Posted - 2008.08.14 01:27:00 - [61]

 

Edited by: Ifusikae Uiohyu on 14/08/2008 01:27:22

Originally by: Spindletop

---

All things considered, your idea has merit, but simply needs refinement. As a goon, I must say more propositions like this could lead to more faith in the CSMs as a whole, since it proves that they aren't simply concerned with making ISK in highsec.

---

Originally by: Spindletop

---

As a goon

---

Originally by: Spindletop

---

As a goon

---

Originally by: Spindletop

---

goon

---

It just may be a goon posting.

Posted - 2008.08.14 04:27:00 - [63]

 

Edited by: Amarr Holymight on 14/08/2008 04:27:48
Ankh I should hate you for single handledy nerfing suicide ganking ;) but I won't and I think there's some leet ideas here. One of the interesting ones is using ingame products as a simulated environment feed to make the inside of your station thrive this has a nice touch and Eve does need a bit of a femininity here and there.

In essence there's a somewhat good idea bubbling under here, not to be dismissed completely out of hand.I also think a person who hasn't flown in 0.0 has as much right to observe the behaviour and make a value call on what could add to it as anyone.

Posted - 2008.08.14 11:43:00 - [65]

 

Innominate is on the ball here, I read over the details too fast. Regular missions in 0.0 would be a lot better in my opinion.

Ankh, you may have a bit of a skewed image of 0.0. I can't blame you, and I'm happy enough that you try to bring some sunshine in our rotten daily drag, but some remarks are a bit inaccurate. It should also be noted that any self-respecting alliance has an open financial record to CEO's, and I don't know about other alliances but ours is legit. An outpost costs roughly 25 bil, a mothership costs 20 bil, a Titan costs 75 bil. Most titans aren't exactly funded by the pilots themselves.

Oh, and a typical round trip for a carrier costs roughly 10 mil, there's a lot of capitals out there performing alliance work, so there's a nice ISK drain. Then there's alliance-supplied logistics ships, dreads, replacement programmes.... Need I continue?

Posted - 2008.08.14 14:08:00 - [67]

 

Originally by: Elhina Novae

---

I like the general idea as long as there ARE NO NPC MISSIONS in player owned stations, only player made missions.

---

Why? Why no NPC agents? Explain.

Posted - 2008.08.14 14:46:00 - [69]

 

Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre

---

Originally by: Innominate

---

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 13/08/2008 21:55:29
Could you elaborate on this please? Why wouldn't command issue a mission to siege a POS and watch the players organize themselves to do it? And what do you believe to be the fundemental problems of 0.0, and do you have any lines of thought on how to fix them?

---

Because sieging a POS is a big dangerous task. Capital ships and battleships are expensive(and in 0.0 battleships are very hard to make available). You simply don't do so without a competent FC and a well arranged fleet. It isn't just a level 6 mission.

---

So, for example, a CEO of Alliance A creates a mission saying:-

"Destroy the POS of Alliance B in System Y. It's Orbiting Planet W, Moon Z.

We'll pay 10 Billion ISK on Completion split evenly between your Fleet and an Additional 100 Million to the Fleet Commander"

Fleet Commander A sees the Mission, thinks 'I can take this on' and accepts the Mission. It's then up to him to gather the Fleet he thinks will be required for the task, get them into position and Flatten the POS while keeping the Enemy Fleets off his Fleet's Back.

-----

At Least, that's how I'm reading into Ankh's idea.

---

The short version: An incredibly bad idea by someone that has never lived in 0.0 or even been in a player corp.

Posted - 2008.08.14 16:57:00 - [71]

 

Me likee.

Posted - 2008.08.14 23:17:00 - [73]

 

Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre

---

Originally by: Innominate

---

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 13/08/2008 21:55:29
Could you elaborate on this please? Why wouldn't command issue a mission to siege a POS and watch the players organize themselves to do it? And what do you believe to be the fundemental problems of 0.0, and do you have any lines of thought on how to fix them?

---

Because sieging a POS is a big dangerous task. Capital ships and battleships are expensive(and in 0.0 battleships are very hard to make available). You simply don't do so without a competent FC and a well arranged fleet. It isn't just a level 6 mission.

---

So, for example, a CEO of Alliance A creates a mission saying:-

"Destroy the POS of Alliance B in System Y. It's Orbiting Planet W, Moon Z.

We'll pay 10 Billion ISK on Completion split evenly between your Fleet and an Additional 100 Million to the Fleet Commander"

Fleet Commander A sees the Mission, thinks 'I can take this on' and accepts the Mission. It's then up to him to gather the Fleet he thinks will be required for the task, get them into position and Flatten the POS while keeping the Enemy Fleets off his Fleet's Back.

-----

At Least, that's how I'm reading into Ankh's idea.

---

When instead it's easier (and probably less costly) for all involved for an alliance FC to just run the op to flatten said pos that he would have done with or without a mission to do it.

Posted - 2008.08.15 11:44:00 - [75]

 

Ankh, honey, I know you're trying... but some of these simply prove that you've never been to 0.0 for any serious length of time.

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

Agents in 0.0 alliance space!

---

I like the idea, but I'd find it hard to make it not abused for ISK. I'd be more for a roaming agent that goes into 0.0 once in a while than a static 0.0 agent in Alliance space.

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

There are outposts floating around in 0.0, so why no agents?

---

There are agents in 0.0, but not in conquerable space. Just like you can't form a corporation in conquerable space.

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

But enough of that, it gets better. What about... Player created missions.

---

Great idea, but very little practicality. The moment you allow player-specified goals is the moment you allow 90% a large percentage of player-created missions to be griefers looking for an easy gank along the mission's parameters.

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

Missions types could include:
* SCOUT: obtaining the locations of X POSes belonging to enemy corp Y (agent would handle a database of known enemy POS locations to this purpose)

---

Abusable. If you already know of POS locations, then why ask someone else to go locate them? And if you don't know the locations, it takes 30 seconds to find it with a probe or 10 or 15 minutes at the most to find it without (if you're very poor at using your scanner). Chances are that it would take longer to get to the target system unharmed than it would to actually scout the target starbase.

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

* RAID: get POS X in system Y in reinforced mode

---

Perhaps this would be a useful mission. But I can't see it adding any extra depth than currently. And it would be easily abusable by spies noting that the mission's been taken and simply telling the defenders to defend that starbase. Currently, alliances are able to form gangs and get to the target system before telling their gang the purpose of being in target system.

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

* SIEGE: the destruction of POS X in system Y

---

Same as RAID.

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

* SEARCH AND DESTROY: the destruction of X enemy ships

---

Maybe. Again, I can't see it adding much more depth.

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

* HAUL: Move items from X to Y

---

Courier contracts are just as effective.

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

* ACQUIRE: Gather X minerals and deliver them at station Y

---

This might be useful. Why limit it to minerals? Don't limit it to Alliances (or their space).

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

* PRODUCE: Produce specific item X Y times and deliver them at station Z

---

Oh, I like this one. Again, don't limit it to Alliances (or their space).

Posted - 2008.08.15 11:58:00 - [77]

 

Edited by: Internet Knight on 15/08/2008 12:05:29
Your slogan for joining the CSM was that you're just a little everyday person in an NPC corp for the masses of people still in empire (or something to that effect, I don't remember your exact words). What are you doing presenting options and changes for 0.0 if you're trying to represent empire folk?

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

The real question is, why do you do things for your alliance if they don't pay you for every drop of sweat? After all, the alliance makes money off your work through moon mining, leasing out space to others, and so on, while you are squirming to get a few rats or roids to make your ISK off, and even that is probably taxed for some strange reason, stealing even more of your hard work. If you want to be an unpaid slave exploited to fill the command's coffers, then you're just silly, IMO. Viva la revolution!

---

If you're asking that, then it's obvious that you need a little perspective. Just as you've challenged yourself to gain rank 10 factional warfare status in under a week, I challenge you to join a competetive 0.0 alliance for 3 months and actively engage in alliance operations: mining, production (the easy parts), moon mining and reactions (the easy and boring part), setting up starbases (the boring part), hauling (the stressful part), roaming (the fun and stressful part), and starbase warfare (the fun, stressful, and expensive part). If the alliance you choose does not do 2/3 of those, then they are not competitive.

Once you've gained perspective, then you can decide how valid you really think these changes are.

Posted - 2008.08.16 02:46:00 - [79]

 

Originally by: Anahid Brutus

---

hey how about instead of this boring pve **** ccp just reintroduced 0.0 static deadspace plexes so 0.0 residents would have something to fight over instead of practically instanced pve **** that nobody wants

you know, **** that actually demands that you interact/fight other people over resources

---

This is right on. I'm sure to an empire player that doesn't participate in PVP at all, this missions/agents in 0.0 stuff sounds like a great way to placate alliance players and 'add value' to 0.0, but it's going about it all the wrong way.

0.0 doesn't need uncontestable, safe, risk-free ways of making money. It needs risky, contestable, but profitable ways of making money. Contestable meaning hostile forces can earn some profit by disrupting it, risky obviously meaning that you or your source of income can be stolen/destroyed, and profitable is pretty relative-- but I think we can agree that both NPC and conquerable 0.0 should be at least profitable if not more so than empire for the individual player, no? Right now, that only applies to NPC 0.0. That's a problem.


For those who've never left empire, here are the three most common ways to make money in conquerable 0.0, and how they rate in the three aforementioned attributes:

Belt Ratting

• Risky: Yes, you can be killed quite easily while ratting.


• Contestable: No. Roaming gankers killing ratters can't make any money from the belts without spending hours ratting themselves.


• Profitable: Not very, unless you have hours to set up chains and kill them quickly (and find where they go when they hop belts, ugh).

Ratting needs to be changed or improved for profitability, without compromising risk. Rat value being moved more toward loot value (faction items or super-compressed minerals) could result in increased contestability by allowing those who kill ratters to take home a bit more than 2-3m in crappy named loot. Rogue Drones already do this, which is kind of cool, but not quite good enough. Ratting is also extremely, extremely boring. Far more boring than missions.


Mining

• Risky: Same as belt ratting.


• Contestable: Not in the slightest. Moving ore is difficult for miners, impossible for roaming gangs or hostiles doing area denial.


• Profitable: Yes, but only highends.

Contestability could be improved by introducing something like player-built asteroid seed beds that improve spawn rates and quantities but can be raided, disabled, destroyed, looted, etc. Profitability could be improved by introducing ways to harvest significant amounts of lowend minerals in 0.0 belts, bringing their profitability nearly to highend levels and reducing the total reliance on highsec resources that exists in 0.0 currently. Mining is obviously very boring, but can be done half-afk, so this isn't a huge problem.


Exploration

• Risky: Not very, as there are all sorts of barriers to being located (probing down the complex) and then further barriers to being actually tackled (attackers arrive in the first room and can't use MWDs). Same as with missions, basically.


• Contestable: Barely. Hostiles can probe down and run the complex you found before you do, but since complexes can spawn anywhere, there's no reliable way to do this.


• Profitable: Usually very, with exceptions.

Recon probes need to be able to locate explorers in complexes, of course at a reduced speed and reliability from probing someone in normal space. Profession sites have taken a dive, and need to be looked at seriously. Escalation chances and faction/overseer spawn chances need to be improved for some sites. Other sites do far more DPS than is reasonable, and/or dump you into the middle of situations that are nearly impossible to handle without timing your warps perfectly and getting reps on your tank immediately. Complexes need to spawn reliably in certain areas to increase contestability.

Posted - 2008.10.27 04:50:00 - [81]

 

Originally by: Miriyaka

---

This is right on. I'm sure to an empire player that doesn't participate in PVP at all, this missions/agents in 0.0 stuff sounds like a great way to placate alliance players and 'add value' to 0.0, but it's going about it all the wrong way.

0.0 doesn't need uncontestable, safe, risk-free ways of making money. It needs risky, contestable, but profitable ways of making money. Contestable meaning hostile forces can earn some profit by disrupting it, risky obviously meaning that you or your source of income can be stolen/destroyed, and profitable is pretty relative-- but I think we can agree that both NPC and conquerable 0.0 should be at least profitable if not more so than empire for the individual player, no? Right now, that only applies to NPC 0.0. That's a problem.


For those who've never left empire, here are the three most common ways to make money in conquerable 0.0, and how they rate in the three aforementioned attributes:

Belt Ratting

• Risky: Yes, you can be killed quite easily while ratting.


• Contestable: No. Roaming gankers killing ratters can't make any money from the belts without spending hours ratting themselves.


• Profitable: Not very, unless you have hours to set up chains and kill them quickly (and find where they go when they hop belts, ugh).

Ratting needs to be changed or improved for profitability, without compromising risk. Rat value being moved more toward loot value (faction items or super-compressed minerals) could result in increased contestability by allowing those who kill ratters to take home a bit more than 2-3m in crappy named loot. Rogue Drones already do this, which is kind of cool, but not quite good enough. Ratting is also extremely, extremely boring. Far more boring than missions.


Mining

• Risky: Same as belt ratting.


• Contestable: Not in the slightest. Moving ore is difficult for miners, impossible for roaming gangs or hostiles doing area denial.


• Profitable: Yes, but only highends.

Contestability could be improved by introducing something like player-built asteroid seed beds that improve spawn rates and quantities but can be raided, disabled, destroyed, looted, etc. Profitability could be improved by introducing ways to harvest significant amounts of lowend minerals in 0.0 belts, bringing their profitability nearly to highend levels and reducing the total reliance on highsec resources that exists in 0.0 currently. Mining is obviously very boring, but can be done half-afk, so this isn't a huge problem.


Exploration

• Risky: Not very, as there are all sorts of barriers to being located (probing down the complex) and then further barriers to being actually tackled (attackers arrive in the first room and can't use MWDs). Same as with missions, basically.


• Contestable: Barely. Hostiles can probe down and run the complex you found before you do, but since complexes can spawn anywhere, there's no reliable way to do this.


• Profitable: Usually very, with exceptions.

Recon probes need to be able to locate explorers in complexes, of course at a reduced speed and reliability from probing someone in normal space. Profession sites have taken a dive, and need to be looked at seriously. Escalation chances and faction/overseer spawn chances need to be improved for some sites. Other sites do far more DPS than is reasonable, and/or dump you into the middle of situations that are nearly impossible to handle without timing your warps perfectly and getting reps on your tank immediately. truncated

---

not bumping this