| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Endeavour Starfleet
795
   |
Posted - 2012.04.12 23:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
Gotta say I predicted how bad VGs would be nerfed. Tho a little short on how bad it would be.
This is what you get Incursion Community. When your only chat activity is dragging and dropping your fits and not bothering to defend incursions from the mountain of Nullsec lies to CCP about it. |
Endeavour Starfleet
795
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 01:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
I agree that it is a very nice change. And contracts will still be viable for a plethora of other uses.
The issue here is these AWFUL incursion nerfs with no needed fixes. |
Endeavour Starfleet
797
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 09:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
#1 There goal was NOT likely to double the time. It was to raise the time somewhat The changes they made were likely based off some idiot nullsec "suggestion" in the idea topic that got virtually attention from the incursion community because they felt dragging and dropping their X into BTL and TDF were more important.
#2 No they don't. They routinely have the first person jammed down for a good amount of time. More isn't nice. |
Endeavour Starfleet
797
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 10:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jessie Davis wrote:After speaking with CCP Affinity, I'm certain her goals were to extend the vanguard fleet times by x2
Evidence, Show chat log with context.
If this dev seriously thought that. It was because all said dev was reading was a mountain of BS from nullsec wanting Incursions nerfed to crap. Thank all of the losers who were not bothering to post against the lies and the Incursion Bob idiots thinking only of their new shiny X for that. |
Endeavour Starfleet
799
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 18:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Serge SC wrote:Endeavour Starfleet[b wrote:]#1 There goal was NOT likely to double the time. It was to raise the time somewhat[/b]. The changes they made were likely based off some idiot nullsec "suggestion" in the idea topic that got virtually no attention from the incursion community because they felt dragging and dropping their X into BTL and TDF were more important.
#2 No they don't. They routinely have the first person jammed down for a good amount of time. More isn't nice. The goal actually was to double the time, or in other words, halve the total ISK per hour possible.
And where do you get this crap from? Again Evidence. Chat logs or direct CCP statements. |
Endeavour Starfleet
803
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 06:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
Until I see chat logs I am going to assume that is a load of crap from folks with an agenda to have VGs nerfed to crap. Half is crazy. They could use a bit of tweaking but that should be part of a larger effort to fix incursions (Stop theft of Mothership loot by obvious bots or scripts and put a timer of a week on mothership site showing so we don't have to have these channel "agreements" not do run them for instance)
Not a "LOLZORS we said Incursion inflation inflation isn't near as bad as the nullsec lies had people believe Yet we will spend five minutes implementing a random idea from the topic and that is our bit for incursions!"
The whole thing is absolute crap and if this is the "result" they mise well strip these fixes from the 24th and implement a real plan for incursions when there is actual time to do so. |
Endeavour Starfleet
808
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 18:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
You mean adding rare modules to market will actually mean one cant set up his epic scam anymore?
OHHH NOESSSS!!!!!!
It isn't destroying any market. Matter of fact it should REALLY help the velocity of trade on these items when people think they can buy and sell these modules without running into scam number 55.
The only thing this is going to really harm is the scam artists. |
Endeavour Starfleet
808
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 05:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:You mean adding rare modules to market will actually mean one cant set up his epic scam anymore?
OHHH NOESSSS!!!!!!
It isn't destroying any market. Matter of fact it should REALLY help the velocity of trade on these items when people think they can buy and sell these modules without running into scam number 55.
The only thing this is going to really harm is the scam artists. Quite a few people, myself included, make a living flipping contracts quite legitimately. I source the items that I sell somewhat different from the rest of them (via a forum thread on the goonfleet forums, while most of them use WTB contracts in Jita) but overall it's a similar business model. Most of the people whining about the change do this rather than scamming...although with the prices offered by some of said WTB contracts I could see where one could call them scammers  Me, I'm like, whatever, I'll adapt.
What prevents you from doing the same after the change if you are selling to goons on their forums?
No the fear in my opinion is no longer able to realistically scam over and over or price gouge to an absurd amount without the market correcting them.
This change should have been in place ages ago. Too bad it's buried in a sludge of bullcrap called incursion fixes. |
Endeavour Starfleet
809
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 05:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Thoraemond wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Team Superfriends
- Market now shows Faction/Officer/Deadspace loot
Disappointing to see such a blithe reduction in the complexity of the overall field of economic transactions, without any apparent awareness of that effect. Reduced complexity and better availability of price information tends to dumb down gameplay and reduces the number of market-oriented niches. In the future, it would be nice to see a net increase in the overall richness of the economy. Hint: simply adding a bunch of SKUs to the existing market system does not amount to a new niche. It's just a bunch more datapoints in an existing mechanic.
You mean you won't be able to set up as many scams you mean? So sad....  |
Endeavour Starfleet
809
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 20:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
That's nice that you prefer the "richness" the rest of us prefer to be able to buy and sell these items on the market without having to open the contract several times to check for scams. (And have found plenty) |
| |
|