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 : ... 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

Sally Bestonge
Ministry of War
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:53:00 - [2101]
 

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.

exactly

ovenproofjet
Caldari
Therapy.
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:56:00 - [2102]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine


You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp.

As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space.




Star Fraction would like a lack of cyno-jammers, then you can jump your carriers in and give a station a nice big friendly carrier bear hug! You know, capitals defeating the whole small gang warfare thing....stick to low sec mate Rolling Eyes

Anyhow....back on track, the proposed charges do seem a little over the top. Weren't they intended to be around the same level as up keeping POS towers is? I'm sure no alliance in their right mind spends 2bil a month to hold any of their systems


Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:01:00 - [2103]
 

Originally by: Ivan Zhuk
And now for the past 25 pages they have said nothing..... way to go CCP


and not suprisingly someone else fails to realize that IT'S THE WEEKEND!!! The people with the power to make any changes or comments about the feedback are more than likely off work.

Mrs Trzzbk
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:01:00 - [2104]
 

Originally by: Tesal

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.


Yes, we should be punished for using our space ourselves instead of making idiots pay us for it.

Kieselguhr Kid
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:02:00 - [2105]
 

Originally by: Ukucia
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.


The anomalies are even more worthless than that. Okay, you have 10 of them in a system, all (absolute best case!) comparable to belts in a system with bad truesec (nobody in broken truesec Delve is even bothering, of course). But you don't need to probe them down, so any ganker knows where they (you) are in 30 seconds just like with a belt. You can't tell which ones are already taken by other people, so you need to keep warping around until you find a free one. And once you find it, it will never escalate, because anomalies escalate to existing plexes, those plexes are going to be "upgraded" into the one system in the region that's got the plex spawn upgrade, and everyone and their mother is going to pile into that system to run it immediately after DT. No, plexes do not spawn after downtime (only wormholes spawn in between DTs), and no, plexes do not respawn immediately when they are run (again, only after the next DT.)

CCP is not just relying on everyone to pile into anomalies, they're saying "spend 10b a month, and you can upgrade a system to have essentially static plexes in it." Remember when they already had that, and it sucked ass?

Korodan
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:09:00 - [2106]
 

Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk
Originally by: Tesal

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.


Yes, we should be punished for using our space ourselves instead of making idiots pay us for it.


And not keeping around fractious, spy-ridden cannon fodder.

Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:10:00 - [2107]
 

Edited by: Mahke on 09/11/2009 00:13:23
Edited by: Mahke on 09/11/2009 00:12:16
Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk
Originally by: Tesal

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.


Yes, we should be punished for using our space ourselves instead of making idiots pay us for it.


Not at all.

And IF you were using the space you wouldn't be. However, owning space just to farm the moons and have an empty strategic buffer (Querious much) SHOULD be punished to the point of making it a Bad Idea, because its bad for the game as a whole.

Lets be honest: upkeep won't do that because lol 6mil/day with new numbers is a total joke, and even with the original prices one could just not claim sov but still effectively own it, but, it makes that ownership/playstyle of owning empty space a lot more difficult to maintain.

edit:
Quote:

And not keeping around fractious, spy-ridden cannon fodder.


No one is saying the status quo is bad for you in specific. It's not: thats part of why you do it. We're saying its bad for the game as a whole and something that dominion is intended to and should address.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:11:00 - [2108]
 

Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 00:24:15
Originally by: Destrim
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.


The bounties on belt rats are affected by true sec status. However, the anomalies itself is something I haven't seen nor anyone else since space upgrades are not working on test server yet. Therefore you complain is a bit moot.

Space upgrades as I understand them are not supposed to be ISK income. They are there to make 'use' of the system. If you can pay for upkeep through space upgrades income it is working fine, if there are some ISK leftovers, good for you.

I think this is the only thing that concept wise works fine in Dominion.

Pyus
Hand Of Midas
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:13:00 - [2109]
 

Unless another dev blog comes along and details more improvements or explains more thoroughly the ones proposed in this blog, I have to agree with the "whiners" here - this appears to be some really, really lazy and ill-thought game "development".

As noted in a previous dev blog, all of the 0.0 problems - sov mechanics, low 0.0 population, risk/reward, etc. - have been known to exist for at least 2 years. We have been patiently waiting for you to devote some effort here. At thispoint, 3 weeks to go before the patch, it looks like we have very little effort at this point. This isn't the wrong direction for 0.0 space, as much as it's just a very lazy implementation of the right direction.

Deja Thoris
Invicta.
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:14:00 - [2110]
 

Originally by: Kai Lae


#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.

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


The reality is EvE is broken with R64 income as it is now. Losing cap fleets should hurt and recently it's just been "lol we lost another 100 - no worries we have * inappropriate text removed - CCP Ildoge"

It's right that they are fixing it. In fact, the devs move as slow as glaciers, they should have done it ages ago. Now income will reduce. If you have no other source of endless ISK to replace it this means that your spending habits need to change. Itmay come as a shock to a lot of people but it will hopefully shake up the game and allow the smaller up and comers to compete rather than to be absorbed into bigger entities in order to survive.

I think work needs to be done on the rewards a system brings if they really want to accommodate the numbers of people they are talking about. I also think that costs to hold sov should scale the same way wardecs do now. Cheap, less cheap, ouch!

CrazzyElk
Big Shadows
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:18:00 - [2111]
 

Just wanted to ad a few thoughts to this somewhat lengthy thread.

You(CCP) are changing the sov mechanics, fine it was in need of a fix. You are changing supercaps, fine anyone who have been on a recieving end of a tripple DD or saw that carrier get DD:d to hell was hoping you would. You are nerfing highend moons witch is by far the biggest moneymaker for alliances in 00 and the biggest catalyst for war in "recent" times, a nerf was due here as well with the silly ammounts of money a lot of alliances made and the sillyness that brought with it. You are upping the cost of claiming space, something not entierly wrong in my opinion BUT you are doing it at the same time as the changes above.

The thing isnt so much one of the above changes but the combination of all of them, and primairly nerfing highend moons and increasing the costs of alliances at the same time. The thing about this is that most alliances will loose their primary source of income while at the same time not be given enough time to figure out new ways of getting money to pay the increased costs you are also proposing.

The system upgrades, while not entierly worthless as some portray them, are not in anyway bringing in money directly to the alliances. But are all bringing in money to the players themselves, or atleast give them that oppurtunity.

You say this is intended as to make pure pvp alliances require a industrial backbone or loose space. Something a lot would disagree with but for sake of argument lets say this is the goal everyone wants. Almost all successful 00 alliances are more or less pvp and you are asking everyone to adabt and get industrial NOW or see your empires implode to small husks of it's former selves.

Requiring all alliances to turn carebearing into an artform for the greater good of the alliance is not something that will go quickly or easily. When the highends hit rock buttom from the forementioned changes alliances will have nothing but their savings to lean on as no one has alliance whide mining ops any more.

I suspect the idea was that the new treaty system would give alliances a chance to use the huge numbers of miners etc and gain the isk required to fund all these upgrades and maintenence. But since that part of dominion got canceled you can't expect them to be able to pay these huge numbers.

The main thing all of these changes combined does is create chaos, if that was you intent CCP then by all means do it. But I feel you really don't want alliances sutch as CVA who has put in enormous work to their space to turn into a land with no sov cause no one can afford it.

What I propose is that you lower the costs of holding sov etc to a lower level. Then when you can see how all the other changes pan out (how low the highends drop and maybee even launch that treaty thingie) you start to raise the fees. If you don't think you've reached a desired level you just raise the fees once more. The beuty o this system is that you can easily adjust it as you go. And yes I think you are on the right track with a lot of things just trying to mutch at the same time and inviting undesired consequences in the process.

Sorry for the wall of text but it's very important internet spaceship business so you haveto be very thourough.

/ CrazzyElk

Kieselguhr Kid
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:29:00 - [2112]
 

Originally by: Mahke
Not at all.

And IF you were using the space you wouldn't be. However, owning space just to farm the moons and have an empty strategic buffer (Querious much) SHOULD be punished to the point of making it a Bad Idea, because its bad for the game as a whole.

Lets be honest: upkeep won't do that because lol 6mil/day with new numbers is a total joke, and even with the original prices one could just not claim sov but still effectively own it, but, it makes that ownership/playstyle of owning empty space a lot more difficult to maintain.

edit:
Quote:

And not keeping around fractious, spy-ridden cannon fodder.


No one is saying the status quo is bad for you in specific. It's not: thats part of why you do it. We're saying its bad for the game as a whole and something that dominion is intended to and should address.


If the expansion gave us a reason to rent or do something else with Querious while keeping it a useful region, that would have been fine because it would be worth fighting over. Okay, fine, we have to settle renters or even pets in there, but there's plenty of things to do in it = not the end of the world.

Instead, it's a strategic threat, but a useless region overall just like every other part of "upgraded" 0.0. So now it gets to sit entirely empty (yes, even emptier than today). You'd think an empty region would be an attractive takeover target, but it turns out the best part of owning it is so you can upgrade some systems to be "almost as good as running L4 missions" while getting ganked by our camps in A2- and 3-FKCZ every time you try to bring in a T2 armor hardener. Also, if you upgrade your systems too much, we'll probably just scorch earth them.

This is now how to upgrade 0.0 unless "upgrading" means "make a bunch of people move to a different game".

PVP Turd
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:33:00 - [2113]
 

Yeah some BS from CCP to make us pay for GTC's. They would do anything to steal the isk you earn back from you. Make changes that will help players not cost them.

Ukucia
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:33:00 - [2114]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 00:24:15
Originally by: Destrim
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.


The bounties on belt rats are affected by true sec status. However, the anomalies itself is something I haven't seen nor anyone else since space upgrades are not working on test server yet. Therefore you complain is a bit moot.

Well, again if you had read the thread, you'd have learned that the anomaly spawns are not tied to truesec. However, the devs also said in this thread that running the best anomalies were comparable to running L4s as far as income. (They were vague as to if this included LPs or not)

Quote:
Space upgrades as I understand them are not supposed to be ISK income.

Then you don't understand a damn thing. Apparently you can't read the earlier Dominion dev blogs, nor this thread.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:50:00 - [2115]
 

I saw this post on the Assembly Hall, and I think it fixes at least half the problems with this proposal in one fell swoop. Thus, I empty quote.

Originally by: Galen Darksmith
To quote Joshua back on SHC: http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?p=1031922#1031922

"Allow people who are docked in outposts with the proper system upgrades to talk to their normal agents. IE: People in Delve can talk to their Caldari navy agents and get missions in delve;
- this allows 0.0 people to move back to their alliance space
- the only limit on players making money per system is lag
- alliances have more people in their space to help defend stuff
- the enemy has more targets to try and kill
- plus theres a small motivation for empire people to move to 0.0 as they can still use their normal agents and theyd get a ton more LP in -1 0.0 systems then they do in empire.
- also since the people who dont want to go to empire can then run missions in 0.0 corps would make more on corp taxes."

Essentially, allow an upgrade for outposts: Comms Relay tower. Has 5 levels, each level allows agents of the corresponding level to be contacted from afar, so a level 2 tower lets you run level 2 missions and below, level 5 tower lets you run all missions.

ShadowMaiden
Amarr
Atrocity.
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:50:00 - [2116]
 

Originally by: CrazzyElk
Just wanted to ad a few thoughts to this somewhat lengthy thread.

You(CCP) are changing the sov mechanics, fine it was in need of a fix. You are changing supercaps, fine anyone who have been on a recieving end of a tripple DD or saw that carrier get DD:d to hell was hoping you would. You are nerfing highend moons witch is by far the biggest moneymaker for alliances in 00 and the biggest catalyst for war in "recent" times, a nerf was due here as well with the silly ammounts of money a lot of alliances made and the sillyness that brought with it. You are upping the cost of claiming space, something not entierly wrong in my opinion BUT you are doing it at the same time as the changes above.

The thing isnt so much one of the above changes but the combination of all of them, and primairly nerfing highend moons and increasing the costs of alliances at the same time. The thing about this is that most alliances will loose their primary source of income while at the same time not be given enough time to figure out new ways of getting money to pay the increased costs you are also proposing.

The system upgrades, while not entierly worthless as some portray them, are not in anyway bringing in money directly to the alliances. But are all bringing in money to the players themselves, or atleast give them that oppurtunity.

You say this is intended as to make pure pvp alliances require a industrial backbone or loose space. Something a lot would disagree with but for sake of argument lets say this is the goal everyone wants. Almost all successful 00 alliances are more or less pvp and you are asking everyone to adabt and get industrial NOW or see your empires implode to small husks of it's former selves.

Requiring all alliances to turn carebearing into an artform for the greater good of the alliance is not something that will go quickly or easily. When the highends hit rock buttom from the forementioned changes alliances will have nothing but their savings to lean on as no one has alliance whide mining ops any more.

I suspect the idea was that the new treaty system would give alliances a chance to use the huge numbers of miners etc and gain the isk required to fund all these upgrades and maintenence. But since that part of dominion got canceled you can't expect them to be able to pay these huge numbers.

The main thing all of these changes combined does is create chaos, if that was you intent CCP then by all means do it. But I feel you really don't want alliances sutch as CVA who has put in enormous work to their space to turn into a land with no sov cause no one can afford it.

What I propose is that you lower the costs of holding sov etc to a lower level. Then when you can see how all the other changes pan out (how low the highends drop and maybee even launch that treaty thingie) you start to raise the fees. If you don't think you've reached a desired level you just raise the fees once more. The beuty o this system is that you can easily adjust it as you go. And yes I think you are on the right track with a lot of things just trying to mutch at the same time and inviting undesired consequences in the process.

Sorry for the wall of text but it's very important internet spaceship business so you haveto be very thourough.

/ CrazzyElk


No-one is forcing you to claim Sov, that is an act of choice. If you want it in Dominion, you will have to pay for it, or don't bother. It aint CCP's fault you whiners are so fixated with "owning" pretend real-estate.

cok cola
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:51:00 - [2117]
 

CCP, WHILE YOU SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THIS THREAD EXISTS, THE QUESTION STILL HAS GONE UNANSWERED

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.

YOUR UPGRADES ARE * inappropriate text removed - CCP Ildoge, PURE *****

Vivian Azure
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:51:00 - [2118]
 

I don't know if anyone of you noticed this, but the sovereignity bills will be paid from the corp-wallet of the corp, which places the FLAG/TCU in a system on behalf of it's alliance.

So you can directly tax your corp-members to pay the bills. The bills aren't paid from the alliance-wallet.

Moon-mining will get reduced, yes, but this was way too long overdue. There'll be more moons however, that will be economical to harvest, with the coming Tech 2-production changes and changes to alchemy.

The upgrades you can make for your systems, don't look all that good, I'll give you that, and they won't making money as easy as flying LvL 4 missions, but it's not that bad at all tbh.
Flying anomalies in -0.2 or doing plexes in such "crap" systems is still worth it, if you count in the loot and salvage. Actually alot of anomalies nets you 20 million ISK without the loot or salvage, and having them respawn instantly, they're up par with LvL 4 missions, you just don't get the additional LP.

I still have the oppinion, that it's not too much to ask your members to contribute some 5-10 million ISK a day, if your members get their fleet-ships in return paid by the corp. My corp does pays for fleet-ships in that regard.

So if the changes draw money out of the system, so that the alliances have to work a little bit more for their huge cap-fleets we see today... well... I guess I don't have a problem with this, as it was getting ridiculous to waste 50 Dreads and have them instantly recovered.

I don't understand the general mindset in here, that 0.0 should be measured vs. empire-space. 0.0 has other things to it, then just making ISK. It's a big playground, where we can fly around and have some nice fights going on, without any repercussions like loss of security.
I live in the mindset, that 0.0 should only pay for itself, if you have a good empire-based industrial backbone and that claimed 0.0 is only there to reflect your power.

I have the slight impression, that CCP is seeing this similar, as all the stuff they've thought of for Dominion reflects this.

So no. I don't think that the costs are too high, and I don't think that the rewards in 0.0 PvE-content should be boosted. 0.0 should not be about personal wealth, but about teamplay and pewpew.
The decision to not have any upgrades that influence the true-sec of the systems is a good one at this point, as alliances will still fight for the better regions as it happens now with the high-end moons.

Systems that nobody cares about to upgrade them will free up to some extend for people who don't actually like to live in 0.0 or claim space, but only do some ratting or plxing from time to time, as they can jump in a Rorqual put up a small tower for some safety without the big alliances getting informed via mail, that someone has put up a tower in their space.

Alot of the big entities see this different, but tbh I don't really care for them, as I think they are playing the game wrong and do not understand what possibilities will open up.

Small gang roaming will be effective again, as you can enter a system you know of being upgraded and find yourself some targets or atleast disrupt their activities. And hey... disrupting their activities, preventing them from upgrading their system just adds another layer of warfare actually.

I say: Go on CCP, don't listen to the whiners and do what you have announced so far. Shake up the sandbox and level the playingground once more.

Igor Epocci
Minmatar
Fringe Industries EMS
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:51:00 - [2119]
 

Edited by: Igor Epocci on 09/11/2009 00:52:07
Originally by: Korodan
Originally by: Itzena
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
- yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else.

Great!

What's the planned fix?


Yes, how will you be nerfing level 4 mission runners?

One of your 'anomalies' will be a gate to a random in-progress hi-sec L4 mission, and a CONCORD "You are Weapons Free" card.....Shocked

William Dardrachen
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:53:00 - [2120]
 

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.


Much of it comes down to this.

I'm also a bit concerned with the trend that when asked why they won't implement/change something, CCP answers "Because of coding." They really risk painting themselves into a corner.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.11.09 00:58:00 - [2121]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 09/11/2009 00:59:28
Originally by: Jovialmadness

Dude. S*F* just S*F*.

You state in your post the actual numbers of people an alliance might have with a reasonable amount of precision and then you have the balls to try to validate why its ok to control upwards of 100 to in your case 160 systems?Laughing

Just GTF* of these forums and don't ever come back.

To everyone else, the reason CCP is doing this is to force peeps like this to back down to a reasonable number of controllable systems so others can have a chance. Atlas couldn't defend that number of systems without a powerbloc if their lives depended on it. That is just a singular reason why the dev's have stated EXACTLY why what Atlas and the rest of the alliances are doing is making the game mind numbingly plain and not what they really wanted. I totally agree. If you dont like this then quit, no seriously dont argue with me just quit. This is one of the best changes ive ever seen and i have been in 0.0 for years.

I am so sick and tired of diplomacy controlling space and not true sweat which is what it will require now not only in isk but in fighting.

What actually makes you think that ATLAS will not continue to control the space it already has?
What actually makes you think the coalitions that exist today will dissolve?

If you ACTUALLY had a clue as to why Alliances hold major swaths of space you MIGHT be able to make an educated post which wouldn't make you seem like anything but a current or past resident of 0.0.

All this will do is solidify the need of coalitions, drastically reduce the feasibility for major conflicts and reduces the chance for smaller Alliances to do anything in 0.0 w/o the ok of or installation support from a larger Alliance/coalition.

Are you ACTUALLY that disillusional?

Alice Teal
Posted - 2009.11.09 01:01:00 - [2122]
 

Originally by: Igor Epocci
Edited by: Igor Epocci on 09/11/2009 00:52:07
Originally by: Korodan
Originally by: Itzena
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
- yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else.

Great!

What's the planned fix?


Yes, how will you be nerfing level 4 mission runners?

One of your 'anomalies' will be a gate to a random in-progress hi-sec L4 mission, and a CONCORD "You are Weapons Free" card.....Shocked


PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!
Here's how you integrate it into the storyline: the pirate faction (say, Angels for Angels Extravaganza) give you a "countermission": Stop the Missioner.

They put a 30 minute module on you which jams Concord's sensors.

This would fix Eve.

Korodan
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2009.11.09 01:04:00 - [2123]
 

Edited by: Korodan on 09/11/2009 01:04:12
Originally by: Alice Teal

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!
Here's how you integrate it into the storyline: the pirate faction (say, Angels for Angels Extravaganza) give you a "countermission": Stop the Missioner.

They put a 30 minute module on you which jams Concord's sensors.

This would fix Eve.


Quoting this because it needs to happen.

Vivian Azure
Posted - 2009.11.09 01:12:00 - [2124]
 

Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 01:13:48
Originally by: Quesa
Edited by: Quesa on 09/11/2009 00:59:28
Originally by: Jovialmadness

Dude. S*F* just S*F*.

You state in your post the actual numbers of people an alliance might have with a reasonable amount of precision and then you have the balls to try to validate why its ok to control upwards of 100 to in your case 160 systems?Laughing

Just GTF* of these forums and don't ever come back.

To everyone else, the reason CCP is doing this is to force peeps like this to back down to a reasonable number of controllable systems so others can have a chance. Atlas couldn't defend that number of systems without a powerbloc if their lives depended on it. That is just a singular reason why the dev's have stated EXACTLY why what Atlas and the rest of the alliances are doing is making the game mind numbingly plain and not what they really wanted. I totally agree. If you dont like this then quit, no seriously dont argue with me just quit. This is one of the best changes ive ever seen and i have been in 0.0 for years.

I am so sick and tired of diplomacy controlling space and not true sweat which is what it will require now not only in isk but in fighting.

What actually makes you think that ATLAS will not continue to control the space it already has?
What actually makes you think the coalitions that exist today will dissolve?

If you ACTUALLY had a clue as to why Alliances hold major swaths of space you MIGHT be able to make an educated post which wouldn't make you seem like anything but a current or past resident of 0.0.

All this will do is solidify the need of coalitions, drastically reduce the feasibility for major conflicts and reduces the chance for smaller Alliances to do anything in 0.0 w/o the ok of or installation support from a larger Alliance/coalition.

Are you ACTUALLY that disillusional?


So far, you need 1 system to have PvE-content for 2 players. That includes belt-ratting and anomalies.

After the patch, you need one system to have PvE-content for 10 players, as the anomalies will instantly respawn after they're finished, and there'll be more of them aswell.

You may not find them anomalies worthwile, but that's your personal problem, if you allways ever compare ISK/h to LvL 4 missions.

As I see it, 0.0 was never intended to have higher rewards then empire-mission-running, but approx the same. The only difference between 0.0 and empire is, that you can enforce your own rules in 0.0 shooting at everyone you don't like etc...

If you're only looking for ISK, then go to empire and fly LvL 4 missions... it's that easy. Nobody forces you to strive out into 0.0.

Mrs Trzzbk
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.09 01:14:00 - [2125]
 

Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 09/11/2009 01:14:37
Originally by: ShadowMaiden

No-one is forcing you to claim Sov, that is an act of choice. If you want it in Dominion, you will have to pay for it, or don't bother. It aint CCP's fault you whiners are so fixated with "owning" pretend real-estate.


Yeah I know who would ever think people would become attached to the endgame content of EVE?

Future Mutant
Republic Military School
Posted - 2009.11.09 01:15:00 - [2126]
 

Originally by: Korodan
Edited by: Korodan on 09/11/2009 01:04:12
Originally by: Alice Teal

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!
Here's how you integrate it into the storyline: the pirate faction (say, Angels for Angels Extravaganza) give you a "countermission": Stop the Missioner.

They put a 30 minute module on you which jams Concord's sensors.

This would fix Eve.


Quoting this because it needs to happen.


So let me get this straight- your so against "carebears" that you refuse to work with any (ie share your precious corp with those that would guarantee you could pay your bills) and instead you want a(nother) way to pvp in highsec with no consequences?

adriaans
Amarr
Ankaa.
Nair Al-Zaurak
Posted - 2009.11.09 01:16:00 - [2127]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Zemi Dahut
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Zemi Dahut

You really don't understand what the problem is here which is really not surprising. You should probably have stayed out of this thread since all you're doing is reminding everyone why you failed as a CSM.


Actually Dominion is looking like a pretty good success for my time on the CSM right now Cool



What, making 0.0 less accessible to small alliances and gangs? You're really this delusional?


You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp.

As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space.




how on earth does cyno jammers and sov claims affect small gang pvp? never stopped us from roaming wherever it pleases us. what it stops is smaller entities claiming sov, and so does insane costs.


and how a -censored- like you ever got on the csm i have no idea...

Orb Lati
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.09 01:18:00 - [2128]
 

While in principle I agree that 0.0 space needs to be attractive and profitable I am worried about the calls to just increase the influx of both ISK and mineral resources into the game via these upgrades.

If we are going to increase either, then we need to find more sinks for isk, and more uses for the additional minerals coming into the system.

For isk sinks if we are going to start having the lvl4 earning potential in 0.0 as with Hi-Sec then we should start looking at some thing like a NPC product to be using as subcap ship fuel. Ie a sink that can be applied to both mission runners and 0.0 players, and not 0.0 exclusively like a majority of the existing sinks.
Perhaps a empire based ship registration fee if flying in hi sec (similar to car registration)  .
In all honesty I donít know what a suitable sink could be but I am of the opinion that there should be a cost for the protection of hi sec.

As for mineral, I donít know. Perhaps nerfing both loot drops and scrap refine rates? Or releasing mineral BPOs for the upgrade hubs and modules.
The key point is, brining more mineral into the system without out increasing the demand is not going to make miners any more money and will just end up tanking the prices even further.

Pointfive
Posted - 2009.11.09 01:22:00 - [2129]
 

Originally by: Orb Lati
While in principle I agree that 0.0 space needs to be attractive and profitable I am worried about the calls to just increase the influx of both ISK and mineral resources into the game via these upgrades.

If we are going to increase either, then we need to find more sinks for isk, and more uses for the additional minerals coming into the system.

For isk sinks if we are going to start having the lvl4 earning potential in 0.0 as with Hi-Sec then we should start looking at some thing like a NPC product to be using as subcap ship fuel. Ie a sink that can be applied to both mission runners and 0.0 players, and not 0.0 exclusively like a majority of the existing sinks.
Perhaps a empire based ship registration fee if flying in hi sec (similar to car registration)  .
In all honesty I donít know what a suitable sink could be but I am of the opinion that there should be a cost for the protection of hi sec.

As for mineral, I donít know. Perhaps nerfing both loot drops and scrap refine rates? Or releasing mineral BPOs for the upgrade hubs and modules.
The key point is, brining more mineral into the system without out increasing the demand is not going to make miners any more money and will just end up tanking the prices even further.



With the sovereignty costs as they are that is already adding pretty large isk sinks. Most of population dosent even live in 0.0 as is, so the inflationary effect shoudlnt even be that large. Eve needs some inflation right now anyways, with many ships being sold at or near insurance scam profit prices.

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2009.11.09 01:23:00 - [2130]
 

Originally by: Ukucia
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.

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

Call it 'manning the production lines', call it whatever you want. My point is you were there, and so was I. If TZeer were to have checked his Feyth map 3.5 to 4 years ago, he would have seen a lot more people out there then than what there are now, regardless of what we were doing.

/Ben


Pages: first : previous : ... 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 ... : 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