Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7887
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:23:00 -
[451] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The tracking formula itself is fine I think. Except for the fact that when the transversal is low enough, the formula always yields a hit. It doesn't take distance (and by inference the relative sigradius, hitting a penny at 1 yard is "moderately" harder than hitting the same penny at 1000 yards, even if it doesn't move) into account when calculating whether or not you hit, only when calculating how much damage you should deal. You're absolutely correct, and this is something I've been aware of for quite some time. I guess I should have been more specific in that I think the tracking formula is fine when factoring in the ability for dreads to hit subcaps. I have long been bothered that a battleship can blap a frigate that turns the wrong way (and loses too much radial velocity for a split second) even though it is very far away, while a battlecruiser orbiting the battleship at 500m with no prop on can't be touched even though you'd think it would be easy to hit with capital weapons simply by aiming them in front of its path and firing 3-4 volleys as it drifted slowly past. Yes I feel that is an annoyance and possibly a problem. Solving it is easy, but I'm not convinced it needs solving. CCP and many PVPers seem to feel that the "getting under the guns" tactic is something that is good about EVE. P.S. the correct term is radial velocity, not transversal velocity. However, in a fixed system that more closely followed gunnery logic, transversal would be almost exactly the factor in tracking ability, rather than at current, in which radial is exactly the factor.
Tracking formula Opaque as an autumn mist Precision shines through! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
163
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:34:00 -
[452] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Overpowered passive cloaking. It is now to the point where people are now beyond AFK cloaking but running Twitch.tv streams of enemy stations and systems! Would you support balancing cloaking to punish those who go AFK (Eventually able to be scanned down for decloak) while maintaining the benefits to people actively cloaking (Remaining at their keyboard)
Cloaking is discussed at some length earlier in this thread. The tl;dr is that I'd support removing the ability to scan or probe whilst cloaked, and I don't think that ships using non-covops cloaks should recharge shield or cap, but I don't see any need for further nerfs after that.
You've heard my opinion on cloaking nerfs, but cloaking nerfs + automatic d-scan updating would be beyond obnoxious. We're not frantically mashing dscan blindly in an attempt to mimic local. Sometimes you don't want it to update so you can get a good long look at that one guy whom you caught uncloaked for a second. You're proposing breaking our cloaks and our ways of hunting cloakies. Unless you want a dscan history to go with the automatic updating, you're needlessly making life difficult in w-space so people in k-space can feel safer.
I'd rather see k-space given more tools for group play or incentives to defend their PvE grounds to counter the scary cloakers. Right now it isn't cost-effective to defend yourself the way w-space does in k-space, and that's just ridiculous. Putting in the effort to make your system(s) inhospitable to any intruders in ways that aren't "not blue pos up" should be rewarded. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7895
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 18:45:00 -
[453] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:Malcanis wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Overpowered passive cloaking. It is now to the point where people are now beyond AFK cloaking but running Twitch.tv streams of enemy stations and systems! Would you support balancing cloaking to punish those who go AFK (Eventually able to be scanned down for decloak) while maintaining the benefits to people actively cloaking (Remaining at their keyboard)
Cloaking is discussed at some length earlier in this thread. The tl;dr is that I'd support removing the ability to scan or probe whilst cloaked, and I don't think that ships using non-covops cloaks should recharge shield or cap, but I don't see any need for further nerfs after that. You've heard my opinion on cloaking nerfs, but cloaking nerfs + automatic d-scan updating would be beyond obnoxious. We're not frantically mashing dscan blindly in an attempt to mimic local. Sometimes you don't want it to update so you can get a good long look at that one guy whom you caught uncloaked for a second. You're proposing breaking our cloaks and our ways of hunting cloakies. Unless you want a dscan history to go with the automatic updating, you're needlessly making life difficult in w-space so people in k-space can feel safer. I'd rather see k-space given more tools for group play or incentives to defend their PvE grounds to counter the scary cloakers. Right now it isn't cost-effective to defend yourself the way w-space does in k-space, and that's just ridiculous. Putting in the effort to make your system(s) inhospitable to any intruders in ways that aren't "not blue pos up" should be rewarded.
Have you seen this? Sounds like you might find it useful. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7900
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:27:00 -
[454] - Quote
BTW it should be pretty trivial to ad a "manual update" mode even to a real time DSCAN. Thanks for pointing out that this would be a desired feature in this scenario. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:14:00 -
[455] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:....When you have ~60-70% of the game population crammed into a zone that's only ~15% of the game area, then there's a prima facia case for rebalancing right there. More specifically, when 95% of productive activity takes place in hi-sec, then it's even more obvious that there's a straight up imbalance. The situation we have now is that making hi-sec too good has ended up badly for 0.0, and that imbalance needs to be addressed.... While I believe you have some good ideas on many areas of EVE, I wonGÇÖt be voting for you. I believe a fundamental part of your position amounts to little more than GÇÿNerfGÇÖ Highsec.
People are not crammed into 15% of the game area, they choose to stay out the other 85%. Individual choices that 85% of the game area does not offer them what they want or need.
If GÇ£GǪ95% of productive activity takes place in hi-secGǪGÇ¥, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesnGÇÖt fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is levelGǪ it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer.
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
163
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:18:00 -
[456] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Have you seen this? Sounds like you might find it useful.
Interesting. It is pretty, though I could probably parse the results in the time it would take me to use the tool. I'll give it a whirl sometime. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7905
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:24:00 -
[457] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote:....When you have ~60-70% of the game population crammed into a zone that's only ~15% of the game area, then there's a prima facia case for rebalancing right there. More specifically, when 95% of productive activity takes place in hi-sec, then it's even more obvious that there's a straight up imbalance. The situation we have now is that making hi-sec too good has ended up badly for 0.0, and that imbalance needs to be addressed.... While I believe you have some good ideas on many areas of EVE, I wonGÇÖt be voting for you. I believe a fundamental part of your position amounts to little more than GÇÿNerfGÇÖ Highsec. People are not crammed into 15% of the game area, they choose to stay out the other 85%. Individual choices that 85% of the game area does not offer them what they want or need.
If GÇ£GǪ95% of productive activity takes place in hi-secGǪGÇ¥, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesnGÇÖt fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is levelGǪ it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer.
The part of your post I highlighted is exactly my position. I've said it before, many times, and I'll say it again: I'm not about nerfing hi-sec for the sake of "punishing people for playing EVE the wrong way". The ONLY reason that I would support a nerf to high sec production is for the sake of balancing with sov 0.0 where no further 0.0 buff is possible. In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can, and only then would I want them to start looking at the necessity of nerfing high sec with respect to, for instance, slot fees which are currently so low that there simply isn't the margin to compensate for the inherent costs of 0.0 production. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Lord Zim
2296
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 17:12:00 -
[458] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:If GÇ£GǪ95% of productive activity takes place in hi-secGǪGÇ¥, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesnGÇÖt fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is levelGǪ it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer. Tell us more about what CCP could possibly do to nullsec industry to make it compete with f.ex a maelstrom costing 2k isk in fees in total safety, and within 2 jumps of jita. By making the stations pay us for using them? Make refinery yield more minerals than hisec? Make minerals pop up out of thin air? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7913
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 18:20:00 -
[459] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:If GÇ£GǪ95% of productive activity takes place in hi-secGǪGÇ¥, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesnGÇÖt fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is levelGǪ it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer. Tell us more about what CCP could possibly do to nullsec industry to make it compete with f.ex a maelstrom costing 2k isk in fees in total safety, and within 2 jumps of jita. By making the stations pay us for using them? Make refinery yield more minerals than hisec? Make minerals pop up out of thin air?
In essence, this. The situation for R&D, Invention, etc is similar. EVE won't die if NPC stations charge a couple of mill to build a battleship, but it might make industry in player sov competitive.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1033
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:01:00 -
[460] - Quote
I have said before that I would be concerned that improving null-sec production to compete favourably with hi-sec might lead to the development of self-contained Eve 'bubbles' with little need for interaction between them.
Would it not be better to come up with a radical solution to the problems of null-sec rather than, in some respects, copying hi-sec?
Do you have any thoughts what could be done to improve null-sec apart form improving production?
I ask this not to be awkward in any way Malcanis, I am simply wondering if you have any ideas for radical solutions to the issues of null-sec. This is not a signature. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7916
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:08:00 -
[461] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:I have said before that I would be concerned that improving null-sec production to compete favourably with hi-sec might lead to the development of self-contained Eve 'bubbles' with little need for interaction between them.
Would it not be better to come up with a radical solution to the problems of null-sec rather than, in some respects, copying hi-sec?
Do you have any thoughts what could be done to improve null-sec apart form improving production?
I ask this not to be awkward in any way Malcanis, I am simply wondering if you have any ideas for radical solutions to the issues of null-sec.
Honestly I think the contingency is remote. And even if it isn't, I'd far rather see 'bubble's of players being where they want to be than every producer being forced to operate in hi-sec and JFing the produce to their local part of 0.0. It's not like there's a thriving direct trade between nullsec area A and nullsec area B right now that's being threatened. This talk of 'bubbles' can easily be translated as "Oh no, fewer people will need to be in hi-sec ".
Without any explaination of why that's bad, exactly.
Why is it bad, exactly? Can you lay out a plausible scenario of how it would be worse for someone? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Lord Zim
2296
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:16:00 -
[462] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:I have said before that I would be concerned that improving null-sec production to compete favourably with hi-sec might lead to the development of self-contained Eve 'bubbles' with little need for interaction between them. Hmm. Let's see, on one hand we have lots of people just hauling minerals (mined by people who are mostly safe to a station), in nigh-on full safety, 2 jumps out of jita, spend 2k isk to build a maelstrom, and fly it back the same 2 jumps, to sell it to someone who then load it into a JF and ships it to nullsec. On the other hand, we have people actually manufacturing in nullsec, still have to import various things like T2 stuff etc, but ends up sourcing minerals locally, thus making it more lucrative to mine in nullsec than it is in hisec, thus creating a nullsec which isn't dead outside of fleet fights, i.e. a place where roaming gangs can actually have a chance of catching more dumbasses who aren't watching local, creating a need for an actual unironic home defense fleet, etc etc etc.
Well, we can't have that happen, now can we? That's definitely more isolationist and bubbly than having literally all ships, modules, ammo etc made in hisec by people you don't know. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7916
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:19:00 -
[463] - Quote
Honestly, these arguments remind me of the "southern way of life" ones made against the VRA in the 50s.
"If we make 0.0 just as good as hi-sec, then these dirty nullers will be just as good as god-fearin' hi-sec folks! What if they start drinking at hi-sec water fountains? Going to hi-sec schools? What if they start bothering hisec women???" Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
419
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 04:05:00 -
[464] - Quote
Malcanis, what's your take on a mining ship that mines more than a hulk but can't be operated in empire space? Or maybe just not in highsec. Say, a mining-oriented capital ship, or whatever it might need to be. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7923
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 07:58:00 -
[465] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Malcanis, what's your take on a mining ship that mines more than a hulk but can't be operated in empire space? Or maybe just not in highsec. Say, a mining-oriented capital ship, or whatever it might need to be.
What problem is it intended to solve? I'm not aware of anyone saying that we don't have enough miners. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Amyclas Amatin
The Phantom Regiment THE ROYAL NAVY
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 08:27:00 -
[466] - Quote
Due to changes in my gameplay and from being exposed to different communities, I've finally seen the light.
My 3 votes go to Malcanis, as the most reasonable of the pro null/low-sec candidates.
Malcanis, how do you see the future of low-sec?
The post that got me banned from Eve-Uni:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=210049&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:11:00 -
[467] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Due to changes in my gameplay and from being exposed to different communities, I've finally seen the light.
My 3 votes go to Malcanis, as the most reasonable of the pro null/low-sec candidates.
Malcanis, how do you see the future of low-sec?
I have no specific proposals for lo-sec - as I said earlier in this thread, the best thing I can do for lo is keep my fool mouth shut. If Marc Scaraus or some other lo-sec focused candidate gets elected,t hen I'll evaluate their proposals for impact on 0.0, and otherwise support them. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:12:00 -
[468] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can... Wouldn't this in turn buff Null Alliances?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:14:00 -
[469] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote: In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can... Wouldn't this in turn buff Null Alliances?
Null alliances currently conduct their (non supercap) industry in hi-sec. I'd like to see them conduct those productive activities in their own space where it can be messed with. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Lord Zim
2297
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:16:00 -
[470] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote: In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can... Wouldn't this in turn buff Null Alliances? How? Alliances which would move some (or all) their industry into nullsec would be more vulnerable to interference, as opposed to today's situation where it's ... not. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
|
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:17:00 -
[471] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:If GÇ£GǪ95% of productive activity takes place in hi-secGǪGÇ¥, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesnGÇÖt fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is levelGǪ it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer. Tell us more about what CCP could possibly do to nullsec industry to make it compete with f.ex a maelstrom costing 2k isk in fees in total safety, and within 2 jumps of jita. By making the stations pay us for using them? Make refinery yield more minerals than hisec? Make minerals pop up out of thin air? Are you asking me how to 'fix' nullsec industry?
I was conversing with Malcanis... questioning whether his position wasn't just a Nerf Highsec. Is it you feeling that is the only answer?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:22:00 -
[472] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote: In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can... Wouldn't this in turn buff Null Alliances? How? Alliances which would move some (or all) their industry into nullsec would be more vulnerable to interference, as opposed to today's situation where it's ... not.
The end result will be that those alliances that actively and effectively protect their local production will see a "buff", with that being balanced by the overhead of providing that protection, which in turn will mean more small gang/solo targets for outsiders, and more small gang activity for the alliance in question. I am absolutely OK with making this trade-off. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:36:00 -
[473] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote: In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can... Wouldn't this in turn buff Null Alliances? Null alliances currently conduct their (non supercap) industry in hi-sec. I'd like to see them conduct those productive activities in their own space where it can be messed with. Does this constitute a buff? It's also worth noting that if it is a buff, it's a buff for the ordinary alliance member, not a direct passive income buff for the alliance wallet... My Alliance is building T1 ships and giving them to my Corp so we can die on our adventures in to 0.0. Do Null Alliances lack ship replacement options? There must be some form of ship production for/by the Alliances/Corp members in Null.
More efficient ship production in Null means a Buff. How much that Buff isGǪ I couldnGÇÖt say.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:40:00 -
[474] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote: In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can... Wouldn't this in turn buff Null Alliances? Null alliances currently conduct their (non supercap) industry in hi-sec. I'd like to see them conduct those productive activities in their own space where it can be messed with. Does this constitute a buff? It's also worth noting that if it is a buff, it's a buff for the ordinary alliance member, not a direct passive income buff for the alliance wallet... My Alliance is building T1 ships and giving them to my Corp so we can die on our adventures in to 0.0. Do Null Alliances lack ship replacement options? There must be some form of ship production for/by the Alliances/Corp members in Null. More efficient ship production in Null means a Buff. How much that Buff isGǪ I couldnGÇÖt say.
It'll be a buff for alliances that don't have the capability to simply JF everything up from Empire, which currently is the most efficient model. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:41:00 -
[475] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: How? Alliances which would move some (or all) their industry into nullsec would be more vulnerable to interference, as opposed to today's situation where it's ... not.
Are you saying this would be bad for Null? If, so ... then would they just ignore this change and continue with Highsec production? Why make the change at all, unless it improves EVE?
|
Lord Zim
2297
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:41:00 -
[476] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:If GÇ£GǪ95% of productive activity takes place in hi-secGǪGÇ¥, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesnGÇÖt fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is levelGǪ it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer. Tell us more about what CCP could possibly do to nullsec industry to make it compete with f.ex a maelstrom costing 2k isk in fees in total safety, and within 2 jumps of jita. By making the stations pay us for using them? Make refinery yield more minerals than hisec? Make minerals pop up out of thin air? Are you asking me how to 'fix' nullsec industry? I was conversing with Malcanis... questioning whether his position wasn't just a Nerf Highsec. Is it you feeling that is the only answer? I don't propose to answer for malcanis, but I've made my position on the way industry is done in hisec quite clear over a myriad of posts, but I'll elucidate to make it crystal clear here as well:
No, it's not the only answer, but it is a part of the answer. The fact of the matter is, the only way you can make nullsec industry actually "properly worthwhile" in nullsec is to make adjustments to both nullsec and hisec. By all means make changes to nullsec first, and then adjustments to hisec, but as long as I can go to jita, buy all the minerals I can possibly need in a few minutes, haul that 2 jumps out of jita, find a shittonne of available manufacturing capacity essentially for free (again, 2k per maelstrom, that's for free), and then ship it to nullsec with barely any effort on my part at all, as opposed to all the effort which would have to be put in just to make this even remotely work in nullsec (yes, I have actually tried manufacturing in nullsec, and I had the luxury of constantly having access to free slots; have you?).
In addition, making very specific adjustments to how f.ex manufacturing slot costs, refinery and sales taxes etc work would solve (or provide tools to solve) a lot of additional issues such as how alliances today aren't as encouraged to build up a proper farms and fields initiative, because the only direct income which isn't easily circumventable is ... ratting. Encouraging alliances to switch their funding from a top down funding to a bottom up funding, through actual activity in their space would also let small gangs have something crunchy and lazy to run around and try to catch, as opposed to the 1-3 ratters who'll be more alert and more setup to dock/pos up the instant something non-blue appears in local. This in turn could foster resentments between alliances, and in turn this would lead to more fights over grudges done in retaliation etc, instead of more of the same old same old "hurr let's hit their moons/sov structures it'll be awesome guys guys guys? where are you guys?"
So no, it's not just a matter of "nerf hisec", it's a matter of "make the proper adjustments to even begin to be able to foster industry in nullsec", and trying to boil my position down to just "nerf hisec" is ludicrous. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1042
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:42:00 -
[477] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote: There must be some form of ship production for/by the Alliances/Corp members in Null.
Almost entirely imporation, actually. I say almost as I'm sure there's some small amount of stuff built locally (not counting supercaps which have to be), but the vast majority is importation. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:44:00 -
[478] - Quote
To use a ship balancing analogy: when you're trying to balance Ship A with Ship B, it doesn't matter how much you buff Ship A's DPS if you leave Ship B with 100% resists. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:49:00 -
[479] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Lord Zim wrote: How? Alliances which would move some (or all) their industry into nullsec would be more vulnerable to interference, as opposed to today's situation where it's ... not.
Are you saying this would be bad for Null? If, so ... then would they just ignore this change and continue with Highsec production? Why make the change at all, unless it improves EVE?
Alliances which are good at protecting their productive activities will benefit. Those that aren't will lose out. Where's the problem? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Lord Zim
2298
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:55:00 -
[480] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote: In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can... Wouldn't this in turn buff Null Alliances? How? Alliances which would move some (or all) their industry into nullsec would be more vulnerable to interference, as opposed to today's situation where it's ... not. The end result will be that those alliances that actively and effectively protect their local production will see a "buff", with that being balanced by the overhead of providing that protection, which in turn will mean more small gang/solo targets for outsiders, and more small gang activity for the alliance in question. I am absolutely OK with making this trade-off. As am I. In fact, I'd welcome it with open arms. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |