open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:07:00 - [1591]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
Liang your not an expert except in your own ego.


Ok, if it makes you sleep better at night.

Quote:

Drone regions for instance are not isk faucets. It is the most player dependent economy in the game. You don't have the luxury of just shooting stuff and moving on, you have to salvage/loot or you make no money. A horde generates about 100k isk that's it as far as isk generation from killing stuff (just get bounties for the turrets).

So if the goal as you say is to reduce isk faucets, why nerf regions where there is no isk faucet?



If you notice, they're getting massively boosted as compared to the rest of 0.0. I kinda mentioned that.

Quote:

If the goal was to reduce ISK Faucets, wouldn't the better solution be to turn the other regions into more of a model similar to that of the Drone Regions. That is just remove the bounties altogether and force folks to salvage/loot to make their money?



And if you think the rage over this change is bad... Laughing

Quote:

No Empire Alliance will make it to 0.0 without assistance from an existing powerblock, this will not change that. Without a counter to supercapitals they cannot get into 0.0 and so long as they are in empire they effectively can't get supercapitals in the numbers needed.



Yes, supercaps are important. I even mentioned that.

Quote:
A specialized ship is about the only way you can do it.


No.... no it really, really, really, really isn't.

-Liang

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:15:00 - [1592]
 

Originally by: Desert Ice78
Originally by: Klam
Another thing that's quite telling of this mess...

Anyone else just get the recent newsletter?

There's a list in it of the March dev blogs... this dev blog isn't in there. More hiding this change from the Eve community. First it's not discussed with the CSM, now it's not published in the newsletter. Very shady.


This. Just got the Newsletter. Did they honestly think we wouldn't notice?

:Greyscale walks away whistling innocently:


Who cares about the newsletter? They hid this from the CSM.

They have no respect for players and our idea's. If they did we'd have had moon rebalancing, we'd have had our engine trails, cyno effect, we'd have had FW worked on, WH's would have been finished. But CCP are too busy patting themselves on the back to notice they're losing customers.

Galerak
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:16:00 - [1593]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire

In that case, what you're implying just further reinforces the fact that CCP apparently couldn't give two sh*ts what their player base thinks.

They'll do what they want with their game, when they want, how they want, and f*ck all if people don't like it.

Real good business practice.


Ok, this is getting really old. Let's just be clear: the customer is not always right. In fact, I'll take it one step further and say that the customer is frequently willing to outright bankrupt and destroy a company either out of sheer pettiness or for a temporary personal gain.

CCP is taking steps to correct an imbalance that they perceive as having come from Dominion - something that they feel is hurting the game as a whole. Frankly, them not fixing things that they see wrong in the game (even if it makes certain groups cry like little girls) would be doing a grave disservice to us (their customers) and their employees (who lose their job when the game tanks because they didn't tend to it).

Basically: sometimes a gardener has to do a little pruning to keep a plant healthy. Sorry.

-Liang


While this is a generally correct assessment it is not necessarily a correct assessment of this or every situation. It's true that gamers in the main do not understand nor care to understand the inner workings necessary to give a game such as Eve stability and longevity. That being the case there are times when the developers must make the hard choices for the game to survive. I do not believe this is such a case. In all likelihood there are several alternate changes that would suit both the customers AND the developers to reach their varied goals. Customers cannot always be placated. But it is also detrimental to the developers long term goals to reverse a previous change considered overall to be beneficial to the game environment instead of exploring alternate changes that could achieve the same ends.

Furthermore I believe that the consumers in this case would concede that some changes while not the most desirable are necessary for the game's long term continuation, and would be willing to work with the devs to explore potential solutions to find a middle ground which would suit both the needs of the game and the satisfaction of the players. In the end you can't make everyone happy. But if you can't make ANYONE happy then you're really up the proverbial river without a paddle.

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:31:00 - [1594]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren


Stuff

-Liang


Still the little birdies only occupy your own mind.

Let me ask you something, today the big boys don't claim all the systems officially yet they still claim them, what makes you think this will change that?

They all charge fairly high rents for undesirable space.

All these changes will do is shift what systems the big boys keep for themselves and which they rent to renters. They may adjust their rents slightly as they raised them in recent months. The thing is without a fleet to counter supercaps you can't stand on your own, which means that without some counter to supercaps in the proposal you can't open up space. It is just not possible.

Oddly enough there will be those that do rent that undesirable space, make no mistake of that but it will not lead to more conflict.

While changing moongoo could make it harder to replace supercaps at this point in the game that's not as important as a counter to the supercaps. Even if all moongoo disappeared tomorrow, they'd still have their massive fleets (including spares on both sides). Earlier in this thread someone suggested making Moongoo like PI, and I kinda like that idea. Tech prices would crash but others would probably rise as to many folks mined tech. However changes in moongoo will not assist new alliances seeking to take their own space in 0.0 as the moongoo has already been used to make massive fleets.

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:43:00 - [1595]
 

Originally by: Galerak
Furthermore I believe that the consumers in this case would concede that some changes while not the most desirable are necessary for the game's long term continuation, and would be willing to work with the devs to explore potential solutions to find a middle ground which would suit both the needs of the game and the satisfaction of the players. In the end you can't make everyone happy. But if you can't make ANYONE happy then you're really up the proverbial river without a paddle.


This is half the problem - there is no finding a middle ground going on here. Just rugs being pulled out from under players who have invested a lot of time and ISK into something that will become worthless.

If CCP took part in this discussion to present some other possibilities that might meet the same requirements, it would go a long way to mitigate the feeling of being shafted and that CCP don't care about the players. PR is really important when you're selling a service.

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:47:00 - [1596]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
Still the little birdies only occupy your own mind.


TBH, I stopped reading there. Please try to keep the petty personal insults to a minimum and focus on the issue itself. The personal attacks just detract from any point you might be making. This goes for anybody else too.

I know it's hard on internet forums given the huge body of precedence...

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:51:00 - [1597]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
Still the little birdies only occupy your own mind.


Um. Wut?

Quote:
Let me ask you something, today the big boys don't claim all the systems officially yet they still claim them, what makes you think this will change that? They all charge fairly high rents for undesirable space. All these changes will do is shift what systems the big boys keep for themselves and which they rent to renters. They may adjust their rents slightly as they raised them in recent months.


They still officially claim them because they have value that they feel can be rented out. I'm sure there's going to be some renting of space, but I think the most important thing you're missing is that there's going to be vast contiguous swaths of worthless 0.0. Are we really going to see large 0.0 alliances continue to maintain a strangle hold over this space? Maybe - but I kinda doubt it. They haven't in the past, and they more than had the capability to enforce their will and collect rent.

Besides, haven't you read the thread? Every second person is saying they're going to retreat to the -1.0 systems or high sec and never leave. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
The thing is without a fleet to counter supercaps you can't stand on your own, which means that without some counter to supercaps in the proposal you can't open up space. It is just not possible.


You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am somehow neglecting the power of supercaps. I'm not. But introducing a new counter ship class isn't the way to go about fixing them.

WRT Moon goo/Tech, I don't see any major disagreements. You can feel free to stop harping on it.

-Liang

Fredrick Engly
RaVal Thyokill Industies Inc.
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:53:00 - [1598]
 

This is BS right? This is almost like removing Sov....WTF are they thinking...Sack the tard...immediately

Galerak
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:56:00 - [1599]
 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
Originally by: Galerak
Furthermore I believe that the consumers in this case would concede that some changes while not the most desirable are necessary for the game's long term continuation, and would be willing to work with the devs to explore potential solutions to find a middle ground which would suit both the needs of the game and the satisfaction of the players. In the end you can't make everyone happy. But if you can't make ANYONE happy then you're really up the proverbial river without a paddle.


This is half the problem - there is no finding a middle ground going on here. Just rugs being pulled out from under players who have invested a lot of time and ISK into something that will become worthless.

If CCP took part in this discussion to present some other possibilities that might meet the same requirements, it would go a long way to mitigate the feeling of being shafted and that CCP don't care about the players. PR is really important when you're selling a service.


I agree. Even after dozens of various suggestions and repeated requests for information about what the dynamics of the problem are CCP has yet to share more than a statement of what changes will be made and how they feel it should impact the game. If more detailed information had been shared even with the CSM, especially prior to the release of the dev blog post, it would at least show a willingness on CCP's part to share their "sandbox". As it is their declination to utilize such channels has only alienated most of us and damaged our willingness to believe CCP really cares in the slightest about Eve's playerbase.

Kireiina
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:57:00 - [1600]
 


If the individual player is better off doing L4's in the complete safety of empire, than they would be holding space, then that space is worthless and will be empty. That doesn't seem like a great idea if you want null-sec space to be active.

And liang suggesting that L4's are an isk sink because of LP is irrelevant. Only CCP cares about the game at the macro level. The player only cares about having isk to spend on more ships to play with. And if they can buy more ships (plus lose less, rat faster in nicer ships and not have to fun system upgrades) by doing L4's in empire why would you not?

If CCP did care about macro-economic Isk flows then by all means make sanctums run like missions and give LP. But they can't because their coding doesn't allow mission agents on player owned stations. Of course they could *fix* that rather than taking a sledge-hammer to the whole map.

And this will spur conflict by making space variable in quality? Yeah, that worked well with Tech didn't it.


The Arms Dealer
Posted - 2011.03.30 05:59:00 - [1601]
 

Quote:
Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)


But, why is the rum gone?

Tub Chil
Posted - 2011.03.30 06:09:00 - [1602]
 

United Macroer Russians REALLY need a boost

Leelo dallasmultipas
Posted - 2011.03.30 06:25:00 - [1603]
 

As previously stated, numerous times, this change will not have the desired effect. Smaller alliances will not get a foothold in 0.0- because the space that they might think they have the manpower to take will be too ****ty. The larger alliances and coalitions will merely hold the best space, hands down.
Does no one else think it's odd that Delve will be one of the best regions in the game... primarily being held by IT alliance? Anyone remember the "bubble day or 6VDT" where numerous bubbles "oh so mysteriously" disappeared from IT alliance poses allowing the escape of a number of unconfirmed super caps?

I will note as well CCP's lack of vision and foresight on this topic, as well as their apparent lack of interest in the community who pays to enjoy a game deemed a: "sandbox".
I also will note the hundreds of thousands if not hundreds of millions of man hours that have gone into upgrading all the systems that will drop sov after this. The thousands upon thousands of man hours anchoring TCUs, POSes, IHUBs, Upgrades. The millions, billions, and trillions of isk that have gone into upgrading these systems for the ability to run sanctums in them.
CCP will watch as 90% of 0.0 slowly drops sov, tower go offline, systems are evacuated leaving 0.0 as a dead zone, empty of all life and pvp.
CCP, where does pvp come from? I can answer that, pvp comes from people going to Dotlan, and looking at the NPC kills in the last hour/day and going over there. Someone is over there. We want to kill them! After this joke happens: no one is up there, no one is down here, will everyone be ganking in high sec? Everyone beware!
It doesn't appear as though you are reading this? Need our coalition get a 1500 man fleet together to turn this threadnaught into a threadosaur?
CCP, say that CCP Greyscale had a momentary lapse in judgement, and that this joke has got out of hand, and we might forgive you.

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.30 06:25:00 - [1604]
 

Originally by: Kireiina
And liang suggesting that L4's are an isk sink because of LP is irrelevant. Only CCP cares about the game at the macro level. The player only cares about having isk to spend on more ships to play with. And if they can buy more ships (plus lose less, rat faster in nicer ships and not have to fun system upgrades) by doing L4's in empire why would you not?


Not really, and this principle is standard in any game, particularly an MMO - the whole economy is balanced by ISK Faucets (ISK coming into the game) and ISK Drains (ISK leaving the game). ISK comes in via faucets, sits in the sink for a while, and goes out the drains. Without a balance between the faucets and drains there will either be inflation (where faucets > drains) or recession (where faucets < drains).

The issue is that players will just find what works best for them regardless of how it effects the game as a whole. But if there is enough inflation, you can bet your ass that players will complain about "how much items cost these days". Particularly in a free market economy that we now have because mineral prices are no longer tied to base price via insurance.

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.30 06:26:00 - [1605]
 

Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 30/03/2011 06:28:27
Originally by: Imigo Montoya
Originally by: Kireiina
And liang suggesting that L4's are an isk sink because of LP is irrelevant. Only CCP cares about the game at the macro level. The player only cares about having isk to spend on more ships to play with. And if they can buy more ships (plus lose less, rat faster in nicer ships and not have to fun system upgrades) by doing L4's in empire why would you not?


Not really, and this principle is standard in any game, particularly an MMO - the whole economy is balanced by ISK Faucets (ISK coming into the game) and ISK Drains (ISK leaving the game). ISK comes in via faucets, sits in the sink for a while, and goes out the drains. Without a balance between the faucets and drains there will either be inflation (where faucets > drains) or recession (where faucets < drains).

The issue is that players will just find what works best for them regardless of how it effects the game as a whole. But if there is enough inflation, you can bet your ass that players will complain about "how much items cost these days". Particularly in a free market economy that we now have because mineral prices are no longer tied to base price via insurance.


And where exactly on CCP Greyscale devblog does he states that reducing the ISK entering the game is one of their goals?!


CCP history of game changes are full of examples where the changes had the complete opposite result of what was expected. This either means that CCP's real reason are different than what they make us believe, or that they simply aren't good at projecting end-results.


And anyone that believes that these changes will have the desired effects, are hopelessly deluding themselves.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.30 06:31:00 - [1606]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 30/03/2011 06:35:25
Quote:
I'm sure there's going to be some renting of space, but I think the most important thing you're missing is that there's going to be vast contiguous swaths of worthless 0.0. Are we really going to see large 0.0 alliances continue to maintain a strangle hold over this space? Maybe - but I kinda doubt it.

You think we will drop sov in station systems? Basic sov isnt that expensive, I wouldnt be surprised if large parts of sov will be dropped again, but definately not in station systems. Having sov in non-station systems if you cant use it for useful upgrades is useless. Smaller alliances will have as much chance as they have now to take space from a powerblock without backup from another powerblock: pretty much none.

And if the issue is just the ISK faucet (what CCP denies), wouldnt it be more logical to fix that? Or instead of making huge parts of 0.0 useless, simply do the more elegant solution and delete them. You say agent missions dont have the problems due to LP shop, which at least decreases the ISK faucet, well there you got your solution, replace anomaly upgrades with agent upgrades. Watch out a bit what you put in their LP shop to prevent it from crashing the faction market (which will go down anyway due to more people running lvl 4 missions), and tada.

Although a significant point, there hasnt been any proof that the ISK faucet is for now really an issue for the economy. I believe ISK influx was increasing like 2% per month or so, which isnt anything special for a game, even low. Now it might be a problem for something based on the economy like eve, but still then it makes way more sense to solve the real problems: bots injecting loads of ISK in the economy (there you got your solution for LP store devaluation immediatly, get rid of mission running bots, and some may be hard to find, but dont tell me you cant find courier mission bots), powercreep (that is waaaayyyyy more than 2% per month, in one week both powerblocks lost 10+ titans and loads more supercarriers, both of them replaced it already), etc.

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.30 06:40:00 - [1607]
 

Originally by: Renan Ruivo
And where exactly on CCP Greyscale devblog does he states that reducing the ISK entering the game is one of their goals?!


It doesn't, but surely it's part of the reasoning behind the changes (surely!!!). Balancing faucets and drains is of vital importance to the health of a game economy, and therefore the "long-term big picture" which was mentioned.

I do still question CCP's "model of causality" and how much it is based on actual data. I'd love to see what data they're basing this model on myself (out of professional curiosity if nothing else Wink).

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.30 06:41:00 - [1608]
 

Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 30/03/2011 06:28:27
Originally by: Imigo Montoya
Originally by: Kireiina
And liang suggesting that L4's are an isk sink because of LP is irrelevant. Only CCP cares about the game at the macro level. The player only cares about having isk to spend on more ships to play with. And if they can buy more ships (plus lose less, rat faster in nicer ships and not have to fun system upgrades) by doing L4's in empire why would you not?


Not really, and this principle is standard in any game, particularly an MMO - the whole economy is balanced by ISK Faucets (ISK coming into the game) and ISK Drains (ISK leaving the game). ISK comes in via faucets, sits in the sink for a while, and goes out the drains. Without a balance between the faucets and drains there will either be inflation (where faucets > drains) or recession (where faucets < drains).

The issue is that players will just find what works best for them regardless of how it effects the game as a whole. But if there is enough inflation, you can bet your ass that players will complain about "how much items cost these days". Particularly in a free market economy that we now have because mineral prices are no longer tied to base price via insurance.


And where exactly on CCP Greyscale devblog does he states that reducing the ISK entering the game is one of their goals?!


CCP history of game changes are full of examples where the changes had the complete opposite result of what was expected. This either means that CCP's real reason are different than what they make us believe, or that they simply aren't good at projecting end-results.


And anyone that believes that these changes will have the desired effects, are hopelessly deluding themselves.

They don't care how balanced gameplay is. They're trying to get people to pay $ for more plex. When a news outlet reliably releases the amount of $ an RMT operation is pulling in, devs get greedy. This is about CCP taking more $ from it's players. More plex = less valuable plex = more needed to be bought. Even the push against non-RMT botters is just a push for PLEX selling, and CCP's attempt to push EVE into MT territory.

Wingshard
Order of the Sable Shield
Posted - 2011.03.30 06:42:00 - [1609]
 

Edited by: Wingshard on 30/03/2011 06:45:18
Originally by: Liang Nuren

They still officially claim them because they have value that they feel can be rented out. I'm sure there's going to be some renting of space, but I think the most important thing you're missing is that there's going to be vast contiguous swaths of worthless 0.0. Are we really going to see large 0.0 alliances continue to maintain a strangle hold over this space? Maybe - but I kinda doubt it. They haven't in the past, and they more than had the capability to enforce their will and collect rent.



Since you are so much for the change let me ask you the same thing i did several of pages ago:
Why should anyone claim this so called "worthless space" that ...

has to be paid for on a constant basis
has to be upgraded before its even partly useful as its now for several billions of isk (not even counting the freighter to transport the i-hub)

be desired by anyone?

Dont forget that you cant upgrade a system to the maximum right of the bat either. You will have to claim it for a long long time before it starts to pay of while the cost is all the same but with less overall turnout compared to now.

Yet even after you invested billions of isk in upkeep, tcu, i-hub, upgrades, maybe a tower to make it better accessable, towerfuel, towersetup, .... the system stil wont support 6 people of the same profession at a time.


While on the contrary...

Your troubles begin with setting up an i-hub exspecial for those alliances without titans.
You stil have to grind and do ****ty tasks in systems before even being able to upgrade them. (try getting a good enough rat score in a 3-5 belt system with bad truesec just so you can instal pirate arrays)

It takes 3 assaults of bigger entitys (either numbers or super capitals where super capitals exspecial a lot of motherships make it a cakewalk) to take your i-hub down and bring you back to zero. which in turn means that even if you concentrate on holding a single system its highly unlikely that your chance of having a foothold will become any better.



With this change a lot of systems in 0.0 will show no benefit again for considering to claim them besides maybe being the obligatory jumpbridge / rich moon system / 0.0 entry system that needs to be jammed.

If CCP wants more people in 0.0 than they also have to give them benefits as this system did (which was being able to make a steady income besides lvl 4 missions) and not put extra cost on the old system through upkeep cost, upgrade cost, etc which didnt work out anyway.


It wont make small alliances have a better chance getting a foothold if their ressources are even more limited than now while the costs have increased. Thats like shutting the heater of my basement down in the midst of winter while at the same time charging me a higher rent to maintain it and thinking i would feel warm about it.

Orakkus
Minmatar
m3 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.30 07:15:00 - [1610]
 

CCP Greyscale:

Quote:
Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space

And how is this different than now? As of this moment nearly all the major and minor 0.0 alliances are already in heated conflict, where hundreds of billions of isk are being lost weekly.

Quote:
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals

Okay.. what "local" goals? By removing the ability to fully upgrade systems you've removed those "goals" to regional or even universal goals. You've essentially removed the flat playing field and changed it to a constant "king of the hill" like it was prior to Dominion.

Quote:
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec

By removing their ability to make isk? That makes no sense, at all. The lower quality 0.0 space is generally near low-sec, and with the constant conflicts which you are hoping to cause, you are reducing the ability of smaller alliances to defend their space.

Quote:
Coalitions will be marginally less stable

No. Whoever thought this was true was absolutely wrong and has a fundamental failure in understanding human interactions and relations. This belief is wrong on such a base level, that is it literally akin to saying that if we change the color blue to green, people will no longer want to have sex. I understand what you are thinking. You are thinking that in your above scenario, that greed will cause former alliance members to jockey and cause conflicts within coalitions, and those conflicts will be based on wanting better anom systems. This does not work.. in fact, you already have an example of how THIS DOESN'T WORK. It's called the Tech moons. There are a limited number of tech moons and so they are a perfect example of how a coalition will still operate DESPITE not everyone having a very valuable tech moon.

Quote:
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)

No, no, no, no. Will have to choose more carefully? Where do you get that logic? You have not changed the total relative value of 0.0, you've only limited the more casual and newer 0.0 player. The battle and war is STILL having the most space possible. In fact, this change CAUSES alliances to hold onto more space than before because you will need more space just to keep your pilots happy.

Seriously, your causality model needs to be reviewed as it clearly misses a lot of the human element.

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.30 07:17:00 - [1611]
 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
stuff


So I assume you don't read his since he insults everyone else in his posts....although he's a bit more subtle at it....

Honestly at this point CCP isn't reading this thread, they don't care, their mind was made up when they posted it.

Think about it, They released the blog on a friday during Fanfest. That was not by accident. You've had 3 small blurps from the originator of the blog all which indicate he's moving forward with it despite everyone agreeing that it will not lead to his desired results.

The few that have championed his cause are mostly individuals who are no longer in 0.0 hoping to reclaim some lost glory, low sec pirates hoping that more traffic will come their way or have some false delusion that magically this will cause the power blocks to break up when every other tried effort has failed to do so.

Before Dominion they claimed large swaths of space, oftentimes with POSs so that you could see it on the map. Dominion came and they officially claimed less space yet still claimed the same space. This comes and they'll still claim the space, because they can.

Let's think about the investment cost of claiming space.

First you have to have an open system you can get to.
You need a freighter to carry your ihub. That freighter needs to travel through hostile space (hopefully you use scouts or get lucky with a wormhole).

Now you put down a TCU and are waiting for it to online. Can your corp/alliance guard it the whole 8 hours? Unless it covers multiple time zones unlikely. Lets assume the big guy just ignores you and lets you put it down.

You move in your ihub and put it up. They still ignore you being busy elsewhere.

500 million for the ihub and probably what 100 for the TCU.

You just claimed a band 1 system. You have approximately 100 people interested. Sadly the game doesn't allow all 100 to make money in 1 system at the same time. Lets assume your corp can cover maybe 2 shifts (4 hours each of playing). You also got one with slightly above avg number of belts. So maybe 10 people have something to do a shift, 20 people total.

You now need to invest in other upgrades.

Entrapment 1: 100kk, Entrapment 2: 200kk, Entrapment 3: 300kk, Entrapment 4: 400kk, Entrapment 5: 500kk
Pirate Detect 1: 50kk, Pirate Detect 2: 100kk, Pirate Detect 3: 150kk, Pirate Detect 4: 200kk, Pirate Detect 5: 250kk
Quantum Flux 1-5 same as the Pirate Detect
Ore Prospecting 1: 50kk, Ore Prospecting 2: 75kk, Ore Prospecting 3: 100kk, Ore Prospecting 4: 125kk, Ore Prospecting 5: 250kk
Survey Networks 1-5: same as the Pirate Detect

Just under 5 billion in outlay, assuming no one attacks you and kills your I-HUB before you finish.

How long would it take that corp to recover that investment? Now after you've upgraded the neighbor finally who's been off on campaign (probably against another upstart) comes back and sends a letter to your CEO.

We have noticed you have illegally settled in XXX system. We hereby demand compensation for this system you shall pay a fine of 8 billion isk now, and shall hereafter reprimand 4 billion isk a month to us to maintain our good graces. Failure to comply will result in an attack on your system.

signed

YYYYY

You've got 5 billion invested, what do you do? I dare say in most cases you don't have enough to pay but lets figure you got that up to 20 people a shift up to 40 a day. You made sure to keep it going, you have surplus isk. So you pay your fine and agree to the monthly rent. How long to make up the investment now? Remember you're in band 1 no sanctums, no havens, no hordes.

1 year after starting this CCP decides to change it again, your not attacking your landlord that's unacceptable. So now we take away The middle tier anomalies. Like that's going to help you. That's in essence what this blog as a first step taking the upper tier anomalies away. It cheats everyone that played within the system in an attempt to enjoy more of the game.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.30 07:22:00 - [1612]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
everyone agreeing that it will not lead to his desired results.



What makes you think he wasn't flat out lying about his desired results?

His desired result is that people will start selling PLEX for titans, which adds up to a lot of new income for CCP. Expect CCP to start introducing jovian super-titans that you can only get through plex. By then everyone who cares about the game will be long gone, and CCP will be laughing all the way to the bank. That's what this is about, $ in the pocket. Not about "conflicts in blah blah blah".

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.30 07:26:00 - [1613]
 

Originally by: mkmin
Originally by: El'Niaga
everyone agreeing that it will not lead to his desired results.



What makes you think he wasn't flat out lying about his desired results?

His desired result is that people will start selling PLEX for titans, which adds up to a lot of new income for CCP. Expect CCP to start introducing jovian super-titans that you can only get through plex. By then everyone who cares about the game will be long gone, and CCP will be laughing all the way to the bank. That's what this is about, $ in the pocket. Not about "conflicts in blah blah blah".


SOE thought that too, but in the end the players they screwed with the NGE got the last laugh...

I suppose you could be right maybe it is a PLEX system where you have to pay to get extra belts or extra anoms in your system and you have to pay to renew it every so often. I'm sure everyone would love such microtransactions. If they go that route or that's their plan cut their losses now and close the server is what i say.


Locii
Posted - 2011.03.30 07:28:00 - [1614]
 

before dom almost every one i knew in 0.0 had a lv4 mission alt. they would farm missions to pay for pvp. the crap systems produced no where enough isk as a lv4 mission.

most of the peopel i have already spoken to will be moving those alts back to empire to farm missions again. lots will just let extra accounts lapse as lets face it missions suck ass and you have to tie that guy to an npc corp to avoid all the empire war decs 0.0 alliances face.

you said your goal was to make people move to 0.0 that worked well tbh, but now you want to **** that goal away just to make people fight over true sec. lol moronic, it wont work people will just move back to empire as all you have done is take away from a years hard work and given nothing back

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.30 07:30:00 - [1615]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
Originally by: mkmin
Originally by: El'Niaga
everyone agreeing that it will not lead to his desired results.



What makes you think he wasn't flat out lying about his desired results?

His desired result is that people will start selling PLEX for titans, which adds up to a lot of new income for CCP. Expect CCP to start introducing jovian super-titans that you can only get through plex. By then everyone who cares about the game will be long gone, and CCP will be laughing all the way to the bank. That's what this is about, $ in the pocket. Not about "conflicts in blah blah blah".


SOE thought that too, but in the end the players they screwed with the NGE got the last laugh...

I suppose you could be right maybe it is a PLEX system where you have to pay to get extra belts or extra anoms in your system and you have to pay to renew it every so often. I'm sure everyone would love such microtransactions. If they go that route or that's their plan cut their losses now and close the server is what i say.



The decision making devs are already rich beyond what they had ever hoped. One last $ push before retiring to someplace that isn't a crappy windblown frozen rock. They way they don't give a **** about their players, their employees probably won't be receiving their final paychecks.

Terianna Eri
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2011.03.30 07:31:00 - [1616]
 

Edited by: Terianna Eri on 30/03/2011 07:32:27
What if we replaced the missing havens/sanctums with additional forlorn/forsaken hubs, which are actually worth running? (I swap to them if I warp to a Sanctum with 1-3 people in it already)

That would still sting (since it means less isk/hour per person and reduces the number of players a system can support at one time), but it still brings in reasonable income, and means that more than 1-2 people can make good isk out of the anoms in a system at a time. Not as much as level4s, but with increased convenience (as you dont have to deal with LP, and also you don't have to move out of 0.0 to make isk), but it would also make the regions with better space 'more valuable' enough for people to want to fight over them.

Of course, since big wars aren't funded by ratting, but by moongoo, it still won't work as intended, but at least it won't be so awful for the alliances that do end up staying in 0.0.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.30 07:44:00 - [1617]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 07:47:01
Originally by: Furb Killer
You think we will drop sov in station systems? Basic sov isnt that expensive, I wouldnt be surprised if large parts of sov will be dropped again, but definately not in station systems. ... Smaller alliances will have as much chance as they have now to take space from a powerblock without backup from another powerblock: pretty much none.


Two things:
- You're the first person in pretty much the whole thread to say that everyone isn't going to pull back to -1.0 systems or high sec in mass.
- Of course smaller alliances aren't going to be taking space from a power block if the power block is there. The question is whether the power block is going to be there.

Quote:
And if the issue is just the ISK faucet...


I'm neither +/-1 to that. I think it would have been a serviceable change that would have ****ed off just as many people. A big part of the allure to running anoms in 0.0 is that you no don't have to spend $some_time_here ****ing with your LP.

Quote:
Although a significant point, there hasnt been any proof that the ISK faucet is for now really an issue for the economy. I believe ISK influx was increasing like 2% per month or so, which isnt anything special for a game, even low.


No, 2% was the target. Actual was ~6%.

Originally by: Wingshard

Why should anyone claim this so called "worthless space" that ...
has to be paid for on a constant basis
has to be upgraded before its even partly useful as its now for several billions of isk (not even counting the freighter to transport the i-hub)



Three things:
- People want their name on the map
- People think it helps recruitment
- It doesn't have to be upgraded to be useful space.

Originally by: Wingshard
A bunch of stuff about upgrades


See #3.

Originally by: Wingshard

If CCP wants more people in 0.0 than they also have to give them benefits as this system did (which was being able to make a steady income besides lvl 4 missions) and not put extra cost on the old system through upkeep cost, upgrade cost, etc which didnt work out anyway.



Frankly, I think its pretty obvious that CCP is revising their opinion of getting everyone in the whole game into 0.0 so they can join 2 big fleets and crash nodes. You'll notice there was a lot of talk about local conflicts and smaller alliances. The dev blog hints that its only the tip of the iceberg... and I think we're in for some more/bigger changes to 0.0.

-Liang

Ed: The forums ate my original post. Blargh.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.03.30 07:47:00 - [1618]
 

Quote:

With regards to High Sec L4s and Sanctums: I think its important to remember that Havens/Sanctums are enormous raw ISK faucets. L4s, when run in such a manner as to compete with running Sanctums, are very nearly an ISK sink to the game. Most of your ISK comes from LP, and LP requires raw ISK inputs on top of contract/market costs. Furthermore, it requires market research to know what to sell... and some self restraint not to crash your own markets



I have made several billions with L4, maybe their level of ISK sink is not *that* prominent.


Quote:

Expected consequences

Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)


lol..... if most regions would be useless, how would smaller alliances survive? if they do manage to get a good sys they would have a blob jumping in to take it on no time.



Sadly the sentence in italics looks true but it's false.

In the first months the big alliances will indeed move their peripheral borders to forcibly include the nearby localized goals.

If "hammering the small alliances with moon goo provided Plutonium" may be seen as "more conflicts going on" then it's true.

I see it as a quite bad move, but still....


It's past the first months that the sentence becomes patently false: once the new owners have grabbed the good localized goals they have moon goo AND localized goals and then conflicts will just die.

Nobody with no localized goal (good system) nor moon goo is so idiot to pretend to displace those who have both.

Read: new 0.0 alliances GTFO back to L4 grinding.



The sentence in bold is also true on paper but false in reality: new alliances indeed will have an easier foothold in nullsec.
Going to live in worthless space is indeed easier, because no one cares, no one wants it.

But wait! Who is so obtuse to want to even go in 0.0 if all they can do is to go where no one else wants it?


What CCP Greyscale has totally not got is that EvE is not a "King of the hill" 3D shooter, where equally equipped teams fight for the best place.

EvE is "space steamroller blobs", where totally unbalanced fights are what makes people win, and the "hill" is a bunker with ISK volcanoes to secure the winning team "forever".



Basically ANY attempt to really make war dynamic and forever requires...


*drumm rolls*


that the "hills" of the "king of the hill" are dynamic themselves. Like PI.

The static "hills" approach will only cause a transition to the next static "hills".

I am surprised the game designers could see it for PI but not for 0.0.

Ofcourse IM anAlt
Posted - 2011.03.30 08:02:00 - [1619]
 

Why is it no surprise that goons fully endorse this change? maybe bec the devs that actually play are being biased? they cant just log in and change stuff for their mates so they try to impliment changes that will F**k everyone BUT their alliance. to echo everyone else in this thread: CCP you dont know anything about nullsec. it not fought over for anoms. its fought over for pure love of the fight or the insane money to be made off moons. i 2nd the many others that play this game casually in my acc's will be unsubed to find a new game. enjoying this one seems to be at a low these days. i for sure can find something better to spend my $15 per acc on.

and greyscale.....just sadface to you asshat.

gr ant
Posted - 2011.03.30 08:05:00 - [1620]
 

Quote:
While it's been successful in making more space more useful, it's also become a damper on conflict in nullsec. With everywhere being essentially the same in terms of the value of key resources, once you've got yourself established in one patch of space there's little incentive to move elsewhere, because there's nowhere "better" to go. This is resulting in fewer drivers for conflict, both in terms of wars of conquest and also in terms of intra-coalition power struggles.




Gotta love this, It's not like there hasn't been any conflict, IT didn't lose a lot of space, Atlas/AAA didn't lose any space, and the Initiative wasn't wiped by AAA a few months later there isnt a war going on between the DRF and NC and Test Didn't capture Fountain, this all didnt happen POST DOMINION apparently CCP thinks this, how stale 0.0 has gotten, with numbers in fights larger than ever seen before.

0.0 seems alive and well, and even if there was a problem, this wouldnt change were people live, the NC was there pre-dominion and will still be there past this, why would they move when they have most of the tech moon? why would the DRF care to move when they can just bot, if anything this mainly will effect small alliances, and considering the majority of SuperCaps are owned by big Alliances, there is no way in hell some rag tag group is going to take over a good truesec system


Pages: first : previous : ... 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 ... : last (118)

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