These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends

First post First post First post
Muffet McStrudel
Gallente Federation
#2141 - 2014-04-03 13:07:33 UTC
If isk sinks are so needed in the game, then why not nerf the ability to pay for accounts with isk?

WTF do you think is creating all this inflated isk in the first place? People with multiple non-cash accounts farming the crap out of null and high sec with 3+ simultaneous accounts. Do you honestly think either inflation or lag would be an issue if people actually had to pay for their accounts with cash? I'm betting you'd see a return to reasonable server numbers, like 11k-14k on at any one time.

Que the poor people crying right now that they cannot afford $15 a month per account ...
Muffet McStrudel
Gallente Federation
#2142 - 2014-04-03 13:10:01 UTC
Cyrek Ohaya wrote:
People... it's only a 5% reduction in bounties to generally reduce the easy isk fire hose on null that CCP wanted to find a solution to, if you don't like it, DON'T use it!

In the event your personas big ego is inconvenienced by one of these, use an alt to share the profits of it, IT will pay EVERYONE involved no matter where they are, or logged off.

Yes the pvp risk has been raised and that is what null should be about, also no one is going to put their ship at risk for 10m-20m worth of bounties. Closing statements: The goondrone tears in this thread are delicious, understand that there a lot more players with no voice on this board that supports CCP's idea.

If you want to increase the pvp risk in null, let's start with nerfing cloaky campers and hotdrops. Or do they not have the nutsacks to uncloak or fight unless they outnumber their opponents 8:1?
marly cortez
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2143 - 2014-04-15 13:08:35 UTC
My Alliance has against considered objections now been forced to allow these abominations on an experimental basis for a period to asses there impact on PvE in the area,

Those that forced a CeO vote on the issue which has rumbled on since CCP first announced there prospective introduction have in the view of those more experienced in the working of EVE made a grave error of judgement, seeing only the 'Possibility of personal gain at the expense of there Alliance members rather than the rewards for all idea that was first moted in the DeV blogs.

It has been argued loud and long to the point of hysteria by some that in banning these structures across the Alliance our leadership was in some way 'Robbing' it's members of income, again seeing only the chance to get there hands on amounts of ISK they believe is rightfully there's to take at will when ever they so choose and are utterly unwilling to acknowledge the fact that the design of the structures operation is fundamentally flawed.

In this we have already seen when these have been deployed large numbers of PvE players depart the system believing that there income is rightly under threat by those that deployed the structure, the obvious potential for internal conflict in any Alliance allowing these structures is greatly eased by this behavior yet should it be this way, were one ignorant individual can clear a system for there own benefit by simply deploying an ESS, on the one hand they gain in that there is no longer competition for resources, on the other they loose the chance to steal other peoples ISK, had CCP considered this point maybe they wold have taken the time to compartmentalize the retained ISK/LP and made it unobtainable others or was the original intention not only to reduce PvE income but also to cause internal conflicts in Alliances by these methods.

Again another good idea poorly thought through by CCP in favor of the rabid PvP few.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.