Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Charlemeign
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:20:00 -
[211] - Quote
Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. Way to go guys, break out the champagne. |
Dave Stark
5675
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:22:00 -
[212] - Quote
Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5201
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:22:00 -
[213] - Quote
Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. Way to go guys, break out the champagne. The word amazing is censored? The Paradox |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6293
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:25:00 -
[214] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. Way to go guys, break out the champagne. The word amazing is censored?
Damn you for making me like one of your posts. But above all else, I am a fair man. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:26:00 -
[215] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: and trust me, this really could have been a heavier nerf. They could have made it so u couldnt exceed current capacity amounts. There was little need to buff max capacity on freighters, but they've done it.
I laughed for a second. You get meager 4% more cargo space for over a Billion more ISK and much reduced HP, or you go T1 and have less cargo, less HP and still increased cost for the ship. That is not a buff at all, that's not even a buffy. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:28:00 -
[216] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly.
I would agree with you if this was actually what CCP was doing. But the order of changes is backwards.
First, the components for 0.0 industry need to be available. That is, resources for rigs and t2 production and fuel. All of those are heavily regional, as you might be aware.
If it was possible to produce effectively in 0.0 I'd be doing it already. Spending 120M per jf roundtrip plus two accounts worth of cynoalts is kind of expensive.
Imports won't cease or reduce by raising costs for importing when it is literally impossible to replace importing with production. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:30:00 -
[217] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted.
I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted.
|
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:30:00 -
[218] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Kat Ayclism wrote:And they've stated that there will be little or no need for importing where? And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?
Have a think at it again, we'll wait while you catch up with the rest of the class. Word of advice: no-one cares about your Eve-O likes. You can stop the kugu-style angry ad-hominem rants for attention and swap them for an argument that makes sense, if you dare. I guess at this point I just need to make a confession: I am smarter than you. I must be, because I can see that the: - hell nerfs to compression-importing - the industry changes - the fuel changes - the freighter changes All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly. You would have to be really far in denial to have not picked this up as one of the aims of the balance passes. But I say again, you know what CCP are aiming at which is why you're against it; nerfs to importing would hurt your bottom-line more than other 0.0 powers. You know who cares about my eve-o likes the least? Me. It's not ad-hominem when you explain why someone is wrong, friend, so toss out your Fallacy of the Day calendar because it clearly didn't explain that one well enough for you.
They eliminated the need for compression-importing via modules and shifted it to compression importing via raw materials. Still importing.
The industry changes provide benefits to production within null, that does nothing to the importing aspect. It is a driver to get people into null. This driver is then effectively neutered by the other two changes you listed. They're big sticks smacking the ever-living **** out of those same people they are trying to draw to null. They add needless expense and difficulty to producing in null, which is going to make it a very hard sell to drag anyone that might shift to null.
You see what I did there? I didn't just make blind assertions, I explained out the hows and whys of what I'm saying- unlike you, who chose to stop simply at "this change totally means this, you're stupid," while also ignoring the content of the post you were responding to, specifically: "And they've stated that there will be little or no need for importing where? And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?"
You know... the entire meat of the post.
I also didn't have to attack your affiliations to make my point- I addressed your argument, rather than attacking you. If only there was some fallacy I could point to...
Say, you didn't throw that Fallacy of the Day calendar out yet, did you? |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:31:00 -
[219] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: and trust me, this really could have been a heavier nerf. They could have made it so u couldnt exceed current capacity amounts. There was little need to buff max capacity on freighters, but they've done it.
I laughed for a second. You get meager 4% more cargo space for over a Billion more ISK and much reduced HP, or you go T1 and have less cargo, less HP and still increased cost for the ship. That is not a buff at all, that's not even a buffy.
im surprised it took u a second to realise ur wrong and stop laughing.
max possible capacity has gone up. more than 4% for T1 freighters. perhaps freighters over all havent been buffed, but in the respects of max capacity, yes, yes they have. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Scarlet Thellere
University of Caille Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:33:00 -
[220] - Quote
I don't like Idea of nerfing tank on freighters. You mean if I want to have same/better tank as I had I need to buy CAPITAL rigs?
Before some number crunching it seems that if someone moved high volume - low value stuff they got short end of stick:
-yes you can improve your cargo but you will loose on tank -get little more money(cos rigging for cargo will not yield much higher cargo-space compared to pre-patch with much more risk
-yes you improve your tank and you move much less stuff with a little more safetly compared to pre-patch, so again you earn less. (whole lot less).
AND in both cases you need to buy some capital rigs to even get near pre-patch values in some attributes. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21819
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:34:00 -
[221] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No, it pretty much is. They were just too blinded by ~~moar m-¦~~ to listen to pick up on what their dream GÇ£improvementGÇ¥ would cost them.
It's kind of like how can flipping and ninja looting and similar annoyances were born. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:35:00 -
[222] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: and trust me, this really could have been a heavier nerf. They could have made it so u couldnt exceed current capacity amounts. There was little need to buff max capacity on freighters, but they've done it.
I laughed for a second. You get meager 4% more cargo space for over a Billion more ISK and much reduced HP, or you go T1 and have less cargo, less HP and still increased cost for the ship. That is not a buff at all, that's not even a buffy. im surprised it took u a second to realise ur wrong and stop laughing. max possible capacity has gone up. more than 4% for T1 freighters. perhaps freighters over all havent been buffed, but in the respects of max capacity, yes, yes they have.
4% is "gone up" for you? No wonder that the current state of the societies is so rotten if we are pleased with and praise such awesome improvements. |
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:36:00 -
[223] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The whole drama is based on bad CCP communication. They should stand out and say "we don't like everything built in Sobaseki, sold in Jita and moved to everywhere else. We want you to build stuff locally. Hauling from Jita is meant to be an auxiliary source of items. Because of this, we nerf Freighters and JFs to the ground, like we did with AFK-sentry fleets and AoE Doomsdays"
Again: I like this change and I believe it will revitalize industry in nullsec, which is very much needed.
If you think people will lower their income to mining level, you're wrong. If this would happen people will just leave null for better income in lvl4s or incursions and just stop having 3+ accounts. If CCP really wants people to start mining in null (and this is how it looks like with industry changes) then i lee playerbase nothing but dropping |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1810
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:36:00 -
[224] - Quote
We're nerfing cargo, agility, and hull tank of your JFs, but hey with rigs you might get one of those back at the expense of the others. Maybe.
Yay.....you made one of the most mind numbingly boring and dull aspects of the game slightly more tedious. What joy! Well done. Out of curiosity, do any other MMOs come with an integrated EuroTruck Simulator 2014?
|
Drak Fel
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:37:00 -
[225] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:You guys also seem to think everything in null still hinges on Jita. Industry still needs work, but to carry on that all is lost and null will implode into nothing because your JF took a slight nerf is ridiculous. Maybe look into building stuff out in null so you don't have to ship in 100% of everything?
This might come as a surprise, but not everyone that plays Eve enjoys having to deal with industry and find it to be a very tedious activity. We would prefer to buy our shooty things. I did not know that what Eve needed to really get people to enjoy playing the game was to force more nonfun activities on the entire player base. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11545
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:37:00 -
[226] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted.
No this is exactly what they asked for. What they didn't think about is the nerfs that would have to accompany the rigs. Now, if all of these people against this change had spoken up every time a thread popped up demanding rigs and not kept quite while a handfull of us tried to tell people getting rigs would result in nerfs we might not be in this situation.
But we are and so we have to get on with it. Fortunately I have been expecting this for years and this nerf is an indirect buff to ganking Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:38:00 -
[227] - Quote
I can understand nurfing the cargo for the rigs, that is fair, but a 18s increase in align time is absolutely brutal. No one is ever going to rig for agility ever. JF is 100% about cargo hold so you can reduce the amount of trips. If you reduced the agi nurf then this would be a decent change imo. Especially since the Rhea with t2 rigs only nets 4% increase in cargo capacity. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:39:00 -
[228] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No this is exactly what they asked for. What they didn't think about is the nerfs that would have to accompany the rigs. Now, if all of these people against this change had spoken up every time a thread popped up demanding rigs and not kept quite while a handfull of us tried to tell people getting rigs would result in nerfs we might not be in this situation. But we are and so we have to get on with it. Fortunately I have been expecting this for years and this nerf is an indirect buff to ganking
The reason for this is that no one actually took them serious at all. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21819
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:39:00 -
[229] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:4% is "gone up" for you? It's not GÇ£gone downGÇ¥ and it's not GÇ£stayed the sameGÇ¥. So what else is there?
Scarlet Thellere wrote:-yes you can improve your cargo but you will loose on tank -get little more money(cos rigging for cargo will not yield much higher cargo-space compared to pre-patch with much more risk
-yes you improve your tank and you move much less stuff with a little more safetly compared to pre-patch, so again you earn less. (whole lot less). Yup. Such is the nature of the kind of choice people have been asking for. Some even suggested that this kind of trade-off would be an improvement over what we have right now. We had the best of all worlds, and now you have to pick one area and sacrifice all others GÇö player choice, as the proponents called it.
Allison A'vani wrote:The reason for this is that no one actually took them serious at all. That was their mistake, and it was hardly the first one. Sooner or later, you'd think they'd learn. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:40:00 -
[230] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No, it pretty much is. They were just too blinded by ~~moar m-¦~~ to listen to pick up on what their dream GÇ£improvementGÇ¥ would cost them. It's kind of like how can flipping and ninja looting and similar annoyances were born.
Funny thing is, when the rig change was announced I never really considered cargo being necessary. Tank more likely. Rarely do I find capacity the issue relative to the value of what I am carrying and where I am carrying it. However now, it almost seems as though the only choice will be to cargo rig it. The only question is whether to use T1 or what are some of the most expensive rigs in the game for just a little bit more space. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:40:00 -
[231] - Quote
Scarlet Thellere wrote: -yes you can improve your cargo but you will loose on tank -get little more money(cos rigging for cargo will not yield much higher cargo-space compared to pre-patch with much more risk
this is what people asked for. more space but at the price of tank.
Scarlet Thellere wrote: -yes you improve your tank and you move much less stuff with a little more safetly compared to pre-patch, so again you earn less. (whole lot less).
yep, it was what ppl were asking for.
are a lot of ppl also forgetting that u can half the penalty of rigs with skills? EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:42:00 -
[232] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: 4% is "gone up" for you? No wonder that the current state of the societies is so rotten if we are pleased with and praise such awesome improvements.
1.04>1.00
gg EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:42:00 -
[233] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin
The PVPers got what they wanted maybe..not the industrialists. Cost will go up for everyone. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:43:00 -
[234] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No, it pretty much is. They were just too blinded by ~~moar m-¦~~ to listen to pick up on what their dream GÇ£improvementGÇ¥ would cost them. It's kind of like how can flipping and ninja looting and similar annoyances were born. Funny thing is, when the rig change was announced I never really considered cargo being necessary. Tank more likely. Rarely do I find capacity the issue relative to the value of what I am carrying and where I am carrying it. However now, it almost seems as though the only choice will be to cargo rig it. The only question is whether to use T1 or what are some of the most expensive rigs in the game for just a little bit more space.
If you have ever moved fuel blocks for your alliance in a JF, then you will realize that t2 cargo rigs will be required if this change goes into effect. |
Dave Stark
5675
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:43:00 -
[235] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted.
the many, many threads asking for it, and the large cheer at fanfest make me certain it is what they wanted. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:44:00 -
[236] - Quote
Calling now for Burn Jita 3.5 in September. Let's make it semiannual now that freighters will probably die much easier now with higher ship values for extra goodness. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11545
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:45:00 -
[237] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:
The reason for this is that no one actually took them serious at all.
That's why our policy is to challenge everything stupid that is said that would harm gameplay and/or balance, no matter how daft it looks. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:46:00 -
[238] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No this is exactly what they asked for. What they didn't think about is the nerfs that would have to accompany the rigs. Now, if all of these people against this change had spoken up every time a thread popped up demanding rigs and not kept quite while a handfull of us tried to tell people getting rigs would result in nerfs we might not be in this situation. But we are and so we have to get on with it. Fortunately I have been expecting this for years and this nerf is an indirect buff to ganking
This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve.
And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit more gank-proof for a price? Now they are even less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11548
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:47:00 -
[239] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin The PVPers got what they wanted maybe..not the industrialists. Cost will go up for everyone.
We didn't want this. Hence why we fought this every time the idea for rigs on freighters was posted.
Industrialist carebears just managed to nerf themselves Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21820
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:47:00 -
[240] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin The PVPers got what they wanted maybe..not the industrialists. I suppose it's a matter of semantic precisionGǪ
The industrialists got what they asked for; the gankers got what they wanted. The former just chose to turn a blind eye to how what they were asking for was not going to bring what they wanted, and the latter (mostly) stayed quiet because they knew that the best way to get what you want is to have your opposition promote it.
Sure, some nasty evil gankers like baltec broke rank and warned the industrialists, but that was just interpreted as gankers trying to keep the industrialists away from what they wantedGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |