Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 [70] 80 90 100 .. 119 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
KayTwoEx
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:33:00 -
[2071]
Edited by: KayTwoEx on 08/11/2009 22:34:29 Hm,
this HUGE costs per upgraded system makes EVERY souv-warfare so cost-intensive that nobody will do anything like that as long as they already got some space with upgraded systems. Per example big alliances such as GoonSwarm, Morsus Mihi, Atlas Alliance, Against ALL Authorities, Razor Alliance, Pandemic Legion, Mostly Harmless, Solar Fleet, Legion of xXDeathXx, Red.Overlord, Sons of Tangra, Cuatores Veritatis Alliance, Zenith Affinity, The Initiative., Wildly Inappropriate, Majesta Empire, Tau Ceti Federation, Stain Empire, Stainless, Systematic-Chaos, C0VEN and many more wont be able to pay for the space they are currently holding and therefore will diminish their space making it payable for themselves. These alliances wont be siegeing other systems, constellations, regions as they wont be able to actually tkae the souv. The whole 0.0 will get a huge rainbow-land with rats, wormholes, signatures and anomalies and there will just be some smallscale-pvp so the people actually do something and don't get bored with sitting in the belts. I am hereby forecasting that you will lose many paying customers in the free 0.0 space as the game gets dry and tedious.
I'm telling you the current souv-system is bad but your new plans on souv are even worse. Please think about what you are going to do. We as customers don't care if you need some more month to invent a new, better, souv-system as long as it is better than the current system and fair for everyone while making it worth going to 0.0 and fighting for the space. Make truesec dynamic as well as the asteroid-minerals but do not take millions and millions of isk per day just for holding souv in a system. Nerf the doomsday while making titans worth the price the people are paying for it. Think about what you are doing. There actually is a reason why you have a brain in your head and not a stone.
Regards
|
Dharh
Gallente Ace Adventure Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:34:00 -
[2072]
Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 08/11/2009 21:53:31
Originally by: Dharh YES. Provided you don't limit yourself to only ratting and farming moon goo.
Sorry but those are the two most profitable reliable ways of isk generation in 0.0. vOv
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.
Be that as it may. I think that could change, and should. Personally I wish all forms of gaining ISK had built in diminishing returns (like X number of bounties to collect per 24 hours, or X rats spawn per 24 hours). Then these diminishing returns would be upgraded through the sov system. If you do a bit of each thing you can sustain yourself, if you focus on only one thing it would be impossible.
|
Sethur Blackcoat
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:36:00 -
[2073]
Originally by: Dharh Be that as it may. I think that could change, and should. Personally I wish all forms of gaining ISK had built in diminishing returns (like X number of bounties to collect per 24 hours, or X rats spawn per 24 hours). Then these diminishing returns would be upgraded through the sov system. If you do a bit of each thing you can sustain yourself, if you focus on only one thing it would be impossible.
Yeah that'd be great, I'd love to have five or more different yet equal opportunities for revenue.
Sadly that's just not how it is and this patch won't make it so either vOv
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:39:00 -
[2074]
Originally by: Shawna Gray
Originally by: TZeer Example: Feythabolis consists of 89 systems, when I did a count now I found 92 people in thoose systems. Thats 1,03 people per system.
There is a reason why there are only 1 char in space in those systems you mentioned. Its all they can support.
ASCN circa early 2006 would like a word with you.
/Ben
|
SavageBastard
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:40:00 -
[2075]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it?
To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants.
You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can.
The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change.
Not sure how I can explain that any better for you.
You know a thread has reached its endgame when Jade has showed up to attention *****. Lock away.
|
Qlanth
Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:43:00 -
[2076]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Jade Constantine That might be worth a couple of dozen goon votes for you Herschel. But its a very long way from convincing me that you have a point.
Please, Goons will vote for Goons. I don't have a shot there. I'm going for the Atlas vote
Originally by: Jade Constantine 0.0 becomes more interesting when the existing power-blocs need to struggle for their existence and make significant strategic choices on spending their income.
Agreed. It should never be a walk in the park to live in 0.0 space.
Originally by: Jade Constantine If they fold and reduce rents to a nominal nonsense fee then nothing will change and 0.0 stays the same as it has for the last year.
The fees are not the problem. I liked the original fee structure - taking a system should be a serious hit to the wallet. The problem is that there's not much actual reason to take a system right now. I want upgrades that let a good system house 50 people making 40 mil/hour each, at a minimum. If you put that into place, nobody would give a solitary damn about the fees.
Originally by: Jade Constantine Coming out "against" the Dominion rent model is probably good for a few votes for you though Herschel so don't let me stop you
I'm for the rent model, though I'm not sure whether isk is the right commodity to be paying rent in(but that's a minor issue). I'm just saying, the proposed upgrades look like very good ones to add for the first tier. Where are the other four tiers?
And what about the problem with cosmic anomalies? They are completely inferior to belt ratting in every way regardless of how many guaranteed ones there are in a system at any time. I don't mean to try and quiz you in this thread but don't you agree that cosmic anomalies need to be fixed before CCP starts basing their entire "ratting" upgrade on them?
|
Kai Lae
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:43:00 -
[2077]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus The 0.0 alliances are all butthurt over this and it's pretty funny to me personally. The alliances are used to billions in passive income and now CCP is removing that across the board and everyone is being a girl about it. The easy money in 0.0 is going away and it's not coming back. Good. Now all we need is an adjustment to L4s in empire so that it's less profitable to run L4s than it is to live in 0.0 and we're set.
#1. It's not that people really object to R64 income being nerfed, it's that it seems there's nothing being added to replace it. Jade is a complete idiot but made a correct point that having a huge income source that is difficult to disrupt is a bad idea. However now we find out as things stand you have much greater expenses and nothing to even approach replacing the income, which is a huge letdown and a source of great anxiety.
#2. L4's in empire will never be nerfed. You know this, I know this. There are too many subscribers in empire doing them - the majority of the eve playerbase - and enough would likely ragequit if any such change was made that financially it would make no sense to CCP.
Right and wrong in this area have nothing to do with reality.
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:46:00 -
[2078]
Originally by: Kai Lae
Originally by: Bellum Eternus The 0.0 alliances are all butthurt over this and it's pretty funny to me personally. The alliances are used to billions in passive income and now CCP is removing that across the board and everyone is being a girl about it. The easy money in 0.0 is going away and it's not coming back. Good. Now all we need is an adjustment to L4s in empire so that it's less profitable to run L4s than it is to live in 0.0 and we're set.
#1. It's not that people really object to R64 income being nerfed, it's that it seems there's nothing being added to replace it. Jade is a complete idiot but made a correct point that having a huge income source that is difficult to disrupt is a bad idea. However now we find out as things stand you have much greater expenses and nothing to even approach replacing the income, which is a huge letdown and a source of great anxiety.
#2. L4's in empire will never be nerfed. You know this, I know this. There are too many subscribers in empire doing them - the majority of the eve playerbase - and enough would likely ragequit if any such change was made that financially it would make no sense to CCP.
Right and wrong in this area have nothing to do with reality.
Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed.
The technetium bottleneck will be worse than the dysprosium/promethium one was. That means that prices will go up, not down, in the medium and long term for moon minerals as a basket and for t2 unless CCP fixes the problem (which they probably will, eventually).
Although technetium is even more regionally concentrated than the old good r64s, which will be......interesting....to watch the results of.
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:48:00 -
[2079]
If I understand new mechanics correctly, is this is how things should work?
Space ownership: Alliance will drop sovereignty over most of their systems and keep only those with jump bridges or other strategical value. The space that alliance currently control gets utilized and instead of highly valuable R64 moon income, they will make the same or more ISK by actualy mining moons of lower rarity, which will be easy to do because of available moons after starbases being removed from sovereignty mechanics. Optionaly, alliance members will claim sovereignty over another system(s) to provide better ratting/mining/exploration opportunities for their members.
I am kind of missing the point here. You will hold sovereignty over few systems only but you will control much more. I thought sovereignty is a flag you rise so others can see you control this particular system. I guess not...
I also thought that changes are supposed to make 0.0 more alive and fail to see how goals like:
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
# A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system # A better conquest experience # More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat # Less territorial sprawl by major alliances # A more diverse and interesting political landscape # More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec
will be accomplished by upcoming changes.
1) Dominion 0.0 is many but transparent. 2) Starbase bashing was replaced by bashing some other POS, same blobs. You will still need to take numerous starbases down. 3) Small-fleet combat - huh? 4) Controlled space remains unchanged because it was never a subject of sovereignty but military power only. 5) Considering those changes are going to kill CVA and their multicultural unique space, I don't know what you had on mind... 6) Renting a space? Maybe.
Apart from supported grinding and new bugs, what are we getting with Dominion? |
Breaker77
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:48:00 -
[2080]
Originally by: Mahke Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed.
So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes.
Yeah moon mining nerf.
|
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:49:00 -
[2081]
Originally by: Qlanth And what about the problem with cosmic anomalies? They are completely inferior to belt ratting in every way regardless of how many guaranteed ones there are in a system at any time. I don't mean to try and quiz you in this thread but don't you agree that cosmic anomalies need to be fixed before CCP starts basing their entire "ratting" upgrade on them?
That's exactly my point, yes. I don't care whether the income source is cosmic anomalies, L4 missions, belt ratting, mini-profession sites, mining, or anything else our twisted minds can come up with. I just want it to be fun, available in good quantity, and significantly(50-100%) better than L4 highsec missions. If anomalies do that, great - I loved Hertford's post on that 50 or so pages back. If not, CCP needs to find something that does.
|
Qlanth
Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:50:00 -
[2082]
I'll say again that all 0.0 alliances have known about the nerf to R64 for months and probably heard it coming long before it was announced.
And we have known that we would be spending far more money to be able to lock down our systems with cyno-jammers and jumpbridges as well. Most 0.0 entities, including GoonSwarm, were the ones calling for these changes from the beginning. Our CSM representatives along with others were the ones pushing for them.
The problem arises from the promise of upgrades that were lauded as fantastic changes that would increase the profitability of 0.0 space for the average player and allow 50-100 people to be making those profits at the same time, per system.
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:52:00 -
[2083]
Edited by: Mahke on 08/11/2009 22:52:46
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Mahke Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed.
So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes.
Yeah moon mining nerf.
Cost of cyno jammer is 30 days/month * 25 mil/day = 750/month.
The hysteria in this thread based on incorrect or dishonest (who knows) math is terrible.
And yes, if current t2 production levels after the patch takes approx 120% of current technetium production, that is a buff on moon mining when technetium value spikes higher than dysprosium ever was (assuming CCP doesn't fix that coming disaster).
|
Qlanth
Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:54:00 -
[2084]
The changes to 0.0 I am looking for should be totally unaffected by Sov. All Cosmic Anomalies would be fixed by giving them belt level rats.
All rocks in 0.0 should have 5x as many minerals in them as they do now.
etc. I have laid out exactly my suggestions several times.
You can keep your upgrades exactly as they are now because the problems with 0.0 require more than sovereignty upgrades to fix.
|
Destrim
Koshaku
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:58:00 -
[2085]
Originally by: Qlanth I'll say again that all 0.0 alliances have known about the nerf to R64 for months and probably heard it coming long before it was announced.
And we have known that we would be spending far more money to be able to lock down our systems with cyno-jammers and jumpbridges as well. Most 0.0 entities, including GoonSwarm, were the ones calling for these changes from the beginning. Our CSM representatives along with others were the ones pushing for them.
The problem arises from the promise of upgrades that were lauded as fantastic changes that would increase the profitability of 0.0 space for the average player and allow 50-100 people to be making those profits at the same time, per system.
Yup. My point as well. Neither myself, my corp, nor anyone I know personally, has a problem with the steep prices. And we're happy about the changes forcing a condensation of powers: it opens up a lot of space!
What I and most others are dissatisfied with is just how disappointing the inf.-hub upgrades are. They are arbitrarily useless and boring... except maybe for the WH and hidden belt ones; the latter would help people holding low-quality 0.0 space with crap roids.
The military infrastructure ones in particular need to be re-hashed entirely. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Good judgment usually comes from experience.
Experience usually comes from poor judgment. |
Exordium8
Minmatar Royal Hiigaran Navy Maru Ka'ge
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:58:00 -
[2086]
Massive threadnaught is massive --------------------------------- Pillage, then burn. Everything is air-droppable at least once. There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'time to reload. When the going gets tou |
De'Vadder
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 22:59:00 -
[2087]
Edited by: De''Vadder on 08/11/2009 23:02:05
Originally by: Kepakh If I understand new mechanics correctly, is this is how things should work?
Space ownership: Alliance will drop sovereignty over most of their systems and keep only those with jump bridges or other strategical value. The space that alliance currently control gets utilized and instead of highly valuable R64 moon income, they will make the same or more ISK by actualy mining moons of lower rarity, which will be easy to do because of available moons after starbases being removed from sovereignty mechanics. Optionaly, alliance members will claim sovereignty over another system(s) to provide better ratting/mining/exploration opportunities for their members.
I am kind of missing the point here. You will hold sovereignty over few systems only but you will control much more. I thought sovereignty is a flag you rise so others can see you control this particular system. I guess not...
I also thought that changes are supposed to make 0.0 more alive and fail to see how goals like:
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
# A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system # A better conquest experience # More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat # Less territorial sprawl by major alliances # A more diverse and interesting political landscape # More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec
will be accomplished by upcoming changes.
1) Dominion 0.0 is many but transparent. 2) Starbase bashing was replaced by bashing some other POS, same blobs. You will still need to take numerous starbases down. 3) Small-fleet combat - huh? 4) Controlled space remains unchanged because it was never a subject of sovereignty but military power only. 5) Considering those changes are going to kill CVA and their multicultural unique space, I don't know what you had on mind... 6) Renting a space? Maybe.
Apart from supported grinding and new bugs, what are we getting with Dominion?
Wow, your very right, I for my part completely forgot they said the new sov was ment to be descriptive. I guess that wont be the case when Alliances just drop sov because of the price but keep the space as theirs. And why is there still nothing that sets content apart from signature? Is that intentional or technically imposible? |
Breaker77
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:00:00 -
[2088]
Originally by: Mahke Edited by: Mahke on 08/11/2009 22:52:46
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Mahke Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed.
So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes.
Yeah moon mining nerf.
Cost of cyno jammer is 30 days/month * 25 mil/day = 750/month.
The hysteria in this thread based on incorrect or dishonest (who knows) math is terrible.
And yes, if current t2 production levels after the patch takes approx 120% of current technetium production, that is a buff on moon mining when technetium value spikes higher than dysprosium ever was (assuming CCP doesn't fix that coming disaster).
Yes CCP does need to rebalance the technetium bottleneck, but unless you plan on using escorted freighters/jump freighters/transport ships you will also need a jump bridge network to get the goods to empire. Depending how far the moons are that will require sov, jump bridges, and cyno jammers in otherwise useless systems adding to the cost.
It will be a logistical nightmare otherwise.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:07:00 -
[2089]
I remember when they did the dev blog on the carrier nerf, the thread went over 100 pages, and then they announced it was not happening. Keep posting those tears!!... well, you know what I mean. From the looks of this threadnought, I am having doubts that it will be implemented as is.
Keep posting constructive feedback.
Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:11:00 -
[2090]
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Mahke Edited by: Mahke on 08/11/2009 22:52:46
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Mahke Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed.
So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes.
Yeah moon mining nerf.
Cost of cyno jammer is 30 days/month * 25 mil/day = 750/month.
The hysteria in this thread based on incorrect or dishonest (who knows) math is terrible.
And yes, if current t2 production levels after the patch takes approx 120% of current technetium production, that is a buff on moon mining when technetium value spikes higher than dysprosium ever was (assuming CCP doesn't fix that coming disaster).
Yes CCP does need to rebalance the technetium bottleneck, but unless you plan on using escorted freighters/jump freighters/transport ships you will also need a jump bridge network to get the goods to empire. Depending how far the moons are that will require sov, jump bridges, and cyno jammers in otherwise useless systems adding to the cost.
It will be a logistical nightmare otherwise.
The logistical changes are a separate issue, imo. Those alliances with the best moons will easily be able to pay to cover increasing titan and JF proliferation, and the costs of JB/cyno systems. But yeah, it'll become harder/pricier, no doubt there.
However, that increased difficulty won't make up for increased profits from the tech bottleneck for those (northern) alliances that hold most of those moons, not nearly.
Honestly if CCP finds some way to actually succesfully nerf moon minerals (maybe a new asteroid available at development 5 mining anomalies that can be reacted with any given moon mineral to create more of that mineral, incentivizing 0.0 player owned space mining and solving the perenial bottleneck issue), I have no objections to lower upkeeeps and better upgrades, because then it would just be a matter of shifting collective profit to individual profit rather than massive economic power creep that leaves other areas of the game that are even higher risk than 0.0 (lowsec and wh-space) behind.
|
|
Destrim
Koshaku
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:17:00 -
[2091]
Edited by: Destrim on 08/11/2009 23:19:08
Originally by: Marlona Sky I remember when they did the dev blog on the carrier nerf, the thread went over 100 pages, and then they announced it was not happening. Keep posting those tears!!... well, you know what I mean. From the looks of this threadnought, I am having doubts that it will be implemented as is.
Keep posting constructive feedback.
There is no one whining/crying about losing sov. The only real complaint being raised is that the rewards (the shiny inf.-hub upgrades we were all expectantly waiting for) suck. Really, they are weaksauce.
However, I would agree to the need for constructive feedback (though it seemed you were being sarcastic o.o).
What should be discussed is what inf.-hub upgrades we think would actually work.
What would you suggest for the inf.-hub upgrades? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Good judgment usually comes from experience.
Experience usually comes from poor judgment. |
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:27:00 -
[2092]
Originally by: Marlona Sky I remember when they did the dev blog on the carrier nerf, the thread went over 100 pages, and then they announced it was not happening. Keep posting those tears!!... well, you know what I mean. From the looks of this threadnought, I am having doubts that it will be implemented as is.
Keep posting constructive feedback.
Nice sig.
Goons don't have enough of a pet program, and they probably will never have a good pet program because the carebears are afraid of being scammed by them, which is a legitimate fear I might add. That and they are realizing the kinds of fights they are being set up for now that their participation is down.
never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist |
Jonathan Pryde
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:27:00 -
[2093]
I normally avoid posting on Eve-O for my own reasons, but here goes.
I've been living/working in 0.0 for a better part of a few years. I'm not *THAT* knowledable at how much it costs an Alliance to live out in 0.0 but I do know it's in the tens of billions range.
That being said, if the R64 moons get the nerf they're getting (Yes, its a nerf since we won't be mining the same ammounts anymore) This effecitvely cuts your income a considerable ammount. As it stands, the upgrades don't provide any real means of helping alliances out. Do they help the individuals.. maybe. *MAYBE*. i don't really see it as a plus. Too many questions left unanswered there.
CCP, I implore you to re-think how you are going about this SOV revamp. The one thing that is deffinitely broken (and i think a lot of 0.0 holders might agree with me) is that the true-sec crap that exists in game is horribly broken. It needs to be fixed or revamped. Fix that, and then we can say you're doing progress. NPC Agents in 0.0 would be anice addition, instead of limiting them to NPC 0.0. I, myself, would like to see those agents in conquerable stations. All you gotta do is take the local rats, and set your agents to work with *THEM* like Sansha Agents in Stain, the Angel agents in Curse. It honestly can't be that hard to do.
Please, CCP... Think about what you're doing and if it will BENEFIT the alliances *AND* the players, not just you. Jonathan Pryde 8492nd Tactical Fleet |
Kanatta Jing
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:28:00 -
[2094]
One last time... Infinite any amount of ISK is still infinite ISK.
Infinite Anomaly ISK is still more infinite then finite Dypro moon income.
You just have an instance where more work yields more ISK, and in this instance extra work isn't a waste.
|
ShadowMaiden
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:29:00 -
[2095]
ITT - Be careful what you wish for...
Alliances have long been whining about Sov Warfare being a pain and wanted it changing. Well you have it now, so better suck it up or find another MMO to play.
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:29:00 -
[2096]
Originally by: Destrim
There is no one whining/crying about losing sov. The only real complaint being raised is that the rewards (the shiny inf.-hub upgrades we were all expectantly waiting for) suck. Really, they are weaksauce.
However, I would agree to the need for constructive feedback (though it seemed you were being sarcastic o.o).
What should be discussed is what inf.-hub upgrades we think would actually work.
What would you suggest for the inf.-hub upgrades?
What's wrong with upgrades currently? I think this is a matter of expectation only.
Since mining and exploration means no income for space holder, at 10% tax rate you will need 6B in bounties to get basic upkeep paid. Is that not enough or too much to reflect 10 guaranteed anomalies(I wonder what respawn rate on those will be)? |
Halaxi
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:30:00 -
[2097]
Is making 0.0 alliances work harder for their space a bad thing? No.
Is a system that forces 0.0 alliances to view EvE-Online as a second job a good thing? No.
Is there an incentive to go out there, find someone and kick them out of their space, and claim it yourself? Not with Dominion as it is, as all you will inherit is a **** load of expense.
CCP, please remember that this is a game. People play it for fun. And whilst I am sure the vast majority of the player base would not be adverse to having to put more effort into carving out and holding their very own piece of EvE, if you take the fun out of it, then, well, low-sec space and NPC 0.0 might well see a population increase.
Hal.
|
Shmak DatAsh
Malus Exitium Consortium.
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:32:00 -
[2098]
Originally by: Halaxi Is making 0.0 alliances work harder for their space a bad thing? No.
Is a system that forces 0.0 alliances to view EvE-Online as a second job a good thing? No.
Is there an incentive to go out there, find someone and kick them out of their space, and claim it yourself? Not with Dominion as it is, as all you will inherit is a **** load of expense.
CCP, please remember that this is a game. People play it for fun. And whilst I am sure the vast majority of the player base would not be adverse to having to put more effort into carving out and holding their very own piece of EvE, if you take the fun out of it, then, well, low-sec space and NPC 0.0 might well see a population increase.
Hal.
/signed
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:38:00 -
[2099]
Originally by: Halaxi Is making 0.0 alliances work harder for their space a bad thing? No.
Is a system that forces 0.0 alliances to view EvE-Online as a second job a good thing? No.
Is there an incentive to go out there, find someone and kick them out of their space, and claim it yourself? Not with Dominion as it is, as all you will inherit is a **** load of expense.
CCP, please remember that this is a game. People play it for fun. And whilst I am sure the vast majority of the player base would not be adverse to having to put more effort into carving out and holding their very own piece of EvE, if you take the fun out of it, then, well, low-sec space and NPC 0.0 might well see a population increase.
Hal.
straight up, atlas dude
|
Prognosys
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:40:00 -
[2100]
Originally by: Halaxi Is making 0.0 alliances work harder for their space a bad thing? No.
Is a system that forces 0.0 alliances to view EvE-Online as a second job a good thing? No.
Is there an incentive to go out there, find someone and kick them out of their space, and claim it yourself? Not with Dominion as it is, as all you will inherit is a **** load of expense.
CCP, please remember that this is a game. People play it for fun. And whilst I am sure the vast majority of the player base would not be adverse to having to put more effort into carving out and holding their very own piece of EvE, if you take the fun out of it, then, well, low-sec space and NPC 0.0 might well see a population increase.
Hal.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 [70] 80 90 100 .. 119 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |