|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 13:20:00 -
[1]
Cosmic Anomalies (CAs) require a number of changes and improvements if CCP wishes them to become the defacto 0.0 income stream.
The Aims
- At a base level, every 0.0 system can support 10 players (See: High Sec Missions) - With better systems, and system upgrades, more and more players can be supported. (See: High Sec Missions) - At no point should a player end up with nothing to do (See: High Sec Missions) - At no point should a player be better off running High Sec Missions. - Provide a mechanism that can seamlessly replace belt ratting - Keep PvP options open and available for CAs (this is 0.0 after all)
How Many CAs?
If a system is to keep 50 players busy (See: High Sec Missions), there needs to be enough CAs for 50 players (See: High Sec Missions). CAs need to respawn the moment they are completed or timed out, in the same system (See: High Sec Missions). A CA will time out after four hours after someone warps to it, or two hours after someone shoots a rat. Completion counts as killing all the rats, or if asteroids are present, by destroying a no-bounty no-loot marker/beacon/structure.
By having a system along these lines, the system will not end up logjammed with no CAs, and people in system can continue running CAs (See: High Sec Missions)
Rating/Level/Difficulty
Every CA is rated from 1 to 10 or some other nomenclature that makes it abundantly clear what the difficulty of the CA is (See: High Sec Missions).
A bottom level CA should cater for a newbie in a frigate. A top level CA should cater a team of veterans in BS/Logistics. A mid level CA should be aimed at a single battleship using full T2 gear. There should be no hard Level 5 CAs, nor easy Level 6 CAs (See: High Sec Missions).
There is no reason why a newbie in a frigate should not be able to generate income in 0.0. In fact, this is probably the most important part. By allowing a newbie to enter a 0.0 alliance, they are immediately of value.
Scanning
When engaging the built-in ship scanner, results should be clear and automatic. If a CA is within range, you get a perfect result you can bookmark and warp to. Each result should list:
- Difficulty of the CA - Number of Players inside the CA - Estimated Completion Percent - Estimated Time-out - Any Special Attributes (asteroids, one-shot, etc)
Each of these should be explicitly and clearly displayed. No vague 'hard' or 'easy' rubbish.
Content
All NPC ships inside a CA should NOT be mission/deadspace types, but standard belt types. At a minimum, a CA could consist of a normal asteroid belt spawn. Multiple waves are possible, as is having a chance of a faction spawn at the end (and very very rarely an Officer).
Deadspace/mission rats could be used, but the CA should ensure there is loot/bounty/reward at 'the end', either from an overseer spawn, officer spawn, or overseer structure. However, this starts to interfere with plexes and exploration sites in terms of loot options.
Reward/Loot
The primary wealth of a CA should be from bounties on rats, loot from rats, and salvage from rats, just like current 0.0 belt ratting. Deadspace Plex loot should not drop from CAs, faction items should drop but at the same rate as in normal belt ratting, and officers should be just as rare. As there is no agent behind the CA offering additional ISK, as well as LP, the value needs to be firmly kept in the NPCs, hence the emphasis on using normal belt rats. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 13:41:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Virtuozzo
This thread is becoming a truly shocking example of agreement across both vested space holding alliances and those parties hoping to get a chance at taking a bite out of 0.0 for themselves. If anything, that combination should be significant enough.
Of course, the fatal assumption in this entire thread is that CCP will put the effort into understanding what has been posted.
Quote: But what Mr. Goon has taken quite a bit of effort in putting together there, is quite possibly the most elegant and constructive approach of all to the Cosmic Anomaly breaking point in what sofar has a damn high chance of being "Dominion - Exodus, part deux"
(I'm a pubbie, I never paid the :10bux:) Thank you, at least I know I'm hitting in the right direction. I actually posted the first draft of this idea on goon fleet dot com over a year ago. Of course, that's a terrible forum no-one should suffer having to read, so in hindsight maybe I should have crossposted it to the highly regarded eve online forums. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 13:47:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs.
vOv
So basically, you did read my original posts on this exact topic from over a year ago, and completely missed the point of supporting more than three players in a given 0.0 system?
If a system has three anomalies in it at all times, that'll keep three people occupied. Not fifty. Where I come from, that's called basic arithmetic.
When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you the difficulty rating?
When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you if someone else is already in it?
When you scan for an anomaly, will you automatically get a result you can bookmark remotely?
And when you actually run the anomaly, would the lack of normal valuable belt rats result in you having been better off in Motsu? |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 14:02:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Hertford on 07/11/2009 14:03:38
Originally by: CCP Soundwave When we have 10 anomalies, that will be enough for 10 people. I wrote this earlier in the thread too.
I do hope you realise that 10 anomalies should be the baseline amount for an un-upgraded system. If for some reason the highest level of infrastructure upgrade results in 10 anomalies, then yes, we "should have gone to Motsu".
Quote: When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that).
So newbies in caracals will effectively be locked out of running anomalies in an upgraded system? So really, they "should have gone to Motsu" or nearby to work on NPC corp standings so they can access L4 highsec missions.
Quote: You will not be told if anyone is in it, that is not something I would prefer to see implemented.
So a PvE'er would have to either use the scanner or warp to the anomaly to find out if they can run it, and a PvP'er would have to do the same to actually find a target. This is 0.0, there's meant to be risk. Without this, 'ratters' are even safer. I fail to see any downside at all to listing number of the players present in an anomaly scan result.
Quote: When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu.
So really, after obtaining all the sovereignty and infrastructure installations, waiting however long for the appropriate Sov level to kick in, paying all the bills and defending the space, you "should have gone to Motsu".
(With apologies to SpecSavers) |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 14:11:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat
Seriously though, Stoffer, as long as you're reading this thread, please answer the following poll:
"Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
CHECK ONE"
checkbox poll, you know what to do! |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 14:19:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Kushmir So what do we fight over now?
The Motsu undocks |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 14:40:00 -
[7]
I see you haven't addressed a point I made earlier, so I'll dedicate this post to it alone.
In an upgraded system, anomalies will be "on par" with "Motsu", as in (I assume) Level 4 missions there. However, what does the week-old newbie in a caracal do?
Should the newbie be locked out of 0.0? Is 0.0 meant to be the Elitists Backyard? From the point of view of the week-old-caracal-newbie, is upgrading anomalies in a system a bad thing? Should the same newbie have to accept to living in a ghetto (un-upgraded 0.0 system)?
(A follow-on point is why an upgraded system has only one tier of anomalies. Surely it would be even better if newbies were ratting 'alongside' veterans in the same system.) |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 14:54:00 -
[8]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Ideally we have a set of upgrades that are tailored for frigate and cruiser users. They would function like the pirate magnet, but intead of distributing standard 0.0 anomalies that increase in payout, they distributes sites specifically for people in frigates and cruisers.
"Training Sites" like that would help lifting the financial limits EVE currently has for new players that wish to live in 0.0 from the get-go.
I'd much prefer to have that than to squeeze vets and newer players into the same sites.
I'm not saying newbies and bitter bitter veterans should be squeezed into the same sites. I am saying that a newbie and a bitter bitter veteran should find opportunity in the same system.
"Training Sites" is a terrible name, fyi. It goes to show that my awesomepost on page 23 is in fact not what you are implementing at all. If you re-read it, I specifically mention ten tiers of difficulty, with the bottom aimed at newbie in a frigate, and the mid-level aimed at a T2 fitted battleship. That allows a nice spread from frigate, through cruiser and battlecruier, onto battleship, and then beyond for high SP players and groups. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 15:03:00 -
[9]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave So we pretty much agree, but are arguing names and semantics?
Everything you have posted indicates that a system will have only one level of difficulty for the anomalies within it. Upgrading changes that level of difficulty. At no point have you mentioned having a smooth progression of difficulty. The only mention of catering to newbies was "training sites", which is a new one.
The give-away statement was "I'd much prefer to have that than to squeeze vets and newer players into the same sites.".
iPOD:
Minimum requirements for alliance warfare:
Minmatar Frigate III Propulsion Jamming I High Speed Maneuvering I
But that doesn't belong here. My only statement is CCP wishes to encourage more people into 0.0. Newbies are people too. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 15:16:00 -
[10]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Ah I see what you mean now. The sites do have different difficulty, and it's true that when you reach the highest tier of upgrades, veterans will primarily benefit from this.
Cool, we're on the same wavelength. Now hopefully my concern about newbies is clearer. Unless I'm not reading things right, upgrading anomalies is actually a downgrade if you've just started EvE.
Quote: I'd not want to put 10 tiers of sites in, because it would be relatively difficult to justify the need for all ten. Frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and BS anomalies should be enough to keep most players occupied and progress through them relatively naturally.
That's fair enough. Creating ten tiers of difficulty is a lot of work, and is a throwback to my original goon fleet dot com post back in August '08. The idea was to give solo newbies and organised groups of bitter vets content inside anomalies, and for everyone in-between. The original idea also distinguished between a T1 fitted BS with bad skills, an average named/T2/OK skills BS, and a fully T2/factioned/silly SP BS. Why? To let players challenge themselves, or take it easy, or group up, or follow a newbie around helping, and so on. |
|
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 15:29:00 -
[11]
There's a reason I abused the "Should Have Gone To Motsu" phrase earlier in the thread; firstly because I'm a terrible unoriginal poster, and secondly because come dominion...
Let's cut right back to basics.
CCP wants more people in 0.0.
1) There needs to be room in 0.0. - Alliance Sov Holdings need to be cut back - 0.0 needs to be more lucrative than Motsu from the personal point of view - 0.0 Needs to support more than three players per system
2) Holding 0.0 space should be profitable without having to claim a whole region - 0.0 needs to be more lucrative than Motsu from the personal point of view - 0.0 needs to support more than three players per system
3) 0.0 needs to be attractive to players - 0.0 needs to be more lucrative than Motsu from the personal point of view - 0.0 needs to support more than three players per system
|
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 15:45:00 -
[12]
Just to clarify my own personal point of view with regards to changes...
Currently, I'm not fussed that Motsu could make me more money personally than current 0.0. I'm not here to play for seven months in highsec then quit because EvE is boring. I enjoy 0.0, the alliance warfare, and all the politics. Come Dominion, it looks like my income will take a hit, which obviously I'm not looking forward to.
However, I've been posting with concern about CCP wanting more people in 0.0. Those who want to live in 0.0, or just don't like Empire space, are pretty much already in 0.0. Getting more people into 0.0 either requires more people playing (which Dominion probably won't achieve to any significant degree), or having Empire dwellers willing to risk a stake in 0.0 and to move in.
But, with the current proposals and systems, I don't really see said Empire dwellers making that move. And I forsee a section of the 0.0 playerbase actually giving up 0.0, or the game entirely. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 15:53:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Highfield I'd like someone from CCP to to enlighten us on the fighting side of Dominion.
What is needed to make sovereignty switch? What will happen to upgrades? Can they be destroyed? Will they transfer to the new owner?
Is this going to be explained in another blog?
Regards,
Highfield
You're assuming there'll be Sovereignty to contest :V |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 17:57:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Caius Severus
I have just read this thread from the beginning, and most of it is just rabble. There are some constructive posts, but most are just noise and teeth gnashing.
Spamming with whines won't change anyone's mind. Posting with well reasoned and thought out arguments will.
This post is really meta. It trolls itself ironically. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:32:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Cefte It certainly is amusing to watch the empire dwellers crowing about sticking it to those evil 0.0 crybabies, with their titans and their moon gold and their actually living the experience that EVE advertisement trailers misrepresent.
Pity that not a single 0.0 poster in this thread has complained about moon gold being nerfed as a source of income.
Unfortunately, I'm not an alliance director, so the moon gold nerf doesn't affect my personal wallet. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 19:08:00 -
[16]
Originally by: TZeer
Now tell me why you need 160 ( actually 158 according to DOTLAN )systems to sustain your 288 real active people. That means you have less then 2 people on average in each systems...
Because currently that's how many people those systems can support in terms of a self-sufficient income. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 23:00:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Hertford on 07/11/2009 23:03:04 Dominion? More like Dominioff.
Quote: If Goonies are whining, new expansion must be good Very Happy
Or are they a little miffed due to new changes hampering their system of play?
Yes, that's it exactly. Come Dominion as currently proposed we are going to lose all our space, so we're pretending that the current proposals make 0.0 a step backwards from living in highsec, resulting in no-one from empire even bothering to live in 0.0.
Not to mention that Delve ratting sucks and we barely exist in a state where ratting is worth doing. Come Dominion and triple the number of Battlestars per solar system, all of our incomes are set to suffer badly. We refuse to go quietly into that dark night! |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 23:07:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Treji What! You don't fight for honour and glory?
Honour and Glory in Serious Business Internet Spaceships. That's us through and through. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 23:14:00 -
[19]
There is that. 75% of 0.0 systems have nobody in them because those systems aren't worth doing anything in them. That's your first hurdle. Make every single 0.0 system worth using. The reason alliances claim large tracts of space is because of the remaining 25% that has stuff worth doing inside. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 00:13:00 -
[20]
YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
Still preferred my "Should Have Gone to Motsu" tagline, but hey I can roll with the crowd. |
|
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 00:46:00 -
[21]
Hordes flocking from Empire to 0.0 where the tax rate is higher than an NPC corp? |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:32:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Future Mutant Also- everyone thats asked this question is a moron- every activity that makes isk can be done in nullsec for more isk per hour compared to highsec.
I too make more ISK from agents in Querious than Empire dwellers make from the agents in Irjunen. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 14:16:00 -
[23]
I get the distinct impression that at no point during CCPs design process did anyone sit down and write a proper Requirements Specification. A document that, literally, specifies the requirements. For example, it might have contained the following:
"Dominion shall encourage players who do not live in 0.0 to consider moving to 0.0"
"Dominion shall encourage alliances to hold less space"
"Dominion shall discourage alliance dependency on R64 moons"
"Dominion shall rebalance all R64s to be of roughly equal value"
"Dominion shall provide means for individual players and alliances to generate wealth that is not a second job"
And so on. Simple statements and goals, expressed clearly and concisely. Then you start the actual design process, and while throwing around wonderful ideas there's this Requirements Specification that acts as a sanity check. Because out of those five examples above, you managed to stick to two of them so far and failed on the other three. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 18:03:00 -
[24]
I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread.
But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 18:20:00 -
[25]
Well, to make it easier for Jade and the ****** crowd who insist on trolling...
CCP needs to make 0.0 attractive to move to, take control of, and live inside. That there is your primary bottom line. Don't address that, and everything else is just secondary fall out.
If you want to keep people in 0.0, If you want non-0.0 people to move to 0.0, that's what you need to address first.
(I'm fine right now with 0.0 as it is not being as lucrative as Motsu & Irjunen. Those thinking of moving to 0.0 after Dominioff hits might not be as content with how things are/will be) |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 19:06:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ap0ll0n
I donŠt think you truely understand how it works tbh..
Just because my alliance owns Geminate region, doesnŠt mean we have sov in all the systems. Does this mean that other people can just come and grind our belts or plexes? Ofcourse not, and why would Dominion change that? Your right, it wonŠt..
good call. I wouldn't pay for geminate either :V |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 19:23:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Gnulpie And why would I need to grind for isk at all?
If I can chase off everyone from the part of space where I am and no one attacks me and I can do whatever I like to do there without anyone hindering me there, shouldn't it be 'my' space then until someone else comes and throws me out?
What would I need isk there???
I could have miners mining all the ore I need, I could have the blueprints ready to build stuff, I could have occasionally buy some npc fuel for the pos and the ice I could mine. I could build my ships and I could run radar sites to get datacores to invent the t2 items I want to have. Then what the **** would I need to grind for isk to PAY for my system then?
The only reason why I am forced to leave those systems should be OTHER PLAYERS kicking me out. Not some idiotic 'you can't pay your bill so you are losing your system' message created by an anonymous and artificial system.
IT SHOULD BE THE PLAYERS! And nothing else.
An excellent point. Could be worded better, but nevertheless spot on. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 19:43:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it?
To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants.
You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can.
The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change.
Not sure how I can explain that any better for you.
In other words, to engage in Eve's "endgame pvp experience", you need to grind PvE content. Yes, that's going to really improve things. I can see the queues of Empire dwellers lining up at 0.0 chokepoints already ready to move into 0.0.
Let us know when you finally get the point, preferably in one or two sentences, not pages. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 19:54:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Hertford
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it?
To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants.
You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can.
The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change.
Not sure how I can explain that any better for you.
In other words, to engage in Eve's "endgame pvp experience", you need to grind PvE content. Yes, that's going to really improve things. I can see the queues of Empire dwellers lining up at 0.0 chokepoints already ready to move into 0.0.
Yes you will need to have a worker-caste alliance peon out in the fields gathering isk to pay your rents that will make pvp content for raiders and defenders (if you intend to defend them). This is far superior to the current model where your income comes from moon pos that are invulnerable to small gang intediction and there is literally no way to scorch the earth on conquest.
If you don't like the new system you are free to go back to empire and run the level4s you are talking about. I'm sure other people will be happy to take your vacated space and actually fight for it.
Oh yes, I forgot about your small-gangs-affect-sovereignty agenda. Carry on! |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 20:23:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp.
As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space.
You can't read. |
|
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 20:33:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Bobby Atlas This thread lost most of its value at page 60, stop ****ting the place up - post something on topic and constructive or do not post at all.
I nominate ^^ this guy^^ as our new forum ****.
Also lol at all the supposed "pvp'ers" crying about dominion.
"Our corp only makes billions off some moons per month! How do you expect us to pay to hold sov?"
Well heres an answer- recruit some isk makers and have them milk the place- then tax them- problem solved.
Move along ppl nothing to see here.
You're spot on, oh so spot on. We should get people to stop running missions in highsec and instead 'rat' in anomalies, for less ISK per hour and with a higher tax rate than NPC corps.
Thanks for solving all the problem brought up in this thread!
Enjoy the small gang PvP when there's 50+ people in each system! |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 21:02:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Mahke 100 days to reach development level 5 is a VERY strong disincentive to wars of conquest (sure, the other guy might have better space than yours, but, if it will take 100 days for it to get as good as your old space, probably not worth doing)
And this is yet another major flaw in the current Dominion proposals. Every invasion becomes Scorched Earth, with no capture capability. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 21:14:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Your viewpoint is too narrow.
0.0 is an open PVP zone and this is a huge draw. Quite a lot of content (bombs, bubbles, advanced building etc) is only usuable in 0.0. Additionally it is the part of the game where those seeking fame and glory can write their name onto the map and gain whatever boasting rights come from that deed.
This stuff has little to do with isk and you are wrong to look at a tight level4/0.0 income comparison here.
0.0 is where you go as an territorial leader when you want to leave an imperialist legacy in the legend of eve really.
If all you care about is profit and isk-making then you probably shouldn't have left the hisec mission hubs in the first place.
The people you just described are already in 0.0. So Dominion will bring into 0.0 how many more players? |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:59:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Onar Maldarian Fire head game designer. Thank you.
No no no. Hire a head game designer. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 18:48:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Honest Smedley
Moon mining is more profitable than in high sec (of course) if you do it right. Ratting is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. Mining is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. WHing is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right.
And missioning in Irjunen is more profitable than all of those if you're doing it right. Well done for trying to misrepresent the current risk/reward paradigm. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 19:07:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Alekanderu
moon mining =/= individual isk making, i don't know why people have such a hard time grasping this relatively simple concept
Because they're mouth-breathing, semi-literate, uninformed and clueless, and can't resist entering into debate with the classic unbiased apolitical no-hidden-agenda-honest "lol goonie tears" tactic. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 19:13:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Future Mutant Unbiased lol Goons are the most worthless, least able, worst complainers- this whole thread reads like WAHHHHHHHHHH and he calls them "unbiased" lol
You haven't read this thread.
This thread where on multiple occasions people state that the current proposals won't bring anyone new into 0.0, and that we're in an excellent position anyway, and that we're looking forward to many more factions, powerblocs and organisations moving to 0.0 to we can have even more politics.
Semi-literate much? |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 19:17:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Kepakh
Dude, face it. Your alliance sucks.
That's about the only thing you've gotten right so far in your febrile inane ramblings. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 19:43:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Tesal
Because Goons like helping the "little guys" more than anyone! This is the stupidest thing I have read yet. Goons are not saying this stuff out of the goodness of your heart; your cold, black, merciless heart. Your big problem right now is that anyone who would potentially rent from you would have to be a total idiot, and they will most likely end up getting scammed. Yah, carebears are going to bring their Hulks in to mine in your space! So you are stuck having to raise revenues from your existing players base and don't have any other options. Yah, I can see why you are crying in this thread more than anyone. Moonswarm is over, either adapt or you will be a victim of evolution.
Thank you for your unbiased and totally apolitical opinions on the dev blog. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 20:38:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Treji You can't make isk in nullspace Pve? I always thought it quite the goldmine, especially running through the nice littl' WH into Empire with the loot to sell. You may need to get out and about a little more instead of camping in that station awaiting the enemy ships...
It is, until more than two people try to rat in the same system. Ever wondered why these alliances claim whole regions and multiple regions? |
|
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 21:11:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Qlanth
Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Itzena
Also: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
Originally by: Kepakh What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M? It is indeed increased risk to move around 0.0 as well as logistical challenge.
Alright I concede. There really is no more risk in 0.0 space than in empire.
I'm still hoping someone blue reconquers Itamo so I get my stuff back. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 07:57:00 -
[42]
What incentives are CCP adding in the proposed changes for empire dwellers to consider or commit to moving from empire and living in 0.0? |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 13:10:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Kanatta Jing Same as before. Battleship rats you don't need massive faction standing to kill and Exotic Ores in abundance.
Firstly, those battleship rats spawn in belts. The majority of 0.0 systems have enough belts to support 1 ratter. A lesser amount can support 2 or 3, and very very few can support more than that. Nothing in the Dominion features is changing this.
Ratting is comparable to L4 missioning in terms of reward. Of course, there's more risk in 0.0 ratting than L4 missioning. So overall, there isn't much to entice empire dwellers to move and live in 0.0 in terms of ratting.
Exotic ores are more common in 0.0. Arkonor, Bistot and Crokite are worth mining, as is Veldspar. However, stations are far fewer in 0.0, massively increasing logistics (hauling ore to a refinery which can't do manufacturing properly, then hauling minerals to a factory), and of course there's still the 0.0 risk in the mining and the hauling. A group of miners can empty a belt in an hour, so even then the ISK is not infinite and guaranteed. And the ISK is again comparable to L4 missioning, but with a lot more logistical effort involved. Again, not exactly a massive incentive for empire dwellers to move and live in 0.0.
Don't get me wrong. I want to see 0.0 more lively, more busy, more active, and more dynamic. I want to see more players move to and live in 0.0. I'm completely in favour of shrinking alliance sov claims so that there's a greater density of population in 0.0. But as proposed, there's no carrot to get people to actually move from empire to 0.0 and join in the political, economic and military mixing pot. And that's my concern.
I'm not overly worried that Goonswarm will have to squeeze into fewer systems, I'm sure we'll adapt just fine. Who is going to move into the supposed empty space that Dominion will create? I would imagine most players who want to be in 0.0 are already in 0.0. So, as I stated many pages back, either new subs or existing empire dwellers, neither of which currently appears likely, because Dominion 0.0 is not enough of an incentive. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 13:32:00 -
[44]
Originally by: ServantOfMask i have to disagree here, there are tons of players interested in 0.0. the cost for sov isn't holding them back, the current alliances are... dominion won't change that one bit.
wannabe nullsec alliance finds some "empty" space, plops down towers and gets annihilated for the lulz. then either wiped out or forced into virtual slave labor as meat shield pets to be reset and wiped out whenever the overlords are bored.
whether the current powerblocks are all over the sov map or reduce sov to key systems won't change the fact that YOU are the biggest stick of 0.0.
yes 0.0 is all about the survival of the fittest but if you won't let a weakling live today you won't have sport tomorrow.
the only benefit to a small outfit post dominion is the lack of umbrella cyno jammers and MAYBE some solar systems without any towers up already.
Thank you for, what appears to me to be, a pretty reasonable response. Now, I can agree there's currently players not in 0.0 who want to move to 0.0, and that the current powerblocs will be too powerful for the newcomers to establish themselves, and that Dominion will result in the same regions being claimed by the current crop of alliances, just in a more skeletal manner.
I now ask the question that if 0.0 was more of an incentive than it currently is, would there be more players joining the "Want to Move to 0.0" camp? I would say yes. And if there's more players willing to move to 0.0, then they will have a greater strength to actually establish themselves.
The bottom line still remains. 0.0 needs to be more attractive to those not currently in 0.0. Dominion does not address this. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 13:39:00 -
[45]
Originally by: fuze
And to add several people in this thread already indicated that these new mechanics aren't any incentive to venture into 0.0 to carebear (lol).
Which all by itself is a perfectly valid point. Want to establish yourself in the 0.0 arena of alliance pvp? Grind more PvE.
The current Sov system has it's downsides. But it does boil down to a simple, pvp-centric paradigm: It's your space until someone comes along and forcibly removes your claim. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 18:10:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Hertford on 10/11/2009 18:12:16
Originally by: Quesa What you, and many other empire-dwellers, fail to realize is that most nullsec entities want a change. While this change is happening we also want nullsec to become attractive for both the current residents and future residents. The only real way you are going to do this is to make nullsec what it was supposed to be - a vast area of lawless space that would allow you to risk it all for the riches and glory. Currently, nullsec isn't this land of plenty.
And to clarify that last point, we're not clamouring here for a massive buff to 0.0 value for selfish reasons. It looks like it, but it's not. We're already living in 0.0 and we're pretty happy with it as it stands, otherwise we wouldn't be here. We're just thinking beyond our own personal wallets and realising that Dominion-as-is won't attract any significant amount of non-0.0 players into 0.0.
Quote: The level 4 mission isk argument/comparison is used because it's the best, and most well known, standard when speaking of isk/hour.
Though to be fair, the point about teaming up or soloing is valid. Missioning is pretty much a solo affair. Using L4 mission ISK/hr is a somewhat flawed yardstick to measure things by, but it's still a valid baseline to work from. And if 0.0 is less lucrative than empire, what's the draw, the incentive, for those empire dwellers that CCP says are going to flood to 0.0?
Quote: Yes, this patch is about changing the face of nullsec gameplay. Yes, the vast majority of nullsec alliances like the foundation of the changes.
Here is the thing. We want nullsec to be very attractive and lucrative more pilots around New Eden. Why? We want more players in nullsec. We want more conflict, some small scale and some large scale.
The residents of nullsec know how it works because we've lived here for years. We've dealt with small scale and large scale conflict. I think we have a better understanding of what will/will not happen in light of the general changes proposed.
Again, spot on. EvE needs more small-scale warfare, because the current powerbloc game is not good for smaller organisations. But Dominion offers nothing to draw empire dwellers into 0.0.
Telling, isn't it? Goonswarm is terrible at Eve and pretty much fully agrees with Atlas who are terrible at posting. The bottom-line (which the 'lol goonie tears' brigade conveniently avoid addressing) is simple: Dominion is meant to shrink Alliance space and encourage more players into 0.0, and it achieves neither. |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 12:05:00 -
[47]
So, seeing as there's people willing to throw numbers around in an attempt to show how Dominion will achieve it's goals, here's a question for you:
What percentage increase in 0.0 population will Dominion bring? |
|
|
|