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 : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (13)

Author Topic

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:32:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Herr Nerdstrom
I think I can see what CCP is trying to do, but it seems like it is walking a fine line between introducing true grinding into a non-grinding game and breaking a lot of stuff. For example, an interview leading up to fanfest with a CCP member stated that people who don't want to die are going to "be very upset." This implies a lot of PvP. How does this work together with upgrading systems via ratting and mining?

In addition, CCP has stated that it wants to see fleets of super capitals destroyed more often. How is it possible to replenish larger numbers of these massive ships without providing something more than a 24-48 hour stability to a system which mines for and builds these ships?

It sounds to me like CCP wants a lot more PvP and more rapid transition of sovereignty but without providing a stable enough environment for mining and manufacturing. After all, what's the incentive to mine in a system with tremendous resources if it comes under attack every day?



I'd like to do a simile to one of my favorite games; starcraft Wink
So you have a terran base. Your SCVs are your miners/carebears and your base is the infrastructure and your empire, all other units are your PvPers. You're under constant attack by a zerg base and your SCVs suffer greatly, making your whole base vulnerable.

Now there are three things you can do:
1) Just lie down and die under the relentless waves of zerg (not very fun).
2) Cram your base full of siege tanks and missile turrets (especially around the SCVs), making it a lethal porcupine. Ie your pvpers defend your carebears and you all survive.
3) As a last effort, build a good number of battlecruisers and take the fight to the zerg base, destroying their workers and infrastructure, giving you time to rebuild your own.

I think it all sounds fun, and would require a more constant vigilance to protect your base. Just remember, when the enemy extends to attack you, they also open themselves up for attack. Your squishies might be more vulnerable in the new system, but so is your enemies squishies. You don't attack someone to take over their space, you attack someone to prevent them from taking over your space.

Crylnish Hlar
Vultus Intentus Constructum
Sons of RA
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:33:00 - [62]
 

What I think alot of people are forgetting is that the existing systems aren't going to be "down graded" post-patch - all of the resources currently avaliable will still be there. Sure most of 0.0 will net you a fairly poor income at current levels but you will still have access to abc ores as they are.

I don't see the EVE sucumbing to the grinding virus either, like many people have alreay posted the mining requirements will be left to the miners to fulfill, the plex recruirements to the PvE pilots etc etc. I doubt that the more generic/practical upgrades - cyno jammers etc will be in anyway linked to the resource requirements. Hence, if you want more abc ores you'll get them if your mining already, don't want to mine? Then just go about your business as usual.

Another element of the upgrades that I think people may have misconstrued is the way in which upgraes operate. I'll continue with the mining theme, plenty of 0.0 already has ABC ores along with the typical lower end ores thrown in, rather than ceasing to spawn ABC 'roids in these systems unless XYZ upgrade is present I'd imagine that XYZ upgrade will simply bump up the prevalence of ABc ores, or increase the average 'roid density, or increase the average quantity of 'roids in a systems belts. Much like the T3 subsystems I'd imagine that there will be a number of upgrades for each activity, say 5 mining upgrades each with a different focus, in addition as you improve the mining infastructure of your system you unlock the next teir of upgrades all of which are a few % more efficient/effective - much as T1/T2 operates.

So whats all this mean for the PvP'ers uninterested in mining/carebearing? CCP intend to reward investment in a system, investing isn't a requirement and I'd imagine alot of your existing income sources <read: Empire IV alt> won't be greatly distupted, meaning you can continue to PvP at the same rate you currently do. If there intention is to have alliances focus on individual systems why should CCP add in an additional ISK source for PvP'ers when they're already able to keep themselves solvent? Move the example away from the indivdual PvP'er and again, why should CCP enable GS/Ken Zoku etc to fund large-scale ship replacement schemes unless they invest in their territories? Unlike the individual, the major alliances will have to source additional funds to replace the ISK lost from the R64's, this shouldn't be game-breaking for a 3000 man organisation, merely game altering and therefore breaking the stagnation the economy etc is falling into.

My 2 pence.

Brolly
Caldari
5ER3NITY INC
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:34:00 - [63]
 

I love some of these posts whining about the grind factor. The reality is

People like to mine
People need to mine to get resources
People like to shoot rats
People need to shoot rats to get isk

What CCP are trying to do, form my point of view is..

Stop alliances holding onto massive swathes of space and resources
Get more peeps into 0.0, the more people seems to = more resources
Make 0.0 richer, both financially and socially
Create greater 0.0 societies

People wont be grinding, they will just be doing what they do but with greater purpose. Due to the greater riches, more peeps should flood to 0.0 and not mind getting killed due to the relative cheapness of ships.

In other words, more pvp, greater rewards, closer communities, new alliances and general greatness.

Imho, there is really no reason to whine.

Aralis
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:37:00 - [64]
 

Why anyone would think this would mean there would be more people in 0.0 is completely beyond me.

If it goes through like this I confidently predict a rush to high sec.

And to the last poster you are totally wrong. This is a serious nerf to what profits could be made in 0.0.

DaiTengu
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:37:00 - [65]
 

Oh look, another one of those devblogs that says absolutely nothing that everyone didn't already know in as many words as possible.

Antaris Xenal
Gallente
Fear Inc
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:00:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Aralis
Why anyone would think this would mean there would be more people in 0.0 is completely beyond me.

If it goes through like this I confidently predict a rush to high sec.

And to the last poster you are totally wrong. This is a serious nerf to what profits could be made in 0.0.


How do you know that once systems start getting upgraded from small communities of people making isk. That systems won't start providing even more isk and profits than they do now? Just look at providence, most of it is pure **** for ratting tbh. Once dominion hits, all those people ratting and getting ****ty rats, will start getting good rats for once. How can this be bad?

Pnuka
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:02:00 - [67]
 

As long as it is worth living in 0.0 over running l4's in Empire, I really don't care what you do.

Currently, it is but the difference isn't enough to override the saftey of Empire.


Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:04:00 - [68]
 

I am curious about this "infrastructure hub". Is it something that enemies can easily destroy? Because if you have dozens of people dependent on a single system, and somebody can just hot drop a capital fleet in an odd time zone and send your system back to the stone age, that seems an extreme vulnerability.

I am particularly thinking about the plight of a new corporation or alliance staking out a 0.0 system for the first time. Let's say my corp picks out a dead-end system somewhere and sets up a POS to rat or mine out of. Maybe we're all in the same time zone. Can some roaming gang come by and destroy our infrastructure overnight?

I like that Dominion will improve the NPCs if you kill a lot of NPCs, will improve the ores if you mine a lot of ore, and so on. Would it maybe be better if there was no "infrastructure hub"?

Armoured C
Gallente
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:08:00 - [69]
 

Why are people saying "what will be the point of attacking other peoples space if it all the same?"


Where are all the alliances that attack people for fun , why does there need to be a reason to attack someone. Doesn't anyone attack for the lolz anymore , has the NAP train grown so big in 0.0 that you have effectivly made it boring for your self?


Name 3 massive wars that are happening in 0.0 at the mo were they are fighting for sov this week. With the amount of 0.0 space there should be at least 2 big sov wars happening all the time.


Moon mining has made the high paid areas worth fighting for but now that they are gone you ask what is worth fighting for? This is eve you don't need a bloody reason do it anyway. Fight because they called you fail. Fight because they called your leadership. Fight because your socks turned pink in the wash. Your free from pos bashing which made sov wars so boring, it changed to more small fleet war with the taking and distruction of small modules and more income for people in 0.0

Hell fight over there awesome hello kitty plush toy but my god fight over something as your nap ttain is making 0.0 stale and boring



Rant over/

Slobodanka
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:25:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Slobodanka on 05/10/2009 16:34:09
Edited by: Slobodanka on 05/10/2009 16:27:13
On the money making chars per system thing: Currently one char can chain a 15-20 belt system in a nighthawk and still be fast enough to find non-respawned spawns. Doing this in a -0.6 system will yield about 15-20mil ISK per hour if you don't loot or salvage (but looting and salvaging takes time and increases the risk of being ganked). That sucks compared to empire lvl4s. That will have to change. And we're still talking 1 char in a 15-20 belt -0.6 true sec system.
Even the -1.0 systems today with 20+ belts can not support 5 chars ratting or at least reduces their income far below what empire lvl4s would make.

Blog said something about 50-100 chars making money in one system... don't get this wrong but unless you plan to put mission agents in there that's pretty much impossible. Even if you combine all the NPCers, miners and explorers (can't think of any other way to actively gather resources) the number is mind boggling. 10 hulk miners can strip a belt in matter of minutes, I personally know people who run 5-10 mining chars at the same time to make ISK. Put ten of those together and all the belts are gone till next respawn. Now add few ratters (even with 100 belt system it's still only 5-10 chars if you want better money than lvl4s) and an explorer or two (I'm guessing we won't have 10+ DED10/10s in each systems to get that 50-100 per system figure) and you're nowhere near that number.

I really like where CCP is going with this thing reducing the income from passive resources, but as long as empire is more profitable than 0.0 money making... people just won't bother.

I really hope you have thought this one through... if you haven't the **** is going to hit the fan and it won't smell pleasant. At all.

EDIT: Almost forgot: Putting few stealth bombers in a money making system pretty much shuts it down for the duration. Except for exploration maybe and even that one is tricky. Unless you do something about that all that fancy infrastructure won't help anyone but griefers doing their thing.

ANOTHER EDIT: Adding more belts just screams for organized macro/slave farming. Do not (under any circumstances) allow that to happen. Evar. Or I will fart in your general direction!!!

Shidhe
Minmatar
The Babylon5 Consortuim
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:32:00 - [71]
 

Edited by: Shidhe on 05/10/2009 16:32:42
more resources better spread in 0.0 = more people in 0.0 (its pretty empty ATM)

more people in 0.0 = more targets for raids (PvP)

more PvP = more demand for resources = more carebears willing to risk moving to 0.0

It would be nice to maintain a degree of differences in different constellations / regions for diversity and creating dissatisfaction (= more wars), but the stranglehold on resources given by the monopoly on R64s showed that simple monopoly on vital resources is not a good direction to go in. You could have some cost benefit (cheaper access to vital materials), or monopoly access to optional materials. (By optional materials, I mean things like Cosmos BPCs, which are nice and useful, but not game destroying if you can't get them.)

Anyway - I like the ideas, and look forward to their development.


Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:34:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Aralis
Why anyone would think this would mean there would be more people in 0.0 is completely beyond me.

If it goes through like this I confidently predict a rush to high sec.

And to the last poster you are totally wrong. This is a serious nerf to what profits could be made in 0.0.


While you have told in every dev blog about this we are all going to die (together with eve), you kinda fail to make any sense. It is only a nerf to profit if your alliance now completely relies on moon goo. I doubt CVA even makes enough profit with the few dyspro moons they have to pay for the fuel bill of the all death stars required that can be removed after dominion.

Why wouldnt there come more people to 0.0 when you can have 50-100 people in a system making more than in high sec?


I know i am very happy with how this is looking (finally being able to be with more than 2 people in our best ratting systems and still making far less than in high sec), and many others i speak with are very happy about it.

ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:37:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Originally by: ElvenLord
then we can burn them on the stake as there is a 90% chance they will fail horribly, as usual)

why the hell are you still playing this game if they fail 90% of the time?


first, because I play it with my RL friends. We started playing it together and as long as they play I will also because its something we do together (even tho some of them are red to me in game, but that makes the joy of a late night beer even better). I do hope that this is not a strange concept to you Eddie Razz

second, CCP does manage to correct them self's over time, and despite the inability to look at the big picture (that usually is the reason they fail at some aspects), basic idea that drives this game and story behind it is still there and it is worth the torture Cool

Stupid McStupidson
Gallente
Hoek Lyne and Sinker
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:38:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Professor Dumbledore
CCP you people are so stupid it hurts. You move from a place where huge conflict determins who gets the real resources too who ever controls the most amount of bots gets the most amount of money. Way to ruin your game.


I thought you guys wanted to ruin the game? So...are you upset because you think they are beating you to the punch?

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:42:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Slobodanka
Blog said something about 50-100 chars making money in one system... don't get this wrong but unless you plan to put mission agents in there that's pretty much impossible. Even if you combine all the NPCers, miners and explorers (can't think of any other way to actively gather resources) the number is mind boggling. 10 hulk miners can strip a belt in matter of minutes, I personally know people who run 5-10 mining chars at the same time to make ISK. Put ten of those together and all the belts are gone till next respawn. Now add few ratters (even with 100 belt system it's still only 5-10 chars if you want better money than lvl4s) and an explorer or two (I'm guessing we won't have 10+ DED10/10s in each systems to get that 50-100 per system figure) and you're nowhere near that number.


Besides that, the income wouldn't increase much even if the system is upgraded to 1000 belts and 100's of complexes.

Why? Because they will crash the market. Who is going to buy all that stuff?

And if you set up isk sources like you did with the wormhole and sleeper tags (which was a bad idea) you will end up only with big isk inflation. Ask Dr.E. and he will tell you that excessive inflation is a very bad thing - in real world and in MMO worlds as well.

The point is: You need remote areas with a very small density.

Big differences will lead to turbulences and turbulences are interesting!

If you remove the differences then there wont be any more turbulences and everything becomes stale and boring. Which means that you need areas with high population and areas with low population, rich areas and poor areas.

CCP is on the right way, they just need to be very carefully not to remove all the inherent differences which create lots of interesting behaviour. Also they must be careful not to introduce a new form of grind. But they are no idiots, they will make it :-)

Vxrasa
Caldari
Creative Cookie Procuring
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:43:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: destinationunreachable
Originally by: Aralis
Depressing reading. I had hoped a few weeks silence meant you were rethinking this nonsense. Instead it confirms the worst rumours.


Shouldn't CVA + and the other providence holders be the winner of the changes (as opposed to PL, who are just living of moon gold ) ?


Your forgetting Aralis and Imperial Dreams hold some of the only High ends near providence...

Kirsten Fud
Shade.
Mercenary Coalition
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:47:00 - [77]
 

Will you be able to upgrade NPC 0.0 space in any way?

I would assume not, but this means NPC 0.0 really will be worthless with all these other changes.

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:49:00 - [78]
 

Good stuff... I am concerned a little with how the transition to the new sov mechanic will work from the current sov mechanic however. Will the Sov modules be seeded prior to the main expansion so we can anchor those and claim our current space, or will everything be wiped and start from scratch?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:50:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Kirsten Fud
Will you be able to upgrade NPC 0.0 space in any way?

I would assume not, but this means NPC 0.0 really will be worthless with all these other changes.

CCP allready said not in the beginning at least.

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:53:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Kirsten Fud
Will you be able to upgrade NPC 0.0 space in any way?

I would assume not, but this means NPC 0.0 really will be worthless with all these other changes.

Maybe NPC 0.0 will become the new place to do missions. In order to achieve this, CCP will have to make it safer or more profitable to do so. (Especially with 0.0 alliances investing in infrastructure to create deadspace complexes, there will be a flood of faction items, bringing their value down.) One thing they could do is to create more stations and agents, increase mission payouts, and maybe take the rats out of the belts -- replacing them with faction navy rats -- to reduce the traffic of non-mission-runners in NPC 0.0.

Rhohan
Minmatar Marauders
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:05:00 - [81]
 

Is it a rainstorm? Or are those just tears, I can't tell.

Very nice changes. There should be a lot more targets for roaming gangs.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.10.05 17:05:00 - [82]
 

A few answers to some questions:

Homogeneous space without gold mines!

We acknowledged in the blog that these can be conflict drivers (forcing an enemy fleet to show up) where there is geographical resource limitations. We are reducing the value of the gold and its place solely funding alliance or corporation schemes, not making it worthless. Those moons and others will still have value, it will just be much less than it is currently in the case of dysprosium and promethium and higher for some of the mid range moon minerals.

In addition, the core baseline resource factors of a system (geographical location, true sec and belt count) still play a large role in the systems value even with the upgrades included so you will not find one day the entirety of null sec upgraded to the same level with identical resources.

There will still be new geographical based resources (in addition to the now detached outposts) which will be added to and built upon in the future as planets come to play a more prominent role and we transition to planetary rings for example to name some of the things on the drawingboard.


'Grinding' for System Upgrades!

The development indexes serve several goals with resource development:


- Make sure the space is lived in so that upgrade pre-requisites can be unlocked and not just purchased through isk acquisition elsewhere and ensure people actually live in the system actively

- Match the pre-requisites and upgrade choices to the current or planned system activities

A system being heavily mined will be able to unlock more better mining sites for example, a system where 'ratting' is prominent will unlock the ability to install more anomaly upgrades. Your upgrade path will be dependant on these choices you make economically as to which upgrade you want will come naturally if the system is settled by miners or ratters or both for example.

- Allow for a return to some relative point active sources.

Even though these sources are diffuse and many, they are geographical point sources because they are located in a single system though they would require more members to utilise and obtain value from in addition to allowing more of the raid style complexes again just without the infinite respawn and static locations.

A note on resource versus strategic upgrades

To emphasise, we are treating strategic upgrades which cover most of your current sovereignty limited starbase structures as separate to resource upgrades. Strategic upgrades will not have any activity based pre-requisites but be more focused around the purchase and time costs along with strategic decision making on which upgrade to put where.

More details on all this will be provided by us in a blog focused on the nitty gritty details of the upgrades themselves in the near future.

Can the infrastructure upgrades be attacked or captured?

This is something we discussed at fanfest a lot with the players that attended. Many were mostly in favour of being able to capture the infrastructure hubs (and therefore the solar systems upgrade level) in addition to a scorched earth option.

The infrastructure hubs can be attacked once certain criteria are met and hoops have been jumped through which depend heavily on the strategic decisions of the current owners. It is also worth noting that you can potentially more slowly damage an owning alliance by denying them this diffuse income through space superiority/domination strategies if they are prone to turtle tactics which will also damage their development indexes as well.

Garrakh
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:10:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: Garrakh on 05/10/2009 17:11:33
I have one question for the devs: As you move more content to the exploration system and increase population density players will need to spend more time trying to find "free" cosmic signatures and less time doing the sites. Do you have plans to address this?

Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:14:00 - [84]
 

Will development points and/or upgrades degrade if the system is no longer used in the way those upgrades/development points accumulate/support? Or will a upgrade stay, no matter what the system gets used after it is achieved?

zacuis
Great Big Research
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:15:00 - [85]
 

what a waste of a blog. totally failed to give any new info. every thing said weve been talking about for at least a week now.

i can only hope that your gonna answer some question in the comments thread.

my questions are

1. concidering how few people it takes to mine out a 20 belt system of hi ends. and how few people it takes to rat out a system are we really gonna see boosts to a system enought to sustain 50-100 people cos frankly ill be amazed if youve got the numbers right with this one. or are u expecting us to mine the veld or rat in a fashion that will make us less money that lvl 4s.

2. these changes are gonna be an afk cloakers dream. i for see small gangs of stealth bombers sitting afk all day and striking now and again. making there uber systems useless. have u concidered this. please dont tell me the solution u have came up with is team work and a dedicated pvp gang. cos thats not gonna cut it a small stealth gang will 1 shot miners and ratters alike. and be all cloaked up before help arrives.

these changes to sov are massive and will no doute change the face of 0.0. My main concern is that with the removal of the moongold u dont replace it with enought of an isk generator for indiduals and we will see a mass exodus from 0.0.

Caldor Mansi
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:25:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
A few answers to some questions:

Homogeneous space without gold mines!

We acknowledged in the blog that these can be conflict drivers (forcing an enemy fleet to show up) where there is geographical resource limitations. We are reducing the value of the gold and its place solely funding alliance or corporation schemes, not making it worthless. Those moons and others will still have value, it will just be much less than it is currently in the case of dysprosium and promethium and higher for some of the mid range moon minerals.

In addition, the core baseline resource factors of a system (geographical location, true sec and belt count) still play a large role in the systems value even with the upgrades included so you will not find one day the entirety of null sec upgraded to the same level with identical resources.

There will still be new geographical based resources (in addition to the now detached outposts) which will be added to and built upon in the future as planets come to play a more prominent role and we transition to planetary rings for example to name some of the things on the drawingboard.


'Grinding' for System Upgrades!

The development indexes serve several goals with resource development:


- Make sure the space is lived in so that upgrade pre-requisites can be unlocked and not just purchased through isk acquisition elsewhere and ensure people actually live in the system actively

- Match the pre-requisites and upgrade choices to the current or planned system activities

A system being heavily mined will be able to unlock more better mining sites for example, a system where 'ratting' is prominent will unlock the ability to install more anomaly upgrades. Your upgrade path will be dependant on these choices you make economically as to which upgrade you want will come naturally if the system is settled by miners or ratters or both for example.

- Allow for a return to some relative point active sources.

Even though these sources are diffuse and many, they are geographical point sources because they are located in a single system though they would require more members to utilise and obtain value from in addition to allowing more of the raid style complexes again just without the infinite respawn and static locations.

A note on resource versus strategic upgrades

To emphasise, we are treating strategic upgrades which cover most of your current sovereignty limited starbase structures as separate to resource upgrades. Strategic upgrades will not have any activity based pre-requisites but be more focused around the purchase and time costs along with strategic decision making on which upgrade to put where.

More details on all this will be provided by us in a blog focused on the nitty gritty details of the upgrades themselves in the near future.



Did you ever thougth if those changes will be attractive for a single player and not only from dev perspective...?
Considering your concept is based on idea people wanting to live in 0.0 what is supposed to make people like your 'vision' of 0.0? Shouldn't the concept be based around motivation for players instead of 'vision'?

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.10.05 17:26:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Garrakh
Edited by: Garrakh on 05/10/2009 17:11:33
I have one question for the devs: As you move more content to the exploration system and increase population density players will need to spend more time trying to find "free" cosmic signatures and less time doing the sites. Do you have plans to address this?


Yes, the vision is that once we have planetary rings or system wide belts, these will have asteroid beacon markers so do not always need to be probed but the rich sites will still need to be scanned down in addition to looking at introducing agents one day so missions could be run which will reduce this more.

It is definitely something we have seen before and remedied with wormhole space and something we are looking to ensure does not happen here with hordes of signature hits as well. This will get better as new null sec content can be published for the upgrades over time.

Professor Dumbledore
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:28:00 - [88]
 

Look CCP i'm calling you out right now.


You are pushing some stupid entirly new system out in 2 months you haven't given us the slightly amount of detail of anything even thou you said you were going to AT FANFEST. Which never happened likely because its not done nor even close to done.

Either given us every single piece of nitty gritty detail about all of this right now or push the expansion back.

Takal Cylotar
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:28:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Takal Cylotar on 05/10/2009 17:39:11
What effects will actions (mining, ratting, etc.) of allied/neutral populations living in other alliances' space have on A) sovereignity B) upgradibility of systems?

While this may not be an important question for NBSI alliances, it makes a huge difference for NRDS entities like CVA. Since we practice an open space policy we have a lot of neutral pilots from hundreds of corporations and alliances around that take their first steps into 0.0 under the watchful eye of CVA and holders. As a result Providence has the highest population density of all 0.0 regions. The majority of those pilots, however, does not belong to the actual space holding alliance.

So the question above is vital to assess the future feasibility of our open space policy. I saw some hints that activities like ratting in a system may also influence Sovereignity (see http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9946/sov2.png), which could be the death blow to our ability to keep our space open for neutral pilots. Naturally this would also be detrimental to your endeavour to populate 0.0.

Upgradibility on the other hand should take activity of all pilots active in the system into account. If it doesn't, the ability of alliances to provide infrastructure for allies, or in our case even neutrals, is considerably hampered.

Terrible Karma
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:32:00 - [90]
 

Edited by: Terrible Karma on 05/10/2009 18:41:26
CCP Embraces a No Numbers Philosophy
(Ignores Knowledgeable Players)


One of the major differences between an engineer or scientist debate and your average Joe debate is numbers. In a debate between engineers or scientists theories will be fleshed out with concrete testable numbers (see theory of gravity, speed of light, etc.). In contrast the typical debate between your average Joe and Jane consists of lots of 'theory' (the nonscientific sort) and NO Numbers to back any of it up. CCP has posted 3 blogs on 0.0 and Sov and it is clear that they prefer the later method.

Unfortunately, if we want Dominion theory to match Dominion reality we need the engineer and scientist method (with specifics on ALL changes and associated NUMBERS). Of course, that will do little good 2 weeks before patch. We need them now, no excuses!


Even worse, I have yet to see a response from CCP that directly addresses the critisisms already made in Aralis's (former CVA CEO and NRDS expert) or my posts:

Aralis's post
Karma's post 1
Karma's post 2

Some Major Points:
  • NRDS requires serious alliance and corp security overhauls.

  • NRDS relies on public security. Easy griefing/pirating and NRDS are antithema.

  • Making space easier to take favors the big guys. Small alliances cannot afford upgrades that can be easily anihilated by major alliances.

  • Most carebears will never go to 0.0 if system security is spotty at best.





Edit: Modified color as per suggestion.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : 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