| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Zo5o
Gallente
Longcat is Long
   |
Posted - 2008.08.26 21:08:00 -
[1]
If you nerf hisec income, and do not nerf losec income equally, less players will be able to fund second and third accounts through GTC's whether GTC prices drop or not, and CCP will lose money. The GTC prices will not drop as much as the hisec mission running income, because those who choose to move to losec will make even more isk than before relative to the hisec runners to spend on GTCs, and the countless thousands of risk-averse players who fund primary, second and third accounts with GTCs will make far less isk. The result will be a net loss in subscriptions, since, to the risk-averse mission runners (who ARE the majority, like it or not), the price of GTCs relative to their income will go up.
Aside from the merits of "Eve should be a cold and harsh pvp game," or however you look at it... if you are running Eve as a business, and the largest portion of your playerbase is risk-averse carebears, and many of them fund their gametime by paying ISK to other players who pay you for the GTC's... does it make business sense to heavily nerf the ISK income of such a large playerbase?
|
Zo5o
Gallente
Longcat is Long
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 22:01:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Zo5o on 26/08/2008 22:04:57
 Quote:
I don't think mission runners are the 'majority'.
What I meant by that is that the majority of mission runners run their missions in hisec, not the majority of eve players. Whether or not these players have pvp alts, they are demonstrating an aversion to risk while running missions if they run said missions in hisec.
I AM willing to bet, however, that hi-sec mission running is the most common profession in EVE, whether or not 50% of the playerbase does it or not.
Also, there are a lot of mission runners who run missions with two or more accounts at once to speed up their completion times.
|
Zo5o
Gallente
Longcat is Long
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 22:05:00 -
[3]
ITT: NERD RAGE over suicide nerf.
|
Zo5o
Gallente
Longcat is Long
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 22:20:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Zo5o on 28/08/2008 22:20:33
By the way, CCP *does* appear to be nerfing L4's as we speak.
I've seen reports of 3 new L4 missions on SiSi. They are:
- An Angel mission with huge swarms of small, low-bounty ships and very few BS's
- Mission against a major 4 faction (no bounties)
- Drone mission (no bounties)
If these missions, and others like them, enter the Tranquility mission pool, it will be a nerf.
|
Zo5o
Gallente
Longcat is Long
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 00:58:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Zo5o on 29/08/2008 01:05:17
Originally by: Drunk Driver
Sorry, I'm not trolling. In this case, you are.
I've made a valid point. This whole mess is nothing more than revenge against carebears for the upcomming security changes in Empire.
It's the only thing that fits the timing, volume, and rabid nature of these threads.
Yeah that was pretty much my point.
The volume of the nerf L4 threads has not coincided with a boost in L4 income. If anything, L4 income has been steadily declining since the removal of nexus chip buy orders removed the price floor from LP.
There is no problem with L4 income. L4 income is currently heavily used to fund GTC's, which come from players who pay CCP real money for them. This real money, in turn, is used to maintain and improve everyone's gameplay experience. This is not a problem, this is a good thing.
Also, God I wish I could sage threads here.
|
Zo5o
Gallente
Longcat is Long
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 01:27:00 -
[6]
Quote:
If you're an elite mission runner, and prepared to follow the money (and the assorted effort involved in rebasing) then you _should_ be able to do better.
A: Lag will roam with the playerbase.
B: ACTUALLY PLAYING THE GAME is a lot more fun than moving all your ships from system to system.
There's got to be a better "answer" than this.
|
| |
|