These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

PVP getting hurt by the changes?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Duvida
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-04-11 22:13:39 UTC
I was looking at the nerfs in mission and rat drops, and the mineral price increases and released that an important part of EVE, PVP was very much affected by replacement costs for equipment. If PVP'rs get starved because everything costs too much, will we lose a significant percentage of EVE players? Sad
DonHel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-04-11 22:14:58 UTC
no, we will just fly cheaper ships
Jessie-A Tassik
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-04-11 22:15:32 UTC
Duvida wrote:
I was looking at the nerfs in mission and rat drops, and the mineral price increases and released that an important part of EVE, PVP was very much affected by replacement costs for equipment. If PVP'rs get starved because everything costs too much, will we lose a significant percentage of EVE players? Sad


Don't worry.

Null is going to be fine.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#4 - 2012-04-11 22:15:41 UTC
Duvida wrote:
I was looking at the nerfs in mission and rat drops, and the mineral price increases and released that an important part of EVE, PVP was very much affected by replacement costs for equipment. If PVP'rs get starved because everything costs too much, will we lose a significant percentage of EVE players? Sad



No, they will simply adapt no differently then when other changes to the game have occurred.



☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Fredfredbug4
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-04-11 22:30:20 UTC
All it means is that the people flying battleships will start flying battlecruisers. If anything this is a positive change. We might start seeing less capital ships being used like battleships and more like the specialized game changers they were meant to be.

Hopefully people will one day stop saying "Oh look they have a titan" and instead say "HOLY **** THEY HAVE A TITAN"

Watch_ Fred Fred Frederation_ and stop [u]cryptozoologist[/u]! Fight against the brutal genocide of fictional creatures across New Eden! Is that a metaphor? Probably not, but the fru-fru- people will sure love it!
Annie Anomie
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-04-11 22:43:49 UTC
Higher ship cost isn't going to = less blobbing and caps.
Darth Tickles
Doomheim
#7 - 2012-04-11 22:46:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Tickles
We throw away 100s of battleships at a time without blinking. Everyone has deadspace-fit faction battleships for ratting. There are 800 titans in the game. There are entire fleets of hundreds of T3s Eve was spiraling towards mudflation, and CCP actually had the balls and foresight to step up and stop it before it ruined the game.

This wasn't some random decision to make the game worse; it was a deliberate and considered decision to make the game better.
Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Templis CALSF
#8 - 2012-04-11 22:49:47 UTC
PvP with consequences, imagine that
adopt
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2012-04-11 22:50:30 UTC
NO! CCP should not interfere, this is part of the sandbox, deal with it. If you don't like the increasing ship cost, go mine and reduce the problem instead of forum-warrioring and getting someone to do it for you.

Its not our fault you can't afford 200mil battleships, or 900mil T3s. Get better at EVE.

HTFU
Vince Snetterton
#10 - 2012-04-11 22:52:16 UTC
Darth Tickles wrote:
We throw away 100s of battleships at a time without blinking. Everyone has deadspace-fit faction battleships for ratting. There are 800 titans in the game. There are entire fleets of hundreds of T3s Eve was spiraling towards mudflation, and CCP actually had the balls and foresight to step up and stop it before it ruined the game.

This wasn't some random decision to make the game worse; it was a deliberate and considered decision to make the game better.


When you say "we", you mean the null sec alliances, yes?
I don't see empire battles using fleets of T3's.

And guess what, null sec income is barely getting touched by the econ nerf.
They lose 10% bounties across the board, but gain hugely on minerals.

High sec gets hammered, except for the increased value of low end minerals.

As someone already said, don't worry, null sec will be just fine.
The rich null sec alliances just became more entrenched as NO ONE will be able to amass enough wealth to take them on.
Darth Tickles
Doomheim
#11 - 2012-04-11 22:55:55 UTC
You mean there will actually be more REWARD for the relative higher RISK of nullsec over hisec?

Oh no.

wolololololol

Also an intended change. Deal wiz it.
gfldex
#12 - 2012-04-11 22:56:41 UTC
For a long time those corps that where actually good at the co-operation part could not compete with botters. Being well organised should matter - botting should not. What we see now is that dedication, cunning and skill will make a difference again, even before the fleets assemble. I can't really see why that could be bad for a highly competitive game.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#13 - 2012-04-11 23:00:05 UTC
…and anyway, the changes we've seen so far are mostly just speculation on what the long-term effects of the botnuking dronepoo revamp. One has only just begun to have even a slight effect; the other has yet to actually happen.
Nub Sauce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-04-11 23:15:27 UTC
Duvida wrote:
I was looking at the nerfs in mission and rat drops, and the mineral price increases and released that an important part of EVE, PVP was very much affected by replacement costs for equipment. If PVP'rs get starved because everything costs too much, will we lose a significant percentage of EVE players? Sad


The prices are merely going back to normal without the bots making minerals artificially low in cost/value. Things aren't getting more expensive so much as they are getting less cheap.

PVPers will just have to un-adapt to things being aburdly cheap. And perhaps partake in more profitable ventures.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#15 - 2012-04-11 23:26:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Most pvp in eve is useless and only serves e-peen enlargement purposes.

Pvp should serve the purpose of making profit in the long run - not some "i run incursions to take a stupidly expensive ship out to lowswec in my pvp alt that I call my main because it has more kills"

CCP needs to provide lucrative incentives to fight over rather than endless isk faucets for weekend warriors.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-04-12 02:30:01 UTC
You shouldnt make money doing PvP. There should just be other more fun ways to make money, which there are already. It is super easy to get monies in EVE. Why do you need a higher income in highsec anyways? More money to get better ships to make more money to get better ships to make more money to get better ships to make more mon-what the o_O

Ferox #1
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2012-04-12 02:45:03 UTC
Darth Tickles wrote:
You mean there will actually be more REWARD for the relative higher RISK of nullsec over hisec?

Oh no.

wolololololol

Also an intended change. Deal wiz it.



I'd like to see a statistical break down of sec where hulks are lost to test your ...idea. I wonder if more hulks are lost in null sec or high sec.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Darth Tickles
Doomheim
#18 - 2012-04-12 02:54:56 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
I'd like to see a statistical break down of sec where hulks are lost to test your ...idea. I wonder if more hulks are lost in null sec or high sec.


Yes, because that would be proof of...

Hisec forum warriors getting bitchslapped is the best part of these changes. I'm sick from overindulging in sweet, sweet spaceships schadenfreude. GD is a smorgasbord of coddled, entitled whining. Sooooo sweet.
RAP ACTION HERO
#19 - 2012-04-12 03:21:39 UTC
This nerf ain't nothing compared to the truesec-anomaly nerf.

vitoc erryday
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-04-12 03:24:48 UTC
DonHel wrote:
no, we will just fly cheaper ships



eeeeew must buy ships nao

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
123Next pageLast page