Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Veryunstable
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 02:21:35 -
[1] - Quote
You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it. Sofar you lost about what, 5% of subscriptions because of key broadcasting. 1. You talk a constant plan of ship balancing and at the same time you bring out a destroyer that can outrun missiles with cruiser sized prop mods. 2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless. 3. I guess you want more fighting, which I can agree with, but the reason there is so little of that now is because there are basicly only 3 or 4 giant sized alliances that don't really want to tangle with each other. Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition. But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights. 4. One other way to cause more fighting would be to put a set amount of minerals on the R32 and 64 planets, say like enough for 4 to 6 months worth at non stop mining. Then when it runs dry, another of the same kind would respawn randomly somewhere else. By randomly I mean NOT ALWAYS in CCP's friends corner. Like what seems to happen with pricely blueprints and etc. At the rate of speed you are going, I would almost bet the basic death of EVE within a few years. Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think? |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1117
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 02:36:44 -
[2] - Quote
0. Good 1. Agree - T3 destroyers should never have been made, never mind so hilariously broken. 2. Agree - although there are was to tweak what we have now. 3. Temporary fighting then empty spaces. 4. Possibly. Also allow coalitions to take less space. Heard some vague mentions of team sites coming.
Don't say EVE is dying, people get excited about that.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
.
SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Aphsala
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 02:41:36 -
[3] - Quote
Change will never please everyone, personally im excited for the future |
Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
628
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 03:00:34 -
[4] - Quote
Veryunstable wrote:You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it. Sofar you lost about what, 5% of subscriptions because of key broadcasting. 1. You talk a constant plan of ship balancing and at the same time you bring out a destroyer that can outrun missiles with cruiser sized prop mods. 2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless. 3. I guess you want more fighting, which I can agree with, but the reason there is so little of that now is because there are basicly only 3 or 4 giant sized alliances that don't really want to tangle with each other. Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition. But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights. 4. One other way to cause more fighting would be to put a set amount of minerals on the R32 and 64 planets, say like enough for 4 to 6 months worth at non stop mining. Then when it runs dry, another of the same kind would respawn randomly somewhere else. By randomly I mean NOT ALWAYS in CCP's friends corner. Like what seems to happen with pricely blueprints and etc. At the rate of speed you are going, I would almost bet the basic death of EVE within a few years. Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think?
1. There are already ships that outrun missiles before T3's exist. 2. CCP listening to the Grr Goon crowd that wants SOV without the effort of actually taking and maintaining it. 3. Goonswarm Federation_1, Goonswarm Federation_2, Goonswarm Federation_3, Goonswarm_Federation_4 all under holding corps that is owned by The Mittani. Will you look at that then. 4. More like the Grr nullsec cartel Moon overlords will just make another OTEC treaty regarding the new mechanic and temp blue each other if someone swipes the new moon to take it for themselves.
Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
20547
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 03:44:50 -
[5] - Quote
Veryunstable wrote:Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think?
OP's reaction when he realizes that those 'few select friends' do represent the majority of players..
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Vote Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6669
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 04:15:52 -
[6] - Quote
Veryunstable wrote:Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition. We do this, it's why we're a coalition.
Veryunstable wrote: But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights. Yeah sometimes when people are "third partying" to help you they may run off to save their renters, or perhaps they were only going where there was action.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 04:58:52 -
[7] - Quote
Veryunstable wrote:You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it. Sofar you lost about what, 5% of subscriptions because of key broadcasting. 1. You talk a constant plan of ship balancing and at the same time you bring out a destroyer that can outrun missiles with cruiser sized prop mods. 2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless. 3. I guess you want more fighting, which I can agree with, but the reason there is so little of that now is because there are basicly only 3 or 4 giant sized alliances that don't really want to tangle with each other. Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition. But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights. 4. One other way to cause more fighting would be to put a set amount of minerals on the R32 and 64 planets, say like enough for 4 to 6 months worth at non stop mining. Then when it runs dry, another of the same kind would respawn randomly somewhere else. By randomly I mean NOT ALWAYS in CCP's friends corner. Like what seems to happen with pricely blueprints and etc. At the rate of speed you are going, I would almost bet the basic death of EVE within a few years. Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think?
1. Bring tackle. Fast ships aren't new. 2. If a system is worth taking, it's worth having. If it's worth having, it's worth being present in. If there are pilots present, taking it will not be effortless. 3. The organizations in SOV null are above even the in-game Alliances. They are the coalitions. Being out-of-game, a 3000-pilot cap to alliances would accomplish nothing beyond setting a few more blues. The change you don't like in #2 will hopefully give the smaller guys a chance to take otherwise empty systems - systems which the big guys currently hold because they can, but aren't all that important so there won't be a constant effort to retain them. These smaller organizations are still subject to curb-stomping by the big guys, but might also get ignored them - and then generate content with all the other smaller organizations that will hopefully be moving in as well. 4. I do like the idea of dynamically allocated null resources, whether it be moons, anoms, ice, or whatever. If big organizations had to constantly move to maintain their income stream, we'd see a much more dynamic map. Like how PI resource quality move across the planetary map. |
Azda Ja
Green Skull LLC
3494
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 05:26:31 -
[8] - Quote
And what, dear shiptoasting alt, would you prefer?
"I only lose ships when I fly with Azda." - Barry Cuttlefish
GSLLC Recruitment
Join Today!
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 05:43:33 -
[9] - Quote
This thread is exactly this this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=412966&find=unread |
Avellean
Evil Young Flesh
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 05:46:16 -
[10] - Quote
This new direction eve is heading reminds me of SWG NGE. |
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 05:51:14 -
[11] - Quote
Too many abv for a game. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6455
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 06:22:23 -
[12] - Quote
Most of the content mentioned I have yet to see.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
945
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 06:25:07 -
[13] - Quote
I'm still pissed Capitals were introduced.
Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.
I invented Tiericide
|
Iyokus Patrouette
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
376
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 06:47:48 -
[14] - Quote
You know, in my humble opinion. . . Post with your main bro!
---- Advocate for the initiation of purple coloured wormholes----
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30896
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 08:20:16 -
[15] - Quote
It's not true that taking SOV will be effortless. It scales properly. If a system is occupied and worth having, it will be defended by GSF.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Vyl Vit
1104
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 10:04:56 -
[16] - Quote
Veryunstable wrote:Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think? Ooooh! Did you just tell the emperor he has no clothes? (I was tired of seeing that thing danglin' in my face, too.)
Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.
|
Janeway84
Def Squadron Pride Before Fall
150
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 10:11:56 -
[17] - Quote
The majority of players doesn't know whats good for the game , thats why there are game designers
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5926
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 10:20:00 -
[18] - Quote
I'm gonna go way out on a limb and disagree with just about everything you said OP.
Have a nice day.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
628
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:16:23 -
[19] - Quote
Janeway84 wrote:The majority of players doesn't know whats good for the game , thats why there are game designers Im sad they nerfing carriers abilities before I even get to try assigning fighters and swatting some poor cruiser. With isboxing players running fleets of alts that also drew up the price of Plex to ridicilous levels im happy that CCP disallows "input broadcasting". To split up the 3-4 major coalitions in the game the only thing CCP can do is change mechanics around or reset the Sov of all of nullsec wich I would support
You know resetting null will just have all the old powers squat on their old territories again right with the "small guys" blobbed again.
Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:18:34 -
[20] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:I'm gonna go way out on a limb and disagree with just about everything you said OP.
Have a nice day.
I like your hair.
OP has no hair at all! |
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1462
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:24:30 -
[21] - Quote
Not sure if giant troll thread, or giant troll thread, but what's the problem with outrunning missiles when you can out-track guns? It's exactly the same thing. |
Varathius
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
172
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:32:48 -
[22] - Quote
Veryunstable wrote:You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it. Sofar you lost about what, 5% of subscriptions because of key broadcasting. 1. You talk a constant plan of ship balancing and at the same time you bring out a destroyer that can outrun missiles with cruiser sized prop mods. 2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless. 3. I guess you want more fighting, which I can agree with, but the reason there is so little of that now is because there are basicly only 3 or 4 giant sized alliances that don't really want to tangle with each other. Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition. But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights. 4. One other way to cause more fighting would be to put a set amount of minerals on the R32 and 64 planets, say like enough for 4 to 6 months worth at non stop mining. Then when it runs dry, another of the same kind would respawn randomly somewhere else. By randomly I mean NOT ALWAYS in CCP's friends corner. Like what seems to happen with pricely blueprints and etc. At the rate of speed you are going, I would almost bet the basic death of EVE within a few years. Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think?
well, the whole fozziesov thing is a big mistake on his behalf anyway. In his own words he basically did say, that taking sov will be easier for smaller type organizations not so fortunate until before the fozziesov. He, I guess thought that the big alliance will then loose a big part of the pie to some new less fortunate guys that finally have their null sec systems too. I guess what he forgot was that it will not really be easier for the less fortunate, but it will now be much easier for the big alliance to take even more systems, because that is what well organized and big alliances will be able to do most successful. I guess his intention of hurting big alliances will actually just make them stronger. Well, as always, we just have to adapt and play it out. |
Charlie Jacobson
332
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:37:25 -
[23] - Quote
I'm extremely happy about input broadcasting being banned. In general I'd like to see more changes that promote single account play rather than being coerced into multiboxing.
I support James 315 and the New Order of Highsec
|
Gregor Parud
Ordo Ardish
1312
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:38:18 -
[24] - Quote
Veryunstable wrote:If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000
Let me stop you right there...
|
2Sonas1Cup
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 12:10:18 -
[25] - Quote
tl;dr
qq giv mah isboxer back qq a bad guy killed my megathron in a t3 destroyer qq i run this site 3 times and it didnt even drop an A type invu qq i hav no friends qq i wish i was in goonswarm alliance |
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1193
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 12:47:09 -
[26] - Quote
Of course this is what they want. If they didn't make all these changes, you would have never posted this thread. That means less forum traffic, and as Eve is just a basic feeder system to keep this forum somewhat alive, we can't have less traffic.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Serene Repose
2422
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 13:16:47 -
[27] - Quote
Varathius wrote:well, the whole fozziesov thing is a big mistake on his behalf anyway. In his own words he basically did say, that taking sov will be easier for smaller type organizations not so fortunate until before the fozziesov. He, I guess thought that the big alliance will then loose a big part of the pie to some new less fortunate guys that finally have their null sec systems too. I guess what he forgot was that it will not really be easier for the less fortunate, but it will now be much easier for the big alliance to take even more systems, because that is what well organized and big alliances will be able to do most successful. I guess his intention of hurting big alliances will actually just make them stronger. Well, as always, we just have to adapt and play it out. Where this logic falls down is, with the new design nobody has to "let" anybody do anything. In the greatest tradition of warfare, someone has to "prevent" someone from doing something.
What has the big guys bothered is, you don't have to be a big guy to challenge the big guys. If the big guys are "holding" space, but not occupying it or developing it, then the smaller guys have a real shot at wresting it from their control. The big guys are now faced with holding what they can hold, or moving to wrest back what was wrested, whilst leaving something else thinly defended.
What this will do is force EVERYONE to only claim what they can physically hold. The "Inflation Bubble" method of play the Goonwaffles have perfected then becomes obsolete, and then we discover Goonwaffles' true size. (Naturally, they're going to claim it only looks small 'cause it's COLD! Brrrrrrr.)
Those reading along, it would do well to remember: Some of these "heartfelt" and "sincere" criticisms are merely cloaked attempts to hang onto the status quo, as that is "WINNING" to some. With the new changes, the winners just aren't going to be WINNING unless they can actually hold what they claim they own. Ipso facto, hey PRESTO CHANGE-O and that CAN'T be bad.
....unless of course, you're a Goonwaffle! (I'll have mine with pecans, please.)
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
|
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 14:10:07 -
[28] - Quote
Varathius wrote:well, the whole fozziesov thing is a big mistake on his behalf anyway. In his own words he basically did say, that taking sov will be easier for smaller type organizations not so fortunate until before the fozziesov. He, I guess thought that the big alliance will then loose a big part of the pie to some new less fortunate guys that finally have their null sec systems too. I guess what he forgot was that it will not really be easier for the less fortunate, but it will now be much easier for the big alliance to take even more systems, because that is what well organized and big alliances will be able to do most successful. I guess his intention of hurting big alliances will actually just make them stronger. Well, as always, we just have to adapt and play it out.
Currently you need a lot of dps to take sov. Even if can bring enough people to take sov as a smaller enity, you are most likely not able to attack multiple system at one. Which makes it very easy to defend for the large sov holders.
In the new system, threatening sov will be mutch easer. 20 People can easily attack sov of 40 system a day. Can a big alliance defend their space. Of course they can. Is it likeley they will chase 20 people for hours about space that they do not care about ? No, unlikeley.
The big alliances will lose the sov in systems they do not realy care about. And they will hold sov in the systems they do care about.
Thats the intended change. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6674
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 17:07:21 -
[29] - Quote
Captain Awkward wrote:Varathius wrote:well, the whole fozziesov thing is a big mistake on his behalf anyway. In his own words he basically did say, that taking sov will be easier for smaller type organizations not so fortunate until before the fozziesov. He, I guess thought that the big alliance will then loose a big part of the pie to some new less fortunate guys that finally have their null sec systems too. I guess what he forgot was that it will not really be easier for the less fortunate, but it will now be much easier for the big alliance to take even more systems, because that is what well organized and big alliances will be able to do most successful. I guess his intention of hurting big alliances will actually just make them stronger. Well, as always, we just have to adapt and play it out. Currently you need a lot of dps to take sov. Even if you can bring enough people to take sov as a smaller enity, you are most likely not able to attack multiple system at one. Which makes it very easy to defend for the large sov holders. In the new system, threatening sov will be mutch easer. 20 People can easily attack sov of 40 system a day. Can a big alliance defend their space. Of course they can. Is it likeley they will chase 20 people for hours about space that they do not care about ? No, unlikeley. The big alliances will lose the sov in systems they do not realy care about. And they will hold sov in the systems they do care about. Thats the intended change. It's fine though, since the reason to sit on the sov is so enemy can't get it.
But if you and the enemy both leave it as a useless no-man-land it's also a stable outcome.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6674
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 17:08:50 -
[30] - Quote
Serene Repose wrote:What this will do is force EVERYONE to only claim what they can physically hold. The "Inflation Bubble" method of play the Goonwaffles have perfected then becomes obsolete, and then we discover Goonwaffles' true size. (Naturally, they're going to claim it only looks small 'cause it's COLD! Brrrrrrr.) Are we discussing the size of northernassociates dot?
They may have some very large sized er... wait
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1119
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 18:40:43 -
[31] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote: 2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless.. Burn system, flip to Free Port. Wait for new residents. Burn. Repeat.
(Mean while hold the moons and make the real ISK)
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
.
SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
agony unleashed Agony Empire
4244
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 18:56:21 -
[32] - Quote
The Op's post makes my head hurt...
I'm simply making a post to let CCP know they are doing a good job and to keep up the hard work. Don't listen to the craptastic rant of the Op. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2133
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 18:57:44 -
[33] - Quote
Veryunstable wrote:You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it. Usually if the soup has been in the fridge for years, even rose-tinted glasses wont make it taste any better than it was before. |
Reiisha
Repracor Industries
729
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 20:08:59 -
[34] - Quote
Veryunstable wrote:You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it. Sofar you lost about what, 5% of subscriptions because of key broadcasting. 1. You talk a constant plan of ship balancing and at the same time you bring out a destroyer that can outrun missiles with cruiser sized prop mods. 2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless. 3. I guess you want more fighting, which I can agree with, but the reason there is so little of that now is because there are basicly only 3 or 4 giant sized alliances that don't really want to tangle with each other. Right now, if X alliance of 8,000 members wants to take a area of null, they can WITHOUT help. If alliances had a reasonable maximum cap of say like 3,000, then they might have to ask for assistance from another friendly alliance in their coalition. But the other friendly alliance may not agree to risking ships for that purpose cuz they might have their own goals. I think that would cause more smaller fleet fights. 4. One other way to cause more fighting would be to put a set amount of minerals on the R32 and 64 planets, say like enough for 4 to 6 months worth at non stop mining. Then when it runs dry, another of the same kind would respawn randomly somewhere else. By randomly I mean NOT ALWAYS in CCP's friends corner. Like what seems to happen with pricely blueprints and etc. At the rate of speed you are going, I would almost bet the basic death of EVE within a few years. Would it hurt to FOCUS on what the mass majority of players want instead of flatly ignoring your customer base and only doing things just a few select friends think?
1) They addressed the Svipul and already mentioned a balance pass. 2) If it means an actually fun system instead of an utterly boring and mind destroying grind - Please! If it means that massive AFK empires can't hold space without actually defending it anymore - Please! 3) Sov changes will take care of this. 4) Agree. Depletable moons, when they do deplete, the resource moves to a random other place.
Otherwise, take off your tinfoil hat and help make the game actually fun instead of complaining about details and arguing to keep massive blunders of game design.
If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 23:55:10 -
[35] - Quote
Quote:1) They addressed the Svipul and already mentioned a balance pass.
Could we get a source on that? I heard about T3Ds in general, but in what light it was said - hard to tell. |
Kiryen O'Bannon
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
227
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 00:35:45 -
[36] - Quote
Veryunstable wrote:You know, in my humble opinion, for the most part, EVE worked just fine up until about a year ago. When a recipe for a chicken soup is perfect, you DO NOT keep changing it, you will ruin it.
We can stop right here. Your fundamental assumption is based entirely on your personal preferences. The evidence is that EVE was "perfect" is not one shared by many people and the suggestion that EVE should act based on your personal opinion is ludicrous.
Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30899
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 00:51:51 -
[37] - Quote
A plausible reason why CCP would suddenly be willing to cut off the fat would be the possibility that a player will only purchase one copy of special edition things like the CE (which is dirt cheap now), regardless of their number of accounts. If the business model is adjusted slightly from monthly subscriptions to microtransaction vanity items, it makes complete sense for CCP to wean itself from multi-account (per player) income.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1120
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 00:58:36 -
[38] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:A plausible reason why CCP would suddenly be willing to cut off the fat would be the possibility that a player will only purchase one copy of special edition things like the CE (which is dirt cheap now), regardless of their number of accounts. If the business model is adjusted slightly from monthly subscriptions to microtransaction vanity items, it makes complete sense for CCP to wean itself from multi-account (per player) income. Alts will exist as long as there are viable play denial tactics
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
.
SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30899
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 01:01:37 -
[39] - Quote
Do you have something you'd like to say about afk cloaky?
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
386
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 01:56:54 -
[40] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:War Kitten wrote:I'm gonna go way out on a limb and disagree with just about everything you said OP.
Have a nice day. I like your hair. OP has no hair at all!
I like your post. Don't give a fuk what the op thinks. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1962
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 02:21:40 -
[41] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alts will exist as long as there are viable play denial tactics Alts are also no longer as tied to unique accounts with MCT allowing 3 training characters on a single account. Meaning you don't need to keep as many accounts active to keep your characters ticking over. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16166
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 08:29:53 -
[42] - Quote
Veryunstable wrote:. 2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless.
Unless the sov owners actually undock and then you'll have to, you know, put some effort in.
Why shouldn't totally undefended sov be "effortless" to take?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 10:11:13 -
[43] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Veryunstable wrote:. 2. If some system was worth taking, you have to work (structure grind) for it. Now you are going to make it simple and almost effortless. Why shouldn't totally undefended sov be "effortless" to take?
Indeed. In very fact, that is a Maxim of Life.
Pertaining to Law & Civil Rights, it goes like this - Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.
Or how we say it in EVE: Didn't want that region, anyway!
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1214
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 12:01:59 -
[44] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Quote:1) They addressed the Svipul and already mentioned a balance pass. Could we get a source on that? I heard about T3Ds in general, but in what light it was said - hard to tell.
The D3's were singled out as a class that was a little too good and in need of a rebalance, along with assault frigates needing a rebalance to make them more viable. Other than that, no details. Just talks of how their view of balance is more based on ship classes as a whole rather than specific ships.
Wouldn't expect anything until after the remaining D3's are released, and even then they'll probably want to wait a bit for more data before tapping them with the nerf bat.
And while I agree that the D3's are very good, they aren't these invincible killing machines that everyone keeps b*tching about.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1122
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 12:56:54 -
[45] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:[quote]1) They addressed the Svipul and already mentioned a balance pass. And while I agree that the D3's are very good, they aren't these invincible killing machines that everyone keeps b*tching about. First of all, a good destroyer has the tank of a frigate with the damage of a cruiser.
Now these things not only have 33% rather than total 25% bonuses, they can change their bonuses according to what is chasing after them. So, the only way to kill them with a very small group is to send one or two D3s after them or to send a counter to each mode after them. Effectively needing 3+ T2 frigates to grab them and then some others to pile on and kill it.
People who try to solo them (in something other than another D3) are kited away and killed far better than the usual ships fulfil that tactic.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
.
SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30901
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 23:13:02 -
[46] - Quote
Why would Destroyers have the DPS of a Cruiser? They're supposed to kill Frigates, and this hardly requires Cruiser DPS.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |