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 : ... 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

Locii
Posted - 2009.11.09 10:19:00 - [2341]
 

so now as a new small alliance wanting to take some space
i have to pay ccp my sub's
i have to pay concord for the right to place a flag and hub
i hvae to pay what ever over lords i need for support (YOU HAVE SORTED THE TREATY SYSTEM TO GO IN WITH THIS, HAVNT YOU CCP?)
i have to pay for alliance capitals and replacments, while saving some isk for a rainy day...lol
i have to moon mine low end crap thats not been taken by the over lords
i have to rat/plex/mine to keep any upgrades

when do i get to pvp?
when do i get to see a little bit of what i see as the end game?.


Zerakix
Minmatar
The White Mantle
Posted - 2009.11.09 10:22:00 - [2342]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie

It absolutely doesn't make any sense that you would lose a system when you are strong enough to hold it and no one would ever be able to capture it nor even attempted to capture it! Such a game mechanic is idiotic and should have no place in 0.0 or anywhere else in Eve!!


Probably not what you meant but isn't already impossible for all but the largest of fleets hammering non-stop on a cynojammed system just about impossible to capture with out you know disbanding the defending alliance?

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.09 10:28:00 - [2343]
 

Originally by: Vanzatoarea


GAAAAAH idiot!!!!!

dude , l4`s are just as infinite

if you have any ideea what you`re up to you can get most of them in same system or 1 j away at most! 3 or 4 of them at the same time!

if you have 3 (20 is a waste of firepower moron) determined people you can prety much be shooting rats non-stop , the only "pause" beeing the warp time between mission spots and (gasp!) the eventual need to go 1j awya (the horor! all of 30 sec to do 1 jump!)

now compare that to 10x anomalies that may just MAY not be pure utter crap...and in fact act like 10 belts you need to probe down...you can keep 10 people max in there because in 90% of these anomalies more then 1 person is a waste . ANd as it has been said before,these 10 persons will each go for a separate anomaly (it simply isnt worth geting 2x people in one for the same reason it aint worth getin 2 people in a l4)...and will end up steping on eachother`s toes


What part of anomalies are you missing?

The one where they can be probed at 100% accuracy with 1 single probe covering a whole system maybe?

The horror. You need to launch one probe and scan 30 seconds to get all the anomalies in system.

You can get them with the on board scanner too, the only limit is that its range is smaller and you need to warp to the different planets.

Exactly identical to warping to belt, check rats, kill rats, warp to next belt. With the added benefit that the anomaly and the rats respawn immediately.

So the equivalent of 10 missions without the need to recover stuff for the agent or to kill structures.

You don't even need to care for standing or failing a mission.

So it is identical to your mission description.





gambrinous
Posted - 2009.11.09 10:30:00 - [2344]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: gambrinous
Originally by: Ryixezu
Edited by: Ryixezu on 09/11/2009 08:52:04
Originally by: Ranger 1
Kanatta Jing, I think you may be operating at a level well beyond the one in this thread. It may be obvious to you and I that these instantly re spawning anomalies can be worked endlessly by large groups that never have to leave their home system, and generate huge amounts of convenient ISK, but most won't get that. That's why I have avoided bringing it up and focused on other matters.

Absolutely, having an infinite resource available with instant respawn as soon as you complete it would be extremely abused.

EDIT: I do really dislike using irony on forums but this one was too good to let go.


empty quoting atlas cause it's the thing to do now :P

doh, going too fast, so while I wait:
it supports 10 ppl, if ccp would just chuck agents in there, then yes1!!, but that is too hard (TM)

my question still stands, what to do with the other 990 alliance members aside from grab 100 more systems to fill with anomalies? if ccp wants alliances to reduce their space they need to make it usable.



If those 10 guys are on 23/7, yes you need 99 other upgraded systems for the other 990 members of the alliance.

The point is that you have 10 constant, ever present anomalies.

Every one of those anomalies can accommodate at least one player.

So, instead of having 2 players combing the belts in 6 hours shifts (so about 8 alliance member in a day using a system) you can have 2 players in the belts and 10 in the anomalies at the same times. In 6 hour shifts it mean a single system can provide a living for 48 players.

And your 1.000 alliance members can live in 20 upgraded systems (that is without considering mining or other activities).

You really think that a 500% increase of the people using a system is bad?




currently 10000000000000000 ppl can use one 0.0 system, because they're all running empire alts. post patch, no significant difference except it costs more.

if you want [more] people to actually live 100% in 0.0 this is not a solution.

but anyway, back to the real problem:
CCP DOES ACTUALLY KNOW BETTER, BUT TEH CODE IS TOO HARD!! LEGACY!!!!

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.09 10:35:00 - [2345]
 

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

It seems you and CCP have different ideas as to what 0.0 is supposed to be like. In case you didn't know CCP is nerfing the value of moongoo, which coincidentally nerfs the income of most 0.0 alliances. Ofc this was all well and good as alliances would be able to upgrade their space to make it viable for the alliance members to make isk there. Then the corps and through proxy the alliance would make isk from taxes. Well, the dev blog comes out and it turns out that the upgrades barely make collecting isk from 0.0 as effective as collecting isk from empire. You see the main issue is that the ability of the alliance to provide for it's members will diminish while owning space doesn't offer the members enough incentives over empire or NPC space to justify holding space. The loss of isk to the alliance from the moongoo directly effects the ability of the alliance to fund programs like ship replacement for its members, leading to the average 0.0 player being worse off.


It is difficult to say what vision CCP got since they do thing on the fly with little time spent thinking about the whole concept. They follow the rule do now, think later.

There is a major flaw in our argumenting: Moon mining is not getting nerfed, if anything it is getting boosted - more moon ISK for more enitties. Current R64 owners will just focus on other moons to mine because those will rise in demand.

As said, it is difficult to say wheter it is intentional, flaw or bad concept.

Niamota Olin
Posted - 2009.11.09 10:38:00 - [2346]
 

I do like how everyone has gone down to the isk equation....

cant wait for the carebears to realise that lots of things they do right now (like ice mining) are gonna be useless...
and when those that dont quit stay and start inhabiting highsec mission zones.... perhaps then they wont think its so funny.

Besides how much a system is worth is irrelevant to alot of people.

Here is one way of looking at it.. and is pretty common for alot of nulsec dwelers.

We dont care about moon mins, sov or anything else, thats dealt with by tiny minorities that have at the moment very little to do with the majority of people in 0.0
Were in 0.0 for pvp... seriously why else be there?
So why the hell does some idiot in ccp think giving us better rats, better plex's, better anything pve to pay for a huge bill is gonna make anyone happy?!?!?

I've been down in 0.0 for nearly a year, I cant stand ratting or mining there boring as hell. If I have a bad month I go to empire for my isk as its low risk. I think CCP believe that we enjoy having to farm isk or something to pvp....

0.0 if you follow it is a great turmoil of changing borders big fights death and destruction. These new changes are going to make nulsec the home of the leet and rich. large wars.. why bother neither side no longer wants to conquer anymore space as its to expensive.

I remember seeing an interview with some ccp dufus saying the changes are to make nulsec more dynamic...
How is ratting and mining for an isk bill we didn't have before more dynamic for a pvp zone?

When they first announced sov. changes I thought great, always good to shake it up a bit, I think myself like many thought id would help smaller groups, and I wanted to see less empty 0.0 space with more than just a sov marker in it. From what I'm seeing there will still be huge expanses of empty nulsec, except now they will be unofficially claimed by someone, as the new mechanic means they cant game implement there control, even though they still will.

Current nulsec isn't great sov. wise, but the costs were based in the player field as in pos fuels had to be mined and transported etc. and they replace that with an isk bill.

What happened to one of the idea's of the whole thing being a multiplier based on systems so a few systems wasn't a fortune but allot was...
Perhaps make the bills more relevant than just the generic isk sink (IC where the hell does it go???) maybe have the cost ofset by pos fuel or something. Before if you could mine your pos fuels its was your space....
Now its your space till the bank manager of uberdoom calls forfeit.... that part gets me... so no isk and the thing just breaks??

Wish I could be more constructive, but right now ccp is failing so much I wish they'd release the new star wars mmo sooner.

mr passie
Minmatar
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas.
Posted - 2009.11.09 10:43:00 - [2347]
 

ok here's my 2 cents.

I don't mind change, in fact I'm one who just adapts to whatever comes, that doesnt mean all change is good though. I would like to see smaller alliances making a foothold and grow. I could even understand (a little ;))that some of the larger alliances have too much space to make it possible for this to happen (as well as the numbers).

the current system however does not allow for the proper changes it'll be way too expensive for small alliances to get a foothold. what needs to be done is to create an incentive for smaller alliances and make it progressively harder for large ones.

Why not make holding sov in one system ridiculously cheap snd make it progressively harder? Make it to the point where you indeed need a cap fleet and defend R64 income if you want to maintain more then one region, so it'll be difficult but not impossible the way it is atm basically.
Saying that, It should never get so expensive that individual members need to be extra taxed to support sov. members make isk to buy ships to pvp/defend/attack space. Alliance make isk to provide sov. If alliances cannot afford to risk pvp fleets anymore no one will attack another entity and things will grow evenmore boring then it is atm.

on the other side, if you are a small alliance and claim sov in only one system it should be really cheap, no more then 100m a month, your alliance prolly won't be able to pay for more considering you will get attacked lots and need lots of ships to defend.

if you want to make it really interesting, also adjust hp for sov holding structures by the amount of systems controlled. That way large alliances will be mostly safe from small hit and run stuff and can only really be attacked by other large alliances/cap fleets.

The only problem left is that small alliances will still live at the whim of large ones, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

Sarah Norbulk
Dawn of a new Empire
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.11.09 10:52:00 - [2348]
 

Originally by: Kepakh

It is difficult to say what vision CCP got since they do thing on the fly with little time spent thinking about the whole concept. They follow the rule do now, think later.

There is a major flaw in our argumenting: Moon mining is not getting nerfed, if anything it is getting boosted - more moon ISK for more enitties. Current R64 owners will just focus on other moons to mine because those will rise in demand.

As said, it is difficult to say wheter it is intentional, flaw or bad concept.


I was basing my interpretation of the goal of Dominion off of what was said on the Alliance tournament. I believe it was Greyscale who said that they wanted to see people out in the belts again.

I guess so long as CCP aim to have t2 ships/equipment cost the same that the overall value will remain roughly the same. Of course then you run into the issue that there will always be a bottleneck in production and those mins will be the most valuable moons to own. I'm guessing the top 20 alliances will quickly beat out any small alliance that holds any moon of value so base income will remain stable, but you will run into an issue with the POS costs rising meaning less net profit. It also still leaves the little guys in a ****ty situation as holding decent moons will be just as difficult as it is today plus on top of that they'll have to pay for Sov and upgrades.

Effloresco
Posted - 2009.11.09 10:56:00 - [2349]
 

Here is a constructive post as CCP asked.

Objective 1: Get Carebears to 0.0
In order for a mission runner to come to 0.0, he might be able to easily earn 60m/hour from either ratting or mining. Safety issues and extra income from plex or anomalies will be 0.0's ups and downs.

Objective 2: Boost PVP
The reason why people are in 0.0 is because they are looking for PVP. We need definite Boost here.
- Make Sov Modules large so that they can only be carried by Freighters. So, logistics will need lots of escort and camping. There is a change for PVP.
- Another one would be making roaming gangs a thread for alliances. They can shoot your Sov modules so that you will have to rep them up again. Give us a chance to harm the sov or the farming traffic.
- Make Sov mechanics movable/adaptable/changeable. When a friend alliance needs help, we could be able to go up there and help them. Lately freelance alliances like Outbreak/MC disappeared from EVE because everything is about SOV/r64/SOV/Power Blocks/SOV. Change this so people can freely roam around help whoever they want.

Objective 3: Kill Huge Alliances and make room for small ones.
- I know this might sound like an economist but I actually am one. So try to decrease fixed costs and increase Variable costs. Make it cumulative so large power blocks diminish. Make the Sov costs exponential so 100man alliance wont have 65 systems.

Glassback
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:15:00 - [2350]
 

Edited by: Glassback on 09/11/2009 11:15:29
Originally by: CCP Soundwave

No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s.


Which is the problem.

You spend all the time/isk getting a system upgraded, just so you can make as much isk as in Empire? Nahh..

You need 0.0 to be worth double Empire income, otherwise why would you go to 0.0 to make isk?

Sazumaan Johnza
Minmatar
Capital Construction Research
Pioneer Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:19:00 - [2351]
 

Originally by: Effloresco
Here is a constructive post as CCP asked.

[Stuff.




Ok, some really good stuff here. I agree with almost all of this, exponential costs attached to n+1 alliance size is a great idea.

ShadowMaiden
Amarr
Atrocity.
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:29:00 - [2352]
 

Originally by: Korodan
Probably lives in a basement, a nocturnal lizard sipping the finest Mountain Dew and sampling the most compelling and deep of animes, stroking his fleshlite of a five year old girl lovingly as he missions in a CNR.
* warning, personal attacks are not allowed - CCP Ildoge


A Something Awful Forum member implying someone is a pedo? LOL, Hypocrisy...

Aylara
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:29:00 - [2353]
 

I was hoping for an exponential increase in costs with size, at least this was what CCP implied in previous blogs :(

zelalot
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:31:00 - [2354]
 

Edited by: zelalot on 09/11/2009 11:34:56
Originally by: Glassback
Edited by: Glassback on 09/11/2009 11:15:29
Originally by: CCP Soundwave

No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s.


Which is the problem.

You spend all the time/isk getting a system upgraded, just so you can make as much isk as in Empire? Nahh..

You need 0.0 to be worth double Empire income, otherwise why would you go to 0.0 to make isk?


That is a great point. More isk, More isk for pvp, current game mechanics means those alliances that arent on good moons or occupy good ratting systems have to rat for at least 3 x 6hour shifts for a decent tech 2 ship, in fact even if you have good rats thats about right. i really think pinning the "massive" blob alliances down is a great idea but i have to admit this game mechanic doesn't do it for me. The exponential idea is a great idea. if the systems you occupy contained more belts more plexes more moons more plexes fitting a 300 man alliance in 1 system should be able to farm that system as they please. i just have a feeling that the system cost structure, will again mean those alliances that are cash rich will survive, and those that are trying to build will be restricted to what their "overlords" demands of them.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:33:00 - [2355]
 

Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 11:57:01
Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

I was basing my interpretation of the goal of Dominion off of what was said on the Alliance tournament. I believe it was Greyscale who said that they wanted to see people out in the belts again.

I guess so long as CCP aim to have t2 ships/equipment cost the same that the overall value will remain roughly the same. Of course then you run into the issue that there will always be a bottleneck in production and those mins will be the most valuable moons to own. I'm guessing the top 20 alliances will quickly beat out any small alliance that holds any moon of value so base income will remain stable, but you will run into an issue with the POS costs rising meaning less net profit. It also still leaves the little guys in a ****ty situation as holding decent moons will be just as difficult as it is today plus on top of that they'll have to pay for Sov and upgrades.


And that's the whole point here.
To understand wheter the system is working as intended you need a developed concept first. Something CCP has got not because they do things on the fly.

Considering the goals highlighted in dev blogs, Dominion is complete fail because they won't be achieved but you have to keep in mind that CCP often speaks in 'one day' time frame.

Wheter the changes are good or bad, working as intened or doing the contrary I can't say. As it is now, they mean only little change for current state of things and more will be depending on what changes will follow.

The system as it is currently designed is very flexible. You can turn 0.0 into grindfest as easily as you can make it more rewarding then current R64 moon mining.

What is the CCP intention I don't really know and we will have to wait for more dev blogs and until more stuff is released on test server.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:41:00 - [2356]
 

Originally by: Glassback
Which is the problem.

You spend all the time/isk getting a system upgraded, just so you can make as much isk as in Empire? Nahh..

You need 0.0 to be worth double Empire income, otherwise why would you go to 0.0 to make isk?


No you don't.
You want to be paid for fighting for your space, not grinding like mission runner.

Empire income:
Solo 100M

0.0 income:
Solo 60M + alliance/corp 50M

This is a path how to make 0.0 more diverse, more fun, more attractive, more challenging and more meaningfull.

Andrew Gaspurr
Caldari
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:42:00 - [2357]
 

Hello!

This is my Main speaking but you will not know me.

I am Director of one of those small Empire entities that should have been lured to 00 space. As such, we would have been glad to take a seat at the 00 table and have a nice time together with you. I say “would”, because now things changed. I did not read each and every comment of this 79-page-manifesto of “they all fail” but I think I got an impression of the overall mood most people are in.

Indeed we planned to move to 00 and were eagerly anticipating the incentives CCP would offer to a relatively small alliance to carve out a decent niche there. Of course we knew it would not be for free and of course we knew that initially we would need some kind of goodwilling protector in order to survive long enough to establish ourselves. Providence sounded like a good idea, but that’s an example of one of the more attractive regions in space.

But with all that which I read here the initial investments and the following upkeep system are just way too expensive for a small alliance to cope with. Plus, there are no incentives that outweigh them. If the major players claim those systems that are (just) valuable enough to make a 00 living, the crap, as it was called by multiple different alliance members before, will be the leftovers for those newly arriving Empire dwellers. Of course the established factions have the knowledge of what systems are profitable and they will move swiftly to claim them; which is understandable of course. Tbis means that newcomers will inevitably moonmine Bantha Poodo, mine Hemorphite, scan for Gneiss and generally chase Frigates and BCs around the block. Not that it’s not fun, but it cannot compensate the immense upkeep Dominion demands. Ah, and being a somewhat PvP-oriented area of space (I am told), most arguments come from a barrel there so you have to calculate the occasional lost ship as well. I might add more details here but most of you have of course the red line already and know where this is going:

We are one of those groups aimed at by CCP with their Dominion concept. Currently, however, we do not know why we should go there. Sad but true and quite simple.

Andrew Gaspurr

Tiger Kior
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:50:00 - [2358]
 

Originally by: Aylara
I was hoping for an exponential increase in costs with size, at least this was what CCP implied in previous blogs :(


CCP actually clearly stated AGAINST exponential costs at fanfest as quite simply most alliances can circumvent a system that scales exponentially through alt alliances. So yes, that in of itself is not the solution, as many have noted, the solution is to fix the actual problems and that is true sec status and belt counts/contents. CCP needs to spearhead the problem of managing its own code base and make true sec status dynamic and subsequently the number of belts, density of rat spawns, density of roid spawns and type of roid spawns all dynamic.

Astal Atlar
Caldari
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:51:00 - [2359]
 

Quote:
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




You man are an idiot,I suppose you never lived in o.o.
Ok the problem is not the sov change nor the moon nerf,we all knew it is coming it was coming for good,the problem is the way it is coming,forcing people to carebear forcing aliances to abandon space to abandon reimbusement programs just ot pay sov bils, is wrong.Why should we keep our space why should we atack someone,as we will gain nothing.and yeah the way things are going npc o.o will get major boost and low sec.

Fun Bunny
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:54:00 - [2360]
 

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

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

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

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

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


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

oh and kill exploration/wormspace, that **** is just anti-social.
qft
i'll quote this on every page until every single point is implemented
great ideas, m8

focus on player interactions instead of dumb contrived ****

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:55:00 - [2361]
 

Doesnt salvaging count as a mini profession anymore ?

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:57:00 - [2362]
 

Originally by: Sazumaan Johnza
Originally by: Effloresco
Here is a constructive post as CCP asked.

[Stuff.




Ok, some really good stuff here. I agree with almost all of this, exponential costs attached to n+1 alliance size is a great idea.


No it is a god damn horrible idea. The reason is that CCP should not be in the business of deciding what size an alliance can be by such strong artificial means. Activity level is a good measurement, since the goal is to liven 0.0 and remove claims on unused space. If an alliance has the size to actively use massive amounts of space, the should be able to do it. Artificial size limit would also only force people to create alt alliances and ignore all the actual problems and goals CCP needs to reach.

The goals should be to create mechanics that allow smaller entities an easier access, bring more people and playstyles to 0.0 and allow empire building. The first can't be forced upon players. The only realistic way to do it is to make them desirable to the bigger entities. CCP can help by bringing initial/small scale costs closer to zero and creating easier ways to facilitate treaties between the entities.

The second and third can be done by making more room/increasing income earning potential of systems and making them as varied as possible. When you get enough people in a system, you will also need to be able to supply for them and CCP should try to facilitate local market/industrial hubs. The more and varied upgrades CCP allows the better the empire building aspect becomes. A few lacking income upgrades have very little to do with actual empire building, but help to condense the existing empires.


Amy Wang
Posted - 2009.11.09 11:58:00 - [2363]
 

How about gradual changes to implement this better?

Start with low 0.0 maintenance costs and increase them over the course of some months gradually to what is proposed now.

And now the kicker:

At the same time gradually lower the rewards empire space has to offer:

- decrease payout of missions (yes I know LP/isk ratio will just improve first but with faction loot from 0.0 providing a new baseline that has bounds)
- increase refining tax so that there is no perfect refining in empire any more
- increase market taxes
- reduce asteroid spawn rates
- increase npc corp tax above the 11% that is planned
- increase repair costs at stations
- drastically increase office rental/factory/lab slot costs
- drastically increase the cost of starbase charters
etc.

That might get more people out to 0.0 cause now it looks better then empire suddenly, granted it might also get at least the same amount of highsec bears to emoragequit, but still better then this not well thought out concept.

FourDrink Minimum
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:13:00 - [2364]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Salsbury
Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! Very Happy

It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably.

In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc.

I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger.

I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.)

If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances.

Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together.




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.



This is still the dumbest post in this thread.

Adam Ridgway
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:14:00 - [2365]
 

I call shenanigans on all this. CCP is too bussy developing other games/technology to touch/devote resources to their pricey and delicate code? Add new content > fixing current one.

All this can be reduced to:
- Not wanting to be bothered with touching moon distribution & t2 production (hint, as per last SiSi update, they are creating an even bigger bottleneck and making most moons worthless).
- Not wanting to touch truesec distribution and making it reasonably and dynamic.
- Not wanting to devote time to introduce agents in-space/outpost.
- Not having the balls to fix risk/reward income distribution.

Don't believe their lies, they can do it if they really want o devote enough coding time, as per every damn change in this game. But for 2 years of waiting for a sov-change they can't be bothered, it's pathetic.

Meanwhile, they avoid "difficult" (straight-fordward, tbh) questions, because is inconvenient for them to answer.

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.

What will happen after this patch:
- CCP will still be delusional.
- CCP will still be lazzy.
- CCP will still hype/market their own product and fool us into keep paying subscriptions. Allways same **** with every expansion.

I just hope the day some serious competition comes so I can move on.

RabbitofDoom
Caldari
Death Wish.
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:22:00 - [2366]
 

1. First thing is that systems should have some sort of value factor. Based on number of belts, ore on those belts, type of moons in a system, sec status etc. Good systems would cost more bad systems would cost less to hold.
2. Cost should be modified by the number of systems you hold.
This way a system with like 3 belt no valuable ore and lacking any good moons to mine would cost next to nothing.You can claim that way a number of worthless systems you need to connect a sov in to another.
3. Renters system needs to be sorted, expanded and included in to eve mechanic. While renting you can't branch a sov past renter system but you will charge them automaticaly each week for a set amount of isk its automaticaly providing a blue status. Week seems to be a good period time short enough to make reseting for scam unprofitable long enough for renter to gather money.
It should also include ability to delegate a sov you claimed to a minor aliance. Sort a way the king did in middle ages to the nobles. The holder aliance would gain a sov on that system including all benefits and included costs. Holder aliance systems would still count towards ruling aliance cost increase but they would not need to pay for sov beacon etc. and holder systems would be considered yours for soverginity conectio purpose. In diplomacy there should be added option to automaticaly blue all holder entities of the ruling entity while naping. Renting and holding should be made in to a form similiar to contract system in game. It should be renegotiable at any time. When canceling there should be a grace period after it expires beacons etc. would return to ruling aliance, unless holder entity decide to go rogue. Going rogue would initiate a civil war turning leaned system in to contested mode where within a time limit ruling entity must destroy a beacon in that system (unlike the usual course there would be no need to place sov jammer) if there is a station it must be captured. If it is done within time no sov would be lost if a system is not recaptured it will pass on to a rogue aliance, if a system is not reclaimed and no entity control a beacon when time limit is reached the sov will drop. Contested status only affect systems given to a holder.
It should be also possible to change holder in to a renter or complete give up of a sov in certain system to a third party. Loosing a "war" could end in ceding a part of your spece to the stronger entity or by becaming a renter. It should also be possible to accept a different form of payment like ships or minerals. For example we will rent you a system x for 100m isk per week or apocalypse battle ship and 10000m3 of bistot delivered to station in y solar system. It should be also possible to combine all those systems. An alliance should be able to for example control its own system while have some systems rented from another alinace temporarly and have a holder status in some other system.

gambrinous
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:22:00 - [2367]
 

Originally by: Andrew Gaspurr
Hello!

This is my Main speaking but you will not know me.

I am Director of one of those small Empire entities that should have been lured to 00 space.

--- snip ---

We are one of those groups aimed at by CCP with their Dominion concept. Currently, however, we do not know why we should go there. Sad but true and quite simple.

Andrew Gaspurr


Emphasising for those that think this is a "big boy" whine thread. link to full post http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=79#2363

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:26:00 - [2368]
 

Maybe there is another dev blog coming that was supposed to be posted with this one and it will all make sense right?

Primnproper
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:27:00 - [2369]
 

Edited by: Primnproper on 09/11/2009 12:27:17
Come on CCP your not politicians answer the bloody question....


YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.

gambrinous
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:31:00 - [2370]
 

Edited by: gambrinous on 09/11/2009 12:32:03
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Maybe there is another dev blog coming that was supposed to be posted with this one and it will all make sense right?



There is one comming (which I'm pretty interested in) about the new offence/defence play

I don't think it could possibly rectify this mess though

also, isn't it midday monday in iceland? anyone had a coffee or 12 yet?


Pages: first : previous : ... 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 ... : 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