EVE-Search ForumWatch

EVE-Search ForumWatch http://eve-search.com/ The alternative EVE-Online Forum browser. en-us Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000 EVE-Search RSS Module v1.1 chribba@evemail <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Rakshasa Taisab]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#23 Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 05/11/2009 02:54:21
If even 5 active players can't pull 280m of pocket change to pay for one system, they need to switch to a corp that can teach them the basics of isk making in 0.0.

/me checks his alliance tag... oh *******s.

Anyway...

Getting a hub into 0.0 would be possible for some enterprising small alliances. Make friends (not necessarily with your neighbors), or pay that newly set-up titan bridge service or what ever.

And the idea that someone would send a spy to plant flags... Do we know the price of those? If they cost like 200M or something, you're not going to meet many spies willing to pay for them.
]]> Thu, 5 Nov 2009 02:53:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11507207 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Sciencegeek deathdealer]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#22

Originally by: Ttochpej

I haven't done much on the test server lately apart from jettisoning hub at gates and a sun and trying to get them back. But won't these upgrades work against having industrial corps in 0.0, if you have a corp set up in a system and rat in that system then rats will spawn more, stronger, and faster. Good for ratters but bad for miners so even if there are better rocks it will be harder to get at them if you are constantly swapping back to a ratting ship to clear a belt. But then if you can fly a ratting ship and have good rats it will be more profitable, and a lot less hassle hauling refining, for you to rat anyway. So I am predicting a rise in rare mineral prices with the current way this seems it will work.

a good miner in a decent hulk should be able to tank it or atleast kill off the big stuff but leave the little stuff.
]]> Thu, 5 Nov 2009 02:41:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11507170 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Ttochpej]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#21 ]]> Thu, 5 Nov 2009 02:06:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11507106 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by ElvenLord]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#20
Also online timer for STOPs is 6h which I find a bit too short. 12h is imho the least it should be for those and 24h for Flags. Some effort is needed after all if you want to do something.
]]> Thu, 5 Nov 2009 01:42:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11506995 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Rudolf Miller]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#19

Originally by: Jomanda

When logging in onto SISI this evening, I noticed that the HUB I anchored in not where I thought it would be, anymore. I read something about changed warpin points to planets, so I did not think too much about it.

So I hop in my probing ship, and start probing for the thing, and what do I see to my surprise, the sovereignty structures are not on the filter list to probe them down.

Now I know that FLAGs show up on the overview, and Hubs can be anchored only near planets, and the STOPs only should go near the gates, but these structures should be probable, nonetheless, shouldn't they?

Already ranted about that Jommy. Hubs should be probable.
]]> Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:15:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11506747 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Jomanda]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#18
So I hop in my probing ship, and start probing for the thing, and what do I see to my surprise, the sovereignty structures are not on the filter list to probe them down.

Now I know that FLAGs show up on the overview, and Hubs can be anchored only near planets, and the STOPs only should go near the gates, but these structures should be probable, nonetheless, shouldn't they?
]]> Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:38:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11505375 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Kanatta Jing]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#17

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

Something that puzzles me is why anyone would want to wage the aggressive warfare we have all been blessed with the past 3 years.

All space is equal to some extent and "upgraded" by holders, but if the upgrades are lost/destroyed when space is conquered (hub needs to be destroyed I believe), then what is the point?

Because space will be as equal as it is now, only choke points and true sec will be worth more then moons.

-1.00 true sec that with full months of upgrades from insane grinding equals -2.00 effective sec or a -0.02 true sec that could never attract enough attention to become a -1.02 effective sec system?

I'd gank the -1.00 and save myself the effort...

Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Draco Argen
Also note the upgrades don't cost isk to run, they cost player time in the belts/complexes. Ratting or mining to build/keep the stats up.

So in order to upgrade your system you have to actually rat, mine, plex, ect..??

Can't wait for the complaints about having daily mining ops to support the alliance.

The idea is that you can recruit miners to mine. Or recruit a mining Alliance and set them blue, so you can keep them off your kill board.
]]> Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:22:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11495411 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Jomanda]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#16

Originally by: Draco Argen

FYI latest Sisi patch has a seperate "Notifications" tab in the new Evemail system.
This will likely be where you get prods about sov etc.

Something some else mentioned that hadnt occurred to me. If we are increasing the population of any given system by allowing them to increase, for example, the value of rat in the belts then the amount of high level loot being shipped and sold into empire will increase. ie increasing supply without increasing demand. Prices may drop and the value of the loot will as well.

Its a complex problem, and may not occur as simply as this at all. However, personally Rat loot and salvage are more valuable than bounties atm, if this changes so will my profit/interest in ratting.

You are right I did miss that particular tab in the new mail interface, but after re-checking the messages for a notification that a system had become "contested", or "vulnerable", I could not find any. I am sure that CCP will make such messages appear, however, I am more concerned about who will be receiving them.

As mentioned earlier, I fear that the notifications will be sent to the sov-holding corporations, rather than the alliance. If so, then this may not be ideal, when the strategically important systems to an alliance are held by their holding corps, and none of the holding corp alts are online to read the notification, sovereignty in a system may be lost without the sov-holding alliance noticing. Similar issues already exist when it comes to station services being incapacitated and the holding corp being notified, without any of the characters in that corp being online to read the messages.

On the other hand, everybody in an alliance currently receives a message when a control tower is being anchored in sovereign space. This information has been abused by spies that infiltrated the alliance and have the tower killed before it onlined.

It would be preferable, as a corp Director or CEO,to configure the recipients of such strategically important and sensitive information in a mailing list of some sort. But then again, the corporation, station and alliance interfaces are all well overdue for improvements (I hope they will be improved when treaties come). But that should be discussed in another thread.
]]> Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:55:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11494068 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Draco Argen]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#15 This will likely be where you get prods about sov etc.

Something some else mentioned that hadnt occurred to me. If we are increasing the population of any given system by allowing them to increase, for example, the value of rat in the belts then the amount of high level loot being shipped and sold into empire will increase. ie increasing supply without increasing demand. Prices may drop and the value of the loot will as well.

Its a complex problem, and may not occur as simply as this at all. However, personally Rat loot and salvage are more valuable than bounties atm, if this changes so will my profit/interest in ratting.
]]> Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:10:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11493310 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Breaker77]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#14

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

Something that puzzles me is why anyone would want to wage the aggressive warfare we have all been blessed with the past 3 years.

1. Something to do
2. Bragging rights
3. Have the most space/stuff

and on and on...
]]> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:22:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11489761 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Hirana Yoshida]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#13
All space is equal to some extent and "upgraded" by holders, but if the upgrades are lost/destroyed when space is conquered (hub needs to be destroyed I believe), then what is the point?
]]> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 19:55:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11489690 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by An Anarchyyt]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#12 Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 01/11/2009 17:52:39

Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin
You don't get it, do you? The whole point being made is that the current iteration of the new sov system actively discourages the smaller alliances from coming out at all. Remember, true-sec is unchanged - your little cluster of -0.crap space isn't going to be able to support your alliance AT ALL until you've dumped billions of isk into upgrades that may or may not even work as intended! Also remember that people claimed space when the concept of sov didn't exist at all - what's the disincentive to prevent that, and what's the incentive to let a small neutral entity thrive on your doorstep?

I'm not even sure you've been paying attention to the actual mechanisms of change, from your wonderful and insightful posts on the matter.

The problem seems much more like small alliances want **** handed to them. These are not big hurdeles to overcome with some amount of dedication and leadersihp. So the problem isn't cost, it's :effort: 280mil per month is not hard at all, and yet you have someone here whining about that number.

You seem to also not be understanding the changes though, or the incentives, so I can ask you if you've even been on singularity as well?

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person

]]> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:52:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11489160 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Breaker77]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#11

Originally by: Draco Argen

Also note the upgrades don't cost isk to run, they cost player time in the belts/complexes. Ratting or mining to build/keep the stats up.

So in order to upgrade your system you have to actually rat, mine, plex, ect..??

Can't wait for the complaints about having daily mining ops to support the alliance.
]]> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:45:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11489159 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Wulfnor]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#10 ]]> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:23:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11488815 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Jomanda]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#9
This may be something that is just not released yet in the current build, but I wanted to mention it, because with the current alliance organisation, holding corps are the most likely to be claiming sovereignty, especially now that you can transfer FLAG ownership. Since holding corps are generally filled with alts, that may not be online for some time, sending corp mails, may not be sufficient. The same problem exists today with station services being attacked, without the relevant people noticing because nobody has an online holding corp alt.

]]> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:02:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11487695 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by HeliosGal]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#8
There needs to be some boost to lower end 00 systems.
Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00]]> Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:01:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11481630 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Ezekiel Sulastin]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#7

Originally by: HeliosGal

devblog states that ccp want to level things out. 5-10 times as many players in low sec and 00 space ( yes if ccp are right then it will become a lot more crowded out there in 00) but what youre missing is more players = more kill more pew pew u need ratters and industralists to boost pvp levels less cap blobs probably more 50-100 man roaming gangs. choas yes fun yes busy 00 yes

You don't get it, do you? The whole point being made is that the current iteration of the new sov system actively discourages the smaller alliances from coming out at all. Remember, true-sec is unchanged - your little cluster of -0.crap space isn't going to be able to support your alliance AT ALL until you've dumped billions of isk into upgrades that may or may not even work as intended! Also remember that people claimed space when the concept of sov didn't exist at all - what's the disincentive to prevent that, and what's the incentive to let a small neutral entity thrive on your doorstep?

I'm not even sure you've been paying attention to the actual mechanisms of change, from your wonderful and insightful posts on the matter.
]]> Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:27:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11481210 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Somsumi]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#6 ]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:51:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11480605 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by HeliosGal]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#5 Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:51:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11480082 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Ex Mudder]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#4
Sov costs at present seem to be linear. Unknown if this will change. They are also corp based, not alliance based, so all you really need is a rich corp to support an initial expansion into nullsec. But I share your worries about online / offline games with flags and the associated costs. Not to mention the drama of kicking or losing a corp from the alliance and losing Sov in 1/xth of your space as a result.

I do not know if prices are too high or too low, or if they will be easy for the corporations to recover. Ark and Bistot will become common, appearing after a few days of mining if the test server is any indication, and mining them almost mandatory to keep them in system, so I expect high end minerals to plummet in price. High end moon minerals will drop as well, and I have no idea if low ends will rise enough to become profitable. Rat loot will also become less valuable, as constant ratting will be needed to keep good rats and regular plexing to spawn good plexes. Salvage prices have already dropped since the new rigs were introduced. Main source of income in null sec will therefore be PvE bounties on Rats. Which at least the Corps can tax, probably heavily.

We will have to see if Flags cost as much as a POS and Hubs cost as much as an Outpost before we have some idea of nullsec startup costs, dreads not included.

Sov Infrastructure upgrades are 200k m3, on top of the 750k m3 for the hub itself. I would not be surprised if the price was on par with an outpost upgrade.

As for point 5, I call it Swiss Cheese Sov.

But your final conclusion is the most worrying - NPC alliances, for example, will have a substantial financial advantage at hitting Sov holding alliances, as it will cost the equivalent of a fitted dread a month to claim a constellation, and to pay for it all the Sov holders will have to carebear 23/7, making them easy prey when it comes time to fleet up.

The only good news is that POS bashing seems to be a matter of clean up, rather than necessity. Not having to shoot 6+ POSs per system twice, and them emplace 6+ POSs of your own, will be a nice change. You will still need to kill POSs, but it will be more of hitting the cyno jammmer / generator / JB / FLAG and leaving them to die on the vine when they run out of fuel, or taking a nice moon for yourself, or economic warfare to deny the fruits of a reactor POS to your enemy.

]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:47:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11479520 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Draco Argen]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#3 As A ratter with medium effort, both ratting and selling loot/salvage i could get up to 100mil in a week/weekend. in a single -0.4 system. Admittedly I stop pvping for that time.

But I am one players. And this is with current system values (ie no improvements)

A corp could easily manage these costs per month. So an alliance of 25 players (ie a VERY small alliance) should be very fine.

Also note the upgrades don't cost isk to run, they cost player time in the belts/complexes. Ratting or mining to build/keep the stats up. So the 280 is all of your residential isk costs for one system, bar infrastructure.

It cant be too cheap, or the mega aliances will just sit pretty with their current isk banks :P I think this balance is close to right.

Besides, I forget what the Cost of running a single large POS in fuel is. But its not cheap, the new system should reduce the number of POSes required dramatically.
]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:07:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11479012 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Jomanda]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240&page=1#2
Both onlining and offlining FLAGS generate a pop-up message (which will be clicked away as there are too many of those already). So accidentally offlining a FLAG will nullify the previous payment(s) for sovereignty and require new payments to be made before sovereignty can be re-gained.
Is this intentional?

]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:04:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11478635 <![CDATA[Sov concerns / questions - by Jomanda]]> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1206240
1. I have anchored many FLAGS in several systems/constellations and even regions for my corp, and every FLAG appears to cost 280 mil in sovereignty. This does not appear to be in line with earlier reports that sovereignty costs would be non-linear. I may not have anchored sufficient FLAGS to reach the next level of sov costs, so I would like to know if sovereignty costs are 280 mil for each system, or increase non-linear witht he number of online FLAGS?

2. The costs for sovereignty are very steep. I was under the impression that the sovereignty changes were (partly) to encourage other (smaller) alliances to make a move into nullsec. However at a cost of 280 mil per system per month, I fear that the costs may be too high for smaller alliances to claim a few neighboring systems or even a constellation.

Moreover, I expect the upgrades may follow the same expensive trend and cost billions per level, with the (possible) supercarrier docking facility upgrade costing many tens of billions of isk. I predict the established, rich alliances will be able to afford these costs and smaller alliances (pets) will not.

I think that the cost for smaller alliances to move into nullsec are too high. Remember that the 280 mil needs to be paid when the FLAG goes online, so regardless of the outcome of the move into nullsec large investments need to be made. Unlike presently, where a towers is more expensive, it is still a tangible asset.

3. The size of the Infrastructure hub is 750.000 m3. This should not be a problem for any of the established, larger alliances which have access to a number of titans, and will not have any problem portalling these, but again the smaller alliances, are at a disadvantage. They have to move freigthers, the old fashioned way, up to their space, at greatly increased risks when compared to the established alliances. And the use of jumpbridges will very likely be too expensive for these alliances, they require to have 35 days of sovereignty, and the purchase of an upgrade (from what I can tell so far).

4. [/tinfoil hat:on] Anybody that can fly a hauler, can afford several FLAGs and has the Starbase Configuration role can anchor and online one. It does not require any anchoring skills at this moment. With the new automatic bill payment (great improvement btw), when the sov payments are set to be paid automatically, the corp will be charged 280 mil for each onlined FLAG.

With the current roles system and horrific security / access restrictions and permissions, when it comes to posses, every spy which has the Startbase Configuration role will be able to bankrupt the corp in just a few hours work.

Again, the smaller alliances (with less isk than established alliances) are more vulnerable, because every un-authorized FLAG that is onlined is relatively more damaging than they would be for larger alliances.[/tinfoil hat]

5. With the announced treaties, and sovereignty being so expensive, I would not be surprised if the only difference, post-dominion, will be, that the "owner" alliance of a region will reduce the number of sov-systems to only their stations and JB systems and will charge their renters per month.

There is no incentive, as far as I can tell, for larger alliances to claim sov in systems they rent out. Even if a certain percentage of the renters' income goes to the "owner" it still requires a monthly investment which may or may not be covered by that income.
The larger alliances are in a position where they can simply tell any newcomers to pay tribute/rent to them regardless of the large alliances actually having sov in the system where the "pet" resides.

In fact, the less sovereignty a large powerful alliance has (and needs post-dominion), the more it can bully smaller alliances which are in jumprange of its capital fleet.

]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:05:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/11478469