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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (13)

Author Topic

Vanzatoarea
Posted - 2009.10.06 14:12:00 - [211]
 


Just an observation :

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

Now good luck geting 20 people in one system each earning that without agents....unless you plan to have 4373 belts or perma-respawn plexes everywhere?

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?

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!

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

All in all , good bye to any sort of 0.0 PvE (whatever 0.0 PvE is left now anyway)

Norahb
Posted - 2009.10.06 14:40:00 - [212]
 

Originally by: Vanzatoarea


makes you think any alliance that invested time and isk to get systems upgraded like that would let parasiticcarebears use them?

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!



I am realy hoping that I misread what you meant there . Are you really calling carebears parasites ? I looked up Parasite and all of the definitions that I saw said something along the lines of : an organism that lives off of , feeds on or takes nourishment from another organism while usually causing harm to the host . That seems to basically be the definition of PvPers that kill others in game to make isk . And then you talk about the 10% that the carebears contribute in tax . PvPers contribute nothing your loot is not taxed . Last I checked 0% is far less than 10% . Please tell me I read your post wrong

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2009.10.06 14:48:00 - [213]
 

Originally by: Vanzatoarea

Just an observation :

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

Now good luck geting 20 people in one system each earning that without agents....unless you plan to have 4373 belts or perma-respawn plexes everywhere?

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?

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!

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

All in all , good bye to any sort of 0.0 PvE (whatever 0.0 PvE is left now anyway)


You might think carebears are parasites, but in 6 month, when you sit in your undeveloped system, grinding veldspar to get to araknor lvl 1 you might think differently Laughing

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2009.10.06 14:59:00 - [214]
 

I'd like to ask some questions that I hope will be answered.

1. Given that null sec space has "true sec" status, will this mean that, say for example, a -0.5 can be made in to (effectively) a -1.0 system? Or will it mean the upgrades will be proportional to the system's true sec so that a -1.0 system's upgrades will be more valuable than a -0.5 system's upgrades?

In essence, what I'm asking is are we upgrading the True Sec of a system?

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.

Vanzatoarea
Posted - 2009.10.06 15:07:00 - [215]
 

Originally by: Daedalus II
Originally by: Vanzatoarea

Just an observation :

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

Now good luck geting 20 people in one system each earning that without agents....unless you plan to have 4373 belts or perma-respawn plexes everywhere?

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?

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!

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

All in all , good bye to any sort of 0.0 PvE (whatever 0.0 PvE is left now anyway)


You might think carebears are parasites, but in 6 month, when you sit in your undeveloped system, grinding veldspar to get to araknor lvl 1 you might think differently Laughing


I am sitting very well in highsec making 40m+/hour with alts , and ever so often 100m/hour missioning in stain thank you

you have it all wrong , most "pvp`ers" have some sort of active income source . Difference is carebears dont have any intention to PvP

So say...1 hour of my time guarding carebears wont be better spent making isk myself?

Fact remains , noone will go through the trouble of draging these people to 0.0 . People that wnat 0.0 are in 0.0 now , people that dont hang in empire . Domininon wont change that

Siobhan
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.06 15:33:00 - [216]
 

Edited by: Siobhan on 06/10/2009 15:34:24


This is a HARDIN post...

(Posting this as Siobhan as I am not actively playing EVE at the moment with Hardin and Siobhan's sub hasn't run out yet)

Before going into too much detail I would like to point out that opinions on 'Dominion' within the CVA are about as diverse as they are on these forums. Why? Because we simply don't know enough about the changes to be sure of anything.

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 Wink

Aralis and Sir Prime are two of the biggest industrialists within the CVA - indeed probably within EVE - primarily because they have put huge amounts of time and effort into it. Yet now they see the rules upon which they have based all their work and investment torn up and thrown out by CCP. Of course they are going to be annoyed - especially when in their opinion many of the proposed changes will be counter productive to the development of 0.0 when they are finally implemented.

I don't necessarily agree with them, nor do many others within the CVA, yet the fact remains that these two individuals are more deeply ingrained in 0.0 industry and production than 99.9% of the EVE playerbase (I have seen their spreadsheets Wink) and as such their opinions should be respected even if you/we don't necessarily agree with the conclusions they are drawing.

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. Yes, treaties will be coming in at a later stage but this means that the space holding NRDS alliances will have to spend time negotiating them with each and every single visitor. Not only that but our 'Holders' will have to do the same. As it stands someone with neutral status can fly to Providence now and make use of its stations, its ores, its markets and its belts as much as they wish - without having to ask permission or agree treaties with CVA or the various Holders. The proposed changes remove that freedom and are completely counter to the SPIRIT of what we have tried to build in Amarrian Providence.

For those of you who don't know Providence is probably the most populated, vibrant and successful piece of 0.0 real estate in the game - despite the fact that it has the ****tiest rats and ores. Why is this so? Well primarily it is because of the fact that CVA and our allies have provided no obligation/no questions asked use of our space to anyone who obeyed a few basic rules.

We have used our invulnerable Capital Ship Assembly Arrays, our markets and the associated manufacturing to subsidise a free and open Providence (as we sure as **** weren't gonna fund it out of ratting/mining). Well we no longer have those invulnerable arrays and manufacturing facilities and as such what is the motivation for us to continue providing security for everyone else - other than our roleplay history? Yes we now have new and exciting streams of income - in terms of upgraded systems - but the only way we can benefit is if we exclude others - which goes completely against our philosophy and the reasons why Providence currently 'works'.

To be continued...


Siobhan
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.06 15:39:00 - [217]
 

Edited by: Siobhan on 06/10/2009 15:45:44

Personally I don't think it is as black and white as that. The Providence/Deliverance project was developed DESPITE the system which has ALWAYS disciminated against NRDS as a system. If we had wanted to go the easy route then we would have adopted NBSI from the word go.

Yes Dominion *MAY* make life more difficult for us - but that is the nature of change. You either adapt or die. As an alliance we have certain core values - our roleplay allegiance to the Amarrian Empire, our desire to create an adjunct of that Empire in 0.0 following Empire rules (NRDS) and our belief in 'truth, justice and the Amarrian way!'

Those values do not have to change - however the way we operate on a daily basis, the way we interact with our neighbours, the way we make our ISK will have to - that is the new challenge for CVA and one I am sure it is more than capabale of meeting.

Part 2:

Personally my main concern about these changes rests on the fact that CCP seems to be shrinking our sandbox. From my perspective NRDS is one of those things which has added diversity and interest to EVE yet the proposed changes will make it even more difficult than now for an alliance to implement any other system than NBSI.

While CCP like to bang on about the 'sandbox' and the ability to create the systems and Empire's that we want to, it is quite clear that their 'worldview' is only focused on the generation of combat/conflict which will create 'epic' stories of conflict that appeals to the masses and generates subscribers for them.

Who after all wants to hear about the creation of a caring/sharing civilisation managed by a group of benevolent protectors? Of course some people do but it seems to me that CCP is ignoring this demographic. It is one of the reasons why they have never implemented a proper 'bounty' system for allowing 'law-abiding' corporations to 'police' low-sec.

Forgive me for being a bit geeky/RPish but in most other MMO's you get an option on how you want to play. These are often called alignments and are arranged on a grid with Lawful Good on one corner and Chaotic Evil on the other.

Lawful Good - Neutral Good - Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral - Neutral - Chaotic Neutral
Lawful Evil - Neutral Evil - Chaotic Evil

It seems to me that CCP are deliberately creating systems in this game which actively force players to choose evil/chaotic alignments (such as NBSI) - because they have no other choice if they want to succeed and prosper.

That is all good for CCP/EVE's PR as the 'darkest' game in the universe where everyone is a badass cutthroat scammer only in it for themselves, but it is undermining the original marketing of EVE as an open sandbox where players make the decisions and play as they want. If we want to be goody two shoes and be griefed because of it then so be it Smile - We shouldn't be forced to roleplay/play? as paranoid schizophrenic uber violent capitalist psychopaths by the 'system'.

Yes we can still make decisions about how we play this game but they are all framed by the structure that CCP has created. No game can ever be a true sandbox but it seems that CCP are shrinking the sandbox rather than extending it. From my perspective hey are removing real choice rather than enhancing it.

It seems CCP think that the PR generated by 'bad stuff' (i.e. Guiding Hand Social Club robberies/bank frauds/backstabbings etc.) is more important to the future development of EVE than stories about how x or y alliance created a new form of civilisation/government - after all who really remembers ISS? Indeed from a purely commercial standpoint CCP may well be right!

CCP wants everyone to be space dictators with no 'civilisation' beyond that of warlord and seem to have crafted Dominion specifically to ensure that this is the outcome - I am sure many EVE players will be happy with that.

To be continued...

Siobhan
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.06 15:46:00 - [218]
 

Of course CCP would argue that this is not the case - that they have provided us with new tools which allow us to 'develop' our space - but they seem to equate the 'physical' development of infrastructure with 'civilisation', whilst completely ignoring the societal/political/governmental aspect of the sandbox completely.

Yes, we can all become space Emperors in EVE - but unless we do it by fitting in with CCP's view of the universe then it is almost an impossible task... And in my view is that EVE will be a much poorer universe when the only people playing it are 'roleplaying' as paranoid schizophrenic uber violent capitalist psychopaths Smile

But then again I aint a Dev, I am not descended from a Viking and I vote Liberal Democrat!

Gehnster
Gallente
RED SUN RISING
Posted - 2009.10.06 15:52:00 - [219]
 

I'm not sure I understand why you guys will have a harder time to maintain your NRDS system in Providence. If someone would link to me the reasons why that will be harder to do I would appreciate it, I'm very interested in this new expansion.

Another thing I don't get is why the industrialist in your alliance are complaining about "all that hard work for nothing". What are they talked about? Is there a goal out there still that you haven't achieved? Have they NOT been making billions upon billions of isk already in the current system? So what they are saying is because the system is changing, all of that money, items made, etc was a waste? How so?

I think your analogy is a little bit different from what you said. I feel it is more like your team has already been winning games over and over and now the rules have changed so you either have to adapt to continue to win or start to lose.

Norahb
Posted - 2009.10.06 15:54:00 - [220]
 

Originally by: Vanzatoarea


So say...1 hour of my time guarding carebears wont be better spent making isk myself?

Fact remains , noone will go through the trouble of draging these people to 0.0 . People that wnat 0.0 are in 0.0 now , people that dont hang in empire . Domininon wont change that


You make is sound as if you have never done group stuff before . I doubt that is the case but whether you have not or are just being argumentative in group ops the profits are split evenly amongst everyone that attends usually . For example on a null sec mining op if you had 5 people mining 2 hauling and 3 providing combat support then the profit, after ship losses are paid for and the corp gets it's cut, could be split 10 ways . You say why not just do it myself and keep it all but the Devs have already indicated that they intend to change the solo nature of null sec and make it much more group oriented . They already started the 11% corp tax on NPC corps on SiSi which was done to encourage the mission grinding alts to join player corps . So the intent has been put forth that group ops and cooperation will be the pathway to success in null sec post expansion . It has yet to be seen if those goals will be met but that is the intent .

Siobhan
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.06 16:36:00 - [221]
 

Edited by: Siobhan on 06/10/2009 16:36:32
Originally by: Gehnster
I'm not sure I understand why you guys will have a harder time to maintain your NRDS system in Providence. If someone would link to me the reasons why that will be harder to do I would appreciate it, I'm very interested in this new expansion.

Another thing I don't get is why the industrialist in your alliance are complaining about "all that hard work for nothing". What are they talked about? Is there a goal out there still that you haven't achieved? Have they NOT been making billions upon billions of isk already in the current system? So what they are saying is because the system is changing, all of that money, items made, etc was a waste? How so?



It will become harder to manage NRDS because if you want to properly manage your space you will have to establish a treaty with every single visiting entity - if you are doing this you may as well be operating NBSI.

Of course you could choose to not implement treaties and let people continue to use our space - as such CVA will have given up its current income streams from manufacturing but will be unable to replace those income streams with enhanced ratting/mining/complexes because NRDS means that neutrals will be benefiting and not our pilots. As such what reason would we have for protecting the space as we do now?

Regarding your second point have you ever played a game such as Hearts of Iron/Civilisation. You put in huge amounts of effort building up and protecting your country/Empire. Then the game crashes. Then you discover that you had forgotten to save it. You are now faced with the prospect of having to rebuild everything you had already built all over again. You wouldn't turn it off, swear profusely and go do something else? Now multiply that frustration by 5 years! Hell when I type a huge forum post and some bug prevents it from posting and I lose the whole thing I tend to say 'sod it'.

The people who have been successful in EVE to date have in general done so because they have been willing to work harder and better than their opponents. People like Aralis and Sir Prime may have built vast fortunes but they have also spent vast fortunes. Now they see CCP's changes threatening everything they have built. Yes here is your sandbox, 'oh those are nice sandcastles you built' now we are going to stomp on them because the kids on the other side of the sandbox who had the same opportunity to build sandcastles are ****ed off because they can't build better sandcastles themselves and wont be able to smash yours without our help.

Regarding your third point everyone was playing by the same rules. Sovereignty was never a static thing and that can be seen simply by looking at the galactic map. Why should the rules changes halfway through the game? Okay we need to get more people to 0.0 - good reason - POS warfare is boring - good reason - however for many experienced 0.0 dwellers the feeling comes across that CCP don't really know how this will turn out in practices and that it's all just a big experiment at the players expense.

I think you are quite right in suggesting that we have to adapt or die. I completely agree. The point is that the consequence of that adaption means that Providence in most likelehood will be a lot different to what it is now - and considering that a large proportion of EVE's most keen PvPers think that Providence is the dogs *******s when it comes to having pew-pew fun in EVE that will be a bit of a shame...

Indeed a CCP representative said somewhere that they hoped that the changes in Dominion would make all 0.0 more Providence like - I am just flagging up that in the process of making these changes they may very well be killing their 'model'. Of course until everything is published we wont know - but I am trying to put the reaction of some CVAers into some kind of context...

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.06 16:36:00 - [222]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 06/10/2009 16:41:31
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand why you guys will have a harder time to maintain your NRDS system in Providence. If someone would link to me the reasons why that will be harder to do I would appreciate it, I'm very interested in this new expansion.

I wonder the same. Without cyno jammers it will be bit more problems with possible capital hotdrops, but i dont see that as a very large problems, especially with number of station systems in provi that can be cyno jammed.

No more sov 4 is problem everyone has, and is unrelated to nrds. Also while we do know there wont come invulnerable pos's, we dont know if there is no possibility to get them semi-invulnerable. Otherwise it is just a matter of placing many assembly arrays so they never know where super caps are being produced.


And we should be able to gain alot by upgrading space, which means the average player isnt forced to mission run outside provi for his income, also improving ammount of people in provi active will improve response time to reds.

Finally what i have seen is people saying we will see neutral gangs quickly destroying our infrastructure before we notice them. But i doubt there are many neutrals who would be willing to do that (most are allready red) and with enough people to do it. I doubt a single gang can do *that* much damage (CCP allready said it shouldnt be a problem if ou are weak in one TZ, so one gang shouldnt be able to remove half your infrastructure). And reds can do exactly the same, when a AAA red gang comes we are lucky if we got a notice before htey enter provi, not to mention they could jsut jump bridge into unjammed systems. And we could do the same to them, so i assume one gang will never be able to do alot of damage to infrastructure.


EDIT:
Quote:
It will become harder to manage NRDS because if you want to properly manage your space you will have to establish a treaty with every single visiting entity - if you are doing this you may as well be operating NBSI.

Where are you reading this?

Quote:
Of course you could choose to not implement treaties and let people continue to use our space - as such CVA will have given up its current income streams from manufacturing but will be unable to replace those income streams with enhanced ratting/mining/complexes because NRDS means that neutrals will be benefiting and not our pilots. As such what reason would we have for protecting the space as we do now?


How do those neutrals help our current super-capital production? Because i assume that is what you are talking about with manufacturing. Not to mention since when do we need special reasons to be anti-pirate and nrds? It is just what we are.

Quote:
should the rules changes halfway through the game?

Remove invention reintroduce bpo lottery? (Maybe not completely fair comparison, but still pretty accurate unless i am missing something).

And what do we lose exactly? Super cap production will be more risky, but still enough people wanting them (imagine spike in mom demand with combination of fighter bombers + more important, possible ability for them to dock), so it will just balance itself out to keep it worthwhile.
That is all i see, our stations will still be usefull, hell more usefull than they are now.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.10.06 16:43:00 - [223]
 

A few points. I'll try to keep it coherent (I'm home sick today).

Quote:
0.0 would need to yeld at least 60m/hour to be as effective as highsec is


This is one of my concerns as well. The danger, as I see it, is that it would be very easy to make null sec profitable enough to draw more people to it but at the cost of glutting the market and damaging the overall EVE economy. Everyone wants to be rich, but if making money gets too easy, then everybody is rich (which in reality means NOBODY is rich) and much of the game loses its value. This, in my opinion, will be the trickiest thing to balance in Dominion.

Quote:
You might think carebears are parasites, but in 6 month, when you sit in your undeveloped system, grinding veldspar to get to araknor lvl 1 you might think differently Laughing


This is spot on. Wise 0.0 entities have always promoted an efficient "carebear" backbone. Most just don't advertise that fact, or hide it within neutral corps. Without it you aren't going to get to superpower status unless you have a lock on a lot of high end moons. Since high end moons will no longer be the trump card of EVE, that means its back to having a sensible infrastructure of industry again.

Quote:
As it stands someone with neutral status can fly to Providence now and make use of its stations, its ores, its markets and its belts as much as they wish - without having to ask permission or agree treaties with CVA or the various Holders. The proposed changes remove that freedom and are completely counter to the SPIRIT of what we have tried to build in Amarrian Providence.


With respect Hardin, what part of the information provided on Dominion leads you to this conclusion? There is nothing that I have seen so far that indicates that treaties are mandatory in any way. You could have a treaty with some groups and not with others. What would stop individual pilots from using your space and facilities exactly as they are now? Honest question, not trying to provoke you. I consider it an important point as well.

Quote:
We have used our invulnerable Capital Ship Assembly Arrays, our markets and the associated manufacturing to subsidise a free and open Providence (as we sure as **** weren't gonna fund it out of ratting/mining). Well we no longer have those invulnerable arrays and manufacturing facilities and as such what is the motivation for us to continue providing security for everyone else - other than our roleplay history?


True, whole systems won't be invulnerable any more. Is that the crux of this? The best static defense you (or anyone else for that matter) will have is the ability to Cyno Jam a system. The last word we had on that was they were thinking hard about making Cyno Jammers only available in systems with outposts... of which you have a tremendous amount. As I understand it the Providence response to sub-capitol assaults is pretty good, and with the 40+ Outpost systems you have doesn't that mean that overall you will have better secured industry than most other entities in game? You can actually do an amazingly effect "shell game" with which POS's are actually doing production... and that is a tactic many alliances are seriously considering.

Quote:
Yes we now have new and exciting streams of income - in terms of upgraded systems - but the only way we can benefit is if we exclude others - which goes completely against our philosophy and the reasons why Providence currently 'works'.


Again, why on earth would you exclude others? Let them use those resources and help your systems achieve a high enough level of population/use to qualify for upgrades (they don't have to have any connection to you at all for this purpose). Then benefit from the improved revenue stream like everyone else in your area. Providence will rapidly become much more profitable for all, citizens and tourists alike. NRDS still seems pretty viable to me.

Gehnster
Gallente
RED SUN RISING
Posted - 2009.10.06 17:00:00 - [224]
 

Yeah I'm still not understanding why you would suddenly need treaties for neuts in your system. What would happen if you didn't make a treaty with them? Perhaps I missed the information given to us that would explain that NRDS won't work in its current model with the new sov system.

I don't feel like this change is a "crash" of a civ game at all. In a crash you lose everything like it never existed. You lost all that time spending money to make money and building stuff and expanding your empire. Why do you think this is what is happening here? I don't remember seeing any info about it but I would think that you will be able to put down your "beacons" before Dominion sov control changes occur. I'm sure there will be a transition period, but again it is just a guess since I haven't seen anything saying it will be this way.

Lets assume though that there will be a transition phase. So Pre-Dominon you control x systems, post-dominion you would still have the chance to control the same amount of systems. All your outposts, POSes can still stick around if you so choose, all your other assets can still be around. The difference would be instead of saying "if you have a City Hall in this territory you own it" to saying "while you can still own this land with a new "City Hall" it is encouraged to not place one unless you have the population to support it too."

In your civ example you go from controlling a ton of land to no land at all. Not even to no land at all, to you not even existing to be able to control no land at all. But this isn't the case in Dominion, you will still have everything you ever created, you will still have all your assets/isk and you will still have and experience from the past 5 years to help you adapt to the new system and make your empire stronger/better.

Emperor Salazar
Caldari
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2009.10.06 17:01:00 - [225]
 

Originally by: newdok


4. What will happen with all the previously spammed POSes? (I understand this is also becoming somewhat of a problem in WH-Space?)



not a problem at all, people just exaggerate

more than enough moons up for grabs in w-space, people just want a way to scoop abandoned ones and make a quick buck

don't believe everything you hear

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2009.10.06 17:07:00 - [226]
 

My concerns.

* Hi sec still to profitable considering 0.0 risks and 0.0 becomes another lo sec ( no reason to go there )
* 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
* 0.0 alliances settling in choke points , and efficiently cut off the rest of 0.0 for colonization.


To all those CVA people , treaties do not come in Dominion CCP said at fan fest they had to hold on with them ( am i correct here ? )

Isaac Starstriker
Amarr
Frontier Venture
Posted - 2009.10.06 17:24:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
My concerns.

* Hi sec still to profitable considering 0.0 risks and 0.0 becomes another lo sec ( no reason to go there )
* 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
* 0.0 alliances settling in choke points , and efficiently cut off the rest of 0.0 for colonization.


To all those CVA people , treaties do not come in Dominion CCP said at fan fest they had to hold on with them ( am i correct here ? )



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. No risk + high-reward = BAD. Please CCP, look at this again. I'm not saying remove them or anything, but its the only reason I don't justify nerfing mechanics that kill missioners. (Salvage stealing, corp ganking, etc) Its simply too profitable.

--Isaac

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.10.06 17:29:00 - [228]
 

On a slightly different topic I want to express a personal opinion on the balance between advantages given to defender and to attacker. And yes, a lot of people will disagree with this, I understand that.

Traditionally the common line of thinking is that the more entrenched you are in an area, the better your defenses should be. I am not completely opposed to this point of view, but current game mechanics go to far in this direction. And yes, I say this as someone who until recently enjoyed life in Tribute which is arguably one of the best defended sections of 0.0 in the game.

Having a good infrastructure in an area should provide you with some subtle advantages. Those advantages centering around...

Improved ability to obtain wealth if you have an active player base, and enrich the area.
Improved ability to mobilize defensive forces, and move them where they are needed.
Improved intelligence gathering capability within your borders.
Improved ability to absorb attack and buy you time to organize a counter.

It should NOT...

Make part of your space invulnerable to attack.
Make your space have huge static resources of wealth that do not require an active player base to harvest.
Make it impossible to have siege tactics used against your space.
Make it impossible for raiding parties to possibly cause harm to your infrastructure.


In other words the defender should get advantages centered around making their area more valuable to their active members, and some organizational benefits when it comes to defense.

However their infrastructure and increased wealth should be vulnerable to disruption or destruction unless they are actively defended. That being said taking a hard loss to some of your financial infrastructure should not be a death knell, merely a short term loss that can be rebuilt (unless those losses occur with such frequency due to a lack of active defense that the location becomes untenable).

Actively defended and well developed territory should be a ripe fruit that encourages others to try and take it... but a fruit that can be effectively defended (in part or in whole) by an active defending player base.

To put it in even simpler terms:
To destroy is easy, to build is hard.

However to destroy has limited long term financial gain compared to building and defending. So if your thing is burning wrecks in space, you have plenty of viable targets (as long as you have the isk to continue this lifestyle). If you want to make the big bucks however, that requires you to build and defend.

This philosophy promotes an exciting, dynamic environment in EVE. An environment that promotes conflict, and environment that keeps you on the edge of your seat, an environment that keeps you from getting bored and political boundaries to stagnate.

The balance is the tricky part. It must absolutely be advantageous to build, but it must require active players to defend what has been built. By the same token, it must not be impossible to raid and attack... and you should have noticeable impact when you do so successfully. And it should never, ever, be impossible (through in-game methods)to make a successful bid for someones space.

Who gets/keeps possession of an area should be dictated by the skill and dedication of the pilots involved as well as the strategy and tactics employed, not by game mechanics or static (non-player dependent) defenses.










Siobhan
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.06 17:35:00 - [229]
 

Ranger

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

As such what will be the incentive for us to upgrade our space under the proposed system? Indeed upgrading our space under an NRDS system will simply attract more neutrals.

Sure we may make some extra ISK on docking fees/refines/clones etc. but that will be mininal and certainly does not make up for lost manufacturing opportunities.

And then there will be treaties. These are not even going to be in the game to start with but assuming that they will allow you to lease certain systems to 'partner/pet' alliances in return for a cut of their take.

How do you think these partners/renters will feel if we then allow neutrals to use the same systems that they are? All of this appears to make NRDS unworkable.

Even if the treaty system is flexible it still means that we have to negotiate/reach agreement with everyone who wants to use our space - as such we may as well be running NBSI. The beauty of Provi NRDS as it stands is that people can just use it... The proposed system will make it economically and logistically unworkable (not that the present system is particularly NRDS friendly anyway).

Yes we can probably try some halfway house, maybe ban neutrals from specific systems but that in itself goes against our entire philosophy of making Providence simply a 0.0 extension of the Amarr Empire and basically means that we are adapting the way we play simply because the sandbox has shrunk...

I also touched upon manufacturing. Yes you can play 'hide the shell' games with CSAA's but the fact is that prior to Sov 4 coming in one of the most popular 'griefing' tactics of the uber blob alliances was CSAA destruction. It will probably happen again. -A-/Razor wanting a fight with CVA over a weekend - okay let's go hit a CSAA system.

As it stands there is too much uncertainty and if there is one thing that super-cap manufacturers don't want is risk. Maybe this will change as time progresses but the fact is that if CVA (which is one of the large independent suppliers of super-caps in the game) is having doubts about 0.0 cap/super-cap construction post Dominion then many others will be too.

The fact is that CVA and friends can pull together a pretty large force but it doesn't match anything the Northern block/Goons/-A- can put together. If we as an established alliance are having doubts about Super-Cap production in 0.0 going forward then it is probable that super-cap production will be limited to uber-blocks who can protect themselves which will infact lead to even more napfesting and mutual protection agreements than currently exist.

As I said above CVA will have to adapt - but in the process Providence could change from the region we know and love today into another just another generic 0.0 region...

Siobhan
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.06 17:47:00 - [230]
 

Edited by: Siobhan on 06/10/2009 17:47:42
Originally by: Gehnster
Yeah I'm still not understanding why you would suddenly need treaties for neuts in your system. What would happen if you didn't make a treaty with them? Perhaps I missed the information given to us that would explain that NRDS won't work in its current model with the new sov system.



I have explained it in the post above but I will repeat it. The CVA does not make ISK (of any significant quantity) from ratting/mining/complexing. The reason we have been able to protect NRDS/neutrals and build so many Outposts/POSes is income from manufacturing.

Under the new system ratting/mining/complexing are supposed to be the income stream that can be upgraded - helping pay for Sov claims/defenses etc. However under an NRDS system it will not be CVA benefitting from such upgrades. - it will be all the neutrals living in our space enjoying our hospitality.

With the removal of Sov 4 the whole process of manufacturing in 0.0 becomes decidely more risky. As such one of the primary sources of income used to fund 'NRDS' will have been removed.

Yes we can continue to operate NRDS - but only at the expense of potentially bankrupting ourselves or finding some compromise system. As such Providence - which has been held up as a shining example of a prosperous/populated 0.0 region could potentially end up as depopulated as the rest of it - subject to the fine detail being provided.

evs
Paladin Order
Tread Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.06 18:07:00 - [231]
 

one big problem i see with continuing to run nrds is STABILITY, now nuets come to prov because it is a relatively stable 0.0 area with a great market (still not as much as hi sec, but more than most of lo sec and all the rest of 0.0)...and we want nuets to come and enjoy the place (i personally do not rat, and make my isks, all 100mil of it, through random stuff i want to do)

under new sov rules, i can see most of the stability disappearing (especially in non station systems), which could mean less nuets, leading to a worse market, and also even worse stability because nuets DO fight for prov when they need/want to, but less nuets means less protection....on and on in a vicious circle


my PERSONAL wish is for ccp to make prov Amarr 0.0 NPC sov space along with the new expansion, and then we can start over somewhere else (but I personally havent invested multiple billions in the place either...)

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.10.06 18:08:00 - [232]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 06/10/2009 18:10:42
Quote:
The CVA currently makes minimal ISK from mining/ratting/complexes. Why - because the neutrals we allow in our space use it for us. As such what will be the incentive for us to upgrade our space under the proposed system? Indeed upgrading our space under an NRDS system will simply attract more neutrals.


If your actual members "never" mine/rat/plex then don't upgrade the space. Your neutrals merely make it easy to qualify to do so if you wish. You certainly don't have to spend money on upgrades that your pilots will not take advantage of. That's rather one of the main points of the system.
And I highly doubt that there will be no upgrade path for industrialists (which would appear to be your bread and butter after all).

Quote:
Sure we may make some extra ISK on docking fees/refines/clones etc. but that will be mininal and certainly does not make up for lost manufacturing opportunities.


Well, it's only minimal if you choose to let it be minimal... but that's neither here nor there.
The fact remains that although your CSAA's will no longer be invulnerable, they will be better defended than most other alliances due to the large number of Outpost systems that you can Cyno Jam. Yes, conventional fleets could assault them, but if you put out a large number of them your opponents will get bored of this very, very quickly. Everyone hates shooting POS's conventionally (or with Caps), and if you have a half dozen CSAA's in a single one of your Outpost systems, how much damage do you really think they have the stomach for on a given weekend? And really, not to be unkind, but if you can't defend them effectively with the player base you have you need to rethink your economic (not political) model.

Quote:
And then there will be treaties. These are not even going to be in the game to start with but assuming that they will allow you to lease certain systems to 'partner/pet' alliances in return for a cut of their take. How do you think these partners/renters will feel if we then allow neutrals to use the same systems that they are? All of this appears to make NRDS unworkable.
Even if the treaty system is flexible it still means that we have to negotiate/reach agreement with everyone who wants to use our space - as such we may as well be running NBSI. The beauty of Provi NRDS as it stands is that people can just use it... The proposed system will make it economically and logistically unworkable (not that the present system is particularly NRDS friendly anyway).


Then don't use treaties, continue as you currently are. Nothing is forcing you to change your NRDS model, nothing is forcing you to make treaties with anyone. Now if you did choose to do so, simply make your treaty stipulate an NRDS stance. If they want a treaty with you, they will agree to that. If you don't trust them, or if they violate the treaty, then the treaty is broken and back to square one. You have lost nothing, and didn't have to enter into a treaty to begin with. Why would you think you will be forced to use treaties?

Look, we keep seeing CVA saying over and over the same things:
We will not be able to be NRDS after Dominion.
We will not be able to use treaties.
We will not be able to welcome neutrals inside our borders.
We will not be able to produce Cap ships, or support ourselves.

But when asked why, what information about Dominion or treaties make you think that this will be so, there is no reply... or rather I should say the reply is to keep saying the above 4 points over and over again with nothing to justify them. It is like you have some hysterical cheerleader in the background chanting these things until you are brainwashed into believing them with no rational to back it up.

I firmly believe the existence of CVA and the environment of Providence is a good thing for EVE, and that you should keep your "concerns" actively seen.
But baseless prophecies of doom? Not so much.






Ukucia
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.10.06 18:21:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Captain Vampire
If all systems can be upgraded simmilarily, why would anyone want a system far from an empire enterance?

Because all systems can't be upgraded similarly. Some systems start out better, and the upgrades make them even better.

Norahb
Posted - 2009.10.06 18:36:00 - [234]
 

Please excuse my ignorance on this topic . Prior to these blogs I knew little of CVA so what I am about to say may have already been tried . That being said what of the posibility of CVA setting up a sort of charity corp . You could have a corp even if only run by one alt just for the sake of book keeping that could take donations from the inhabitants of your systems . Maybe you could have suggested donation level's say for example a percentage of bounties , ore , mission rewards , melted loot etc . Then make the wallet/finances viewable by the public and could post goals and progress . So that way people who would benefit from the upgrades could donate to a fund that would eventually pay for those upgrades . This would free people up to start say mining ops where all of the ore is donated to said public funds or come up with other creative ways to raise funds to donate to the cause . Has anything like this been tried and do you feel it has a chance of working in Dominion ?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.06 18:51:00 - [235]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 06/10/2009 18:52:31
So now we have both cva complaining we will get more and we will get less neutrals, the only thing they agree on is that whatever happens it is bad for us.

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

Honestly i am getting kinda bored of this argument popping up again and again. At least 70-80% of the people i see arround ratting, plexes, mining, etc has blue standings. Yes neutrals will benefit when we upgrade our system, image the horror, neutrals benefitting in nrds space. However so will all our ratters. Right now we are forced to do missioning to get our isk, if we can just rat in providence (and no neutrals wont rat everything away, and if that is such an issue dont allow them to rat in places but it isnt an issue if CCPs numbers are accurate). If we can rat in providence we can join defense gangs instead of watching chat channels from empire. Neutrals can help more with defense. Our intel becomes even better (because yes that is also an advantage of nrds, not everything is simple isk). The simple truth is that there arent that many people in providence without blue standings.

And now the reason that so few people make their isk ratting in providence, because the rats are utter crap. You can have in general less than 1 person per system ratting and then they still make ****ty isk compared to just missioning. It has nothing to do with neutrals.


And i really fail to see what your issue is with treaties. AFAIK we arent planning to rent our space, so we probably wont be using them (maybe they have some uses i dont see right now, but it shouldnt be gamebreaking). But even if we use them on some corporations, like they pay us x isk per month, in return they get lower docking fees, reprocessing, etc. (Same as what is now done by standings, but just the idea). Why would random neutral Y care about that? He just pays the normal docking fees he also pays now.

Honestly, i agree here with ranger, i havent seen any argument yet why we would be worse of in providence compared to other 0.0 entities.

Siobhan
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.06 19:12:00 - [236]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer

Honestly, i agree here with ranger, i havent seen any argument yet why we would be worse of in providence compared to other 0.0 entities.


What other 0.0 entities operate NRDS?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.06 19:16:00 - [237]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 06/10/2009 19:16:48
None, how is that relevant? Read my post again, i dont see how we would be worse of than other 0.0 entities. Not talking about nrds at all.

Soyemia
Minmatar
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.10.06 19:35:00 - [238]
 

Edited by: Soyemia on 06/10/2009 19:36:29
Originally by: Furb Killer
Edited by: Furb Killer on 06/10/2009 19:16:48
None, how is that relevant? Read my post again, i dont see how we would be worse of than other 0.0 entities. Not talking about nrds at all.


He has made perfectly good sense. You don't seem to get it do you? You need to make a treaty to tax people who rat in such and such systems. So... in order to get any isk from those upgrades they need to make a treaty with every involved one who wants to rat. That's a logistical impossibility, so they might just as well use NBSI. Please be respectful of others at all times..Applebabe

Emperor Salazar
Caldari
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2009.10.06 19:56:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: Soyemia
You are a damn stupid person.


good post

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.06 20:17:00 - [240]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 06/10/2009 20:17:08
So how would that be worse than we have it now? FYI we also cant tax them now. Sure it would be nice to tax them, but we do it now without also. And no one ever died from some creativity (severely increase docking fees, except for those with treaties, stay nrds).

But just mildly increasing some normal taxes, and we should be fine too, i dont see why we would suddenly need treaties (yes i understand cva now makes much isk from super caps, well if everyone is scared like you say their prices will also rise).

And we also will have other income sources, like actually ratting (no neutrals are not the problem why it doesnt work now).


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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