| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Zastrow J
   |
Posted - 2009.09.09 20:36:00 -
[1]
So many threads to keep up with today aaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaa
So I have a lot of confidence in the developers working on this expansion. I know there's a lot of cynicism floating around about CCP's track record with regards to sovereignty, but many of the people working on Dominion are not the ones who introduced the broken systems we have now. (They even have 0.0 alliance experience under current mechanics!) I remain optimistic, and I wouldn't feel bad if I never had to anchor another pos mod ever again.
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 15:38:00 -
[2]
the "stargate maintenance fee" is just another way to describe switching upkeep costs from buying fuel to liquid isk. It's just a silly roleplaying thing.
The mechanics all sound fine to me, but I'm waiting to hear the actual cost and effort required for each of the upgrades so I can start passing out the pitchforks and torches. Remember the cost:benefit and most importantly WILL IT BE WORTH IT?
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 15:43:00 -
[3]
Furthermore I can see a lot more people (nync) camping beacons with a cyno alt and a single plat-insured tackling dread waiting to gank JFs as it becomes harder to build beacon networks or jam systems to keep him away
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 15:58:00 -
[4]
Another thing, we all know that all of the current major alliances have hundreds of billions of isk and we like to put it all in a big vault and swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck. We can afford to build a lot of infrastructure. If you design the costs of these upgrades with our wallets in mind, no new alliances who don't have our "old money" are ever going to be able to afford to come out to 0.0 and build their own space-home.
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:02:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Zastrow J on 10/09/2009 17:02:27
 Originally by: Elvenlord
Fuel bill stays, maybe it will be lowered a bit (lets say few unnecessary DS), but you will still need them for use of all modules and production tide to them, not to mention if you by any chance own a Supercapital you will have to keep some pure DS so they have a place to live (unless, see bellow). All in all, it seems we will pay more, just that no one knows how much more..
the goonswarm fuel bill will be reduced by 80% or more than it is now. We fuel a lot of towers just to keep systems safe from spam. These towers will be able to be pulled down now. (hundreds of them) The point of my post was that just because our new upkeep costs are called "stargate maintenance fees" does not mean we get to actually manage stargates, deny traffic, etc.
actually why am i bothering to reply to this postghuahguaghaughaughuahg
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin
Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 10/09/2009 17:46:57
Originally by: Jack Gilligan
That's all well and good, but it'd be nice if you guys realized that releasing incomplete generalities like this dev "blog" full of cataclysmic generalities with few (almost no) specifics is far FAR worse than detailing "this is our plan A at the moment, if it proves unworkable, we'll come back with plan B".
This. Good God, this. Did you fire your customer relations department a few months ago, CCP? It sure as heck feels like it ...
if they're too specific people will do ******ed things like buy up all of the market for certain moon minerals and run around flailing their arms and screaming. Of course being too vague means we can't give any valid feedback until its potentially too late to dodge the iceberg
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:36:00 -
[7]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op?
cap pilots will have to adapt, and those who cannot will become victims of eVHUGHAUGHAGHAUGHAUHGAUHGUAHGUAHGUHAaghahguahg
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.09.11 03:04:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Zlut Gothica
and the maintenance is handled by 10 peeps easily these days, which is plain and simple a bad game-design.
ok the rest of your post i was all whatever just some guy ranting, but this issue right there is just ****ing ******ed. Making the most dedicated of your players do the soul-crushing job of pos logistics is absolutely the worst part of eve, take it from goonswarm's logistics director (me). There is nothing fun or satisfying about it and I am much happier with a straight-up isk payment for owning space in the form of stargate fees
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 03:40:00 -
[9]
I'm all for smaller alliances trying to carve out a home in 0.0, and Dominion sounds like it will do a lot to facilitate it. However, there's just not enough entry gates between empire and 0.0 for them to come and go without getting **** on by the big alliances who enjoy camping these gates all day. There may be entire empty constellations but it wont make any difference if you can't reliably get to them.
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 06:16:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Aethrwolf
There's a point and a possible exploit(?) here. If holding too much space is too expensive, then all the nullsec alliances need to do is make sure all the space that connects to empire is claimed, then simply deny access from empire to the remote sections of nullsec that they cant or dont want to pay for. How feasible that would be, I dont really know, but I'm sure someone will try it. WH will offer o way around this, but with mass limits, it would take a great deal of luck,planning, and patience to move enough ships/resources out not to get stomped as soon as you started showing up on the sov maps.
If you look at the map, 0.0 space is nothing but pipes and chokepoints. It is entirely feasible for big alliances to "control" regions without having sov all over it. So while Dominion will reduce the barriers to entry in 0.0, I still haven't heard enough to imagine a flood of new corps/alliances heading out here.
|
| |
|