open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Sovereignty--Breaking the Chains
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 ... : last (23)

Author Topic

Haraukiae Youik
Posted - 2009.09.12 00:42:00 - [481]
 

If CCP finally gets rid of the soverenity of systems which is the way 0.0 started, then people will go there and populate the systems. As it is now unless they place exhorbitant taxes on control of systems the 0.0 corps will just cry like babies once again and CCP will cave. The best thing to happen so far has been wormholes but those most certainly will not last in their present forms as CCP has traditionally caved to a small sector of players.

You free up 0.0 CCP and the players will come. You keep it up as the "elite sandbox" and players will stay away.

Garok Nor
Caldari
Blueprint Haus
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2009.09.12 01:00:00 - [482]
 

Originally by: An Anarchyyt


I fail to see why you think basically invulnerable sov 4 supercap production was cool or a good idea in any way.


^^ THIS... Isn't the proliferation of Supercaps becoming just a tad ridiculous?

Xantiln
Death By Consequence
Posted - 2009.09.12 01:26:00 - [483]
 

I have read several post that the change will not help small alliances to enter null sec and claim Sovereignty. What exactly is a small alliance? Do they deserve a hand holding into null sec.

Grista
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2009.09.12 01:31:00 - [484]
 

Originally by: Gunship
It will be interesing to see how many baby Titans are going to burn as a result of this Twisted Evil (not being build in a sov 4 system).



The solution is obvious: serious alliances will just drop a dozen towers with CSAA's in one system. Only 1-3 will actually be building anything.

Anyhow, I'm optimistic if the upgrades at release include improving space for ratters, miners, and exploration. As many others have noted, there's no reason a 20 belt system with perfect truesec should only be able to support 1 or 2 ratters. That, and the fact that 95% of 0.0 are terrible truesec are why the larger alliances hold systems in 3, 4, or 5 regions.

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.09.12 02:22:00 - [485]
 

Originally by: XXSketchxx
Originally by: Steve Thomas



Why none? I see nothing wrong with useing some of this to upgrade FW for example by adapting the Stations and gates to being used to designate flags for who owns what system in FW.


don't expect it any time soon

FW is a whole separate ball game that is probably not gonna see love with Dominion


Quote:

Viceroyalty
Viceroyalties are systems in low security Empire space which are administered by a player Viceroy, on behalf of their corporation or alliance. They’ll allow you to both turn a better profit and defend your chosen system from pirates, and act as both a way to populate low-sec space and an easier first step on the road to 0.0.


look in the tabs over there <<<--- where it says "The Drawing board"

Granted there is no telling when/if they will get around to doing it(after all the Skill que was on the drawing board forever before someone said ok lets do it, however it seems to me that for the rest of low sec it would be a fairly straight forward plug in.

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.09.12 02:43:00 - [486]
 

Edited by: Steve Thomas on 12/09/2009 02:55:17
Edited by: Steve Thomas on 12/09/2009 02:44:36
Originally by: Gunship
It will be interesing to see how many baby Titans are going to burn as a result of this Twisted Evil (not being build in a sov 4 system).
I doubt any. long before this goes live your going to see it turn up on SiSi and I will garantee that anyone in one of the corps whos building any supercap will be paying close attention to what happens. (~6 weeks 5 days 9 hours 46 min 40 seconds with my current skills to build a titan.

also, unless its changed recently, on SiSi if a supercap is in production and a given aliance is still considered "intact" but loses sov4 the ships will keep building. however you stop being able to start new builds. (Gtranted that probably is on SiSi only because of the weirdness that goes with them trying to test things, SiSi is in more ways that the developers will ever admit its own beast)

I suspect that the previously announced "Nerf" to the Dooms Day Device has probably done more to curb Titan builds than anything else tbh.

Originally by: CCP Whisper
The issue of the transition from the old mechanics to the new ones is something that is at the top of the list of priorities. This extends not just to making sure we account for all the current structures and processes, but that we test this to within an inch of its life several times over to make sure the deployment goes well. The process of moving from one to another is scary in its complexity and we are looking at several options to carry this out.

Work on this is not completed. We've created a new internal testing infrastructure specially for the sovereignty changes and are working through the various options open to us. Until we know exactly how it is going to work (and that it works) you should not expect exact details. In the full knowledge that any statements regarding the transition made at this point will be treated as final, gospel truth I am not going to commit my team and the deployment team to a course of action which may yet turn out to be unworkable.
Like I said I doubt that they will do anything to seriously disrupt whats going on with existing aliances. this is not BoB retaliating for the takedown after all. odds are that at most when people think the deployment will be withing 7 weeks they will shift any supercap production to where they plan to have the Core of there holdings.

Granted I suspect that the developers would love it if somehow just before this went live someone were to disband every current Sov holding aliance . . . .(I hope they also test for that eventuality!) Twisted Evil

Pherusa Plumosa
Minmatar
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.09.12 03:39:00 - [487]
 

Originally by: CCP Whisper
Originally by: Qi Teuf
In a sense there will be control. If an alliance that owns the system does not pay the upkeep for the gates, then they shut down. That allows for control of stopping anyone from using the gates; friend or foe.

IMO that's a great thing.


Gates that are in an unclaimed system will continue to function normally for now. There were a ton of ideas floating around about reducing operational capacity, charging tolls or even shutting down stargates in unclaimed systems but all of them ended up being binned as too exploitable or just plain stupid. Not to say it might not happen but definitely not in this iteration of the mechanics.

indeed. close all stargates around your systems and maintain jumpbridges to control who enters your space or not Laughing

I don't know how those stargate fees look like. if it is a fix fee, maybe let sov drop, as the space is appearantly not used.

and if the fees depend on the people who jump through, it would be not really fair imho to punish the owner too hard. maybe let local disappear, since space + gates don't get enough love ^^

Zastrow J
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.09.12 03:40:00 - [488]
 

I'm all for smaller alliances trying to carve out a home in 0.0, and Dominion sounds like it will do a lot to facilitate it. However, there's just not enough entry gates between empire and 0.0 for them to come and go without getting **** on by the big alliances who enjoy camping these gates all day. There may be entire empty constellations but it wont make any difference if you can't reliably get to them.

Garok Nor
Caldari
Blueprint Haus
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2009.09.12 03:44:00 - [489]
 

Originally by: Gekkoh


Ah, meta-gaming. How bittersweet it is.

However, with all of those being a self-contained unit of space, wouldn't it be more likely for in-fighting to break out and split the meta-alliance into smaller pieces?




You sir don't get goons... they have an identity separate from the game which is stronger than the one they have in game. If (and big if here cause TBQH most of what is being discussed here is wild conjecture at this point) Alliances need to splinter to manage sov costs, I think you'll find those with a strong OOG identity with a distinct advantage.

But TBQH I don't see this going in the direction you suggest... perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part... perhaps not.

Aethrwolf
Caldari
Podrratu
Posted - 2009.09.12 05:58:00 - [490]
 

Originally by: Zastrow J
I'm all for smaller alliances trying to carve out a home in 0.0, and Dominion sounds like it will do a lot to facilitate it. However, there's just not enough entry gates between empire and 0.0 for them to come and go without getting **** on by the big alliances who enjoy camping these gates all day. There may be entire empty constellations but it wont make any difference if you can't reliably get to them.


There's a point and a possible exploit(?) here. If holding too much space is too expensive, then all the nullsec alliances need to do is make sure all the space that connects to empire is claimed, then simply deny access from empire to the remote sections of nullsec that they cant or dont want to pay for. How feasible that would be, I dont really know, but I'm sure someone will try it. WH will offer o way around this, but with mass limits, it would take a great deal of luck,planning, and patience to move enough ships/resources out not to get stomped as soon as you started showing up on the sov maps.

on another note, I deliberately went a little crazy on me earlier "think bigger" post, but I've been thinking that some of those ideas arent completely crazy, if they were balanced a bit.

I would also like to add for thought...

Exploration beacons. an upgrade that could be purchased that allows someone with the correct roles to place a beacon in an exploration site (belt, gas cloud) that would then mark the site as part of the system. Afterward the site would stay in system and follow the respawn/growth rules for normal belts. Site would have to be left there for at least 1 DT or it would despawn as usual and the marker is wasted. (the last part is along the lines of "I dont know how well this could be automated without excessive programming time" and allows for devs to manually spawn the belt as part of the system without being "on call" every time someone places a marker) markers would be destructible objects. (hmmm.. lends thought to having ALL belt beacons destructible)

and heres another most likely impracticable idea.. mission agents as infrastructure? basically allow alliances to become more like factions? alliances could set either standings or membership reqs for using them.

Planetary upgrades that include manufacture of POS fuel items that are currently npc only. I would like to see players able to do just about anything that npc factions can.

Zastrow J
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.09.12 06:16:00 - [491]
 

Originally by: Aethrwolf

There's a point and a possible exploit(?) here. If holding too much space is too expensive, then all the nullsec alliances need to do is make sure all the space that connects to empire is claimed, then simply deny access from empire to the remote sections of nullsec that they cant or dont want to pay for. How feasible that would be, I dont really know, but I'm sure someone will try it. WH will offer o way around this, but with mass limits, it would take a great deal of luck,planning, and patience to move enough ships/resources out not to get stomped as soon as you started showing up on the sov maps.


If you look at the map, 0.0 space is nothing but pipes and chokepoints. It is entirely feasible for big alliances to "control" regions without having sov all over it. So while Dominion will reduce the barriers to entry in 0.0, I still haven't heard enough to imagine a flood of new corps/alliances heading out here.

Poseign
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.12 07:56:00 - [492]
 

Edited by: Poseign on 12/09/2009 07:57:00
Originally by: Grista
Originally by: Gunship
It will be interesing to see how many baby Titans are going to burn as a result of this Twisted Evil (not being build in a sov 4 system).



The solution is obvious: serious alliances will just drop a dozen towers with CSAA's in one system. Only 1-3 will actually be building anything.




IMO This would also be a way CCP is "nerfing" titans. Dont you think there's already a mess of them in 0.0? With as long as they take to build, I would venture to say that unless complete secrecy is kept between builder and pilot, not many new titans will be born under new sov mechanics, at least no where NEAR as many as have been pushed out under sov 4.

Not that I'm complaining. I'm all for titans, they serve their purpose, but when you get so many of them in game that we start seeing screenshots of 30+ titan-only conga lines on POS'es.... speaks for itself doesnt it?

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2009.09.12 08:30:00 - [493]
 

Originally by: Grista
The solution is obvious: serious alliances will just drop a dozen towers with CSAA's in one system. Only 1-3 will actually be building anything.

IIRC, you can actually see in-game which ones are producing.... There are supposedly blinking lights or something on the active ones.

ServantOfMask
Minmatar
Eye Bee Em
Stellar Defense Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.12 09:10:00 - [494]
 

Originally by: AM Boveri
JumpBridges as they are now use Liquid Ozone fuel. For Stargates under the new system, why not just have them use LO2 as well? They do the same thing, and it would remove the ISK sink that comes with fees. Everyone's right, space maintenance should still be maintained as a player-driven market, not lost isk.


bolded the important bit.. and yes it is needed badly
ISK has been steadily devaluing due to rampant inflation for years with minimal isk sinks.

biggest isk sinks that spring to mind are clones, pos's and pos mods (which will take a SERIOUS hit with the sov change) and the lol corp/alliance creation fee.

Slave 2739FKZ
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.09.12 09:54:00 - [495]
 

I just can hope sov development and system upgrades will affect moon mining output (the quantity of it and maybe the quality?), this will be a reason to conquer these moon holding systems, defend them, and develop them.

Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar
Ma'adim Logistics
Posted - 2009.09.12 10:01:00 - [496]
 

Originally by: Zastrow J
Originally by: Aethrwolf

There's a point and a possible exploit(?) here. If holding too much space is too expensive, then all the nullsec alliances need to do is make sure all the space that connects to empire is claimed, then simply deny access from empire to the remote sections of nullsec that they cant or dont want to pay for. How feasible that would be, I dont really know, but I'm sure someone will try it. WH will offer o way around this, but with mass limits, it would take a great deal of luck,planning, and patience to move enough ships/resources out not to get stomped as soon as you started showing up on the sov maps.


If you look at the map, 0.0 space is nothing but pipes and chokepoints. It is entirely feasible for big alliances to "control" regions without having sov all over it. So while Dominion will reduce the barriers to entry in 0.0, I still haven't heard enough to imagine a flood of new corps/alliances heading out here.


All true.
There might be ways around it though, for example black ops jump bridges with which you can bring in stuff for bases (blockade runners) and if you can stay under the "radar" so to speak it should be possible.

ServantOfMask
Minmatar
Eye Bee Em
Stellar Defense Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.12 10:14:00 - [497]
 

Originally by: The GrimWristler
I can imagine carriers and dreads being blown up to quickly by frig bomber fleets, unless i read this incurrectly.



you did not as it were get it correctly, those "frig" bombers are carrier deployed drones... just like fighters.

so your fear might be assuaged by the fact that it will be carriers and mom's fielding drone bomber fleets to lay dps onto dreads and other caps.

Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
Posted - 2009.09.12 10:19:00 - [498]
 

Originally by: Devblog
The idea is that some areas of space are obviously considered of less worth than others and always have been. This is going to change. YOU are going to change it. Through the investment of time, money and effort at all levels, an alliance will be able to directly affect the value of and develop the space they hold.

do you intend to fit less profitable regions with more improvement potential and currently profitable ones with a lower potential?

say there is a profitable region, will this have the same improvement potential as a less profitable one? the same maybe?

Aralis
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.12 11:00:00 - [499]
 

Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see.

However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we?

What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve?

TexasWARlord
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.09.12 11:24:00 - [500]
 

Quote:
If you look at the map, 0.0 space is nothing but pipes and chokepoints. It is entirely feasible for big alliances to "control" regions without having sov all over it. So while Dominion will reduce the barriers to entry in 0.0, I still haven't heard enough to imagine a flood of new corps/alliances heading out here.


Simple fix, increase worm hole spawns in areas that are not occupied by say 10 pilots in a 48 Hrs period.

Extend wormhole life for areas that are not inhabited for 7 days. Example: Systems been unoccupied and unsoved for one week. A unique wormhole spawns with 10b mass for 3 days. If you cant capatalize on that you dont deserve being out there at all.

On the plus side it would give alliances a superhighway for a limited time to set up shop. After shop is set up then its up to them to hold it and get supplies in through the choke points. Twisted Evil


ServantOfMask
Minmatar
Eye Bee Em
Stellar Defense Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.12 11:40:00 - [501]
 

Originally by: Aralis
Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve?


yep, they are trying to reduce the practical size of any alliances space, by tying the amount of held space directly to the amount of players it can leverage to defend the actual systems.

ie: a 200man alliance that plays in roughly the same TZ, is active everyday and runs constant ops with 180-200men fleets will succesfully be able to hold enough space and possibly more than the current model where alliance membership ranks in the thousands (of ratters/miners and part time pvp'ers) and a dedicated crew of a dozen or three logisticians keeping up the sov by their lonesomes.

personally i think this change will be awesome.
dead end constellations and arms will become serious fortresses, due to the fact that defenses can be focussed on one system.
ring shaped constellations will be quite hard to hold and yet harder to conquer both due to higher number of gates.

frankly it would be nice if say SOT for instance could confine itself to a single constellation or two and still offer all our members the benefits we currently enjoy by holding near half of fountain. especially if all the systems were actually useful and bear-able.

a lot of people are rightfully stating that any newcomer would immediately be squashed because no 0.0 entity will tolerate a red faction 3-5 jumps away from their core systems. however i can see a nap-train of smaller individuals (in space owned terms, not players) sharing a region, and replacing current multi-region nap-trains sharing whole sides of null sec.

imagine for a moment if the entire NC could comfortably fit into a single region and extract from it enough stuff to rival what it currently gains from all the regions they hold. would they continue to hold a ton of regions and defend them all? or would they pile all their members into a much smaller area, raising the defender/system ratio much higher while at the same time keeping their alliance/corp/individual isk flow intact? now I'm not trying to single out the NC, the above example really goes for every large entity.

let's not forget with the drastic reduction in cyno jammer availability a lot of currently save space gets splayed wide open to the enemy. and the (hopefully) exponential increase in isk cost to maintain star-gates in order to maintain sov. with the re-balance of R64's the seemingly endless ISK faucets might crank down a bit, or R64 moon mins are going to go through the roof to pay for the new isk sink.

Alizandro Goderaski
Minmatar
The Concordiat
Concordiat Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.12 11:48:00 - [502]
 

Originally by: Aralis
Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see.

However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we?

What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve?


Go whine to your queen about it.

Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar
Ma'adim Logistics
Posted - 2009.09.12 11:58:00 - [503]
 

Originally by: Aralis
Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see.

However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we?

What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve?


What they are trying to do is make spaced lived in better and alliances that focus on living in their space rather than just harvesting moon goo better off.
So as I interpret it is that your alliance will probably have the easiest time of all to adapt and profit from the new system, that is they are hardly trying to do you over.

Aralis
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.12 12:07:00 - [504]
 

Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal
Originally by: Aralis
Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see.

However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we?

What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve?


What they are trying to do is make spaced lived in better and alliances that focus on living in their space rather than just harvesting moon goo better off.
So as I interpret it is that your alliance will probably have the easiest time of all to adapt and profit from the new system, that is they are hardly trying to do you over.


I certainly wasn't trying to suggest CCP were picking on CVA. I realise it will be equally bad for everyone. In fact I agree it may be less bad for us than some others. But it certainly isn't doing us any favours. This is all rather beside the point though. I don't suppose CCP would be listening to my whinging and I wouldn't waste my time. What I want is to understand what CCP want. That might give us a chance to adapt to it. I can't imagine it making space better lived in. That doesn't seem a likely consequence of this at all - quite the reverse! (And I think we'd be in a position to know what does make space well lived in.) Surely they must have some more realistic goal?

The GrimWristler
Posted - 2009.09.12 12:26:00 - [505]
 

people seem to think this will free up an extreme amount of pos hassle. Pos life will still continue within dominion even if Pos bashing isnt the way to claim sov anymore. People will still manufacture and moon harvest for example. It will only be the moons that have bugger all on them, ehich wont get used, even then thats debatable due to region space that an alliance may hold.

reading the comments throughout this thread, i still do not understand why stargates are given the sov role. is there something im missing where by planets are the next major things to develop within eve and dust 514? should there not be an infrastructure put in place ready for the deployment of dust 514 in a couple of years time? i dont see dust 514 fighting on stargates to claim sov with! Due to this, would the sov system get changed again in the near future to accomadate dust514?

alot of individuals have been ranting about this "player investment and development in improving their land" so to speak. what does this entale exactly? would this improve ratting or/and mining? No. ofc not. When you mine. the ore runs out. you rat in the lowest sec status system you find. Would the sec status drop maybe? how do go about improving this space? is it through just staying here over time, or do we have to work our butt off in ways which compensates for our time fuelling slightly less amount of pos's.

The GrimWristler
Posted - 2009.09.12 12:40:00 - [506]
 

Smaller alliances dont get a sniff in 0.0 space, and its agreed that bigger alliances have claim therefore you obey by their rules, or get out. democracy plays quite apart. Npc regions have also played a large role for smaller scale alliances to up their numbers before venturing into true 0.0.

Making 0.0 space large than it already is make alliances more over stretched and allow smaller alliances to creep in? maybe npc regions which wont allow any alliances in with Sov under their ticker? maybe a scheme of missions where a small alliance can run prestige missions or points which can be gained to gain themselves a plot of space for so long within 0.0? all gates are locked except for that particular alliance of so many day or weeks?

either way, smaller alliances will struggle within 0.0 whether we like it or not. bigger alliances with larger numbers can overwhelm them even with this new system in place. you dont have to claim sov, but you can suck them dry from pos bashing and general influence within the area.

The GrimWristler
Posted - 2009.09.12 12:50:00 - [507]
 

Although i dislike the idea of stargates being under rule of sov, and planets should play a bigger role. i cannot stop thinking about all the things that previous game developers had done to several games which killed them off. I do think that Sov plays a HUGE role within eve, and that over 70% of players who play eve, have some connection within 0.0. it would be a real shame if it became a huge flop and killed it. I know that ccp wouldnt allow it to happen, well atleast while ambulation and dust is in development. I do fear that alot of players could dislike sov enough to end their careers within eve if ccp isnt careful.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.09.12 13:38:00 - [508]
 

Originally by: Aralis
Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see.

However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we?

What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve?


What is exactly the problem with this? Less hassle with POS's, giving us the ability to make provi actually decent space, hurting alliances who got only alot of space for the R64 moons, etc. This looks like the best thing to happen to providence since we started importing sliced bread.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.09.12 14:15:00 - [509]
 

Originally by: Aralis
Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see.

However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we?

What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve?

I'd guess the aim is to make it so holding space is about playing the game and shooting the people who try to take it off you, rather than having a POS fuelling team treating EVE as a full time unpaid job as they jump from system to system pouring isotopes into towers. A simple sovereignty tax makes 0.0 far more accessable to the small-medium alliances than them having to drag millions of m3 in fuel halfway across the galaxy every month.

I obviously don't know who is in charge of tower logistics for CVA's various corps, but ask them what they think of no longer having to spend untold soul-destroying hours running round Providence with fuel for literally hundreds of towers.

XXXAKTIVE
Posted - 2009.09.12 14:24:00 - [510]
 

Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 12/09/2009 14:26:57
It is much easier to claim systems with outposts. For example the outpost built in the system will give SOV to the systems nearby, for example 4 AU or something. And make outposts destructable (a hell of a lot of HP, but destructable). The problem of claims will be solved easily


Pages: first : previous : ... 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 ... : last (23)

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