|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 19:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
I remember how the huge loot nerf they did a couple years ago was supposed to "fix" mining and still you need to run 3 accounts to make the same isk / hour mining as you do ratting.
I've watched as they introduced incursions which pay out in massive amounts of server created isk which is new money introduced to the game which inflates all prices and is a defacto nerf to all other income streams.
Now more recently we've had the bounty nerf and yet prices continue to click upward. The price of ships and PLEXs keep going up and up as our ability to earn isk is steadily driven downward. The logical outcome of this is that more game time needs to be spent to earn the isk for lost ships. To me that can only mean one thing more conservative game play or spoken more directly more time mining / ratting and less time PvPing which in the past has been the opposite of what CCP had professed as their goal.
After years of reading these blogs and seeing the results I can only conclude one of two things. Either the CCP Devs are totally and completely incompetent or they are lying. Spoken more directly option 2 would be that they are working behind the scenes to reduce the amount of players that can pay for game time with in game money. Since they have allowed PLEXs to be moved and thus lost to the RNG gods and with the aurum scandal a few years back and now ship painting for aurum it seems like option 2 is more likely. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
73
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 19:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ashla Boga wrote:"Keep Calm and Carry On"?
Damn it CCP. You're trying to kill the profit of hundreds of salvagers and hundreds of missioners just revolving around Pro Synergy alone. One corp. You're screwing with things that are just going to backfire and increase botting. Everyone wants more bots, right?
You killed drone poo which was a huge spike through the heart of the salvaging community, and gave us bounties on drones instead, which I agree missioners were in love with (despite salvagers losing a lot of profit). Then you removed Meta 0 modules from rat droppings because there was too many minerals in your eyes. Now this.
"Calm down, Mr Director of Salvage Corp Person, it's just a game." Hell no. I'm fired up and pissed off because you're going to decrease profits of new and veteran players salvaging and their missioner friends by obscene amounts with not even the slightest compensation. Even with Scrapmetal V and a 4% implant the yields are going to be crap. Rig changes have done almost nothing to increase profits from the salvaging profession, and behind every Noctis is a real live player. Not a program.
You say you want to reward players who specialize in a career, and ore miners and ice miners are going to be unaffected by this. But module reprocessors like myself and a dozen other faithful admins of the corp have absolutely NO POSSIBLE WAY to get even remotely close to 100% yield. Even if you added an Advanced Scrapmetal Reprocessing we'd still be far off. That's not helping a specialized player, it's slapping them in the F***ing face. Our admins have trained OVER a month of skills to be the best at what they do for their customers, but not that will all be way more than wasted. Ore miners didn't have to go anywhere near this kind of training to be 100%. Dig a little deeper before you go killing professions off, CCP.
I have to agree with this guy. Past efforts to increase the value of mining has only lead to a devaluing of income from players who actually play the game and an increase in the incentive for large Coalitions to lock down huge sections of null sec and make sure that very little of it is used and then have large scale mining bot operations deep in blue territory. I saw this first hand in scalding pass a few years ago with that Russian prince who got outted with that RMT scandal back then and I doubt a whole bunch has changed since then.
These changes will only further alienate and discourage actual players and further incentivise bots. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
73
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 20:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Plug in Baby wrote:Am I correct in thinking the vast majority of Capital manufacture will essentially be stopped by this?
I'm interested to know what % of capitals produced are made from reprocessed ores, I can imagine its pretty massive. Nope. Just means more runs into low sec because you can't run modules for compression. So you'll have to haul minerals to low sec, compress in a rorqual, haul to destination. Means more gank opportunities in low sec, more risk for producers, and higher capital prices.
You must have stopped reading before the part about the PoS mod that compresses. High Sec ore compression will be possible. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
73
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 20:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:
which really is by far the most boring activity in eve. i guess more people quit because mining is boring than anything else.
(sadly) there are plenty people around that will buy ore or support newbie miners in mining corps.
It's only boring for you. Don't assume everyone on the planet has the same likes and dislikes as you. Early on in this game I really loved the large scale mining ops I was involved in. How ever once you get past the noob phase and do some basic math and discover that mining income is nothing compared to pretty much everything else then you refocus. I moved to missions and then ratting not because it was more fun but because it was more isk and also can be done solo where as mining has to be done in groups to be effective. The fact that mining is by nature a group activity makes it more social, more engaging and by my measure more fun. I also think group activities should be incentivised over solo activities in an MMO. However I see no way to do that unless you eliminate mining bots.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
74
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 20:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:
they aren't training other skills. they are training for barges and the perfect refine. because they don't feel ready for pvp. takes an organisation like brave newbies to change that mindset. brave newbies is probably the best thing that happened to eve on the player side in a looooooooong time.
PvP is not inherent nor a for sure. Not everyone likes that type of game play. I don't understand why so many people assume that with experience you will eventually like PvP. There are people who are competitive and those that are cooperative. If you are a competitive person you'll want to PvP from day one and if you are a cooperative person you'll want to do constructive group activities even if you've been playing for years.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
74
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 20:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Reizak StormFury wrote:
I think you'll find that with simpler and more accessible compression, people won't be refining ores in high sec. Instead they'll be selling compressed ore direct to market.
So, you won't need to export minerals from high to null. You'll transport compressed ore instead.
I've not heard any talk of which minerals get used most versus the ores they come from. Without careful consideration this could lead to one ore high in a particular mineral becoming way out of balance with everything else. Already we see the ABC ores way down the list of most profitable. Will these changes fix this or make it better? |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 22:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
Some basic points I think CCP misses: - There are two types of isk: server generated and isk made from other players - Server generated isk adds to mudflation - isk made from other players drives down mudflation as eventually those sold goods are blown up. - Players engaging in PvE have choices which effect the ratio of server isk to player isk - Loot nerf leads to less mission / ratting / anoms being looted
- Increased ratio of speed running missions means: - Dilution of LP values - Increase in salvage value - Increase in server isk to player isk ratio which = mudflation - Increase entry barrier for new players
Last I heard something like 80% of players reside in high sec. CCP thinks if it keeps buffing null sec income it will get those players to go to null yet somehow keep forgetting the huge entry barrier to null and the fact that if you want null to become as popular has high sec you have to attract all kinds of players to null.
Currently null sec favors only one kind of player and that is the type like to shoot at everything. Null sec mechanics do not favor industrial types. So CCP keeps buffing what large coalitions can make which just further increases the entry barrier to null. No matter how much you boost mining if you have to have 3 combat pilots to protect every miner / hauler / booster then that means less isk per character involved in the mining op.
The bubble proof interceptors while I love them for getting around null make it so the only way to protect a mining op from a hot drop is to move so deep into null that you are out of cyno range or any red territory. This just further increases the entry barrier to null for newer players and newer corps / alliances
If you want null more active you need to increase the amount of newer players and newer / lower population corps and alliances. If you want that you need to increase the tools for Coalitions and Alliance to open their space to other players. The types of things I can think of to do is are: - An easy way to share standings publicly like allowing anyone to have their local chat display the standing that any person, alliance or corp chooses to make public. - More tools to earn isk from neutrals like the ability to set rates of tax i.e. bounty sharing rates - Tools to tax ore removed from system.
Current null sec mechanics encourage large Coalitions to lock down huge sections of space to not get used. If you want to make null more active you need to change that and create mechanics that incentivise sov holders to encourage other players to use their space. This creates a mechanic where as an Alliance leader I want as many friendlies in my space as possible and as few in my competitors space as possible. So if I set my tax rates too high independents will go to my competition. If I keep my space safer it will be more valuable. If I make my competitors space less safe it will drive down the value of their space.
In short you need to make it so that sov holders are actively seeking more people to come use their space in stead of the mechanic which we currently have which is to encourage them to keep as many people as possible out of their space. The more valuable you make null under the current mechanics the more you make profitable to lock down your boarders and keep as many people out of null as possible.
So instead of trying to make everyone fight regardless of their play style why not make it so that those who like to fight can and those that like to produce can and create tools for the producers to be able to pay the combatants. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 00:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
Gospadin wrote:My frustration with this is that it's so ungodly tedious to sell a bunch of modules these days that I typically just reprocess my entire station contents and sell the ore to save time.
Can we get some kind of "bulk sell to buy orders" to go with this? Entrepreneurs will still be able to make more money by doing individual sales, but given the bottom has just fallen out of reprocessing modules, it seems like anyone doing any kind of missions will have to spend even more time working on Carpal Tunnel V in stations.
why waste all that time and effort to make almost no isk. Most players will do the math on isk / hour and realize it's not worth their time to loot and salvage anymore. That will probably drive up the cost of meta 1-4 items which will affect newer players almost exclusively.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
80
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 01:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
Wylt Echerie wrote:
I certainly don't have access to the raw numbers but I'd suspect a pretty good percentage of meta items sold (especially to buy orders) wind up reprocessed. Even on low value items quite a few of them sit right below the value of the minerals obtained through reprocessing which to me indicates that the majority of demand is coming from people purchasing to reprocess. While the refining rate for ore is going down the mineral content of that ore is going up so it shouldn't change overall pricing of ore/minerals/manufactured modules that much. I doubt the overall % of minerals in the system will be terribly affected by the nerf to module reprocessing but the value of the loot to the person collecting it will drop significantly.
I actually think the price of low meta modules will go up. As it is now in most cases it's not worth it to loot and salvage missions and null sec anomalies probably are but not by a huge margin. Currently I'll take a huge amount of loot and pull out a small handful of things I know are worth selling like heavy launchers and just melt the rest. For the time I would spend on the market to make a small percentage over mineral value on a small percentage of the mods it's just not worth it. .
So when they cut the mineral value of the loot in half a good percentage of the players especially anyone with more than say about 50 or 60 million skill points or so will find it's not worth their time and just leave the wrecks. when that happens meta 1-4 mods will go up in price. Not enough to make looting worthwhile but enough to make loosing a ship a much bigger deal for anyone without the skill points to fit all T2 mods.
Higher cost of loosing a ship for noobs means more conservative play for those newer players which is the exact opposite of what CCP wants right now. If they are going to do this they should make a way for players to manufacture meta 1-4 mods. Maybe they could make like an experimental production with the meta level of the output mod to be RNG determined. But to do that they'd have to bring back 100% mod reprocessing so that you could do something with the low ones not worth selling. Either that or something with BPC copying where you could have a chance at higher meta levels. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
81
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 02:09:00 -
[10] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: you're not being forced in, you're staying at exactly the same level of income as you cower in your hole
it's merely that the people who take greater risks can reap greater reqards
I find this funny coming from a goon. Thanks to effort most likely being funded by goons high sec is probably a more dangerous place to mine than most null sec systems. So I don't think your risk versus reward statement is accurate from the mining toon's perspective. Granted the alliance as a whole has expenses that go with holding that space which need to be accounted for but if are simply talking about an individual miner's decision to stay in high sec or join a null alliance I believe you are very much wrong.
I came across a wormhole that lead deep into goon territory once. So I wandered around there on a no skill point alt in a noob ship because I figured I'd be podded instantly. To my surprise I came across system after system that was completely empty. I went to one of the -1.0 systems you guys have and watched as about a dozen or so what I assume to be ratting bots safed up in PoS bubbles from a 3 year old toon in a noob ship with no kills in his history. I talked in local and warped around to the belts for a while with no response. I then left system and came back several minutes later with no response again but new wrecks spread around. I spent a good amount of time there before I decided to see if I could make my way to high sec and I made it all the way to the bubbles you guys had on the gates leading to high sec before I died.
From that experience I came to the conclusion that there was little to no risk of loosing anything deep in goon space. I witnessed what I concluded were likely ratting bots and can only assume that you guys have mining bots operating in there as well. So please save the lecture on risk versus reward because for your isk makers be they bots or real players there just isn't any.
You goons got famous taking people who've never played the game from the something awful forums and setting them up in game with everything they need to get started and holding their hand all the way. Most goons have never risked anything they've been handed a sure thing from day one.
So maybe before you belittle this guy and lecture him about risk versus reward for new players you should listen to the concerns of some people who are coming to this game by themselves all alone trying to make their way in this complicated game with no one to hold their hand and show them the way. Because if we want this game to grow we can't go chasing them off. |
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
82
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 03:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
Marsan wrote:
They can't do a way with the Extra Materials cost on a number of ships as there are still large stocks of those ships built prior to material requirement changes. If you merge the Extra Materials on those ship they can be reprocessed for more than they were built.
This is not a valid argument as this ship it's self can be sold for the current value of the minerals + margin so it would be a loss to reprocess it regardless.
I am going to use an example here and assume a 7% margin as that seems to be a decent moderate number.
Example: Say you build a bunch of Dominixs before the changes and you built them for 80 million isk worth of minerals but they were selling for 85.6 million. So you invested the time and manufacturing costs into building them to make 7% so you are going to refine the ship to loose all that? Probably not.
Now forward to today. Lets say now it costs 160 million in minerals to build a Dominix but they are selling for 171.2. Sure you could reprocess the ship and get double the minerals but why when you could sell the whole ship for an 11.2 million profit?
The damage has been done with the jacked up minerals already. I fail to see the difference if someone reprocesses the above ship. Either way they are doubling their isk from initial investment. I'm sure the forums will correct me if I'm missing something here but I see no reason they can't just fix it now.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
82
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 04:36:00 -
[12] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Well it's worth remembering that you're not losing all of that loot income. And your bounty, mission reward, LP, special drops, etc will remain.
Further, if this change is significant enough to reduce that income, it's significant enough to reduce the mineral supply, so price changes will partly compensate.
Additionally fewer people will loot, reducing the loot supply.
Essentially, there will be some compensating effects.
Sounds like you've been drinkin' a bit too much of the company koolaid on those free vacations you get to Iceland.
Even if you speed run missions and don't loot the value of your LP will drop considerably as more and more players do the same. Further as the price of everything goes up to compenste for this refine nerf one's mission income will be worth less due to inflation which is a defacto nerf as well. This is for sure a mission running nerf even with the compensating effects taken into account and I believe you know this which means your flippant way of blowing off a players concerns makes you a poor representative of the player base as a CSM. The man has a concern either address it or don't but your attitude here is less than what I would like to see from someone claiming to represent me. You don't have to agree with the guy to address his concerns appropriately.
Expansion after expansion I've watched as high sec incomes get continually nerfed. CCP seems intent on pissing off what is the majority of all players and the vast majority of new players. This is not a business model for growth. Null sec has become more and more of an elitist haven for the hyper-aggressive Type A personalities.
This game is both an industrial and war simulation with probably the most intricate market system in gaming to interface the two of those aspects. If you keep ******* over the industrial types and tell them to go out to null and fight or STFU and go play hello kitty then one half of the industrial / war simulation disappears.
CCP keeps acting as if PvP is for everyone and everyone likes it and that if everyone is not running out to null to PvP then the income in high sec must be too high. There are people that don't like PvP period and no amount of null sec income will change that. If you look at WoW there are far more regular servers than PvP servers so it's not a small amount. So CCP can continue to alienate what is the majority of the gaming population as well as the majority of their players or choose to reexamine their focus. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
82
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 04:43:00 -
[13] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Seismic Stan wrote:I don't like it - mainly because I don't understand it.
If I did, I'd probably love it.
;) That's a succint summary of 90% of the complaints in this thread.
You realize you are ridiculing the people that elected you into your role as CSM right? If you dislike being CSM so much why not just drop your position?
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
84
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 05:09:00 -
[14] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Berluth Luthian wrote:Isn't a lot of the nullsec production problem, partly a nullsec culture problem. When alliances are run from the mentality that 'every body in a CTA matters' then you sort of alienate really productive indy pilots. So it is up to null sec 'culture leaders' to empower their own industrial base. No, the nullsec production problem is caused by hi-sec having utter dominance in every conceivable industry advantage, to the point that the only people doing industry in null are either RPers, supercap builders or just plain bad at maths. OK some hi bulk, low-value stuff gets built like ratting ammo and cap boosters, but even there the quantities are small compared to what gets imported.
What are you even talking about here? What industry advantage? As a matter of fact if you are at an NPC null sec station your manufacturing job set up costs are probably less, an insignificant amount less but less. Also you'll have open research slots for ME and copying for T2 production without needing to set up a PoS just for labs to make copies.
The reason most of the stuff in eve is made in high sec is becasue most of the players live in high sec therefore the null sec markets have less volume therefore it's more efficient to just buy the stuff from where it's made in high volumes by a large number of players than to have a much smaller number of players make a larger amount of small volume runs for **** that won't move on a market where someone would rather have something cynoed in than make 7 jumps to the nearest station in an industrial ship and risk loosing your ship to a roaming red gang.
There are reasons that high sec is where stuff is made and unless you want to change the game play in null sec away from shoot everything that moves to something more productive and less destructive no amount of market manipulation will change that.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 05:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:
Those who spend the massive amount of time, isk, and effort to acquire and hold nullsec sov, then dump dozens of billions of isk into a refining station. then haul ore out or mine it locally most certainly deserve a definate advantage over highsec.
Null sec ratting is already exponentially more profitable than high sec mission running even in crappy -0.2 sec. Go to a -0.7 or better and it's like OMG better. Null sec mining is already significantly profitable than high sec just based on size of roids alone and not having to switch all the time never mind the better ores and the Rorqual bonuses. Then the moon minerals needed for T2 production come exclusively from non-high sec space and almost totally from null which means they can basically set the rates of T2 mats to what ever is needed to compensate for the costs of holding sov.
I'm not going to argue that null should not have some benefits to off set the increased costs so let's not pretend like they don't already have a lot of them. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 05:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
Alyxportur wrote:Are researched BPOs not worth more than market value?
Not if everyone is dumping the same one at once. I think you are missing the fact that currently much of cap ship production is done by taking ore in high sec and turning into 425mm rail guns to ship down to low or null sec and then reprocessed to make the cap ship components. Most cap ship producers have dozens of these BPOs for the purpose of making minerals easier to ship. This nerf will make those BPOs nearly useless as thousands of people will be looking to sell them to a market where they are no longer needed. There is probably many thousands of times more 425mm rail BPOs out there than any other turret I bet. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 05:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Of course it is wrong. But the cartels are ramming through this change because they expect it to be a net gain to their serf population in null sec, while at the same time hammering high sec.
The cartels know that this will shrink the overall subscription base as many new high sec players will quit once the full impact of this attack is felt. But their personal income will increase as some will migrate to null sec that would not have done so otherwise, and that is all that matters to them.
Whoop Whoop! Grab da Tinfoil!
you are going to pretend like mittens (a.k.a. the mitani) and the Devs don't have circle jerk parties when he goes to Iceland and that his time as a CSM has not gained him a personal realtionship with them? Or are we going to pretend like the Devs haven't been caught more than once helping out their favorite null sec alliance like the Free BPOs they gave to BOB. The guy is not making some conspiracy theory he's pointing out a cozy relationship that does exist between the CCP devs and the big null sec alliance heads and a history of those cozy relationships leading to favoritism and in some cases outright cheating. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 05:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
Querns wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote: After years of reading these blogs and seeing the results I can only conclude one of two things. Either the CCP Devs are totally and completely incompetent or they are lying. Spoken more directly option 2 would be that they are working behind the scenes to reduce the amount of players that can pay for game time with in game money. Since they have allowed PLEXs to be moved and thus lost to the RNG gods and with the aurum scandal a few years back and now ship painting for aurum it seems like option 2 is more likely.
You seem to be under the delusion that a player subscribing his account with PLEX purchased from the market are somehow denying CCP income, when the opposite is actually true -- PLEX are more expensive to purchase than a corresponding month of subscription time paid directly.
No I am not. I fully understand that. What you seem to be missing is the corprate business model which is too much is never enough. Yes PLEXs cost more than game time purchased with a subscription but the way the MBA mind works is why have one or the other when you can have both.
Corporations don't like giving up money. Once they have your money they've already counted it and spent it even if like in the case of the PLEX the money has not been used for services yet. They do not like that debt sitting out there. They just want to keep your money and owe you nothing. Now that can't do that but what they will inevitably do is find more and more ways to not have to come through on delivering those services. Thus we've had the introduction of the destructability of PLEX and Aurum and such. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 06:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:I remember how the huge loot nerf they did a couple years ago was supposed to "fix" mining and still you need to run 3 accounts to make the same isk / hour mining as you do ratting. It wasn't supposed to "fix" mining, it was supposed to make mining more viable. Would you like to argue that it didn't?
I obviously don't have access to all the historical data that CCP does but yes subjectively I would say that the increases in potential isk / hour from mining has been less than the decrease in potential isk / hour from missioning and ratting both percentage wise and absolute amount. If you take out the bonus that the noctis has given to loot and salvage I would say it's even worse. And if you add in the increased price of everything it's much worse.
I'll give you the probability that a decent part of the inflation may be caused by the introduction of what I consider a flawed pay out system that came with incursions. However the point remains that PLEXs are double what they were before hand and that ship cost a significant amount more now than they did before.
Now that we are talking about it I'd be curious to know if mining has even increased at all or maybe decreased when instead of considering isk / hour we talk the actual buying power of an hour's worth of mining. Now I've drifted way off into conjecture but at least you know where I stand. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 06:26:00 -
[20] - Quote
Querns wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote: I have to agree with this guy. Past efforts to increase the value of mining has only lead to a devaluing of income from players who actually play the game and an increase in the incentive for large Coalitions to lock down huge sections of null sec and make sure that very little of it is used and then have large scale mining bot operations deep in blue territory. I saw this first hand in scalding pass a few years ago with that Russian prince who got outted with that RMT scandal back then and I doubt a whole bunch has changed since then.
These changes will only further alienate and discourage actual players and further incentivise bots.
So what you're saying is that no professions in the game should ever be made to be more lucrative, because the BOT ARMY will descend upon it?
No I'm just saying that if they don't tackle the bot problem then the professional buff will only benefit the botters and not actual players.
This perspective is coming from an assumption that not only are there a significant number of mining bots in game but that CCP secretly has a love / hate relationship with them as all those bots do still have to pay monthly fees to bot. Neither of these things can I prove. However I was in Scalding Pass when White Noise moved their botting empire in and it was obvious to everyone that something very fishy was going on. I find it hard to believe that if you are CCP and have the ability to roam around in an invisible ship and not show up in local and observe everything as well as have full access to chat logs and game files I have a hard time believing that they couldn't prevent more of this activity if they realy wanted to. It seems there is a financial incentive for them to "put up the good fight" against botting but not actually eradicate it. In business if you can find a profit motive it's most likely happening.
Anyway these are the forums and Devs read these so I'm putting my take out there in hopes it's at least considered. |
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 06:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
John Frohike wrote:
WHO ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME?!? Because mining is not actually needed to build anything, right?
No because bots are computer programs as opposed to actual people actually playing the game. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 06:31:00 -
[22] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote: I have to agree with this guy. Past efforts to increase the value of mining has only lead to a devaluing of income from players who actually play the game and an increase in the incentive for large Coalitions to lock down huge sections of null sec and make sure that very little of it is used and then have large scale mining bot operations deep in blue territory. I saw this first hand in scalding pass a few years ago with that Russian prince who got outted with that RMT scandal back then and I doubt a whole bunch has changed since then.
These changes will only further alienate and discourage actual players and further incentivise bots.
what kind of nutjob thinks we conquer space for the mining
You have me there. That was a judgement error and a ridiculous conclusion. I thank you for setting me strait. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 07:03:00 -
[23] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:Some basic points I think CCP misses: - There are two types of isk: server generated and isk made from other players
All isk comes from the server. Everything else is just moving isk around. Something to bear in mind: that 80% of characters in highsec, includes alts of people in lowsec and nullsec. It should also be noted, for your LP dilution? That's actually a good thing. Because for every lp that is spent, some ISK is returned to the server. More LP spent = larger isk sink. (stuff being destroyed doesn't remove isk. It generally creates more, due to insurance. sure, /you/ don't have it. but someone else does)
I understand all isk comes from the server at some point I'm talking on a transaction by transaction basis. If every transaction that got a player isk came from the server then every transaction in which you spent isk would have to go back to the server. Eve is billed as a player based economy. For that to happen with minimal mudflation you have to maximize the number of income streams that derive from players selling to players and minimize the number of transactions that are a result of the server putting isk into your wallet.
An example would be when wormholes were introduced blue loot was created that if you scooped it up and got it to high sec could be sold to an NPC vendor for isk. This is essentially server generated isk but it's not direct payment like bounties are. The blue loot could be left behind or lost or stolen. Also at the same time sleeper salvage was introduced as well as T3 production and reverse engineering. This was a major income stream that involved selling T3 ships and materials to players for isk. I see that expansion as a decent balance
Fast forward to incursions where it was tons bounty payments which were server generated isk deposited strait into your wallet. absolutely no loot and with no loot almost none of the ships got salvaged. I can't recall for sure but in the beginning I don't recall any LP payouts I think that was added later but I'm stretching my memory there. That was followed by drone poo being removed and replaced by bounty payouts. Both of those I consider examples of a poor balance of server created isk to isk made from selling goods to other players.
Keep in mind that any kind of money has no inherent value. The value of money comes from it's transfer in exchange for something of value. You don't measure an economy by how much money it has but by how much that money is moved around. Yes if in real life you print dollars at a higher rate proportionately or generate more server isk in game then prices will go up but if income streams go up as well then then end result measured in purchasing power of an hour of labor remains unchanged. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 07:19:00 -
[24] - Quote
Krom Thomson wrote:
you keep forgetting one small thing and that indys are mostly treated as second class in null cpp can't fix null only null can fix null by giving up this stupid anti new players and anti indy lifestyle
You are most certainly correct and while I did not miss that point I did drift off from it. CCP may not be able to fix that mind set but they do control all of the rules of the game and have the ability to incentivise or deincentivise various activities.
I am of the viewpoint that in recent years CCP has increasingly push one type of game play which is the one that gets them out of game headlines and that style is large scale null sec battles that can be translated into insane amounts of real life dollars wasted. Because a thousand smaller scale battles won't get them free advertising.
I've argued here and elsewhere that a better more engaging game play might come from many more smaller engagements. People are smart and if you make the most profitable thing to do in space to attract people to your space this game of spreadsheets we have here will rapidly adjust to strategies that take advantage of that.
If CCP sets a goal of making null sec space more valuable and it achieves that goal then it will make null sec more valuable. That does not mean more people will come to null. If anything it will mean those in null will want to share with as few people as possible. So it will encourage the kind of game play we have now which can be summed up as PEW PEW PEW GTFO of my space or I'll shoot.
However if CCP sets a goal to attract as many people to null as possible and they achieve that goal then null will have a lot of people which means a lot of small scale tussles that lead to a **** ton of little cheap ships getting blown up and lots of PvP fun but no headlines. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
88
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 07:32:00 -
[25] - Quote
Querns wrote:Newbies in Eve aren't some sort of slave labor, to be put to what ever task is most convenient for older players. They want the same thing you do -- to maximize their isk/hr so they spend less time making money and more time doing the fun stuff in this game; to wit: PvP.
Not everyone considers PvP fun. I'm not sure why you PvP types keep assuming that to be the case. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
88
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 07:44:00 -
[26] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:Malcanis wrote:Seismic Stan wrote:I don't like it - mainly because I don't understand it.
If I did, I'd probably love it.
;) That's a succint summary of 90% of the complaints in this thread. You realize you are ridiculing the people that elected you into your role as CSM right? If you dislike being CSM so much why not just drop your position? He is not running again, and is liberated from any kind self-muzzling he did before. The sad thing is he was telling me in a thread just a few days ago that he and the rest of the CSM were not out to screw high sec. I said I trusted him....and a few days later this is announced. Some lessons I've learned in life: If someone says trust me, they are lying. If someone says I'm not trying to **** you, they are trying to **** me If someone says I don't want to intrude, they are about to intrude.
If someone were truly acting in your best interests typically they will not tell so but rather give you the ability to check it out for yourself. Trust is only ever asked for or even needed when someone is attempting to abuse that trust. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
89
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:08:00 -
[27] - Quote
Querns wrote: Gee, this slope looks awfully slippery. I don't know if we should.
It seems to me you may not know what a slippery slope is. You might want to wikipedia it .
I'm not jumping to any ridiculous conclusions here I'm speaking of a historical pattern. Taking a historical pattern and stretching forth into the future and drawing conclusions from that is more like predictive modeling.
A slippery slope argument would be taking a fact totally out of any historical context and making a leap into territory not supported by any fact of the current state or historical correlation.
I clearly pointed out the facts indicating a close and friendly relationship that Mittens and CCP have with each other.
I also gave one example of the many that exist of when in the past this type of relationship has lead to favoritism which lead to out and out cheating
I then drew the conclusion that this indicates a high probability that these things will lead to the goons having an unjust amount of influence with the Devs on game mechanics.
What I left out was that Mittens is reported to be a retired lawyer making a 6 figure income from his website that get's it's traffic from his Eve fame. This fact ties Mittens and CCP together in a co-dependent business relationship. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
89
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:24:00 -
[28] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:
you are going to pretend like mittens (a.k.a. the mitani) and the Devs don't have circle jerk parties when he goes to Iceland and that his time as a CSM has not gained him a personal realtionship with them? Or are we going to pretend like the Devs haven't been caught more than once helping out their favorite null sec alliance like the Free BPOs they gave to BOB. The guy is not making some conspiracy theory he's pointing out a cozy relationship that does exist between the CCP devs and the big null sec alliance heads and a history of those cozy relationships leading to favoritism and in some cases outright cheating.
I'm going to assume you have a job/career you'd like to hang on to. Would *YOU* give your bestest best pal a freebie, knowing that doing so would likely cost you your job, and get you blackballed from the industry you work in? If not, why the default assumption that an employee at CCP would do it? Also, referring to ~10 year old incidents as some kind of new, pressing trend is silly. The very few incidents since of dev misconduct that have happened, CCP has taken action and swiftly resolved the issue. CCP recognized the fault, implemented controls, and have proven since that they'll act on said controls. Really, what MORE do you want, blood?
I am not saying that this type of activity is happening again. I am pointing out an extreeme that a cozy relationship has lead to in the past and that to say it could or even probably would lead to some type of favoritism with the current restructuring is not out of the question or a silly thing to suggest.
Also people giving friends freebies happens in the business world every single day. It's not often caught but it happens a lot. As a matter of fact most of sales and marketing training is how to develop quasi-personal relationships with people and exploit that for business gain.
Also you are completely ignoring the fact that Mittens and CCP have common business interests. That is to say that they both make money when Eve gets press and the kind of Sov warfare battles CFC is involved in creates plenty of out of game news stories and lots of traffic to Mittens' website and free advertising for CCP.
However what I think CCP is missing is that this badboy behavior may get people to come check out the game it does not get them to stick around. I've read that Eve has a very high washout rate for trials. I can't help but think that the very thing which gets them the headlines is also what chases away many new players.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
89
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:35:00 -
[29] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
He is not running again, and is liberated from any kind self-muzzling he did before. The sad thing is he was telling me in a thread just a few days ago that he and the rest of the CSM were not out to screw high sec. I said I trusted him....and a few days later this is announced.
Some lessons I've learned in life: If someone says trust me, they are lying. If someone says I'm not trying to **** you, they are trying to **** me If someone says I don't want to intrude, they are about to intrude. If someone were truly acting in your best interests typically they will not tell so but rather give you the ability to check it out for yourself. Trust is only ever asked for or even needed when someone is attempting to abuse that trust. I have never made any secret of my opinion that hi sec industry is significantly overpowered. Never. The people who are lying to you are the ones who are trying to protect their privilege.
I never said you were lying. Of the 3 examples I gave the only one that relates directly to what you said is "he and the rest of the CSM were not out to screw high sec". The others were just examples of other ways people usually say the opposite of the truth. In this case you said you were not out to screw high sec when you just in this post now indicated that you always have been. So thank you reinforcing my point.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
89
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:46:00 -
[30] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Malcanis wrote: I have never made any secret of my opinion that hi sec industry is significantly overpowered. Never. The people who are lying to you are the ones who are trying to protect their privilege. Before the 0.0 cartels finally got what they wanted I had an exchange with you on this very subject, my view was that 0.0 refining needed to be improved, but I was against a hisec nerf. Because in my opinion more settled places meant that people put more ISK into plant, its RL logic that, you don't put an Aluminium smelter in a country with patchy power supply do you? But I suggested that CCP make it so that null sec stations could get to the same level as hisec stations. I am sorry to see CCP make a massive mistake. That being said, this is not just going to have a massive hit on mission running, it kills the few brave souls who do belt ratting in NPC 0.0 and other peoples 0.0 systems. In one sweeping game change, my industrial capacity has been reduced by 50% and all those that operate like me, this is going to kill belt ratting in NPC 0.0. Did you guys even think about that? Do you have anything that can soften this devastating blow to our approach, because we sure as hell need it. To give you an idea, all of the long term Stain players in Hub Zero built the majority of their ships from the loot they reprocessed in Stain, this is a massive hit on us. You are a deep thinking intelligent player, you must see the impact this will have on belt ratting, is there anyone in the CSM who wants to save NPC 0.0 belt ratting?
While I agree with everything you are saying here I think you are missing one point at least if you are the industrialist that I'm inferring that you are. If mining is to become viable it will have to compete with other isk earning activities. I do not think these changes accomplish this but I would like to propose an idea:
What if CCP Nerfed ratting and mission running and boosted mining with the net effect being that you could make the same isk being a PvE combat pilot or a miner? Is that what you would consider a good change? I'm not saying these changes will accomplish that mind you I'm just saying there has been some indication of that being the stated goal.
To me I would love to have a game mechanic where I can actually make as much money mining as I can running anoms or missioning. And in null sec I'd like to see mining profitable enough that I can pay PvPers to keep the system secure while I mine and have enough isk for all of us to do as well as we would if we were each running anoms.
|
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
89
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 09:17:00 -
[31] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:
I am not saying that this type of activity is happening again. I am pointing out an extreeme that a cozy relationship has lead to in the past and that to say it could or even probably would lead to some type of favoritism with the current restructuring is not out of the question or a silly thing to suggest.
Also people giving friends freebies happens in the business world every single day. It's not often caught but it happens a lot. As a matter of fact most of sales and marketing training is how to develop quasi-personal relationships with people and exploit that for business gain.
Also you are completely ignoring the fact that Mittens and CCP have common business interests. That is to say that they both make money when Eve gets press and the kind of Sov warfare battles CFC is involved in creates plenty of out of game news stories and lots of traffic to Mittens' website and free advertising for CCP.
However what I think CCP is missing is that this badboy behavior may get people to come check out the game it does not get them to stick around. I've read that Eve has a very high washout rate for trials. I can't help but think that the very thing which gets them the headlines is also what chases away many new players.
I would say that favoritism calls are silly, seeing as how every favoritism "scandal" since t20 has been handled pretty promptly, professionally, and swiftly by CCP's IA team. You aren't going to end people breaking the rules, but having a good mitigation plan in place makes up for it. CCP shot themselves in the foot with t20, and learned better. Freebies happen, sure. Way back when I worked for a popular satellite provider, we were authorized to hand out hats and t-shirts for free advertising. Now, if I hooked my bestie up with free service, that was a termination offense. CCP devs showing favoritism is a termination offense. Yea, Mittens makes money when CCP gets in the news. So does EN24, battleclinic, and Bobs Eve Blog running google ads. It's a mutually beneficial setup. CCP gets more advertising, *insert blog* gets ad money. This is a good thing. Eve's high washout rate is intentional. CCP has stated that they feel the initial difficulty weeds out people who would not make a good addition to the EVE community. Those who stay have the right mindset. I've forgotten specifically were I read it from, but I seem to recall that CCP doesn't even consider someone a "customer" in terms of churn until they've been in-game 4 months. If you'd like further insight, read this link. If you think favoritism calls are silly then I think you are ignoring basic psychological premises as well as the most basic of business concepts.
You can say that these common business interests are a good thing that's a subjective call and you are entitled to your opinion.
You can say that giving freebies to friends is a termination event but that does not prevent it from happening it just means if you get caught you'll likely get fired.
I will say it once again what I'm saying here is not that cheating or breaking the rules has happened. What I am saying is that is it likely the rules are being changed in a manner that is swayed heavily by a cozy and mutually beneficial business interest that exists between CCP and a small number of players that conduct large scale sov warfare. I further am stating my opinion that if they continue down the road of trying to make ass ponies of 90% of the players so that 5% of them can make headlines then I think they will loose a lot of engaging game play and likely much of the player base with it.
We can disagree on opinion's here but what is established fact is that favoritism has happened repeatedly in the past and to varying degrees.
Let me give you one correlation here. If you catch your wife in bed with the mail man and she swears it will never happen again. Says she reported the mail man so he'd get fired and never have your route again. So then you say well she'd be stupid to do it again after having been caught once. After it happens 3 or 4 times you'd be the one who looked foolish when your neighbor says dude I think your wife is screwing the mail man and you said no way she is. I've caught her half a dozen times already she'd have to be an idiot to do it again.
But once again I am taken off topic because again I am not saying cheating or rule breaking has occurred. I'm not saying that it will occur here. I'm saying there is a common business interest that exists and if followed through on will lead to less rewarding game play for the majority of the player base.
References to extreme scandals in the past are only to indicate that this is not a crazy theory that is out of the question. So please stop accusing me of stating that one employee and CCP gave free **** to a "bestie" when I never indicated any such thing.
If there are common interests a conspiracy is not called a conspiracy it's called good business.
If you can't see a mutually beneficial business relationship leading to favoritism then I think you are the one being not only silly but naive. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
89
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 09:20:00 -
[32] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:Malcanis wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
He is not running again, and is liberated from any kind self-muzzling he did before. The sad thing is he was telling me in a thread just a few days ago that he and the rest of the CSM were not out to screw high sec. I said I trusted him....and a few days later this is announced.
Some lessons I've learned in life: If someone says trust me, they are lying. If someone says I'm not trying to **** you, they are trying to **** me If someone says I don't want to intrude, they are about to intrude. If someone were truly acting in your best interests typically they will not tell so but rather give you the ability to check it out for yourself. Trust is only ever asked for or even needed when someone is attempting to abuse that trust. I have never made any secret of my opinion that hi sec industry is significantly overpowered. Never. The people who are lying to you are the ones who are trying to protect their privilege. I never said you were lying. Of the 3 examples I gave the only one that relates directly to what you said is "he and the rest of the CSM were not out to screw high sec". The others were just examples of other ways people usually say the opposite of the truth. In this case you said you were not out to screw high sec when you just in this post now indicated that you always have been. So thank you reinforcing my point. So you're going on record as saying that this change will leave 99% of industry in 0.0 and 1% of industry in hi-sec? Interesting. huh? I think you replied to the wrong post. what you said here doesn't make any sense in relation to anything I've said much less anything linked here. I never stated anything even remotely close to that. Please tell me that was a posting error on your part.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
97
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:14:00 -
[33] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote: Oh please, how does this change even remotely "screw over" hisec? When the ESS was announced and null players complained about the 5% bounty nerf there was plenty of HTFU coming from hisec players and this is only a 2.8% nerf. So the definition of "screwing over" hisec is doing anything that is not the status quo? The module reprocessing nerf hits everyone the same so we are really crying over 2.8%? The change is simple really, if you mine in hisec you will no longer refine your ore. Nullsec ores will be refined in nullsec and high end minerals will be shipped out. Hisec ores will be sold as ore and compressed for transport and refining in nullsec.
To the guys that made their living salvaging - yes it sucks that you spent time training skills that are no longer needed. But it also sucks that I trained 60 days for large autocannons only to have tracking enhancers nerfed and making that training time a waste for me. Welcome to eve.
A 5% bounty nerf is a 5% bounty nerf. You loose 5% of your income from something like that.
Every industrialist has a magic number that is a margin percentage that is a break-point for them. Above that number you seek to produce and sell that item below that number you stop production as a small shift in things could put you into the red. For most people doing high volume trade hub production that number is around 6-7 percent. Meaning that the ship you are building sells for 6-7% above build costs with market fees cutting into that. Multi-phase production is a little more complicated as there are more steps and each step along the path has to be considered if it is profitable to do your self or better out sourced but the same basic concept remains. Also low isk value things with high volumes and disproportionate production times like ammo don't follow this rule, however these qualifications aside I'll continue with my point.
So if you are only typically making about 7% over material costs and 4 or 5% puts in a danger zone then a 2.8% nerf means you can no longer operate your current business model. That's not a 2.8% nerf it's a 100% nerf to you and your style of game play.
Now I realize in this example I'm ignoring transportation cost from null to high sec but I was keeping it simple just to show you that you can't compare a 5% ratting nerf to a 2.8% refine disadvantage as bounties are 100% profit and Manufacturing is only about 6% so a 2.8% nerf is really halving your income.
Now I understand that people will say well just go to null and become and industrialist there. That kind of thing has been talked about on both sides already in this threadnaught and I'm not going to go off topic here to address that. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
97
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:42:00 -
[34] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
Over the last couple of years, its always the niche players that get screwed, this is another such niche player bashing event, which is not even intentional, they don't even notice them to be honest. One of the fun parts of Eve was the ability to try to do what you want, but it seems to me that this is being squeezed all the time and to be different means that you have to be a masochist!
You make an excellent point here. Eve is billed as a sandbox game where they encourage players to find varied and interesting ways to play the game Yet it seems that niche game-play, which is the varied and interesting part, keeps getting nerfed and one specific type of game play keeps getting buffed.
How much longer can CCP get away with calling Eve a sandbox when they keep trying to force people into specific types of game play?
CCP a good sandbox game is one where you look at what players are doing and give them to tools to not only do what they do more interestingly but branch out and do more interesting and divergent stuff. Somehow you keep thinking that you can take 80% of the players and force them into a current game play style that currently only a small percentage seek out. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
97
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 17:00:00 -
[35] - Quote
Rastlor wrote:A possible fix for this to me appears simple - make JF's unable to carry compressed ore.
In this way the Rorq has a use (outside of sitting in a POS or for seeding a region with SBUs), people actually have to put something at risk e.g. freighters jumping compressed ore into Low sec to the waiting Rorq etc in order to be able to get the benefit of importing from High and Refining in null.
Give the Lowsec types something to look forward too as well with this change who doesn't like a un-escorted freighter jumping into your welcoming arms. My guess would be the freighter pilot and his business partners.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
97
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 17:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:I guess i dont get how this changes the desire to train refining at all, which is being advertised as the main reason.
The bonus of 0 skills vs max skills stays roughly the same, due to pos array, yet now you can get max skill bonus only in null.
Wouldnt giving pos and null 50% base and replacing null ore with a "superdense" 25% variant achieve all this without killing off mineral compression and reducing mission rewards?
What am i missing here? It does really seem like "YOU WILL HAVE TO SHIP ALL ORE TO NULL!!!" is the main reason.
This is an excellent point you make. I think this gives a decent bit of insight into the mindset of the people that decided to follow through on this development cycle. With the old carrot and stick analogy you can either use carrots to encourage players to go in the direction you would like them to or use a stick to punish the ones that don't obey your whims.
It seems CCP chose the path of the tyrant. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
98
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 17:23:00 -
[37] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:mynnna wrote: - it's got everything to do with mining simply not being a worthwhile task. \ Admitting that you and your friends are too lazy or self important to actually mine the asteroids in your space isn't much of an attack on my premise. Neither is admitting that in an alliance with 20,000 or more members you can't arrange or force your new members to take up the task of mining for the almighty alliance. That sounds like a problem with logistics and leadership, not with game design. Look at the word "worthwhile". "worth" meaning value and "while" mean a period of time or an interval. Literally this is value in time spent. Compare mining to all other possible income streams in game currently and convince me it's "worth-while".
I was originally a miner in this game and now mostly run null sec anoms not because running anoms is my preferred game play but because I'd need to run three accounts simultaneously to make the same isk mining.
As a side note when I'm not running null sec anoms for isk I'm running high sec missions for fun. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
101
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 18:18:00 -
[38] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:Malcanis wrote: So you're going on record as saying that this change will leave 99% of industry in 0.0 and 1% of industry in hi-sec?
Interesting.
huh? I think you replied to the wrong post. what you said here doesn't make any sense in relation to anything I've said much less anything linked here. I never stated anything even remotely close to that. Please tell me that was a posting error on your part. Currently, that's about the ratio of non-supercap industry, except that it's 99% in hisec, 1% in 0.0 Simply because it's the status quo, you implicitly assume that this situation is "balanced". Of course it's easy to see that it's not by imagining that the ratio is reversed, only this time not in your favour. Even after the changes Ytterbium has outlined, the very large majority of production will still take place in hi-sec. If you think differently, then by all means show us your analysis. But leave the tinfoil, name-calling and big-lie bullshit out of it please. Just numbers will persuade far more effectively than whining ever will. I never made the argument that all of industry would go running to null I never even implied it. What I've stated clearly and repeatedly is that CCP keeps trying to force a majority of players into a game play style that is currently chosen by a minority of players. I don't recall whining about anything.
My main point here has been that by the last numbers I've seen, which admittedly are a few years old, at least 80% of characters lived in high sec. I further pointed out that repeatedly expansion after expansion instead focusing on improving game play for for 80% of the players they've listened to the real whiners which are null sec PvPers that complain that they don't have enough defenseless industrialist to shoot at.
I've never argued about the specific numbers or percentages in this proposed change being too much nor too little so I'm not sure why you are asking me now to back up what I've said with numbers when I've never argued numbers. The only number I've put out there is the 80% living in high sec and I'll be more than happy to take that number back if CCP would release current ones.
My point has been the intent of these changes and the general direction that CCP seems to be pushing the game in and the mindset behind that intent as well as coloring it with my conjecture on what unintended outcomes may result if the desired changes are realized as well as putting forth some ideas as to other ways that could potentially active those same goals more effectively and with less unwanted side affects.
Further I've never made any arguments for "balanced" or unbalanced. I don't even believe such a thing exists nor that it is a desirable goal. As a matter of fact you can find places in these forums where I have truly whined about how the attempted ship balancing ruined the game by removing flavor and introducing homogenization.
I believe in that which works and that which does not. What I've argued here is that there are reasons why the vast majority of stuff is made in high sec and that a lot of those reasons work for most everyone that plays including those arguing in favor of the proposed changes.
I could be totally wrong here and time will tell. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
You seem to keep trying to take my comments out of context so that you can invalidate them instead of actually addressing the concepts I've put forth.
And "tinfoil name calling" now that's a projection if ever I heard one. I'd like you to point out the "tinfoil" comments I've made and while I"m not above name calling I don't recall doing it in this threadnaught yet but I'm getting closer. |
|
|
|