|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.04.29 02:33:00 -
[1]
The OP does have point other than just ISK you know. It's about participation and access to content. Lots of players will not bother with the new content if the new content isn't worth their time doing.
The issue of six months average age still exists, and has for quite a while. Much of what I hear is an aversion not only to risk but an aversion to effort. These players are looking for something relaxing to do, they want to play the game, not live the game. Yeah yeah, go back to wow ad nausea, get back under the rock.
Casual players need more to do than just mine or run missions if they are to be kept interested. Yes there's lots of other content, exploration, they can trade, etc. But they look daunting to a six month old who has to make a choice between a month training in this direction or a month in that direction, when they already need to be training a month in some other direction so they can PVP. "It's easier to quit playing" ... This should not be the case.
One of the design goals of PI appears to have been accessibility to the content, at these numbers, that design goal has not been met.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.04.29 05:42:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Gorefacer
It's accessible to everyone, it's met it's accessibility design goal. What are you going on about exactly?
"Lots of players will not bother with the new content if the new content isn't worth their time doing."
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.04.29 08:35:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Omira Tan Two small questions: Thanks!
1 - On Sisi, everyone has all PI skills at lvl 5.
2 - Resources move, requiring one to place down new extractors. They move faster the more they are harvested. Placing down a new extractor costs ISK.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.04.29 09:10:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
However, this does not change the profitability of the item itself. If you are making something and I am making the same thing, and our production costs are the same, my being able to make it 10 times faster does not mean I can sell it for one tenth of the price and still profit.
Less population and higher resource density. Null players will not have to deal with resource map changes as drastically as crowded high sec. First because there are fewer players in Null, and secondly and more obviously, higher overall density means the need to move extractors is less. Each extractor placement costs ISK.
The Processor to Extractor ratio in Null is significantly better. The extractor cost per unit of raw materials in Null will be significantly less. Production costs are not the same. Production output, on a per player basis, is not the same.
The supply side heavily favors null sec, null also will create most of the demand. If Null supply can not meet demand, then high sec will have a market, but at much greater cost than Null. Thus creating incentive in Null to over supply.
If Null supply is greater than Null demand, then high sec will be the dumping ground at a cost less than high sec cost.
Removing the extractor cost would bring better balance to the ratios. In this way at least production costs would then be the same, the difference then would be volume.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.04.29 10:01:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Crumplecorn Ah, I hadn't considered this. I only got through a few extractor cycles before the planet I was using on the test server broke, so I never had to move extractors.
A few planets seem to have broken.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.04.29 21:46:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ranger 1
I think it could provide a much stronger incentive to go there (not necessarily live there) [low sec] than the current environment does.
If it turns out to be a big low sec boost, that'll be good. It would be more of a boost if the exactor fees could be made less. That can be accomplished by moving the map less often, or reducing the fees.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.05.01 10:58:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Gorefacer
You can quote yourself as many times as you want and it'll still contain lies about the accessibility of the content.
It was you that ignored and misconstrued the context upon which I gave the word "accessibility". Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension skills. If there it is a liar, it would be you. Now kindly crawl back under your rock.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.05.02 03:24:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gorefacer
I'm sorry for "trolling" and pointing out how your argument makes no sense. I'll try to stay under my rock of logic and reasoning in the future.
Yes, please keep defending your straw man, I like watching trolls **** into fans.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
|
|
|