Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anisa Schardl
|
Posted - 2010.01.29 04:05:00 -
[1]
At the risk of looking stupid:
I've seen some people complaining about how much outpost/station systems cost in sov cost nowadays. Yet, going through all the official material I can find, I cannot find anything anywhere that says that station systems have a higher sov bill than a normal system.
Is this just based on people assuming you have to put a cyno jammer in a station system? Or is there something I missed? If there is in fact a higher base cost associated with holding a station system, where is that information written, and how much is the bill?
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.01.29 10:27:00 -
[2]
If you don't want cyno jammers or jump bridges the cost for a station system is the same as an empty system.
Say no to 24000byte sig limit. |
Desigre
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.01.30 10:38:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Desigre on 30/01/2010 10:39:49 well holding system has its costs.
From devblogs you can find price table:
Territorial Claim Unit (TCU) 6 mil/day => 30 days=180 mil Jump Bridge 10 mil/day => 30 days = 300 mil Cyno jammers 29 mil/day => 30 days = 600 mil
So thats 1080 mil/30 days just to hold space with jumpbridge and not allow hostile cynos there.
And thats dosent count cyno generator 2mil/day or capital ship assembly arrays 1 mil/day costs.
Since CCP mixed moon mining a bit, just moon mining might not be enough to pay holding that sov in vast amount of space. Its that 180 mil/30 days if system has your sov, no matter if you use it or not. hold 50 systems and thats 9 b per 30 days cost that needs to financed somehow.
|
Anisa Schardl
|
Posted - 2010.01.30 14:40:00 -
[4]
Yes, I understand that. My sole question was whether station systems carried an inherent greater cost, and the answer is no. All the whining I see about station systems is clearly just based on the assumption that you have to jam and bridge a station system. Which is a stupid assumption, particularly in some areas of space with high local density of stations.
|
Lord Arshavir
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.01.30 15:24:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Desigre Edited by: Desigre on 30/01/2010 10:39:49 well holding system has its costs.
From devblogs you can find price table:
Territorial Claim Unit (TCU) 6 mil/day => 30 days=180 mil Jump Bridge 10 mil/day => 30 days = 300 mil Cyno jammers 29 mil/day => 30 days = 600 mil
So thats 1080 mil/30 days just to hold space with jumpbridge and not allow hostile cynos there.
And thats dosent count cyno generator 2mil/day or capital ship assembly arrays 1 mil/day costs.
Since CCP mixed moon mining a bit, just moon mining might not be enough to pay holding that sov in vast amount of space. Its that 180 mil/30 days if system has your sov, no matter if you use it or not. hold 50 systems and thats 9 b per 30 days cost that needs to financed somehow.
Could it perhaps be that CCP intend to make the major 0.0 blocs less insular, and have them rely on multiple income streams including moon mining, neutral ratters and rent?
Nah, of course not, that would mean you couldn't control vast swathes of space with a(comparatively) tiny amount of players, and big groups in 0.0 would have to put some thought into holding sov instead of simply plonking down POS on valuable moons and watching the ISK roll in(yes, Im aware that's a gross oversimplification) _____________________________________________ Of Riches and Slaves - Adventures of an Amarrian Noble |
Belloche
Caldari Heaven's Avatars Without Remorse.
|
Posted - 2010.01.30 15:59:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Lord Arshavir
Could it perhaps be that CCP intend to make the major 0.0 blocs less insular, and have them rely on multiple income streams including moon mining, neutral ratters and rent?
Less insular, yes, Rent, Yes. Neutral ratters? You are kidding right? If CCP put some kind of mechanic in to be able to TAX a neutral ratter's bounties in your own sov'ed systems (or its members for that matter) then it could be considered. ALLIANCES GET NO DIRECT INCOME from ratters. Only the individual corps in alliances get taxes from their players ratting. The only income that alliances could get in the past was from controlling the moon goo. When CCP nerfed moon goo without providing adequate alternate sources of alliance income other then rent, you have the current situation as it stands now.
Originally by: Lord Arshavir
Nah, of course not, that would mean you couldn't control vast swathes of space with a(comparatively) tiny amount of players, and big groups in 0.0 would have to put some thought into holding sov instead of simply plonking down POS on valuable moons and watching the ISK roll in(yes, Im aware that's a gross oversimplification)
Alliances now must put in lots of thought as to what systems to put their name on since they have to pay for it.
|
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2010.01.31 16:34:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Belloche When CCP nerfed moon goo without providing adequate alternate sources of alliance income other then rent, you have the current situation as it stands now.
Before moon goo was even worth anything remotely worth mining, alliances garnered substantial income from refinery taxes. I imagine this is a little tougher in the days of rorquals, jump freighters and the like, bit it's not impossible. Plenty of alliances used to survive just fine in regions with neither good moons or good refinery income. It's only the last couple of years that to survive hundreds of billions of isk has been 'expected'.
|
Rotnac
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.31 18:57:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Anisa Schardl Yes, I understand that. My sole question was whether station systems carried an inherent greater cost, and the answer is no. All the whining I see about station systems is clearly just based on the assumption that you have to jam and bridge a station system. Which is a stupid assumption, particularly in some areas of space with high local density of stations.
Perhaps in some areas. The majority of times, its almost a necessity so as to ensure the station's security. Granted the station timers themselves improve a station's security over not having anything at all. Ultimately, if a station falls to enemy hands, it is then a significant boost to their staging efforts. The cost of jamming and bridging a system is usually seen as worth it to prevent such scenarios from happening.
For instance, I'm pretty much assuming that IT will be putting those upgrades in almost every station system in Delve/Querious. Not doing so raises the possibility that hostiles could successfully take a station, and even the loss of one would be pretty horrific.
Of course, its all moot if you don't have anyone who can remember to pay the sov bills.
|
Anisa Schardl
|
Posted - 2010.02.01 02:56:00 -
[9]
That's somewhat my point, though. Taking a station system, with 2x hub timers and 2x station timers to contend with, is horribly difficult on it's own. A cyno jammer doesn't actually add anything significant to that difficulty. Any alliance attempting to take a station system already has more than enough numbers to pop in and down a jammer.
Assaults on most stations around 0.0 nowadays are stopped on the first station timer or the second hub timer. Any assault that would have been stopped by the presence of a jammer would never have had even a remote chance of bothering the station.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |