|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 01:04:00 -
[1]
Interesting.
I'm going to assume that the plaintive cries from those alliances who 'hold' large numbers of systems means that CCP have probably hit the right formula here.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:08:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Kushmir There is literally nothing static in 0.0 worth fight over anymore.
Lols. /me passes Goons a tissue. Cry more or adapt - you've always got the option of just being a roaming / raiding fleet of pvpers if you cant reach your inner bear.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:19:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Prognosys
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Kushmir There is literally nothing static in 0.0 worth fight over anymore.
Lols. /me passes Goons a tissue. Cry more or adapt - you've always got the option of just being a roaming / raiding fleet of pvpers if you cant reach your inner bear.
C.
Yes, how silly we are for neglecting the passing of 0.0 warfare, which for many people is half the fun of Eve.
Wait..wait..wut?
The "passing of .0 warfare"?
So on one hand you're not going to make enough ISK to pay for sov (and make a cash profit in the process) - surely this means you're not fighting but ratting / pve'ing? Doesnt it? Hmm?
Or on the other hand you're a alliance of warmongering, pillaging pod pilots who wouldnt care about the pve rewards anyway?
So what is it?
Dominion means you have to choose: settled farming life, ploughing those belts and reaping those npc rats or you're ghengis khan style nomadic warriors.
You cant have both.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 23:55:00 -
[4]
The constant comparisons to level IV missions and .0 income are irrelevant.
Ask yourself this question: why do you fight for sovereignty?
Answer - to make more ISK, to gain more sov.
This is a loss making activity, or at best a cost neutral one. Everytime you fight to attack or defend a resource (e.g moon goo) you run a risk of losing x amount of ships (isk) in the process. e.g how much isk did Goonswarm lose in the war vs BOB? Did they recoup their loses in isk terms or make a profit as a result: probably not.
Level IVs in Empire are gain making activity - you lose nothing but gain isk (unless your stupid or very unlucky). In fact regardless of how much ISK you make doing missions in high sec you will always surpass (given enough time) someone fighting for sov in .0
So provided the competition system for sov is a level playing field the 'isk income' is irrelevant. Alliance 'A' will only make so much ISK in .0, and so will Alliance 'B' who they are competing against.
Nobody is actually 'competing' against the high sec mission runner, because he's not in the same competition for sov.
To put it another way, if your goal is to "become rich" then run missions in high sec. If your goal is to become 'infamous / famous' for owning space then go to .0 and fight.
(Incidentally this is why its difficult to attract care bears to .0, its because they understand this fundamental equation and are not interested in 'owning space' as 'being rich' is their own reward.)
So what if the rules for owning space have changed? They've changed for everyone: just get on and adapt to it.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 00:03:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Shawna Gray
Originally by: Kepakh
Risk vs Reward is just nonsense. According to this logic you should be paid more for as you expose yourself to higher risk. If that is the case, you are just stupid and deserve to get podded.
Then what is 0.0? Is it just there as a pointless battlegrounds/epeen generator for some player generated map?
Essentially yes.
EVE is a game, the reward for some players in playing this game is a sense of achievement by:
1. Having the best ship / most ISK. AND/OR 2. Having their own patch of the game world. AND/OR 3. Depriving another player of points 1 & 2
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 00:09:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Halaxi
However, what would the incentive be for these new alliances to try? Like you, I would like to here from some aspiring 0.0 corps/alliances - what incentive do you see to basing out of 0.0, with the proposed pros and cons, rather than basing in Empire and taking day trips into 0.0?
Hal.
The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing.
Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying.
In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 00:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Pointfive
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Halaxi
However, what would the incentive be for these new alliances to try? Like you, I would like to here from some aspiring 0.0 corps/alliances - what incentive do you see to basing out of 0.0, with the proposed pros and cons, rather than basing in Empire and taking day trips into 0.0?
Hal.
The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing.
Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying.
In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'.
C.
Adding more billboard space to the ghetto to write your name on is not going drive more people to live there.
Your ascribing a 'isk value' or monetary worth to .0.
Thats not the point.
You dont go to .0 space to claim sov in order to "get rich". You go because of the challenge and reward of owning sovereignty - that's the reward in and of itself.
To use your analogy - at least I can write my name on the .0 'ghetto bill board': high sec doesnt have a bill board to write on...
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 00:33:00 -
[8]
Originally by: KeratinBoy
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Halaxi
However, what would the incentive be for these new alliances to try? Like you, I would like to here from some aspiring 0.0 corps/alliances - what incentive do you see to basing out of 0.0, with the proposed pros and cons, rather than basing in Empire and taking day trips into 0.0?
Hal.
The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing.
Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying.
In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'.
C.
Hubris, Cailais is thy name. Tell me, what other subjects do you feel qualified to speak about re the motives of more than one hundred thousand people?
I wouldnt say it's hubris, its just common sense.
Id admit that another aspect that deters people from trying to get a foothold in .0 is the mind numbingly boring activity of POS warfare - the proposed mechanics sound a little less boring, that could be a good incentive.
But ultimately it still boils down to the kudos (status?) of being an sov holding alliance. For example write down all the names of .0 Alliances you can think of on one piece of paper. Now do the same for high sec alliances. Compare the two.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 00:52:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Trent Nichols Edited by: Trent Nichols on 11/11/2009 00:35:22
Originally by: Cailais
The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing.
Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying.
In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'.
C.
No it isn't. If anything, the cost of setting up shop in Dominion 0.0 will ensure that no new colors arrive on the map to challenge the old anytime soon.
To be clear about us in the existing 0.0 alliances wanting to see new people out in 0.0 - We don't want this because we care about the small alliances themselves. We care about having more people to fight, closer to home. We also would like to fight some different people from time to time.
Dominion 0.0 will be a ghost town. No reason to fight our old enemies and no new enemies to fill the void. The biggest problem with Dominion isn't the weak upgrades or the insane costs but what it all adds up to - boredom.
Ive emphasised the critical bit here:
remembering the base question
"Ask yourself this question: why do you fight for sovereignty?
Answer - to make more ISK, to gain more sov".
So the dilemma here is whether the ISK cost of getting sov is worth getting your name 'on the map'.
The basic costs (not including cyno jammers, jump bridges et al) aren't that high. A sov .0 system (and the surrounding unclaimed systems) will probably cover the cost of holding sov in the first place. If you're lucky a Alliance might even make a small profit.
It will be a significant challenge. Id expect quite a lot of 'fledgling alliances' to try, and fail but then that's all part of the process. A bit like starting up a small business I guess.
Growth is a increased challenge as an Alliance will need to match its player base against its extent of sovereign space. Grow too fast and an Alliance will out strip its ability to maintain and cultivate that space. Too slowly and its surrounding area will become saturated.
Should be interesting to see how corps and alliances approach that balancing act.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 01:02:00 -
[10]
Originally by: gambrinous
Originally by: Cailais To put it another way, if your goal is to "become rich" then run missions in high sec. If your goal is to become 'infamous / famous' for owning space then go to .0 and fight.
(Incidentally this is why its difficult to attract care bears to .0, its because they understand this fundamental equation and are not interested in 'owning space' as 'being rich' is their own reward.)
It's you who doesn't understand. The reason it should be more profitable in 0.0 is so that 0.0ers don't have to go to empire for ISK. More ppl in 0.0 already. Just with that.
It's not about getting rich, it's about having a reason to grind in 0.0 over empire.
Well firstly you dont have to go to empire for ISK - its the sensible thing to do if you're saving ISK because you've drastically reduced the risk of losing ISK in the process. In that respect empire will always be the better choice, even if you half'd the value of level 4s tomorrow.
However you can make a decent amount of ISK in .0. Should it be more? Perhaps slightly more but even if you quadrupled the isk value of BS spawns in .0 still most would not come because you're just as likely to lose that amount of ISK in the long term trying to acquire it. Its the equivalent of firing faction ammo at high sec rats in a belt: if you're not careful you spend more on ammo than you make in bounties.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 01:13:00 -
[11]
Originally by: ep1k If their goal of growing 0.0 is to be met new goals need to be established.
I would 100% agree with that.
Originally by: ep1k isk would be a compelling one for many people.
Short term yes - but those that failed to make a lot of ISK or lost assets will just return to Empire. Those that will make a lot of ISK through increasing the rewards are the large alliances that are already established.
The question is then do we want more players and more diversity in .0, or just a bigger Goonswarm?
I guess I can already work out your answer to that?
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 01:18:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Alice Rubidinous
By the way, your "signature" betrays your sense of self-importance. I have no doubt that YOU might try to "put your name on a map".
My sig? Not sure what thats got to do with anything - its from the film 'Sunshine' (pretty good sci-fi film if you've not seen it).
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 01:36:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Cailais on 11/11/2009 01:42:05
Originally by: Alice Rubidinous
Originally by: Cailais
Well firstly you dont have to go to empire for ISK - its the sensible thing to do if you're saving ISK because you've drastically reduced the risk of losing ISK in the process. In that respect empire will always be the better choice, even if you half'd the value of level 4s tomorrow.
However you can make a decent amount of ISK in .0. Should it be more? Perhaps slightly more but even if you quadrupled the isk value of BS spawns in .0 still most would not come because you're just as likely to lose that amount of ISK in the long term trying to acquire it. Its the equivalent of firing faction ammo at high sec rats in a belt: if you're not careful you spend more on ammo than you make in bounties.
C.
NEVER STOP POSTING! You are so gosh darn smart!!! Tell us more about how risks and rewards work! I mean, in EVE there's no way to hedge against getting ganked in 0.0 space. You have to fly around with uninsured CNRs, just like in empire. Also, you get ganked continuously in 0.0, so it's IMPOSSIBLE to make isk. Even if the rats in 0.0 were worth a billion each, it would NEVER be worth it. EVER.
/sigh
Ive got to go - work beckons. But sure fine. Have it your way.
But basically if you make sov systems produce more ISK, and cost less to maintain a sov alliance will expand to control more territory.
It will need to spend less time in it's sov sys and will roam further where upon it will squish the fledgling alliances CCP are trying to encourage and we'll all be back right where we started.
C.
edit: quick question - if its possible to hedge against getting ganked in .0, then isn't it just as safe as empire so why should you get more ISK as a reward?
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
|
|
|