| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 119 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Zastrow
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:45:00 -
[991]
this was on goonfleet dot com
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
teji
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:48:00 -
[992]
 Quote:
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.
So newbies get screwed in regards to logistics in 0.0 while the cynonet for capitals remains rightfully untouched. Why not increase jump bridge distance along with the massive increase to cost?
|
John Zorg
Caldari
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:48:00 -
[993]
Hi,
I see both a plus and a minus to this new system. This will change the whole system where by it has basically been 1 or 2 guys that manage POS fuel for the SOV holding towers per corp. This is going to promote more of a team effort within the corps and alliances to make an income.
But, we have a minus on the moon income(Which is a corp/alliance level income) and a plus on the player/member income. So if the rats are not going to really be all that much better than the general belt rats, and high value modules cannot have a corp tax percentage on it, how is the corp going to cover this income difference?
As for the miners, we have some decent refineries in our space, as does most alliances in 0.0. If I refine at an alliance station, the tax is applied which is fine. I just jump my compressed ORE out and refine it in empire, therefore avoiding the taxes in 0.0.
Some questions:
1. How will the change be done? Will we just lose SOV1 - SOV4 in all our systems all at once on the 1st of December? Or is there going to be a transition period?
2. What will happen to the moon incomes? Maybe a dev blog with the actual changes there so players can see how it's going to affec the alliance income?
3. Will NPC 0.0 space have any changes made to it?
Thanks
|
Zahorite
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:48:00 -
[994]
Edited by: Zahorite on 07/11/2009 18:51:32
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.
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.
Thank you, that does a lot for improving things. I still think jump bridges should be reduced down to at least say 10m and cyno jammers to 20m or less. Also I think part of the problem is with those upgrades. A lot of people were hoping for better ways to make isk so that alliances could get more involved in pvp. With upgrades as they stand it just isn't going to work out. Perhaps you can add an upgrade that increases bounties by a percentage?
For those the changes posted by CCP Chronotis will cut costs down to around 1.3 billion a month instead of over 2 billion for a fully upgraded system. Of course over half this cost would be for the cynojammer now.
|
Will Hunter
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:48:00 -
[995]
i want to pay for the right to make money in the space i fought to adquire in the firts place booya, i'm sure those lvl 4 pubbies will run in flocks risking their officer fitted nightmares to run those sweet anomalies
(thats even forgeting the are lowering the rewards hell yeah)
|
EvilweaselFinance
Weasel Enterprises Ltd
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:48:00 -
[996]
I hope you take another look at the profession sites, because currently they are not worth doing and I haven't seen anything to suggest that's been understood in the design.
|
Korodan
Minmatar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:49:00 -
[997]
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
This, all your "upgrades" except the wormhole generator are ****ing worthless as every other pilot in 0.0 has said. Give us better rats or higher bounties of them, make officers and faction ships spawn more often. Make an upgrade for more belts and higher quality ores too, for the psychotic octoboxing miners.
Also, Nyphur for CSM.
|
emotua
Gallente
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:49:00 -
[998]
With current prices!
Let's say your currently inside an alliance that needs to be claiming 100 system with a size of 1800 in-game characters, have around 40 systems as JBs to get to empire/allies/near baddies and back.
Hell, we have 160 systems for 2600 people.
Comes dominion, you want to keep that empire you acquired through sweat, tears, and blood. and well, since those r64 ain't gonna pay the bills anymore, we might need a gazillion common goo moons, safe jammed, network infrastucture to move all that, a gazillion belts to rat that upkeep, so your gonna need to keep what you have etc.
well, upkeep indeed... So you would be looking at around :
60*(20+10+4+25)+40*(20+10+4+25+12.5) = ( 3540 + 2860 ) million isk/day = 6.4 billion isk/day => 192 billion isk/30days of JUST paying upkeep.
Not included is the fuel still needed for towers, etc...
BUT you have 1800 people! well actually probably more like 720 real one ( 2 real people / 5 chars | 2 main, 3 alts - average ).
Out of those 720, probably 40% of that mass is really active ( yeah that's a very good number... )
=> 288 active real people => 192 billion isk/288 = 666.66 million isk/month/person ( see! EVIL!) just for the upkeep.
Now According to somebody, you can make 7 million isk every 30 minutes! OMG, we are saved! to the RAVENS!
Well, hold on here, that would require 666/7*30 = 2854 minutes or around 47 hours of your online time every month just to do YOUR PART! would you?
Now, you also need to pay for your ships, fuel for caps, skills, quafe, exotic dancers etc...
oh and wait, it's actually 0.0 here, you actually need some time to defend, attack people, PVP, right?!! what a lot of us pay/play the game for?
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:49:00 -
[999]
Edited by: Nyphur on 07/11/2009 18:50:33
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.
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.
I have a few questions that I think have been asked a dozen or so times already, but they're worth mentioning again.
1) What happened to the following goals of the new sov system, as stated in previous devlogs?
- "The more space you spread your ęDominion' across, the more expensive it will become to maintain."
- "We do not want to see alliances holding space simply for the sake of holding it or just making their color on the map bigger."
- "We want to see alliances properly utilizing their space and providing more places for their members to generate income."
2) What happened to small entities being able to claim space?
3) What happened to the original plan of replacing the current three-tiered sov system with a simpler, single-tier system? The proposed system here has five tiers.
4) With the cost reductions you just mentioned, what's to stop large entities claiming and using the same amount of space and it just being business as usual?
5) Why is 0.0 not more profitable than level 4 missions, even after the upgrades?
6) The new systems will sustain 10-15 pilots when fully upgraded. What happened to the previous figure for over 50?
7) Don't you think the use of chance-based mechanics in the upgrades is a bit of a cop-out? Chance-based upgrades will have far less tangible effects to the average player.
There are probably more and I did cover potential solutions for these issues on page 32 but I'd be interested to see your opinion on these questions.
Originally by: Korodan
Also, Nyphur for CSM.
Sorry man, I didn't apply. Pulled out at the last minute because my heart just wasn't in it at the time.
|
c0rn1
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:50:00 -
[1000]
Edited by: c0rn1 on 07/11/2009 18:52:15
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.
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.
Did you look at my proposed formula which actually assigns certain amount of 0.0 systems according to alliance size and THEN starts to make it expensive if you're bloating up?
=> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=7#205
The formula is based on a 30 day month. So you can easily take it down to a daily or 14 day period with the appripriate factor.
Please check it. I guess it's worth a different approach to it.
cheers
c0rn1
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Life's a waste of time ... |
|
|
NightHawk VenGarden
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:51:00 -
[1001]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
pg 33 post
These numbers do indeed reflect much closer what I think was wanted. A decrease to logistics, and an increase to cost of the major 'space hogger mods' ala jump bridges and cyno jammers. These are much better numbers CCP...much better.
---
"We're evil men in the gardens of paradise." - Col. Saul Tigh. |
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:51:00 -
[1002]
LOL @ the rage.
One of the reasons for this patch was also stopping alliances claiming more space then they need. Name me one single alliance that needs 100 systems, or actually uses all 100+ systems today.
Anyway, all you need to keep sov in one single system is 20 people killing 1 single 1 mil NPC BS. Who says you need to claim sov in every single system within 6 jumps?
Anyway, finally an end to the stupid amount of cynojammers spawned throughout 0.0.
|
Sith8
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:52:00 -
[1003]
When you have pretty much all 0.0 alliances agreeing that this Dominion sov stuff is terrible then that should serve as a good indicator that it is indeed terrible.
After reading over the cost of this and all the new fees that we are supposed to pay I ask myself why the fck I should be playing in 0.0 at all and why should I pay CCP some fees for doing so.
Damnit, it like we have to rent the space that we have already fought for and developed from CCP. WTF is that about?
Better to just **** around on low sec or sum, screw this.
|
Bobby Atlas
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:52:00 -
[1004]
Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 07/11/2009 18:55:15
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.
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.
Thank you for acknowledging that there is in fact an issue that requires looking into further; however per jump bridges the linear approach unfairly penalizes those alliance who find themselves on the far reaches of 0.0 space. CCP has made a point of balancing so much the last few months from skills to ships to modules but the concept of distance from empire still seems to elude you relative to the cost of a jump bridge system with the proposed changes.
With the changes on paper as-is relative to your post, an alliance in branch or omist for instance, requires about 12 jump bridges to empire, the costs of this will be obscenely high in the order of around 8bn (much better than the 15bn originally) but still a little on the extreme side. Why should alliances that find themselves further from empire be penalized unequally for it when alliances bordering empire require all of 1-2 jump bridges or even none, I still maintain that the linear approach is not ideal and should be revised.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:54:00 -
[1005]
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 :)
|
|
Inferno Styx
Caldari
Division of Dying Stars
Solyaris Chtonium
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:54:00 -
[1006]
well it looks like the mining upgrades will be closer to the W-Space deposits which are very profitable, If they are on the level of an Average deposit from W-Space that's close to 400 million per belt right there(High ends). 5 of them would be well worth the money it costs for the upgrade. Even more worth it if they spawn rats themselves.
|
Mikal Drey
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:54:00 -
[1007]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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 role of the TCU ?
for a moment ther i believed you guys actually played the game and tested on SISI :/
TCU = F.L.A.G
from 20mil a day to 1mil is a dramatic shift in numbers. have you been reconsidering this for some time and the dev blog posted incorrect numbers or has this thread caused a ninja backtrack ?
one of the most important questions hasnt even been mentioned . . SEEDING !
it takes a freighter to move a hub so seeding them into empire npc stations is a major issue, seeding 0.0 based structures etc as bpo's is also a contrivance and has no rp basis. i also recently discovered that each upgrade will require a mod to be installe and again no mention of how they are to be seeded.
also what are the numbers and stats for those structures ? bpo costs, mineral/build costs, or seeded mod costs etc.
we still only have half the picture tbh
|
EvilweaselFinance
Weasel Enterprises Ltd
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:54:00 -
[1008]
Also, w/r/t jump bridges, just make them show up on the overview and take so much power the POS can't fit guns, rather than making them expensive. They provide a needed 0.0 function in shortening the map, and can do that without making them more secure to travel than normal stargates. That would be a much more effective change to fulfill what I assume your goals are (make it easier to gank people) without making it a gigantic pain to get everywhere.
|
Oku Kee'lus
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:54:00 -
[1009]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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
Thanks for the update.
... but please, as others have pointed out. Don't forget about "supply and demand" when you deal with these resource upgrades. Just pumping more of something into the economy won't do anyone any good.
NPC bounties and Agent Missions are prety much the only resource that will scale.
|
Mistres Tor
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:55:00 -
[1010]
Second EXODUS incoming
lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming
why upgrade the system in 0.0 beter to go to Empire do not need to scan for LV4 agents, he never tell you sory but sambody eals is runing the mision alredy come beck tomorow after DT or search for next agnet lv 4, and every time you have the god amout of isk and LP for fraction stuff :) from l4 agents, and in 0.0 you wiil have pay to kill npc :) maby penople in empire should pay the upkip cost for lv 4 agenst too whil runing misions ?
|
|
|
Sergi Povitch
Gatehoppers
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:57:00 -
[1011]
Much better CVA will not dry up atleast.
|
Zahorite
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:58:00 -
[1012]
Originally by: c0rn1
Did you look at my proposed formula which actually assigns certain amount of 0.0 systems according to alliance size and THEN starts to make it expensive if you're bloating up?
=> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=7#205
The formula is based on a 30 day month. So you can easily take it down to a daily or 14 day period with the appripriate factor.
Please check it. I guess it's worth a different approach to it.
cheers
c0rn1
Don't like it because there are to many ways to exploit it and to many bad things that could happen to alliances. For instance just create a few hundred trial accounts and add them to the alliance. Or what happens when an alliance has problems and loses a large portion of their members. It could get pretty nasty in a lot of different ways if you scaled the cost of system maintnace to number of systems and number of players.
|
Crucifier
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:58:00 -
[1013]
Edited by: Crucifier on 07/11/2009 19:05:14
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210683
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 18:59:00 -
[1014]
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 :)
This was pretty much the crux of my post on page 32, only I did it as a negative bonus. I said that for every level below a given "reccomended" activity level for an upgrade, the cost is multiplied by ten. That way it's possible to assign meagre costs to upgrades like jump bridges but high activity requirements would make the cost increase tenfold or a hundredfold in underused systems. Definitely look into the approach of tying activity levels into upkeep discounts or costs, it's an elegant solution for a monster of a problem.
|
John Zorg
Caldari
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 19:00:00 -
[1015]
Originally by: Bobby Atlas
Thank you for acknowledging that there is in fact an issue that requires looking into further; however per jump bridges the linear approach unfairly penalizes those alliance who find themselves on the far reaches of 0.0 space. CCP has made a point of balancing so much the last few months from skills to ships to modules but the concept of distance from empire still seems to elude you relative to the cost of a jump bridge system with the proposed changes.
With the changes on paper as-is relative to your post, an alliance in branch or omist for instance, requires about 12 jump bridges to empire, the costs of this will be obscenely high in the order of around 8bn (much better than the 15bn originally) but still a little on the extreme side. Why should alliances that find themselves further from empire be penalized unequally for it when alliances bordering empire require all of 1-2 jump bridges or even none, I still maintain that the linear approach is not ideal and should be revised.
Just because I live further from Town than the other guy doesn't mean that my fuel for my car should be cheaper, it's your choice to stay where you do. It also makes you safer from new corps and alliances that are going to try make their way out into 0.0. There is a plus and a minus for you.
|
Cefte
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 19:02:00 -
[1016]
Originally by: TZeer
LOL @ the rage.
One of the reasons for this patch was also stopping alliances claiming more space then they need. Name me one single alliance that needs 100 systems, or actually uses all 100+ systems today.
Anyway, all you need to keep sov in one single system is 20 people killing 1 single 1 mil NPC BS. Who says you need to claim sov in every single system within 6 jumps?
Anyway, finally an end to the stupid amount of cynojammers spawned throughout 0.0.
Every single system with Goonswarm sov gets scanned and run for the profitable (read, non-profession) cosmic signatures by explorers every day. That's because the position of the plex loot on the supply/demand curve makes it a worthwhile use of time: you can make more money exploring than you can running L4 missions in empire.
No-one in our space mines, because mining in our space, or, indeed, any space, is not a profitable use of time compared to drone region ratting, or running L4 missions in empire.
People don't do unprofitable things in unprofitable space. Most of 0.0 is unprofitable space completely discounting the costs to hold it, right now.
0.0 was already at a disadvantage for having to spend a proportion of its income to simply provide basic services such as stations, and for the vastly increased risk. Those costs were offset by moongold. Remove moongold: OK, fine. Increase costs to hold space massively, without increasing the time profit density of that space, and what do you get? You get *****ing, you get no influx of empire dwellers to 0.0, and you get a game filled with mission runners and a PR department that has to lie through their teeth when they make HD propaganda trailers about going into deep nullsec and finding untold riches and great risks.
|
Miraqu
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 19:03:00 -
[1017]
Whatever the cost of the new system will be, we will still need a good amount of the old POS-Management.
You will need a POS to protect your FLAG (TCU), you will still need POS for the Bridges and the Generator Arrays.
Not to mention the reaction-POSes. That effectively means that the effort will still stay nearly the same.
Couldn't we just anchor the JBs / CGens at the Hub? Regardless of the fuel issue one would not have to fuel the bridge/generator tower and still keep a large logistics network running for the POSes which were supposed to become obsolete.
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 19:04:00 -
[1018]
Originally by: emotua
With current prices!
Let's say your currently inside an alliance that needs to be claiming 100 system with a size of 1800 in-game characters, have around 40 systems as JBs to get to empire/allies/near baddies and back.
Hell, we have 160 systems for 2600 people.
Comes dominion, you want to keep that empire you acquired through sweat, tears, and blood. and well, since those r64 ain't gonna pay the bills anymore, we might need a gazillion common goo moons, safe jammed, network infrastucture to move all that, a gazillion belts to rat that upkeep, so your gonna need to keep what you have etc.
well, upkeep indeed... So you would be looking at around :
60*(20+10+4+25)+40*(20+10+4+25+12.5) = ( 3540 + 2860 ) million isk/day = 6.4 billion isk/day => 192 billion isk/30days of JUST paying upkeep.
Not included is the fuel still needed for towers, etc...
BUT you have 1800 people! well actually probably more like 720 real one ( 2 real people / 5 chars | 2 main, 3 alts - average ).
Out of those 720, probably 40% of that mass is really active ( yeah that's a very good number... )
=> 288 active real people => 192 billion isk/288 = 666.66 million isk/month/person ( see! EVIL!) just for the upkeep.
Now According to somebody, you can make 7 million isk every 30 minutes! OMG, we are saved! to the RAVENS!
Well, hold on here, that would require 666/7*30 = 2854 minutes or around 47 hours of your online time every month just to do YOUR PART! would you?
Now, you also need to pay for your ships, fuel for caps, skills, quafe, exotic dancers etc...
oh and wait, it's actually 0.0 here, you actually need some time to defend, attack people, PVP, right?!! what a lot of us pay/play the game for?
See you are using number to your advantage...
First you say you have 160 systems for 2600 people.
Then you say cause of alts you are actually 720 real one. And 40% of them are really active.
So you actually have 288 active real people.
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...
|
c0rn1
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 19:05:00 -
[1019]
Originally by: Zahorite
Don't like it because there are to many ways to exploit it and to many bad things that could happen to alliances. For instance just create a few hundred trial accounts and add them to the alliance. Or what happens when an alliance has problems and loses a large portion of their members. It could get pretty nasty in a lot of different ways if you scaled the cost of system maintnace to number of systems and number of players.
Well it would be pretty nasty as well if you have static prices, don't you think?
and for the size of an alliance. As far as I know trial accounts can't join alliances. So that problem is already solved.
cheers
c0rn1
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Life's a waste of time ... |
Zahorite
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 19:06:00 -
[1020]
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 like the idea since it would at least allow NRDS systems to still have a use. People that were just neutral would lower your costs by mining or destroying npc rats. Would it also be possible to allow this to happen even if the upgrade wasn't deployed. This would make it beneficial to increase the level in systems even if you weren't planning to deploy more upgrades to that system.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 119 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |