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 : ... 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 101 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:01:00 - [2881]
 

Quote:
Most others are looking foward to these changes

Euhm, i am 100% sure basicly no one is actually looking forward to this who lives either in 0.0 or seriously wants to live there.

Cyberus
Caldari
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:03:00 - [2882]
 

I dont know tbh if it will be good or bad those upgrade changes.

Normaly i did not bother with npc and or cosmic anomalys ( thoug i tryed those couple of times) and it is true those were are suck badly.

But today i did try again ( mostly because of boredom) i just hitthe scaner found one near sttion and warped to.

What i have discovered is that this anomaly was not bad at all since every spawn (totaly 5) has atleast 4 rats with 1m+ bountys on those. In slow mode i finished this anomaly in like 50 minets and total bounty reward of 36 million isk.

So generaly i think if it those anomalys will be after upgrade like this one or even better then probably this is not an bad move at all.

Anyways that is just my 2 cents

Alexander Knott
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:04:00 - [2883]
 

Originally by: Mcon99
CCP, bring on new Sov, cause obviously the large powerblocks are hopeless to reform their organizations away from afk living in level 4's to actually using and exploiting every aspect of their both from a pve, mining and pvp perspective to actually make a living. They might actually 'gasp' have to form their members around productive teams living in close proximity to each other, each focusing on the game aspect they want.
That's not what people are saying at all. What we're saying is that it's more profitable to do L4s and there's no drawback for doing them, so we'll just do that instead of developing our space. It's really not that tough a concept -- players always gravitate towards shortest path to the cheese. To the extent that CCP is fine with conquerable space being the breeding ground for alliances that aren't ready to hold NPC 0.0, I guess that's fine, but I really don't think that's what they intended.

Vivian Azure
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:15:00 - [2884]
 

Originally by: Mcon99
Originally by: LiMu Bai
Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:42
Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:16
Originally by: Dante Edmundo
Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 16:21:48

**** REPOSTED *** PLEASE SIGN IF YOU AGREE

Gnulpie writes: "POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES!

The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes, faction ship changes, etc."



I agree. Screw the ****ty sov revamp.


Lulz this gets funnier by the page.

CCP, bring on new Sov, cause obviously the large powerblocks are hopeless to reform their organizations away from afk living in level 4's to actually using and exploiting every aspect of their both from a pve, mining and pvp perspective to actually make a living. They might actually 'gasp' have to form their members around productive teams living in close proximity to each other, each focusing on the game aspect they want.

Most others are looking foward to these changes as they actively force group and communal living and up-to-the-minute coordination. Thats what makes 0.0 and EVE fun, not griding for isk in safe npc missions, but instead living in lawless space with your corp mates, constantly on voice comms, working together towards greater goals. Thats what these sprawling alliances are afraid of - they know most of their members are only in it when pvp time comes around, and they won't actively work with others for the greater good. Not to say that larger groups cannot work in the future. I suspect a upgraded regular 0.0 constellation, ie. with a 0.0 sec status, could support 300-400 online members, which leads to an alliance size of maybe 1500. A true sec constellation could easily double that. Notice I'm saying constellation, not region. Goons probably need delve only to support themselves. Atlas, AAA, maybe 3-4 constallations. Thats is about the proper size to allow for all kinds of variety in ownerships across 0.0, from the 200 man alliance holding a system to the 5000 man alliance holding 1 region.

Thats what scares the goons etc, trying to install a sense of gameplay and teamwork that would successfuly allow for effective explotation of even one consetallation. Instead, I think their reality will be a few pvp'ers hanging around, everyone else in empire running lvl 4's laughing about all the isk they are making, while their systems decay both from lack of activity and lack of quick response to stops, tower planting or sov grabs.

Thats where this stupid level 4 mission isk arguement fails. This patch is about 0.0 changing the face of 0.0 gameplay to support concentrated corp/alliance living in any 0.0 system. That is a choice of lifestyle, not a choice about isk.




/this

I know when I started playing EvE and set course for 0.0 with some people for the first time. We were a corp with 10 people and we were basically living out of a single POS and only doing some ratting and mining in two systems. These two systems alone paid for the ships and POS-fuel we needed back then, and there wasn't even anomalies or scannable complexes, nor did we know anything about moon-harvesting etc.

We had a good time, and some small and very enjoyable fights for some month... then our corp got bigger and joined an alliance, started to claim whole constellations and began with moon-mining...
It didn't got better from that point on, but only worse. Then came jump-freighters, jumpbridges, cynojammers, mental capital fleets etc and here we are... not enjoying it anymore.

If it was up to me personally, then I'd wish to remove it alltogether and have the game resetted to 2005, just after Cold War hit the servers.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:16:00 - [2885]
 

Originally by: Alexander Knott
That's not what people are saying at all. What we're saying is that it's more profitable to do L4s and there's no drawback for doing them, so we'll just do that instead of developing our space. It's really not that tough a concept -- players always gravitate towards shortest path to the cheese. To the extent that CCP is fine with conquerable space being the breeding ground for alliances that aren't ready to hold NPC 0.0, I guess that's fine, but I really don't think that's what they intended.


OK. However it is stupid to compare misssion runner income and 0.0 citizen income, at least let's get some real numbers.

1) How much more ISK would you need to make if there was no alliance/corp income from moons, industry projects, remibustrement programs, free caps, etc.?

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:16:00 - [2886]
 

Originally by: Tesal
ANSWER NOW: Can I have your stuff.


My stuff is all in Delve, you'd have to actually set foot outside the safety of highsec to go and get it.

Mcon99
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:20:00 - [2887]
 

Originally by: Alexander Knott
Originally by: Mcon99
CCP, bring on new Sov, cause obviously the large powerblocks are hopeless to reform their organizations away from afk living in level 4's to actually using and exploiting every aspect of their both from a pve, mining and pvp perspective to actually make a living. They might actually 'gasp' have to form their members around productive teams living in close proximity to each other, each focusing on the game aspect they want.
That's not what people are saying at all. What we're saying is that it's more profitable to do L4s and there's no drawback for doing them, so we'll just do that instead of developing our space. It's really not that tough a concept -- players always gravitate towards shortest path to the cheese. To the extent that CCP is fine with conquerable space being the breeding ground for alliances that aren't ready to hold NPC 0.0, I guess that's fine, but I really don't think that's what they intended.


So, so misguided.

At least some of us realize that the cheese is about teamwork and group play in all aspects of eve - pvp, pve and mining (rather than maximum isk), with the constant element of risk thrown in - ie. 0.0 space, whether that is on map or in a wormhole. Level 4's provide none of that. You are free to play whatever game you want, but non balanced alliances are obviously dooming themselves to failure.


Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:21:00 - [2888]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 10/11/2009 17:35:13
Originally by: Kepakh
OK. However it is stupid to compare misssion runner income and 0.0 citizen income, at least let's get some real numbers.
No it is not, since that's the benchmark against which the personal income is compared.
Quote:
1) How much more ISK would you need to make if there was no alliance/corp income from moons, industry projects, remibustrement programs, free caps, etc.?
You're mixing up incomes and outlays.
Originally by: Mcon99
So, so misguided.
No, he's pointing towards the pragmatic stance CCP had suggested the patch would adopt, but which has now seemingly been completely dropped. Your views are idealistic — admirable, but idealistic — and therefore completely misses the point of the question being raised: that the patch will fail to address the problem of nullseck lacking in draw — at best it will remain the same as before, but more likely it will decrease the attractiveness of living in 0.0 space.

You may have seen the teamwork as the main draw, but Dominion was never aimed at you, but rather at those who didn't see it your way. So the complaint isn't misguided at all — it's just not directed at anything that has to do with how you play the game, just as the patch itself isn't directed at you (at least not the parts the complain revolves around).

edit: ffs, spelling >_<

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:33:00 - [2889]
 

Forgive me if this has been addressed but I'm not keen on reading through nighty six pages. This all seems geared towards NPCing and Mining with nothing in there for the protection of ones space. What about development of military infrasture that allows for more solid system defence. Afterall, the whole idea of this is to stop POS seiges which is where all the defence is. It seems any fool will now be able to roll up and disrupt soverignty and attack your station without having to launch an assualt with no defences to even make them think twice.

Far from increasing PvP, this system appears, at least on the surface, to be geared towards reducing PvP and increasing NPCing with Alliances reduced to dealing with perpetual griefing of stations from small, well organised groups, when we're offline or off on campaign. Nice for them, not so nice for us in Alliances who spend all our time retaking our own station. Do we really want a return to Station Ping Pong?

So with that in mind, will we be seeing player deployable defences at stations in the near future?

Orthaen
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:36:00 - [2890]
 

Originally by: Alexander Knott
Originally by: Mcon99
CCP, bring on new Sov, cause obviously the large powerblocks are hopeless to reform their organizations away from afk living in level 4's to actually using and exploiting every aspect of their both from a pve, mining and pvp perspective to actually make a living. They might actually 'gasp' have to form their members around productive teams living in close proximity to each other, each focusing on the game aspect they want.
That's not what people are saying at all. What we're saying is that it's more profitable to do L4s and there's no drawback for doing them, so we'll just do that instead of developing our space. It's really not that tough a concept -- players always gravitate towards shortest path to the cheese. To the extent that CCP is fine with conquerable space being the breeding ground for alliances that aren't ready to hold NPC 0.0, I guess that's fine, but I really don't think that's what they intended.


The argument all the big power blocs use is a flawed. They all try to argue the assumption that 0.0, and the game is purely about maximizing isk/hour, so 0.0 needs to provide a higher income then high sec for anyone to bother heading to 0.0. That is a load of horse ****.

This game is about fun. For some, that may be by maximizing isk/hour. Those people are sitting in Jita trading. They make millions/billions per day, with absolutely 0 risk. For everyone else, the game has other attractions besides making the most money. Being an MMO, you could assume the "other attractions" revolve around team play. The new sov changes greatly emphasize team work and cooperation to support your alliance, not solo profit. If this isn't your cup of tea, get out of 0.0, and start soloing level 4s. Thats what this game offers people who desire to conform to a solo playstyle. If you want to work with a large group of people to have fun, stay in 0.0 and make less money.

Sucks, not being able to have everything you want huh? Almost like CCP wants choices in their game to have consequences.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:42:00 - [2891]
 

Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 17:49:04
Originally by: John McCreedy
Forgive me if this has been addressed but I'm not keen on reading through nighty six pages. This all seems geared towards NPCing and Mining with nothing in there for the protection of ones space. What about development of military infrasture that allows for more solid system defence. Afterall, the whole idea of this is to stop POS seiges which is where all the defence is. It seems any fool will now be able to roll up and disrupt soverignty and attack your station without having to launch an assualt with no defences to even make them think twice.

Far from increasing PvP, this system appears, at least on the surface, to be geared towards reducing PvP and increasing NPCing with Alliances reduced to dealing with perpetual griefing of stations from small, well organised groups, when we're offline or off on campaign. Nice for them, not so nice for us in Alliances who spend all our time retaking our own station. Do we really want a return to Station Ping Pong?

So with that in mind, will we be seeing player deployable defences at stations in the near future?


I order to place sov disrutptors at gates, you need to take down an Infrastructure hub first, if there is a station in the system, you need to take down the station because it makes the hub invulnerable.
After you took down the station and the hub, you need to sustain 24 hours onlining of sov disruptor at least at 51% of the gates in the system. All disruptors must be online to make sov marker vulnerable.

I am not sure about the timers now but las time someone calcutaed the thing it was 9 days for overtake the longest, 6 days the shortest.

Any fool can do it, heh?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:49:00 - [2892]
 

Originally by: Orthaen
The argument all the big power blocs use is a flawed. They all try to argue the assumption that 0.0, and the game is purely about maximizing isk/hour, so 0.0 needs to provide a higher income then high sec for anyone to bother heading to 0.0. That is a load of horse ****.
Tell that to the people who originally made the argument: the highsec dwellers.
Quote:
This game is about fun. For some, that may be by maximizing isk/hour.
…and those are the ones the upgrade system were meant to move.
Quote:
The new sov changes greatly emphasize team work and cooperation to support your alliance, not solo profit.
And that's the other issue with the presented solution: the upgrade system does not support these team work operations, but are rather aimed at solo efforts… except that the solo efforts it offers don't pay well enough to make them worth doing solo either.

So, it fails at providing group efforts, it fails at providing solo efforts, and it fails at providing any reason for new much-touted highsec exodus.

Mcon99
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:50:00 - [2893]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 10/11/2009 17:35:13

You may have seen the teamwork as the main draw, but Dominion was never aimed at you, but rather at those who didn't see it your way. So the complaint isn't misguided at all it's just not directed at anything that has to do with how you play the game, just as the patch itself isn't directed at you (at least not the parts the complain revolves around).



Please check what your saying.

Dominion was to promite non-team players to move to 0.0? That is problematic. 0.0 game play always has been and always will be about team play - it's lawless space, and upgrades should never be able to turn a system into a total carebear heaven. The exceptions you see, of course, are things like multi account stealth ratters who leverage wormholes to move around, and i give credo to them for a good job.

If you never wanted to team play, than 0.0 was never for you, but now especially more so after the sov changes. It will make it much more like the experience in wh space, especially in c3 or greater wh's where anything pve solo is pretty much out, scanning has to be coordinated, gameplay is dependant on the spawns for that day, wh mass has to be accouted for, pvp has to be expected at any moment, etc. Living in a wh is a good comparison of what the new 0.0 reality will be like, except it will be even better because of the upgrades, as we are all aware of the wh spawn issues. Also mirrors the kind of 'travel' restrictions you see in wh space, especially high class ones, where travelling 2 or more jumps through further wh's gets kind of dicey. Your generally very attached to your home wh system - as it will be in the new 0.0. Which is be fine, cause there will be lots of people to work with, and lots of stuff to do.

I can't think of any reasonable kind of way to attract many solo players to 0.0. Thats fine, they can grind lvl 4's, buy all kind of fancy navy ships with faciton fittings, run more lvl 4's, get rich, get bored, and quit. lol.



Nilania Telshua
Amarr
Hedion University
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:51:00 - [2894]
 

Edited by: Nilania Telshua on 10/11/2009 17:59:26
Originally by: Kepakh
Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 13:54:08
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
IMO the best way to improve system would be giving even more anomalies. Usually one anomaly can keep one person occupied for 30-60 minutes. If its permanent anomaly - you can assume it keeps one person busy. So 10 perma anomalies = 10 people served. Now i know it cant keep 100 people at once but i think everyone is missiong one point. Its 100 people during the day not 100 people at once. In reality those 10 anomalies will easily serve 50 people. Add plexes and other crap (crap as in = i dont care about it, maybe s1 else likes doing magneto/radar sites or mining) and you up it a bit again.

1 anomaly = 23*7 accessability, that's 690 hours per month.
Max upgraded system with 10 anomalies and yield of 25M per hour is 172B ISK worth. Let's assume you will utilize 1/4 at 10% tax, that is 4.3B income in taxes.

Did I miss something?



No. Most people just can not do basic math.

Its the same issue with the crowd that calls to nerf the income of highly skilled and geared PVE pilots that run non-afk missions in empire.

They simply have no idea how much more one can earn with properly executed trading or invention operations,
that do not require one to ever fire a shot...

Some alliance PVP Wunderkinder simply expect that holding space not only entitles them to earn enough cash that loosing T2 ships and capitals becomes painless, they also want to get personally stinking rich on top of that. Risk vs. Reward is probably the most misunderstood formula in the whole game.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:54:00 - [2895]
 

Originally by: Mcon99

Lulz this gets funnier by the page.

CCP, bring on new Sov, cause obviously the large powerblocks are hopeless to reform their organizations away from afk living in level 4's to actually using and exploiting every aspect of their both from a pve, mining and pvp perspective to actually make a living. They might actually 'gasp' have to form their members around productive teams living in close proximity to each other, each focusing on the game aspect they want.
What you, and many other empire-dwellers, fail to realize is that most nullsec entities want a change. While this change is happening we also want nullsec to become attractive for both the current residents and future residents. The only real way you are going to do this is to make nullsec what it was supposed to be - a vast area of lawless space that would allow you to risk it all for the riches and glory. Currently, nullsec isn't this land of plenty.

Originally by: Mcon99
Most others are looking foward to these changes as they actively force group and communal living and up-to-the-minute coordination. Thats what makes 0.0 and EVE fun, not griding for isk in safe npc missions, but instead living in lawless space with your corp mates, constantly on voice comms, working together towards greater goals. Thats what these sprawling alliances are afraid of - they know most of their members are only in it when pvp time comes around, and they won't actively work with others for the greater good. Not to say that larger groups cannot work in the future. I suspect a upgraded regular 0.0 constellation, ie. with a 0.0 sec status, could support 300-400 online members, which leads to an alliance size of maybe 1500. A true sec constellation could easily double that. Notice I'm saying constellation, not region. Goons probably need delve only to support themselves. Atlas, AAA, maybe 3-4 constallations. Thats is about the proper size to allow for all kinds of variety in ownerships across 0.0, from the 200 man alliance holding a system to the 5000 man alliance holding 1 region.
Your numbers are wrong. You haven't even looked at the last round of dev posts or even those posts who support the same view as your own. A constellation has maybe 5-6 systems. By your numbers that's nearly 70-80 pilots able to participate in efficient isk-making activities per system. At the current upgrades incarnation that just isn't possible.

A good deal, at least my own, of the nullsec entities are pretty damn good at organizing alot of pilots and have the ability to keep the cohesion between them. I don't know what you think you, or any empire/lowsec corps/alliance, do better but I pose this challange. If you think we are terrible at organization or aren't good at working together towards greater goals, come try to take our space. Before you say, "that's not what I meant", let me first say, "that's what I thought".

Originally by: Mcon99
...<snip>...

Thats where this stupid level 4 mission isk arguement fails. This patch is about 0.0 changing the face of 0.0 gameplay to support concentrated corp/alliance living in any 0.0 system. That is a choice of lifestyle, not a choice about isk.

The level 4 mission isk argument/comparison is used because it's the best, and most well known, standard when speaking of isk/hour.

Yes, this patch is about changing the face of nullsec gameplay. Yes, the vast majority of nullsec alliances like the foundation of the changes.

Here is the thing.
We want nullsec to be very attractive and lucrative more pilots around New Eden. Why? We want more players in nullsec. We want more conflict, some small scale and some large scale.

The residents of nullsec know how it works because we've lived here for years. We've dealt with small scale and large scale conflict. I think we have a better understanding of what will/will not happen in light of the general changes proposed.

Uberfrau
Posted - 2009.11.10 17:55:00 - [2896]
 

So, let's say that 10 alliances each upgrade 5 systems, each with CCP's dream of hundreds of pilots per system. These alliances have upgraded several times to have better chances of wormholes spawning.

That's 50 specific, heavily-trafficked systems that suddenly will be full of wormhole *exits*, thus increasing the odds of you exiting a wormhole into extremely hostile territory.

Am I wrong about this?

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:03:00 - [2897]
 

Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 18:04:17
Originally by: Uberfrau
So, let's say that 10 alliances each upgrade 5 systems, each with CCP's dream of hundreds of pilots per system. These alliances have upgraded several times to have better chances of wormholes spawning.

That's 50 specific, heavily-trafficked systems that suddenly will be full of wormhole *exits*, thus increasing the odds of you exiting a wormhole into extremely hostile territory.

Am I wrong about this?


I have thougth about it already but since no one ever seen Space upgrade yet, you can't judge anything.

Considering wormhole mass limitation, it would be more a case of nice perk rather than any real threat.

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:03:00 - [2898]
 

Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:06:34
Originally by: Alexander Knott

The argument all the big power blocs use is a flawed. They all try to argue the assumption that 0.0, and the game is purely about maximizing isk/hour, so 0.0 needs to provide a higher income then high sec for anyone to bother heading to 0.0. That is a load of horse ****.

This game is about fun. For some, that may be by maximizing isk/hour. Those people are sitting in Jita trading. They make millions/billions per day, with absolutely 0 risk. For everyone else, the game has other attractions besides making the most money. Being an MMO, you could assume the "other attractions" revolve around team play. The new sov changes greatly emphasize team work and cooperation to support your alliance, not solo profit. If this isn't your cup of tea, get out of 0.0, and start soloing level 4s. Thats what this game offers people who desire to conform to a solo playstyle. If you want to work with a large group of people to have fun, stay in 0.0 and make less money.

Sucks, not being able to have everything you want huh? Almost like CCP wants choices in their game to have consequences.


Here is my problem with your argument: Making a stake in 0.0 requires TONS of ISK. Even under current mechanics. Take a heavily contested system like 49- a few months back. This system had something like 50 moons on it and to keep Sov you needed 51% of all POS in system. So when band of Brothers (Kenzoku) took the system they proceeded to put a large tower on 51% of the moons in the system. I would eastimate that they spent around 20-30 billion ISK in fuel and towers to keep a hold on this system. That's currently 2 months worth of R64 money (soon to be 4 or 5 months)

How much does your corp or alliance actually spend to keep their position in Motsu or Irujen? Probably office fees. Maybe a few million a month.

For most most systems in space an alliance will be paying more under new mechanics to claim sovereignty, this is absolutely fine. To make up for these costs an alliance needs to supplement their income. R64s are being nerfed. Currently on an alliance/corporate level my alliance mines all R64s and R32s, and leaves unused towers to individuals to mine (first come first served)

Either my alliance is going to have to start taking R16 moons from individuals to help supplement their income or else they are going to have to raise taxes far higher than they have ever been. Either way this results in a net loss of individual profit.

The individual in any alliance is expected to help defend their space. To do this they need to make ISK. If I only have one account I can only be in one place at one time. I am either in Motsu running Level 4 s to make the most guaranteed and reliable income or I am in 0.0 space making ISK so i can be ready at a moments notice to defend against roaming gangs (which will be far more dangerous than ever before).

I am completely leaving out of this example the cost of man power for increased logistics in 0.0, and the cost of importation of goods (modules, ships, fuel, T2 ammo) that is required for a successful alliance.

It's almost as if some of you have absolutely no idea the level of cost and manpower required to keep an alliance running in 0.0. I'm sure a group like Atlas would be able to tell you how incredibly difficult it is to keep space running when you are 40 jumps from empire. There are other smaller alliances as well deep in 0.0 that are absolutely going to be destroyed by these changes because increased cost without any compensation is basically unacceptable.

Smaller 0.0 alliance are barely scraping by as is. When my alliance (the largest one) controlled ALL of the South including about 7 different regions (required to keep players with personal ISK) we had basically no profit margin whatsoever. If you recall we had 1 (one) titan until we moved to Delve where the R64 profits started flowing like mad and we were able expand in that respect.

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:06:00 - [2899]
 

Originally by: Uberfrau
So, let's say that 10 alliances each upgrade 5 systems, each with CCP's dream of hundreds of pilots per system. These alliances have upgraded several times to have better chances of wormholes spawning.

That's 50 specific, heavily-trafficked systems that suddenly will be full of wormhole *exits*, thus increasing the odds of you exiting a wormhole into extremely hostile territory.

Am I wrong about this?


Theoretically that might be correct. But under the current changes each system will be very lucky to be holding more than 7-10 people making ISK per system. On average I would say probably 4-5 people will be able to make ISK. This is actually an improvement but only because currently a single system in 0.0 can sustain about 1-2 people with the highest true-sec highest belt count systems maybe supporting 3.

Hertford
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:10:00 - [2900]
 

Edited by: Hertford on 10/11/2009 18:12:16
Originally by: Quesa
What you, and many other empire-dwellers, fail to realize is that most nullsec entities want a change. While this change is happening we also want nullsec to become attractive for both the current residents and future residents. The only real way you are going to do this is to make nullsec what it was supposed to be - a vast area of lawless space that would allow you to risk it all for the riches and glory. Currently, nullsec isn't this land of plenty.


And to clarify that last point, we're not clamouring here for a massive buff to 0.0 value for selfish reasons. It looks like it, but it's not. We're already living in 0.0 and we're pretty happy with it as it stands, otherwise we wouldn't be here. We're just thinking beyond our own personal wallets and realising that Dominion-as-is won't attract any significant amount of non-0.0 players into 0.0.

Quote:
The level 4 mission isk argument/comparison is used because it's the best, and most well known, standard when speaking of isk/hour.


Though to be fair, the point about teaming up or soloing is valid. Missioning is pretty much a solo affair. Using L4 mission ISK/hr is a somewhat flawed yardstick to measure things by, but it's still a valid baseline to work from. And if 0.0 is less lucrative than empire, what's the draw, the incentive, for those empire dwellers that CCP says are going to flood to 0.0?

Quote:
Yes, this patch is about changing the face of nullsec gameplay. Yes, the vast majority of nullsec alliances like the foundation of the changes.

Here is the thing.
We want nullsec to be very attractive and lucrative more pilots around New Eden. Why? We want more players in nullsec. We want more conflict, some small scale and some large scale.

The residents of nullsec know how it works because we've lived here for years. We've dealt with small scale and large scale conflict. I think we have a better understanding of what will/will not happen in light of the general changes proposed.


Again, spot on. EvE needs more small-scale warfare, because the current powerbloc game is not good for smaller organisations. But Dominion offers nothing to draw empire dwellers into 0.0.

Telling, isn't it? Goonswarm is terrible at Eve and pretty much fully agrees with Atlas who are terrible at posting. The bottom-line (which the 'lol goonie tears' brigade conveniently avoid addressing) is simple: Dominion is meant to shrink Alliance space and encourage more players into 0.0, and it achieves neither.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:16:00 - [2901]
 

Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 18:18:12
Originally by: Qlanth

Here is my problem with your argument: Making a stake in 0.0 requires TONS of ISK. Even under current mechanics. Take a heavily contested system like 49- a few months back. This system had something like 50 moons on it and to keep Sov you needed 51% of all POS in system. So when band of Brothers (Kenzoku) took the system they proceeded to put a large tower on 51% of the moons in the system. I would eastimate that they spent around 20-30 billion ISK in fuel and towers to keep a hold on this system. That's currently 2 months worth of R64 money (soon to be 4 or 5 months)


Except you are forgetting to say that you will only need 2B per month to maintain the exact same system under new mechanics which completely invalidates your already invalid arguments.


Nice try though.


Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:22:00 - [2902]
 

Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:23:07
Originally by: Kepakh
Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 18:18:12
Originally by: Qlanth

Here is my problem with your argument: Making a stake in 0.0 requires TONS of ISK. Even under current mechanics. Take a heavily contested system like 49- a few months back. This system had something like 50 moons on it and to keep Sov you needed 51% of all POS in system. So when band of Brothers (Kenzoku) took the system they proceeded to put a large tower on 51% of the moons in the system. I would eastimate that they spent around 20-30 billion ISK in fuel and towers to keep a hold on this system. That's currently 2 months worth of R64 money (soon to be 4 or 5 months)


Except you are forgetting to say that you will only need 2B per month to maintain the exact same system under new mechanics which completely invalidates your already invalid arguments.


Nice try though.



The cost of maintaining contested systems like 49- that cost 30 billion ISK a month under current mechanics will be cheaper. every other systems (all 100 some of them) will be about twice as expensive.

Are you now, quite hilariously, trying to suggest keeping space will be cheaper after the expansion?

Alexander Knott
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:24:00 - [2903]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
Except you are forgetting to say that you will only need 2B per month to maintain the exact same system under new mechanics which completely invalidates your already invalid arguments.
Alliances don't generally maintain 51% majorities unless a system is being actively contested since that's simply unsustainable. Also, 49- has R64s, so it was worth fighting over. It may still be worth fighting over after Dominion due to its location, but it doing so will probably be a fiscal loser.

Shidousha
Caldari
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:26:00 - [2904]
 

Is there any chance we will get those sov upgrades seeded anytime soon?

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:26:00 - [2905]
 

Originally by: Qlanth

The cost of maintaining contested systems like 49- that cost 30 billion ISK a month under current mechanics will be cheaper. every other systems (all 100 some of them) will be about twice as expensive.


How many of the them do you actualy need for sov level only? Drop those and the numbers are far far away from what you are trying to imply.

No wonder you are so vehemently asking for more rewarding PVE content when you can't work with numbers...

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:29:00 - [2906]
 

Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:30:11
Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Qlanth

The cost of maintaining contested systems like 49- that cost 30 billion ISK a month under current mechanics will be cheaper. every other systems (all 100 some of them) will be about twice as expensive.


How many of the them do you actualy need for sov level only? Drop those and the numbers are far far away from what you are trying to imply.

No wonder you are so vehemently asking for more rewarding PVE content when you can't work with numbers...


How many systems do we currently need to support our playerbase? Every single one because current mechanics do not facilitate an individual making decent ISK with more than one person in a system. How many will we need after this expansion? Essentially the exact same amount because the changes do so little to actually facilitate a denser population they might as well have added nothing at all.

Alexander Knott
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:30:00 - [2907]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
How many of the them do you actualy need for sov level only? Drop those and the numbers are far far away from what you are trying to imply.

No wonder you are so vehemently asking for more rewarding PVE content when you can't work with numbers...
Yase, that's it. The reason 0.0 alliances want 0.0 to be more rewarding for individuals is because we can't work out how to use Excel.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:33:00 - [2908]
 

Originally by: Alexander Knott
Alliances don't generally maintain 51% majorities unless a system is being actively contested since that's simply unsustainable. Also, 49- has R64s, so it was worth fighting over. It may still be worth fighting over after Dominion due to its location, but it doing so will probably be a fiscal loser.


As well as you don't need all upgrades in every system you have sovereignty over. The new system is scalable as well.

Orthaen
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:34:00 - [2909]
 

Originally by: Qlanth
Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:23:07
Originally by: Kepakh
Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 18:18:12
Originally by: Qlanth

Here is my problem with your argument: Making a stake in 0.0 requires TONS of ISK. Even under current mechanics. Take a heavily contested system like 49- a few months back. This system had something like 50 moons on it and to keep Sov you needed 51% of all POS in system. So when band of Brothers (Kenzoku) took the system they proceeded to put a large tower on 51% of the moons in the system. I would eastimate that they spent around 20-30 billion ISK in fuel and towers to keep a hold on this system. That's currently 2 months worth of R64 money (soon to be 4 or 5 months)


Except you are forgetting to say that you will only need 2B per month to maintain the exact same system under new mechanics which completely invalidates your already invalid arguments.


Nice try though.



The cost of maintaining contested systems like 49- that cost 30 billion ISK a month under current mechanics will be cheaper. every other systems (all 100 some of them) will be about twice as expensive.

Are you now, quite hilariously, trying to suggest keeping space will be cheaper after the expansion?


Then why did you use 49- as your "baseline" example of how expensive 0.0 is? "Making a stake" in 0.0 involves taking a super powers capital system does it? And for ****s sake people, stop using the stupid "2 billion per system" imaginary number. The dev blog stated 950 odd million per month. Those numbers have since been reduced significantly, due to all the QQing in this thread. The only systems that will get anywhere close to 2 bil/month are jump bridge/cyno jammed systems, coming in at like 1.6 billion/month. You plan to cyno jam and jump bridge every single system you control? Well, good for you. Enjoy your unsustainable sov tax.

0.0 will be a more enjoyable, less POS-spamming experience. It might cost more, it might not. That has been established. If you are only interested in making ISK, trade in jita. You want to have fun? Play the game. It is your decision.

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:34:00 - [2910]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Qlanth

The cost of maintaining contested systems like 49- that cost 30 billion ISK a month under current mechanics will be cheaper. every other systems (all 100 some of them) will be about twice as expensive.


How many of the them do you actualy need for sov level only? Drop those and the numbers are far far away from what you are trying to imply.

No wonder you are so vehemently asking for more rewarding PVE content when you can't work with numbers...


Or do you mean how many POSs do we need to maintain Sov? In a heavily contested system like 49- you want to control at least 51% of the moons which is why it is so expensive (I said this in my original post).

In an R64 system you probably have 51% moon coverage by smalls and a cynojammer.

In any other system you will only have one or two large POS. The cost is minimal. Under new mechanics this cost will easily double in price.


Pages: first : previous : ... 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 101 ... : 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