EVE Search - New Blog: Upgrading and Upkeep of Sovereign Solar Systems in Dominion

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Blog: Upgrading and Upkeep of Sovereign Solar Systems in Dominion

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 36 post(s)
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:11:00 - [1] Okay I've read much of this thread. We are a small alliance, we previously did have 2 systems in Omist before Atlas took it. We currently hang out in Providence some when not fighting our current war. We have also been optimist about perhaps getting a system or two come Dominion. The cost next to the revenue generated by a system is far out of whack in this proposal. I agree with many that the true sec status of a system needs to be taken into account in the cost ratio. Something like this as a basic idea: (b/(1+(1 + t)))= f b=base cost t=true sec f=final cost So in this formula a true sec of -1.0 would mean that it costs as you outlay. A true sec of -.5 would cost 200 million if you just had the sov thing up and no hub. Some other suggestions: Double the number of belts in all 0.0 systems...static belts that is. No upgrade required. Then here are some suggested changes: Pirate Magnets - Doubles the number of guaranteed anomalies in the system per level + reduces by 20% per level respawn timers of belt rats. Ore Prospecting Array - Double the number of belts in a system per level. (not hidden belts just static belts). The other three are okay as they seem written, but without more belts you can't support the population levels you are seeking. If you can't do something along those lines then you need to significantly reduce costs to attract small alliances. I'd look at reducing the cost to around the fuel for 2 large towers per month. I think that would be a more attainable and attractive cost, which is only 40% of what you suggest. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:18:00 - [2] Edited by: Mecinia Lua on 07/11/2009 11:18:15 Originally by: CCP Soundwave I completely agree that systems will be able to sustain about 10, possibly 15 people active at one time (which to be fair is a pretty massive increase from what we can do now). It's not the perfect solution, but it gives us a pretty solid base to work from. In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. No we can't get rid of the POSs. That's what you're not understanding. We might could cut down on what we have but the ones for refining, moon mining, jump bridges, cyno jammers, etc still have to be fueled and operational. That's where your figures break down. The only thing not needed will be the death stars. That's why your costs are to high, because we'll still need to fuel these others. We have to have the POSs to operate in 0.0. You just made it cost twice as much to break into with the costs listed in the blogs. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:39:00 - [3] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? CCP seeding R64 moons in providence? I personally dont even have that much issues with the anomalies, considering belt ratting here in provi is crap. However lets start by dividing the sov costs by 5, and then repost the blog. As I said, if the costs become an issue, they can always be looked at. Once it goes live it'll be to late to look at. SOE was told that the NGE was a huge mistake. They pushed forward with it anyway the players be damned, please don't repeat their same mistake. Listen to all of us that it is to costly as you have outlined, no small or medium alliance can afford the costs as they'd need the flag, the upgrade hub, probably at least 2-3 Large POSs for refining, building etc. This in no way lowers the cost of coming to 0.0, it increases the cost, and thus it will accomplish the opposite of your desire. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:10:00 - [4] Originally by: Niding Edited by: Niding on 07/11/2009 11:53:32 Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. The higher tier anomalies don't spawn a lot in Tribute and most of 0.0. Truesec is still low and Dominion will not change that, since we can't upgrade it.. By the way, a high risk activity in 0.0 space only matching risk-free missions in empire that don't require you to invest a billion monthly? You are aware that this doesn't sound good? The sites come off a pre-determined list, meaning that your true-sec won't matter. The entire point of this is that areas such as you mention will get access to good anomalies through upgrades, regardless of sec-status. If anomalies are supposed to be part of what support the upgrades, your saying there will be more of them..and more people running them. Wont the increase in anomaly modules/resources flood the market, which in turn will radically devalue the modules/resources? Seems to me there will be radically diminishing returns in short order, which will make supporting any upgrades unviable in the long run. At least someone took economics..... Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:13:00 - [5] Okay I've had another idea since you didn't respond to my earlier idea about needing more belts. Can we have a skill to lower the costs associated with Sovereignty. Sort of like Accounting lowers sales tax. This would probably be a Corporate Management skill call it Administration. Primary: Charisma, Secondary: Memory. Say a 3x skill. Training it lowers the cost associated with claiming sovereignty by say 10% per level up to of course level 5. It would have to be trained by the CEO of the Executor corp I guess or perhaps the corp with the flag in that system. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:22:00 - [6] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks for keeping the feedback largely constructive so far. As stated in the original blog it is trivial for us to us to change the numbers and we expected this to happen based on the next round of feedback which is happening here. The original upkeep costs in the blog were designed given a reduction in space you need to hold for income purposes so they increasingly become less as passive income increases (fixed cost/dynamic income) and act as a soft limit and prohibitive factor on how much space you want to claim. That indeed is the case since the established powerblocks will naturally look to where you can cost cut initially and potentially expand later based on purchase and installation of resource upgrades and more balanced member base to utilise those resources and that means limiting to strategically important systems to begin with regardless of the final upkeep or upgrade figures we arrive at here. But on with some specific answers to the biggest concerns: So will we look at making upkeep costs less than stated in the blog due to reasonable feedback? Yes! - Sovereignty Structures The role of the Territorial Claim Unit (TCU) changed since the original figures were generated to be only a marker for sovereignty and the last thing to be removed after a system has been taken (details on this are coming soon in Abathur's next blog). This means the cost for the TCU should be reasonable in terms of upkeep and we are looking at 1 mill per day currently for that dot on the map. The infrastructure hub is both key to strategic defence and as the base of the solar system upgrades. Here we are looking at mirroring a large starbase in equivalent operational cost so 5 million upkeep per day is more reasonable. - Strategic Upgrades The key upgrades here we want to force you to make economic decisions over are naturally the jump bridges and cynosural jammer use. The presence of these two has radical effects on the 'landscape' generally. We are looking at no upkeep cost on either of the construction arrays and cynosural field generators and then maintain significant costs the cynosural jammer and jump bridges. Hopefully that answers some concerns on the upkeep fees and that we are looking at the figures and open to adjusting them further. As for the other issues raised, we are looking at the issues around the resource sites and things like knowing if they are in use or not and will shed more light on the asteroid belt upgrades which are not the ordinary gravimetric sites FYI some of you are mentioning Keep the constructive feedback coming and we'll update the original blog monday or tuesday with new figures and updates and additional comments to clear some confusion up. This cost is much better. We need that additional information, should have been in there in the first place. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.13 10:23:00 - [7] So where is the revised numbers CCP Chronotis promised us last week for this past Monday or Tuesday, its Friday now..... Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.13 11:46:00 - [8] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Mecinia Lua So where is the revised numbers CCP Chronotis promised us last week for this past Monday or Tuesday, its Friday now..... You mean this? Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost). There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary. Pag. 109 post 3262 He promised an update to the blog with the new numbers. But thank you :) Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.