|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |
Overlord Invictus
The Graduates
Forged of Fire
0
   |
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
So CCP Greyscale...
Would you agree or disagree that this 'fix' (and i hate to call it that) wont actually fix nullsec, but just postpone its current flaws until further down the line?
id imagine this fix will limit the range at which people can engage in pvp away from home fairly severely. and stop the proliferation of cap and supercap blobs from dominating sovereignty control across friendly space. But whats to stop that from occurring at a micro level as opposed to the macro level? Surely the only thing is the concentration of capitals and supercapitals in null sec.
what you propose is to move the nullsec game back 5 or so years without 'really' changing much fundamentally. what we have now will be what we have in 5 years time when every alliance in nullsec has multiple capital and supercapital alts and fights like b-r5 occur more often in multiple locations on the map.
we will still have big super blob > smaller super blob. meaning new alliances in null wont get a look in again. And this doesnt resolve the 2nd most important reason for you to be producing this change as mentioned below:
CCP Greyscale wrote:Big fights are cool, but theyGÇÖre crowding out more accessible and more frequent smaller ones.
just postponing it. so explain to me how this is indeed a 'fix' and not just a bandaid for a fundamentally flawed system? |
Overlord Invictus
The Graduates
Forged of Fire
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Here, let me quote a little snippet of the blog that you might've missed:
so basically the line you're towing is we cannot critique the changes because if we do your retort is that there are more changes on the way that may or may not quell your issues, but unfortunately for you, you will not know it until you're chained down and lubed up? |
Overlord Invictus
The Graduates
Forged of Fire
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 20:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Overlord Invictus wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
Here, let me quote a little snippet of the blog that you might've missed:
so basically the line you're towing is we cannot critique the changes because if we do your retort is that there are more changes on the way that may or may not quell your issues, but unfortunately for you, you will not know if theyre going to make life better until you're fully chained down and lubed up (ie fully committed to the full plan)? No, I'm saying that our opinion on whether or not this constitutes a complete fix is very thoroughly laid out in the blog, and it's not clear how asking me to explain how this change fixes everything is constructive.
forgive me for not 'feeling' all warm and fuzzy that your overall plan is thoroughly thought out and planned to cover all eventualities when you expressly point out that the changes you make are NOT thoroughly thought out because doing so removes the 'chance' of getting it right. as detailed below:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If we can predict the consequences of changes we make, players will be able to (some of you are always smarter than us), and changes that can be predicted are changes that can be solved, and solved problems are boring. If we can know what the exact consequences will be for changes we're making, we've already failed.
|
Overlord Invictus
The Graduates
Forged of Fire
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 21:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:The 'amendments' are so great that either CCP Greyscale et al had absolutely no idea what they were doing with the first set of proposed changes, or they have given in to the rage quit folk.
Both of which are bad.
considering the history of CCP going ahead of changes regardless of the rage quit folk, it seems the former is more likely!
|
Overlord Invictus
The Graduates
Forged of Fire
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 17:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:afkalt wrote:
You know what would help a LOT, actually, is if CCP actually alluded to the other things that they have planned for later.
It would probably help everyone as it is literally impossible to take part 1 of a 3 phase plan and hold it on overal merits if we do not know parts 2 and 3 even loosely. Specifics are not required - just something of the greater plan we can hold these changes up against.
At this point (to use a crappy TV analogy) we are basically arguing about whodunnit after watching part 1 of a 3 part TV murder mystery show!
We're not ready to share more than what's already in the blog, sorry.
So we have to believe in you that what we are going to get in part 1 of the trilogy will be exonerated by parts 2 and 3?
When you've already rolled back on parts of part 1 because you were narrow minded.
and when you've openly said you cannot fathom the effects of part 1, 2 and 3 combined and if it will fix things or break them even further. Because doing so is boring. im so so so sorry that sometimes your work has dull and 'hard' elements to it Greyscale.
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If we can predict the consequences of changes we make, players will be able to (some of you are always smarter than us), and changes that can be predicted are changes that can be solved, and solved problems are boring. If we can know what the exact consequences will be for changes we're making, we've already failed.
|
|
|
| |
|