I wasn't aware that anybody had ever had interest in the drone regions. I flew with FREGE for a short bit on an alt and I became greatly disappointed to learn that they were based in drone space and that I would have to count on payroll to get money for ratting.
I'll bet the people crying about it are sad they either a) will have a death penalty that will mean something, or b) want to continue exploiting the insurance system for ISK.
Or c) actually have a clue about the economy in eve and would like to see how mineral prices react to the other changes before the only mechanic that is preventing a crash of mineral prices is tinkered with.
So essentially you're saying you don't trust CCP in developing their own game. I've heard they hire economists to help with the in-game economy, and I'm fairly certain the test everything and mine all sorts of data.
I'm fairly certain the test everything and mine all sorts of data.
While this may be true, it would imply that CCP have priorities and goals that are not obvious to the playerbase.
I'd say that was fairly obvious itself actually. Consider how for years now the pvp balance of the races has basically been:
Amarr the best for pvp, Gallente/Minmatar in 2nd/3rd depending on if you are talking small scale or large fleet actions with Caldari solidly consigned to last after the ECM "rebalancing". (sure some will disagree or have specific examples, but I am confident most would agree with that statement)
Mission running is likewise "balanced" the other way; with Caldari widely regarded as the "best" missioning race even after the various torpedo and missile changes.
So yes, when widely known imbalances like that exist you do have wonder what their selection criteria for "problems" is. Was the old nano system more of an imbalance than either of those? Is this new mineral value / insurance payout problem? Did the moon mineral and t2 building actually "balance" anything or just make a different set of people richer?
I'm not whining about any specific change, but you do sometimes have to wonder exactly how they are choosing what to work on and how fast it gets done.
Comments
I wasn't aware that anybody had ever had interest in the drone regions. I flew with FREGE for a short bit on an alt and I became greatly disappointed to learn that they were based in drone space and that I would have to count on payroll to get money for ratting.
So essentially you're saying you don't trust CCP in developing their own game. I've heard they hire economists to help with the in-game economy, and I'm fairly certain the test everything and mine all sorts of data.
While this may be true, it would imply that CCP have priorities and goals that are not obvious to the playerbase.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I'd say that was fairly obvious itself actually. Consider how for years now the pvp balance of the races has basically been:
Amarr the best for pvp, Gallente/Minmatar in 2nd/3rd depending on if you are talking small scale or large fleet actions with Caldari solidly consigned to last after the ECM "rebalancing". (sure some will disagree or have specific examples, but I am confident most would agree with that statement)
Mission running is likewise "balanced" the other way; with Caldari widely regarded as the "best" missioning race even after the various torpedo and missile changes.
So yes, when widely known imbalances like that exist you do have wonder what their selection criteria for "problems" is. Was the old nano system more of an imbalance than either of those? Is this new mineral value / insurance payout problem? Did the moon mineral and t2 building actually "balance" anything or just make a different set of people richer?
I'm not whining about any specific change, but you do sometimes have to wonder exactly how they are choosing what to work on and how fast it gets done.