Originally by: Bobby Atlas

---

CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ******ed.

Lets rehash a few things
- Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads.

- Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income.

- Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a ******ed and convoluted concept.

- Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother.

- Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ******ed and exceedingly unbalanced.

.... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP.

---

Originally by: Normin Bates

---

More bloated Alliance tears! Keep 'em coming!

Please CCP....Don't let the tears from these Alliances with hundreds of unused systems sway your objective. Let them see what they can make of it and then adjust...if needed. If they rage-quit then so be it.

Wahhhhh, we can't keep our 57 systems that we never use! Too funny!

---

Originally by: c0rn1

---

Edited by: c0rn1 on 07/11/2009 06:25:00
Look at all these armchair generals

Sitting there in their mission ship in empire and trying to figure out 0.0. None of the people who claim the changes valid don't even have the slightest clue what kind of an logistical overhead 0.0 already creates.

Some say: Oh, look, ma, it's only 7 mil / day per member in a 10 ppl system!
I say: Oh look, please come along and collect those 7 mil/day from each of the 2k+ people sitting here and have that cash ready every 14 days. And since you're at it, please punish all members who don't rat at least for their 7 mil/each day. Make a "Stop" sign if people wanna group together and head out for PvP.
And the next CTA will be called with the sidenote that only players will be allowed to join who already made their fair contribution to the alliance today already.
And then you can take care of the fuel logistics for all towers and resupply of gear and ships and besides it on the capital production which is a time cruncher as well in 0.0.

It all doesn't take any time to do. It's only the 7M / day to keep the sov up.

GUYS, YOU CANT JUST PICK 1 THING OUT AND BASE AN ARGUMENT ON IT.

these prices would quadruple the effort you have to do to keep 0.0 territory and noone in the large alliance can be arsed to do this. I play this game for PvP not carebearing.
What is in your damn mind? The cutting down on the dysp and prom income already will cripple a good amount of income. The changes proposed by CCP won't even slightly make up for it and it is all a HUGE timesink. If I have to rat/mine 40h a month only to pay for upkeep, fuel and my little losses on ships, I will rather pack my suitcases and just move to NPC 0.0.
and it's not only the ingame tools that eat up time. As if you didn't know it yet, spreadsheets don't grow on trees. Internal communication isn't something that just happens in no amount of time. It all is work, work, work.
Grind through everything and as a gift of CCP I get another additional grind for BS cash?

cheers

c0rn1

---

Originally by: Facepalm

---

Edited by: Facepalm on 07/11/2009 06:37:19Shatcan this idea and bring in the next pl0x. Set the guy who came up with this idea on fire too.

---

Originally by: Stevens

---

And before anyone gets their hopes on this getting fixed lets not forget the code freeze. That happens 2 or 3 weeks before patch hits. So that gives CCP 11 (or 4 lol) days that they can make changes before the patch gets locked and that is what gets sent live. Does anyone believe CCP can fix this in even 11 days (let alone 4)

---

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

---

They need to rename this expansion to Eve Online:New Game Enhancement

---

Originally by: Zastrow

---

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

---

words words words

---

ok good but we really need to hear more about the benefits of the infrastructure improvements because we're all still really skeptical of whether or not it will be worth the time and effort

---

Originally by: Nyphur

---

Another idea I had was the possibility of taxing NPC kills in a system rather than just those within a corp. It's an idea just to support the NRDS people that can't reap taxes from the people that use their space. Perhaps they could set their hub to collect a 10% tax off NPCers in their system automatically. Maybe even make it an upgrade?

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Originally by: Hertford

---

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.

---

Currently yes, not after. CCP stated around 15-20 people in an upgraded system. Thats almost 10x more. So 288/15= 19,2 systems.

So basically you could shrink you space from 160 systems and down to 20 and save x amount of POS fuel.

---

Originally by: Yafn

---

Originally by: Khefron

---

if we're paying billions for our jump bridges, will we at least no longer have to keep the damned things loaded with ozone?

---

Keep Quoting this.

---

Originally by: Itzena

---

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

---

- yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else.

---

Great!

What's the planned fix?

---

Originally by: ceaon

---

Originally by: Korodan

---

Originally by: Itzena

---

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

---

- yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else.

---

Great!

What's the planned fix?

---

Yes, how will you be nerfing level 4 mission runners?

---

11% tax ??

---

Originally by: Groperson

---

"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"

Serious question, no troll zone.

---

Originally by: Batolemaeus

---

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

---

You realize we have all these now right?

---

+1

Funnily enough, our mining div doesn't mine in our space, because our space is **** for mining. They have to fly elsewhere with better ores in the belts.

---

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

---

excellent clarity of vision I must say!

It is true and something we said from outset that unbalanced alliances who are 95% PvP/Fleet and 5% industry will be most affected by this as we are reducing their dependency on passive point sources and introducing greater active resource density to allow for passive income to take over.

The alliances who will benefit most are those who have or aim to have balanced compositions of people with different playstyles or even act as enforcers or protectors of the space with multiple rental agreements if they wish and we will add tools as we call the treaty system to help facilitate that.

---

Originally by: WhiteSavage

---

So THIS sucks for alliances that dont live right next to highsec... your nerfing alliances that rely on JB networks... yeah thats balanced.

and an upgraded system with low truesec is still going to be extremely worthless...

For all the time CCP has been taking and hype... cmon! Only kool thing was titan deathray but since that may have been nerfed into worthlessness...

I know ccp is between a rock and a hard place, but this is hardly groundbreaking stuff.

---

Originally by: ep1k

---

Originally by: Innominate

---

Originally by: Static Kinetics

---

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: Qlanth

---

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: Yafn

---

Originally by: cok cola

---

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: Aeryn Carter

---

Originally by: Alexis Avalon

---

Quote:

---

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: Ling Xiaoyu

---

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: Sally Bestonge

---

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: Pink Money

---

Originally by: cok cola

---

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: pi squad

---

Originally by: DasNara Aethelwulf

---

Originally by: Vivian Azure

---

I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week.

---

Let me get this right? you loose 80-130 mil per business day in hac's alone plus mods, rigs, and if you're flying in 0.0 probably implants too. Who is your main? I'd like to pay you a visit. How does your CEO let you stay? your corp's killboard must be horrible! Oh wait, you are the CEO huh? every post you just made on this thread is now bogus....or you epicly fail.

---

k/d ratios are so important

---

Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk

---

Originally by: Marlona Sky

---

YES OR NO: Due to the increased tears and emmo rage in this thread, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.

---

What the hell is emmo?

---

Originally by: Marlona Sky

---

Originally by: Qlanth

---

If anyone knows about holding 0.0 space its Triumvirate.

Oh wait!

---

We hold what we want, not take space just for the sake of taking it to make our sovereignty on the map bigger.

---

Originally by: sih noh

---

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: Tesal

---

Originally by: Dante Edmundo

---

...The RISK in null-sec for outweighs the GAIN with the current proposal. So why bother? At least CCP has degraded the risk so far - but now what about the GAINS?

---

Hey man, didn't you hear, you got moons!

---

Originally by: Vadinho

---

Welcome to page fifty of the official "CCP doesn't understand that the only motivation for war is valuable and exploitable resources that would otherwise be unobtainable" thread I'm your maitre d' Vadinho I hope you stay is an enjoyable one!

---

Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang

---

Originally by: Marlona Sky

---

So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par??

---

The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards. Their idea is that, with full upgrades to a system, we can make approximately as much per hour as a person doing level 4 missions in highsec. This is assuming that no one is competing with you or holding anomalies open by hanging around in them cloaked. The costs would be fine if the rewards justified them. As it is, the only cost these rewards justify is less than we're paying now, especially with the reduced moon mining income.

---

Originally by: Merdaneth

---

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

---

Originally by: Lonewolfnight

---

The real point here is you have a static fee system to attempt to force a dynamic level. Take a look at tying your fee's to the activity level markers. The more activity in system the lower the cost for sovereignty. Then you can have large fee's for systems that are unused and driver alliance's to either utilize them or drop the sov.

---

Other people in the thread have touched on the principle of resource upgrades actually applying a discount to the upkeep bill. It is certainly intriguing and easy enough for us to do assuming that the base cost was adjusted sufficiently to make a discount worth it.

At that point, you would in the current model have not only the resources and income of 20 or so people but also a discount to the upkeep cost as well and would act as a bonus to actual system usage.

We shall explore this further :)

---

I have proposed this in Features and Ideas. It should not be tied to upgrades, but to activity level (I suppose an upgrade can be an indirect tie in). But as said there, linking upkeep cost to activity levels, makes it dynamic, punishes AFK Empires and rewards NRDS players like CVA by having activity in their systems from neutrals keeping the cost down. It also solves the difficulty of taxing players by alliances, since their contribution is directly related to the amount of activity without any administrative hassle.

Should be fairly easy to code too.

---

Originally by: Inferno Styx

---

Ok I thought I would try and make some changes that imo actually are worth the ISK to get them. Most of them are derived from other posts in this thread and I thought they would be easier to argue if combined together.

Pirate Magnet

When installed automatic 50% reduction in spawn time and bounties are increased 15%. Each level gives an additional 3% bounty increase.

Ore Processing Array

1 Hidden belt per level instant respawn when mined out. Belts are on the same level as an Average W-space deposit. Belts will also spawn rats and receive benefits of Pirate magnet.

Entrapment

10% increased chance of DED Complex per level. Installing upgrade limits complexes to >8/10. Complexes Respawn instantly.

Survey Network

Scan strength increase of 5% per level for all probes in system. This upgrade allows advanced scanning techiques that allow Cloaks to be scanned through, Sig of .05 per level for all ships with cloak active.

Quantum Flux Generator

5% Increase in chances of Wormhole leading to W-Space spawning in system. Also gives all Wormholes a 2.5% increase to Mass limits and Life Cycle per level.

These are off the top of my head if you don't like them flame away just trying to give some help.

---

Originally by: Inferno Styx

---

I didn't really like the entrapment upgrade either but just off the top of my head it was what I could think of. I think it's much better for 1 all the time and a bounty increase.

The mining upgrade might have been over the top with the average deposit. Though they do have an amazing amount of high ends (in the area of 10-15k Ark, and 20-30k Bistot.) Even if you do a pure -1.0 belt or the crappiest W-space belt your still looking at ore for 5-10 hulks for a couple hours. Which is going to give you lots of people in system.

---

Originally by: Destrim

---

I believe it would be nice if the return on refine amount increased beyond 100%. In other words, you start getting something like 110% return, etc.

---

Originally by: Destrim

---

Originally by: Korodan

---

Originally by: Destrim

---

I believe it would be nice if the return on refine amount increased beyond 100%. In other words, you start getting something like 110% return, etc.

---

This would be a very bad thing - make 100 guns, then reprocess them and make 110 guns, then reprocess those - you get the idea.

---

Let me clarify- the REFINE rate. Not the reprocess rate. In other words, it's exclusive to ore.

---

Originally by: Destrim

---

stuff

---

Originally by: Destrim

---

Originally by: Vadinho

---

Originally by: Aralis

---

Edited by: Aralis on 08/11/2009 02:56:25
Supporters of this patch are coming out with bizarre dribble.

"You should cooperate more.."
"You shouldn't hog so much space and let others in.."
"You'll have to stop living off all that R64 moon goo.."

If these are the problems - why are we (the CVA) to whom none of these statements apply - the alliance getting shafted the worst by this patch?

---

its really tragic that the alliances this is supposed to be helping (like yourself) are the ones getting hit the hardest while the ones its supposed to be hurting (like myself) will just need to make minor adjustments to keep on living like we already do

---

True. So, what changes would you propose to reverse the situation? Certainly, there needs to be more incentive for people to hold only a few systems, and invest time in those systems, besides penalizing them.

Personally, I have little issue with the penalties... I just think the rewards are too weak.

So, again, what would you propose for better infrastructure hub upgrades?

---

Originally by: Destrim

---

stuff

---

Originally by: Tesal

---

Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 03:31:37

Originally by: Destrim

---

Originally by: Korodan

---

The best sort of upgrades would be ratting upgrades, for people who play with single accounts it's easily the most effective way to make money in 0.0. So I'd like an upgrade like this:

Concord Communication Array: <insert some RP BS about an uplink to the CONCORD criminal database here> For every level of this upgrade the value of rats increases by 10% - capping out at 50%. This upgrade also allows the alliance controlling the system to collect taxes on bounties from anyone ratting in the system, regardless of their alliance's relationship to them.

---

Hmmm... I like that :) Now, ninja-ratters won't be such a huge problem, and allies stealing said rats wouldn't be as much a problem, either.

But do you have any ideas about upgrades to the actual military infrastructure of the sovereign?

---

Thats wide open to exploit. Just sayin. RMT people would stop macroing and just build systems to collect taxes.

*edit
In Soviet Russia the plexes farm you.

---

Originally by: Destrim

---

Originally by: Aralis

---

I don't want different upgrades. I want the whole patch thrown in the bin. This is OUR space claimed on behalf of the Empire. Who are we paying these taxes to? If it's the Empire - well that's fantastic your Majesty - we're delighted to be accepted in the Empire. When can we expect Imperial patrols to start and navy sentry guns to be installed? If it's anyone else - eat laser death scumbag.

---

Well, we can't have throwing it in the bin. That's too much.

However, increasing the defensibility of your system is, in my opinion, a must. I mean, seriously: you're being forced now to devote as much time as possible to simply keeping it, so you should REALLY get decent returns. Like - as you said - sentry guns and NPC patrols. Actually, CCP mentioned that they may do this in a later patch, but not on the initial Dominion release...

So, since throwing it out is not negotiable, help us come up with something which alleviates your circumstances. As you said, you fought hard for the systems you've got, and you should get something for it... propose what you think would best reward your efforts, and reward your hard work.

---

Originally by: Marlona Sky

---

Why are goons crying the most of this?

---

Originally by: Destrim

---

Originally by: Inferno Styx

---

I like the idea of gate guns as well. As long as you can take them out of action. POS guns would work perfectly for this, Never thought about using them.

---

There we go!

Military infrastructure upgrade...

"Advanced Sentry Gun Augmentation: Allows the anchoring of one POS sentry gun per sov level around the gate of this system." (or some wording like that) So, a total of 5 sentry guns, maybe? Or perhaps POS guns would be a bad idea... I have no idea how one would manage power to them, or if it would be a concern even, much less ammo... maybe a special sort of gun related to infrastructure upgrades? *shrugs*

---

Originally by: Marlona Sky

---

So anyone not blue to the gate guns that is in a cruiser and smaller is fubar if they have to fight on a gate?

---

Originally by: Prognosys

---

Originally by: Cromzor

---

I hate the 0.0 napfest, and I'm really enjoying the goontears but...

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.

---

I like how this patch, specifically this question, is bringing together alliances that hate each others' guts. Enemy of my enemy, etc.

---

Originally by: caboaddict

---

Edited by: caboaddict on 08/11/2009 05:17:26
First I want to give kudos to CCP for a great plan and architecture for the changes.

The problem I see is that they have not addressed the economy of scale. Why only have the sov costs in a "one size fits all" cost structure?

I'd recommend implementing a tiered cost structure similar to the recent rig changes. Have a large, medium, small alliance cost structure.

Personally I think something like 1 billion a month per system for large alliances. It doesn't break the bank, but it is a decent chunk of change. Medium alliances would pay 500 million, and small 250 million.

This is enough to keep system over expanision in check and alliances will not "balloon" out of size. It allows smaller alliances to settle in and then grow their territory if they choose. If not, then there is room for more alliances and corps.

just my .02 cents

---

Originally by: Bobby Atlas

---

Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 05:22:58

Originally by: Pointfive

---

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.

---

As CCP Chronitus pointed out, the amount of reward to offset a small amount of risk is allot but I also think that is a matter of perception, in either case it is not in of itself the argument being made. The actual argument being made by allot of people is the fact that 0.0 is less profitable than running LVL4 missions in empire and these upgrades in dominion do little if anything to change that situation.

I personally have been playing eve for some 6 years now and I remember when I first came to 0.0 it was a niche idea that you came out here to make money, however that is something that quickly evaporated and has been the consensus for a long time that you do not come out to 0.0 to make money. This should not be the case, 0.0 should not be unprofitable or certainly not less profitable than empire - please do not counter about pvp risks etc.. as we all accept those risks and costs but that is not what we are talking about.

The simple point is that 0.0 life is less profitable than LVL4 missions when in reality it should at very least be equal to or greater than.

Allot of this boils down to lazy development work, I remember 2-3 years ago when the concept of touching the POS code was a nightmare to CCP, you said it wouldn't happen and were admit that it was a monumental challenge. This is the very same situation we see at the moment regarding making true sec values dynamic, belt numbers, the npc spawn density/value within and astroid types/density, all dynamic. This is something CCP needs to tackle head on, the proposed system we have in front of us now is the most indirect method possible of actually fixing the economic inadequacies of 0.0 and it is frankly very lazy way.

I personally have never run a wormhole, never run an anomaly and I know for a fact I am not the only person, there is a large player base that is just not interested in it - we rather fight NPC's in belts in a far more straight forward fashion. So please, get off your collective behindes and rethink the implementation of dominion and actually addressing the economic issues and more importantly the short comings of the code base.

---

Originally by: Yiom

---

Ok, out of curiousity, how many of you that hold 0.0 can make in 1 month in 0.0 solo.

Let's pretend for **** and grinz that the corp/alliance charged ZERO tax. Anything and everything you do costs you nothing towards anyone else but yourself.

So 1 month, how much do you make?

I obviously don't see a problem with the whole bill process. If a corp/alliance wish's, they could ask that all the corp members (lets keep it simple, 10 members) donated 7 million each day. Thats 70 mil per day TOTAL. They then go do whatever they would like to do, tax free, no problems whats so ever, until the next day they are required to donate 7 mil each (10 players, so that makes 70 mil TOTAL)

Until the end of the month, you end up with a whoopin 2.1 billion isk to pay for the rent of the system.

Im not in a corp that owns 0.0 space, but through reading the pages, christ, people are kicking and screaming like a bunch of girls, with no inkling on really reading in to what is required to accomplish the goals of that CCP has set forth. Of course, I could say that 99.9% of the people who are screaming bloody marry are actually trolls. Which in some ways I think I could be right.

TL:DR

If you are in a 10 man corp, donate 7 million to your CEO each day. Have taxes put to 0% or 1% whatever, and go on your jolly way.

p.s. Grow a pair ppl, christ, I hope no one in this whine fest is from the Euro region. Wouldn't expect that... But from lazy americans... perhaps.

---

Originally by: Tipz NexAstrum

---

Originally by: Vadinho

---

Welcome to page fifty of the official "CCP doesn't understand that the only motivation for war is valuable and exploitable resources that would otherwise be unobtainable" thread I'm your maitre d' Vadinho I hope you stay is an enjoyable one!

---

Bobfrommarketing please have this guy kicked for being a moron, he obviously never got the History of the World, Part I joke.

---

Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal

---

Originally by: Da Maddness

---

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.

---

I've seen you or someone else ask this every couple of pages. You won't get an answer that way, especially when asking it that often in the middle of the night for Icelanders.

---

Originally by: Pointfive

---

Honestly i was hoping to see upgrades more along these lines. i always though of 0.0 as being like the wild west. Where you venture out to dangerous lands to get shot at, control some territory make money, and occasionaly find gold.

Concord Bounty Hunter Angent Relay - Allows LP gain for killing pirates in nullsec, create a pvp geared concord lp store

Bounty increase - High activity in your system has driven away all but the most dangerous pirates. 15% bonus to pirate bounty per level

Respawn Speed - High activity in this region has increased pirate activity in the system. 10% bonus to pirate respawn speed per level.

Pirate hideout Locator - Each level increases the chance of locating rare hidden pirate hideout anomalies. These danger pirates do not drop faction items but have significantly increased bounty.

Ship quality increase - Having Faced larger ships constantly, pirates begin to only appear in more difficult ships. Each level reduces the chance of a non battleship spawn by 20%


oh and

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: Bobby Atlas

---

Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 05:22:58

Originally by: Pointfive

---

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: Johnster

---

Originally by: Pointfive

---

Honestly i was hoping to see upgrades more along these lines. i always though of 0.0 as being like the wild west. Where you venture out to dangerous lands to get shot at, control some territory make money, and occasionaly find gold.

Concord Bounty Hunter Angent Relay - Allows LP gain for killing pirates in nullsec, create a pvp geared concord lp store

Bounty increase - High activity in your system has driven away all but the most dangerous pirates. 15% bonus to pirate bounty per level

Respawn Speed - High activity in this region has increased pirate activity in the system. 10% bonus to pirate respawn speed per level.

Pirate hideout Locator - Each level increases the chance of locating rare hidden pirate hideout anomalies. These danger pirates do not drop faction items but have significantly increased bounty.

Ship quality increase - Having Faced larger ships constantly, pirates begin to only appear in more difficult ships. Each level reduces the chance of a non battleship spawn by 20%


oh and

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.

---

This is what we all expected really... The bounty hunter bonus should be anyone neut/hostile to owning alliance though, not based on their sec status, and possibly also give bounties to encourage players to defend against raiders in their home systems.

/signed

---

Originally by: Lucas Pantelis

---

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

---

Originally by: Lucas Pantelis

---

Why would you take space from your enemies when the financial burden of it hurts them more than a loss of sov?

---

This is why you don't take it, you just render it unusuable by sitting cloakers in the system so they get the bill AND no benefit.

---

I'm struggling to see the benefit even if you don't **** up the system with cloakers.

---

Originally by: Bobby Atlas

---

Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 07:20:26
This thread is quickly becoming a trial in patience and repetitive dialog, I think the majority of reasonable cases have been made and hope that CCP actually put time into reading through the many well articulated arguments presented.

---

Originally by: Bobby Atlas

---

Originally by: gambrinous

---

I bought a raven

---

I fly drakes.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

words

---

Originally by: riverini

---

Posting in this threadnaught....

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Originally by: Zemi Dahut

---

You really don't understand what the problem is here which is really not surprising. You should probably have stayed out of this thread since all you're doing is reminding everyone why you failed as a CSM.

---

Actually Dominion is looking like a pretty good success for my time on the CSM right now

---

Originally by: Hertford

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kieselguhr Kid

---

Originally by: Honest Smedley

---

Originally by: Itzena

---

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.

---

To answer the isk/hr question you pose:
For the average corporation member within an alliance? Not necessarily.

---

if 0.0 should not be as profitable for the average corp member as highsec is, 0.0 is worthless.

---

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

I read 67 pages of this, and the first thing I have to post when I get to the bottom of it is...a post making fun of Jade Constantine. FML.

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 are, as ever, letting your prejudices in favour of your personal play style run away with your brain here. Most people in this thread - yes, even the Goons - agree that alliances being forced to scale back their claims is good. Losing the universal cyno jam is less popular, but most of the people who have expressed anything other than sticker shock seem to like that as well.

The thing is, if you want alliances to scale back, you have to let them scale back. If Goons are going to shed 60% of their space and fall back to Delve only(which I think is about the smallest you can reasonably expect them to shrink to), they need to be able to support a 5000-man alliance out of one region - reimbursement programs, capital construction, Titans, player ships, jump freighters, ratting ships, sniper HAC gangs, the works, on an individual, corporate, and alliance level. And while the Goons have agents in NPC Delve to fall back on, most alliances don't, so I'll ignore them for a second.

This proposal doesn't give alliances the money they need. Even if anomalies become everything that everyone wants them to be, you'll still get maybe 5-10 players in the average system. Unless just about every system in Delve hits max upgrades, it won't be able to support GoonSwarm. In other words, no matter what the sov claims say, or what the cyno jammer configuration looks like, they'll own pretty much as much space as they do now.

As for the bit about small groups, you seem to have missed the point. When people talk about small groups in 0.0, they don't mean roving gangs of "guerrillas". They mean a 200-man alliance holding a couple systems. Small gangs will always be able to move around, and occasionally find fights - I agree that they need more targets for them, but that wasn't the point of Dominion. The point of Dominion from the point of view of small players was supposed to be allowing small groups to hold space, not to fly around and gank/get ganked. Anyone can fly around, but at present, nobody under about 1000 members can hold so much as a system without big friends. That is what this was supposed to fix, but unless it actually succeeds at shrinking big alliances(which the current proposal won't do, because it doesn't let them move inward and still have anything to do), then it won't loosen anything up, no matter what the coloured dots say. That is why this expansion fails - not because it makes GoonSwarm's life harder, but because it makes Random 300-Man Wannabes Alliance's life no easier. It's the status quo with a hat.

---

Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk

---

Originally by: Tesal

---

Goons don't have enough of a pet program, and they probably will never have a good pet program because the carebears are afraid of being scammed by them, which is a legitimate fear I might add. That and they are realizing the kinds of fights they are being set up for now that their participation is down.

---

Yes, we should be punished for using our space ourselves instead of making idiots pay us for it.

---

Originally by: Alice Teal

---

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!
Here's how you integrate it into the storyline: the pirate faction (say, Angels for Angels Extravaganza) give you a "countermission": Stop the Missioner.

They put a 30 minute module on you which jams Concord's sensors.

This would fix Eve.

---

Originally by: Breaker77

---

Originally by: Orb Lati

---

The key point is, brining more mineral into the system without out increasing the demand is not going to make miners any more money and will just end up tanking the prices even further.

---

Mineral prices will not tank anymore than they are now. If they do then it would be profitable to build T1 ships, insure them, and self destruct them. Insurance will hold mineral prices to a certain price.

---

Originally by: Quesa

---

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

Originally by: Korodan

---

There's a simple and quick way to cause mineral prices to rise - nerf compounds dropped by rouge drones. Nearly all of the game's minerals come from there now, with a trickle from refining.

---

Yes, because the way to fix 0.0 is to completely screw over eight regions of it. And no, drone compounds aren't a big part of the problem - they're maybe a quarter of minerals, tops. Disproportionately high in nocxium, and to a lesser extent zydrine, but they're not that huge a part of the market. What's far bigger is mission/ratting loot drops, the T1 stuff that always winds up in a refinery. I believe that more minerals are produced that way than from all mining combined.

---

You are completely undervaluing drone poop. It's extremely efficient, in terms of compression and extremely valuable for builders.

The problem with Drones is the reward from a drone is directly effected by the mineral market and takes exceedingly more time/logistics/effort to squeeze the isk out of it.

---

Originally by: Will Hunter

---

Originally by: Vivian Azure

---

I was allready stating to be playing atleast 6 hours a day.

---

Originally by: Vivian Azure

---

playing atleast 6 hours a day.

---

Originally by: Vivian Azure

---

6 hours a day.

---

---

Originally by: Breaker77

---

Originally by: Vivian Azure

---

I was allready stating to be playing atleast 6 hours a day.

---

Originally by: Vivian Azure

---

playing atleast 6 hours a day.

---

Originally by: Vivian Azure

---

6 hours a day.

---

Must be nice not having a life.

---

Originally by: Kanatta Jing

---

Originally by: Dharh

---

I have a 40+ hour a week job and I still manage almost 6 hours a day in EVE. WTF are you tards talking about?

---

I know it's like there are people that aren't hiding from the wife by playing EVE.

Shhh! I think she heard me!

---

Originally by: Graalum

---

the crappiest 0.0 should match highsec missioning in terms of single character income potential.


top end systems ie -.75 or better should be double that. having elite space should be a reward, not the bare minimum for usefulness.

---

Originally by: Marlona Sky

---

If they moved all level 4 mission agents to low sec, would that boost low sec and bring more balance to the 0.0 vs. High sec risk vs. reward?

---

Originally by: Kanatta Jing

---

Originally by: Roemy Schneider

---

since we never got the revamp of loot tables to compensate for the increased tech1 volumes, allow me to get back to the idea we had back then:

hauler spawn upgrade plz

---

Hmmm, if they put a Hauler Spawn as a random pop up in anomalies... That would be neat.

---

Originally by: Ranger 1

---

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 06:31:52

Originally by: Esplin

---

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.

---

I don't suppose you have considered that while yes anomalies will be as profitable as level 4 missions, you will also have additional lucrative sources of income not readily available in high sec.

More lucrative, hidden belts might mean you will have to actually have some people on hand that know how to mine properly (and profitably). Repeated claiming that nobody mines in null sec because it isn't as profitable as ratting makes you look a bit... inept. Sorry.

Upgraded mini-profession sites (which admittedly could use some tweaking), high end complexes, and access to more and better Wormholes are all money makers that are either not readily available or will be rarer or of lower quality than in Empire space.

Of course there are still your high end moons, which while not as valuable as before are still a resource most often found in null sec (or at worst within easy range of null sec).

I don't think what we currently have proposed in Dominion is perfect yet, far from it. However singling out one of the several high end upgradeable revenue streams that will be available to you, and then quoting each other endlessly because because one of them is "merely" as profitable as the best monetary resource in the game is pretty short sighted.

---

Originally by: Jethro Hawkins

---

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.

Quoted it before, will keep quoting it. What's the worst that happens? CCP won't answer... probably.

Please don't break the game until I actually can fly my capital ship wish list please.

---

Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen

---

Edited by: Scouty McScoutersen on 09/11/2009 06:55:54
the obvious answer is they don't want to increase 0.0 isk and cause inflation, or decrease empire isk and cause carebear (ie most of the people playing this game) ragequits.

nullseccers are screwed and the only way to stay viable is to have an alt running missions in empire, oh well

---

Originally by: Mkiaki

---

Learn to grind Goons, it's what the rest of EVE has to do.

---

Originally by: Roemy Schneider

---

we could just ditch sov altogether, hand all stations over to NPC and seed them with agents

---

Originally by: Tesal

---

Originally by: Pointfive

---

Originally by: Tesal

---

I don't think 0.0 needs to be equal to a level 4. I wouldn't want 0.0 to even work like a level 4. It just needs to get close to cash flow without high end moons. That way a corp can stay there without running out of isk. I think CCP should probably say the minimum corp size they are figuring, and show a path to cash flow, including all the major costs. If they can't do that, that is a problem.

If a corp can gut it out, they can start getting into cap ships, and get some high ends, and crappy nerfed high ends are still pretty decent. I also remind Goons especially that of the low sec high ends, those moons are abused to support the big 0.0 powers in addition to the 0.0 moons. Moons are a great isk fountain for a corp, but they are a terribly abused mechanic. This has been paying for their fuel and cyno jammers and cap fleets and ship replacement. Without those fat high ends, you are in a similar position cash wise even if the Sov part of the patch is delayed. so delaying the Sov portion of the patch will only forstall the abandoning of space.

Part of the pain of this patch is you figuring what you will do without enough isk from moons.

The Goon tears however make me believe this patch will work to break up entrenched powers.

---

Noone in this thread has been complaining about moon goo. The main complaint is that personal income in null sec is crap now. And at best if you pay your huge montly sove bill, its equal to level 4s. That is the complaint. And if you think thats fine just go back to running your level 4s and dont bother yourself with null sec discussion.

---

I call it like I see it.

Personal income is not the problem, corp and alliance level income is the issue. On the corp and alliance level, you have to be able to pay for Sov infrastructure, ship replacement, POS and POS gear, cap ships and so on. These costs are substantial, and if you can't pool resources effectively, you can't get it to work.

Its irrelevant if players support themselves as individuals, leadership won't have time to rat usually, and will have to front the costs for POS gear, fuel, equipment and the cost of a ship replacement program. That takes billions even for a small alliance. So unless you can get to cash flow, what leader is not going to eternally bleed cash to support their alliance? It doesn't work. It leaves them working all the time just so other people can play.

How individual players get their isk is of secondary importance frankly, because if you can't even get set up as a corp or alliance in 0.0, earning a living there as an individual is impossible.

---

Originally by: WhiteSavage

---

Oh and ccp... let us upgrade the BELT RATS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

---

Originally by: WhiteSavage

---

Originally by: Ranger 1

---

The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong.

---

lol. enlighten us poor average souls. considering the posts of 100+ people here your either an idiot or just warping around to everyones systems looking for faction spawns and getting lucky.

---

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

Originally by: Ranger 1

---

Quote:

---

Why would anyone in their right mind pay for space that generates income to a mediocre mission runner in empire when there is so much more risk. It makes no sense.

---

Why do they do it now for even less?

---

Some people like the 0.0 play style, and are willing to take a hit to play the game that way. That's cool, good for them. Some people hate it, and are willing to stay in Motsu even if the worst -0.01 system in Geminate was promising free officer gear for everyone who jumped a shuttle in. Again, that's fine. But there's a whole bunch of people in the middle who are willing to trade risk for reward, but have no conceivable reason to try at present. Why would you rat for 20M/hour when you can mission for 20M/hour instead, and never get blown up?

The goal of Dominion was supposed to be to clear room for those people to come to 0.0, and then give them a reason to bother. Increase the population density of non-safe space, add to the number of people who fight instead of just bearing around, and make 0.0 cool again for a reason other than ludicrous x64 passive income. This patch won't drive the 0.0 lovers away, but it won't bring the risk-tolerant out of empire either. That's why it's a failure - not because people who are willing to put up with crappy 0.0 mechanics will suddenly balk at putting up with slightly less crappy 0.0 mechanics, but because the people who you were trying to draw just won't care.

---

Originally by: Ryixezu

---

Edited by: Ryixezu on 09/11/2009 08:52:04

Originally by: Ranger 1

---

Kanatta Jing, I think you may be operating at a level well beyond the one in this thread. It may be obvious to you and I that these instantly re spawning anomalies can be worked endlessly by large groups that never have to leave their home system, and generate huge amounts of convenient ISK, but most won't get that. That's why I have avoided bringing it up and focused on other matters.

---

Absolutely, having an infinite resource available with instant respawn as soon as you complete it would be extremely abused.

EDIT: I do really dislike using irony on forums but this one was too good to let go.

---