open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The Streams Must Flow
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 : last (13)

Author Topic

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2009.10.07 12:19:00 - [271]
 

Thanks for the update Chronotis.


But what I still don't understand is that you do so much work to change all the t2 ship (and item?) bpo's to adjust them for less need for high end materials.

Why don't you just change the component blueprints? That for example a reactor blueprint gives not one reactor but 5 - for the same material requirements. This way you would have a much easier way to fine tune the material requirements I think. Additionally the change would be consistent for all t2 stuff. Plus you would only need to change a few bpos instead of so many ship and item blueprints.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2009.10.07 12:31:00 - [272]
 

Quote:
for me personally , after factoring in allteh interuptions , hostile cloakers , roaming gangs , ad-hoc defence fleets , competition and what not , 0.0 would need to yeld at least 60m/hour to be as effective as highsec is

That's kinda the problem there is now isnt it. Not highsec... but 0.0. What you need to do is make it so pvpers are funded by the carebears in their space. To just pvp. No need to carebear. It wont even matter who the carebears are... same corp/alliance or neutrals. The pvpers basically get isk and spend it to protect their space.

Nerfing highsec itself isnt going to fix anything... other then depreciate the value of isk. Which hurts 0.0 more then anyone as their value comes in deadspace/officer modules which the lvl 4 mission runners are the ones using them. If lvl4s are nerfed out of highsec... then we goto lvl 3s and no longer need to buy those gist x-type xl shield boosters. Good luck selling them after that.

Quote:
and IF somehow (i doubt it) 0.0 income will jump the standard 40/hour of highsec l4, what makes you think any alliance that invested time and isk to get systems upgraded like that would let parasiticcarebears use them?

That's the gist of it isnt it? You think anything carebear is absolutely evil and wrong. If they have an sort of reason to exist... you rage.

Quote:
Fact is parasites will stay parasites , and the ideea that pvp`ers will guard parasites 23/7 so...what? Said parasites can turn in a lousy 10% of there income? ridiculous!

who said 10%?? maybe it's 50%.

Quote:
All in all only systems worth defending will be CAP assembly ones , all the rest will be roaming gangs extravaganza . As long as anyone with an alt can PvP AND make isk safely without too much hassle , noone will bother to waste time and effort to get a little more isk...for a few days before someone decides to hotdrop there upgraded system and nuke it to stoneage

except without those carebears in ur space. You wont be able to afford to defend your space as opposed to those who do have carebears in their space funding them with isk. On top of that... pvpers who can do some carebearing during downtimes... will be everso more adept in tossing ships away.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2009.10.07 12:41:00 - [273]
 

Quote:
2. If the scorched earth approach is allowed, will that be feasable with smaller gangs in smaller ships or will it still require en massed Dreads and BS fleets? Or will small roaming gangs only be able to be used in strategic operations to complete the criteria for a scorched earth/capture the flag appoach? I'm alluding to a policy CCP once laid out that Fleets should be the end of a system attack, not the begining.

I really do there's both possibilities. It is a sandbox afterall. Possibility to have your infrastructure destroyed entirely... or have it claimed as the space quality intact.

Quote:
However it is true that some in CVA see these changes as gamebreaking. Why? Because these very same people have spent gigantic amounts of time and ISK in developing Providence based upon a particular set of rules and assumptions and suddenly those rules have been torn up and they are back at square one. It would be like playing a football game, getting 3-0 up and then at halftime the referee announcing that the team with most goals actually loses now. Who wouldn't be upset with that - other than those who were losing of course

How in the world is cva losing anything? Practically the only thing lost is sov4 protection... but everyone is hit on that one. Personally I think losing sov4 is epically gamebreaking on supercaps and will make it very difficult to replace supercaps afterwards. Meaning... people wont be as eager to field their supercaps they have now.

Quote:
My main concern is this. As it stands, based upon the information that CCP has released so far, NRDS as it currently exists in Providence will be unworkable.

How? Nothing it seems to have been said you require to be blue.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2009.10.07 13:23:00 - [274]
 

Quote:
* Hi sec still to profitable considering 0.0 risks and 0.0 becomes another lo sec ( no reason to go there )

That's just plain old crazy. highsec carebearing has direct link to 0.0 profit. nerf them... nerf yourself.

Quote:
* 0.0 to easy to farm with not enough ships destroyed because of NAP trains, that means everybody mines arkonor , have officer spawns .etc thus damaging eve economy

this is in direct conflict with your first point. If 0.0 isnt profitable because of highsec carebearing... then this cant be an issue... because "nobody is going there" to mine arknor or have officer spawns.

Quote:
* 0.0 alliances settling in choke points , and efficiently cut off the rest of 0.0 for colonization.

cov-op + cyno. Pretty much does the job of moving anyone.

Quote:
Easy way to fix it imo. Implement what they are planning and nerf lvl 4s. I know, I know, but seriously, some lvl 4 agents are so ridiculously profitable its insane.

I've read everything ccp has said related to nerfing lvl 4s and it's almost the opposite. They want to keep lvl 4s absolutely the same. They realize that the game revolves around lvl 4s. They also know there are many players who may just quit the game if lvl4s were nerfed. As plexing @ 300mil/month isnt possible. So you end up not being able to pay ur subscription with isk.

As said elsewhere. "These people dont want to pvp" this means... if you nerf lvl 4s. Lets say lvl4s are no longer in highsec. This means they arent going to lowsec or 0.0 to make isk; as they dont want to pvp. They then move to lvl3 missions. They totally burn through these and make now 20-30mil/hr lets say. That becomes the new standard for isk. Except they have no value on those battleship sized modules anymore or 1337 tanking mods(estamels invulns?) as lvl3s are easy to tank. Those people in 0.0 who were doing plexes suddenly discover they cant sell their modules and have to goto lowsec to make profit.

Quote:
No risk + high-reward = BAD.

You say this... and then
Quote:
but its the only reason I don't justify nerfing mechanics that kill missioners. (Salvage stealing, corp ganking, etc) Its simply too profitable.

Not quite no risk when you can list several points which show risk.

While you have large alliances now holding several moons whose profits go into the wallets of maybe 5-10 people? Hell from my experience... each titan pilot is given a moon "to store their titan at" but the moon just happens to be one that profits even @ large tower.

Good alliances have leadership who dont pocket the majority of the profits and instead fund capital ship programs with it; or other systems.

0.0 whiners, whining about lvl 4 mission carebears are either hypocrites or in one ****ty alliance; though the people running that alliance is laughing with the isk they are getting. "Booohooo I never actually do anything to make isk... but im fighting and losing ships to hold all these rich moons that I never get a single isk from. While these carebears in highsec have isk to actually buy ships"

"so im going to fight against 0.0 changes that will nerf my alliance leader's wallets and giving me the opportunity to make isk in 0.0. BAAAH screw that noise."

Siobhan
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.07 13:35:00 - [275]
 

Originally by: Jason Edwards

How? Nothing it seems to have been said you require to be blue.


Please read my previous replies - all of them. I have explained several times already why NRDS will be problematic under the proposed system and will potentially put us at a severe disadvantage as opposed to regular 'NBSI' 0.0 alliances.

I am not saying that it will be impossible - I am saying that it will be difficult (even more difficult than it is now). Hell we are the only people in 0.0 who open our space up to everyone as it stands - so we do have the most experience in game of understanding how it works and the logistics involved in the management of such a system.

As I have said previously CVA will adapt to these changes and try and maintain our core 'values' including NRDS. However Providence will in all likelehood be managed very differently than it is now.

As such there is a substantial risk that those qualities of Providence that many EVE players (and Devs apparently) admired, high population, lots of targets, extremely well utilised space (the only 0.0 region to have achieved such) will be seriously damaged.

Will anyone care? Probably very few beyond CVA and Providence Holders and those who enjoy roaming the region for pew pew.

I and the other CVA posters who are flagging this up are not doing so in attempt to preserve the Sov system as it stands (hell we don't like fueling towers anymore than the next man) - but we do want to ensure that CCP is aware of our concerns that the system as proposed (as much as we know of it to date) discriminates against NRDS systems even more than the current system does - and as such will not increase diversity in EVE 0.0 but could seriously damage it.

There are currently a huge number of drawbacks and issues in managing NRDS systems (most of which come down to a lack of ingame tools or assistance from CCP)- which is why we (and our allies) are the only ones who have pursued it consistently - primarily for roleplay reasons.

Yet NRDS has created the one 0.0 region in EVE which is properly occupied and utilised (which is the apparent overarching goal of Dominion). You would have thought that in proposing changes the Devs would have implemented changes that made it easier to manage/run NRDS (or alternative) systems - yet from the viewpoint of many the proposed changes make it even harder to operate NRDS than it already is. The changes seem to have been created by people who's only experience in game is NBSI - and as such they are automatically biaised towards that system.

Now you could argue that as 95% of EVE is NBSI that is the right thing to do and you may be right - however ask yourself why 95% of EVE is NBSI and why NRDS is so derided/avoided? Could it be because there is a structural inbalance in the way the game operates which makes NRDS so unattractive?

I also get the feeling that some of the ideas behind this change are based on the idea that infrastructure = population. After all you could argue that Provi is so busy because we have built all those shiney stations - yet this would be the wrong 'assumption' to make. It is the system we created which attracted the population which in turn created the income to allow the development of the infrastructure. CCP may be putting the cart in front of the horse in Dominion.

You can classify this as 'whining' if you wish but from my perspective it is the considered viewpoint of highly experienced players who have more firsthand experience in managing a non NBSI 0.0 society than anyone else in the game.

Now there is a rider to this and that is we have yet to see the full detail of the proposals - it is quite possible that the finished article will address some of these concerns - however it would be stupid of us not to voice them in order that they are at least taken into consideration.

Gehnster
Gallente
RED SUN RISING
Posted - 2009.10.07 13:57:00 - [276]
 

It will be more work I think but of course it should be a lot of work to control your own space. I think when the treaty system comes into play it should help out you guys, they were talking about it on the 2 hour long youtube video from Fanfest.

Perhaps you guys will have to go from NRDS to NTSI (No Treaty Shoot It) :)

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2009.10.07 14:39:00 - [277]
 

Valid points Hardin raises. But perhaps you do not need to use treaties to tax people who operates in systems under your sovereignty in Dominion.

Either there could be a direct tax on people ratting in systems under you sovereignty (would seem a bit odd though) or indirect by letting the ratting it self grant the sovereignty holders something of monetary value and not only allow for access to higher system upgrades. (Maybe be rewarded by CONCORD for keeping the general rat population down, they do after all also put bounties on rats in 0.0 space).

Alternatively, the act of ratting could bring down the cost of structures/modules of the sovereign alliance.

evs
Paladin Order
Tread Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.07 14:41:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

A REGION? An alliance your size should only control (at most) a constellation! I know resource wise (apart from moon gold) that hasn't been possible until now, but Dominion supposedly cures that...

howd you come up with that? 1300 pilots in 4-5-6 systems? are you nuts? thats an even worse ratio than what ccp wants to do with dominion...


Quote:

Pardon me.... but Providence is not '0.0'... It is a single region out of 20+(?) in 0.0. The rest IS by and large a stale wasteland!

ok so why do something that could upset the one region that is somewhat working? wouldnt a normal person look at what made that region work, and try to emulate that?

Originally by: evs
actually i am under the impression that ccp is looking at prov as a model for what they want 0.0 to be (in terms of population, market, small scale pvp, NOT NRDS)

Originally by: kerfira
True, but NOT under the control of one alliance!

again, why the hell not? and its i think 5 alliances 'holding' prov

Quote:

I think they got the most troublesome parts of it.... Alliances being able to control far too great an area, moon-gold being way too good, defences being too strong and not requiring people to be there, low resource density....

glad you think those were the problems, and not the SYMPTOMS of a deeper problem (which I haven't fleshed out yet, although others have),
if you didnt defend a cynojammer it would be destroyed, i'm also glad you think that a single tz-heavy alliance has no place in this game either...

Quote:

Placing POS at planets would not make it LESS tedious to shoot POS but just reduce the number. It wouldn't reduce the blobbing, nor make defences effectively weaker (the opposite in fact as you could now POS-spam even high-moon-count systems so an attacker would have no foothold), nor fix moon-gold, nor fix the control of large areas etc. etc.

i didnt say place POS there, just link sov to planets instead of moons, and why should you make it easier on the attacker?

Quote:
Sov linked to POS was broken and had to go! I don't know whether Dominion will work out, but at least its a starting point. POS-sov was a dead end!


yes thats what i said, but change just for the sake of change is stupid, i am not convinced that CCPs ideas will do anything like they think/want them to do

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2009.10.07 14:43:00 - [279]
 

Originally by: Siobhan
Originally by: Jason Edwards

How? Nothing it seems to have been said you require to be blue.


Please read my previous replies - all of them. I have explained several times already why NRDS will be problematic under the proposed system and will potentially put us at a severe disadvantage as opposed to regular 'NBSI' 0.0 alliances.


I have. Your argument is more so hindered upon sov 4 it seems? Seriously CVA exists today because of only supercapitals? If so... why havent you moved to the drone regions?

Quote:
The CVA currently makes minimal ISK from mining/ratting/complexes. Why - because the neutrals we allow in our space use it for us.

Right. CVA makes isk from docking fees, refining tax, market tax, manufacturing/research slot tax. If sov 4 really is going to break your system... Raise the tax? But even then... instead of 2-3 people in 1 of your system... it can be upgraded to get up to 100 people per system. That sure does increase your tax income.

After all this... I still see nothing to suggest you need people to be blue. Unless you have some sort of continuing idea that somehow you need people to be blue in order to protect your supercap towers? Uh not really.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.07 14:48:00 - [280]
 

Sorry but i still havent seen a single real argument why nrds specifically would become harder, and you are constantly ignoring all the huge benefits we will get with the changes compared to the current situation. (Including being able to jump into AAA space with 10 ships without getting dd'd).

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2009.10.07 15:53:00 - [281]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Sorry but i still havent seen a single real argument why nrds specifically would become harder, and you are constantly ignoring all the huge benefits we will get with the changes compared to the current situation. (Including being able to jump into AAA space with 10 ships without getting dd'd).


What benefits?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.07 16:05:00 - [282]
 

Far better ratting, exploration, mining, etc. Providence being in principle just as good space as what other 0.0 alliances have, who have up to now incomes so much higher than ours it isnt even funny? Not getting doomsdayed everytime a gang enters AAA space?

And before you start complaining about neutrals, for sure right now the ratting is just crap because of the crap space, neutrals have very small influence on that, and when i rat i see a vast majority of blues ratting, not neutrals. When looking at exploration it is even more blues, and mining even more blues than exploration. So yes we will benefit ALOT from that.

Lets look at about a 'worst' case scenario, half the ratting, mining, etc happens by neutrals. Then still our space will be roughly half as good as space from other alliances to put it really simple (which is also really inaccurate, because if space allows for 10 ratters to rat in a system, and we got 5 blues wanting to rat then it really doesnt matter for their income if they are only ones or if there are also 5 neuts ratting). That situation would be FAR better for us than the current situation.

Now also take into account we arent talking about 20% better ratting or something like that, we are talking about 10 times better space. If we again follow your 'worst' case scenario, it would result into 10 times more neutrals (which would still mean plenty of stuff for blues). That also means 10 times more income from our stations. And no a 20% increase in station income wouldnt be significant, a 10 times increase would mean that stations become a significant income source (and dont tell me it wouldnt, i got spreadsheet of income of one of our stations here right in front of me).

And then we also got the stuff you cant express in isk. Like more people shooting reds (sure there will also come more reds, but it wont increase 10-fold while defenders will increase 10-fold). And also more people giving intel, better market, etc.

Eniy Oh
Gallente
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.10.07 16:36:00 - [283]
 

I maybe wrong but the reasons Siobhan is giving why NRDS in Providence will be hard to keep are just these 2 problems:

1: Supercap production, which funds most of the NRDS operation (fund what exactly, btw, ship reimbursement?) will become vulnerable as CSAA's can no longer be protected by sov 4 (which will disappear)
2: upgrading systems won't yield CVA a bigger income as all the neutrals drawn to the extra riches don't have to pay taxes nor have to dock

Am I correct these are the main points? Just like to compact the 6/7 screen-long posts here and help the discussion ahead..

Now personally I think even though a lot will change which will be challenging to tackle, I think there's a lot of exagerating here about how much impact these problems will have.

1: production time for supercaps will be cut down to only several weeks (I read this somewhere in a dev blog but I don't remember where exactly). The increased risk will make them more valuable, especially compared to the actual building costs. More profit means more of the whole risk vs. reward ratio. I also don't think it's impossible to succesfully defend a CSAA. Plus if you get so harassed by certain parties, attack theirs as well, eye for eye and make them think twice about doing it again...

2: even if you get a complete surge of neuts coming in, if they don't respect NRDS you can just shoot them. If they DO respect NRDS they might like the area, stick around, become blue and eventually dock more and more. Also if people settle in an area and spend a lot of time there, they WILL move in assets/ships and as such will have to dock more often. If facilities in Providence really are similarily good compared to empire, they might not even want to bring it to highsec to refine/whatever. Also people who benefit from the upgraded systems long-term will realize it's in their own interest to help defend the region.

In short I think it's way too simple to think upgrading the systems in Providence will in some way hurt CVA as all that extra wealth supposedly won't go back to actual space holders. Because it will. It may not be as much as you like, but it will be more than how much you are now earning from docking fees and what not. To be completely honest your space at this point hardly yields much ISK for individual pilots but if that changes for the better, you can expect more tax incomes. CBA to crunch the numbers (which I don't have) but it'd seem so.

Back on topic: I welcome the changes CCP wants to do though I do think it's time to enter the next phase in this debate e.g. we can use some more details/specifics so we can also take away lots of speculation.

Dralor
Trust Doesn't Rust
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.10.07 17:06:00 - [284]
 

I think its funny that everyone keeps spouting the 50-100 people per system that the blogs have said is their target. I dont see how that will be possible! Now days even in good true sec you can get 3-5 ppl in a system "non mining" and make ok money. Any more than that and its realy not worth it. I live in a good truesec area and I still find L4's a much better income source. I can understand some of CVA's concerns "as I do kill them often". With that said Adapt or Die, CVA will UK will all the major alliances will. Also many of people are excited by the idea of their small corps or alliances taking on the big boys "so to speak" Well sorry but, If you cant do it now you cant do it after Dominion. My response to most of this is: yes cva has a right to voice their opinion and yes its possible this might hurt them. But everyone else does also. So please stop trying to make CVA think your way, From what I saw they werent trying to force you to think their way.

Last thing Thanks CVA & Friends for all the fun I'v had in your space killing your Nuets Twisted Evil

SIR PRIME
Minmatar
FireStar Inc
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.07 17:57:00 - [285]
 

Originally by: Eniy Oh
I maybe wrong but the reasons Siobhan is giving why NRDS in Providence will be hard to keep are just these 2 problems:

1: Supercap production, which funds most of the NRDS operation (fund what exactly, btw, ship reimbursement?) will become vulnerable as CSAA's can no longer be protected by sov 4 (which will disappear)
2: upgrading systems won't yield CVA a bigger income as all the neutrals drawn to the extra riches don't have to pay taxes nor have to dock

Am I correct these are the main points? Just like to compact the 6/7 screen-long posts here and help the discussion ahead..

Now personally I think even though a lot will change which will be challenging to tackle, I think there's a lot of exagerating here about how much impact these problems will have.

1: production time for supercaps will be cut down to only several weeks (I read this somewhere in a dev blog but I don't remember where exactly). The increased risk will make them more valuable, especially compared to the actual building costs. More profit means more of the whole risk vs. reward ratio. I also don't think it's impossible to succesfully defend a CSAA. Plus if you get so harassed by certain parties, attack theirs as well, eye for eye and make them think twice about doing it again...

2: even if you get a complete surge of neuts coming in, if they don't respect NRDS you can just shoot them. If they DO respect NRDS they might like the area, stick around, become blue and eventually dock more and more. Also if people settle in an area and spend a lot of time there, they WILL move in assets/ships and as such will have to dock more often. If facilities in Providence really are similarily good compared to empire, they might not even want to bring it to highsec to refine/whatever. Also people who benefit from the upgraded systems long-term will realize it's in their own interest to help defend the region.

In short I think it's way too simple to think upgrading the systems in Providence will in some way hurt CVA as all that extra wealth supposedly won't go back to actual space holders. Because it will. It may not be as much as you like, but it will be more than how much you are now earning from docking fees and what not. To be completely honest your space at this point hardly yields much ISK for individual pilots but if that changes for the better, you can expect more tax incomes. CBA to crunch the numbers (which I don't have) but it'd seem so.

Back on topic: I welcome the changes CCP wants to do though I do think it's time to enter the next phase in this debate e.g. we can use some more details/specifics so we can also take away lots of speculation.


Thats generaly our viewpoint. Our concern is also however that upgrading our systems in a very real way does hurt us as we not the visitor pays the cost and fees. People will go to a huge amount of effort just to avoid docking and we have much cheaper docking than most of eve - its just they compare it to high sec where they don't have to pay to dock at all. You can come across a fairly constant flow of anchored passworded cans of such people. The treaty system is an exciting idea and I was salivating at fanfest until they said it wouldn't be in for Dominion. It was later when I tried to imagine how you'd enforce a treaty system under NRDS that I realised it wasn't going to help us much. What happens when a neutral who has never pirated enters providence and says "No, I'm not agreeing a treaty"?

Caldor Mansi
Posted - 2009.10.07 19:33:00 - [286]
 

Originally by: SIR PRIME
What happens when a neutral who has never pirated enters providence and says "No, I'm not agreeing a treaty"?


To make the changes meaningfull, it is essential to include sovereignty/upgrade owner into tax/payment mechanics.

The treaty system might take place to describe rental/access relationship. No treaty, no exclusive services.



How is space owner supposed to make money from people mining in the area is beyond my imagination.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.07 19:40:00 - [287]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 07/10/2009 19:41:18
Hope they reprocess at our stations.



Sir prime, you are still forgetting that number 1 has nothing to do with nrds, and that other alliances also lose far more due to removal of their isk printing moons.

Number 2 is a point, but considering how much more useful our space will be compared to what it is now (completely worthless), i can live with that.

Bayleran
Posted - 2009.10.07 22:40:00 - [288]
 

I'm pretty stoked for these changes.
I can't wait to see what happens out in nullsec during the first couple of weeks after they've been applied! Twisted Evil
Boredom is the greatest evil, and it sounds like Dominion will take some solid steps toward combating it.

GeneralMartok
Caldari
the united
Posted - 2009.10.07 23:25:00 - [289]
 

Originally by: SIR PRIME
What happens when a neutral who has never pirated enters providence and says "No, I'm not agreeing a treaty"?


Anyone not willing to pay to help the glory of the Amarr Empire is an enemy of the Amarr empire Laughing

Kaalen
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.10.08 01:03:00 - [290]
 

These changes look like they could be amazing if done right. I am really looking forward to seeing how this changes the current political landscape of EVE. If 1000 players can fit into 10-20 fully upgraded systems, as this blog would have us believe, then we can expect 0.0 to become far more densely populated and interesting.

My wishlist for system upgrading:

Have system upgrades stay in place when a system is taken, but allow them to be destroyed, damaged or otherwise sabotaged. Giving you a reason to take someones system rather than build your own from the ground up whilst making sure that not all of 0.0 becomes a fertile paradise overtime and keeping fully upgraded systems both rare and highly sought after.

Building on this, make fighting for space work in a way which forces you to take space on the edge of an enemies territory first and work your way in. This provides a reason to use the above proposed mechanic to raid behind enemy lines, cutting off their supplies to weaken their forces whilst other fleets fight on the front lines to take their space.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2009.10.08 01:20:00 - [291]
 

When did this thread become a 'Saving CVA from bankruptcy' discussion fora?

Kaman Jho
Posted - 2009.10.08 01:21:00 - [292]
 

On the topic of Moon Mineral price "fixing": Instead of goofing with BP ingredient schedules, why not introduce a dynamic way to inject moon minerals into the game, maybe as loot drops from Drones? The higher the Drone difficulty the more exotic the mineral.

I would think this could be monitored and tweaked as population changes.
It would create an actual use for drone plexes and missions.
It would create an ever changing moon mineral market place.
It would give an alternate source that cant be locked down by a mega alliance.
It would allow smaller corps/alliances the chance at doing POS reactions they normally would not have access to without a rare goo moon.

When scanning in low sec it was not uncommon to see MANY drone plex's untouched because they were just too much a hassle to carry off the rocks. As a missioner now I usually blitz or skip the drone missions, too much hassle.

To be honest I want to be in null sec, but I don't like the thought of signing on as a serf, or indentured slavery. CVA Looked promising, but without access to their intel channel I was flying blind, and was turned down for access to the intel channel, so I left. Hopefully some form of the sov change will make null more accessible to us "under dogs". Especially for those of us that just like to log on and run a quick mission or plex, check on the POS's, see how the next cap build is going and hit the sack after work.



Inferno Styx
Caldari
Posted - 2009.10.08 01:23:00 - [293]
 

Speaking on the geographic affects Dominion is going to have. I think we are going to start seeing a more layered approach to how a major alliance is going to set up their territory.

1. Frontier systems- Defensive upgrades mostly, maybe 2-3 systems deep. Gives you a reasonable area for a roaming gang to defend your other areas.

2. Inner rim- Defensive upgrades again, starting to get more economic upgrades mainly used by small ratting or mining gangs

3. Core- Full Defensive and lots of economic upgrades, where most of your economic activity will occur including your major manufacturing activities will occur. Capital ships and every other manufacturing under the sun.

You also have to note that there are hundreds of choke points in 0.0. Smart strategic planning by the alliance will put their core systems behind 2-3 choke points. Your defense fleet can easily engage the enemy @ the first choke point. If they are pushed back, Where a stronger force will be waiting to engage the enemy at the next choke point.

As for a solution to CVA & Co's issue a easy solution to the issue might be to adopt the "Holder's Citadel" idea where your best systems are for the sovereign's private territory. If the people who populate the outlying wish to have the benefits of upgrades then they could donate to the upgrade funding of their own choice. This allows you to upgrade the systems and at the same time have a place for your members to mine or rat with limited competition.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.10.08 02:16:00 - [294]
 

Quote:
You can come across a fairly constant flow of anchored passworded cans of such people.


I think most people would consider it reasonable to not allow anchored cans in your space.

Just a thought.


Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2009.10.08 05:50:00 - [295]
 

Originally by: SIR PRIME

Originally by: Eniy Oh

2: upgrading systems won't yield [anyone] bigger income as all the neutrals drawn to the extra riches don't have to pay taxes nor have to dock



Thats generally our viewpoint. Our concern is also however that upgrading our systems in a very real way does hurt us as we not the visitor pays the cost and fees.



As yet, there are not specifics on this. Hopefully CCP sees it, and who ever holds Sov gets a cut of the activity regardless of who is doing it. There does not need to be a tax involved, there does not need to be a treaty.

Suppose there is a rat with a 100 ISK bounty. That player has 10% tax to his corp. The player gets 90 and the corp gets 10. But that does not mean the rat doesn't also produce ISK for the sov holder. When the calculation is done on that rat, the total bounty could be multiplied by some fraction say 0.15, this result could be paid to the sov holding alliance as a "Sov Bounty", 15 ISK in the example. This would be in addition to the normal bounty. Then it doesn't matter if the player was blue or red or plaid. The more people shooting rats in your system, the more ISK you get AND the activity count will go up too, unlocking the next upgrade/infrastructure/thinger.

As for the Cyno and treaties and costs, that is where it seems to me the treaties will be more important. It may be that Providence, not to mention Delve, etc, will need to see the emergence of a "Khanid Protectorate" or a "Ammatar Mandate" in 0.0.

Till we have details ... Thumb twiddling

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2009.10.08 11:34:00 - [296]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
As yet, there are not specifics on this. Hopefully CCP sees it, and who ever holds Sov gets a cut of the activity regardless of who is doing it. There does not need to be a tax involved, there does not need to be a treaty.

Being able to say 'Screw you, I'm not paying' is one of the core principles of EVE. Blanket tax would be against that.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.08 12:27:00 - [297]
 

In an ideal situation you would get popup or something if you want to follow the rules, which include the tax and possibly other things. If you say yes you pay tax, if you say no you become automatically red. But that probably is never implemented :)

ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.10.08 12:41:00 - [298]
 

tbh, after reading again all the stuff said by devs so far I dont see the point in even trying to hold sov. You can apparently hold a station without having sov, so that takes care of production (not that you need one in 0.0 for that), as for mining it can be done with or without sov, moon mining does not require sov, reaction too. Sov has no real effect on pew pew, and if you do chose to take it you need to pay rent and maintainance. So ...

whats the point of taking sov again? Razz

Some insignificant possible bonuses and pointless investments in something you can lose in 48h if the opponent has big enough blob? Risking your hard earned assets getting stuck in hostile stations under your sov? Do you know what you want to do at all? It seems to me you dont.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2009.10.08 13:17:00 - [299]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
In an ideal situation you would get popup or something if you want to follow the rules, which include the tax and possibly other things. If you say yes you pay tax, if you say no you become automatically red. But that probably is never implemented :)

Oh my... what a great idea. Unfortunately that would never grace the mind of a CCP Dev. *sarcasm alert*

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2009.10.08 13:47:00 - [300]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
There does not need to be a tax involved, there does not need to be a treaty.

Being able to say 'Screw you, I'm not paying' is one of the core principles of EVE. Blanket tax would be against that.


Reading comprehension is a good thing. Try it sometime.


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 : last (13)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only