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 : ... 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

zelalot
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:31:00 - [2371]
 

Edited by: zelalot on 09/11/2009 12:40:14
Edited by: zelalot on 09/11/2009 12:35:33
Not everyone wants to play the game in 0.0, everyone has a right to experience just as much of the game as someone else. They pay money to play a game and invest a lot of time in. The problem is making 0.0 appealing to everyone so they still have the adrenaline factor, they can still play the game and get their money's worth. at the moment 0.0 is occupied by blob alliances that have way too much say on how someone can play their game. That is why a lot of people stay in empire and mission run earn isk at no risk. Those the live in 0.0 are there for the percieved "highier" isk earning opporunties and to feel the rush of pvp and the feeling of "this is my territory". For me the only activity that can support a pvp is moon mining an R64. Remember the aim is to reduce empty system upon system, the only reason why they are SOV-ed is becuase of the high end and of course if you are a small alliance trying to occupy a piece of 0.0 you are restricted to what your overlords say or if you are brave you go in alone and can be out blobbed by an alliance that has all the resources available to them.

The other one is making it so occupying 2 or 3 systems gives you the ability to manufacture all the stuff you need to occupy a part of 0.0 (Moons, in the end occupying moons is what it all comes down to). In terms of engagements it would mean the attacking alliance would have to be more startegic about which moon to attack.

NB: i am speaking for a "renter" alliance perspective, i understand the time and hard work put in by those that classify themselves as a "blob" alliance but in terms of a small alliance wanting to stay small and still have the opportunites of PVP there aren't many "sustainable" outlets to do this. The ones that would sustain a PVP player are already taken which means a ship replacement program for a bunch of crap moons is a non existent.


Mr Pinkshirt
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:36:00 - [2372]
 

Edited by: Mr Pinkshirt on 09/11/2009 12:42:28
BIG TEXT!

Come Dominion, if any of you veteran nullsec-dwellers feel like quitting (which you def should, this patch is hurbel), feel free to contract any and all items and ISK you may have to "Mr Pinkshirt". I will be giving out eHugs and condescending headpats on a case-by-case basis.

Pac SubCom
True Creation
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:39:00 - [2373]
 

Edited by: Pac SubCom on 09/11/2009 12:40:44
So we want to have

- more people in 0.0 => less resources for those already there.
- smaller 0.0 empires => less resources for those already there.

- more combat <= secure sov is prohibitively expensive, non-secure sov is cheap
= more losses = less resources for everybody.


Large expenses for security are necessary for [more combat], [smaller 0.0 empires] and in turn [more pluralism in 0.0].

Existing 0.0 empires will have to find a balance between the protection money they can make off the newcomers and not spoiling their incentive to come in the first place. As the old empires will grow poorer, the newcomers will grow more powerful until they eventually challenge them.

In summary, changes in 0.0 must necessarily take a meaningful amount of resources away from the existing empires or there won't be any change at all.

And why should you come to 0.0 if all that you love can be destroyed by bad people because you can't afford that cynojammer?

Because life is risk. That's the tao of o.o. Or rather should be, as everybody profusely agrees. So scale your risk and pay 30 mil a month for a system and see how it goes.


Niamota Olin
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:43:00 - [2374]
 

OMG I just figured it all out....

This is to fix lag isn't it...

There gonna reduce lag by forcing quits, drastically reducing fleet combat and turning everyone into ratting/mining/missioners who stays.

Well done ccp that might actually work. Shame you'll wreck the longevity and uniqueness of nulsec pvp doing it.

Uphill Gardner
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:46:00 - [2375]
 

I see a lot of people thinking CCP can force big alliances to give new guys some space. They can't. For what it's worth they will reduce the coloured spot on eve map when sov is ticked, but those pretty maps in caod will stay the same. Space will probably be claimed the old fashion way, that is you enter you die. If you want to take 0.0 space then come with your guns blazing.

The correct way to reduce alliance space is to figure out why they have it in the first place. Is it because they liked fuelling towers so much? Is it because they like to see their epeen size on caod? Is it because their members need it to make individual ISK? Was it just a byproduct of claiming and harvesting moons? Something else?

You see, alliance size has grown considerably when R64 became such ISK cows. Before that people fought over good ratting space, good mining space and static plexes. Those targets were much smaller and required less numbers to take. POSes however re big, well defended and hard to take down without big cap fleet.

The only logical thing to do here would be to make moon income less significant then other, more dispersed sources. Like mining, ratting and plexing of the olden days. Lots of ways to achieve this and it up to CCP to find and implement most optimal one.

I really don't see the problem of doing that again, with the added bonus of system upgrades should you choose to pay for sov module upkeep (which is really badly implemented with straight ISK payment).

Some people believe that 0.0 will have to recruit empire carebears to do their grinding to pay for upkeep. Well.... IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN 0.0, HARVEST SYSTEM RESOURCES AND PAY 1BIL PER SYSTEM PER MONTH TO MAKE LESS MONEY THAN YOU CURRENTLY MAKE IN EMPIRE??!? No? Well, poopy. I'm sure there are stupid people playing eve who will choose to earn ISK (and that is all 0.0 carebears will do) in 0.0 if they have a choice of doing it in empire, with no one to answer to, no one to tell them their bill is due and most importantly: higher profits; but I'm sure there aren't many.

Get this through your thick skulls: 0.0 will have even less inhabitants as it has now; less miners, less ratters, less explorers. Less small targets to shoot, less small gang pvp, more and bigger blobs on daily basis. "Hey guys, lets get 200 man fleet and go gank some ratters!" Oh the joy Rolling Eyes

It does look like CCP is trying to do a reset of 0.0 affairs, but this patch is going to do **** all. ISK will remain in the same wallets, moons will have the same owners (there will probably be some exchanges between big guys, but that's nothing new) and space will be patrolled by the same patrols (except there will be less of them because there will be less targets).

Oh and empire lvl4s will still be the best source for individual ISK grinding.

I would really like to read a post/blog from CCP detailing their goals (set before they started work for dominion), how they are planing to implement it and how do changes, published so far, achieve those goals.

Lord Helghast
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:47:00 - [2376]
 

i find it truely histerical that you guys are still saying "ya but you can make more L4 mission grinding", its amazing how you guys are picking and choosing which devblogs to listen to...

its been previously stated that L4's will move to LOWSEC!, So the easy L4 grinding is pretty much gone after winter patch.

Alfred Lichtenstein
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:50:00 - [2377]
 

Edited by: Alfred Lichtenstein on 09/11/2009 12:52:11
you can always just give me all your stuff!

if Goon wants to donate some titans to the MJJ fund (my jam jar) then I will welcome it!

were going to get all your lands and all these stupid big empires are going to have to stop sucking the rest of eve dry and earn some of there own money.

no tears for some reason!

I don't know why!

end of the day current 0.0 dwellers only actually cover a very small amount of the eve player base, so please do rage quit!

but send all your iskies to me please!

or what was said to me after the missile nerf and I couldn't do missions until I retrained for a month

Adapt!!!

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:51:00 - [2378]
 

Originally by: Primnproper

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.


Bloody question was answered already. Don't you like the answer? Stop asking stupid questions.

Niamota Olin
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:51:00 - [2379]
 

Originally by: Lord Helghast
i find it truely histerical that you guys are still saying "ya but you can make more L4 mission grinding", its amazing how you guys are picking and choosing which devblogs to listen to...

its been previously stated that L4's will move to LOWSEC!, So the easy L4 grinding is pretty much gone after winter patch.


erm its all L5's that are moving to lowsec not 4's

Onar Maldarian
Caldari
WALLTREIPERS
Atlas.
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:56:00 - [2380]
 

Fire head game designer. Thank you.

Niamota Olin
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:59:00 - [2381]
 

Originally by: Alfred Lichtenstein


end of the day current 0.0 dwellers only actually cover a very small amount of the eve player base, so please do rage quit!




That statement is so lolworthy, you checked the stats on alliance rankings haven't you.. you know the ones that clearly show all the big alliances... you know the mostly 0.0 alliances, and forgetting that lots of empire residents are nulsecers just getting isk for 0.0

all players are interdependent on each other whether you realize it or not, either as targets to each other, or buyers/sellers to each other.

If enough rage quit over a badly implemented expansion it can kill an MMO, lets just hope our beloved sandbox makes it through this one eh :)

Hertford
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:59:00 - [2382]
 

Originally by: Onar Maldarian
Fire head game designer. Thank you.


No no no. Hire a head game designer.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:00:00 - [2383]
 

Originally by: Uphill Gardner
The only logical thing to do here would be to make moon income less significant then other, more dispersed sources. Like mining, ratting and plexing of the olden days. Lots of ways to achieve this and it up to CCP to find and implement most optimal one.


Moons were not introduced alone. Along with moons you got content requiring moon income to work. Forcing people to rat, plex and mine(read grind) for their cap fleet or space infrastructure is not logical, it is quite dumb.

Claiming a space should not be a burden but achievement. What you are sugesting is just doomed concept.

El Liptonez
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:05:00 - [2384]
 

Spam.Applebabe

Alfred Lichtenstein
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:07:00 - [2385]
 

Edited by: Alfred Lichtenstein on 09/11/2009 13:15:09
Edited by: Alfred Lichtenstein on 09/11/2009 13:08:15
Originally by: Niamota Olin
Originally by: Alfred Lichtenstein


end of the day current 0.0 dwellers only actually cover a very small amount of the eve player base, so please do rage quit!




That statement is so lolworthy, you checked the stats on alliance rankings haven't you.. you know the ones that clearly show all the big alliances... you know the mostly 0.0 alliances, and forgetting that lots of empire residents are nulsecers just getting isk for 0.0

all players are interdependent on each other whether you realize it or not, either as targets to each other, or buyers/sellers to each other.

If enough rage quit over a badly implemented expansion it can kill an MMO, lets just hope our beloved sandbox makes it through this one eh :)


High sec is over populated thus the need for this expansion!

this kind of kills your arguement! please do rage quit

The big alliances these are the ones who wake up with more resources then they went to bed with?

and the idea you EARN YOUR SPACE! how do you earn it? boring PVE, even worst mining? everyone enjoys pvp but the difference is some of us take a massive loss when we engage in it because it takes us several hours of pve to earn it and my rubbish +4's back again, just to have some noddy in a 200 man blob blow it up again!

the current 0.0 alliances when they pvp take very little losses I mean look at goon's stats massive losses, you can't say that they are actually good at pvp as a alliance the losses are epic.

PVP losses should be expensive to all not just to some!

Uphill Gardner
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:18:00 - [2386]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Uphill Gardner
The only logical thing to do here would be to make moon income less significant then other, more dispersed sources. Like mining, ratting and plexing of the olden days. Lots of ways to achieve this and it up to CCP to find and implement most optimal one.


Moons were not introduced alone. Along with moons you got content requiring moon income to work. Forcing people to rat, plex and mine(read grind) for their cap fleet or space infrastructure is not logical, it is quite dumb.

Claiming a space should not be a burden but achievement. What you are sugesting is just doomed concept.



My suggestion was for CCp to implement more dispersed targets worth fighting for (and elected to leave then the details of implementation). How is this a doomed concept?

Fake edit: Oh, you read the "mining, ratting and plexing like the olden days", have you? See, that was an example of what motivated groups of people in the olden days of eve to make pew pew. It was not a suggestion how to make it in future.

RussLeRoq
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:19:00 - [2387]
 

Sooo many complaints, yet still to see any from IT alliance :o

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:20:00 - [2388]
 

Originally by: Alfred Lichtenstein

the current 0.0 alliances when they pvp take very little losses I mean look at goon's stats massive losses, you can't say that they are actually good at pvp as a alliance the losses are epic.


Epic alliance, epic losses.

Niamota Olin
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:21:00 - [2389]
 

Alf

I am not a member of a large alliance I just live down there.
If I have a bad week I have to go to my highsec alts to recoup lost isk.
The big isk income is only in a very limited number of hands, a hell of alot less hands than what are now going to have huge bills, and it should be noted moon mining which will STILL be a big earner ISNT dependant on sovreinty, just being bigger and scarier... so how does this hinder the big alliances exactly, alot have alreay said sovreinty will become obsolete as they simply will enforce there rule with numbers?

Kerdrak
GreenSwarm
Black Legion.
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:21:00 - [2390]
 

The funniest of all this topic is that CCP will end NERFING empire lvl4's to balance this expansion LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing

Bets?

Alfred Lichtenstein
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:21:00 - [2391]
 

Edited by: Alfred Lichtenstein on 09/11/2009 13:27:58
Edited by: Alfred Lichtenstein on 09/11/2009 13:25:24
I'm not complaining I think it is quite funny, finally some people will actually have to do some PVE, mining to PVP like the rest of us!

it's like the credit card companies are getting all there credit wiped off!

Niamota I get your point I live in a small high sec corp and every corp i have been in gets kicked out of 0.0 due to a big moon mining corp with so many more ships (not players just waves after waves of the same players) kicking us out!

I like the principle and I just hope it will get sorted and fine tuned by ccp!

I don't hate big alliances just big alliances not having to put the same amount of crappy work in!

Gefex
Genco
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:25:00 - [2392]
 

I know everyone, lets turn 0.0 into a massive grind fest for the individual then make alliances pay through the teeth for claiming space!

THEN, on top of that, lets not give alliances any way of making money at an alliance level.. genius.

Lord Helghast
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:28:00 - [2393]
 

in the end i think this sets out and will eventually accomplish some of what it sets to do, it will shrink larger alliances soverignty, namely because they dont have the time or effort to grind 100's of systems or the manpower to do so, to pay the fees for all those extra systems, even with their moons mining.... running in on a billion a month for properly setup systems, thats a lot of cash for a system to get sov and go unused.

The problem i do see with this is that due to the high cost it will make the very small alliances think twice about even taking one system do to the inherent high cost, a 2-3 corp alliance of 30 people will be taking a big financial hit on that first buy in each month for 1 system properly setup.

My question would be why not make soverignty fees a incremental increase, first system = 1/4th the price 2-5 systems 1/2 the price and 5+ systems for the standard price, that way the first swath of space is relatively cheap, and once an alliance tries to go farther they start to get even more expensive and harder to justify purchasing.

That instead of 1 static fee for any sov

Itzena
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:31:00 - [2394]
 

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.

It's a fairly straightforward question, CCP.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:32:00 - [2395]
 

Originally by: Uphill Gardner

My suggestion was for CCp to implement more dispersed targets worth fighting for (and elected to leave then the details of implementation). How is this a doomed concept?

Fake edit: Oh, you read the "mining, ratting and plexing like the olden days", have you? See, that was an example of what motivated groups of people in the olden days of eve to make pew pew. It was not a suggestion how to make it in future.


If you didn't suggest making other 0.0 resources(rats, plexes, ore) more valuable to compete with moon mining as I thought, I don't understand what your point is then.

Niamota Olin
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:34:00 - [2396]
 

I and alot of people play in nulsec for pvp.

I'll also make a broad asumption that alot of us arent rich and have to grind isk to pvp as it is.

Fact that more isk bills are going to come in, means more non pvp to allow pvp... thats a bit fail.

I left other MMO's because I hated the farming and grinding, I do it here because the pvp is more intense and worth it, sadly I believe this expansion will kill that, both in needing to farm more AND it killing the spirit of nulsec warfare.

Empty 0.0 is sad lonely and boring, but parts of it are vibrant and full of action, these mechanics are going to utterly destroy some aspect's of nulsec. Its designed to fix nulsec, well arent the opinions of the tens of thousands of current nulsec residents worth listening too... from this thread clearly not.

Lord Helghast
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:34:00 - [2397]
 

Originally by: Gefex
I know everyone, lets turn 0.0 into a massive grind fest for the individual then make alliances pay through the teeth for claiming space!

THEN, on top of that, lets not give alliances any way of making money at an alliance level.. genius.


how about this for the allanices that dont want to grind, BRING IN PEOPLE THAT DO!

Theirs hundereds of people i've met that LIKE GRINDING, they like mining and hanging out with people just chilling, and many many many want to move from high to nullsec for better ores, but dont because its not a nice place to go and is inaccessible, maybe if the bigger alliances will put out a call for small industrial corps etc, to do the grinding, they'll be able to overcome the grinding difficulty, and also maintain their PVP selves...

As CCP said, no longer will PvP war machines, be able to get along without having a carebear wing of their organization that needs to be defended while they grind away.

zelalot
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:34:00 - [2398]
 

Originally by: Lord Helghast
in the end i think this sets out and will eventually accomplish some of what it sets to do, it will shrink larger alliances soverignty, namely because they dont have the time or effort to grind 100's of systems or the manpower to do so, to pay the fees for all those extra systems, even with their moons mining.... running in on a billion a month for properly setup systems, thats a lot of cash for a system to get sov and go unused.

The problem i do see with this is that due to the high cost it will make the very small alliances think twice about even taking one system do to the inherent high cost, a 2-3 corp alliance of 30 people will be taking a big financial hit on that first buy in each month for 1 system properly setup.

My question would be why not make soverignty fees a incremental increase, first system = 1/4th the price 2-5 systems 1/2 the price and 5+ systems for the standard price, that way the first swath of space is relatively cheap, and once an alliance tries to go farther they start to get even more expensive and harder to justify purchasing.

That instead of 1 static fee for any sov


CCP predicts more alliances will be set up under a banner name.

Alliance a
Alliance b
Alliance c

and that way they will only ever pay a small fee for the systems.

Sellmewarez
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:35:00 - [2399]
 

I think it should be pointed out that nerfing level 4's or moving them to lowsec is entirely the wrong direction to take.

It should be buffing lowsec and 0.0 rewards most of all so that people WANT to come out to that space to make ISK. Eve needs more money in the hands of players anyway, just take a look at the market now to where it was 8 months ago and you will see a massive drop in the prices because people are buying less ships due to no major 0.0 wars. That is crucial since it hurts the industrial side of eve.

Also, if i was to bet, in Dominion under the announced changes there will be an even greater chance that major wars are unlikely to happen because people will not be fighting over extra space far away from their home regions... simply because it won't be feasable or worth the effort to hold it themselves other than to hand it off to renters and hope they don't die horribly.

This expansion is just going to make eve more stale than it already is.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:37:00 - [2400]
 

Originally by: Itzena
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.

It's a fairly straightforward question, CCP.


That question makes no sense at all.

Should I be paid for each jump through 0.0 because it is more risky than jumping through high sec gate?
That is what you actualy ask.


Pages: first : previous : ... 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 ... : 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