Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1224
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:22:00 -
[91] - Quote
Nullsec gets handed siphons to steal moongoo and nullsec says nothing as that is funny what will promote some fun at the expense of our income.
Highsec gets handed POCOS and flips out because they want to play farmville in peace without those nasty big alliances clubbing them over the head.
The rabbit hole is much deeper than people seem to realize in this thread. We have three plans. Only one of which anyone is focusing on at this point. You should be worried far more about your fellow highsecer than us. While we are interested, this is fairly small income to us outside certain select cases. Worry more about your neighbors. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal - Want to follow the latest scandals? @EVEAryth |
Adunh Slavy
1265
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:23:00 -
[92] - Quote
Peter Powers wrote:there is one thing that bothers me:
if the poco can't be transfered during war, that kinda means i can't have a war-loser transfer his poco (or all his pocos) to me as a reparation payment. (otherwise i have to drop war first which kinda would allow him to sell 'em to someone else take 'em down or whatever)
so if you really implement this limitation it would be nice if there was at least a "transfer to war oponnent" button or something like that.
This is a great idea. Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-á-á- William Pitt |
brinelan
The Flying Dead Insidious Empire
106
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:24:00 -
[93] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Any changes to the deployment of POCOs in regards to anchoring time/upgrade time?
I could see a fairly interesting development of people warping in logi + hauler or even using a blockade runner to "ninja drop" a POCO in place where another fleet had done the work of removing the Interbus. It certainly makes for contemplating some interesting tactics on how this would work but the very short timer for anchoring and upgrading a POCO makes it possible and once it is in place, the wardec mechanic makes it all but impossible to remove as you need to wait out the wardec timer.
Last time I put a poco down, I remember the anchor, online and upgrade times to be under a minute total. |
Elana Maggal
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:25:00 -
[94] - Quote
Quote: I don't think allowing the starvation of highsec PI (unless we all kneel before Zod, Arryth, the Mittani, Mangala or whomever wins the Poco grab) is a good idea.
Someone who has some brain cells still working. Good post. |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
437
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:27:00 -
[95] - Quote
Elana Maggal wrote:Weaselior wrote:Elana Maggal wrote:So you pretty much hand over PI to the larger alliances, **** over smaller solo players, and make Hi-sec more like low-sec and null-sec which stupidly is considered a "good thing".
PI was a boring piece of crap anyway so - goodbye PI.
heaven forbid in this massively multiplayer game one might get advantages from being able to work with other people You're delusional if giving a big alliance a monopoly over a custom's office is "WORKING WITH OTHER PEOPLE" And PS: by the way, believe it or not, many computer players are SOLO or a small group of friends at best. Not everyone including EVE players play in some big turd dropping GOON/CSM/CPP infested alliance. Might I suggest that you not play an MMO then? Here, let me suggest some other games. You've got to remember that these are just simple miners. These are people of the land. The common clay of New Eden. You know... morons. |
aoeu Itonula
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:27:00 -
[96] - Quote
You really should make it so you don't have to wardec to take down POCOs. The wardec cost is only an obstacle for groups that don't need the protection. By making it so you don't need a wardec, you make it so the people who actually live in the space can take over the customs offices. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1224
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:27:00 -
[97] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Aryth wrote:As the person that developed the highsec poco plans...Your fears of Goons taking over all the highsec pocos are completely unfounded. It isn't required or desired.
What you should really be worried about hasn't even been brought up yet. Aaand later you guys say: mynnna wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:At GSF is admitting that they'll be doing the high sec POCO grab.
I fail to see why this surprises anyone. Nice job keeping up the pretense. Didn't last long. Parsing this out, I presume that the grab will probably be selective. Certain areas may be untouched. But you'll be taking key regions worth of POCOs. I am not sure I care who does this. CFC has the largest resources to do this, but they are not the only people to be concerned about. I foresee a huge brawl in The Forge the likes of the Fountain War. RvB vs Goonswarm with other powers dropping in on various engagements. And that's probably the best case scenario. Worst would be a major power rolling through unopposed. From the dev blog: Quote: POCOs in hi sec will give the owner the exact same controls as POCOs in low sec GÇô the owner can set the tax rate as he wants and can have different tax rates based on standings. This includes denying access.
I think the deny access in highsec is going to be a real problem. It makes sense in low and null, but a real problem in high. NPC taxes are still there, so it's obviously regulated. You may need to special case for high sec and remove the deny by standings and keep a lid on max tax rates. Or else things are likely to get really ugly in the production chain. While having null sec alliances play a part in this charge is interesting, I don't think allowing the starvation of highsec PI (unless we all kneel before Zod, Arryth, the Mittani, Mangala or whomever wins the Poco grab) is a good idea.
We have never said we won't take pocos. What we said was we don't care about all of highsec. We don't, nor will we. The planning for this started 2 years ago. You guys just have a lot of theorycrafting catchup to do is all. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal - Want to follow the latest scandals? @EVEAryth |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:29:00 -
[98] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:CCP Paradox wrote:Woo! Feedback time :) Ahem. *cough cough* Seriously, the CSM is also looking forward to hearing player feedback on this one, particularly on the "null-sec take-over of high-sec POCOs" question that's already come up on page one. Can high-sec entities make it more trouble than it's worth to GSF or other null-sec entities to defend against reinforced POCOs over and over again? Or will the cost of the war-dec itself be the primary shield?
Come on. Really? You even have to ask this @#$@ question? How dense are you guys? I don't get riled up about much with this game, but when I see comments like this and CCP's obvious and daft attempt to spin the "wheel of fortune" without knowing what space it will land on, I tend to get a bit perturbed.
Let me be clear before pressing on... I don't use hisec POCO's, I could care less about hisec POCO's, but I feel the need to correct such ignornance in abundance as do most players in this game.
I am calling shinanigans. How anyone thinks that (with the exception of the rare quiet hisec system at first) this won't be the biggest land grab for null or already large entities in EVE - you have to be deaf, dumb and stupid.
What this whole thing tells me (painfully obvious) is that CCP has truly set its long term game design on the idea of Rubicon.
This expansion is the begining of making player owned/run alliances equals with NPC. I get it.
I can't say I hate the idea, I just think (thought as you have preached it for YEARS) -- that this is what 0.0 is (was) for! Why not buff 0.0 instead of nerfing Hisec.
Fin
|
Elana Maggal
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:30:00 -
[99] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Nullsec gets handed siphons to steal moongoo and nullsec says nothing as that is funny what will promote some fun at the expense of our income.
Highsec gets handed POCOS and flips out because they want to play farmville in peace without those nasty big alliances clubbing them over the head.
The rabbit hole is much deeper than people seem to realize in this thread. We have three plans. Only one of which anyone is focusing on at this point. You should be worried far more about your fellow highsecer than us. While we are interested, this is fairly small income to us outside certain select cases. Worry more about your neighbors.
Yeah - what a shock! Some players don't want their sand box to be turded over by a large alliance monopolizing their game play and pay a monthly fee to play freely in the SAND BOX in hi-sec.
OH NO - can't have that sayz the goon turds.
|
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:31:00 -
[100] - Quote
Aryth wrote:As the person that developed the highsec poco plans...Your fears of Goons taking over all the highsec pocos are completely unfounded. It isn't required or desired.
What you should really be worried about hasn't even been brought up yet.
Oh your mean the impending Market speculation and price increase the Goons pride themselves on? |
|
Styth spiting
Ion Corp. NightSong Directorate
325
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:33:00 -
[101] - Quote
The continued use of the dreadful assumed value of PI materials based on tier is just silly. The values of PI goods and their tax value should be based on the same system used to determine value of goods used on bounty payouts. Not some hard coded system that gets updated every 2 years that ignores market trends or demand. This system combined with player owned structures that have both an NPC tax AND a player tax not only makes highsec PI hardly worth the time; it also means there is less of a reason for players to take over these custom offices because either they need to have such a low tax for players to even consider using them, and the fact that the material replenish rates are so low the isk made will be very minor to begin with.
Take for example water. Tax P1 value of 400. Export cost of 40, buy value of 240; almost 20% of its value.
Bacteria? Tax P1 value of 400. Export cost of 40, buy value 90; 45% of its value. Throw on a 10% player tax and you're looking at 10.00 isk profit per P1.
Having a default non-removable NPC tax on PI is a dreadful idea. Even with a skill that will drop this to 5% (if you train how many days? Yeah most will be at III) Not only will it drive players away from highsec it will also make setting up POCO's unprofitable and a waste of time. Basically less isk for players, and less isk for the POCO owners. NPC taxes + POCO owner taxes push highsec PI to a point where the time and investment surpass the profitability. with this. |
Elana Maggal
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:34:00 -
[102] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:Elana Maggal wrote:Weaselior wrote:Elana Maggal wrote:So you pretty much hand over PI to the larger alliances, **** over smaller solo players, and make Hi-sec more like low-sec and null-sec which stupidly is considered a "good thing".
PI was a boring piece of crap anyway so - goodbye PI.
heaven forbid in this massively multiplayer game one might get advantages from being able to work with other people You're delusional if giving a big alliance a monopoly over a custom's office is "WORKING WITH OTHER PEOPLE" And PS: by the way, believe it or not, many computer players are SOLO or a small group of friends at best. Not everyone including EVE players play in some big turd dropping GOON/CSM/CPP infested alliance. Might I suggest that you not play an MMO then? Here, let me suggest some other games.
**** YOU |
Mhax Arthie
139
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:34:00 -
[103] - Quote
I think is time to pack on fuel blocks as PI mats will just blow up in rubicon, no doubt on it. Null alliances and pirates will take over all poco's only for drama as they don't have any interest in industry. The indy guys will have to dodge the siphon units, pay the owner tax and ... also an extrra npc tax?!? So a hi sec poco tax can jump to even 20% or more as I really don't see why a null sec alliance ori pirate corp that have the man power to defend these structures should keep the tax bellow at least 10%. Anything bellow will not generate enough tear and drama.
Anyway... I think this is a hard kick for the economy and same as in real life, rich people will get richer and poor people will just starve. Why not simply erase the security levels between regions, blow up the empires and transform EVE into a Mad Max replica mmo.
I'm also curios lorewise what the empires have to say about this, especially the Cadari state wich is a conglomerate of greedy corporates. Will they just let the null sec alliances invade their territory and wealth? Are they still bothered fighting each other while null sec is slowly taking over their space? |
Gahonga
Fire's Avatars
0
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:34:00 -
[104] - Quote
The whole concept is promising, still, there might be few flaws that need to be addressed :
Quote:Customs Offices will now have a value on Kill Reports, meaning for instance that if the owning corporation has a bounty, then destroying their Customs Office will pay out bounty.
Isn't this a bad use of the bounty system? If someone place a bounty on a entity, he would hope to attract unwanted attention unto his target. The suggested feature would however mean that those bounty would be harvested by some corp only interested in pocos, not headhunting. Destroying a POCOS already bring its own reward anyway in term of a economic opportunity. Perhaps you can simply leave it as it is right now?
Have you consider the twisted metagaming that mixing POCOs with bounty would create? Look at this example : Corp A own a POCOS and his under a bounty. Corp B is a fake corp of A, under a permanent fake war with A. Corp C want Corp A POCOS and wardec A. Corp B destroy the A POCOSs and harvest some of the bounty. Corp A would loose some isk in the process, but it would have retain its pocos control and lowered its bounty.
Quote:coupled with the fact that is doesn't cost a great deal to set up on a planet
It might not cost that much in term of isk, however its incredibly time consuming to deploy news colonies in a profitable manner in HS. I challenge CCP, ask one of your DEV to start from scratch and deploy on 15 HS planets using 3 alts with all skills at 4... And ask him how long he needed to earn 50 mill isk on top of its initial investment. After that, you might realize that the ''demand'' in term of POCOS isnt mobile and would be really slow to met any change in the ''offer''. Assume most PI producer to simply suck up any taxation change or simply quit PI at all. Perhaps you can address this by introducing some way to export/import colonies pattern to speed up redeployment, this would create a more realistic PI versus POCOS economy driven by the offer and the demand, thus giving more importance to the decision of the POCOS owner.
Quote:The NPC tax will continue for hi sec POCOs (as we want low sec POCOs to still be competitive). The tax rate stays the same, at 10% for export and 5% for import. This is then in addition to whatever tax the player owner sets.
Ok thats just feel plain wrong : CCP, you already proven that a open economy run in a sandbox could work and provide a ground to a competitive game. Low sec planets are already way better in term of resources, on the other hand, HS offer security. You can simply let the rule of the offer and demand drive this market : LS POCOS owner would have to find the right incentive to attract customers, in term of tax rate and security deal instead of simply undercutting the NPC hard tax. On the HS side, there wont be any gift made to the PI producer and POCOS owning corps would likely ask every little 0.1% in tax they could squeeze out of there customers. Should this turn out to be a gold mine, a equal amount of wardec driven by others corps ambition would appear and prevent them to cash in.
To me it sound like you pretend to give more control to the players, but at the same time rub in a handful of dirt on the steer-wheel mechanics hoping for a smoother player control.
As a side note, if the NPC tax aim at keeping pi market price in check, i suggest you look at the resource supply or production usage instead throwing few sticks in the wheels of a new pvp business you want to implement.
Thank you for listening and sorry for my bad English skills : /
Cheers! |
Mangala Solaris
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
632
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:35:00 -
[105] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Worry more about your neighbors.
http://proklamasieheuwel.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/neighbours.jpg Mangala Undocked |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
2
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:36:00 -
[106] - Quote
CCP Paradox wrote:Philpip wrote:Can I get clarification on the anchoring please (and sorry if this has already been asked).
Do you have to have local faction standing to anchor like you would a pos?
No, no restrictions like that.
Now see ---THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.
WHY THE HECK DOESN'T A CORP NEED STANDING TO ANCHOR A POCO LIKE A POS??!
That would fit with all the past lore in game and only make sense and REWARD players for grinding standing. REWARD industrialists for their hard work. Small indy corps would have purpose.
But we can't have that can we (null alliances)....err CCP.
|
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
2
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:38:00 -
[107] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Elana Maggal wrote:So you pretty much hand over PI to the larger alliances, **** over smaller solo players, and make Hi-sec more like low-sec and null-sec which stupidly is considered a "good thing".
PI was a boring piece of crap anyway so - goodbye PI.
heaven forbid in this massively multiplayer game one might get advantages from being able to work with other people
While I completely agree with you sir, you imply large coalitions are run by rule of law instead of rule of one (dictatorships like ....) |
Ayesha Arkaral
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:39:00 -
[108] - Quote
Some thoughts:
- Penalize alliances for "spreading thin" their POCO empire, ie having too many, while keeping it attractive.
- For example, make the cost to wardec inversely proportional to the number of POCOs an alliance owns in hisec. The more they own, the cheaper it is to wardec for POCO control.
- Or, require that a planet that they want a POCO at needs to have at least one command center owned by an alliance member. CCs can be placed before a POCO is placed. A simple enough task, but requires a little more motivation on a large scale.
- Or, Force attentiveness. Again, nothing too crazy, keep it attractive.
- For example, add a mechanic that would allow another entity to begin placing a POCO at a planet where there already exists one. Send a notification that within 5 days if no action is taken, their POCO will be replaced by the challengers. With the required action simply to go to the planet and click a button. The challenger loses their materials invested.
- Or, make it so that a POCO's orbit needs to be "corrected" every 20 days. The owner must go to the POCO and click a button to correct the POCOs orbit, or it will burn up in the atmosphere.
|
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
2
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:46:00 -
[109] - Quote
Elana Maggal wrote:Andski wrote:heaven forbid CCP slightly trims the massive amount of cotton wool wrapped around every hisec player and allows groups to compete over assets in hisec Yeah - except there is no competition here. The Big Alliances win. Game over. Anything else and you're just deluding yourself. Now if there were SEVERAL custom offices at each planet, there might be actual competition ...
Agreed. Goons are not always the best at fighting but they STILL BELIEVE IN THE BLOB. |
Callic Veratar
457
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:48:00 -
[110] - Quote
Can I suggest a 5th mobile structure be introduced along-side these changes?
Add a Personal Resource Processor: a structure that I can anchor in space, anyone can shoot or steal from, and will grind away at a set of PI goods. Give it a slower cycle time/a relatively small cargo/a consumption penalty or something to make it less good than the planets.
If something like this is introduced, I can run PI as a single player on a planet with no CO or side-step importing and exporting taxes by launching lower level goods. Yes, bigger groups will have a better chance of taking over and holding a CO, but not at the expense of me being able to run PI. |
|
Michael Turate
The Scope Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:49:00 -
[111] - Quote
Superb changes, you little anti-social guys need to pick a side and then buy a microphone. Remember that CCP makes the sandbox and the dimensions and rules of the sandbox are down to their designs. There has been YEARS of notice that high sec changes were coming and that the sandbox would be adjusted to make co-operative play work better than lone wolfing. Eve played as a socially co-operative experience was always the stated aim of the developers, the game is much better played that way in any case. This is the future and there's no going back now, more to follow I'm sure, explosions incoming. |
Callic Veratar
457
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:51:00 -
[112] - Quote
I noticed an inconsistency with POCOs. In nullsec, you must have sov to anchor a POCO. In lowsec, nobody cares. In highsec, you don't need standing with the faction to anchor.
Lowsec doesn't matter either way since no mechanic exists there, but anchor rights should be consistent in highsec and nullsec. Either require sov/faction in both or in neither. If I need faction to anchor a POS, why don't I need it to anchor a POCO? |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
225
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:54:00 -
[113] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:CCP Paradox wrote:Philpip wrote:Can I get clarification on the anchoring please (and sorry if this has already been asked).
Do you have to have local faction standing to anchor like you would a pos?
No, no restrictions like that. Now see ---THAT IS A GOOD IDEA. WHY THE HECK DOESN'T A CORP NEED STANDING TO ANCHOR A POCO LIKE A POS??! That would fit with all the past lore in game and only make sense and REWARD players for grinding standing. REWARD industrialists for their hard work. Small indy corps would have purpose. But we can't have that can we (null alliances)....err CCP.
fyi
this will not save you
we have high standings alts just like you
anchor with alt -> transfer to goonwaffe |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1270
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:55:00 -
[114] - Quote
Oh god, CCP rooting out the massively online singleplayers is chubtastic.
Like vermin shrieking in uncomprehending fear as you shine a light on their putrid hovels made of excrement and waste.
Too bad this happens so infrequently. Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Elana Maggal
Perkone Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:56:00 -
[115] - Quote
Andski wrote:maybe you can compete with the big alliances by starting a big alliance of your own
Maybe I want to play in a sand box that I can do my own thing without goons dictating what I can and can't do and monopolizing key game play elements.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9191
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:57:00 -
[116] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Now see ---THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.
WHY THE HECK DOESN'T A CORP NEED STANDING TO ANCHOR A POCO LIKE A POS??!
That would fit with all the past lore in game and only make sense and REWARD players for grinding standing. REWARD industrialists for their hard work. Small indy corps would have purpose.
But we can't have that can we (null alliances)....err CCP.
wealthy nullseccers can't afford to buy characters off the market with high faction standings, apparently Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
225
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:57:00 -
[117] - Quote
oh and we didn't grind the standings ourselves
we used our nullsec fight money to purchase relevant standings dudes from the character bazaar instead of spending man-months running mission after mission
so yeah nice try buckaroo but we got this angle covered so well you can't even see it from under our notable collective masses |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9191
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:58:00 -
[118] - Quote
Elana Maggal wrote:Andski wrote:maybe you can compete with the big alliances by starting a big alliance of your own Maybe I want to play in a sand box that I can do my own thing without goons dictating what I can and can't do and monopolizing key game play elements.
oh you must be confused, a sandbox means that powerful groups can have influence because it's exactly that: a sandbox, and not an instanced game
perhaps there are instanced games more suited to your needs Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Elana Maggal
Perkone Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:58:00 -
[119] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Oh god, CCP rooting out the massively online singleplayers is chubtastic.
Like vermin shrieking in uncomprehending fear as you shine a light on their putrid hovels made of excrement and waste.
Too bad this happens so infrequently.
Oh yes - god forbid sand box play include single players! Can't have that! (Besides, who needs single players when it comes to increasing your subscriptions? Who plays MMO's in solo mode? INCONCEIVABLE!) |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
225
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:58:00 -
[120] - Quote
back to the drawing board for you guys I suppose |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |