Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1074
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 16:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism! CSM 6 Activities Summary | My CSM blog |

Kaeda Maxwell
Black Rebel Rifter Club
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 18:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
The wardec system needs to be looked at, yesterday.
*Especially what is and isn't allowed in hi-sec. *Dec shields need addressing one way or the other, the recent sudden change in policy set a lot of bad blood with mercs, hi-sec dec corps and yes griefers. *CCP Needs to take a clear stance on where they want to go with PvP mechanics in hi-sec. |

Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
199
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 19:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
I know they are already working on it but it was coming with WiS which has been put on hold. Bounty system is all sorts of ****** up. In it's current state it isn't even worth having in the game. Support our boobies!-áLINKY! |

Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
327
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 20:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
The wardec system needs a revamp.
It needs to be simplified. A flat fee cost for wardeccing. There should be no need for decshields. There should be no accommodation for avoiding decs by jumping a corp to another alliance. A corp jumps to another alliance, the wardec follows it (and pulls in its new alliance free-of-charge.) (Players are still free to leave corp.)
Wardeccing alliances cannot have other corps enter their alliance for the duration of their wardec.
Accommodation for ISK warfare. If a corp can pay to start a war, the opposing corp should be able to pay to avoid the war, but that cost should be expensive. It should be expensive to avoid shoot-em ups (since this is primarily a shoot-em-up game). If it costs X amount to start a war, it should cost triple the amount to end it. Once bribed, the corp cannot be wardecced again by the same corp for two (or more) days.
Just a simple set of rules are all that are required. Simple rules are harder to game and exploit. Today I lost my common sense, It slipped away between Amamake and Rens, I think it happened in highsec, Using a Brutix to gank a Providence. -- Flunk |

Solo Player
78
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 20:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Don't even know where to start this - this would easily fill the schedule of several summits.
Personally, I have favourites:
- bounty system - insurance - factional warfare - pi |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
163
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 23:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Nullsec industry. Namely the fact that mining and building stuff localy is orders of magnitude slower, more expensive, time-consuming and less efficient than simply importing everything from Jita. The efficienty, speed, and scaleability of 0.0 industry needs to be multiplied many times to be able to compete with the thousands of industrialists in highsec. Until that happens, there will be very little reasons to do any industry at all in 0.0, other than "because I like it".
(Disclaimer: I live in Pure Blind. If the situation is different on the furthest edges of the universe, then I don't know much about it.)
In my opinion this is right now amongst the biggest gaping chest wounds of EVE. |

Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 01:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:The wardec system needs to be looked at, yesterday.
*Especially what is and isn't allowed in hi-sec. *Dec shields need addressing one way or the other, the recent sudden change in policy set a lot of bad blood with mercs, hi-sec dec corps and yes griefers. *CCP Needs to take a clear stance on where they want to go with PvP mechanics in hi-sec.
I agree that the wardec system should be looked at with a critical eye.
- I agree that paying your way out of a wardec should be the harder/more expensive option than fighting.
- However, this does not address the reason the "dec shield" originally came to be: junk wardecs. Pre-"dec shield", Eve Uni received numerous wardecs where the aggressing party (the one that initiated the wardec) refused to come out and fight, instead staying docked up. This issue should be addressed explicitly (perhaps an ISK penalty to the aggressors if they refuse to engage in combat?).
- With this, other wardec evasion tactics should be illegal. Being able to operate with basically minimal risk in hisec (your ship is not cost-effective to suicide gank) yet still get good, no, great (as in top-end or nearly so) rewards from L4s and Incursions is not what this game is about.
As a possible system, I'd suggest making the declaring party put up a sum of ISK (with a set minimum value) that either:
- Will be refunded to them at the end of the campaign (if combat takes place)
- Is paid by the targeted party to end the wardec (danegeld, basically)
- Or is charged to the declaring party (as a penalty) if no combat (kills and/or losses) results.
|

Endovior
Brothers At Arms Intrepid Crossing
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 02:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Nullsec industry. Namely the fact that mining and building stuff localy is orders of magnitude slower, more expensive, time-consuming and less efficient than simply importing everything from Jita. The efficienty, speed, and scaleability of 0.0 industry needs to be multiplied many times to be able to compete with the thousands of industrialists in highsec. Until that happens, there will be very little reasons to do any industry at all in 0.0, other than "because I like it".
(Disclaimer: I live in Pure Blind. If the situation is different on the furthest edges of the universe, then I don't know much about it.)
In my opinion this is right now amongst the biggest gaping chest wounds of EVE.
Speaking as someone who lives out on the furthest edge of the universe... even though we do manufacture a lot of stuff locally, our go-to solution for getting most of the things we have isn't to improve the manufacturing chain and focus on making more things better, it's to focus on our logistical chain and figure out ways to get to and from Jita more easily.
That's kind of sad, really, and speaks volumes as to the issues at hand here. |

Kaeda Maxwell
Black Rebel Rifter Club
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 11:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui wrote:Kaeda Maxwell wrote:The wardec system needs to be looked at, yesterday.
*Especially what is and isn't allowed in hi-sec. *Dec shields need addressing one way or the other, the recent sudden change in policy set a lot of bad blood with mercs, hi-sec dec corps and yes griefers. *CCP Needs to take a clear stance on where they want to go with PvP mechanics in hi-sec. I agree that the wardec system should be looked at with a critical eye.
- I agree that paying your way out of a wardec should be the harder/more expensive option than fighting.
- However, this does not address the reason the "dec shield" originally came to be: junk wardecs. Pre-"dec shield", Eve Uni received numerous wardecs where the aggressing party (the one that initiated the wardec) refused to come out and fight, instead staying docked up. This issue should be addressed explicitly (perhaps an ISK penalty to the aggressors if they refuse to engage in combat?).
- With this, other wardec evasion tactics should be illegal. Being able to operate with basically minimal risk in hisec (your ship is not cost-effective to suicide gank) yet still get good, no, great (as in top-end or nearly so) rewards from L4s and Incursions is not what this game is about.
As a possible system, I'd suggest making the declaring party put up a sum of ISK (with a set minimum value) that either:
- Will be refunded to them at the end of the campaign (if combat takes place)
- Is paid by the targeted party to end the wardec (danegeld, basically)
- Or is charged to the declaring party (as a penalty) if no combat (kills and/or losses) results.
I'm not advocating any specific changes, I'm just tired of gathering intel eventually deccing a corp and then having them drop the dec via a decshield immediately.
I am also not saying people should be forced to fight, you want to dock up, dock up. E-uni's problem stems from their own rule of not allowing their pilots to undock during war except in an organized fleet. If the aggressors never undock into your frigate blob I understand that's annoying, but eve uni told eve unis pilots they can't do anything but sit in that blob on that station during war, you really can't blame fail deccers for your own policies. I can't buy anything because I forbade myself to spend resources! I blame it on the shopkeepers! Anyway their issue isn't caused by game mechanics it's caused by them.
Also ISK is a bad motivator to encourage/discourage anything in EVE. If I put up a post on BRRC forums saying we need X amount of ISK to wardec Y we'd prolly have it donated within 48 hours even if we're talking billions.
Basically stuff needs to resolved in such a way that wardecs either stick (except when you disband the corp/alliance) or there is a clear set of rules and conditions under which a wardec becomes invalidated.
I don't really see a surrender system working either, while it would work for mercs and maybe hi-sec extortionist type wardeccers it will do nothing to discourage griefers (not that I actually think griefing should be discouraged at all mind you).
|

Serpentine Logic
Sons Of Alexander AL3XAND3R.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 13:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
Bounty hunting please. more career opportunities and possibly even applicable to the lowsec sandbox. |
|

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
104
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 14:24:00 -
[11] - Quote
Gates - Get rid of them Smuggling Bounty Hunting Corp Roles/Permissions - Granularity and flexibility POS - Dead Horse |

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
308
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 01:24:00 -
[12] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:If a corp can pay to start a war, the opposing corp should be able to pay to avoid the war, but that cost should be expensive. It should be expensive to avoid shoot-em ups (since this is primarily a shoot-em-up game). If it costs X amount to start a war, it should cost triple the amount to end it. Once bribed, the corp cannot be wardecced again by the same corp for two (or more) days.
Just a simple set of rules are all that are required. Simple rules are harder to game and exploit.
Corp A is a 100-strong PvP corp with median of 50M SP. They can fly most T2/T3 cruisers very well. They have an established industry alt corp providing them with near limitless ISK. They play for about 5 hours day, and most of that is flying ships in PvP combat.
Corp B is a 20-strong industrial corp with median of 10M SP. They mine in ospreys and retrievers. One of the corp is training to fly an Orca. They play for about 2 hours a day, a few more on the weekend. Most of their time is spent mining GÇö shooting the breeze. They occasionally get their RvB alts out, where they will fly a few Rifters into combat during their weekly 3 hour PvP op.
How is it in any way "fun" for Corp B to be perpetually wardecced by Corp A? Do you believe that a simple fixed-cost unavoidable wardec system will not immediately to a plethora of corps griefing other players out of the game? Do you even understand the circumstances that lead to CONCORD being introduced and wardecs having escalating costs based on number of decs active?
|

Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
186
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 01:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Gates - Get rid of them
Yeah thats gonna happen. |

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
104
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 02:32:00 -
[14] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Gates - Get rid of them
 Yeah thats gonna happen.
Who knows. Three years ago, no one would have ever said "Game console players on Eve planets? ROFL, what ya smokin doood!" |

Tahna Rouspel
BWE Special Forces Rage Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 04:43:00 -
[15] - Quote
At last fanfest, CCP talked about having dynamic agents; basically, the more an agent is used, the less reward it gives. This would be idea for distributing the population more evenly in highsec and give people an incentive to vary their playstyle. They might discover something that they didn't know before.
Another interesting dynamic system that was discussed last week in Feature and idea was 'dynamic security system'. It would be interesting to see High sec vary from 0.5 to 1.0, lowsec vary from 0.5 to 0.1 and Nullsec go up and down depending on the system activity.
Same as the mission; it would get people moving around. A system that is good one month might not be as interesting once it devalues.
There's a juggernaut in the room that should be toned down though; Incursions. They were difficult at first, but now they're a run in the park. It's nice to have high end pve content for those that like to do that, but it should not be the ultimate way of earning isk - and it should not be risk free. The economy of EVE is a delicate thing. It depends on ship being destroyed to drain the resources. Incursions at the moment destabilize the economy. |

Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 04:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:If a corp can pay to start a war, the opposing corp should be able to pay to avoid the war, but that cost should be expensive. It should be expensive to avoid shoot-em ups (since this is primarily a shoot-em-up game). If it costs X amount to start a war, it should cost triple the amount to end it. Once bribed, the corp cannot be wardecced again by the same corp for two (or more) days.
Just a simple set of rules are all that are required. Simple rules are harder to game and exploit. Corp A is a 100-strong PvP corp with median of 50M SP. They can fly most T2/T3 cruisers very well. They have an established industry alt corp providing them with near limitless ISK. They play for about 5 hours day, and most of that is flying ships in PvP combat. Corp B is a 20-strong industrial corp with median of 10M SP. They mine in ospreys and retrievers. One of the corp is training to fly an Orca. They play for about 2 hours a day, a few more on the weekend. Most of their time is spent mining GÇö shooting the breeze. They occasionally get their RvB alts out, where they will fly a few Rifters into combat during their weekly 3 hour PvP op. How is it in any way "fun" for Corp B to be perpetually wardecced by Corp A? Do you believe that a simple fixed-cost unavoidable wardec system will not immediately to a plethora of corps griefing other players out of the game? Do you even understand the circumstances that lead to CONCORD being introduced and wardecs having escalating costs based on number of decs active?
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if it destroys Eve completely, they are only interested in griefing. If Eve gets shut down, they will move to the next game and continue. It's not the game that matters, it's "the tears". Profit favors the prepared |

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 06:34:00 -
[17] - Quote
Wardecs: Revert back to pre-privateer wardec nerf. If some corp like Orphanage for instance wants to be at war with every player corp they should be able to do so, and ISK shouldn't be a barrier in terms of declaring. If you want to avoid such interaction with other players you should stay in an NPC corp. Perhaps an option could be put in for a player corp to to gain immunity from wardecs by signing up with Concord, but at a price of 20-25% + tax on all members.
Gates: I agree with the poster above would be nice if they were gone, but it isn't realistic. However, it should be made harder to camp the jump in side of the gate, the blind side. Looking into possibly increasing the the range from the gate when a ship jumps into a system, like 10 times or more what it is now.
Local: Local chat/intel still hasn't been addressed. CCP needs to come up with a replacement that isn't 100% foolproof intel and apply it to Nullsec and perhaps Lowsec as well.
Incursions: The implantation of this makes me want to vomit. It's broken the risk reward balance of EVE, and it's an affront to players that care about the lore or RP Pirates.. especially the Sansha.
* People blowing up Sansha shouldn't be rewarded with Sansha ships, nerfed Concord ships would seem more appropriate. * Players should be able to side with the Sansha and fight against players doing Incursions without the interference of Concord. Now if the Wardecs were fixed players could sort this out themselves in true Sandbox fashion. What we have is groups like Skunkworks trying every loop hole to fight these people, and rather than CCP doing something to allow that like fixing wardecs, they're fixing the loop holes making it even worse a situation with Incursions.
Off Grid, near unprobable Gang link Alts: Reminds me of buff bots in DAoC, I hope it doesn't take CCP as long to fix it. Possible solutions: Must be on grid OR ECCM can't be fitted on these ships and doesn't work in a POS shield.
Cyno hot drops. Should be a mod that blocks a ship from lighting a Cyno, maybe something common in use but short range like a scram/disruptor.
Anyway there's lots of broken ass-backwards stuff in EVE, but that's enough to chew on for now. |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
183
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 08:45:00 -
[18] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Emperor Salazar wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Gates - Get rid of them
 Yeah thats gonna happen. Who knows. Three years ago, no one would have ever said "Game console players on Eve planets? ROFL, what ya smokin doood!" We're still saying that. |

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
104
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 14:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Emperor Salazar wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Gates - Get rid of them
 Yeah thats gonna happen. Who knows. Three years ago, no one would have ever said "Game console players on Eve planets? ROFL, what ya smokin doood!" We're still saying that.
Fair enough :) |

Kai Lomu
Cube Zombie Consortium
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:02:00 -
[20] - Quote
NPC Corps need looking at. I think there should be additional consequences (not necessarily negative consequences please note) for being a member of a NPC Corp. e.g.
- Only members of a NPC corp get access to particular missions for their Corp - Members of an NPC corp gain standings faster with their corp vs. other players and vice versa - Competing NPC Corps challenge each other through player actions - missions maybe even occasional wars where players for competing corps can start attacking each other for a limited time period to help their chosen corporation achieve an objective for example
Just a few ideas but essentially NPC corps need to become more dynamic as well as introducing more player consequences for being a member. |
|

Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
197
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:53:00 -
[21] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:The wardec system needs a revamp.
It needs to be simplified. A flat fee cost for wardeccing. There should be no need for decshields. There should be no accommodation for avoiding decs by jumping a corp to another alliance. A corp jumps to another alliance, the wardec follows it (and pulls in its new alliance free-of-charge.) (Players are still free to leave corp.)
Wardeccing alliances cannot have other corps enter their alliance for the duration of their wardec.
Accommodation for ISK warfare. If a corp can pay to start a war, the opposing corp should be able to pay to avoid the war, but that cost should be expensive. It should be expensive to avoid shoot-em ups (since this is primarily a shoot-em-up game). If it costs X amount to start a war, it should cost triple the amount to end it. Once bribed, the corp cannot be wardecced again by the same corp for two (or more) days.
Just a simple set of rules are all that are required. Simple rules are harder to game and exploit.
This
|

Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
197
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:55:00 -
[22] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Nullsec industry. Namely the fact that mining and building stuff localy is orders of magnitude slower, more expensive, time-consuming and less efficient than simply importing everything from Jita. The efficienty, speed, and scaleability of 0.0 industry needs to be multiplied many times to be able to compete with the thousands of industrialists in highsec. Until that happens, there will be very little reasons to do any industry at all in 0.0, other than "because I like it".
(Disclaimer: I live in Pure Blind. If the situation is different on the furthest edges of the universe, then I don't know much about it.)
In my opinion this is right now amongst the biggest gaping chest wounds of EVE. Null is not safe as High-sec and the consequence is not being able to produce as much as hi-sec. |

Voddick
AFK
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 00:31:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tahna Rouspel wrote:Incursions at the moment destabilize the economy. Quick Point: Incursion LP store is a sink, not faucet.
The High Sec isk payout should be nerfed, especially Vanguards *GASP*! But seriously, making billions is easy and safe isk in highsec. IGÇÖve made a liquid bil in a day before and IGÇÖve only been at risk three times--2 disconnected logi, and 1 fail FC.
Second, mining is brokenGǪespecially ice mining. Please see this post as a conversation starter: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=26871 |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
178
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 08:31:00 -
[24] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Abdiel Kavash wrote:Nullsec industry. Namely the fact that mining and building stuff localy is orders of magnitude slower, more expensive, time-consuming and less efficient than simply importing everything from Jita. The efficienty, speed, and scaleability of 0.0 industry needs to be multiplied many times to be able to compete with the thousands of industrialists in highsec. Until that happens, there will be very little reasons to do any industry at all in 0.0, other than "because I like it".
(Disclaimer: I live in Pure Blind. If the situation is different on the furthest edges of the universe, then I don't know much about it.)
In my opinion this is right now amongst the biggest gaping chest wounds of EVE. Null is not safe as High-sec and the consequence is not being able to produce as much as hi-sec.
And the consequence of that is that people who only want to do mining or industry and not get involved in combat (whatever their reasons are) do not have a place in 0.0. An entire area of the game is obsoleted because even a corporation of industrialists can't utilize the resources well enough to compete with one person with a (jump) freighter. This is bad design. Contrary to popular belief, 0.0 should not just be a supercap PvP arena. Nullsec should be a place to build empires. |

Jax Slizard
Celerna Talocan United
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 18:07:00 -
[25] - Quote
I believe that Malcanis had a really elegant bounty system fix, if you can find it. It was well thought out.
I believe that the Mac build though Cider is a broken system a lot of the time. I feel like saying 'fix it or don't offer it' is a really stupid attitude, but at some point if you could actually fix it (stopping the crash-to-desktop for no repeatable reason) that would be great, and if you can't fix it, its probable that the money spent on Transgaming could probably be better spend on something real.
The isk/mineral source/sink problem is borked, (mostly by botting, also by bounties.) (The WH system is better....(as in items instead of ISK))
Caps and supercaps should be much more mineral-intensive. They are not supposed to be used how they are used right now (although we'll just have to see how hard the nerf-hammer comes down.)
There is much angst about station games. (Undocks, docking radius etc.)
On that note, aggression mechanics could be....better. (like RR.)
|

Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 11:50:00 -
[26] - Quote
I would like the statement of "Broken and Fix" fixed.
It is a term that is just too broad and vague, especially when I read and I see people describe a feature as broken but they are talking about 2 different things.
I would love to see a Procedure format or something the describes a problem, sets some assumption or standards and gives solutions. Other wise fix hibred by making it the same as Projectiles will be the common theme. I would like to see a Broken and Fix Form like they do for Bug reports
On another note.
I personally would love to see, or have the CSM see the unfinished road map of features that were planned but never finish, Ask which one are easy or difficult to expand on and make some recommendations of what to add onto or request/suggest a slight detour the directions of some projects.
Keeping in mind that CCP not only has to keep players but also have to attract new ones. I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |

Juwi Kotch
KOTCH Construction and Anchoring
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 14:36:00 -
[27] - Quote
My top priority subject atm is the bounty system. Make it work and introduce a whole new profession en passant. There is a proposal how to do that with limited effort and investment discussed at this board right now. |

FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
362
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 23:12:00 -
[28] - Quote
My oft-repeated wish list:
- Netural logistics need to be prevented from docking if they rep someone who is actively engaged in hostilities. - War decs should not transfer, but "stick" to their target and be extended to allies. This means a wardec against a corp STAYS on that corp even if they join and then leave an alliance. It would also allow wardeccing a corp inside an alliance, encouraging the alliance to remove that corp if that is part of the objective. This solves dec scraping and makes it possible to choose specific objectives. - Make the initial wardec more expensive, but keep the weekly upkeep the same.
edit: I too would love to see the bounty system overhauled. |

Thredd Necro
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
58
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 05:12:00 -
[29] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Abdiel Kavash wrote:Nullsec industry. Namely the fact that mining and building stuff localy is orders of magnitude slower, more expensive, time-consuming and less efficient than simply importing everything from Jita. The efficienty, speed, and scaleability of 0.0 industry needs to be multiplied many times to be able to compete with the thousands of industrialists in highsec. Until that happens, there will be very little reasons to do any industry at all in 0.0, other than "because I like it".
(Disclaimer: I live in Pure Blind. If the situation is different on the furthest edges of the universe, then I don't know much about it.)
In my opinion this is right now amongst the biggest gaping chest wounds of EVE. Null is not safe as High-sec and the consequence is not being able to produce as much as hi-sec. And the consequence of that is that people who only want to do mining or industry and not get involved in combat (whatever their reasons are) do not have a place in 0.0. An entire area of the game is obsoleted because even a corporation of industrialists can't utilize the resources well enough to compete with one person with a (jump) freighter. This is bad design. Contrary to popular belief, 0.0 should not just be a supercap PvP arena. Nullsec should be a place to build empires.
Last I checked the resources in 0.0 automagically renew just like they do everywhere else. In fact 0.0 is the place to go for moongoo, etc. So hey, here's a thought: don't burn through so many ships and you will have more money!
Unfrozen caveman nullbear: "Your money saving ways are strange to me."
Carebear: "I know but hey if it works for Warren Buffet and Donald Trump it can work for you."
Unfrozen caveman nullbear: "Hey man you got tree fiddy? I came up a little short ganking a miner."
Carebear: "Hey I gotta go..."
Unfrozen caveman nullbear: "Being a nullbear ranger costs money. Lazy ass carebear won't give me what I am entitled to. I guess I will go fill my diaper and cry to CCP. They always seem ready to help nullbears."
Unless I am mistaken 0.0 has multiple empires currently in place that are quite stable. Check a map and you will see.
Here's a fact about empires: They can be REALLY boring to operate. Treaties, tributes, trading, taxing and tolls are some of the joys of bureaucracy. How about military garrisons, training and patrolling and trying to AVOID burning military resources in pointless and silly ways because we need them for offense/defense?
Oh and as a rule they want the greatest reward with the least risk possible. True story.
Empires are not built by constant combat and piracy, not if they want to last. Rather they are most successful when they are built by taking and holding space, taxing, tolling, collecting tribute, producing, trading, patrolling, sometimes defending, sometimes attacking.
More needs to be done about making this game more entertaining for more people rather than catering to wannabe e-thugs, virtual badasses and commandos-in-their-own-minds who want to feel special.
Then again that may be EXACTLY what CCP wants. Their behavior over the years certainly appears to support that idea.
It's not piracy if they took millions of ISK out of their own pockets now is it?
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |