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 : ... 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

Kai Lae
Gallente
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:43:00 - [2071]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
The 0.0 alliances are all butthurt over this and it's pretty funny to me personally. The alliances are used to billions in passive income and now CCP is removing that across the board and everyone is being a girl about it. The easy money in 0.0 is going away and it's not coming back. Good. Now all we need is an adjustment to L4s in empire so that it's less profitable to run L4s than it is to live in 0.0 and we're set.


#1. It's not that people really object to R64 income being nerfed, it's that it seems there's nothing being added to replace it. Jade is a complete idiot but made a correct point that having a huge income source that is difficult to disrupt is a bad idea. However now we find out as things stand you have much greater expenses and nothing to even approach replacing the income, which is a huge letdown and a source of great anxiety.

#2. L4's in empire will never be nerfed. You know this, I know this. There are too many subscribers in empire doing them - the majority of the eve playerbase - and enough would likely ragequit if any such change was made that financially it would make no sense to CCP.

Right and wrong in this area have nothing to do with reality.

Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:46:00 - [2072]
 

Originally by: Kai Lae
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
The 0.0 alliances are all butthurt over this and it's pretty funny to me personally. The alliances are used to billions in passive income and now CCP is removing that across the board and everyone is being a girl about it. The easy money in 0.0 is going away and it's not coming back. Good. Now all we need is an adjustment to L4s in empire so that it's less profitable to run L4s than it is to live in 0.0 and we're set.


#1. It's not that people really object to R64 income being nerfed, it's that it seems there's nothing being added to replace it. Jade is a complete idiot but made a correct point that having a huge income source that is difficult to disrupt is a bad idea. However now we find out as things stand you have much greater expenses and nothing to even approach replacing the income, which is a huge letdown and a source of great anxiety.

#2. L4's in empire will never be nerfed. You know this, I know this. There are too many subscribers in empire doing them - the majority of the eve playerbase - and enough would likely ragequit if any such change was made that financially it would make no sense to CCP.

Right and wrong in this area have nothing to do with reality.


Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed.

The technetium bottleneck will be worse than the dysprosium/promethium one was. That means that prices will go up, not down, in the medium and long term for moon minerals as a basket and for t2 unless CCP fixes the problem (which they probably will, eventually).

Although technetium is even more regionally concentrated than the old good r64s, which will be......interesting....to watch the results of.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:48:00 - [2073]
 

If I understand new mechanics correctly, is this is how things should work?

Space ownership:
Alliance will drop sovereignty over most of their systems and keep only those with jump bridges or other strategical value. The space that alliance currently control gets utilized and instead of highly valuable R64 moon income, they will make the same or more ISK by actualy mining moons of lower rarity, which will be easy to do because of available moons after starbases being removed from sovereignty mechanics.
Optionaly, alliance members will claim sovereignty over another system(s) to provide better ratting/mining/exploration opportunities for their members.


I am kind of missing the point here. You will hold sovereignty over few systems only but you will control much more. I thought sovereignty is a flag you rise so others can see you control this particular system. I guess not...

I also thought that changes are supposed to make 0.0 more alive and fail to see how goals like:
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

# A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system
# A better conquest experience
# More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat
# Less territorial sprawl by major alliances
# A more diverse and interesting political landscape
# More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec

will be accomplished by upcoming changes.


1) Dominion 0.0 is many but transparent.
2) Starbase bashing was replaced by bashing some other POS, same blobs. You will still need to take numerous starbases down.
3) Small-fleet combat - huh?
4) Controlled space remains unchanged because it was never a subject of sovereignty but military power only.
5) Considering those changes are going to kill CVA and their multicultural unique space, I don't know what you had on mind...
6) Renting a space? Maybe.


Apart from supported grinding and new bugs, what are we getting with Dominion?

Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:48:00 - [2074]
 

Originally by: Mahke
Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed.



So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes.

Yeah moon mining nerf.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:49:00 - [2075]
 

Originally by: Qlanth
And what about the problem with cosmic anomalies? They are completely inferior to belt ratting in every way regardless of how many guaranteed ones there are in a system at any time. I don't mean to try and quiz you in this thread but don't you agree that cosmic anomalies need to be fixed before CCP starts basing their entire "ratting" upgrade on them?


That's exactly my point, yes. I don't care whether the income source is cosmic anomalies, L4 missions, belt ratting, mini-profession sites, mining, or anything else our twisted minds can come up with. I just want it to be fun, available in good quantity, and significantly(50-100%) better than L4 highsec missions. If anomalies do that, great - I loved Hertford's post on that 50 or so pages back. If not, CCP needs to find something that does.

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:50:00 - [2076]
 

I'll say again that all 0.0 alliances have known about the nerf to R64 for months and probably heard it coming long before it was announced.

And we have known that we would be spending far more money to be able to lock down our systems with cyno-jammers and jumpbridges as well. Most 0.0 entities, including GoonSwarm, were the ones calling for these changes from the beginning. Our CSM representatives along with others were the ones pushing for them.

The problem arises from the promise of upgrades that were lauded as fantastic changes that would increase the profitability of 0.0 space for the average player and allow 50-100 people to be making those profits at the same time, per system.

Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:52:00 - [2077]
 

Edited by: Mahke on 08/11/2009 22:52:46
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Mahke
Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed.



So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes.

Yeah moon mining nerf.


Cost of cyno jammer is 30 days/month * 25 mil/day = 750/month.

The hysteria in this thread based on incorrect or dishonest (who knows) math is terrible.

And yes, if current t2 production levels after the patch takes approx 120% of current technetium production, that is a buff on moon mining when technetium value spikes higher than dysprosium ever was (assuming CCP doesn't fix that coming disaster).

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:54:00 - [2078]
 

The changes to 0.0 I am looking for should be totally unaffected by Sov. All Cosmic Anomalies would be fixed by giving them belt level rats.

All rocks in 0.0 should have 5x as many minerals in them as they do now.

etc. I have laid out exactly my suggestions several times.

You can keep your upgrades exactly as they are now because the problems with 0.0 require more than sovereignty upgrades to fix.

Destrim
Koshaku
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:58:00 - [2079]
 

Originally by: Qlanth
I'll say again that all 0.0 alliances have known about the nerf to R64 for months and probably heard it coming long before it was announced.

And we have known that we would be spending far more money to be able to lock down our systems with cyno-jammers and jumpbridges as well. Most 0.0 entities, including GoonSwarm, were the ones calling for these changes from the beginning. Our CSM representatives along with others were the ones pushing for them.

The problem arises from the promise of upgrades that were lauded as fantastic changes that would increase the profitability of 0.0 space for the average player and allow 50-100 people to be making those profits at the same time, per system.


Yup. My point as well. Neither myself, my corp, nor anyone I know personally, has a problem with the steep prices. And we're happy about the changes forcing a condensation of powers: it opens up a lot of space!

What I and most others are dissatisfied with is just how disappointing the inf.-hub upgrades are. They are arbitrarily useless and boring... except maybe for the WH and hidden belt ones; the latter would help people holding low-quality 0.0 space with crap roids.

The military infrastructure ones in particular need to be re-hashed entirely.

Exordium8
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:58:00 - [2080]
 

Massive threadnaught is massive Shocked

De'Vadder
Minmatar
Dissonance Corp
BLACK-MARK
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:59:00 - [2081]
 

Edited by: De''Vadder on 08/11/2009 23:02:05
Originally by: Kepakh
If I understand new mechanics correctly, is this is how things should work?

Space ownership:
Alliance will drop sovereignty over most of their systems and keep only those with jump bridges or other strategical value. The space that alliance currently control gets utilized and instead of highly valuable R64 moon income, they will make the same or more ISK by actualy mining moons of lower rarity, which will be easy to do because of available moons after starbases being removed from sovereignty mechanics.
Optionaly, alliance members will claim sovereignty over another system(s) to provide better ratting/mining/exploration opportunities for their members.


I am kind of missing the point here. You will hold sovereignty over few systems only but you will control much more. I thought sovereignty is a flag you rise so others can see you control this particular system. I guess not...

I also thought that changes are supposed to make 0.0 more alive and fail to see how goals like:
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

# A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system
# A better conquest experience
# More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat
# Less territorial sprawl by major alliances
# A more diverse and interesting political landscape
# More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec

will be accomplished by upcoming changes.


1) Dominion 0.0 is many but transparent.
2) Starbase bashing was replaced by bashing some other POS, same blobs. You will still need to take numerous starbases down.
3) Small-fleet combat - huh?
4) Controlled space remains unchanged because it was never a subject of sovereignty but military power only.
5) Considering those changes are going to kill CVA and their multicultural unique space, I don't know what you had on mind...
6) Renting a space? Maybe.


Apart from supported grinding and new bugs, what are we getting with Dominion?


Wow, your very right, I for my part completely forgot they said the new sov was ment to be descriptive. I guess that wont be the case when Alliances just drop sov because of the price but keep the space as theirs.

Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:00:00 - [2082]
 

Originally by: Mahke
Edited by: Mahke on 08/11/2009 22:52:46
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Mahke
Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed.



So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes.

Yeah moon mining nerf.


Cost of cyno jammer is 30 days/month * 25 mil/day = 750/month.

The hysteria in this thread based on incorrect or dishonest (who knows) math is terrible.

And yes, if current t2 production levels after the patch takes approx 120% of current technetium production, that is a buff on moon mining when technetium value spikes higher than dysprosium ever was (assuming CCP doesn't fix that coming disaster).


Yes CCP does need to rebalance the technetium bottleneck, but unless you plan on using escorted freighters/jump freighters/transport ships you will also need a jump bridge network to get the goods to empire. Depending how far the moons are that will require sov, jump bridges, and cyno jammers in otherwise useless systems adding to the cost.

It will be a logistical nightmare otherwise.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:07:00 - [2083]
 

I remember when they did the dev blog on the carrier nerf, the thread went over 100 pages, and then they announced it was not happening. Keep posting those tears!!... well, you know what I mean. From the looks of this threadnought, I am having doubts that it will be implemented as is.

Keep posting constructive feedback.

Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:11:00 - [2084]
 

Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Mahke
Edited by: Mahke on 08/11/2009 22:52:46
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Mahke
Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed.



So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes.

Yeah moon mining nerf.


Cost of cyno jammer is 30 days/month * 25 mil/day = 750/month.

The hysteria in this thread based on incorrect or dishonest (who knows) math is terrible.

And yes, if current t2 production levels after the patch takes approx 120% of current technetium production, that is a buff on moon mining when technetium value spikes higher than dysprosium ever was (assuming CCP doesn't fix that coming disaster).


Yes CCP does need to rebalance the technetium bottleneck, but unless you plan on using escorted freighters/jump freighters/transport ships you will also need a jump bridge network to get the goods to empire. Depending how far the moons are that will require sov, jump bridges, and cyno jammers in otherwise useless systems adding to the cost.

It will be a logistical nightmare otherwise.


The logistical changes are a separate issue, imo. Those alliances with the best moons will easily be able to pay to cover increasing titan and JF proliferation, and the costs of JB/cyno systems. But yeah, it'll become harder/pricier, no doubt there.

However, that increased difficulty won't make up for increased profits from the tech bottleneck for those (northern) alliances that hold most of those moons, not nearly.

Honestly if CCP finds some way to actually succesfully nerf moon minerals (maybe a new asteroid available at development 5 mining anomalies that can be reacted with any given moon mineral to create more of that mineral, incentivizing 0.0 player owned space mining and solving the perenial bottleneck issue), I have no objections to lower upkeeeps and better upgrades, because then it would just be a matter of shifting collective profit to individual profit rather than massive economic power creep that leaves other areas of the game that are even higher risk than 0.0 (lowsec and wh-space) behind.

Destrim
Koshaku
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:17:00 - [2085]
 

Edited by: Destrim on 08/11/2009 23:19:08
Originally by: Marlona Sky
I remember when they did the dev blog on the carrier nerf, the thread went over 100 pages, and then they announced it was not happening. Keep posting those tears!!... well, you know what I mean. From the looks of this threadnought, I am having doubts that it will be implemented as is.

Keep posting constructive feedback.



There is no one whining/crying about losing sov. The only real complaint being raised is that the rewards (the shiny inf.-hub upgrades we were all expectantly waiting for) suck. Really, they are weaksauce.

However, I would agree to the need for constructive feedback (though it seemed you were being sarcastic o.o).

What should be discussed is what inf.-hub upgrades we think would actually work.

What would you suggest for the inf.-hub upgrades?

Tesal
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:27:00 - [2086]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
I remember when they did the dev blog on the carrier nerf, the thread went over 100 pages, and then they announced it was not happening. Keep posting those tears!!... well, you know what I mean. From the looks of this threadnought, I am having doubts that it will be implemented as is.

Keep posting constructive feedback.



Nice sig.

Goons don't have enough of a pet program, and they probably will never have a good pet program because the carebears are afraid of being scammed by them, which is a legitimate fear I might add. That and they are realizing the kinds of fights they are being set up for now that their participation is down.

Jonathan Pryde
Caldari
Red Horizon Inc
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:27:00 - [2087]
 

I normally avoid posting on Eve-O for my own reasons, but here goes.

I've been living/working in 0.0 for a better part of a few years. I'm not *THAT* knowledable at how much it costs an Alliance to live out in 0.0 but I do know it's in the tens of billions range.

That being said, if the R64 moons get the nerf they're getting (Yes, its a nerf since we won't be mining the same ammounts anymore) This effecitvely cuts your income a considerable ammount. As it stands, the upgrades don't provide any real means of helping alliances out. Do they help the individuals.. maybe. *MAYBE*. i don't really see it as a plus. Too many questions left unanswered there.

CCP, I implore you to re-think how you are going about this SOV revamp. The one thing that is deffinitely broken (and i think a lot of 0.0 holders might agree with me) is that the true-sec crap that exists in game is horribly broken. It needs to be fixed or revamped. Fix that, and then we can say you're doing progress. NPC Agents in 0.0 would be anice addition, instead of limiting them to NPC 0.0. I, myself, would like to see those agents in conquerable stations. All you gotta do is take the local rats, and set your agents to work with *THEM* like Sansha Agents in Stain, the Angel agents in Curse. It honestly can't be that hard to do.

Please, CCP... Think about what you're doing and if it will BENEFIT the alliances *AND* the players, not just you.

Kanatta Jing
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:28:00 - [2088]
 

One last time... Infinite any amount of ISK is still infinite ISK.

Infinite Anomaly ISK is still more infinite then finite Dypro moon income.

You just have an instance where more work yields more ISK, and in this instance extra work isn't a waste.

ShadowMaiden
Amarr
Atrocity.
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:29:00 - [2089]
 

ITT - Be careful what you wish for...


Alliances have long been whining about Sov Warfare being a pain and wanted it changing. Well you have it now, so better suck it up or find another MMO to play.


Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:29:00 - [2090]
 

Originally by: Destrim

There is no one whining/crying about losing sov. The only real complaint being raised is that the rewards (the shiny inf.-hub upgrades we were all expectantly waiting for) suck. Really, they are weaksauce.

However, I would agree to the need for constructive feedback (though it seemed you were being sarcastic o.o).

What should be discussed is what inf.-hub upgrades we think would actually work.

What would you suggest for the inf.-hub upgrades?


What's wrong with upgrades currently? I think this is a matter of expectation only.

Since mining and exploration means no income for space holder, at 10% tax rate you will need 6B in bounties to get basic upkeep paid.
Is that not enough or too much to reflect 10 guaranteed anomalies(I wonder what respawn rate on those will be)?

Halaxi
Caldari
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:30:00 - [2091]
 

Is making 0.0 alliances work harder for their space a bad thing? No.

Is a system that forces 0.0 alliances to view EvE-Online as a second job a good thing? No.

Is there an incentive to go out there, find someone and kick them out of their space, and claim it yourself? Not with Dominion as it is, as all you will inherit is a **** load of expense.

CCP, please remember that this is a game. People play it for fun. And whilst I am sure the vast majority of the player base would not be adverse to having to put more effort into carving out and holding their very own piece of EvE, if you take the fun out of it, then, well, low-sec space and NPC 0.0 might well see a population increase.

Hal.

Shmak DatAsh
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:32:00 - [2092]
 

Originally by: Halaxi
Is making 0.0 alliances work harder for their space a bad thing? No.

Is a system that forces 0.0 alliances to view EvE-Online as a second job a good thing? No.

Is there an incentive to go out there, find someone and kick them out of their space, and claim it yourself? Not with Dominion as it is, as all you will inherit is a **** load of expense.

CCP, please remember that this is a game. People play it for fun. And whilst I am sure the vast majority of the player base would not be adverse to having to put more effort into carving out and holding their very own piece of EvE, if you take the fun out of it, then, well, low-sec space and NPC 0.0 might well see a population increase.

Hal.


/signed

Vadinho
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:38:00 - [2093]
 

Originally by: Halaxi
Is making 0.0 alliances work harder for their space a bad thing? No.

Is a system that forces 0.0 alliances to view EvE-Online as a second job a good thing? No.

Is there an incentive to go out there, find someone and kick them out of their space, and claim it yourself? Not with Dominion as it is, as all you will inherit is a **** load of expense.

CCP, please remember that this is a game. People play it for fun. And whilst I am sure the vast majority of the player base would not be adverse to having to put more effort into carving out and holding their very own piece of EvE, if you take the fun out of it, then, well, low-sec space and NPC 0.0 might well see a population increase.

Hal.
straight up, atlas dude

Prognosys
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:40:00 - [2094]
 

Spam.Applebabe

Lucas Pantelis
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:44:00 - [2095]
 

Edited by: Lucas Pantelis on 08/11/2009 23:44:50
Originally by: Kanatta Jing
One last time... Infinite any amount of ISK is still infinite ISK.

Infinite Anomaly ISK is still more infinite then finite Dypro moon income.

You just have an instance where more work yields more ISK, and in this instance extra work isn't a waste.
They can respawn as quickly and frequently as they like, they're still a finite resource limited by how quickly and for how long they can be run.

Destrim
Koshaku
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:47:00 - [2096]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Destrim

There is no one whining/crying about losing sov. The only real complaint being raised is that the rewards (the shiny inf.-hub upgrades we were all expectantly waiting for) suck. Really, they are weaksauce.

However, I would agree to the need for constructive feedback (though it seemed you were being sarcastic o.o).

What should be discussed is what inf.-hub upgrades we think would actually work.

What would you suggest for the inf.-hub upgrades?


What's wrong with upgrades currently? I think this is a matter of expectation only.

Since mining and exploration means no income for space holder, at 10% tax rate you will need 6B in bounties to get basic upkeep paid.
Is that not enough or too much to reflect 10 guaranteed anomalies(I wonder what respawn rate on those will be)?


Have you ever run anomalies? They're crap. I remember when I was in SE, back in 4-E... you could easily find 4 of them in our home system at almost any given time! No one ever used them, or seldom ever did: the rats in there are almost always far less in quality than what one can find in the belts. Even if you constantly have 2 of them in system at all time, you still get more money from killing rats in belts, unless you significantly improve the quality of rats in anomalies.

However, all of that is besides the point. In the case of "military" upgrades, they actually do absolutely nothing for a sovereign's military. And that is disappointing. The usefulness of all the inf.-hub upgrades is negligible, really giving almost no reward for all the time (note that I'm not talking about money) invested in making a system yours.

Ukucia
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:50:00 - [2097]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Destrim

There is no one whining/crying about losing sov. The only real complaint being raised is that the rewards (the shiny inf.-hub upgrades we were all expectantly waiting for) suck. Really, they are weaksauce.

However, I would agree to the need for constructive feedback (though it seemed you were being sarcastic o.o).

What should be discussed is what inf.-hub upgrades we think would actually work.

What would you suggest for the inf.-hub upgrades?


What's wrong with upgrades currently? I think this is a matter of expectation only.

I realize this is a long thread, but could you at least skim it before blathering on incoherently?

I'm an empire carebear. The point of Dominion was to make me want to move to 0.0. To make it possible to set up a real home out in 0.0 where you live full time.

The proposed upgrades mean that I can make only as much as running L4s. In L4s, my ship will never be destroyed. In a fully upgraded 0.0 system, which takes 100 days to reach, I can be destroyed very easily. And I'll have to pay lots of ISK to be there. And 10 AFK cloakers can completely shut down the ISK faucet that cost billions to install - assuming the neighbors don't just lock down our fully-upgraded system and run the anomalies themselves.

It would be insanely stupid for me to move to 0.0. And the people who live there right now will still have to come back to Empire to make ISK, so they won't have a real 0.0 home.

THAT is why people are complaining. THAT is why me, an empire carebear who has no 0.0 assets nor 0.0 allies is complaining.

Quote:
Is that not enough or too much to reflect 10 guaranteed anomalies(I wonder what respawn rate on those will be)?

And if you'd bothered to read the thread, the respawn is instant. But that doesn't do you much good when your enemies park an AFK cloaker in the anomolies, preventing them from respawning at all.

Ivan Zhuk
Gallente
1st Steps Academy
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:52:00 - [2098]
 

I would like to note the first responses from CCP in this thread were mocking some characters and pointing out more flaws in their idea. The second set of responses ingnored all but 1 major problem (they may adjust costs) and talked mostly about anomolies. And now for the past 25 pages they have said nothing..... way to go CCP

LiMu Bai
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:52:00 - [2099]
 

Edited by: LiMu Bai on 09/11/2009 00:03:08
Edited by: LiMu Bai on 08/11/2009 23:56:21
Well, the current Sov-System ist not really optimal. Everyone knows this, but the upcoming one is far, far worse. The prices are totally stupid and much to high. In contrast the benefits are close to worthless. Also jumpbridges and cynojammers will not be just overpriced, their use and aviablility is also impaired. That means even big alliances will only own very few systems, since they cant afford this horrendous bills. To make this desaster complete, also the fuelboni, the current system grants, will be cut to zero. Higher bills everywhere. And as I said....theres nothing an alliance can do to compensate this steady loss of isk every month. Me, for sure, will not farm stupid anomalies to pay this stuff.

I like eve online because of Fleet Combat. I love big campaigns and epic slugfests. Thats why I started with this game. But tbh, I dont see what we will fight over after dominion. There wont be any big campaings anymore to take hostile space, since an big alliance will never be able to have more than a handfull of systems. Another big reason for fights are good moonminerals. I guess this will also be nerfed after dominion. CCP, what should we fight for? What should our massive fleets and capital blobs do after dominion? Just a crusade to ****, pillage and destroy? This doesnt feel right. Everone, except some roaming-pvp entities will just sit in their few systems and carebear the **** out of it to pay billing-online. Boring!

I suggest you to delay the Sov-Upgrade until you have a clue. Develop a better system. As far as this process lasts let the Sov as it is.

For the Dominion expansion you can take the nice, new graphics, the fleet-finder and the changes for the capital battlefield (Titans, Dreads, Moms, Docking upgrade for MoMs). But plz, dont introduce this horrendous new sov-system. Trash this capturehteflag-wowgrinds-farmer-billingonline Sov-system.

Ukucia
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:53:00 - [2100]
 

Edited by: Ukucia on 08/11/2009 23:54:21
Originally by: Ben Derindar
Originally by: Shawna Gray
Originally by: TZeer
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.

There is a reason why there are only 1 char in space in those systems you mentioned. Its all they can support.

ASCN circa early 2006 would like a word with you.

/Ben


As a member of ASCN circa early 2006, let me just say:
Originally by: Shawna Gray
There is a reason why there are only 1 char in space in those systems you mentioned. Its all they can support.

Unless you're gonna try and count those of us who were 'manning the production lines' as being supported by the system.


Pages: first : previous : ... 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 ... : 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