Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country
4781
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:52:00 -
[181] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
In that respect, if you say that there is no proof that ganking cause subscription losses then the opposite seems to be true.
You can not prove to me that ganking increases subscriptions or keeps them at the same level.
I'll admit there are not true numbers floating around, but I am making a logical inference that the balancing happened because event A seemed to correspond with even B. Perhaps my logic is flawed but it seems pretty suspicious that only after Hulkageddon did they buff mining barges.
Also lets consider this story why ganking may cause a subscription loss...
You are a miner and enjoy mining. You want to mine the most ore possible. Back in the day the ultimate ship was the Hulk. But it is expensive. Maybe 150 million isk (I don't remember the exact numbers) but for a miner starting out that might mean tens of hours worth of mining.
So they spend the better part of a month finally saving up enough isk to buy that hulk. They go out and fly it all happy their hard work paid off.
Then suddenley on the day they first start to mine... Gank happens. The newbie miner is out of a ship and no isk to show for it. Sure the people who ganked him are concorded but doesn't help him get his isk back. The insurance (if he could have afforded it) doesn't even cover a fraction of the ship cost.
What is the logical thing to do for a logical person at this point? Well cause and effect shows him that if he spends time saving up for a hulk that he will simply lose it. The most reasonable thing for this miner to do at this point is to quite the game.
Why should he waste all that time only to lose his hard earned money?
At this point he cancels his subscription and goes plays Star Treak Online.
And many of you say "Good riddance! We didn't need that player!" but that means lost money for CCP, who as a business, must worry about how to pay the bills.
Sure this may not have happened in this exact scenario but how many of those hulks in hulkaggedon quit their subscription?
I'm sure some people kept going after their first hulk loss, but what about the second? Or third? Why keep playing after that point? It is logically in this regard that ganking must cause subscription losses of some sort.
I have already answered this but seeing how you just ignored my post lets try this again.
1. This was not the first hulkageddon, it wasn't even the fourth.
2. The barges were teircided when the new ore frigate came out. CCP gave the mack a tank boost which was a mistake as it has resulted in yet another broken barge line up with one barge for everything. A side effect of this being ganking took a nerf too.
3. That player who left for STO was replaced by someone else who wasn't and idiot miner. When faced with the chance of getting killed, he decided to fit a tank to his ship rather than quit in a fit of rage. Your friend is not ready for EVE, its best that he plays a no risk MMO. |
Skippermonkey
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1754
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:54:00 -
[182] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:It all boils down to easy access to too much information on enemy intel and little to no incentive to undock and deal with the opposing war party. So what you are saying is remove local?
nice COME AT ME BRO
I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION |
TheBlueMonkey
Don't Be a Menace That Red Alliance
356
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:01:00 -
[183] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Where is the evidence of decreasing subs during player created ganking events like Hulkageddon? THAT would be proff that would stand up in a court.
That would be proof of correlation, not causation.
Two VERY different things. It's actually quite hard to prove why people leave unless in the exit poll they put
"I'm leaving because I keep getting blown up when I do stupid things" |
TheBlueMonkey
Don't Be a Menace That Red Alliance
357
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:12:00 -
[184] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote: You are a miner and enjoy mining.
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
Do you mean
You are a person who likes passive income while they watch movies\tv shows\looking at pictures of cats? |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1165
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:20:00 -
[185] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:If eve should be a place where everyone can enjoy level 4 mission running and nobody bothers anyone else, then what game should my friends and I be playing? Believe me when I tell you that we've looked, and there are no games that give us the gameplay we want. We came to eve because of what it allows us to do and stay because there are no better options.
To those saying that allowing this sort of gameplay is a bad business model, the term you're looking for is product differentiation. Let's look at this argument under a different lens. You say that McDonalds sells the most food and makes the most profit of any restaurant on the planet so all restaurants should be McDonalds. You wander into a largeish non-chain restaurant and demand a Big Mac, only to be informed that this is the sort of quiet, intimate place where you might take your wife for some high quality french food. You start losing your mind and screaming that's not how you run a business and you'll take your pants off and **** on the patrons until you receive a Big Mac.
I think you're just in the wrong restaurant.
im gonna start it right now, Psychotic Monk for CSM! Im serious, ima start telling people "It's ok if you like mcdonalds, I like it too, but this ain't McDonalds, Go to McDonalds if you want McDonalds. |
Cameron Cahill
Dissonance Corp Unclaimed.
203
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:24:00 -
[186] - Quote
Zol Interbottom wrote:As a high-sec missionrunner carebear miner trader and occasional PVPer i am disappointing that CCP want to remove unwanted PVP against people who irritate me for any reason at all
Gentlemen, i suggest we burn high-sec to the ground, either that or encourage CCP to make changes that make it possible for high-sec players such as myself into null easier, such as removing the ability to make hueg power blocks and make null a smaller and more liquid space
(i dont want to start a trade station for everyone in null or anything)
How is it hard for you to get into null? set destination VFK-IV, rightclick gate jump. You want small liquid space with *less huge powerblocks? go live in a wormhole. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
478
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:27:00 -
[187] - Quote
Fanatic Row wrote:I think it is pretty obvious that CCP wants some level of ganking and non-consensual PvP in hi-sec.
The difference between CCP and the average "just want to blow stuff up" pilot, is that CCP sees it as acceptable when it's goal-oriented. Goals drive conflict and conflict keeps EVE alive. All playstyles.
Just blowing stuff up drives nothing. The people doing it either get bored or run out of stuff to blow up, since nobody sticks around to get blown up if there's no reason to stick around.
It happened to low-sec and it's slowly happening to null-sec. In the end, nobody wins.
It can't happen to hi-sec, hi-sec is the incubator in EVE. Blow it up and everything will eventually fade away.
That's why CCP is looking into hi-sec PvP. Looking for ways to add goals. Stuff like POCOs in hi-sec, better structure for war decs and transferable kill-rights.
They aren't looking to remove non-consensual PvP in hi-sec, but add structure and goals. Because FFA PvP with no goals has killed every single MMO that tried it.
Pretty much this.
And I pick one of your formulas to add that if FFA PVP was that good and awesome as many claim, the test server would be more populated, which it isn't. |
TheBlueMonkey
Don't Be a Menace That Red Alliance
360
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:28:00 -
[188] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote: They are doing it in order to maximize their profit.
I hate this notion so much, it literally pains me to hear every time and my knee jerk reaction is "******* Metica -¼_-¼"
Yes a company should make a profit otherwise it'll go out of business but it should also have the sense to see that as long as it's in profit things are good. It shouldn't squeeze every last bit out out of it's customers.
It leads to a drab and boring world.
You know the biggest issue I have with it? It takes us from things like this http://gallery.antiquevending.com/ebner8.jpg
To this http://maxcdn.fooyoh.com/files/attach/images/3004/345/422/004/coke.jpg
We go from a beautifully crafted item that's made to last and generates a good company image to a drab box that soullessly takes our money.
All because someone went "well out old machines cost us $20,000 to make and $5,000 to run and these new ones are $10,000 to make and $1,000 to run."
Wooo, you saved a buck, but at what cost? An unquantifiable one.
Well done on completely missing what Ford was trying to say by
"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible" |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1166
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:31:00 -
[189] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
In that respect, if you say that there is no proof that ganking cause subscription losses then the opposite seems to be true.
You can not prove to me that ganking increases subscriptions or keeps them at the same level.
The great thing about that is you're right, which is why I never made any claim about Ganking.
YOU made the claim, therefore it is up to you to provide proof, which you cannot do. I do't actually care if ganking makes people sub or not sub, if they can't take getting ganked in a game LEGENDARY for non-consensual pvp, they made a mistake in choosing EVE to begin with.
Quote: I'll admit there are not true numbers floating around, but I am making a logical inference that the balancing happened because event A seemed to correspond with even B. Perhaps my logic is flawed but it seems pretty suspicious that only after Hulkageddon did they buff mining barges.
I could see how someone predisposed to a certain way of thinking would find an action suspicious, but that still is not proof, and therefore not a good basis for belief.
Quote: Also lets consider this story why ganking may cause a subscription loss...
It's not worth considering, as the only time EVE has suffered a net reduction in subs was during monocle gate.
The logical inference that can be supported is: Ganking has little or no effect on subscription numbers. if it did, we'd have seen evidence of it sometime within the last 10 years.
Quote: You are a miner and enjoy mining. You want to mine the most ore possible. Back in the day the ultimate ship was the Hulk. But it is expensive. Maybe 150 million isk (I don't remember the exact numbers) but for a miner starting out that might mean tens of hours worth of mining.
So they spend the better part of a month finally saving up enough isk to buy that hulk. They go out and fly it all happy their hard work paid off.
Then suddenley on the day they first start to mine... Gank happens. The newbie miner is out of a ship and no isk to show for it. Sure the people who ganked him are concorded but doesn't help him get his isk back. The insurance (if he could have afforded it) doesn't even cover a fraction of the ship cost.
What is the logical thing to do for a logical person at this point? Well cause and effect shows him that if he spends time saving up for a hulk that he will simply lose it. The most reasonable thing for this miner to do at this point is to quit the game.
Why should he waste all that time only to lose his hard earned money?
At this point he cancels his subscription and goes plays Star Treak Online.
And many of you say "Good riddance! We didn't need that player!" but that means lost money for CCP, who as a business, must worry about how to pay the bills.
Sure this may not have happened in this exact scenario but how many of those hulks in hulkaggedon quit their subscription?
I'm sure some people kept going after their first hulk loss, but what about the second? Or third? Why keep playing after that point? It is logically in this regard that ganking must cause subscription losses of some sort.
the place where you go off track is ignoring history (not only the history regarding subcription loss during monocle gate).
The fact that EVE has continued to grow suggests that the average miner is immune to any negative effects due to "ganking" This does not rule out the possibility that some dude somewhere on earth got ganked and quit EVE, but that simply puts that person in the (to paraphrase an EVE producer) category of "players it's ok to lose".
Seeing as after 10 years of ganking people still mine in high sec, there is no real reason to even have a discussion about ganking.
People still mine, EVE is still growing, and you have not one shred of evidence that what you want to believe is an actual problem. When I think of something I would call a problem, i present evidence to support my belief.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1166
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:32:00 -
[190] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Fanatic Row wrote:I think it is pretty obvious that CCP wants some level of ganking and non-consensual PvP in hi-sec.
The difference between CCP and the average "just want to blow stuff up" pilot, is that CCP sees it as acceptable when it's goal-oriented. Goals drive conflict and conflict keeps EVE alive. All playstyles.
Just blowing stuff up drives nothing. The people doing it either get bored or run out of stuff to blow up, since nobody sticks around to get blown up if there's no reason to stick around.
It happened to low-sec and it's slowly happening to null-sec. In the end, nobody wins.
It can't happen to hi-sec, hi-sec is the incubator in EVE. Blow it up and everything will eventually fade away.
That's why CCP is looking into hi-sec PvP. Looking for ways to add goals. Stuff like POCOs in hi-sec, better structure for war decs and transferable kill-rights.
They aren't looking to remove non-consensual PvP in hi-sec, but add structure and goals. Because FFA PvP with no goals has killed every single MMO that tried it. Pretty much this. And I pick one of your formulas to add that if FFA PVP was that good and awesome as many claim, the test server would be more populated, which it isn't.
pretty much a strawman argument, as no one is suggesting doing anything like that in EVE.
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1166
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:34:00 -
[191] - Quote
TheBlueMonkey wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
Where is the evidence of decreasing subs during player created ganking events like Hulkageddon? THAT would be proff that would stand up in a court.
That would be proof of correlation, not causation. Two VERY different things. It's actually quite hard to prove why people leave unless in the exit poll they put "I'm leaving because I keep getting blown up when I do stupid things"
True, i stand corrected.
I should say it would be a stonger indicator than anything the person I was replying to presented. There are NO strong indicators that "griefing" results in subscription loss (or if it does, the losses are sustainable as evidenced by the fact that EVe keeps growing)
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1167
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:37:00 -
[192] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
3. That player who left for STO was replaced by someone else who wasn't and idiot miner. When faced with the chance of getting killed, he decided to fit a tank to his ship rather than quit in a fit of rage. Your friend is not ready for EVE, its best that he plays a no risk MMO.
I bet Most people who try EVE and don't like realize this and go play something they like. But certain others will cling to EVE (making excuses like "there are no other space games and I can't use google to find out about Star Trek Online" LOL) and go so far as to push a "change" agenda to get the game to fit them. I seriously dislike people like that, in game and out.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1167
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:44:00 -
[193] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Wow? So you think people are going to unemploy themselves for your amusment?
CCP is a business. The owners of the business aren't running the company simply for your amusment. They are doing it in order to maximize their profit.
Sure some companies sacrifice short term profit for long term profit or intangibles (like good will), but in the end of the day if the business does not make as large as a profit as possible they are doing it wrong and will go out of business sometime in the future.
If CCP wanted only to maximize profit, WHY are we flying space ships instead of riding unicorns and blowing on horns of Gondor? If all they wanted was money by any means necessary not only would all of EVe be high sec space, it wouldn't be SPACE, it would be castles and goblins and such.
CCP knows EVE is a niche game that can only go so far (thus their production of the Vampire game) and has historically cautious about making "mass appeal" changes. You can see this in their own words in the CSM minutes when they say "EVe can be better, but we don't want to fundamentally change what EVE is".
Ultimately, what you are doing is promoting the "appeal to CCP's Wallet" fallacy (the same way people do when they claim that EVE will lose subs because of ganking or when they make "EVe would get so many more subs if" posts on these forums). The fact that in 10 years of EVE's existence CCP has stayed the course with the game (and been successful where others have failed) should be proof enough that what you are wanting to believe is untrue.
|
Gary Hagon
Ground Forces
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:47:00 -
[194] - Quote
Just join npc corp if you are not liking war decs. |
Whitehound
381
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:54:00 -
[195] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:If CCP wanted only to maximize profit, WHY are we flying space ships instead of riding unicorns and blowing on horns of Gondor? Actually, I see part of ganking as just that. Some ganking is good, but when it only aims to cause losses and to create a blog about it then how is this different from riding unicorns and blowing on horns of Gondor? |
Riot Girl
RADIO RAMPAGE Initiative Mercenaries
628
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:55:00 -
[196] - Quote
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! Oh god. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
478
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:56:00 -
[197] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:pretty much a strawman argument, as no one is suggesting doing anything like that in EVE.
In return I'm telling you your argument is a strawman one since in this very same forum and thread some say Eve is becoming a theme park game and others asking for a full pvp server everywhere from VFK-IV up to Jita.
peh... |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Persona Non Gratis
394
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:59:00 -
[198] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:some say Eve is becoming a theme park game and others asking for a full pvp server everywhere from VFK-IV up to Jita.
Tranquility currently *is* a PvP server, everywhere. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
478
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:00:00 -
[199] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:some say Eve is becoming a theme park game and others asking for a full pvp server everywhere from VFK-IV up to Jita. Tranquility currently *is* a PvP server, everywhere.
K, gank my alts pod dock at the station please. Send me an e mail at the bar |
Tubrug1
Lai Dai First Guard
81
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:08:00 -
[200] - Quote
Mister S Burke wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Reading the minutes, I'm astonished to see so many people in favour of completely removing non-consensual pvp from highsec. Call if griefing please, just man up already and drop the euphemisms. 99% of the gaming world hates griefing (not pvp) and video games did not become mainstream in the 1990's because games were all grief fests.
I assume you mean MMOs, as it's quite hard to be griefed by single player games unless you have mental problems, the reason why MMO's wern't popular in the 1990's is because they didn't exist.
Mister S Burke wrote:
It sounds to me like the employees understand the concept of evolve or die and let's face it, griefers are an ever shrinking small minority. Everyone used to say they wanted "hardcore" free for all or no rules. Everytime a game is harcore in the griefing aspect everyone gets prison stomped and they all quit. .
Griefers may be a shrinking minority, PVPers and suicide gankers are not.
Mister S Burke wrote: I don't think this game hinges on some griefers ability to suicide gank an AFK autopiloter or a miner in hisec. I pvp and frankly it would be nice to autopilot in hisec and go make a sandwhich or get a drink. Removing the lame suicide ganking does not equate to instant theme park.
Removing suicide ganking and non-consensual wardecs does infact turn the game into a theme park. |
|
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1525
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:18:00 -
[201] - Quote
Didn't soundwave say that they would never split EVE? High sec no pvp, everyplace else PvP? Didn't soundwave himself say that? He did.
They need to stop trying to find ways to code around human behavior, they can't. Removing wardecs from high sec would be worse for the game then keeping them in, people WILL quit, because that's not EVE.
High sec corps need a reason to want to fight. When you can just abandon your corp and PoS because thre's zero real impact on you, there's a problem.
Abandoning a corp or structure needs to be felt. If it wasn't desirable to do, people would actually fight to keep them.
They're basically allowing the persception of EVE to define EVE, as apposed to reinforcing what EVE is. They say EVE is cold and harsh, and instead of making it so, they're letting the perception that high sec is were you go when you don't want any pvp drive the game.
But then, this version of CCP seems very clearly focused on "more dollars" and not really interested in trying to make EVE a more fun EVE.
Another studio though that if they just removed more of the PvP, then more people would play. It didn't work for Origian and EA, it won't work for CCP.
CCP is doing exactly what every other MMO development studio does. Look at what everyone esle is doing, and even though it's not worked for them, it must work for us. Thinking you can be the exception to the rule never works for anyone.
Dear CCP, If you really want to make "more", if you really want a million subscriber EVE, create NEW content. Drastic changes have not benefitted any other MMO, it will not benefit you. Once you make that change, you will never get back what you lose. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
2901
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:22:00 -
[202] - Quote
A lot of you are missing the core issue here when it comes to war decs and to a degree, several other parts of the game. There is simply far too many times where docking up and not fighting (going to play another game) is the best course of action. Blue balling. What you should be asking and analyzing is what needs to be changed so the best course of action is to undock and fight.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Whitehound
383
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:28:00 -
[203] - Quote
Tubrug1 wrote:Removing suicide ganking and non-consensual wardecs does infact turn the game into a theme park. No, not the entire game. I don't see DUST players as a threat to EVE even when they cannot shoot our space ships directly. For all I care could DUST514 be a theme park.
If then high-sec turns into a theme park and players could mine there forever, then it is also not different from those magically reappearing asteroids that you can find everywhere. And just like miners need to get the ore out of the asteroids would players need to get it into low-sec, where they again can be shot.
If all this fear over a theme park is because of a loss of space in which players can PvP then it really only needs more space and new regions in low- and null-sec. |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
1102
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:33:00 -
[204] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:A lot of you are missing the core issue here when it comes to war decs and to a degree, several other parts of the game. There is simply far too many times where docking up and not fighting (going to play another game) is the best course of action. Blue balling. What you should be asking and analyzing is what needs to be changed so the best course of action is to undock and fight.
While making someone not engage and log off will feed that troll side in all of us, it makes for ****** game play and does nothing to help spaceships pew pew and explode. I'm going to a wild stab in the dark and assume most of you would rather be on the edge of your seat sucked into an epic battle than ship spinning or worse, logging off to play another game.
That's a good point to bring up. But the major problem is just what pvp in Eve is. Bring more ships, win, rinse, repeat.
If Corp A dec's Corp B, and Corp A outnumbers Corp B with a fielded fleet that outnumbers Corp B's fleet 3:1, Corp B will dock, plain and simple. It's just the nature of how pvp works in Eve. If the other guy's blob is bigger, the first guy will dock.
And if anybody comes up with that "lololol lern2smallgang pvp nub," you need a reality check. You can enjoy small gang pvp all you want, but when a bigger gang comes, what's going to happen? You either die or dock.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Overly Complex Security Innovations
5124
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:36:00 -
[205] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:admiral root wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:some say Eve is becoming a theme park game and others asking for a full pvp server everywhere from VFK-IV up to Jita. Tranquility currently *is* a PvP server, everywhere. K, gank my alts pod dock at the station please. Send me an e mail at the bar
When they finally implement WiS I'm sure many people will be quite happy to gank you in a station
Always bet on stupid, CCP can't patch stupid. The measure of success in Eve is not monetary worth, it's how effectively you can bend others to your will. |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1529
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:41:00 -
[206] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tubrug1 wrote:Removing suicide ganking and non-consensual wardecs does infact turn the game into a theme park. No, not the entire game. I don't see DUST players as a threat to EVE even when they cannot shoot our space ships directly. For all I care could DUST514 be a theme park. If then high-sec turns into a theme park and players could mine there forever, then it is also not different from those magically reappearing asteroids that you can find everywhere. And just like miners need to get the ore out of the asteroids would players need to get it into low-sec, where they again can be shot. If all this fear over a theme park is because of a loss of space in which players can PvP then it really only needs more space and new regions in low- and null-sec. The games economy is not built on that vision of EVE.
High sec was never intended to be safe, and the only reason to make it "safer" is the idea that it will bring in many more players and make CCP more money.
It didn't work for anyone else that ever made those kinds of drastic changes that altered the cor principles of the game. It didn't work for EA, it didn't work for SoE, it didn't work for DAoC.
Marlona Sky gets it very well. The problem isn't the need for more safety, it's a need to make it WOTHWHILE to go to war. People are docking up becuse there's nothing to lose, there's no reason to fight.
They could start by eliminating the one man corp. People might not like that, but the fact is that that is chief among the reason why high sec wars do not work. High sec corps should be growing like a null sec or low sec one; they're far to many people who use the corporations as a "guild" so that they can access "housing" in the form of a PoS, and then don't care about disbanding because it effects no one.
One man corps are rediculous, that's not a CORPORATION. You should have to gather people around you first. No one disbands a 100 man corp because of a wardeck.
The solutions seem obvious to me, but that means a slightly more difficult game, and we all know that a lot of people are simply tring to make things as easy as possible; especially in high sec. The moment a little effort is required, people will regect it.
Corporations, both NPC and player run, are being abused. You should not be able to form a one man corp to avoid tax in high sec, Or to build a PoS. The fact one guy can run a PoS is silly. if they aren't going to do the PoS revamp, then PoS's (from the get go) should have been a group endevour. |
Whitehound
383
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:45:00 -
[207] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:The games economy is not built on that vision of EVE. It is a free economy. How is this unfit for anything? |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
335
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:45:00 -
[208] - Quote
CCP will never do this, this type of change already happened on another great sandbox mmo-rpg's (Ultima Online), and it killed the game.
To all the themepark carebears players that want to kill our beloved EvE, get the facts straight , you are not playing a themepark game, If you're not willing to fight for what you have in EvE Online, you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.
HTFU. If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
Ghazu
486
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:46:00 -
[209] - Quote
are we to let you people run more than 5 bil in freighters and officer fit your mission ships with impunity? http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984 |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1530
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:48:00 -
[210] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:The games economy is not built on that vision of EVE. It is a free economy. How is this unfit for anything? A free economy has nothing to do with it.
It's a cycle of creation and destruction, and high sec is as much a part of the destruction part as anyplace else. It's intended to be, an the economy depends upon it being so.
And WTF man. That was the only thing out of all I wrote that you felt warranted quoting and repsonding too?
Or do you think my suggestion was actually good? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |