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 : ... 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

SavageBastard
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 09:59:00 - [1771]
 

Originally by: dannyBOy16437
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.




Next time just post "I have no idea what I'm talking about but it feels good to post" and you won't look so dumb.



Cause posting does feel good.



And you don't know what you're talking about.





Kayl Breinhar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:01:00 - [1772]
 

Originally by: dannyBOy16437
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.

Ahem...

WE KNEW THIS. WE'VE PLANNED FOR IT FOR MONTHS WITH NO CONCRETE INFO UNTIL THE DEV BLOG. WE DON'T CARE THAT WE'LL NOT HAVE A HUGE MAP BLOB, JUST THAT WE'LL HAVE SPACE WORTH FIGHTING FOR, WHICH WITH THIS WE WON'T.

*cough*

Huge blobs mean massive logistics efforts and expenditures. NOT maintaining huge blobs and redundant jump bridge networks mean/meant your space was insecure. This is why we said our former space was **** - it's highly indefensible against attacks on jump bridges. ATLAS and the Esoteria/Paragon crowd are aware of this now. We *wanted* easier ways of maintaining and consolidating space. This isn't it.

Tesal
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:02:00 - [1773]
 

ANSWER NOW: Give me a ham sandwich.

penifSMASH
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:04:00 - [1774]
 

I think these changes are great for my own personal enjoyment of the game.

I live in 0.0 but all these changes to isk-making on the individual level don't apply to me because I'm already rich as hell from scamming. Now instead of ganking freighters, miners, and high-sec mission runners I can spend my time griefing other 0.0 inhabitants by cloak-griefing in their upgraded systems. Or I can just be a jerk and spam STOPs in hostile systems until they mess up just once and lose sov in some vital system. It would be pretty funny when they spend billions of isk upgrading some system only to lose it real quickly. And now that jump bridges will be an extravagance, I can easily gank ratters and travelers and severely cripple logistics, especially if they live deep in 0.0 (like Omist, Tenal, or Cobalt Edge for example) that are very unconnected to Empire. And since my alliance will be the de facto ruler of Delve and Querious, it would be a pretty good troll to allow some small alliance to settle in to a lesser used system in Querious, let them build up, then swoop in and destroy everything with a huge capital blob after they've already invested billions.

So yeah, I'm going to have a blast griefing and messing with both long-time 0.0 inhabitants and newcomers alike because I'm filthy rich in-game and very bored. That is if they don't all move back to Empire or NPC 0.0 instead, which would be the logical thing for people to do after they realize holding sov provides no tangible benefits.

Salsbury
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:06:00 - [1775]
 

Originally by: Woofybean
Edited by: Woofybean on 08/11/2009 03:08:39
EDIT: Sigh, yay for timeouts.

Originally by: Salsbury

I've read all 46 posts between mine (#1201) and this one (#1247). Would you care to link to the "thorough refutation" that you're talking about?



Did you actually read the other 50 pages, or are you sitting there all smug after being white knighted by a dev that appears to not play the same game as the rest of us?



To be honest, I read the first 4-5, skipped over a bunch of the early ones that came in while I was sleeping, and picked up again this afternoon. I've only read ~20 pages, so far. (It's hard to keep up with this thread!) About 600 posts, so far. However, about 400 of those seem to be people reposting the "Yes or No" question over and over and over and over. (Many of them Goonswarm folks, but by no means all.)

Despite the large volume of posts here, there's surprisingly little substantial content. (I miss the days of advanced Usenet readers that understood true threading, kill files/sub-thread kills, regex processing, quote collapsing, etc. This web-forum stuff is really quite primitive in comparison.)

Originally by: Woofybean

Originally by: Salsbury

I stand by my statements. Especially all the non-smack-talk bits about collaborative playing, which you conveniently glossed over.


If you understood as much about this game as you believe you do, you'd know just how much the Goons understand about cooperative play. Your comments are redundant.


If they seem redundant, it's probably because they've been quoted dozens of times. However, still not nearly so much as the famed "Yes or No" question. (Which I've chimed in and given my opinion on, a few pages back.)

But honestly, that's just my opinion. (And as a good friend of mine says "Opinions are like web pages: Everybody has one, and nobody cares about yours!") Very Happy

We'll have to see what CCP says when they get back in the office on Monday. (And I bet it's something along the lines of "Jeez! What a bunch of OCD Mother****ers we had on the boards this weekend!") Laughing

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:10:00 - [1776]
 

Edited by: Gnulpie on 08/11/2009 11:11:32
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.



Sorry to be rude, but that is the most idiotic dev post I have seen in a while. Plus it lacks total understanding of how 0.0 developed over the years until now. So, pure pvp alliances like Tri and IT will get shafted badly while alliances with a good deal of industry like CVA, Goons, NC etc. will benefit most? Can you back up your claim with any solid arguments and numbers besides the fact that we must believe you since you are a dev and know it better?

Also the ONLY force in 0.0 should be players! The ONLY way to control systems and to gain sov should be due to the players! Not by removing some alliance tickers, not by not paying enough isk to some completely idotic npc-overlords in lawless space.

It should be ALWAYS and ONLY the players in 0.0

And the whole idea of grinding to 'unlock' levels to get better stuff is a concept so out of the core Eve-concept that it is immensely sad to see Eve going this way.

What only did happen to the original vision of Eve?

No grinding, no levelling, no fixed paths forced to choose. Just freedom.

All gone.


Edit:
But what do you have as vision? Fixed grinding paths to unlock certain features and forcing people to do things which they don't like - if they would like them to do they would do them already! - so that they can fit into a predetermined and fixed pattern.

It is not details like paying a certain amount of isk or 10% less or earning xx% more in 0.0 than in high sec L4's. It is the WHOLE DIRECTION to force players doing something which they don't want to do, it is a model completely opposite of the sandbox model and contrary to the true spirit of Eve. And THAT is so alamring and bad.

Hypan
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:16:00 - [1777]
 

as a small alliance, we expected dom to help us get a foot on the space holding ladder. the exponentinal cost of owning systems was ment to make it expensive for larger alliances to hold 200 plus sytems and the systems that would be dropped could either be grabed in conflict or paid for from the new overlords.

after doing a little sisi testing most of the alliance leadership and membership now looks at 0.0 and thinks lets just get in one of the power blocks and let them sort out all the bull regarding payments and tax rates being 100%.

there is no way as a none moon holding alliance we can pay those fee's and maintain any level of pvp operations, we would all have to rat our arses off none stop and if anything came up like oh noes another pvp gang we would end up being short on our sov payments and there would be no real way we could pay the over lords what has been aggreed on in the new treaty system(that is making it in this patch right?)

1 system 1 mil 2 system 5 mil 3 systems 10mil.. that is what you said would happen ccp. not this.
go back redo it, make it worth while, but for the love of all things eve, dont put this S H I T in as it is now.

Salsbury
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:18:00 - [1778]
 

Originally by: Aralis

I don't want different upgrades. I want the whole patch thrown in the bin. This is OUR space claimed on behalf of the Empire. Who are we paying these taxes to? If it's the Empire - well that's fantastic your Majesty - we're delighted to be accepted in the Empire. When can we expect Imperial patrols to start and navy sentry guns to be installed? If it's anyone else - eat laser death scumbag.


I'm not sure who it is, but it doesn't seem to be Empire. Near as I can tell, it's the invisible gnomes that keep the Stargates running. (What? You thought those things just grew there naturally and ran for free? Not anymore...)

I think I'll name those Stargate gnomes the "Curators of the Curious Portals", or CCP for short.

Wink

Aditia Holdem
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:20:00 - [1779]
 

Looks like the mechanics are sound, the numbers however are not. You guys should really run some simulations on which numbers will achieve what you would like to see for the game.

From the top of my head:

1. Holding space should be an equation of how many people you can field to actually defend your space realistically; NOT of how much you are gonna force people to systematically farm and tax. Like someone said, you are currently rewarding people that use bots/mind numbing farming by renters to make ISK, like Legion of Death. Legion space is boring as f#ck, whereas providence, which is awesome, is getting it up the rear, that doesn't make sense people. Make the military aspect of holding space relatively cheap, but intensive PvP wise. Don't force people to grind for ISK just to pay their sov bills, force them to fight, and fight in a faster pace, like you intend with the elimination of POS warfare.

2. Making ISK off space should be an equation of how many people you can organize and tax, so design your ISK upgrades in a way that it only becomes valuable for an alliance when u have actual residents in your upgraded systems that you can tax. You may want to design a different tax mechanic for that so that the owner alliance of the system gets the tax off the bounties you make, not the corpotation of which the member is a pilot. A corp. would still be able to tax its members after the primary taxation to the SOV holder. This would also benefit empire builders like CVA and not ISK farming corps that introduce the boredom to EVE pilots.

Summarizing: Keep your mechanics, change the numbers. Make holding space a game of organization and PvP, make making ISK in 0.0 an MMO game (in stead of the single player game it is atm, rewarding macro's and people with too much time), in a way that well organized groups that work together can make more ISK in 0.0 than in empire. DON'T KILL THE FUN OF 0.0 BY MAKING US GRIND FOR ISK JUST TO LIVE THERE PLZ

Tamahra
Gallente
Apina.
United Pod Service
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:21:00 - [1780]
 

Edited by: Tamahra on 08/11/2009 10:21:00
Originally by: Gnulpie


Sorry to be rude, but that is the most idiotic dev post I have seen in a while. Plus it lacks total understanding of how 0.0 developed over the years until now.

The ONLY force in 0.0 should be players! The ONLY way to control systems and to gain sov should be due to the players! Not by removing some alliance tickers, not by not paying enough isk to some completely idotic npc-overlords in lawless space.

It should be ALWAYS and ONLY the players in 0.0

And the whole idea of grinding to 'unlock' levels to get better stuff is a concept so out of the core Eve-concept that it is immensely sad to see Eve going this way.

What only did happen to the original vision of Eve?

No grinding, no levelling, no fixed paths forced to choose. Just freedom.

All gone.


while i dont support the system how it currently is planned (doesnt support enough players in one system, income-wise, and the costs for upkeep must decline with more player activity) but your post is a bit off the grid. The new system is really good, and it is what we all wanted, if they balance out the costs / income ratio

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:27:00 - [1781]
 

Originally by: penifSMASH
Or I can just be a jerk and spam STOPs in hostile systems until they mess up just once and lose sov in some vital system. It would be pretty funny when they spend billions of isk upgrading some system only to lose it real quickly.

1) Planting STOPs in a system only makes it vulnerable to change in sov, it does not afaik destroy your upgrades or switch sov.

2) Are you still going to be spamming STOPs if they cost 10M, 20M, 50M or what ever they'll be at?

Camdim
Caldari
The first genesis
Gentlemen's Club
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:34:00 - [1782]
 

Just a few things I would like to see addressed.

First the initial numbers are way the heck off but you (CCP) have said you would address those and have new figures for us on Monday. Good deal.

Second point 0.0 != empire. The risk of 0.0 is higher then the risk of empire. So the money has to be better. And moon isk is a corp/alliance money making endeavor for every alliance I have been in( I could have made poor choices for alliances and other corps/alliance give some of this money to their people). And that money was used to fuel cap ship replacement programs and some pos fueling etc. This leaves me to make my own money to support myself for ships and such. The longer I have to take to make that money the less I get to shoot other people and the less I get to help protect the space we have won. Which means more time grinding cash and less time having fun.

Now saying that you guys can't put agents in 0.0 space is a load of bull. They exist in 0.0 already. When a sov system hits level 1 have an agent move in from each of the respective navies of each faction. Make it a level 1 agent. Then have an upgrade so that it adds a level 2 agent level 3 etc. Make them appear at a minor faction outpost they are free floating in space at their little outposts in their ships ready to hand out kill only missions to anyone with the standings to get a mission. This now allows for both new players and vets to run missions for any of the faction navies and make money from the missions just like in empire. That solves the individual money making issue. And brings some cash in the form of taxes on the rats to the corp. Just get this done the code is in the game already you just have to cut and paste it. If you don't remember where or how to do this look at the agents floating around in Vale of the silent. Don't feed us a line and say it can't be done when it already has.

Next thing is if I/we have to pay maintenance on our systems for the gates to work and such shouldn't those gates work for us? This means we should control who can and cannot jump through those gates. Also shouldn't we be able to say where those gates connect to? What this does is allow for dynamic connects ( there should be light year limits on how far they can connect to other systems.) which then gives 0.0 a radical shift. Some time should be setup for how often and how much it costs to say pick a new connection and once established it has to stay there for that time limit. But this would be what smaller alliance can help to use to hold their space. It also allows for the larger alliances to have some defense for their back line territories. But this would be the mechanic that would allow larger alliances to defend their renters better and smaller alliance to get foot holds in deeper space and allow for deep 0.0 alliance to trim that logistic route down a bit more with more direct connections to empire.

And the last point I want to make is: If your going to make upgrades then the buyer ( ie. Player) has to know what he is buying these means exact descriptions of what the upgrade does and how it works exactly. Not some vague crap like gives you more grav sites. How many more and what level and what is the spawn cycle etc.

Salsbury
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:45:00 - [1783]
 

Originally by: Kai Lae

#1. Cost vs income. What you're doing here is adding a huge new cost to 0.0 life in conquerable regions, while decreasing the income. Not only do you now have to bear sov costs, but your POS fuel bill is going to actually increase, not go down. The simple reason is that no one really operates towers just to claim sov. Nearly all of them are used for jump bridges, cyno arrays, labs, reactions, mining (both belt and moon), etc. We operate well over 100 POS in this corp last I looked and under the new system we will be able to stop operation of 2 of them. Fuel savings from these 2 POS is not significant, however the reduction in fuel savings to 10% is. Therefore fuel costs will actually increase, not go down, at the exact same time that massive new costs to support the sov system are also introduced.



I don't think this is the case... Go back and read the dev blog post again:

Originally by: CCP
The Upkeep system is the fortnightly (14 days) sovereignty bill each corporation will receive for every solar system they are managing and replaces the role of starbase fuel costs in our new sovereignty system.


Seems to me that "replaces" would indicate that fuel costs are no longer a concern.

Lucas Pantelis
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:46:00 - [1784]
 

Why will anyone want to take someone else's space if all will do is cost them more money?

Why will anyone want to pay for sov so they can upgrade systems if they get the same isk reward/time invested as they do without any upgrades?

What will this expansion actually achieve other than making only systems with jump bridges and cyno jammers show up on the sov map?

Camdim
Caldari
The first genesis
Gentlemen's Club
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:47:00 - [1785]
 

Semi ninja edit.

Also upgrades should be permanent. That means that one alliance could allow another alliance to upgrade space then take them out and move in to a mostly upgraded system. The sov levels and usage levels would have to be met but the upgrades themselves would still be there. So like when a station is placed in a system it is always there. And you can lose that station by losing the system.

What this allows for is another level of warfare. These upgrades could be damaged and put offline ( stations should work like this as well ). This gives a reason to use guerrilla warfare to target an enemies assets. You damage that upgrade and put it off line till it is repaired. Then they have to use some of those minerals to repair the asset.

Which means that upgrades should be expensive but only have to be purchased once. A small fee should be charged for its upkeep.

Also upkeep prices should be off set by donating some ice products many alliances have ice mining operations that offset POS upkeep. But there is no way but cash to pay for your maintenance. There needs to be a way to pay some of the upkeep via minerals/ice products.

ChaosOne
Caldari
Lux Vitae
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 10:48:00 - [1786]
 

Edited by: ChaosOne on 08/11/2009 10:56:50
CCP states thats putting agents into Player owned stations isnt possible. I dont know whether this has been suggested prior, but i belive it is quite possible to place agents in space which are dotted all over the universe.

how about a upgrade to seed agents in space with a upgrade (maybe 4 tiers for the different levels) and have them act like a remote agent attached to the various npc factions????


edit.

p.s The current sov change cost is far too high, and the thought that has gone into the upgrades are of a very poor quality.

Ivana Screwyou
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:04:00 - [1787]
 

Edited by: Ivana Screwyou on 08/11/2009 11:04:30
Originally by: ChaosOne
Edited by: ChaosOne on 08/11/2009 10:56:50
CCP states thats putting agents into Player owned stations isnt possible. I dont know whether this has been suggested prior, but i belive it is quite possible to place agents in space which are dotted all over the universe.

how about a upgrade to seed agents in space with a upgrade (maybe 4 tiers for the different levels) and have them act like a remote agent attached to the various npc factions????


edit.

p.s The current sov change cost is far too high, and the thought that has gone into the upgrades are of a very poor quality.


That would be too logical to ever happen. Very Happy

gambrinous
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:05:00 - [1788]
 

Originally by: ChaosOne
CCP states thats putting agents into Player owned stations isnt possible.


lets not forget how ccp also stated grouping weapons was impossible. or modifying the nid

this patch is like a slap in the face with whatever code happens to be handy while the graphics dept all gets bonuses for making a planet look shiny.

Banlish
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas.
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:06:00 - [1789]
 


I've played EVE for a long, long time, and the best thing about 0.0 was that it loomed as the place to build an empire where YOU got to set the rules. In empire I couldn't shoot who I wanted, I couldn't get the resources I wanted, and I couldn't change the space. 0.0 was the land where all kinds of riches were 'thought' to be had.

Then we went there and the realities set in, which many other posters have hit upon on this thread. Much of 0.0 isn't used, or utilized correctly. And we have and had large afk empires in 0.0. Empires where they controlled the moons, the stations, maybe had a few 'dual' personality people that mined some of their very best systems and rented the heck out of what's left. That was said to be wrong and addressed by letting "smaller" alliances get a chance at some space out here. And before some of you take the "large alliance doesn't want to lose it's space blah blah!" bs realize that alot of us don't want some of the space we have now. We prepared for shedding large portions of space and welcomed the idea since it finally meant less freaking POS's to fuel (god who doesn't hate those damn things). But this expansion EVEN with the cost reduction makes it extremely hard for new entities to get established.

CCP, I really hope you realize that even with a moon 'nerf' the newest players into the 0.0 scene will be fighting an uphill battle look at the problems their facing.

1. They won't have access to any really good space, the largest alliances will hold it or defend it.
2. the costs will be high from the get go Instead of the cost increasing sov scale that was said to be coming
3. there will be costs from a campaign from the start
4. They won't have a 0.0 'core' to work/resupply/earn from

If you add in regions like Cobalt Edge, Branch, Omist, Paragon Soul, or Period Basis you'll almost never see them change hands.
The above regions will be PUNISHED for being further out as well. Why? Because they want to be further from empire?

That shouldn't be the case in any regard, regardless of the politics or who lives anywhere it's a bad idea to punish players for developing the most remote regions in the game. I don't care how it's implemented but people that live farther out already face supply shortages, more chances to get ganked coming 'home' and more time invested in logistics. Now you want to punish them more? Please think of that when your making these changes. I don't care if it's a goon, an NC, a southerner or a drone regioner. It shouldn't be a punishment, ask the people that live in those regions, it already IS a punishment living that far out. Make their jump bridge network linked and the longer it goes (only outward not around their empire like a highway) give them a cost reduction for having to be that far out in the first place.

Many of us are for giving new people a shot out in 0.0, or seeing the afk empires end. Maybe consider tying more 'activity' into more cost savings. Figure out the RP element however you want, but more mining, more ratting, more exploring and clearing should equate to cost savings. After all the system isn't AFK anymore. The upgrades don't fix the problems at the moment, mining out here isn't good, exploration sites aren't good, wh's are quickly becoming worthless. Having and holding space AND now paying massive upkeep on it, should bring good rewards. And I think anyone can say that the 'upgrades' that are listed aren't good enough for those three factors at the moment. Not by a long shot. Please put more time to this, or more revision. And I mean small, medium AND large alliances, not just us 'big boys'.

Respectfully.
-Ban



KhaniKirai
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:08:00 - [1790]
 

I dont see the problem with the costs really.
Some smaller alliances, that existed in 0.0 last year, could easily afford it, without ANY problem.

Seems to me, the more agressive alliances, that dont build up stuff, that dont use their space, that only rent stuff out, that only try to remove others from 0.0, etc.
These alliances, have often tons of systems, that are not being used at all, but somehow they think it shows how powerfull they are, having lots of little stars in their color on the soev map, without even using those.

Well, now you have to grow up and learn how to play as a REAL 0.0 space alliance.
Now you need to learn how to be efficient with space.

But the costs, should be manageble, especially since you wont have to pay a lot of fuel costs anymore?


Salsbury
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:09:00 - [1791]
 

Originally by: Kai Lae
You own a area of space, with say 10 stations in it. You are able to pay your bills by taxes that come from your players. I'll stipulate that the upgrades actually provide enough isk for them to afford these taxes for the purpose of this thought experiment. What would happen if a well trained, motivated hostile group with sufficient numbers entered your space with a sizable black ops unit with coverage in all time zones? Let's say they have 20 people on basically all the time. With that, by using a combination of attacks, maneuvering, sitting in systems AFK cloaked, they can likely bring a quarter to a half of your isk farming activities to a halt. If they concentrate their efforts on the same systems, after a short time your infrastructure upgrades will begin to go offline due to inactivity. If they have the patience, it's quite possible the combination of loss of infrastructure and loss of tax revenue will cause overall funding to go into the red. At this point one of 2 things can happen. The alliance under assault can either dip into reserve funding, attempting to outlast the assault (assuming they have any), or increase the taxes to correct the deficiency. In the first case, assuming the attackers are patient enough, at some point the reserves will run out. This will force a tax increase or a catastrophic collapse will be imminent. However, a tax increase is an equally poor option because it simply exacerbates the differences between conquerable 0.0 and NPC 0.0/missioning empire. At some point the negatives to staying with the alliance under assault for the individual will reach a critical mass and then defections to NPC regions or empire will begin. A cascade failure is possible at this point.

I'll note that the above scenario did not require a large force, just possibly 30 or so guys in recons/bombers/black ops in all TZ. In other words, pretty damn easy to do. It would therefore seem the ability to financially collapse alliances becomes far easier in dominion. The long term effects of this can't be fully seen as of yet, but this is not likely to be a positive if conquerable region stability is greatly compromised.



Just had a thought about this, which could prevent such a shutdown as you describe above:

What if all of the various infrastructure/system upgrade things were only visible to the people with sov. in the system? (Makes sense, if it's somehow dependent on the Infrastructure Hubs & other equipment that they're maintaining. It reports on other belts/anomalies/etc that others simply can't see.) Then you've got some guaranteed, truly beneficial profit centers that others can't camp or otherwise mess with. Hey, that might even be an incentive for some new people to move out to 0.0 space!

Originally by: Kai Lae

Oh and if you actually stayed and read all of my ramblings on this, my thanks.


Most welcome, and thank YOU for posting some interesting and original content! It's refreshing to see in here after hundreds of posts of repetitive diarrhea. Smile


Itzena
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:11:00 - [1792]
 

Sup.

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.


gambrinous
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:13:00 - [1793]
 

Originally by: Salsbury
Originally by: Kai Lae

The simple reason is that no one really operates towers just to claim sov. Nearly all of them are used for jump bridges, cyno arrays, labs, reactions, mining (both belt and moon), etc. We operate well over 100 POS in this corp last I looked and under the new system we will be able to stop operation of 2 of them. Fuel savings from these 2 POS is not significant, however the reduction in fuel savings to 10% is



I don't think this is the case... Go back and read the dev blog post again:

Originally by: CCP
The Upkeep system is the fortnightly (14 days) sovereignty bill each corporation will receive for every solar system they are managing and replaces the role of starbase fuel costs in our new sovereignty system.


Seems to me that "replaces" would indicate that fuel costs are no longer a concern.


highlighted the relevant bits, I too thought that there would be savings in pos fuel, but apparently not.

Mode Al
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:14:00 - [1794]
 

It would appear CCP are still unsure of the final mechanics of the sov system.

They have not even established basic costs and are still trying various ideas/suggestions. Even the possibility of removing the whole ISK rental mechanic seems a distinct possibility on occasion.

Dominion is, what, three weeks away .. this is still a work in progress. This is not final 'tweaking' before release. Admit that it needs more time to implement and pull the main feature from the expansion and we'll have to just make do with planets that 'look nice'.

Al

Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:18:00 - [1795]
 

Edited by: Meno Theaetetus on 08/11/2009 11:18:53
Well honestly I think this is all hilarious, the next few months are going to be funny as hell.

Let me tell you all a story, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away there was a game called swg...

Tarkina Koslix
Deep Space Supplies
Violent Entity
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:19:00 - [1796]
 

Originally by: Nyphur
Another idea I had was the possibility of taxing NPC kills in a system rather than just those within a corp. It's an idea just to support the NRDS people that can't reap taxes from the people that use their space. Perhaps they could set their hub to collect a 10% tax off NPCers in their system automatically. Maybe even make it an upgrade?


Not a bad idea at all. Because that way, the ones who make it happen, benefit from their efforts to upgrade a system.




Zibu 81
Tribal Liberation Force
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:19:00 - [1797]
 

You stated that with this expantion you have 3 main goals:
1. get more people (carebears) into 0.0
2. change space holding alliances into more industry based ones so that the industrial alliance funds the pvp section for providing protection.
3. stop alliances from holding unused space.

And only thing you're going to achieve is maybe point 3 as you just make it more expensive.

Point no 2. doesn't even make that much sense as that's how it's happening in most big space holding alliances - you have industry core which handle all the poses and reactions, who provide ship replacements to everyone else who's there for the protection of the alliance. If you want to change the balance so it's not 95% pvp members in alliance you'd have to change the whole industry side of the game, so that 10-20 people can't provide for most of the alliance.

Now to get point 1 done what you'd need to do is make unupgraded 0.0 at least as profitable as lvl 4 missions with treusec being equivalent of agent quality (meaning chance of faction spawn, as that's the biggest difference between agents - LP's which allow you to buy faction items). And with upgraded it would have to be at least twice as profitable, so that even if your alliance charges you 25% tax you're still making 50% more than by running missions in empire. How you do it - well there's been couple proposals already in this thread.

Now if you actually make space being able to support both individual alliance members and whole alliances with ship replacements and cap programs, etc, point 3 will happen.


Jita TradeAlt
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:23:00 - [1798]
 

Originally by: Mode Al
It would appear CCP are still unsure of the final mechanics of the sov system.

They have not even established basic costs and are still trying various ideas/suggestions. Even the possibility of removing the whole ISK rental mechanic seems a distinct possibility on occasion.

Dominion is, what, three weeks away .. this is still a work in progress. This is not final 'tweaking' before release. Admit that it needs more time to implement and pull the main feature from the expansion and we'll have to just make do with planets that 'look nice'.

Al
No, these are the final mechanics, what you see in the blog is going to happen, they're now going to 'tweak' the costs a bit, but overall, this useless piece of **** is what we'll get with dominion. They're going to roll it out, people will complain, 20-30% of 0.0 players will quit, maybe more since a lot were hoping dominion would change things for the better, while the mythical 'up and coming new corp' won't bother with 0.0 since it's now even more boring and contrived, while also not being more profitable than high-sec.

End result, even less people in 0.0 but whatever

EveFairy0
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:25:00 - [1799]
 

Now I got to thinking how does the auto-bill feature work? Because if I can issue a bill that's paid automatically by corp members, I'm totally starting a corp and rip the members off. (Think of it, throw members a bill of one billion, who ever has it in wallet has just given it to me, yay!) I think the chars that are in corp run by others will have zero wallets. Razz

Regarding the blog it's a sad read. It's about trying to force the pvp-space into carebear space, because you'd need tons of carebears doing the system upkeep for you. Trying to convert pvpers to do daily carebearing will never work. But i guess by the new standards they dont 'deserve' to claim space.

Anahid Brutus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 11:26:00 - [1800]
 

Originally by: Hail Xenu
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!
Yeah i know bro! It would take CCP maybe a full 1 hour to put together, a week or two of QA and it would be STRICTLY BETTER than the dumb crap they've gotten Seleene(a dumb ****) to dream up!


Pages: first : previous : ... 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 ... : 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