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 : ... 59 60 61 62 [63] 64 65 66 67 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

Khem Dahn
Posted - 2009.11.08 16:07:00 - [1861]
 

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... 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... Frankly it almost seems like the goal is complete chaos.


This sounds like such a fun game to play... Of course, an alliance determined to hold space will do what they have always done, pay the bills through unassailable sources of income, leaving the theoretical guerilla force spinning their ships in space with no-one to shoot at.

Aralis
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.08 16:10:00 - [1862]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
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.


THIS. Someone gets it! Well done Gnulpie ty.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.08 16:13:00 - [1863]
 

Originally by: Kim Wilde
well speaking for a smallish footprint alliance i can just say that the changes were calc'ed to cost us 50bill and most would agree that a 3k member count needs at least 50 systems with upgrades to support living there

I got a figure of (1m + 5m) * 30 * 50 = 10.5B for 50 systems... Perhaps your calculator is broken?

Oh, and of course you'll have to add jammers and JBs for the important systems, but that shouldn't make it more than 15B for a few systems that need it.

Tommy Blue
Black Lance
Posted - 2009.11.08 16:15:00 - [1864]
 

I propose that Dominion be delayed indefinitely until CCP gets it right.

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.11.08 16:18:00 - [1865]
 

Originally by: Kim Wilde
well speaking for a smallish footprint alliance i can just say that the changes were calc'ed to cost us 50bill and most would agree that a 3k member count needs at least 50 systems with upgrades to support living there

why does ccp insist on forcing 0.0 into changing to something most who has lived there can say wont work?
consider that even if there is no claims flag up the system is just as claimed with a simple you come we will come as well, to perform some surprise rear pipe inspections.

if you think there is a way to stop the current residents from just doing scorched earth on any infrastructure+logistics needed to even use the area then consider that most 0.0 can field a 100 man combat/reinforcement gang and no miner crew can effectivly hide from black ops etc cause if they are hiding they dont make any money, same again if in a complex you would normally expect a few expeditions and guess what try exiting your single system and i can guarantee you a risky few jumps for often no gain

jumpportal+caps means inside a region the current owners would rule supreme and if you consider further nerfs to titan then ..i.. would suggest just removing em and refunding the rigs+mods etc to the pilots,


What alliance is that?

I would say looking at your numbers alone would be wrong.

Look at GoonSwarm, they have over 5000 people in their alliance. But I could only count about 255 people in their system atm. Thats roughly 2,62 persons per system. (80 of all thoose people where seperated roughly even over 2 station systems...)

New system supports about 15-20 people atm according to the CCP, let say 10 to be on the pessimistic side. So they would need roughly 26 systems if all wanted to do anything. To keep sov there, that would cost them 15,6 bil a month. Divide that on the number of people I counted right now, thats 61,17mil per person. Devided on 30 days, thats 2,03 mil. Roughly the income of 10% taxes from 1 hour of ratting.

But if you want to use the numbers on the ranking list as a guideline, you get: 15,6 bil/5000=3mil per month per member.

But then again, if they wanna spam thoose systems with jump bridges and cyno jammers, of course if will cost. It will now be a tactical decision, instead of "cause we can".

And yes, alliances wont have the same capability to control moongold 2 regions away. And maybe capital ships will be a resource instead of something that ends up in a "LOL suicide OP" on a saturday evening.


Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.08 16:25:00 - [1866]
 

Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 08/11/2009 16:27:06
Originally by: TZeer
New system supports about 15-20 people atm according to the CCP, let say 10 to be on the pessimistic side. So they would need roughly 26 systems if all wanted to do anything. To keep sov there, that would cost them 15,6 bil a month. Divide that on the number of people I counted right now, thats 61,17mil per person. Devided on 30 days, thats 2,03 mil. Roughly the income of 10% taxes from 1 hour of ratting.


Dregek
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.08 16:25:00 - [1867]
 

you do know this is going to actively discourage wars between neighbors because no-one is going to be able to afford to take control of the system your fighting over.

TiaConda
Posted - 2009.11.08 16:26:00 - [1868]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
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.


THIS

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.11.08 16:30:00 - [1869]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: TZeer
New system supports about 15-20 people atm according to the CCP, let say 10 to be on the pessimistic side. So they would need roughly 26 systems if all wanted to do anything. To keep sov there, that would cost them 15,6 bil a month. Divide that on the number of people I counted right now, thats 61,17mil per person. Devided on 30 days, thats 2,03 mil. Roughly the income of 10% taxes from 1 hour of ratting.

No... that would be more like 7 bil per month... How can you make an argument when you're using outdated numbers?


Oh well, if thats the case they have nothing to complain about when it comes to the cost of sov.

As long as CCP makes it expensive to put up jump bridges and cynojammers.

L'Artest
Posted - 2009.11.08 16:53:00 - [1870]
 

Dominion was about improving the lifestyles of those in 0.0 and about making it so smaller groups could get into 0.0

There will be plenty of empty space, but who will want it? No one. Is it easier, safer, and more profitable to run L4s in highsec where you are mostly safe? Yes.

0.0 should be more profitable. We risk more, we earn more. Is it that hard to understand?

skye orionis
Posted - 2009.11.08 16:57:00 - [1871]
 

Edited by: skye orionis on 08/11/2009 17:05:25
Originally by: Dregek
you do know this is going to actively discourage wars between neighbors because no-one is going to be able to afford to take control of the system your fighting over.


Make station systems cost zero, then there'll be something worth fighting over. Wars in the past had strategic targets in the form of R64 moons because they were worth billions per month, well if full sov in an outpost system is free then that makes them 'worth' a couple of billion each, on top of the money that station fees can generate.

As for all the comments about l4 missions in hi-sec making more money, you could just have your pilots run those instead to make money for the sov fees. One of the backward steps with the new system is that the logistics in maintaining sov don't even require visiting the system any more, just make the cash in empire and it's a lot easier to send ISK to 0.0 than it is to transport POS fuels, it's no longer possible to blockade an alliance into a station and watch their sov drop through lack of maintenance.

Gaogan
Gallente
Solar Storm
Sev3rance
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:01:00 - [1872]
 

Nyfur's post is spot on: Linkage

L'Artest
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:03:00 - [1873]
 

(At least) Double rat bounties. Problem solved

holy balls that was hard

Acrid Acid
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:11:00 - [1874]
 

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.

Fatsam
Madhatters Inc.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:13:00 - [1875]
 

Well I'm not convinced CCP has any set figures at this stage.

However, there are some points I would like clearing up:

1) Will sov still give a POS fuel saving?

2) Will you get DED mails if someone anchors a POS in your sov space?

3) Will capitals be able to use jump bridges? Will you enable non-alliance members to refuel the jump bridges?

4) What additional tax options, if any, will you equip corporations with? The costs of these upgrades are very high and to just expect them to be paid for by ratting tax seems unfair considering the large amount of money you can make from exploration and mining.

5) what benefits are there in living in 0.0 space that doesn't border an empire region? Generally these regions have the best moons and true sec, but now these are effectively nullified.

6) How vulnerable are the upgrade structures? If our space got invaded, for example, and we were unable to rat/mine for 1 month would this render all the structures offline and destroyable by a roaming gang? Or could they be safely moth balled and reinstated when the distraction/campaign has ended?

I think there are some valid issues you need to address, particularly the one regarding the remote 0.0 regions and mechanics at collecting revenue to pay for all the upgrades.

Dacryphile
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:17:00 - [1876]
 

They are changing the fee to 1M per day instead of 20. Did anyone else catch that?

Gramtar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:18:00 - [1877]
 

I proposed a good, well reasoned proposal to fix the imbalance between high sec mission running and 0.0/lowsec ratting back in August. I know it was brought up and voted on in the CSM, but I don't know what CCP's response to it was. You can read the whole proposal here:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1137380

Most of my suggestions can be summed up by the following:
1) Improve the quality of spawns (max BS bounty) in all systems
2) Eliminate cruiser spawns from 0.0 (all spawns have at least one BS)
3) Add POS module and permanent outpost upgrade which improve truesec of the system they operate in

Of course, you could just double belt/gate rat bounties and be done with it if you want a simpler solution. I don't prefer that, because I feel very strongly players should be able to improve their space, and it tends to favor macro ratters more than regular players. Still, something obviously needs to be done, and something is better than nothing.

I think the fact there was no ratting upgrade suggested in the dev blog is very telling. Someone or some group of someones in CCP plain doesn't like ratting. When you look at the suggested mining upgrades, the rationale becomes more clear. They don't like static asteroid belts.

Around the time CCP removed npc's from the directional scanner (nerfing ratting - since you now have to warp to every belt to see what is up in a system), I recall reading comments from more than one dev that their goal was to pretty much eliminate static asteroid belts. Everything would be anomolies or dynamic plexes all the time.

Whether I'm right about this or not is immaterial. Maybe CCP loves ratting and mining as much as every other PvE activity. The problem is they don't recognize that ratting, in particular for 0.0, is a favored activity of actual players. The best thing about ratting is you can log in, warp to a belt, and start going to town. You don't need a probe launcher and astrometric skills, you don't need to spend an hour bouncing between half a dozen systems hoping you get lucky. You can just shoot stuff for a little bit and get some isk.

Here's something else CCP may not realize. Isk making generally isn't a social activity in EVE. At least, it isn't in 0.0. If the only way a player in 0.0 can make as much or more than a high sec mission runner is to get in a gang and cooperate in order to locate and take down some randomly spawned complex, then 0.0 is still crap.

On a final note, several of the upgrades suggested are hilarious in that they promise "significantly increase the chance...". The problem with them is you can't parse/prove the improvement. If they worked in some systems and not others, how would anyone know? Hey, the GM responds to your petition, you just must be unlucky. Upgrades/improvements that can't be parsed are terrible. People have known this since Everquest days, when certain character abilities plain didn't work.

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 17:19:00 - [1878]
 

Originally by: Gaogan
Nyfur's post is spot on: Linkage


I have to say, I really like his proposal, too.

Except, as I've been saying for a while, the military part has to add some sort of increased security.

The "strategic" section is interesting, almost accomplishing this, but there needs to be actual military upgrades available through the military infrastructure hub upgrades... otherwise, the name fails at its implications. Perhaps moving the sentry guns and defensive mechanisms over to the military side...?

Really, there needs to be something to increase defensibility against small gangs, since they pose far more a threat now with the new system than ever before. Like something to disrupt enemy cloaks, or at least find cloaked ships in system, for example...

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:20:00 - [1879]
 


Not sure why anyone would be surprised about the fact that there is massive opposition to these changes from 0.0 alliances who have currently covered the map with a static system of fortifications that cheaply cyno-jam and deny any realistic danger to their holdings while letting them sit back and collect income with less overall risk than the mission-runners in hisec suffer from can-flippers and the occasional suicide ganks.

The purpose of Dominion is to make 0.0 more interesting, more dynamic and more cut-throat once again. You want these huge spawling alliances to rationalize their holdings and retract down to more realistic holdings without spamming cyno-jammers and jump-bridges over half the map.

Only significant issue I'm disappointed with is the lack of cost escalation on multiple claims (or perhaps geographical distance from a given alliance "capital system"). I'd like to see alliances nominate x system as their "capital" and use that a baseline low multiplier upkeep cost - with the expense increasing on distance from that capital system.

Basically It'd be relatively inexpensive to upgrade and cyno jam an alliances core system but trying to do every system around within 10 jumps should be utterly impossible to afford and sustain on the current economy. But that takes a lot of work on the juggling of figures and I guess there are concerns about how this could be "gamed" with multiple alt alliances (as the Goons have already promised to do).

I guess this is what leaves us with the current rather blunt instrument of fixed charges that must be high or it makes Dominion irrelevant (ie cyno jammers continue to be everywhere) while leaving a problem for genuinely new entities looking to get into 0.0 (not that there are many of these at the moment since everyone needs to be a pet of someone for defense against the uber naptrain).

Still, ultimately people need to realize that this expansion is not just about providing nice things for sitting 0.0 alliances. Its about making the game board far more dynamic and addressing the things that have stagnated the 0.0 game and turned it into a deeply boring stasis over the last six months. Eve the game needs the 0.0 endgame to be harder for the players and for it to be more effort to hold a space empire. At the moment 0.0 conquest is a NAP-everything and CYNOJAM-everything no-brainer. There are no strategic choices or compromises to be made.

By making empire conquest expensive they are forcing you to make choices about whether you can really justify cyno-jamming x,y,z systems within 5-10 jumps of your HQ. Thatís interesting and it will ultimately bring cost back into the equation of alliance-warfare. I remember the days when eve wars could be won by bankrupting the enemy alliance and believe me that was a far better game than the current reality where clicking the "disband alliance" button is the only way to win.

Its going to be painful for some, and there will be an epic amount of moaning and groaning from those powers who have gotten way too used to being the afk-aristocracy of Eve with a landscape of cyno-jammers defending their territory without player input - but its a needed change and if some people ragequit and run level4 missions in protest so be it.

Those with the guts and talent to adjust will do what eve players have done since the beginning of the server. They'll work with the game and find ways to play it. Its time for the 0.0 alliances to toughen up and work for their alliance tags on the map.

Expansions can hurt playstyles, gameplay techniques and individual player, corp and alliance isk stability. They have been doing this since the first patches in 2003. But players adapt or they quit - the game goes on. Eve won't crash and burn because the current crop of cotten-wool-cosseted space poltroons quit their empires in protest at needing to adopt a rational funding regime to support their territorial holdings that require them to put ships in space.

Tesal
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:27:00 - [1880]
 

Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 17:32:22
Originally by: Aralis
Originally by: Gnulpie
Edited by: Gnulpie on 08/11/2009 11:11:32

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.


THIS. Someone gets it! Well done Gnulpie ty.


I agree that the grinding aspect JUST TO STAY is a bit nuts, is a big negative change. Gnulpie is right on on that. Like if people play less in August in your corp, or your corp has to fight a large war, you get knocked off line because you didn't grind. It should be purely based on a one time grind like faction or status with NPC corps which would also be a sucky negative change, grinding just to stay in space, or no grind at all. Even in empire you don't have to do forced labor to keep your POS online, so it has that and also the negativity of acting like starbase charters, which should not be in 0.0 at all. That is kind of what is going on here.

That said, I expect some tears. And I am glad Goons are crying buckets of them. I think the Goon tears make me reconsider this and more supportive of the patch. If it destroys the game, it could happen, but we were headed that direction anyway. Most of 0.0 is dead, a giant nap fest with out of control moon gold, the current situation has need a large shakeup, this is it.

My solution would be to rely on the module AND the grind where the module needed to upgrade the space and keep it upgraded is a loot drop from plexes or perhaps purchased like LP by exchanging tags for sov. This borrows from an existing mechanic and doesn't make a new one that is stupid and pre-broken. The tag route is also an isk sink, but people can trade it before it goes to the NPC to be exchanged, so if CCP wants to have that isk sink it would still do that. It would also provide a player market. And you still have the option this way to grind tags. The big advantage is that tags can grind anywhere over all of 0.0, so the load is distributed.

*edit
The capital idea from Jade is a good idea, cut the cost in half or a third in the capital system, that would allow an alliance to have at least one low cost system. It would cause alliance spamming though.

Juwi Kotch
KOTCH Construction and Anchoring
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:31:00 - [1881]
 

Generally, I like CCP's ideas. I only would wish some more dynamics in it. I have the feeling, that it will be difficult for small Alliances to finance just one system, and it will not hinder the really big Alliances to keep a whole region under control.

So my proposal would be to think about reducing the costs per system to a level that 50 pilot Alliance could pay it easily, but make it disproportionally expensive to keep more than one system. Make it simple and effective, like double the cost per system with each added system or something like this.

That possibly would result into a situation, that not even the biggest Alliance could, or would be willing to, pay for sovereignty in more then a constellation or two, and instead of owning whole regions in future it would be about controlling a whole constellation for a successful big Alliance.

Destrim
Koshaku
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:31:00 - [1882]
 

Edited by: Destrim on 08/11/2009 17:34:01
Originally by: Jade Constantine

Not sure why anyone would be surprised about the fact that there is massive opposition to these changes from 0.0 alliances who have currently covered the map with a static system of fortifications that cheaply cyno-jam and deny any realistic danger to their holdings while letting them sit back and collect income with less overall risk than the mission-runners in hisec suffer from can-flippers and the occasional suicide ganks.


You're missing something, here. They are not the only people with contention on the issue: a lot of the carebear empire groups are, too.

And it's not for the penalties, either. We do not mind condensing our space to a smaller area... most of us don't even mind the steep costs.

What we DO take exception to are the lackluster rewards.

Have you not noticed that there was no real complaint until the proposed infrastructure hub upgrades were shown? Everyone was happy until then. Because, frankly, the proposed inf.-upgrades suck.

To many of us, we saw it as an opportunity to make a real home for ourselves in 0.0, but it does not seem practical with the rewards proposed for building a home. The bloated alliances were punished into holding fewer systems, but there is far less incentive now to invest time in developing those systems.

In essence, we were all expecting a LOT MORE from the infrastructure upgrades, and are very disappointed. Some people, in their disappointment, take their anger out towards the penalties of holding space, since the rewards are not enough to compensate for them, but that would be the wrong direction

In so much as that, I would rather people post what THEY think would be better infrastructure upgrades. My personal thing is that the so-called "military" upgrades need to offer better security to those that invest so much time in making a system into their home.

What's yours?

An Anarchyyt
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:37:00 - [1883]
 

It's amazing how quickly people point out the flaws in certain upgrades, yet how shortsighted they are in the proposal of their own.

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:38:00 - [1884]
 

Originally by: Gramtar
I proposed a good, well reasoned proposal to fix the imbalance between high sec mission running and 0.0/lowsec ratting back in August. I know it was brought up and voted on in the CSM, but I don't know what CCP's response to it was. You can read the whole proposal here:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1137380

Most of my suggestions can be summed up by the following:
1) Improve the quality of spawns (max BS bounty) in all systems
2) Eliminate cruiser spawns from 0.0 (all spawns have at least one BS)
3) Add POS module and permanent outpost upgrade which improve truesec of the system they operate in

Of course, you could just double belt/gate rat bounties and be done with it if you want a simpler solution. I don't prefer that, because I feel very strongly players should be able to improve their space, and it tends to favor macro ratters more than regular players. Still, something obviously needs to be done, and something is better than nothing.

I think the fact there was no ratting upgrade suggested in the dev blog is very telling. Someone or some group of someones in CCP plain doesn't like ratting. When you look at the suggested mining upgrades, the rationale becomes more clear. They don't like static asteroid belts.

Around the time CCP removed npc's from the directional scanner (nerfing ratting - since you now have to warp to every belt to see what is up in a system), I recall reading comments from more than one dev that their goal was to pretty much eliminate static asteroid belts. Everything would be anomolies or dynamic plexes all the time.

Whether I'm right about this or not is immaterial. Maybe CCP loves ratting and mining as much as every other PvE activity. The problem is they don't recognize that ratting, in particular for 0.0, is a favored activity of actual players. The best thing about ratting is you can log in, warp to a belt, and start going to town. You don't need a probe launcher and astrometric skills, you don't need to spend an hour bouncing between half a dozen systems hoping you get lucky. You can just shoot stuff for a little bit and get some isk.

Here's something else CCP may not realize. Isk making generally isn't a social activity in EVE. At least, it isn't in 0.0. If the only way a player in 0.0 can make as much or more than a high sec mission runner is to get in a gang and cooperate in order to locate and take down some randomly spawned complex, then 0.0 is still crap.

On a final note, several of the upgrades suggested are hilarious in that they promise "significantly increase the chance...". The problem with them is you can't parse/prove the improvement. If they worked in some systems and not others, how would anyone know? Hey, the GM responds to your petition, you just must be unlucky. Upgrades/improvements that can't be parsed are terrible. People have known this since Everquest days, when certain character abilities plain didn't work.

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.


I am quoting this because I want to make sure than someone in CCP reads it. Gramtar has had the best ideas for improving the reward to match the risk in 0.0 for as long as I can remember and if anyone truly has a grasp on what should be done I would say it was him.

Aralis
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:42:00 - [1885]
 

No not WE Destrim. You (and some others).

If the rewards were high and the maintenance low - this would still be crap. What happened to sandbox? What happened to epic?

And to everyone suggesting a non linear cost for sov the same questions. What's the point of the game if the game itself won't LET you conquer your neighbours? Is this hello kitty?

Most of us I think want sandbox, epic, freedom. We don't want to build our own little house in a nice row of identical houses with funny coloured windowboxes (which is about all these upgrades amount to). Even if the upgrades were any good what happened to game logic? How do you mystically upgrade the rats, the anomalies, the spawns? And if your answer is better detection why is this info available to everyone?

Stop hiding and get off your butts CCP and make improvements to the game. Make it bigger. Develop it. Stop trying to create a different game every six months. And when you do make changes follow through.

Even if we bought this pile of unmentionable **** at these new lower prices - what faith could we have that you wouldn't raise the maintenance costs soon as we bought it? What faith can we have in the stability of the game?

This is a roleplaying game. Ask yourself what is happening in the Eve world and make it possible.

c0rn1
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:43:00 - [1886]
 

Edited by: c0rn1 on 08/11/2009 17:44:32
Edited by: c0rn1 on 08/11/2009 17:43:34
Originally by: TZeer
Like the new changes, just hope CCP doesn`t backs out and give in to the cry babies Laughing

Anyway:

- Alliances are not supposed to have every single system withing 10 jumps of their outpost cynojammed. Without having to pay for it.

- Jump bridges, also a huge tactical tool. And all of you are whining and moaning about you need it for logistics. Well after this you dont need to keep 150 systems with POS fuel and what not.

Today I did a 70 jump trip from empire and into 0.0... What did I see? Alot of empty space with no people in, but sov was up. Why?

Example: Open up map and have a look at Impass. How many people in thoose systems? How many systems are not in use? Also, Feythabolis, Paragon Soul, Tenerifis it`s all wasteland. Most of the systems are only in use by 1 person. And quite a few of the systems are not even used.

Example: Feythabolis consists of 89 systems, when I did a count now I found 92 people in thoose systems. Thats 1,03 people per system.
After patch:
So the systems are upgraded to some extent, and can support 10 people in each system, You wont suddenly need 89 systems, you could reduce it to 9!!!. And suddenly there would be no need for jumpbridge networks in the scale that you have now.

With the first prices CCP came with it would cost 20 mil per day per system, so you are looking at 20*9=180 mil per day. 30 days= 5,4 Bil

Divide that on 92 people= 58,6 Mil per person. Then divide it with number of days, 30= 1,96 mil per day per person. In average thats the taxes from 1 hour of ratting. If you have 10% taxes.

Then start adding income you get from refining, eventual docking fee if you have people in your space, rental agreements, POS mining. And I think most of thoose 58 mil should be covered by a large margin.

Ofcourse if you want to start adding cynojammers and jumpdriges in every system out of thoose 9 systems it`s gonna get expensive. But thats also the point.



Then lets do the math vice versa again and you see what I am talking about as well:


You're talking about 92 people in 9 systems. Each of them would have to invest 30h per month to keep the sov up by taxes. having 92 people waste 1h per day ratting makes 2760h of grinding only to keep up your sovereignity. that's the hours a small company has on work effort in a month. 160h/person = 17.25 full time workers.

You do not have:

=> gone to empire to buy youself a ship, fit it and brought it safely back to 0.0
=> one jump done to PvP
=> drawn any plans of any attacks vs your enemy
=> not hauled 1 m≥ of fuel for your towers into 0.0
=> not build up even 1 POS to defend your territory
=> not created a spreadsheet to calculate costs and profit in Dominion
What does this patch do?

=> replace your hostilities against other playergroups with hostility against CCP because that are the ones forcing you to grind in belts for your place to live
=> distancing the borders of larger empires that far that you have to go at least 30j per pedes before you can actually reach the next empire
=> remove deep space as a viable option because you have to pay ****loads of cash to get logistics going
=> excluding small alliances from gathering in deep space since the entry points will be shut down by big alliances


and there are alot of more negatives

cheers

c0rn1

Destrim
Koshaku
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:43:00 - [1887]
 

Originally by: Qlanth
Originally by: Gramtar
I proposed a good, well reasoned proposal to fix the imbalance between high sec mission running and 0.0/lowsec ratting back in August. I know it was brought up and voted on in the CSM, but I don't know what CCP's response to it was. You can read the whole proposal here:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1137380

Most of my suggestions can be summed up by the following:
1) Improve the quality of spawns (max BS bounty) in all systems
2) Eliminate cruiser spawns from 0.0 (all spawns have at least one BS)
3) Add POS module and permanent outpost upgrade which improve truesec of the system they operate in

Of course, you could just double belt/gate rat bounties and be done with it if you want a simpler solution. I don't prefer that, because I feel very strongly players should be able to improve their space, and it tends to favor macro ratters more than regular players. Still, something obviously needs to be done, and something is better than nothing.

I think the fact there was no ratting upgrade suggested in the dev blog is very telling. Someone or some group of someones in CCP plain doesn't like ratting. When you look at the suggested mining upgrades, the rationale becomes more clear. They don't like static asteroid belts.

Around the time CCP removed npc's from the directional scanner (nerfing ratting - since you now have to warp to every belt to see what is up in a system), I recall reading comments from more than one dev that their goal was to pretty much eliminate static asteroid belts. Everything would be anomolies or dynamic plexes all the time.

Whether I'm right about this or not is immaterial. Maybe CCP loves ratting and mining as much as every other PvE activity. The problem is they don't recognize that ratting, in particular for 0.0, is a favored activity of actual players. The best thing about ratting is you can log in, warp to a belt, and start going to town. You don't need a probe launcher and astrometric skills, you don't need to spend an hour bouncing between half a dozen systems hoping you get lucky. You can just shoot stuff for a little bit and get some isk.

Here's something else CCP may not realize. Isk making generally isn't a social activity in EVE. At least, it isn't in 0.0. If the only way a player in 0.0 can make as much or more than a high sec mission runner is to get in a gang and cooperate in order to locate and take down some randomly spawned complex, then 0.0 is still crap.

On a final note, several of the upgrades suggested are hilarious in that they promise "significantly increase the chance...". The problem with them is you can't parse/prove the improvement. If they worked in some systems and not others, how would anyone know? Hey, the GM responds to your petition, you just must be unlucky. Upgrades/improvements that can't be parsed are terrible. People have known this since Everquest days, when certain character abilities plain didn't work.

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.


I am quoting this because I want to make sure than someone in CCP reads it. Gramtar has had the best ideas for improving the reward to match the risk in 0.0 for as long as I can remember and if anyone truly has a grasp on what should be done I would say it was him.


I still think he's missing the necessity of a means by which security may be increased. The vulnerability to small roaming gangs will be increased ten-fold, especially since even small disruptions carry far greater implications: being unable to meet the monthly bill for sov.

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:44:00 - [1888]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
...


0.0 isn't an e-brothel why did you think anyone cared what you have to say

ceaon
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:49:00 - [1889]
 

Edited by: ceaon on 08/11/2009 17:50:19
Originally by: Gnulpie

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

none force you to do so you cry because you have to work for ISK
atm there are "few" ppl in each of 0.0 alliances that fuel and haul all the moon **** and POS warfare stuff you just enjoy their work the ship replacement programs are made because "few" ppl run logistics all day, did u ask them if is fun to fuel POSes ?

adapt or go back to wow

Hratli Smirks
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 17:49:00 - [1890]
 

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.


I'd really like an answer to this question, since I'm suspecting it will be hilarious.


Pages: first : previous : ... 59 60 61 62 [63] 64 65 66 67 ... : 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