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 : ... 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 101 102 ... : last (119)

Author Topic

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:36:00 - [2911]
 

Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:36:25
Originally by: Orthaen
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.


I used 49- as an example of how expensive a system can be for an alliance trying to maintain its space. Either from invasion or day to day activities.

I should have been more clear though, so hopefully my other post makes that more clear.

Ukucia
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:37:00 - [2912]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
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.

Why take sov if you're not gonna put in any upgrades?

None of the significant alliances care about dots on the auto-generated map. Because we're going to go back to the old days when the sov map was maintained via a thread in CAOD where alliances can claim systems/constallations/regions.

I realize you are desperate to find some possible way that the devs didn't completely botch this, but your flailing about in the last 40 pages or so isn't gonna win any arguments. Especially since you've spent the last 10 pages claiming there should be no correlation between risk and reward.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:38:00 - [2913]
 

Originally by: Qlanth
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.


Every single one? No, you don't.

You only need sov where you want to have upgrades which is not 'every single one'.

Once you place a hub in the system, and it is actualy used, it will easily pay for itself and if used effectively, it leaves you nice ISK in corp wallet.



If you insist on having all systems you touch fully upgraded, it is only your choice, don't blame the system though.


Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:41:00 - [2914]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
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.


Originally by: Kepakh
What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M?
It is indeed increased risk to move around 0.0 as well as logistical challenge.




You keep repeating this. Care to give some actual explanation of what you're trying to say, instead of just repeating an absurdity?

Originally by: Harlon Cross
***BREAKING NEWS***

Linkage

Definitely some good insight on the upcoming changes there.


The most common complaint on this thread is that a patch that was supposed to bring people from empire to 0.0 will fail miserably at its intended mission. How is HTFU relevant to that? I live in highsec, these changes won't do much of anything to me personally. I'm just offended by the ****poor game design.

Originally by: Kepakh
Basicaly you ask for whatever you do in 0.0 yield more ISK than anywhere else just because it is 0.0

That is just stupid.


How so? I always thought this was the whole point of 0.0 - risk vs reward, and all that. I mean, there's some activities that should be less profitable in 0.0 than in empire - trading, say - but PvE content should definitely be far more profitable in dangerous space than in safe space.

Originally by: Nilania Telshua
Originally by: Kepakh
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.


Here's some basic math for you. A moon produces 100 units per hour. Dysprosium, at its peak, was worth around 200k/unit. That means a dysprosium moon makes 20 million an hour. That's less than a mediocre L4 missioner in a T1 battleship. Furthermore, a really big alliance might have a few dozen high-end moons, but they'll have hundreds of missioners. Now, can you explain to me why alliances used dysprosium to make their money, and not L4 missions?

There is a fundamental difference between money that looks good on paper and money that actually winds up in a corp wallet somewhere.

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 don't think so, but anyone colonizing C5-C6 wormholes has to expect that sort of thing even as it is. Lower-end holes probably won't open to there nearly as often, since they don't generally go to 0.0 at all. Besides, I'm willing to mess with wormholes a bit to make sov warfare better.

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:44:00 - [2915]
 

Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:46:21
Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Qlanth
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.


Every single one? No, you don't.

You only need sov where you want to have upgrades which is not 'every single one'.

Once you place a hub in the system, and it is actualy used, it will easily pay for itself and if used effectively, it leaves you nice ISK in corp wallet.



If you insist on having all systems you touch fully upgraded, it is only your choice, don't blame the system though.




See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money. In current mechanics each system will support on average two people.

Under new mechanics each system will support on average 3 or 4 people. That is including the improvements on upgrades. The problem with 0.0 money making has more to do with scalability of resources than ISK/hr.

The changes will double our costs while not affecting player income, maybe even hurting it because R64 moons, the crux of alliance level income, will be losing their value.

CCP has said themselves they want an upgraded system to be able to to support 50-100 people. Tell me how two cosmic anomalies are going to do this when they barely support one person each (each of those people could easily be making more belt ratting). These changes are a VERY far cry from what it will take to support 50-100 people.

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:49:00 - [2916]
 

You should also keep in mind that my alliance controls easily the best true-sec region of the entire game and we are able to support all of our members in two regions because of this. We used to control 7 different regions and struggled to make ends meet on most occasions because of terrible true-sec and a lack of R64 moons.

Orthaen
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:53:00 - [2917]
 

Edited by: Orthaen on 10/11/2009 18:56:15
Originally by: Qlanth

Originally by: Orthaen

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.


I used 49- as an example of how expensive a system can be for an alliance trying to maintain its space. Either from invasion or day to day activities.

I should have been more clear though, so hopefully my other post makes that more clear.


I never though I'd meet an internet debater that doesn't flame hard every postSmile. Your alliance would be shamed, honestly.

And...I think we sort of agree? 0.0 systems will be able to support more people, with combat anomalies not sucking so much ass, and significantly more DED plexes, even if deadspace prices do drop some. Crazy expensive systems won't be crazy expensive anymore, so alliances wont have to shell out huge sums of money on random POSes to contest a system. Just think how much bigger your fleet could have been when you hit 49- if instead of buying 30 billion of deathstars, you dropped that 30 billion on your combat fleet. Small cheap systems shouldnt get any more expensive, with the prices quoted by CCP somewhere earlier in this thread. Your empire might shrink, but you would only stand to gain ISK from this shrink because of cheaper sov costs(from less POSes, and more ratting). Well, not goons maybe. All of the not-superpoweres only stand to gain ISK, which may suck for the superpowers, but I don't think CCP cares overly much.

Originally by: Qlanth}
CCP has said themselves they want an upgraded system to be able to to support 50-100 people. Tell me how two cosmic anomalies are going to do this when they barely support one person each (each of those people could easily be making more belt ratting). These changes are a VERY far cry from what it will take to support 50-100 people. [/quote


For one, its 6-10 cosmic anomalies on a decent system. Also, anomalies are supposedly upgraded in quality as well as quantity, so they will be worthwhile. At the very least they're making efforts to improve the profit levels of 0.0, and I would I imagine if Dominion proves insufficient they will make further changes. Also, it doesnt look like the sov upkeep is going to be nearly as high as you're fearing. They said, what, 150 million/month/system, with an infrastructure hub but no cyno/jump bridge stuff?

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:53:00 - [2918]
 

right then... after reading through this forum a little bit more today i have decided to share my knowledge with you guys on how i am getting drunk off of all this wine. There are lots of varieties in this thread and such and i'm sure your wondering how to pick and choose the best wine available that will give you not only the best buzz but also the smoothest taste as it goes down.

So here it is. supplied with links and everything to my recommend wines and their characteristics.

First off lets start with what the bad wines are. These are typically classified by their pointless bickering, name calling and argumentative fashion that really doesn't serve any purpose other than fueling a fire that quite honestly i'm sure people want put out. They're one step above trolls in that they aren't doing it for lulz they actually mean what they say but here is a few examples of what i have found

not very satisfying and very mildewy of past hate
No taste at all with a horrid after taste leaves you wondering why even bother with such a bad wine
another example of the above but without the after taste.
this one just tries too hard. still to young a wine to have too have enough alcohol and still has a yeasty flavor to it. not satisfying at all.

So those are the bad wines. the ones that may get you drunk, but that is about it, no pleasant taste or enjoyment of this fine art of forum brewing.

However we have better examples... these are your middle road decent wines, not bad but aren't the classics well aged ones we all would love to have.

nice staple wine, clean not much taste but does the job and isn't an ass about it
this is like a sparkling grape juice honestly. cute in its own right and great for the kids. comic relief that is occasionally needed.
another sparkling grape juice but this one has more of a bite to it. still funny and good in its own right.
very decent wine. good all around but doesn't quite give too many examples of what this thread needs.

Now were onto the true greats of wine in this thread. the ones people should really take notice of because of their IDEAS rather than OPINIONS.

excelent taste and very smooth argument
clean and crisp with beautiful taste
different taste and adds a whole new layer to ideas and thinking in the thread.

These are truly marvelous wines to take in and enjoy. I would love to see more like these in the thread but then again you cant get the best all the time now can you?

until then ill continue to sample the wines in this thread and ill pinpoint out the good and bad from this post on. until then continue to enjoy the wines i have listed and discuss more.

Kushmir
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:53:00 - [2919]
 

There is literally nothing static in 0.0 worth fight over anymore.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:56:00 - [2920]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Here's some basic math for you. A moon produces 100 units per hour. Dysprosium, at its peak, was worth around 200k/unit. That means a dysprosium moon makes 20 million an hour. That's less than a mediocre L4 missioner in a T1 battleship. Furthermore, a really big alliance might have a few dozen high-end moons, but they'll have hundreds of missioners. Now, can you explain to me why alliances used dysprosium to make their money, and not L4 missions?


I will respond to this part because I already replied to what you asked and this post only demonstrates how you either intentionaly manipulate the facts and number or you are just not very bright.

It is indeed basic math and you still fail at it.
That said mission runner make 0 ISK if he is not online, the moon goes 24/7. In fact you need 2 or 3 times a month to haul fuel and ore which takes you 4 hours top. So now you can compare your earned moon goo billions for 4 hours of mission running.

Kanatta Jing
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:57:00 - [2921]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
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.


It's unfair to quote a percentage like that without offering 1 million ISK of hush money to anyone who falls outside of that number.

Pervin Mervin
State War Academy
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:04:00 - [2922]
 

Originally by: Qlanth
Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:46:21
Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Qlanth
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.


Every single one? No, you don't.

You only need sov where you want to have upgrades which is not 'every single one'.

Once you place a hub in the system, and it is actualy used, it will easily pay for itself and if used effectively, it leaves you nice ISK in corp wallet.



If you insist on having all systems you touch fully upgraded, it is only your choice, don't blame the system though.




See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money. In current mechanics each system will support on average two people.

Under new mechanics each system will support on average 3 or 4 people. That is including the improvements on upgrades. The problem with 0.0 money making has more to do with scalability of resources than ISK/hr.

The changes will double our costs while not affecting player income, maybe even hurting it because R64 moons, the crux of alliance level income, will be losing their value.

CCP has said themselves they want an upgraded system to be able to to support 50-100 people. Tell me how two cosmic anomalies are going to do this when they barely support one person each (each of those people could easily be making more belt ratting). These changes are a VERY far cry from what it will take to support 50-100 people.


Here's a question for you. Why do you need to maintain and hold sov in those extra systems for people to "fan out" and make isk from. If the systems remain unclaimed won't people still be able to use them therefore freeing you from the shackles of ccp rent?

Baaldor
Black Sail Anarchists
Yarr Collective
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:05:00 - [2923]
 

Wasn't this patch supposed to free us from the chain of POS warfare and free up more time to actually peeveepee?

All I am seeing is trading one grind for another.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:05:00 - [2924]
 

Originally by: Mcon99
Dominion was to promite non-team players to move to 0.0?
It was to promote the idea that, while team play comes at a personal cost, the gains would now be high enough to offset those costs, thus making 0.0 a tempting proposition even if your main personal motivation was the size of your wallet. Note the word "main" here, because that's the important bit.

It's basically a fairly simple shift of focus: you represent the idea of team first, personal advantages second (or third, or twentieth), which was the "one true way" of nullsec in many ways — if you didn't subscribe to that ideal, you'd move back to highsec sooner or later. The patch, as originally pitched, would shift this proposition slightly: it would now allow room for (or, more importantly, give a role to) me-first/team-second players in nullsec. This would not mean that team-haters would have any place, but it would allow people who valued the team second to fulfil that secondary goal without sacrificing their primary motivation.
Quote:
upgrades should never be able to turn a system into a total carebear heaven.
And that's really one of the key problems with the patch as presented: in order to get the most out of the systems, you need to carebear it up to make it worth investing in, which means you need to carebear it up even more to get the most out of that investment. If you don't turn it into carebear heaven, there's very little point in having it to begin with because it will only be a burden, but you can't turn it into a carebear heaven because — even if you do it for the team — you're better of being in highsec…

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:06:00 - [2925]
 

Originally by: Qlanth
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.


Now now, office fees in the Motsu mission station are like 500 mil a month. That's like one large POS, plus a month of fuel. Truly, a jaw-dropping amount of isk - there's no way a 0.0 alliance can fathom it.

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.

Nice try though.


Yes, because under the new mechanics nobody will ever drop a bunch of POSes to base out of. I admit, they won't need as many, but the sort of all-or-nothing (one-system-or-nothing?) fighting we saw in 49- will still use billions like water. Perhaps fewer billions, but it'll hardly be cheap.

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...


How many of what? POSes? Under the current mechanics, a serious sov fight basically requires you to keep 51% of moons POSed until you can drive your opponents off. Theoretically, one POS can hold sov, but in practice the numbers are far higher.

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


Yes, it can be scaled from its current "lmao" all the way up to "lol", if you're willing to invest a few billion.

Originally by: Orthaen
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?


Setting up in 0.0 requires a large tower and some fuel. Surviving in 0.0 means having a war chest that can fund all-out fighting for weeks - losing cap ships by the dozen, battleships by the hundred, and still having the cash to POS spam a 60-moon system to hold sov over it. You won't necessarily be needing cash on the same level that the Goons did, because the fleets involved will be smaller if it's not superpower warfare, but POS spamming doesn't care much how big an alliance you are - if the other guy is willing to dedicate 31 POSes to a 60-moon system, you'd better be willing to match him if you want to hold it.

And yes, that will change some under the new mechanics. But it'll change less than you think - a serious fight will still be fought in fairly similar ways to how it is now. You might not need to spam 31 POSes, but you'll still want a good number, so you don't get your fleet bubbled on login. It's not going to be cheap, even after the changes.

Originally by: Kepakh
I will respond to this part because I already replied to what you asked and this post only demonstrates how you either intentionaly manipulate the facts and number or you are just not very bright.

It is indeed basic math and you still fail at it.
That said mission runner make 0 ISK if he is not online, the moon goes 24/7. In fact you need 2 or 3 times a month to haul fuel and ore which takes you 4 hours top. So now you can compare your earned moon goo billions for 4 hours of mission running.


The reason I raised that point was that you, and several others, seem to be relying on the talking point of "Well you just need X guys for Y hours a day at Z% taxes to pay for this". You think the numbers are any different right now? Goons have 5k players, and make, say, 500B/month off moons. That's 100M/player/month, or 3M/day. One hour of missioning per player per day at 10% tax will give Goons half a trillion a month. So why don't they fund their alliance that way right now? Because it doesn't work! Just because you're going to change the carebearing in question slightly doesn't mean it'll work any better after the changes.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:08:00 - [2926]
 

Originally by: Kushmir
There is literally nothing static in 0.0 worth fight over anymore.


Lols. /me passes Goons a tissue. Cry more or adapt - you've always got the option of just being a roaming / raiding fleet of pvpers if you cant reach your inner bear.

C.


Prognosys
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:12:00 - [2927]
 

Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Kushmir
There is literally nothing static in 0.0 worth fight over anymore.


Lols. /me passes Goons a tissue. Cry more or adapt - you've always got the option of just being a roaming / raiding fleet of pvpers if you cant reach your inner bear.

C.




Yes, how silly we are for neglecting the passing of 0.0 warfare, which for many people is half the fun of Eve.

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:12:00 - [2928]
 

Originally by: Pervin Mervin
Originally by: Qlanth
Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:46:21
Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Qlanth
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.


Every single one? No, you don't.

You only need sov where you want to have upgrades which is not 'every single one'.

Once you place a hub in the system, and it is actualy used, it will easily pay for itself and if used effectively, it leaves you nice ISK in corp wallet.



If you insist on having all systems you touch fully upgraded, it is only your choice, don't blame the system though.




See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money. In current mechanics each system will support on average two people.

Under new mechanics each system will support on average 3 or 4 people. That is including the improvements on upgrades. The problem with 0.0 money making has more to do with scalability of resources than ISK/hr.

The changes will double our costs while not affecting player income, maybe even hurting it because R64 moons, the crux of alliance level income, will be losing their value.

CCP has said themselves they want an upgraded system to be able to to support 50-100 people. Tell me how two cosmic anomalies are going to do this when they barely support one person each (each of those people could easily be making more belt ratting). These changes are a VERY far cry from what it will take to support 50-100 people.


Here's a question for you. Why do you need to maintain and hold sov in those extra systems for people to "fan out" and make isk from. If the systems remain unclaimed won't people still be able to use them therefore freeing you from the shackles of ccp rent?



This is true and probably how things will work out. My alliance will control parts of space and not pay for any upgrades (they are essentially worthless without a more grandiose 0.0 fix). Either that or we will consolidate our space on our own terms instead of CCPs. By moving to NPC space and only claiming sovereignty in systems with valuable moons so we can keep them cynojammed.

Really though this speaks volumes toward CCPs failure at incentivising 0.0 space. It looks like they were aiming for alliances to want to claim sovereignty in any system they control to be able to take advantage of the upgrades. I would rather bypass the upgrades completely and just continue making ISK without paying for the cost of sovereignty.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:14:00 - [2929]
 

Originally by: Qlanth
See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money.


Ok, so you failed to run the numbers on space costs but it is me that I don't understand something here...right.

I say it again: I absolutely don't care how sov changes are SUPPOSED to work, all I am concerned about is what they WILL actually do.

Sovereignty changes are fail in regards to determined goals but this was obvious with first dev blogs released. That does not however mean that the system isn't working on functional level or breaking the game like many people try to imply.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:16:00 - [2930]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/11/2009 19:20:26
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
One hour of missioning per player per day at 10% tax will give Goons half a trillion a month. So why don't they fund their alliance that way right now? Because it doesn't work!


And you know why it doesnt work? Because due to all r64 **** people got lazy. I dont need to do anything, the afk-ISK-from-thin-air will fund me everything: from SOV, to POS to stations to ships. Atm all 0.0 alliances get reality check: suddenly they HAVE to participate in making isk. You know what would be perfect? Moon mining being changed to manual mode.

Also its funny how everything is compare dto lv4 missions yet almost noone from people whining here runs them. Most of whiners still go on auto9matic moon goo. Again: change it to manual and give 2x lv4 income per hour. Happy? Of course no, because suddenly your income will be able to be both disrupted and will be much lesser. And will not be AFK.

Originally by: Qlanth
See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money.


Already shown before. Currently system can hold circa 1 person per 8-10 belts + 1-2 people more thx to exploration stuff. With changes EVERY anomaly can hold 1 more person. That is 1-5 people via belts + 0-10 people via anomalies. Why 1 person per anomaly? If you FINISH it you warp out and new anomaly is spawned instead. Implying that 10 anomaly system can keep only 3-4 players busy is just plain lie. Unless you run 2 sites AT SAME TIME using one character.

So you already get 1-15 people per system (dependant on belts/anomalies) + more due to mining stuff (tho gravi sites suck) + at least few people who can perma-farm radars/magnetos (no idea if its +1 or +1 per level up to 5 or 10 sites - still its one person per site). So you can get up to around 20-25 people working at same time in fully developed system. This is excluding any mining (and i do exclude it coz mining in 0.0 is worthless in most cases. Hint, hint CCP).

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:19:00 - [2931]
 

Originally by: Prognosys
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Kushmir
There is literally nothing static in 0.0 worth fight over anymore.


Lols. /me passes Goons a tissue. Cry more or adapt - you've always got the option of just being a roaming / raiding fleet of pvpers if you cant reach your inner bear.

C.




Yes, how silly we are for neglecting the passing of 0.0 warfare, which for many people is half the fun of Eve.


Wait..wait..wut?

The "passing of .0 warfare"?

So on one hand you're not going to make enough ISK to pay for sov (and make a cash profit in the process) - surely this means you're not fighting but ratting / pve'ing? Doesnt it? Hmm?

Or on the other hand you're a alliance of warmongering, pillaging pod pilots who wouldnt care about the pve rewards anyway?

So what is it?

Dominion means you have to choose: settled farming life, ploughing those belts and reaping those npc rats or you're ghengis khan style nomadic warriors.

You cant have both.

C.


Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:23:00 - [2932]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Qlanth
See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money.


Ok, so you failed to run the numbers on space costs but it is me that I don't understand something here...right.

I say it again: I absolutely don't care how sov changes are SUPPOSED to work, all I am concerned about is what they WILL actually do.

Sovereignty changes are fail in regards to determined goals but this was obvious with first dev blogs released. That does not however mean that the system isn't working on functional level or breaking the game like many people try to imply.


I don't understand your first statement. What costs should I be running? How much ISK players make? Or the cost of holding Sovereignty in 100 systems in current mechanics? Or the cost of holding Sovereignty under future mechanics?

As far as the rest of your post: In this regard you are absolutely correct. 0.0 alliances will be able to make some ISK with the changes. Not every bit of ISK we make will be going toward maintaining sovereignty and we will be able to survive (GoonSwarm especially). We will, however, be making decidedly less ISK than before because of the increased cost of maintaining space without increasing the amount of ISK earnable by players.

Basically all these changes are going to do on a personal level for me is make me not want to claim sovereignty. I think there are a lot of other alliances feeling the same way. Especially groups like Atlas who live DEEP in 0.0 with terrible true-sec systems, very few R64 moons, and HEAVY reliance on jumpbridge networks to keep them supplied.

I do not want to see this happen because I enjoy large scale PvP, and having all of my enemies abandon 0.0 space (I'm betting a large amount would just abandon the game) would be very very boring for me.

NickSuccorso
Burning Napalm
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:31:00 - [2933]
 

Quote:
And you know why it doesnt work? Because due to all r64 **** people got lazy. I dont need to do anything, the afk-ISK-from-thin-air will fund me everything: from SOV, to POS to stations to ships. Atm all 0.0 alliances get reality check: suddenly they HAVE to participate in making isk. You know what would be perfect? Moon mining being changed to manual mode.

Also its funny how everything is compare dto lv4 missions yet almost noone from people whining here runs them. Most of whiners still go on auto9matic moon goo. Again: change it to manual and give 2x lv4 income per hour. Happy? Of course no, because suddenly your income will be able to be both disrupted and will be much lesser. And will not be AFK.


R64 income goes into helping pay for alliance upkeep, not personal wallets. If there's an alliance out there that you can show me that supplies there people's PVP ships, please show me who it is.

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:31:00 - [2934]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire


Originally by: Qlanth
See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money.


Already shown before. Currently system can hold circa 1 person per 8-10 belts + 1-2 people more thx to exploration stuff. With changes EVERY anomaly can hold 1 more person. That is 1-5 people via belts + 0-10 people via anomalies. Why 1 person per anomaly? If you FINISH it you warp out and new anomaly is spawned instead. Implying that 10 anomaly system can keep only 3-4 players busy is just plain lie. Unless you run 2 sites AT SAME TIME using one character.

So you already get 1-15 people per system (dependant on belts/anomalies) + more due to mining stuff (tho gravi sites suck) + at least few people who can perma-farm radars/magnetos (no idea if its +1 or +1 per level up to 5 or 10 sites - still its one person per site). So you can get up to around 20-25 people working at same time in fully developed system. This is excluding any mining (and i do exclude it coz mining in 0.0 is worthless in most cases. Hint, hint CCP).


That all assumes that the anomalies will actually be worth running. I said earlier in this thread that I would estimate about 5% of all anomalies are currently worth running over belt ratting. If I come into a system and see that all the anomalies are terrible I might as well start ratting because I'll make more ISK.

It seems I was mistaken. I thought that the upgrade just gave a flat 2 anomalies period. if it does indeed give 10 anomalies at max level then that is actually a much better improvement than I thought.

I still think however than if you want to fix 0.0 money making you need to fix those anomalies so that all anomalies are worth running because they are on par with belt ratting (the top tier is better, the majority is on par, the bottom tier is slightly worse but you need to finish them for a new one to spawn) or else I will just keep on belt ratting because I can make more ISK more reliably.

Bodega Cat
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:31:00 - [2935]
 

I'm currently a wormhole dweller, and i'm still pretty new and myself with friends run a small outfit of about 5 accounts total in a low class w-hole making really good money with low skill points but we work hard. After reading this entire thread, I would like to offer up how i feel about all this as a young, and ambitious player who "knows" of null sec but can't make any assertations about it's true complexity, but would love to get involved down there someday after i retire as a frontiersman. So yea, I want to move there but don't see why I should right now.

The problem I see is quite simply like everyone else, it doesn't seem to be economicaly benefitial to play around down there by any means, perhaps even more so after these changes. This isn't just about the baseline isk per hour either... In wormholes, you need good logistics too, and you need miner guys to maximize those sites, as well as some research/industry skills to maximize what your anchored POS can do, hauling, cloakers, warships etc. and we value those skills equally as all part of the team. In nullsec however, I just don't see the incentive to get those kinds of players involved down there when it's so much easier (like isk), to just do most of that stuff in high sec and pipe it down to null as combat ready assets. Wasn't that one of the big goals? Get those kinds of players who enjoy that stuff to see a sensible reason to go there (and i feel bad for all the poor pvpers that live down there now that are disgusted with the idea of having to do it, and the shame is their realy is people that WANT to, why can't this be attractive to them)?

This couples up with the fact that most people down there are gungho about pvp like i said, and rather have accounts logged in on combat-centric players than not. I want to see bonuses to industry, research, refining, and any market based skills. Promote growth and promote the inclusion of that percentage of the playerbase and it will be healthy for nullsec with what the user goals are for this expansion.

Now this leads to my last issue, how is security going to be improved for the small corp down there at all (particularly if you want to attract industrial minded folks, how can they SOMETIMES feel even just a small bit of saftey)? If he can't even get cyno jammers and stuff untill WAAYYY late in his systems development, how the heck is he ever going to last that long? Shouldn't it be easier and more cost effective to ESTABLISH a good base of ops, and then harder and harder to keep it safe as time goes on, giving the homesteaders a chance to grow in parallel to be ready? At least then, you may have some more curious types who are resigned to the fact that they'll go down for a month or two, make as much money as they can, and then just go belly up when they slowly, inevitably, get beaten to death. Right now, the penetration just seems worthless to even bother taking a gamble to even give it a try.

Additionally, it needs to be very clear how you will promote the inevitable fiefdom aspect to all of this, as realistically, that is the only way i can see it to be work out for the small guy? Why is it going to be more beneficial for the dominant alliances to really try and let the smaller corps "work the land" so to speak and take a reasonable enough cutt so that both can feel good about the deal (which again, null just needs to be more profitable)? And why will he rather not just swallow them up but allow them to continue to be somewhat independent of the larger alliances sphere of influence?

The sad thing is, i just don't see how mechanics of +1 scannable site for each rank answers any of these questions!

wallenbergaren
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:34:00 - [2936]
 

The solution to nullsec is to make it more like w-space

Shawna Gray
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:37:00 - [2937]
 

Edited by: Shawna Gray on 10/11/2009 19:37:02
Originally by: Deva Blackfire

And you know why it doesnt work? Because due to all r64 **** people got lazy. I dont need to do anything, the afk-ISK-from-thin-air will fund me everything: from SOV, to POS to stations to ships. Atm all 0.0 alliances get reality check: suddenly they HAVE to participate in making isk. You know what would be perfect? Moon mining being changed to manual mode.



Lol. Pretty much everyone in 0.0 has a empire alt to make isk, or at the very least rats/mines etc.

Originally by: Cailais

Dominion means you have to choose: settled farming life, ploughing those belts and reaping those npc rats or you're ghengis khan style nomadic warriors.



Or just continue as they do now, keep a empire alt to make isk and pvp with their other char in 0.0

Orthaen
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:38:00 - [2938]
 

Originally by: Qlanth


I still think however than if you want to fix 0.0 money making you need to fix those anomalies so that all anomalies are worth running because they are on par with belt ratting (the top tier is better, the majority is on par, the bottom tier is slightly worse but you need to finish them for a new one to spawn) or else I will just keep on belt ratting because I can make more ISK more reliably.


People in this thread, from testing, and CCP responses have indicated that this is what will happen. The anomalies quality will be at least on par with ratting, once you've upgraded them. Ideally, better.

On the topic of 0.0 mining being worthless....why? Is it the logistics, or getting the ore refined? ABC ores are 2-3 times more profitable then mining in hi-sec. I know, a lot of poor trusec systems have absolutely laughable ores, but grav sites are always better then the resident ores, meaning they would be primarily ABC ores in 0.0 grav sites, with some dark ochre, gneiss, and mercoxit on the site.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:41:00 - [2939]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/11/2009 19:47:04
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/11/2009 19:43:38
Originally by: NickSuccorso

R64 income goes into helping pay for alliance upkeep, not personal wallets. If there's an alliance out there that you can show me that supplies there people's PVP ships, please show me who it is.


From alies i know? TRI (prolly back again due to dyspro), PL, most (if not all) of NC, im quite sure -A- and you do it too. It is called "ship reimbursement program" which de facto is moving alliance isk (in form of assets) to players wallets (hands).

Another thing - i had my personal r64 for a while, so again it went into my wallet. I know few people who also have personal r64s (even under alliance cover) tho its obvious i cant say names (alliances will get mad and as those are some of my friends i dont want them to lose easy income).

Plus - they go to help keep ally upkeeps because you did rule so as an alliance. Clap clap - you actually managed to TAX moon income (with 100% tax rate). Which still doesnt change a thing. If it was manual nothing would stop you from putting 100% tax on moons or doing lol "mandatory" moon mining ops. Or to make it easier? Just mining unprocessed moon mins which could be taxed in stations while being processed. Options aplenty, but you are too short sighted to even think about them. All you can do is repeat same old mantra "all r64 goes to alliance".

Quote:
That all assumes that the anomalies will actually be worth running. I said earlier in this thread that I would estimate about 5% of all anomalies are currently worth running over belt ratting. If I come into a system and see that all the anomalies are terrible I might as well start ratting because I'll make more ISK.


From what ive seen while scanning geminate (that being 1000+ anomaly sites) around 15% of them are total crap (frigs and cruisers), another 15% are mix of BC/BS and rest have plenty of battleships inside. On lv4 level. With additional cherry of top named faction spawns.

Quote:
Lol. Pretty much everyone in 0.0 has a empire alt to make isk, or at the very least rats/mines etc.


Another generalisation which has absolutely no cover in facts. And in quite a lot cases it is wrong (at least from allies ive been in that being tri, celes, razor and having additional insider on few southern ones). Otherwise you wouldnt see people doing belting or plexing like crazy.

Quote:

On the topic of 0.0 mining being worthless....why? Is it the logistics, or getting the ore refined? ABC ores are 2-3 times more profitable then mining in hi-sec.


Drone regions - thats the answer. Instead of wasting time mining ABC ores its much easier just to pop few drone battleships and be done with it. Thats also why most of highends come from drone regs.

Fixing mining in 0.0? Just add new ores with more lowends in them. Be it uber veldspar with 5x more veld or uber omber with 5x more whatever omber drops (iso? nocx? cant remember). And there is the issue of gravi sites which has 1000 rocks each with 5 units of ore inside which are SO MUCH FUN to hunt after. Not.

Kepakh
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:50:00 - [2940]
 

Originally by: Qlanth

I don't understand your first statement. What costs should I be running? How much ISK players make? Or the cost of holding Sovereignty in 100 systems in current mechanics? Or the cost of holding Sovereignty under future mechanics?

As far as the rest of your post: In this regard you are absolutely correct. 0.0 alliances will be able to make some ISK with the changes. Not every bit of ISK we make will be going toward maintaining sovereignty and we will be able to survive (GoonSwarm especially). We will, however, be making decidedly less ISK than before because of the increased cost of maintaining space without increasing the amount of ISK earnable by players.

Basically all these changes are going to do on a personal level for me is make me not want to claim sovereignty. I think there are a lot of other alliances feeling the same way. Especially groups like Atlas who live DEEP in 0.0 with terrible true-sec systems, very few R64 moons, and HEAVY reliance on jumpbridge networks to keep them supplied.

I do not want to see this happen because I enjoy large scale PvP, and having all of my enemies abandon 0.0 space (I'm betting a large amount would just abandon the game) would be very very boring for me.


The costs on your space after Dominion.

No doubt some alliances will lose ISK - personal and alliance level, especialy the big ones with generous programs - like your mentioned free moons. Some will get hurt more, some less, some will gain.
It all depends on alliance management only.

As for myself, I am all for cutting personal income and replacing it by alliance/corp level income.


Originally by: NickSuccorso
R64 income goes into helping pay for alliance upkeep, not personal wallets. If there's an alliance out there that you can show me that supplies there people's PVP ships, please show me who it is.


Oh boy, another expert at aconomy.
If you do not have that R64 you will have to pay it from your own wallet so don't tell me it is not affecting you.

Reimbusrtement programs, free caps, discounted ships, free ammo and modules, etc - nothing unusual.


Pages: first : previous : ... 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 101 102 ... : 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