open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Blog: Upgrading and Upkeep of Sovereign Solar Systems in Dominion
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 108 109 110 111 [112] 113 114 115 116 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

Peryner
University of Caille
Posted - 2009.11.13 06:18:00 - [3331]
 

Originally by: Gober Pile
Well after reading that all I can say is

If the aim was to open nullsec to new alliances and corps you failed completley with the costings model your using.

The main reason many leave nullspace to the blob allainces IS the upkeep costs, now you are basically keeping that barrier in place, al be it without the logistical issues that Towers bring, BUT 210 million a WEEK just to maintin sov, that is overpriced.

Smaller alliances now MUST focus on isk generation to pay this upkeep, and the blob alliances are going to be the only ones capable of keeping a PVP wing!!

I really would like to know what sized alliance/corp were these changes aimed at?



that's why I thought the idea was to make it cheap to own a few systems, and then get more an more expensive.

it should cost an extra 10 mil per day per cyno jammer on TOP of the other costs.

same with sov and everything else. The total cost be a be a combination of how many of each level of objects you have.

This straight cost won't stop alliances form owning losts of space at all.

I actully think it's funny ccp think this will wrk, but I guess in 2 years they will say how sorry they are again and change it all over again.

Onerous One
Posted - 2009.11.13 07:12:00 - [3332]
 

There should be an "agent" upgrade which adds a complex in the system with an overview beacon. The complex could have one agent for each type of upgrade installed in the system. Agent level would be based on the system security (-0.81 to -1.0 would have level 5 agents). The agent corporations would be related to the type of NPCs in the system. Guristas systems would have Caldari Navy combat agents and Caldari industrial corps for non-combat agents. Another option could be to have five types of agent upgrade modules to determine the agent level.

Probably a bit late for this but sovereignty should spread from system to system. The alliance selects a single system to be their headquarters and spreads out from there. When all systems around a system have sovereignty that system will increase a level and unlock tower fuel bonuses and strategic upgrades. All level 2+ systems would be invulnerable requiring sov to be broken in the level 1 systems first. Alliances who claim a lot of space could have weak points in their sov chain where attacking a single level 1 system leads to the loss of sov in multiple systems now separated from the alliance's HQ system.

And since we are paying a tax to hold unclaimed space we should get protection in the form of gate guns in level 2+ systems. The guns would have a 30-60 second targeting delay allowing hostiles to easily pass through your space but prevent them from camping your gates. Gun damage could increase with the sovereignty level.

Kayl Breinhar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.13 08:36:00 - [3333]
 

Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 13/11/2009 08:42:15
Here's an idea, CCP - if we're supposed to consolidate space, how about removing the restrictions on only one outpost per system? That's less jump bridges needed, less *systems* needed, and "moar targets Twisted EvilTwisted EvilTwisted Evil" for if/when you do that "wrecking outposts" idea.

I know the *old* way of doing things was to require you to own a minimum of two different systems if you wanted to have a refinery and factory, but what's the excuse now?

As for the "complex beacon" idea above, simply anchor a dockable object (one of many in the 'large collidable object' family should do) that has no station services except an LP store. Allow *any* faction (including FW and Empire) and any amount of agents thereof of that faction in, so one agent for each level @ LxQ-20, LxQ0, and LxQ20.

I'm not particularly keen on the whole idea of "fixing the L4 mission quandary" with just adding more missions, but the ability to run *any* kind from *any* faction might be interesting.

Tesal
Posted - 2009.11.13 09:08:00 - [3334]
 

Originally by: Kayl Breinhar
Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 13/11/2009 08:42:15
Here's an idea, CCP - if we're supposed to consolidate space, how about removing the restrictions on only one outpost per system? That's less jump bridges needed, less *systems* needed, and "moar targets Twisted EvilTwisted EvilTwisted Evil" for if/when you do that "wrecking outposts" idea.

I know the *old* way of doing things was to require you to own a minimum of two different systems if you wanted to have a refinery and factory, but what's the excuse now?

As for the "complex beacon" idea above, simply anchor a dockable object (one of many in the 'large collidable object' family should do) that has no station services except an LP store. Allow *any* faction (including FW and Empire) and any amount of agents thereof of that faction in, so one agent for each level @ LxQ-20, LxQ0, and LxQ20.

I'm not particularly keen on the whole idea of "fixing the L4 mission quandary" with just adding more missions, but the ability to run *any* kind from *any* faction might be interesting.


And also allow ponies and unicorns.

IronGoldenEagle
The New Era
C0NVICTED
Posted - 2009.11.13 09:50:00 - [3335]
 

Edited by: IronGoldenEagle on 13/11/2009 09:51:29
Thanks CCP for giving me a chance to live the dream of being an integral part of taking over 0 sec space for my own. But now I've just got to figure out a way to pay for it. And to enjoy its 95% emptiness that will soon arrive. And to conquer more of it. Honestly I think this just killed any notions of conquering 0 sec and pvp outside a few systems. Patch sucks, CCP sucks, I want a refund

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2009.11.13 10:23:00 - [3336]
 

So where is the revised numbers CCP Chronotis promised us last week for this past Monday or Tuesday, its Friday now.....

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:23:00 - [3337]
 

Originally by: Mecinia Lua
So where is the revised numbers CCP Chronotis promised us last week for this past Monday or Tuesday, its Friday now.....



You mean this?

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course):

TCU: 1m ISK / day
Hub: 5m ISK / day
Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day
Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day
Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day
CSAA: 1m ISK / day


This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost).

There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary.


Pag. 109 post 3262

Farlo Truan
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:38:00 - [3338]
 

With DUST conquerable planets coming, they will likely provide an income source to help pay for owned systems. I would suggest 'Commerce Module' to tax sales on planetary goods as well as attract pirates (manufacturing your own Robotics, Radioactive materials, etc) instead of 'Pirate Magnet.' Perhaps also making a market available at the Hub where broker tax is paid to the owning alliance.

Trade routes could be 'established' between connected systems. Treaty contracts between Alliances allowing such systems to be crossed without interrupting the trade route, in return for tax.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:46:00 - [3339]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Mecinia Lua
So where is the revised numbers CCP Chronotis promised us last week for this past Monday or Tuesday, its Friday now.....



You mean this?

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course):

TCU: 1m ISK / day
Hub: 5m ISK / day
Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day
Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day
Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day
CSAA: 1m ISK / day


This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost).

There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary.


Pag. 109 post 3262


He promised an update to the blog with the new numbers.

But thank you :)

Vladimir Griftin
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.11.13 12:43:00 - [3340]
 

I love the way they move the cost onto the Sov marker and make the Hub free. Maybe they realize the upgrades are pointless too and its the only way anyone would bother with them.

Still doesn't address the big issues of how alliances are supposed to make ISK from their space and why empire dwellers would be attracted to nullsec.

Damian Vilsalant
Priory Of The Lemon
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.11.13 15:47:00 - [3341]
 

Originally by: Vladimir Griftin
Still doesn't address the big issues of how alliances are supposed to make ISK from their space and why empire dwellers would be attracted to nullsec.


I agree. Reducing the cost was the fist needed step. Now I'd like to hear how CCP wants to incentivize 0.0 so the increased risks and inconveniences actually get compensated for in the form of increased rewards.

Basically, this:

YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.

Future Mutant
Republic Military School
Posted - 2009.11.13 15:54:00 - [3342]
 

Just out of curiosity what are you claiming is now possible for isk/hour in null?
For ratting?
For mining?
Anomilies? Slightly harder as its more random- assume 100 hours spent and calculate isk/hour from there.

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2009.11.13 17:19:00 - [3343]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course):

TCU: 1m ISK / day
Hub: 5m ISK / day
Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day
Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day
Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day
CSAA: 1m ISK / day


This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost).

There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary.


Do i understand it correctly 180 per month for holding a system ?
WTF ??
Its even cheaper than it is now fueling POSES , and no logistic required.

Talking about holding terirory just for sake of holding it.

Are you out of your mind listening to goons , having at least half of the whining post of that we know off ??? And goods knows how many alts they rolled into this topic just to make you soft.

I am dissapointed CCP.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.13 17:47:00 - [3344]
 

Originally by: Future Mutant
Just out of curiosity what are you claiming is now possible for isk/hour in null?
For ratting?
For mining?
Anomilies? Slightly harder as its more random- assume 100 hours spent and calculate isk/hour from there.


For ratting, 20m is possible for regular belt rats (faction and officer spawns increase this number but are too random in their appearance and value to properly account for).

Do bear in mind this is only possible in a relatively small number of 0.0 systems (low truesec and high beltcount), requires at least one hour and often longer to prune out the low-value spawns, only works for one ratter per system at a time (2 or 3 at a time for some exceptionally high beltcount systems), and can be interrupted at any moment by a roaming neutral entering system.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:18:00 - [3345]
 

You goons and atlas guys are precious. No I am not forgetting about the rest but who cares about the rest tbh, you goons and atlas guys are all that matter. Keep up the whining I am sure ccp is on just about to cave in. If not then atleast we have had another epic like carrier nerd thread. Hail zulupark!

Gramtar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:30:00 - [3346]
 

Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
Do i understand it correctly 180 per month for holding a system ?
WTF ??
Its even cheaper than it is now fueling POSES , and no logistic required.

Talking about holding terirory just for sake of holding it.

Are you out of your mind listening to goons , having at least half of the whining post of that we know off ??? And goods knows how many alts they rolled into this topic just to make you soft.

I am dissapointed CCP.


You can claim sov with a single small tower today for 28M isk per month, a bit less for a faction tower. The costs come in when you want to be able to do anything:

Sov w/ cyno beacon = 240M / month + fuel cost of tower
Sov w/ jump bridge = 480M / month + fuel cost of large tower(s)
Sov w/ beacon, bridge and jammer = 1140M / month + fuel cost of large tower(s)

If you want to mine moons, then you'll likely need additional towers unless you're skimping on guns on your logistics towers.

Compare that to today. Minimal non-strategic station system setup:
6 Amarr Large - 2 jump bridge towers (one with beacon), 1 dedicated jammer POS, 3 armed sov claimers
Fuel cost = 600M / month

For a "safer" setup with a bigger sov buffer, you'd use 11 Larges, at a cost of 1100M / month.

Post Dominion, 1140M sov bill + 300M fuel cost for 3 large towers - 2 bridges (1 with beacon) and 1 dedicated jammer tower = 1440M / month

It's going to be more expensive today. This is more so the case for non-station systems that basically contain jump bridges and nothing else. Today, 300M for 3 towers. After Dominion, 1440M. For a bare bones logistics system - cyno beacon and nothing else, the cost is 50M/month for a medium POS. After Dominion, 240M + 50M = 290M. That's a lot of isk to operate a cyno beacon. Say welcome back to shared account cyno alts.

For station systems it's not a big cost increase (unless youre cheap and only have 6 towers claiming sov). For logistics systems, it's huge, even if you forgo a cyno jammer. This is why you'll see the large alliances all packed into regions close to empire. The further your space is from lowsec logistics points, the more expensive it will be for you to operate.

GoonSwarm? We're ideally positioned for this change. We only claim two regions (although like others we'll be ironically punished for having developed these regions by dropping additional outposts), and there are points in both within Carrier range of lowsec. Delve is just 2 jumps from lowsec logistic points in a Jump Freighter or Rorqual.

Delve truesec is completely broken, with 1.85M rats and officers able to spawn in every system. We also have L4 (though none Q20) agents in NPC delve, and with adjustments to pirate faction ships Blood Raider LP are no longer completely worthless.

Still, I completely understand the plight of other alliances. Atlas is inhabiting space we and others used to occupy in the southeast. They have a very long logistics chain to support. More appropriately, they need multiple regions for their membership because an average region has maybe 6 "good" truesec systems for ratting and mining. Some have less than that number. CVA is another example. 99% of their space is horrible truesec. Can they support all their stations through docking fees while maintaining NRDS? I don't know. I could be wrong, but I imagine they enjoy some alliance income through supercapital production today. If they do, kiss that goodbye along with sov 4.

The "upgrades" proposed by CCP are worse than terrible. That's what the bulk of complaints in this thread are about. You don't see, "oh our R64 income is gone" or "we can't afford 300M / month to claim a station". What you do see is players, some of them alliance leaders, calling CCP on the carpet for their apparent willful ignorance of two big problems:

1) Wars are fought over static resources - which are being nerfed/removed
2) There is no increased reward for assuming the risk of 0.0 for the average, individual player

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:47:00 - [3347]
 

Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 13/11/2009 18:47:47
Originally by: Nick Bete
After all the complaints I have a pretty simple question to those vehemently opposed to the changes as they currently stand; How much of a buff would you recommend CCP give to the money making activities in 0.0 to make it worthwhile? What types of buffs would you like to see?

For example, would tripling the number of static belts, rat spawns and rat bounties along with tripling the quality of ore be enough? Quadrupling? Would you want to also see changes to plexes and if so, what?

As much as I don't trust (some of) the messengers that doesn't invalidate the message. With so many people agreeing on the major points it seems like a good idea to revisit the idea of buffing null income in a significant way.

Personal aside: I feel that upping the rewards are only part of the equation; no matter if you raised the rewards by a game-breaking amount without a lowering of the risks involved with null living there will never be large numbers of people living there. Also, the attitudes of many of the null crowd towards empire people is a huge turn-off. I know I don't want to be viewed as a "pubbie" who doesn't belong or just as a target and there seems to be a lot of animosity towards empire folks in many of the comments I've read over my time in game.


I made a blog post about it, though of course that's basically back-of-napkin work, I have no idea how much is practical or balanced. But still, that's an idea of the sort of upgrades I'd like to see - real money, real ability to support lots of players, and real infrastructure. There's no reason a well-upgraded 0.0 system shouldn't earn 50+ players twice as much as they could make in highsec. Or we could get two anomalies.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2009.11.13 19:02:00 - [3348]
 

Ok so:

1. Cost will be more than now. Check. Make your members rat for the equivalent of 5 million isk a day. 1500 hundred man alliance will have around 300 actual players which will come to 1.5 bil a day or 45 bil a month. Combine that with other forms of income such as %'s of mining ops, moon goo and the simple fact that you guys had an overhead of about 40% of this new cost anyway and you all should be set. If have so much territory claimed that these numbers still aren't enough then I ain't got no sympathy for you.

2. You say that this new change will do nothing to both prevent larger alliances from losing space or smaller groups from gaining space. I say nothing will sure as hell change if ccp does nothing and since they are running the show you guys need to sit back and take a big tall glass of stfu. Normally I'm ok with a little bit of complaining but this is crazy. If it doesn't work ccp will alter it. Tbh I'm looking forward to simply seeing pos spamming go away.. You guys should too.

3. This, to me, is not as stupid as say the carrier change fiasco ole Zulu and team tried pawning off on us a couple years ago. That was dumb and demanded 100+ pages of hate filled whining. This is just you big boys whining about your wallets. You are in the minority over this.

Ccp don't cave in on this one.

Sidus Sarmiang
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2009.11.13 19:35:00 - [3349]
 

Originally by: Jovialmadness


3. This, to me, is not as stupid as say the carrier change fiasco ole Zulu and team tried pawning off on us a couple years ago. That was dumb and demanded 100+ pages of hate filled whining. This is just you big boys whining about your wallets. You are in the minority over this.

Ccp don't cave in on this one.


This sounds like an empire pubbie with no idea what he's talking about trying to give his opinion.

We don't care about the costs. Less space is fine with us. We just want rewards to justify the difficulty in holding and maintaining it.

Vadinho
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.13 20:27:00 - [3350]
 

Originally by: Gramtar
You can claim sov with a single small tower today for 28M isk per month, a bit less for a faction tower. The costs come in when you want to be able to do anything:

Sov w/ cyno beacon = 240M / month + fuel cost of tower
Sov w/ jump bridge = 480M / month + fuel cost of large tower(s)
Sov w/ beacon, bridge and jammer = 1140M / month + fuel cost of large tower(s)

If you want to mine moons, then you'll likely need additional towers unless you're skimping on guns on your logistics towers.

Compare that to today. Minimal non-strategic station system setup:
6 Amarr Large - 2 jump bridge towers (one with beacon), 1 dedicated jammer POS, 3 armed sov claimers
Fuel cost = 600M / month

For a "safer" setup with a bigger sov buffer, you'd use 11 Larges, at a cost of 1100M / month.

Post Dominion, 1140M sov bill + 300M fuel cost for 3 large towers - 2 bridges (1 with beacon) and 1 dedicated jammer tower = 1440M / month

It's going to be more expensive today. This is more so the case for non-station systems that basically contain jump bridges and nothing else. Today, 300M for 3 towers. After Dominion, 1440M. For a bare bones logistics system - cyno beacon and nothing else, the cost is 50M/month for a medium POS. After Dominion, 240M + 50M = 290M. That's a lot of isk to operate a cyno beacon. Say welcome back to shared account cyno alts.

For station systems it's not a big cost increase (unless youre cheap and only have 6 towers claiming sov). For logistics systems, it's huge, even if you forgo a cyno jammer. This is why you'll see the large alliances all packed into regions close to empire. The further your space is from lowsec logistics points, the more expensive it will be for you to operate.

GoonSwarm? We're ideally positioned for this change. We only claim two regions (although like others we'll be ironically punished for having developed these regions by dropping additional outposts), and there are points in both within Carrier range of lowsec. Delve is just 2 jumps from lowsec logistic points in a Jump Freighter or Rorqual.

Delve truesec is completely broken, with 1.85M rats and officers able to spawn in every system. We also have L4 (though none Q20) agents in NPC delve, and with adjustments to pirate faction ships Blood Raider LP are no longer completely worthless.

Still, I completely understand the plight of other alliances. Atlas is inhabiting space we and others used to occupy in the southeast. They have a very long logistics chain to support. More appropriately, they need multiple regions for their membership because an average region has maybe 6 "good" truesec systems for ratting and mining. Some have less than that number. CVA is another example. 99% of their space is horrible truesec. Can they support all their stations through docking fees while maintaining NRDS? I don't know. I could be wrong, but I imagine they enjoy some alliance income through supercapital production today. If they do, kiss that goodbye along with sov 4.

The "upgrades" proposed by CCP are worse than terrible. That's what the bulk of complaints in this thread are about. You don't see, "oh our R64 income is gone" or "we can't afford 300M / month to claim a station". What you do see is players, some of them alliance leaders, calling CCP on the carpet for their apparent willful ignorance of two big problems:

1) Wars are fought over static resources - which are being nerfed/removed
2) There is no increased reward for assuming the risk of 0.0 for the average, individual player
preach it from the mountain top, brother

Desparo
Posted - 2009.11.13 20:31:00 - [3351]
 

Okay first want to say this is a better system then the old but it still has some major problems.

Almost all these upgrades require people to scan. What is wrong with you CCP? A lot of people still can't or won't scan. You may be patting yourselves on the back for the changes to scanning but compared to some of the other ways it could be done yours is still poor.

What happened to increasing the quality of rats in belts?
How about one to add more belts to a system or increase the quality of ore in the belts?
Maybe one to decrease the costs of running a POS?
Add gate guns to your system to make it safer.
Seems your just making dominion more about mission running in 0.0

Not sure if this has been commented on yet. If CCP had a better forum search engine I could tell.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2009.11.13 20:58:00 - [3352]
 

Quote:
This sounds like an empire pubbie with no idea what he's talking about trying to give his opinion.


hehe that's precious..no see I think you misunderstand as do most prepubecent goons. I want there to be these added costs regardless of reward. I am, for the last four years, 0.0 based.

Eint Truzenzuzex
Posted - 2009.11.13 21:27:00 - [3353]
 

Greetings to the Hive

Okay, the only think that upset me about these changes are.

We have now to so something to upgrade the space.
But now the use of cloakes have made easyer.

it took, less than 5 day's.

They can block verry simpel aktivities in a 0.0 space (AFK-cloakers)


Nobani
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.13 22:16:00 - [3354]
 

Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
And goods knows how many alts they rolled into this topic just to make you soft.


Complaining about alts is pretty funny coming from a guy called "JitaPriceChecker2".

Sidus Sarmiang
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2009.11.13 22:34:00 - [3355]
 

Originally by: Jovialmadness
Quote:
This sounds like an empire pubbie with no idea what he's talking about trying to give his opinion.


hehe that's precious..no see I think you misunderstand as do most prepubecent goons. I want there to be these added costs regardless of reward. I am, for the last four years, 0.0 based.




You should probably display your alliance and corp then, because otherwise it just looks like someone with no clue trying to pretend otherwise (hint, you still are).

I understand you fine. You think that making 0.0 have a worse risk/reward ratio will encourage people to enter it. Most people would call this things like "stupid" or "illogical" but lets try putting one and one together and see what happens. Added costs drive people from 0.0, added rewards encourage them to come. Just about everyone else wants 0.0 to be restructured such that large alliances hold much smaller amounts of territory, but with rewards justifying the difficulty of 0.0. 0.0 alliances holding smaller amounts of territory for greater rewards will encourage new groups to enter to take advantages of the rewards themselves, and everyone will be happy.

Lets move onto what you want.

You apparently want 0.0 to be cost-prohibitive such that large numbers of people will leave it, in hopes that large numbers of empire players will suddenly enter it to make less money, but with the added bonus of randomly being blown up.

Conclusion: You're pretty dumb.

Mcon99
Posted - 2009.11.13 23:02:00 - [3356]
 

Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang
Originally by: Jovialmadness
Quote:
This sounds like an empire pubbie with no idea what he's talking about trying to give his opinion.


hehe that's precious..no see I think you misunderstand as do most prepubecent goons. I want there to be these added costs regardless of reward. I am, for the last four years, 0.0 based.




You should probably display your alliance and corp then, because otherwise it just looks like someone with no clue trying to pretend otherwise (hint, you still are).

I understand you fine. You think that making 0.0 have a worse risk/reward ratio will encourage people to enter it. Most people would call this things like "stupid" or "illogical" but lets try putting one and one together and see what happens. Added costs drive people from 0.0, added rewards encourage them to come. Just about everyone else wants 0.0 to be restructured such that large alliances hold much smaller amounts of territory, but with rewards justifying the difficulty of 0.0. 0.0 alliances holding smaller amounts of territory for greater rewards will encourage new groups to enter to take advantages of the rewards themselves, and everyone will be happy.

Lets move onto what you want.

You apparently want 0.0 to be cost-prohibitive such that large numbers of people will leave it, in hopes that large numbers of empire players will suddenly enter it to make less money, but with the added bonus of randomly being blown up.

Conclusion: You're pretty dumb.


lol the more Goons posts the more they talk themselves into a hole.

So we are honestly to believe that goons would be happy owning say 2 consteallations in Delve for all their members, assuming the resource base was availiable? and then let small alliances move in next door? yeah right.

If you are so noble, why not adopt the Querious dominion experiment, abandon the space and open it up for expansion with the following rules:

-An alliance can hold only 3 systems in the region
-An alliance can hold space in no other 0.0 region
-An alliance can only hold one station
-We resevere the right to bring as much pew pew as we want throughout region, expect challenging your sov
-Any viloation and we the Goons will immediately remove you, your poses and flags


centurion zulu
Phantom Squad
Atlas.
Posted - 2009.11.13 23:41:00 - [3357]
 

Edited by: centurion zulu on 14/11/2009 00:55:15
Edited by: centurion zulu on 13/11/2009 23:43:27
This isn't about Goonswarm.
This isn't about Atlas
This isn't about the NC or the SC

LvL 4's isn't the problem.

This is about the game as a whole, and how it effects everyone that plays it.

It's about the ideas put forth by CCP that doesn't address the issues and basic concerns that has brought on this so called "change" in the first place.

I have yet to understand why CCP always attempts to improve the game by degrading some aspect of it, ( the overboard speed nerf as an example ). Making a change in the Titan is one thing, but making a bookend out of it is stupid. (I suppose new countermeasures to defend against the current Titan configuration would be also be an inferior idea.)

The current release does not address the "risk vs. reward" issue and the general overcrowding of null sec. at all.

Matter of fact, the impending release as it stands, makes it worse. LvL 4's in empire is still going to be the most profitable way to acquire isk for the average player. Most of the isk I made in the few years of living in 0.0 came from empire. The isk was used for warships in 0.0. Something very wrong with that picture. There's just not enough isk making adventures vs. the population inhabiting 0.0. Try to do something that's profitable, and there's 50 peeps ahead of you. God forbid if you live in the wrong TZ, you never get ahead.

It's just wrong. The rewards vs. risk in 0.0 needs to be increased dramaticly.

CCP needs to make 0.0 more profitable if they really want a change. This nightmare of industrial expansion isn't going to do anything to change the R vs. R in null sec.

They sould at the very least change the sec. of the systems ffs. DO SOMETHING that really addresess the R vs R.

Throwing bones that dogs don't like is a waste of time.

Kanatta Jing
Posted - 2009.11.14 00:18:00 - [3358]
 

Saying that 0.0 chain anomalies are inferior to lvl 4's is like saying that manufacturing Trit into Torpedoes to move it to 0.0 is inferior to just selling the Torps at a profit.

I mean it would be nice if 0.0 wasn't all about working for less (sometimes for free in hard times) to get things done.

But being in your 0.0 space makes you able to defend your 0.0 space and bringing in loot and salvage while in 0.0 cuts down on Alliance wide logistics work.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2009.11.14 02:28:00 - [3359]
 

Quote:
You should probably display your alliance and corp then, because otherwise it just looks like someone with no clue trying to pretend otherwise (hint, you still are).

I understand you fine. You think that making 0.0 have a worse risk/reward ratio will encourage people to enter it. Most people would call this things like "stupid" or "illogical" but lets try putting one and one together and see what happens. Added costs drive people from 0.0, added rewards encourage them to come. Just about everyone else wants 0.0 to be restructured such that large alliances hold much smaller amounts of territory, but with rewards justifying the difficulty of 0.0. 0.0 alliances holding smaller amounts of territory for greater rewards will encourage new groups to enter to take advantages of the rewards themselves, and everyone will be happy.

Lets move onto what you want.

You apparently want 0.0 to be cost-prohibitive such that large numbers of people will leave it, in hopes that large numbers of empire players will suddenly enter it to make less money, but with the added bonus of randomly being blown up.

Conclusion: You're pretty dumb.


Yea you are right. I am dumb for wanting your alliance to suffer. Smile

See this is what im talking about, you have totally missed the point. Its like a communist and capitalist argueing whose gov't is better. I simply believe that 0.0 should be an earned space that provides basic income with ADDED COST to make it hard to live there so that when ******s get into nap/nonnap mode you cant just run around like a damn chicken with your head cut off trying to control space like in the past. NOW IT WILL CHANGE. Now we can't just pos spam like in the past...now taking space FFS of taking space might actually mean something considering there is serious cost to it. But none of that means jack to you...all you care about is what you can make in the systems as far as income. F... that.

Kiara Amaranu
The Maverick Navy
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.14 02:33:00 - [3360]
 

Another point that I would like to make about this tax system being as expensive as it is there has to be more ways to make isk in a passive manner. Upgrading a system is great, but does it help much if you start getting reds camping or cloaking in you space constantly. Now you can't go out and rat for fear of being killed by said red or even mine for that matter. Now all that red has to do is wait for your alliance to run out of isk to pay the taxes and that alliance will lose sov and the red didn't have to plan any large engagements.

In the end the large alliances will decrease there territory leaving unclaimed space. Then any small alliance will try to claim it and then only hold it for a few months while they have to sit in tower shields watching all the isk they saved get burned up because they can't go out and plex while the red sits in system. Basically this is the best way to bankrupt eve.

I thought the whole point of 0.0 is it is an uncontrolled part of space that is directed by the player base not CCP or NPC corps. I think the best way to make a system like this work is instead of paying taxes, create a fuel package. One that is created through a manufacturing process where some components can be obtained from empire but the rest can be found in system or even mined from moons/planets. These 'pellets' would then be put into our sov claiming equipment thus allowing for a more dynamic means to pay for sov. At that point it's up to the alliance to decide if they will just but the fuel packages or make the fuel packages.

This way the market can be part of this new system and the industrialists in each alliance can work on helping to pay for sov while the warriors can help defend them in order to keep their space. I'm hoping that you will be able to put serious thought to this as it is the best alternative to let our current market survive this change. Just think how the market will collapse when everyone from 0.0 has to Run to Jita to sell massive amounts of faction mods or other equipment in the hopes of paying the 1 bill isk necessary just to have their name on a system.

In regards to Cyno jammers/Jump bridges, the cost to have them is already paid for by having to put up and fuel the towers. I see no reason to tax an alliance to put up an object that they are paying for by fueling it. Last I checked there are no large towers that can run a Jump bridge and mine a moon in order to pay for itself. The new ideas in Dominion are great but being that POS's are still going to be a part of 0.0 operations charging 1 bill for a system and paying for tower fuel is unrealistic.


Pages: first : previous : ... 108 109 110 111 [112] 113 114 115 116 ... : last (119)

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