|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
77
   |
Posted - 2014.08.11 17:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Xeent Tsool wrote:I run lowsec incursions semi-regularly. All of these changes sound great.
EDIT: Rain6637, I've heard that scout sites are VERY easy and that the current payout is a joke. Any other change will be meaningless if the payout isn't increased. I'm aware. I just wanted to make the point that a 5 ship limit runs into the logi chain problem, at any difficulty. if they're going to alter the payout as an incentive, they should consider the number of ships and not just the per-ship figure. it strikes me as one of those matters of tradition that go unquestioned.
first of all check if logis are really a requirement and if you can go by with just a spider group or even local repping ships. |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 15:24:00 -
[2] - Quote
colera deldios wrote:Why are you giving these people more easy ISK at absolutely no risk at all. By what logic does a HS Incursion make more ISK/h than 0.0 Anomalies.
because of blue donut. |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 12:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
colera deldios wrote:
You make better Income than 0.0 and LS residents at no risk at all.
so only "nullbears" are authorized to make isk with no risk at all?
try a little thing: open your map and look at stats for player ship and capsule lost.
how many null systems not involved in great null battles (so where a bear has no place at all) have losses? how many hi systems?
null is risk free, you are under your overlord protection or you arent there.
low is at high consensual risk, you go there to blow stuff up and get blown up
hi is at non consensual risk, people will blow you up you want it or not. |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 13:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Incursions broke the economy of this game when they released and you guys have been trying to fix it in every other way other than at the cause of the problem.
right, a couple hundred guys earning 100mil/h broke the economy, while there are people earning hundred of BILLIONS out there.
first of all, incursions are limited, there just so many sites which can be run by just so many people. |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 14:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Sara Tosa wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:Incursions broke the economy of this game when they released and you guys have been trying to fix it in every other way other than at the cause of the problem. right, a couple hundred guys earning 100mil/h broke the economy, while there are people earning hundred of BILLIONS out there. first of all, incursions are limited, there just so many sites which can be run by just so many people. First of all who is earning hundreds of Billions per hour out there and what activity are they doing to accomplish this?
first: were did you read the "per hour"?
second: you still didnt explain how something so limited in scope and number of involved players can break the economy.
there's a finite number of incursions that can be running at the same time, each of those can have a finite number of sites at the same time and even if you drag it on by not shooting moms its duration is finite.
each of those sites have a fixed number of maximum ships that can enter and a fixed payout - even when one of these sites get contended only the winning fleet gets the payout.
no way in heck this can even jiggle eve economy, lets not talk about "break" it. |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 14:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:
As incursions are now on TQ T3's and logis are used quite a bit so I don't see how changing it to cruiser only makes it much more accessible to newer players. Now making them frig and dessie only sites to eliminate T3's and logis would make is so a 2 month old player could run these in a T2 frig. .
the same would happen with pirate fregates and such.
anything that can help low isk - low sp players do something would help more high isk - high sp ones.
they solved this problem in high sec ded 3-4 by excluding t3 ships, the only solution that can keep eve players from using ultra costly/blingy ships to min-max wathever ccp throw at them is to stop those ships at the door.
but I dont think its a good solution, you just have to accept that older players will min-max any pve content at the cost of newbies. |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 15:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:
go back up and reread your initial post that I commented on. You said "a couple hundred guys earning 100mil/h".
read better the same post and thell me where's the "billions/hour" comment.
if you assume something, you know what they say about people who assume things?
Quote:
As far as you limited scope comment it's not as limited as you make it seem when sites are completed new ones spawn and when an incursion completes a new incursion spawns.
Just because it may be limited in nature does not mean it has no effect on the game economy.
in an economy like eve, where people losing trilions in ships like the last bruhuaua in null make only a small blink in trit sales, it is completely meaningless.
just bother to look at available data instead of just assuming (again...).
Quote:
As far as my original comment you are again missing the point that all isk in not equal and when you introduce a new source of server generated isk without introducing an isk sink you offset that balance and mudflation occurs.
and would you care to post your statistical data about how these changes would impact eve economy in the short, mid and long range?
where's your data coming from?
you are just jumping the "there are a few guys in hisec making money, lets chase them out of MY game!" bandwagon, its making you looking jelous as hek, but feel free if you want. |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 16:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:
I fully agree with you that players will min-max that was in part my point. I do not like changes like locking out T3 which restrict choice. I'd much rather see changes that encourage one behavior over another. An example would be to increase the risk of loosing a ship so that it would not make financial sense to fly "blinged out" ships into them. This could be accomplished by making incursions only spawn in low / null sec. Also could figure out a way to add some type of variation into the mix that would lead to an unpredictableness which resulted in more "wipes"
again with the "if we nerf high sec enough its players will come here" bull
high sec players dont like playing in null of they would be already there.
if you remove all content from high sec, you just remove any interest for those players to play eve.
and if you lose enough players your nullbears wont have enough money to keep paying ccp servers and people.
would you like a 150$ montly subscription?
|
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 17:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Sara Tosa wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:
I fully agree with you that players will min-max that was in part my point. I do not like changes like locking out T3 which restrict choice. I'd much rather see changes that encourage one behavior over another. An example would be to increase the risk of loosing a ship so that it would not make financial sense to fly "blinged out" ships into them. This could be accomplished by making incursions only spawn in low / null sec. Also could figure out a way to add some type of variation into the mix that would lead to an unpredictableness which resulted in more "wipes"
again with the "if we nerf high sec enough its players will come here" bull high sec players dont like playing in null of they would be already there. if you remove all content from high sec, you just remove any interest for those players to play eve. and if you lose enough players your nullbears wont have enough money to keep paying ccp servers and people. would you like a 150$ montly subscription? You sir are an excellent troll. You know how to make your comments ignorant enough that I have to comment.
absolutely not, I meant everything i write.
maybe I'm not able to explain myself as well as I would like as I'm not native english and my hold of English its not good enough but I dont like trolls nor trolling.
Quote:
I do not agree with nerfing high sec to "force" players into null. However you do seem to want to ignore the fact that ships people are willing to fly in high sec they would not be willing to fly in low / null and the significant power increase that those ships offer will affect the isk / hour so if the compensation difference is not significant enough to over come that then there is an imbalance. There is a reason why CCP removed high sec level 5 missions from the game.
its not a question of money, if you place anything in null only people blue with the two coalitions will be able to run them.
and if you are blue you can run them in wathever ship you want, you just need to look at intel and warp to pos when needed.
if you place them in low only a few people that can hold that system completely locked for the period or friendly with every local denizens will be able to run them, exactly as it happens with level 5 missions.
for everybody else would be suicide.
so basically you arent lowering the isk/sp factor, you are just removing them from most player's reach. |
|
|
| |
|