EVE Search - New Blog: Upgrading and Upkeep of Sovereign Solar Systems in Dominion

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Blog: Upgrading and Upkeep of Sovereign Solar Systems in Dominion

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 36 post(s)
oniplE Aliastra	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:38:00 - [1321] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Originally by: oniplE I can see how this would force alliances to make better use of the systems they have instead of just having a lot of systems. It's not this we're "whining" about. We've been preparing to "scale back" for months since CCP hinted that vast blobs of color on the map were likely to become a thing of the past. These changes make it so the only reason there would be colored dots or blobs on the sov map at all would be to build supercapitals or for e-peen (hello Molle). Exactly. Scaling things down is OK, it would make more room for smaller alliances. But, like you said, there's no real point for people to claim the space if they can make just as much money in high sec. Which means less people will stay in nullsec, which means less targets, which means less pvp. I guess empire war decs will become very popular :) x
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:38:00 - [1322] Just some stuff that CCP DevFs have posted that everyone should read that was in the last 20 pages. Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. Originally by: CCP Chronotis So will we look at making upkeep costs less than stated in the blog due to reasonable feedback? Yes! - Sovereignty Structures The role of the Territorial Claim Unit (TCU) changed since the original figures were generated to be only a marker for sovereignty and the last thing to be removed after a system has been taken (details on this are coming soon in Abathur's next blog). This means the cost for the TCU should be reasonable in terms of upkeep and we are looking at 1 mill per day currently for that dot on the map. The infrastructure hub is both key to strategic defence and as the base of the solar system upgrades. Here we are looking at mirroring a large starbase in equivalent operational cost so 5 million upkeep per day is more reasonable. - Strategic Upgrades The key upgrades here we want to force you to make economic decisions over are naturally the jump bridges and cynosural jammer use. The presence of these two has radical effects on the 'landscape' generally. We are looking at no upkeep cost on either of the construction arrays and cynosural field generators and then maintain significant costs the cynosural jammer and jump bridges. Originally by: CCP Chronotis - The jump between no risk and any risk is the most significant step, the same as no cost and some cost. The difference in mathematical terms is small but economically large. In short, it takes a disproportionate amount of reward to offset a smaller amount of risk or additional effort. - We are looking at introducing social group content as Soundwave mentions of sufficient reward to compel you either as someone who runs missions in empire to fund their pvp in null sec or as an empire dweller looking to make the leap to join up with others and seek to upgrade your solar systems to unlock these sites. These will act to both minimise the number of signatures as a whole within the solar system and to let you play together than alone. - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:39:00 - [1323] Originally by: Dualshock YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:39:00 - [1324] YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:39:00 - [1325] Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 07/11/2009 23:39:37 Originally by: Static Kinetics YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. Oh, hey, there it is. The heart of the issue.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:39:00 - [1326] Originally by: Vivian Azure It's funny to see the babble about 0.0 should be more rewarding then empire... I got a fix for your problems: fly LvL 4 missions with an alt. Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. This has been covered over and over again. It doesn't change the fact that *you shouldn't need* to have multiple accounts to enjoy EVE if you live in 0.0.** And before you say "cry more" since you're probably trolling anyway - I have three accounts, one of which was a recent Power of Two purchase I'm regretting making now.
Wirbin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:40:00 - [1327] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. excellent clarity of vision I must say! It is true and something we said from outset that unbalanced alliances who are 95% PvP/Fleet and 5% industry will be most affected by this as we are reducing their dependency on passive point sources and introducing greater active resource density to allow for passive income to take over. The alliances who will benefit most are those who have or aim to have balanced compositions of people with different playstyles or even act as enforcers or protectors of the space with multiple rental agreements if they wish and we will add tools as we call the treaty system to help facilitate that. what a terrible post, do you even play your own game? pvp is all this ****pile has over world of warcraft please go make 0.0 worth living in over grinding l4s in motsu or i'm taking my business elsewhere thank you
Kal Koitar GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:40:00 - [1328] Quote: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:41:00 - [1329] Originally by: Qlanth YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:41:00 - [1330] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 23:43:19 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. So why are you supporting changes that force us to do more of it? Are you just that dumb? EvE was once a game, where you had to invest lot's of time and efforts into the game. Today it's just a shadow of itself, getting dumbed down into the direction of ADHD-kiddies that can't be bothered to do something for longer then 2 minutes. So yes. If it was up to me, I'd make this game hardcore again, where you need to spend 1/3 of your time playing to have enough money for the ships to fly around in the other 2/3 of your time. Making ISK is way too easy these days, as is holding space.

Dualshock GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:42:00 - [1331] Edited by: Dualshock on 07/11/2009 23:45:07 any brits around here might find the situation reminiscent of this old classic interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk
Stevens Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:43:00 - [1332] Originally by: Qlanth YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
Emily Elderburry	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:44:00 - [1333] CCP; do yourself a favor and augment the isk/hr of ratting in 0.0 to be greater that what a LVL4 mission runner yeilds in empire.
Hendrik Stahl	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:44:00 - [1334] Originally by: Korodan YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. Lot of dancing around this question.
Kernok	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:44:00 - [1335] ccp for a carebear that is grinding lvl 4 missions now and has never gone to 0.0, do you really think this horrible set of upgrades is going to encourage them to go? YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
Innominate GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:44:00 - [1336] Originally by: Zahorite Just some stuff that CCP DevFs have posted that everyone should read that was in the last 20 pages. the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. It's amazing how much text can say absolutely nothing.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:45:00 - [1337] You guys should check out Perpetuum, being developed by an ex-BoB guy looks pretty sweet. http://www.perpetuum-online.com/
Alski Ministers Of Destruction.	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:45:00 - [1338] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury ..."mining is a **** profession"... ...You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts... ...harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell... excellent clarity of vision I must say! It is true and something we said from outset that unbalanced alliances who are 95% PvP/Fleet and 5% industry will be most affected by this as we are reducing their dependency on passive point sources and introducing greater active resource density to allow for passive income to take over. The alliances who will benefit most are those who have or aim to have balanced compositions of people with different playstyles or even act as enforcers or protectors of the space with multiple rental agreements if they wish and we will add tools as we call the treaty system to help facilitate that. To the OP: Isk Per Hour. Ratting isk > Mining isk, cooperation doesn't bridge this gap unless the rats in your space are really horrible (which probably means the ore is too) Chronotis: True independent industry in 0.0 has been dead for nearly 3 years if not longer, if it ever really existed at all outside of the old Delve and maybe a few little corners like ISS and such. If you have one outpost of each type, you have: 28 production slots 13 ME slots 13 PE slots 12 copy slots 11 invention slots Zero reaction slots And a 35% base ore refinery If you've ever taken even the briefest look at how many POS's you need for all the reactions and moon mining and build slots, never mind moving minerals around, and operating and fuelling the POS's that are required for an alliance to build one quarter of enough T2 ships and modules of all racial flavours to self-sustainably supply themselves with such.... You'd realise that 0.0 industry is utterly and horrifically broken, there are barely enough slots in an Amarr outpost to supply the average sized alliance with just battleships let alone anything else, and with the ridiculous amounts of added complexity of trying to build T2 from moon minerals in 0.0 it will obviously never happen with the current state of industrial infrastructure available, hauling stuff in from outside or leaving everyone to fend for themselves will always be an order of magnitude easier. As I said in my last post, if youFd like to fix this, there are some quick and simple fixs: Caldari outpost +20 of each Lab type, +25-50 moon mineral reaction slots. Minmatar outpost from 35% to 50% base refine. Amarr outpost from 20 production slots to 100-150 slots* All outposts from 2-4 base production slots to ~25 or so. That would go about 50% of the way towards fixing 0.0 industry, next fix POS industry to make it specialised and actually have advantages where it currently has penalties, IFm sure someone else has a walloftext somewhere about whats wrong with this stuff though and this is not the thread. Also: stuck record: +15%, +20%, +25% 0.0 Ore types, +100% yield Veld. People will Mine again. *(yes, really. Think of the number of T2 components and then assume that more than one corp per alliance might want to build them all at the same time!) - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:45:00 - [1339] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 23:43:19 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. So why are you supporting changes that force us to do more of it? Are you just that dumb? EvE was once a game, where you had to invest lot's of time and efforts into the game. Today it's just a shadow of itself, getting dumbed down into the direction of ADHD-kiddies that can't be bothered to do something for longer then 2 minutes. So yes. If it was up to me, I'd make this game hardcore again, where you need to spend 1/3 of your time playing to have enough money for the ships to fly around in the other 2/3 of your time. Making ISK is way too easy these days, as is holding space. If that was the case we would all be happy. That isn't how things work now, and this update is going to make it even worse. Right now it's about 2/3 making money for 1/3 doing pvp, after this update it will be worse.
Yafn Robbing You of Your Space Pixels	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:46:00 - [1340] Originally by: cok cola YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.

Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:47:00 - [1341] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 23:43:19 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. So why are you supporting changes that force us to do more of it? Are you just that dumb? EvE was once a game, where you had to invest lot's of time and efforts into the game. Today it's just a shadow of itself, getting dumbed down into the direction of ADHD-kiddies that can't be bothered to do something for longer then 2 minutes. So yes. If it was up to me, I'd make this game hardcore again, where you need to spend 1/3 of your time playing to have enough money for the ships to fly around in the other 2/3 of your time. Making ISK is way too easy these days, as is holding space. I already have a job. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:47:00 - [1342] Originally by: Yafn Originally by: cok cola YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
Mistres Tor	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:47:00 - [1343] Mcon99 for simple: If i have to fly in 0.0 scaning+hinding for reds+doing anomalis for 12 hours evry day to have enoug isk for a zelot for pvp and i can do in less then 4 hours on lv 4 misoins in empires then yes it is play for isk/h, becouse i can play next 8 hours pvp. Do you like PVP or PVE ? Second EXODUS incoming lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming
Alexis Avalon Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:47:00 - [1344] Quote: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
Wirbin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:48:00 - [1345] Edited by: Wirbin on 07/11/2009 23:48:24 Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Qlanth YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. well, which is it?
Kazuo Karasuma GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:48:00 - [1346] YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. This thread is a train wreck. The sheer amount of ignorance from CCP (and certain other posters) is just amazing. Why make a broken system to be revised later when you can actually make it right in the first place.
Aeryn Carter	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:48:00 - [1347] Originally by: Alexis Avalon Quote: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:50:00 - [1348] Originally by: Zahorite If that was the case we would all be happy. That isn't how things work now, and this update is going to make it even worse. Right now it's about 2/3 making money for 1/3 doing pvp, after this update it will be worse. This is not counterstrike online. Fly cheaper ships, if you can't afford it. Yes, PvP should MEAN something. Not just "lulz - dock - undock in new ship"
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:50:00 - [1349] Originally by: Zahorite Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 23:43:19 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. So why are you supporting changes that force us to do more of it? Are you just that dumb? EvE was once a game, where you had to invest lot's of time and efforts into the game. Today it's just a shadow of itself, getting dumbed down into the direction of ADHD-kiddies that can't be bothered to do something for longer then 2 minutes. So yes. If it was up to me, I'd make this game hardcore again, where you need to spend 1/3 of your time playing to have enough money for the ships to fly around in the other 2/3 of your time. Making ISK is way too easy these days, as is holding space. If that was the case we would all be happy. That isn't how things work now, and this update is going to make it even worse. Right now it's about 2/3 making money for 1/3 doing pvp, after this update it will be worse. Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK.
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:50:00 - [1350] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar And before you say "cry more" since you're probably trolling anyway - I have three accounts, one of which was a recent Power of Two purchase I'm regretting making now. No please, keep crying. Obviously the complainers in this thread are failed 0.0 pilots who are so bad they need mission alts. If everyone in this thread keeps believing that complaining about the Lvl 4 income vs 0.0 is going to change CCP minds, they are nuts. Lvl 4's ARE CRAP GAMEPLAY. ALWAYS. 0.0 is the BEST GAMEPLAY (including wormholes). Total freedom. Faction drops. Solo and group PVE. The best ores. And PVP can be right around the corner. First rule for real players - never have a mission alt. Never. Never mission. Ever. Plex, rat, wormhole, explore. Mission grinding in high sec is failure. Missions in 0.0, respectable, i must admit, because the risk factor. <-- Never missioned. Never made much isk on the market, only a little through manufacturing. Don't mine. Between wormholes, 0.0 rats and plexes, and pvp returns, I have billions.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.