|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 17:39:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Also, because it's not Sunday night any more, it's time to start spamming the question again: 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.
Yes, but that must include the corp level reward (i.e. the moon goo) after you have removed the operative costs.
Profit includes all costs and income, including moon goo funded reimbursement programs, fleet losses defending your space/moon goo, etc.
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 18:31:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Brunaburh
One of the things that keeps confusing me about this thread is that everyone talks as if: (a) they need SOV in every system they use... and (b) they need to keep SOV in every system they have now.
Well, probably what will happen is alliances will only claim sov in a few key systems, but prevent anyone from moving into the systems that they don't have sov in. I don't think this is something CCP should be encouraging -- it's going to lead to two maps, the "real territory map", the space that each alliance claims, and the "sov map", the space where the alliance actually has sov.
The FLAGs should have no upkeep, only infrastructure hubs, since as far as I know there's no benefit from having a FLAG with no infrastructure hub.
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 18:37:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Tippia I'm already in a dictor. As for a reimbursement scheme, it doesn't particularly matter: if they're getting their PvP ships replaced, then their personal ship loss will be the same as in highsecą except for the PvE ships lost to reds;
You losing ships while ratting? lulz
I take it you've never been to 0.0? Here's a hint: there are people trying to kill you out here. Some of them even know how to run a half-competent gate camp.
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 18:58:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Nobani on 09/11/2009 19:01:00
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 18:52:11 CCP stated that pure military alliance will be haveing trouble keeping space , i am sure you all goonies missed that part.
Post under your main please.
So YES or NO: 0.0 space should be more profitable (in isk/h) than Empire due to the logistics, risk, and cost of maintaining sov?
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 19:13:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Honest Smedley
Originally by: Hertford
Originally by: Honest Smedley
Moon mining is more profitable than in high sec (of course) if you do 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.
Not so much, no. Those jump bridges networks and throw away cap fleets aren't materializing out of nowhere... and your alliance isn't funding them off the backs of people grinding out missions in Irjunen. If you aren't personally benefitting from the silly money your alliance is rolling in as much as you think you should, consider finding a new alliance.
Did you think the titan conga line came out of an Irjunen-based LP store?
Someone update this if there's stuff I missed
Empire mission running Income Mission rewards Scavenging Taxes (in Dominion)
Recurring costs Ammo
0.0 ratting Income Bounties Scavenging Reimbursement programs
Recurring cost Ammo Importing/Exporting Piracy losses Fleet losses Corp dues
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 19:47:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Nobani on 09/11/2009 19:47:10
Originally by: Treji I, and many other players, don't think 0.0 space income can possibly be compared to 0.0 space expected income. The two are completely different animals. If its about personal isk income, then you shouldn't be in 0.0 in the first place...especially if you depended on allainces to supply ships etc, and now are faced with the fat provider cow being slaughtered...
So you're 0.0 players should trade flying good ships for the e-honour of having a dot on the map?
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 21:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kepakh Please re-read the post again. I indeed want you to make 'less' ISK because your lost ship will get replaced - for free, discounted price or you get any other form of 'refund'. I want you to 'need' less ISK.
Corp/Alliance ticker or STFU.
Which alliance reimburses ships outside of fleet ops? I want in on that.
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 03:32:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jason Edwards
Originally by: Cailais To put it another way, if your goal is to "become rich" then run missions in high sec. If your goal is to become 'infamous / famous' for owning space then go to .0 and fight.
(Incidentally this is why its difficult to attract care bears to .0, its because they understand this fundamental equation and are not interested in 'owning space' as 'being rich' is their own reward.)
It's not that. The issue is that you fight to hold moons currently. The isk of that goes to the pocket of the alliance leaders. Which often goes to supercapitals. You pretty much wont be changing this. Except instead of the isk pretty much going from moon-> alliance leader's pockets. It goes from space/belts/pirates-> corp tax -> outpost tax -> alliance leader's pockets. At least there's somewhere in the chain the people are involved.
Because POSes fuel themselves, moon goo ships itself to empire and lists itself on the market, right?
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 22:16:00 -
[9]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 And goods knows how many alts they rolled into this topic just to make you soft.
Complaining about alts is pretty funny coming from a guy called "JitaPriceChecker2".
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.16 04:53:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Future Mutant (Most) ppl in null sec corps dont pay for their own ships (or pay discounted prices)
Would the alliance which pays for all their members ships please step forward? I want to join.
|
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 19:33:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:34:33 Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:33:15
Originally by: Cearain If the idea is to have more smaller alliances in null sec then the costs of upkeep for the second system should be more than the first. The cost of upkeep for the third system should be more than the cost of upkeep for the second etc.
While a good idea in theory, this won't work in practice. In practice you would get "GoonSwarm -- Delve", "GoonSwarm -- Querious", or "GoonSwarm -- OK-FEM", "GoonSwarm B4H", depending on how harsh the multiple system penalties were.
Any system which penalizes claiming sov also has the problem of splitting "real" sov, the space an alliance will defend, from "TCU" sov, the space an alliance will claim with TCUs and iHubs. In order to shrink alliance footprints you need to increase the cost of defending space, not just the cost of claiming space. You also need to increase the number of people who can make maximum ISK in each system, or you will get a mass exodus back to Empire, at least for ISK making.
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 20:12:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Cearain
Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:34:33 Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:33:15
Originally by: Cearain If the idea is to have more smaller alliances in null sec then the costs of upkeep for the second system should be more than the first. The cost of upkeep for the third system should be more than the cost of upkeep for the second etc.
While a good idea in theory, this won't work in practice. In practice you would get "GoonSwarm -- Delve", "GoonSwarm -- Querious", or "GoonSwarm -- OK-FEM", "GoonSwarm B4H", depending on how harsh the multiple system penalties were.
...
If the rules had some requirement that each of these different "goonswarm ____s" had to have different leadership then I think that would be fine. The large alliances would be broken up. There may have to be a rule about alt accounts but I think that would be doable as well. Sooner or later things will fall apart and the in fighting will start.
Look what happened to purple.
All the alliances would function as one alliance except where the game mechanics prevent it. I.e. shared messageboard, shared killboard, shared chat, etc. Actually, the only members of most of the alliances would be POS gunner alts and logistics pilots.
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 19:30:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ranger 1
A: The entity did not have the finances to claim SOV and develop that space. B: The entity did not have the manpower available or willing to spend time there to develop it to the point of profitability.
C: Any bonuses for claiming sov aren't worth 6m/day, but the entity is still using that space.
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 00:22:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Future Mutant See thats an outright lie. Systems can be upgraded to provide more rats, more anomalies, more hidden astroids. On an isk per hour basis- having more means more income. More rats to shoot= more income. More anomalies to run= more income More hidden roids to mine= more income
To say dominion would mean equal or even less income compared to isk per hour now is beyond misleading- it is a blatant lie.
Say I have a system with a lot of belts that I can rat for 25 mil ISK/h. Suppose in Dominion CCP now adds some abnormalities which I can run to earn 20 mil ISK/h, and some hidden asteroids I can mine from 10 mil ISK/h. How much ISK/h can I earn from this system?
|
|
|
|