Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Joscelline Angreal
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 14:18:00 -
[541]
One thing I've noticed in this thread is that people seem to assume that everything will be claimed, just more alliances will be doing the claiming. I imagine CCP wants to change 0.0 to a system where an alliance controls a small area (region), but in a lot of cases isn't directly bordering another alliance's sov. There will be small bubbles of sov space, seperated by tracks of unclaimed space. With big alliances not willing/able to hold the tracks of unclaimed space, and small alliances lacking the strength to hold it, these unclaimed areas would become hidden highways and no-mans land. Thats where the fun will be.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 14:18:00 -
[542]
We have enough info to guesstimate some of these so lets go:
Originally by: Aquinzus 1. On patch day will soverignty be reset for everyone to 0 until they go and plant a bunker flag whatever?
Presumably the various Sovereignty and Infrastructure Structures will be seeded to the market a week or two in advance, so spaceholding alliances will have the opportunity to plant them in preparation for the new system when it goes live.
Quote: 2. What will be the requirements to have a Cyno Jammer ?
One or more of the new Infrastructure upgrades.
Quote: 3. What will be the requirements to have a Jump bridge ?
One or more of the new Infrastructure upgrades.
Quote: 4. What will be the requirements to have an outpost ?
Drop and fill the egg in any system you have sov in, same as now. Outpost ownership already exists seperately from system sovereignty, so control of existing outposts shouldn't be affected.
Quote: 5. What makes you think CCP that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc are going to allow anyone to just come on over and claim a system and be left alone?
If economic infrastructure upgrades allow an alliance to make as much income from a single region (or constellation, or system) as previously required 2 or 3 regions, whilst r64 tweaks reduce the incentive to hold massive amounts of dyspro moons, what makes you think that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc will need to keep holding on to the massive sprawling (and largely deserted) empires they currently claim?
Goonswarm currently holds Delve and most of Querious. 95% of us live in Delve, our Querious systems are virtually empty apart from the odd goon in a covops scanning out exploration sites, a handful of NPC corp macro-ravens, and a load of towers with expensive fuel bills. We hold Querious because a) its full of r64s, b) its full of Sov4 constellations to act as a buffer from invasion, and c) we need to secure the routes from Delve to Highsec for logistics purposes (such as moving POS fuel for literally thousands of towers from Empire every month).
If, as expected, Dominion significantly reduces the value of all three of these factors, we might well decide that, you know what, we don't need both regions, just a token presence in a handful of Querious systems and we can drop the rest. (maybe)
Quote: Do you think that Johnny Q Spaceman and his 100 man Alliance outfit is going to be able to walk into someones space and claim it just because you cant claim it with pos anymore your wrong. Johnny and his buddies will be smacked down and sent back home to empire and that same space will sit there with 0 Sov level on it still controlled by same poeple as before.
Its not about being 'able to walk into someones space', its about giving an incentive for existing space holders to drop the vast expanses of territory they need today and create vacuums that new entities can use. Maybe nothing will change and all today's big players will decide to hold on to everything, but at least that will be a player-driven choice rather than what we have today - where the current system forces us all to claim and hold vast swathes of systems we barely use so that we can hoover as many r64s as possible.
|
Cardiana
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 15:19:00 -
[543]
very nice ccp. it sounds like you are listening afterall.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 16:13:00 -
[544]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 13/09/2009 16:14:33 I get the feeling that many people (Including the devs) think making life easier for smaller alliances trying to gain a foothold in 0.0 must involve some sort of hand holding or artificial mechanic.
The solution is much simpler. By nature of the game, building up logistics and defenses in a territory of 1-3 systems should be exponentially faster and cheaper than doing the same in 10-30 systems. Combine this with the rising gate fees and I think you will see many new faces in 0.0.
Construction usually becomes slower and more expensive over distance so its even realistic. There could be a "central logistics module' or similar to tie it in with the new system.
I had hoped such a thing was what was being planned already but later Dev comments made me think otherwise. In fact, Treaties seem to be designed to facilitate the very kind of behavior that is making 0.0 dull right now.
Colonies and Capitals |
Marmios
Elite Aeronautic Developer Syndicate Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 17:50:00 -
[545]
The Goon is right imho. Large alliances control so much space cause of the current sov system and the distribution of wealth. In Dominion they will have ennough work to fortify their core systems. And if these systems support much more people then now, why should they pay for systems there is no use for? Sure alliances can then have like double+ (or even more) people in alliance with their current territory but this has to grow over time. Enough time for new entities to enter 0.0.
Limiting diplomatic possibilites to force more fights is just stupid. Its like telling todays army to fight with sword and shield again because its more "personal". You wont call the NATO a giant napland are you? ;) EVE has evolved over years and will go on with that. The stoneage in EVE is over now, welcome to the middle-age.
|
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum Core Factor
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 11:51:00 -
[546]
Originally by: Aralis Certainly this patch is all set to make life a lot harder for NRDS and gotta wonder if we can keep it up in these conditions.
Aralis - what is is about the patch that makes you think that NRDS (specifically in Providence, I presume, but also in general if you like) is going to become harder?
From reading the actual blog itself and the dev responses in this post, the only factual changes I can see are:- POSes no longer determine sovereignty, it's done by some separate specific anchorable (which costs ISK instead of trade goods + ice to keep going)
- You can upgrade your systems in various ways with other anchorables
- Treaties will probably happen in future but will be vague
All of these sound like good things for Providence and NRDS in general - less tedious tower fuelling to maintain sov, the ability to increase the value of Providence, and potentially more intricate cooperation with other non-red corps/alliances.
I wonder if the line that has you worried is:
Quote: ...raiders will be presented new opportunities to create havoc
which I can see being alarming out of context. Yet in the context itself, it's also mentioned that defenders get better tools to help defend their space. Unless the risk:reward is hopelessly screwed in favour of the attacker (which is unlikely to be the goal), then Providence is likely to do better than most here. If anything, I find it more likely that the organised and populous local defence forces will gain more from the changes, than the attackers do from the new havoc opportunities.
Overall the blog, and the forthcoming changes, seem to summarise to "it's going to be less worthwhile to hold large tracts of space that you don't really use, but it's going to be more worthwhile and viable to hold onto smaller, more developed areas of space." Providence definitely falls into the latter and as such I see nothing that would get me worried about its future viability.
Looking at it another way, if Providence couldn't make the new "home improvement" stuff work, it's never going to work anywhere else.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 13:36:00 -
[547]
Originally by: Mara Intala QFT
Personally I think the patch looks amazing. Made me and my corp. want to get a system or 2 in Sov. But of course what one would want, and what happens is very different. There is no way in H*LL that we would ever be able to get Sov. Not with out requiring a hundred+ PVP pilots and a cap fleet.
The only way that we would eve be able to get into 0.0 is, A. Pay an LARGE sum of isk to one of the major alliances to get blue standings and be a pet. B. Pay an even higher amount of isk to rent a couple systems and get blue standings to be a renter pet. C. If, and only IF we met there requirements join an alliance that already has Sov, but that, itself defeats the purpose of trying to get Sov for our selves.
Think about it for a second. All the large alliances need to do to keep all there space is to block the entry points. If you cant get in, you cant use the space, and in a sense they keep there space and donĘt need to spend any isk at all.
/ends ramblings
The only way I can see smaller alliances getting into 0.0 is if CCP adds a LOT more systems that lead to 0.0, so the large alliances wont have such an easy time blocking the entry way.
NQFT
No matter how large those alliances are, they cannot be everywhere at the same time. If there is one or two 100 man alliances claiming a handful of systems near goon space, they'll get crushed.
When there's 200 of those hundred man alliances spread all around, all with the time to spend fighting for their home, even the large alliances will need to reconsider whom to kick out and whom to not bother with. With no sov claim in large parts of the map, it will end up as a Whack-a-Molle game. And it's going to be a time-consuming task requiring continuous effort even to kick out smaller alliances if CCP does the thing right.
Obviously they will be kicked around, constantly having raids on their territory and risking being the next small alliance being kicked out for the fun of it. That only means you head for empire a couple weeks, find a new place and settle there.
|
riverini
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 14:27:00 -
[548]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Mara Intala QFT
Personally I think the patch looks amazing. Made me and my corp. want to get a system or 2 in Sov. But of course what one would want, and what happens is very different. There is no way in H*LL that we would ever be able to get Sov. Not with out requiring a hundred+ PVP pilots and a cap fleet.
The only way that we would eve be able to get into 0.0 is, A. Pay an LARGE sum of isk to one of the major alliances to get blue standings and be a pet. B. Pay an even higher amount of isk to rent a couple systems and get blue standings to be a renter pet. C. If, and only IF we met there requirements join an alliance that already has Sov, but that, itself defeats the purpose of trying to get Sov for our selves.
Think about it for a second. All the large alliances need to do to keep all there space is to block the entry points. If you cant get in, you cant use the space, and in a sense they keep there space and donĘt need to spend any isk at all.
/ends ramblings
The only way I can see smaller alliances getting into 0.0 is if CCP adds a LOT more systems that lead to 0.0, so the large alliances wont have such an easy time blocking the entry way.
NQFT
No matter how large those alliances are, they cannot be everywhere at the same time. If there is one or two 100 man alliances claiming a handful of systems near goon space, they'll get crushed.
When there's 200 of those hundred man alliances spread all around, all with the time to spend fighting for their home, even the large alliances will need to reconsider whom to kick out and whom to not bother with. With no sov claim in large parts of the map, it will end up as a Whack-a-Molle game. And it's going to be a time-consuming task requiring continuous effort even to kick out smaller alliances if CCP does the thing right.
Obviously they will be kicked around, constantly having raids on their territory and risking being the next small alliance being kicked out for the fun of it. That only means you head for empire a couple weeks, find a new place and settle there.
Yeah, until word get out of how effective will a wardec be in hampering the effectivity of empire alliances to recoup loses and set sail for new horizons... you know, the opening multiple fronts strategy.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 15:47:00 -
[549]
Originally by: riverini Yeah, until word get out of how effective will a wardec be in hampering the effectivity of empire alliances to recoup loses
"Not very"
If a small alliance isn't talented, smart or organised enough to cope with money-making in highsec with a distant 0.0 alliance deccing them, how on earth would they be expected to take and hold space for themselves in 0.0 where they can be shot at by anyone and everyone?
|
Waagaa Ktlehr
Amarr Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 15:59:00 -
[550]
Abathur is my favourite dev. :) Sounds like this could be a load of fun, and plenty of opportunity for mercs. :)
|
|
Zylawy
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 15:59:00 -
[551]
Is it just me or are these new structures going to replace POS's?
(Flogging the deadhorse?)
or are these outposts?
|
RockofLife
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 16:15:00 -
[552]
Edited by: RockofLife on 14/09/2009 16:16:10 i whould like full isk refund on all my pos's outposts and pos guns you now tell me i wasted all this isk
you cant in goodfath tell me your changeing all of sov and not give us refund on all this useless gear than shell out move for new stuff
it easy to refund just set npc buy oders for pos gear at all npc and outpost's for frist 90 days after this go live
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 16:44:00 -
[553]
Originally by: RockofLife Edited by: RockofLife on 14/09/2009 16:16:10 i whould like full isk refund on all my pos's outposts and pos guns you now tell me i wasted all this isk
you cant in goodfath tell me your changeing all of sov and not give us refund on all this useless gear than shell out move for new stuff
it easy to refund just set npc buy oders for pos gear at all npc and outpost's for frist 90 days after this go live
It happens every expansion. Some things become obsolete and poeple loose moeny. Deal with it. Adapt or die.
|
gtcseller 1
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 16:48:00 -
[554]
true just never on this scale of isk waste
|
Sh'iriin
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 17:03:00 -
[555]
Originally by: CCP Whisper
Originally by: Qi Teuf In a sense there will be control. If an alliance that owns the system does not pay the upkeep for the gates, then they shut down. That allows for control of stopping anyone from using the gates; friend or foe.
IMO that's a great thing.
Gates that are in an unclaimed system will continue to function normally for now. There were a ton of ideas floating around about reducing operational capacity, charging tolls or even shutting down stargates in unclaimed systems but all of them ended up being binned as too exploitable or just plain stupid. Not to say it might not happen but definitely not in this iteration of the mechanics.
will gates in claimed, but not paid system be deactivated? can allys keep sov in a system even when they don't pay for that system?
cause if, allys will claim systems - not pay upkeep - and get a jump-accessable system-pocket with full access controll = end of 0.0 action.
|
Arte
The Darkness Within
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 17:25:00 -
[556]
Control of Gates
There is a lot of hoohah about the link between gate control and sov status (in whatever form it arises). I wonder if the following idea might bear the weight of scrutiny?
If you have control of the gates, you have intel on who passes through them. This is passed into your local channel, therefore you can see who is in local if you are in the system with the gate control intact.
If you lose control of the gates in whatever manner it takes, you lose visibility of who is in local unless they speak up. (currently known as delayed mode?)
This could lead to local being changed to delayed mode with the ability to upgrade it by taking the sov level needed.
It would give an advantage to defenders in the manner of intel it provides but many roaming gang scouts jump into systems blind at the moment anyway.
Modifications to the scanning mechanism would alleviate the problem of only scanning 14-15au in one go, in the larger systems.
Thoughts? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Whisper "So you're going to have to do some actual thinking..."
|
the plague
Scoopex Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 19:43:00 -
[557]
Edited by: the plague on 14/09/2009 19:44:54 I'll wager that the net result of all these changes is that 0.0 wars will be even more vicious than they already are. There are plenty of alliances in EVE today that hold enough space that they can afford to lose a significant number of systems without getting too excited. But if it's only practical for an alliance to hold a relatively small number of systems, they'll likely fight tooth and nail for every inch! That will be especially true once an alliance has put a huge amount of ISK and resources into improving a particular system.
There is still much we don't know so it's hard to reach many conclusions. That said, EVE might indeed be a more interesting place if there were lots and lots of small alliances fighting to the death to defend their little corner of New Eden rather than huge power blocs where most people don't even know each other.
One other point to consider: If alliances are only going to be able to hold a small number of systems, then they will likely be faced with some difficult tactical choices as to which systems are worth holding and which ones aren't. Unlike today, it may not be practical to simply seize everything in sight, establish gigantic buffer zones, and then fortify the obvious choke points with 24/7 gatecamps. Instead, alliances may have to actually plan ahead and think a bit more strategically than has been necessary in the past.
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 19:56:00 -
[558]
Do you know what this is going to do for pirates camping for transports? The best profession in EvE is looking a lot better! Get ready for the age of Pirate Alliances! ------------------------------------
"A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie." |
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:55:00 -
[559]
Artificial means of restrictic alliances to the space they can hold (like some progressive upkeep depending of numebrs of gate f.e. more gates = more ukpeed PER GATE) is a bad idea.
Restrictions should come from natural reasons like incresed in logistic , spreading forces to cover all area , domestic diputes etc.
Obviusly jump bridges , jump freighters are an obstacle. Logistics and moving forces around are way to easy right now. Hopefull for changes in THAT regard.
|
Darth Skorpius
Crystalline INC Dead End Society
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 02:18:00 -
[560]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Artificial means of restrictic alliances to the space they can hold (like some progressive upkeep depending of numebrs of gate f.e. more gates = more ukpeed PER GATE) is a bad idea.
Restrictions should come from natural reasons like incresed in logistic , spreading forces to cover all area , domestic diputes etc.
you do realise that it would naturally cost money to maintain a gate? you have to keep it in a good working condition kinda like a road otherwise it eventually gets to the point where no one can use it safely ______________________________________________ Waiting for some random to make me a new sig |
|
Corporal Smackaho
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 02:34:00 -
[561]
Sorry for being off-topic but I saw some talk about gates and was wondering one thing.
Could an alliance hypothetically not pay their gate fees on purpose so that the gates would shut down, and then deploy their own JB network to replace it?
Or if you don't pay your fee's what happens? Do they shut off? Do you lose sov?
|
Hrodgar Ortal
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 05:29:00 -
[562]
Originally by: Corporal Smackaho Sorry for being off-topic but I saw some talk about gates and was wondering one thing.
Could an alliance hypothetically not pay their gate fees on purpose so that the gates would shut down, and then deploy their own JB network to replace it?
Or if you don't pay your fee's what happens? Do they shut off? Do you lose sov?
No. Devs have already answered this.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 10:51:00 -
[563]
Originally by: Darth Skorpius
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Artificial means of restrictic alliances to the space they can hold (like some progressive upkeep depending of numebrs of gate f.e. more gates = more ukpeed PER GATE) is a bad idea.
Restrictions should come from natural reasons like incresed in logistic , spreading forces to cover all area , domestic diputes etc.
you do realise that it would naturally cost money to maintain a gate? you have to keep it in a good working condition kinda like a road otherwise it eventually gets to the point where no one can use it safely
You see i have bolded the most importent part. Paying for gates = ok. Paying more PER GATE as you get them more = bad.
If you impose artificial rules like that people will just go around it. It will solve nothing. Thus we will be witnessing Goonswarm,Goonswarm2,Goonswarm3,Goonswarm4,Goonswarm5 etc.
|
Viae
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 11:24:00 -
[564]
Originally by: Junkie Beverage WTS - 2500 faction towers
Best post I've seen in a while.
|
Kenpachi Viktor
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:34:00 -
[565]
Will the ideals of the dead horse finally be implemented? ===============
|
Zylawy
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 16:13:00 -
[566]
Originally by: Kenpachi Viktor Will the ideals of the dead horse finally be implemented?
I really hope so!
|
Zendoren
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 17:35:00 -
[567]
I have to say that the total abandonment of POS' as Solv placeholders(Which from the looks of the dev blogs is the case) would cause the ISO market's bottom to fall out and thus causing the rise of Macro-ers to mine ore again and not ice. Unless CCP can come up with a sub-statue mechanism that will use products from the market as a way to "pay" for space, we will start getting numerous complaints from carebares on the forums with the title "sparse resources in high-sec" again!
In Short, If this is done ICE will be drastically de-valued which IMO does not need to happen! (I'm bias I suppose)
-++ |
Komaito
AFK
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 18:02:00 -
[568]
For me, this blog sounds pretty promising.
I think this is the first Eve expansion since I started playing that I am actually looking forward to! ------------------------------------ radiation... too much radiation... |
the plague
Scoopex Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:43:00 -
[569]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Paying for gates = ok. Paying more PER GATE as you get them more = bad.
If you impose artificial rules like that people will just go around it. It will solve nothing. Thus we will be witnessing Goonswarm,Goonswarm2,Goonswarm3,Goonswarm4,Goonswarm5 etc.
Good. All those organizations will require leadership. And there will be at least some chance they will turn on each other at some point. There's no chance of that now.
Nothing against the Goons. Just a statement of principle. EVE will be a more enjoyable place with tons of small alliances desperately fighting to hold their little corner of space rather than gigantic power blocs roaming around blobbing up space because they've nothing better to do.
|
Darth Skorpius
Crystalline INC Dead End Society
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:19:00 -
[570]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
Originally by: Darth Skorpius
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Artificial means of restrictic alliances to the space they can hold (like some progressive upkeep depending of numebrs of gate f.e. more gates = more ukpeed PER GATE) is a bad idea.
Restrictions should come from natural reasons like incresed in logistic , spreading forces to cover all area , domestic diputes etc.
you do realise that it would naturally cost money to maintain a gate? you have to keep it in a good working condition kinda like a road otherwise it eventually gets to the point where no one can use it safely
You see i have bolded the most importent part. Paying for gates = ok. Paying more PER GATE as you get them more = bad.
ah, completely missread your post. but yes, paying more per gate because you have more gates is rather silly, but i believe that it is part of thier anti sprawl mechanics to prevent a isngle alliance from holding too much space ______________________________________________ Waiting for some random to make me a new sig |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |