Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Pezzle
Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 20:57:00 -
[241]
Right now we do not have sov costs that scale at some unknown rate to the amount of space claimed. We do know how much it costs to maintain the existing system.
My own guess is that costs for an alliance to maintain anything near regional sov will outstrip the price of moderate numbers of fueled towers now. Considering that fuel economy will be dropping from a potential 30% to 10% flat rate the cost of maintaining your other towers will also increase. It will cost more and you get less. Then you must calculate the new cost of all those benefits already paid for and enjoyed.
Is the price of sov going to scale based on true sec? Who knows? We have precious little useful information. We only know what we have now. In the case of CVA and Providence the income we get from services does not sustain the system. Even if we charged rents, which we will not do, who would pay to live here? There is great concern that in order to sustain the system that we created we would have to destroy it. Will the new system punish us? I am sure you can understand why this is a cause of considerable irritation.
|
Albus Thumbledore
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 21:00:00 -
[242]
A big part of the CVA argument seems to be - we pay for things through cap production which will become more risky.
OK so what ? everyone will be subject to the same risks. So everyone will have to adjust prices according to that risk.
Why do you think you will be worse off ?
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 21:08:00 -
[243]
Pezzle, while this of course will all be speculation, i am going to guess that the alliances with one constellation will have significant less cost, one region will be roughly equal (considering you also now spent alot on fuel), and more than one it will quickly increase. NOTE: This is pure speculation.
However what is the worst that could happen? CVA now allready doesnt have sov in all of providence, and when benificial you can just give a constellation to a (new) holder alliance, they happy with space, they paying for stuff like outposts and pos's (which will still be needed for JBs and similar things), you pay less on gate fees. Win-win situation. (Which is probably pretty much exactly what ccp is trying to achieve).
However while the speculation about stuff we have some idea about, like system upgrades for better ratting, are actually not that useful considering we have no idea how much they upgrade, how much they cost, what the prereqs are, etc, is moderately useful at best (or entertaining), speculating about gate fees is pretty useless.
|
John Zorg
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 21:10:00 -
[244]
I would just like to throw my 5c in, hope CCP listens.
Most of Null Sec's wars revolve around the High Value moons. Removing this value will in effect make it pointless to claim further space? If a system is upgraded, is it persistant?, saying someone invades and takes control of the system, do the upgrades remain?
Way back when invention came about, there was talk of being able to do ME and PE research on negitive attribute T2 BPCs. Why not just allow that to ME 0: PE 0?
This should bring the prices down anyways?
Might be something worth concidering.
|
Ezekial Anakron
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 21:16:00 -
[245]
Under the current system in 0.0 miner/industrialist's are unnecessary for large alliances. Why? Because the big alliances make the majority of their cash from easily maintained and defendable POS's on the high end moons. The big alliances really have no need for miners, have plenty of production alts and ratting/complexes is how most pvpr's make their cash to buy new ships/mods. So why bother mining? You may like to pvp, I like to mine, someone else may like to do exploring.. so why not utilize us all. Inevitably making it more enjoyable for everyone. Pvp is never going to go away and there will always be plenty to go around. Getting more people into 0.0 means more targets. Alliances will always want to conquer more space if for no reason other than because they can! Resource rich systems now bring more into it then just a single moon.
Grinding - I keep hearing this over and over albeit from people who probably have no idea what ore even exists in their systems let alone really care. The large alliances already have billions upon billions of isk to upgrade if to upgrade the system is purely isk based. Then again why bother upgrading if your not going to mine it or utilize the resources? Or don't upgrade pay the penalties and live with it. What you call grinding I call fun, what you call fun I could care less about but there should be a need for everyone. This is not the real world, we play games for fun, some for a living I guess but hey whatever. If I want reality I wouldn't be playing a game. CCP is trying to give everyone the opportunity to have more usefulness. Will they make errors, of course, its human nature. Then again, if your perfect go design your own game! Oh and yes I probably have spelling, and grammatical errors but do not give a rats fat arse.
|
SIR PRIME
Minmatar Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 21:30:00 -
[246]
For those people talking about a CSAA shell game - you do realise that you can easily work out which are shells and which aren't in short order? ;)
We brought it up at the round table at fan fest as all you need is a single pilot in a cov ops - no spies, no docking, all above board and using ccp provided in game tools.
|
Eo Prime
Tempestas Oriens Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 21:40:00 -
[247]
Edited by: Eo Prime on 06/10/2009 21:42:42 Hi Sir Prime :)
Maybe there is some mechanic behind the marker/disrupts so you cant attack them all the time?
Eo 'still recovering from Fanfest'
Edit: typo
|
Tipz NexAstrum
Celestial Horizon Corp. United Corporate Ventures
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 22:24:00 -
[248]
Would it help to have the ability to tax not just on the corp level, but the ratting in an outpost system itself? If someone wants to reap the rewards of the upgraded rats they would be forced to pay the sov holding alliance. Aside from the taxes going only to the executor corp, help me understand why this is an unworkable solution.
Originally by: CCP Navigator People who think I am joking or talking big are going to understand very quickly that there will be order in these forums.
|
SIR PRIME
Minmatar Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 22:42:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Sapphrine Sir Prime, possibly you have answered this elsewhere but:
Whilst I agree that CVA would obviously benefit from a treaty system being implemented from the get go, I fail to see how you don't get any benefit from the player base using your stations. Providence stations are used extensively and everytime a player docks in one of your stations, every time they utilise the market, CVA gets a micro cut of pie. This income is about the same as 7-9 high end moons at least with your player base of 10,000+ characters utilising your space.
With the changes coming, utilising space will be beneficial when upgrading. What is stopping you upgrading the space further into providence and then charging more to dock in the stations surrounding? What is stopping you adding 0.5% to the market because that is what is needed to keep the region ok? And what is stopping you making a huge cost saving in POS which should at least be the right ball park to off set your upkeep costs?
CVA will have an interesting time come the patch, they will have to adapt but in subtly different ways to other major alliances.
Contrary to some opinions in CVA I'm not actually that negative about Dominion - I see a number of intriguing things but very few of them revolve around upgrading the economic side of systems and none of them revolve around Super Capital production. I'll freely admit there has been a huge amount of brainstorming on Dominion, upgrades, income changes, defensive ideas etc as IÆm sure there has been elsewhere.
A lot of us on the industrial side have already made changes û some for safety some to change focus. Most industrialists here are clear in their opinion that the risk versus reward paradigm for 0.0 has clearly shifted to where risk has mandated its removal to safer locations as it was mainly located in 0.0 for political not financial reasons. At least until the first few months after Dominion have passed. So those people anticipating huge hits on industrialists here when the patch inevitably goes wrong û sorry, youÆre too late.
The honest thing is we do get a benefit from the residents of Providence its just not the ones that people often presume û quite simply they help us defend the region and turn it into a thriving dynamic part of the Amarrian Empire. In many ways we seek to mirror high sec space - Holders take the place of the Amarrian Navy with neutrals and blues as the population that we strive to protect. Some actively join in helping us police the region, others just make use of the system and do everything they can to minimise their tax/op costs. Ironically some even complain when we fail to save them when they rat with reds in system as if weÆre Concorde with teleporting ships. ôWeÆre not Concorde!ö Has been uttered more than a few times over the last three years in our shared intel channel.
Its just we don't gain a huge amount financially and under the new system we know weÆre going to take a heavy hit û we just donÆt know precisely how heavy a hit yet. I actually think we can mostly cover it as hopefully the massive drop in fuel savings (all except one constellation in providence has the maximum fuel reduction) will be countered by the reduction in deathstarÆs needed but at present the upgrades just donÆt seem that exciting for someone thatÆs already established and weÆre very aware that weÆre going to have to maximise the defensive upgrades and therefore the fee for each system. ItÆs also very clear that most systems will need death stars in anyway to act as bases. Those without outposts doubly so.
As a faithful servant of the Empress, I am however eagerly awaiting the ability to build a cathedral, hospital and school on every planet in Amarrian Providence with planetary development which is something we are far more excited about.
|
Zastrow J
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 22:43:00 -
[250]
at fanfest a dev did say that if a system had an outpost it would have a higher upkeep cost.
lol providence
|
|
Lrrp
Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 22:50:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Ezekial Anakron Under the current system in 0.0 miner/industrialist's are unnecessary for large alliances. Why? Because the big alliances make the majority of their cash from easily maintained and defendable POS's on the high end moons. The big alliances really have no need for miners, have plenty of production alts and ratting/complexes is how most pvpr's make their cash to buy new ships/mods. So why bother mining?
Are you like for real? Miners/industrialist not neccessary? Just who do you think supplies mins and who uses mins to build ships/mods/ammo so the pvp'ers can buy them? I suspect you do not live on null sec or you'd know the fallacy of your statement.
|
Ukucia
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 23:02:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Lrrp Are you like for real? Miners/industrialist not neccessary? Just who do you think supplies mins and who uses mins to build ships/mods/ammo so the pvp'ers can buy them?
The ones without a strong industrial base use moon goo income to buy the finished ships/mods/ammo.
Come Dominion, the ones without a strong industrial base will need to get one really quickly.
|
Alistair Cononach
Amarr The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 23:18:00 -
[253]
Edited by: Alistair Cononach on 06/10/2009 23:19:34 Edited by: Alistair Cononach on 06/10/2009 23:18:52 My Alliance mates have asked I repost this from our own internal discussions on the pending changes to Sov. It was in reply to a concern that the "New Sov" is very unrealistic and artificial.
-----
And Sov 4 Immunity and Indestructable Stations isn't?
At the end of the day, "Sovreignty" really IS nothing more than a name at the top-left corner of the screen.
Frankly, CCP would have been FAR better off with a far less "defined" Sov. System, i.e. anyone can put/anchor anything they can afford up anywhere such an object can be placed. THAT is realistic. Stations can and should be able to be attacked any time and destroyed, with an appropriate amount of damage for such a huge expensive (and durable) structure, THAT is realistic. Station ownership should be independant from anything else in system, and should be able to mount it's own personal defense via "module" turrets and the like (like a POS but actually attached to the damn thing), because THAT is realistic. And of course, Stations should be able to hire or aquire NPC Agents, because THAT too is realistic within our game universe. Oh, and there should be no artificial limit on number of Stations, if there is a planet, it should be possible for anyone to put a Station there.
Sov. should only be a reflection of who owns "more" of what exists within that specific system, more both of items of stuff (Stations/POS's/Whatever else) and territory (Moons/Planets with something claiming/anchored there) and of "value".
Whomever then has the higher value has their name up the corner, but it means only that, a name in a corner and nothing more. Sovreignty is and should be more about control than it is about POS's or Anchorables or any other artificial or carebear grinding mechanic CCP or the players might want.
There sure as hell shouldn't be immunities and bonuses associated with Sov. Simply saying "this space is ours" shouldn't and doesn't make workers work faster, mining units mine faster or construction lines construct faster, or (pure lols) structures immune to damage or assault....THAT is quite unrealistic in the extreme.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 23:40:00 -
[254]
Originally by: Siobhan CVA comments....
While I have a good deal of respect for what CVA has been doing to open up part of 0.0, I don't really find a lot of arguments in your posts....
Basically, you're a medium-large alliance in control of a large area, protected by game mechanics. These two things are the MAIN reasons CCP are changing the sov system. Alliances being able to control large areas, and being protected so well by game mechanics they're almost invulnerable are the two issues that have turned 0.0 into the stale wasteland we see today.
Yet, I see no understanding in your posts that you realise this.... Mainly you seem only to focus on your own little world, and totally disregard that the mechanics you've been using for your Providence occupation are the very same that are causing the problems Dominion is supposed to fix. You do not provide any alternative solutions to the problems, so essentially your complaints are no different from ElvenLord's whine about losing his ISK-printing moons.... You want to keep the current mechanics (or something like it), even though those mechanics have been deemed to be bad for the game as a whole.
Yes, CVA has been good for the game.... However, if the choice is between CVA surviving as is with current mechanics and 0.0 continue to be stable, or CVA having to change/adapt and 0.0 developing in a new direction, I'll choose the last!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Doctor Maybe
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 23:55:00 -
[255]
Edited by: Doctor Maybe on 06/10/2009 23:58:13
|
evs
Genco Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 00:05:00 -
[256]
Originally by: Kerfira While I have a good deal of respect for what CVA has been doing to open up part of 0.0, I don't really find a lot of arguments in your posts....
Basically, you're a medium-large alliance in control of a large area, protected by game mechanics. These two things are the MAIN reasons CCP are changing the sov system.
actually we dont even control an entire region
Quote: Alliances being able to control large areas, and being protected so well by game mechanics they're almost invulnerable are the two issues that have turned 0.0 into the stale wasteland we see today.
if you think its a stale wasteland you really need to come visit providence...i personally think its way more populated than lo-sec
Quote: Yet, I see no understanding in your posts that you realise this.... Mainly you seem only to focus on your own little world, and totally disregard that the mechanics you've been using for your Providence occupation are the very same that are causing the problems Dominion is supposed to fix.
actually i am under the impression that ccp is looking at prov as a model for what they want 0.0 to be (in terms of population, market, small scale pvp, NOT NRDS)
Quote: You do not provide any alternative solutions to the problems, so essentially your complaints are no different from ElvenLord's whine about losing his ISK-printing moons.... You want to keep the current mechanics (or something like it), even though those mechanics have been deemed to be bad for the game as a whole.
Yes, CVA has been good for the game.... However, if the choice is between CVA surviving as is with current mechanics and 0.0 continue to be stable, or CVA having to change/adapt and 0.0 developing in a new direction, I'll choose the last!
we have to define what the problems REALLY are to begin with, I personally do not think ccp has done that very well at all
IMO the problem was the endless pos wars...and that this patch is NOT the solution (easiest thing to start with= place them at planets instead of moons... then go on from there)
|
Sinque Elans'ror
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 00:32:00 -
[257]
Originally by: CCP Fallout What else is coming for null sec? CCP Chronotis gives us the inside scoop on some of the design changes in store in his newest dev blog.
You failed to adress the issue of moon distribution. Most regions are still crap compared to a few really good ones. |
Ex Mudder
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 01:42:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 06/10/2009 16:41:31 I wonder the same. Without cyno jammers it will be bit more problems with possible capital hotdrops, but i dont see that as a very large problems, especially with number of station systems in provi that can be cyno jammed.
Remember the hellpurge of BoB / Kenny POSs after they lost sov? If we can not cynojam non station systems, there is nothing to keep roving gangs of Dreads from killing every tower planted in every non station system, except even larger gangs of dreads.
How is this a good thing?
FWIW, whining about losing sov 4 is silly, as the stations you planted to get Sov 4 will be the only systems you can cynojam, and will thus be the only nullsec systems that are friendly to carebearing and sub capital engagements.
I fail to see how the cynojammer nerf is in any way shape or form a good idea, as it make subcapital gangs irrelevant and carebearing impossible in unjammable systems. Assuming there is a cynojammer nerf and I'm not reacting to rumors.
|
Asuka Smith
Gallente Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 02:01:00 -
[259]
This is a BAD idea. Do you know why the last two years worth of 0.0 alliance politics happened? Because Delve was the best region, BoB had it and Goons wanted it. If all everyone needed to do to get epic 0.0 space was sit tight wherever they were and introvert their vast amounts of time and energy there would have been NONE of the epic 0.0 battles and betrayels of the past two years.
The reason that 0.0 is fun is because it is meaningful, holding space MATTERS, whereas now it is going to hardly matter and all the 0.0 space will be essentially equal. Also, lowering the value of T2 hulls is foolish as it removes the value behind a kill in PVP. The reason that PVP is fun in this game is that there is more to it than just killing your enemy. Killing him MEANS something. Either because it is putting him at a severe economic disadvantage (takes a few days of missions to buy a HAC as it stands for the average player, so if you get a HAC kill you can feel great because you really did something meaningful). If getting a HAC kill only set the guy back like four hours of missions then I am suddenly not as thrilled and will stop caring.
That is what it comes down to, this game is PVP driven and that works because the PVP is meaningful. The PVP in other games is dreadfully boring and the reason is that it does not matter whether you win or lose. In EVE it matters, if you lose it SUCKS. If it stops sucking people will stop PVPing.
I basically cannot believe that you think removing the impetus behind PVP will do anything but hurt the game immensely. There is no longer going to be any reason to fight after this patch if these changes go through as announced and it will literally kill the game. Do you know why the average account subscription on WoW is nine months? Because it takes that long to do everything in the game and then quit. The reason accounts last forever in EVE is because the PVP is meaningful and open ended, however if you expect people to do wow-arena PVP in EVE (Ie. PVP where losing does not matter, or is only a trivial inconvenience and people fight just for the sake of it) then you have another thing coming because the PVE in this game blows and it sounds like the PVP is about to as well.
Think about it, how many of you will really PVP if all you get out of it is the pleasure of hitting orbit and F1-F8? This game has the least skilled PVP of any MMO/Game I have ever played and yet it is the most fun because it is the most meaningful. Removing the meaning behind the PVP is going to REALLY cripple this game. Will you ever be willing to camp a station to kill an enemy if all he is going to lose is the time it takes to fit another identical ship? are you really going to go on 40 jump roams to crush your enemies if it takes more time to get there than it will for your enemy to replace his loss? Will you bother fighting over sovereignty if you can have just as good of space just by staying where you are? On the plus side this patch will remove the blob because there will be nothing left worth doing and so you will never get 500 people together again. This patch is so terrible.
Sorry for coming off in rant style but I feel really strongly that this game is about to take the worst turn it has ever veered towards.
|
Tipz NexAstrum
Celestial Horizon Corp. United Corporate Ventures
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 02:24:00 -
[260]
Originally by: Asuka Smith Do you know why the last two years worth of 0.0 alliance politics happened?
Because some random idiot had a signature that was in bad taste, and BoB had too much ehonor to let it go. I fail to see the logic that it was about moons (they were still worthless) or ratting (Goons lived in an NPC region). This revisionist history alot of people are trolling with is rubbish.
That's like saying, "Once CCP removes the static 10/10 complexes there will be no more wars!!!"
Originally by: CCP Navigator People who think I am joking or talking big are going to understand very quickly that there will be order in these forums.
|
|
Halycon Gamma
Caldari The Flying Tigers
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 04:22:00 -
[261]
Asuka Smith
PVP will still happen, and still be meaningful. Tech3 will just take the place of Tech2. More tech3 will slowly roll out the door from devs to us, and it will be expensive and meaningful to kill. Meanwhile, tech2 entry barrier will be dropped because the devs want the stuff to still be used. This isn't a tech2 nerf, or a devaluation of tech2 so to speak. Mostly, this is going to hit tech1, as tech2 prices will become low enough everyone can easily afford it. But thats the nature of these games. Some day Tech4 will hit TQ, and you'll see the same thing happen again with the tech3 barrier to entry dropping.
So cheer up, you'll always have meaningful stuff to pew, and life will go on as it always has. You just may not be in the ships you are now, and you may not be shooting at the same ships you are now. But thats good, variety keeps things interesting.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 05:32:00 -
[262]
Those wars had nothing to do with moon minerals, it was just the dislike both sides had for each other.
There will still be wars because two sides dislike each other. But i think we can at least be sure there will still be raids and gangs into each others territory. And what do you do when you finally get sick of those reds raiding your space again and again? You invade their space and try to remove them from existence, so still enough reason for war.
@MM guy (i believe), there is one difference however, well two actually.
1. The reason why that didnt happen with cyno jammers wasnt that you couldnt directly cyno into the system. The reason was that every attempt to take down the cyno jammer would result in a wreck field after the dual doomsday. Titans are changed, even if you have cyno jammers they can now be taken down without much issues.
2. There dont need to be many pos's to siege in station systems. Since they also wont have jump bridges there, you basicly only will have moon miners and some safe spot pos's.
|
Vanzatoarea
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 06:28:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Norahb
Originally by: Vanzatoarea
So say...1 hour of my time guarding carebears wont be better spent making isk myself?
Fact remains , noone will go through the trouble of draging these people to 0.0 . People that wnat 0.0 are in 0.0 now , people that dont hang in empire . Domininon wont change that
You make is sound as if you have never done group stuff before . I doubt that is the case but whether you have not or are just being argumentative in group ops the profits are split evenly amongst everyone that attends usually . For example on a null sec mining op if you had 5 people mining 2 hauling and 3 providing combat support then the profit, after ship losses are paid for and the corp gets it's cut, could be split 10 ways . You say why not just do it myself and keep it all but the Devs have already indicated that they intend to change the solo nature of null sec and make it much more group oriented . They already started the 11% corp tax on NPC corps on SiSi which was done to encourage the mission grinding alts to join player corps . So the intent has been put forth that group ops and cooperation will be the pathway to success in null sec post expansion . It has yet to be seen if those goals will be met but that is the intent .
what you fail to grasp , aparently , is that groping is fine , groubing JUST fir the sake of grouping isnt
PvE is by default tedious , it`s all about efficiency...the faster it gets done the better
11% tax means nothing in empire...even so my alts arent npc`ed corped
a person building caps in 0.0 isnt a carebear
noone mines in 0.0 except masochists
the main issue is the stupid l4 in highsec line
|
Yon Krum
The Knights Templar R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 07:25:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Lrrp So when everyone is mining arkanor/bistot/crokite in their boosted systems, one might as well mine veld in high sec as the value of megacyt and zydrine will be less than trit.
This has been a concern of mine as well. We all know what happened to Zyd especially once the Drone regions were released and you well and truely could "mine with guns".
Not pretty.
I hope these system improvements account for some of the extra high-end supply that is coming in 6-9 months or so.
--Krum --Krum |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 07:46:00 -
[265]
Edited by: Kerfira on 07/10/2009 07:50:08
Originally by: evs actually we dont even control an entire region
A REGION? An alliance your size should only control (at most) a constellation! I know resource wise (apart from moon gold) that hasn't been possible until now, but Dominion supposedly cures that...
Originally by: evs if you think its a stale wasteland you really need to come visit providence...i personally think its way more populated than lo-sec
Pardon me.... but Providence is not '0.0'... It is a single region out of 20+(?) in 0.0. The rest IS by and large a stale wasteland!
Originally by: evs actually i am under the impression that ccp is looking at prov as a model for what they want 0.0 to be (in terms of population, market, small scale pvp, NOT NRDS)
True, but NOT under the control of one alliance!
Originally by: evs we have to define what the problems REALLY are to begin with, I personally do not think ccp has done that very well at all
I think they got the most troublesome parts of it.... Alliances being able to control far too great an area, moon-gold being way too good, defences being too strong and not requiring people to be there, low resource density....
Originally by: evs IMO the problem was the endless pos wars...and that this patch is NOT the solution (easiest thing to start with= place them at planets instead of moons... then go on from there)
Placing POS at planets would not make it LESS tedious to shoot POS but just reduce the number. It wouldn't reduce the blobbing, nor make defences effectively weaker (the opposite in fact as you could now POS-spam even high-moon-count systems so an attacker would have no foothold), nor fix moon-gold, nor fix the control of large areas etc. etc. Sov linked to POS was broken and had to go! I don't know whether Dominion will work out, but at least its a starting point. POS-sov was a dead end!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 08:08:00 -
[266]
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 07/10/2009 08:12:48 Edited by: Zey Nadar on 07/10/2009 08:10:45
Originally by: zacuis
my questions are
1. concidering how few people it takes to mine out a 20 belt system of hi ends. and how few people it takes to rat out a system are we really gonna see boosts to a system enought to sustain 50-100 people cos frankly ill be amazed if youve got the numbers right with this one. or are u expecting us to mine the veld or rat in a fashion that will make us less money that lvl 4s.
2. these changes are gonna be an afk cloakers dream. i for see small gangs of stealth bombers sitting afk all day and striking now and again. making there uber systems useless. have u concidered this. please dont tell me the solution u have came up with is team work and a dedicated pvp gang. cos thats not gonna cut it a small stealth gang will 1 shot miners and ratters alike. and be all cloaked up before help arrives.
In-frigging-deed. Excellent questions. First, the resources available in 0.0 systems need to increase MASSIVELY for it to be worth for a generic ratter/miner. And for this apparently static source to compare to the infinitely scalable resource of highsec missionrunning. If Im ratting, all it takes is like 2-3 other people to be present in the system until I deem ratting not worth it and move on?
Second, I dont think the devs understand how few people it takes to ruin the life of a big group of PVE people grinding resources in a system. Especially mining. The upgrades that increase the safety of the system really need to be up for the job. Otherwise resource grinding will only be possible when theres a big blob of PVPers in the system. This will debunk all dev ideas of resourcegathering. At least make the resources available in places that you need to probe, instead of big bullseyes known as asteroid belts.
How long does a hulk have to mine until it has replaced its own cost in resources? How long does it take for a random roaming HAC to blow it to smithereens? How many systems and belts can the HAC roam in the time the hulk needs to mine?
I really hope devs got the guts to increase the 0.0 resources appropriately. With 99% certainty we will see a massive influx to empire missionrunning systems when this goes live.
Quote: Originally by: CCP FalloutWhat else is coming for null sec? CCP Chronotis gives us the inside scoop on some of the design changes in store in his newest dev blog.
- You failed to adress the issue of moon distribution. Most regions are still crap compared to a few really good ones.
Indeed. I hate this appallingly braindead idea of making most of 0.0 worth absolute crap in resources. Make it more even spread, PLEASE.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Novus Auctorita
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 09:21:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Soyemia No, you're stupid. He has made perfectly good sense. You don't seem to get it do you? You need to make a treaty to tax people who rat in such and such systems. So... in order to get any isk from those upgrades they need to make a treaty with every involved one who wants to rat. That's a logistical impossibility, so they might just as well use NBSI. You are a damn stupid person.
Except they won't be 'blue', they'll be 'people who have accepted the treaties in place for these systems'. What makes you think they'll need to get blue standing?
It's going to be automated and you can RP justify it by saying it's just an automatic declaration that the pilot will follow the Amarrian laws and such. (Including taxes)
|
zelalot
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 09:54:00 -
[268]
I am personally looking forward to seeing how this one plays out.
For someone involved in an alliance who is trying to make a stand but has been the underdog for some many months due to lack of ships and numbers etc, this should really open 0.0 space up.
I can see smaller alliances putting their name on the map and even holding the space, but i can see the bigger alliances having to justify their massive blobs.
The current game mechanic means big alliances get richer whilst the smaller alliances dont get anywhere. I mean in 0.0 "Do you have a ship replacement program?" - being a so called "PET" probably means no.
It certainly means everyone needs to work together rather than the indutsry side get rich and the pvpers go broke.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 09:56:00 -
[269]
And another thing, if sovereignty will be cost-based, what exactly decides when sovereignty will change hands?
|
HeliosGal
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 12:10:00 -
[270]
Originally by: Zey Nadar And another thing, if sovereignty will be cost-based, what exactly decides when sovereignty will change hands?
dust 514 planet control, read the other dev blog on the sov markers and sov disruption fields. Im guessing capital ship production will work in a different way now
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |