Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3178
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 13:51:13 -
[61] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Rowells wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Rowells wrote:It's going to be really neat seeing nullsec outpost models in empire space I wonder how highsec/ NulSec NPC stations will be handled as far as ownership, vulnerability and destruction gets handled. What happens to all those nice safe LowSec NPC stations where FW dudes stage and live? As far as the current plan (or any hinted/discussed plans) they're not changing at all. Although I understand the reasons why, I still feel it is a shame especially for LowSec. I don't fancy wading through all the fanfest footage - Are HighSec and LowSec stations being treated the same as those in Nul as far as industrial things go? Same as nevyn said, I haven't heard any plans to make NPC stations like player-owned structures at least in the last year.
Destructible FW stations might actually be an interesting concept though.
E: maybe I'm not understanding that second part. What do you mean by "as far as industrial things go"? |
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
323
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 16:36:02 -
[62] - Quote
Is it possible to include a mini-moon mining game into Moon refining? The mini-game would be similar to hacking but instead of hacking you would have to bypass a certain number of moon layered obstacles that would allow the moon mining operation to continue mining the moon for better material.
If you fail the mini-game then your mining operation would be reduced by a certain percentage or yield.
Mining moon material should come with a risk factor and simply should not come as a given.
It's the whole risk versus reward thing.
I also think that moon mining should come with risk such as toxic clouds forming around the Moon after so much mining has taken place that would damage the mining platform for a certain number of cycles after mining has stopped. If mining continues the toxic cloud would grow in size and damage eventually rendering the moon unharvestable. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
439
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 18:05:25 -
[63] - Quote
Andraea Sarstae wrote:As for POSes, the one use that has not been replaced is that of a cheap base for a short trip somewhere. A young corp or newbros can buy themselves a small tower, go into a WH and set up shop for an afternoon, a few days or a week, and then take it with them when they leave. You can't do that with a structure that takes 24 hours to anchor, and 7 days to unanchor.
So, why not just leave them in game as portable bases, with corporate hangars, and simple remove all the industry functionality from them? Or come up with a small citadel class that anchors and unanchors in under an hour?
I feel like that's the most glaring hole in the Starbase->Citadel design.
Also, the 7 day unanchor timer with the fact that expensive rigs get destroyed really is one of the driving forces behind citadel spam. Since it costs nothing to just leave them there, but it does cost time and ISK to take one down, people just leave them behind.
So, yeah, that needs to be addressed as well.
Mobile depot is the word you are looking for |
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
8
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 18:21:22 -
[64] - Quote
Andraea Sarstae wrote:As a director of a small Alliance that owns three outposts, and has for the past 6 years, I am looking at this with sadness.
I get what you're trying to do, but really it just feels ****** to know that our 6 years of building and maintaining our stations together, and occasionally having to fight to get them back, is just going to be tossed out the window for some new owner that might have it for as little as a few hours.
I think CCP has made it very clear just what they think of provi with this proposed change. |
ReK42
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
72
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 20:24:00 -
[65] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:New EdenGÇÖs 68 Conquerable Stations have an especially important place in EVE player history. For most of their existence they made ideal locations for alliance home systems spread across the entire cluster. Conquerable Station Systems like NOL-M9, H-W9TY, C-J6MT, 1V-LI2, VFK-IV, BKG-Q2, C9N-CC, JV1V-O and FAT-6P have all been host to amazing Capsuleer achievements and epic stories full of drama and suspense.
Many of these stories can be difficult for newer players to find, so we realized that the end of the Conquerable Stations would be the perfect opportunity to add special monuments to the adventures you EVE players have led around those stations over the years. Each Conquerable Station will be replaced both with a new faction Citadel and with a special landmark site that will contain the ruined remains of the old station as well as a monument describing some of the historical significance of that particular system and station. The monument will also list the last alliance to control that Conquerable Station before the transition event. These landmarks will be a permanent reminder of the great things players have done in these systems over more than a decade.
Does this mean only NPC conquerable stations will receive monuments? What about all of the player-built outposts that have a rich history, like 6VDT-H? Will there be a monument with information about who built it, who last owned it and some of the events? |
Punctator
Shadow-Kill Aureus Alae
26
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 20:25:44 -
[66] - Quote
Hed, KBP are one of the most dangerous systems in eve... why? because it is providence. If provi die, this game will lost so much content i dont want even think of it. CCP you make one critical mistake - what players build belongs to players, you should not change roles after so long time. Just make a deadline and blow up all old stations, make some history for this event - they ware so old, rats eats cables whatever. What you propose is gave aways old stations to the most powerfull groups it is realy sad for people who made this stations it was so much work for them... It is like saying - you work for this, this is your lagacy, but **** off! now lords of the realm will have it. You do big mistake from player perspective and it is not good for game itself... Just blow this stations in big explosions in all 0.0 - make deadline for people to move stuff, make citadels ect.
you just want to make two dishes on one fire ccp - but if it fails... eve will be much more boreing game... for sure.
|
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1923
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 20:27:56 -
[67] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:Andraea Sarstae wrote:As a director of a small Alliance that owns three outposts, and has for the past 6 years, I am looking at this with sadness.
I get what you're trying to do, but really it just feels ****** to know that our 6 years of building and maintaining our stations together, and occasionally having to fight to get them back, is just going to be tossed out the window for some new owner that might have it for as little as a few hours. I think CCP has made it very clear just what they think of provi with this proposed change.
The alternative was just removing them all together. Be glad you're getting something in return.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 20:44:59 -
[68] - Quote
ReK42 wrote: Does this mean only NPC conquerable stations will receive monuments? What about all of the player-built outposts that have a rich history, like 6VDT-H? Will there be a monument with information about who built it, who last owned it and some of the events?
i appreciate the thought but there's just too many outposts that are the site of a massive goonswarm victory for ccp to give us monuments for each and every one |
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
39
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 20:49:27 -
[69] - Quote
It would be even more interesting if the Industry Breakdown Image showed a relationship to space security as well.
HIstorically it's been something of a mantra; "if you can fly it before, you will be able to fly it after". So I am asking, if I have it anchored now, why can i not be able to anchor it later". A small POS with Refinery and Component Assembly Array. Be it ever so humble?!
I would remiss if I didn't point out that so far "the promise" has only been kept to mega and large.
I am not sure if I should call it Oh Well instead of Upwell.Or is it Orwell? |
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 20:50:42 -
[70] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:It would be even more interesting if the Industry Breakdown Image showed a relationship to space security as well.
HIstorically it's been something of a mantra; "if you can fly it before, you will be able to fly it after". So I am asking, if I have it anchored now, why can i not be able to anchor it later". A small POS with Refinery and Component Assembly Array. Be it ever so humble?!
I would remiss if I didn't point out that so far "the promise" has only been kept to mega and large.
I am not sure if I should call it Oh Well instead of Upwell.Or is it Orwell? you don't need any extra skills to launch a refining citadel and an engineering complex though |
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication Soldiers of TIN
445
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 22:46:18 -
[71] - Quote
xOmGx wrote: Why the F you want to remove POS after over 10 years of good service?
Why you want us to pay 10-20 time MORE for LESS functionality and protection? ( no forcefield, no automated guns) Where are my laser guns on the citadels? all i see is Caldari crap missiles...
The good in good service is a little subjective. As a POS owner myself, I can say I am glad to see them going the way of the Dodo. The lack of automated defense is understandable given the vulnerability windows - no need to automate defense when they cannot be attacked at will outside of the window.
As for the upwell missiles: yeah - would be very nice to have some variety: lasers, hybrids, cannons, etc. At least the larger structures get some fancier weapon systems but the homogeny is boring.
I cannot say much about Outposts as I never built one but the cost difference between an Outpost and a Fortizar is significant. Considering the primary benefit of an Outpost over a POS was constancy, turning these Outposts into glorified Fortizars is a significant kick in head for these owners.
If CCP sees through turning Outposts into Fortizars then they should compensate the current outpost owners: as of the fanfest announcement (because any change in ownership after which is suspect in motivation) in some fashion. The loss of permanence on any of these structures is not to be underestimated nor blithely 'compensated' with a structure that can be destroyed. There is no parity with a tricked out faction fortizar and an Outpost. So Parity must be achieved in another fashion. ISK, one or more faction citadel BPCs, but something to the as of the Fanfest announcement to those current owners.
- - -
CCP Fozzie, you mentioned the Citadels being littered about; that you think they are too easy to maintain- simplest way to make them require maintenance: allow the structure to be entosised during its vulnerability. once Entosised the structure begins the unanchor process (or it cancels it if the structure is already unanchoring). If the owner is paying attention, they can cancel the process. If the owner is not paying attention, then 7 days later the structure unanchors.
Or: require a small amount of fuel hourly for the basic operations of the citadel. If there is no fuel, the citadel remains in place, but functions such as tethering, defenses, office access, repair, etc, are all turned off. You can still dock, you can still undock, you can store your stuff and ships in your own hanger, you just cannot get any other functionality and no protection until there is fuel in the fuel bay. Does not need to be a lot, but a token amount to ensure the structure is 'maintained'.
Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
|
Cloon McCloon
Space Fukery
28
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 23:50:55 -
[72] - Quote
Just curious, I have some very long-term research jobs going in stations that will still be going by Christmas... will these jobs roll into the new citadels and continue where they left off? will they be cancelled and fail? will they auto-complete? Im glad youre giving 8 months notice, but were 8+ month jobs considered in your plan? I would be less than thrilled if my BPO's failed after 9 months in research.
Thank you! |
Valkorsia
IONSTAR Yulai Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 00:41:58 -
[73] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:Andraea Sarstae wrote:As a director of a small Alliance that owns three outposts, and has for the past 6 years, I am looking at this with sadness.
I get what you're trying to do, but really it just feels ****** to know that our 6 years of building and maintaining our stations together, and occasionally having to fight to get them back, is just going to be tossed out the window for some new owner that might have it for as little as a few hours. I think CCP has made it very clear just what they think of provi with this proposed change.
Yes they did.
Fozzie really doesn't like Providence and never did. It's not the only action where his bias is glaringly obvious. He's had two years to come up with a workable plan, and this was his design and programming 'best effort'. Truly laughable. Alternatives have been offered, viable one's, even at this late date here ... *crickets*
What is truly puzzling is Providence as a region played the game to it's maximum potential with structures - the way devs designed it - by planting stations in every system - and working hard to do that - for defense. It took years. And in a few short months, Fozzie will make sure it's destroyed by literally painting a bullseye on our backs. |
Circumstantial Evidence
399
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 01:10:03 -
[74] - Quote
Valkorsia wrote:... It took years. And in a few short months, Fozzie will make sure it's destroyed by literally painting a bullseye on our backs. I doubt it will be "destroyed," the people that want to live there will continue doing so, but if the forums-predicted storm arrives.... in smaller citadels. Providence remains a formidable, tiring grind if the goal is to take and hold every outpost prior to the transition (assuming profit motive: attacking line members: is all the work to enrich your leadership, worth it?) Perhaps new strategies and allies will emerge; some outposts may be spared for easier targets elsewhere - the problem is not unique to Providence. |
Valkorsia
IONSTAR Yulai Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 01:23:47 -
[75] - Quote
Fair enough. Maybe not 'destroyed'. Is 'robbed' a more appropriate description? |
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 03:30:41 -
[76] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Pandora Deninard wrote:Andraea Sarstae wrote:As a director of a small Alliance that owns three outposts, and has for the past 6 years, I am looking at this with sadness.
I get what you're trying to do, but really it just feels ****** to know that our 6 years of building and maintaining our stations together, and occasionally having to fight to get them back, is just going to be tossed out the window for some new owner that might have it for as little as a few hours. I think CCP has made it very clear just what they think of provi with this proposed change. The alternative was just removing them all together. Be glad you're getting something in return.
No, there are plenty of alternatives that needn't create this situation. Just change the models for example. |
Valkorsia
IONSTAR Yulai Federation
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 04:10:08 -
[77] - Quote
It's not like Providence lacks content. We don't mind the content. It's here every day. KBP/Dital - the Sev3rance and Yulai pocket entrace - is one of the deadliest pipes in the game for player vs. player content. Then there's the Catch pipe from HED, also at our doorstep. Newbros and veterans come here daily for fights in NRDS space and we oblige gladly.
We love content and gf's.
What we don't like is being 'setup' by a dev who clearly has an ax to grind with Providence and has lost touch with the very player base he wants to attract. |
The Receptionist
Pfizer Inc.
28
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 04:47:56 -
[78] - Quote
Valkorsia wrote: What we don't like is being 'setup' by a dev who clearly has an ax to grind with Providence and has lost touch with the very player base he seeks to attract.
That's pretty much the best description of the proposed changes I've seen ^^ |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
3053
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 05:08:04 -
[79] - Quote
Please don't remove starbases. Just nerf them if you have to. People already really love citadels. You've already greatly improved the quality of player-owned stations. Can we keep starbases as a relic?
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
201
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 11:09:37 -
[80] - Quote
1. Having it combat capable while belt is spawned is just plain bad. how you gona ninja mine the ore with Hulks when the thing can just kill them. It Should be incapacitated when belt is spawned.
2. The structure Should mine the ore too, automaticly, unpiloted. and that should take at least 24 hours for it to clear the belt by itself. For one, it opens more time frame for people to steal the ore, Second you are not forcing people to mine the damn ore so we are sort of keeping the old moon mechanic but with much more risk than before.
If you wona speed up the mining process and go and mine it.
While the belt is spawned the platforn can't start pulling another rock (or you could turn the mining off, so you mine by yourself and make the platform start puling snother rock), so we would have a trade off for having it mine by itself. Less ore per month than mining it yourself.
3. It should have the POCO reinforce mechanic, and not this set window, it's bad for content. /o\ |
|
March rabbit
Mosquito squadron The-Culture
2131
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 12:07:45 -
[81] - Quote
Like with empires of RL only history is what survives the time.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3178
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 14:44:02 -
[82] - Quote
Valkorsia wrote:What we don't like is being 'setup' by a dev who clearly has an ax to grind with Providence and has lost touch with the very player base he seeks to attract. I'm having flashbacks to WWB SOTG speeches.
Is that you...mittens? |
Cherri Minoa
IronPig Sev3rance
203
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 16:29:18 -
[83] - Quote
The obvious answer to outposts was the one first discussed: just remove all functionality except docking and leave them as historic structures like a disused church or castle. Nobody needed to stir up a storm to promote citadels. In Providence and Dital you can't spit without hitting a dozen citadels. We've embraced them already.
The shame is that CCP say they desperately want to attract new players, but then repeatedly introduce changes that benefit nobody but the same old mega alliances. Providence is almost unique in providing the "null sec experience" to new players. I have over 300 neutral corps and alliances on my access lists and intel channel, and probably the same number of unlisted entities operating in our space. Why break something that is working so well?
This proposal has been described as "The Death of Provi." Well, maybe. I've lived in Provi so long, and seen our death announced so many times, I take it with a pinch of salt. Provi has a habit of not turning up to its own funeral. But yes, it is a threat. A threat to everyone, red grey and blue, who finds so much fun in our systems.
The bigger tragedy is that this may signal "The Death of the Sandbox." The unique selling point of EVE is that content is created by the players, for the players. That's what we've done in Providence. We don't cry when other players drive a bulldozer over us., we accept that kicking the fertiliser out of Provi is part of the game. What we object to is when CCP drive a bulldozer over us and turn the game into yet another theme park.
At least when you log on to World of Warcraft you know it's a theme park. Now in EVE, you spend years building something in what you thought was a sandbox, and then you find you are just pawns - expendable characters - in a story being written by CCP.
"If I had been censured every time I have run my ship, or fleets under my command, into great danger, I should have long ago been out of the Service" - Horatio Nelson
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
439
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 21:42:13 -
[84] - Quote
Cherri Minoa wrote:The obvious answer to outposts was the one first discussed: just remove all functionality except docking and leave them as historic structures like a disused church or castle. Nobody needed to stir up a storm to promote citadels. In Providence and Dital you can't spit without hitting a dozen citadels. We've embraced them already.
The shame is that CCP say they desperately want to attract new players, but then repeatedly introduce changes that benefit nobody but the same old mega alliances. Providence is almost unique in providing the "null sec experience" to new players. I have over 300 neutral corps and alliances on my access lists and intel channel, and probably the same number of unlisted entities operating in our space. Why break something that is working so well?
This proposal has been described as "The Death of Provi." Well, maybe. I've lived in Provi so long, and seen our death announced so many times, I take it with a pinch of salt. Provi has a habit of not turning up to its own funeral. But yes, it is a threat. A threat to everyone, red grey and blue, who finds so much fun in our systems.
The bigger tragedy is that this may signal "The Death of the Sandbox." The unique selling point of EVE is that content is created by the players, for the players. That's what we've done in Providence. We don't cry when other players drive a bulldozer over us., we accept that kicking the fertiliser out of Provi is part of the game. What we object to is when CCP drive a bulldozer over us and turn the game into yet another theme park.
At least when you log on to World of Warcraft you know it's a theme park. Now in EVE, you spend years building something in what you thought was a sandbox, and then you find you are just pawns - expendable characters - in a story being written by CCP.
I can only assume you have been asleep since early 2014 when the first dev blog came out for new structures and the ENTIRE theme was EVERYTHING should be destructible. You have waited 3 years to finally say you don't like it?
CCP have been extremely forthcoming in their plans in that regard.
As far as your "Ax grinder" statement, remember the current team 5-0 is NOT the team that started structures, not many currently on 5-0 were on the previous team at citadel expansion. They haven't made up anything new just to **** over Provi, they have pretty much followed the vision of the previous team and carried out their plan.
rest assured, you can put away your tin foil for the time being. Don't mind the black helicopters flying around your house either.... |
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
1331
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 00:26:52 -
[85] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Cherri Minoa wrote:The obvious answer to outposts was the one first discussed: just remove all functionality except docking and leave them as historic structures like a disused church or castle. Nobody needed to stir up a storm to promote citadels. In Providence and Dital you can't spit without hitting a dozen citadels. We've embraced them already.
The shame is that CCP say they desperately want to attract new players, but then repeatedly introduce changes that benefit nobody but the same old mega alliances. Providence is almost unique in providing the "null sec experience" to new players. I have over 300 neutral corps and alliances on my access lists and intel channel, and probably the same number of unlisted entities operating in our space. Why break something that is working so well?
This proposal has been described as "The Death of Provi." Well, maybe. I've lived in Provi so long, and seen our death announced so many times, I take it with a pinch of salt. Provi has a habit of not turning up to its own funeral. But yes, it is a threat. A threat to everyone, red grey and blue, who finds so much fun in our systems.
The bigger tragedy is that this may signal "The Death of the Sandbox." The unique selling point of EVE is that content is created by the players, for the players. That's what we've done in Providence. We don't cry when other players drive a bulldozer over us., we accept that kicking the fertiliser out of Provi is part of the game. What we object to is when CCP drive a bulldozer over us and turn the game into yet another theme park.
At least when you log on to World of Warcraft you know it's a theme park. Now in EVE, you spend years building something in what you thought was a sandbox, and then you find you are just pawns - expendable characters - in a story being written by CCP. I can only assume you have been asleep since early 2014 when the first dev blog came out for new structures and the ENTIRE theme was EVERYTHING should be destructible. You have waited 3 years to finally say you don't like it? CCP have been extremely forthcoming in their plans in that regard. As far as your "Ax grinder" statement, remember the current team 5-0 is NOT the team that started structures, not many currently on 5-0 were on the previous team at citadel expansion. They haven't made up anything new just to **** over Provi, they have pretty much followed the vision of the previous team and carried out their plan. rest assured, you can put away your tin foil for the time being. Don't mind the black helicopters flying around your house either.... Ahh yes everything destructible, I wonder how long it will take PL, NC and the like to deploy to Provi once the new outposts become a potential killmail? Let the GF's begin - There is nothing quite like Supers vs Caracals for an entertaining evening. *I know Provi can field more than Caracals, just making a point about how uneven the odds could be*..
Provi won't rollover, it won't fade away, it will lose a great deal of structures that can never be replaced.
As for waiting 3 years to speak up.. Many have been speaking up asking questions for that time, unfortunately (as CCP do) no information was available until they decided it was time. That time was a week ago and it is only now we see just how badly this could go for many groups.
There is still more about this change we don't know than what we do - CCP is keeping most of the specific information close (vulnerability, damage caps, timers and more), possibly because they haven't worked it out yet or because they are waiting for player feedback like Cherri Minoa has been offering.
*Tinfoil hat is close by, not wearing it yet though. I'll wait and see what CCP say next*
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
1331
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 00:30:27 -
[86] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Rowells wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Rowells wrote:It's going to be really neat seeing nullsec outpost models in empire space I wonder how highsec/ NulSec NPC stations will be handled as far as ownership, vulnerability and destruction gets handled. What happens to all those nice safe LowSec NPC stations where FW dudes stage and live? As far as the current plan (or any hinted/discussed plans) they're not changing at all. Although I understand the reasons why, I still feel it is a shame especially for LowSec. I don't fancy wading through all the fanfest footage - Are HighSec and LowSec stations being treated the same as those in Nul as far as industrial things go? Same as nevyn said, I haven't heard any plans to make NPC stations like player-owned structures at least in the last year. Destructible FW stations might actually be an interesting concept though. E: maybe I'm not understanding that second part. What do you mean by "as far as industrial things go"? Nulsec outposts and stations are having everything turned off, manufacturing, science, reprocessing etc, I am wondering if ALL stations will get the same treatment.. Highsec and lowsec can no longer build in stations but need to use player built structures.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Valkorsia
IONSTAR Yulai Federation
17
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 02:15:03 -
[87] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
CCP have been extremely forthcoming in their plans ....
Not sure what planet you've been on since 2014, but CCP has never detailed specifics until a week ago - which, of course, is why we're here giving feedback in a feedback thread.
Sgt Ocker wrote:As for waiting 3 years to speak up.. Many have been speaking up asking questions for that time, unfortunately (as CCP do) no information was available until they decided it was time. That time was a week ago and it is only now we see just how badly this could go for many groups
Sgt Ocker is correct.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
439
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 03:03:25 -
[88] - Quote
Valkorsia wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:
CCP have been extremely forthcoming in their plans ....
Not sure what planet you've been on since 2014, but CCP has never detailed specifics until a week ago - which, of course, is why we're here giving feedback in a feedback thread. Sgt Ocker wrote:As for waiting 3 years to speak up.. Many have been speaking up asking questions for that time, unfortunately (as CCP do) no information was available until they decided it was time. That time was a week ago and it is only now we see just how badly this could go for many groups Sgt Ocker is correct.
How the hell can you possibly think that anything they did or anything they gave you wouldn't be destructable?
Even if they reimbursed you PI and stuff for the outpost. The outpost was going away and no matter what you replaced it with, it would be destructible.
I don't get how you figured out only last week, no matter what, **** will be in fact, destructable.
Were you hoping to get something "Grandfathered" so that it would last for all eternity? |
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
1336
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 04:24:59 -
[89] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Valkorsia wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:
CCP have been extremely forthcoming in their plans ....
Not sure what planet you've been on since 2014, but CCP has never detailed specifics until a week ago - which, of course, is why we're here giving feedback in a feedback thread. Sgt Ocker wrote:As for waiting 3 years to speak up.. Many have been speaking up asking questions for that time, unfortunately (as CCP do) no information was available until they decided it was time. That time was a week ago and it is only now we see just how badly this could go for many groups Sgt Ocker is correct. Blah Blah Blah Were you hoping to get something "Grandfathered" so that it would last for all eternity? As that was an option way back when .....
Also CCP's "EVERYTHING" destructible is somewhat limited to one area of the game that is sadly dominated by the select few with Super Blobs and armies of Dread Alts.
What better way to be rid of those groups who can hold sov but would never want or be able to afford a Keepstar. The game turns to shite the instant Outposts and stations become destructible - All Fozzies lies about small groups holding sov are to become real.
CCP development - Tell'em one thing - Give'em the tools do achieve it - Then shite all over them a few years later.
Bottom line is Devs are pandering to the nul blob, again.
NB; Everything destructible - selectively.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
439
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 05:20:27 -
[90] - Quote
So, I am confused......
What is left that isn't destructible?
Did you think after 3 years of telling you they want everything to be destructable, they would say "April Fool's" you can keep your outposts? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |