|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:24:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Alice Katsuko
A player whose income comes from running anomalies below Havens/Sanctums won't be able to afford to PvP in anything above a battlecruiser. On a high-loss campaign, they might soon wind up flying unrigged T1 cruisers. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never lived in nullsec. The ISK per hour from lower-end anomalies is so pathetically small that most pilots would be better off jump cloning back to Empire for some awesome mission-running.
We afforded faction fit pimp **** before sanctums, you know.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:28:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Camios
Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good
Sov nullsec was just as good or better than mission running before Dominion. Since Dominion it's been nothing but your average nullsec resident ****ting more raw ISK than pimped out pro mother****ers in high sec get through mass market PVP.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:42:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Alice Katsuko Yes, but pre-Dominion there were also fewer players living out of each system.
And what is your point there? That you might need to go a system over from your station to do your ratting and plexing? Oh wait, you're busy putting up a station in that system too....
Quote: There's a reason why decent pre-Dominion alliances had ship replacement programs.
While many alliances said they had ship replacement programs, I always found that unless you were sucking the FC and/or alliance leader off you weren't gonna be getting anything at all replaced. So basically: no they didn't.
Quote: Basically, CCP is arguing that by nerfing the income of individual players in certain regions, they will create incentives for players to fight over those more valuable systems.
Thought I'd fix that for you.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:45:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Mcrager why do you insist on making nullsec less profitable than highsec?
It isn't now, it wasn't before, and it won't be then. Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting that CCP is adding plexes to 0.0 as well as nerfing high sec mission running.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 22:33:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/03/2011 22:35:31
Originally by: Terianna Eri I didn't.
As a noob with 5-10M SP, I lost a badger with many billions (HG crystal set, a bunch of Pith stuff, a bunch of DG stuff, tons of T2/best named back when that was expensive ****) in the cargo hold. I ratted that up in a Vexor and Myrm. I also took the time to spend most of my time roaming and PVPing.
I really don't know what you were doing wrong.
Quote: But just going back to Empire is not only easier, but probably more lucrative anyway.
Easier yes.... but not more lucrative.
Quote: P.S. Nerfing players' personal incomes only makes them less inclined to risk ships. Enjoy even more incentives to fly in huge, risk-free blobs.
Seems like nerfing players' personal income lowers the amount of ISK in the economy which drives the prices of everything down.
-Liang
Ed:
Originally by: Furb Killer The only way the sov nullsec we are talking about here was better than mission running before dominion was exploration.
No. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:03:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sigras I have a question
Is everyone upset because 14 months ago CCP gave everyone an isk faucet and now theyre putting a flow meter on it?
I mean if you want, we could go back to the time when there were no sov upgrades, how would you like that?
This is how I view the change and whines.
Quote:
That being said, I dont think these changes are going to have the effect CCP intends, as I know for a fact that large powerblocks couldnt care less if their members are able to make isk or not.
I've seen more than one war in 0.0 started over a couple of good ratting systems.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:11:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Mylor Torlone
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I've seen more than one war in 0.0 started over a couple of good ratting systems.
-Liang
No, you haven't.
Yes... I really have. :)
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:13:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Venus Gospel If this change goes through a lot of small alliances will be forced to leave 0.0 altogether.
Small alliances have always been in 0.0 - even before Dominion. They'll be there after this change too.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:48:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/03/2011 23:49:08
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
Originally by: Woodiex3
GL trying to convince ppl to make 7mil/tick in 0.0 compared to 25mil/tick in high sec
THIS !!!!! If the tick in hi sec was 4mil then it would be a diffrent discussion.
Can I please see a screen shot of a whole bunch of consecutive 25M ticks in high sec?
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:08:00 -
[10]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Obviously tick is "tick" + mission rewards + lp.
So then your ISK comes from market PVP? I don't think we'll be seeing any more "25M" ticks if both the mission changes and sanctum changes go forward.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:15:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 00:16:04
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 So the tick will be now 22mil/hr . It is still waymore than 7.
I doubt very much the changes will be that insignificant. Some talking with my corpmates on vent has lead me to the opinion that we're basically going to see high sec L4s nerfed to just above L3 levels.
-Liang
Ed: Head on over to Missions & Complexes to check out the changes and the discussion of the implications. We're talking almost 70% reductions in high sec LP here. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:48:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ascendic
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Camios
Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good
Sov nullsec was just as good or better than mission running before Dominion. Since Dominion it's been nothing but your average nullsec resident ****ting more raw ISK than pimped out pro mother****ers in high sec get through mass market PVP.
-Liang
And you would know this from personal experience from your empire high chair right??
Is this where I point out that I live in low sec and have done most of my recent PVE in 0.0?
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:23:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ascendic
So you admit that you dont have a fuc*ing clue?
Thank you.
Your reading comprehension is really terrible. But hey, go ahead and think that.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:53:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Liang Nuren some words
It may surprise you but most people are not as SUPER ELITE GOOD AT MAKING ISK WITH EVERY POSSIBLE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WAY that you are.
To those of us who are not good at the market or turning LP into isk, and dont have a lot of time to PVE, anomalies are a godsend.
This should be obvious to someone as "knowledgable" as you.
This change flat out completely ruins my ability to reliably make decent isk in 0.0. This is not negotiable. The only rational option to make isk at that point is to return to empire.
Originally by: Dev Blog
In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more.
Here are some observations: - The dev blog states that there is currently a limit of 4 Sanctum/Havens (2 Sanctum/2 Haven) from sov upgrades for all 0.0. - The dev blog states that -0.0 to -0.249 will have no Sanctums or Havens spawned by upgrades (but that they will continue to "naturally" spawn from exploration) - The dev blog states that -0.250 to -0.449 will have 4 - 2? = 2? Sanctums/Havens - The dev blog states that -0.450 to -0.649 will have 4 - 1 = 3 Sanctums/Havens - The dev blog states that -0.650 to -0.849 will have 4 + 1 = 5 Sanctums/Havens - The dev blog states that -8.50 to -1.0 will have 4 + 6? = 10 Sanctums/Havens. - Previous dev blogs state that they are adding many more plexes to 0.0.
It might end up looking something like this (pure speculation): - 0.000 to 0.249: 0/0 - 0.250 to 0.449: 1/1 - 0.450 to 0.649: 1/2 - 0.650 to 0.849: 2/3 - 0.850 to 1.000: 5/5 - Lots more plexes in 0.0 - ???? with regards to high sec missions. Some agents are undoubtedly going to see a 70% drop in rewards. Who knows about the rest as people spread out?
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 01:59:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Liang Nuren some words
It may surprise you but most people are not as SUPER ELITE GOOD AT MAKING ISK WITH EVERY POSSIBLE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WAY that you are.
To those of us who are not good at the market or turning LP into isk, and dont have a lot of time to PVE, anomalies are a godsend.
This should be obvious to someone as "knowledgable" as you.
This change flat out completely ruins my ability to reliably make decent isk in 0.0. This is not negotiable. The only rational option to make isk at that point is to return to empire.
I feel its also worth pointing out that I have never been shy about telling people how to grind less and make more. Maybe you could try listening instead of *****ing about how it's the end of the whole ****ing world...
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 02:50:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 02:51:17
Originally by: Amber Villaneous
Originally by: CCP Greyscale figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.
push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback.
-Greyscale
I don't give a s**t whether or not you are happy with the direction and details, I am the customer not you. Well, I am a customer for now...
The customer is not always right. See the Supercap changes.
-Liang
Ed: Actually, the amount of evidence against the customer being good at MMO balancing is pretty enormous. And yes, the balancing of the game is what continues to make it a functional game. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:00:00 -
[17]
Originally by: fatherted1989
liang via dotlan crosscheck just how MUCH of 0.0 falls into that 'no sanctums for you' category - added plexes will not in any way accommodate for the pilots without a way to casually earn isk
About a third - 982 systems. The biggest losers are Pure Blind, Providence, and Cloud Ring.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.26 06:13:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 06:16:03
Originally by: Sem Nan
Originally by: Claire Auscent
Originally by: Herr Nerdstrom How about adding some upgrades in this 'flexible upgrade system' that will actually help the pilots who play the game? Instead of nerfing sanctums already in existence, how about leaving all as is, and improving the quality or payout of sanctums in better truesec systems (via a new upgrade would be fine)? This won't affect the average pilot's ability to buy more pvp ships, but will further entice the better systems, and have a rebalancing at the same time.
QFT This is what CCP should do.
That is the opposite of nerfing. I think some people would go haywire on CCP if they tried that.
You mean people that understanding dumping massive amounts of raw ISK into the economy is a bad idea?
Originally by: Sa'Shena
Redistribute the Truesec in 0.0 so that constellations in Fountain and Delve aren't so completely and outrageously stacked while an entire region like Pure Blind, Providence, Geminate or Cloud Ring are so utterly beyond worthless as to make holding them more of a hindrance than anything else.
I was thinking about that... but I don't know how much good it would really do. I think if massive napped coalitions weren't so common, it'd encourage local warfare. But with them... it might discourage it even more by providing "county seats" from which big alliances could rule and rent out nearby "slums".
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:26:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Super Whopper
From SHC, where people do know what they're talking about. ... As you see, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. You see all those area's with all those horrible systems? They're going to be empty.
They weren't empty before. They won't be empty after.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:03:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Arnakoz to me, more isk == better. makes the desire for RMT less, makes people more ballsy/ready to replace ships... makes EVE go 'round in general.
Just like printing a whole bunch of money is better right? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:25:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Arnakoz
but back on topic!! this change sucks! it would make common null worth less than lowsec. thus would be as empty as lowsec is now. probably more so. dont do it!
lolz, that's totally bull****. At least stick to saying something remotely true. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:08:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Arnakoz
how do you figure? lowsec is mostly unused why? because the earning potential is low and the risk is high. that would be the exact same case if this change were implemented. actually worse, considering people could earn the same/more in lowsec, and not have to pay SOV/outpost costs.
so how exactly do you surmise it to be inaccurate?
TBH, 0.0 makes more ISK than low sec even if you don't pay the sov or upgrade costs at all. I've lived in both and I know this to be true.
Quote: though, one of use has a graduate level education in mathematics...
Wait what... how did you know... ?!? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:24:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/03/2011 21:24:56
Originally by: Arnakoz
Originally by: Liang Nuren
TBH, 0.0 makes more ISK than low sec even if you don't pay the sov or upgrade costs at all. I've lived in both and I know this to be true.
currently. but wouldn't the nerf make that untrue? i've ratted just the low end anoms, when i first moved to null, and the earnings were horrid - like 3-5/m hour. about the same as level 3's. and considering they are also moving level 4 missions to low sec, i think my assessment to be even more true: the common null sec systems will become what lowsec systems currently are.
No, historically - before Dominion.
-Liang
Ed: And if you were making 3-5m/hr ... I don't even. I made more than that as a 3M SP noob belt ratting in a Vexor. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 04:39:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Originally by: Ophelia Ursus I bet 90% of the people screaming about the unfairness of this change were also screaming at CCP Nozh for saying that the proposed supercarrier changes were a bit OTT and needed re-thinking.
Game design by mass hysteria is stupid.
So let's all just sit and keep our mouths shut, because as we all know CCP doesn't screw things up.
oh wait..
While I laugh every time I watch that, it doesn't change the fact that game design by mass hysteria is stupid. ;-)
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 06:02:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Agreed. However, ignoring the public reaction would be even more stupid. The single most valid argument here is that the proposed changes would simply not achieve the desired effects. They would, in fact, do the exact opposite. Power blocks would become even more entrenched, controlling even more concentrated resources and small alliances would have an even harder time settling in.
People used to get by before dominion, but thats not whats in discussion here. CCP Greyscale wants to clean his house by using a bucket full of mud.
I haven't seen any compelling evidence that the changes won't accomplish their goal ... but I have seen a crap ton of people knee jerking.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 06:22:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Desert Ice78
Lang, you know as well as I do that a hub cannot support one player in nul-sec (ignoring that you paid a bil to get that hub in the first place), never mind a corporation or alliance.
lolwut. are you freaking serious? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 07:55:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Desert Ice78 Renan,
Your a nul-sec alliance, its meant to be the "elite" aspect of the game, and every player is in time supposed to graduate into it. With the end-game senario that it's meant to be, it should be risk v reward; maximum risk, maximum reward.
Living in nul-sec, with all the risk, and now zero reward?!?!? How are you meant to sell that to anyone; I'll get the same reply everytime...meh, i'll do level 4's instead.
I am frustrated Renan, because that is so bloody obvious to me, and yet has somehow managed to escape Greyscale.
Pretty damn arrogant to assume that 0.0 is the end game of Eve. IMO, the end game of Eve is when you graduate from the blob mentality of 0.0 into the solo/small gangs of low sec.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 07:58:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 07:59:16
Originally by: Renan Ruivo
I'll take the high ground here and ask: What are the things that the two of you consider to be the basic for the null-sec player?
You need to make enough ISK to fund your killing of ****. When I was living in 0.0, I trivially made enough ISK from belt ratting (even out in **** truesec Syndicate) to afford pirate implants + pimped out HACs/Recons. Anyone telling me that they can't make ends meet without Sanctums can kiss my ass.
-Liang
Ed: Its worth noting that I didn't PVE much then so its not like it was a big grind or anything. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 08:02:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:03:21
Quote:
As can be seen from the above, the income from anomalies below Havens/Sanctums is rather low. A pilot running nothing but Sansha Hubs or Drone Squads can look to make perhaps twenty million ISK per hour, assuming he is not interrupted by hostiles. That same pilot can make rather more running missions in Empire, in much greater safety and with rather less effort, even if the proposed changes to missions go through. While belt rats in high-truesec space are not terribly valuable, belt ratting will actually yield more income than running Hubs or Drone Squads, assuming there are enough belts. So no sane alliance will bother installing military iHub upgrades if the best anomalies it can hope for are Hubs or their equivalent.
If you're making 20M ISK/hr running Sansha Sanctums, you're doing it very, very, very wrong. You can belt rat for more than that with a T1 fit T1 cruiser. I know - I've done it.
-Liang
Ed: Furthermore, what you're claiming flies directly in the face of what far more reputable people have been saying on the forums since Dominion was introduced. I've seen claims - and screen shots - of people pulling 80-120M ISK/hr out of Sanctums. That's PVP free ISK, btw, because remember that in high sec you're going to be making most of your ISK off market PVP. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 08:05:00 -
[30]
Originally by: StuRyan Question: How many hours a day do you play eve?
I played Eve from 10pm to 12am my time today. I was on off/on for my market alt totaling about an hour. I'd say I never log on before 8pm Pacific and rarely log off before midnight. I play 5-6 days/wk.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 08:21:00 -
[31]
Originally by: StuRyan How many hours do you spend ratting in crap truesec systems?
Why don't you just ask the question you intend to "final blow" with?
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 08:30:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Renan Ruivo Not everyone can pull 120m/h out of sanctums. Believe me, only a few can. And even then, only when you're alone.
The funny thing about it is that high sec income is that high sec scales in a similar manner. Some people can do pretty well... but most don't appear to be able to do it - even though I've spent years telling them in detail how to.
Quote:
And you're saying that you could afford to lose pimped out hacs while belt-ratting on true 0.0. Sorry, i have only your word on that, and i cannot believe it. I never lived on null-sec pre dominion, but i know people far more reputable to me than you are, that needed to run missions on high-sec to afford their PVP life on providence. I know it because their alts ran missins with me to help me out.
You never lived in null sec pre dominion. I did - and so did a very large number of people. Lots of them afforded pimped out nano HACs (and nano battleships before then too!) based purely off ratting income. You don't have to believe me, except to examine whether you really believe all those people had high sec mission alts.
The answer is no, if you're curious.
Quote: You're trying to tell me that pre-dominion you could rat for less than one hour per day, on crappy belts, and not only that was enought to afford your costs, but that was more profitable than high-sec missioning. Prove it.
I'm not sure how you expect me to prove it 2 years down the line? The API doesn't even keep records that far back. But, if you stop and think about it you'll find that it actually makes a ton of sense. If you've got an hour and you cruise through all the belts a couple times (or better yet wander through a few systems), you'll make X ISK.
However, in high sec, you can fit only 1 or 2 missions in that same time slot, and there will be some time left over as you can't run another mission. And then there's the time it takes to sort/sell your loot, and then convert/haul/sell your LP - both of which are PVP activities.
Whereas in 0.0, you've got a direct ISK flow. Notably, a direct ISK flow that has proven to be bad for the game economy.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 08:37:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:39:43 Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:37:57
Originally by: StuRyan
I then want to summarise and say to hell with truesec no one ever fights over truesec, If that was the case the Cloud Ring would be empty and a host of other regions.
You guys keep tossing about Cloud Ring, yet its never really been empty. Sure, its been quiet on occasion with smallish 0.0 alliances making a living, but completely deserted? Never.
Come to think of it... maybe that's what they're trying to add back to the game?
-Liang
Ed: Also, laugh my ass off at anyone who wants to tell us all how elite 0.0 pros are, and then threaten to head back to high sec to make their ISK. What, low sec scares you?
Originally by: Hermosa Diosas
YOU MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS CONSTANT ISK MAKING MACHINE! THAT IS MOONS!
Can you please show me how moons introduce new ISK into the game economy? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 08:46:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:46:51
Originally by: StuRyan Correct me if i am wrong but dominion was introduced to allow people to live in a confined space
Which it did.
Quote: doesn't the proposed change mean that people are gonna space out again becuase there truely isn't enough good Truesec to fight over.
It means that they'll bunch up more in some areas and spread out more in others. This helps these expected outcomes happen: # In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals # Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec # Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)
Quote: AND AGAIN - NOBODY EVER FIGHTS FOR TRUESEC
You keep saying that, but history shows you to be wrong. First off, I've been there when we fought over better space. Second, the fact that everyone keeps shouting about how the "Big Boys" are just going to take the best true sec systems puts lie to your claim.
Quote: ... people wanna be able to do passive stuff so that they can log in and go pew pew, not endless grinding
So you're basically suggesting FPS Eve? Because all the other parts of it would simply cease to exist (or be meaningful) if what you're suggesting was ever allowed to happen. Maybe you guys have become too carebear and lazy out there in 0.0 space basking in the incredible ISK fountain.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 08:54:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:55:20
Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Like i said. Saying that before dominion things were like this or like that is an invalid. The only thing that this argument proves is that things worked in a way then, so if they remove now things will go back to be the way they were before. And they completely ignore the fact that Dominion came to improve upon that.
The fact that Dominion came to improve upon what was before does not imply that it cannot be improved on - or that it didn't go too far.
Quote: And on that same merit, you should either remove sanctums and havens completely, or not touch them at all.
I don't see the logic in that. You should expound upon it.
Quote: You cannot possibly want me to believe that taking away resources from small alliances and condensing them on the hands of the big ones, is supposed to help the little guys and create trouble for the big ones. I find this very offensive to my intelligence even..
Then maybe you should put your thinking cap on. The smaller alliances have always lived on the fringes of space where the big alliances didn't bother with. Right now, thanks to Dominion, that space doesn't really exist.
-Liang
Ed: Looks like my timer's up for the night. Deliberately unplugged the laptop to make sure I went to bed instead of arguing with all the wrong people on the internet all night. :) -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 08:57:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Klam
2) CCP history on unthoughtful changes to "improve" conflicts in recent memory points squarely at the Mothership -> SuperCarrier change. Talk about killing the small alliances' chances to hold their own.
CCPs original plan for the Supercaps was very different. But the 0.0 players - just like you - argued differently. CCP listened to you then... unfortunately. They should have told you to HTFU, and I hope they'll do it this time instead of caving in. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:00:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 00:04:06
Originally by: Terianna Eri CCP: Here's an awful idea Playerbase: 30 pages of generally articulate feedback why the idea is awful in many different ways and will accomplish the opposite of what it intends to do AND reverse the entire point of the Dominion expansion (getting people into 0.0) CCP: nope we know better and we're doing it anyway Playerbase: would you like to explain why CCP: no
You're out of your mind if you think there were 30 pages of "generally articulate feedback". The knee jerk reaction was so awesome that there were 15 pages of feedback before anyone thought to finish reading the dev blog and realize that they weren't taking away all sanctums/havens in > -0.8 space.
Originally by: Dev Blog
1. Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space 2. In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals 3. Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec 4. Coalitions will be marginally less stable 5. Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)
So let's break the whining down: - "I just upgraded my system and now it's going to be worthless!" -> Confirms #1, #5 - "The big guys are just going to kick everyone out of the good space!" -> Confirms #1, #2, #3, #4 - "Everyone will leave 0.0 and go to high sec because there's better ISK there!" -> Confirms #1, #2, #3 - "Man screw that worthless space! Nobody would even bother conquering it!" -> Confirms #1, #2, #3
I could go on, but basically this whole thread boils down to a bunch of "Elite 0.0 Pro PVPers" (read: massive ****ing carebears) that have a massive ISK faucet and they don't want to let go despite the fact that it is destroying the game. So instead they're going to go back to high sec where it's nice and safe. It's even better because they don't seem to comprehend the difference between raw ISK faucets and items traded for ISK.
Protip: the reason high sec mission bears make such good ISK/hr these days is because there's so much damn ISK flowing into the economy.
Quote: I wish there were a middle finger emote. This is disgusting.
Indeed. :looks at you:
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:30:00 -
[38]
Originally by: oldmanst4r
I honestly only see one outcome.
1. Large coalitions will immediately seize all space that can be upgraded decently in order to support their gigantic whining member bases. 2. Everyone who comes to 0.0 will join the power-blocs because they are the only alliances who have upgraded systems with decent trusec stats. 3. CCP will declare 0.0 carebear land and add CONCORD protection because everyone is NAPed.
I invite anyone to refute these points.
Easily.
Your point #1 confirms their goals: - Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space - Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)
It implies: - People will all bunch up in a few overcrowded systems. - Vast tracts of space will be empty. - Big guys will immediately smash a bunch of small guys to seize the best systems. - Small alliances will come take space that is now vacant, and the "big guys" aren't too interested in this space.
This confirms: - Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec - Coalitions will be marginally less stable - In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Your point #2 confirms: - Nothing. We aren't going to have 10000 people in one system running anoms. Thus, it isn't realistically going to happen.
Your point #3 confirms: - Nothing. It's complete bull****.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:43:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Kijo Rikki What makes you think it will be worth the effort to take worthless systems that cannot even sustain a small alliance?
Two things: - The space has always supported small alliances. - The space will be even better still because it can be upgraded.
Quote: What makes you think coalitions will suddenly become less stable? If anything, this looks to strengthen them by forcing allies to cluster closer together.
Because you'll have all these people all jammed together trying to run the same PVE content. The space will get over populated, and there will be incidents. Eventually incidents add up and either someone will leave (much more likely they'll be shown the door really) or it'll break out into open warfare.
It would hardly be the first time.
Quote: With what looks like more time spent in highsec to make the isk necessary for the smaller guys to sustain their war/defense efforts, including jumpclone cooldown and traveltime, what makes you think there will be more conflicts?
Ok, sure, some of you 0.0 carebears are going to show your true colors and head back to high sec. We get that. Fine. When current people in space compress and all of the 0.0 "pro elite" carebears head back to high sec, there'll be tons of empty space - space that small alliances are going to snap up and big alliances won't give a **** about - especially areas like Pure Blind, Providence, Cloud/Outer Ring, etc.
Quote: I foresee alot more conservatism among the pvpers who will see a reduction in isk in their home systems.
Amusingly, lowering the amount of ISK flowing from 0.0 will force the price of everything in Eve down.
Quote: Couple with just the fact that when a fight does go down, you're more likely to have available pilots stranded in highsec so even less pvp occurs.
You mean the 0.0 pro elite PVPers that all run and hide and dock at the first sign of a red 10 systems out? Yes, great loss I'm sure.
Quote: Personally, I foresee alot less pvp for myself, which is sad, I just jumped back into it and its been great for the month I've been back. I've gotten more kills in a month than my entire 3 year career.
So you spent 3 years bearing it up, went to 0.0 and got ~30 kills, and now you're telling us about how awesome the PVP in 0.0 is? :yawn:
Quote:
But I'm not gonna waste my time jumping down to highsec and spending hours grinding level 4 missions to make up for shiplosses, just to travel around vast tracks of deadspace in 0.0 looking for a fight for over an hour before finally finding an engagement that lasts for 5 minutes and has a chance of forcing you to go back to highsec for another day. That's a ******ed waste of 15$.
I guess its your choice to do it the stupid way.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:47:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Spazz21
New Alliances: Even with alliances dropping sov, a new alliance still wouldn't be able to join in without being blue. They'll just get hot dropped by 200 Super Carriers the next day. And why would a small alliance or corp want that system if it ain't worth ****? Would be better off staying in High and do missions/incursions and just do roams into Null.
That seems really unlikely considering that the big guys have no reason to drop 200 supercaps on them. Its much more likely that they'll be faced with 1-2 leeroying supercaps and constant roaming gangs. Actually, sounds a bit like the old Providence come to think of it. Wait, what's that? Providence is one of those worthless places? Interesting.
Quote: Compacting Null: If no one is going to use these systems, then those systems are going to be essentially a time delay in travel. If they hold of no to very little value, then CCP might as well delete those systems. I thought the idea of having sov upgrades was to give people more money to buy more stuff so they can blow more stuff up and have more stuff to be blown up. The idea I got from CCP watching Fanfest, they like it when **** blows up. So why compact it into smaller clusters? Seems as CCP is trying to kill off Null then get more people into them. =/
You're wrong. The space simply won't stay empty.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:50:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 02:50:04
Originally by: Skaarl
Originally by: CCP Greyscale ...
way to be so chicken **** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are ****ing them.
Actually, this was posted during Fanfest:
Originally by: Dev Blog reported by CCP Greyscale | 2011.03.25 16:36:21 | Comments
Fanfest information says that Fanfest was from March 24-26. Disregarding that many people from Fanfest are still over there, there was still plenty of time for you to go smack a dev if you felt it was problematic.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 02:55:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Lord Zoran
Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way.
I guess you don't play sports.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 03:17:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Lord Zoran
This does explain why you and liang are so for this change if after all you really want to sit at your computer for 14 hours a day and call it a sport. Most of us have girlfriends and stuff and play EVE recreationally.
You really, really, don't want to get into this kind of comparison with me.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 03:34:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Cyrus Doul
Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 03:12:15 The Star Wars NGE comparisons are completely baffling. All these 40+ pages of whining are about tweaking a feature that didn't even exist two years ago, because the tweaks will make the game a bit harder. This is utter madness!
Originally by: Lord Zoran This does explain why you and liang are so for this change if after all you really want to sit at your computer for 14 hours a day and call it a sport. Most of us have girlfriends and stuff and play EVE recreationally.
Ad Hominem
Is that really an ad hominem though? Liang was the one to say that EVE is comparable to a sport. He was just implying what it takes to be a sport... idk if 14 hours is the best amount of time to practice though...
How much your region is getting screwed
Yes, its an ad hominem. And yes, Eve is comparable to a sport. And no, it doesn't take 14 hours/day to replace the losses from 1 hour of PVP.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 04:45:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Lord Zoran please explain your reasoning.
He's just a troll. He doesn't have a sense of logic and reason.
Btw, his biggest argument in this discussion is that he's a CEO of a lowsec pirate corp with description "PVP corp. Deep lowsec/NPC 0.0. No Sov Bull****." That, my friend, makes him an expert in the field of nullsec life and game economy.
Ah yes, I justify my posts and somehow I have no sense of logic or reason. What's that? Someone's taking away your silver spoon and you're going back to empire to carebear it up?
Sounds about right tbqfh.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:13:00 -
[46]
Originally by: mkmin
Originally by: Liang Nuren Two things: - The space has always supported small alliances. - The space will be even better still because it can be upgraded.
Bull****. -Head to NPC sov where there are no stations or upgrades and tell me how many people are living there compared to any other sov space. -**** is ****, even if one **** stinks slightly less than the other. Sounds really exciting to get to pay billions per month for the privleage of lvl 3 mission income.
Comments: - What's that? There's small alliances there? That confirms exactly what I just said? God forbid. - If you got L3 income while you were in NPC sov 0.0, you were doing it very wrong.
Quote:
That's ****ing stupid. There will be no room for small alliances in 0.0 because the regions you are listing might as well be completely removed from the game. They will have no value. And saying "I've got my toys so you can't have any" is a ****ing ******* thing to say. And to say the way anyone else plays the game is wrong is an ******* thing to say. Seriously, who the **** do you think you are?
You are flat wrong. The space will not stand empty. It never has, and it never will.
Quote: Rage and poor reading comprehension
Not gonna bother responding to it.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:16:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Super Whopper
I really don't understand why you guys are discussing anything with Liang. It's a troll that intends to troll only. It probably lives somewhere in the Drone regions or the NC and is seeing its own income boosted, while everyone else is getting nerfed even more.
Yes, just because I don't agree with you I must be a troll. The reason they're arguing is because they feel the need to lash out. /shrug
Quote: The sports comparison shows Liang is just as clueless as CCP. It is supporting the changing of the rules so one side gets a heavy boost while everyone else is burdened with crippling handicaps.
Your complaint quite justifies my comparison with sports. You wouldn't complain so much if Eve weren't so competitive.
Quote: If Liang wanted wars it'd propagate the nerfing of the NC moons, but it's not. It's only for nerfing everyone else's income. Again, Liang is an NC troll, ignore it.
What? I've complained about that numerous times. But, that has nothing at all to do with this change. It is a separate issue.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:33:00 -
[48]
Originally by: oldmanst4r Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point.
This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires.
Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted.
There is an enormous difference between weakening a coalition and weakening its players.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 05:49:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 05:50:51
Originally by: Sexy Mirkin
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: oldmanst4r Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point.
This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires.
Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted.
There is an enormous difference between weakening a coalition and weakening its players.
-Liang
coalitions are made up of players, therefore weakening the players weakens the coalition.
Kinda. While obviously hurting any part of the whole will hurt the whole, killing (or even seriously annoying the whole!) is an entirely different matter. Coalitions are political groups, and nothing is really going to break those political groups except boredom and "social friction" between them. Smashing them all together in a few really awesome regions is one way to increase social friction.
And yes, I'm aware that it creates a big gulf between the "haves" and "have nots". But, that gulf has always existed. It always will exist.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 06:02:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Imigo Montoya
So same ISK coming in, less ISK going out = more ISK in the economy = inflation = bad.
The number of potential sanctums is dropping quite dramatically. I wouldn't really expect the same ISK input to the system.
Quote:
Point 2. I've had this discussion with Ernest Adams before (the Game Designer and co-founder of the International Game Developer's Association, not the baker) and his position is that the game mechanics are a effectively contract between dev and player and should be changed only under the most dire of circumstances and preferrably with player consent. In fact he's writing a thesis on the topic (I'm sure he'd be interested in consulting in this case - well worth the investment if you ask me).
The problem is that players are proven to be very bad at balancing, and taking away someone's silver spoon will always **** them off. They will never, ever give you consent to fix the game. They'll demand boosts elsewhere, even though it will always result in massive amounts of boosting of everything to get the same result. In a complex system, that kind of boosting is very dangerous and radically destabilizes the whole.
Quote:
My position was that the devs should make the choice that is best for the game, but I was referring to things like player imbalances (eg benefiting older players "just because"). I can very much see his point.
The changes made in Dominion were the dev's offer, and purchasing of upgrades and paying of bills by players was the acceptance. To completely take that away from large numbers of those (mostly small) alliances without any compensation would be a major breach of trust between the developer and community.
Two things: - They are not completely taking that away. They are modifying it. - Obviously, Dominion is not working out as they had originally envisioned it --- or they have discovered that how they originally envisioned it was fatally flawed. Expecting uninformed players who don't understand the basics of the economy to grasp that is asking a bit much though.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 07:26:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Starkiller Adams your a republican arent you
Not even a little bit.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 16:49:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Mara Rinn For big fights, move Tech moons to lowsec?
I'd rather you moved them to high sec.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 18:04:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Tania Russ
The part that makes my "BS-o-meter" really twitch is the fact that the trolls in this conversation who are pro-change are all themselves likely very similar to the normal pirate/griefer model, a big mouth hostshot PvP pilot noob-and-carebear calling while hypocritically supporting all their PvP activity with an alt-corp botter swarm mining away somewhere in Khanid.
lolz.
Quote: STOP the BOTTERS.
Seems like they're trying. I wish they'd try harder. Overall, +1
Quote: 2. Make the Dreadnought class ship what is was supposed to be: a badass. Make it 10x more effective against other caps and make it able to hit and pwn BSes. Immediately this ship clkass, accessible to all, becomes the de facto crapkicker of all low and nullsec, empowering pretty much anyone to go out and lay waste, thereby taking the power away from the NAPing, mom-blobbing current powers that be.
Now that's a terrible idea.
Quote: 3. REMOVE the ability to AFK CLOAK.
"AFK" cloaking is one of the few ways to legitimately attack a supply chain. In either case, your 50 guys AFK in the station do the same thing to me when I come harass your space. Maybe if it's simply doing away with AFK'ing at all?
Quote:
4. Make moon goo deplete and make it migrate from moon to moon, anywhere in EVE. Suddenly you need to chase the good goo, and my little corp might luck out and have it appear in one of our "junk" systems just for fun, at least until someone comes along and kicks the crap out of us for it.
There seem like there's lots of ways to solve this problem. That is one of them, but I think it's not necessarily the best one.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 18:59:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 19:00:30
Originally by: Ravora
The problem is... Liang has not been involved into Sov-Fights since 04/2010 so she hasn't a clue. Currently she's in Lowsec so she doesn't care.... let her troll around
Ah yes, me living in low sec and NPC 0.0 totally invalidates my opinion on botting, dreads, AFK cloaking, and moon goo.
-Liang
Ed: The funny thing is that there's a huge amount of rage being directed at moon goo - and rightfully so! But changing moon goo won't have the same effect on the economy (lowering net ISK inflow) - because moon goo removes ISK from the economy. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 20:11:00 -
[55]
Originally by: mkmin I'm still looking for the specific timeline CCP has to realize that this is ****ing stupid. I kinda wish it was within a week so I could just cancel my accounts before it becomes time to resub. Would suck to have to wait a few months until the next expansion to know whether or not to quit permanently. Hell, maybe it's a good idea to just quit permanently anyway to get out of the CCP drama bull**** cluster**** cycle. If this change goes through it's CCP saying we're all wasting our time with this game, because the time will count for nothing.
http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features
Pay attention to Incursion 1.4 features and timeline for being deployed. I really don't think they could have aborted the nerf if they'd wanted to.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 21:16:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire Big surprise, another Liang post giving the Devs the benefit of the doubt.
It wasn't meant to give them the benefit of the doubt. The implication should have been that they had this quite firmly in the pipeline and the dev blog was a "courtesy notification" to let us know what was going to happen. Even if the arguments in here had been largely valid (and I don't believe that they were), I don't think they could have rolled it back.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:15:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire
In that case, what you're implying just further reinforces the fact that CCP apparently couldn't give two sh*ts what their player base thinks.
They'll do what they want with their game, when they want, how they want, and f*ck all if people don't like it.
Real good business practice.
Ok, this is getting really old. Let's just be clear: the customer is not always right. In fact, I'll take it one step further and say that the customer is frequently willing to outright bankrupt and destroy a company either out of sheer pettiness or for a temporary personal gain.
CCP is taking steps to correct an imbalance that they perceive as having come from Dominion - something that they feel is hurting the game as a whole. Frankly, them not fixing things that they see wrong in the game (even if it makes certain groups cry like little girls) would be doing a grave disservice to us (their customers) and their employees (who lose their job when the game tanks because they didn't tend to it).
Basically: sometimes a gardener has to do a little pruning to keep a plant healthy. Sorry.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:58:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Xel Ra Liang. Just shut up. No one is even remotely impressed by your pathetic sophistry
I agree - it's better to be uncivil, rage, and froth at the mouth when discussing changes. I also agree that it's better to refuse to discuss someone's arguments and dismiss them as "sophistry". :)
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:43:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 23:43:15
Originally by: Super Whopper
Originally by: White Tree Should these changes go through, it will likely not stop larger Alliances from holding regions from which profit can be extracted via the moons. Especially if the profit is large enough to warrant keeping the space, which in the case of certain R64 types: it is.
We'll have to see how this works out.
When was the last time CCP iterated on anything in the game, or kept their word? If CCP continued 'development' it'd be the first time.
You are delusional if you think CCP are actually going to monitor anything, and then make changes.
Last patch (PI)
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:49:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Pesadel0
-Engine trails -Cyno efects -FW
-pesadel0
http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features
Looks like a whole lot of iteration to me. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 00:31:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 00:33:34
Originally by: Pesadel0
I will tell you one thing liang , IF CCP were interested in changing 0.0 and the way people make wars , they would change the moongoo , instead they nerf the ability of people replacing PVP ships.It just seems like they don¦t want to work and implement some features to their game.Frack it anyway, i will just farm level 5 :D.
Why instead of... ?
-Liang
Ed: Also, enjoy getting your ISK through market PVP and research instead of having it fed to you on a silver spoon. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 03:58:00 -
[62]
Originally by: oldmanst4r No need to be a complete ******* about it. Just because it wasn't your pet game mechanic that was nerfed this time doesn't mean you should jump for joy when someone else gets screwed. Particularly in this case, when it is unclear as to whether the anomaly changes will have CCP's intended effect.
I'm really not trying to be an ******* about it or gloat - and I apologize if it comes off as that way. Its not that I'm rejoicing that you are losing your magic ISK fountain. I'm rejoicing that something that breaks the game is going away. Although must admit to enjoying some of the more outlandish tears too. Really, I know this change is going to suck for some 0.0 bears - especially in the short term. But, its a good change for the game and no amount of tinfoil or frothing at the mouth rage is going to change that.
With regards to High Sec L4s and Sanctums: I think its important to remember that Havens/Sanctums are enormous raw ISK faucets. L4s, when run in such a manner as to compete with running Sanctums, are very nearly an ISK sink to the game. Most of your ISK comes from LP, and LP requires raw ISK inputs on top of contract/market costs. Furthermore, it requires market research to know what to sell... and some self restraint not to crash your own markets.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 04:17:00 -
[63]
Originally by: El'Niaga
Let's face it improved quality/risk scaling implies an overall improvement. However that's not the case. Half of Systems will suffer a nerf, that's not an improvement. It isn't that folks are against tying benefits to true sec it is the manner its being done. If they used current system for Band 1 and then had it improve from there with each band I don't think anyone would be angry.
There are a great many nerfs that improve the game. The nano nerfs, ECM nerfs, stacking nerfs, and more all improved the game.
Quote:
The way it is CCP is ensuring no one will ever challenge the big blocks. Let's think about it. What has killed the big blocks? Don't most of them die from internal struggles not external? Why is that? Is it because they have such a jump on the game at this point that no one can seriously challenge them?
Internal struggles come in many forms - such as determining who gets the nice systems, resolving conflicts over someone stealing a now-much-more-rare resource, interpersonal conflicts that arise from having so many more people crammed in smaller spaces, etc.
Quote: Where will these magical new alliances come from to challenge the big boys? Could it be that they can't get to those systems, set up and defend them because their neighbors will drop supercaps on them and destroy them.
Why do you think that some small alliances is going to come to 0.0 and kick PL's ass? The goal is much more that there will be entire regions of space that none of the "big boys" really want anymore. Hell, there's been 50 pages of people telling CCP how worthless the space is going to be and how nobody at all is going to live there.
Are they likely to be roamed and hunted and occasionally even supercap dropped? YES. Are they likely to be booted straight out of 0.0? Probably not, if history is any judge. Really, the claims being made all over this thread exactly validate CCP's model of predicting player behavior.
Quote: It's taken 2 years for them to reevaluate this, what's another few months to take another look at the problems and delay implementation of this? After all they just have to put in a flag that deactivates the code, and later could activate it after due consideration.
Tell me: What if a big part of the goal was to slow down the ISK flow into the economy and CCP told the player base that they had 3 months to bear it up before their anoms all went away?
Quote: To counter Supercaps...
Meh, that's a topic that's been beat to death a thousand times over. I've written whole pages on the forums about why introducing a specialized ship class is a bad way to go about it. The long and short is that a ship class especially geared towards killing caps will never be on the field when it's needed. Furthermore, this seems like this further obsoletes dreads. And it still doesn't address the difficulty of keeping a supercap (or blob of them) tackled.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 04:46:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 04:46:57
Originally by: Ella Scorpio
See, you are an expert on how that works--can you at least consider that you are not an expert on how post-Dominion nullsec works? That what people are reacting to is that the systems they have worked hard to build up, and the recruiting promises they have made to people moving to those systems, are all going up in a puff of smoke?
The way the anoms work, the effort and isk required to upgrade systems, the complexity of renting and sov bills--all of these things deserve a close look. Not a "hmmm, let's try changing this thing and see what that does."
Yes, I agree I'm not 100% up on the current state of null sec - especially sov nullsec. However, I'm very much up on the goings on in the economy at large, which is a perspective I can say with some certainty that most players posting here lack. I also remember enough of what pre Dominion sov 0.0 sec was like and what current NPC 0.0 is like to know that anyone claiming they won't be able to pay for PVP ships under the new system is blowing smoke up my ass.
And yes, I do understand that it sucks people are getting nerfed right after they put a lot of effort (and ISK!) into building something. I know it sucks. But does that mean that CCP should somehow hold off on nerfing it? Well, I'm going to go with the historical answer - what of all the people that trained the Pilgrim the nos nerf, or the Falcon before the ECM nerf, or the Domi before the Nano nerf, or Geddons before the stacking nerf?
Really, there have been a number of very valid concerns brought forth (IMO): - While I understand this is a separate issue and is under consideration, moon goo really does need to be addressed. - The Drone Regions are being massively boosted relative to the rest of 0.0. - Sov costs might be over the top for smaller alliances in crap truesec. while I'm sure some of these systems (but by no means all of them) will still be claimed, it might be a good idea to scale the cost of sov differently. - These changes are going to be mostly meaningless without fixing power projection in 0.0 - from jump bridges and Titan/BOBS bridging to massive cap/supercap blobs. - High sec L4s make almost as much as running Sanctums when done 'properly'. This is true, and I don't think it really should be. There might be an upcoming nerf to this, but we'll have to see what Team BFF's dev blog says on the subject. At any rate, there are some redeeming features about this in regards to the economy.
There are, I think, a couple of more outstanding issues that people have brought up. But for the most part, its been everyone frothing at the mouth, displaying a horrible understanding of the Eve economy, or saying "It won't work, CCP, because I say it won't work. And I'm mad because you're taking my free ISK away!"
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:07:00 -
[65]
Originally by: El'Niaga Liang your not an expert except in your own ego.
Ok, if it makes you sleep better at night.
Quote:
Drone regions for instance are not isk faucets. It is the most player dependent economy in the game. You don't have the luxury of just shooting stuff and moving on, you have to salvage/loot or you make no money. A horde generates about 100k isk that's it as far as isk generation from killing stuff (just get bounties for the turrets).
So if the goal as you say is to reduce isk faucets, why nerf regions where there is no isk faucet?
If you notice, they're getting massively boosted as compared to the rest of 0.0. I kinda mentioned that.
Quote:
If the goal was to reduce ISK Faucets, wouldn't the better solution be to turn the other regions into more of a model similar to that of the Drone Regions. That is just remove the bounties altogether and force folks to salvage/loot to make their money?
And if you think the rage over this change is bad...
Quote:
No Empire Alliance will make it to 0.0 without assistance from an existing powerblock, this will not change that. Without a counter to supercapitals they cannot get into 0.0 and so long as they are in empire they effectively can't get supercapitals in the numbers needed.
Yes, supercaps are important. I even mentioned that.
Quote: A specialized ship is about the only way you can do it.
No.... no it really, really, really, really isn't.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:51:00 -
[66]
Originally by: El'Niaga Still the little birdies only occupy your own mind.
Um. Wut?
Quote: Let me ask you something, today the big boys don't claim all the systems officially yet they still claim them, what makes you think this will change that? They all charge fairly high rents for undesirable space. All these changes will do is shift what systems the big boys keep for themselves and which they rent to renters. They may adjust their rents slightly as they raised them in recent months.
They still officially claim them because they have value that they feel can be rented out. I'm sure there's going to be some renting of space, but I think the most important thing you're missing is that there's going to be vast contiguous swaths of worthless 0.0. Are we really going to see large 0.0 alliances continue to maintain a strangle hold over this space? Maybe - but I kinda doubt it. They haven't in the past, and they more than had the capability to enforce their will and collect rent.
Besides, haven't you read the thread? Every second person is saying they're going to retreat to the -1.0 systems or high sec and never leave.
Quote: The thing is without a fleet to counter supercaps you can't stand on your own, which means that without some counter to supercaps in the proposal you can't open up space. It is just not possible.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am somehow neglecting the power of supercaps. I'm not. But introducing a new counter ship class isn't the way to go about fixing them.
WRT Moon goo/Tech, I don't see any major disagreements. You can feel free to stop harping on it.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 07:44:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 07:47:01
Originally by: Furb Killer You think we will drop sov in station systems? Basic sov isnt that expensive, I wouldnt be surprised if large parts of sov will be dropped again, but definately not in station systems. ... Smaller alliances will have as much chance as they have now to take space from a powerblock without backup from another powerblock: pretty much none.
Two things: - You're the first person in pretty much the whole thread to say that everyone isn't going to pull back to -1.0 systems or high sec in mass. - Of course smaller alliances aren't going to be taking space from a power block if the power block is there. The question is whether the power block is going to be there.
Quote: And if the issue is just the ISK faucet...
I'm neither +/-1 to that. I think it would have been a serviceable change that would have ****ed off just as many people. A big part of the allure to running anoms in 0.0 is that you no don't have to spend $some_time_here ****ing with your LP.
Quote: Although a significant point, there hasnt been any proof that the ISK faucet is for now really an issue for the economy. I believe ISK influx was increasing like 2% per month or so, which isnt anything special for a game, even low.
No, 2% was the target. Actual was ~6%.
Originally by: Wingshard
Why should anyone claim this so called "worthless space" that ... has to be paid for on a constant basis has to be upgraded before its even partly useful as its now for several billions of isk (not even counting the freighter to transport the i-hub)
Three things: - People want their name on the map - People think it helps recruitment - It doesn't have to be upgraded to be useful space.
Originally by: Wingshard A bunch of stuff about upgrades
See #3.
Originally by: Wingshard
If CCP wants more people in 0.0 than they also have to give them benefits as this system did (which was being able to make a steady income besides lvl 4 missions) and not put extra cost on the old system through upkeep cost, upgrade cost, etc which didnt work out anyway.
Frankly, I think its pretty obvious that CCP is revising their opinion of getting everyone in the whole game into 0.0 so they can join 2 big fleets and crash nodes. You'll notice there was a lot of talk about local conflicts and smaller alliances. The dev blog hints that its only the tip of the iceberg... and I think we're in for some more/bigger changes to 0.0.
-Liang
Ed: The forums ate my original post. Blargh. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 21:27:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 21:29:59
Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Marconus Orion please give me attention i'll even use red letters for it
The crux of the matter is that sanctums were BARELY better than level4s as it is. Making vast regions of 0.0 worse then Empire can't possibly do anything good for the game. Why should I make less isk/hour in 0.0 when i could do it in highsec with less risk? Why should a group of people share the bad anoms in 0.0 when a single level4 system can support infinity people making better isk/hour?
I've spent more time with hostiles on grid with my mission ship in high sec and low sec than in 0.0 Intel channels are fantastic for reducing actual risk of PVE in 0.0 to near 0.
-Liang
Ed: And apparently I must have spent 14 hours a day for 3 solid years belt ratting in 0.0 to pay for all my PVP ships.
Also, Selpy... please stop with the tinfoil hattery about how this will increase revenue for CCP. Your grasp of real economics is obviously worse than your grasp of in game economics. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 21:44:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 21:48:56
Originally by: Xel Ra ...
Meh, there's a couple thousand but I'm not going to tell you where they are. Also, I had to go hunt for the last time I had a hauler posted to any killboard. ;-) With regards to economics: at least have your model make some sense. That's always a good first step. ;-)
-Liang
Ed:
Quote: 14 hours a day ratting? No. 14 hours a day on the forum instead of actually playing. Quite possible.
Naw man, I forum ***** at certain times of the day and play at others. I spend a fair amount of time waiting on builds/tests to run. Once I get home, the forums are quite dead anyway so it works out great for my play time. ;-) -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 23:30:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 23:34:53
Originally by: Lord Zoran And Liang is back, after a full 14 hours of rest he is back for another 10 hours of training. This guy really knows no limit when it comes to his "sport" of choice. As he eats his greasy bucket of chicken while frantically typing away, is there anyone that could challenge this recluse of a man at this highest level of sport.
Some say he hasent seen sunlight in over a year, others say if you see his face you will die of shock, all we know is he is called Liang.
Posted - 2011.03.30 07:44:00
Posted - 2011.03.30 21:27:00
lolz. I'm bookmarking this poast.
-Liang
Ed: OH SNAP I remember you! You're the guy that thinks all games should be easy and hates sports! LOLZ!! -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.31 00:18:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Although he's admittedly grown somewhat bitter lately
Hrm. You should evemail me with some examples - I thought I was getting happier as a whole...
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 03:16:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Gothiczwerg
Originally by: Sarina Rhoda
Lol wtf that sheet is so incorrect its painful. Assuming that the your count for the number of systems in the true sec brackets is correct and that my understanding listed below of the dev blog is correct then your formulas are ****ed.
0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 0.25 - 0.4499 = -1 site 0.45 - 0.6499 = no change 0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites
Your formula for change in sites should be =(cx*-4)+(dx*-1)+(fx*1)+(gx*6) (where x is the row number)
If you apply this formula to the spire for example you get change = +81 as opposed to your -12.
So all I can conclude from this is either you werenÆt entirely sure what you were doing when you built this spreadsheet or you are just trying to fuel unnecessary rage and ZOMG CCP YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING ARHGHGHGHGHGH.
(just want to add btw that my view on this is pretty neutral. I don't think the changes are anywhere near as bad as people are making out but at the same time i don't think they will result in the outcomes ccp are expecting.)
You are wrong with this: In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change)
it sounds for me: 0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 1st band no sites 0.25 - 0.4499 = -4 site 2nd band no sites 0.45 - 0.6499 = -1 site 3rd band 3-4 sites 0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 4th band 4-5 sites 0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites 5th band 10 sites
maximum of the 4 sites (2 havens 2 Sanctums) in the 3rd and 4th band ... -1 and +1 respectively
No. They were very explicit in most cases: Band 1: 0 sites Band 2: 3 > sites > 0 (I strongly suspect 2) Band 3: 3 Band 4: 5 Band 5: 10
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 04:45:00 -
[73]
Originally by: mkmin
And why should anyone trust your numbers again? You have been outright trolling this thread from the beginning, spouting crap after crap out of some sick desire to watch other people suffer. You're sick. Just sick.
Maybe its because that's what the dev blog says:
Originally by: Dev Blog
In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more.
Lets break it down: - Current is 4 sites - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. - Band 3 = 3 sites - Band 4 = 5 sites - Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change) - Band 1 = 0 sites - Band 2 = Some sites (1-2) - but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. - Band 5 = 10 sites
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 05:00:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Lost'In'Space How long before the sites get re-spawned?
The dev blog didn't mention any changes in spawn timers. You did read it right?
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 04:29:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Nipps McChesty I love how high sec griefers and low sec pirates seem to have all the answers about how things should be handled in 0.0.
I love how the 0.0 populace is able to take an objective look at Eve and realize that the game is out of balance.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:45:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 16:46:03
Originally by: MyAvatar Hilanen
Say I, as a simple grunt, can now make 500M a month doing ano's, while my beloved alliance leaders make about 5b a month from moongoo. .. My income will go down to say 300M a month while doing ano's and my alliance leader's moongoo will not change.
When the amount of ISK entering the game drops, the price of everything will drop - including the alliance leader's moon goo, which will directly affect your alliance leader's moon goo income. Potentially, his income may drop more than yours as it becomes harder for "the grunts" to replace thousands of T2 ships per month. I think that's a point that's been widely missed in the thread.
-Liang
Ed: I don't mean to imply I'm not in favor of also rebalancing moon goo. I'm just saying that people are making a potentially dubious claim that the demand for moon goo will remain constant in the face of "plummeting" ISK supplies. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:26:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Antigue Just let¦s make a small poll:
For coming up with this idea Greyscale should
[ ] get booted from CCP [ ] feel the nullsec players pimphand [ ] all of the above [ ] awarded because I¦m as clueless as CCP in terms of nullsec [x] get a raise and promotion
Your choice guys
Ok, made my choice -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:55:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 18:55:57
Originally by: StuRyan No Liang people are still going to be able to field expensive ships and that comes in the form of those lucky enough to have a good truesec rating.
Which as everyone has been so busy telling us is going to be some incredibly small fraction of 0.0 - both in population and in geography.
Quote: What we will see is even more entrenched alliances and bigger alliances. People wont want to fight over it they will just join the sheep so they can carry on doing what they need to do to play the game.
More entrenched - sure. Bigger? I doubt that very much. Its not going to take very much before the good truesec systems are utterly overpopulated and people stop moving into them. Furthermore, the dev blog explicitly states this is simply the first of many potential nerfhammers small changes coming to 0.0 in the coming months.
Also: AFK Cloaker/BOBS threads are going to be epic.
Quote: There is too much useless space in null sec to create a well balanced game.
I couldn't disagree with that more. It is IMPORTANT TO THE GAME to have worthless 0.0 space - for wildlands, for badlands, and for buffer zones.
Quote: I have said it before and i will say it again. the game needs to add space on a periodic basis
I must have been ****ing imagining the thousands and thousands of new systems added since I started playing Eve.
-Liang
Ed: OH, and good on you for totally missing the point of my post. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:13:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Klam
What are you basing this on? Pure conjecture?
This is the problem with the entire change. There's no hard facts to backup these claims by supporters or by CCP.
This is Greyscale's supposed Motto: "One half of game design is having solid, well-reasoned opinions about everything. The other half is figuring out why theyÆre wrong."
Give us the factual why ... not conjecture. Not "Because I say so since I've got years of hidden experience running 0.0 on a pilot I won't post with."
That's actually a result from applying a fairly simple economic theory: supply and demand: You have less ISK => You can't buy as many HACs at current prices => the price of HACs goes down => the price of moon goo goes down
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 21:22:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Klam
You are making assumptions quite a few assumptions there your economic theory is also based on real life models, not that of facts gathered from Eve. Eve has shown to not follow economic models of the real world.
You are assuming that those with moon goo won't trickle it into the market at it's current prices. Forcing an artificial lack of supply. Since you are a fan of real world economics... ever take a look at the diamond market?
A few points: - Your alliance leader control the production of 80% of the moon goo in Eve and thus will simply be cutting his own throat by withholding his moon goo. - Moon goo is looking down the barrel of a nerf right now. Stockpiling what is likely to be soon-worthless moon goo would be pretty stupid. - There isn't the same amount of raw ISK flowing so the overall price point for how much people are willing to spend on his product drops. Assuming some kind of collusion, the price per unit can be raised by withholding moon goo, but the total income (and thus profits) is going to go down.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 21:51:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Klam Controlling the flow of a product is beneficial to the long run of an entity in control of that product. Again see diamond markets. So this isn't a "cutting one's own throat"
The diamond market works because one company controls the overwhelming majority of the market. Your alliance leader does not control the overwhelming majority of the market. Thus, if he withholds his stock while his competitors are still selling, he cuts his own throat.
Quote: Moon Goo itself is getting the nerf? or the way it's mined supplied to eve is getting the nerf? Care to supply evidence to this?
I'd say that no player knows and CCP hasn't yet hinted as far as I've seen - and I'm pretty well up on most of the hints they throw. But the one hint that seems to be coming through loud and clear is that CCP is taking an eye to pushing through potentially unpopular changes with regards to the nullsec industrial landscape. And what is more important to that than moon goo?
But as you say - at this point nothing has been confirmed. But just enough has been said that I'd be getting really antsy about holding back my stocks of moon goo in hopes of higher profits in the future.
Quote: Based on your other arguments that people can make enough isk to PvP without sanctums and havens, HACs will still be bought in quantity as people learn to make isk via, exploration, belt ratting mining, PI, mid class moon mining ect. Again this is your own argument that people can make isk just fine without sanctums/haves since they did before dominion. How about you do a price comparison of frequently used HACs before dominion and now? I think that would be a factual argument to help your case. Is it a 20% difference in price? or a 2-3x difference in price?
Hmmmmm: - I remember buying an Ishtar for ~55M ISK before Dominion. For much more than that, I'd have to go digging through market logs most likely. - People will still make enough ISK to PVP, but they probably won't be able to make enough ISK to **** away T2 ships like they're cheap beer.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 22:04:00 -
[82]
Originally by: StuRyan
I remember housese being sold for average 120k now the same houses are being sold for 180K - thats evolution and thats inflation. Same thing has happened in eve.
You dont see someone interfering with that but what you do see is more help for those branded as first time buyers. that more like what should happeneing.
"Ok, so when StuRyan buys his first Ishtar..."
GTFO. GB2/WOW. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 22:09:00 -
[83]
Originally by: StuRyan
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: StuRyan
I remember housese being sold for average 120k now the same houses are being sold for 180K - thats evolution and thats inflation. Same thing has happened in eve.
You dont see someone interfering with that but what you do see is more help for those branded as first time buyers. that more like what should happeneing.
"Ok, so when StuRyan buys his first Ishtar..."
GTFO. GB2/WOW.
LOL nice mature reply.... if you can not grasp the concept of evolution and inflation your playing the wrong game and i invite you to GTFO and go play WOW
You do realize I spent the last 80 pages explaining to you 0.0 noobs how the economy works?
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 22:24:00 -
[84]
Originally by: StuRyan I understand perfectly how it works, try not to deflect away from the argument. ... However i thought the price of something dictated your emotional connection to that ship and if the hope is to reduce isk in the game then surely the chest beating felt when losing said ship is also reduced.
Wut.
-- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 22:52:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 22:53:05
Originally by: StuRyan
try to bear with me. When interviewed people who play eve say whats the difference between this mmo and other mmo's the answer was "the feeling of having an emotional attachmentment to assets". in other words you work hard save up then buy and if some **** scraps my car im gonna be incredibly upset. But if the value of that is so low where is the emotional attachment. 55m used to be a lot of isk then it was 550m then it was 5.5b that is evolution that is why people play eve - it is the emotional attachment to the game. i thought you would have understood that?
Ok, sure. But I think you'll find that there are lots of static costs, and lots of things that don't scale with inflation in the same way.
-Liang
Ed:
Originally by: Quartex Nul sec should be where the end game is played.
Says who? 0.0 is one mindless blob after another - I'm not sure why anyone would consider that the end game of Eve. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.03 03:39:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Samurai Okie I feel like going to iceland and doing a columbine to CCP headquaters. YOu might as well of rolled back the server to 2009 would have been less painful
I think you should see a medical professional immediately.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 01:50:00 -
[87]
Originally by: bp920091
You know, this is almost completely true. The people for this change fall into three categories, two of which will not be affected by this change at all.
2. People living in low security space ... These people should have no say in the matter, as they do not rely on sancutms/havens for ANY of their income
A few comments: - It seems perfectly reasonable for me to have an opinion about the raw ISK that floods into the economy from 0.0 sanctums. - People from all walks of life (in and out of game) create perfectly well reasoned opinions about things they have no direct involvement in. - 0.0 PVPers frequently cry about how high sec missions should be massively nerfed. - Intel channels and blueing everyone within 40 jumps guarantees that there's no risk in 0.0 PVE... except the risk of falling asleep in your sanctum.
Go run a sanctum about it.
Quote: For the average alliance member in 0.0, this is a terrible change
In the short term, yes. In the long term, I suspect not changing things would be far worse.
Quote: 1. This change was never discussed with the CSM
The CSM has proven it cannot be trusted with large structural changes to Eve's economy.
Quote: 2. This never appeared in the developer blog newsletter, which describes the major developer blogs in the past month
They came out at near the same time. Its entirely possible this one simply didn't make it into this month's newsletter. Try not to attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence.
Quote: 3. this was released during fanfest, where a good number of the most enthusiastic players were not able to even really know about it until they got back home.
On the contrary - it allowed them the opportunity to discuss it face to face.
Quote: 4. The reasons for this change that were listed never really made sense and were dismissed within the first 5 five (im being generous to CCP) pages of this thread.
They don't make sense to a person burying their head in the sand... yes, I agree.
Quote: 5. The response from CCP greyscale after a few pages said that their models predicted overall good changes. Yet if these models did show good changes, perhaps showing them to the playerbase would be a good idea. Even if they didn't want to show us them, perhaps just describing what will happen, in a somewhat logical manner.
The players in this thread have proven beyond doubt that they aren't willing to listen to anything that disturbs their favorite ISK fountain and will only entertain ideas that further break the game.
Quote:
CCP used to be a company that listened to it's customers, developers were very active on forums, and the majority if not all people at CCP actually played the game itself. I am sorry to see that in recent years, all of these things have been occurring less. I personally think that everyone at CCP should be REQUIRED to play eve, just punish any developer that uses any out of game tools (ie developer tools) to improve their (or their friend's) gameplay. This would go a long way to resolving a lot of problems in EVE right now.
Amusingly, a lot of CCP people DO play the game. Someone in your own alliance probably helped come up with this change and is listening to you ignorantly rant about it on TS.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:43:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/04/2011 17:44:26
Originally by: Jenny Kickaz I play maybe one hour a day. I have a job, go to college and have a wife; these responsibilities limit my game time. I am happy to be involved in a 0.0 corp and alliance that gives me the freedom to pew pew with them. I need to be smart about what ships I take with me, so to not break my bank.
These changes to anomolies will ruin my ability to play eve. Honestly, if I can not do 1 sanctum a day (our systems are -0.17max) I wont be able to make the isk to PvP.
Bottom Line.
I am not the player that has played for 8 years, has billions or trillions saved up, and can do whatever I want. I am the guy struggling to play and pay for it with isk.
If I watch my wallet empty, I will just quit eve, and leave a good comment for Greyscale and others. They are just ruining the game for a good selection of the population that doesnt have time to play 3+ hours a day.
You do realize that running sanctums is exactly the wrong way to finance playing Eve this way?
-Liang
Ed: Send me an evemail and I'll outline some basic tips that can let 5-10 minutes twice a week finance your eve playing and as many PVP losses as a competent player is likely to have. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:55:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/04/2011 17:56:38
Originally by: Aurelia Rei
Just a few comments on your comments: =)
- It's highly likely that your typical 0.0 PVPer has been a L4 mission runner at one point in time or another; it's less likely that your typical L4 mission runner has any clue about nullsec, unless they're a highsec mission-running alt of a 0.0 PVPer, in which case that kind of goes directly to the point, no?
Then those crazy low sec people who have been to 0.0 and got disgusted with it are allowed to have an opinion?
Quote:
- You're right that there's less risk when you're part of a large coalition of blues, but that's not the entire point, no?
The point is that it should be risky to pump 100M+ raw ISK/hr into the economy. It isn't.
Quote: Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec, why would anyone not part of one of the large coalitions risk running anoms in now worthless space?
Possible, yes; easy, no. Furthermore, it's just flat easier to do it in 0.0, because converting LP is a massive PITA - and ultimately is a market that can be flooded/crashed.
Quote: What does it say if more nullsec dwellers create highsec L4 alts to fund their PVP activities in nullsec?
I counter: what does it say when lots of carebears head to 0.0 because its almost completely safe - and then never follow up with all that "PVP" stuff?
Quote: Whatever the ISK expectation per hour is in highsec, it needs to be higher in nullsec *for the average person* if they want to populate nullsec with more than just the large coalitions.
I might agree with you if: - Anoms weren't destroying the economy by injecting huge amounts of raw ISK. - 0.0 wasn't so damn safe (even if it is a player made safety). - Personal income had anything at all to do with coalitions vs small alliances.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:58:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Trina Forrest
Originally by: Liang Nuren
You do realize that running sanctums is exactly the wrong way to finance playing Eve this way?
-Liang
Ed: Send me an evemail and I'll outline some basic tips that can let 5-10 minutes twice a week finance your eve playing and as many PVP losses as a competent player is likely to have.
67k? wow our numbers grow with each post truely amazing. ... This makes the game unique, fun, and interesting.
May I kindly ask what in the **** you are responding to in my post?
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 19:23:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Skaarl
errmmmm.... and 11% increase in bounty payout and a 9% increase in subscriptions over the same period. thats not that much of an actual increase.
Actually, that points to a very deep problem indeed - because that 9% increase in subscriptions is full of people who simply don't have the SP necessary to pump ISK into the economy in large scale.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 22:42:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Aurelia Rei
2) I agree with your point here, but not with your idea of how this should be corrected. Granted, as you said before, they are considering other changes as well, but that doesn't mean they should make a bad change just because it was the easiest thing to implement first. Change nullsec mechanics to make it riskier even for those with a large power bloc behind them. If you're worried about the quality of the ISK (raw bounties vs drops/salvage), then change that. The only thing the current changes are guaranteed to do is encourage smaller nullsec entities to run L4s. .. 5 & 6) Like I said before, address those points directly. The problem I have with the changes is they really do affect smaller nullsec entities more than the larger ones. And that the changes reek of laziness.
Your position doesn't make a lot of sense - ultimately because of Malcanis' Law. Consider: - Nobody has mentioned being willing to take more PVP risk while they're running their sanctums. In fact, the biggest whine up to now was how people that weren't even at their computer (AFK Cloakers) were ruining their ISK making because they might bridge a fleet of bombers in on top of them. - Decreasing the amount of ISK and increasing the amount of LP/loot/salvage would still benefit larger entities with better support infrastructures over smaller entities with low/almost non-existent support structures. - Furthermore, I don't know how you want to go about adding PVP risk to deep 0.0 PVE. And really, if you think this whine was epic...
Quote:
3) As I stated to someone else, "easy" is a matter of opinion. I find it easy because I can do it myself with a single account without any help. If you still think that's possible in nullsec, please advise. ;)
While I don't hesitate to say that you can pull 100M ISK/hr in high sec (I've done it), it isn't easy. It requires a lot of attention - both to what you're doing in the mission and to the overall market. The debates continually rage in Missions & Complexes over LP conversion rates and how much time should be accounted for when converting your LP. And really, converting your LP is annoying - to the point that even 60M/hr is considered ridiculous to almost all L4 runners. Contrast that with 135M ISK/hr bounties only with a Mach (the largest I've seen claimed with a single character) and the bounties only screen shots I've seen posted of 100M+ with Golems.
So... Yes, it is possible. No, it's not easy. Or common (just as I'm sure 120M+ isn't terribly common in 0.0).
Quote: 7) It might be because I just woke up, but I don't understand this last statement of yours. :-p
Basically, the personal income of an individual in 0.0 has nothing at all to do with whether its populated with coalitions or small alliances.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 23:33:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Antigue But you know what awoxers are? Right?
I'm not sure what you think that has to do with anything.
Quote:
And whenever we had cloakies sitting in shiny systems we also had enough guys to form up a propper blackops gang almost immediately once a juicy target appears. So maybe you want to point out your argument a bit?
Ok? I'm not sure how that increases PVE risk in 0.0.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 00:08:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Antigue
Take a mom to rat while there is a cloaky/awoxer in system and I promise you will find out rather sooner then later. Any other ship would do as well but the learning experience will deepen with a mom. Promised.
Ok, whatever. Massive risks. HUGE. ZOMG.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 07:46:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Aurelia Rei
I'm not sure how Malcanis' Law makes my position any less tenable than the position of the current changes, unless you're saying that following Malcanis' Law, it doesn't matter what is done, whether CCP's current changes or anything else that could be proposed, because it will always screw over the little guy? ...
That's exactly what I'm saying. Your contrived example really is just that - contrived. But even it would still be to the favor of older and wiser players that know how to play the game. You're saying to target the issues one at a time in some kind of effort to not give the advantage to older/wiser/smarter/blobbier players.
But it can't be done. Supposing that they must decrease the ISK faucet, then... ... they simply decrease the ISK faucet. Older/Bigger alliances move in and take what remains. ... they decrease the ISK faucets and make up for it with LP/Loot/Whatever. Older/Bigger alliances take the best space, and have better support infrastructures to deal with worse space.
What you should be learning here is that virtually any change can be deconstructed as being bad for the little guy. If you feel that's a bit defeatist... so sorry. Maybe you can try actually bending your mind to the problem instead of simply saying it can easily be done.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 16:22:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 16:22:41
Originally by: Skaarl
actually if you read the QEN the amount coming in is directly proportional to the subscription growth. inflation in mmo's will ALWAYS happen. so your argument is pretty much derailed at that point.
I already debunked this. New subscriptions simply don't have the SP to pump that kind of raw ISK into the system. This implies that a smaller number of more skilled people are pumping it into the economy. And what happens when the crop of noobs matures and starts farming the unlimited ISK faucets.... ?
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 16:52:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 16:52:15
Originally by: Skaarl it takes less than 1 month, or 1/3 the quarter to train for a battleship capable of farming lvl 4's or sanctums.
Capable of finishing them, or capable of making 100m ISK/hr?
-Liang
Originally by: Skaarl
Originally by: Andru Ro What I don't get it it how this change is going to help small Alliances to put a foot in null sec. If they have no resources to fight already established alliances how they are going to resist there? So now beside having a handicap in having less trained people in PvP then well established Alliances now will have to struggle with the lack of resources that big Alliances do not lack. Also in the end all will go bad for a regular player that will PvP less and have less opportunities to enjoy the game. I do think that this a bad move and I may reduce my 3 accounts to only one cose I do have no use for the other 2.
it doesn't. CCP greyscale and TEAM BFF are just showing exactly how incompetent and clueless they are.
Frankly, there is no change that they can make that will mean someone won't be screaming about how it screws the little guy. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 18:03:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Mithrasith
Simply incorrect. As I stated above, they need to re-work the corporation mechanics such that individual corporation members have a greater chance of reaping profits realized by large scale Corporation/Alliance activities aka: Moon Goo.
If CCP improved the current "Share" mechanism mechanics such that members in a corporation had a guarnteed method of receiving profits from activities such as Moon Mining, such a reduction of ISK faucets wouldnt be a big deal.
Any mechanic which forces such profits to be shared will subsequently **** over smaller and looser knit corps and alliances. I posit that if this is the problem, why don't you apply social pressure within today's system?
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 18:53:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Mithrasith
I didnt say force. The strongest language I used was "guarantee". If the current mechanics were strengthened/new tools were added, it wouldnt mean that looser knit/smaller corps and alliances would get screwed over. For example, if there were an option, through game mechaniccs that profits from moon harvesting activities were funneled into Corp wallets instead of private wallets, there would be a mechanism through which members in corporations could be paid out. ... Social pressure in today's system will not work as the tools are simply not present in the game in order to address this problem.
Sure there is - corp market orders. In fact, most of the time that I've seen moon mining done (as a director) or taken part in it (as an indy), its been handled purely through the corp wallet. It's really simple to buy fuel and such through the corp wallet and sell the final outputs through the corp wallet. If people aren't doing it... that's a social problem.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 19:29:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 19:30:07
Originally by: Mithrasith
Let's assume the position from the point of view of the vast majority of the folks in EVE, and also on this thread: They arent directors, nor are they CEO's.
- What option...
Honestly, if you don't have the appropriate roles to audit these things, you aren't trusted with those roles. The system exists. Its a social problem that people don't have and exercise them.
Quote: In too many cases Corp executive teams use the Corp wallet as their own personal wallet.
This too is a social problem.
Quote: why is it that according to QEN4 there is 35 Trillion ISK in corp wallets but 285 trillion ISK in personal wallets?
Because I have ~4 bil in my wallets and 5 mil in my corp wallet to handle whatever offices we have open. (I keep most of my ISK invested in the market).
Quote: Wouldnt one conclude that since the most profitiable activity in EVE is to mine Moon Goo, which should be a Corporate level activity, and funds should flow into corporate wallets for that that a larger percentage of funds should be found in Corporate wallets as opposed to Personal wallets? Strange distribution of funds.
The mechanisms exist for your dream to be a reality. The fact that it isn't a reality is indicative of a SOCIAL PROBLEM.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 19:36:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Mithrasith
This doesnt help me at all. Its very easy to take Moon Goo, sell it yourself, and reap the rewards yourself and put it on your own private wallet, which is what happens currently.
That is effectively corp theft, and corp theft is a social problem.
Quote:
Not only that but how can I as a player figure out what assets the Corp has purchased? There is presently no real way to determine who owns what in a reliable fashion, nor the value of those goods.
What makes you feel that you as a grunt player have a right know these things?
Quote:
1)There is presently a lot of ISK available through moon mining in several regions of 0.0 2) In the vast majority of those cases, those billions of isk are not trickling down to the members of those alliances, but instead is aggregated into the hands of those running the corps and alliances that have access to the moons
These are both true.
Quote:
3) There are inadequate tools/mechanics in the game at present to enable players to more reliably get a share of the ISK being generated by the alliance.
This is a social problem, because the tools and mechanics DO exist.
Quote: 2 out of 3 aint bad, but the amount of ruckus on this thread indicates that my last point is valid, otherwise it wouldnt be the issue it is.
The ruckus is you saying the tools doesn't exist and the rest of us telling you where to find them.
Quote: Final thought: Why is it that the leaders of alliances and 0.0 corps end up being multi-billionaires, yet the members are usually left broke, having worked very hard to defend the assets/position of the corp?
IMO: because you're cattle.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 19:41:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 19:43:34
Originally by: Mithrasith
Not trusted with the roles? The roles mean NOTHING. Its just as easy for the CEO to empty out the silo, run the freighter up to Jita, sell the Moon Goo, and put 60% of the ISK in his/her own wallet. Roles mean NOTHING, and that's my point.
It's also just as easy for him to sell it via a corp market order. Thus, what he's doing is CORP THEFT.
Quote: Take shares..dividends..Its based on a fictional amount of money decided by the CEO.
Oddly enough, its a perfect parallel to real life.
-Liang
Ed: Post Timer
Originally by: Mithrasith
Oh you're cute Liang. Nice attempt to obfuscate. I can only assume your personal insults and assumptions are based on your lack of a valid point and/or your own desire to protect your own interests.
It wasn't a personal insult. It's simply a fact - if people stand around doing nothing about social injustices because they're too lazy... they're cattle.
-Liang
I guess I should point out that I too am a CEO... wheeeeee... -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 19:45:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Mithrasith How do you figure? In real life there are GAP accounting principles, audit's and auditors, hard assets which are delcared and owned by the corporation, in what way is it similar to real life?
Two things: - Enron was real life, and it had all of these things. Accountants can make the numbers say anything. - All of those things assume that the CEO isn't out to embezzle funds. As you're asserting he does in Eve.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 19:53:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Mithrasith
I already guessed that by your position on this thread. No surprise there. Adding more tools isnt a threat to anybody except those that have something to lose *Cough*Liang*Cough*
I'm the CEO of a pirate corp with ~5M ISK and absolutely no in space assets. We've had a corp hangar filled with faction/deadspace gear for years and nobody has jacked any of it. Typical corp hangar usage in my corp: Someone: "Hey, I picked up a pith B type large booster... dropped it in the corp hangar" Everyone Else: "Cool" ..... Someone: "Hey, there's a Pith booster in the corp hangar. Anyone mind if I snag it for a Sleip?" Everyone Else: "Cool"
Quote:
"if people stand around doing nothing about social injustices because they're too lazy... they're cattle." Wow - Not quite sure where to begin with that mis-guided statement, which oddly enough is not taken out of context.
Welcome to Eve?
Quote: Ill let you step out of that pile of sh*t gracefully. Your welcome.
So does this mean that you want to discuss game mechanics now instead of making petty personal insults? :)
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 19:55:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 19:56:03
Originally by: Mithrasith Enron was prosecuted by the authorities for violation of those rules and regulations.
And so many aren't. And you still left alone the unincorporated and startup point. Not that any of this has anything to do with the fact that the tools and mechanics already exist in game.
Quote: What Im proposing is providing those tools in EVE such that its still possible to cheat if you want, but there are more options to audit exactly what happened.
What you are ignoring is that THOSE TOOLS ALREADY EXIST. YOU SIMPLY AREN'T USING THEM.
Quote: Second: Its not Stealing if the CEO thinks they are "entitled" to those profits for being the CEO, and no discussions have taken place on compensation to the Corp. In addition, if no one knows how much the Corp is bringing in, and there is no charter and no pre-defined arrangements, how is it stealing??
"Wow, I don't even know where to start with that. I'll just let you gracefully step out of that pile of ****."
Protip: it's corp theft.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 20:05:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 20:05:54
Originally by: Mithrasith Protip: the tools dont exist.
Look, it's really ****ing simple: - You put 5B in the corp wallet in a division. - Buy a bunch of towers and **** (through the corp wallet division, so its audited) - Buy jump fuel for the JFs through the corp wallet division - Jump the **** there and back. Withdraw a fee from the corp wallet division for labor. - Sell the **** at market hub with the corp wallet division. - Everyone checks to see that there's an expected amount of moon goo sold. - Withdraw 1B from the corp wallet as a loan payment (do this until whatever agreed upon amount is taken and the original amount repaid)
Wheeeeee... audits!
-Liang
Ed: And NO your average player has no right to know where all the corp assets are, or how much (or even what moon goo/PI/Capital production/whatever is flowing). -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 20:34:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 20:35:51
Originally by: Gerald Geraldson
Liang you hijacked this thread too much. Nothing constructive or informative is coming out of it anymore.
Duly noted. I would like to additionally note that nothing constructive was coming out of it either way.
-Liang
Ed:
Quote:
EVE Bank?
Nuff Said. Keep jumping off the cliff lemmings.
So this is the best you can come up with after being proven wrong? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 21:47:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Rene Winter
How could anything constructive come out of this thread? The one party with any ability to comment/clarify/alter the changes is a non participant aside from two posts. I have seen tons of ideas proposed to fix 10 different problems because the the bulk of the people here do not have an understanding of the changes (because we have to speculate about intent and basic assumptions). Many don't agree with the stated intended consequences of the change and are trying to reverse engineer the percieved problem that these changes were created to solve and then forward engineer solutions that don't suck.
Anyway, I am done caring about this topic. We will see how it shakes out in space. If it sucks too bad there is always Rift, Tanks, and Perpetuum.
I think we might have received a bit more dialog with CCP if we hadn't categorically proven that we were not interested in it or in being civil.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 00:13:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 06/04/2011 00:15:36 Greyscale is a member of a team. He hardly did it in a vacuum.
-Liang
Ed: Hey, found this in the dev blog!
Originally by: Dev Blog Though the Central Bank of EVE does not see a reason for alarm, it has voiced its concerns and proposed changes to be made to the faucet/ISK balance, which might include anything from bounty changes and NPC price changes to changes in taxes.
-- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
|
|
|