|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
RevrendStyx
Pilots Of Honour
Aeternus.
   |
Posted - 2009.09.16 20:11:00 -
[1]
Edited by: RevrendStyx on 16/09/2009 20:16:00
 Originally by: Mara Intala
Since CCP already stated that you cannot control who comes through the gates you are paying for. how about have all gates in claimable 0.0 have a jump charge? similar to docking fees, where you have a flat rate charged to you when you jump depending on what ship is being jumped.
This jump charge should be paid to that ever alliance owns the gate, BUT will be effected by standings. Lets say you have Sov over a system and your allies have sov in the next system.
you each have each other at +10 standings, so there would be no gate charge,
+5 you are only charged 50% of the fee.
neut standings get full charge.
-5 gets 150% charge.
-10 gets a 200% charge?
I'm sure all the people who would rather roam across 2-3 regions a day looking for kills wont like this. but it would help alliances have some control over who or what comes through there space. Not to mention the momentary lag of having the "You have been sited XXXXX.XX isk to use this gate, would you like to proceed y/n" would give defenders a little bit of extra shooting time.
Just my .02 isk worth.
FFS you must be joking right? Lets say it like this. A gang comes into your region to kill a few ratters. They are -10 to you. Per gate is what 1mill cause of the -10 standings. So this gang of 5 has now moved 8 jumps through your space. Costing the gang themselves 40mill. They kill a BS fitted with t2 in the 8th system in your region worth 140mill. His insurance pays out 100mill. Now his entire BS that he lost has just been completely paid for and 1/3 of it by the ppl that killed him. This patch is supposed to encourage small gang warfare and pvp. Your idea bud removes roaming all together.
They also have to travel 8 jumps out. So in the big picture the more space you hold the more money you will make from the pvpers coming to kill you. Kind of Oxymoron imo.
|
RevrendStyx
Pilots Of Honour
Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 16:15:00 -
[2]
Originally by: m3rb3aSt
Edited by: m3rb3aSt on 17/09/2009 15:09:01
how about this idea!
a corp/alliance can only anchor a sov disrupter and online it if the adjacent systems connected by stargates are either sov neutral or friendly. in order to contest someones sov you would have to do it from an adjacent neutral system or turn the neutral system over to your sov first.
that way you would have to work your way towards conquering the space and you couldn't just roll up and drop a sov disrupter in every backend system. it would also make it worth it to have sov in an otherwise worthless system. if you didn't have sov an enemy could gain sov and use it as a beachhead towards attacking your sov. you could also disrupt sov if the adjacent system is NPC pirate sov or lowsec.
No dude. This would be too predictable. You know exactly where your enemy would have to be to take the next system. Which would allow you to prepare waaaaayyyyy in advance. I dun like this idea at all.
|
RevrendStyx
Pilots Of Honour
Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 20:18:00 -
[3]
Originally by: LegendaryFrog
Originally by: RevrendStyx
Originally by: m3rb3aSt
Edited by: m3rb3aSt on 17/09/2009 15:09:01
how about this idea!
a corp/alliance can only anchor a sov disrupter and online it if the adjacent systems connected by stargates are either sov neutral or friendly. in order to contest someones sov you would have to do it from an adjacent neutral system or turn the neutral system over to your sov first.
that way you would have to work your way towards conquering the space and you couldn't just roll up and drop a sov disrupter in every backend system. it would also make it worth it to have sov in an otherwise worthless system. if you didn't have sov an enemy could gain sov and use it as a beachhead towards attacking your sov. you could also disrupt sov if the adjacent system is NPC pirate sov or lowsec.
No dude. This would be too predictable. You know exactly where your enemy would have to be to take the next system. Which would allow you to prepare waaaaayyyyy in advance. I dun like this idea at all.
It is a better idea to let an enemy dive straight into your most upgraded and central system and flip a station (locking most of your alliance out of most of their assets) during a single weekend? With larger alliances this wouldn't be so much of a problem, but what about small alliances who only have 10 or so systems, with only 1 in the center being upgraded and valuable. If they lose that one system on one foreign holiday where they have work and an attacking force does not, they should lose pretty much every asset they own?
LOL. What a troll this is. So your saying its not fair for another alliance too swoop in and take your space while your not looking? hmmmm cause I swear goons got some guy to push a button and disband a whole alliance and they lost all the space they own. Goons not only took the 1 good system bob had but 3+ regions, while they were at work too. Sigh...I feel for the goonies troll. I fail 
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROLFORL
|
RevrendStyx
Pilots Of Honour
Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 16:12:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Maj Disaster
This change has little to do with improving EVE and fixing some of the past mistakes of sovereignty and alliances and more to do with changing the mechanics to align with the new game they are developing and to force people to pay subscription to said new game.
In order to gain access to the more useful "infrastructure" (read: content you already have ie. cyno jammers, jump bridges etc.) you will need sovereignty. To gain sovereignty you will need to control a PLANET. The only way to control a planet is to....... play the new game you will need to subscribe to. Oh yeah, and you'll need to buy a console too of course.
http://www.massively.com/2009/08/18/ccp-games-reveals-new-eve-online-console-mmo-dust-514/
the hint (i believe) was on the second page of this thread in the post by CCP Abathur
Quote:
Think bigger.
imo I don't think CCP has a big conspiracy against its players like you do. DUST 514 may play a bit of a role in sov. But I highly doubt it will be the main mechanic it revolves around. That wouldn't be fair to those that only play eve. So I would suggest you stop making accusations until you know exactly how DUST will affect sov ok.
|
|
|
| |
|