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) |
Adam Ridgway
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:14:00 -
[2371]
I call shenanigans on all this. CCP is too bussy developing other games/technology to touch/devote resources to their pricey and delicate code? Add new content > fixing current one.
All this can be reduced to: - Not wanting to be bothered with touching moon distribution & t2 production (hint, as per last SiSi update, they are creating an even bigger bottleneck and making most moons worthless). - Not wanting to touch truesec distribution and making it reasonably and dynamic. - Not wanting to devote time to introduce agents in-space/outpost. - Not having the balls to fix risk/reward income distribution.
Don't believe their lies, they can do it if they really want o devote enough coding time, as per every damn change in this game. But for 2 years of waiting for a sov-change they can't be bothered, it's pathetic.
Meanwhile, they avoid "difficult" (straight-fordward, tbh) questions, because is inconvenient for them to answer.
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.
What will happen after this patch: - CCP will still be delusional. - CCP will still be lazzy. - CCP will still hype/market their own product and fool us into keep paying subscriptions. Allways same **** with every expansion.
I just hope the day some serious competition comes so I can move on.
|
RabbitofDoom
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:22:00 -
[2372]
1. First thing is that systems should have some sort of value factor. Based on number of belts, ore on those belts, type of moons in a system, sec status etc. Good systems would cost more bad systems would cost less to hold. 2. Cost should be modified by the number of systems you hold. This way a system with like 3 belt no valuable ore and lacking any good moons to mine would cost next to nothing.You can claim that way a number of worthless systems you need to connect a sov in to another. 3. Renters system needs to be sorted, expanded and included in to eve mechanic. While renting you can't branch a sov past renter system but you will charge them automaticaly each week for a set amount of isk its automaticaly providing a blue status. Week seems to be a good period time short enough to make reseting for scam unprofitable long enough for renter to gather money. It should also include ability to delegate a sov you claimed to a minor aliance. Sort a way the king did in middle ages to the nobles. The holder aliance would gain a sov on that system including all benefits and included costs. Holder aliance systems would still count towards ruling aliance cost increase but they would not need to pay for sov beacon etc. and holder systems would be considered yours for soverginity conectio purpose. In diplomacy there should be added option to automaticaly blue all holder entities of the ruling entity while naping. Renting and holding should be made in to a form similiar to contract system in game. It should be renegotiable at any time. When canceling there should be a grace period after it expires beacons etc. would return to ruling aliance, unless holder entity decide to go rogue. Going rogue would initiate a civil war turning leaned system in to contested mode where within a time limit ruling entity must destroy a beacon in that system (unlike the usual course there would be no need to place sov jammer) if there is a station it must be captured. If it is done within time no sov would be lost if a system is not recaptured it will pass on to a rogue aliance, if a system is not reclaimed and no entity control a beacon when time limit is reached the sov will drop. Contested status only affect systems given to a holder. It should be also possible to change holder in to a renter or complete give up of a sov in certain system to a third party. Loosing a "war" could end in ceding a part of your spece to the stronger entity or by becaming a renter. It should also be possible to accept a different form of payment like ships or minerals. For example we will rent you a system x for 100m isk per week or apocalypse battle ship and 10000m3 of bistot delivered to station in y solar system. It should be also possible to combine all those systems. An alliance should be able to for example control its own system while have some systems rented from another alinace temporarly and have a holder status in some other system.
|
gambrinous
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:22:00 -
[2373]
Originally by: Andrew Gaspurr Hello!
This is my Main speaking but you will not know me.
I am Director of one of those small Empire entities that should have been lured to 00 space.
--- snip ---
We are one of those groups aimed at by CCP with their Dominion concept. Currently, however, we do not know why we should go there. Sad but true and quite simple.
Andrew Gaspurr
Emphasising for those that think this is a "big boy" whine thread. link to full post http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=79#2363
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:26:00 -
[2374]
Maybe there is another dev blog coming that was supposed to be posted with this one and it will all make sense right?
Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
|
Primnproper
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:27:00 -
[2375]
Edited by: Primnproper on 09/11/2009 12:27:17 Come on CCP your not politicians answer the bloody question....
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: CCP Ytterbium ...we do not want to nerf it on that aspect since it is supposed to be part of a sandbox game to adapt a ship outside its original purpose.
|
gambrinous
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:31:00 -
[2376]
Edited by: gambrinous on 09/11/2009 12:32:03
Originally by: Marlona Sky Maybe there is another dev blog coming that was supposed to be posted with this one and it will all make sense right?
There is one comming (which I'm pretty interested in) about the new offence/defence play
I don't think it could possibly rectify this mess though
also, isn't it midday monday in iceland? anyone had a coffee or 12 yet?
|
zelalot
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:31:00 -
[2377]
Edited by: zelalot on 09/11/2009 12:35:33 Not everyone wants to play the game in 0.0, everyone has a right to experience just as much of the game as someone else. They pay money to play a game and invest a lot of time in. The problem is making 0.0 appealing to everyone so they still have the adrenaline factor, they can still play the game and get their money's worth. at the moment 0.0 is occupied by blob alliances that have way too much say on how someone can play their game. That is why a lot of people stay in empire and mission run earn isk at no risk. Those the live in 0.0 are there for the percieved "highier" isk earning opporunties and to feel the rush of pvp. For me the only activity that can support a pvp is moon mining an R64. Remember the aim is to reduce empty system upon system, the only reason why they are SOV-ed is becuase of the high end and of course if you are a small alliance trying to occupy a piece of 0.0 you are restricted to what your overlords say or if you are brave you go in alone and can be out blobbed by an alliance that has all the resources available to them.
The other one is making it so occupying 2 or 3 systems gives you the ability to manufacture all the stuff you need to occupy a part of 0.0 (Moons, in the end occupying moons is what it all comes down to). In terms of engagements it would mean the attacking alliance would have to be more startegic about which moon to attack.
NB: i am speaking for a "renter" alliance perspective, i understand the time and hard work put in by those that classify themselves as a "blob" alliance but in terms of a small alliance wanting to stay small and still have the opportunites of PVP there aren't many "sustainable" outlets to do this. The ones that would sustain a PVP player are already taken which means a ship replacement program for a bunch of crap moons is a non existent.
|
Mr Pinkshirt
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:36:00 -
[2378]
Edited by: Mr Pinkshirt on 09/11/2009 12:42:28 BIG TEXT!
Come Dominion, if any of you veteran nullsec-dwellers feel like quitting (which you def should, this patch is hurbel), feel free to contract any and all items and ISK you may have to "Mr Pinkshirt". I will be giving out eHugs and condescending headpats on a case-by-case basis.
|
Pac SubCom
Stealthfield Ihatalo Cartel Navy
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:39:00 -
[2379]
Edited by: Pac SubCom on 09/11/2009 12:40:44 So we want to have
- more people in 0.0 => less resources for those already there. - smaller 0.0 empires => less resources for those already there.
- more combat <= secure sov is prohibitively expensive, non-secure sov is cheap = more losses = less resources for everybody.
Large expenses for security are necessary for [more combat], [smaller 0.0 empires] and in turn [more pluralism in 0.0].
Existing 0.0 empires will have to find a balance between the protection money they can make off the newcomers and not spoiling their incentive to come in the first place. As the old empires will grow poorer, the newcomers will grow more powerful until they eventually challenge them.
In summary, changes in 0.0 must necessarily take a meaningful amount of resources away from the existing empires or there won't be any change at all.
And why should you come to 0.0 if all that you love can be destroyed by bad people because you can't afford that cynojammer?
Because life is risk. That's the tao of o.o. Or rather should be, as everybody profusely agrees. So scale your risk and pay 30 mil a month for a system and see how it goes.
--------------- ∞ TQFE
|
Niamota Olin
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:43:00 -
[2380]
OMG I just figured it all out....
This is to fix lag isn't it...
There gonna reduce lag by forcing quits, drastically reducing fleet combat and turning everyone into ratting/mining/missioners who stays.
Well done ccp that might actually work. Shame you'll wreck the longevity and uniqueness of nulsec pvp doing it.
|
|
Uphill Gardner
Minmatar DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:46:00 -
[2381]
I see a lot of people thinking CCP can force big alliances to give new guys some space. They can't. For what it's worth they will reduce the coloured spot on eve map when sov is ticked, but those pretty maps in caod will stay the same. Space will probably be claimed the old fashion way, that is you enter you die. If you want to take 0.0 space then come with your guns blazing.
The correct way to reduce alliance space is to figure out why they have it in the first place. Is it because they liked fuelling towers so much? Is it because they like to see their epeen size on caod? Is it because their members need it to make individual ISK? Was it just a byproduct of claiming and harvesting moons? Something else?
You see, alliance size has grown considerably when R64 became such ISK cows. Before that people fought over good ratting space, good mining space and static plexes. Those targets were much smaller and required less numbers to take. POSes however re big, well defended and hard to take down without big cap fleet.
The only logical thing to do here would be to make moon income less significant then other, more dispersed sources. Like mining, ratting and plexing of the olden days. Lots of ways to achieve this and it up to CCP to find and implement most optimal one.
I really don't see the problem of doing that again, with the added bonus of system upgrades should you choose to pay for sov module upkeep (which is really badly implemented with straight ISK payment).
Some people believe that 0.0 will have to recruit empire carebears to do their grinding to pay for upkeep. Well.... IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN 0.0, HARVEST SYSTEM RESOURCES AND PAY 1BIL PER SYSTEM PER MONTH TO MAKE LESS MONEY THAN YOU CURRENTLY MAKE IN EMPIRE??!? No? Well, poopy. I'm sure there are stupid people playing eve who will choose to earn ISK (and that is all 0.0 carebears will do) in 0.0 if they have a choice of doing it in empire, with no one to answer to, no one to tell them their bill is due and most importantly: higher profits; but I'm sure there aren't many.
Get this through your thick skulls: 0.0 will have even less inhabitants as it has now; less miners, less ratters, less explorers. Less small targets to shoot, less small gang pvp, more and bigger blobs on daily basis. "Hey guys, lets get 200 man fleet and go gank some ratters!" Oh the joy
It does look like CCP is trying to do a reset of 0.0 affairs, but this patch is going to do **** all. ISK will remain in the same wallets, moons will have the same owners (there will probably be some exchanges between big guys, but that's nothing new) and space will be patrolled by the same patrols (except there will be less of them because there will be less targets).
Oh and empire lvl4s will still be the best source for individual ISK grinding.
I would really like to read a post/blog from CCP detailing their goals (set before they started work for dominion), how they are planing to implement it and how do changes, published so far, achieve those goals. ***** Miss Pator 3 years running, stripped of title when they realised i was male. |
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:47:00 -
[2382]
i find it truely histerical that you guys are still saying "ya but you can make more L4 mission grinding", its amazing how you guys are picking and choosing which devblogs to listen to...
its been previously stated that L4's will move to LOWSEC!, So the easy L4 grinding is pretty much gone after winter patch.
|
Alfred Lichtenstein
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:50:00 -
[2383]
Edited by: Alfred Lichtenstein on 09/11/2009 12:52:11 you can always just give me all your stuff!
if Goon wants to donate some titans to the MJJ fund (my jam jar) then I will welcome it!
were going to get all your lands and all these stupid big empires are going to have to stop sucking the rest of eve dry and earn some of there own money.
no tears for some reason!
I don't know why!
end of the day current 0.0 dwellers only actually cover a very small amount of the eve player base, so please do rage quit!
but send all your iskies to me please!
or what was said to me after the missile nerf and I couldn't do missions until I retrained for a month
Adapt!!!
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:51:00 -
[2384]
Originally by: Primnproper
Come on CCP your not politicians answer the bloody question....
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.
Bloody question was answered already. Don't you like the answer? Stop asking stupid questions. |
Niamota Olin
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:51:00 -
[2385]
Originally by: Lord Helghast i find it truely histerical that you guys are still saying "ya but you can make more L4 mission grinding", its amazing how you guys are picking and choosing which devblogs to listen to...
its been previously stated that L4's will move to LOWSEC!, So the easy L4 grinding is pretty much gone after winter patch.
erm its all L5's that are moving to lowsec not 4's
|
Onar Maldarian
Caldari Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:56:00 -
[2386]
Fire head game designer. Thank you.
|
Niamota Olin
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:59:00 -
[2387]
Originally by: Alfred Lichtenstein
end of the day current 0.0 dwellers only actually cover a very small amount of the eve player base, so please do rage quit!
That statement is so lolworthy, you checked the stats on alliance rankings haven't you.. you know the ones that clearly show all the big alliances... you know the mostly 0.0 alliances, and forgetting that lots of empire residents are nulsecers just getting isk for 0.0
all players are interdependent on each other whether you realize it or not, either as targets to each other, or buyers/sellers to each other.
If enough rage quit over a badly implemented expansion it can kill an MMO, lets just hope our beloved sandbox makes it through this one eh :)
|
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 12:59:00 -
[2388]
Originally by: Onar Maldarian Fire head game designer. Thank you.
No no no. Hire a head game designer. |
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:00:00 -
[2389]
Originally by: Uphill Gardner The only logical thing to do here would be to make moon income less significant then other, more dispersed sources. Like mining, ratting and plexing of the olden days. Lots of ways to achieve this and it up to CCP to find and implement most optimal one.
Moons were not introduced alone. Along with moons you got content requiring moon income to work. Forcing people to rat, plex and mine(read grind) for their cap fleet or space infrastructure is not logical, it is quite dumb.
Claiming a space should not be a burden but achievement. What you are sugesting is just doomed concept.
|
El Liptonez
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:05:00 -
[2390]
Originally by: Jita TradeAlt
Originally by: Holly Hotdrop
Originally by: Anahid Brutus **** it, i'll do your job for you.
First off, you need objectives that people want to fight over. Not useless grindy **** that absolutely NO ONE wants to do and can't even be fought over, so here's the solution:
- Leave R64s as large scale alliance objectives. If the income is too high(which it probably is), simply lower the dysp/prom reqs on T2 construction jobs. Problem solved. No need to tear apart the whole system with your terrible, terrible large-scale switch-around solution that will just frustrate players. No need for your completely terrible and overly complex alchemy either.
- Reintroduce static plexes as small-gang objectives. Active income, can be fought over without a 200 man fleet. Worth the effort compared to L4s in empire, reduce the number of them if they aren't being fought over.
- For individual income then make deep 0.0, ie. 2-3 carrier jumps out of low-sec, all perfect true sec, increase rat spawn rates/quality/bounties by 50%(no frig/cruiser spawns 50 jumps from jita, ~3m bounty rats), make all BS rats scram you(if you're out of scram range then they tank really hard, so no kiting) and now 0.0 is kinda risky, yet rewarding enough to be worth the effort. You definitely won't have solo ravens being able to rat and just cloak up whenever someone comes through, but some active, organized defense and you'll be making isk worth your while.
Sov shouldn't be important since let's be honest, no one really gives a ****(money motivates people, not some gay towers or something), and as such it really shouldn't be the focus, but: - remove cyno jammers - make the sov holding structure something with dual reinforcement timers that orbits the sun, no maint costs needed, but it needs to be reinforceable by a 20 man bs fleet in a reasonable amount of time. the limit on the size of empires will be that disrupting sov will be doable by small groups of players, not some arbitrary maintenance fees.(don't make it an outpost since people will just sit on undock with their carriers like big gays)
oh and kill exploration/wormspace, that **** is just anti-social.
qft
i'll quote this on every page until every single point is implemented
qft
|
|
Alfred Lichtenstein
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:07:00 -
[2391]
Edited by: Alfred Lichtenstein on 09/11/2009 13:15:09 Edited by: Alfred Lichtenstein on 09/11/2009 13:08:15
Originally by: Niamota Olin
Originally by: Alfred Lichtenstein
end of the day current 0.0 dwellers only actually cover a very small amount of the eve player base, so please do rage quit!
That statement is so lolworthy, you checked the stats on alliance rankings haven't you.. you know the ones that clearly show all the big alliances... you know the mostly 0.0 alliances, and forgetting that lots of empire residents are nulsecers just getting isk for 0.0
all players are interdependent on each other whether you realize it or not, either as targets to each other, or buyers/sellers to each other.
If enough rage quit over a badly implemented expansion it can kill an MMO, lets just hope our beloved sandbox makes it through this one eh :)
High sec is over populated thus the need for this expansion!
this kind of kills your arguement! please do rage quit
The big alliances these are the ones who wake up with more resources then they went to bed with?
and the idea you EARN YOUR SPACE! how do you earn it? boring PVE, even worst mining? everyone enjoys pvp but the difference is some of us take a massive loss when we engage in it because it takes us several hours of pve to earn it and my rubbish +4's back again, just to have some noddy in a 200 man blob blow it up again!
the current 0.0 alliances when they pvp take very little losses I mean look at goon's stats massive losses, you can't say that they are actually good at pvp as a alliance the losses are epic.
PVP losses should be expensive to all not just to some!
|
Uphill Gardner
Minmatar DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:18:00 -
[2392]
Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Uphill Gardner The only logical thing to do here would be to make moon income less significant then other, more dispersed sources. Like mining, ratting and plexing of the olden days. Lots of ways to achieve this and it up to CCP to find and implement most optimal one.
Moons were not introduced alone. Along with moons you got content requiring moon income to work. Forcing people to rat, plex and mine(read grind) for their cap fleet or space infrastructure is not logical, it is quite dumb.
Claiming a space should not be a burden but achievement. What you are sugesting is just doomed concept.
My suggestion was for CCp to implement more dispersed targets worth fighting for (and elected to leave then the details of implementation). How is this a doomed concept?
Fake edit: Oh, you read the "mining, ratting and plexing like the olden days", have you? See, that was an example of what motivated groups of people in the olden days of eve to make pew pew. It was not a suggestion how to make it in future. ***** Miss Pator 3 years running, stripped of title when they realised i was male. |
RussLeRoq
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:19:00 -
[2393]
Sooo many complaints, yet still to see any from IT alliance :o
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:20:00 -
[2394]
Originally by: Alfred Lichtenstein
the current 0.0 alliances when they pvp take very little losses I mean look at goon's stats massive losses, you can't say that they are actually good at pvp as a alliance the losses are epic.
Epic alliance, epic losses.
|
Niamota Olin
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:21:00 -
[2395]
Alf
I am not a member of a large alliance I just live down there. If I have a bad week I have to go to my highsec alts to recoup lost isk. The big isk income is only in a very limited number of hands, a hell of alot less hands than what are now going to have huge bills, and it should be noted moon mining which will STILL be a big earner ISNT dependant on sovreinty, just being bigger and scarier... so how does this hinder the big alliances exactly, alot have alreay said sovreinty will become obsolete as they simply will enforce there rule with numbers?
|
Kerdrak
Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:21:00 -
[2396]
The funniest of all this topic is that CCP will end NERFING empire lvl4's to balance this expansion
Bets? ________________________________________
|
Alfred Lichtenstein
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:21:00 -
[2397]
Edited by: Alfred Lichtenstein on 09/11/2009 13:25:24 I'm not complaining I think it is quite funny, finally some people will actually have to do some PVE, mining to PVP like the rest of us!
it's like the credit card companies are getting all there credit wiped off!
Niamota I get your point I live in a small high sec corp and every corp i have been in gets kicked out of 0.0 due to a big moon mining corp with so many more ships (not players just waves after waves of the same players) kicking us out!
I like the principle and I just hope it will get sorted and fine tuned by ccp!
I don't hate big alliances just big alliances to having to put the same amount of crappy work in!
|
Gefex
Genco Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:25:00 -
[2398]
I know everyone, lets turn 0.0 into a massive grind fest for the individual then make alliances pay through the teeth for claiming space!
THEN, on top of that, lets not give alliances any way of making money at an alliance level.. genius.
|
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:28:00 -
[2399]
in the end i think this sets out and will eventually accomplish some of what it sets to do, it will shrink larger alliances soverignty, namely because they dont have the time or effort to grind 100's of systems or the manpower to do so, to pay the fees for all those extra systems, even with their moons mining.... running in on a billion a month for properly setup systems, thats a lot of cash for a system to get sov and go unused.
The problem i do see with this is that due to the high cost it will make the very small alliances think twice about even taking one system do to the inherent high cost, a 2-3 corp alliance of 30 people will be taking a big financial hit on that first buy in each month for 1 system properly setup.
My question would be why not make soverignty fees a incremental increase, first system = 1/4th the price 2-5 systems 1/2 the price and 5+ systems for the standard price, that way the first swath of space is relatively cheap, and once an alliance tries to go farther they start to get even more expensive and harder to justify purchasing.
That instead of 1 static fee for any sov
|
Itzena
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 13:31:00 -
[2400]
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.
It's a fairly straightforward question, CCP.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |