| 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) |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2009.09.09 16:38:00 -
[151]
 Originally by: Slave 2739FKZ
There will be Threadnaughts. And Bug. And this is all ready generating tears, so it's all excellent and business as usual.
Could end being quite cool actually.
No, I don't think it's all ready.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Hrin
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 16:43:00 -
[152]
hell yeah time to fire up alt alliances
|
Avatoin
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 16:55:00 -
[153]
well, i guess this finally means that alliances too unorganized and committed to truly own 0.0 space will find it much more difficult. Finally, the undeserving get what they deserve... yea i'm talking about you Arcane (that is if the alliance still exist.)
|
GPFS
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 16:56:00 -
[154]
not sure if you have noticed, but it was actually players that wanted this change in the first place
but i guess there is a reason that trolls hide behind alts right?
"Which" players wanted this is the main question? I sure hope CCP made their homework, and this is not gonna be another CTF game...
What ALT?
|
Shemhamphorash
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 16:57:00 -
[155]
Quote:
When Dominion is released, the answer is simple - if you want to control the space accessed by these stargates, you will be responsible for their monthly maintenance and upkeep.
Can an alliance by use of this mechanisme, deny access to its space? Can it close all borders and be happy carebears without interuptions?
|
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 16:57:00 -
[156]
Originally by: XXSketchxx
Originally by: GPFS
Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:41
Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:25
So you keep nerfing everything in game...to make it more easy for the noobs ( the titan nerf that's comming, "mommy...mommy I got DD and lost me fancy ship" ). Big alliances spend tons of work and time to get a hold on the space they have (set up POS towers defend them), and now you decide to stick a middle finger in their ***. I wonder how much more abuse can your players ( customers ) take . Way to go, that's the proper way to treat your customers...People never learn that big and radical changes don't do so well with the ppl.
you should probably not post again
Ahhh, why not, his tears taste delicious!
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Raneru
Euphoria Released
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 16:59:00 -
[157]
It all sounds so good. I'm expecting to wake up any minute...
|
ArmyOfMe
The Athiest Syndicate
Advocated Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:00:00 -
[158]
Originally by: GPFS
not sure if you have noticed, but it was actually players that wanted this change in the first place
but i guess there is a reason that trolls hide behind alts right?
"Which" players wanted this is the main question? I sure hope CCP made their homework, and this is not gonna be another CTF game...
What ALT?
sorry, 5 month old chars then.
i guess those 5 months have given you a great insight into what ppl want for 0,0
|
Sral TBear
Mark Of Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:00:00 -
[159]
This actualy could make me go back to 0.0 and alliance stuff..... 
This might just be th biggest change for the better than eve have seen in 3 years....i do feel sorry for those alliances that have fought with the current system.....but as all say...adapt or leave....
Realy realy good stuf here 
|
Alexandros T'dra
Minmatar
Ion Corp.
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:00:00 -
[160]
In my opinion, I would think it more important to get the alliances more accepting of the game's industrial/mining base. Do that by making "gate upkeep" dependent on fuel and processed materials and loose the isk dumping. Alliances would still have to spend isk for the goods under this proposal but miners and industrialists would prosper better with such a built-in market needed to run the gates.
|
VonRijSE
Phoenix Tribe
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:01:00 -
[161]
Edited by: VonRijSE on 09/09/2009 17:01:24
congratz to ccp for improving the system A LOT.
one more thing i would like to see changed now tough.
now would be perfect time to redistribute moon materials.
if you see low sec locations of high end moons: Fort Knox list
i cant believe having over half of them in one region can be ccp's idea of ballanced. if this is the case in low sec its prob the same in 0.0. with sov dislocated from moons, now its the perfect time to change moons to. please dont postpone this
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:06:00 -
[162]
Regarding the cost of holding space: When you say "the space you spread your 'Dominion' across" do you mean the total number of systems an alliance holds or the number of jumps the alliance spans? i.e. - If your alliance lives in Feyth, grabbing a moon in Deklin will cause you to loose more than you gain.
If the cost is based on total systems it seems like large alliances will just let their weaker systems go and keep the ones with the best moons even though they are spread over 1/4 of the eve galaxy.
Overall this looks very promising but I haven't seen enough details - especially regarding how defense and conquest will work - to get excited.
Colonies and Capitals |
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:08:00 -
[163]
Removing Starbases from the equation is a huge mistake, and the assertion that Starbases are an evolutionary dead-end is one I disagree with vehemently.
They might not have been designed with sovereignty mechanics directly in mind, but they were always designed to give the residents security within the system. Something along the lines of "if you want a logistical and military advantage here, pay for it". The reason CCP eventually included them into the sovereignty rules was because they were already related to system security, so don't pretend like it was a nonsensical decision which is finally being rectified through the powers of hindsight - it's not.
By removing the need to deploy towers, you might be removing the boredom caused by their removal - but blowing them up is more meaningful than any other action available to players. Fleet battles are childs' play compared to razing a major outpost system. These new gate disruptors won't cost as much as towers, and even if they do, there are fewer of them in any given system.
Your way of addressing the boredom, primarily caused by an unbalanced level of risk and effort in deploying new towers versus destroying them, is to trash five years of logical development for something that has no real basis in player feedback. This new system is a variation of the overhaul which was peddled to us ages ago, and subsequently shot down by simple common sense:
If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield.
I'm in favour of including gates and other vectors in the sovereigntly process, but your method of "fixing" 0.0 territorial warfare is like doing chemotheraphy with solar flares.
|
Jelek Coro
Endemic Aggression
Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:14:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Full Bowl
Ha! Large alliance tears!
control 1 system = 25mil per month/gate
control 2 systems = 50mil per month/gate
3 = 100mil
4 = 150mil
etc.etc.etc.
better be using every system you have to make isk!
Silly carebear. Such a system would not work for obvious reasons... try to think it through 
|
Testarosa
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:18:00 -
[165]
Home Dev: Will it be possible to set up achievements for treaties with corp or alliance partners like "Pirate down = X isk"
Will it be possible to hire "NPC SpacePolice" to roam in the region automatically if alliances devellop enough their systems, against ISK bills like the "treaties" with corp thing.
cheers !!
|
Avoida
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:24:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
Don't act that stupid.
It would be trivial to make the system so that costs of holding space grows much faster than the income of said space - setting natural limits on how much space is economically sensible to hold.
For example a k*n vs n*log(n) relationship. Small amounts of space would then scale well, but as your system count growns (just to pick one parameter), it becomes harder to justify, and you hit a equilibrium between cost of holding it vs benefit of holding it.
If sovereignty of a given alliance can only spread through physical connections (gates) then reaching all those rich moons might itself prove to be too difficult of a task. A string of single systems stretching out a dozen jumps just to reach an R64 moon might be incapable of obtaining infrastructure upgrades and thus will be easier to contest ownership.
Alliance might be forced into more compact forms and be unable to gerrymander their borders to reach all those juicy moons...or they could just set up fake alt alliances to control them for the main alliance at which point nothing really changes.
|
McNutter
Gallente
Corax.
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:25:00 -
[167]
Seeing as the said sov holder is paying the bills for there jumpgates is there going to be a control like docking rights on who can jump through the gates?
|
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:27:00 -
[168]
hmmmm vague
will hold propper comments till more details are released ... for now ...
cookies \o/
|
Pnuka
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:31:00 -
[169]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield.
The system and it's resources or potential resources should be what is being fought over, not the markers used to claim them. If they left the space the same as it is now, and introduced the new "sov" mechanic only I think everyone would agree with you.
|
Hoo Is
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:33:00 -
[170]
I think they used FW as a alpha test. The Sov Flag will be the bunker... the upgrades will be the Beacons or whatever they are called... but rather than orbiting them, you have to pop them. Upgrade by making more spots they have to pop before taking out the main flag.
And I am sure they are going to make it so you can put up gate guns and set them like POS guns, shoot at reds only or shoot everyone that is not blue etc etc etc.
But please, make them use ice products or something mineable rather than just be isk sinks. Give the miners/industrialists some love.
----
a reply which adds nothing to a thread or results in a thread being bumped with no new discussion worthy content is considered spam and as such warrants a forum ban |
ArmyOfMe
The Athiest Syndicate
Advocated Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:36:00 -
[171]
Originally by: McNutter
Seeing as the said sov holder is paying the bills for there jumpgates is there going to be a control like docking rights on who can jump through the gates?
i very much doubt that since it would kill off roaming gangs etc
|
Haytrid
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:37:00 -
[172]
I can see this coming a mile away:
Alliance: OK, we pay for and upkeep the stargate so we don't want "x" alliance or red standings to be able to access it, etc.
CCP: We'll, you can't do that, we expect you to pay for the upkeep on it but you can't restrict passage through it.
Alliance: Alright!, what a great deal, sounds really cool, thanks!
Guess we'll just have to wait for more details.
|
Nachshon
Caldari
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:39:00 -
[173]
I may like this system better (not being that familiar with the current system).
POSes will now be useful primarily as either sources of income or bases of operation for pilots. Most POSes will have at least one player who spends a lot of time there.
____________________________________
Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship.
The True Meaning of Freedom
My v |
wickedpheonix
Guy Fawkes Trust Fund
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:42:00 -
[174]
Sounds like ice is getting a pretty huge nerf offhand - yes, there will be a demand for ice for all the cap ships, so the price won't hit 0, but it certainly won't be as high as it was when POS's needed fueling. Doesn't sound so good, ice fits in well with those of us who would like to do homework (or post on the forums) or do something else... which a good 10 minutes between needing to drop the ice in an Orca, along with inexhaustible roids, affords us. Not talking about macros, just semi-AFK hi-sec play, which does still limit you to be near your computer and is legitimate isk gain (and a very big loss if someone suicides you).
So, hopefully some of the new infrastructure upgrades will require fuel. There's a difference between hauling fuel to a POS in the middle of nowhere and hauling fuel to an Outpost that is actively manufacturing off BPO's whose products you need to haul out of there anyways, and thus have a reason to bring a hauler out there anyways and not just a random fuel sink.
Also, hopefully we're talking about persistent borders here - yes the blog says sovereignty is one level only this time around, but I'd like to take that to mean that higher sov levels won't be required to build whatever you like - sov should still not be able to be challenged if you have sov in all the bordering systems.
Why would someone destroy infrastructure upgrades? If you're invading a system because it has been upgraded then it doesn't make sense to destroy them once you're there and lost ships to take control of them. Essentially, where's the balance? Eventually all of 0.0 will get upgraded in that case... and then what?
It looks good but I'm still a little cautious. If Dreads are still important, then unless the Dread is going to be radically changed, that means that *something* will need bashing - and then we just go from POS bashing at a moon to infrastructure bashing somewhere else in the system.
e.g. NEEDS MOAR DETAILS.
|
XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:49:00 -
[175]
Whats with all the whining about "NEED MORE DETAILS." They said this blog was first in a series of more.
Its called foreplay. Enjoy it. I sure am 
_____________________________________________
-Sketch, Certified Pharmacist
Need a Boost?
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:58:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Pnuka
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield.
The system and it's resources or potential resources should be what is being fought over, not the markers used to claim them. If they left the space the same as it is now, and introduced the new "sov" mechanic only I think everyone would agree with you.
That's a good one, space friend.
0.0 wars aren't fought for the resources within the territory. They're fought because of the consequences involved, which makes the outcome of fights more meaningful than random ganking or fleet battles ever could be. These tangible economic consequences extend into intangible qualities like pride, ego and social classes further enhancing them.
But resources? Losing sovereignty and all infrastructure within it is not equivalent to losing access to 0.0 resources.
Its possible to make as much, if not more money working with a small group of friends in 0.0 as you do by building a player empire. As a group you will pull in less money, but per person is what counts. You have no maintenance costs or obligations and duties that waste your time.
Even if that were somehow true (again, its not), players simply migrate to whatever 0.0 force happens to be successful. If the loss of territory, and even forced migration happens without notable economic impact on the defeated party, its the corporation equivalent of walking back to your corpse. A goddamn inconvenience, not a one-way ticket to ruin/empire.
The only resource in EVE which you can assert is thoroughly contested by players would be "R64 moons", and even they do not have much connection with territory or sovereignty. If you can show up to protect that moon, the system itself is completely irrelevant. The big capital powers hold these moons in backwater systems found in empire, syndicate, or whatever. Sometimes from across the map.
|
ThorTheGreat
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 17:59:00 -
[177]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Removing Starbases from the equation is a huge mistake, and the assertion that Starbases are an evolutionary dead-end is one I disagree with vehemently.
They might not have been designed with sovereignty mechanics directly in mind, but they were always designed to give the residents security within the system. Something along the lines of "if you want a logistical and military advantage here, pay for it". The reason CCP eventually included them into the sovereignty rules was because they were already related to system security, so don't pretend like it was a nonsensical decision which is finally being rectified through the powers of hindsight - it's not.
By removing the need to deploy towers, you might be removing the boredom caused by their removal - but blowing them up is more meaningful than any other action available to players. Fleet battles are childs' play compared to razing a major outpost system. These new gate disruptors won't cost as much as towers, and even if they do, there are fewer of them in any given system.
Your way of addressing the boredom, primarily caused by an unbalanced level of risk and effort in deploying new towers versus destroying them, is to trash five years of logical development for something that has no real basis in player feedback. This new system is a variation of the overhaul which was peddled to us ages ago, and subsequently shot down by simple common sense:
If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield.
I'm in favour of including gates and other vectors in the sovereigntly process, but your method of "fixing" 0.0 territorial warfare is like doing chemotheraphy with solar flares.
someone should do chemotherapy on your posts
|
Attrezzo Pox
Amarr
The Bastards
The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:03:00 -
[178]
Anything similar to This linkage?
I thought it was a good idea. Albeit with reasonable balancing and restrictions.
*-------------------------*
PoX IS Eve!!! BOOM!!! |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:08:00 -
[179]
Originally by: XXSketchxx
Whats with all the whining about "NEED MORE DETAILS." They said this blog was first in a series of more.
Its called foreplay. Enjoy it. I sure am
DON'T TEASE ME BRO !!  
--------
Ideas for: Mining
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:13:00 -
[180]
Originally by: ThorTheGreat
someone should do chemotherapy on your posts
Oh no, I had something to say and the nads to say it. You jealous? You gonna cry now?
|
| |
|
| 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 |