These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerf Moaning Null Bears PLS

Author
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#101 - 2012-10-18 14:42:37 UTC
Sarah Schneider wrote:
We're not afraid and envious of hisec people making more isk, but we're afraid of what CCP seems to be driving this game forward and further away from it's core sandbox concept.



You owe an apology to everyone at CCP for thinking that they would do something so foolish and stupid.

You give them absolutely no credit at all for their effots the PAST DECADE.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#102 - 2012-10-18 14:42:44 UTC
That still doesn't offer any insight into what changes you would suggest.
Edit: @ Anslo
Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2012-10-18 14:43:46 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Sarah Schneider wrote:
It's because, unlike some (or most) hisec players; a big portion of people who live in nullsec holds true to what they believe Eve is about, it's about the cold and harsh place, where conflict and destruction is the driving force of Eve. We're not afraid and envious of hisec people making more isk, but we're afraid of what CCP seems to be driving this game forward and further away from it's core sandbox concept. CCP is a corporation, no matter what we say, money is always the biggest drive for them; We will always voice and push to make sure CCP doesn't forget, about what Eve is. The only and probably the last, true sci-fi sandbox MMO currently in existence.


And what if we don't care how you interpret what Eve should be? A lot don't see it that way, so stop trying to push it on us by bitching to CCP everyday about high sec. Stay on your side of the sandbox and we'll stay on ours.

Also games change and evolve, deal. If Eve is to survive, that whole outdated "so herd coooore" idea needs to be modified.

CCP said, advertised and promised that Eve, is a conflict driven game, it's a game about war, about actions and consequences, it's on their ads, videos, clips, posters, everywhere. It's written on their website, it's stated various times by official CCP representatives; so yes, I believe and can safely bet that my (or our) interpretation of Eve is mostly correct.

To be fair, hisec players also have been complaining, crying and so on for years, constantly to CCP; why are you ignoring this fact? and without surprise, CCP listens, the numerous nerf to ganking proves that, the mining barge buffs have proven that as well, that doesn't even include various actions taken by CCP to nerf down the "harshness" of Eve, just to cater to those people who have been crying and bitching about Eve being what it is. So when we do want / disagree with (some of) those changes and CCP weren't listening to us and we keep reminding them of their own ideology of what the game is. You don't think it's sad?

True, games needs to evolve to survive; but there's also that point when evolving to survive becoming evolving to grab a piece of the cake everyone else's having. CCP is well known for it's idealism and courage to have developed a game, where the game itself is not considered mainstream in concept. They have succeeded, to a point. As for the future, No matter what we talked about, what we players debated, it's going to be their decision and it's always going to be a gamble on their side. I voiced my opinion because I love this game, I play this game because it is what is promised to me by the game developers, a game so deep and so complex and filled with conflict.

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#104 - 2012-10-18 14:43:50 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
This is why I mention your sense of entitlement, as if someone else is supposed to care about what you want to do.



Yup. This especially applies to those who wish (almost psychotically) to 'force' people into Low/Null etc and play only their way.

Remember "Mine with a Gun!" ?


Why is this directed at me, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I don't want more people in low or null (or, I should say, I don't care if more people go to low or null).

I'm simply pointing out that low and null and WHs are the engines that drive the eve economy and I can understand why CCP wants more people consuming (things and isk) and less producing (isk).
Anslo
Scope Works
#105 - 2012-10-18 14:44:34 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
That still doesn't offer any insight into what changes you would suggest.
Edit: @ Anslo


What part of "change players attitudes" did you not understand?

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#106 - 2012-10-18 14:47:22 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
That still doesn't offer any insight into what changes you would suggest.
Edit: @ Anslo


What part of "change players attitudes" did you not understand?

It is probably more disbelief that someone could display such arrogance. Do you have any idea how much of a self-conceited prat you sound? "Everyone must change their attitudes to match the way I want this game to be played".

Frankly, **** off mate.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#107 - 2012-10-18 14:47:30 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Despite the endless stream of tears from high sec carebears, all most null sec players want to rebalance high and null is a x0.8 to be applied to all high sec bounties, and a x1.2 multiplier to be applied to all null sec bounties, to fix the relative risk/reward ratio between the two. I have no problem with people wanting to semi-afk run missions or whatever for isk, they just shouldnt receive similar rewards to people who have to deal with cloaky campingfags 23/7.

And yes those numbers were pulled out of my ass, but you get the general idea.



MALARKY the .8 nerf to HI & 1.2 buff to NULL payouts was exceeded in Incursion payout differences and still NULL cried for Incursion nerfs until itwas granted & it broke incursions to the point they are now dying


NERFING IS THE PROBLEM Nerfing is a lazy way to fix issues when appropriate & thoughtfull buffs would incrementally solve issues with the least amount of screaming. CCP's current trend of creating blundering Monty Haul campaigns with huge nerf bats accross the knees of other profitable portions of the sandbox has made the forums into a screaming match with everyone scared thier income will soon be on the chopping block so they figure point CCP in the other direction by screaming:
"GO NERF THE OTHER GUYS SANDBOX DO NOT TOUCH MY SANDBOX MY SANDBOX IS PERFECT & BALANCED" So far the best screamers have been peeps in worm holes whom have not seen CCP touch thier golden gooses in over 2 years Blink

An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#108 - 2012-10-18 14:47:47 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Despite the endless stream of tears from high sec carebears, all most null sec players want to rebalance high and null is a x0.8 to be applied to all high sec bounties, and a x1.2 multiplier to be applied to all null sec bounties, to fix the relative risk/reward ratio between the two. I have no problem with people wanting to semi-afk run missions or whatever for isk, they just shouldnt receive similar rewards to people who have to deal with cloaky campingfags 23/7.

And yes those numbers were pulled out of my ass, but you get the general idea.


No.

The null sec isk faucet needs a nerf.

Cloaky AFK = no risk
Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#109 - 2012-10-18 14:48:41 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Sarah Schneider wrote:
We're not afraid and envious of hisec people making more isk, but we're afraid of what CCP seems to be driving this game forward and further away from it's core sandbox concept.



You owe an apology to everyone at CCP for thinking that they would do something so foolish and stupid.

You give them absolutely no credit at all for their effots the PAST DECADE.

Provocation and implying that I had done something that I didn't do doesn't make it true. I've never said they're stupid for doing anything and I haven't stated even once that I disregard their hardwork so far. It's your words, not mine.

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#110 - 2012-10-18 14:49:33 UTC
Sarah Schneider wrote:
CCP said, advertised and promised that Eve, is a conflict driven game, it's a game about war, about actions and consequences, it's on their ads, videos, clips, posters, everywhere. It's written on their website, it's stated various times by official CCP representatives; so yes, I believe and can safely bet that my (or our) interpretation of Eve is mostly correct.




Welp, I guess I imagined that entire "Butterfly Effect" Trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hmqyejCYU

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Anslo
Scope Works
#111 - 2012-10-18 14:49:44 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
That still doesn't offer any insight into what changes you would suggest.
Edit: @ Anslo


What part of "change players attitudes" did you not understand?

It is probably more disbelief that someone could display such arrogance. Do you have any idea how much of a self-conceited prat you sound? "Everyone must change their attitudes to match the way I want this game to be played".

Frankly, **** off mate.


No. You're the very reason Eve is stagnant. It isn't what I think the game is and how it should be played, though that's what every single hard core nul bear pvper says but doesn't admit to.

No, I'm talking about getting RID of the elitism. If you wanna pvp, go for it. But don't act high and mighty with that "you second class citizen pleb non pvper" crap. Eve is a sandbox. If it is to evolve to that true sandbox that CCP wanted, the elitism and rioting over anything NOT ship balancing has to go.

What do you want? Another 10 years of balancing ships? How long do you think CCP will survive? Stagnation is never good for business.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#112 - 2012-10-18 14:50:13 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Despite the endless stream of tears from high sec carebears, all most null sec players want to rebalance high and null is a x0.8 to be applied to all high sec bounties, and a x1.2 multiplier to be applied to all null sec bounties, to fix the relative risk/reward ratio between the two. I have no problem with people wanting to semi-afk run missions or whatever for isk, they just shouldnt receive similar rewards to people who have to deal with cloaky campingfags 23/7.

And yes those numbers were pulled out of my ass, but you get the general idea.


No.

The null sec isk faucet needs a nerf.

Cloaky AFK = no risk

You sir have never lived in null.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#113 - 2012-10-18 14:52:19 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:

MALARKY the .8 nerf to HI & 1.2 buff to NULL payouts was exceeded in Incursion payout differences and still NULL cried for Incursion nerfs until itwas granted & it broke incursions to the point they are now dying


NERFING IS THE PROBLEM Nerfing is a lazy way to fix issues when appropriate & thoughtfull buffs would incrementally solve issues with the least amount of screaming. CCP's current trend of creating blundering Monty Haul campaigns with huge nerf bats accross the knees of other profitable portions of the sandbox has made the forums into a screaming match with everyone scared thier income will soon be on the chopping block so they figure point CCP in the other direction by screaming:
"GO NERF THE OTHER GUYS SANDBOX DO NOT TOUCH MY SANDBOX MY SANDBOX IS PERFECT & BALANCED" So far the best screamers have been peeps in worm holes whom have not seen CCP touch thier golden gooses in over 2 years Blink


Spouting that nonsense a second time doesnt make it any less wrong.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#114 - 2012-10-18 14:52:22 UTC
Anslo wrote:
But don't bash others for not enjoying it.


The rest of your postings are crap, and I know better than to argue with an ideologue who has probably never examined his own motives lol.

But this part I'm quoting is just too much. Don't bash someone for not enjoying a game (and it's core concepts) that they care enough about to complain about on the forums? That's stupid, I absolutely continue to ask why they play a game they don't like instead of choosing something more to their own liking.

The truth is, some people prefer to be in a situation they don't enjoy and try to change it to suit them rather than going somewhere they might actually enjoy. It's theses people i don't really care for.

I found EVE 5 years ago, found i liked it and it suited my enjoyment needs, and so I play it, it it didn't I'd play something else. But these people pushing for (for example) high sec to be safer or EVe to be less hard core (*looks at Anslo) or in some other way advocating the destruction of the spirt of the game can just take a flying leap off something high. Go and leave those of us who like EVE as originally imagined in peace.

Anslo
Scope Works
#115 - 2012-10-18 14:53:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
Jenn aSide wrote:
Anslo wrote:
But don't bash others for not enjoying it.


The rest of your postings are crap, and I know better than to argue with an ideologue who has probably never examined his own motives lol.

But this part I'm quoting is just too much. Don't bash someone for not enjoying a game (and it's core concepts) that they care enough about to complain about on the forums? That's stupid, I absolutely continue to ask why they play a game they don't like instead of choosing something more to their own liking.

The truth is, some people prefer to be in a situation they don't enjoy and try to change it to suit them rather than going somewhere they might actually enjoy. It's theses people i don't really care for.

I found EVE 5 years ago, found i liked it and it suited my enjoyment needs, and so I play it, it it didn't I'd play something else. But these people pushing for (for example) high sec to be safer or EVe to be less hard core (*looks at Anslo) or in some other way advocating the destruction of the spirt of the game can just take a flying leap off something high. Go and leave those of us who like EVE as originally imagined in peace.



No. Adapt to change or leave. If high sec wasn't bashed and persecuted against, I wouldn't bother bashing pvpers or nul bears or whatever. But they do, so I bash back. I've been on both sides of the fence and I know PVE'ers get shafted quite easily and quite often. They just want to mission and mine and build in peace. They want to unwind and relax. But others are screaming to take that away and, if they dont like it, tell em to go play hello kitty online.

Yes, because loosing accounts and money is good for Eve. What?

They didn't want you to play their way, the nuls/lows wanted THEM to play THEIR way because THEY think Eve is PEWPEW only. Wrong. Eve is what you make it out to be. I'm not advocating for nerfing low and buffing high, I never said that in this thread. I'm against the elitist bullshit attitudes spewed by bitter vets.

Go and leave those of us who like Eve as a casual game in our corner of the sandbox in peace.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2012-10-18 14:54:25 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Despite the endless stream of tears from high sec carebears, all most null sec players want to rebalance high and null is a x0.8 to be applied to all high sec bounties, and a x1.2 multiplier to be applied to all null sec bounties, to fix the relative risk/reward ratio between the two. I have no problem with people wanting to semi-afk run missions or whatever for isk, they just shouldnt receive similar rewards to people who have to deal with cloaky campingfags 23/7.

And yes those numbers were pulled out of my ass, but you get the general idea.


No.

The null sec isk faucet needs a nerf.

Cloaky AFK = no risk

Have you ever lived in null? even a few days, maybe? no?

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave

Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#117 - 2012-10-18 14:56:06 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
That still doesn't offer any insight into what changes you would suggest.
Edit: @ Anslo


What part of "change players attitudes" did you not understand?

It is probably more disbelief that someone could display such arrogance. Do you have any idea how much of a self-conceited prat you sound? "Everyone must change their attitudes to match the way I want this game to be played".

Frankly, **** off mate.


No. You're the very reason Eve is stagnant. It isn't what I think the game is and how it should be played, though that's what every single hard core nul bear pvper says but doesn't admit to.

No, I'm talking about getting RID of the elitism. If you wanna pvp, go for it. But don't act high and mighty with that "you second class citizen pleb non pvper" crap. Eve is a sandbox. If it is to evolve to that true sandbox that CCP wanted, the elitism and rioting over anything NOT ship balancing has to go.

What do you want? Another 10 years of balancing ships? How long do you think CCP will survive? Stagnation is never good for business.

I completely agree with this.

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#118 - 2012-10-18 14:56:25 UTC
Sarah Schneider wrote:

Provocation and implying that I had done something that I didn't do doesn't make it true.



Your implication that they would even begin to consider changing the fundamental format of EVE.......out of an expressed, BY YOU, opinion in a posting.....is damning enough, and comes with an implied lack of faith in their company.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

qDoctor Strangelove
Doomheim
#119 - 2012-10-18 14:57:55 UTC
F'elch wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
0.9-1.0 - CONCORD protection, only level 1 agents.
0.7-0.8 - Less response from CONCORD, faction navies. Level 2 agents.
0.5-0.6 - No CONCORD, guns on gates, less response from faction navies. Level 3 agents.
0.3-0.4 - Gate guns, limited resources for faction navies. Level 4 agents.

This is probably way too harsh on mission runners, but you get the general idea.

You'd end up with a lot of people with no ISK and no ships. Then you'd end up with a lot less people playing the game.



actually, no..
This would destroy the moving of goods in empire, and that would be bad for the game if done over night.

1st step I believe would be to re-distribute the ore in the NULL grav sites. They should be balanced, so that if SOMEONE is mining everything, they could be able to build ships, and not have to do massive trades to empire.

2nd step would be to make owning space useful. For example, make it possible for the owner of a station to set the tax / fee on transactions to what ever they want.

3rd step, make the tax in High-Sec, 5% in 1.0, 4.5% in 0.9, 4% in 0.8 and so on, down to 0 to 100% in null sec.

4th ... you NEED to make it possible to drop multiple stations in each system. Maybe a new type of stations that can hold pretty much the same stuff that you can put on a large (or medium) POS in HighSec. (Make them cost 10 billion isk, and tie to the sov of the master-station in system.

5th ... make SEC status in empire somewhat dependant on upkeep. If a lot of pirates are killed in a system, then raise the sec status, so that agents will send you longer and longer out to do your missions. If there is a system that noone kills the rats in, let the status drop down towards 0.5

6th .. remove faction police from 0.5 systems , keep concorde
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#120 - 2012-10-18 14:59:59 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Falcon
Inappropriate language removed - CCP Falcon