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 : ... 55 56 57 58 [59] 60 61 62 63 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

Tesal
Posted - 2009.11.08 08:31:00 - [1741]
 

YES OR NO I would like a ham sandwich.

Eint Truzenzuzex
Posted - 2009.11.08 08:31:00 - [1742]
 

Greeting's to the Hive,

i personally don't see a reason why to wine about the new sov-system.

1. it looks promising, they need maybe a bit finetune it but let see the patch hit Tranz.
If all go wrong CCP get panic and make proper adjustment's and ccp can do things quickly.
( look on the CVA disbanding ).
2. A question how should small alliance get there space ? CCP do not ad new space, so the
one has to be redistributed. Higher coast + lower static income = consideration of holding Space.
3. And to be honest, (okay that would be an oldy) most changes they where heavily debated on
the forms where good changes, for most of the players. People are quick at complaining
slow on give out a "good job"



SavageBastard
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 08:36:00 - [1743]
 

Originally by: Eint Truzenzuzex
Greeting's to the Hive,

i personally don't see a reason why to wine about the new sov-system.

1. it looks promising, they need maybe a bit finetune it but let see the patch hit Tranz.
If all go wrong CCP get panic and make proper adjustment's and ccp can do things quickly.
( look on the CVA disbanding ).
2. A question how should small alliance get there space ? CCP do not ad new space, so the
one has to be redistributed. Higher coast + lower static income = consideration of holding Space.
3. And to be honest, (okay that would be an oldy) most changes they where heavily debated on
the forms where good changes, for most of the players. People are quick at complaining
slow on give out a "good job"







Thanks for this completely substanceless affirmation of CCP's plan. So far nobody with any clear grasp of what this actually means for 0.0 has come out in support of it as-is. If you're wondering why enemies like Atlas, ROL and Gonswarm are all in agreement on this issue it's because we all actually live in 0.0 and understand where these changes are headed vs. where they were supposed to go.


gambrinous
Posted - 2009.11.08 08:38:00 - [1744]
 

Originally by: Petar Quaresma
HAI OR NEIN: Dew to0 the incense disc and logical forts retired, >.> would we pour - notice - probable (in four miles/gallon) than highschool wd40 russian cunning.


This patch is now about installing chinese whisper mod on forums

Anahid Brutus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 08:41:00 - [1745]
 

**** it, i'll do your job for you.

First off, you need objectives that people want to fight over. Not useless grindy **** that absolutely NO ONE wants to do and can't even be fought over, so here's the solution:

- Leave R64s as large scale alliance objectives. If the income is too high(which it probably is), simply lower the dysp/prom reqs on T2 construction jobs. Problem solved. No need to tear apart the whole system with your terrible, terrible large-scale switch-around solution that will just frustrate players. No need for your completely terrible and overly complex alchemy either.

- Reintroduce static plexes as small-gang objectives. Active income, can be fought over without a 200 man fleet. Worth the effort compared to L4s in empire, reduce the number of them if they aren't being fought over.

- For individual income then make deep 0.0, ie. 2-3 carrier jumps out of low-sec, all perfect true sec, increase rat spawn rates/quality/bounties by 50%(no frig/cruiser spawns 50 jumps from jita, ~3m bounty rats), make all BS rats scram you(if you're out of scram range then they tank really hard, so no kiting) and now 0.0 is kinda risky, yet rewarding enough to be worth the effort. You definitely won't have solo ravens being able to rat and just cloak up whenever someone comes through, but some active, organized defense and you'll be making isk worth your while.


Sov shouldn't be important since let's be honest, no one really gives a ****(money motivates people, not some gay towers or something), and as such it really shouldn't be the focus, but:
- remove cyno jammers
- make the sov holding structure something with dual reinforcement timers that orbits the sun, no maint costs needed, but it needs to be reinforceable by a 20 man bs fleet in a reasonable amount of time. the limit on the size of empires will be that disrupting sov will be doable by small groups of players, not some arbitrary maintenance fees.(don't make it an outpost since people will just sit on undock with their carriers like big gays)

oh and kill exploration/wormspace, that **** is just anti-social.

gambrinous
Posted - 2009.11.08 08:53:00 - [1746]
 

Originally by: Anahid Brutus
First off, you need objectives that people want to fight over.


The more I think about it, the less I think this is true. Just set someone red, your ally grunts will already change mindset and start the hate.

If you need some more motivation, throw in some sound logical reasoning to why the enemy should be shot to ****. e.g.

Moderated.Applebabe

There's a high chance I'm wrong tho, but alarm clock ops to protect moon goo I'm not even sure I see a benefit in is hardly exciting, particulary when you don't even end up with the fight you hoped for.

Anahid Brutus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 08:58:00 - [1747]
 

Inappropriate content removed.Applebabe

Mistres Tor
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:04:00 - [1748]
 

One question why patch notes don't show nerfing of spawns and loot in 0.0 and why we have to weait 30s to spwan warp in, and slow down it is weisting our time on mision you don't have tis problem

Second EXODUS incoming

lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming

gambrinous
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:05:00 - [1749]
 

Edited by: gambrinous on 08/11/2009 09:10:24
Originally by: Anahid Brutus
Inappropriate content removed.Applebabe


but take that away and do you seriously expect peace to break out

like I said I'm prob wrong, I don't run an ally or moon ****, but just sayin, pvpers will pvp reguardless

also my caps aren't compensated for with reimbursement, so ye, like I said, NOT SURE I really see the moon gold

E: I could probably posit a good theory on how r64 reduces battles, keeps the nap trains coming, and does the opposite of what this patch intends by keeping the rich powerblocs rich and the smaller alliances completely out of the pie.

Abarek
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:06:00 - [1750]
 

Edited by: Abarek on 09/11/2009 00:57:03
Edited by: Abarek on 09/11/2009 00:46:53
Edited by: Abarek on 08/11/2009 09:12:26
If we have to pay rent on a system - how about you turn that rent, into a wage, and add an NPC defense fleet. Nothing too heavy - a few batteries, and a small gang on each gate or outpost, similar to what you see in Empire. These would engage any hostiles or neutrals entering Sov space. As you increase your sov level, these defenses increase in strength. At max sov, maybe these defenses would be enough to repel a small gang, and at least slow down a well organised raid.

The beauty with this setup, is you can upgrade your systems while lessening risk of those resources being exploited by neutrals etc. Obviously, with a full out assault, these defenses mean nothing, but i dont think thats a bad thing - it will stop the solo ratters, explorers maybe a roaming pirate or two.. It also gets around the conceptual flaw of paying rent in LAWLESS space.

Hell theres a whole new skill tree right there... you could even allow alliances to customize their defense fleets, they get to pick the ships - you could use your tournament point system or something similar to do this. Allowing the fleets to be customized would mean different tactics/gang setups would be required against different alliances, again keeping a good variety of encounters. The main hole in this are stealth gangs - so the defence fleet setup would have to have something that would break stealth, so if the sov holding alliance decides to setup their npc defense fleet to deal with stealthers they can, but they would be vulnerable to other setups. Maybe put bounties on the NPC fleets as well, to encourage small gang pvp with that extra isk generation - effectively ratting while roaming.

I also really think that null sec space needs to be way more profitable than empire, as the risks are so much greater. The best idea for this seems to be increasing the rat bounty considerably as this wont crash the markets, and make the other exploration sites comparable in isk/h to the increased ratting isk/h rate, not by increasing the frequency or amount of site spawns, or increasing the amount of loot ( in fact drop the amount of loot to increase its market value ), but increase the number of rats and their bounties at these sites - as mentioned by numerous people in earlier post. Have the exploration sites escalate and use your imagination to make this scenarios interesting. You could even put agents at these sites or at least a mechanism that acts like an agent - a hacked computer gives you some info on an barracks/armory hidden blah blah. You attack a starbase, but need hacking to get through the shields in this scenario. You could make these sites very mission like with greater than lvl 4 income.

Someone posted earlier about making the cost for gaining sov for systems in a constellation linear, but taking sov in additional constellations exponentional - i think this is a great idea, IF null sec becomes more profitable system per system. The combination would encourage alliances to abandon some systems, simply because it would be more profitable to downsize.

I think cyno jammers and JB's should remain relatively cheap, at least compared to the proposed costs. Just make them way more vunerable to attack (again, someone else has already mentioned this - would just make pvp much more interesting. Small strategic incursions into enemy territory to take out certain defenses so you can hot drop your caps.. that sounds fun.

And with the aim of cramming more and more players into an ever smaller area - i really think you should seriously buff the facilities of outposts, or bring in a new generation of bigger and better outposts.

And perhaps make one of the materials needed to construct these next generation outposts, very rare, and only available in null sec. Invent a new one if you have to. Another reason to go to war.

Deldrac
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:10:00 - [1751]
 

Moderated.Applebabe

Seriously, I would X for this op.

Anahid Brutus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:11:00 - [1752]
 

Originally by: gambrinous
but take that away and do you seriously expect peace to break out

like I said I'm prob wrong, I don't run an ally or moon ****, but just sayin, pvpers will pvp reguardless
Yeah people will pvp, but instead of dread vs dread fleets battling it out over R64sm +30 well fit BS fighting each other over a plex or expensive hacs/recons trying to disrupt ratters and avoiding defense gangs, then you'll see boring **** like in the red vs blue pvp alliance thing, which is t1 frigs and t1 cruisers basically dueling, and while that might be fun for a while, let's be honest, it isn't really that exciting.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:15:00 - [1753]
 

In principle it could be that your neighbours disrupt your ratting/exploration stuff too much, so you decide to invade them and whipe them out, not that bad idea imo.

Although it probably wont change anything and the cloakers will keep disrupting all your carebearing in those systems. Anti cloak modules pls.

Mistres Tor
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:15:00 - [1754]
 

How much penople can have isk from lv4 hub in empire?? 1000+ and for free and system with new sov system with new upgrad, 10 players ?? and you have to pay bilions of isk to do that and maby it will be the sam whort are lv 4misions, and weait you have to defend it ,and weait you can have a cloker all the day to ruin your day ?? and a small gang can destroy your work ??

Second EXODUS incoming

lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming

Kralizek Kharr
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:17:00 - [1755]
 

CCP you are introducing a whole revamp to a MAJOR part of this game and not introducing incentive while raising the cost of upkeep... you're wrong here. I know new stuff will be introduced later (read: comets etc.) but this must be brought together it would be like giving us wormholes without sleepers/gas sites but with all logistic constraints and let us mine ore there (sarcastic - just because roids in wh are bigger).

- Idea - bring sleeper mods which will be made out of loot and mins from reverse engineering ..BUT THEY MUST BE REGION DEPENDANT.. (read: to build an X mod u need mins from 5-10 regions and all must be used in same quantity or near enoguh to not make one region isk making while leaving others left with nothing) that WILL make incentive to fight over systems and also maybe even start cooperating between alliances/corporations at different level, thats what I thought you were looking for, isn't it???

- I have been in this game for 'only 3 years' but looking what you're doing to it is constant 'flatening' of everything and make it available to everyone - THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT A WAY TO GO!! if there is a bottleneck so be it, let US fight for it and let US relase it for god sake!! not by artifically increasing availability. (and no I'm not talking about moon goo, agreed for no afk isk machines in that one on par with you)

If you need more time to 'adjust' rather than release it on 1st Dec please offset it and make it as it suppose to be.

Anahid Brutus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:20:00 - [1756]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
In principle it could be that your neighbours disrupt your ratting/exploration stuff too much, so you decide to invade them and whipe them out, not that bad idea imo.
Goons live 1 jump from AAA. Due to the nature of exploration/ratting(ie. it's very, very easy to do in complete safety as long as you're aligned) then even in the border areas both alliances almost definitely lose more ships to rats than hostiles.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:22:00 - [1757]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Thanks for keeping the feedback largely constructive so far. As stated in the original blog it is trivial for us to us to change the numbers and we expected this to happen based on the next round of feedback which is happening here.

The original upkeep costs in the blog were designed given a reduction in space you need to hold for income purposes so they increasingly become less as passive income increases (fixed cost/dynamic income) and act as a soft limit and prohibitive factor on how much space you want to claim.

That indeed is the case since the established powerblocks will naturally look to where you can cost cut initially and potentially expand later based on purchase and installation of resource upgrades and more balanced member base to utilise those resources and that means limiting to strategically important systems to begin with regardless of the final upkeep or upgrade figures we arrive at here.

But on with some specific answers to the biggest concerns:

So will we look at making upkeep costs less than stated in the blog due to reasonable feedback?

Yes!

- Sovereignty Structures

The role of the Territorial Claim Unit (TCU) changed since the original figures were generated to be only a marker for sovereignty and the last thing to be removed after a system has been taken (details on this are coming soon in Abathur's next blog). This means the cost for the TCU should be reasonable in terms of upkeep and we are looking at 1 mill per day currently for that dot on the map.

The infrastructure hub is both key to strategic defence and as the base of the solar system upgrades. Here we are looking at mirroring a large starbase in equivalent operational cost so 5 million upkeep per day is more reasonable.

- Strategic Upgrades

The key upgrades here we want to force you to make economic decisions over are naturally the jump bridges and cynosural jammer use. The presence of these two has radical effects on the 'landscape' generally.

We are looking at no upkeep cost on either of the construction arrays and cynosural field generators and then maintain significant costs the cynosural jammer and jump bridges.



Hopefully that answers some concerns on the upkeep fees and that we are looking at the figures and open to adjusting them further.

As for the other issues raised, we are looking at the issues around the resource sites and things like knowing if they are in use or not and will shed more light on the asteroid belt upgrades which are not the ordinary gravimetric sites FYI some of you are mentioning Wink

Keep the constructive feedback coming and we'll update the original blog monday or tuesday with new figures and updates and additional comments to clear some confusion up.



This cost is much better.

We need that additional information, should have been in there in the first place.

Verlisia
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:25:00 - [1758]
 

BAWL OUT WITH THE OLD IN WITH THE NEW you guys had your time in the sun and when all your isk is spent trying to protect your precious sovereignty we will rise up to cut your lines and destroy everything you've worked for. To hell with the old way and the big alliances crying about holding vast stretches of space and kicking out the smaller guys instead of helping them prosper and making them allies.. If the old alliances fail its is because they've failed to adapt this isn't a step back its an opportunity to Change strategies and advance.

Tamahra
Gallente
Apina.
United Pod Service
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:26:00 - [1759]
 

Originally by: Bojan Z
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Shasis

Why not creating an upgrade that will put lvl4 agents in the upgraded outpost systems ? then the 10-15 people is gone...


We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though.


What about "Cosmos like" agents; i.e. in their ships in space near the infrastructure hub?


this once again proves that CCP doesnt really seem willing to give 0.0 the boost it would need with the new costs involved when you run a 0.0 system.

CCP why dont you add cosmos like agents in ships who give out lvl 4 (or even lvl 5) missions in 0.0, WHIH WOULD BE MORE REWARDING THAN EMPIRE ONES. What could be so hard about that?

There are so many decent ideas in this thread how to make 0.0 a good place. Yet CCP hasnt even thought about one single of them, before finishing all that sov overhaul stuff.

Floydd Heywood
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:31:00 - [1760]
 

Dominion was always meant to make the fat and powerful established alliances lose land and power. You guys hold way too many systems already, systems that you do not nearly fully use. You need to be trimmed down. And nobody likes to be trimmed down.

So if all the alliance people cry now, this is an indication that the changes are good Laughing

That said, I also have my doubts about the new system. I do not understand why upkeep is linear; the first system should be a lot less expensive than owning several systems, to encourage and aid newcomers.

And the upgrades seem indeed to be of limited value. I had hoped for more quality, not just more of the same. The resources of most 0.0 systems are not fully exploited right now. So why spend money on upgrades when we can just move to the next empty system?

Anahid Brutus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:32:00 - [1761]
 

Originally by: Verlisia
BAWL OUT WITH THE OLD IN WITH THE NEW you guys had your time in the sun and when all your isk is spent trying to protect your precious sovereignty we will rise up to cut your lines and destroy everything you've worked for. To hell with the old way and the big alliances crying about holding vast stretches of space and kicking out the smaller guys instead of helping them prosper and making them allies.. If the old alliances fail its is because they've failed to adapt this isn't a step back its an opportunity to Change strategies and advance.
You're missing the point, nothing here is a challenge to the large alliances, except that it makes 0.0 so bad that it might make them all move into npc 0.0. And if you think smaller alliances will have a fighting chance in npc spahahahahaha

Pointfive
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:33:00 - [1762]
 

Edited by: Pointfive on 08/11/2009 09:34:02
Originally by: Verlisia
BAWL OUT WITH THE OLD IN WITH THE NEW you guys had your time in the sun and when all your isk is spent trying to protect your precious sovereignty we will rise up to cut your lines and destroy everything you've worked for. To hell with the old way and the big alliances crying about holding vast stretches of space and kicking out the smaller guys instead of helping them prosper and making them allies.. If the old alliances fail its is because they've failed to adapt this isn't a step back its an opportunity to Change strategies and advance.


Yes the large alliances are terrified of all the people who will be rushing out to spend time and money to upgrade a system to the level of being on par with level 4s.


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.

Verlisia
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:33:00 - [1763]
 

Originally by: Anahid Brutus
Originally by: Verlisia
BAWL OUT WITH THE OLD IN WITH THE NEW you guys had your time in the sun and when all your isk is spent trying to protect your precious sovereignty we will rise up to cut your lines and destroy everything you've worked for. To hell with the old way and the big alliances crying about holding vast stretches of space and kicking out the smaller guys instead of helping them prosper and making them allies.. If the old alliances fail its is because they've failed to adapt this isn't a step back its an opportunity to Change strategies and advance.
You're missing the point, nothing here is a challenge to the large alliances, except that it makes 0.0 so bad that it might make them all move into npc 0.0. And if you think smaller alliances will have a fighting chance in npc spahahahahaha


no one cares about npc space so please be my guest. Enjoy

Salsbury
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:34:00 - [1764]
 

Originally by: Zahorite
Originally by: Kanatta Jing
Edited by: Kanatta Jing on 08/11/2009 02:10:49
I'm like the only one who sees how easy it's going to be to grind in a PVP grade fleet to make stupid amounts of money, and how much more secure a system will be with a big active fleet in it?

I mean rather then people being semi AFK in station spinning ships.


Three problems with what you are seeing.

(edited to reduce size)

2. If I'm your enemy I'm just going to log an alt put a cloak and a scanner on it and then scan down and cloak inside one of your anomalies. That will cause the anomaly to not despawn when you finish it and good luck finding me. Even if you do I'm in a Tech I frigate and you cost me less than a million isk while I cost you at least tens of millions of isk. All I need is ten people with alts and you can't run anything in your system.




This one should be relatively easy to prevent. Put an activity monitor of some sort on these spaces. When no more is being "done" in there (if it's finished, as you say), then it's closed up/despawned. If there's a ship sitting in there for XX minutes that hasn't done anything, assume they're afk, disconnect it, and despawn.

Bernie Mask
Jita Entrepreneurial Workgroup
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:35:00 - [1765]
 

As a small-alliance member, I'm adding myself to the "this sucks" column.

I've been hanging out for details on this for ages, because of the initial promise of shrinking back the large alliance blobs and opening up systems. The "sliding scale" of more expense per space held sounded great. We'd finally have a bargaining point with the "big kids" - we'd be able to do something cheaper and more effective than they could.

Instead, we're pretty much priced out of the 0.0 game before we get get a foothold. Still.

Sure creating a holding alliance to short-circuit the growing expenses would be a exploit of sorts, but honestly - with all the hassles with sharing CHA/SMA access, standings sync being impossible, starbase defense roles ... this is hard enough if you're not in the same CORP let alone a completely separate alliance. By the time you've populated a new alliance with all the chars needed to operate it and hold space in order to dodge a few billion in bills - wouldn't it be easier to "hire" a small existing alliance to hold a strategic system for you? We get a system or two, you get intel, and while we're busy getting slaughtered, you get time to throw a proper defense together. :D

Of course, that what I stupidly and optimistically imagined when the first details on how this was going to work came out - that a smaller alliance would have a role, not unlike the newbie in a frigate tackling for the big and slow battleship alliances.

But apparently, "getting more people into 0.0" means that we still should just continue wandering in occasionally and going home to empire at night. Maybe I read too much into the initial proposals CCP, but from the look of this thread I'm not the only one.

But on the off-chance anyone's listening - implement the increasing scale of sov costs and who gives a toss if someone wants to fracture their alliance to get around it. Give small alliances a bargaining chip with the large ones. If nothing else, think of the increased potential for betrayal and associated politics and arguing.

dannyBOy16437
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:39:00 - [1766]
 

Originally by: SavageBastard
Originally by: Eint Truzenzuzex
Greeting's to the Hive,

i personally don't see a reason why to wine about the new sov-system.

1. it looks promising, they need maybe a bit finetune it but let see the patch hit Tranz.
If all go wrong CCP get panic and make proper adjustment's and ccp can do things quickly.
( look on the CVA disbanding ).
2. A question how should small alliance get there space ? CCP do not ad new space, so the
one has to be redistributed. Higher coast + lower static income = consideration of holding Space.
3. And to be honest, (okay that would be an oldy) most changes they where heavily debated on
the forms where good changes, for most of the players. People are quick at complaining
slow on give out a "good job"







Thanks for this completely substanceless affirmation of CCP's plan. So far nobody with any clear grasp of what this actually means for 0.0 has come out in support of it as-is. If you're wondering why enemies like Atlas, ROL and Gonswarm are all in agreement on this issue it's because we all actually live in 0.0 and understand where these changes are headed vs. where they were supposed to go.




The reason all of the big alliances are agreeing that the new sov system is terrible... is because all the big alliances will have to cut the number of systems they own. So stop whining and accept you will no longer be having whole multiple regions all to yourself.

Verlisia
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:41:00 - [1767]
 

Goons cry such sweet tears lol

Hail Xenu
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:44:00 - [1768]
 

Originally by: Anahid Brutus
**** it, i'll do your job for you.

First off, you need objectives that people want to fight over. Not useless grindy **** that absolutely NO ONE wants to do and can't even be fought over, so here's the solution:

- Leave R64s as large scale alliance objectives. If the income is too high(which it probably is), simply lower the dysp/prom reqs on T2 construction jobs. Problem solved. No need to tear apart the whole system with your terrible, terrible large-scale switch-around solution that will just frustrate players. No need for your completely terrible and overly complex alchemy either.

- Reintroduce static plexes as small-gang objectives. Active income, can be fought over without a 200 man fleet. Worth the effort compared to L4s in empire, reduce the number of them if they aren't being fought over.

- For individual income then make deep 0.0, ie. 2-3 carrier jumps out of low-sec, all perfect true sec, increase rat spawn rates/quality/bounties by 50%(no frig/cruiser spawns 50 jumps from jita, ~3m bounty rats), make all BS rats scram you(if you're out of scram range then they tank really hard, so no kiting) and now 0.0 is kinda risky, yet rewarding enough to be worth the effort. You definitely won't have solo ravens being able to rat and just cloak up whenever someone comes through, but some active, organized defense and you'll be making isk worth your while.


Sov shouldn't be important since let's be honest, no one really gives a ****(money motivates people, not some gay towers or something), and as such it really shouldn't be the focus, but:
- remove cyno jammers
- make the sov holding structure something with dual reinforcement timers that orbits the sun, no maint costs needed, but it needs to be reinforceable by a 20 man bs fleet in a reasonable amount of time. the limit on the size of empires will be that disrupting sov will be doable by small groups of players, not some arbitrary maintenance fees.(don't make it an outpost since people will just sit on undock with their carriers like big gays)

oh and kill exploration/wormspace, that **** is just anti-social.
Yowza! These are all great ideas!

With those change, you'd have an actual sandbox where the capture and utilization of space is dependent on true activity of PLAYERS instead of arbitrary rules and contrived game mechanics set by CCP! The ease of capturing resources, unless they're PRO-ACTIVELY defended/protected by actual players instead of soul-sapping and boring game mechanics means you'll have a more DYNAMIC player experience!

I'm EXCITED and MOTIVATED by these ideas!

SavageBastard
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:52:00 - [1769]
 

Originally by: Deldrac
Moderated.Applebabe

Seriously, I would X for this op.




That's why your corp is dead.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:58:00 - [1770]
 

Quote:
The reason all of the big alliances are agreeing that the new sov system is terrible... is because all the big alliances will have to cut the number of systems they own. So stop whining and accept you will no longer be having whole multiple regions all to yourself.

Confirming i am in a big significant alliance holding multiple regions, oh wait...

Maybe large ones have to cut the ammount of space they hold, and what about the smaller ones? They are screwed harder...


Pages: first : previous : ... 55 56 57 58 [59] 60 61 62 63 ... : 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