|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 19:12:00 -
[1]
If the idea is to have more smaller alliances in null sec then the costs of upkeep for the second system should be more than the first. The cost of upkeep for the third system should be more than the cost of upkeep for the second etc.
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 20:01:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:34:33 Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:33:15
Originally by: Cearain If the idea is to have more smaller alliances in null sec then the costs of upkeep for the second system should be more than the first. The cost of upkeep for the third system should be more than the cost of upkeep for the second etc.
While a good idea in theory, this won't work in practice. In practice you would get "GoonSwarm -- Delve", "GoonSwarm -- Querious", or "GoonSwarm -- OK-FEM", "GoonSwarm B4H", depending on how harsh the multiple system penalties were.
...
If the rules had some requirement that each of these different "goonswarm ____s" had to have different leadership then I think that would be fine. The large alliances would be broken up. There may have to be a rule about alt accounts but I think that would be doable as well. Sooner or later things will fall apart and the in fighting will start.
Look what happened to purple.
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 21:10:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Gramtar Since we've gone almost two weeks without answers to our basic concerns (risk vs reward out of balance between lev 4 mission running in highsec and comparable pve activities aka ratting in 0.0), [/b]
I'm not sure what you mean by balance here. Anyone can get their sec status high enough to run level 4 high sec missions. Its not an ôimbalanceö against any type of character or faction. If you think running level 4 missions is so great then get a jump clone in high sec and go to it. DonÆt be bothered with the paltry sums you can make in null sec.
Is trading unbalanced because people make billions per hour trading with little risk? Does trading need to be nerfed?
It seems that the only thing we hear about in null sec is this or that capital ship battle where ungodly amounts of isk are blown up. If there is that much isk that can be lost at the blink of an eye then the current mechanics of isk making in null sec would seem to be a good deal better than many in this thread would have us believe. If big alliances in null sec did have to earn isk by running level 4 missions, like just about everyone else in eve, then maybe null sec would be more fun.
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 22:25:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Vadinho
Originally by: Cearain I'm not sure what you mean by balance here. Anyone can get their sec status high enough to run level 4 high sec missions. Its not an ôimbalanceö against any type of character or faction. If you think running level 4 missions is so great then get a jump clone in high sec and go to it. DonÆt be bothered with the paltry sums you can make in null sec.
why fight over and pay for space in null sec if you can make more money risk-free cost-free running level 4 missions <--this is the crux of the entire problem have you been paying attention at all
Quote: Is trading unbalanced because people make billions per hour trading with little risk? Does trading need to be nerfed?
its just as easy to lose your shirt trading as it is to strike it rich so thats not a big deal
Quote: It seems that the only thing we hear about in null sec is this or that capital ship battle where ungodly amounts of isk are blown up. If there is that much isk that can be lost at the blink of an eye then the current mechanics of isk making in null sec would seem to be a good deal better than many in this thread would have us believe. If big alliances in null sec did have to earn isk by running level 4 missions, like just about everyone else in eve, then maybe null sec would be more fun.
the reason we can part with hundreds of capitals and billions of isk in the blink of an eye is because of r64s (the only worthwhile thing in nullsec) which are getting nerfed past the point of worthwhile profit
theyre taking money out of nullsec while increasing the cost to live there thats the problem that the entire problem
Well if level 4 missions are so great, then go run them. Get a jump clone and go to it. Nothing says that just because you are in big alliance you can not run level 4 missions. This crying about level 4 missions is ridiculous. Just about anyone can do them in eve so if its so great then by all means take advantage of the situation! Its funny that you act almost insulted by the suggestion that you should have to earn isk the same way everyone else in the game does.
Few go into null sec. I think we agree. Why? Because it sucks. Why does it suck? It sucks because the big alliances there have way too much money and resources to crush anything that even thinks twice about it. If r64s get nerfed and big alliances canÆt make insanely large fleets of titans IÆm not gonna start crying.
If some group is going to try to take over a new part of null sec where are they going to get the resources? Well they will need to get them in high sec or low sec. Therefore if anyone is ever going to have a shot at dislodging the current alliances the amount of money that can be made in null sec canÆt be that much larger than what can be made in high and low sec. If we continue to make it so alliances holding territory in null sec make vastly more money than anyone else can possibly make in the game, then we will continue with the same lame situation.
Running level 4 missions is likely the best money that can be made in high and low sec. Therefore it would seem an appropriate ceiling to put on what null sec holders should be making. Allow null sec holders to make allot more and you will just have more of the same lame gridlock.
Oh and no itÆs not as easy to lose your shirt trading as it is to make money. Not if you can count.
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 22:40:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Nobani
Originally by: Cearain
Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:34:33 Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:33:15
Originally by: Cearain If the idea is to have more smaller alliances in null sec then the costs of upkeep for the second system should be more than the first. The cost of upkeep for the third system should be more than the cost of upkeep for the second etc.
While a good idea in theory, this won't work in practice. In practice you would get "GoonSwarm -- Delve", "GoonSwarm -- Querious", or "GoonSwarm -- OK-FEM", "GoonSwarm B4H", depending on how harsh the multiple system penalties were.
...
If the rules had some requirement that each of these different "goonswarm ____s" had to have different leadership then I think that would be fine. The large alliances would be broken up. There may have to be a rule about alt accounts but I think that would be doable as well. Sooner or later things will fall apart and the in fighting will start.
Look what happened to purple.
All the alliances would function as one alliance except where the game mechanics prevent it. I.e. shared messageboard, shared killboard, shared chat, etc. Actually, the only members of most of the alliances would be POS gunner alts and logistics pilots.
I think making the game mechanics prevent it is a good start. They can of course share killboards and out of game stuff as much as they like. CCP shouldnÆt care about that. But in game the leadership of the different alliances should be lead by different people if they want the lower costs. If itÆs the same people then the costs of each system should go up.
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 22:50:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Shawna Gray Edited by: Shawna Gray on 17/11/2009 22:39:47
Originally by: Ranger 1
Doesn't really matter what you think though, my final point stands. If current 0.0 entities can't figure out how to manage their space and make it profitable there are a very, very large number of people who can (and will) be quite happy to take their place.
If that was true they would be there already.
No they canÆt now because of the vast resources the null sec alliances have. If the disparity between their resources and those in high and low sec diminishes in dominion, then we will have that.
Originally by: Shawna Gray Edited by: Shawna Gray on 17/11/2009 22:39:47
Originally by: Cearain
Well if level 4 missions are so great, then go run them. Get a jump clone and go to it. Nothing says that just because you are in big alliance you can not run level 4 missions. This crying about level 4 missions is ridiculous.
Many already do. They have their missionrunner/inventor/trader in empire and their pvp char in 0.0. But the proclaimed purpose of this expansion was to give people a reason to move their isk grinding char to 0.0.
Well if that is the goal thatÆs fine, but a better goal would be to have more characters venture into null sec û not just the isk grinding ones. If you just want isk grinders in null sec then by all means make it more profitable than high and low sec. But if you want allot more pvpers and wars donÆt make null sec so crazy profitable in comparison to high and low sec.
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 22:55:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Shawna Gray Edited by: Shawna Gray on 17/11/2009 22:50:01
Originally by: Cearain But in game the leadership of the different alliances should be lead by different people if they want the lower costs. If itÆs the same people then the costs of each system should go up.
You cant control that.
CCP can try. Their trying to do this might be good for the game. They may not be able to stop real money trading either but they can try, and their trying to do that is good for the game.
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 03:27:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Shawna Gray Edited by: Shawna Gray on 17/11/2009 23:05:55
Originally by: Cearain
The pvp'ers that want to fight in a 0.0 environment are already there. The others prefer to live in empire or low sec where they dont have to join big fleets and can avoid bubbles or whatever. The purpose of bringing isk grinders to 0.0 is to get people to actually LIVE there. Not just keep it as a pvp battleground where you fight over r64's like it is now.
There are allot of pvpers who would like to go into null sec and fight in large fleets but are not interested in facing/joining ridiculously large capital fleets. If null sec wasnÆt the source of infinite resources for those in it there wouldnÆt be these massive capital fleets and more would come. Right now the gap between what large null sec alliances can make and what others in the game can make is huge. If that gap were narrowed then we wouldnÆt have these large cap fleets.
I agree that null sec has to have something worth fighting for. That is the problem with FW û it doesnÆt provide anything worth fighting for so people often just run unless there is an easy gank which is no fun.
I donÆt really care if people like having these large capital fleet gangs. ThatÆs fine with me. But I and many others would also like a format in eve to fight in regular ships *for* something. *Something* worth forcing a fight. Null sec is a possible route but if the rewards for it are so huge it will immediately ramp up to capital ships, then no thanks. Perhaps wormholes will be another route. I donÆt know but IÆm sure there are others who would like to fight in regular ships for something worth fighting for. If null sec continues to be an infinite gold mine that can kick out capital ships like frigates IÆm not sure how those players will ever get their wishes.
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 16:09:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Aralis
Most money spent in 0.0 IS earnt in high sec. It's much easier to earn money there which currently is then spent in 0.0 for fun.
I think CVA is a different kettle of fish. When I see massive capital ship engagemnts I have to assume most of that isk that is being blown up is being made by some other means than running level 4 missions. I mean if they are just running level 4 missions and buying those cap ships like a high/low seccer would have to do, I will stand corrected. But if they are able to create those fleets due to the resources available in null sec then my point stands.
Actually I think the CVA space is likely closer to what ccp wants the other spaces to look like. And is likely the space that would go to if I go null sec. I might be wrong but I would think providence is above average as far as being populated.
|
|
|
|