And not one of these worth spending time I PAID FOR. |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
329
|
Posted - 2012.12.27 12:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Peter Raptor wrote:
It is Null sec that needs to be Buffed somehow, cos if you nerf the daylights outta High sec, people will have little choice but to
leave, and we'll get the same lousy player numbers as during the last unending Hulkaggeddon before the Mining Barge Buff.
The problem is that many aspects of highsec are offered in near infinite amount and without cost. Adjusting aspects of nullsec to be more appealing then things that are free, extremely convenient and wholly without risk would be far more game breaking then merely downgrading specific highsec services. If there was a way to achieve this without touching highsec I would be entirely for it since it would create much less fuss.
there is way: add CONCORD. It's quite simple isn't it?  |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
329
|
Posted - 2012.12.27 12:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:destiny2 wrote:If their going to nerf anything nerf null get rid of the tech moons, make it so people actually have to work for their isk How much "work" did hi-sec players put in to get all those invulnerable stations which they can't be locked out of? You don't get to complain about tech moons in null until stations in hi-sec cost you 20 bill a pop.
i spent 6 or 7 months of my and my corp activity to build outpost in 0.0. Mined, grinded alloys, lots of PI and stuff.
1 month after system was lost because alliance failed at war.
So what's your point again? you got lucky to get into right alliance so you have cake. i haven't and cake was taken from me. and there is difference. All the difference. |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
329
|
Posted - 2012.12.27 13:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Decrease war declaration costs, increase NPC corp tax and and make it apply to LP as well as bounties then limit highsec POSes to medium and small towers and I think you'd go a long way to making highsec much more reasonable space.
it's all good and refreshing.
However would anyone describe to me why the hell CONCORD pays for killing rats in 0.0? Who the hell would even care about them infesting spaces which belongs to noone? Remove CONCORD payouts from killing NPC in 0.0 and it will be more reasonable space  |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
330
|
Posted - 2012.12.27 15:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:March rabbit wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Decrease war declaration costs, increase NPC corp tax and and make it apply to LP as well as bounties then limit highsec POSes to medium and small towers and I think you'd go a long way to making highsec much more reasonable space. it's all good and refreshing. However would anyone describe to me why the hell CONCORD pays for killing rats in 0.0? Who the hell would even care about them infesting spaces which belongs to noone? Remove CONCORD payouts from killing NPC in 0.0 and it will be more reasonable space It would be no skin off my nose. But unlike you my intention in posting was to suggest things that would make highsec less terrible not to make stupid rhetorical arguments to try and further the advantage that bad game design gives me personally.
1. you gave to high-sec status "terrible". Your job to prove it first. And only if you can succeed at it then we will speak about fixes.
2. I asked really interesting question. Outside of ISK source for 0.0 bears i don't see any reasons for these payouts.
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
330
|
Posted - 2012.12.27 15:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:No, you just proved my point with an excellent example. That risk exists & should be compensated for.
ok.
- Any numbers please?
- Any reasons why it should be CCP's job to compensate risks PROVIDED BY PLAYERS? |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
332
|
Posted - 2012.12.27 17:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:March rabbit wrote:Malcanis wrote:No, you just proved my point with an excellent example. That risk exists & should be compensated for. ok. - Any numbers please? - Any reasons why it should be CCP's job to compensate risks PROVIDED BY PLAYERS? I suppose that someone who knew about such things could query the database about how many stations have changed hands, butare you seriously disputing your own example?
i have no access to databases but i can assist a little.
Ok. Number of stations changed hands is 5 (any number is good for theoretical discussions). So your suggested value for increasing rewards in 0.0 is ...?
And second question is still here. |
| |
|