| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Inconstant Moon
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.29 10:55:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Venkul Mul You (as 0.0 dweller, not personally) have much more toys than high sec people (from capital ships to moon mining and faction ships as targets), simply you want it all.
Good point. These are some of the things I sacrifice by choosing to stay in high sec: level 5 missions, flying an armed capital ship, encountering juicy officer spawns, working out how to run a useful POS, launching bombs from my manticore... etc etc.
Seems to me I am already paying the price for trying to stay relatively safe.
-- CONCORD provides neither consequences nor safety. |

Inconstant Moon
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.29 14:26:00 -
[2]
Originally by: csebal What most people fail to see is that low sec / 0.0 inhabitants do not necessarily want more people out there just to have something to shoot. As they are generally more educated in how the game works - have more experience in various areas overall - they realize that moving people to low sec / 0.0 would cause many waves that would ripple through basically all aspects of the eve universe / economy.
I am prepared to believe that there are 0.0/low-sec inhabitants who do not just want easy targets, but have any of these people considered trying to clear out low-sec of all the pond scum so the current high-sec crowd can come play?
-- CONCORD provides neither consequences nor safety. |

Inconstant Moon
|
Posted - 2008.03.29 15:13:00 -
[3]
Originally by: csebal The current high sec crowd stays in high sec, because it can earn more money there, than in 0.0 or low sec.
Until that changes, the pirates in low sec are simply not an issue.
That is not the issue unless you're a fundraising alt. The issue is safety and being able to recover from my losses in a timely manner. If I lose my CNR attempting to do a lv4 mission in low sec, it would take me approximately two and a half months to recover at my current rate of play (too busy with RL ). The prospect of more rewards in unsafe space is simply of no interest to me.
-- CONCORD provides neither consequences nor safety. |

Inconstant Moon
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.30 14:40:00 -
[4]
Originally by: RigelKentaurus Edited by: RigelKentaurus on 30/03/2008 05:33:51
Originally by: Sarakiel Companies like EA may be driven by profit alone and thats why they provide cookie-cutter games loaded with underdevelopment and even a lack of proper testing procedures but CCP started as a small initiative. The founders of CCP were guys who knew they would be accepting much less security and salary for the sake of the freedom they had in developing this game. They're still there now and I have no doubt that within CCP that ideology still holds true. While watered down by the monetary success of this game overall I have faith that they value job quality over job security. Hopefully this is true.
It's time to wake up and get out of that nice little dream.  Do you really think CCP hasn't grown at all since 2004 and thus, won't see anything wrong with losing a non-neglectable part of their playerbase?
Indeed. It is lovely when a business grows, but it is horrible when it shrinks. Job losses and insecure employees, hardware that cannot afford to be rented anymore, support staff being let go... it won't be pretty.
People are fond of saying, "adapt or die", but this is true for CCP too. There aren't many businesses that refuse to adapt to the changing needs of their customers - there's not many, because they go out of business.
-- CONCORD provides neither consequences nor safety. |

Inconstant Moon
|
Posted - 2008.03.30 16:45:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Sarakiel You also fail to recognise that job value extends beyond profit especially considering the career-building value a CCP employee will have as an employee who helped set the model for every future player run universe.
"Excel Online in Space with Griefing" is going to be the model for all future internet spaceships? Dear jeebus just kill me now.
-- CONCORD provides neither consequences nor safety. |
| |
|