|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 22:53:00 -
[1]
this devblog is really reassuring -- it sets to rest any claims of developer bias towards one alliance or another because clearly not one of the developers actually plays eve online
oh boy an extra hidden asteroid belt per level it'll sure be worth upgrading that so everyone gets a whole new entry to ignore on their system scanner
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 23:09:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Quesa I may like shooting them but I am actually agreeing, strongly I might add, with Goon posters on this topic.
see what you've done ccp
you've got atlas agreeing with us
this is how bad of ideas you have
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 23:22:00 -
[3]
its so wonderful that all us nullsec alliances can set aside our differences to come together and tell ccp they dont know **** from shinola when it comes to how their own game is played
there just might be hope for peace yet <3
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 23:52:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Vadinho on 06/11/2009 23:51:57
Originally by: Virtuozzo Well, Dominion was going to shake things up.
It does
Here's a new wallpaper for the expansion
this is a better wallpaper for the new expansion
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 23:59:00 -
[5]
Originally by: RevrendStyx For me to answer this in any fashion you have to clarify why you think I work for ccp.
well you clearly dont know anything about nullsec so he probably put two and two together
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 00:10:00 -
[6]
Originally by: RevrendStyx
Originally by: Vadinho
Originally by: RevrendStyx For me to answer this in any fashion you have to clarify why you think I work for ccp.
well you clearly dont know anything about nullsec so he probably put two and two together
An even better goon response. Yes I know nothing of null sec, but you all still suck at eve. We're even. Now back on topic.
These changes don't look to bad to me. Not great but not bad. CCP doesn't always seem to think everything though but at the same time they have been creating this game for ~10yrs. Have you? Let them do their jobby job and stfu and deal with what they give you...orrr like I told the cva guys. Go back to empire or quit and give me your stuffs.
LEAVE CCP ALOOOOOOONNNNEE
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 04:03:00 -
[7]
Originally by: d4shing So, in response to those people complaining that they'll never cram 100 people into a system, realize that the average sov-holding alliance already does.
dont discount how many of those people are afk at a pos or in station
our capitol system of NOL can easily have over a hundred people in it during peak but almost all of them are in station managing market orders, waiting for an op to start or just spinnng ship
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 05:14:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Vadinho on 07/11/2009 05:14:33
Originally by: Avoida Increased costs aside for the moment, current alliance territories will contract and (I'm betting) large areas of 0.0 will suddenly appear unclaimed...but that does not mean anybody will be able to claim those systems. Alliances will quickly adopt the "if we can't have it, nobody can" mentality and will easily dispatch any attempts by smaller entities to stake their claim. Existing territory holders will merely continue to utilize the now unclaimed space but forgo the claim marker.
Nothing will change basically.
You might even see an alliance anchoring GSCs near gates to act as an unofficial claim markers to let anybody thinking of attempting to stake a claim will get sent back to Empire via their medical clone.
realistically this is what is going to happen
instead of paying a billion isk per system per month fee so they can see their name on the map, most alliances are just going to not take sov in systems that arent absolutely vital for jump bridges or cyno jammers. nobody is going to want to conquer space because theres no incentive to and 0.0 combat will devolve into lowsec style turf wars with the occasional station ping-pong
great game youve got here ccp
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 07:55:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Marina Charnatie To everyone posting. CCP is not the devil. They are not monsters out to ruin your fun.
i dont think anyone here is suggesting ccp are monsters
theyre just totally ignorant about how their own game works, both mechanically and functionally
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 17:46:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Caius Severus The quality of argument in this thread is awful.
If you disagree with something, say why. Not "My personal style of play will change, therefore it is crap", or "Nerf someone else's play style, not mine". Neither of these are valid reasons.
Be constructive, or you might as well not post.
-a water molecule consists of one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms
-the earth orbits around the sun and the moon orbits around the earth
-holding sov in nullsec will give you the privilege of paying monthly fees and risking life and limb to make less money than can be made for free in total safety in empire
what do these three points have in common? theyre facts, not arguments
|
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:13:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Caius Severus Also, as I said in my previous post, just because you don't happen to agree with something doesn't make it fact.
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:24:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Pringlescan Increase all 0.0 bounties by 500% thank you.
hey man i fixed your post for you hope thats okay well its been great cya soon buddy!
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:34:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Cefte Pity that not a single 0.0 poster in this thread has complained about moon gold being nerfed as a source of income.
moon gold did need to be nerfed though, lets be fair, its a little redonk as it stands right now
but something needs to fill the void and that something isnt more anomalies for people to not run
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:41:00 -
[14]
that starts to answer the expense issues, now lets see how you do with making the space worth taking in the first place
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 20:29:00 -
[15]
Originally by: ceaon 11% tax ??
oh no you might have to set up a tax shelter corp
youll be out MILLIONS
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 21:48:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Vadinho on 07/11/2009 21:48:20 Edited by: Vadinho on 07/11/2009 21:47:52
Originally by: Ehris Bok ccp must fix this b4 this rubish goes live. What I wanna know is did the CSM know about this? Epic fail if they did.
they did and -- here's the thing -- they said the same things we've been saying for the past forty pages
ccp's response to them was "bleep bloop poop"
edit: zastrow you wanna field this one
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 22:14:00 -
[17]
a lot of us have been asking this for pages and the ccp people posting here have done everything they can to avoid giving us a yes or no answer, so Ill throw it down 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."
~*~our words but a whisper, your deafness a shout~*~
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 22:26:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Vadinho on 07/11/2009 22:27:56
Originally by: Zastrow i love you vadinho
Originally by: Daedalus II Edited by: Daedalus II on 07/11/2009 22:20:10
Originally by: Vadinho a lot of us have been asking this for pages and the ccp people posting here have done everything they can to avoid giving us a yes or no answer, so Ill throw it down 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."
~*~our words but a whisper, your deafness a shout~*~
Let me ask you this then:
If you don't own one of the uber moons, is 0.0 more profitable than lvl 4 mission running CURRENTLY? If your answer is no, then why are you there at all? obviously there is incentive to be in 0.0 even if it isn't profitable?
while i dont own those 'uber moons' my alliance does and they pay me in combat reimbursements, logistic assistance and incentive programs all paid for by those moons
so yeah i actually do see a lot of that moon gold now that you mention it
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 22:43:00 -
[19]
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.
"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."
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 22:50:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Vadinho on 07/11/2009 22:51:42
Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk I'm glad you can find the posts that unwaveringly commend CCP and then post about how great they are. Now could you read the rest of the thread too?
bonus points for being a post from a member of shadow of death which is as close to a forced labor alliance as you get in this game
Originally by: Mcon99 YES or NO is irrelevant - 100% irrelevant. It's a game play issue. Do you want to log in and solo missions in high sec, or PLAY and BUILD and be part of something larger than yourself?
i dont know, which pays better?
|
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 23:04:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Treji If Goonies are whining, new expansion must be good
Or are they a little miffed due to new changes hampering their system of play?
we're not worried about ourselves, we have huge reserves of ships, money, etc and a lot of us make our money outside nullsec as it is, either through empire missions, scamming, suicide ganks or a combination thereof. we -- and everyone else in the null -- are worried because all of these changes reduce anyone's desire to actually hold nullsec space. no incentive to hold the space means no reasons to take space, which in turn means total stagnation of nullsec warfare
i mean christ we wont even be fighting over moons much anymore, and thats pretty much the only thing anyone had fought over the past several months anyways
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 23:11:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Treji What! You don't fight for honour and glory?
honor glory honour
its really funny that ccp's solution to the ghost town system problem is to try and pack a bunch of us into it out of necessity instead of making the space worth living in in the first place
its like we keep asking ccp for food and they just keep giving us bigger and bigger plates of rocks. you can force our faces into the gravel pile as much as you want but that wont make it any more nutritious
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 23:17:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker This is an excellent development, good work CCP. I am especially pleased to see that not only are CVA whining right on cue, but even Goonswarm is emo-raging about the unfairness of it all.
I foresee that what this will do is force large alliances to hunker down into a few core systems, go ratting and plexing in fleets instead of solo, and really scour their systems for every last frigate rat and every last bit of veldspar. They'll do this despite it being less profitable than before. They'll do this despite the fact that their system becomes a juicy juicy target for pirates. They'll do it not because they want to, but because they have to.
The effect will be a much denser 0.0 population, a much higher value of ISK, and much more interesting PVP. Instead of large blobs fighting unmanned POS in the emptiness of space, what you'll have are live players leaving their home systems to raid other systems full of live players. It should be much more brutal, a lot less luxurious.
no what youll have is a lot more of us with mission alts in empire as well as a lot more us suicide bombing mackinaws with armageddons to make ends meet because those are both quicker and easier ways to make money than doing any one of the things you said
as for pirates we'll do what we do now which is dock up or warp to a pos when they enter system or just not notice because most nullsec space is and will continue to be empty
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 23:35:00 -
[24]
~~~ff` ~ffxf~ ~fs`f~ILIER at., p.s., .pb., alloy wheels, stereo cassette, 2 dr., blue with matching cloth int., looks & runs great, gas saver. ú6500
QUERIOUS FOR SALE, CHEAP!!
mid-sized region, dense star distribution. slightly used. high outpost to system ratio. conveniently close to empire. friendly neighbors - hope you're the social type! jumpbrdge calculations available. must sell before december. 500b isk O.B.O.
79 CAMARO, T-tops, power everything, red on black, cloth interior, V8, automatic, good runner. Recent starter, battery and alte~~~rf```~~~`~~~ 'er'`~~rrf4
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 00:20:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Nilania Telshua Due to the Epeen provided by leaking an alliance colour all over the sovmap and considering the players decision to choose pew pew over mindless profit by industry trading or missioning, should all pve content be removed from 0.0 to further the glory of our hardcore idols ? That is the question. Yes or No ?
Mindless Drones.. buzz.. buzz...
no because then we still wouldnt have any reason to fight over space
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 00:32:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Mcon99
Actually don't know why it took me so long to think of this.
CCP - Level 1 and 2 missions in high sec. Level 3's in low only. Level 4's in 0.0 only.
Game play leveled.
sorry Mcon99 that makes too much sense for ccp to consider, and it might make them fix the agent code instead of adding more **** no one will ever use :ohdear:
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 00:43:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Marlona Sky You mean players will have to decide if it worth it to claim space and upgrade it based on income and logistics?
The audacity of CCP!!!
they wont have to decide - it just isnt
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:17:00 -
[28]
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!
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:24:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Zahorite Table for 300,000 subscribers soon to be 100,000 please.
Right sir. You have your choice of two seating areas. The tables next to the kitchen are free and can support several hundred guests who may never talk to or even see one another as they eat. We also have seating much further from the kitchen, and those tables can only support one or two people, are much more expensive, and everyone has to fight over the same basket of bread and glass of water.
Which will your party prefer?
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:39:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Zahorite How about one of each. I'll have some fun fighting everyone for the salad and bread, then I'll move to the cheaper tables for my steak dinner. Sadly it looks like everyone else is moving over to the cheaper tables also, do you think there will be any good fights in the next year?
I'm afraid not, sir. People don't find the need to fight over the costly bread and water when the steaks by the kitchen are free.
|
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 01:57:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Vadinho on 08/11/2009 01:58:41
Originally by: Zahorite Well is there anyway that you could say serve steak dinners at the more expensive tables that are further away from the kitchen also? Also do you think we would see some good fights then?
We would serve the steaks to the expensive tables, but you see, the original waiters who worked this establishment years ago have all left and none of the new staff know how to get the steaks from the kitchen to the further tables. And, if I may be candid, sir, none of them seem to have any desire to find out how. Instead of learning the layout of the floor, many would rather just throw more stale rolls towards the further tables, leaving the guests to search under the tables for their meals. So often a guest ducks under the tablecloth to find a roll, only to find another guest with his teeth already firm into the crust.
Even if we could get the steaks to the expensive, isolated tables, I'm afraid many guests still wouldn't find them worth fighting over so long as they were still freely available by the kitchen.
I know the advert we sent out in Healthy Living Digest showed guests at the expensive tables gouging eyes with forks and burying their teeth into the arms of those reaching for their banquets, but I suppose there is something to be said for the embellishment of advertising, isn't there?
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 02:08:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Zahorite So what do you plan to do about this horrible problem. Surely you must have a solution to bring back the eye gouging and biting that used to exist at those expensive tables?
More stale rolls.
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 02:43:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Vadinho on 08/11/2009 02:44:05
Originally by: Inferno Styx I'm guessing your gonna get an answer when it isn't 4am
it wasnt answered at 4pm either which is literally the time it was first asked
edit: haha just actually clicked that weve been asking this for thirty pages and twelve straight hours and still havent gotten a yes or no answer
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 03:01:00 -
[34]
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
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 03:18:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Vadinho on 08/11/2009 03:19:24
Originally by: Destrim 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?
being able to increase the overall profit potential of all the aspects of nullsec (better ores, better drops, better bounties -- quality as opposed to quantity) would make it more appealing, which would in turn make more empire players want to come out, which would kickstart the darwinian aspect of the game we all love so much
cva keeps their cluster of systems well populated and would be able to keep smaller usurpers from their libertarian paradise while empty, virtually undefended regions like the ones we own would be subject to claim jumping by empire corps who want a taste of the sweet life
edit: this is actually what i thought dominion was going to introduce in the first place but i guess instead we get two extra anomalies!
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 03:56:00 -
[36]
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*
you could just make the upgrades give stargates a power/cpu amount like what control towers already have with the fitting amounts increasing by the upgrade level. the other mechanics for anchorable guns (like ammo for instance) are already in game.
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 04:40:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Korodan Nothing will ever match Mittens saying he agreed with everything Bobby Atlas said, nothing. It's just too beautiful, all the alliances of 0.0 united in their hatred of icelanders, it's almost inspiring.
like ****** shaking hands with another, gayer ******
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 06:03:00 -
[38]
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.
i wasnt making a history of the world part i reference i was just being a smartass?
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 06:14:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Tesal What, you were being a smartass? What?
Try this on for size.
One of the mechanics that is little noticed now, but will gain notice is the jump bridge change in relation to adjacent Sov. You can take Sov in ANY system deep in enemy territory. Put up a POS with a cyno jammer, and string along a jump bridge and leap frog deep within enemy territory. They will have to kill your cyno jammer and your hub to clean out the system. And even if you succeed, they can just do it again somewhere else. Isn't that hilarious?
yes it is and id love someone to try because it would mean war which is preferable to stagnation
itd be like what we did to rise only without taking a month
it would also mean we could reverse the stream by flipping those stations and using the same network against the enemy
actually holy **** thats awesome thanks for bringing it up it makes me think more highly of the expansion!
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 18:09:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Qlanth Hahaha, oh my god, I didn't even see this part.
Plus he seems to think people are still mad about the prices which CCP already reneged on.
you know ive been trying to keep this thread as free from in-game politics and grudges as possible but i think its pretty much consensus that jade constantine has never and will never know what hes talking about
Originally by: Amy Wang The problem is simple:
Increased cost for 0,0 maintenance makes it less desirable to live in 0.0 when you can earn on par cash in empire without maintenance costs.
The solution is also simple:
Either buff 0.0 money earning possibilities (not good, would lead to inflation and then we are back to status quo)
OR
nerf empire money earning possibilities really hard so 0.0 looks better in comparison
there, pick one (ideally the 2nd one) and do it
this is it
the crux of the issue
|
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 18:30:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Destrim So, let's move on to what we would rather have, and discuss the details of that. What do we thing should be used in the military/industrial/sovereignty divisions, and how, etc. What would be worthwhile benefit to draw people out into 0.0?
we've also talked about this at length in this thread and there have been great suggestions from people of all walks of life, from the biggest alliances to the smallest, and most of the popular ideas have oriented around increasing belt rat bounties, spawn sizes and respawn rates.
belt ratting is the bread-and-butter method of generating quick income for a lot of groups in nullsec since you can get into it without having to scan down a bunch of ridiculous **** (nobody wants to hunt for worthwhile sites just for basic income), you can do it alone (nobody wants to be forced into gangs just for basic income) and is consistent income over time that has less to do with luck than any other method of independent nullsec wealth generation outside mining (which is the sole territory of the ten account macro miner in nullsec)
so i guess if they made exploration type stuff more consistently profitable then belt ratting thatd be cool too -- like have them start at their lowest level with rapid respawning triple-1.3m bs spawns instead of a single pirate in a shuttle spelling out ~*~fartz~*~ with his jet exhaust
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 18:40:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Dharh IMO this is bad. It should _not_ be the best way. It should be the middle ground, or even the worst way. Anomalies, mining, production, ratting, etc, all should provide equal opportunity for ISK. Maybe even diminishing returns if you focus on _only_ one aspect.
i actually agree with you in principle that ratting shouldnt be the most popular way to make money but the way to fix that is to buff anomalies (better sites), mining (better ores) etc and not to kneecap ratting
its hard enough getting stable financial footing in the null as it is
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:38:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Halaxi Is making 0.0 alliances work harder for their space a bad thing? No.
Is a system that forces 0.0 alliances to view EvE-Online as a second job a good thing? No.
Is there an incentive to go out there, find someone and kick them out of their space, and claim it yourself? Not with Dominion as it is, as all you will inherit is a **** load of expense.
CCP, please remember that this is a game. People play it for fun. And whilst I am sure the vast majority of the player base would not be adverse to having to put more effort into carving out and holding their very own piece of EvE, if you take the fun out of it, then, well, low-sec space and NPC 0.0 might well see a population increase.
Hal.
straight up, atlas dude
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 05:29:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Mkiaki Boy you "endgame" players really know how to spit the proverbial dummy don't you.
big time posting is what we do, and if posting was baseball this thread would be the allstar game
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 18:33:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Mikal Drey Upgrades = good (just not balanced right)
the idea of an upgrade system is good
the mechanics for implementing upgrades are good
the upgrades themselves are poop a doodle doo
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 20:27:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Gramtar You can claim sov with a single small tower today for 28M isk per month, a bit less for a faction tower. The costs come in when you want to be able to do anything:
Sov w/ cyno beacon = 240M / month + fuel cost of tower Sov w/ jump bridge = 480M / month + fuel cost of large tower(s) Sov w/ beacon, bridge and jammer = 1140M / month + fuel cost of large tower(s)
If you want to mine moons, then you'll likely need additional towers unless you're skimping on guns on your logistics towers.
Compare that to today. Minimal non-strategic station system setup: 6 Amarr Large - 2 jump bridge towers (one with beacon), 1 dedicated jammer POS, 3 armed sov claimers Fuel cost = 600M / month
For a "safer" setup with a bigger sov buffer, you'd use 11 Larges, at a cost of 1100M / month.
Post Dominion, 1140M sov bill + 300M fuel cost for 3 large towers - 2 bridges (1 with beacon) and 1 dedicated jammer tower = 1440M / month
It's going to be more expensive today. This is more so the case for non-station systems that basically contain jump bridges and nothing else. Today, 300M for 3 towers. After Dominion, 1440M. For a bare bones logistics system - cyno beacon and nothing else, the cost is 50M/month for a medium POS. After Dominion, 240M + 50M = 290M. That's a lot of isk to operate a cyno beacon. Say welcome back to shared account cyno alts.
For station systems it's not a big cost increase (unless youre cheap and only have 6 towers claiming sov). For logistics systems, it's huge, even if you forgo a cyno jammer. This is why you'll see the large alliances all packed into regions close to empire. The further your space is from lowsec logistics points, the more expensive it will be for you to operate.
GoonSwarm? We're ideally positioned for this change. We only claim two regions (although like others we'll be ironically punished for having developed these regions by dropping additional outposts), and there are points in both within Carrier range of lowsec. Delve is just 2 jumps from lowsec logistic points in a Jump Freighter or Rorqual.
Delve truesec is completely broken, with 1.85M rats and officers able to spawn in every system. We also have L4 (though none Q20) agents in NPC delve, and with adjustments to pirate faction ships Blood Raider LP are no longer completely worthless.
Still, I completely understand the plight of other alliances. Atlas is inhabiting space we and others used to occupy in the southeast. They have a very long logistics chain to support. More appropriately, they need multiple regions for their membership because an average region has maybe 6 "good" truesec systems for ratting and mining. Some have less than that number. CVA is another example. 99% of their space is horrible truesec. Can they support all their stations through docking fees while maintaining NRDS? I don't know. I could be wrong, but I imagine they enjoy some alliance income through supercapital production today. If they do, kiss that goodbye along with sov 4.
The "upgrades" proposed by CCP are worse than terrible. That's what the bulk of complaints in this thread are about. You don't see, "oh our R64 income is gone" or "we can't afford 300M / month to claim a station". What you do see is players, some of them alliance leaders, calling CCP on the carpet for their apparent willful ignorance of two big problems:
1) Wars are fought over static resources - which are being nerfed/removed 2) There is no increased reward for assuming the risk of 0.0 for the average, individual player
preach it from the mountain top, brother
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 21:49:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Future Mutant so your corp (which is shoveled moon goo income) is now expected to actually pay some of that isk out for infrastructure?
I dont see the problem.
oh we are fine weve got money to burn
if you had read any given one of the other one hundred and fifteen pages youd note that without things to fight over (which are currently just r64s and nothing else) there wont be the kind of big flashy wars ccp loves to advertise because nobody is going to put a capfleet on the line for anomalies
hope you like the boarders as theyre currently drawn because thats where theyll stay without something to fight for
|
|
|
|