These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Long-Distance Travel Changes Inbound

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#5001 - 2014-10-03 06:46:35 UTC
@ CCP Greyscale


I have another arguement of why 5 ly max is bad especially for dreads. When people move out to a new area or want to take space, the jump range will favor the defender.

Sure you can slow boat it by using gates but....... You will see the dread fleet incoming hours before hand and can prep a defense long before. And those deep 0.0 places that will become incredibly hard to reach will be so entrenched you will not be able to remove them ever.


So please again consider scaling jump ranges based on the size of the ship. Keep super caps at 5 ly and the smaller caps have the longer range it doesnt need to be much hell at this point 8 LY would be enough.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#5002 - 2014-10-03 06:53:31 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
@ CCP Greyscale


I have another arguement of why 5 ly max is bad especially for dreads. When people move out to a new area or want to take space, the jump range will favor the defender.

Sure you can slow boat it by using gates but....... You will see the dread fleet incoming hours before hand and can prep a defense long before. And those deep 0.0 places that will become incredibly hard to reach will be so entrenched you will not be able to remove them ever.


So please again consider scaling jump ranges based on the size of the ship. Keep super caps at 5 ly and the smaller caps have the longer range it doesnt need to be much hell at this point 8 LY would be enough.


I killed a dread gang with a battleship gang once.

Actually , more than once.

Your arguments are simple and don't point anything out.
Stop thinking symmetrically, Eve should be about more than that. And soon, it will Blink

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#5003 - 2014-10-03 06:53:40 UTC
Alp Khan wrote:
Elsa Hayes wrote:
Shock Beer wrote:
I hope CCP backflips when the unsubs start coming through


This might actually get CCP more re-subs than whiners unsubbing over something which is not even set in stone yet.

Now IF CCP would also introduce a new ship like a heavy bomber/piloted fighter bomber that works pretty much like an upscaled fighterbomber already in game, i.e. very good vs supers, good vs caps, bad vs anything else to discourage the idea of nano, warp speed optimized carrier roams and camps to act as some sort of counter then these changes would actually be awesome!

Maybe cutting the JF a little slack and increasing its range a little above the others but other than that thumbs up CCP.


CCP will not be getting a surge of new and sustained subscriptions for a 10 year old game. The viable strategy for them was to keep the number of subscriptions stabilized, but with Greyscale's fantasies leading to not well thought changes hammering the game's economy (due to his desire to even getting rid of freighters) will lead to quality of life for the average EVE player diminished. The idea that EVE is a MMO game, rather than a second job seems to be evading the band of brain trust led by Greyscale.

Current plateau and stabilization of subscriptions is going to take a nose dive, thanks to Greyscale's fantasy of making null-sec a theme park of enclosed bastions of complete security and safety (close to empire) held by major entities and the rest, either unoccupied or burning down in anarchy.

Greyscale wants everybody to play EVE the way he thinks is good, rather than letting everyone playing it as a sandbox, which is admittedly the best way to put the final nail on a ten year old game's coffin, that used to pride itself on being a sandbox experience.



Honestly the first thing I thought about when I read this post was the original 'freighter fitting thread' from last spring which drew such fire. It was quickly amended to this:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4605252#post4605252

Which presented such a much better idea rather like it had been waiting in the wings all along. I sort of smiled and thought privately to myself that some of the devs might have been trolling the player base just a little bit.

I thought at first that it had really gone too far this time. But it seems he is serious. I'm not sure what he is trying to accomplish though. If he was just trying to set a threadnaught record he has succeeded admirably.

Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Kaitlynne Grayson
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5004 - 2014-10-03 06:55:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaitlynne Grayson
I don't usually post on the forums, as I'm quite happy to enjoy and adapt to whatever niche of EVE I found myself playing at any time, but I figure this discussion is far-reaching enough that I'd throw in my own two cents, for whatever that's worth. I hope CCP at least reads this and takes things under consideration, because we, as a player base, do deserve to have our voice heard, but in the end, it's their game.

Now, as a former nullsec resident and capital pilot who now lives in wormhole space, my carriers and dread are being hit with this as much as anyone else's. Still, I can live with the jump range changes. For combat capitals. Do I think they're a little harsh and the combat fatigue grows a little too fast or decays a little too slowly? Sure, but I think if we all honestly think about it, we can probably all admit that everything put together was a bit of overkill. But who knows, maybe this is the kind of overkill it takes to shake up nullsec.

My main concern is logistics - the shipping kind. As many smarter people before me have pointed out and calculated and mapped, there are regions of EVE that are now unreachable by jump freighters due to the range limitation without crossing through hostile space. Yes, we could resupply in T2 haulers and Deep Space Transports and Blockade Runners. Is it idea? No. Can small corps and alliances survive on that? Probably.

But at some point in their growth, an alliance will need so much stuff shipped in and out that a jump freighter becomes almost a necessity, in lieu of flying huge fleets of haulers with escorts. Is it doable? Yes. Is it much harder to do now than a few years ago? Arguably, yes, depending on the region you're travelling through. I'll be the first to admit that null is dead and empty, and you're likely to not encounter another soul 99% of the time. The one percent you do, though, is going to hurt. A lot.

But, as far as EVE players go, we'll adapt and overcome, because we love playing internet spaceships.

The crux of the problem is nullsec, and the stagnation that has resulted in that area of the game. I've just had a very interesting conversation with some corp mates about this that motivated me to post this, for better or worse. Please, don't take this as the be-all, end-all solution, this is merely our opinion on how a potential fix *could* work, and what our take is on the major issues that plague nullsec and how to address them.

Nullsec is stagnant, because right now we're caught up in an era that sees two major power blocks of (arguably) roughly equal strength. There's a smattering of smaller entities spread around, but for the most part, no one wants to mess with these power houses, and a lot of entities are blue to them. Sound familiar? Soviet Russa and NATO ring a bell?

It's human nature to want safety and security. Even the riskiest, most daredevil EVE pvp pilot will feel that little twinge and voice in the back of his head that tells him undocking is a bad idea, because he may lose his ship that he worked so hard to get. What sets some apart from others is that they chose not to listen to that voice, to brave the void and risk ship and pod in pursuit of fun. But deep down, we all feel it. It's natural. EVE is a game about loss. We lose assets, we recover. We work for them. We spent time acquiring them. It's no surprise some people are hesitant about risking what they spent so much time and effort getting. Hence the rise of the coalition subsequent blocks.

It makes sense if you think about it. You're an entity in the region. You see a neighbor, and you weigh the potential for benefits and losses when engaging in hostilities. It's in everyone's benefit - financially, at least - to be friendly to each other. You leave me to rat and mine in peace, and I leave you in peace, and we all profit without losing or risking our ships. Sure, we've got a little further to go to find our pew-pew fun, but hey, our main moneymaking assets are (relatively) safe.

So now we have this situation: so many people want safety and security that we've got two (maybe three) huge coalitions that control vast reaches of the galaxy and have so many forces that if they're fighting against anyone who's smaller than them, they could fight four wars at the same time and still hold numerical superiority. They don't want to fight each other, because they'd be losing assets and throwing isk and ships at each other and either get nowhere, or end up in a state of mutually assured destruction. Better to just maintain the status quo and drop on smaller entities. Sound familiar? Soviet Russia and NATO up till the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The argument for the longest time has been to put measures in place to fix this situation, to break up the coalitions and blocks, and return nullsec to the fractured wild west it used to be, where small entities thrive and local fights are commonplace. But unless something happens on a meta-game level, nothing short of massive amounts of cancelled subscriptions is going to destroy these coalitions. They're too entrenched, too well organized, too disciplined to be contended with by anyone smaller than them. They won't fight each other to the death, there's no profit in that, even despite the good fights to be had. Smaller entities don't have the manpower, organization, or cohesion to take them on.

No, these coalitions are never going to be broken from the outside. But do they have to be? Let's take a look back. BoB broke from the inside. IT broke from the inside. TEST and HBC broke from the inside. The Soviet Union broke from the inside. Such a massive faction is more likely to fall apart from the inside out than be defeated by an outside enemy.

Cont: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5080272#post5080272
Demeter Corinth
Baba Yagas
The Initiative.
#5005 - 2014-10-03 06:56:12 UTC
You can always tell who and what a patch will affect based on the composition of the criers, the whiners, the nay sayers, and the complainers. In this case, the largest of the large coalitions and alliances have stepped forward to yell toward the heavens and proclaim:

"These changes are blasphemy!"
"CCP you have betrayed us!"
"You have killed the game Greyscale!"
and "How dare you make it so I actually have to 'work' to protect my space?!"

For years the blue donut, slowcats, and hot dropping blobs have been the order of business. 50 man fleets from regions away can drop onto a single target within minutes. The status quo right now, today, is that only the largest alliances and groups can secure and defend holdings, and the smaller entities can't lay claim to much of anything without joining, bluing, or taking a knee to the megalomaniacs that govern null or low.

You have vast swathes of unused space, masses of POCOs in low sec owned by singular entities, and no chance of unseating the thrones of power because of force projection.

CCP, THANK YOU, as you have finally, finally made a change that allows the smaller groups to have meaningful impact in this sandbox. I only wish these changes came years ago.

The changes will force localized occupancy to adequately defend systems and will prevent entities from controlling space that's not actually used. It will allow smaller entities to take down POCOs and POS' in low sec without the larger groups dumping 100 people onto every attack with impunity. It brings the FUN back to the game for the little guys, the new guys, and the guys who choose not to swear allegiance to the narcissistic embittered vets who feel that their tenure in the game entitles them to nothing less than the status of royalty.

And then as icing on the proverbial cake, capitals using gates, doomsdays in low sec, and diversified trade hubs which will imminently appear to accommodate the shorter jump ranges of Nomads and Rheas... The manufacturers in null actually being respected and mining and self-sufficiency becoming a requirement to survive in deep 0.0...these are all among the most positive changes that have arisen in years and I can't wait to see what happens next!

-D
Kaitlynne Grayson
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5006 - 2014-10-03 06:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaitlynne Grayson
What does that mean? It means that using in-game mechanics, we *can't* break these coalitions. Something has to change on a meta-game level in order for that to happen, and I doubt it will. Because humans naturally seek safety and security, as evidenced by people going outside the boundaries of these game mechanics in order to facilitate that safety and security. Coalitions were never meant to be in the game. There is no game mechanic for them in-game, and yet we have them. If players *truly* want something, they'll find a way around to get it, something all EVE players should be familiar with. That means any attempt by CCP to break up these coalitions, be it new mechanics, be it ships, shinies, missions, they're all going to inevitably only treat symptoms, not fix the core root of the problem.

So, how can we fix nullsec? Well, here's our brainstormed idea for it.

We want fights to happen in nullsec. We want people to move *to* nullsec, and we want groups in nullsec to enjoy the full life cycle afforded them there, allowing them to grow, prosper, become a major force, and eventually decline. That's the way of all things, and corps/alliances/coalitions in EVE are no exception. So we want to entice people to move here.

That means making the space worth living in. I was talking to a friend a few days ago who is in a nullsec corp that just moved out there a couple of weeks ago. They'd done their dues, paid their rent, ground out rat after rat to raise their military level...only to find out that none of their systems supported any decent anomalies, even with upgrades. Nullsec needs to be worth living in, worth wanting to move to. Yes, hisec is nice, and yes, income shouldn't be *too* much higher, but there have to be incentives to move there. The adventurous will come, like I once did, wanting to forge their own little place to call home in New Eden. We fought for it, we worked for it, and we bled for it...and, all things considered, I had a great time. People *want* that experience, but right now, there's two problems with that. Space that's worth living in is too sparse, and the space that *is* worth living in, has already been, for the most part, claimed by larger entities.

So make nullsec systems that are currently dead worth living in. I won't offer a detailed suggestion here on how to do that, my knowledge of overall EVE geography isn't all that good, but whether it be adding more anomalies to systems that don't have any, seeding more NPC nullsec systems, whatever it takes to make those empty systems not useless...do it. Make people want to live in them as much as they do in their one ratting system in the pipe of six systems they own.

But that addresses only one part of the problem...people moving out to nullsec. Retaining them there is another matter, and this problem is two-sided. Entities have to be able to resupply without being penalized overly much or being strangled. Jump freighters will become nearly essential for any growing or medium-sized entity as they find haulers to be insufficient, or if they find themselves surrounded by neutral and hostile space. Which means that jump freighters have to have a nominal route to reach every region. I'm not saying make them galaxy-hopping teleporting taxis, but that small alliance that has maybe one or two pilots dedicated to flying jump freighters? They won't want to be doing it for long if it means setting up 8-10 cynos and waiting out that many jump fatigue timers. Those won't be the alliances able to afford multiple jump freighter alts, and those will the the entities most affected by not being able to skip over hostile space.

Why? Because larger entities have larger logistical arms. They have the manpower to work around these new restrictions without strangling everyone's fun to death or taking up the entire day the player had set aside to play in this wonderful world of internet spaceships. They're also more likely to have a sea of blues around them, allowing them far more variety in chosing their mid-transit points, as opposed to the small alliance that needs to mid-point across hostile space.

Okay, that's one side. People have to be able to move in and out. Goods, ships, pilots.

The other side is combat. Nullsec needs combat, it needs life. Right now, due to the massive size of coalitions and their allies, there's little of that. How would one drive conflict, then, in a world where people prefer the safety of their own assets? They need an incentive. There needs to be something worth fighting over, something that potentially rewards more than the losses you *may* incur fighting over them.

The problem with that is that currently, there's nothing to fight over that's worth having, because everything of value is static. Resource moons are static. Belts are static. Whoever got to them first and managed to hold that space, builds a lead that just keeps on growing, financially, until no one else can keep up, and people just start joining them for the safety of it.

Cont: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5080274#post5080274
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5007 - 2014-10-03 06:57:25 UTC
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Unsubbed - Just not doing this BS anymore... 8 1/2 years is long enough. Fix your **** game and leave our Meta-level content alone.


Biomass or get out.


http://imgur.com/VL4gPcL

.


Lol

You only have half a year to click a button and make all your threatening words empty.

You pay annually. You aren't going anywhere and you know it.

The only troll here is you.

a bloo a bloo a bloo
ccp made changes I dont agree with
better go cry on the forums with fake threats of leaving (for real this time, i swear!)

go shoot a monument about it why dont you



Hmmm... maybe, potentially. But then I also might end up with Ebola too? No telling what the future holds...

But trolling, me.. nah - I've posted conscientious material mainly, with some fun posts; but my thought process simply has evolved into... unsub is the only thing CCP pays attention to - so that will ultimately be my 'focus group' contribution along with others that are/will do the same.

Anyway please feel free to continue trolling for tears, as it's always entertaining when folks like yourself can actually get a rage out of someone.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Kaitlynne Grayson
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5008 - 2014-10-03 06:57:26 UTC
So let's change things up a bit. Belts deplete, asteroids get mined out. So why not do the same with resource moons? Have them deplete. And when they're gone...re-seed the moons that depleted at downtime, but elsewhere in the galaxy, in a random location. Do it with ice belts. Make it so that resources wander around, and you can only harvest them statically for so long a time before having to move on, or hope they come back to your space. I can't tell you an answer for how long this cycle should be, for how long it should take to mine out a moon and cycle it, but it has to make it worth holding it, but not be permanent.

When the moon moves, what's going to happen? Well, first, let me preface this by disclaiming that I may be entirely naive here in thinking that the large coalitions *haven't* built up so much money over the years that they can just sit on it without any moons and keep doing business as usual. I certainly hope that's not the case.

So the moons move. Initially, the large coalitions aren't going to care about one or two. Or a dozen. But if they start disappearing and shifting by the hundreds because they're being depleted, and the coalition wallets start emptying, they'll go looking for the moons. Those moons may be in enemy space. They may decide that they *want* that space.

Let's say a couple of moons shift from Deklein to Providence. The CFC decides it's small fry and not to care about it. Brave, though, figures it'd be a nice addition to their current system roster, and (current fighting notwithstanding) decides to try and take it. Provi, of course, fights back. Local fights will break out over these resources by medium-sized entities (small ones will be too small to care about resource moons). Which brings us to addressing the second problem: force projection.

I agree that force projection needs to be nerfed. In some cases, severely. Carriers, dreads, and supers are too powerful a force to have hopping, skipping, and jumping from one end of the galaxy to the other as quickly as they do now, and they were designed in an era where it was expected that there'd be a handful of titans, a dozen or two supers, and maybe a few hundred carriers and dreads. That system no longer works.

HOWEVER: Force projection works both ways. Just as easily as Pandemic Legion can drop in on a fight between Provi and HERO, small entities can slip behind enemy borders, reinforce towers, and slip out. What's the main problem with that right now? The locals can always reply with the same types of ships, in force. Usually in much greater force.

So, how do we retain enough force projection to make small entity guerilla warfare viable, but curtail larger entities from just counter-dropping with more capitals?

I propose the introduction of a new type of ship: The Strike Capital. With the current ships - dreadnoughts, carriers, supers and titans - classified as Combat Capitals and retaining a 5 light-year jump range with a timer (maybe a spool-up, I really do like that idea, as well as a cooldown afterwards - it'll still make transit easy, but time-consuming). Let's tackle the Combat Capitals for a minute then, shall we?
Kaitlynne Grayson
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5009 - 2014-10-03 06:59:25 UTC
DREADNOUGHTS: Allow dreads out of siege to hit sub-capitals again. Scale their tracking and damage enough to be lethal to battleships, but have trouble against anything smaller. They are, after all, supposed to be the anti-battleship battleship. As soon as they enter siege, hit them with a penalty to tracking so that they are reduced to their current levels of effectiveness for structure bashing purposes. This way, they have the option of being effective against sub-capitals, but still be vulnerable to fleets of smaller ships and prone to being shut down by electronic warfare, or a massive tank, but only be effective against structures and other capitals. To be fair, dreadnoughts *do* need a way to defend themselves for now, as with no drone bay, a ridiculous locking time, and very low anti-subcap dps, they're virtually helpless without a support fleet of proper composition or significant size.

CARRIERS: Keep them as they are currently.

TITANS: At least give their guns back the ability to hit small targets again, like the dread weapons. The idea that a titan, this massive behemoth in space, can't even defend itself from a single battleship is a little ridiculous, don't you think?

So, now let's move on to the new ships: the Strike Carrier and the Strike Dreadnought.

These two ships will have a much longer jump range compared to the 5 light-years of their combat counterparts. Whereas the Combat Capitals are designed to be the tanky, versatile, "hammer" of an alliance, the force that is deployed when they mean business and takes time to get into position, but when it's there, it's able to gradually advance the front lines and push inch by inch, the Strike Capitals are designed as cheaper, weaker, and longer-range deep-strike vessels that can penetrate enemy territory, go behind the front lines, disrupt supply chains, reinforce towers, and conduct hit-and-run attacks. They'll have a longer jump range (maybe 10-14 light-years?) with the same jump timers attached to them. The Strike Carrier, like the current carriers, is a remote repair and fighter platform, while the Strike Dreadnought has the ability to engage battleships effectively, and engage an "anti-structure" mode, which is basically Siege Mode without the additional defensive bonuses.

What does this do? They're cheaper, allowing smaller entities to field them, which lets them reach farther. If Pandemic Legion wants to drop in on the fight between Providence and HERO now, they'll have to do it in the lighter Strike Capitals, rather than their sturdy Combat Capitals, which greatly reduces their effectiveness on field. Fun and pew-pew can still be had, but now the other forces have a chance. If a larger entity wants to drop at long-range on a small local gang roaming at home, they'll have to do it with the lighter Strike Capitals, which allows the local gang to bring their heavy Combat Capitals to the fight. The large entity can field more Strikes, but the smaller locals have the heavier Combats, evening the odds a lot.

Since they'd be cheaper, this, along with the resource changes and the ease of moving freight, plus any changes that would make living in many currently unprofitable nullsec systems viable, would allow small entities to field fleets and engage in local skirmishes, knowing that if they *do* get dropped by someone bigger, they have local backup in much heavier ships. Smaller entities would be more eager to roam around local space, medium-sized entities would feel capable of participating in sov warfare (even if it's on the side of some of the bigger blocks), and large entity power projection is limited due to the nature of ships they can bring.

What does this mean on the large scale? Well, let's assume for a moment that finances have run dry for some of the big entities out there. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that another great war breaks out due to a large collection of moons having shifted to somewhere between N3 and CFC space. The two decide to deploy their heavy Combat Capital fleets and sub-capital fleets, a process that takes time and establishes a clear front line due to the limited jump range. That gives both sides time to call in reinforcements, which in turn will take time to arrive. But now, instead of jumping back and forth and hitting systems within a wide radius, there is an entrenched line of contested systems as the two forces fight over every inch of space for the resources contained. Small entities may decide to side with either of the two - and because they can't afford to lose their heavy Combat Capital force that they need to defend their home, they decide to move out in Strike Capitals, allowing them to hit behind the front lines, reinforce towers before the Combat forces can respond, and withdrawing if an enemy fast response group is scrambled.

That's one side of the coin. On the other hand, after the conflict is done, and the moons once again have depleted, the large entities likely won't care so much about systems on their fringe of influence, allowing smaller entities to move back in and either negotiate a truce or, if they're truly prepared to battle for the system, entrench themselves and force the enemy to either bring the hammer back, or to engage them with lighter ships against their heavy home forces.

Conflict is driven and dynamic across the map, small entities have a chance to move in and hold their space and grow and be an effective participant in local and galactic battles...and we get shiny new ships! Win-win.

If you've made it this far, thank you for taking the time to read. I know it's not a perfect solution, but I hope it's at least addressed the crux of some of the problems that are currently in nullsec, and if CCP or anyone else finds any value in these, then please, at least take them into consideration when making decisions for the future of this game of internet spaceships we all love.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5010 - 2014-10-03 07:00:01 UTC
Petrified wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
command ships might need -1 high slot now there's less reason to consider fitting a cyno


Not everyone uses that slot for a Cyno. You may as well say:

My Dragoon\Vexor\Falcon\Harpy\Golem might need -1 high slot now there's less reason to consider fitting a cyno.

Blink

no troll. it's already a hard decision between cloak and probe launcher. that decision just got easier

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
DesperateSinner
Out of Local Inc.
Fatal Disaster
#5011 - 2014-10-03 07:01:11 UTC
Pain and Loathing in EVE online.

LolBig smile
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#5012 - 2014-10-03 07:01:36 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
@ CCP Greyscale


I have another arguement of why 5 ly max is bad especially for dreads. When people move out to a new area or want to take space, the jump range will favor the defender.

Sure you can slow boat it by using gates but....... You will see the dread fleet incoming hours before hand and can prep a defense long before. And those deep 0.0 places that will become incredibly hard to reach will be so entrenched you will not be able to remove them ever.


So please again consider scaling jump ranges based on the size of the ship. Keep super caps at 5 ly and the smaller caps have the longer range it doesnt need to be much hell at this point 8 LY would be enough.

or try not attacking people that are very far away.
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#5013 - 2014-10-03 07:02:16 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
KIller Wabbit wrote:
I didn't find out until just last week that they weren't allowed to be in null sec. That was a shocker, but did explain a few things.


That statement is not accurate. EVE developers are definitely permitted to play the game in any region on their personal accounts.


Ever thought of trying it ?

It is abundantly clear that none of you EVER undock, as you are all pretty clueless on how people actually play the game.

You guys are so conceited and arrogant its frightening.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#5014 - 2014-10-03 07:03:57 UTC
Kaitlynne Grayson wrote:
So let's change things up a bit. Belts deplete, asteroids get mined out. So why not do the same with resource moons?


Why? The generate around the same as a single ice miner per month.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5015 - 2014-10-03 07:04:39 UTC
Rommiee wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
KIller Wabbit wrote:
I didn't find out until just last week that they weren't allowed to be in null sec. That was a shocker, but did explain a few things.


That statement is not accurate. EVE developers are definitely permitted to play the game in any region on their personal accounts.


Ever thought of trying it ?

It is abundantly clear that none of you EVER undock, as you are all pretty clueless on how people actually play the game.

You guys are so conceited and arrogant its frightening.


Translation: Yarr! Captain Neckbeard will save yer game! Pirate

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Josef Djugashvilis
#5016 - 2014-10-03 07:05:06 UTC
Viceversa wrote:
Is CCP going to make deep null sec as wasted land?
After that 5ly nerf on caps, there are some regions you never can't be without using regional gates.

Hoping there'll be no cloakie neuts.


Even if all the folk who have threatened to quit do so and the rest leave null, it will not become a wasteland as others will move in to take advantage of the new opportunities.

This is not a signature.
Eric Prinz
IDO Research Center
#5017 - 2014-10-03 07:07:09 UTC
I love this Dev Blog.
I hope you will not allow JF to jump (in the future) more than 5 a.u. It gives meaning to develop local production in null-sec (instead of delivery of the entire market from Jita)
Jake Rivers
New Planetary Order
#5018 - 2014-10-03 07:09:31 UTC
For all those quitting why sell your ****? It is not like you are going to have a use for that ISK so just contract your **** to me and be done with it and make sure to biomass your characters afterwords EVE has no place for the likes of you.

I welcome this change and all the rest that will spice up SOV space and once again make it a challenge.

SOV has stagnated and become a cesspool of boredom and needs a good shake up.

For all those chicken little's yes the sky is crashing down on you and may even flatten your sorry ass, but EVE will still be a sandbox and EVE players are very tenacious in finding new ways to make the most of any system CCP toss's out to us.

I will of course be training up all my alts to fly carriers and dreads just so I can take full advantage of long range hot drops. ^_^

Senex Legio
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#5019 - 2014-10-03 07:09:33 UTC
Eric Prinz wrote:
I love this Dev Blog.
I hope you will not allow JF to jump (in the future) more than 5 a.u. It gives meaning to develop local production in null-sec (instead of delivery of the entire market from Jita)


I hope you like paying a high price for t2 gearBlink
Xenomorphea
Black Rise Angels
#5020 - 2014-10-03 07:13:59 UTC
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:


I killed a dread gang with a battleship gang once.

Actually , more than once.


Your name does not even exist on zkillboard or battleclinic.
So, you did not kill **** and have no idea what you are talking about.
As for a "dread gang" - yes, you killed it maybe in your (wet) dreams.

Oh, are you posting with you alt? Good, then you fail at "EVE Forum Warrior" basic skill set.