Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tiberius Adama
Amarr Capital Banking and Investment
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 18:21:00 -
[1]
Im curious what the 0.0 community feels is a "fair" fee that CCP is going to charge for jumpgate's.
Its a new idea they are introducing with Dominion, for alliances ( goons for example ) that hold 2 - 3 regions of space they mostly dont use.
What amount of ISK would make alliances decide to let go of that area?
Keep in mind they are seemingly NERFING moon mining ISK, while improving the ISK you can make in busy, active 0.0 space (better ratting / better mining)
Seems like alittle bit of a Robin Hood take from the rich / give to the poor mentality, and also stops the bleed of people jumping from 0.0 to empire to run missions to make ISK. ---- Capital Banking and Investment CEO
Sales Thread |
Neriel Odershank
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 18:34:00 -
[2]
Where did you read about that? I've read the last dev blog and i found nothing about fees.
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 18:40:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Neriel Odershank Where did you read about that? I've read the last dev blog and i found nothing about fees.
Upkeep fee's. Not Fee's for using the gates, just for holding sov in that system really. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
|
Tiberius Adama
Amarr Capital Banking and Investment
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 19:16:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Neriel Odershank Where did you read about that? I've read the last dev blog and i found nothing about fees.
Blane is correct, CCP wants to put a fee on alliances who own systems, to make holding too many systems not profitable. ---- Capital Banking and Investment CEO
Sales Thread |
Jarna
Amarr Eternal Frontier
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 19:23:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Tiberius Adama Im curious what the 0.0 community feels is a "fair" fee that CCP is going to charge for jumpgate's.
Its a new idea they are introducing with Dominion, for alliances ( goons for example ) that hold 2 - 3 regions of space they mostly dont use.
What amount of ISK would make alliances decide to let go of that area?
Keep in mind they are seemingly NERFING moon mining ISK, while improving the ISK you can make in busy, active 0.0 space (better ratting / better mining)
Seems like alittle bit of a Robin Hood take from the rich / give to the poor mentality, and also stops the bleed of people jumping from 0.0 to empire to run missions to make ISK.
They are wanting to add upkeep fees to systems. They are trying to encourage more people to make a concerted effort to actually go to 0.0. By making it so that more population in one system is better for production and that you have to run upkeep on systems you own, it will force Alliances to downsize their space. I think it's ridiculous that so few alliances own so much space, making it very hard for new corps alliances to gt their own space and having to pay money to alliances to rent solar systems.
Also, they are not technically nerfing moon mining. It may seem like a nerf at the outset, but the point is, you can upgrade production on Solar Systems (SS) you own when you have the people to support it. Another way CCP is trying to encourage consolidation of SS ownership.
It's not fair to the new community that they have to fight twice as hard to own 0.0 space just becuase there are a few alliances that own the majority of space. AS much as this is a game where the players set the rules and define how things go, CCP has an obligation to make it fair to newer players and well in some degree. By doing this, there will be more people able to take advantage of the game and enjoy it like they should be able to.
|
Avoida
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 19:39:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Tiberius Adama What amount of ISK would make alliances decide to let go of that area?
I don't think you anybody could come up with an exact ISK value but more likely alliances will look at the investment & income to return ratio. If the that ratio is worse than 1:1, claiming that space will produce a constant negative drain on the alliance finances. If that drain, however, only represents a very small portion of the overall alliance cash reserves, an alliance could claim it for a year (or more) before that steady drain becomes unsustainable.
|
Crackzilla
The Shadow Order
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 21:05:00 -
[7]
Empire needs to be nerfed.
The fee needs to be a constant isk * number of systems. Otherwise something that increases cost will simply result in lots more renter alliances holding all of the space.
I'd say it'll take something around 10bil/month/region to make a large alliance notice.
|
Domoso
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 21:27:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Domoso on 21/09/2009 21:29:59 Another bad idea by CCP. Soon you'll have to quit your day job to play the game enough to afford all the fees they're introducing to make things "fair".
If an alliance holds a system, who is there to collect the fees? There shouldn't be anyone other than the alliance. CCP is attempting to turn space holders into renters in the same way that alliances rent their space.
The moment CCP introduced "ownership" into the game they instituted a system of have's and have not's, a system of disparagement. How can they have a disparaging system in place and think it need "fixed" because it's disparaging a certain percentage of the population of New Eden. It's working exactly how "ownership" is supposed to work. The only thing CCP is going to do in attempt to "fix" it is f'up the game. That's it.
Without reworking game mechanics, these half-arsed fee/tax "fixes" are just bad ideas.
|
Zaerlorth Maelkor
The Maverick Navy Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 21:33:00 -
[9]
It's not a fee/tax they are introducing, I think they will just put on a fuel consumption on the stargates? So instead of fueling 1000's of towers, you will fuel 100 jumpgates. Sounds good to me. However, you might want to consider a few things, first of all; I now have one of those annoying sigs. second; you should probably move on to some more interesting things than reading this sig.
|
Jarna
Amarr Eternal Frontier
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 21:42:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Domoso Edited by: Domoso on 21/09/2009 21:29:59 Another bad idea by CCP. Soon you'll have to quit your day job to play the game enough to afford all the fees they're introducing to make things "fair".
If an alliance holds a system, who is there to collect the fees? There shouldn't be anyone other than the alliance. CCP is attempting to turn space holders into renters in the same way that alliances rent their space.
The moment CCP introduced "ownership" into the game they instituted a system of have's and have not's, a system of disparagement. How can they have a disparaging system in place and think it need "fixed" because it's disparaging a certain percentage of the population of New Eden. It's working exactly how "ownership" is supposed to work. The only thing CCP is going to do in attempt to "fix" it is f'up the game. That's it.
Without reworking game mechanics, these half-arsed fee/tax "fixes" are just bad ideas.
Oh, ok, so it's nice for the large Few alliances to get to own and enjoy 0.0 and have them tax people rather than allow everyone the same opportunity by making it harder for Large Alliances to own space just to own it. Another by-product of this will be cheaper prices on things as more people in 0.0 will allow for more materials.
|
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 21:46:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Zaerlorth Maelkor It's not a fee/tax they are introducing, I think they will just put on a fuel consumption on the stargates? So instead of fueling 1000's of towers, you will fuel 100 jumpgates. Sounds good to me.
Sounds like Atlas Alliance is going to be hilariously blindsided by Dominion if that is what you guys think. I only hope lots of large 0.0 alliances will ignore the dev blogs and think everything will be a-ok and then get wtfpwned back to Jita.
Here's a hint: a fully upgraded system will cost a lot of money and you will not be able to spam dozens of POS's and Cyno-Jammers/JBs and pay for it with high end moon goo anymore.
Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Nodaddy Notthecupboard
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 22:01:00 -
[12]
Trying to solve or balance any issue in Eve by increasing the ISK cost is idiotic, that ship has long since sailed.
Top alliances have been milking the moongold cash cow for so long ISK is meaningless.
|
Tiberius Adama
Amarr Capital Banking and Investment
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 22:18:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Nodaddy Notthecupboard Trying to solve or balance any issue in Eve by increasing the ISK cost is idiotic, that ship has long since sailed.
Top alliances have been milking the moongold cash cow for so long ISK is meaningless.
Moon Minerals are getting nerfed, and CCP has been quoted to say "substantially" ...
To me that means 20% ? maybe more? ---- Capital Banking and Investment CEO
Sales Thread |
buttesauce
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 22:31:00 -
[14]
how are they going to nerf moon gold? i can see an R64 buuf making neodymium and thulium useful while reducing demand for dyspro and prom.
however the entire t2 industry requires moon gold. you can just get rid of it or nerf it. I could see lowered the amount of the top end moongold required to build t2 items but there isn't much they can do.
however TBH they should make the rest of the moon material valuable. then corps moving out to 0.0 could get some less valuable moons and actually make a profit off of them.
|
Nodaddy Notthecupboard
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 22:32:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Tiberius Adama
Originally by: Nodaddy Notthecupboard Trying to solve or balance any issue in Eve by increasing the ISK cost is idiotic, that ship has long since sailed.
Top alliances have been milking the moongold cash cow for so long ISK is meaningless.
Moon Minerals are getting nerfed, and CCP has been quoted to say "substantially" ...
To me that means 20% ? maybe more?
Perhaps you are confused, reducing moon income "substantially" or not, does not change the fact that alliances like PL or Goons have been riding the moongold gravy train and raking in the ISK for so long, cost is meaningless to them.
Reducing future income has no effect on the obcene amounts of wealth already amassed, like I said , you cant balance anything with ISK cost, that ship has long since sailed.
|
Lotus Sutra
Caldari Sutra Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 22:37:00 -
[16]
I think they should be required to pay 1 billion isk, per system, per month, to keep SOV. The more systems an alliance holds, the higher the cost goes. Make them work hard for the money! ------------------------------------------------
No you can't have my stuff |
Ukucia
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 22:54:00 -
[17]
Originally by: buttesauce how are they going to nerf moon gold? i can see an R64 buuf making neodymium and thulium useful while reducing demand for dyspro and prom.
however the entire t2 industry requires moon gold. you can just get rid of it or nerf it. I could see lowered the amount of the top end moongold required to build t2 items but there isn't much they can do.
however TBH they should make the rest of the moon material valuable. then corps moving out to 0.0 could get some less valuable moons and actually make a profit off of them.
You're not thinking hard enough.
Moon gold is worth a lot 'cause it's rare. It's rare 'cause CCP made it rare. If CCP makes it so every unit of veldspar mined also gives you 5 units of dyspro, well then the price is gonna fall pretty fast.
|
Adeena Torcfist
Caldari Dark Underground Forces
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 23:58:00 -
[18]
well, then, that sounds good to me.
|
Tiberius Adama
Amarr Capital Banking and Investment
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 00:04:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Zaerlorth Maelkor It's not a fee/tax they are introducing, I think they will just put on a fuel consumption on the stargates? So instead of fueling 1000's of towers, you will fuel 100 jumpgates. Sounds good to me.
They specifically said that they dont want eve to be a grind.
I am extrapolating that to mean they dont want people running around dropping fuel into POS's.
So, no, i dont expect them to remove POS fueling and replace it with stargate fueling. ---- Capital Banking and Investment CEO
Sales Thread |
Ex Mudder
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 00:09:00 -
[20]
Problem isn't R 64 rarity, it's the low yield of R 64 reactions like Ferrogel and Fermionic Condensates. 400 and 200 / hr, compared to 10k an hour for others. Increase that by 2x, 5x, or 10x and R 64 rarity and obscenely high prices would be a non issue... as would alchemy.
|
|
Cass Tamuri
Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 00:10:00 -
[21]
There is another way to change the market value of R64 moons. Change the number / type of T2 components required to use less R64 constrained components.
|
Aldee
Federated Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 00:23:00 -
[22]
I say they charge 500 bil per gate per week.
|
Fei Shinto
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 00:28:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Fei Shinto on 22/09/2009 00:28:16
Originally by: Domoso Edited by: Domoso on 21/09/2009 21:29:59 Another bad idea by CCP. Soon you'll have to quit your day job to play the game enough to afford all the fees they're introducing to make things "fair".
If an alliance holds a system, who is there to collect the fees? There shouldn't be anyone other than the alliance. CCP is attempting to turn space holders into renters in the same way that alliances rent their space.
Ha Ha sounds just like real life. I need two jobs to maintain the same lifestyle I had before the economy was imploded.
The moment CCP introduced "ownership" into the game they instituted a system of have's and have not's, a system of disparagement. How can they have a disparaging system in place and think it need "fixed" because it's disparaging a certain percentage of the population of New Eden. It's working exactly how "ownership" is supposed to work. The only thing CCP is going to do in attempt to "fix" it is f'up the game. That's it.
Without reworking game mechanics, these half-arsed fee/tax "fixes" are just bad ideas.
Sounds just like RL
|
Tommy Blue
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 00:32:00 -
[24]
I'm pretty sure that CCP said they are just making dyspro/prom T2 components needed less and cheaper T2 components needed more in the T2 manufacturing process thingy.
I think that each alliance/corp should be allowed to have a capital system (possibly pos fuel bonus, doesn't really matter though) which has no upkeep cost. This allows the very small alliances and corps to get out into 0.0 without having to pay this cost (which will likely be high due to large alliances fat pocketbooks). After establishing a nice home system in 0.0 with some income, these small entities could then afford to spread out and take more space.
|
Haraukiae Youik
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 00:34:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Nodaddy Notthecupboard Trying to solve or balance any issue in Eve by increasing the ISK cost is idiotic, that ship has long since sailed.
Top alliances have been milking the moongold cash cow for so long ISK is meaningless.
Its an easy balance issue if they have the stomach to enforce it. Ever hear of the "income tax?"
Most likely they will cave but any hope that "mega corps" will die a long a painful death is welcome news to anyone who wishes to travel to 0.0. (Hopefully a cruel one as well)
|
Senator Dakmah
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 00:43:00 -
[26]
please let this happen. How can people go into low sec and get the good ores? I know people love power, but man if you ain't gonna use the system then let others have at it.
|
ollobrains
5th Front enterprises Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 00:47:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Senator Dakmah please let this happen. How can people go into low sec and get the good ores? I know people love power, but man if you ain't gonna use the system then let others have at it.
the easy way around this ie to let others into systems not being used is to in areas where there isnt a great deal of player activitiy ( ie people in last 30 minutes in space, pvp kills, NPC killed, amount of sig and amol sites completed etc) is to generate more high sec to 00 wormholes into these regions versus those buys regions. This would encourage more fluid transition and activity into those regions and result in more small parties running around ratting, killing and mining ( think drone and angel regions)
|
Crackzilla
The Shadow Order
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 00:53:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Vaal Erit Here's a hint: a fully upgraded system will cost a lot of money and you will not be able to spam dozens of POS's and Cyno-Jammers/JBs and pay for it with high end moon goo anymore.
most alliances really don't care. they want to protect their core systems and choke points, otherwise it doesn't matter.
I think you'll see terrority on the map reduce, but the same groups will control the same slice of the pie. Systems that no one cares about will stop moon mining some stuff for an extra few hundred mil a month here and there. Ratting systems might have just one pos or none.
As long as the jump gates work then not much changes. And if the jump gates can be rigged to not work for certain areas many would think thats *great*.
|
Jacob Mei
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 01:07:00 -
[29]
I wonder how many isk sinks CCP is hoping to add to this expansion. On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
Mioelnir
Minmatar Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 01:17:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Jacob Mei I wonder how many isk sinks CCP is hoping to add to this expansion.
This one isn't really getting added to the game, more renamed. The sov system is probably one of the biggest sinks in game right now.
With removing the old sov system a lot less starbases are needed (npc tradegood) and destroyed. Also the tradegood fuel requirements for the united starbases of new eden sinks A LOT.
It's fairly obvious that CCP needs a replacement for this to keep the status quo.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |