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 : ... 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

Flaura
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:20:00 - [1471]
 

Couple of points:
I forsee stationpingpong like in the old days before pos's were introduced. Reason is there is no defence against enemies going directly at your empires capital, camp it for the short duration of the takeover (read max the node) and suddenly block a big portion of your empires assets. NPC 0,0 will therefore be worth gold from now on, everything else is like having stuff at a POS. (Remember Goons and friends camping BOBS capitalfleet in npc delve for days?)
Spies will be more powerfull then ever to locate said assets and lock it down.

If holding space will be as expensive as visualed u got to stick your finger in the ground as see what eve is. You want ppl to migrate from empire to 0,0. Yet u do nothing to boost the reward of actually going claiming space in 0,0 compared to lvl4's in empire.
U reduce the incentives for ppl to actually go attack each other in 0,0 except for going and blow up their upgrades once in awhile.

All in all I feel this was a grand big plan and turned out to be a last minute thing as the releasedate came crashing in your face (Suddenly systems went from supporting 100 to 10-15, system upkeepcost being the same as 5 large towers each system (lol right) and adding a few anomalies with a faster respawn).

All in all not impressed with the work and planning here Evil or Very Mad




Jethro Hawkins
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:20:00 - [1472]
 

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.

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:20:00 - [1473]
 

Originally by: Tesal
Originally by: Dante Edmundo
...The RISK in null-sec for outweighs the GAIN with the current proposal. So why bother? At least CCP has degraded the risk so far - but now what about the GAINS?



Hey man, didn't you hear, you got moons!


Oh yeah awesome why don't I just go ahead and tower th.. oh right taking a moon of any value requires a fleet of Dreads or battleships to clear it from its current owner and all the profits from those moons go to fueling the hundreds of systems that do not have an R64. Also they are being nerfed in three weeks.

Well at least now my alliance can spend some of that ISK to gain TWO(!) guaranteed Cosmic Anomalies!

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:20:00 - [1474]
 

Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Sworn Absent
Originally by: CCP Chronotis


excellent clarity of vision I must say!

It is true and something we said from outset that unbalanced alliances who are 95% PvP/Fleet and 5% industry will be most affected by this as we are reducing their dependency on passive point sources and introducing greater active resource density to allow for passive income to take over.

The alliances who will benefit most are those who have or aim to have balanced compositions of people with different playstyles or even act as enforcers or protectors of the space with multiple rental agreements if they wish and we will add tools as we call the treaty system to help facilitate that.



So you basically want to take the sand out of the sandbox and force alliances to operate in a particular way. Cool.


Funny but i dont remember you being too concerned about the sandbox when they proposed npc corp taxes

Because we have little experience with it. Just as you probably have little experience with this so we appreciate you not being concerned or acting as if you have a legit opinion.

Bald Negroid
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:20:00 - [1475]
 

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.

Srsly tho. I came to 0.0 for less grind and moar pew. Change that and I'm out. Evil or Very Mad

Sidus Sarmiang
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:21:00 - [1476]
 

Originally by: Nilania Telshua

Sarcasm applies only on alliances living in space providing similiar humble income by ratting, that mirrors that of a high-end mission runner in empire.


Reread my post. There is a secret hidden in the numbers.

Andra McKay
Dark Krystal
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:21:00 - [1477]
 

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.

Destrim
Koshaku
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:21:00 - [1478]
 

Well, personally, I think the heavy tax and necessity to use the systems does an excellent job at condensing empires, and opening 0.0 up to much more people. THAT I have no problem with... even the heavy tax.

What I DO have a problem with is this: the industrial/military upgrades are weaksauce. I say this because the upgrades, which are supposed to apply to an alliance's/corp's infrastructure, are not, in fact, doing much to help them achieve such ends.

In other words, you have succeeded in using punishment ("pain aversion") to reign-in the ballooning miss-usage of 0.0 space (which works perfectly), but you haven't created any rewards as incentive for holding only a few systems. Penalizing works, but it only goes so far: you have to make it much more worth while to dig-in and hold the few systems they put so much time into improving. So, the improvements must be worthwhile.

For me, I consider it the equivalent of creating an actual ****ing HOME in EVE. Not just some space you hold, so you can wave your e-peen, but somewhere that actually means something to you.

This is what I propose:

Industry upgrades: Something which...

  • Decreases build costs by x% per sov level

  • Decreases build times by x% per sov level

  • Decreases reaction times by x% per sov level

  • Increases moon stuff mined per unit of time by x% per sov level

  • Increases refine rate (going beyond 100%, so you actually get MORE from refining) by x% per sov level

  • Retain the "hidden belts per sov level" idea

  • Increase mining amount/speed by x% per sov level



Now, for military infrastructure, I find it somewhat of a serious misnomer to use that title, and then create things which only apply to RATING. Instead, why not have it actually do something for the sovereign's military?

This is key, since, with the serious condensation, and influx of smaller groups, you MUST make the new systems more defensible. I mean, think about it: you're encouraging all these people to go out and get space, but they will become little more than targets for roamers and those who hold no space. And much larger alliances. Since (with the current system) they would have to plex and scan continuously for upkeep, they become more vulnerable to small roaming gangs and cloakies than before... actually, even if they weren't doing it continually, they become vulnerable to being squished anyhoo since, as someone else already pointed out, there will be less forewarning.

So, for military bonuses, you must give advantages to the sovereign's military. The rating stuff? Meh, keep it if you want, but at least include some other things which actually applies to military infrastructure.

Some things which may work...

  • Increase shield HP by x% per sov level

  • Increase armor HP by x% per sov level

  • Increase shield/armor repair amount by x% per sov level

  • Increase falloff/optimal range, tracking, etc. by 3% per sov level

  • Increase ship speed/agility by x% per sov level

  • Decrease cap recharge by x% per sov level

  • Decrease repair cost by x% per sov level

  • etc



There! Now your home system, which, unlike before, you are dedicating so much time and investment towards, actually provides protection for the people inhabiting it. Maybe some of those, like ship agility/speed may extend for a limited range outside of your sov system, increasing per sov level... I dunno, just an idea I'm throwing around.

Again, you have to create sufficient reward incentive to draw people out there, not just condense it by penalizing those who don't use it.

Oh, and to the poll going about: yes!

Tom Peeping
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:22:00 - [1479]
 

Ouch... I'm sorry to criticize, but I don't think a few of these changes are very well thought through. We really want to make space support more players right? Let's look at the current situation now... If you're in a busy alliance, which crosses time zones... (i.e. the kind that generally actually holds sov) then how does the current anomaly system work?

Short answer is that those people who play after downtime and in the hours immediately afterward simply probe and run all the anomalies. Anyone who logs in in the later 12 hours, either doesn't runt them, or has to go far afield. The addition of a few more ... or even 10 more will not change this at all. If this is the conception on how to make space hold more people, then there's a rude awakening on it's way. You need to make a method of ratting which will support more people... not a system which inherently gears towards those who log in after down time. How about a little love to players who log in later in the day? The focus on stuff that spawns over downtime really screws a decent chunk of the player base.

Peryner
University of Caille
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:23:00 - [1480]
 

Edited by: Peryner on 08/11/2009 01:25:19
One last post

If one of the pitches for this change was not a way to get highsec players into 0.0, then people wouldn't be complaining. Yes, 10 players can run a system and pay for the cost of the system. It's not that bad it should be easy i fact.

However, why wouldn any Carebear alliances want to go out to 0.0? It sounded at fanfest like you wanted PvE players to go into 0.0 space and basicly help pay the holding alliance for higher profits.

but currently the offer is, or should I say the big steak your using to lure non-pvp players out, is the offer of 100 days of hard work, full of free range pvp and level 1 income that can only support 2 people then 4 then 10.

That's not a good offer at all. jezz, no one would do that.


also the **** you is for acting like we don't' have valid points and we should be ignored.

-mothermoon

edit:p.s. the whole moon argument is mute, no alliance is going to give a penny of that moon money to carebears running around thier systems.
and just to say it again, I'm not complaining about the costs, it's the rewards for those said cost.

Wirbin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:23:00 - [1481]
 

Originally by: cok cola
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.

THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE.

Korodan
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:23:00 - [1482]
 

Originally by: Vadinho
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Welcome to page fifty of the official "CCP doesn't understand that the only motivation for war is valuable and exploitable resources that would otherwise be unobtainable" thread I'm your maitre d' Vadinho I hope you stay is an enjoyable one!


Vadinho is a hell of a goon and writes incredible ****, quote this if you're down.

also

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.

Mrs Trzzbk
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:24:00 - [1483]
 

Originally by: Future Mutant

Funny but i dont remember you being too concerned about the sandbox when they proposed npc corp taxes


Do you know what NPC means?

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:24:00 - [1484]
 

So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par??


Vadinho
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:24:00 - [1485]
 

Originally by: Zahorite
Table for 300,000 subscribers soon to be 100,000 please.
Right sir. You have your choice of two seating areas. The tables next to the kitchen are free and can support several hundred guests who may never talk to or even see one another as they eat. We also have seating much further from the kitchen, and those tables can only support one or two people, are much more expensive, and everyone has to fight over the same basket of bread and glass of water.

Which will your party prefer?

Future Mutant
Republic Military School
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:26:00 - [1486]
 

Do i know what npc means? It means your a moron you hypocrite.

Originally by: cok cola
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.

THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE.


Also- everyone thats asked this question is a moron- every activity that makes isk can be done in nullsec for more isk per hour compared to highsec.

Professor Dumbledore
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:27:00 - [1487]
 

Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Sworn Absent
Originally by: CCP Chronotis


excellent clarity of vision I must say!

It is true and something we said from outset that unbalanced alliances who are 95% PvP/Fleet and 5% industry will be most affected by this as we are reducing their dependency on passive point sources and introducing greater active resource density to allow for passive income to take over.

The alliances who will benefit most are those who have or aim to have balanced compositions of people with different playstyles or even act as enforcers or protectors of the space with multiple rental agreements if they wish and we will add tools as we call the treaty system to help facilitate that.



So you basically want to take the sand out of the sandbox and force alliances to operate in a particular way. Cool.


Funny but i dont remember you being too concerned about the sandbox when they proposed npc corp taxes


Because there is a very easy sandbox answer to it. Make a corp for yourself and set 0% tax. There your done.

Zahorite
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:27:00 - [1488]
 

So considering that you no longer need sov to well do anything but upgrade and put a station in a system how many alliances are just going to drop sov. Upgrades suck, so just keep sov in the systems you have a station in.

You don't need sov to kill enemy reds, rat, mine, explore, and now you don't need it for POS's.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:27:00 - [1489]
 

Originally by: Future Mutant
Do i know what npc means? It means your a moron you hypocrite.

Originally by: cok cola
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.

THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE.


Also- everyone thats asked this question is a moron- every activity that makes isk can be done in nullsec for more isk per hour compared to highsec.


Haha do you really believe this?

Drew's ID
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:28:00 - [1490]
 

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.

Sidus Sarmiang
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:28:00 - [1491]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par??




The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards. Their idea is that, with full upgrades to a system, we can make approximately as much per hour as a person doing level 4 missions in highsec. This is assuming that no one is competing with you or holding anomalies open by hanging around in them cloaked. The costs would be fine if the rewards justified them. As it is, the only cost these rewards justify is less than we're paying now, especially with the reduced moon mining income.

Bald Negroid
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:29:00 - [1492]
 

How long does it take you to scan through 20, 30+ sigs? Now, how many of those sigs are in the process of being ran by the 100+ in local or haven't despawned yet? Now, make sure you stay cloaked cause how can you scan a system while scrolling 100+ in local to keep an eye out for reds in system? I can't wait to sit in my hulk moving local up and down keeping an eye out for the 1 stray ganker waiting to get me.

WTH are they thinking?


Elisean
Pator Tech School
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:30:00 - [1493]
 

Edited by: Elisean on 08/11/2009 01:30:53
Originally by: Marlona Sky
So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par??




The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards.

In fact maybe they should double the upgrade and upkeep costs. Then double the rewards.

That would be amuch better situation. As then players would say, THAT"S TOO MUCH! and then think, what does all that give me? and then say "oh wow, that's a lot of isk! maybe we should pay it so we can move towards that future goal.



also why isn't ccp using the wardec model here? where the more systems you own the more it costs to own them?

Wait 24Hours
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:30:00 - [1494]
 

This image really sums it up for me today; maybe if I want 24 Hours things will get better.
* Please refrain from posting images directly into threads. - CCP Ildoge




Korodan
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:30:00 - [1495]
 

Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang
Originally by: Marlona Sky
So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par??




The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards. Their idea is that, with full upgrades to a system, we can make approximately as much per hour as a person doing level 4 missions in highsec. This is assuming that no one is competing with you or holding anomalies open by hanging around in them cloaked. The costs would be fine if the rewards justified them. As it is, the only cost these rewards justify is less than we're paying now, especially with the reduced moon mining income.


Yes, give us useful upgrades. Things like agents or better rat bounties, and let us tax an activity that makes use of them taking place in the system.

Kuar Z'thain
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:31:00 - [1496]
 

Military experts are calling this a Threadnaught.

Destrim
Koshaku
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:31:00 - [1497]
 

Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Military experts are calling this a Threadnaught.


lol

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:32:00 - [1498]
 

Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang
Originally by: Marlona Sky
So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par??




The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards. Their idea is that, with full upgrades to a system, we can make approximately as much per hour as a person doing level 4 missions in highsec. This is assuming that no one is competing with you or holding anomalies open by hanging around in them cloaked. The costs would be fine if the rewards justified them. As it is, the only cost these rewards justify is less than we're paying now, especially with the reduced moon mining income.


The other thing is, why should we pay for upgrades when we can just roam and run other alliances upgrades stuff/whatever and gain the benefits without having to pay for it. I dunno. With this new system they should be able to add more 'upgrades' and adjust cost without too much programming right? (sorry, don't know much about programming so... Embarassed)


Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:32:00 - [1499]
 

Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Military experts are calling this a Threadnaught.
I lol'ed

Hertford
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:32:00 - [1500]
 

Originally by: Future Mutant
Also- everyone thats asked this question is a moron- every activity that makes isk can be done in nullsec for more isk per hour compared to highsec.


I too make more ISK from agents in Querious than Empire dwellers make from the agents in Irjunen.


Pages: first : previous : ... 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 ... : 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