Right, right.
We should totally balance the way the game works on what is most convenient for a 5-6 person group of casual players living in a wormhole.
You are out of your mind, and the feeling of entitlement it takes to make this argument with a straight face is off the charts.
No one said so. You are, because you completely lack arguments in this topic, from the start.
All the dozens and dozens of concerns raised by multiple people in this toppic are by far more convincing and honest than anything coming from you or CCP. And you adressed none of them, just talking nonsense about âgoing offensiveâ or âpreparing to fightâ.
But maybe you have no clue what âbalanceâ means. It means that there is as much weight on BOTH ends of the stick. And if one end of the stick is significantly smaller, it needs MORE attention, not less. This is the reason, why de-facto every civilized society protects the weaker minorites. Else balance is not achievable. What you propose is mobland. It makes the game worse.
Yes, they did. I suggested you get a fortizar, you claim you canât afford it. Despite wormholes being one of, if not the most, lucrative areas in the game, you canât afford it, because your 5-6 person group of casual players canât generate that kind of money. So screw everybody else who wants this change because they want to clear these structures out faster given how cheap they are and how infrequently they generate anything more than an uncontested killmail in other areas of the game.
No, you want us to leave them alone just for you, and nothing Iâve said or CCP said is compelling simply because you donât agree with it and it will make you change what you do. And the 10 people who agree with you and have been posting here over and over again are not indicative of the vast majority of people who play the game and who are excited about these changes.
Youâre going to have to figure out how to deal with these changes, because I donât see them changing. I did what I could to get an extra day for wormholers, but weâve not seen any other motion, so I would assume these are going in the way they were outlined. And no amount of yelling at me is going to change that.
I have to say the few players get beneficial in this changes are nullsec bloc FCs and high sec core picker. NO ONE ELSE GET HAPPY. Shield donw = evade make the m structure completly useless.
So, between nullsec bloc FCs (and their line members) and highsec folks, youâve got like 75% of the game.
Why donât you understand that placing a fortizar makes the problem WORSE? It attracts the eviction corps like a fiery beacon. Why donât you get that simple fact? And you just canât fight them as small corp, you wonât even find allies against them.
Even IF we would finance one, we would WORSE our situation while depleting our wallets. A LOT!
Next thing is, you canât compare C1/2/3 WH-Space to what the organized Corps get out of their C6/C5. Thats not even closely the same amount of ISK squeezed out of these holes.
We had arranged with the status quo and have in no way asked anyone or proposed anythign that would âscrew everyone else overâ. You big blocs have shown to be unable to deal with ninja-anchoring because you are to incompetent to watch and react in time if anyone tries. And are too lazy to come to another time when removing them. Thats FAR from being âscrewed overâ. âScrewing overâ is what your proposed changes will do to others for your convenience. Donât twist the roles here.
Ah
Then the daily content generated by these structures, the various states of play around them, is entirely invalid because there are a number of them that are inconvenient for âeverybody else who wants this change.â
So screw everyone else who do not want this change because it can save you some time and effort to remove them, the content they get from them, though daily, is infrequentâŚor invalid altogether to satisfy the definition of infrequent.
âŚin a Sandbox game wherein playstyles and content types are supposed to be valid provided they donât conflict with ToS
Ah, so the change is fundamentally not about Game Balance but one of preference and convenience? (if we even assume universal support in those groups which Iâm guessing you lack data to support)
You canât fight them with an astrahus, either. Thatâs the reality. You are relying solely on them being a pain in the ass to clear and not worth the money to survive. And maybe that helps you, but it shouldnât at the expense of the rest of the gameâs gameplay. Again, I donât know why youâre demanding or expecting that game mechanics be designed around your small group of casual players. Thatâs not fair to the rest of the game.
These structures will still generate daily content. But, again, CCP has to do whatâs in the best interests of the entire game, not what tiny groups of players who want to have structures that they donât have to defend want. This is a sandbox game, yes, but that does not mean you can do whatever you want to do with nobody every impacting that gameplay. You want three timers, you need a large structure.
You can read what Aurora wrote about why they chose to do this. And if you donât think that doing something that benefits the largest number of players is a good thing, I donât know what else to tell you.
What about medium Freeports? Like a publicly used Raitaru for blueprint research. How will those players know that their assets are in danger of going to asset safety?
Oh well, then why have feedback topics at all? Seriously, the feedback of this topic was devastating. From the overwhelming majority of all posters. And the answer is âYeah we are doing it anyway because we know we have the support from the nullsec FC and their grunts!!!â.
Then just be honest on the announcements and donât talk about game balance and structure ecosystems and all that stuff, just say âWe want to make the game even more easy for the big alliances and their FCs and thats why we make the homes of the smaller groups easier to destroy.â
That would be honest and straightforward.
See, Iâd argue that is part of the problem⌠CCP has made a ton of great stuff to do that is neither of those things. Those other things tend to get the short end of the stick because fewer people play them, which makes them less fun to play, which makes fewer people do them⌠Itâs a vicious cycle.
My view of EvE is that the fun of it mostly comes from doing new things. Going to see if I can make a go of mining in Pochven or trying to live out of an orca in NPC null or grinding ORE LP or whatever other ill-advised nonsense⌠None of those things are fun to do for 500 hours. All of them are a blast to try for 20 hours. And there are 1,000 things like that to choose from. Thatâs what makes EvE so amazing IMO.
To use your analogy, I am not convinced it is like null bloc is living in the whole mansion and small pvp-averse corps are only living in one room. I think itâs more like most everybody, including null bloc, is only living in one collection or another of a few rooms, and the way to make EvE cooler is to make more of the rooms attractive.
What I want CCP to do is not to optimize for any particular group or playstyle, I want them to optimize for variety. My dream announcement for Fanfest would be âwe are introducing 3 new types of space and 5 more professions with their own skill treesâ or somethingâŚ
But something that is a Convenience for the majority of players is hardly the same as Game Balance
If this isnât a question of game balance, of roles and interplay between those specific equipment roles, then there isnât an argument that can be made to convinceâŚthereâs nothing to argue against, as itâs preference, not based on anything other than what a cross-section of the player base thinks they wantâŚif we can even assume it was the Majority of the Players expressing preference or just a small subgroup thereof advocating for a change, and a smaller subgroup pushing through an additional change
Though, Scarcity was a hated change, it was, in the immediate term, negative for all players, definitely not one that players liked. But overall, it was designed to be positive for the Game Ecosystem. A change or feature doesnât, into and of itself, have to be popular to be good, balanced, or healthy for the game state. Nor does a change or feature being popular necessarily make it good, balanced, or healthy for the game state.
I remain unconvinced this will be a good game balance change for the majority of players
These both cannot be true, they directly contradict each other.
It must therefore follow that you do not consider the daily content as valid, which inherently means that the change must not have taken into account the possibility. This supports the idea this was pushed through by a subgroup of players claiming to speak for a majority, who do not engage with or otherwise consider the content valid.
Yes, the negative posts from the same 10 people over and over again was totally devastating.
They took feedback and made changes based on the feedback. That they didnât agree with your specific feedback but did agree with other peopleâs is the nature of how this stuff works.
Thatâs a good point - the in-game notification should being after the shield timer now.
Theyâre not contradictory at all, unless you want to be pedantic. They create some content, and they will continue to create some content. People will still try to defend these timers in some areas of space, and theyâll still generate killmails and timers in other areas of space. Whether this is âgoodâ content or busy work depends on your point of view, but itâs not like suddenly no one is ever going to defend a medium structure again. The same reasons theyâre defended now will still exist even after this change. I just donât buy the argument that the people who successfully defended these on armor timers now will never again ever, ever never, ever ever be able to defend them on an armor timer after the change.
Thatâs fine, and I doubt even after the changes go through that youâll be convinced. You donât have to be convinced. Neither do I. The changes will come regardless, and what we all have to do is adapt to them.
Thanks for the response. I hope youâre able to raise that point with CCP and weâll see another revision.
If this is true, then there is and was no point in having the thread in the first place
As youâve as much as just said that feedback will not matter at this juncture to CCP or to you, one of the player representatives
Unless feedback will matter and youâre simply attempting to discourage and silence dissenting voices, which remains a possibility, especially based on the hostility in your responses
Two statements, both of frequency, cannot be true unless one considers the âdaily contentâ invalid or âgoodâ which is a subjective. No pedantry requiredâŚthey both canât evaluate to true without caveats.
Youâre also assuming that the structure defense itself is the content Iâm talking about, or the armor timer specificallyâŚwhich kind of shows that you do not consider all forms of content as valid into and of itself.
I honestly donât understand how you can say there was no point in having the thread in the first place when CCP literally just came today and noted they were making changes based on the feedback in the thread.
That they havenât taken into account your feedback likely means they arenât going to. But hey, maybe Iâm wrong, and theyâll make additional changes. But, again, yelling at me and being pendantic is not going to change my mind nor is it likely to make me advocate for your position.
Of course they have caveats, you took them both out of the context they were made.
And yes, I view some forms of content as inherently better than others. A structure timer that generates a fight between fleets is, in my view, inherently superior to one that does not, for instance. But some people have no problems with uncontested timers and are perfectly happy just hitting anything (I have done that myself, and did it tonight, for instance). In the end, itâs still content, even if itâs not what I consider to be the kind we want to encourage more of.
If one assumes the content being referenced is entirely around the timers
well letâs examine their context in a bit fuller light
And
Even within their contextual nature, they are still contradictory without qualification or caveat, universals
What other content are you referring to in a discussion about whether medium structures should have two or three timers?
Content predicated on the particular structures continuing existing, especially in areas wherein replacement of them is either difficult or mechanically impossible where changes to the defensive posture tend to mean significantly more than previously, as the structure itself is whatâs valuable. Not to say it should be invincible, or have no risk associated, or be treated any different from any other structure in the game no. (Even though in some instances they are already treated differently than any other structures in the game)
Politiking, storylines, etc
There is nowhere, other than pochven, where replacement of these structures is difficult or mechanically impossible. This is part of the problem. They are cheap and they are prolific.
As for the rest, I said they infrequently generate anything more than an uncontested killmail - that is still âdaily contentâ for people, which was what I meant in the second paragraph. Please, stop with the pedantric parsing of every thing I say to try to find some fault and drag out this conversation.