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

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

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

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)

CCP Fallout	Posted - 2009.11.06 21:19:00 - [1] Sovereignty is getting a fixin' in EVE Online: Dominion. Learn all about two upcoming changes in CCP Chronotis' newest dev blog. Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us

Trocent Amarr 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.06 21:20:00 - [2] Edited by: Trocent on 06/11/2009 21:21:00 first! I've always wanted to do that. Reading that sweet sweet joy now.

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2009.11.06 21:27:00 - [3] excellent

Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.06 21:42:00 - [4] And please leave the costs as they're, or even up them a little bit
Rodrigo Talavera Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.06 21:43:00 - [5] reading now. looks good
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.06 21:54:00 - [6] Do those guaranteed anomalies/sites/pleyes respawn immediately? But even if they would, nothing will really change. Mining sites will still be crap - meaning that even if you find them, it might just be something worthless that you'd have to grind away or risk losing your industry level. Crap 0.0 will still be crap 0.0 thanks to not-really-better-than-lowsec rats and exploration content. Anomalies will still be less of an option than normal belt rattings thanks to mission-npc drops being significantly less than loot from belt-npc. To be honest, i expected a lot more from this in regards of actually upgrading space. If we're supposed to rely less on moons, there needs to be a good source of money in 0.0. Right now, this source is still in empire in lvl4 mission hubs.. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
ChronoSphere Sturmgrenadier Inc Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.11.06 21:56:00 - [7] Jesus this is a lot of money. For a small alliance with only 3 outposts in a constellation, this is gonna cost 5.67 bil every 28 days. I really hope these upgrades do significantly increase the amount of money you can make, cause I dunno where else one can get the cash. The benefits of the upgrades has to outweigh the costs of the system, else whats the point? -------------- ~Vice Admiral, Executive Officer Sturmgrenadier, Inc. Join Sturmgrenadier today!
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.06 21:59:00 - [8] I do have a question, say an alliance, <4EVER> for example, gets sov and holds it for 100 days and then gets blown out of the system 4-DJG (fake system) by an alliance called <USUCK>. Will those 100 days mean anything to either alliance or is it reset permanently? I don't remember reading anything about it. And by mean anything: If <4EVER> were to retake 4-DJG back within 72 hours, would the 100 days mean anything? Or if <USUCK> kept it, would the work that <4EVER> had done benefit them in anyway? Please answer! Thanks --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
Undertow Latheus Minmatar Monolithic.	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:01:00 - [9] Awesome, sov is getting fixed, 0.0 is getting much more incentive, and owners can customize upgrade and personalize space. Now what the **** about lowsec?
Unfamed II Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:01:00 - [10] Nice wallet. Also, sov panel looks quite cool. Originally by: Sandslinger of CA So this wasn't a straightoff logoffski from our point of view, rather a tactical manoeuvre

SXYGeeK Gallente do you Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:03:00 - [11] " Pirate Magnets - add two additional guaranteed anomalies per level to your solar system Ore Prospecting Array - adds one additional guaranteed hidden asteroid site per level to your solar system " what is meant by "guaranteed"? one per downtime?, one per day?, or one at any given time I might go looking? When we go and mine out a hidden belt or kill off an encounter how long will it take before another may spawn somewhere else in the system? -We So SeXy
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:05:00 - [12] Originally by: ChronoSphere Jesus this is a lot of money. For a small alliance with only 3 outposts in a constellation, this is gonna cost 5.67 bil every 28 days. I really hope these upgrades do significantly increase the amount of money you can make, cause I dunno where else one can get the cash. The benefits of the upgrades has to outweigh the costs of the system, else whats the point? So small alliances deserve 3 outposts to be cheap? It might actually mean you'll need to pull together. I can hardly imagine this cost will be that hard considering 1 person could make 20mil per day EASILY off ratting right now. You should have around 100 ppl, what are they doing? I might also add that they did mention the cost is around 5 POSes per system, so it begs the question of how are you managing right now? --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
EvilweaselFinance Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:07:00 - [13] Edited by: EvilweaselFinance on 06/11/2009 22:08:09 Edited by: EvilweaselFinance on 06/11/2009 22:07:32 Is there any intention to buff anomolies or grav sites, cause currently they're thought to be pretty worthless and I can't see any alliance bothering to install those. Also, will Entrapment only spawn more of the DED plexes of that region (e.g. if installed in Deteroid would it only increas the spawn rate of the 7/10, 8/10 and 10/10 that usually spawn there) or will it spawn more types? Because otherwise I can see this completely crashing high-end deadspace equipment but not the ones that spawn only in empire.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:12:00 - [14] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker So small alliances deserve 3 outposts to be cheap? Yes. That's just one constellation, barely holding ten people actually making money with the current system. Even with increased spawn rates of exploration content, i don't see it raising beyond 20. This means even with an extremely high tax, they will have a huge problem paying upkeep. Much easier to just claim the three outpost systems for pvp stashes, and make the money in empire just like before. Considering a small alliance is unlikely to hold on any space worth something (sec status lower than -0.5), this is exactly how it's done at the moment. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:16:00 - [15] So this is why you were holding of talking about the upgrades. They are hilariously bad.
Kalissa D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:19:00 - [16] The bigger alliances will be crying buckets over those sov changes. Nice!
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:19:00 - [17] most interesting
EvilweaselFinance Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:20:00 - [18] Edited by: EvilweaselFinance on 06/11/2009 22:20:45 After looking at this, unless you radically alter the following, this is going to fall flat on its face: 1)Anomolies - currently considered worthless, and are never run. That you have more of them is not helpful since the ones we have aren't used. 2)Grav sites - I believe these have too few minerals to be worth bothering with and nobody in 0.0 uses them. 3)Profession sites - now that interfaces are worthless Radar sites are not worth the time to run. With the collapse of the salvage market, neither are mag sites. This will be even worse when the POS market is glutted making faction POS's and pos mods worthless. I realize you've probably put a lot of work into this but you're building up 0.0 by increasing the amount of things that are already considered worthless and so right now, the only upgrades that are worth a damn are Entrapment (DED complexes are still worth something, though the market will rapidly crash if not done right) and the flux generator (can generate more wormholes to empire for logistics). If you bother to fix those three things, these upgrades could be worth something. If you don't, they will not be. Originally by: Kalissa The bigger alliances will be crying buckets over those sov changes. Nice! not really
Ezekiel Sulastin Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:21:00 - [19] So how exactly is a small alliance with a handful of systems supposed to realistically support themselves with these upgrades? Anamolies are mostly crap, plexes are few in number compared with your projected occupant numbers*, mining sites can be crap ...
Equinox Daedalus Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:23:00 - [20] Well going off these figures, 1 system with sov, infrastructure hub, cyno jammer and jumpbridges will cost over 2 bil / month CVA alone has the most outposts per region, so i'd figure just for outposts alone thats probally 20+ bil isk a month CCP, you can't really be serious. We go from fighting for something we own to paying for something we own, paying ridiclous amounts of isk, atleast from my general point of view. What incentive is it to actually keep our space anymore? you say you want to use CVA as an example, but, you actually seem to want to destroy what we have built. You should of left us disbanded, because your doing a real good job of what most other alliances haven't been able to do. Where is this Mythical isk influx going to come from, to keep providence up and running? We'd be better off moving back to empire. How is 1 or 2 explorions going to INCREASE supstantally the isk generation. Tragic really. The Legion of Spoon : Upon wings of wax I fly, never to close too the sun

Sathrai EXTERMINATUS. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:23:00 - [21] Am I reading this correctly that we are now looking at around 1.4bil/month per system we want to run jumpbridges through? On top of the fuel costs of the tower and the bridge? Really?
feffrey	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:24:00 - [22] What corp has 10 trillion in their master wallet?
Avatoin	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:24:00 - [23] 1. So just to confirm I read this right. POSs belonging to the alliance holding SOV will NOT have to be fueled, instead the holding corporation will have to pay in upkeep equivalent to five large POSs plus the cost of additional upgrades? Am I right? 2. Will modules like jump-bridges still have to be fueled individually? 3. Will an increase in Military also mean an increase in the spawn rate of NPCs in belts or an increase in value of those NPCs? 4. Will upgrades to the hub be visible (ie. like outpost attachments)?
Hrin Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:26:00 - [24] Can you artificially upgrade some constellations on sisi so we can see these upgrades in action?
mynnna Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:26:00 - [25] Edited by: mynnna on 06/11/2009 22:29:46 Edited by: mynnna on 06/11/2009 22:27:24 Originally by: Kalissa The bigger alliances will be crying buckets over those sov changes. Nice! Yeah this guy is pretty much right, especially if people really are forced to live with "50-100 people per system" as you guys dream. Anomalies are mostly garbage. They need to respawn instantly and there need to be more than there are to begin with. Mining is a garbage profession. Numerous proposals have been given to making it less worthless in 0.0, but suffice it to say, the mining fundamentals need to be addressed if the ore upgrades are going to be worthwhile. The DED plex thing is okay, although considering a single person can do them if he uses enough accounts (none of them really require any more than triple boxing), all that upgrade will do is enrich a relatively small group of people. Don't expect it to help the "masses" much. The ~mini profession sites~ are garbage now, something to make more of them spawn won't change that. Datacore prices dropped off, the decryptors are slow sells because everyone only needs one, most T2 rig bpcs are worthless since most T2 rigs are worthless, etc. Basically everything that comes from these sites isn't really worth the time; they need a buff if you want to see people bothering with them. And finally we have the quantum flux generator. I'm no expert but I imagine these will only get less and less valuable as T3 gets cheaper and cheaper. So yeah, even without touching everything ELSE, this is pretty much garbage, through and through. <edit> Originally by: EvilweaselFinance Oh, also, all these upgrades besides the pirate magnet and ore prospecting array (which unless fixed will be unused) evade alliance taxes so you can't replace the lost r64 income. There's also this. If you imagine people are going to replace moon income with ratting income you're terribly naive.
Letrange Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:27:00 - [26] Ok, question here: Is the intention for this to work like static wormholes? I.E. if you mine out an entire "static" grav site it will immediately respawn after it de-spawns (which in the case of most un-bugged grav sites, a certain amount of time after the last roid is popped [trigger] and the last player vessel leaves), or will it only respawn at downtime? In the first case the "low ends" will need to get mined out before the site respawns immediately (which would be GREAT). In the second case it may take a number of days for the site to despawn if you don't forcibly mine it out (i.e. just go for the highs and ignore the lows and wait for a respawn). But even when it finally despawns, you still need to wait for downtime before the next one appears. Will these new grav sites be like "k-space" grav sites or like "w-space" grav sites?
EvilweaselFinance Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:27:00 - [27] Oh, also, all these upgrades besides the pirate magnet and ore prospecting array (which unless fixed will be unused) evade alliance taxes so you can't replace the lost r64 income.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:29:00 - [28] Originally by: Equinox Daedalus Where is this Mythical isk influx going to come from, to keep providence up and running? We'd be better off moving back to empire. How is 1 or 2 explorions going to INCREASE supstantally the isk generation. On average 1 exploration/DED site nets 100mil isk (might be a bit more, im using very low value of TIERs alone + low faction stuff drops). Times 30 days = 3bil/month (again: very low values). And now think if you hit 10/10 once per week (and its possible) you can get 0,33% chance of 2+bil isk. With 4 weeks a month you get 4x 33% chance of phat loot which will cover the system. Result? USE goddamn system. If you USE it and FARM it - you can get ISK which can partially pay for system and rest goes to your wallet. If you dont use system - why do you even bother keeping/upgrading it?
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:29:00 - [29] Hehehe, Exodus all over again.
Mashie Saldana BFG Tech	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:30:00 - [30] Originally by: Equinox Daedalus Well going off these figures, 1 system with sov, infrastructure hub, cyno jammer and jumpbridges will cost over 2 bil / month CVA alone has the most outposts per region, so i'd figure just for outposts alone thats probally 20+ bil isk a month CCP, you can't really be serious. How much do you pay in POS fuel currently in comparision?

Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:31:00 - [31] You people do not understand what Dominion is all about, do you? Dominion is not ment to generate more ISK in your space, but to destroy tons of ISK holding on to it. A high-end like Dysprosium or Promethium will still be worth some ISK. Some people see it around 3 Billion per Month, so a single high-end pays for two systems with a cyno-jammer allready. Stop whining
EvilweaselFinance Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:32:00 - [32] Edited by: EvilweaselFinance on 06/11/2009 22:34:03 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Equinox Daedalus Where is this Mythical isk influx going to come from, to keep providence up and running? We'd be better off moving back to empire. How is 1 or 2 explorions going to INCREASE supstantally the isk generation. On average 1 exploration/DED site nets 100mil isk (might be a bit more, im using very low value of TIERs alone + low faction stuff drops). Times 30 days = 3bil/month (again: very low values). And now think if you hit 10/10 once per week (and its possible) you can get 0,33% chance of 2+bil isk. With 4 weeks a month you get 4x 33% chance of phat loot which will cover the system. Result? USE goddamn system. If you USE it and FARM it - you can get ISK which can partially pay for system and rest goes to your wallet. If you dont use system - why do you even bother keeping/upgrading it? DED plex money evades alliance taxes. Originally by: Vivian Azure You people do not understand what Dominion is all about, do you? Dominion is not ment to generate more ISK in your space, but to destroy tons of ISK holding on to it. A high-end like Dysprosium or Promethium will still be worth some ISK. Some people see it around 3 Billion per Month, so a single high-end pays for two systems with a cyno-jammer allready. Stop whining Dominion was explicitly intended to allow you to make more money as an average player in 0.0 and currently it is failing.
mynnna Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:33:00 - [33] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Equinox Daedalus Where is this Mythical isk influx going to come from, to keep providence up and running? We'd be better off moving back to empire. How is 1 or 2 explorions going to INCREASE supstantally the isk generation. On average 1 exploration/DED site nets 100mil isk (might be a bit more, im using very low value of TIERs alone + low faction stuff drops). Times 30 days = 3bil/month (again: very low values). And now think if you hit 10/10 once per week (and its possible) you can get 0,33% chance of 2+bil isk. With 4 weeks a month you get 4x 33% chance of phat loot which will cover the system. Result? USE goddamn system. If you USE it and FARM it - you can get ISK which can partially pay for system and rest goes to your wallet. If you dont use system - why do you even bother keeping/upgrading it? You literally cannot count any loot obtained from any plex in the money gained. You want to try to audit people running plexes and force them to pay taxes on the loot they get? Yeah okay have fun with that impossible task. When it comes to plexes the only income you can count on the alliance seeing is ratting tax from bounties. Originally by: Vivian Azure You people do not understand what Dominion is all about, do you? Dominion is not ment to generate more ISK in your space, but to destroy tons of ISK holding on to it. A high-end like Dysprosium or Promethium will still be worth some ISK. Some people see it around 3 Billion per Month, so a single high-end pays for two systems with a cyno-jammer allready. Stop whining People are "whining" because these much vaunted changes are pretty lousy. Not that I'd expect an empire dweller like yourself to get it, of course.
Lumy Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:35:00 - [34] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Pirate Magnets - add two additional guaranteed anomalies per level to your solar system I hope this means that new anomaly will spawn right after completion/despawn one of "guaranteed" anomalies. Right? C/D Please. Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS.
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:36:00 - [35] Originally by: Mashie Saldana How much do you pay in POS fuel currently in comparision? Yea your estimate is much too low. You need to add your current fuel bill to the sov bill. Since you still need pos. Just name the expansion: Exodus to NPC space.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:36:00 - [36] Originally by: EvilweaselFinance snip Dominion was explicitly intended to allow you to make more money as an average player in 0.0 and currently it is failing. Show me where CCP stated this... ...and yes I'm an alt.
Xiodus Acap	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:37:00 - [37] Edited by: Xiodus Acap on 06/11/2009 22:37:46 Originally by: Mashie Saldana Originally by: Equinox Daedalus Well going off these figures, 1 system with sov, infrastructure hub, cyno jammer and jumpbridges will cost over 2 bil / month CVA alone has the most outposts per region, so i'd figure just for outposts alone thats probally 20+ bil isk a month CCP, you can't really be serious. How much do you pay in POS fuel currently in comparision? A large pos is something like 200mil a month for a large. Even assuming they have 2 pos for jump bridges and 1 for a cyno jammer that's still only 600mil a month.
adriaans Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:37:00 - [38] Great stuff BUT!!!! HOLY CRAP EXPENSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You want more people out there, but a small alliance like us (just over 50 members at moment), HOW ON EARTH are we gonna get all that isk!? A single system will easy end up costing 50-75mill per day - THATS 2.25 BILLION per month! (btw, thats 10 deathstarts worth of fuel in sov 1, not 5) to compare: 50 members at 10% tax generates about 150-200 mill isk on a good month! And then there's the ''Resource upgrades cost a relatively small amount of ISK (we are looking at a range of 50-500 million ISK) '' 500 MILLION is not a SMALL AMOUNT! Our alliance had been really looking forward to Dominion, however there's NO WAY we can suddenly generate an additional 2 billion isk. All of us are very dissapointed because of this. couldn't you make the first system cost say a fraction of that and second sys jump up to that level so that alliances like us can actually join in on it? -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze crystals for Amarr! Originally by: UMEE if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail. QFT!
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:37:00 - [39] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 06/11/2009 22:38:22 Originally by: EvilweaselFinance DED plex money evades alliance taxes. I know it. As an owner of space its your problem to tax it somehow for use (renter system) or just deny others people plexing in station system. Point is - the upgrade gives enough ISK to cover costs, you just have to take it somehow. Quote: You literally cannot count any loot obtained from any plex in the money gained. You want to try to audit people running plexes and force them to pay taxes on the loot they get? Yeah okay have fun with that impossible task. When it comes to plexes the only income you can count on the alliance seeing is ratting tax from bounties. Impossible by your standards? Maybe learn from MM how to farm plexes and deny others from doing it (cosmos radar - which is more random than sure plex in one system).
EvilweaselFinance Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:37:00 - [40] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: EvilweaselFinance snip Dominion was explicitly intended to allow you to make more money as an average player in 0.0 and currently it is failing. Show me where CCP stated this... ...and yes I'm an alt. every time they talked about it that's the whole point of the upgrades

Ezekiel Sulastin Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:38:00 - [41] Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 06/11/2009 22:42:42 Originally by: Vivian Azure You people do not understand what Dominion is all about, do you? Dominion is not ment to generate more ISK in your space, but to destroy tons of ISK holding on to it. Actually, if you bothered to read the earlier devblogs on the subject, it's supposed to be pumping up the value of individual systems to the point where a non-hueg alliance could realistically support themselves through either their own activities or tenants on a handful of systems. A big part of this would be incentivising 0.0 enough to pull people out of empire space. Too bad the upgrades that were supposed to make this happen are all worthless save the plexing upgrade (until deadspace loot prices tank) and possibly the WH upgrade. {edit}@ Vivian: Alluded to in: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=703 http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=695 http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=691 Dev posts elsewhere are a bit more precise on the matter{/edit}
mynnna Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:38:00 - [42] Edited by: mynnna on 06/11/2009 22:41:52 Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: EvilweaselFinance snip Dominion was explicitly intended to allow you to make more money as an average player in 0.0 and currently it is failing. Show me where CCP stated this... ...and yes I'm an alt. I'd have to go dig sources, but their whole idea was to boost personal income while reducing the emphasis on alliance income; hence, nerf moon income and boost ratting/mining/etc, while simultaneously forcing people to use less space. These upgrades don't really accomplish that. <E> As it stands right now you get maybe 4-5 anomalies per system. Add to that ten anomalies from a maxed out upgrade and assume the ideal where they respawn instantly. Each anomaly is really only good for one person. Grats your system can support fifteen ratters, plus one or two more in the normal belts. Mining isn't worth the time so we can count that out, mini profession sites aren't worth the time, they're out. Wormholes are debatable, and DED plexes only allow a few more people to make money there. Its a far cry from 50-100 per system.
Equinox Daedalus Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:41:00 - [43] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Equinox Daedalus Where is this Mythical isk influx going to come from, to keep providence up and running? We'd be better off moving back to empire. How is 1 or 2 explorions going to INCREASE supstantally the isk generation. On average 1 exploration/DED site nets 100mil isk (might be a bit more, im using very low value of TIERs alone + low faction stuff drops). Times 30 days = 3bil/month (again: very low values). And now think if you hit 10/10 once per week (and its possible) you can get 0,33% chance of 2+bil isk. With 4 weeks a month you get 4x 33% chance of phat loot which will cover the system. Result? USE goddamn system. If you USE it and FARM it - you can get ISK which can partially pay for system and rest goes to your wallet. If you dont use system - why do you even bother keeping/upgrading it? Well we do use the systems. Providence is problaly the most population density area of 0.0 in eve. Ask everyone who comes around to pvp here. CVA runs a NRDS polcy inviting everyone into thier space, to run plexes, mine, live, explore 0.0. Indeed many alliances got thier 1st taste of 0.0 via Providence and the deliverance mission. We build outpost after outpost up, because, well thats what ccp said/told us we needed to do. Your statment hinges on the fact that inorder to pay for the space we have, we basically have to abandon EVERYTHING we believe in , shut out all neutrals, force payment from individual corps and its members to TAX them to death. CVA are not any pinko commies (no offense to any). We don't force people to pay for things, we dont' expand past our own ability to defend our areas, we don't ask anything of anyone to come to cva space but simply to live wand fly with honor, yet, ccp want to destroy that which they are holding up as the "example" they are building this patch off. I can't see how individual wealth runs /pays for any of this. Providence is probally the poorist region in regards to assets/items in the area, and yes, while plexes do exisit I'm not sure how individual wealth translates to alliance wealth. The Legion of Spoon : Upon wings of wax I fly, never to close too the sun
Drave McClay GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:42:00 - [44] This is utter garbage. This is not an improvement AT ALL. What incentive does anyone have owning space? Why not just live in NPC space. You increase the costs of EVERYTHING, and the other side of the equation (better systems via better ratting, mining, etc) is unchanged? Anomalies are **, everything but the 10/10 complex is **. I'll be taking my $30 a month elsewhere, you idiots are unforgivable.
el caido School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:43:00 - [45] Wow. Goonswarm tears aside, I have a serious question: Originally by: devblog The industrial index is based upon two activities taking place within your solar system. These are mining and mini-professions are based around the volume of ore mined and the successful use of hacking or archaeology modules within your space. By "successful use", is this governed by module success or the quantity of goods retrieved? Obviously, being governed by the latter - effectively chance-based - is a horrible idea. Cheers on the changes, CCP.
Vuk Lau 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:44:00 - [46] CCP missed the essence of what Dominion was supposed to be. Just to be perfectly clear Morsus Mihi anticipated something like this ages ago, and as holding the most ****tiest region in New Eden we can finally make something from it, but I dont see a one single incentive for smaller entities (corps/alliances) to hold sov, cause it will be bloody expensive for them. Macrominers and macroratters will flourish. Now I totally understand why UaxDeath was happy as puppy when he read the devblog. Only good thing I see is for smaller "pvp" entities who are living in NPC stations. They will have awesome amount of bots to shoot.
Chalrynn Illyndar Perkone	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:44:00 - [47] Originally by: adriaans Great stuff BUT!!!! HOLY CRAP EXPENSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You want more people out there, but a small alliance like us (just over 50 members at moment), HOW ON EARTH are we gonna get all that isk!? A single system will easy end up costing 50-75mill per day - THATS 2.25 BILLION per month! (btw, thats 10 deathstarts worth of fuel in sov 1, not 5) to compare: 50 members at 10% tax generates about 150-200 mill isk on a good month! And then there's the ''Resource upgrades cost a relatively small amount of ISK (we are looking at a range of 50-500 million ISK) '' 500 MILLION is not a SMALL AMOUNT! Our alliance had been really looking forward to Dominion, however there's NO WAY we can suddenly generate an additional 2 billion isk. All of us are very dissapointed because of this. couldn't you make the first system cost say a fraction of that and second sys jump up to that level so that alliances like us can actually join in on it? Also throw in the fact that it's not just a walk in the park out their either. Ontop of the 2+billion a month for ONE SINGLE SYSTEM they'll have to deal with roaming gangs and all those fun politics that come with 0.0, not to mention the carrier/dreads needed to defend said space, the people to fly them... etc. This is not even remotely within the reach of smaller alliances for even a single system, and a lot of people just aren't interested in having to form 500+ strong alliances and it looks like that's basically what will be needed to have a couple systems.
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:45:00 - [48] Nothing I have seen so far has even come close to SUGGESTING we will be able to find activity for even 100 people for more than an hour in a single, fully upgraded system. 1 person can clear 4 anoms in an hour. 2 people can clear a DED 7-9/10 plex in an hour. Mining is **** until you fix Grav sites and give us a reason to actually mine VELD. All I've seen are enough activities to keep 20-30 people busy for 3-4 hours. I'm begging you to explain how you even came CLOSE to the number of 100-150 being able to keep themselves busy in a single upgraded system. I'm not trolling, I REALLY REALLY REALLY want you to explain to us how this is even remotely possible.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:46:00 - [49] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 06/11/2009 22:47:57 Originally by: el caido Wow. Goonswarm tears aside, I have a serious question: Originally by: devblog The industrial index is based upon two activities taking place within your solar system. These are mining and mini-professions are based around the volume of ore mined and the successful use of hacking or archaeology modules within your space. By "successful use", is this governed by module success or the quantity of goods retrieved? Obviously, being governed by the latter - effectively chance-based - is a horrible idea. Cheers on the changes, CCP. Id guess it means the 1st one. Which is easily farmable then. Just leave t1 frig with analyzer/codebraker in complex and put heavy book on F1 key = codebreaker. Can gets open, after 2-3 minutes it closes itself when stuck F1 kicks in and opens it again. Tho it doesnt matter - radars/magnetos are ** anyways. Those 2 lol-anomalies will give more isk than perma radar-site in your system. As for plex values. Sansha/blood/angel plexes are still quite decent. Serps - i dunno (sorry). Guristas are getting worthless now (yay farmers, but thx for cheap b-type mods). Drone region dudes should cry now. Who cares about "higher chance of drone plex" lol. Quote:** I'm begging you to explain how you even came CLOSE to the number of 100-150 being able to keep themselves busy in a single upgraded system. I'm not trolling, I REALLY REALLY REALLY want you to explain to us how this is even remotely possible. Funny but i agree with this. The upgrades shown will barely occupy 5-10 people (thats excluding normal belts in system).
Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:47:00 - [50] I still don't understand why ccp can't figure out why people in 0.0 don't mine. Its not because there isn't ENOUGH of it, its because its not worth the isk/hour compared to ratting. Giving us more roids of the same type doesn't matter if no one is mining the ones we already have anyway. Sure there are a couple of peoples with bots who run 5 hulks at the same time but thats .1% of the eve 0.0 population. Also how do you expect any alliance without r64s to hold more then one system? OR expect people to fight wars of conquest when winning would be more expensive then losing?

Equinox Daedalus Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:49:00 - [51] Edited by: Equinox Daedalus on 06/11/2009 22:51:37 Originally by: Mashie Saldana Originally by: Equinox Daedalus Well going off these figures, 1 system with sov, infrastructure hub, cyno jammer and jumpbridges will cost over 2 bil / month CVA alone has the most outposts per region, so i'd figure just for outposts alone thats probally 35+ bil isk a month CCP, you can't really be serious. How much do you pay in POS fuel currently in comparision? Tlos as a corp runs aproxx 30-40 pos's 4 jb (which wouldnt' come down, 1 cyno jammer (which wouldnt' come down), and the rest are large reaction pos's which pay for the jb pos's, cyno jammer pos's. reaction pos with alot of offline armorment incase of attack. We do not control any main entrances into provi/ so we don't run aren't forced to run pos's of full deathstar magnatude, so we really wouldn't save any isk. Infact due to this patch we will see an INCREASE in pos fuel usage due to the sovernty changes. Also due to the INCREASE in spawns of high end plexes I can't see anything but the decrease of high end module prices. The Legion of Spoon : Upon wings of wax I fly, never to close too the sun
Mr McAlt	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:50:00 - [52] Originally by: Drave McClay This is utter garbage. This is not an improvement AT ALL. What incentive does anyone have owning space? Why not just live in NPC space. You increase the costs of EVERYTHING, and the other side of the equation (better systems via better ratting, mining, etc) is unchanged? Anomalies are **, everything but the 10/10 complex is .. The point is that it is more difficult to own too much space, giving smaller entities a chance to move into the space the big alliances are going to have to leave. It is more expensive to run a system than before, but the amount of isk you can make will increase much, much more. Quote:** I'll be taking my $30 a month elsewhere, you idiots are unforgivable. Can I haz your stuff?
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:50:00 - [53] ... and I THOUGHT 0.0 sucked
Johraiken Fenris Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:51:00 - [54] 1-2Bn isk / month / system. This is way too expensive for many smaller alliances. Especially as it comes in addition to the POS fuel. A lot of towers now have some moon mining on it, how crappy it may be, but it helps with the fuel bill. You can remove the deathstars, but the are less of those than you think. And how do you get the ISK back as an alliance/corporation? Vast majority will disappear in personal wallets. If you rake up the tax (and you can only tax your own people), players will just go missioning in empire. So, where is the upgrade that gives 10% of all bounties paid to pod pilots in this system to the sov-holding corp? But how can you tax mining and hacking/archeology?
CynoNet Two	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:51:00 - [55] This is hilarious. After years of trying to encourage players to move to 0.0, you just slapped a huge tax on it and made it virtually unprofitable. Most of the upgrades mentioned derive their income from means that cannot be directly taxed or monitored. This means alliances will be forced to use convoluted out-of-game rental schemes until Treaties, which we probably won't see until the middle of next year at the soonest. Owning 0.0 space is now far less attractive than before. Not only is it actually less profitable than high-sec mission running, but you've managed to make it more dangerous by trying to concentrate everyone making money into smaller, easily ganked pockets. Instead of improving conq space, you have taken what's already there and just increased it so more people can do it in the same area. Unless the average isk/hour per player rate rises as these systems are upgraded, conq space is worth no more than NPC 0.0 or even lowsec. Hell, its worth less because of the huge bills needed to hold it. 1) Make sov costs scale with sov claimed as originally promised. This provides easy entry for smaller groups while limiting larger ones. For example, claiming a single system with an alliance is 100m per month. Claiming two systems is 102m per system (204m total). 2) Increase the average isk/hour ratio earned by people living in conq space. Higher value rats, not more of them. Higher yield ores so that people can manage local industry, rather than still require bulk compressed imports from empire. Add scaling NPC buy orders for complex drops to player owned outposts, with tax income going to the owning corporation. 3) The expense of logistics routes is going to mean small and medium alliances are reduced to single easily ganked routes without alternative. Instead have upgrade costs scale the more upgrades are installed. This means that operating a jump bridge upgrade on a simple linking system will cost less than putting a bridge upgrade on a cynojammed system with CSAAs to defend.
Dramaticus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:52:00 - [56] Originally by: Mr McAlt but the amount of isk you can make will increase much, much more. no, it wont. Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:53:00 - [57] Is the point of this Exodus pt2 expansion to return eve to pre-Exodus state?
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:53:00 - [58] 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
Jei'son Bladesmith The Storm Knights The Cool Kids Club	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:53:00 - [59] I'll be happy to finally automate my many bills \o/ by many i mean like 6 im a lazy, lazy man
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:53:00 - [60] Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin Actually, if you bothered to read the earlier devblogs on the subject, it's supposed to be pumping up the value of individual systems to the point where a non-hueg alliance could realistically support themselves through either their own activities or tenants on a handful of systems. A big part of this would be incentivising 0.0 enough to pull people out of empire space. Too bad the upgrades that were supposed to make this happen are all worthless save the plexing upgrade (until deadspace loot prices tank) and possibly the WH upgrade. I was kinda looking forward to farming the poor sods who were actually going to try and grab a bit of 0.0 when the big blocks compress themselves, since the idea was to repopulate space based on a reward model that could compete with the easy afk empire syndrome on alts. I guess that is out of the window now, if not because they won't move to try, but because the ones that do are going to get farmed to death for nice griefing cloaking gank farming kills.

EvilweaselFinance Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:54:00 - [61] Originally by: Mr McAlt but the amount of isk you can make will increase much, much more. What we're telling you is that none of the upgrades are even worth the cost of the upkeep.
mynnna Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:56:00 - [62] Originally by: Mr McAlt Originally by: Drave McClay This is utter garbage. This is not an improvement AT ALL. What incentive does anyone have owning space? Why not just live in NPC space. You increase the costs of EVERYTHING, and the other side of the equation (better systems via better ratting, mining, etc) is unchanged? Anomalies are **, everything but the 10/10 complex is .. The point is that it is more difficult to own too much space, giving smaller entities a chance to move into the space the big alliances are going to have to leave. It is more expensive to run a system than before, but the amount of isk you can make will increase much, much more.** No. It won't. I didn't see something like "oh yeah and rat bounties were tripled across the board" or "we have introduced super-ores to 0.0", so there's nothing here that increases a player's personal income. Oh yeah, and anomalies (as far as I know) can't spawn officers, another way in which it is inferior to normal belt ratting.
Gripen Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:56:00 - [63] There is nothing about the way to reduce indicies by killing local population... So no new incentives for small gangs many have expected from this expansion?
PaulTheWise	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:56:00 - [64] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 06/11/2009 22:05:45 I might also add that they did mention the cost is around 5 POSes per system, so it begs the question of how are you managing right now? Very, very, very easy, and I get the feeling quite everyone is overlooking this (especially CCP, with prices like this): Reactions. Even with very common moons I, personally, without any help from my corp or alliance (other then the use of JBs), can keep up 6 large towers and make 1 billion profit per month (probably more, but I CBA to do the maths right now :P ). Towers are self sufficient if you're not a total ****** (and are willing to empty the silos regularly). As this 'Dominion' doesn't seem to add any real way to add revenue it's just a 2b ISK sink/month, unless we're all missing something someplace.
PMolkenthin League Of Shadows.	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:56:00 - [65] I'm a bit dissapointed by these changes too. The only worth-while upgrades I see there are maybe the Entrapment and the Ore prospecting array. How about an upgrade that massively increases the amount/quality of NPC spawns in the belts? At least that way a 30 man corp could all grind rats in a 10 belt system and make some decent ISK. Also, I was hoping the military upgrades would include something to improve the defensive capabilities of a system, ie gate sentries, cloak jammers, or something cool so we could fortify and protect our system from invaders. If the amount of ISK that can be made in an upgraded system isnt worth the cost of upgrading, then nobody will bother.
Jelek Coro Endemic Aggression Exalted.	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:57:00 - [66] I thought you wanted people in nul sec? Those upgrades are quite laughable (see the Goon posts for details). How many people do you expect a system to realistically hold with those si called upgrades? NPC nul sec will get very crowded, the rest will be empty
Stretchmeat Crotchquake GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:57:00 - [67] Edited by: Stretchmeat Crotchquake on 06/11/2009 22:58:30 The first thing you should be asking when you design these upgrades are "are these actually more lucrative than a single level 4 agent?" The answer in all of these cases is "no," and with massive upkeep costs attached and nerfed moon values, 0.0 will be nothing more than a massive ISK sink. There will be virtually no reason to base out of conquerable space instead of NPC space, since NPC space will have better perks and no upkeep costs except office rentals. CONCEPTUALLY, this is a good approach, but anomalies need a massive buff and the number of these additions need massive buffs as well. 10 anomalies is not a good upgrade for a system that is supposed to scale to 100+ people per solar system.
Riu Stuka Caldari GeoCorp. Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:00:00 - [68] How shall we as a corp even pay for 1 system with the great moons we have in our space. All we got that was left is a CC reactin, well i not see that paying us the 1 to 2 billion for the system. And as mentioned before, what will the corp bring the upgrades. How will my corp be able to profit form the neutral ratting in our system, or even the blue/alliance mate, i only can tax the bunties of my corp members... everything else will just disapear into personal wallets. And we still have to pay fuel for our reaction POS's... so theres nothing to save here either...
Elo Behram Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:01:00 - [69] anomaly rats are awful compared to belt rats, they're tougher to kill and have nerfed salvage/loot tables hth
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:02:00 - [70] It's great to see CCP's anti-solo concepts ("We're gonna make it suck unless you're in a big corp") get applied to 0.0 ("We're gonna make it suck unless you're in a big alliance"). How the heck are the little guys supposed to get a foothold in 0.0 with these crappy upgrades at these crappy prices?

Hykke Free Imperial Vikings	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:02:00 - [71] I think CCP forgot to add the "Asteroid belt beakon" upgrade, that spawns 5 more asteroid belts per level, available for public mining and ratting. As well as the "Concord communication jammer" that lowers the actual security rating of the system by -0.3 per level, causing nasty rats to appear in the belts
Dramaticus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:04:00 - [72] Originally by: Hykke I think CCP forgot to add the "Asteroid belt beakon" upgrade, that spawns 5 more asteroid belts per level, available for public mining and ratting. As well as the "Concord communication jammer" that lowers the actual security rating of the system by -0.3 per level, causing nasty rats to appear in the belts yes more battlecruiser/cruiser spawns to plow through wait no there should not be a single goddamn battlecruiser/cruiser/frigate rat in 0.0 unless its faction. Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:04:00 - [73] I may like shooting them but I am actually agreeing, strongly I might add, with Goon posters on this topic.
Manfred Rickenbocker	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:05:00 - [74] It was mentioned by CCP Sisyphus in this thread that there would be a decay mechanic in place. Some questions: How will decay be implemented? Will there be a way to know what the actual point accrual will be per-action? Will we be able to see the points required for the next level? Will the points-per-level be a static value like the number of days with sov, or will it scale based on the available resources per-system (# belts, ore quality, truesec, etc)? ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times.
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:08:00 - [75] Edited by: Niding on 06/11/2009 23:08:32 I see little incentive to actually upgrade the systems considering the cost. As has been pointed out; there doesnt seem like there are any good ways to tap into the potential wealth given by upgrades. Neutrals that might use these 100 man belt systems (or whatever they are claimed to be able to accomodate) are rarely channeling isk generated into the SOV holding alliances wallet. So, either NRDS gets abandoned and we exploit the wealth ourselves, or we subsidise the 0.0 project with even MORE high sec generated isk. Cant really see it being worth it. Better off running high sec missions, and fly around 0.0 shooting stuff "deathmatch" style tbh. A pity. Btw: how will this encourage smaller entities to build themselves a patch of SOV?
mynnna Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:08:00 - [76] Originally by: Quesa I may like shooting them but I am actually agreeing, strongly I might add, with Goon posters on this topic. Well, like us or not, we're knowledgable about the game and share the same concerns about it as every other 0.0 dweller. We just got to the thread faster
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:09:00 - [77] 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
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:09:00 - [78] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 06/11/2009 23:09:51 When I read crap like you're posting here... oh boy. The upgrade is ment to draw tons of money out of the whole system. Players that strive for personal profits are not welcome in 0.0, they can run LvL 4 missions. 0.0 is about groups playing together, so all the money that can be made in a system is ment to fuel the alliance/corps holding the systems. I alone can pay 2 Billion for an upgraded system by simply ratting in it on a daily basis. And now have 10 people do it and the bill is absolutely laughable. Stop thinking about yourself and being egoistic. Dominion is ment to make people work together for their systems and space, and not just have a few people fueling the POSs. This is the best thing CCP has ever came up with tbh.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:09:00 - [79] Originally by: Gripen There is nothing about the way to reduce indicies by killing local population... So no new incentives for small gangs many have expected from this expansion? Your new incentive is to cloak and camp, and if you see something use black ops portal to bring in 20 bombers, and thus kill off any people that try to make use of space that they just spent lots of isk on to upgrade, and cost their alliance not just the income but also cost them their jammers and bridges since they cannot do enough ratting to keep them online.
Crylnish Hlar Vultus Intentus Constructum Sons of RA	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:12:00 - [80] CCP - you've actually made me step out from behind the forum-alt mask for once! After the continual hype, the slow trickle of information over the past few months, Chribba's astounding ability to get the top 5 posts of all Dominion related Dev Blog's, you have presented us with this? I honestly can't find it in myself to continue to play EVE, this isn't a financial decision - I can pay for PLEX cards easily. I've dithered and hung on for an extra month or so as my activity drops off but to come out with an ineffectual system in the face of such expectation is shocking. As many have previously stated the system does not provide sufficient ISK to support a community of any size in 0.0, hence neither the goal of incentivising 0.0 nor developing small "hardcore" communities have been achieved. I hereby hand you my mehh-quit (think emoragequit but more apathy, total in fact) in order to guide my PC into the light of new sci-fi MMO's such as the upcoming Star Trek/Wars/Gate, Jumpgate Evolution and Earthrise - all of which I predict will negatively affect your market share in the coming months. Whats your plan for this? One thing I will applaud - your marketting is well targetted, I can't get away from those sodding misleading adverts. Has any player actually ever considered a freighter with an escort? A rifter ending up in a 0.0 cap fight? Goodbye EVE, signed Cyrl Cyrl http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/signature.php/string,Crylnish%20Hlar/tpl,amarr3/signature

sue denim	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:13:00 - [81] 1 hidden belt per level? and you expect alliances to start packing in people for that? :P
Olari Vanderfall	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:15:00 - [82] What is that sucking sound? The ISK sink! I hope with all this isk flowing out of 0.0 there is actually an incentive to conquer the space. I would like the e-peen upgrade module please. What are the incentives anyway?
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:16:00 - [83] Originally by: Vivian Azure I alone can pay 2 Billion for an upgraded system by simply ratting in it on a daily basis. And now have 10 people do it and the bill is absolutely laughable. Hehe, that should be fun then when you and your buddies are the only target around in an area and the cloaking griefing begins :-)
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:16:00 - [84] Originally by: Pringlescan I still don't understand why ccp can't figure out why people in 0.0 don't mine. Its not because there isn't ENOUGH of it, its because its not worth the isk/hour compared to ratting. How do you expect people to fight wars of conquest when winning would be more expensive then losing? This Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Vio Geraci Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:16:00 - [85] This is pathetic and I think I speak for the entirety of 0.0 when I say that we expected better from you. What the hell.
Jordan Musgrat H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:17:00 - [86] This is pretty bad CCP. Don't tell me that's all there is, you've had too long to work on this, and hyped it up too much. All this looks like is 10/10 plexes in every other system, and while I'll love my 50m Corpus Xtype Armor Reps, it's pretty **. There is no incentive here to holding space, and therefore, none to moving to 0.0. Give us an incentive before you tax the ** out of us. ----------- Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0...
Arra Lith HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:19:00 - [87] Edited by: Arra Lith on 06/11/2009 23:22:45 Edited by: Arra Lith on 06/11/2009 23:20:52 CCP devs are sick or they just dont play EVE and put random numbers ? Here is some calculations for costs for 1 system: 1. New sov costs: - flag : 300m (30x 10m daily) - infrastructure hub : 600m (30x 20m daily) - upgrades strategic : 1200m (30x (1+4+12+25 => 42 m) daily - upgrades industry / military : around 500m propably per path Total: above 2 b - just for sov, and propably more for upgrades (2,5+ b monthly) 2. Now: 1-3 deathstars (cynojammer, jump bridges) : ~360m - deathstars for jump bridges and cyno jammers will stay in new sov too 5+ industry poses : those dont cost anything, as they earn enough to cover fuel and make some profit (especially if placed at some valuable moon). Total: 360m monthly For me thats like 7x higher costs than it is now, and 30x more than cost of mantaining 1 deathstar POS. Deathstars for JBs and for cyno jammers will still be needed (well if someone decide to claim sov...). Industry POSes will stay as well (maybe will get moved to low sec if 0.0 will be too risky and too far away without JB network). With new system there will be maybe 10 upgraded systems per region by very rich alliances and regions, and maybe 1 or 2 in poorer regions (if there is any point at placing sov there - as there will be no way to get those 3 billions back monthly from those upgrades). I though Dominion was meant to interest more players with 0.0, especially poorer alliances - with those prices only most wealthy ones will play with sov. Overall seems nice idea, but with those prices noone will use it. With claiming 15 systems alliance will spend isk equal to 1 titan or 20+ dreads. Maybe thats no big costs for rich alliances - but what is better: paying 3b (per system) to earn slightly more, or pay nothing and earn same money as it is now ?
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:20:00 - [88] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 06/11/2009 23:09:51 I alone can pay 2 Billion for an upgraded system by simply ratting in it on a daily basis. And now have 10 people do it and the bill is absolutely laughable. This is the best thing CCP has ever came up with tbh. I'll give you 35m a hour of ratting in a 1.0 true sec system between bounties and loot. That's 57 hours of ratting you have to do in 14 days, or 4 hours of ratting a day. So no you can't. And nothing in this suggests 10 people can rat in one system.
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:22:00 - [89] Originally by: Stretchmeat Crotchquake The first thing you should be asking when you design these upgrades are "are these actually more lucrative than a single level 4 agent?" this Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Trishtan DeMore Caldari Seraphin Technologies	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:22:00 - [90] Edited by: Trishtan DeMore on 06/11/2009 23:25:21 Want ... stuff ... you ... smoked when you came up with those numbers. better cut them down to 1/4 atm at the very least! Even I do understand your target: The insanely rich alliances in this game. But you slam the door in front of every small alliance. The thing you'd like to do and the numbers you call for it are contradicting. Because this will not attract even more scare off people to go to 0.0.

Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:22:00 - [91] 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
Skiliong	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:22:00 - [92] Tbh i was hoping the sov would take in consideration the number of systems held and not be the same price for all systems. This could allow smaller corps/alliances to enter 0.0 and when they grow (if they do) they would pay more for that Paying 1B/month for 1 system it's easy. Big alliances will still be able to hold large space because the moons will give them the enought isks for that and without needing any extra work on the systems or to improve them. This is NOT what i (and many like me) was expecting! The upgrades but in resume ... THEY SUCK!!!! Hope the values and not final like the dev blog says
Puzie GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:23:00 - [93] Originally by: Crylnish Hlar Goodbye EVE, signed Cyrl Can I have your stuff?
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:23:00 - [94] I see a lot of ppl mentioning some "huge" profits from reactions. Well, profit you make from them now might seem high, but with these changes one of the only ways to actually make some ISK for corporations will be reactions. With a lot of entities not doing them at all atm, just selling raw materials, I guess most of them will have to start doing reactions to enrich profit from those moons. That will increase their fuel bills to a point and they will bother to mine every available moon. With more reactions and components on the market, prices of those will fall, as will profit. So say good bye to that too...
Mr McAlt	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:24:00 - [95] Originally by: EvilweaselFinance Originally by: Mr McAlt but the amount of isk you can make will increase much, much more. What we're telling you is that none of the upgrades are even worth the cost of the upkeep. I'm not sure you read the Dev Blog properly. The 'Upgrades' do not require additional upkeep. The things listed in the white table require upkeep. income improving upgrades (Industry and Military) only require you to pay to install them, not to keep them running: Originally by: CCP The Costs of Resource Upgrades Resource upgrades cost a relatively small amount of ISK (we are looking at a range of 50-500 million ISK) to purchase and require a certain existing appropriate activity level. Originally by: mynnna No. It won't. I didn't see something like "oh yeah and rat bounties were tripled across the board" or "we have introduced super-ores to 0.0", so there's nothing here that increases a player's personal income. Oh yeah, and anomalies (as far as I know) can't spawn officers, another way in which it is inferior to normal belt ratting. Pirate Magnets - add two additional guaranteed anomalies per level to your solar system On average atm a system has about 2-3 anomalies. With this at lvl 5 you have 10 guaranteed. Admittedly, most are not good at all- ratting belts is better, but some anoms have good rats and a chance of a faction spawn at the end (As do they all) Ore Prospecting Array - adds one additional guaranteed hidden asteroid site per level to your solar system This is much safer than mining at a regular belt, plus the ore may be different/better than your current system ore, so it would be very useful. Entrapment - increase the chance significantly of a DED complex being located in the depths of your solar system How can you not understand how this would increase your isk income? Survey Networks - increase the chance significantly of mini-profession sites being located within your solar system Same thing- Radar and Magno sites can be very profitable. Quantum Flux Generator - increase the chance significantly of a wormhole being discovered within your solar system to w-space. Same again... how do these upgrades not increase your income? 0.0 Exploration sites give you more isk/hour than lvl 4 missions, and that's considering the time spent to travel to different systems to find a single site. I would not be surprised if you could make up to 50 mil per hour with good system upgrades, just doing the exploration sites.
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:25:00 - [96] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 06/11/2009 23:09:51 When I read crap like you're posting here... oh boy. The upgrade is ment to draw tons of money out of the whole system. Players that strive for personal profits are not welcome in 0.0, they can run LvL 4 missions. 0.0 is about groups playing together, so all the money that can be made in a system is ment to fuel the alliance/corps holding the systems. I alone can pay 2 Billion for an upgraded system by simply ratting in it on a daily basis. And now have 10 people do it and the bill is absolutely laughable. Hi, what 90 belt system are you playing in? If you spend the hours needed to properly chain belts, and if you don't have any asshats coming and blowing up the chains, you can sustain maybe a half dozen ratters in a very high belt count system (15+). But that's only after several hours worth of work in cleaning out crap spawns--and that's assuming your system even gets decent ones (most 0.0 sucks). To earn 2 billion a month ratting, you need 100 hours (3.3 hours/day) of 20M/hour ratting--and thats if you, personally, are paying the upkeep fee. If you're talking corp taxes, even assuming a 30% PMITA tax rate this turns into 333 hours of 20M/hour ratting. Thats over 10 hours of best-quality ratting per day to pay for ONE system. To pack 11 people into that system is simply not feasible unless you're talking them being scattered through 5 timezones. CCP has the exact WRONG take on 0.0 improvements: rather than improve the overall quality with a modest improvement in quantity, they've said "screw quality" and expect us to make up the difference with quantity...forgetting that doing L4s in empire is VASTLY more cost-effective and worthwhile. Fix anomalies, improve 0.0 mining methods/efficiency, fix profession sites, and MAYBE this system is worth the effort.
CynoNet Two	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:25:00 - [97] GUYS GUYS I think I found a worthwhile upgrade. Quantum Flux Generator - increase the chance significantly of a wormhole being discovered within your solar system to w-space, thus allowing you to return to evacuate high-sec and make far more money.
Arra Lith HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:27:00 - [98] Originally by: ElvenLord I see a lot of ppl mentioning some "huge" profits from reactions. Well, profit you make from them now might seem high, but with these changes one of the only ways to actually make some ISK for corporations will be reactions. With a lot of entities not doing them at all atm, just selling raw materials, I guess most of them will have to start doing reactions to enrich profit from those moons. That will increase their fuel bills to a point and they will bother to mine every available moon. With more reactions and components on the market, prices of those will fall, as will profit. So say good bye to that too... True, but you dont need sovereignity to place POS and do reactions - you can do it even in low sec. And there is no way those upgrades will yield enough isk to cover costs. And if something costs more than gives value... whats the point of installing it, and fighting to defend it ? Much better to build just large fleets and destroy someone else infrastructure (upkeeping it will propably mean target alliance have much smaller fleet and is easy target).
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:28:00 - [99] What happened to the idea of escalating charges per system claimed by each alliance + minimum numbers of systems claimed for each upgrade? --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule
Lynn de'Marco Divine Power. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:29:00 - [100] i hope the system upgrades are going to be epic because those costs are insane. assuming every system was currently held on 5 large towers as per CCPs price reasoning this is still a 4 fold price increase without even taking account that POS will still be needed to hold the jammers, jump bridges and deathstar the FLAG. so i'm expecting ratting/mining to be 4 times as profitable with the upgrades......

EvilweaselFinance Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:29:00 - [101] Originally by: Mr McAlt Pirate Magnets - add two additional guaranteed anomalies per level to your solar system On average atm a system has about 2-3 anomalies. With this at lvl 5 you have 10 guaranteed. Admittedly, most are not good at all- ratting belts is better, but some anoms have good rats and a chance of a faction spawn at the end (As do they all) These are worthless and we actively tell our newbies to never, ever run them. They are never worth the time. Originally by: Mr McAlt Ore Prospecting Array - adds one additional guaranteed hidden asteroid site per level to your solar system This is much safer than mining at a regular belt, plus the ore may be different/better than your current system ore, so it would be very useful. They have little ore and nobody will mine the veldspar to make them despawn. Originally by: Mr McAlt Entrapment - increase the chance significantly of a DED complex being located in the depths of your solar system How can you not understand how this would increase your isk income? This is the one potentially worthwhile one. Originally by: Mr McAlt Survey Networks - increase the chance significantly of mini-profession sites being located within your solar system Same thing- Radar and Magno sites can be very profitable. They have not been for over a year. I already explained why. Originally by: Mr McAlt Quantum Flux Generator - increase the chance significantly of a wormhole being discovered within your solar system to w-space. Same again... how do these upgrades not increase your income? 0.0 Exploration sites give you more isk/hour than lvl 4 missions, and that's considering the time spent to travel to different systems to find a single site. I would not be surprised if you could make up to 50 mil per hour with good system upgrades, just doing the exploration sites. This is only worth it for the additional wormholes to empire.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:30:00 - [102] Mr McAlt, unless directors start scanning and taking away faction loot from members and make them undock to rat and mine while tax is 100%, nothing goes to corp wallet, and corp wallet is the one paying bills for upgrades and upkeep, not personal ones
Etien Aldragoran DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:30:00 - [103] Anomalies? You mean those pieces of **** that aren't worth anyone's time to run unless there's a chance of escalation to a-type loot? Also, how does CCP plan to address the huge shift in supply as people suddenly get access to high volumes of specific sets of things? If each system is guaranteed to get 10 ABCM grav sites, Zydrine and Megacyte will crash to the point where it will become as valuable as veldspar. Morphite will drop more than it did after the drone regions were introduced.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:30:00 - [104] Originally by: Fuujin Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 06/11/2009 23:09:51 When I read crap like you're posting here... oh boy. The upgrade is ment to draw tons of money out of the whole system. Players that strive for personal profits are not welcome in 0.0, they can run LvL 4 missions. 0.0 is about groups playing together, so all the money that can be made in a system is ment to fuel the alliance/corps holding the systems. I alone can pay 2 Billion for an upgraded system by simply ratting in it on a daily basis. And now have 10 people do it and the bill is absolutely laughable. Hi, what 90 belt system are you playing in? If you spend the hours needed to properly chain belts, and if you don't have any asshats coming and blowing up the chains, you can sustain maybe a half dozen ratters in a very high belt count system (15+). But that's only after several hours worth of work in cleaning out crap spawns--and that's assuming your system even gets decent ones (most 0.0 sucks). To earn 2 billion a month ratting, you need 100 hours (3.3 hours/day) of 20M/hour ratting--and thats if you, personally, are paying the upkeep fee. If you're talking corp taxes, even assuming a 30% PMITA tax rate this turns into 333 hours of 20M/hour ratting. Thats over 10 hours of best-quality ratting per day to pay for ONE system. To pack 11 people into that system is simply not feasible unless you're talking them being scattered through 5 timezones. CCP has the exact WRONG take on 0.0 improvements: rather than improve the overall quality with a modest improvement in quantity, they've said "screw quality" and expect us to make up the difference with quantity...forgetting that doing L4s in empire is VASTLY more cost-effective and worthwhile. Fix anomalies, improve 0.0 mining methods/efficiency, fix profession sites, and MAYBE this system is worth the effort. If you strive for personal income, then it's your problem. In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. 2 bil a month is nothing, if you divide it between 10 players. That's a laughable 7 Million ISK per day per player.
Buc'sJita alt	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:30:00 - [105] Haha what the **** are you thinking? Any sort of income gain from installing these upgrades will quickly be negated by the price crash that will quickly follow! There's no reason to install them at all!
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:31:00 - [106] Edited by: Tamahra on 06/11/2009 23:32:04 what youre all forgetting though, is that corps can now set a certain amount of isk as a kinda tax for each member, which will be automatically billed. soooo. 2 billion isk per system per month, thats roughly 20 million isk per member per month, if you have 100 members and own one system.......... viewing it from that angle, its not as much of a problem as many are making it Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Korvin Eeex Gallente Ancestors Of The Half Ninjas	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:32:00 - [107] It is funny how CCP is calling this "Sovereignty is getting a fixin' in EVE Online: Dominion". CCP, read comments and think very hard. These are horrible changes, concept is good but realization is horrid. You should listen people that live in 0.0 (some of us spent almost all EVE time in 0.0). Please CCP, I already stopped playing few months ago but kept my 4 accounts subscribed, don't make me unsubscribe and leave EVE, I love this game and don't make it worse, pls. ================================================== Lag does not exist ... It is all just a matter of perception.
RevrendStyx Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:32:00 - [108] Originally by: Equinox Daedalus Edited by: Equinox Daedalus on 06/11/2009 22:32:22 Well going off these figures, 1 system with sov, infrastructure hub, cyno jammer and jumpbridges will cost over 2 bil / month CVA alone has the most outposts per region, so i'd figure just for outposts alone thats probally 35+ bil isk a month CCP, you can't really be serious. We go from fighting for something we own to paying for something we own, paying ridiclous amounts of isk, atleast from my general point of view. What incentive is it to actually keep our space anymore? you say you want to use CVA as an example, but, you actually seem to want to destroy what we have built. You should of left us disbanded, because your doing a real good job of what most other alliances haven't been able to do. Where is this Mythical isk influx going to come from, to keep providence up and running? We'd be better off moving back to empire. How is 1 or 2 explorions going to INCREASE supstantally the isk generation. Tragic really. "Mythical isk influx" All you guys need to go back to when the sov changes were first announced. Your going to have to WORK for your space. Not just sit around and make monies from moon goo. My alliance does not hold any space but we can make 10's of bills a month off of grinding it out, be it in empire wh's or 0.0. The alliance gets together and says hey we need cash and everyone gets into gear. Maybe its just been so long since you've had to do something for your isk. orrrr maybe you should go back to empire. Deal with the changes or give me your stuffs and quit.
Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:32:00 - [109] Edited by: Josh Silver on 06/11/2009 23:32:07 That's completly awful, obviously noone who designed this mess lives in 0.0 or even plays EVE at all. But it pairs nice with the insane console shooter thing so yeah, enjoy your jobs while you still have them.
Normin Bates	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:35:00 - [110] Originally by: Kalissa The bigger alliances will be crying buckets over those sov changes. Nice! Yea. All the rich & lazy alliances are being thrust out of their comfort zone. Hence the buckets of tears. Gee...they will have to think/work a bit more and not hold multiple regions. Sucks to be a bloated alliance with piles of empty systems right now huh?

Dramaticus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:36:00 - [111] Originally by: Normin Bates Originally by: Kalissa The bigger alliances will be crying buckets over those sov changes. Nice! Yea. All the rich & lazy alliances are being thrust out of their comfort zone. Hence the buckets of tears. Gee...they will have to think/work a bit more and not hold multiple regions. Sucks to be a bloated alliance with piles of empty systems right now huh? this hurts smaller 0.0 alliances and anyone who wants to try and make inroads into 0.0 much more fyi Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:37:00 - [112] Edited by: Tamahra on 06/11/2009 23:37:31 again, in an attempt to calm everybody down: corps can now automatically bill their members for a set amount of isks per month. 1 system, 100 members = 20 million isk per member per month, to cover the costs. Its NOT SO BAD as you think, especially since CCP can still tweak the costs and the buffs from the various upgrades. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:37:00 - [113] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Fuujin Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 06/11/2009 23:09:51 When I read crap like you're posting here... oh boy. The upgrade is ment to draw tons of money out of the whole system. Players that strive for personal profits are not welcome in 0.0, they can run LvL 4 missions. 0.0 is about groups playing together, so all the money that can be made in a system is ment to fuel the alliance/corps holding the systems. I alone can pay 2 Billion for an upgraded system by simply ratting in it on a daily basis. And now have 10 people do it and the bill is absolutely laughable. Hi, what 90 belt system are you playing in? If you spend the hours needed to properly chain belts, and if you don't have any asshats coming and blowing up the chains, you can sustain maybe a half dozen ratters in a very high belt count system (15+). But that's only after several hours worth of work in cleaning out crap spawns--and that's assuming your system even gets decent ones (most 0.0 sucks). To earn 2 billion a month ratting, you need 100 hours (3.3 hours/day) of 20M/hour ratting--and thats if you, personally, are paying the upkeep fee. If you're talking corp taxes, even assuming a 30% PMITA tax rate this turns into 333 hours of 20M/hour ratting. Thats over 10 hours of best-quality ratting per day to pay for ONE system. To pack 11 people into that system is simply not feasible unless you're talking them being scattered through 5 timezones. CCP has the exact WRONG take on 0.0 improvements: rather than improve the overall quality with a modest improvement in quantity, they've said "screw quality" and expect us to make up the difference with quantity...forgetting that doing L4s in empire is VASTLY more cost-effective and worthwhile. Fix anomalies, improve 0.0 mining methods/efficiency, fix profession sites, and MAYBE this system is worth the effort. If you strive for personal income, then it's your problem. In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. 2 bil a month is nothing, if you divide it between 10 players. That's a laughable 7 Million ISK per day per player. AAA Citizen alt spotted.
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:38:00 - [114] Originally by: Vivian Azure If you strive for personal income, then it's your problem. In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. 2 bil a month is nothing, if you divide it between 10 players. That's a laughable 7 Million ISK per day per player. :slowclap: Well played, though I should have seen that coming.
Lynn de'Marco Divine Power. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:38:00 - [115] Originally by: Dramaticus this hurts smaller 0.0 alliances and anyone who wants to try and make inroads into 0.0 much more fyi this^^
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:38:00 - [116] Well, Providence is the most populated space in 0.0. The wealth generated from neutrals seldomly finds its way to the SOV holders wallets. To ensure it DOES generate wealth for the SOV holders, we have to shut out neutrals and reserve the resources for ourselves. Kinda ironic that CCP used CVA/Providence as a template of "how its done".
Crimson11 Targeted Logistics and Manufacturing	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:42:00 - [117] I think by the responses from almost all types of alliances in size, power, and profession, this is not what we thought we were getting. Fail CCP
RevrendStyx Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:43:00 - [118] Originally by: Niding Well, Providence is the most populated space in 0.0. The wealth generated from neutrals seldomly finds its way to the SOV holders wallets. To ensure it DOES generate wealth for the SOV holders, we have to shut out neutrals and reserve the resources for ourselves. Kinda ironic that CCP used CVA/Providence as a template of "how its done". Please CVA guys stop. Just stop. Adapt or die.
Gerard Deneth Caldari Pavlov Labs GmBH Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:43:00 - [119] I think people are missing one key part from this devpost, and I hope that Chronotis makes a quick post to confirm/deny this: Originally by: CCP Chronotis Resource upgrades cost a relatively small amount of ISK (we are looking at a range of 50-500 million ISK) to purchase and require a certain existing appropriate activity level. Note that he says the THE COST TO UPGRADE not the cost to maintain an upgrade. That means you're looking at a 50-500 mil one-shot cost to upgrade, not to maintain it each month. Note as well that the posted upgrade table at the top of the devblog does NOT include the cost of the other upgrades (asteroids/plexes/etc). Perhaps wishful thinking, but I seriously think that a mistake was made reading this thing.... ---------------------------- The Game's always changing under your feet; don't start moaning when you get a toe caught in the gears.
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:43:00 - [120] Originally by: Niding Well, Providence is the most populated space in 0.0. The wealth generated from neutrals seldomly finds its way to the SOV holders wallets. To ensure it DOES generate wealth for the SOV holders, we have to shut out neutrals and reserve the resources for ourselves. Kinda ironic that CCP used CVA/Providence as a template of "how its done". in the near future you can sign contracts with your local neutrals, which automatically bills them each month for the set amount of isk that both parties have agreed upon Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG

evilPHish SyNtHeTiC D.N.A Cold Steel Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:43:00 - [121] At least I now get to say "I told you so" to all the ppl that kept telling me "Dominion is gonna be just fine". Thx for not letting me down CCP. Oh and while you're at it, can we get capture the flag sovereignity for 0.0? And I want Aura yelling "KILLING SPREE". Or one of your accounting guys screaming "Dude, where did our subscribers go???" This patch is a hit below the belt for everyone living in 0.0 or who was planning to move there. A lot of the reasons have already been stated here, 0.0 post-dominion does NOT allow you to go for riches, our NRDS System in Providence, which you so proudly held up as an example of how 0.0 should be is going to be next to impossible to sustain, small entities will NOT have a chance to get into 0.0 because they simply can not afford it, etc... The only thing 0.0 will be after that patch is a big **** for rich and bored alliances. "We are so rich, we self-D a titan every week!" "That's nothing, we have sov in 0.0!" ... --
Speed Freek	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:44:00 - [122] Can CCP please explain how a system can support 10-50 people making isk at the same rate as they would if they did Level 4 Missions in Empire. (And how a corporation can pay for it at 11% tax) The costs need looking into as well - You are only removing the need for 1 Sov holding POS (Possibly 2 for the paranoid Alliances, with poor fuel maintenance). What type of system are you aiming for break-even on, when looking at the old costs vs the new system? Speek Freek
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:46:00 - [123] A. Ha. Aha. Ahahahaha. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha. No wonder you wouldn't give any details, you have no ****ing idea what you're doing. Good job CCP
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:46:00 - [124] Well, Dominion was going to shake things up. It does Here's a new wallpaper for the expansion
Hemmo Paskiainen Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:47:00 - [125] Edited by: Hemmo Paskiainen on 06/11/2009 23:50:14 Originally by: Speed Freek Can CCP please explain how a system can support 10-50 people making isk at the same rate as they would if they did Level 4 Missions in Empire. Maybe they decide to double the amount of bs in a belt for each military level while they increase the quality of the rats aswell. And maybe if they do this i really hope they dont forget to adjust the loot tables from mission rats (lesser mods, or better no loot and boost mining). Would be fun fighting 9 to 15 battleships in a belt Double the amount of rats in a cosmic would be an good option to boost the cosmic's.
Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:49:00 - [126] Originally by: RevrendStyx Your going to have to WORK for your space. Not just sit around and make monies from moon goo. Originally by: RevrendStyx My alliance does not hold any space Excellent. What's your position at CCP by the way?
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:50:00 - [127] Originally by: evilPHish At least I now get to say "I told you so" to all the ppl that kept telling me "Dominion is gonna be just fine". Thx for not letting me down CCP. Oh and while you're at it, can we get capture the flag sovereignity for 0.0? And I want Aura yelling "KILLING SPREE". Or one of your accounting guys screaming "Dude, where did our subscribers go???" This patch is a hit below the belt for everyone living in 0.0 or who was planning to move there. A lot of the reasons have already been stated here, 0.0 post-dominion does NOT allow you to go for riches, our NRDS System in Providence, which you so proudly held up as an example of how 0.0 should be is going to be next to impossible to sustain, small entities will NOT have a chance to get into 0.0 because they simply can not afford it, etc... The only thing 0.0 will be after that patch is a big **** for rich and bored alliances. "We are so rich, we self-D a titan every week!" "That's nothing, we have sov in 0.0!" ... The system itself is a great improvement over what we have now, the numbers need tweaked and if they are going to insist upgrades effect cosmic anomolies then they need fixed. If they are going to effect mining, then mining needs looked at. Maybe they plan for that as well?
Black Bird1000	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:52:00 - [128] Today is the 1st April, isn't it? ISN'T IT?!
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:52:00 - [129] 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
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:54:00 - [130] Originally by: Hemmo Paskiainen Double the amount of rats in a cosmic would be an good option to boost the cosmic's. decent idea Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG

ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:54:00 - [131] Originally by: Gerard Deneth Note that he says the THE COST TO UPGRADE not the cost to maintain an upgrade. That means you're looking at a 50-500 mil one-shot cost to upgrade, not to maintain it each month. Note as well that the posted upgrade table at the top of the devblog does NOT include the cost of the other upgrades (asteroids/plexes/etc). Perhaps wishful thinking, but I seriously think that a mistake was made reading this thing.... But you do realize that sov and HUBs do cost in maintainance too? You can not upgrade a system without it. Point is, those upgrades are not cost effective, to both corporations and members. Its easier to just spread same ammount of ppl in few unclaimed systems then pay for a sov system. Oh and if you say sov system is safer check again, if you want cyno jammer or a jump bridge it costs more in initial and maintainance costs.
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:55:00 - [132] I, too, love treating the game like a job
SamuraiJack Celestial Horizon Corp.	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:55:00 - [133] Originally by: Virtuozzo Well, Dominion was going to shake things up. It does Here's a new wallpaper for the expansion Touche Virt. Next round is yours :P /me waves his scotch bottle. you, you could be anywhere somewhere, so far from here wherever you are, like a fallin' star come back to planet earth, burn out with me =-
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:55:00 - [134] Originally by: Pnuka The system itself is a great improvement over what we have now, the numbers need tweaked and if they are going to insist upgrades effect cosmic anomolies then they need fixed. If they are going to effect mining, then mining needs looked at. Maybe they plan for that as well? The expansion comes out in 3 weeks. No time to make any serious changes. So unless they've been secretly fixing them all this time, mining and anomalies will continue in their current state.
Lynn de'Marco Divine Power. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:56:00 - [135] i can see NPC 0.0 gettign very well populated :)
Johraiken Fenris Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:56:00 - [136] Originally by: Tamahra Originally by: Niding Well, Providence is the most populated space in 0.0. The wealth generated from neutrals seldomly finds its way to the SOV holders wallets. To ensure it DOES generate wealth for the SOV holders, we have to shut out neutrals and reserve the resources for ourselves. Kinda ironic that CCP used CVA/Providence as a template of "how its done". in the near future you can sign contracts with your local neutrals, which automatically bills them each month for the set amount of isk that both parties have agreed upon So for NRDS this means we have to make a contract with everybody NOT red. Although our red list is pretty large, the not-red list is a whole lot longer. I'm sorry, but that is not an option.
RevrendStyx Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:57:00 - [137] Originally by: Josh Silver Originally by: RevrendStyx Your going to have to WORK for your space. Not just sit around and make monies from moon goo. Originally by: RevrendStyx My alliance does not hold any space Excellent. What's your position at CCP by the way? For me to answer this in any fashion you have to clarify why you think I work for ccp.
Kamikazie Amarr AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:58:00 - [138] Quote: Entrapment - increase the chance significantly of a DED complex being located in the depths of your solar system Survey Networks - increase the chance significantly of mini-profession sites being located within your solar system Way to screw over drone lands again. We do not have DED complexes nor do we really have mini profession sites. We don't get archeology sites and the hacking is laughable compared to other regions. Minus these two features were still basically paying for with the cost per day fees. How does CCP plan to balance these new sov mechanics so drone lands don't get bent over the barrel yet again. also food for thought, corps get isk magically for ratting. Drone space we do not, we have to rely on monthly trips to empire to sell alloys and minerals for ISK.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:59:00 - [139] 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
gfldex	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:59:00 - [140] Power to the ppl! /me raises fist

Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:01:00 - [141] 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 Ouch
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:02:00 - [142] Please visit this thread and voice your support if you think agents should be added to the system of upgrades: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210331 --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule
evilPHish SyNtHeTiC D.N.A Cold Steel Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:03:00 - [143] 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 This! --
EvilweaselFinance Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:04:00 - [144] Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Please visit this thread and voice your support if you think agents should be added to the system of upgrades: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210331 we're told the problem is the code is to fubar'd to support it.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:04:00 - [145] 2 billion ISK a month / 10 players = 3 Triple BS-spawns per day killed by each player... ...that sure is way too expensive
SamuraiJack Celestial Horizon Corp.	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:05:00 - [146] Oh and CCP? Mao Tse Tung said change must come Change must come thru the barrel of a gun Not thru talkin' and not through waitin' And sittin' around just contemplatin' the facts 'Cos we know what they are NP: Alabama 3. =- The Chronicles of SamuraiJack
RevrendStyx Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:05:00 - [147] 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.
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:05:00 - [148] Originally by: EvilweaselFinance Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Please visit this thread and voice your support if you think agents should be added to the system of upgrades: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210331 we're told the problem is the code is to fubar'd to support it. i support this idea, if its technically possible........ Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Etien Aldragoran DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:06:00 - [149] Originally by: Kamikazie Quote: Entrapment - increase the chance significantly of a DED complex being located in the depths of your solar system Survey Networks - increase the chance significantly of mini-profession sites being located within your solar system Way to screw over drone lands again. We do not have DED complexes nor do we really have mini profession sites. We don't get archeology sites and the hacking is laughable compared to other regions. Minus these two features were still basically paying for with the cost per day fees. How does CCP plan to balance these new sov mechanics so drone lands don't get bent over the barrel yet again. also food for thought, corps get isk magically for ratting. Drone space we do not, we have to rely on monthly trips to empire to sell alloys and minerals for ISK. That's what you get for ruining morphite prices.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:07:00 - [150] Solution to sov problems: 0.0 alliances need to start griefing the hell out of everyone who lives in empire space until they beg CCP to improve 0.0 enough that we go away. Then we'll see some worthwhile changes.

gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:09:00 - [151] You're gonna ʞɔnɟ up 0.0 ccp OK, it seems none of you play the game you make, but wait, you have a csm. Did you run this by them? Were they down with it? I thought it was their mission to stop you doing stupid ʇıɥs like this
Sellmewarez	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:09:00 - [152] ............................................________ ....................................,.-æö...................``~., .............................,.-ö...................................ô-., .........................,/...............................................ö:, .....................,?......................................................, .................../...........................................................,} ................./......................................................,:`^`..} .............../...................................................,:ö........./ ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../ ............./__.(.....ô~-,_..............................,:`........../ .........../(_....ö~,_........ô~,_....................,:`........_/ ..........{.._$;_......ö=,_.......ô-,_.......,.-~-,},.~ö;/....} ...........((.....~_.......ö=-._......ô;,,./`..../ö............../ ...,,,___.`~,......ô~.,....................`.....}............../ ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-ö ............/.`~,......`-...................................../ .............`~.-,.....................................\|,./.....,__ ,,_..........}.>-._...................................\|..............`=~-, .....`=~-,__......`,................................. ...................`=~-,,.,............................... ................................`:,,...........................`..............__ .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` ........................................_..........._,-%.......` ..................................., That is it? Terrible. If anything it gives people more incentive to go back to empire to make ISK.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:10:00 - [153] 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
L'Artest	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:10:00 - [154] Well, guess we'll just hold sov in r64 and station systems then. No one else is going to want any other systems beside those.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:11:00 - [155] Actually i do enjoy the tears here :D Karma is a ***** (and thats after screwed up capitals "rebalance" Seleene tries to push into dominion).
Alice Celadon	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:11:00 - [156] The REAL problem hasn't been mentioned yet, and it's a simple economic one. We don't sell our finished goods to NPCs in this game...they all go to other players. That means there is a mostly static pool of available ISK in the game which facilitates transactions. CCP just created a monumental ISK sink. Buckets of ISK are about to disappear every 14 days. What mechanic has been put in place to increase the influx of ISK? None. Let me repeat this slowly, because I don't think people get this yet. Moon goo doesn't make ISK. Mining doesn't make ISK. T3 production doesn't make ISK. Bounties, mission rewards, and tags (sleeper belongings, etc.) are the ONLY things that make ISK, and these haven't been buffed in the slightest...but the availability of ISK in general is about to take a massive hit. ... This means one of 3 things. 1. Massive isk generation mechanism CCP hasn't revealed yet. 2. 0.0 gets really abandoned, really quickly. 3. The market goes batpoo insane. As Trit falls off a freaking cliff in comparison to ISK value, BS manufacture/insurance/self-destruct becomes the de-facto method for making ISK. Seriously CCP...don't you morons have an economist working for you? Walk down the freakin hall and ask him about this.
Yosser Hughes GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:11:00 - [157] -Pirate Magnets won't be installed as anomalies aren't run due to lower bounties, no faction/officer spawns and generally take much more effort than belt rating. -Ore Prospecting Array will flood the market with high end minerals and make them worthless, and people will go back to belt ratting/mission running. -Entrapment will crash the price of deadspace gear and people will go back to belt ratting/mission running. -Survey Networks: profession sites aren't worth the effort now, even less so after the inevitable price crash. -Quantum Flux Generator: There's marginal profit in killing sleepers now, guess what this will do (hint: read above) I hope you guys at CCP didn't spend too time thinking about this, because... damn.....
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:14:00 - [158] Originally by: L'Artest Well, guess we'll just hold sov in r64 and station systems then. No one else is going to want any other systems beside those. Why do you need sov to mine moons? Also with the crappiness of upgrades why do you need sov in station systems? Station ownership is decoupled from sov as far as I know.
Hu Evur	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:14:00 - [159] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Solution to sov problems: 0.0 alliances need to start griefing the hell out of everyone who lives in empire space until they beg CCP to improve 0.0 enough that we go away. Then we'll see some worthwhile changes. Your solution is as well thought out as CCP's new sov system. Good luck on your stupid jihad against empire dwellers. You will only drive them out of the game, eliminate your own targets, and thus kill the game. But, that is your whole objective isn't it.
Evelgrivion Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:16:00 - [160] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 07/11/2009 00:17:14 The basis for the daily cost is nothing short of insane. To start with, the raw fuel costs of a large tower are half of what you are estimating; it costs at most 2 million ISK a day to run a large tower. Almost every alliance cuts this down even more by using as many faction large towers as they can, and that number is further reduced by actually having sovereignty. At most, a system should cost us 10 million ISK per day, if not less. At this rate, the rule of thumb is going to be "Don't take up space that you can't 'work like a prostitute'." I'm pretty sure this is opposite of the intended effect, and a second look at those numbers would not go amiss.

Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:21:00 - [161] And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining.
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:24:00 - [162] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 07/11/2009 00:17:14 The basis for the daily cost is nothing short of insane. To start with, the raw fuel costs of a large tower are half of what you are estimating; it costs at most 2 million ISK a day to run a large tower. Almost every alliance cuts this down even more by using as many faction large towers as they can, and that number is further reduced by actually having sovereignty. At most, a system should cost us 10 million ISK per day, if not less. At this rate, the rule of thumb is going to be "Don't take up space that you can't 'work like a prostitute'." I'm pretty sure this is opposite of the intended effect, and a second look at those numbers would not go amiss. Evel, think of it. What is the chance of that happening in 3 weeks time which includes code freeze
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:25:00 - [163] Originally by: Hu Evur Your solution is as well thought out as CCP's new sov system. Good luck on your stupid jihad against empire dwellers. You will only drive them out of the game, eliminate your own targets, and thus kill the game. But, that is your whole objective isn't it. So really, my plan is a pretty good one.
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:26:00 - [164] Edited by: teji on 07/11/2009 00:27:17 Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. And again, a NPC station system costs 0 ISK and can make more isk with 0 upgrades. Each player has to pay 0 million isk to pay this bill.
PaulTheWise	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:29:00 - [165] Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. I'd like to treat Eve as a game, not as a job, thank you very much. That is exactly the reason why I'm stopping doing reactions, it 'forces' me to be online every (other) day to empty silos (both a simple and a complex reaction on 1 large tower sounded fun at first :P ) and make regular (but required) trips to Jita. Forcing me to fork up 7mil a day will have the same effect: me not wanting to play the game any more. The towers skewer the numbers a bit as I can't really say there are days I don't even make 7mil, but back when I was still ratting and missioning (at my own pace :) ), very much so.
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:30:00 - [166] Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 07/11/2009 00:31:57 Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. Vivian has a point. 2 billion divided amongst 10 players for a period of 30 days and each day is around 6.5-7million a day. Wow, that's like shooting...what, 8-10 Battleships in Providence space? (In belts mind you). Its not really that bad. Though the upgrades I agree need to be looked over, but I believe CCP might have forgotten the belt-related ones....unless they have no intention of fixing those. (I hope not btw...) Further edit: Btw, that's with 10 FREAKING PEOPLE. Imagine around 50 which is about the minimum any alliance is going to need to take any system in any 0.0 space. A whopping 1.5million a day. OH NO, 2 RATS!!!!!!!!!! sheesh, work together for once, I think that's what 0.0 lacks right now, wayyyy too much solo within corps/alliances, not enough working together. --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:30:00 - [167] How does this give any incentive at all to spend my time making money in 0.0 over running level 4s? Im going to have less space with more competition which will drive down isk earned. This actually makes level 4's more attractive which is the worst thing you can do for null sec.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:32:00 - [168] Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. hmm, 7mill x 30 days = 210mill for not much more you can buy a plex. so your assumption is that everyone is rich enough to pay their subscription via plex. which leads to: everyone is rich enough to pay for two plexes a month, or post patch players will have to pay $15 per month to hold sov given that people buy plex to sell for isk, I think you might be off the mark a bit.
Yosser Hughes GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:33:00 - [169] Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. And you still need just as many starbases, which cost more now due to a drop in the sovereignty fuel bonus
Valrandir Elemental Mercury Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:34:00 - [170] Excellent™ This has surpassed the Yarrdware specification and has been dubbed Uberware.

Tiger Kior Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:36:00 - [171] CCP is out to lunch with these costs, not only does this absolutely make 0.0 cost prohibitive it means any alliance, especially smaller ones, need to spend vast amounts of time farming isk to maintain the space they want to own. How are smaller alliances expected to break into 0.0 with these costs, not to mention if said smaller alliances need to actually engage in a sov war with tangible combat to gain space then the costs become exceedingly cost prohibitive. The smaller entity needs to fund a war and obscene sov costs, which I hate to say it is just not going to happen with how these costs are structured.
Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:36:00 - [172] Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 07/11/2009 00:36:41 Yikes. Talk about a lot of unhappy players. CCP are you listening? You guys better have a big meeting to discuss your 0.0 Dominion infrastructure plans because your player base doesn't seem to be happy - at all.
Stormdeath modro	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:40:00 - [173] These numbers are unsustainable. You think it looks okay because the number of people and splitting the cost between them. You don't run or pay for an alliance. It is about ability to tax if the alliances still wants to hold station systems and other important systems thru holding corps. Also you will no longer see the jump bridge networks increasing your defense and roam ability at 3.5b a month for each. The thing I have been really worried about during this process of sov revamping has been the idea of increasing the alliance/corporation expenses while not increasing any of the static income(non active sources of income), infact with the changes to moon minerals you are decreasing the alliance static incomes with a slight increase to the corp. I know CCP does not like these income sources but without them you get into taxing the crap out of your member base. There is not a single person in the game that is happy with 20-25h% tax rate or 20m a month in fees, for a 50 man corp to hold one system with only basic upgrades. Move over empire people it's about to get alot more crowded.
Hu Evur	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:42:00 - [174] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang So really, my plan is a pretty good one. Yeah, it depends if you want this: "0.0 alliances need to start griefing the hell out of everyone who lives in empire space until they beg CCP to improve 0.0 enough that we go away. Then we'll see some worthwhile changes."; or, to simply grief people out of the game and kill it. Either way I think if CCP doesn't fix the present proposal we probably won't get to discover which objective motivates your suggested fix to what appears to be a flawed new sov proposal. I say appears to be because we still do not have the full proposal, which will come "soon ~" (note use of tilda). Anyway, as a couple others have already stated, did not see anything in this blog about sliding scale costs as number of systems claimed increases. Unless we missed it, in which case thanks in advance to someone who can point it out.
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:43:00 - [175] perhaps the economic/military upgrades need to be a little more potent than they are. That's the way to adress any balance rather than cost: a high cost/high reward balance will end the AFK empires while a low cost/ low reward balance will simply be like today with afk empires held for epeen and moons except tech and neo will replace dys and prom (on that note, please fix the technetium bottleneck ccp )
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:44:00 - [176] Originally by: Stormdeath These numbers are unsustainable. You think it looks okay because the number of people and splitting the cost between them. You don't run or pay for an alliance. It is about ability to tax if the alliances still wants to hold station systems and other important systems thru holding corps. Also you will no longer see the jump bridge networks increasing your defense and roam ability at 3.5b a month for each. The thing I have been really worried about during this process of sov revamping has been the idea of increasing the alliance/corporation expenses while not increasing any of the static income(non active sources of income), infact with the changes to moon minerals you are decreasing the alliance static incomes with a slight increase to the corp. I know CCP does not like these income sources but without them you get into taxing the crap out of your member base. There is not a single person in the game that is happy with 20-25h% tax rate or 20m a month in fees, for a 50 man corp to hold one system with only basic upgrades. Move over empire people it's about to get alot more crowded. 7 million ISK per player each day, if 10 players contribute for a single system... yeah... you really need to tax them with 25%... LOL
Evelgrivion Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:45:00 - [177] Extra quantities of crap material will never convince people to go there when they would not before. Upgrades need to improve the quality of raw materials and encounter sites, not just the quantity of them.
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:46:00 - [178] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 07/11/2009 00:55:15 Sorry, but those "upgrades" are worthless and not what any of us were expecting them to be. We need upgrades that: Increase the number of belts in a system. Increase the security rating of the system to spawn better rats or ores. Increase the number of rats that spawn in a system. Decrease the spawn timer of rats, from 20 minutes to 10 minutes. More upgrades like these ^ If you want each system to support 50 people like ya'll have been touting, you need significant changes to this proposed system, because those changes listed do nothing to help support more players! Also: It's a bad mechanic to do a straight cost per day per system model. You should have done a scaling system. IE the first system costs you 1 million per day. You claim a second system....now both of your systems cost you 2 million per day, claim a 3rd and all cost 3 million per day, and so forth. This means small alliances can break into 00 starting out, and also means the large alliances can get what they need but get hammered if they try to gain 3 regions of space.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:47:00 - [179] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 07/11/2009 00:31:57 Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. Vivian has a point. 2 billion divided amongst 10 players for a period of 30 days and each day is around 6.5-7million a day. Wow, that's like shooting...what, 8-10 Battleships in Providence space? (In belts mind you). Its not really that bad. Though the upgrades I agree need to be looked over, but I believe CCP might have forgotten the belt-related ones....unless they have no intention of fixing those. (I hope not btw...) Further edit: Btw, that's with 10 FREAKING PEOPLE. Imagine around 50 which is about the minimum any alliance is going to need to take any system in any 0.0 space. A whopping 1.5million a day. OH NO, 2 RATS!!!!!!!!!! sheesh, work together for once, I think that's what 0.0 lacks right now, wayyyy too much solo within corps/alliances, not enough working together. --Isaac His point fails once you introduce some simple human behaviour. Everyone out in 0.0 has been bottling up steam and a lot of patience towards Dominion to bring back something other then structures to shoot . So, while instead of less we get more structure types to shoot at and deal with, with more timers even if admittedly at a somewhat faster pace, there is still virtually no incentive for people who are not already out there to actually go there. And those who do, are the very thing those hordes of frustrated and disappointed l33t pvp'ers have been waiting for, and will descend on to gank and grief 23/7 to hell and beyond. Try keeping that bridge up when at any time a day there are cloaking force recons around just waiting to portal in bomber fleets because there is someone living in space again Anyway, all that aside. The ones CCP wants to move out here are the ones who define everything by level 4 mission income and risk. Do the math from there on. Then add the silly part about exploration, which requires effort, and wastes a ton of time since you still get in each other's way cause you have no way of identifying who is (already) doing what and where. It's hilarious. Subscribers take things to excess, as a rule. Apply that to the basic picture. Even without doing the math that becomes a pretty ugly picture. On the bright side, since the consequences will only become visible over several months time, by the time things get really funny we will have new shiny to get dazzled by. I'm quite sure there will be drama and soap in the months to come in the large powerblocks, but once they learn to specialise in roles and functions we will once more go back to an equilibrium. Control is not a problem, and rebellion an incredibly easily bypassed risk. But the ones who currently have the most ISK in stock, will have to be incredibly stupid to loose their leadership positions on the map.
Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:49:00 - [180] Originally by: Vivian Azure 2 billion ISK a month / 10 players = 3 Triple BS-spawns per day killed by each player... ...that sure is way too expensive Decent triple-BS spawns take a long, long time to groom. Like multiple hours while you are at the mercy of any simpleton to break your chains and ruin your "work" We had faint hopes the patch would make excactly that easier, so 0.0 beltratting would come close to hisec mission running, ISK wise. We wanted the rat upgrade to give BETTER or FASTER spawns or MORE BELTS or anything useful really, anything... And we got +x crappy Anomalies which is a kick in the balls with steel-capped Doc Martens.

Jordan Musgrat H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:49:00 - [181] It should be mentioned that it's not really even the costs that are a problem here, we could care less how much you charge us to hold systems. What the problem is, is that you haven't given us a way to support "50-100" people making isk in a single system. Face it, ratting is the best way to make isk, unless you boost cosmic sites and such. A system with 15 belts will only ever be able to support 3 people, max. Maybe another 3 will run the 10/10 for an hour or 2. We thought you would give us more belts and such, that would be really great you know. Else, you could just fix all the mini professions. But as it stands, either you need to release more information, or you're going to break the 0.0 economy only to have to fix it later. Just get it right the first time please. ----------- Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0...
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:51:00 - [182] Originally by: Hu Evur Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang So really, my plan is a pretty good one. Yeah, it depends if you want this: "0.0 alliances need to start griefing the hell out of everyone who lives in empire space until they beg CCP to improve 0.0 enough that we go away. Then we'll see some worthwhile changes."; or, to simply grief people out of the game and kill it. To be honest, I'm okay with either. If CCP fixes the game and I get to go back to 0.0 and have fun then that's cool. If the game burns to the ground and everyone leaves, well, that'll be fun for me too. Either way I win.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:52:00 - [183] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 00:53:25 Originally by: Soleil Fournier Sorry, but those "upgrades" are worthless and not what any of us were expecting them to be. We need upgrades that: Increase the number of belts in a system. Increase the security rating of the system to spawn better rats or ores. Increase the number of rats that spawn in a system. Decrease the spawn timer of rats, from 20 minutes to 10 minutes. More upgrades like these ^ If you want each system to support 50 people like ya'll have been touting, you need significant changes to this proposed system, because those changes listed do nothing to help support more players! Sounds like: "Give me 100 Million ISK a day for free please." Originally by: Josh Silver Originally by: Vivian Azure 2 billion ISK a month / 10 players = 3 Triple BS-spawns per day killed by each player... ...that sure is way too expensive Decent triple-BS spawns take a long, long time to groom. Like multiple hours while you are at the mercy of any simpleton to break your chains and ruin your "work" We had faint hopes the patch would make excactly that easier, so 0.0 beltratting would come close to hisec mission running, ISK wise. We wanted the rat upgrade to give BETTER or FASTER spawns or MORE BELTS or anything useful really, anything... And we got +x crappy Anomalies which is a kick in the balls with steel-capped Doc Martens. Lol... three crappy BS-spawns, which you can find in every third belt in 0.0 is totally enough allready. But yeah, keep whining, that you as a member has to contribute to pay the alliance-bills.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:53:00 - [184] Originally by: Hu Evur Your solution is as well thought out as CCP's new sov system. Good luck on your stupid jihad against empire dwellers. You will only drive them out of the game, eliminate your own targets, and thus kill the game. But, that is your whole objective isn't it. Maybe that is the intended game mechanics, make way for Dust or something Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. And that would be under assumption every player goes into belts every day for few hours, to make at least 14mil ISK daily so he can pay half to corp so corp can pay for sov. I dont think that leaves much space for some ppl to get online, get in gang and enjoy an hour or two they have of free time for pure pew pew fun or just chat. And what about ppl that are already doing a lot of work for corporations, do they need to pay too? Does eve need to become work? And if you get attacked, who is gonna make ISK for bills when you have to defend that sov?
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:55:00 - [185] i am sure fully upgraded system - about 2 bil isk a month - will support much more than 10 people. Then Monthly cost per month will be laughable. I see multi time zone corp/alliances benefit from it. They can operate in much lesser space with greater efficieny. Also moons will not become worthless , and more minerals will be profitable to mine that will help paying bills for sure. Also i dont like upgrade that spawn wormholes. It will cripple game for wormhole corporations.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:57:00 - [186] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 i am sure fully upgraded system - about 2 bil isk a month - will support much more than 10 people. How? ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Lynn de'Marco Divine Power. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:57:00 - [187] Edited by: Lynn de''Marco on 07/11/2009 00:59:05 Originally by: ElvenLord And that would be under assumption every player goes into belts every day for few hours, to make at least 14mil ISK daily so he can pay half to corp so corp can pay for sov. I dont think that leaves much space for some ppl to get online, get in gang and enjoy an hour or two they have of free time for pure pew pew fun or just chat. And what about ppl that are already doing a lot of work for corporations, do they need to pay too? Does eve need to become work? And if you get attacked, who is gonna make ISK for bills when you have to defend that sov? +1, also some peopel can't play every day..... so someone who goes away for a weekend shoudl come back and have to pay 21mil to their corp?
L'Artest	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:58:00 - [188] Edited by: L''Artest on 07/11/2009 00:58:19 Exodus: Empire Edition
Arric Rohr Gallente Intergalactic Science LLC	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:59:00 - [189] Seems to me that to serve their purpose they should drop the price for one system to about 50% of that, then scale it so each additional system adds 5% or so. (Totally random numbers.) So it's easy to get started, but getting really big costs you. Also, from reading the Dev blogs, I got the impression that upgrading your system would increase the quality not the quantity. However, aren't belts and rats as they exist now going to go away in the fairly near future? Maybe at that point these upgrades will mean something. AR Where do I get one of those cool signatures?
Hugh Hefner Caldari Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 00:59:00 - [190] Originally by: Kalissa The bigger alliances will be crying buckets over those sov changes. Nice! The bigger? How damn clueless can a person be, this will drive most smaller alliances out of 0.0. Dont worry though, CCP is even more clueless = 20 million a day for sov = like 5 large pos. A. Those 5 large pos payed for themselves in most cases = REACTION. So this new cost is excactly that, a new cost, a new burden. B. Fuel-costs aint solely negative, you see you buy fuel from other gamers mostly, some of them even in your own alliance, it provides income. This new cost is a pure isk-sink. Now I doubt it will cause deflation on the market cause only the most clueless will bother paying those bills. Bigger alliances can afford to upkeep a smaller jumpbridge-network and some key systems for super-cap-building no doubt, but most systems will have no sov, thus no owner, thus no real reason to populate a area beyond roaming for reds(for non-blues if you aint NRDS ) or solo-rat = less carebears for pvpers to shoot, less pvpers for carebears to sell ships to and less fun overall in 0.0. The few smaller alliances that invest in some system will soon have it spoiled by random larger alliance frustrated from lack of targets and thus reduced to griefing them instead for some short-lived fun. Seriously, I can see nothing good with this whole damn Dominion-idea, if the costs was a tenth of what you describe, then perhaps, but this...

Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:00:00 - [191] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 01:02:12 Originally by: ElvenLord Originally by: Hu Evur Your solution is as well thought out as CCP's new sov system. Good luck on your stupid jihad against empire dwellers. You will only drive them out of the game, eliminate your own targets, and thus kill the game. But, that is your whole objective isn't it. Maybe that is the intended game mechanics, make way for Dust or something Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. And that would be under assumption every player goes into belts every day for few hours, to make at least 14mil ISK daily so he can pay half to corp so corp can pay for sov. I dont think that leaves much space for some ppl to get online, get in gang and enjoy an hour or two they have of free time for pure pew pew fun or just chat. And what about ppl that are already doing a lot of work for corporations, do they need to pay too? Does eve need to become work? And if you get attacked, who is gonna make ISK for bills when you have to defend that sov? A Battlecruiser-spawn is some 600k ISK allready, so 7 Million ISK takes some 30 minutes of ratting in an utterly crap 0.0-system... not hours. So excuse me, but if you as a member can't contribute 30 minutes a day to pay the bills of your alliance, then you're a lazy bum and should get kicked out of your alliance 0.0 space. --- I can see why all of the big alliance-players are whining so much... they have to do some 30 minutes of work per day contributing to their alliance and the alliance won't be able to build tons of Titans, Moms and Dreads anymore for their lazy members... oh the joy
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:01:00 - [192] Did anyone listen to me when we were arguing about this in iceland? I had 4 words for you in regards to 0.0: IS IT WORTH IT? Right now it sure isn't looking like it. Stay in highsec running L4s everyone, there's still no incentive to life in 0.0. 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
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:02:00 - [193] Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 07/11/2009 01:03:56 Originally by: Vivian Azure A Battlecruiser-spawn is some 600k ISK allready, so 7 Million ISK takes some 30 minutes of ratting in an utterly crap 0.0-system... not hours. So excuse me, but if you as a member can't contribute 30 minutes a day to pay the bills of your alliance, then you're a lazy bum and should get kicked out of your alliance 0.0 space. I love things that make games more like jobs. 30 minutes a day, 365 days in a year. That's about 183 hours a year per person to support sov. Even working a minimum wage job, that's over a thousand dollars. I think I found a better use of that time.
Sellmewarez	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:02:00 - [194] And really why do i want to spend more time ratting and jockeying to find a decent place to make isk when its already as boring as hell? If im in 0.0 the rewards should be a VAST increase over anywhere else so i can spend less time choring isk, which is a nice way to burn out, and have more time to pew pew because really thats whats 0.0 is all about right? With the proposed updates this only makes making isk for the average 0.0 pilot more difficult and more frustrating than it currently is. You know all those vast quantities of deserted systems with like 4 asteroid belts and low sec status? They are still going to be useless because no one would bother trying to 'upgrade' them when its simply not worth their time.
Dominus Insania Conflagration. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:04:00 - [195] was't this supose to be a pvp game ? with this new patch u gonne turn us all into carebears just so we can pay the freaking bill's sov shoud be held by combat, fighting over it, not by paying bill's and shooting rat's, we have enough of this in RL i forsee that all alliances wil drop in numbers becos evryone will put there alt in an npc corp to farm lvl 4's way to go ccp !!!
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:04:00 - [196] Interesting. I'm going to assume that the plaintive cries from those alliances who 'hold' large numbers of systems means that CCP have probably hit the right formula here. C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
IT Yassir	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:05:00 - [197] Originally by: ElvenLord Originally by: Hu Evur Your solution is as well thought out as CCP's new sov system. Good luck on your stupid jihad against empire dwellers. You will only drive them out of the game, eliminate your own targets, and thus kill the game. But, that is your whole objective isn't it. Maybe that is the intended game mechanics, make way for Dust or something Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. And that would be under assumption every player goes into belts every day for few hours, to make at least 14mil ISK daily so he can pay half to corp so corp can pay for sov. I dont think that leaves much space for some ppl to get online, get in gang and enjoy an hour or two they have of free time for pure pew pew fun or just chat. And what about ppl that are already doing a lot of work for corporations, do they need to pay too? Does eve need to become work? And if you get attacked, who is gonna make ISK for bills when you have to defend that sov? Nobody will attack anymore - why would you attack anything when if u attack something nvm will be harder to replace caps then you have another 10 bil to pay in the new sov you gather - with dominion people will go in defensive mode.Corps will have to increase tax drastically Alliance in stead of payng corps and sharing the isk they will be forced to tax corps ho will be forced to tax members. So all this thing dose is make the average member upset.Now why go into a 0.0 corp anymore so they can tax ya 100 mil per month ? I recommend cpp to drop those prices to this: Base cost : 5 mil per day + hub say 7 Full upgraded system to be like 25. And will be bit more manegebale. Upgrades should be also : Roid size increase rather then extra belt by say 20% per level so rather then having a extra belt u got same belts (easier to code) and more profit so u can actualy support more ppl. Rats bounty increase by say 7.5% per level Blow the worm spanner device with a faction spawn er device. Then ppl will be happy, Also ccp said something some upgrades are tied with the tier upgrades of a station.Or was it me.
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:06:00 - [198] Originally by: Zastrow Did anyone listen to me when we were arguing about this in iceland? I had 4 words for you in regards to 0.0: IS IT WORTH IT? Right now it sure isn't looking like it. Stay in highsec running L4s everyone, there's still no incentive to life in 0.0. Never thought I'd post this in a feedback thread. What he said ^^ Just keep in mind the "is it worth it" signifies more then "isk", since value is dependant on volume, and effort has become one of the biggest stumbling blocks to get people out of empire, maybe even a bigger one than the eternal holy level 4 pay rate grail.
Caliph Scorpionsting Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:08:00 - [199] I read the blog, but I didn't see a fix for anything? Where is the sov fix guys? Surely something that breaks sovereignty wouldn't be called a fix, right? Seriously though, if this goes live then there is no reason to hold space. Doing missions in a newbie corp with the 11% tax will be the only smart way to make money. I would like to see how you came up with all these figures. CCP: Are you honestly this out of touch with the state of a game that you made yourself?
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:09:00 - [200] Originally by: Josh Silver Originally by: Vivian Azure 2 billion ISK a month / 10 players = 3 Triple BS-spawns per day killed by each player... ...that sure is way too expensive Decent triple-BS spawns take a long, long time to groom. Like multiple hours while you are at the mercy of any simpleton to break your chains and ruin your "work" We had faint hopes the patch would make excactly that easier, so 0.0 beltratting would come close to hisec mission running, ISK wise. We wanted the rat upgrade to give BETTER or FASTER spawns or MORE BELTS or anything useful really, anything... And we got +x crappy Anomalies which is a kick in the balls with steel-capped Doc Martens. Just to clarify his point: You need to shoot 3 Battleships. Just 3. Per day. 3 = day. That's really not hard considering I was shooting 10 per half hour in Providence. (Guessing here as its been a while....) --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"

Stevens Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:09:00 - [201] Originally by: Vivian Azure A Battlecruiser-spawn is some 600k ISK allready, so 7 Million ISK takes some 30 minutes of ratting in an utterly crap 0.0-system... not hours. So excuse me, but if you as a member can't contribute 30 minutes a day to pay the bills of your alliance, then you're a lazy bum and should get kicked out of your alliance 0.0 space. --- I can see why all of the big alliance-players are whining so much... they have to do some 30 minutes of work per day contributing to their alliance and the alliance won't be able to build tons of Titans, Moms and Dreads anymore for their lazy members... oh the joy Or go run missions in high sec with 0 risk max reward and not claim 0.0. As many have pointed out 0.0 space is worth nothing now. Things people fought over before we r64s but the cost of holding and defending an r64 (2bil in just bills not anything) will completely negate any money you make.
Hrin Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:09:00 - [202] Why even have a CSM?
Hunter Exodus	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:11:00 - [203] CCP, start doing some real total simulation numbers, where most of all the time goes to everyone holding space moon mines and rats all days, meaning less pvp, meaning less demand on moon products and less ships blown up, do those numbers b4 u post stuff next time. THINK dudes, u seriously are out of WHACK with at least half your costs proposed with your thinking here. With these levels of new ISK sinks, there is no incentive to not live in empire doing missions and gank people in 0.0, versus doing the mundane tasks that is a real life job of 0.0 space holding. Its a job of clearing space out for hostiles and then you just added the work load to the 10 fold need of what it is today, to mine all and every moon and ship that to empire after reacting that stuff. Beside doing all the work to run a 0.0 alliance. Now, why am I paying for tons of accounts and sitting here all day again? What is exactly the 0.0 incentive for me with your proposed changes?
Lynn de'Marco Divine Power. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:12:00 - [204] /me getting bored of people in non 0.0 corps quoting the 7mil per member per day thing.
c0rn1 Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:13:00 - [205] lol. that's really funny, isn't it? I mean it's common that sov holding alliances take a fee of renters to use their space BUT if every a sov holding alliance would've put up those numbers to renters they'd call it a rip-off and no renter ever would go to 0.0. This is just hilarious, CCP. Remove the fees you suggested and make it a smart system. For example: you aim at 50-100 people per system (That's what you said is the amount of people 1 system can take). so take the alliance number of pilots into account as well. something like that for 1 system: 500 bn * [number of current systems] / alliance members - 5bn. Then you get a nice distribution and actually attract even small alliances (300+ ppl) to take space in 0.0. Your aim would be a distribution of 0.01 system/member. if that requirement is met, the alliance fulfils the requirement of 0.0 space without any fee since they have a 100% efficiency. So a 300 people alliance can take 3 systems in 0.0 at 0 cost. Each additional system costs them extra cash and the more they take, the exponential more they have to pay: Let's see the different relevances with different alliance numbers: 300 Members 1 - 3 Systems is free of charge and for each additional system: 1,6666 bn ISK Distributed to all systems holding: 1-3 Systems: 0 ISK / system 4 Systems: 416 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 1.66 bn ISK 5 Systems: 666 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 3.32 bn ISK 6 Systems: 833 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 5 bn ISK 10 Systems: 1.16 bn / system \| Monthly Bill = 11.6 bn ISK 1500 Members: 1-15 Systems free of charge and for each additional system: 333 mil 1-15 Systems: 0 ISK / system 16 Systems: 20.8 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 333 mil ISK 20 Systems: 83.3 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 1.665 bn ISK 30 Systems: 166 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 5.995 bn ISK 50 Systems: 233 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 11.667 bn ISK 5000 Members: 1-50 Systems free of charge and for each additional System: 100 mil 51 Systems: 2 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 100 mill 60 Systems: 16 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 1 bn ISK 80 Systems: 37.5 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 3bn ISK 100 Systems: 50 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 5bn ISK 150 Systems: 66 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 10bn ISK 200 Systems: 75 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 15bn ISK Now you can get an additional factor into this: The factor would be the actual presence in the systems: Take as a base the system local. Count the undocked or moving pilots in that system of that explicit alliance over the day and calculate the average attendence to the system. Let's take 100 as base number of pilots which should be active in that system over a day since it would mean a maximum usage as well. do we only have a max count of 50 pilots over the day in that system it would mean only a 50% usage of it. calculatint the usage through all system will bring something between 30-70% overall usage. To bring this factor into our equation: (500 bn * [number of current systems] / alliance members - 5bn) / usage (50% = 0.5). Voilß, we have what we want. A progressing fee for our systems which actually attracts smaller entities into 0.0 as well since they do have nothing to pay for a certain amount of systems, but puts into progression the actual usage of systems. And if you tell me know larger alliances will start to make fleets just to visit their systems and have 100% usage. So be it if they don't have anything better to do than roam 2h through 200 systems of their empire. Sooner or later the consolidation of the territory will be the easier way to achieve a lower fee. cheers c0rn1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Life's a waste of time ...
pc dude Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:13:00 - [206] What I am most curious about is what method will be used to transition from the curret sov system to the new one. 1. Will all structures in use be given the appropriate upgrades so long as they are a struture usable in a given system by the new sov rules? 2. Will all systems in which sov is currently held freely recieve F.L.A.G.s? 3. When transfering over levels of sov, will the new measurement of sov be used, or the old levels? 4. When will maintainence costs take effect if all systems in which sov are currently held are transfered to the new sov system? 5. What about this system prevents vast swaths of territory being claimed other than the minimal cost? To ask it differently, will there be a cumulative increase as more territory is claimed? If no such penalty is incurred, I see little change coming in the size of space claimed. for comparison let us consider goonswarm (155 sov systems, 3.1 bil cost per period, 6.2bil per month is just over 1 mil isk per member), against all authorities (4.6 bil/month)or the alliance w/ more systems than anyone else, shadow of xxdeathxx ( 7.8 bil/month) this may sound like a lot of isk at first, but before accounting for the isk farmers plugged into these systems, this is not much isk. i know a guy that could pretty easily pull this down in a month of tedious, boring, but lucrative carebearing alone(and lol he's among the more pvp types i know) this is not to say that I have a problem with this necessarily, it just seems contrary to the goal of the new system, so I ask if there is something that we just do not know yet 6. Next question, where will these structures be placed. We know the FLAGs go on the gates, but what of claim units, hubs and associated structures? Which of these structures will have beacons attatched to them? 7. Can the upgrades be attacked seperatly? For example, could I (and my superblob fleet of SUPREAM DOOMINESS) destroy the upgrade permitting cyno jammers disabling the online cynojammer and preventing any others from going down? Or are the upgrades just numbers floating around the infastructure hub? 8. Any chance of getting the benifits from the upgrades individually labled to make it easier to make use of them in concert with others? For example, rather than a new plex spawning with it's name as usual, perhaps it would be labled as (plex name) 2 (occupied), but only viewable as such to members of the alliance and perhaps also blues. 9. Can one intentionally downgrade to save isk? 10. Are there new roles associated with the new sov mechanics so we need not give out directorship just for someone to be able to operate the new spiffy things? (simple roles plz) Well the wife is calling me to dinner. If i have more questions, you shall have to wait until i return later ^.^
IT Yassir	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:14:00 - [207] Originally by: Lynn de'Marco /me getting bored of people in non 0.0 corps quoting the 7mil per member per day thing. Exactly ^^ Tell you guys what if ure CEO came to you and said you had to pay him 7 mil per day to stay in his corp wut would you do ?
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:14:00 - [208] Originally by: Lynn de'Marco /me getting bored of people in non 0.0 corps quoting the 7mil per member per day thing. Sorry, I'm in a transition phase. This IS my main, and I WAS in 0.0 several times. --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
Mynas Atoch UK Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:18:00 - [209] Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 07/11/2009 01:18:54 So station costs treble, but we'll have to pay if we want to keep them. Breidge costs treble, so we'll shut down all but the most important. POS fuel bonus nerfed so we'll drop sov in all non station/bridge systems. Which, tbh, is pretty much cost neutral - the loss of sov pos in non station systems balances the cost of sov in stations. The sole result for alliances is fewer jumpbridges and slightly more expensive moon mining. Macroeconomic factors - huge new isk sink - might affect this, but not immediatly. a) no effect for players b) less work for infrastructure POS teams c) a new toy for alliance managements Now ... prove that an infrastructure module can pay for itself in an NON-strategic system and we have something further to discuss. Till, then shrug Myn
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:18:00 - [210] Originally by: Vivian Azure A Battlecruiser-spawn is some 600k ISK allready, so 7 Million ISK takes some 30 minutes of ratting in an utterly crap 0.0-system... not hours. So excuse me, but if you as a member can't contribute 30 minutes a day to pay the bills of your alliance, then you're a lazy bum and should get kicked out of your alliance 0.0 space. --- I can see why all of the big alliance-players are whining so much... they have to do some 30 minutes of work per day contributing to their alliance and the alliance won't be able to build tons of Titans, Moms and Dreads anymore for their lazy members... oh the joy So you are suggesting eve-online should instead of game become work. Also you really need to get a clue. For starters if you think building a single titan is that easy why arent you building them? Do you even know how much resources/time/effort it takes to even start building one? Do you even know what it takes to live in 0.0 space and what risks there are? Cause if it was that simple every 2 char corp would have an alliance and a sov system with station. Also in this game there are corporations that are made out of RL friends, or ppl that became friends over time. We play together cause this is not work this is game, but I understand that concept of friendship might be strange to you.

Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:19:00 - [211] CCP Chronotis - "Military Index The military index is based upon killing NPCs, a favourite past time of many of you and you get more points, the bigger the NPC is. Simple and straightforward!" I was going to counter point with this quote but I misread it. I thought it was "the more points you have the bigger the NPC's are" Well most Anomalies are crap, but some are worth a 20 million and a ton of battleship salvage, and Drone ones can offer some variation to your salvage letting you make different rigs. To be honest, the Grav sites might be worth it it rats didn't spawn in them, it's almost worth the effort to mine them but it's rarely worth the ship to tank. I was pretty excited by the changes but they went a little more conservative on the upgrades then I thought they would. Seriously I was expecting x3 ratting efficiency at the least.
Caliph Scorpionsting Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:20:00 - [212] These proposed changes really and truly are garbage. I have never run a cosmic anomaly. I don't know anyone who has ever run an anomaly. The amount of bounty and salvage that is dropped from deadspace npcs is already less than regular belt rats. I don't want more trash. I want something tangible. There is no reason not to live in empire if this goes live. If this ridiculous stuff goes live, all the major power blocs in 0.0 should just never fight. If this is CCP's "fix" to 0.0, then we can collectively turn it right back around and "break" it on them. If all the power blocs work collectively towards one end, we can force a meaningful change to 0.0 out of ccp. That collective end? Terrorize everyone in empire. Devote all of your resources to the unbridled destruction of EVERY resource people have in high sec. Wardec every mission runner. Suicide every. single. mission runner. When Empire is a barren wasteland, the product of a war machine fueled by running missions and various other non-0.0 related activities, it will be intolerable for everyone. The catalyst for change can come from within the game if CCP refuses to make 0.0 worth living in and claiming.
Tangonis Galt Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:20:00 - [213] Originally by: Fuujin Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 06/11/2009 23:09:51 When I read crap like you're posting here... oh boy. The upgrade is ment to draw tons of money out of the whole system. Players that strive for personal profits are not welcome in 0.0, they can run LvL 4 missions. 0.0 is about groups playing together, so all the money that can be made in a system is ment to fuel the alliance/corps holding the systems. I alone can pay 2 Billion for an upgraded system by simply ratting in it on a daily basis. And now have 10 people do it and the bill is absolutely laughable. Hi, what 90 belt system are you playing in? If you spend the hours needed to properly chain belts, and if you don't have any asshats coming and blowing up the chains, you can sustain maybe a half dozen ratters in a very high belt count system (15+). But that's only after several hours worth of work in cleaning out crap spawns--and that's assuming your system even gets decent ones (most 0.0 sucks). Chaining belts is SO 2006. If you are really ratting that way and your post was not simply a Troll, then when you learn to Rat correctly, you won't be so scared about Dominion. .
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:22:00 - [214] CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP.
adriaans Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:22:00 - [215] Originally by: c0rn1 lol. that's really funny, isn't it? I mean it's common that sov holding alliances take a fee of renters to use their space BUT if every a sov holding alliance would've put up those numbers to renters they'd call it a rip-off and no renter ever would go to 0.0. This is just hilarious, CCP. Remove the fees you suggested and make it a smart system. For example: you aim at 50-100 people per system (That's what you said is the amount of people 1 system can take). so take the alliance number of pilots into account as well. something like that for 1 system: 500 bn * [number of current systems] / alliance members - 5bn. Then you get a nice distribution and actually attract even small alliances (300+ ppl) to take space in 0.0. Your aim would be a distribution of 0.01 system/member. if that requirement is met, the alliance fulfils the requirement of 0.0 space without any fee since they have a 100% efficiency. So a 300 people alliance can take 3 systems in 0.0 at 0 cost. Each additional system costs them extra cash and the more they take, the exponential more they have to pay: Let's see the different relevances with different alliance numbers: 300 Members 1 - 3 Systems is free of charge and for each additional system: 1,6666 bn ISK Distributed to all systems holding: 1-3 Systems: 0 ISK / system 4 Systems: 416 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 1.66 bn ISK 5 Systems: 666 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 3.32 bn ISK 6 Systems: 833 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 5 bn ISK 10 Systems: 1.16 bn / system \| Monthly Bill = 11.6 bn ISK 1500 Members: 1-15 Systems free of charge and for each additional system: 333 mil 1-15 Systems: 0 ISK / system 16 Systems: 20.8 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 333 mil ISK 20 Systems: 83.3 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 1.665 bn ISK 30 Systems: 166 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 5.995 bn ISK 50 Systems: 233 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 11.667 bn ISK 5000 Members: 1-50 Systems free of charge and for each additional System: 100 mil 51 Systems: 2 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 100 mill 60 Systems: 16 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 1 bn ISK 80 Systems: 37.5 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 3bn ISK 100 Systems: 50 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 5bn ISK 150 Systems: 66 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 10bn ISK 200 Systems: 75 mil / system \| Monthly Bill = 15bn ISK Now you can get an additional factor into this: The factor would be the actual presence in the systems: Take as a base the system local. Count the undocked or moving pilots in that system of that explicit alliance over the day and calculate the average attendence to the system. Let's take 100 as base number of pilots which should be active in that system over a day since it would mean a maximum usage as well. do we only have a max count of 50 pilots over the day in that system it would mean only a 50% usage of it. calculatint the usage through all system will bring something between 30-70% overall usage. To bring this factor into our equation: (500 bn * [number of current systems] / alliance members - 5bn) / usage (50% = 0.5). Voilß, we have what we want. A progressing fee for our systems which actually attracts smaller entities into 0.0 as well since they do have nothing to pay for a certain amount of systems, but puts into progression the actual usage of systems. And if you tell me know larger alliances will start to make fleets just to visit their systems and have 100% usage. So be it if they don't have anything better to do than roam 2h through 200 systems of their empire. Sooner or later the consolidation of the territory will be the easier way to achieve a lower fee. cheers c0rn1 i like the idea, could use tweaking but the idea itself is very good -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze crystals for Amarr! Originally by: UMEE if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail. QFT!
Evelgrivion Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:24:00 - [216] The Issues Faced with the Current Implementation of the Dominion Sovereignty System 1. New, fixed costs are introduced that are not offset by a resource they gather, which raises the barrier to entry of any solar system by a fixed cost. 2. Solar system improvements increase the quantity of existing types of spawns. Systems that spawn "worthless goods" relative to level 4 missions will remain worthless, because the amount of money you can make per hour will not change. 3. Big alliances have the material harvesting backbone to keep what they have if they optimize their networks a bit. Outlying systems will become more vulnerable, but a well set up jump bridge network will do what it does today. 4. Smaller alliances will still have a hard time establishing a foothold because the status quo for income remains intact, minus the absurdly high cost of owning any solar system whatsoever.
Zemi Dahut GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:25:00 - [217] Originally by: Bobby Atlas CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. Unironically quoting Bobby Atlas. What have you done CCP, what have you done?
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:25:00 - [218] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 00:53:25 Sounds like: "Give me 100 Million ISK a day for free please." Well then something's wrong with your hearing. These upgrades were supposed to fix two things: 1) make each system scalable so it can support 50-100 players. 2) Make it to where you can upgrade systems so systems that arn't being used due to their lack in profit (IE a 4 belt -.3 system) could be upgraded and players able to earn some cash. Neither goal has been met with these upgrades. Anomalies are literally worthless...Level 4's blow them out of the water, as does just regular belt ratting. So having even 1,000 extra anomalies per system does nothing for an alliance. That's not an upgrade. We need tangible upgrades that will support more players, which is why those that I listed were given.
Tangonis Galt Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:26:00 - [219] Originally by: Caliph Scorpionsting If this ridiculous stuff goes live, all the major power blocs in 0.0 should just never fight. If this is CCP's "fix" to 0.0, then we can collectively turn it right back around and "break" it on them. If all the power blocs work collectively towards one end, we can force a meaningful change to 0.0 out of ccp. That collective end? Terrorize everyone in empire. Devote all of your resources to the unbridled destruction of EVERY resource people have in high sec. Wardec every mission runner. Suicide every. single. mission runner. When Empire is a barren wasteland, the product of a war machine fueled by running missions and various other non-0.0 related activities, it will be intolerable for everyone. The catalyst for change can come from within the game if CCP refuses to make 0.0 worth living in and claiming. Wow, the amount of Goonie tears in this thread is astounding. But really, 1/10 for a bad attempt at a Troll. .
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:28:00 - [220] The alts trying to automagically defend a new Exodus expansion are really interesting

Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:30:00 - [221] Looking at this, what it really boils down to is a Cynojammer Nerf. Right now, if you've got sov 3 then you've probably got a cynojammer installed, there are huge swatches of 0.0 that are essentially buffer zones against invasion. All the other strategic upgrades are only needed in a few key systems (jumb bridges, supercap production, cyno beacons) and those can be spread throughout an alliance's 'claimed' space, with the space in between unclaimed to save money. It's not advantageous to claim sov without a tangible benefit, and the fundamental benefits of claiming sov are the strategic upgrades which help you protect your core assets. I can see the likes of CVA taking sov only in station systems and maybe a few other key locations (jump bridge exchanges, high end moons) and leaving the rest of providence unclaimed but still claiming it in spirit. NRDS alliances may well decide that neutrals may be disallowed from running exploration sites. Anyway, the strategic upgrade I want to see is a gate monitor that automaticly posts Pilot and ship intel to an alliance intel channel every time a pilot jumps through.
Lynn de'Marco Divine Power. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:31:00 - [222] Originally by: Bobby Atlas CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. i never thought i'd do this but....... i agree with bobby completely
Navick	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:33:00 - [223] A Checklist for Posters in this Topic: - Are you a member of a corp or alliance that currently holds sovereignty and will be directly affected by these changes? - Has your corporation or alliance ever fought for and won control of an area of space, only to find out that in less than a month CCP wants to tax what you fought for right out from under you? - Would you like to be able to do other things when you log in besides ratting constantly to pay your "space rent"? Here, I'll make it even simpler. - Do you actually live in 0.0 space? Have you ever even ENTERED 0.0 space? Do you have any first-hand knowledge of life in "Nullsec" whatsoever? If you answered "NO" to any of the above questions, please take your mouse pointer off of the Reply button because you do not have the slightest freaking clue what you're talking about. This thread already has enough people regurgitating imaginary he-said-she-said isk-per-hour figures without you adding to it.
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:34:00 - [224] Originally by: CCP Chronotis in January We didn't notify anyone about the change until 2 weeks before launch because until 2 weeks before launch we hadn't made a decision. You basically found out when we found out. We launched, the marketing push failed, and we lost subscribers. It was a misread at an organizational level. Design, Marketing, Production, Community. You name it.
Tangonis Galt Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:34:00 - [225] Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. This.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:35:00 - [226] Edited by: Korodan on 07/11/2009 01:35:15 Originally by: Bobby Atlas CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. Oh god why am I agreeing with Bobby Atlas, I think this is a sign of the apocalypse.
Sophie Daigneau CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:36:00 - [227] Originally by: Fuujin Originally by: CCP Chronotis in January We didn't notify anyone about the change until 2 weeks before launch because until 2 weeks before launch we hadn't made a decision. You basically found out when we found out. We launched, the marketing push failed, and we lost subscribers. It was a misread at an organizational level. Design, Marketing, Production, Community. You name it. Nice one, but I doubt CCP will get the reference.
Stevens Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:36:00 - [228] Originally by: Fuujin Originally by: CCP Chronotis in January We didn't notify anyone about the change until 2 weeks before launch because until 2 weeks before launch we hadn't made a decision. You basically found out when we found out. We launched, the marketing push failed, and we lost subscribers. It was a misread at an organizational level. Design, Marketing, Production, Community. You name it. Bookmarking for future awesome.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:36:00 - [229] Originally by: ElvenLord Originally by: Vivian Azure A Battlecruiser-spawn is some 600k ISK allready, so 7 Million ISK takes some 30 minutes of ratting in an utterly crap 0.0-system... not hours. So excuse me, but if you as a member can't contribute 30 minutes a day to pay the bills of your alliance, then you're a lazy bum and should get kicked out of your alliance 0.0 space. --- I can see why all of the big alliance-players are whining so much... they have to do some 30 minutes of work per day contributing to their alliance and the alliance won't be able to build tons of Titans, Moms and Dreads anymore for their lazy members... oh the joy So you are suggesting eve-online should instead of game become work. Also you really need to get a clue. For starters if you think building a single titan is that easy why arent you building them? Do you even know how much resources/time/effort it takes to even start building one? Do you even know what it takes to live in 0.0 space and what risks there are? Cause if it was that simple every 2 char corp would have an alliance and a sov system with station. Also in this game there are corporations that are made out of RL friends, or ppl that became friends over time. We play together cause this is not work this is game, but I understand that concept of friendship might be strange to you. I'm aware of what it takes to live in 0.0, holding outposts and building super-capitals, as I'm doing it for 3 years allready. I'm not postig with my main-character for obvious reasons. My glorified leadership would kick me out of my corp instatly, as they themselves are whining about the changes the most, because they don't have the slightest clue 30 minutes of ratting, or flying a single LvL 4 mission can't hardly be called work tbh, if you compare it with the amount of time I spend with hauling, fueling towers and reactors or production every day. The usual grunts don't know what they're talking about, as we industrial players are the ones so far, who do all the work for them, so that they can enjoy the game. Now it's their time to contribute some time for the alliance aswell. If all people like me would stop doing their things in EvE-0.0-alliances for a single day, then the impact would be 10fold bigger then the upcoming patch, so yeah... stop whining.
Navick GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:38:00 - [230] Edited by: Navick on 07/11/2009 01:41:28 Originally by: Tangonis Galt Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. This. Post with your main. edit - Originally by: Vivian Azure 30 minutes of ratting, or flying a single LvL 4 mission can't hardly be called work tbh, if you compare it with the amount of time I spend with hauling, fueling towers and reactors or production every day. The usual grunts don't know what they're talking about, as we industrial players are the ones so far, who do all the work for them, so that they can enjoy the game. Now it's their time to contribute some time for the alliance aswell. If all people like me would stop doing their things in EvE-0.0-alliances for a single day, then the impact would be 10fold bigger then the upcoming patch, so yeah... stop whining. Not everyone wants to pay $15 per account per month for what basically amounts to a second job, Vivian. Nobody's telling you how to play your EVE, so stop telling everyone else how to play theirs.

Valeronx Celestial Horizon Corp. United Corporate Ventures	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:41:00 - [231] Originally by: Navick you do not have the slightest freaking clue what you're talking about. This thread already has enough people regurgitating imaginary he-said-she-said isk-per-hour figures without you adding to it. Don't be so hard on your Goon corpmates. They don't have a clear understanding of what the new changes mean, and are just reacting out of fear.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:43:00 - [232] Originally by: Korodan Oh god why am I agreeing with Bobby Atlas, I think this is a sign of the apocalypse. And why is it suddenly so cold? ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Valtis Thermalion Caldari Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:43:00 - [233] What all the "It's only 7m per member!" posters fail to realize is that why would anyone want to hold sov in the first place? Ok, alliance taxes it members so it can pay sov bill and gets.... 10% fuel reduction and name in the upper left corner. That's it. Outposts work just fine without any sov, you can rat and mine in systems without sov. Sure, jumpbridges etc. are nice, but you only need few systems for those. I guarantee that if this goes through like that, alliances will abandon their space, holding only few systems for jumpbridges and cap production and keeping the abanonded systems clear with mere military presence. Also, this is very unfortunate for nrds as many have stated. Even if the upgrades were worth it, neutrals would take large portion of the new income, leaving us with massive sov bill. If we limited their access or demanded rent, we would be essentially running nbsi, and if we leave them be, we are faced with the costs without any benefits.
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:43:00 - [234] There is something missing here. Either this is just a massive arbitrary increase in the cost of sov, in return for trivial opportunities to increase space (maybe meaning a system can support anything up to two or three more people, so long as those two or three people enjoy mining or ratting for crappy anomaly rats); or there is so much information missing from this devblog that coming to any conclusion is pointless.
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:43:00 - [235] Originally by: CCP The Streams Must Flow You will be able to purchase and install upgrades in an infrastructure hub. These upgrades will unlock and add additional resources into your system, such as new hidden belts or encounters to complexes or escalation sites for you to find, thus increasing your potential diffuse income streams and theoretical member resource capacity of each system as a result. VS Originally by: CCP The Benefits of Resource Upgrades Note the names for the upgrades are not final! Pirate Magnets - add two additional guaranteed anomalies per level to your solar system Ore Prospecting Array - adds one additional guaranteed hidden asteroid site per level to your solar system Entrapment - increase the chance significantly of a DED complex being located in the depths of your solar system Survey Networks - increase the chance significantly of mini-profession sites being located within your solar system Quantum Flux Generator - increase the chance significantly of a wormhole being discovered within your solar system to w-space. I can't believe both blogs are from the same company. How are these resource upgrades going to increase diffuse income streams for Alliances ( most of the value genreated by these aren't taxable and even if they were are nowhere near the costs we see thrown around ) and increase "theoretical member resource capacity of each system" You want 50-100 people scanning and trying to share what? At most 20-25 additional sites? Even if it where 1 extra site per proposed user in system, how are people supposed to find "theirs"? Sharing 10-15 belts between a few ratters equals a lot of wasted play-time warping back and forth, now multiply that by 10 and most carebears are going to waste most of their time trying to find ISK, instead of making it.
Navick GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:45:00 - [236] Originally by: Valeronx Originally by: Navick you do not have the slightest freaking clue what you're talking about. This thread already has enough people regurgitating imaginary he-said-she-said isk-per-hour figures without you adding to it. Don't be so hard on your Goon corpmates. They don't have a clear understanding of what the new changes mean, and are just reacting out of fear. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/United_Corporate_Ventures Members - 146 Corporations - 3 Sovereignty - 0 Outposts - 0 Please, Mr. Expert, teach me how this game works. Oh wai-
Loike Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:45:00 - [237] While I expected you to increase sov holding costs, by this much is just stupid. You say you want to make larger alliances lower their claims, but this also completely hinders small alliance growth. Your new method of sov warfare is now completely based on blobbing, something you have clearly said you want to get rid of :/
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:46:00 - [238] Originally by: Illectroculus Defined All the other strategic upgrades are only needed in a few key systems (jumb bridges, supercap production, cyno beacons) and those can be spread throughout an alliance's 'claimed' space, with the space in between unclaimed to save money. It's not advantageous to claim sov without a tangible benefit, and the fundamental benefits of claiming sov are the strategic upgrades which help you protect your core assets. Not really. You dont even need to claim station systems, as stations are not linked to sov and have RF timers, so they are pretty much like POSs in NPC space. In Dominion only difference in having a sov in station system or not might be 6h of STOPs onlining (depends on what hits TQ). With nerf of moon goo etc, there are no real core assets that you can protect, unless you want to risk that much and make a titan for example.
Strabo44 GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:47:00 - [239] Originally by: Bobby Atlas CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. Good lord I'm agreeing with Bobby Atlas.
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:47:00 - [240] upgrades can't sustain 50-100 people, maintenance is too expensive and r64s are getting nerfed anyway. CCP is going the swg route now is a good time to quit

Valeronx Celestial Horizon Corp. United Corporate Ventures	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:49:00 - [241] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 06/11/2009 23:09:51 When I read crap like you're posting here... oh boy. The upgrade is ment to draw tons of money out of the whole system. Players that strive for personal profits are not welcome in 0.0, they can run LvL 4 missions. 0.0 is about groups playing together, so all the money that can be made in a system is ment to fuel the alliance/corps holding the systems. I alone can pay 2 Billion for an upgraded system by simply ratting in it on a daily basis. And now have 10 people do it and the bill is absolutely laughable. Stop thinking about yourself and being egoistic. Dominion is ment to make people work together for their systems and space, and not just have a few people fueling the POSs. This is the best thing CCP has ever came up with tbh. It'll be interesting to see the Influence Map in January or Feburary. By and large though, I agree.
Mynas Atoch UK Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:53:00 - [242] Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 07/11/2009 01:54:16 Originally by: Valeronx It'll be interesting to see the Influence Map in January or Feburary. By and large though, I agree. It will show that alliances only claim their stations and critical bridge nodes. The rest they won't claim but will continue using as before. less unecessary sov pos, less bridge routes .. and .. er ... that's about it. Unless there is more to the infrastruture stuff, that is. Still waiting to hear the fine detail on that, but not optimistic.
Soryn Kael Chaos From Order Manifest Destiny.	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:54:00 - [243] This really removes any incentive for a smaller alliance to move into 0.0. What's the point? You don't make more isk, you have to pay exhorbitant amounts of isk and you're at risk of losing everything because a larger group is angry. 10 people doing a half hour a day.. great.. that's for ONE system. Don't let those 10 people be on at the same time, god no.. then it would get too crowded. Don't let them earn isk for themselves either, that messes up those numbers. Don't let hostiles come into the system and kill a ship either. Basically this is a system that allows you to take a fairly worthless system and pay tons of money and turn it into a fairly worthless system, but only if you force a bunch of people to slave away in your fairly worthless system.
Lusulpher Blackwater Syndicate Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:54:00 - [244] Something is wrong with these numbers, CCP... A level 4 mission has near zero risk and brings a fully-fit BS into groups of 30+ NPC ships without warping around much. And 20mil an hour is easy in a .8 system, what is the scaling as you go toward -1.0? Lowsec buff "Corruption" and Viceroyalty would also help get the fringe population of nullsec up. Why must all null players dump goods in hisec? Shouldn't Lowsec be the home of unscrupulous middlemen? "I run Bartertown." I'm talking tax/monetary reductions, on contracts, transactions, corp bills, Sov/upkeep relted items,everything in Lowsec. lowsec should be evryone's 2nd home. A new player should be able to make more money doing agents and pirating in a .3 than staying in a .8...that simple. When you buff bounty and NPC ship spawns I hope you are considering increasing belt spawns to 4+ BS also...you know to the point where it's an actual teamwork thing...should be easy with 50 people in a system, and in fleet finder mode. This is very troubling. Moon values are dropping as they should FINALLY, but if all personal income goes to alliance upkeep taxes, where is the wealth for the common man(praised be Marx) so that all these new null residents can roam around and have fun. Alliance tax coming? To make this all more streamlined. And put priority on Treaties, this system needs it. When are wormholes going to time out only when you use up their travel limit? What's the point of finding a shortcut to highsec and saving the bm if it's gone in 2 days? Bm spam/clusterfuuk is not good for EVE, losing a Logistics route is not good for nullsec. Make such rare W-holes harder to probe out and you have a mini-market of bm sales. Titans/Caps going to need Sov/Tax upkeep eventually? Seeing as how you still have no limiting factor on stockpiling blobs of them? And you really can't create all these new item drops in anomalies and plexes to be farmed without creating an additional need/market for them at the same time. Planet Governance? or else the price on contracts will tank. And we will have fullyfactionfitsupercap lossmails. I beleive all the devblog numbers to be litmus testers though, just getting in ideas to end the idea block. 7
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:55:00 - [245] Before you emo quit I'm going to do the unthinkable. Best guesses are that Technetium is the new Dysprosium and will make about as much per moon. Now you can wage a horrible brutal war for a few months while waiting for the T2 production chain to be finally fixed and for the system upgrades to be buffed sufficiently. In the mean time I can has your space right?
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:55:00 - [246] Originally by: Vivian Azure I'm aware of what it takes to live in 0.0, holding outposts and building super-capitals, as I'm doing it for 3 years allready. I'm not postig with my main-character for obvious reasons. My glorified leadership would kick me out of my corp instatly, as they themselves are whining about the changes the most, because they don't have the slightest clue 30 minutes of ratting, or flying a single LvL 4 mission can't hardly be called work tbh, if you compare it with the amount of time I spend with hauling, fueling towers and reactors or production every day. The usual grunts don't know what they're talking about, as we industrial players are the ones so far, who do all the work for them, so that they can enjoy the game. Now it's their time to contribute some time for the alliance aswell. If all people like me would stop doing their things in EvE-0.0-alliances for a single day, then the impact would be 10fold bigger then the upcoming patch, so yeah... stop whining. Ah, if only there would be more of you, but then with a bit more aptitude and possibly a bit of attitude to stand in either the light or the dark, then we could have our wonderful victim alliances of the past again, to gank and grief and serve as entertainment Now that would make things worthwhile. Key is that you are staring yourself somewhat blind at the detail level from just a singular perspective. Reverse the perspective and the math for a moment, to that of an organisation living in low sec (as an example) and on course to engage themselves in 0.0 in competition with the vested organisations. An engagement which involves more variables than just isk, effort, time, manpower, willpower, assets, replacement capacity, shipping capacity and egg timers. Not to mention general mindset, and a little bit of exposure, since even the most mentally challenged noob fresh out of starter corp understands the concepts of servitude, slavery and isk/hour ratios It takes things right back to "is it worth it to repopulate 0.0". This is the focus of Dominion, at least according to statements and speeches at Fanfest. Remember, small gang warfare did not die because of EVE War I or Titans, it died because the victim types left for empire over time, after which the trend got reinforced by a polarised 0.0 and the standard subscriber behaviour of taking everything into excess (resulting in the grind syndrome, which in spite of CCP's screwup of letting the conditions linger on for years we as players each and every time made the choice to go nuts with what was essentially a broken system). Dominion does introduce enough variables to shake things up, and the Titan nerf opens the door again to either carpet bombing as a mass doctrine or the art of the blob, but that aside it has the potential to increase the pace of events for those already vested in 0.0. But it does not provide any vacuum or even perception of room or competitive angles for those not already there, who are not interested in a career of servitude controlled through the art of schizofrenia. We'll have more to shoot for a while, but we'll end up facing more blobs. At least capital losses will over time have more significance, which means we will push harder on numbers to mitigate the risk of not achieving objectives - we have all seen these trends as the de facto behaviour of space holding organisations for years on end. But I pitty those who want to make the step to have a go out there. It's just not worth it in isk, effort, risk, gank or grief. But, maybe there is still a rabbit coming out of a hat somewhere, similar to having a err second look at moon resource distribution ratios
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:57:00 - [247] Edited by: cok cola on 07/11/2009 01:57:30 ccp's exodus part 2 failed again too
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:58:00 - [248] To put it mildly, those costs seem extremely high. Before you can even begin to start upgrading, the cost is 900m/per month for just ONE system (base+hub)? And the upgrades themselves will increase that further? Do you seriously think that this will encourage more small alliances into nullsec? This seriously needs to be adjusted. I like the concept you've put together, but it really needs to be a sliding scale. The first/best system an alliance controls should cost maybe a tenth this amount, with the amount scaling upwards for each additional system. If, for example, the price started at 1/5 the proposed amount (120m), with a 10% added per system per system, then the cost of the 18th system would match these numbers, with additional systems going even higher. That way small alliances can control a small number of systems without going broke, yet at the same time fabulously wealthy alliances can't simply buy terrain as far as the eye can see. -- Becq Starforged The Flame of Freedom Burns On!
SamuraiJack Celestial Horizon Corp.	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:58:00 - [249] Originally by: Navick http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/United_Corporate_Ventures Members - 146 Corporations - 3 Sovereignty - 0 Outposts - 0 Please, Mr. Expert, teach me how this game works. Oh wai- Take a closer look. CLS is one of those 3. We are well aware of how sov works, pos's and stations. =- The Chronicles of SamuraiJack
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:58:00 - [250] also note that although a large majority of you guys might be unemployed, basement-dwelling lowest-common-denominators in society, many of us have real lives to attend to and would rather not be forced to grind out 7m ISK each day to hold space

Valeronx Celestial Horizon Corp. United Corporate Ventures	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:03:00 - [251] Edited by: Valeronx on 07/11/2009 02:05:26 Originally by: Mynas Atoch Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 07/11/2009 01:54:16 Originally by: Valeronx It'll be interesting to see the Influence Map in January or Feburary. By and large though, I agree. It will show that alliances only claim their stations and critical bridge nodes. The rest they won't claim but will continue using as before. less unecessary sov pos, less bridge routes .. and .. er ... that's about it. Unless there is more to the infrastruture stuff, that is. Still waiting to hear the fine detail on that, but not optimistic. Yes Mynas. That's what I was pointing out. Alliances will lay claim to and use...what they can use. And your right again I think, they might use a bit but won't bother to lay official claim to large swaths of empty space. Will they designate that space for Renter or Meatshield Alliances ? Will they keep them empty and try and police them to keep others out ? Will they shed bitter tears and pack up back to Empire space beacuse they have to work to hold space instead of relying on passive income streams ? That's why the next few months are going to be an interesting time for EVE. .
Lonewolfnight Gallente Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:04:00 - [252] It has taken years to develop and build an environment and economy that can support larger player counts per system. I'm pretty sure CVA can claim significant success at being able to drive up the average 0.0 system population. We've been discussing this over and and over inside our alliance. We've continued to say, wait till the fee's come out. Something has to be good in this. Today, total disappointment. What brings people to 0.0? The community, the market, the ability to function safely! Raters want less people in system. Mini-explor'ers want fewer people in their systems to compete with! So why increase the draw for these people? Do you know who wants more people in a given system? Industrialists, the producers of products. They need people to supply raw materials and purchase their finished product. Take a look at CVA space and you'll see a thriving economy. An economy that is in serious danger of crashing. Why? because many industrial based people are pulling out! I've been dealing with hundreds of conversations from pilots all over the area! What is this patch doing? Driving people back to empire. Why pay for what you can get for little or nothing?! Is that what is wanted? Move back to empire? So today, there will be less security. Less stability and more people wanting "solo". Great just great. At one point, a CCP person said they liked what we had done to our area. Well guess what, you just stabbed it in the heart! Please take these numbers, the sov system, go back to the drawing board. Implement an complete system that both address the goals as well as provides a way for the players to complete them. Don't set static costs and then rumor a "tax" next patch. P.S. here's a thought. How about base your fee's off the true sec status? Balance the risk/reward at least a little bit. Since the worm hole/rat/mining sites are all just upgrades of that base value. CEO
Navick GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:04:00 - [253] Originally by: SamuraiJack Originally by: Navick http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/United_Corporate_Ventures Members - 146 Corporations - 3 Sovereignty - 0 Outposts - 0 Please, Mr. Expert, teach me how this game works. Oh wai- Take a closer look. CLS is one of those 3. We are well aware of how sov works, pos's and stations. That's funny, I've never heard of you.
Mankil	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:04:00 - [254] Originally by: Hrin Can you artificially upgrade some constellations on sisi so we can see these upgrades in action? +1
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:04:00 - [255] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: ElvenLord Originally by: Vivian Azure A Battlecruiser-spawn is some 600k ISK allready, so 7 Million ISK takes some 30 minutes of ratting in an utterly crap 0.0-system... not hours. So excuse me, but if you as a member can't contribute 30 minutes a day to pay the bills of your alliance, then you're a lazy bum and should get kicked out of your alliance 0.0 space. --- I can see why all of the big alliance-players are whining so much... they have to do some 30 minutes of work per day contributing to their alliance and the alliance won't be able to build tons of Titans, Moms and Dreads anymore for their lazy members... oh the joy So you are suggesting eve-online should instead of game become work. Also you really need to get a clue. For starters if you think building a single titan is that easy why arent you building them? Do you even know how much resources/time/effort it takes to even start building one? Do you even know what it takes to live in 0.0 space and what risks there are? Cause if it was that simple every 2 char corp would have an alliance and a sov system with station. Also in this game there are corporations that are made out of RL friends, or ppl that became friends over time. We play together cause this is not work this is game, but I understand that concept of friendship might be strange to you. I'm aware of what it takes to live in 0.0, holding outposts and building super-capitals, as I'm doing it for 3 years allready. I'm not postig with my main-character for obvious reasons. My glorified leadership would kick me out of my corp instatly, as they themselves are whining about the changes the most, because they don't have the slightest clue 30 minutes of ratting, or flying a single LvL 4 mission can't hardly be called work tbh, if you compare it with the amount of time I spend with hauling, fueling towers and reactors or production every day. The usual grunts don't know what they're talking about, as we industrial players are the ones so far, who do all the work for them, so that they can enjoy the game. Now it's their time to contribute some time for the alliance aswell. If all people like me would stop doing their things in EvE-0.0-alliances for a single day, then the impact would be 10fold bigger then the upcoming patch, so yeah... stop whining. Yes yes, the cost isn't terrible in the grand scheme of things, but there's one bit you're missing. Let's say you buy every upgrade in one system. How many people will that support? It doesn't appear to be anywhere near 50-100.
Panzram GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:05:00 - [256] also agreeing w/ bobby atlas
SamuraiJack Celestial Horizon Corp.	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:05:00 - [257] Originally by: Navick That's funny, I've never heard of you. Thats ok. I'll just post the ass pic again to remind ppl. :P =- The Chronicles of SamuraiJack
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:06:00 - [258] Originally by: Navick Originally by: SamuraiJack Originally by: Navick http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/United_Corporate_Ventures Members - 146 Corporations - 3 Sovereignty - 0 Outposts - 0 Please, Mr. Expert, teach me how this game works. Oh wai- Take a closer look. CLS is one of those 3. We are well aware of how sov works, pos's and stations. That's funny, I've never heard of you. That's 'cause you're new.
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:07:00 - [259] Originally by: SamuraiJack Originally by: Navick That's funny, I've never heard of you. Thats ok. I'll just post the ass pic again to remind ppl. :P OH NO YOU WILL NOT I only managed to get it out of my nightmares last year man ≡v≡ [red]Please resize sig to a file size
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:08:00 - [260] Since we love throwing around numbers...here is some theory numbers for you guys to chew on: 2 Billion isk for a system per month is what generally has been thrown around. Keeping that in mind... 50 people. This is about the size of a small alliance that could potentially join 0.0. (I say potentially, however, it is highly unlikely) It would probably consist of 3-4 corps. 30 days = month give or take a day. 20% tax rate on all 50 members. This is about average for corps who tax members. I've seen 10, I've seen 30, so don't shoot me. If each member is earning around 10mil a day pure ratting or mining, based off corp taxes, you get 3 billion isk a month pure corp tax. (taxing miners = outposts btw or some other creative way) I don't know about you guys, but right now I'm pretty sure ppl are doing this already. (I will agree, ppl don't rat every day, some do it in chunks so its still of note) So there you go. I will agree with some though, I would like to see 0.0 security status be upgradable which so far, it doesn't look that way. Mildly lame CCP I sincerely hope you left that out of the blog by accident. PLEASE answer our concerns. Thanks --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"

Navick GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:10:00 - [261] I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm declaring your opinion invalid, it's nothing personal. The point I'm getting at is that a vast majority of the people posting about how great these changes are are players who do not live/play in 0.0, will not bear the cost of these changes, and in many regards will not even be affected by them at all. In short, "easy for you to say." It's expected that this should be a rather polarized argument - those penalized by the changes against, those not penalized by the changes for. The difference is that the majority of the empire-dwellers chiming in on this subject have zero first hand knowledge of how 0.0 actually works, and are forming opinions based on hearsay. The 0.0-dwellers' unanimous opposal to these changes is based on actual firsthand knowledge of the game mechanics. I mean, cmon, when Goons start quoting Bobby Atlas out of agreement then something has to be very, very wrong.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:14:00 - [262] Originally by: Vivian Azure 30 minutes of ratting, or flying a single LvL 4 mission can't hardly be called work tbh, if you compare it with the amount of time I spend with hauling, fueling towers and reactors or production every day. Last time I tried to rat for 30 minutes I wanted to kill myself. If I would have to do it every day for next year or so I would prolly cancel my subscription. Same goes for mining (thou I do have periods it feels good ). But, I do understand and accept there are ppl that enjoy that and its fun for that, so this game fulfilled its purpose for them (it was worth the subscription). Originally by: Vivian Azure The usual grunts don't know what they're talking about, as we industrial players are the ones so far, who do all the work for them, so that they can enjoy the game. Now it's their time to contribute some time for the alliance aswell. Yes, but those grunts also provide protection for my freighter ops, help me with hauls from time to time, call me when there are hauler spawns, give me faction BPCs and sometimes mods etc. I have spent most of my eve life as a director/CEO in corporations, and I'm around a long time (since beta). Mainly been doing boring things as production, logistics, POSs etc. I do know what you are saying, but also those ppl you say dont contribute is not true. They do, cause if they wherent there you wouldnt have anyone to protect you, escort you... or to put it in better words, you would be out of the job. Everyone has its place in a ecosystem of an eve corporation, and they dont manage to find it they leave on their own usually. Originally by: Vivian Azure If all people like me would stop doing their things in EvE-0.0-alliances for a single day, then the impact would be 10fold bigger then the upcoming patch, so yeah... stop whining. You overestimate yourself and underestimate others. No one is irreplaceable, there will always be ppl that will step up and take your place, most of the times ppl you least expect. My advice to you is to start trusting ppl a bit, and sometimes ask for help or accept help, you might get surprised. You too might get to enjoy the occasional pew pew
Tangonis Galt Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:15:00 - [263] Originally by: Navick Nobody's telling you how to play your EVE, so stop telling everyone else how to play theirs. [/quote This is the lesson for today for you and your Corp. Please stop trying to tell us how to play our EVE. Thanks ! .
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:17:00 - [264] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Since we love throwing around numbers...here is some theory numbers for you guys to chew on: 2 Billion isk for a system per month is what generally has been thrown around. Keeping that in mind... 50 people. This is about the size of a small alliance that could potentially join 0.0. (I say potentially, however, it is highly unlikely) It would probably consist of 3-4 corps. 30 days = month give or take a day. 20% tax rate on all 50 members. This is about average for corps who tax members. I've seen 10, I've seen 30, so don't shoot me. If each member is earning around 10mil a day pure ratting or mining, based off corp taxes, you get 3 billion isk a month pure corp tax. (taxing miners = outposts btw or some other creative way) I don't know about you guys, but right now I'm pretty sure ppl are doing this already. (I will agree, ppl don't rat every day, some do it in chunks so its still of note) So there you go. I will agree with some though, I would like to see 0.0 security status be upgradable which so far, it doesn't look that way. Mildly lame CCP I sincerely hope you left that out of the blog by accident. PLEASE answer our concerns. Thanks --Isaac You forget the fact that a single solar system will not sustain 50 active pilots, the current incarnation of the upgrades will support maybe 25 very active players. Even then, a single solar system, devoting all your time to farming isk to maintain it - something just does not seem right about that in context of the larger plan that dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access easier for smaller entities - not time and cost prohibitive. Forget the fact if this small theoretical alliance should have to ever defend the system, they will run out of isk so fast that they will have no choice but to leave 0.0.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:19:00 - [265] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Since we love throwing around numbers...here is some theory numbers for you guys to chew on: The numbers that you're missing: How many people can 1 fully upgraded system support? Paying for the upgrades is a hassle, but not devastating. But if you go from supporting 3 people per system to supporting 10 people per system, they aren't worth it. The only way this system works is if these anomalies are vastly better than 'normal' ones.
Sellmewarez	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:19:00 - [266] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Since we love throwing around numbers...here is some theory numbers for you guys to chew on: 2 Billion isk for a system per month is what generally has been thrown around. Keeping that in mind... 50 people. This is about the size of a small alliance that could potentially join 0.0. (I say potentially, however, it is highly unlikely) It would probably consist of 3-4 corps. 30 days = month give or take a day. 20% tax rate on all 50 members. This is about average for corps who tax members. I've seen 10, I've seen 30, so don't shoot me. If each member is earning around 10mil a day pure ratting or mining, based off corp taxes, you get 3 billion isk a month pure corp tax. (taxing miners = outposts btw or some other creative way) I don't know about you guys, but right now I'm pretty sure ppl are doing this already. (I will agree, ppl don't rat every day, some do it in chunks so its still of note) So there you go. I will agree with some though, I would like to see 0.0 security status be upgradable which so far, it doesn't look that way. Mildly lame CCP I sincerely hope you left that out of the blog by accident. PLEASE answer our concerns. Thanks --Isaac You remind me of one those people who thinks they understand eve because they have played with EFT a lot.
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:20:00 - [267] Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 07/11/2009 02:23:16 Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 07/11/2009 02:21:50 @Above, your right, I'm just throwing out numbers and I think CCP left something out of this dev blog so I'm going to keep waiting. Its not saying the whole picture so...yeah, I'll leave you guys to it. But the problem is...where is the line in the sand that says this is too much isk/hour. That is what CCP is trying to figure out I believe. And lol Sell. I hate EFT. I should have stated these are theoretical numbers, but I do understand where ppl are coming from so I get it now. @Lynn, you are correct, I am the same way so its why I'm going to be quiet now. I should have seen it before. --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
Lynn de'Marco Divine Power. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:22:00 - [268] isaac, your posts are well thought and articulated however: you cannot simply run calculations of how much a corp can generate from their members. members will not log on every day members will not want to grind isk every day they do log on members will have have other roles to carry out which occupy thier time not all members will want to make isk through taxible income perhaps in smaller corps where you have about 10 active RL players it would be feasable to get a 7mil per day contribution from everyone but for a lot of 0.0 corps this is not feasable and not fair on all the members either. you can do your sums "on paper" as much as you want but in practise this is not how it works out and i'm sure any director/ceo of a 0.0 corp will back me up.
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:24:00 - [269] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker 2 Billion isk for a system per month is what generally has been thrown around. Keeping that in mind... ... 20% tax rate on all 50 members. This is about average for corps who tax members. I've seen 10, I've seen 30, so don't shoot me. .. If each member is earning around 10mil a day pure ratting or mining, based off corp taxes, you get 3 billion isk a month pure corp tax. (taxing miners = outposts btw or some other creative way) I don't know about you guys, but right now I'm pretty sure ppl are doing this already. (I will agree, ppl don't rat every day, some do it in chunks so its still of note) Let's assume for a moment you have the ability to perfectly monetize the diffuse income through corp taxes. You are making the wrong comparison. For it to be "worth it" the marginal increase in isk granted by bonus spawns alone needs to be greater the than the maintenance cost. At your 20% tax rate how many hours of special anomaly time is needed (this has to include scanning time) to pay for sov? It seems to me you would be better off just spreading your 50 man alliance over a couple more systems, not claiming sov, and funding a few carriers every month with those taxes off of regular belt rats.
Cpt Underpants Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:26:00 - [270] I'm sitting here in disbelief. One, that CCP would put out such ridiculous cost when Dominion was supposed to open up 0.0 to more people, not make it prohibitively expensive even for the larger alliances. Two, that I'm agreeing with pretty much everything AAA, Atlas etc are saying about this. Corp taxes wont get the isk needed as so much of the 0.0 income is not derived from sources which can be taxed. eg: mining (compress and refine in empire or at a POS), faction loot from plexes, moon minerals from personal poses, reactions from personal poses. This shows that it will probably end up that the taxes will have to change to be a flat per-member fee collected by corps, which are then passed to alliance to pay for the sov holding. The other part, which at least one other player has mentioned is the economics of it. This ISK sink will reduce the amount of currency in the game, which makes the remaining ISK more valuable, as a result, the fixed cost of maintaining sov will actually be a bigger chunk of value.

rubico1337 Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:27:00 - [271] you know. there are these things called moons. generally they are semi-lucrative even after dominion. maybe that isk could go to pay sov bills rather than pay for huge cap fleets and megalomaniac directors? just a thought...
Vyktor Abyss Gallente The Abyss Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:27:00 - [272] I've only read a few of the feedback posts, so apologies if I repeat any of their words of wisdom. I'll try to group my thoughts regarding this blog into... The Good: ò Reducing the Sovreignty "footprint" (via increased cost) of current large alliances ò Autopayment feature - Excellent! ò Upgrades and the Index based system for rewarding "Activity" in 0.0 The Bad: ò Sovreignty cost is at least 5 times more expensive than it used to be (5x L towers? We used to only need 1x S Tower). Won't this mean LESS people go for Sovreignty? ò Reducing the "footprint" of a large alliance does not mean any "new" space is available - Large alliances will (still) stomp any new/smaller/non-aligned "non-pet" neighbours "because they can". ò You're not addressing the massive disparity between "good" 0.0 and "bad" 0.0 where a -1.0 Truesec system w/ R64-Moon is insanely more valuable than a -0.01 Truesec w/ Gas Moons (THE MAJORITY OF 0.0). ò The majority of 0.0 systems ("Poor" 0.0) will still be poor reward compared to Empire at 5x higher cost (and risk). ò If anything this makes 0.0 less attractive and less feasible for smaller alliances The Ugly: ò You're hanging CVA out to dry (with the fees, not listening/responding even to their leaders posts) despite holding them up as a good example of emergent play in 0.0 ò You have not even mentioned Ouposts - What about all that legacy of effort that went into building them? Overall I think if you run with this plan for 0.0 mechanics, I think contrary to your hopes of populating 0.0 with more people; 0.0 will become even more barren with the loss of much of the existing 0.0 alliances/communities to Empire (or to other computer games). My previous excitement about "new emergent 0.0" from other blogs has turned to scepticism about new grind-fest 0.0 after the mechanics of this blog.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:29:00 - [273] Originally by: ElvenLord Originally by: Vivian Azure 30 minutes of ratting, or flying a single LvL 4 mission can't hardly be called work tbh, if you compare it with the amount of time I spend with hauling, fueling towers and reactors or production every day. Last time I tried to rat for 30 minutes I wanted to kill myself. If I would have to do it every day for next year or so I would prolly cancel my subscription. Same goes for mining (thou I do have periods it feels good ). But, I do understand and accept there are ppl that enjoy that and its fun for that, so this game fulfilled its purpose for them (it was worth the subscription). Originally by: Vivian Azure The usual grunts don't know what they're talking about, as we industrial players are the ones so far, who do all the work for them, so that they can enjoy the game. Now it's their time to contribute some time for the alliance aswell. Yes, but those grunts also provide protection for my freighter ops, help me with hauls from time to time, call me when there are hauler spawns, give me faction BPCs and sometimes mods etc. I have spent most of my eve life as a director/CEO in corporations, and I'm around a long time (since beta). Mainly been doing boring things as production, logistics, POSs etc. I do know what you are saying, but also those ppl you say dont contribute is not true. They do, cause if they wherent there you wouldnt have anyone to protect you, escort you... or to put it in better words, you would be out of the job. Everyone has its place in a ecosystem of an eve corporation, and they dont manage to find it they leave on their own usually. Originally by: Vivian Azure If all people like me would stop doing their things in EvE-0.0-alliances for a single day, then the impact would be 10fold bigger then the upcoming patch, so yeah... stop whining. You overestimate yourself and underestimate others. No one is irreplaceable, there will always be ppl that will step up and take your place, most of the times ppl you least expect. My advice to you is to start trusting ppl a bit, and sometimes ask for help or accept help, you might get surprised. You too might get to enjoy the occasional pew pew Ironically I know your alliance very well and there's very few people who even acknowlede the work some of us do every day. And I've had no escorts at all since the introduction of Jumpfreighters and the Rorqual. Maybe I should say farewell and spend my time for my own interests instead of contributing to the alliance, when I read what you're saying.
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:32:00 - [274] Originally by: Undertow Latheus Awesome, sov is getting fixed, 0.0 is getting much more incentive, and owners can customize upgrade and personalize space. Now what the **** about lowsec? this patch makes lowsec and npc space look very appealing, unless ccp has a massive boost to anomalies planned they aren't telling us about. Basically this makes owning and maintaining any space incredibly expensive, while increasing the risk of owning it and doing nothing to actually increase its value.
Sage Eveo Trojan Trolls Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:32:00 - [275] Edited by: Sage Eveo on 07/11/2009 02:34:18 wtf. I think Bobby put it best. Objective: Get more people into 0.0 Solution: Make it more expensive, time draining, difficult & unattractive (for all reasons mentioned within previous responses). What are you boys smoking, CCP ? I say we play the "HTFU" song and go back to the drawing board. // Sage. Trojan Trolls [TROLL] // Controlled Chaos <TROLL>
Ayumi Fargazer	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:34:00 - [276] also a thing to keep in mind for the yay crowd: a vast majority of the 0.0 population moved into 0.0 because they wanted NOT to shoot at NPCs for hours on end each week... if they wanted they would have stayed in empire and grinded lvl4s which nets more money in less time then ratting and is virtually risk free i know most PvPers in my alliance (and a good batch of the logistics guys and industrialists as well) would rather stab theirselves in the head with a really dull knife then be forced to rat to just keep one system going
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:35:00 - [277] wow these numbers... wow we'll move to syndicate or npc delve if these go live like that, billions per month per system? there's no way anyone sane would pay that kind of price for conq 0.0 even if you gold-plate your economic upgrades you claim these numbers are based off aggregate tower fuel cost but they have no relation to reality/actual numbers of real alliances this had best be fixed by dec 1st or there will be an exodus from 0.0, i could see paying 300m a month or so for a fully upgraded system, but over 1.5b? ~illum leak~ [9:30:03 PM] Pringlescan: 1.275b zapa [9:30:06 PM] Pringlescan: for a jb system [9:30:08 PM] Pringlescan: hth [9:30:18 PM] brennah: this is **ing **ed [9:30:36 PM] Pringlescan: 2b for a jb/cyno jammed system [9:30:51 PM] karttoon: That blog is terrible [9:30:56 PM] karttoon: I put more effort into my war updates i expected to be fighting for the right to remain in 0.0 but i expected to be fighting my darling bobbits, not a ludicrous pile of ** tax that has no relation to our current costs! more words go here about how this is dumb and how we're going to have to bring out the pr flak cannons Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter
Alexi Kalashnikov GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:36:00 - [278] Originally by: Soleil Fournier We need upgrades that: Increase the number of belts in a system. Increase the security rating of the system to spawn better rats or ores. Increase the number of rats that spawn in a system. (I don't mean anomalies) Decrease the spawn timer of rats, from 20 minutes to 10 minutes. More upgrades like these ^ The problem with 00 and why alliances take huge areas of space is because there are a lot of systems that people just can't make money out of. And the systems you can make money out of only support 2-3 players tops. Those upgrades you listed throw the idea of upgrading worthless systems to be somewhat usefull out the window. If you want each system to support 50 people like ya'll have been touting, you need significant changes to this proposed system, because those changes listed do nothing to help support more players. Bam. Right ****ing there. CCP, take that single line back to your Dominion game plan and incorporate it. A single line will vastly improve the expansion. Delay the expansion, break it up: just do it right.
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:36:00 - [279] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 07/11/2009 02:38:24 Originally by: Vyktor Abyss I've only read a few of the feedback posts, so apologies if I repeat any of their words of wisdom. I'll try to group my thoughts regarding this blog into... The Good: ò Reducing the Sovreignty "footprint" (via increased cost) of current large alliances ò Autopayment feature - Excellent! ò Upgrades and the Index based system for rewarding "Activity" in 0.0 The Bad: ò Sovreignty cost is at least 5 times more expensive than it used to be (5x L towers? We used to only need 1x S Tower). Won't this mean LESS people go for Sovreignty? ò Reducing the "footprint" of a large alliance does not mean any "new" space is available - Large alliances will (still) stomp any new/smaller/non-aligned "non-pet" neighbours "because they can". ò You're not addressing the massive disparity between "good" 0.0 and "bad" 0.0 where a -1.0 Truesec system w/ R64-Moon is insanely more valuable than a -0.01 Truesec w/ Gas Moons (THE MAJORITY OF 0.0). ò The majority of 0.0 systems ("Poor" 0.0) will still be poor reward compared to Empire at 5x higher cost (and risk). ò If anything this makes 0.0 less attractive and less feasible for smaller alliances The Ugly: ò You're hanging CVA out to dry (with the fees, not listening/responding even to their leaders posts) despite holding them up as a good example of emergent play in 0.0 ò You have not even mentioned Ouposts - What about all that legacy of effort that went into building them? Overall I think if you run with this plan for 0.0 mechanics, I think contrary to your hopes of populating 0.0 with more people; 0.0 will become even more barren with the loss of much of the existing 0.0 alliances/communities to Empire (or to other computer games). My previous excitement about "new emergent 0.0" from other blogs has turned to scepticism about new grind-fest 0.0 after the mechanics of this blog. /perfectly stated! Make the upgrades a simply isk payment with a monthly cost. The "use" mechanic, while a novel idea, will in reality turn into a "grind just to grind" timesink that is unfun and not what eve is about. Players in 00 should be focused on fighting not grinding. But this poster had it right. /applaud
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:37:00 - [280] Originally by: Vyktor Abyss I've only read a few of the feedback posts, so apologies if I repeat any of their words of wisdom. I'll try to group my thoughts regarding this blog into... The Good: ò Reducing the Sovreignty "footprint" (via increased cost) of current large alliances ò Autopayment feature - Excellent! ò Upgrades and the Index based system for rewarding "Activity" in 0.0 The Bad: ò Sovreignty cost is at least 5 times more expensive than it used to be (5x L towers? We used to only need 1x S Tower). Won't this mean LESS people go for Sovreignty? ò Reducing the "footprint" of a large alliance does not mean any "new" space is available - Large alliances will (still) stomp any new/smaller/non-aligned "non-pet" neighbours "because they can". ò You're not addressing the massive disparity between "good" 0.0 and "bad" 0.0 where a -1.0 Truesec system w/ R64-Moon is insanely more valuable than a -0.01 Truesec w/ Gas Moons (THE MAJORITY OF 0.0). ò The majority of 0.0 systems ("Poor" 0.0) will still be poor reward compared to Empire at 5x higher cost (and risk). ò If anything this makes 0.0 less attractive and less feasible for smaller alliances The Ugly: ò You're hanging CVA out to dry (with the fees, not listening/responding even to their leaders posts) despite holding them up as a good example of emergent play in 0.0 ò You have not even mentioned Ouposts - What about all that legacy of effort that went into building them? Overall I think if you run with this plan for 0.0 mechanics, I think contrary to your hopes of populating 0.0 with more people; 0.0 will become even more barren with the loss of much of the existing 0.0 alliances/communities to Empire (or to other computer games). My previous excitement about "new emergent 0.0" from other blogs has turned to scepticism about new grind-fest 0.0 after the mechanics of this blog. Thats only equal to 4-5L towers if you put NO UPGRADES into a system, the minute you start upgrading a system the costs rise very quickly.

Lonewolfnight Gallente Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:37:00 - [281] Originally by: rubico1337 you know. there are these things called moons. generally they are semi-lucrative even after dominion. maybe that isk could go to pay sov bills rather than pay for huge cap fleets and megalomaniac directors? just a thought... To dispel this idea. My corporation alone operates over 90 towers. After we pay marginal fee's to fueler's and haulers we're up about 3b a month. That is spread over 12 systems. So with that in mind, we can do about 250m per month per system in sov charges. Sure, you could drain every penny to keep that lonely flag in the corner. What is left to defend, invest, and upgrade? CEO
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:38:00 - [282] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker But the problem is...where is the line in the sand that says this is too much isk/hour. That is what CCP is trying to figure out I believe. I don't know what is too much, but I think CCP has drawn this baseline for what is too little quite clearly and that is highsec level 4 agents. Something that requires no scanning down, is instantly + unlimitedly available, negligible risk for properly skilled/equipped pilot should be the entry level 0.0 opportunity. If you take random person who is able to run highsec level 4, you need to give them a real reason to make a living in 0.0. Or to look at in another way, you need to give a person a reason to stay in 0.0 after they are done PvPing rather than heading to empire Lv4s to make isk for their next batch of ships.
Vio Geraci Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:39:00 - [283] Originally by: SamuraiJack Originally by: Navick http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/United_Corporate_Ventures Members - 146 Corporations - 3 Sovereignty - 0 Outposts - 0 Please, Mr. Expert, teach me how this game works. Oh wai- Take a closer look. CLS is one of those 3. We are well aware of how sov works, pos's and stations. I remember the last time you were in 0.0, and I disagree. You've been sucking on the teat of mega-alliances for a long time.
rubico1337 Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:41:00 - [284] Originally by: The Mittani [9:30:36 PM] Pringlescan: 2b for a jb/cyno jammed system [9:30:51 PM] karttoon: That blog is terrible [9:30:56 PM] karttoon: I put more effort into my war updates i expected to be fighting for the right to remain in 0.0 but i expected to be fighting my darling bobbits, not a ludicrous pile of **** tax that has no relation to our current costs! more words go here about how this is dumb and how we're going to have to bring out the pr flak cannons so you can no longer create zero risk jump bridges and cynojam systems to protect your nap train without incurring significant costs? cry some more
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:42:00 - [285] people with no 0.0 alliance management experience talking out their buttes about what is or is not a reasonable cost not just in the blog, i mean Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:42:00 - [286] Originally by: Vivian Azure Maybe I should say farewell and spend my time for my own interests instead of contributing to the alliance, when I read what you're saying. I'm not saying you should stop contributing, no one should. I sure never did, no matter how hard it was at times. I just found a way to get more ppl involved in things I do so we all contribute to both corp/alliance and have time to do our own interests. Balance is the key. Originally by: rubico1337 you know. there are these things called moons. generally they are semi-lucrative even after dominion. maybe that isk could go to pay sov bills rather than pay for huge cap fleets and megalomaniac directors? just a thought... Those semi-lucrative moons pay a lot of things not just huge cap fleets, and even those huge cap fleets dont fly on their own. Stations dont build on their own. POSs are not perpetum mobile, Space is not held just cause you say it yours, that was before Exodus pt1. On the other hand, if you are a smaller empire alliance with a desire to go live in 0.0 you dont even have those moons. All you can hope for as starter capital is your members donations, and that can take you to a point. If space you take can not support both you as a member and you as a corporation/alliance then its not worth taking it and paying for it.
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:47:00 - [287] Originally by: Pringlescan I still don't understand why ccp can't figure out why people in 0.0 don't mine. Its not because there isn't ENOUGH of it, its because its not worth the isk/hour compared to ratting. Giving us more roids of the same type doesn't matter if no one is mining the ones we already have anyway. Sure there are a couple of peoples with bots who run 5 hulks at the same time but thats .1% of the eve 0.0 population. Also how do you expect any alliance without r64s to hold more then one system? OR expect people to fight wars of conquest when winning would be more expensive then losing? the only thing that makes 0.0 mining realistic is that it scales well with multiple accounts, otherwise you can make for more in minerals by just looting your non-gurista wrecks
Spuzum	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:48:00 - [288] I want the 10 trillion corporate account balance in the cpp dev blog. Maybe, then we could afford to hold sov on one system. Get real, CPP. This costs way to much to upkeep. It is a cost increase of 2 to 3 times for sov. It's an isk grab to make every corporation poorer.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:50:00 - [289] Originally by: ElvenLord Originally by: Vivian Azure Maybe I should say farewell and spend my time for my own interests instead of contributing to the alliance, when I read what you're saying. I'm not saying you should stop contributing, no one should. I sure never did, no matter how hard it was at times. I just found a way to get more ppl involved in things I do so we all contribute to both corp/alliance and have time to do our own interests. Balance is the key. Balance? So it's OK, that I spend 2-3 hours a day with industrial tasks, just so you can make another fail attempt to kick eJoke out of CR?
Tangonis Galt Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:50:00 - [290] Originally by: The Mittani people with no 0.0 alliance management experience talking out their buttes about what is or is not a reasonable cost. It's OK. We know you don't have any real experience in 0.0 Alliance Management, but we don't consider your opinions any less valid. .

Kraken Kill Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:54:00 - [291] This is a terrible Idea. Its discouraging Those with space to take more space and its making those in space with fewer highends unable to pay for the upgrades needed to compete in the most rudimentory ways with established alliances. FLAGs should have no Fee. If someone wants to claim Space why should it cost 20mil a day? Stupid bloody isk sink if pos fuel wasnt enough we now have to be accountants and make sure we have alliance members ratting hard enough. Make Flags not require any fees at the very least. concord can shove a pinapple up thier ********s, why should they have anything to do with 0.0 sov maintainace? If corps or alliances want to experiance 0.0 they can go play factional warfare or shape up to be worth a damn and join or become a decent alliance to exsist in 0.0. Or they can become a Pet of an alliance - and perhaps if they are of good enough standard if they pull their own they can become a partner rather than a pet. crappy crappy idea. Punishing success and rewarding the weak- although the weak wont be able to afford any Sov in 0.0.
Alyra Logitus Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:55:00 - [292] Originally by: Navick I mean, cmon, when Goons start quoting Bobby Atlas out of agreement then something has to be very, very wrong. I honestly never ever thought I would ever agree with a goon, much less many goons, but there's no denying it.
Togae Alus Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:57:00 - [293] well i hope that the guy that did that xls sheet was drunk when he typesd the prices as for keeping a secure 6 pocket constellation will cost 11 billion isk a mont so that is 2 and a half titans per year or 6 moms so please reconsider
Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:57:00 - [294] Also nice job posting this late on a friday so we get to stew through the weekend before you realize like with the titan gun changes that you really messed up and fix it.
niroshido Caldari Madhatters Inc. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:00:00 - [295] 20m/day for the sov claiming unit 20m * 7days = 140m ISK /week 10m/day for the infrastructure hub, 10m 7days = 70m ISK/week 25m/day for cyno jammer, 25m 7days = 175m ISK/week ______________________________ Total ISK cost = 385m ISK/ week per system this excludes JB's. Lets take into account that CCP's original aim was not to make 0.0 a true carebear land where everyone plays for free, which was the case with R64 pos operations. What the system now does is, scales down the zone of operations for an alliance, opening large areas of zero sov space. A 100 player alliance will be pushed from a 20 solar system wide to about 5 systems, which is good, to a degree. The system costs can be covered by 24hrs of rat hunting (if 100% taxed), if 1 person was ratting they could generate a revenue of 20m isk +/hr 23hrs = 460m /day 7 = 3.2b/week. The hubs cost from 50m ISK to 500, so first upgrade = 50m (upfront investment) and 500m for the final upgrade, these are single payments per level, meaning u wont be charged on a daily basis. Hidden belts upgrade: Some tend not to look at these, but as the dominion hits people will start looking for revenue and a good source of revenue comes from the alliance or inter-corperate market, where members will always be in need of mods, ammo, ships. Miners will have to sell there minerals to producers and will supply the alliance market. You are looking at one additional guaranteed hidden asteroid site per level. So at lvl 5 u are getting 5 hidden belts garenteed. Anomolies: I personally never seen any reason to do them, but at lvl 5 you get a total of 10 garenteed anomolies. Only if the anomolies offer enough will they be done. But 10 anomolies can cater for 10 ppl at about 10m ISK/hr DED complexes: This can be a good source of revenue, but is dependant on the DED lvl, the overseers price will drop, but the bounties should provide a decent revenue. The upgrade suggests to me that the chances will double every level, so probably an 8/10 daily = 100m ISK daily, hopefully there is something in place to pop them up more often. Survey Networks: To be honest, i dont think this is profitable at all. You probably could get a T2 bpc out of it but, meh!. Quantum Flux Generator: More T3 ships for the alliance/corps Given the system they are putting in place, i could maintain a single system easily, where i generate around 210m ISK weekly at a rate of 3hrs rat hunting daily. That would cover the infrastructure upgrade and sov module.
Stevens Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:02:00 - [296] Originally by: Pringlescan Also nice job posting this late on a friday so we get to stew through the weekend before you realize like with the titan gun changes that you really messed up and fix it. They do that so they can read over it on the weekend and instead of having to admit they screwed up they can just be like LOLTYPO/WEEKEND and try to play off being clinically ******ed.
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:02:00 - [297] Originally by: rubico1337 you know. there are these things called moons. generally they are semi-lucrative even after dominion. maybe that isk could go to pay sov bills rather than pay for huge cap fleets and megalomaniac directors? just a thought... You know you don't need sov to hold those things called moons right? In fact with the 10% fuel bonus you need something like 50 towers in one system for the sov bonus to be worth it fuelwise. It would make much more sense at a 50% fuel bonus (10 towers to break even, or even a 71% fuel bonus (7 towers to break even).
adriaans Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:06:00 - [298] Originally by: niroshido 20m/day for the sov claiming unit 20m * 7days = 140m ISK /week 10m/day for the infrastructure hub, 10m 7days = 70m ISK/week 25m/day for cyno jammer, 25m 7days = 175m ISK/week ______________________________ Total ISK cost = 385m ISK/ week per system this excludes JB's. Lets take into account that CCP's original aim was not to make 0.0 a true carebear land where everyone plays for free, which was the case with R64 pos operations. What the system now does is, scales down the zone of operations for an alliance, opening large areas of zero sov space. A 100 player alliance will be pushed from a 20 solar system wide to about 5 systems, which is good, to a degree. The system costs can be covered by 24hrs of rat hunting (if 100% taxed), if 1 person was ratting they could generate a revenue of 20m isk +/hr 23hrs = 460m /day 7 = 3.2b/week. The hubs cost from 50m ISK to 500, so first upgrade = 50m (upfront investment) and 500m for the final upgrade, these are single payments per level, meaning u wont be charged on a daily basis. Hidden belts upgrade: Some tend not to look at these, but as the dominion hits people will start looking for revenue and a good source of revenue comes from the alliance or inter-corperate market, where members will always be in need of mods, ammo, ships. Miners will have to sell there minerals to producers and will supply the alliance market. You are looking at one additional guaranteed hidden asteroid site per level. So at lvl 5 u are getting 5 hidden belts garenteed. Anomolies: I personally never seen any reason to do them, but at lvl 5 you get a total of 10 garenteed anomolies. Only if the anomolies offer enough will they be done. But 10 anomolies can cater for 10 ppl at about 10m ISK/hr DED complexes: This can be a good source of revenue, but is dependant on the DED lvl, the overseers price will drop, but the bounties should provide a decent revenue. The upgrade suggests to me that the chances will double every level, so probably an 8/10 daily = 100m ISK daily, hopefully there is something in place to pop them up more often. Survey Networks: To be honest, i dont think this is profitable at all. You probably could get a T2 bpc out of it but, meh!. Quantum Flux Generator: More T3 ships for the alliance/corps Given the system they are putting in place, i could maintain a single system easily, where i generate around 210m ISK weekly at a rate of 3hrs rat hunting daily. That would cover the infrastructure upgrade and sov module. and now, where to you get isk and time to pvp with.. you know, fun stuff... i'd rather not grind for HOURS A DAY just to bloody hold the system, thats not counting all the other costs, like ships for defence etc. for my alliance it is much more viable to simply ninja in and out as it pleases us and/or grind missions in high sec for funding of pvp.... -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze crystals for Amarr! Originally by: UMEE if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail. QFT!
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:06:00 - [299] Originally by: Alice Celadon 3. The market goes batpoo insane. As Trit falls off a freaking cliff in comparison to ISK value, BS manufacture/insurance/self-destruct becomes the de-facto method for making ISK. you must not have been to jita recently
Oku Kee'lus Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:07:00 - [300] I can't believe this expansion is going to fall flat on it's face because CCP can't get a grip of the code in their own game. The single most defining reason for most of 0.0 being a barren wasteland is truesec. Most systems are so crappy ISK wise, that you can't even rent them out. CCP, you were on the right track. In order to free up 0.0 for new and smaller alliances, current alliances need to be concentrated, the proposed costs are fine and can help accomplish that, but only if the solar systems are able to support it, and none of those resource upgrades will facilitate that. Exploration sites and DED plexes? Yeah, those are fine, if we were talking about current solar system population were only a few people share a system, but 50-100 people? That's simply not going to work out. If the resource upgrades are implemented like you present them here, solar systems aren't going to support anywhere near enough people to jusity those SOV and Infrastructure costs, and if you lower the costs to compensate, you won't free up any space for new players in 0.0. Conclusion? Yes, we know your agent, trusec, or whatever code is old and probably undocumented. We know in order to support 50k concurrent users your DB is probably a ***** when it comes to changing stuff like this, but unless you invest the time in fixing it, you might as well scrap Dominion and keep things as they are. If you don't all those man hours will be wasted shuffling around a bunch of stuff that wont result in anything but status quo.

Kushmir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:09:00 - [301] This must be an April Fools joke in November. Anyways this is just going to make bad space even worse, which I guess will cause fights over the few pockets of space that will actually be worth paying for. Hopefully this isn't the full story and just part of the overall 0.0 changes that CCP is working on.
Etrange Phi	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:14:00 - [302] Originally by: Vivian Azure So it's OK, that I spend 2-3 hours a day with industrial tasks, just so you can make another fail attempt to kick eJoke out of CR? Just because you are miserable doesn't mean it's a good idea to make every one else miserable as well.
Spuzum	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:16:00 - [303] Hey, I have an idea instead of Dominion. Why not just reset sov in all systems to zero. =)
Choon Tolus Rage For Order Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:19:00 - [304] Originally by: Alyra Logitus Originally by: Navick I mean, cmon, when Goons start quoting Bobby Atlas out of agreement then something has to be very, very wrong. I honestly never ever thought I would ever agree with a goon, much less many goons, but there's no denying it. You're telling me. We just got out of a war with 'em and I find myself on their side of an issue. Usually I'd disagree on principle, but this is just too much suck to ignore. I'd post how i think it can be improved, but many people have already done so. I'm shocked... and disappointed. CCP always did admirable (if sometimes flawed) work in the past. CCP: If youall really want to follow your vaunted "Excelence" theme or whatever, get up, HTFU, make something that feels like some effort was put into it, and get back to us. Otherwise I'll go play Dragon Age for a few months and wait for Star Wars: The Old Republic to come out. Or just go join all the other MMOers i work with on WoW (shudder). I'm no Altruist...
EvilweaselFinance Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:21:00 - [305] The easiest of many things you need to do to fix this is to move virtually all the sov upkeep costs to the infrastructure hub, as the price for sov without a hub will never ever be worth it.
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:21:00 - [306] There are a lot of empire people ITT saying 'huh, couple of billion a month, what's the big deal?' NOTE TO HIGHSEC PLAYERS : IN 0.0 WE DON'T HAVE AGENTS ****ING ISK ALL OVER US FOR COMPLETING ENDLESS TRIVIALLY EASY ZERO RISK MISSIONS. PLEASE STFU. Seriously, I really don't don't how CCP are expecting people to fund a 0.0 nerf when 0.0 is already poor as hell. It is a mystery.
Ravenal The Fated E.Y	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:22:00 - [307] has anyone really asked WHY there is a direct isk bill? ... i mean, who is charging you the rent of the sov hub and wtf does s/he have to do with ruling anything in non-npc sov space? .
niroshido Caldari Madhatters Inc. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:23:00 - [308] Originally by: adriaans Originally by: niroshido BLA and now, where to you get isk and time to pvp with.. you know, fun stuff... i'd rather not grind for HOURS A DAY just to bloody hold the system, thats not counting all the other costs, like ships for defence etc. for my alliance it is much more viable to simply ninja in and out as it pleases us and/or grind missions in high sec for funding of pvp.... So you are saying, that you specifically will have to keep sov all by yourself, cause i thought owning sov was an alliance thing, but sov declared for the alliance on a corperate lvl. I mentioned the total costs for maintaining a single system. at around 370m per week, 5 members ratting for 3 hrs at a rate of 20m ISK an hr 7 days a week would 2.1b ISK per week at a corperate tax rate of 10%, 210m ISK in tax is made per week from 5 members operating at that figure with 10 members, i think u get the idea. My corp operates at a 10% tax rate, every day i make the isk i need and still can afford ships to go out and pvp with
Scud Maximillion	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:30:00 - [309] Originally by: Equinox Daedalus Edited by: Equinox Daedalus on 06/11/2009 22:32:22 Well going off these figures, 1 system with sov, infrastructure hub, cyno jammer and jumpbridges will cost over 2 bil / month CVA alone has the most outposts per region, so i'd figure just for outposts alone thats probally 35+ bil isk a month CCP, you can't really be serious. We go from fighting for something we own to paying for something we own, paying ridiclous amounts of isk, atleast from my general point of view. What incentive is it to actually keep our space anymore? you say you want to use CVA as an example, but, you actually seem to want to destroy what we have built. You should of left us disbanded, because your doing a real good job of what most other alliances haven't been able to do. Where is this Mythical isk influx going to come from, to keep providence up and running? We'd be better off moving back to empire. How is 1 or 2 explorions going to INCREASE supstantally the isk generation. Tragic really. I think the whole point is for you not to be able to keep your space. Bravo CCP. This changes has long been needed.
Thorir Task Force Zener Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:30:00 - [310] So what should large space holding alliances do? Surely, not try conquering more space or invade someone - they would get punished. Shrink, carebear, camp jita 4-4 and then wait to be invaded by 'smaller entities'. I can't wait - to go back to empire.

Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:32:00 - [311] Originally by: Kanatta Jing Before you emo quit I'm going to do the unthinkable. Best guesses are that Technetium is the new Dysprosium and will make about as much per moon. Now you can wage a horrible brutal war for a few months while waiting for the T2 production chain to be finally fixed and for the system upgrades to be buffed sufficiently. In the mean time I can has your space right? stealth geminate boost right here and yes, i think everyone with a functioning pulse has their eyes on techn moons
Tangonis Galt Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:32:00 - [312] Originally by: Deldrac There are a lot of empire people ITT saying 'huh, couple of billion a month, what's the big deal?' NOTE TO HIGHSEC PLAYERS : IN 0.0 WE DON'T HAVE AGENTS ****ING ISK ALL OVER US FOR COMPLETING ENDLESS TRIVIALLY EASY ZERO RISK MISSIONS. PLEASE STFU. Seriously, I really don't don't how CCP are expecting people to fund a 0.0 nerf when 0.0 is already poor as hell. It is a mystery. R64's, Officer spawns, ABC ores, 10/10 complexes, access to class 5 and 6 WH space, R64's again...oh yeah 0.0 has no way to earn ISK. Good thing no one actually uses those R64's for anything, right ? 1/10 for another poor Troll attempt. .
Vavrin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:36:00 - [313] Haha, well i guess I will continue to run lvl4s in my alt while my main sites in 0.0 waiting for a fight.
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:38:00 - [314] Originally by: rubico1337 you know. there are these things called moons. generally they are semi-lucrative even after dominion. maybe that isk could go to pay sov bills rather than pay for huge cap fleets and megalomaniac directors? just a thought... yes instead of spending isk on ships and blowing them up, lets farm isk for ccp so we can have our name in the corner. aside from jump bridges, whats the benefit to sov again?
Balcor Mirage	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:39:00 - [315] Ok... the theory of the cost is based on the equivalent of running 5 large towers. But the problem is this: If the towers are not used for sovereignty only, there's no savings. True, the new sov marker replaces the necessity for throwing up and maintaining towers in a far flung 0.0 empire, but does nothing for savings on systems that are already being effectively leveraged by alliances. Thus, the new system is once again designed to favor the large, widespread alliances who do not use their space. I thought the new system was to deter unused space?!?
Killljoy	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:40:00 - [316] So I have to pay 900 mil a month for the chance to scan down stuff. What the hell. If its an upgrade it should just be there. This isn't a fix just a big ISK sink.
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:42:00 - [317] Originally by: Tangonis Galt Originally by: Deldrac There are a lot of empire people ITT saying 'huh, couple of billion a month, what's the big deal?' NOTE TO HIGHSEC PLAYERS : IN 0.0 WE DON'T HAVE AGENTS **ING ISK ALL OVER US FOR COMPLETING ENDLESS TRIVIALLY EASY ZERO RISK MISSIONS. PLEASE STFU. Seriously, I really don't don't how CCP are expecting people to fund a 0.0 nerf when 0.0 is already poor as hell. It is a mystery. R64's, Officer spawns, ABC ores, 10/10 complexes, access to class 5 and 6 WH space, R64's again...oh yeah 0.0 has no way to earn ISK. Good thing no one actually uses those R64's for anything, right ? 1/10 for another poor Troll attempt. . Empty quoting people who have no idea how rare all those things except ore are, and no idea how many accounts you have to run to equal level 4 empire income from asteroid mining, and no idea how hard r64s just got nerfed, and no idea how the whole point of moving to 0.0 is to earn money by defending space from other people not to shoot frigging rats. Yeah, 50-100 people running 10/10s, shooting officers, and WHing to class 5/6 every day. Jesus **ing christ.
Loco Eve State War Academy	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:46:00 - [318] Edited by: Loco Eve on 07/11/2009 03:54:50 that's a very high lease to pay for a system that you conquered. why should you have to pay such a stupid fee for something you basically own? edit: forgot this is CCP attempt to sell more plexs to EVERYONE! so they can afford to get thier own space. CCP you fail hard and we can see right through you.
Gimmickname Goonface	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:46:00 - [319] Originally by: Pringlescan Also nice job posting this late on a friday so we get to stew through the weekend before you realize like with the titan gun changes that you really messed up and fix it. This is payback for the threadnoughts.
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:48:00 - [320] Originally by: Deldrac Originally by: Tangonis Galt Originally by: Deldrac There are a lot of empire people ITT saying 'huh, couple of billion a month, what's the big deal?' NOTE TO HIGHSEC PLAYERS : IN 0.0 WE DON'T HAVE AGENTS **ING ISK ALL OVER US FOR COMPLETING ENDLESS TRIVIALLY EASY ZERO RISK MISSIONS. PLEASE STFU. Seriously, I really don't don't how CCP are expecting people to fund a 0.0 nerf when 0.0 is already poor as hell. It is a mystery. R64's, Officer spawns, ABC ores, 10/10 complexes, access to class 5 and 6 WH space, R64's again...oh yeah 0.0 has no way to earn ISK. Good thing no one actually uses those R64's for anything, right ? 1/10 for another poor Troll attempt. . Empty quoting people who have no idea how rare all those things except ore are, and no idea how many accounts you have to run to equal level 4 empire income from asteroid mining, and no idea how hard r64s just got nerfed, and no idea how the whole point of moving to 0.0 is to earn money by defending space from other people not to shoot frigging rats. Yeah, 50-100 people running 10/10s, shooting officers, and WHing to class 5/6 every day. Jesus **ing christ. AND for arguments sake; lets say there are more 10/10 plexes, 5/6 WH space access etc. More yield from these resources means Jita/the market will be flooded by modules that in the past where rare. What happens with the price of these modules? Price crash, which will nullify the "promised" boost thru upgrades.

toxicvega F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:49:00 - [321] This has got to be the most **ing **ed idea ever to come out of **ing any game designer. Welcome to SWG MKII. Looks like Perpetuum is going to be the new eve as no one in 0.0 will be able to accomplish anything other than grind to maintain SOV.
Tangonis Galt Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:52:00 - [322] Originally by: Deldrac the whole point of moving to 0.0 is to earn money by defending space from other people not to shoot frigging rats. Where did you EVER get a wrong idea like that from ? No wonder the upcoming change scares you. When you actually live in 0.0 and learn to make ISK there, you won't be so worried. .
d4shing	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:55:00 - [323] So I looked at some #s on DOTLAN and here's what I came up with: Total # of Sov-Claimable Systems: 2192 # held by 10 largest alliances: 1194, or 54% Total # of Sov-holding alliances: 82 Total # of toons in these alliances: 69,234 Total # of toons in the largest 10 alliances: 23,220, or 33% Average # of alliance members per system: 103 But, in the 10 largest alliances, they have an average of 20 people per system. 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. It seems pretty obvious to me that devs can't be married to any numbers. They put these up to make current holders think long and hard about what their best systems are, and which ones they don't really care about. The proper equilibrium, though, will be one where there are a number of systems that nobody cares enough to claim and pay for sovereignty in. The current equilibrium is that sov is way too cheap, every square inch of eve is spoken for, and it's inefficiently allocated. Relatedly, the current mechanism for redistributing it (POS warfare) sucks. To succeed, they have to price sov such that a large number of holders with a large number of systems decide that they only want 1/2 as much space, give or take. If they initially price it too low, and that doesn't happen, they'll just have to raise it over time. I'm not a community manager or anything, but I bet they'd prefer to take a rip-off-the-bandaid approach, rather than deal with new rounds of whiny posts every time they ratchet up sov price to attain the desired equilibrium. If half the space is unclaimed after a few weeks, then they can slowly lower the price to rejoicing internet posts. The upgrades do look kinda crappy, though. The goon who posted about how their crappiness reflects underlying problems with the game (arch/hack sites aren't worth much, mining outside of empire has a poor risk/reward tradeoff, etc.) is spot on, imo. Hopefully those can be improved, but everyone should realize that a price for sov that doesn't make everyone scream is sure to be too cheap.
Killljoy	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:57:00 - [324] So CCPs cure for large sprawling alliance is not to make SOV based of ocupancey or anything like that. Its just making it cost to much. Your all ******ed stop smoking weed.
Da Maddness Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:58:00 - [325] This idea is stupid! Auto payment system is great but the rest is just crap. if you want more people to experience 0.0 then open up more 0.0 areas of space with no choke points and some valueable minerals to make it worth it. Don't make 0.0 ****!
Securitas Protector Stealthfield Ihatalo Cartel Navy	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:58:00 - [326] CCP: The cost is fair, but you need to boost the ISK-making ability in a system a lot for it to be so. I'd love to see costs like this with huge rewards. Make plexes spawn quickly, make denser roids, whatever you have to do, but increase the incentive as well as the price. I am a member of one of the small alliances ready to move into 0.0 come dominion. -sec Proud to be shaych
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:59:00 - [327] Ok, lets have a though about this. lets say I decide to rat in UEPO, a systems with decent sec and 7 belts. This system can support 1 ratter after a few ours of chaining, to give ccp the benefit of the doubt, lets just assume it comes with hot spawns. I've been playing this game forever and have pretty much maxes out skills, i can do about 15 mil in bounties and 20 mil in loots in an hour, that means this system will, if fully ratted 24/7, with bring in 360 mil a day (10 bil/month), and lets say a billion a month from a standard moon allocation. Noone mines because there is no refinery and mining is **** anyways (you get more minerals npcing per character). system costs 2 bil to maintain, the added anomalies are crap and won't get used as is. so in a month, assuming 23/7 belt useage, and a standard ~20% tax, you break even. Of course you will still be running almost as many towers as before for the 3-4 moons you are mining in system and 2 jump bridges and a cynogen/jammer (as now, there will be overlap) So a station system will cost about 3 billion a month to maintain, and bring in about 3 bil in income to pay for it. As far as i can tell thee is really no incentive for good fights, roaming is still lame because there is nothing to increase payer concentration, and there is no incentive for an alliance to turtle op as intended (instead, noone will tick sov on lol), players will spread out more, and a barebones jump bridge/cyno network will connect it all. On top of it, we will need to spend even more time fueling since we lose fuel bonuses. ccp needs to ask itself, what is the point of even claiming sov? what exactly are the benefits? the losses are pretty clear? Why should we not claim more territory?
Damzan	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:02:00 - [328] Originally by: Bobby Atlas CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. I couldnt have said this any better.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:03:00 - [329] 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
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:05:00 - [330] Every single 0.0 dweller in this thread is saying this is a bad idea. There is literally not a single person who thinks this is a good idea. There are some people trolling the 0.0 dwellers but no real debate. After this dev blog, is there a SINGLE NEW ALLIANCE, just ONE, ANY NEW ALLIANCES who have read this blog and decided to move from empire to 0.0? ANYONE? ANYONE AT ALL? Nullsec is now JUST. NOT. WORTH. IT. Balance the risk:reward. Look at the Cost:Benefit. There are HUGE COSTS in both time and effort for living in 0.0 and just not a single ****ing tangible benefit to make it worth your time. 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

Panzram GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:07:00 - [331] problem: people aren't eating this plate full of poop solution: a bigger plate of more expensive poop
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:08:00 - [332] Originally by: d4shing So I looked at some #s on DOTLAN and here's what I came up with: Total # of Sov-Claimable Systems: 2192 # held by 10 largest alliances: 1194, or 54% Total # of Sov-holding alliances: 82 Total # of toons in these alliances: 69,234 Total # of toons in the largest 10 alliances: 23,220, or 33% Average # of alliance members per system: 103 But, in the 10 largest alliances, they have an average of 20 people per system. Hey highsec guy. Guess what, small alliances typically have more than half their member-rolls inactive, large alliances probably hit around 20% inactive, but are more active cutting people because of counter-intel requirements. Also, a large proportion of these characters are alts sitting in Empire because you can't support significant war activity from the resources in 0.0 unless you are dedicated moon goo expert sucking resources out of several systems at once just to support your own towers and ships, but that profession is certainly not going to support more than a handful of people per constellation. In other words, what you just said makes no sense. Come to 0.0 and try to rat in a market hub with 60 in local if you disagree.
Twisted Mechanic	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:10:00 - [333] Ohh and BTW nice of you all to thou CVA under the bus. Why would you even need a "territorial clam unit" when you got a damn OUTPOST!!!! Shouldn't that tell everyone your claiming this space by owning an OUTPOST!!!!
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:11:00 - [334] Edited by: Trent Nichols on 07/11/2009 04:12:34 Dominion is a idea in theory: More isk in the hands of individual players less for the few who control the alliance, less alliance sprawl and therefore more room for newcomers to 0.0 etc... The implementation is insanity: The benefits of holding sov and upgrading space do not come anywhere near justifying the cost - not even close! A fully upgraded system is supposed to support over 100 players? The Devs must be smoking some strong stuff. Since the costs do not scale with systems owned or the expanse of space they control, there is still nothing to prevent alliances from grabbing choice moons all over the galaxy. Combine this development with the high cost of sov and you will see smaller alliances still unable to enter 0.0 because the high ends are still held and now, without that income, they cannot even afford to claim sov. To fix it properly: Give 0.0 space in general a large income boost, faster spawns and bigger asteroids to start with. Any upgrades should increase the potential isk in a system by at least 30% per level. Make upkeep costs start out reasonable but cost per system should scale with total systems owned and/or the expanse of owned space. At least some materials for T2 production should be obtainable from sources other than moons. I'm thinking special roids in exploration sites for starters. Colonies and Capitals
MIRKINZ Caldari DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:12:00 - [335] Edited by: MIRKINZ on 07/11/2009 04:14:49 Originally by: Securitas Protector CCP: The cost is fair, but you need to boost the ISK-making ability in a system a lot for it to be so. I'd love to see costs like this with huge rewards. Make plexes spawn quickly, make denser roids, whatever you have to do, but increase the incentive as well as the price. I am a member of one of the small alliances ready to move into 0.0 come dominion. -sec But thats kinda the point! The more of them there are, the less they are worth. So if all the alliances out there are working 10/10 plexes, that means everyone is going to have officer loot to sell and the market will be flooded. If you wanted to kill what makes this game so fantastic then you are going to do so with this patch. Name any other game where 3000 people come together to fight for thier home. You think its easy to jsut slam all these people together and say "Go here and protect our homeland!". No! A huge amount of effort goes into Maintence/Diplomacy/Governing and some people are very good at it! SO when CCP says "You know what? All that effort and hardwork is pointless, you should just disband and make a 100man alliance with one system, that way everyone can enjoy it." Enjoy ****ing what? I play this game for the huge fights and the fleet combat, the 0.0 polictics and the real world aspects of this game. You want to "own" your own little chunk of space, go to low sec and claim it as your own. Don't make all the large alliances that have put so much effort into their existence go broke. CCP we are calling you out!! 14b a month for a JB network to Empire? Rediculous!
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:15:00 - [336] Originally by: Zastrow Every single 0.0 dweller in this thread is saying this is a bad idea. There is literally not a single person who thinks this is a good idea. There are some people trolling the 0.0 dwellers but no real debate. After this dev blog, is there a SINGLE NEW ALLIANCE, just ONE, ANY NEW ALLIANCES who have read this blog and decided to move from empire to 0.0? ANYONE? ANYONE AT ALL? Nullsec is now JUST. NOT. WORTH. IT. Balance the risk:reward. Look at the Cost:Benefit. There are HUGE COSTS in both time and effort for living in 0.0 and just not a single ****ing tangible benefit to make it worth your time. nobody reads the last post on a page 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
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:18:00 - [337] Level 4's are better. Either make the 0.0 isk gain far more or its simply not worth it. Unless you change this very simple problem anything you do wont amount a damn thing. Whatever changes you plan just ask yourself, "am i better off running level 4's" then you will know if it is a stupid idea or not.
Killljoy	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:19:00 - [338] Originally by: ep1k Level 4's are better. Either make the 0.0 isk gain far more or its simply not worth it. Unless you change this very simple problem anything you do wont amount a damn thing. Whatever changes you plan just ask yourself, "am i better off running level 4's" then you will know if it is a stupid idea or not. Agreed
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:20:00 - [339] Maybe CCP's plan is to get all 0.0 alliances to cram themselves into pirate sov 0.0 and run L4 missions?
m3rb3aSt Minmatar Advanced Component Research Enterprise GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:20:00 - [340] FIX ANOMOLIES!!! They are pretty useless. If you want to fix them... 1. Make them have regular old belt rats. 2. Make them send continuous waves of 4 BS 4 random support ships OVER AND OVER! 3. Make these waves get tougher and tougher. 4. Have these spawn all over the place! There you just fixed them!

marxist revolutionary	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:20:00 - [341] anyone who lives in 0.0 and rats instead of having an empire mission running alt has been gimping themselves, looks like this will continue to be the case
Smurphy1 Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:22:00 - [342] Wow CCP do you guys play your game? There are 100s of better upgrades out there and 0 worse ones. If you can't implement better upgrades because of flaws in your code you need to either scrap or delay this expansion. If there is any 0.0 dweller or Empire alliance that wants to move to 0.0 and is in favor of these changes speak now.
Deja Thoris Invicta. Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:27:00 - [343] Looks pretty **** to be honest. I'm very underwhelmed. I'm not sure how you expect to get the promised numbers crammed into a system with those naff upgrades. The costs do leave something to be desired too since a lot of the stuff you propose comes from activities that will circumvent corp taxes.
Rexthor Hammerfists Rage of Inferno Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:29:00 - [344] This Expansion had three promises that made me look forward to it. Alliances holding less space, Sov being less of a pain in the ass and strongly encouraging "Carebearing" as an alliance income instead of passive ressources. So far i cant see any of these points being done. Alliances may have sov in less systems, but much like before poses were introduced, alliances will still control regions easily. Not having sov in a system isnt going to stop me curbstomping a newcommer alliances that has setup shop in a remote corner 2 regions away from the 10 systems i have sov in, because i move my caps there which takes me 15minutes and bridge 200 subcaps there as well while im at it. Point is, while sov is made more expensive, empty space is still as unaccessible as it has been before and it is still as easy to control vast space for single alliances. Part of that is because much of the "sov" system in dominion depends on Structure Hp rather then timers. Ie. numbers are still king and a 100 man dread fleet can clear a region in one hour while a 5man dread fleet would grows beards instead. The 100men dreadfleets number benefit should simply be that it can wipe out smaller fleets, but not take sov faster then those - This would enable smaller alliances to wage war against similar sized alliances without exposing dreadfleets long enough for half of eve to come by, but also take bites out of bigger alliances, should those not be there. Last part is the alliance and alliance member isk making - the current moon mining is skewed and as you outlined, alliances only needing moons and nothing else as isk source makes most industrial players a liability in 0.0 Bummer that the solutions brought up so far arent doing a thing to change this, moon income is still going to be number 1 if sisi stays the same. The system upgrades will nowhere near support the numbers suggested for making isk in one system, nor do i see any reason to bring more carebears into an alliance after dominion then before. -
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:31:00 - [345] Whoever came up with these numbers should be fired because they are totally INSANE. Exclamation. Underline. Bold. One one one one!!! First off, you are assuming that the new payment system will replace fueling 5 large pos right now to hold sov. This is not the case. Almost nobody puts up extra towers to do nothing but claim sov. You have one to run a cyno jammer, one or two to run a jump bridge, and the rest do moon mining and reacting. None of these are going away in the new system. Secondly, you come up with a figure of over 2 billion isk a month for the upgrades to give us what we have now? 5 large pos only cost 600 mil a month to fuel, and of course, you can mine most of the fuel yourself locally rather than pay straight isk. Then as others have said, none of these upgrades seem to be adding near the amount of income potential that you have hinted at, let alone enough to pay the exorbitant costs of sov. And what is this some people keep saying about a base of 3 anomalies per system right now? If I can 20 systems I might find 2 anomalies total. I can be the only person ratting in a system for hours and keep scanning while ratting and never see one.
Cheekything Gallente Fallen Angel's Blade.	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:33:00 - [346] This is just the rise of the Commi alliances and the whines of the rest. Awesome :D
Solock Caldari Rage For Order Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:33:00 - [347] Just finished reading all 12 pages of that thread. i'm now despressed. I don't see a single positive about this. When you have goons agreeing with atlas agreeing with CVA agreeing with RAWR agreeing with sys-k agreeing with ... we all cant be wrong
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:37:00 - [348] Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 07/11/2009 04:37:39 Originally by: d4shing So I looked at some #s on DOTLAN and here's what I came up with: Total # of Sov-Claimable Systems: 2192 # held by 10 largest alliances: 1194, or 54% Total # of Sov-holding alliances: 82 Total # of toons in these alliances: 69,234 Total # of toons in the largest 10 alliances: 23,220, or 33% Average # of alliance members per system: 103 But, in the 10 largest alliances, they have an average of 20 people per system. 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. It seems pretty obvious to me that devs can't be married to any numbers. They put these up to make current holders think long and hard about what their best systems are, and which ones they don't really care about. The proper equilibrium, though, will be one where there are a number of systems that nobody cares enough to claim and pay for sovereignty in. The current equilibrium is that sov is way too cheap, every square inch of eve is spoken for, and it's inefficiently allocated. Relatedly, the current mechanism for redistributing it (POS warfare) sucks. To succeed, they have to price sov such that a large number of holders with a large number of systems decide that they only want 1/2 as much space, give or take. If they initially price it too low, and that doesn't happen, they'll just have to raise it over time. I'm not a community manager or anything, but I bet they'd prefer to take a rip-off-the-bandaid approach, rather than deal with new rounds of whiny posts every time they ratchet up sov price to attain the desired equilibrium. If half the space is unclaimed after a few weeks, then they can slowly lower the price to rejoicing internet posts. The upgrades do look kinda crappy, though. The goon who posted about how their crappiness reflects underlying problems with the game (arch/hack sites aren't worth much, mining outside of empire has a poor risk/reward tradeoff, etc.) is spot on, imo. Hopefully those can be improved, but everyone should realize that a price for sov that doesn't make everyone scream is sure to be too cheap. You are wrong on so many levels, those 500 man alliances with 5 systems do not have 100 people online at a time or ever, there max participation at peak hours are usually 20-30 , 50 if you are lucky and the number of those who actually rat/mine/plex in 0.0 for income is a fraction of. Further, vast majority of the numbers in most alliances are comprised of inactive's and alts of various types such as cyno, market, inde, capital etc... So even an alliance such as ATLAS with say 2600 members - in reality you only got about 45-50% of that (if you are lucky) who are living and breathing people and a high percentage of those individuals earn income through methods outside of 0.0 (empire mission alts, npc space mission alts [i.e: stain]). I have been playing this game for over half a decade, once upon a time it was a niche idea to come out to 0.0 to make money but people quickly learned and it has long been the case - that you do not go to 0.0 to make money. This is something dominion was supposed to fix, sadly the reality is as disappointing as it was when I first ventured into 0.0 many years ago. Finally, if you think any current system can sustain 100 people in it you are out to lunch, please point me to this solar system in 0.0 cause I have yet to find one. Likewise with dominion, from indications so far, it will fail to achieve anything near that level of player density relative to profit in any system either.
marxist revolutionary	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:37:00 - [349] Originally by: Solock Just finished reading all 12 pages of that thread. i'm now despressed. I don't see a single positive about this. When you have goons agreeing with atlas agreeing with CVA agreeing with RAWR agreeing with sys-k agreeing with ... we all cant be wrong IT alliance pets teh ~pilots of honoure~ of aeturnus alliance disagree!
Smurphy1 Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:42:00 - [350] These changes clearly show that either A. No one who works at CCP actually plays EVE in 0.0 or B. That little clip about quality or excellence at Fanfest was a load of crap. Or both. The reason I know this: Either you don't understand the current state of your game(Read this thread its not to hard to figure out the current state) or you passed on all the worthwhile upgrades cause it would be too hard to add to the code. So if you really are practicing Excellence then take the time to do this right or don't do it at all.

Togae Alus Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:46:00 - [351] we need this dominion fixed if not you will losse players as we dont want to spend endless hours grinding for isk
rubico1337 Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:46:00 - [352] Originally by: The Mittani WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:48:00 - [353] Edited by: Zastrow on 07/11/2009 04:49:59 I know there's people at CCP reading this thread and thinking "Oh there's always people ***ing on the forums, they'll get over it"... Realize you've taken all the excitement and buzz about Dominion and with a single devblog turned it into disappointment and rejection. This sov change isn't something we'll get over, because it's not in the best interests of the game. You've added a great disincentive to sprawling space empires but without an incentive to do the extra work, nobody's going to bother. You gave us the cost of sov, now give us a real benefit. Originally by:** rubico1337 Originally by: The Mittani WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH this is the same reaction everyone is having, and for good reason. now contribute to the thread or stop ****ing posting 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
toxicvega F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:53:00 - [354] So lets say that you really have 75K active subs... I assume there are more but can't and don't have the time to look them up. Thats something in the range of more than a million USD per month that you rake in. A million a month and this is the bull** we pay you for. Last time I check I was the consumer and YOU are the producer. I/We counting 12 or so pages in the last couple hours of people telling you your plan and Ideas are horrible. No wonder you droped it on a friday evening. You knew it was crap and are too damned lazy to do anything about it. A million dollars a month and your programmers and content designers are nothing but total fail. How about you produce something worth paying for. I.E. not this **.
Zimi Vlasic F.R.E.E. Explorer	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:54:00 - [355] You CCP pieces of garbage better refund the almost $300 I just ****ed away in account renewal after you drop this turd on us. What a goddamn waste of money ------------------ Find Roid, Examine, and Excavate Explorer
rubico1337 Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.07 04:58:00 - [356] Originally by: ElvenLord On the other hand, if you are a smaller empire alliance with a desire to go live in 0.0 you dont even have those moons. All you can hope for as starter capital is your members donations, and that can take you to a point. If space you take can not support both you as a member and you as a corporation/alliance then its not worth taking it and paying for it. with current t2 production i woudl agree. but with the re-balancing of components there will be several different type of moons that give a decent profit, rather than one or two making insane ammnts of isk. smaller alliances will be able to capitalize on these less rare moons
Avoida	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:02:00 - [357] 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.
Diaxess Curses Mom	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:04:00 - [358] Originally by: rubico1337 Originally by: ElvenLord On the other hand, if you are a smaller empire alliance with a desire to go live in 0.0 you dont even have those moons. All you can hope for as starter capital is your members donations, and that can take you to a point. If space you take can not support both you as a member and you as a corporation/alliance then its not worth taking it and paying for it. with current t2 production i woudl agree. but with the re-balancing of components there will be several different type of moons that give a decent profit, rather than one or two making insane ammnts of isk. smaller alliances will be able to capitalize on these less rare moons Where? In say a region that AAA or Goons or RZR lives in. They may not have sov in but half the systems but I promise you no one else is going to either. Just because it doesn't have my alliance as sov, damned sure doesn't mean I will let anyone else have it. If I can't have no one can, and I am sure any other region holding alliance think the same thing.
Mskpath3	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:06:00 - [359] Originally by: rubico1337 . smaller alliances will be able to capitalize on these less rare moons No, they won't because the big alliances are still going to be there. They're just going to end up not claiming sov in many systems. They will simply maintain military presence without the sov. Small alliances will get curbstomped all the same. Actually, I'm making the prediction now : Someone is going to make a 3rd party virtual sov calculation tool that reports sov via tower count or something else that approximates the current system. Ingame sov be damned.
Lucas Tigh United Systems Navy Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:07:00 - [360] Edited by: Lucas Tigh on 07/11/2009 05:09:12 Originally by: Bobby Atlas CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. ITT a bunch of Bobby Atlas's enemies empty quote him. ------------------------------------- CCP, make me a winner. I win.

Alice Teal	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:08:00 - [361] This is a terrible travesty, and I hope the other small alliances who want to hang out in 0.0 realize how badly we've just been screwed. (From your posts, it doesn't seem like you do). Let's paint the picture: 1.The Goons and AAA and Atlas and NC, after they stop pointing out how stupid this is, will consolidate to a few sov systems per region. These will get strategic upgrades only. They no longer have to hold constellations to build supercaps...and can retake stations when necessary (easier than POS war anyway). 2.Great! I'm a small alliance with a carebear and pvp base and 5 billion to spare! Let's move into Delve! I anchor my FLAG in C3N-3S and somehow manage to quickly take the outpost. C3N has a lot of gates to run away in case of blobs, has decent but not great sec, so Goonies have almost abandoned it, and I like the scenery. I await the Goonswarm response...nothing. I pay about 1 billion for the first 2 weeks and start the upgrade process, and my alliance mates and I start ratting and mining and having a jolly time. 3. 2 weeks have passed. I've upgraded the poo out of C3N. I just paid the bill for the next 2 weeks! I even expanded to another system, LWX. Maybe I can build an outpost there someday! Suddenly I get a convo invite. It's the Mittani, diplomat for the goons. The Mittani: Hey little carebear/pvp alliance. I see you moved into some Delve space we hadn't claimed. Jolly Leader: Oh yeah, it's nice that we can all benefit from 0.0 now!!! :):):) Mitt: Yeah, that's nice. Look, you're going to start paying us 5 billion a month. I know you just paid the next 2 weeks rent and have spent 4 billion and all that activity time on upgrading your space -- you can't really afford to run away from that sort of an investment. This isn't negotiable. I'll have you sov jammed within the hour and wiped out in 24 hours with a fleet of 300 unless my wallet goes blinky very soon. Blowing up your stuff would be super lulzy, and make my goonies happy, so unless you're making my sov costs easier to bear, you're gone. Jolly Leader: Oh. Let's summarize. Your alliance mates and you haven't been making any more money the last two weeks than you did in empire. In fact, you discover that you've been making a lot less dodging roaming gangs and finding good sites and rat spawns. Your cash reserves have dwindled. You don't even have 5 billion anymore. If this were POS warfare, you could have quickly taken an entire constellation and maybe cynojammed and fortified...but that's simply not going to happen without 50 billion to pay all the rental and upgrade costs. The 2 week rental intervals let bigger guys hit you when you're weakest financially. When your upgrades and FLAG get taken/exploded you lose a LOT. 0.0 seemed fun and adventurous before...but now you're only left asking WHY THE HELL DID I EVEN MOVE HERE?
Toman Torax Rage For Order Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:08:00 - [362] Good God where to even begin... 12 pages of this so far, guaranteed to be far far more as the weekend rolls on, and save for a small handful of players who clearly don't live in 0.0 or are obviously delusional, the reaction is clear and virtually unanimous. Dominion, with the changes proposed in this blog, WILL NOT WORK - for ALL of the reasons mentioned REPEATEDLY in this ever growing thread. When I sit here and find myself agreeing with Bobby, Goonies, et al, something is seriously wrong. The upgrades are not good enough to sustain your vaunted "50 to 100 people per system". No way, no how - for the reasons pointed out numerous times in this thread. CCP, I beg you, don't do this - not like this, at least. Many many people have posted in this thread, have been playing the game a good long time, and know this game pretty well. These people pay your salaries. Ask yourselves this one question: Why are THIS many people having an almost unanimously BAD reaction to these changes? Rethink this. Postpone it if you have to. But CERTAINLY don't roll out Dominion with those changes in that blog.
rubico1337 Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:10:00 - [363] Originally by: Zastrow this is the same reaction everyone is having, and for good reason. now contribute to the thread or stop **ing posting contribute? i love how goons are ting all over this thread. screaming down things that you see as a threat. Originally by:** The Mittani more words go here about how this is dumb and how we're going to have to bring out the pr flak cannons gg goons... gg
mechtech Entropy Industries	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:12:00 - [364] Disappointed in the upgrades. We need cool, unique upgrades. Maybe unlocking special agents, special belts, opening a special story, ect ect. When new players come to eve and whine about no "content" this is what they mean. To be honest, I'd like to see some more unique touches to this decidedly barren universe (WH space is nice), and Dominion/upgrades was a great opportunity to spice things up a bit. Unfortunately we have some really uninspired upgrades in front of us as things stand.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:14:00 - [365] 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
Zareph Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:14:00 - [366] Pirate Magnets - Increases rat bounties at 25% per level, up to 125% Ore Prospecting Array - spawns hidden asteroid belts that have unique ores, these refine into unique minerals. Add these minerals to all types of blueprints Entrapment - system now has the chance to spawn pirate capital ships. Chance to drop named/faction capital modules Survey Networks - datacores, t2 salvage/blueprints now only drop from profession sites Quantum Flux Generator - This one is pretty good,. While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
penifSMASH GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:15:00 - [367] This is terrible. Does CCP play its own game or listen to the CSMs or any player feedback? No one ever runs anomalies or profession sites because they're worthless and you're better off ratting in belts, which is the most obvious part of 0.0 life that needs a buff. There's no reason for Empire corps to test the waters in 0.0 and there's no reason for current 0.0 sov holding alliances to not just move to NPC 0.0 space. On the other hand, CCP has managed to get nearly all 0.0 sov-holding entities, despite their historical or territorial disputes, to unite and agree on something.
Sidrat Flush Caldari Life is Experience New Eden Hardware Emporium	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:15:00 - [368] Again I am sad to say my belief that being in 0.0 will lead to tears, drama and an empty wallet has been proven again. I am sad because the closest people I talk to in game was actually looking forward to trying to carve out a piece of this 0.0 action for themselves and from this dev blog alone - well I'm not really looking forward to finding out if they've read it or not. I wish CCP would decide what the 'end-game' in Eve actually is. Having been able to do level 4 missions solo in order to cover the costs of the corp while building stuff, and of course getting the tax income in all this while based in Empire means that to me having been there a few times 0.0 is for those people that thrive on ego, arguments and uber large and expensive fleet combat. Oh if you don't mind setting the alarm for ridiculous o'clock either it also helps. So come on CCP you can tweak the numbers all you want, until you realise what you want 0.0 to be you're just keeping it dumbed down for everyone who has ever worked their butt off to get the outposts, the towers, the networks, the logistics not to mention the diplomacy and the brown-nosing, while still having to go back to empire to fill up their wallet for the next round of madness. As a long time player, I was really hoping this patch would see 0.0 be viable again for everyone willing to put in some time and effort. Now it's a tax on top of the hot-dropped dread fleet. I'm going to drag my feet telling the guys about this dev-blog. Eve-online Industrial Organiser thread full batch manufacturing
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:15:00 - [369] You know, looking through the thread everyone is freaking out about 2bil/month/system, but, did everyone actually stop and think that maybe, just maybe, CCP intends the cynojammer cost to be prohibitive: you won't have bridges everywhere and real most of the cost people are complaining about comes from putting down jammers. Honestly, 30mil/system is pretty darn reasonable if even 10 people are using that system for an hour a day each if there aren't that many red roaming gangs around (so they can actually use it for that hour). Its really only the desire to keep everything jammed that makes the numbers seem insane.
Mskpath3	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:17:00 - [370] Originally by: Alice Teal Let's paint the picture: Your picture is overcomplicated. Carebear alliance stealth anchors some stuff in unclaimed Delve space. Whether you declare sov or not, you will be reported in <= 2 days, and you will have a lolfleet at your door in <= 3.

rand0mch1ck	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:18:00 - [371] Great.... NPC's online. Just what i wanted to do in an MMO shoot NPC's all effing day. I never wanted to PVP anyways. On the bright side i wont have to pay for the Cyno Jam upgrade in any sytems cuz no ones gonna have time to have fights any more.
rubico1337 Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:20:00 - [372] Originally by: Mskpath3 Originally by: rubico1337 . smaller alliances will be able to capitalize on these less rare moons No, they won't because the big alliances are still going to be there. They're just going to end up not claiming sov in many systems. They will simply maintain military presence without the sov. Small alliances will get curbstomped all the same. how would you propose letting smaller alliances into 0.0 then? there is no real way to make up for numbers. if you allow tons of defensive upgrades at low cost to protect the small allaicnes you have the cynojammed naptrain that doesnt allow any non-established alliance in. if you hypothetically allow no defensive upgrades then you have what you are describing. main thing i see as a step in the right direction is the high cost of jump bridges. if you want a jumpbrige chain you better damn well know it will be worth it. and be careful planning it out. this will effectively make space bigger, less jumpbridges mean youll actually have to use stargates occasionally. which will restrict the area of influence of the bigger allainces
Alice Teal	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:20:00 - [373] Originally by: Mskpath3 Originally by: Alice Teal Let's paint the picture: Your picture is overcomplicated. Carebear alliance stealth anchors some stuff in unclaimed Delve space. Whether you declare sov or not, you will be reported in <= 2 days, and you will have a lolfleet at your door in <= 3. I know. I was trying to point out to the few people who think these changes will allow them to move into 0.0 how delusional they're being. They must be thinking "oh, it won't be a big deal to throw down a few FLAGs," so I'm trying to help them understand why that won't matter.
John MacCoy Amarr Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:20:00 - [374] I think we need to change the name of the game to Accounting and Realestate Online. No way in hell is this going to make small alliances come out to 0.0, especially if the larger alliances are gonna have trouble paying it. Cut the cost to at least 25% and then we'll talk. --------------- It's a Trap!
Mskpath3	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:24:00 - [375] Originally by: rubico1337 how would you propose letting smaller alliances into 0.0 then? there is no real way to make up for numbers. You answered your own question. There literally is no substitute for numbers and effort. Maybe people who live in empire think 0.0 alliance are all just a bunch of mouth-breathing pirates. But the logistics and management of running a full-sized 0.0 alliance are astounding. And the dedication required to defend it equally so. All the mechanics in the world that aren't flat out "you can't shoot people in 0.0" are going to change that, ever. Anything your happy happy carebear alliance (and by you, I'm speaking in generalities) is going to, and already IS being done way better, at way bigger scale by the big boys in 0.0. Until you become better at everything, you will lose. 0.0 is pure egalitarianism. Everyone has an equal chance. You want to get in? Make a play for it. Happens all the time.
Kambo AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:29:00 - [376] Edited by: Kambo on 07/11/2009 05:34:25 Simple fact is... that's bad. Combat sites need to to be improved alot if you want a system to cover for the sov costs AND pay the bills for pilots using it. and dont screw up the drone lands have mercy. We dont got bounties and well no DED plexes aswell as mag sites. I'm in full support of dismising/changing/postponing the expansion if that dev blog holds your true intentions of the SOV change. EDIT > A good prespective to start looking at 0.0 is that it is a PVP arena and not as much as cash grining. Most ppl go out in lawless space to have fun blowing other ppl's ships up, not mindlesly grining belt rats to get the infrastructure up. The less time we have to spend ratting in a belt the more we can go out and either contest eachothers sov or go hulk fishin. There's hardly anything more fun then 2 hostile roaming gangs meating crossing their paths in the depths of 0.0. Chasing a ratter who instandly warps off to a safe spot and cloaks is not really fun
penifSMASH GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:30:00 - [377] Originally by: rubico1337 Originally by: ElvenLord On the other hand, if you are a smaller empire alliance with a desire to go live in 0.0 you dont even have those moons. All you can hope for as starter capital is your members donations, and that can take you to a point. If space you take can not support both you as a member and you as a corporation/alliance then its not worth taking it and paying for it. with current t2 production i woudl agree. but with the re-balancing of components there will be several different type of moons that give a decent profit, rather than one or two making insane ammnts of isk. smaller alliances will be able to capitalize on these less rare moons Is this a troll or are you serious? Do you really think large alliances won't just take those moons, regardless of who has sov in the system? As an example, Solar Fleet, an alliance in the ass-end of the Drone Regions, has r64 moons on the other side of the map in Aridia. And that won't change after Dominion.
hathgarrr	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:31:00 - [378] Well CCP you sure do not know how to disappoint the pessimist inside of me Just in case you need a definition.. (you seem to have the perpetual need to have everything explained to you) Pessimism, from the Latin pessimus (worst), is a state of mind which negatively colors the perception of life, especially with regard to future events. Value judgments may vary dramatically between individuals, even when judgments of fact are undisputed. The most common example of this phenomenon is the "Is the glass half empty or half full?" situation. The degree in which situations like these are evaluated as something good or something bad can be described in terms of one's optimism or pessimism respectively. Throughout history, the pessimistic disposition has had effects on all major areas of thinking.[1] It is going to be interesting to see what excuse's you come up with this time around.. Google Eve online Scandle for some highlights. You promised certain things.. If this Dev blog is any indication at all of your plans then you have FAILED to come up with what you have promised. IE your in breach of contract. Not only a written contract (blog posts,forums posts) but verbal (statements made at Fan fest).. Now i can see making alliances fork out good isk for sov.. (even though it makes no bloody sense.. You OWN the system why the hell do you need to pay for the privilege ?) .. But that aside 0.0 has NEVER been a place to actually make isk.. Not for 99.999% of the people who are flying around in expensive ships blowing each other up. 0.0 Never has been able to compete on a isk/risk reward basis with high sec.. You promised that with these changes it would.. Once again CCP has reaffirmed the basic principle of life.. People are stupid. Congrats CCP
Ryixezu Amarr Big Shadows Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:33:00 - [379] A couple of months ago I got some of my RL-friends to try EVE. The first thing I told them after introducing them to the game in general was that an alt really makes your life easier. The main reason, I told them, is because your sources of income in lowsec and 0.0 isn't stellar and may end up getting disrupted at any time. If that happens it's a godsend to have a character in highsec running L4-missions. After reading this devblog, I will continue to give the same advice to new players and our alts will still run missions in highsec.
DaReaper Net 7 The Last Brigade	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:33:00 - [380] ok, lets do some math... Claim hub 20m a day industrial hub 10m a day lets add... super cap 1m a day cyno gen 4m a day jump bridge 12.5m a day cyno jammer 25m a day. now not all systems will be cyno jammed, or have a jb or a cyno gen, or make super caps. But for arguments sake we will have all. ok, now for a non faction DS pos your are paying (based on jita prices): Enriched uranium: (4 units and hour X 24 hours X 30 days) @ 5300 = 26.8m isk (rounded up) Oxygen: (25 x 24 x 30) 1800 x 109 = 2m isk a month Mech parts: (5 x 24 x 30) 3600 x 620 = 2.3m coolant: (8 x 24 x 30) 5760 x 1090 = 6.3m robotics: (1 x 24 x 30) 720 x 6875 = 5m isotopes: (450 x 24 x 30) 324000 x 350 113.4m ozone: (150 x 24 x 30) 108000 x 250 = 27m water: (150 x 24 x30) 108000 x 23 = 2.5m total: 185m isk a month in fuel Now the standard is 5 DS's for a system. or im assuming, at least for stations its 5. so... 925m isk a month. Now we add in the jammer pos, and a brdige pos so 2 more 1.2b So technically the increase is not that much. And with prices fluctuating, well.. basicly it looks to be about the price of having 14 faction sov benifites pos'. It really is not that undo able. But yea it should be less cost.

Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:34:00 - [381] Originally by: rubico1337 how would you propose letting smaller alliances into 0.0 then? there is no real way to make up for numbers. if you allow tons of defensive upgrades at low cost to protect the small allaicnes you have the cynojammed naptrain that doesnt allow any non-established alliance in. if you hypothetically allow no defensive upgrades then you have what you are describing. The way you do it is by allowing a single system if populated return the same sort of isk you see in level 4 mission hubs. There would then be no point in expanding beyond the space you could keep worked with your local population. (Not to mention that scanning things down is a pain, now multiply that as many people are scanning multiple signatures in the same system which may already be in use...) You are better off just "claiming" more systems without Sov and use existing income streams rather than paying for these upgrades. Quote: this will effectively make space bigger, less jumpbridges mean youll actually have to use stargates occasionally. which will restrict the area of influence of the bigger allainces Less cynodampers which are even more expensive mean that it will all be about jumpdrive range. Say hello to more jump portaled hotdrops... so much for using stargates.
Alice Teal	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:35:00 - [382] Originally by: Mskpath3 ... Not quite, it is possible for CCP to allow small but well organized alliances into 0.0 in three easy steps. 1. Actually increase resource density with upgrades. More belts, better/more roids, etc. (Stop being lazy hacks.) 2. Keep cost of sovving a system very high to prevent abuse of the next point which is... 3. Allow not only cynojamming, but also "gate capship jamming" (gates jammed, caps can't go through, all else can). As long as the small (more than a hundred though, mmkay?) alliance gets all its members to train up T1 geddons and phoons and domis, they should be fine under the coming changes. When a big guy comes to curbstomp them they only need to break the sov jamming at one point during a 24 hr cycle.
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:37:00 - [383] Originally by: Bobby Atlas CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. This needs to be empty quoted on every page. Damn, it's like the affront to common sense that is :atlas: holding space is completely turned on it's head by one good post.
Kralin Ignatov Gallente Mentis Fidelis	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:37:00 - [384] Edited by: Kralin Ignatov on 07/11/2009 05:43:04 the upgrades are way to weak also, i find scanning, although profitable, to be really annoying. To be clear, stop being p*y's and actually make upgrades worth a damn. these upgrades do little more then grow the wallet of the 4-5 people that end up running the spawned plexes. They do not make it possible to get 50+ people to make money there. This is due to the finite nature of plexes, where they only supplement a set amount of isk. this make the alliance wallet not grow at all, and mostly *es a lot of people off, because the upgraded plex system has already been ran with this option, crap regions are still crap to hold, because enough income cannot be generated. True sec upgrading, on the other hand, would make it available for multiple people to enjoy the upgrades while benefiting the alliance's wallet in a exponential fashion. with this option, crap regions are no longer crap to hold essentially these current upgrades are limited in scope to only a few people and not worth it to the alliance to upgrade. Yes i am mad, mostly because i was looking forward to this patch, and now its dissapointing ______________________ There once was a killboard for BoB, then there was no BoB. - killboard.net*
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:39:00 - [385] Edited by: Mahke on 07/11/2009 05:40:47 Originally by: DaReaper now not all systems will be cyno jammed, or have a jb or a cyno gen, or make super caps. But for arguments sake we will have all. This. This is the flaw in reasoning that makes the price look so bad. Most systems are probably meant to have sov, hub, and thats it. Everything else, you gotta think about it and weigh whether or not its really worth it. edit: not saying the benefits couldn't use a bit of a tune up. Just that all the tears are perhaps over the top. edit: fake edit: Please tell me the extra exploration sites won't spawn after downtime, , would suck for everyone who can't play then.
rubico1337 Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:45:00 - [386] Originally by: Mskpath3 Edited by: Mskpath3 on 07/11/2009 05:26:11 Originally by: rubico1337 how would you propose letting smaller alliances into 0.0 then? there is no real way to make up for numbers. You answered your own question. There literally is no substitute for numbers and effort. yes, it was a rhetorical device. there shouldnt be a substitute for numbers or effort. Originally by: Mskpath3 Maybe people who live in empire think 0.0 alliance are all just a bunch of mouth-breathing pirates. But the logistics and management of running a full-sized 0.0 alliance are astounding. And the dedication required to defend it equally so. All the mechanics in the world that aren't flat out "you can't shoot people in 0.0" are going to change that, ever. Anything your happy happy carebear alliance (and by you, I'm speaking in generalities) dont think that becuase you(im speaking in generalities) are in a big alliance in 0.0 that your somehow entitled or better than everyone else,a dn that somehow eveyone who thinks differently is a cearbear for the record, come out to wormhole space without your instant all-knowing intel tool that is local, and with out your huge blobs to hide behind(speaking in generalities here). ill show you a good time Originally by: Mskpath3 0.0 is pure egalitarianism. Everyone has an equal chance. You want to get in? Make a play for it. Happens all the time. no it isnt. vast swaths of 0.0 are controlled by deathstar spamming, cynojamming. jumpportal generating alliances that do so jsut because it costs pennies in POS fuel and it makes thier e-peens bigger. this the powers that be stay the powers that be
Mskpath3	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:47:00 - [387] Originally by: Alice Teal As long as the small (more than a hundred though, mmkay?) alliance gets all its members to train up T1 geddons and phoons and domis, they should be fine under the coming changes. When a big guy comes to curbstomp them they only need to break the sov jamming at one point during a 24 hr cycle. I will break it to you gently : you're on crack :) If you have a 100 man alliance, a.) 10-20 of them will be online on average, b.) since this is some new endeavor for you, they will have no combat experience and be reluctant to take losses so getting x's will be hard, and most importantly c.) they are going to get massacred by even just the for-lulz 30 man roaming hac fleets, let alone the inevitable 100+ man CTA battleship fleet that will show up within a day or two if you show -any- potential for giving kills. Fighting, constantly, is your only option. If you dock and hide, your in-space assets will be popped and your members will be sad. I'd say it'll take < 1 week for a "major" effort by randoms. But in most cases, if any of them succeed, they would have succeeded before Dominion anyways.
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:48:00 - [388] Originally by: DaReaper ok, lets do some math... A few things to take into account: You are neglecting to calculate fuel bonus (which will be reduced) DS can double as Jammer or JB. Thus even if you assume 5 DS as a basline for current sov holding, it doesn't balloon to 7-8 DS with bridges/jammer. More realistically unless a system is under active assault, 3 DS (1 jammer 2 JB) are maintained and most other POS have some industrial function to offset their fuel costs. Come Dominion 3 DS will still be required, so even if you had 5 DS per system, you would still need to maintain 3, and will have a saving of 2 DS in the best case. The main reason to have numbers of DS now is because if you do not, someone can drop 5 of their own and contest sov at the next DT, which really only matters in station systems. Except come Dominion sov has no impact on station vulnerability.
Normin Bates	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:49:00 - [389] More bloated Alliance tears! Keep 'em coming! Please CCP....Don't let the tears from these Alliances with hundreds of unused systems sway your objective. Let them see what they can make of it and then adjust...if needed. If they rage-quit then so be it. Wahhhhh, we can't keep our 57 systems that we never use! Too funny!
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:51:00 - [390] Edited by: Korodan on 07/11/2009 05:52:36 Edited by: Korodan on 07/11/2009 05:51:45 Originally by: Normin Bates More bloated Alliance tears! Keep 'em coming! Please CCP....Don't let the tears from these Alliances with hundreds of unused systems sway your objective. Let them see what they can make of it and then adjust...if needed. If they rage-quit then so be it. Wahhhhh, we can't keep our 57 systems that we never use! Too funny! 1/10, too obvious. Work on your trolling son. edit: the smilies are what really give it away, use less next time. edit again: post with your main.

Ex Mudder Gallente Oberon Incorporated	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:52:00 - [391] What a load of horse****, CCP. Plonk 3x cancelled accounts Enjoy
Mskpath3	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:54:00 - [392] Originally by: rubico1337 dont think that because you(im speaking in generalities) are in a big alliance in 0.0 that your somehow entitled or better than everyone else, a dont that somehow everyone who thinks differently is a carebear My friend, it is YOU who is talking about entitlement. I am saying, 0.0 alliances that manage huge logistics chains and mount massive defensive operations don't spring out of holes in the ground. They come from individual effort and dedication. Nothing is handed to you. You go out and get it. What I was implying was that empire people seem to think that the vast tracts of 0.0 were just magicked into the hands of neanderthal pvpers. Otherwise, they would surely be in your worthy and smart hands, right? Originally by: rubico1337 Originally by: Mskpath3 0.0 is pure egalitarianism. Everyone has an equal chance. You want to get in? Make a play for it. Happens all the time. no it isnt. vast swaths of 0.0 are controlled by deathstar spamming, cynojamming. jumpportal generating alliances that do so just because it costs pennies in POS fuel and it makes their e-peens bigger. this the powers that be stay the powers that be because the defender has an advantage. not because of "numbers and effort" Yes, it surely is. YOU can do these things, too. Egalitarianism doesn't mean "forced fairness", like Affirmative Action. It means "fair" in which all parties involved operate under exactly the same rule set, with exactly the same available skills and oppurtunities. You can go build a BS/dread fleet and take some space. You can go the diplomatic route and get a foot in the door as a renter or pet, then prove yourself and get elevated to be a real space-holder. Just like all the others have done. But what you want is a mechanism that allows you to do this without putting in the mountain of effort. And in any mechanic where effort prevails, big/dedicated/organized is always going to annihilate small/idealistic/naive.
hathgarrr	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:56:00 - [393] Originally by: rubico1337 no it isnt. vast swaths of 0.0 are controlled by deathstar spamming, cynojamming. jumpportal generating alliances that do so jsut because it costs pennies in POS fuel and it makes thier e-peens bigger. this the powers that be stay the powers that be your pretty clueless... Think about this.. you have a 5000 man corp/alliance right? you have to defend that so you spread out to give yourself a buffer zone. You also need to provide this 5000 man corp/alliance area to be able to rat/mine etc.. you seriously think that even if only 1/4 of them are online or active at any one time can support themselves in just a few systems? Most systems in 0.0 can hardly handle 1 person ratting at any one time ..let alone mining (even if it was worth it) 3-4 people can completely strip mine a system in a few hour or a day or two. So in the end run you say it is because of Epeen size.. The truth of the matter is for security and the fact that 0.0 sucks so hard for making isk the larger the corp/alliance the more area they are FORCED to take. It shure would be nice if 50-100 people could make a living in just one system.. (Like L4 mish runner systems) But to have that happen CCP would have to make some big changes.. Oh wait.. they already promised that and seem to be cascade failing.
Hoodat Bee	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:56:00 - [394] A smaller alliance probably wouldn't need an advanced logistics network (12.5mil) because, after all, who the hell are they gonna link jump bridges to? I also really doubt they'll need a cyno jammer (25mil) because they won't be worth taking out. Then there's the cyno navigation system (4mil) which gives you a cyno generator -- valuable for a group that has a ton of caps moving in and out, but for a small alliance unnecessary. And supercapital construction facilities (1mil)? If you don't want to/can't build supercaps, you don't need to set it up. So much for the strategic upgrades for the little guys. That leaves you with the infrastructure hub (10mil) which has some value. Maybe not 300mil a month, but that'd be pretty easy to assess. So if you're a small alliance, you'd only need to cover the cost of a territorial claim unit -- 600mil a month. That's more than reasonable.
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:56:00 - [395] Originally by: Korodan Edited by: Korodan on 07/11/2009 05:52:36 Edited by: Korodan on 07/11/2009 05:51:45 Originally by: Normin Bates More bloated Alliance tears! Keep 'em coming! Please CCP....Don't let the tears from these Alliances with hundreds of unused systems sway your objective. Let them see what they can make of it and then adjust...if needed. If they rage-quit then so be it. Wahhhhh, we can't keep our 57 systems that we never use! Too funny! 1/10, too obvious. Work on your trolling son. edit: the smilies are what really give it away, use less next time. edit again: post with your main. Smilies are discrete, you use fewer not less. The post you quote is still a terrible post ofc.
Alice Teal	Posted - 2009.11.07 05:58:00 - [396] Originally by: Mskpath3 If you have a 100 man alliance, a.) 10-20 of them will be online on average, b.) since this is some new endeavor for you, they will have no combat experience and be reluctant to take losses so getting x's will be hard, and most importantly c.) they are going to get massacred by even just the for-lulz 30 man roaming hac fleets, let alone the inevitable 100+ man CTA battleship fleet that will show up within a day or two if you show -any- potential for giving kills. Yeah, tbh when I wrote that I was thinking (not less than 200-300, mmkay?), but I didn't want to be accused of proposing a "not small" alliance. I agree with everything else in your post, except the part about popping assets. I think the point of Dominion was supposed to be to link a significant increase in resource density to sov to a system...so that what your alliance is fighting for is their awesome rats/kickass ores...and whereas before the burden of sitting around was on the defender, now it's on the attacker. You'll have to camp your sov jammers for 24hrs to make sure they don't get blown by the defenders.
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:00:00 - [397] Originally by: DaReaper ok, lets do some math... Claim hub 20m a day industrial hub 10m a day lets add... super cap 1m a day cyno gen 4m a day jump bridge 12.5m a day cyno jammer 25m a day. now not all systems will be cyno jammed, or have a jb or a cyno gen, or make super caps. But for arguments sake we will have all. ok, now for a non faction DS pos your are paying (based on jita prices): Enriched uranium: (4 units and hour X 24 hours X 30 days) @ 5300 = 26.8m isk (rounded up) Oxygen: (25 x 24 x 30) 1800 x 109 = 2m isk a month Mech parts: (5 x 24 x 30) 3600 x 620 = 2.3m coolant: (8 x 24 x 30) 5760 x 1090 = 6.3m robotics: (1 x 24 x 30) 720 x 6875 = 5m isotopes: (450 x 24 x 30) 324000 x 350 113.4m ozone: (150 x 24 x 30) 108000 x 250 = 27m water: (150 x 24 x30) 108000 x 23 = 2.5m total: 185m isk a month in fuel Now the standard is 5 DS's for a system. or im assuming, at least for stations its 5. so... 925m isk a month. Now we add in the jammer pos, and a brdige pos so 2 more 1.2b So technically the increase is not that much. And with prices fluctuating, well.. basicly it looks to be about the price of having 14 faction sov benifites pos'. It really is not that undo able. But yea it should be less cost. The majority of space holding alliances do not have 10 or 14 towers let alone faction towers, per system. In today's eve outside of a major conflict zone, most alliances have 5 or fewer towers in an outpost system, as for non-outpost systems these are often claimed on a corporation level with personal small/medium towers for other purposes such as a corporation or corporation member ratting/plexing/mining niche. These personal/corporation towers attribute most of the claim sprawl by major alliances, which are not actually a direct goal of the alliance itself just a natural state of settlement over time for said niche personal/corporation uses.
rubico1337 Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:03:00 - [398] Originally by: Mskpath3 Yes, it surely is. YOU can do these things, too. Egalitarianism doesn't mean "forced fairness", like Affirmative Action. It means "fair" in which all parties involved operate under exactly the same rule set, with exactly the same available skills and oppurtunities. You can go build a BS/dread fleet and take some space. yes, because when trying to take systems the attacker can also jumpbridge into that system and prevent defending caps from coming in. at very little cost. just like the defenders can oh wai..
Mskpath3	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:04:00 - [399] Originally by: Alice Teal You'll have to camp your sov jammers for 24hrs to make sure they don't get blown by the defenders. True enough. But the pvp types will quite willingly do this periodically when they know they're dealing with a group of guys who will almost certainly give up after the first try because they got camped into a station/pos for 24 hours and possibly even lost an expensive ship. Rumor has it that the time to get the sov-stealer modules online has been drastically cut recently, as well. So even if you got your foot in the door, a single all-day op for an alliance can toss you out. Even if they just cleaned house on weekends, that'll be enough to discourage risk-averse carebears from really accomplishing much. There's also a bit of an X factor here. Big space holders are going to be righteously ****ed off about everything for quite some time, so expect extreme prejudice to be exercised by those trying to worm their way in :)
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:04:00 - [400] Originally by: Hoodat Bee So if you're a small alliance, you'd only need to cover the cost of a territorial claim unit -- 600mil a month. That's more than reasonable. The design of space means it is only really defendable by constellation - you need to be able to camp a choke point, and you need to be able to spot incoming gangs before they reach your ratting systems (plus without the upgrades what are your few hundred members going to do in a single -0.2 system producing trivial wealth compared to the empire level 4s they just left behind). So we're actually looking at a minimum 3 billion a month, plus tribute to the nearest power bloc who will otherwise be happy to give their cap fleet a workout since you can't be arsed to cyno-jam your systems, and they'll make a small but significant profit salvaging and selling your junk in the process. Hey, this is more stuff people commenting would know if they had ever lived in 0.0.

Da Maddness Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:07:00 - [401] Originally by: Bobby Atlas CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. I endorse this product and/or service
Mskpath3	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:09:00 - [402] Originally by: rubico1337 yes, because when trying to take systems the attacker can also jumpbridge into that system and prevent defending caps from coming in. at very little cost. just like the defenders can You are incredibly adroit at avoiding the very obvious point. Cheers on that. This is not an argument about tactics or offense vs. defense. This is about the high-level strategy of taking and holding space. Everyone has equal oppurtunity there, and space changes hands plenty because of it. Seriously. The existing alliances were not simply handed outposts and entire regions via sorcery. They do not change ownership right this very day because of GM intervention. Truly. You too, can do this. There's no piece of code in the Eve codebase that specifically prevents you from mounting a massive military-industrial-diplomatic effort to go throw someone out and take their sh-t.
hathgarrr	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:10:00 - [403] Originally by: Hoodat Bee A smaller alliance probably wouldn't need an advanced logistics network (12.5mil) because, after all, who the hell are they gonna link jump bridges to? I also really doubt they'll need a cyno jammer (25mil) because they won't be worth taking out. Then there's the cyno navigation system (4mil) which gives you a cyno generator -- valuable for a group that has a ton of caps moving in and out, but for a small alliance unnecessary. And supercapital construction facilities (1mil)? If you don't want to/can't build supercaps, you don't need to set it up. So much for the strategic upgrades for the little guys. That leaves you with the infrastructure hub (10mil) which has some value. Maybe not 300mil a month, but that'd be pretty easy to assess. So if you're a small alliance, you'd only need to cover the cost of a territorial claim unit -- 600mil a month. That's more than reasonable. Without Cyno jam etc frankly your small alliance/corp etc isn't going to last long in 0.0 not unless you have some really good friends and some deep pockets. I challenge any small alliance to come out and try it . Would result in some good kill mails and that small alliance quickly heading back to high sec. But kill mails are always appreciated... Then again.. without a decent defense fleet your still going to become targets for anyone larger or anyone who just wants to get into a fight. Just a note.. even if none of the huge alliances were to kick your teeth in just for the entertainment you would get targeted by hoards of pvp'rs looking for a fight.. The main problem with eve i see is too many people are blue to each other. THAT is the real problem. it means less pvp prices of mins go down hence people build less ships etc etc etc.. What this game needs is less naps and more pew pew. But how are people going to pay for such things like new ships and mods etc with these proposed changes ?
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:11:00 - [404] Okay I've read much of this thread. We are a small alliance, we previously did have 2 systems in Omist before Atlas took it. We currently hang out in Providence some when not fighting our current war. We have also been optimist about perhaps getting a system or two come Dominion. The cost next to the revenue generated by a system is far out of whack in this proposal. I agree with many that the true sec status of a system needs to be taken into account in the cost ratio. Something like this as a basic idea: (b/(1+(1 + t)))= f b=base cost t=true sec f=final cost So in this formula a true sec of -1.0 would mean that it costs as you outlay. A true sec of -.5 would cost 200 million if you just had the sov thing up and no hub. Some other suggestions: Double the number of belts in all 0.0 systems...static belts that is. No upgrade required. Then here are some suggested changes: Pirate Magnets - Doubles the number of guaranteed anomalies in the system per level + reduces by 20% per level respawn timers of belt rats. Ore Prospecting Array - Double the number of belts in a system per level. (not hidden belts just static belts). The other three are okay as they seem written, but without more belts you can't support the population levels you are seeking. If you can't do something along those lines then you need to significantly reduce costs to attract small alliances. I'd look at reducing the cost to around the fuel for 2 large towers per month. I think that would be a more attainable and attractive cost, which is only 40% of what you suggest. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:12:00 - [405] Also, regarding the 'needing a 24 hour op to kill/gain sov so big alliances won't be easily able to squash little guys' issue. It is worth remembering that to take Delve, we had to trap the Bob/Kenny/Beaver/Kenny/IT cap fleet into the pr-8ca station and keep the system camped 24 hours a day for a whole month. The major alliances can do this **** because of numbers and global timezone coverage. Single timezone social alliances formed to give each other someone to talk to on lvl 4 mission grinds really cannot. How are new people getting into 0.0 again?
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:14:00 - [406] Originally by: Normin Bates More bloated Alliance tears! Keep 'em coming! Please CCP....Don't let the tears from these Alliances with hundreds of unused systems sway your objective. Let them see what they can make of it and then adjust...if needed. If they rage-quit then so be it. Wahhhhh, we can't keep our 57 systems that we never use! Too funny! 1. noone is crying because they won't have a ticker in all 57 sys anymore 2. the only reason they do currently is because it's required for the current sov mechanics 3. not having a sov ticker in all 57 systems will not affect control of those 57 sys 4. they are used, try exploring, you will likely visit all 57 in a night
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:23:00 - [407] big alliances being able to beat up small alliances is a stupid topic and not relevant to the discussion of how awful these sov changes are 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
c0rn1 Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:23:00 - [408] Edited by: c0rn1 on 07/11/2009 06:25:00 Look at all these armchair generals Sitting there in their mission ship in empire and trying to figure out 0.0. None of the people who claim the changes valid don't even have the slightest clue what kind of an logistical overhead 0.0 already creates. Some say: Oh, look, ma, it's only 7 mil / day per member in a 10 ppl system! I say: Oh look, please come along and collect those 7 mil/day from each of the 2k+ people sitting here and have that cash ready every 14 days. And since you're at it, please punish all members who don't rat at least for their 7 mil/each day. Make a "Stop" sign if people wanna group together and head out for PvP. And the next CTA will be called with the sidenote that only players will be allowed to join who already made their fair contribution to the alliance today already. And then you can take care of the fuel logistics for all towers and resupply of gear and ships and besides it on the capital production which is a time cruncher as well in 0.0. It all doesn't take any time to do. It's only the 7M / day to keep the sov up. GUYS, YOU CANT JUST PICK 1 THING OUT AND BASE AN ARGUMENT ON IT. these prices would quadruple the effort you have to do to keep 0.0 territory and noone in the large alliance can be arsed to do this. I play this game for PvP not carebearing. What is in your damn mind? The cutting down on the dysp and prom income already will cripple a good amount of income. The changes proposed by CCP won't even slightly make up for it and it is all a HUGE timesink. If I have to rat/mine 40h a month only to pay for upkeep, fuel and my little losses on ships, I will rather pack my suitcases and just move to NPC 0.0. and it's not only the ingame tools that eat up time. As if you didn't know it yet, spreadsheets don't grow on trees. Internal communication isn't something that just happens in no amount of time. It all is work, work, work. Grind through everything and as a gift of CCP I get another additional grind for BS cash? I proposed a nice system which is far more fair for it to go. => http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=7#205 Check it. It's more fair and interesting for every alliance size as well. The formula can be tweaked easily but it gives you the raw idea what I'd rather like to see than a stupid one-sided and an absolute lack of any creativity sort of approach CCP did. cheers c0rn1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Life's a waste of time ...
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:26:00 - [409] Originally by: d4shing So I looked at some #s on DOTLAN and here's what I came up with: Total # of Sov-Claimable Systems: 2192 # held by 10 largest alliances: 1194, or 54% Total # of Sov-holding alliances: 82 Total # of toons in these alliances: 69,234 Total # of toons in the largest 10 alliances: 23,220, or 33% Average # of alliance members per system: 103 But, in the 10 largest alliances, they have an average of 20 people per system. 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. It seems pretty obvious to me that devs can't be married to any numbers. They put these up to make current holders think long and hard about what their best systems are, and which ones they don't really care about. The proper equilibrium, though, will be one where there are a number of systems that nobody cares enough to claim and pay for sovereignty in. The current equilibrium is that sov is way too cheap, every square inch of eve is spoken for, and it's inefficiently allocated. Relatedly, the current mechanism for redistributing it (POS warfare) sucks. To succeed, they have to price sov such that a large number of holders with a large number of systems decide that they only want 1/2 as much space, give or take. If they initially price it too low, and that doesn't happen, they'll just have to raise it over time. I'm not a community manager or anything, but I bet they'd prefer to take a rip-off-the-bandaid approach, rather than deal with new rounds of whiny posts every time they ratchet up sov price to attain the desired equilibrium. If half the space is unclaimed after a few weeks, then they can slowly lower the price to rejoicing internet posts. The upgrades do look kinda crappy, though. The goon who posted about how their crappiness reflects underlying problems with the game (arch/hack sites aren't worth much, mining outside of empire has a poor risk/reward tradeoff, etc.) is spot on, imo. Hopefully those can be improved, but everyone should realize that a price for sov that doesn't make everyone scream is sure to be too cheap.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:30:00 - [410] Originally by: c0rn1 Edited by: c0rn1 on 07/11/2009 06:25:00 Look at all these armchair generals Sitting there in their mission ship in empire and trying to figure out 0.0. None of the people who claim the changes valid don't even have the slightest clue what kind of an logistical overhead 0.0 already creates. Some say: Oh, look, ma, it's only 7 mil / day per member in a 10 ppl system! I say: Oh look, please come along and collect those 7 mil/day from each of the 2k+ people sitting here and have that cash ready every 14 days. And since you're at it, please punish all members who don't rat at least for their 7 mil/each day. Make a "Stop" sign if people wanna group together and head out for PvP. And the next CTA will be called with the sidenote that only players will be allowed to join who already made their fair contribution to the alliance today already. And then you can take care of the fuel logistics for all towers and resupply of gear and ships and besides it on the capital production which is a time cruncher as well in 0.0. It all doesn't take any time to do. It's only the 7M / day to keep the sov up. GUYS, YOU CANT JUST PICK 1 THING OUT AND BASE AN ARGUMENT ON IT. these prices would quadruple the effort you have to do to keep 0.0 territory and noone in the large alliance can be arsed to do this. I play this game for PvP not carebearing. What is in your damn mind? The cutting down on the dysp and prom income already will cripple a good amount of income. The changes proposed by CCP won't even slightly make up for it and it is all a HUGE timesink. If I have to rat/mine 40h a month only to pay for upkeep, fuel and my little losses on ships, I will rather pack my suitcases and just move to NPC 0.0. and it's not only the ingame tools that eat up time. As if you didn't know it yet, spreadsheets don't grow on trees. Internal communication isn't something that just happens in no amount of time. It all is work, work, work. Grind through everything and as a gift of CCP I get another additional grind for BS cash? cheers c0rn1 Another unironically good post by a bitter enemy, emptyquoting this ****.

Cire XIII Caldari Ever Flow Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:32:00 - [411] Operation distribute market share by Christmas... in progress... .
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:35:00 - [412] Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 07/11/2009 04:37:39 Originally by: d4shing Finally, if you think any current system can sustain 100 people in it you are out to lunch, please point me to this solar system in 0.0 cause I have yet to find one. Likewise with dominion, from indications so far, it will fail to achieve anything near that level of player density relative to profit in any system either. i can name some, and they all have l4 mission agents
Facepalm Amarr Gladiators of Rage Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:35:00 - [413] Edited by: Facepalm on 07/11/2009 06:37:19 Hate it. Costs are way too high. Rewards suck. Plus what everyone else said here. Even if you halved costs, which is probably the plan on the books anyway ("ooh look guys, it's not as bad as you thought..." masses rejoice??), it would still be the suck. And yes, before anyone asks, I mad. Shatcan this idea and bring in the next pl0x. Set the guy who came up with this idea on fire too.
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:36:00 - [414] Every time I re-read this dev blog I wonder if anyone heard a word I said at the CSM summit. 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
ian666 Hairy Male Strippers Club	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:38:00 - [415] Edited by: ian666 on 07/11/2009 06:43:09 Great changes, prices are good. One last thing CCP - block usage of Jump Bridges by Freighters and Jump Freighters (besides we have enought wormholes 0.0 <=> hisec). Bring back good old player convoys and force people to do something else than solo killing rats 24/7. Make them move their own stuff by themselves more frequently - transport ships + jump bridges for better speed or freighter convoy's for corp things.
Nicolas Nye	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:38:00 - [416] Edited by: Nicolas Nye on 07/11/2009 06:40:54 Originally by: Facepalm Hate it. Costs are way too high. Rewards suck. Plus what everyone else said here. Even if you halved costs, which is probably the plan on the books anyway ("ooh look guys, it's not as bad as you thought..." masses rejoice?) And yes, before anyone asks, I mad. Shatcan this idea and bring in the next pl0x. Set the guy who came up with this idea on fire too. If you want standings for living in empire, please contact me in-game. For a mere 300mil you can be blue to everyone in Amarr and Jita and carebear to your heart's content. If you want to contract me your stuff I will even help you jump it down because I am such a nice guy like that. edit: offer is open to you too korodan. Will cost an extra 200mil because of all the anti-goon wardecs but I'll cover that second 100mil for you with my connections, so only need to send me 400mil.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:39:00 - [417] Originally by: Facepalm Edited by: Facepalm on 07/11/2009 06:37:19Shatcan this idea and bring in the next pl0x. Set the guy who came up with this idea on fire too. Setting him on fire would be too kind.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:40:00 - [418] Originally by: Graalum Originally by: Kanatta Jing Before you emo quit I'm going to do the unthinkable. Best guesses are that Technetium is the new Dysprosium and will make about as much per moon. Now you can wage a horrible brutal war for a few months while waiting for the T2 production chain to be finally fixed and for the system upgrades to be buffed sufficiently. In the mean time I can has your space right? stealth geminate boost right here and yes, i think everyone with a functioning pulse has their eyes on techn moons It would be a war with alliances as casualties. Anyway, the real sucky thing is that the upgrades are low-balled, or are being delivered pre-nerfed. 3 million bounty rats and magic ores that are 50% denser then their +10% yield cousins, is what we needed, instead we get anomaly catchers.
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:41:00 - [419] Originally by: ian666 Edited by: ian666 on 07/11/2009 06:38:50 Great changes, prices are good. One last thing CCP - block usage of Jump Bridges by Freighters and Jump Freighters. Bring back good old player convoys and force people to do something else than solo killing rats 24/7. Make them move their own stuff by themselves more frequently - transport ships + jump bridges for better speed or freighter convoy's for corp things. Let's be honest here. Are you planning on living in 0.0 after reading this dev blog? If so, why? If not, why not? 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
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:42:00 - [420] Trying to get more new alliances into 0.0 and make it more dynamic? Not with those costs. LOL Those costs only favours the old guys with already deep pockets. But on the other hand, I like for example that the jump bridges are expensive since they are so powerful and giving a really huge advantage. It is a dilemma - making prices high enough for important things and at the same time not to boost hugely the already powerful alliances over newcommers. Time will tell how this will go. But what I didn't understand exactly - what is sov for? Is it required for those strategic upgrades? Or what use does it have (except maybe bragging rights)?

Cyriel Longinus XERCORE Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:48:00 - [421] I am dissappointed.
ian666 Hairy Male Strippers Club	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:50:00 - [422] Edited by: ian666 on 07/11/2009 06:52:38 Originally by: Zastrow Originally by: ian666 Edited by: ian666 on 07/11/2009 06:38:50 Great changes, prices are good. One last thing CCP - block usage of Jump Bridges by Freighters and Jump Freighters. Bring back good old player convoys and force people to do something else than solo killing rats 24/7. Make them move their own stuff by themselves more frequently - transport ships + jump bridges for better speed or freighter convoy's for corp things. Let's be honest here. Are you planning on living in 0.0 after reading this dev blog? If so, why? If not, why not? Yes i am, live in 0.0 will be moar interesting and challenging than is now. Many good 'old fashion' activites died in every of few last minor patches, because of jump bridges, jump freighters, wormholes (fast traveling), cyno jammers, cyno generators and other stuff that make this game quite simple, easy, and soloable.
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:51:00 - [423] Originally by: ian666 Edited by: ian666 on 07/11/2009 06:43:09 Great changes, prices are good. One last thing CCP - block usage of Jump Bridges by Freighters and Jump Freighters (besides we have enought wormholes 0.0 <=> hisec). Bring back good old player convoys and force people to do something else than solo killing rats 24/7. Make them move their own stuff by themselves more frequently - transport ships + jump bridges for better speed or freighter convoy's for corp things. just what everyone wants to do is grind more stupid **** to keep sov.
Magnum III Journey On Squad	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:54:00 - [424] Who gets the money paid? how is that, I thought 0.0 nul sec was unowned space. Are they going to be paying their 14 day bills to concord or something? I mean it sound like they are paying the God of Nul sec to have there systems upgraded, it make no sense.
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:54:00 - [425] The only thing that ****ing over jump bridges does is penalize the new players in 0.0 that don't have capitals for logistics. Yay Seleene
pi squad Scalding Pie Services	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:58:00 - [426] lmao these are ****ing horrible you guys are literally clueless
Opiboble Inte Triumvirate Maximus Kairakau	Posted - 2009.11.07 06:59:00 - [427] Ok CCP you just made it cheaper for big alliances to run, and tougher for starter alliances to get in. Need to implement a scaled cost and slash the current prices in half. So for every system you control your cost goes up by a multiplier: 1 system = 1x base 2 = 1.25x 3 = 1.50x 4 = 1.75x 5 = 2.00x 6 = 2.25x and so on... so at having 5 systems it would cost you 100mill a day or 1.4bill a fortnight. (with no upgrades)That makes it easier for start alliances to get out there, and wakes up the bigger alliances that more space isn't better. Just tossing it out there, cuss that cost system is NOT going to encourage smaller alliances to go out to 0.0 space/ bye all
Alice Teal	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:02:00 - [428] EVEO Community: Hey CCP POS warfare is teh suck we want more fun. CCP: Hai GAIS!!!! Farm anomalies to keep SOV!!!!! Kthxbai!!!!
Max Stront	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:04:00 - [429] Is this like they do in politics where they call something the opposite of what it really does? Dominion is the "0.0 Sov Freedom and Proliferation Act" but it neither frees SOV nor proliferates alliances in 0.0. Did you guys hire a political firm to come up with this?
Opiboble Inte Triumvirate Maximus Kairakau	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:05:00 - [430] Originally by: Magnum III Edited by: Magnum III on 07/11/2009 06:56:55 Who gets the money paid? how is that, I thought 0.0 nul sec was unowned space. Are they going to be paying their 14 day bills to concord or something? I mean it sound like they are paying the God of Nul sec to have there systems upgraded, it make no sense. it sounds like someone wants to make up rules all willy nilly for nul sec. agree! Makes since if you where fueling it, know it is just kinda a money sink hole... get ready for the ice market to crash big time. bye all

Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:06:00 - [431] Originally by: ian666 Edited by: ian666 on 07/11/2009 06:52:38 Originally by: Zastrow Originally by: ian666 Edited by: ian666 on 07/11/2009 06:38:50 Great changes, prices are good. One last thing CCP - block usage of Jump Bridges by Freighters and Jump Freighters. Bring back good old player convoys and force people to do something else than solo killing rats 24/7. Make them move their own stuff by themselves more frequently - transport ships + jump bridges for better speed or freighter convoy's for corp things. Let's be honest here. Are you planning on living in 0.0 after reading this dev blog? If so, why? If not, why not? Yes i am, live in 0.0 will be moar interesting and challenging than is now. Many good 'old fashion' activites died in every of few last minor patches, because of jump bridges, jump freighters, wormholes (fast traveling), cyno jammers, cyno generators and other stuff that make this game quite simple, easy, and soloable. care to list some of these activities? the only possible thing I can infer from your post is ****ing with someone's tower fueling, something that dominion's isk payment system was intended to reduce. Yet, you just said these were great changes so that couldn't possibly be it, right? I'm trying real hard here to coax a reasonable argument from ANYONE as to some good parts of this dev blog, but so far nobody has delivered 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
Dream Hunter	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:07:00 - [432] "Ore Prospecting Array - adds one additional guaranteed hidden asteroid site per level to your solar system" Are the hidden asteroid sites going to be massive roids like the wormhole systems or are they going to be like the tiny baby roids found at the current gav sites?
Maeve Kell	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:09:00 - [433] Originally by: EvilweaselFinance Oh, also, all these upgrades besides the pirate magnet and ore prospecting array (which unless fixed will be unused) evade alliance taxes so you can't replace the lost r64 income. There are Alliances living without r64.. but yes.. the upgrades are useless.. better rats, more faction spawns, better moons, more belts etc is what we need :/
Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:10:00 - [434] personally I'd cut the numbers in half. 1.25 billion for a max pimp'd systems sounds about right to me. I don't honestly think your going to see a lot of those systems around though. Huge alliances will probably get 10-15 in the future. On the other subject about people not wanting to grind, I understand that isn't what you want to do and it's understandable. Given the current null sec environment (80% pvp characters and some indy/POS managers) it makes sense your there to pew-pew. However the point I want to make is that there are literally thousands of people out there who are willing to grind those rats and belts. The point I'm trying to make is that there are lots of ways to play the game and sometimes it's hard as hell to look at things from another perspective. Maybe big pvp alliances will start to have industrial wings that make cheap ships for them. Or the outer edges of your territory are open to those people who are willing to give you a cut of the profits in exchange for not getting hot dropped. There are also lots of people that will clear those crap anomalies and plex's.
Nicolas Nye	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:10:00 - [435] Originally by: Zastrow care to list some of these activities? the only possible thing I can infer from your post is ****ing with someone's tower fueling, something that dominion's isk payment system was intended to reduce. Yet, you just said these were great changes so that couldn't possibly be it, right? I'm trying real hard here to coax a reasonable argument from ANYONE as to some good parts of this dev blog, but so far nobody has delivered I can provide you too with empire standings for the mere price of 400mil thanks to my high sec connections. Please wire isk to Nicolas Nye in game, 15mil extra if you want me to jump your stuff out to Jita. You will be able to frolic joyfully in carebear land without any worries about maintaining sov or the like. I provide my sercives so as to make enjoyable EVE a game for everyone boy or girl.
Xantor Bludberry Amarr	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:11:00 - [436] First CCP close the offline skill training. We became obligated to monthly pay our accounts. Now CCP remove ôoffline alliancesö and introduces the system, with which we will be are obligated to hanting/mining/exploring solar systems. Otherwise, "then the activity indices may decay to the point" the level of system will fall down. It does follow us to await the following step? When we be obliged to fly, to shoot, to associate with the agents, to trade, to build, otherwise our corresponding skills will be reduced from 5 to 0, and we will lose skillpoins. Everything to that does go?
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:13:00 - [437] i wonder if anyone from ccp ever dares to set their foot into this sharkbasin now xD Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Prof Fail Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:13:00 - [438] Postphone the Sov changes, they are terrible. Far to expensive, no rewards. It also gives us nothing to fight for. No moons, no space... Why somebody shpuld start an epic crusade to conquer all of eve if you cannot even pay the bill for 10 systems. Another source of epic fights were r64 moons, which get nerfed. Where is the pvp content? All will be busy carebearing to pay this stupid ally-bills and to maintain the upgrades. The upcoming changes for the capital battlefield (no dd, supercarrier, dreadchanges) will soften up the structure of eve by alot. Thats enough to justify an expansion named Dominion. It will be a source of epic fights. Without DD everything will change. But pls postphone those sovchanges. Your concept is terrible. Let the Sov-System as it is for now. Its really great compared to this new stuff.
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:14:00 - [439] Originally by: Inferno Styx personally I'd cut the numbers in half. 1.25 billion for a max pimp'd systems sounds about right to me. I don't honestly think your going to see a lot of those systems around though. Huge alliances will probably get 10-15 in the future. On the other subject about people not wanting to grind, I understand that isn't what you want to do and it's understandable. Given the current null sec environment (80% pvp characters and some indy/POS managers) it makes sense your there to pew-pew. However the point I want to make is that there are literally thousands of people out there who are willing to grind those rats and belts. The point I'm trying to make is that there are lots of ways to play the game and sometimes it's hard as hell to look at things from another perspective. Maybe big pvp alliances will start to have industrial wings that make cheap ships for them. Or the outer edges of your territory are open to those people who are willing to give you a cut of the profits in exchange for not getting hot dropped. There are also lots of people that will clear those crap anomalies and plex's. most alliances alrady have industrial wings, they're just based in highsec because 0.0 production takes a lot more effort (another point in the 0.0 cost/benefit argument) 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 07:17:00 - [440] Edited by: teji on 07/11/2009 07:18:25 Originally by: Inferno Styx personally I'd cut the numbers in half. 1.25 billion for a max pimp'd systems sounds about right to me. I don't honestly think your going to see a lot of those systems around though. Huge alliances will probably get 10-15 in the future. Why would they get the "pimped" systems when all the pimping does is increase the rate that it produces **ty resources that aren't worth running. Oh and it massively increases your monthly cost of simply existing in 0.0. Quote: On the other subject about people not wanting to grind, I understand that isn't what you want to do and it's understandable. Given the current null sec environment (80% pvp characters and some indy/POS managers) it makes sense your there to pew-pew. However the point I want to make is that there are literally thousands of people out there who are willing to grind those rats and belts. The point I'm trying to make is that there are lots of ways to play the game and sometimes it's hard as hell to look at things from another perspective. No, if you wanted to "grind" you would be in 0.0 right now. The fact that you aren't and people aren't is that they prefer the safety of concord. You have no ing clue what people are willing to do for some sort of payout. Quote: Maybe big pvp alliances will start to have industrial wings that make cheap ships for them. Or the outer edges of your territory are open to those people who are willing to give you a cut of the profits in exchange for not getting hot dropped. There are also lots of people that will clear those crap anomalies and plex's. You honestly think that any 0.0 alliance doesn't currently have hundreds of players already producing ships cheaply for the alliances? The outer edges are buffer zones to protect your central core. Why let potential enemies there and risk everything? Holy ** you are dumb.

ian666 Hairy Male Strippers Club	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:21:00 - [441] Originally by: Zastrow care to list some of these activities? the only possible thing I can infer from your post is ****ing with someone's tower fueling, something that dominion's isk payment system was intended to reduce. Yet, you just said these were great changes so that couldn't possibly be it, right? I'm trying real hard here to coax a reasonable argument from ANYONE as to some good parts of this dev blog, but so far nobody has delivered Upgrades which will give moar complexes, wormholes, hidden belts which will generate moar $$$, ofc if people in your corp will be fair with each other and with their own corp - scenario when corp/alliance ran out of cash when people ratting in faction/officer fitted nightmares or doing complexes in a provate motherships is something that you should fix before it need to be fixed. More rich systems will give you back money you have put in in first case, besides this will make eve bigger, give more space for others which is good since only small amount of players live in 0.0.
Alice Teal	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:22:00 - [442] Originally by: Zastrow ... I sense your frustration. Here's what happened. CCP Devs: Hey we need upgrades to create new belts and higher-bounty rats FTW! CCP Coders: Ummmm. No one has touched that stuff with a ten-foot pole since Beta. We don't even know where it is in the code. Besides, belts? Remember how dang long it took us to get that silly monument in Jita? Yeah. CCP Devs: Well, ummm, we need something to make the space better...erm... CCP Coders: What about all that exploration and WH stuff you had us do a few expansions ago? CCP Devs: I don't think that will really cut it in this case. CCP Coders: Sites and WH linked to upgrades? Message received.
FuriousPig Amarr IronPig Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:34:00 - [443] The premise of Dominion seemed exciting at first. The thought of smaller Alliances swarming into 0.0, border movement, Territorial conflict & massive defence of home space re-invigorated my Eve passion. Now all I have to worry about debt collectors. The blog is laughably ill-conceived, the upgrades marginally short of pathetic & motivation for actually claiming space, absent. A huge percentage of pilots moved to 0.0 because we had done our mission running & ratting & wanted something different. Its fine equating the bills to 15 Battleship spawns a day but thatÆs not why we are here. Furthermore do you seriously believe Alliances will pay billions upgrading their systems so that 100s of pilots can go chasing around looking for an extra 2 anomalies? Even if you added 2 per system within a constellation they would be gone before most people got home from work. Anyone remember Empire complexes? Did CCP actually listen to what was asked of them? I believe the problem was that Alliances were too entrenched & smaller Alliances were unable to gain a foothold. Boundaries were stagnant & sovereignty mechanics did indeed need a revamp but I donÆt think anyone appreciates being taxed out of claiming systems. What a tragic end to years of work from some of the older Alliances & a huge economic stumbling block for new ones. The only incentive for small Alliances to come to 0.0 is to destroy; I doubt many can afford to settle. Call me pessimistic but I envisage vast tracts of unclaimed, unoccupied, space, battles raging around single systems of high worth, a small steady exodus to Empire & the sub-mediocre grind of ratting - boring people out of the game. The problem here is balance, feel free to charge exorbitant fees for systems but there needs to be mechanisms to recoup cost that does not involve mindless grind. Gate fees, Alliance wide taxes, POS taxes; anything but donÆt make us go ratting again! P.S. Something that hasnÆt been mentioned but wonÆt POS fuel costs go up by 25% since there will be no discount for Constellation Sovereignty? ThatÆs another cost on top.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:36:00 - [444] Originally by: ian666 Upgrades which will give moar complexes, wormholes, hidden belts which will generate moar $$$ No they won't. We can have the same amount of plexes and wormholes by just curmbstomping anyone within reach and using that space as farming ground with much less cost attached to it. You clearly have no clue about what you're talking about if you think hidden belts were generating isk. Nobody bothers with them. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Bilbo II Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:36:00 - [445] Originally by: Alice Teal Originally by: Zastrow ... I sense your frustration. Here's what happened. CCP Devs: Hey we need upgrades to create new belts and higher-bounty rats FTW! CCP Coders: Ummmm. No one has touched that stuff with a ten-foot pole since Beta. We don't even know where it is in the code. Besides, belts? Remember how dang long it took us to get that silly monument in Jita? Yeah. CCP Devs: Well, ummm, we need something to make the space better...erm... CCP Coders: What about all that exploration and WH stuff you had us do a few expansions ago? CCP Devs: I don't think that will really cut it in this case. CCP Coders: Sites and WH linked to upgrades? Message received. Sounds about right.
pc dude Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:36:00 - [446] this expansion is naught but a boost to npc space. calling it here. we wont quit eve though, at least not until another pvp game comes out....or this one falls below the quality of pvp offered elsewhere =p
Jethro Hawkins	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:36:00 - [447] I agree with most. These costs will limit Alliance "official" sov. They will still hold the same amount of space. Smaller corps will have no chance of setting a foothold because of the massive price tag. For all those crunching numbers about certain people/corp/month grinding. My current corp pays our rent with bi-weekly ops... probably will have to set that alliance wide if prices stay as they are and DEMAND participation... and if a corp doesn't give enough isk, they'll be fined. My corp will probably be moving from our 0.0 system after the patch. We are paying rent in drone region and this will be too much for us to setup/maintain, forget about the lack of bounties also. At least faction warfare will pick up... maybe I'll rejoin that.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:37:00 - [448] Questions for CCP: 1. Is ratting being nerfed for existing 0.0 systems that remain un-upgraded so overflow of players can rat outside the upgraded system basically with current income? Do you envision some kind of scenario of having a fortress with Sov and space around it for ratting without Sov, so that Sov will be more like islands or a castle for defense that people retreat to? 2.Regarding anchorable modules. Hubs have had a wide variety of hit points on Sisi, what are the reasons for more or less hit points on these hubs. 3. What purpose does CCP see for the grid/cpu on the infrastructure hub? Do you anticipate that these hubs will replace any POS for reactions or labs or other industry? Is this simply for guns? 4. How many hubs can we anchor per system? 5. Is the jump bridge range under consideration at all? 6. It seems this cost for Sov may cause some deflation with such a large isk sink. Is this intended by CCP, and if so why? 7. Does CCP have a sov coverage goal, and if so please describe what that is? never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:41:00 - [449] Originally by: Zastrow Originally by: Inferno Styx personally I'd cut the numbers in half. 1.25 billion for a max pimp'd systems sounds about right to me. I don't honestly think your going to see a lot of those systems around though. Huge alliances will probably get 10-15 in the future. On the other subject about people not wanting to grind, I understand that isn't what you want to do and it's understandable. Given the current null sec environment (80% pvp characters and some indy/POS managers) it makes sense your there to pew-pew. However the point I want to make is that there are literally thousands of people out there who are willing to grind those rats and belts. The point I'm trying to make is that there are lots of ways to play the game and sometimes it's hard as hell to look at things from another perspective. Maybe big pvp alliances will start to have industrial wings that make cheap ships for them. Or the outer edges of your territory are open to those people who are willing to give you a cut of the profits in exchange for not getting hot dropped. There are also lots of people that will clear those crap anomalies and plex's. most alliances alrady have industrial wings, they're just based in highsec because 0.0 production takes a lot more effort (another point in the 0.0 cost/benefit argument) Zastrow, 0.0 production takes a lot more effort because people don't want to "waste" time mining the low ends along with the high ends. Consider that to keep things running a peak profitability they may need to mine some low ends now... which makes 0.0 production a lot easier than it currently is. In conjunction to this also consider that a lot of alliances are going to find themselves wanting to make treaties (when released) to get industrial corps set up in their now unoccupied area's so that those area's can generate revenue for the main alliance (rent). These two things, if handled properly, have to potential to develop a nice synergy. More resources available and consumed "in" 0.0... and an actual diversified production/market chain develops. I'm not saying I think these things will dovetail automatically, at least not with the information we have about the current values and mechanics. I think some things are going to have to be tweaked, and there are still some pieces to the puzzle missing. What I am saying is that when you step back and look at how all of these little bits and pieces fit together (and yes, right now that can be a big headache) there "is" a method to the madness that has the potential to work (even though when you look at only a few aspects of these changes it seems impossible). I'm going to have to study this for a while. The major point I see as needing to be addressed immediately is the lack of a sliding scale on cost per number of systems claimed. Right now the rates are scaring the little fella's, and not working as well as it could to control the bigger fish (although to be honest, the limited infrastructure available to newcomers will keep the prices fairly low at first anyway). The tweaks will all have to aimed at the central goals of 1: Giving larger alliances a reason to scale back their personal holdings and make arrangements with smaller entities to generate income for them in return for protection. 2: Give the smaller alliances reason to want to leave Empire and develop an area even if paying rent to someone (I.E. being more profitable or at least equal in profit to Empire), and more fun to do. When you step back and look at all the pieces the framework to achieve this is there, it just needs some work. Footnote: Yes, the Droneland situation is going to have to be explained as well, they have some unique difficulties to overcome with this system. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Calruthian The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:42:00 - [450] Fixing Sovereignty? I always knew it was only a matter of time before ccp dropped the ball. What will be the point of invading someone else's space when ppl wont claim most of what they already own post patch? It's going to be pathetic to look at the sov map all through 2010, if it ever recovers.

Stevens Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:44:00 - [451] And before anyone gets their hopes on this getting fixed lets not forget the code freeze. That happens 2 or 3 weeks before patch hits. So that gives CCP 11 (or 4 lol) days that they can make changes before the patch gets locked and that is what gets sent live. Does anyone believe CCP can fix this in even 11 days (let alone 4)
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:45:00 - [452] I'm calming down and thinking back to my industrial corp roots when siphoning the maximum amount of ISK out of a 0.0 Constellation was what 500 players simply did. Shortages of midrange minerals, trying to guilt people into mining plagioclase effectively for free, Jump Freighters of megacyte and zydrine moving to Empire to sell. Make rent, fly naked battleships under noses of some of the best PVP pilots in EVE to sell at par to keep friends friendly. Ah, sweet ulcer, it's all coming back to me now. Okay, I can see an Industrial Corp paying for SOV, I can see them paying rent to a nearby PVP alliance for protection and/or the right to exist and I can see them paying for war fleet production (Caps and general PVP ships) to achieve general independance and to keep from being kicked around. I just can't see more then three of those at once, so we're kind of right back where we were before.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:45:00 - [453] Originally by: Stevens And before anyone gets their hopes on this getting fixed lets not forget the code freeze. That happens 2 or 3 weeks before patch hits. So that gives CCP 11 (or 4 lol) days that they can make changes before the patch gets locked and that is what gets sent live. Does anyone believe CCP can fix this in even 11 days (let alone 4) At this point getting no patch would be better then this, I dearly hope they delay it.
Marina Charnatie Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:46:00 - [454] To everyone posting. CCP is not the devil. They are not monsters out to ruin your fun. They really care about this game too. For whatever reason, there's a serious breakdown in achieving the stated goals and actual process. Lets, as some have already done, suggest strong options for them to use. CCP, please don't put this in as it is. Really, it is going to push more people apart rather than together.
Bilbo II Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:52:00 - [455] This expansion will sure let the little guy into 0.0 because all the big alliances can shrink the amount of space they need. Well that was the plan anyhow but the reality is that.... 1.Our costs just went way way up. 2.Only the jammer/gen/jb upgrade is worth anything (lol 10 extra worthless anomolies, yeah I'll be sure to get all 5 levels of that) 3.Having sov produces 0 benifits over not having sov excepts for jammed or jb systems. 4. Moon goo nerfed so income must come from members forcing them to carebear more than now. Total result is we now need even MORE space than we held before. We won't sov it because there is no point but the little guy sure a hell is not gonna be allowed to live there.
Stevens Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:52:00 - [456] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Stevens And before anyone gets their hopes on this getting fixed lets not forget the code freeze. That happens 2 or 3 weeks before patch hits. So that gives CCP 11 (or 4 lol) days that they can make changes before the patch gets locked and that is what gets sent live. Does anyone believe CCP can fix this in even 11 days (let alone 4) At this point getting no patch would be better then this, I dearly hope they delay it. They didn't delay for boot.ini
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:55:00 - [457] 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
Selnix Gallente North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:58:00 - [458] Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. You Sir, deserve some sort of award for the best troll post of the entire thread. Apparently by stating that the goal of funding a Sov system with upgrades is easily attainable you somehow got people believing that the argument here is the cost. The cost of the upgrades and sov is irrelevant. The argument here is that these upgrades, and even sov itself, are quite worthless under the system that is being implemented in the majority of 0.0 space. Dominion was heralded as the chariot that would whisk the little empire bears out into the riches of 0.0 where they could thrive in little cave-like pockets and provide a new target-rich environment for those of us that would rather shoot ships that have some chance of doing something unpredictable instead of a bunch of bots that do the same thing all day every day. Nothing about this expansion as it has been outlined thus far does this. You might ask, "Are there going to be more systems without sov that they can dig in and try to live in?" and the answer would obviously be a "Yes.". The problem is that there is nothing stopping these same people from doing that under the current system. An unused system now has no less benefit to a group looking to gain a foothold than it will after Sov is removed. Any little corporation out there can move into 0.0 under the current game mechanics with practically the same ease as they would in Dominion because post-patch the only systems you can really expect to see Sov in are those with outposts and those that have jump bridges for logistics on the way to those outposts. If you get down to the essence of things, outposts are only useful to allow people to dock up and keep their ships/modules/etc relatively safe while also allowing for a market to exist. In all of the systems without outposts the new guys will be forced to live out of POS towers and no matter how you try to spin it, that is already more than doable. So it all boils down to for an upstart Alliance is either trying to take an outpost under what could very well end up being no easier circumstances than currently exist or attempting to do as they already can and organize their people into a life lived out of POS while trying to dodge that corp thief silver bullet. There is really just no justification for upgrading a system that you do not need sov in either for giving some buffer of protection to your outpost or for protecting your jump bridge network. Any percieved gains from the increases that they can provide are completely nullified by the fact that the costs will consume more than you can expect to milk out of the system over what could already be earned there through normal activity. This is even more ludicrous in that there is an activity requirement for upgrades to become available but that same activity is beyond a waste of time without the upgrades. How can you expect the bears to mine endless hours to get their upgrades when they could make just as much mining in lowsec and without the monthly bill? CCP's expectations of cramming a hundred people into a system and having them use it for anything more than a place to dock up are laughable as the resources available through upgrading won't likely support 1/10th of that number at any given time in the average 0.0 system. The other major flaw in the logic or lack thereof where your rather epic troll post is concerned is also a simple one. You give your argument as though the goal in 0.0 is to farm enough fund sov. For the vast majority of 0.0 residents the goal is to have fun and if having fun requires grinding a few hours for isk to buy ships to go lose in a shower of internet pixels, that is a necessary burden. Farming to enable us to grind isk is, for many of us, not the reason we subscribe to EVE. -Sel
north south	Posted - 2009.11.07 07:59:00 - [459] Wow, great to see some changes CCP, however i am a bit dissapointed scrolling trough 16 pages of text without reading ANY replies from your side. First of all, congrats with knocking big alliances down to their knees to show them they need to be properly organised, but ehm... your bringing in a pritty big problem here, and some unreadable lines. The following i am not getting clear from your post: If an alliance occupies for example 30 systems and had 10 corporations in it. Does this mean the alliance has to get all 10 corps to pay the bill for every system out of these 30? Or does it mean that every corp picks 3 systems to maintain and pay the bills for that? This does nake a huge diffrence in the billing system to sustain systems and stations. Paying 1 bil a day for corps is a bit much i would think, and not affordable. But paying 120 mil isk a day for 3 upgraded systems might be something most corps can actualy afford to do, if their alliance can hold 30 systems then. So how will this work exactly, since your not stating that clearly in your post?
Aquinzus Amarr Modern Marvels	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:02:00 - [460] Those numbers are ******ed. No one can claim space for 2+ Billion a system per month to start off, there will be no point in claiming space, people will stay where they are and still claim what they have, there just wont be any Sov on the map. This patch nerfed player space and boosted NPC Space. I think all this patch did was kill Jump Bridges and Cyno Jammers since no Alliance in thier right mind would ever pay 2+ Billion a month to use one. I said it before and I say it now, this patch hasnt cured anything, just taken SOV out of the equasion, you still have to shoot a "structure" to take a system, outpost instead of POS. Costs of holding Sov means no one will hold Sov anymore. Eve has reverted back to when there was no Sov and you lived out of NPC stations or Towers.

Static Kinetics Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:03:00 - [461] The Benefits of Resource Upgrades Note the names for the upgrades are not final! Pirate Magnets - add two additional guaranteed anomalies per level to your solar system Ore Prospecting Array - adds one additional guaranteed hidden asteroid site per level to your solar system Entrapment - increase the chance significantly of a DED complex being located in the depths of your solar system Survey Networks - increase the chance significantly of mini-profession sites being located within your solar system Quantum Flux Generator - increase the chance significantly of a wormhole being discovered within your solar system to w-space. please tell me that this is all under a "exploration upgrades" part of the tree and that there is more to come otherwise id say this is bull**** and shows a serious lack of creativity.
Prometheus09 I.M.M Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:05:00 - [462] I went to post a reply but it got very long. So I posted it on my blog instead at the The Captains Log.
Daniel Ogden	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:06:00 - [463] Edited by: Daniel Ogden on 07/11/2009 08:09:49 CCP, We don't PVP to secure ground for ratting, plexing and otherwise grinding for ISK. We rat, plex and grind for ISK so that we can buy **** for PVP. Get it? Give us more lucrative rats so we can spend !--->LESS<--! time shooting NPCs and spend more time pew pewing. I was very excited for this patch. WAS being the operative word in that sentence. If I wanted to carebear more I'd go to empire. EDIT: How long have you been working on this anyhow? I would think a drunken night at the office by the result. Hard to believe this is what all the hubub was about. Pirate magnets FTL. This is lame.
Kushmir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:06:00 - [464] Ultimately there is only 1 way to make null-sec worthwhile and that is to nerf highsec. Most people playing this game are almost exclusively in highsec. CCP has no real reason to want to **** off a crapload of carebears.
Priestess Broadchest Amarr Strippin Aint Easy Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:07:00 - [465] Its been a while since CCP buffoonery upset so many players, will they reply ? do they even care ?
Gtab	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:09:00 - [466] Seriously, CCP? This is what you think "listening to 0.0 Alliance CSMs" should look like?
Kim' Possible	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:10:00 - [467] A few things: 1.)I applaud CCP for recognizing the sov system flaws and fixing them 2.)I hate CCP for half-assing it and rushing to finish it Bobby Atlas is right, on every account. Nobody is going to say that they aren't going to fight and work for their space, but these changes are overboard. Not to mention every small alliance, space-holding or not, is strung out to dry. CCP had a great idea, and created a nice infrastructure of hubs and flags to enact the new system. Then, they rushed to think of a payment and deployment system and in effect, ruined it. They made a deadline for deployment before they knew what was involved, and are now stuck with a failing system. The "upgrades" are not thought through, the pricing is un-realistic, and everyone is going to suffer because of it. I like the ideas of Fleet Finder, the Automatic Payments, etc. are great ideas. Implement those in a patch. But hold off on Dominion for another 6 months or something, give yourselves some real time to think of a good system for payment, expansion, upgrading, find the code to do it all properly, and reasonable time to test and get feedback. I wouldn't mind waiting another 6months or so to get a final revision that actually works instead of this crap. You didn't give yourselves enough time, and this is the end result. Nobody likes it, for good reason. I'm sure the rest of the community agrees with me.
ian666 Hairy Male Strippers Club	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:11:00 - [468] Originally by: Batolemaeus if you think hidden belts were generating isk. Nobody bothers with them. Well this is a problem of thoose 'nobody' who doesnt want to use it, its their choice. If someone have enought money, then he just doesnt need to use it.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:11:00 - [469] Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 07/11/2009 08:13:46 These changes are some of the most ** changes I have seen. You're going to make 0.0 cost MORE to live in and give us marginally more in return through avenues that are a very finite resource to begin with. Unless you massively up the amount of plexes they can all be run within a few hours of downtime. Why not upgrade ** that isn't finite? Like rats, agents, the long forgotten planetary spawns etc? Let us improve truesec, let us HIRE AGENTS TO SIT IN SPACE OR AT OUR STATIONS OF THE FACTION WE CHOOSE.
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:13:00 - [470] hummmmm i don't see alliances "claiming" less space. not officially anyways; we'll keep owning the station systems and done. shrug we'll develop null-sec less 'cause hey... we won't be building any more stations any time soon with these "permanent" costs. we'll have to pay more for industrial POSes: less savings in "distant" systems and ofc the highly increased necessity to run reactions to cover for these new sinks. any alliance here not (primarily) using moon goo to cover for alliance costs, raise hands please. combine this with the T2 ingredient reshuffle and we're looking at big alliances producing even the ****tiest crap: carbides. i don't see anything left for young aspiring entities. nothing to pay 900mil/month sov+hub and 200mil for at least one hub-defending deathstar - unless they tax their members. might aswell join a renters' alliance. makes me wonder how soon we'll crave for the days when big alliances were only interested in dysp+prom [and fought over it] and left all the other stuff to renters. alchemy could have been a clue with the meanies suddenly taking interest in cadmium and chromium. so yes, this moon goo reevaluation was probably the biggest slap in the face for newcomers [and where is the devblog&comment-thread about that btw]. but yeah, i don't see much of a return for the investment. and the jump bridge part is just evil for the outer playerbase. couldn't hurt to double the jump range; would coincide with rorquals/dreads/JFs with JDC IV - they won't be going through bridges anymore, right? this could make them use the cyno-arrays then. - putting the gist back into logistics

EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:17:00 - [471] A quick review of this thread shows that the vast majority of people in 0.0 alliances and not alt posting do not support these changes as they stand. Yes sov should be changed, I think this system has some good ideas but I think it needs more work.
Hratli Smirks GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:17:00 - [472] Originally by: ian666 Originally by: Batolemaeus if you think hidden belts were generating isk. Nobody bothers with them. Well this is a problem of thoose 'nobody' who doesnt want to use it, its their choice. If someone have enought money, then he just doesnt need to use it. Nobody does them because they aren't profitable. If they aren't profitable now, and they aren't being improved in quality, they will continue to be unprofitable and unused so long as there exists any better alternative option, like ratting and level 4 missions. Belts are a finite resource, but missions aren't.
ian666 Hairy Male Strippers Club	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:27:00 - [473] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 07/11/2009 08:13:46 These changes are some of the most **** changes I have seen. We have 250 titans in game, those ships needed tons of minerals to build, each of them have worth around 80b isk. This is more than enought to upgrade entire constelations at max and mantain it for years. This patch will reduce amount of new Titans in future since alliances will need more money to mantain their systems not to create more spares for each titan pilot, and that is one of best changes since Red Moon Rising.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:27:00 - [474] They need to rename this expansion to Eve Online:New Game Enhancement
John 11111	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:27:00 - [475] DOMINION, they may not be able to fix it in 4 days, but they don't have to employ it. making that kind of isk really isn't able to be accomplished in 0.0 anyway, due to cloak grieving, so to add more cost on to it is just an insult. I'm packing up now and moving out of 0.0 expecting the worst, hopefully I'm wasting my time, but the way the game is being structured it don't look like it. I have canceled all my accounts(6) in preparation, because I play the game for fun(pvp), not work. I've made a lot of friends in Eve, and I'll be sorry to be gone. I blame CCP for this, for i don't like high sec, and it seems that is where they want everyone to be. I'll be happy to come back if they choose to fix the problems, but unfortunately they don't seem to care about what the customers want. John 11111
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:28:00 - [476] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources They need to rename this expansion to Eve Online:New Game Enhancement Please rename the NOL system to "Theed" tia.
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:30:00 - [477] Edited by: Professor Dumbledore on 07/11/2009 08:30:30 You guys are **ing broken in the heads if you think this will work and people will want to pay these ridiculous rates for 0.0 space after you nerf the out of 0.0 income people will move to npc 0.0 because its more profitable. You guys are just so dumb it hurts. This new system will fail so hard you will drive people out of 0.0 i hope your happy. If you dont want to kill off your entire player base and over you entire game you should stop this now undo this stupid ** and come up with a system that will work.
L'aeolan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:34:00 - [478] Originally by: Panzram problem: people aren't eating this plate full of poop solution: a bigger plate of more expensive poop bad expansion is bad
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:36:00 - [479] Originally by: ian666 Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 07/11/2009 08:13:46 These changes are some of the most ** changes I have seen. We have 250 titans in game, those ships needed tons of minerals to build, each of them have worth around 80b isk. This is more than enought to upgrade entire constelations at max and mantain it for years. This patch will reduce amount of new Titans in future since alliances will need more money to mantain their systems not to create more spares for each titan pilot, and that is one of best changes since Red Moon Rising. So were you born ****ed or were you the beneficiary of a ball-peen hammer to the cranial region? A single titan costs about 50-60B. If you officer pimp it you can get the 80B figure. This will support a single--ONE--cynojammed system for just over one month. Period. But since you brought up titans, lets reflect on the line of (lack of ) thought CCP had when they made them: they actually believed that there might be one or two in the game TOTAL. Clearly, they have a great handle on player logistics. Also: at the guy trying to educate Zastrow on logistics.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:39:00 - [480] Originally by: Hratli Smirks so long as there exists any better alternative option, like level 4 missions. Belts are a finite resource, but missions aren't. yep lvl 4 missions are the holy grail of isk/hr comparison. lets nerf the **** out of em in high sec, its been years in the coming. i would celebrate the day lvl 4 agents in high sec generate a fixed amount of missions which are replenished hourly. say 100 missions /hr or less. watch motsu and other major hubs flat-line when the hundreds of ravens/cnrs/golems have MAYBE 1 mission / hr available. make it 200 /hr for lowsec and 1000/hr for nullsec (due to hardly any stations with agents. numbers are negotiable for low and null sec but High sec has so goddamn many lvl 4 agents that 100/hr is acceptable in my opinion. IF CCP would crank down the isk fountain that is endless high sec level 4 mission spam then they could afford to be more lenient in the isk sinks. as it stands with dominion null sec alliances will be paying for the excesses of the high sec mission grinders and i mean that LITERALLY. they bring in billions of isk into the game in bounties and mission rewards and YOU will be paying billions of isk to compensate. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."

Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:39:00 - [481] Edited by: Merdaneth on 07/11/2009 08:45:26 I was at first sorely disappointed by this, but it is fortunately easily solved: Reduce system upkeep cost depending on player activity. CCP is monitoring player activity in the system now anyway to determine eligibility for upgrades. Why not use this activity to reduce the upkeep paid? More activity = less upkeep. This way we solve multiple problems in one fell swoop: - No difficulty in taxation of players, since their activity indirectly pays for the upgrades by reducing their cost - Players who are not part of the alliance that has sovereignity still contribute, solving CVA's problem amongst others - It will still prevent AFK empires by having those alliances without activity pay the full amount ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:39:00 - [482] Originally by: ian666 Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 07/11/2009 08:13:46 These changes are some of the most **** changes I have seen. We have 250 titans in game, those ships needed tons of minerals to build, each of them have worth around 80b isk. This is more than enought to upgrade entire constelations at max and mantain it for years. This patch will reduce amount of new Titans in future since alliances will need more money to mantain their systems not to create more spares for each titan pilot, and that is one of best changes since Red Moon Rising. And since MS are most cost effective titans wont be the big fear, a MS blob will be. Me? I already own a new wyvern(My 3rd) and I have the isk for EIGHT MORE. So yes, this will definitely stop players from getting insanely rich(It won't) You really have no idea what you're talking about Ian. 80b upgrades ONE SYSTEM not an entire constellation. This completely destroys any non wealthy/large entities from owning 0.0 space.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:49:00 - [483] Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 06/11/2009 22:42:42 Originally by: Vivian Azure You people do not understand what Dominion is all about, do you? Dominion is not ment to generate more ISK in your space, but to destroy tons of ISK holding on to it. Actually, if you bothered to read the earlier devblogs on the subject, it's supposed to be pumping up the value of individual systems to the point where a non-hueg alliance could realistically support themselves through either their own activities or tenants on a handful of systems. A big part of this would be incentivising 0.0 enough to pull people out of empire space. Too bad the upgrades that were supposed to make this happen are all worthless save the plexing upgrade (until deadspace loot prices tank) and possibly the WH upgrade. {edit}@ Vivian: Alluded to in: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=703 http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=695 http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=691 Dev posts elsewhere are a bit more precise on the matter{/edit} You are forgetting the other half of the intended result: reduction of the space claimed but unused by existing alliances.
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:54:00 - [484] i could think of a solution: make the initial upkeep cost for one solar system relatively cheap, but the more solar systems you own, the more costly each new would be. something like this, maybe. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Bilbo II Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:54:00 - [485] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 06/11/2009 22:42:42 Originally by: Vivian Azure You people do not understand what Dominion is all about, do you? Dominion is not ment to generate more ISK in your space, but to destroy tons of ISK holding on to it. Actually, if you bothered to read the earlier devblogs on the subject, it's supposed to be pumping up the value of individual systems to the point where a non-hueg alliance could realistically support themselves through either their own activities or tenants on a handful of systems. A big part of this would be incentivising 0.0 enough to pull people out of empire space. Too bad the upgrades that were supposed to make this happen are all worthless save the plexing upgrade (until deadspace loot prices tank) and possibly the WH upgrade. {edit}@ Vivian: Alluded to in: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=703 http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=695 http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=691 Dev posts elsewhere are a bit more precise on the matter{/edit} You are forgetting the other half of the intended result: reduction of the space claimed but unused by existing alliances. And you are forgetting that it's unused because it is worthless. Post dominion it is still worthless, therefor still unused. Big alliance can/will still claim the space we just won't sov it. Now if the upgrades actualy made the space more valuable so we could shrink in size coupled with the higher cost of maintaining space then we might actually do it.
Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:55:00 - [486] i forsee a price drop after all the massive allainces break down into smaller entities. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 11OCT09
Ezekiel Sulastin Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:55:00 - [487] Originally by: Venkul Mul You are forgetting the other half of the intended result: reduction of the space claimed but unused by existing alliances. Two things: 1) It's going to be used by anyone else with these changes? I feel genuinely bad for the new inhabitants. 2) I think it's been pointed out before, but you don't really need a flag to 'claim' space - just better application of firepower.
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:56:00 - [488] As it has been pointed out: even if the space officially held and claimed by FLAGs is reduced, there isn't an alliance out there that won't "unofficially" claim space around it as a defensive buffer. So if you try to claim this suddenly empty space, you'll still die, as quick as you would had it already been officially spoken for. As for the "Reduced number of systems=fewer plexes run" theory, every system that has upgrades out there will go for the DED one, since its really one of the only worthwhile upgrades. You'll also not be stopping people from doing their normal scan and run procedure. Deadspace items will go down in value, if not crash. See: Radar sites, Mag sites.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:57:00 - [489] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 06/11/2009 22:42:42 Originally by: Vivian Azure You people do not understand what Dominion is all about, do you? Dominion is not ment to generate more ISK in your space, but to destroy tons of ISK holding on to it. Actually, if you bothered to read the earlier devblogs on the subject, it's supposed to be pumping up the value of individual systems to the point where a non-hueg alliance could realistically support themselves through either their own activities or tenants on a handful of systems. A big part of this would be incentivising 0.0 enough to pull people out of empire space. Too bad the upgrades that were supposed to make this happen are all worthless save the plexing upgrade (until deadspace loot prices tank) and possibly the WH upgrade. {edit}@ Vivian: Alluded to in: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=703 http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=695 http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=691 Dev posts elsewhere are a bit more precise on the matter{/edit} You are forgetting the other half of the intended result: reduction of the space claimed but unused by existing alliances. The "unused" space is there because it takes an enormous amount of space to make reasonable money off ratting and exploration. Most systems have ****ty belt counts or true sec so most of your space is junk. Exploration sites are run pretty much as soon as they come up. This patch wants you to lower the amount of systems you live in, but offers no offset to being cramped in tighter spaces. Level 4's still offer non stop risk free money, 0.0 now offers nothing new and if people truly move out to 0.0 like they want you have more competition for limited resources.
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 08:59:00 - [490] If you guys push though these changes you are no better then Sony with with its NGE for SWG.

Treelox Amarr Evolution IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:01:00 - [491] Well now we know why the minutes from the face to face CSM - CCP meeting have been delayed for 2 months. CCP didnt want their epic fail made public early enough for us to actually have a chance to stop this pure utter bovine scatology from being implemented. Chronotis, WTF were you thinking? Sig Zone Signature picture is inappropriate. Please change. ~Weatherman
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:02:00 - [492] Originally by: Fuujin Originally by: CCP Chronotis in January We didn't notify anyone about the change until 2 weeks before launch because until 2 weeks before launch we hadn't made a decision. You basically found out when we found out. We launched, the marketing push failed, and we lost subscribers. It was a misread at an organizational level. Design, Marketing, Production, Community. You name it. Gonna quote myself since it appears to be hilariously accurate.
Skiliong	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:03:00 - [493] Edited by: Skiliong on 07/11/2009 09:03:37 Originally by: CCP Fallout Sovereignty is getting a fixin' in EVE Online: Dominion. when i read the 1st line i just LOL With dominion i HAD the dream that smalls alliances could go to 0.0 Unfortunally i also have CCP What would i do if i was a big alliance in 0.0? i would claim sov on key systems. Entrance systems + outpoust + moon systems Rest would be unclaimed. Nice more space for other alliances to claim ... NOT!!!!!!!! The bigger alliances will just stop anyone from taking them by force. Rent the space? yeah sure we will get bilions out of it why not (/me umplugs irony module)
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:06:00 - [494] If these upgrades were added to the game right now without any sovereignty or upkeep costs, except for the complex one, no one would really be excited. These things barely make systems as things are now better, cram 50 more people in all of them and it would be a nightmare.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:06:00 - [495] This is ridiculous...
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:26:00 - [496] From the features and ideas forum: Reduce system (upgrade/structure) upkeep cost depending on player activity. It is a very simple solution. We know CCP is monitoring player activity in the system now anyway to determine eligibility for upgrades. Why not use this activity to reduce the upkeep paid? More activity = less upkeep. This way we solve multiple problems in one fell swoop: - No difficulty in taxation of players, since their activity indirectly pays for the upgrades by reducing their cost - Players who are not part of the alliance that has sovereignity still contribute, solving CVA's problem amongst others - It will still prevent AFK empires by having those alliances without activity pay the full amount It it not that big a change and should be codeable for the release. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Vuk Lau 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:27:00 - [497] As more as I am thinking about this changes, the more I am getting 100% positive how clueless CCP is. Everyone were screaming about titan blobing, 0.0 alliances throwing cap fleets left and right, sitting on piles of isk and moongoo while the reality is totally opposite. There is less then handful of alliances who are actually rich and can afford multi billion losses (where I again dont see anything bad, cause destroying ships worth zillions is funfun) and all this isk is not coming from a sky (except for certain macro/bot entities) but from hard hard work of hundreds of people. From the other side the majority of 0.0 entities are struggling financially, and with this ludicrous expenses I dont see incentive for anyone to try to take sov, not to mention upgrading the system.
fooMiNiOn Space Lobsters Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:27:00 - [498] Our corp will only charge 1 million isk per month. After sending us the isk, we will mail you a post it note to put in the left hand corner of your monitor. Write on the post it note your alliance's name and center it where it says constellation. If it loses it's stickyness, there will be a 500,000.00 isk charge for new post it notes. Thank you, we will be looking forward to your business. o7 FCON [Space Lobsters] Co-CEO Fleet Admiral & head diplomat
Azrael Acid Gallente Space Lobsters Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:31:00 - [499] Edited by: Azrael Acid on 07/11/2009 09:31:38 Quote: Our corp will only charge 1 million isk per month. After sending us the isk, we will mail you a post it note to put in the left hand corner of your monitor. Write on the post it note your alliance's name and center it where it says constellation. If it loses it's stickyness, there will be a 500,000.00 isk charge for new post it notes. Thank you, we will be looking forward to your business. o7 FCON [Space Lobsters] Co-CEO Fleet Admiral & head diplomat You mean all we had to do was send isk to gain instant sov???!! Why didn't anyone say so?! [S.L] Director/Bar Wench/Intelligence Officer "The only way evil can prevail, is when good men do nothing."
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:35:00 - [500] Alright I'm testing out the math's as much as they can be tested, since most of the upgrades lean on increasing random numbers. A scary change from calculable moon revenues. 435.5 million a day for target constellation, for SOV and various upgrades. Pirate Magnets and Ore Prospecting arrays operating at level 4, with assumed bounties of average 10 million and assumed ore values of 50 million, adds up to 1,960 million ISK revenue a day Assuming ratting is taking place in all 67 belts and that rats respawn every 20 minutes and they value at 1.5 million a spawn (assuming large number of crap spawns) 13.79 hours of ratting in every belt per day is required for a corp to break even at 10% bounty and mineral tax. (This is dodging the icky working for free angle) So the only way to guarantee the idea of having a blue carebear alliance share space with an old style alliance is to give the SOV holding alliance the right to tax all incomes generated in their system regardless of source? The Constellation then does pay for it's self, and the care bears would be earning decent ISK, but the SOV alliance wouldn't be getting large amounts of money for it's own capital and outpost building projects and it's members wouldn't be getting tons of ISK to invest in PVP ships, as their system resources would be soaked by the care bear alliance.

Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:40:00 - [501] Some words to ponder, from someone in your industry: We've learned a thing or two with our experiences with the NGE and don't plan on repeating mistakes from the past and not listening to the players. ùJohn Smedley, president of Sony Online Entertainment What these changes tell me as a paying customer for nearly four years running and 0.0 resident is that you no longer wish for me, my alliance mates, my allies, or even my enemies to ever bother you ever again with our problems by making conquerable 0.0 so tedious and unrewarding to own or fight over that we pettily squabble over the limited tracts of NPC 0.0 until our eyes bleed from boredom. This is not the "grand sandbox" you've pitched not only to us but the world as well to lift EVE up from the dregs of WoW clones. I see in these changes, and feel free to chuckle at this given my corporation, an attack on how I and both friend and foe alike conduct ourselves in this game, and a not-so-veiled punishment for all the "trouble" we've caused you and workload we've made you do to improve our game experience. Us, the vocal minority who choose not to stay in Empire and play WoW With Spaceships for our chosen kill-mission company or agency. Yes, we are the minority in your game. But we also are the people who make the stories and headlines that keep EVE relevant. I simply ask that you don't forget that. You have a unique opportunity available to you when you return, not that I doubt you're going to ever see my message here on the 17th or 18th page, to prevent EVE from being SWG Part Deux, where you saw the consequences-to-be and held back, instead of surged forward thinking it would bring you new blood to wash away the whining and tiresome masses of old. Your call, CCP.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:42:00 - [502] I don't really get your(CCP) philosophy with the rewards in this game. In a month I will have the ability to chain a dozen lvl 4 blockades, which will boost my income to insane levels. I can milk infinite income from them in perfect safety with potentially hundreds of people sharing the same income source and system. So infinite rewards, high isk/hour and they can provide infinite amount of people in theory. Considering this, why is it necessary to force some 0.0 dwellers to make a living by licking lichen from rocks or compete bloodily for a few good pieces of meat, instead of offering them the feast the additional risk demands. You offer it to people taking no risks with very little effort, but for some reason you hesitate when it comes time to incentivize 0.0. What is it exactly that you are so afraid of? I do hope this is only the initial plan and the serious upgrades are coming in future iterations. I would really like to go back to living full time in 0.0, but the resources are heavily competed and in some areas they aren't competative with lvl 4s even during times you get them all for yourself.
KayTwoEx Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:44:00 - [503] Most the small alliances won't be able to pay 2 BIL per month for a System so they can actually use with some people so they either stay in highsec or join a bigger alliance which is exactly what CCP doesn't want. The Titans are now a useless toy and will only be used as a JB-Maker now. They are too valuable to actually bring them on the field and let it stay there fighting with its own turrets or launchers and even if they do stay they will not do as much damage to other capital ships as it would have to do so it is in a relation with the price, paying 70 BIL and getting the double damage than paying 1.5 BIL is hardly a motive for bringing them on the field or even buying them. The new 'doomsday' might be good but with a 10 minutes cooldown you can fire it once, maybe twice in a fight before it's over. That's way too low to be effective or worth bringing in any situation. Despite it might bring benefits to subcapital-pvp though it makes the titan almost completely useless. The whole moon-minerals now get kind of balanced. In fact it will cause smaller alliances having less valuable moons as the bigger alliances take more moons for themselves so they have the same income as before. Again this causes smaller alliances to have less ISK on their wallet making them unable to pay the bills for an upgraded system. This new system actually is a shot into your own foot as it is, again, exactly what you don't want to have. Now there are small Alliances that are or at least can hold a system with a small tower which let them have a monthy costs at about 60 Million ISK per Month, now you want to let them pay 600 Million ISK for having the same effect so they are actually paying the tenfold. Furthermore you get for the 60 M ISK per month the upgrade for Cyno-Gen, Cyno-Jammer and JumpBridge for free which isn't included in the 600 M ISK per month at the new system. All in all the smaller alliances are fcked now, titans are almost completely useless and the bigger alliances will take the smaller moons now too to get the same isk as befor resulting in the smaller alliances being even more fcked.
Silk75 Pat Sharp's Potato Rodeo Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:47:00 - [504] Straight out, the numbers are ridiculous. Existing 0.0 entities, most systems will not have that number of pure sov holding deathstars. 2 will be jumpbridge poses, 1 will be a jammer/generator pos, and others will be pure sov holding. Congrats, for the cost of holding sov under the new system we get to drop 2 large towers, that don't reprocess very well into minerals we could use elsewhere. Entry to new 0.0 is too high. The cost for putting up a FLAG in new systems is too high for more than one system. And any new entities would want a constellation at least. Existing entities may reduce their sov footprint, but new entities will find the expense barrier too much. As for military activities - its great for anomalies to be 'guaranteed' whatever that means, but normal 0.0 ratting in ****ty space is better than most anomalies - so are you boosting anomalies to compensate quality rather than quantity? Mining? More concentrated system, more roams, less mining. Give me more veldspar, and more ABCs to make my miners happy sitting there. Rotate and randomise the asteroid respawn days. Great progress so far, but the numbers need sorting please.
fooMiNiOn Space Lobsters Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:51:00 - [505] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Some words to ponder, from someone in your industry: We've learned a thing or two with our experiences with the NGE and don't plan on repeating mistakes from the past and not listening to the players. ùJohn Smedley, president of Sony Online Entertainment What these changes tell me as a paying customer for nearly four years running and 0.0 resident is that you no longer wish for me, my alliance mates, my allies, or even my enemies to ever bother you ever again with our problems by making conquerable 0.0 so tedious and unrewarding to own or fight over that we pettily squabble over the limited tracts of NPC 0.0 until our eyes bleed from boredom. This is not the "grand sandbox" you've pitched not only to us but the world as well to lift EVE up from the dregs of WoW clones. I see in these changes, and feel free to chuckle at this given my corporation, an attack on how I and both friend and foe alike conduct ourselves in this game, and a not-so-veiled punishment for all the "trouble" we've caused you and workload we've made you do to improve our game experience. Us, the vocal minority who choose not to stay in Empire and play WoW With Spaceships for our chosen kill-mission company or agency. Yes, we are the minority in your game. But we also are the people who make the stories and headlines that keep EVE relevant. I simply ask that you don't forget that. You have a unique opportunity available to you when you return, not that I doubt you're going to ever see my message here on the 17th or 18th page, to prevent EVE from being SWG Part Deux, where you saw the consequences-to-be and held back, instead of surged forward thinking it would bring you new blood to wash away the whining and tiresome masses of old. Your call, CCP. Very well put, I couldn't agree more. I hope CCP does read this, and think at least for a second about this issue. When I think of 30,000 people on tranquility times 15 bucks a month..... FCON [Space Lobsters] Co-CEO Fleet Admiral & head diplomat
RevJesu Marek Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:57:00 - [506] The Times They Are A-Changin' by Bob Dylan This message brought to you by the FUD Commission.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:59:00 - [507] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 07/11/2009 10:02:48 Originally by: Fuujin Originally by: ian666 Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 07/11/2009 08:13:46 These changes are some of the most ** changes I have seen. We have 250 titans in game, those ships needed tons of minerals to build, each of them have worth around 80b isk. This is more than enought to upgrade entire constelations at max and mantain it for years. This patch will reduce amount of new Titans in future since alliances will need more money to mantain their systems not to create more spares for each titan pilot, and that is one of best changes since Red Moon Rising. So were you born ****ed or were you the beneficiary of a ball-peen hammer to the cranial region? A single titan costs about 50-60B. If you officer pimp it you can get the 80B figure. This will support a single--ONE--cynojammed system for just over one month. Period. But since you brought up titans, lets reflect on the line of (lack of ) thought CCP had when they made them: they actually believed that there might be one or two in the game TOTAL. Clearly, they have a great handle on player logistics. Also: at the guy trying to educate Zastrow on logistics. Last time I checked 2.175 Billion/month hardly equals 80 Billion/month. In reality land, assuming you had every system enhancement, your 80 Billion isk would support that single system for a bit over 3 years. Now that we have determined that you can't do basic math, and are a little hysterical, I'll point out that I was not trying to educate Zastrow on logistics. I was partially agreeing with him but bringing up some other related facts for him to consider. Perhaps you should pipe down and let wiser heads discuss the issue. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Sazumaan Johnza Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:00:00 - [508] Two scenarios really: CCP really do have the costs completely wrong OR The benefits derived from upgrading each system are much greater than all of us realize at this point ----- "Eve is more filling than roast steaks slowly grilling over a rotating fire whilst marinating in a combination of Australian fruity wines and the best imported herbs..." - SChimera [16.4.07
shantaa Caldari Chronos Evolution	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:03:00 - [509] I give the blog a big thumbs up, a small corp wanting their own space will only have to pay 880M a month for a system (that's a claim unit and hub). It's easy for a handful of corp mates to work together and raise that sort of isk in a couple a days. Leaving the rest of the month pure profit for the pilots. Quite looking forward to seeing 0.0 littered with lots of small groups all eying their neighbors suspiciously. As for the price tag on cyno jammers, another big thumbs up. I'm tired of not being able to traverse 0.0 in a cap due to the current cyno jam spam. The price tag should encourage corps and alliances to just jam their capital vulnerable assets rather than an annoying blanket spam.
Umytbnxt	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:04:00 - [510] Originally by: Sazumaan Johnza Two scenarios really: CCP really do have the costs completely wrong OR The benefits derived from upgrading each system are much greater than all of us realize at this point Personally, I hope both of the above scenarios are correct.

Kozmic Universal Army Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:05:00 - [511] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Solution to sov problems: 0.0 alliances need to start griefing the hell out of everyone who lives in empire space until they beg CCP to improve 0.0 enough that we go away. Then we'll see some worthwhile changes. I see Goons are way ahead of the rest on this one.
lasterax Minmatar Libertas Fidelitas Holdings Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:06:00 - [512] This comes down to simple economics -- are the benefits of sov worth the capital outlay? Clearly with these kind of prices and little in the way of profit from the benefits it is not. As others have said the goal of this change was to stop AFK empires and allow smaller entities to get into 0.0. While the former is probably being achieved the latter isn't limited to not being met, it's being hindered. Not many small alliances would be able to pay such a price even if they wanted to. In fact, this only encourages current abuses of the system such as ratting bots. Get sov in a system, turn loose a gang of ratting bots and meet your activity goals and farm ISK at the same time. The legitimate player is not going to benefit from that. Either the price of admission needs to be changed or the benefits need to be increased. Suggestions earlier about lowering true sec status, increasing spawn rates, etc would have such a benefit if tweaked right. However, any way you slice it these changes destroy NRDS and Providence. Putting in place a system of upgrades where one entity pays for them yet any entity can benefit from them sets up a system where outsiders will not be welcome or it's simply pouring more ISK down the drain for those paying for the upgrades. While it certainly will have a massive impact on we Providence Holders such a loss would hurt the null sec community in general. Providence is a place where new players to null sec are welcome to learn the ropes and experienced players know they will get a fight. I think the recent hacking incident proved that with all those who rose up to condemn the act. However, this expansion will have the same effect -- it will make an NRDS environment like Providence untenable and, as the butterfly video suggests, would have reverberations that would echo throughout all of null sec. CCP, do some modeling, get some input from your null sec alliances and reconsider if your changes are achieving your goals. lasterax Executor Libertas Fidelitas
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:07:00 - [513] Whilst reading through these 17 pages I've been thinking about what I expected from this patch, given previous blogs etc. 1. Upgrade your space :: FAIL I took this to mean upgrade the sec status, I mean there's not much else is there? There are waaaaayyy too many ** systems in nullsec. 2. Allow more people to use less space :: FAIL Well I'm pvp based, so this isn't considering other careers Belts: you can't really squeeze more than 1 player per 5 belts in atm, so they need more belts or better rats/spawn times. You could hypothetically have 1 player per belt if the spawn time was good enough. Plexes: these are over hunted already, and most of them are ** (including all sigs in this statement). Spawning more good ones will just decrease their value, as their value is in the rarity. Not to mention how the hell this can be tied to one system? I mean say it takes 3 ships to do one decent unknown, so that's 1.5 players per plex, and 98.5 without one. Anomolies: they suck, providing more suck is generally not a good idea (unless you run a brothel or vacuum cleaner company, or happen to be a black hole) 3. Change Sov (includes improving timezones) :: FAIL Wasn't really sure what to expect here, but I guess I thought it might be more granular. Instead we have structures to shoot replaced with structures to shoot, no chance for weaker tz to really do anything more than they can now. 4. Chances for smaller alliances to enter 0.0 :: FAIL Again not really sure, but thought there would be some granularity. I guess there's not really any alternative to numbers. 5. Faction Domi :: WIN I'm gonna assume coding that domi took 5 months, and the rest 1. At any rate I'm pretty happy with Dominion as it stands. I'll get a faction domi, use it for missioning, get bored in an hour, lose it in pvp, and quit eve cause it sux. That will leave more time for RL stuff like TV and Risk. ten thumbs up Yes you can have all my isk, just send 17 mill to this char as an indicator, a ticket if you will.
Jack Nuddels Congregatio Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:10:00 - [514] Originally by: Bobby Atlas CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. this!
Mera Lehbo	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:10:00 - [515] - anomaly rats are crap compared to belt rats, lower bounties and nerfed loot tables - gravimetric sites are crap because 0.0 mining is crap and you have mine veld until they despawn - plexes are decent, but having an upgrade increase them is going to crash the value of deadspace mods - "profession" sites are crap, the only worthwhile ones were salvage sites and salvage is crashing due to rig patch - wormholes were valuable for a few months, but now they, too, have crashed hard and on top of all of that the isk/hour for all of these will be AWFUL compared to belt ratting because it will take time to scan the stuff out and you'll have no easy way of checking to see which ones are occupied
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:11:00 - [516] I assume that Empire mission running is being nerfed in Dominion to match the crippled income-generation in 0.0, right?
Titan Pilot Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:14:00 - [517] This should tear apart alliances nicely, especially the napfest ones like NC, eventually. Will this do the job of attracting more corps to 0.0? Don't see that happening because the game in 0.0 hasn't changed. Its going to be funny: FC: Sniper HAC gang forming up, meet on the JB @ 14:00. Raise Taxes to 100% Alliance Leader: Sorry we need to rat and mine to pay for costs no fleet today FC: Emorage quits, steals from corp wallet Alliance Leader: Logins into LVL 4 mission running alt and pays for costs
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:16:00 - [518] Originally by: Itzena I assume that Empire mission running is being nerfed in Dominion to match the crippled income-generation in 0.0, right? I mean, if it's not why bother to even try leaving highsec?
Nahia Senne Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:17:00 - [519] Once upon a time, there was no moon goo and alliances got by just fine. Nothing has changed, people just love to whine about anything and everything.
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:19:00 - [520] Edited by: Fuujin on 07/11/2009 10:22:20 Originally by: Ranger 1 [ Last time I checked 2.175 Billion/month hardly equals 80 Billion/month. In reality land, assuming you had every system enhancement, your 80 Billion isk would support that single system for a bit over 3 years. Now that we have determined that you can't do basic math, and are a little hysterical, I'll point out that I was not trying to educate Zastrow on logistics. I was partially agreeing with him but bringing up some other related facts for him to consider. Perhaps you should pipe down and let wiser heads discuss the issue. Sorry, got a wire crossed. A single system fully upgraded is still 2.5-3B/month counting the still-requred POS fuel. So a Titan's ISK-worth will still be eaten by 10 systems in 2 months, or 20 in one month. So given the time it takes to manufacture, you're fortunate to break even if you build one. And with the departure of Sov 4 systems, CSAAs are the new pinata. Again, its not the raw cost of the system that is the primary problem. Its that the profitability of the vast majority of 0.0 isn't worth supporting that system. CCO needs to address that core component before they can build a system that would require it to be effective. Is like they're giving us a chalkboard, only chalk hasn't been made yet--but you can use this nail to write on it, so they chalkboard's still useful, right? There is nothing in the new sov system that says "come out to 0.0 and support your empire using native resources." Its more like "Come out to 0.0, but I hope you have an L4-running alt because you'll be falling asleep from the drudgery of trying to maintain this otherwise."

Anile8er Solstice Systems Development Concourse Distant Drums	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:19:00 - [521] Edited by: Anile8er on 07/11/2009 10:24:52 Questions.... I think CCP should ask themselves or at least people playing EVE who live in 0.0 If I'm in an alliance and living in a "upgraded system" with 100 other players and their alts why would I want to stay in that system? So I can grind 2 mil every 15 minutes in bounties? As soon as the belt to player ratio is less than 8/1 it's really not worth ratting... So why not just get in my Ishtar and go rat in a dead-end system with 12 belts all to myself? I would if above was the alternative. That leads to the next question.... Why would an alliance upgrade a system if people arent gonna do **** there cause its too crowded? They probabaly wouldn't..... And how does increased numbers of DED sites translate into more isk for an alliance? Players aren't going to split the profits from the sale of deadspace loot with their alliance.... and if I "had to" share my profits I would justt go run one in a non-upgraded system. Also introducing more deadspace and faction loot into the market only lowers it's value because it's more common... so what would be the value in going and finding A and X type modules? You really need to re-think what your doing here........
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp.	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:20:00 - [522] Given that all worthwhile 0.0 is already currently occupied, the "pre-nerf" costs will need to be high in order to open a few gaps for others considering a move out there. So I'm not surprised to see them as high as they are, at least at first. What I am surprised at, however, is the lack of cost scaling involved. For all the e-lols I'm currently enjoying at the expense of everyone currently in 0.0 that I dislike (which is most of you), one point I would agree with them on is how this makes it just too hard for the little guy to want to bother with 0.0 at all. Costs need to somehow scale based on two simple factors: 1. The number of systems you have. Base costs on the first one should be next to nothing unless there's a station in it. But the costs increase per system as the number of claimed systems grows. 2. If big alliances stand to make savings by splitting into multiple alt alliances due to the above, this can be prevented by adding another cost scaling based on the number of blue standings each alliance has. Each blue standing would be the equivalent of owning another system, for example. The last thing anyone here wants is another Exodus, so I really hope CCP take note of some of the signal being offered in this thread amongst all the noise, for their own sake. /Ben
Hrodgar Ortal Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:25:00 - [523] Cost of upkeep (2bn/month) might be a bit to high. But if their goal is to reduce inflation by adding more isk sinks it could be a good way to do it. But the resource density doesn't seem to increase enough to make up for higher costs in any way. However, havn't we been told that there will be opportunities to exploit planets as well later on which might improve at least alliance/corp level incomes a bit. Won't help the individual players though.
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:26:00 - [524] Originally by: Nahia Senne Once upon a time, there was no moon goo and alliances got by just fine. Nothing has changed, people just love to whine about anything and everything. Once upon a time your alliance held space.
Winters Chill Amarr Shadow Legion.	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:27:00 - [525] @angry players. Reading over some of the comments it appears that some of you either can't to comprehend the meaning of the changes or simply knee jerk rage react at any change, because every year it seems to be the same. I wonder if its the same people too... @CCP Cho', looks interesting. I'd change the pirate mag's name to reflect the fact it's a lure, what do pirates like? civilian traffic of-course:- "holographic civilian communication transmitter"? or something like this, the idea being the installation produces fake civilian chatter in system for the NPC pirates to come looking. I'm sure you thought of this already. My 2 pence anyway.
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:30:00 - [526] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Cost of upkeep (2bn/month) might be a bit to high. But if their goal is to reduce inflation by adding more isk sinks it could be a good way to do it. But the resource density doesn't seem to increase enough to make up for higher costs in any way. However, havn't we been told that there will be opportunities to exploit planets as well later on which might improve at least alliance/corp level incomes a bit. Won't help the individual players though. We might be able to manage planets later...and they might make defender missiles worth using, or T2 moon miners to make use of the abundance field, or any of a dozen other possible promises. The fact is that even if they actually intend on following through with this--and DUST at least makes this one possible--any changes would be at least 5-6 months out. That's a long time to waste trying to work with a system based on a flawed premise--the myth of the superior profitability of 0.0
Jade Gunsmith Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:32:00 - [527] All of this feels like a "Lets get people to use all of our past broken content by forcing them to use the broken content" idea. I honestly doubt people were rubbing thier hands together the last two monts for a patch that allows us to increase anomalies in a system, considering no one wants to bother with the ones that are there to begin with. This is almost the same as the ill fated outpost upgrades. Yeah everyone wants the upgrades but what our dear devs keep offering as upgrades are just worthless.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:32:00 - [528] Originally by: Winters Chill @angry players. Reading over some of the comments it appears that some of you either can't to comprehend the meaning of the changes or simply knee jerk rage react at any change, because every year it seems to be the same. I wonder if its the same people too... @CCP Cho', looks interesting. I'd change the pirate mag's name to reflect the fact it's a lure, what do pirates like? civilian traffic of-course:- "holographic civilian communication transmitter"? or something like this, the idea being the installation produces fake civilian chatter in system for the NPC pirates to come looking. I'm sure you thought of this already. My 2 pence anyway. that's fantastic, but I'd change it to "wenches who suck **** cheap and have rum" cause thats what pirates really want no?????????????????????????????????
Azrael Acid Gallente Space Lobsters Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:33:00 - [529] Quote: The bigger alliances will be crying buckets over those sov changes. Nice! Very Happy Yea. All the rich & lazy alliances are being thrust out of their comfort zone. Hence the buckets of tears. Gee...they will have to think/work a bit more and not hold multiple regions. Sucks to be a bloated alliance with piles of empty systems right now huh? Very Happy Ya... except *you* won't have any space either. No one will. Everyone might as well all move back to empire, and get used to mission running. While it lasts. PvP? Oh, no way. It's gone. The only way you'll get it with these changes is to go back to war deccing in empire. What you people don't realize, (and please feel free to educate yourselves, so you know what you're talking about)is that these sloppy changes benefit NO ONE. Large alliances loose their space. Guess what? *THEY DON'T CARE.* You think Goons or CVA, AAA, or any of the others, have keeping all that space at the top of the priority lists right now? Think again. They've already dealt with that fact darlings. And have prepared for it. Months ago. This is hardly about that insignificant bit of info. What IS relevant, and please take note, is this: EVE WILL FAIL WITH THESE CHANGES. Fail as in kiss your characters goodbye, and save your 15-30 bucks a month, cause you're gonna be spending it on WoW. The market will crash, ( it's already happening with recent changes ) and all you high sec adventures will never even get to lay eyes on 0.0 before EVE is swallowed into the pages of gaming history. I've seen it happen before, this is how TRIBES ended. I guarantee a drop in player subscription. If not a total collapse of the game itself. Sorry newbies. Hurry up and sell your toons on EBay before they are worth squat. [S.L] Director/Bar Wench/Intelligence Officer "The only way evil can prevail, is when good men do nothing."
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:35:00 - [530] Originally by: Winters Chill @angry players. Reading over some of the comments it appears that some of you either can't to comprehend the meaning of the changes or simply knee jerk rage react at any change, because every year it seems to be the same. I wonder if its the same people too... @CCP Cho', looks interesting. I'd change the pirate mag's name to reflect the fact it's a lure, what do pirates like? civilian traffic of-course:- "holographic civilian communication transmitter"? or something like this, the idea being the installation produces fake civilian chatter in system for the NPC pirates to come looking. I'm sure you thought of this already. My 2 pence anyway. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/corp/Shadow_Legion. Shadow LegionPERIOD No Sov? Check No Station? Check No Vested Interest in anything 0.0 Except "L33t PvP"? Check Hard to figure out why you're not opposed to this eh?

Sunaria	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:35:00 - [531] Edited by: Sunaria on 07/11/2009 10:35:38 Pirate Magnets - add two additional guaranteed anomalies per level to your solar system Will this mean if I run one of these anomalies another will respawn after I finish the one I was running ? Or does this mean there are guranteed 2 anomolies after DT ? Ore Prospecting Array - adds one additional guaranteed hidden asteroid site per level to your solar system Will this mean once I mined out the hidden belt, another will respawn or do I have to wait untill the next DT ? Entrapment - increase the chance significantly of a DED complex being located in the depths of your solar system. Survey Networks - increase the chance significantly of mini-profession sites being located within your solar system Quantum Flux Generator - increase the chance significantly of a wormhole being discovered within your solar system to w-space. I suppose this does mean only after DT the chance is improved ?
Ridjeck Thome DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:37:00 - [532] Edited by: Ridjeck Thome on 07/11/2009 10:38:56 trying to take a balanced view, at present Im concerned about two issues and would like CCP to consider commenting or explaining their rationale a little better please: 1. The system upgrades dont seem to achieve what you expressly stated (1 system can support 100+ people). As others have pointed out, these changes aren't going to achieve that. Isn't Dominion the real chance to go and revisit the coding of system true-sec and sort that out once and for all? - why hasnt this been done? 2. The costs are horrible. Aren't you supposed to be getting more people into 0.0? - these costs create both a barrier to initial entry, and to staying there when compared to income sources such as level 4s in high sec. These changes, to my mind, dont solve anything, just add minor 'upgrades' and impose significant burdens on players in 0.0 to pay for them. Please revisit them, thanks. edit: I also agree that adding DT 'spawning' improvements would be a stupid idea and would only benefit those who are able to play around that time. Whatever system you come up with, the 'imrpovements' need to be available 24/7.
Nevada Tan	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:41:00 - [533] I feel sorry for CVA - they've been hyped up by CCP as "How we want people to develop 0.0 space" and then are going to be utterly destroyed by Dominion. The lesson to learn here is don't co-operate with CCP, and if they praise you - run like hell. Oh hey, speaking of "co-operating with CCP"...what was the CSM council doing while CCP were developing this Heath-Robinsonesque trainwreck? Aside from enjoying a holiday in Iceland, I mean. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ I have done a bad thing.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:41:00 - [534] To be fair the one thing this does encourage is mass rentals out to macro ratting alliances and corporations to ensure you can afford any amount of space.
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:42:00 - [535] Originally by: Azrael Acid Quote: EVE WILL FAIL WITH THESE CHANGES. Fail as in kiss your characters goodbye, and save your 15-30 bucks a month, cause you're gonna be spending it on WoW. The market will crash, ( it's already happening with recent changes ) and all you high sec adventures will never even get to lay eyes on 0.0 before EVE is swallowed into the pages of gaming history. I've seen it happen before, this is how TRIBES ended. I guarantee a drop in player subscription. If not a total collapse of the game itself. Sorry newbies. Hurry up and sell your toons on EBay before they are worth squat. This is a bit hyperbolic. Eve won't fail...TQ will just turn into the Ssrenity server, and everyone will be mostly clustered around NPC space. Moons will be contested as they presently are; but the only ones that will have sov are the heavy-reaction ones or the r64s. So it'll be far duller and more clautraphobic. New entities will still have to deal with the larger extant ones--they won't be so obvious on the map as present, but their fleets will still roll out the welcome wagon for you.
Caliph Scorpionsting Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:43:00 - [536] It's too late, we have to give them the turd. We spraypainted it gold and perfumed it up at fanfest, but now the turd smell and consistency is starting to seep through. But all we've got is this turd? And we promised them something. It's too late, we have to give the the turd. It's all we've got
Morphisat Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:43:00 - [537] Edited by: Morphisat on 07/11/2009 10:43:59 Originally by: Nevada Tan Oh hey, speaking of "co-operating with CCP"...what was the CSM council doing while CCP were developing this Heath-Robinsonesque trainwreck? A wild guess would be that CCP agreed with them, said they would indeed improve 0.0 and didn't tell them any specifics. This kinda proves that the CSM is little more than a ccp marketing ploy.
Mikal Drey Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:47:00 - [538] Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. 7mil a day = 49mil a week 49mil a week = 196 per 4 weekly sov cycle (2x bils) you want me to pay my corp 196mil a month ? and thats before i need to start actually defending the system from hostiles etc with it being such a huge **ing target now ? you want me to be 196mil down each month before i make profit and effectivly FORCE me to carebear in 0.0 !!! oh and thats before i go to work in RL etc and let anyone in the alliance play in the system that im contributing isk to generate for corp/alliance when i wanna break from the pew pew i go back to empire and make iskies yeah i could do it better in this new system or "upgrades" but thats a shared recource i dont mine, i barely rat, i never plex and "mini professions" suck hard donkey . when im in 0.0 i pvp. thats what im there for. 196mil a month ontop of ship losses and running costs ? im glad im not in your corp im know for certain and from experience that if you start taxing your membership that hard you will lose them. as to this new sov "mechanics" im very much undecided but i just dont understand the logic behind any of it. the direction CCP are taking seems to be to sink time and isk with no reasoning behind their choices and that the numbers are very arbitary and ill concieved. removing the poss requirements but adding that cost back in flag and hub iskies is a joke. some of those sov posses were multipurpose and were mining goo and running reactions etc. i do like the non need for not having all those posses just for claiming sov but replacing 1 system that was semi broken for one thats epically ** doesnt hold water.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:48:00 - [539] Hi About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? They were not put in as "OH GOD I STRUCK GOLD" sites. You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, which is what the anomalies do. The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation.

Morphisat Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:52:00 - [540] Edited by: Morphisat on 07/11/2009 10:53:43 Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hi Thanks for ignoring all the other issues mentioned in this thread ! Specifically what ccp is trying to accomplish with this expansion. You say one thing, then do something else that exactly will do the opposite...

Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:52:00 - [541] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hi About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? They were not put in as "OH GOD I STRUCK GOLD" sites. You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, which is what the anomalies do. The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation. FCCPsI: Rats in anomalies have worse loot, worse salvage and worse bounties than belt rats. Is this going to be corrected, or did you just kinda forget this part in your grand design?
DaiTengu Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:53:00 - [542] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Some words to ponder, from someone in your industry: We've learned a thing or two with our experiences with the NGE and don't plan on repeating mistakes from the past and not listening to the players. ùJohn Smedley, president of Sony Online Entertainment What these changes tell me as a paying customer for nearly four years running and 0.0 resident is that you no longer wish for me, my alliance mates, my allies, or even my enemies to ever bother you ever again with our problems by making conquerable 0.0 so tedious and unrewarding to own or fight over that we pettily squabble over the limited tracts of NPC 0.0 until our eyes bleed from boredom. This is not the "grand sandbox" you've pitched not only to us but the world as well to lift EVE up from the dregs of WoW clones. I see in these changes, and feel free to chuckle at this given my corporation, an attack on how I and both friend and foe alike conduct ourselves in this game, and a not-so-veiled punishment for all the "trouble" we've caused you and workload we've made you do to improve our game experience. Us, the vocal minority who choose not to stay in Empire and play WoW With Spaceships for our chosen kill-mission company or agency. Yes, we are the minority in your game. But we also are the people who make the stories and headlines that keep EVE relevant. I simply ask that you don't forget that. You have a unique opportunity available to you when you return, not that I doubt you're going to ever see my message here on the 17th or 18th page, to prevent EVE from being SWG Part Deux, where you saw the consequences-to-be and held back, instead of surged forward thinking it would bring you new blood to wash away the whining and tiresome masses of old. Your call, CCP. When I read this devblog, Sony's NGE is the first thing that sprang to my mind as well. It's not that we abhor change, it's that we abhor terrible changes. These are terrible changes. There's no way one system is going to support more than 10-15 people, and there's no way it's going to be cost effective. The devs say they love their epic space battles, but no one is going to want to fight over 0.0 space, and it's going to cause people to quit playing eve en-masse. I'm excited over the changes to supercapitals, but the sov changes are going to mean that we're not going to get to use them. I hung on to SWG for quite awhile after the NGE, but I, too, eventually quit as I saw the game I loved fall apart, and all my friends quit playing. If this goes through you're going to lose quite a few subscribers, and you're going to get a ton of bad press. Go back to the drawing board with this, even if you have to delay the expansion a month or more. Do it right, or don't do it at all.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:53:00 - [543] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hi About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? They were not put in as "OH GOD I STRUCK GOLD" sites. You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, which is what the anomalies do. The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation. It's a belt that always has rats and lots of them in it. got it. I will hyperventilate more softly now, yes.
Azrael Acid Gallente Space Lobsters Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:53:00 - [544] Quote: This is a bit hyperbolic. Eve won't fail...TQ will just turn into the Ssrenity server, and everyone will be mostly clustered around NPC space. Moons will be contested as they presently are; but the only ones that will have sov are the heavy-reaction ones or the r64s. So it'll be far duller and more clautraphobic. New entities will still have to deal with the larger extant ones--they won't be so obvious on the map as present, but their fleets will still roll out the welcome wagon for you. I hope you're right. I may be presenting the issue intensely, or histrionically,for that matter, but, the issues are still the same. If you are right, it's the same as death for me anyway. But to those new to the game, in that quote above lies hope. And yes... this is a turd anyway you look at it. [S.L] Director/Bar Wench/Intelligence Officer "The only way evil can prevail, is when good men do nothing."
Juliette DuBois	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:54:00 - [545] How many times higher income? Also don¦t you have to share those anomalies with other scanners, how many people can you realistically have doing these at same time? How long does it take to clear best one ones so new one can spawn (without escalation?). Isk/h output has to be very high for it to be worth it, and taxable by the alliance who is holding the sovereignity.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:56:00 - [546] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hi About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? They were not put in as "OH GOD I STRUCK GOLD" sites. You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, which is what the anomalies do. The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation. Sorry stoffer but **** this. 3 sites that RESPAWN INSTANTLY that you have to PROBE DOWN which TAKES TIME so its NOT INSTANT. It is still subpar to mission running even assuming you are lucky enough to chain them without some ass probing it down before you.
Tarkin Hamir	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:57:00 - [547] The upkeep costs do not look very clever CCP. to pay at this level it would appear that players will simply have to devote more of their time to ratting and other high income per hour activities simply to keep SOV alive, POSs at least had the advantage of running without constant supervision. I suspect the next effect will be to tilt the balance heavily in favour of no space roaming pirate type corps and away from those trying to establish any sort of 0.0 presence, though I suspect the alliances that are already large and pwoerful will be able to survive simple through size and inertia. I fear that this change will NOT achive your stated aim of opening up 0.0 and reducing AFK empires.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:57:00 - [548] Originally by: Morphisat Edited by: Morphisat on 07/11/2009 10:43:59 Originally by: Nevada Tan Oh hey, speaking of "co-operating with CCP"...what was the CSM council doing while CCP were developing this Heath-Robinsonesque trainwreck? A wild guess would be that CCP agreed with them, said they would indeed improve 0.0 and didn't tell them any specifics. This kinda proves that the CSM is little more than a ccp marketing ploy. To be fair, players screwed up their CSM when they embraced it as a lobby mechanism for their own little clubs, instead of a representation and feedback mechanism for the eve community as a whole. The conflict between a uniform crosschecking mechanism and private interests. When it became clear that the NDA meant nothing at all, since the CSM was just about getting the inside scoop to adjust to changes ahead of others it was very nice to see that CCP picked up on a few signs and kickstarted some very nice open information management to level the playing field. But it also meant that the CSM concept failed in meeting the requirements to trust and power as hinted at by the CCP ceo in a TV interview and thus combined with the CSM just presenting individual views and feedback the potential for constructive interaction got gimped. So in a way we shot ourselves in the foot. It is no surprise that CCP did not pick up on dealbreakers like "is it worth it", and it is not surprise that they got lost on the level of sprints and forgetting the actual focus of Dominion: to get people back out in to 0.0 again, by making it worth their while and providing enough supporting elements for new groups to find competitive angles to old and established groups. It is no surprise that none of the groups of people in empire (high and lowsec) who were thinking about going to 0.0 in the hopes raised by Dominion are bothering to post here. Mercenary groups aspiring to find a niche back into 0.0, industrial organisations looking for commercial angles, small 0.0 NPC space teams looking to carve out a niche, you name it. Zero response. It is nor worth their while. Don't get too hung up on numbers btw, that's just EFT'ing your way into 0.0, as with doing this with ships it usually blows up in your face Instead look at tangible elements and practical realities, not at how an idea looks on paper.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:57:00 - [549] Originally by: DaiTengu Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Some words to ponder, from someone in your industry: We've learned a thing or two with our experiences with the NGE and don't plan on repeating mistakes from the past and not listening to the players. ùJohn Smedley, president of Sony Online Entertainment What these changes tell me as a paying customer for nearly four years running and 0.0 resident is that you no longer wish for me, my alliance mates, my allies, or even my enemies to ever bother you ever again with our problems by making conquerable 0.0 so tedious and unrewarding to own or fight over that we pettily squabble over the limited tracts of NPC 0.0 until our eyes bleed from boredom. This is not the "grand sandbox" you've pitched not only to us but the world as well to lift EVE up from the dregs of WoW clones. I see in these changes, and feel free to chuckle at this given my corporation, an attack on how I and both friend and foe alike conduct ourselves in this game, and a not-so-veiled punishment for all the "trouble" we've caused you and workload we've made you do to improve our game experience. Us, the vocal minority who choose not to stay in Empire and play WoW With Spaceships for our chosen kill-mission company or agency. Yes, we are the minority in your game. But we also are the people who make the stories and headlines that keep EVE relevant. I simply ask that you don't forget that. You have a unique opportunity available to you when you return, not that I doubt you're going to ever see my message here on the 17th or 18th page, to prevent EVE from being SWG Part Deux, where you saw the consequences-to-be and held back, instead of surged forward thinking it would bring you new blood to wash away the whining and tiresome masses of old. Your call, CCP. When I read this devblog, Sony's NGE is the first thing that sprang to my mind as well. It's not that we abhor change, it's that we abhor terrible changes. These are terrible changes. There's no way one system is going to support more than 10-15 people, and there's no way it's going to be cost effective. The devs say they love their epic space battles, but no one is going to want to fight over 0.0 space, and it's going to cause people to quit playing eve en-masse. I'm excited over the changes to supercapitals, but the sov changes are going to mean that we're not going to get to use them. I hung on to SWG for quite awhile after the NGE, but I, too, eventually quit as I saw the game I loved fall apart, and all my friends quit playing. If this goes through you're going to lose quite a few subscribers, and you're going to get a ton of bad press. Go back to the drawing board with this, even if you have to delay the expansion a month or more. Do it right, or don't do it at all. I completely agree that systems will be able to sustain about 10, possibly 15 people active at one time (which to be fair is a pretty massive increase from what we can do now). It's not the perfect solution, but it gives us a pretty solid base to work from. In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit.

Mynas Atoch UK Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:58:00 - [550] Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 07/11/2009 10:58:49 Originally by: Morphisat Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hi Thanks for ignoring all the other issues mentioned in this thread ! That's because most of the issues are bollox a) stations are more expensive .. lose sov pos elsewhere to compensate .. result is cost neutral .. and that's with THIS iteration of pricing. b) jump bridges are more expensive .. we use less .. ummm who cares .. we'll adapt .. and that's with THIS iteration of pricing. c) infrastructure hubs is too expensive and income is too low .. oh look, a reply showing that "The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly" .. problem solved d) income goes to players and not to directors to ebay .. ummm .. this is bad?!?!? e) macroeconomics blah blah .. and of course they have an economist with spreadsheets. honestly, most of the rest of the points were just the usual whining. My alliance is looking at a range of options from turtling to expansion .. the numbers will dictate where on that spectrum we will sit. So far we are not worried ... actually I'm getting quite excited. Myn


CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 10:59:00 - [551] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hi About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? They were not put in as "OH GOD I STRUCK GOLD" sites. You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, which is what the anomalies do. The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation. Sorry stoffer but **** this. 3 sites that RESPAWN INSTANTLY that you have to PROBE DOWN which TAKES TIME so its NOT INSTANT. It is still subpar to mission running even assuming you are lucky enough to chain them without some ass probing it down before you. They are anomalies, not signatures. You can scan them down in about four seconds with the onboard scanner, or a single probe. It is pretty much as instant as it gets dude. Also remember that you can get quite a few more sites than 3 :)

Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:00:00 - [552] Edited by: Batolemaeus on 07/11/2009 11:01:47 Originally by: CCP Soundwave You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, This is correct. Originally by: CCP Soundwave which is what the anomalies do This is completely wrong. Wanna know what a steady, reliable and good income stream is? Lvl4 missions in empire. They give me much more isk/h than constantly respawning anomalies of dozens of jamming gurista hacs.. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Valtis Thermalion Caldari Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:00:00 - [553] Originally by: CCP Soundwave In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. No, we won't be getting rid of the towers. Cynojammer and jump bridge poses will still be there, and other towers are generally industrial towers, making a profit (unless the system is a warzone or highly critical system, but those are a minority). The sov cost will be on top of the excisting fuel bill. In fact, the tower costs will even rise since sov fuel bonus is getting nerfed. 600m base cost is way way way too high.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:02:00 - [554] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hi About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? They were not put in as "OH GOD I STRUCK GOLD" sites. You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, which is what the anomalies do. The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation. Sorry stoffer but ** this. 3 sites that RESPAWN INSTANTLY that you have to PROBE DOWN which TAKES TIME so its NOT INSTANT. It is still subpar to mission running even assuming you are lucky enough to chain them without some ass probing it down before you. They are anomalies, not signatures. You can scan them down in about four seconds with the onboard scanner, or a single probe. It is pretty much as instant as it gets dude. Also remember that you can get quite a few more sites than 3 :) How about that "Why is level 4's the cap for income?" We can either run level 4's in empire in COMPLETE SAFETY without paying 2b a month to own the system or ya, get anally d financially for what amounts to "almost meeting empire isk making" No Stoffer, just no. 2b a month to support 15 people doesn't even sound remotely **ing acceptable.
Ridjeck Thome DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:02:00 - [555] Edited by: Ridjeck Thome on 07/11/2009 11:02:27 Originally by: CCP Soundwave In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. Isn't it FAR more sensible not to cripple alliances in the first place? - start low and increase...don't start high and watch everyone get really ***ed off with the system - once that happens you are firefighting rather than managing
IT Yassir	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:03:00 - [556] While ccp eyes are watching this. K keep cost as there is maybe tweek them a bit but allow a alliance wide tax.Like a corp tax. So u got a 10% allince tax and 10% corp tax there all fixed.
Nemtar Nataal Demonic Retribution	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:04:00 - [557] Not that i have played as part of a alliance holding space for ages but here is my 5 cents.... DED plexes - Very bad idear, it will only mean to things. More farming which means less isk for the individual player doing the DED plex. More officer and faction stuff which will yield a reduced price on T2 items - that will make it extremely hard for inventers to make isk inventing and building certent types of items, most properly the small items like cap recharges and hardners will suffer from this. You fail to address any actual benefits from having a Outpost in a system with sov which is bad, in industry you count Ore and in Militery you count the amount of killed rats. There should be special benefits from having a Outpost. Ore refined -> gives something Would give people a reason to refine there ore in 00 insted of compressing it and bringing it to empire for reprocessing away from alliance tax. Factory jobs installed -> gives something Over all benefit for the alliance, if stuff is build in there space its likely that its sold in there space and that gives a bether market. Rather then just bringin all resources to Jita and bring back assembled products (ships/modules). Invention, Research, Copy, ME research ....installed -> gives something Hopefully it will mean a over all benefit for alliance as all thies actions are related to invention and we want more invention = more T2 (hopefully cheep products) in the space. All of the ablove could and should done on to levels POS level - This level is not as good as the Outpost level but it gives small alliances a access to the same benefits as big alliances and hopefully the prospect of an Outpost. Outpost level - YOU have a Outpost avalible freeking use it, give people a reason to use alliance resources rather then the empire resources. And over all give people benefits from utelising this features of the game, which will put more people in 00 rather then just having 00 become a small pitstop on the way to empire with the resources people dont what there alliance to have a share in!
Natourist	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:05:00 - [558] In my opinion CCP is just making it harder to control huge areas of space. If you want to control it - you must work for it. At present it seems that its too easy. CCP increases the effort to control by increasing the costs. In other hand I understand that T2 ships and modules will be cheaper in future. When we sum these two things up: + less static actions like moonfarming to activate players. + cheaper ships so players can more easily engage in the o'mighty pvp action. + if you want your name to the map - you work for it. Even so at present Sove system, if you are small, you will get squished. This is the same thing now and will be at dominion. This is why we have Alliances. And from the NRDS (CVA) point of view, alliance/corps will control only limited number of systems because of the high upceep costs. The neutral players can still rat/plex/whatever in the region in systems without control! Change to present is only that neutrals are not allowed to do isk in controlled systems.
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:07:00 - [559] stoffer! edit your post now! these inaccuracies will be quoted and we'll spend the next 10 pages lol'ing about it -.- won't get anything done changed this way - putting the gist back into logistics
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:10:00 - [560] Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 07/11/2009 11:10:18 Originally by: Natourist In my opinion CCP is just making it harder to control huge areas of space. If you want to control it - you must work for it. At present it seems that its too easy. Anyone who has ever done large scale 0.0 logistics and maintenance would happily neuter you with a dull spork for saying this. The problem isn't "working for your name on the map," it's making the effort to do so worth it. This isn't worth it.

Alhambra Rainwalker Caldari Rosa Alba Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:11:00 - [561] Originally by: Natourist And from the NRDS (CVA) point of view, alliance/corps will control only limited number of systems because of the high upceep costs. The neutral players can still rat/plex/whatever in the region in systems without control! Change to present is only that neutrals are not allowed to do isk in controlled systems. Honestly, it¦s not worth ratting in un-upgraded system in providence. So why would anyone come? Actually it seems that even fully upgraded system isn¦t generating enough for it to be worth the hassle. Traditionally NRDS is not about restricting people from areas, you are free to go and use the resources as long as you don¦t bother other people while doing it.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:12:00 - [562] Originally by: Natourist In my opinion CCP is just making it harder to control huge areas of space. If you want to control it - you must work for it. At present it seems that its too easy. CCP increases the effort to control by increasing the costs. In other hand I understand that T2 ships and modules will be cheaper in future. When we sum these two things up: + less static actions like moonfarming to activate players. + cheaper ships so players can more easily engage in the o'mighty pvp action. + if you want your name to the map - you work for it. Even so at present Sove system, if you are small, you will get squished. This is the same thing now and will be at dominion. This is why we have Alliances. And from the NRDS (CVA) point of view, alliance/corps will control only limited number of systems because of the high upceep costs. The neutral players can still rat/plex/whatever in the region in systems without control! Change to present is only that neutrals are not allowed to do isk in controlled systems. Sup dude who has never done logistics in current day Eve. They aren't making it hard, they are making it impossible. "hard" will be controlling small swathes of space. Financially backbreaking. Think your corp has a hard time affording any sort of reimbursement or corp funded ANYTHING now?! Imagine an extra 6-8b per month income just for controlling ONE CONSTELLATION. On top of the pos network that they are still going to need
Nemtar Nataal Demonic Retribution	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:13:00 - [563] Originally by: CCP Soundwave They are anomalies, not signatures. You can scan them down in about four seconds with the onboard scanner, or a single probe. It is pretty much as instant as it gets dude. Also remember that you can get quite a few more sites than 3 :) No it takes about 30 secunds with the onbord scanner, and about 4 secunds with a probe
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:14:00 - [564] Originally by: CCP Soundwave I completely agree that systems will be able to sustain about 10, possibly 15 people active at one time (which to be fair is a pretty massive increase from what we can do now). It's not the perfect solution, but it gives us a pretty solid base to work from. In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. I am starting to fall off my chair here. Come on mad This trend of fixing math after the ship sinks is something which over the years has either resulted in kneejerking or little hiccups like leaving broken systems lingering for years on end, it is not like there is even a precedent for trust on this level. I was under the impression from the Fanfest that the emphasis was on getting things right, instead of chains of readjusting core elements. Not a lot of things at varying quality, but a few good things which are really excellent. Have you had a look at moon material redistribution ratios in light of the statements made on point income sources? Yes, we will be taking down a reasonable number of anti spam tower setups, currently funded by an influx of afk income, to counter for a situation of running more industry towers (substantially more actually, do the math) at either equal or less income at much higher effort and at much higher risk. Not to mention putting things into the light of practicalities. Somehow it seems it is overlooked that exploration is something which takes time, and the downtime spawn element remains a structural problem, not to mention that people will still get in each other's way since there is no way to tell who is doing which plex / site / etc since the system is rather different from the system which works for volume orientations: visible markers on resources giving people the hands on required to work those resources without getting in each other's way And let's not forget the real focus on Dominion: bring people back to 0.0, to revitalise things, and bring back the old dichotomy of rich victim alliances and poorer pvp alliances. At the current state of affairs, and even at a much improved state of affairs, the only ones able to make the move and engage in competition are those that are already there. The only revival of small to medium warfare is griefing and killing those that still dare to make the move, which in the light of empire income is a very decisive trend in becoming counterproductive to the focus of Dominion. Never underestimate the potential for excess in your subscribers, I thought this lesson would have been clear beyond any possible doubt by now. I am sorry, but going over everything said in posts, blogs, keynotes, sessions and interviews, Dominion (even in an enhanced state which it certainly is not currently) meets all the requirements that Exodus did. It does not account for human group behaviour, it does not provide incentives, it does not challenge, it does not deliver. What it does is shake things up, and make people adapt a little bit, only based on cost/benefit analysis, without structurally changing anything. I'm not even going into introducing more structures to shoot Yes, it is good to see that you are introducing the potential of elements of attrition and entropy. That has been lacking for years, and especially at the level of numbers and complexity that was sorely needed. But you need to thoroughly combine and unite the big picture vision statement, without get lost on the detail level of sprints, only to wake up that on an overall level it looks nice on paper, but clashes with simple economics of scale and group behaviour. Sorry man, I appreciate you are trying to feedback to our feedback, but the paper view needs a sore reality check. Similar to how people warned for Exodus, similar to how people warned for POS and Titans.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:15:00 - [565] For the goonies, remember some of us here got completely crap space and will be better off running anomalies than ratting ;) But serious CCP just look at current costs of running a system (including moon mining/reaction profit from many of those SOV pos's), then look at new cost including the deathstars still required for JBs/sov jammers/staging.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:15:00 - [566] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hi About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? How is there guaranteed access? Three anomolies = 3 players doing them, what about the other 97? Jumping from belt to belt is replaced with scanning slightly. You need to replace belts with anomalies then. Belts = 5-8 per player min, anomolies = 1 per player. (srsly? why would you have players jumping belt to belt? well you currently do. perhaps try to explain why that sucks before saying why it's good?)

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:16:00 - [567] Originally by: Batolemaeus Edited by: Batolemaeus on 07/11/2009 11:01:47 Originally by: CCP Soundwave You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, This is correct. Originally by: CCP Soundwave which is what the anomalies do This is completely wrong. Wanna know what a steady, reliable and good income stream is? Lvl4 missions in empire. They give me much more isk/h than constantly respawning anomalies of dozens of jamming gurista hacs.. No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s.

Caliph Scorpionsting Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:17:00 - [568] I don't like anomalies, they are less money than ratting. That is not variable per rat type, but a flat percentage difference. Blood Popes in anomalies are worth less than Blood Popes in belts. What do you plan on doing to rectify this situation? Why can't you just increase the amount of battleship rats in belts rather than add these anomalies? Why can't you give a percent increase to number of spawns per belt, number of battleships per spawn, and percent boost to all bounties of all rats within the system?
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:18:00 - [569] Edited by: Mecinia Lua on 07/11/2009 11:18:15 Originally by: CCP Soundwave I completely agree that systems will be able to sustain about 10, possibly 15 people active at one time (which to be fair is a pretty massive increase from what we can do now). It's not the perfect solution, but it gives us a pretty solid base to work from. In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. No we can't get rid of the POSs. That's what you're not understanding. We might could cut down on what we have but the ones for refining, moon mining, jump bridges, cyno jammers, etc still have to be fueled and operational. That's where your figures break down. The only thing not needed will be the death stars. That's why your costs are to high, because we'll still need to fuel these others. We have to have the POSs to operate in 0.0. You just made it cost twice as much to break into with the costs listed in the blogs. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:18:00 - [570] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Batolemaeus Edited by: Batolemaeus on 07/11/2009 11:01:47 Originally by: CCP Soundwave You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, This is correct. Originally by: CCP Soundwave which is what the anomalies do This is completely wrong. Wanna know what a steady, reliable and good income stream is? Lvl4 missions in empire. They give me much more isk/h than constantly respawning anomalies of dozens of jamming gurista hacs.. No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. So anything but the higher tier anomalies won't? **** yeah. We can make LESS ISK THAN LEVEL FOURS IN EMPIRE AT HUGE PERSONAL COST. While risking being ganked and fighting our wars and dealing with building projects and logistics empire never has to deal with. This really is the NGE


CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:18:00 - [571] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hi About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? They were not put in as "OH GOD I STRUCK GOLD" sites. You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, which is what the anomalies do. The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation. Sorry stoffer but ** this. 3 sites that RESPAWN INSTANTLY that you have to PROBE DOWN which TAKES TIME so its NOT INSTANT. It is still subpar to mission running even assuming you are lucky enough to chain them without some ass probing it down before you. They are anomalies, not signatures. You can scan them down in about four seconds with the onboard scanner, or a single probe. It is pretty much as instant as it gets dude. Also remember that you can get quite a few more sites than 3 :) How about that "Why is level 4's the cap for income?" We can either run level 4's in empire in COMPLETE SAFETY without paying 2b a month to own the system or ya, get anally d financially for what amounts to "almost meeting empire isk making" No Stoffer, just no. 2b a month to support 15 people doesn't even sound remotely **ing acceptable. ......... Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining?

Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:19:00 - [572] Originally by: CCP Soundwave I completely agree that systems will be able to sustain about 10, possibly 15 people active at one time (which to be fair is a pretty massive increase from what we can do now). It's not the perfect solution, but it gives us a pretty solid base to work from. In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. Firstly, anomalies do nothing to expand capacity unless they get a substantial boost. They are currently worthless. You can put a hundred in every system, they'd still be worthless. Secondly, you only get rid of the tower fuelling if you don't need the minerals to partly offset the insane cost of sov. Thirdly, who the crap puts 5 large towers in an average system? Forthly, even if people were putting 5 large towers in systems, why would they do so without R64 wealth to pay for it?
ardik GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:21:00 - [573] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: DaiTengu Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Some words to ponder, from someone in your industry: We've learned a thing or two with our experiences with the NGE and don't plan on repeating mistakes from the past and not listening to the players. —John Smedley, president of Sony Online Entertainment What these changes tell me as a paying customer for nearly four years running and 0.0 resident is that you no longer wish for me, my alliance mates, my allies, or even my enemies to ever bother you ever again with our problems by making conquerable 0.0 so tedious and unrewarding to own or fight over that we pettily squabble over the limited tracts of NPC 0.0 until our eyes bleed from boredom. This is not the "grand sandbox" you've pitched not only to us but the world as well to lift EVE up from the dregs of WoW clones. I see in these changes, and feel free to chuckle at this given my corporation, an attack on how I and both friend and foe alike conduct ourselves in this game, and a not-so-veiled punishment for all the "trouble" we've caused you and workload we've made you do to improve our game experience. Us, the vocal minority who choose not to stay in Empire and play WoW With Spaceships for our chosen kill-mission company or agency. Yes, we are the minority in your game. But we also are the people who make the stories and headlines that keep EVE relevant. I simply ask that you don't forget that. You have a unique opportunity available to you when you return, not that I doubt you're going to ever see my message here on the 17th or 18th page, to prevent EVE from being SWG Part Deux, where you saw the consequences-to-be and held back, instead of surged forward thinking it would bring you new blood to wash away the whining and tiresome masses of old. Your call, CCP. When I read this devblog, Sony's NGE is the first thing that sprang to my mind as well. It's not that we abhor change, it's that we abhor terrible changes. These are terrible changes. There's no way one system is going to support more than 10-15 people, and there's no way it's going to be cost effective. The devs say they love their epic space battles, but no one is going to want to fight over 0.0 space, and it's going to cause people to quit playing eve en-masse. I'm excited over the changes to supercapitals, but the sov changes are going to mean that we're not going to get to use them. I hung on to SWG for quite awhile after the NGE, but I, too, eventually quit as I saw the game I loved fall apart, and all my friends quit playing. If this goes through you're going to lose quite a few subscribers, and you're going to get a ton of bad press. Go back to the drawing board with this, even if you have to delay the expansion a month or more. Do it right, or don't do it at all. I completely agree that systems will be able to sustain about 10, possibly 15 people active at one time (which to be fair is a pretty massive increase from what we can do now). It's not the perfect solution, but it gives us a pretty solid base to work from. In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. Ahahaha, your numbers aren't even close to being correct. Not even in the ballpark. Hey CCP, make some simple objectives, make them worth fighting over, make them rare enough so we'll actually see fights. Please, no dumb flag/stop **** over worthless outposts which there are about 200 too many of already and you'll never be able to make rare enough to be worth fighting over, just step away from outposts, there is no inherent value in outposts, most of them aren't even worth keeping sov'd. Keep it simple.
Arcika Toalen GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:21:00 - [574] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? Stoffer, stop trolling please this is serious buiznizz.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:23:00 - [575] Stoffer, as much as this thread needs blue bar replies right now...you really need to stop posting.
Morphisat Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:23:00 - [576] Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. Then why go through the trouble of going to 0.0 ?
Bonny Lee Caldari The Guardian Agency Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:24:00 - [577] Edited by: Bonny Lee on 07/11/2009 11:24:48 So you say a lvl4 inclusive LP¦s can be matched by anomalies? Ok so we get what empire gets but not in Safety? Great Idea. Thats Risk vs Reward at its Best. Perhaps you should add some more Anomalies then cause there are only two worh doing (Sanctum, Haven).
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:24:00 - [578] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? You mean the moon mining we aren't doing any more because of all the money we are saving for sov by not putting up towers? Or do you mean the moon mining where costs have risen and yield stayed the same because of the distribution of value among more moons? (this was a good idea btw, but needed to make moon mining towers cheaper in the process) Originally by: Morphisat Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. Then why go through the trouble of going to 0.0 ? Because as you know, lvl 4s require your corp to pay 6 bill per month per system to mission in.... oh wait.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:25:00 - [579] Originally by: CCP Soundwave I completely agree that systems will be able to sustain about 10, possibly 15 people active at one time (which to be fair is a pretty massive increase from what we can do now). It's not the perfect solution, but it gives us a pretty solid base to work from. As pointed out repeatedly in this thread, Motsu or Irjunen (or Curse, or Stain, or NPC Delve) is able to sustain infinite numbers of people through level 4s, the upgrade cost is 0 ISK per month, and there's no risk of losing your upgrades through invasion or your stations being captured and your assets locked in. CCP has repeatedly stated that the aim of Dominion is to attract more empire-dwellers, including primarily PvErs to look at 0.0 . Why would any of them want to bother? Quote: In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. The problem is that maintaining the ISK value of 0.0 is a critical part of the 0.0 system. If you released a particular ship or probable anomaly type pre-nerfed, its not a big deal to adapt, people will just fly a different ship or avoid running that anomaly until you have the chance to go back and fix it. If you pull the rug out from under the feet of the entirety of 0.0 space to the point where holding space is costing more money than anyone is making from it, the only way for us to adapt is to say 'screw this, back to empire to grind L4s guys'. I mean, if the 0.0 sovereignty map is partially or completely abandoned by January, only for us all to rush back in 6 months later when you guys get around to fixing this nonsense, then I guess that would be quite funny but I don't think it is the result you're aiming for.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:25:00 - [580] Quote: Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? CCP seeding R64 moons in providence? I personally dont even have that much issues with the anomalies, considering belt ratting here in provi is crap. However lets start by dividing the sov costs by 5, and then repost the blog.

EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:28:00 - [581] You're ****ing trolling. There's no other explanation for this. None.
Morphisat Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:28:00 - [582] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? Oh yeah I forgot, everybody and their dog is moonmining. Especially those smaller alliances that you wanted to occupy 0.0 space after dominion. I do hope you realise you represent CCP in this thread. Posting this nonsense doesn't exactly help.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:28:00 - [583] Edited by: Kanatta Jing on 07/11/2009 11:31:17 Originally by: Caliph Scorpionsting I don't like anomalies, they are less money than ratting. This is sometimes true and sometimes not. I think it's more an idea that has taken hold among Goons then it is a fact. Some anomalies offer sufficiently greater rat volume to more then compensate for the lower bounties. And no I won't argue that chains of anomalies are worth more then chains of lvl 4 missions.
ardik GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:28:00 - [584] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Batolemaeus Edited by: Batolemaeus on 07/11/2009 11:01:47 Originally by: CCP Soundwave You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, This is correct. Originally by: CCP Soundwave which is what the anomalies do This is completely wrong. Wanna know what a steady, reliable and good income stream is? Lvl4 missions in empire. They give me much more isk/h than constantly respawning anomalies of dozens of jamming gurista hacs.. No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. Well gosh, finally we'll be able to match L4 high-sec empire income, and we only have to pay a couple bill a month, hope that the anomalies aren't being hogged by an alliance mate AND hope i don't get ganked the ** out of by the first random ganker that comes by or that single cloaked guy in local that may or may not be afk, rendering the entire solar system unusable! What a steal, you dumb piece of i hope they don't let your dumb ass anywhere near the game design dept. Hey FYI CCP, when soundwave was in goonswarm he was regarded as literally the dumbest guy in the whole 5000 man alliance. Like literally, we had a list, and he was at nr1. The Dumbest Guy In Goonswarm. Think about that. oh yeah and since there's a 5min timer i might as well just cram as much ** into thsi post as possible [QUOTE=ardik]haha, this might be it. eve's NGE. people were holding out for dominion, hoping it would change things up a bit for the better, but this thing is just universally bad. i dont even understand how any of these ideas could have sounded good. the new sov system sounds overly-complex and contrived, the removal of moon sourced income will remove points of conflict, literally all the upgrades are actually worthless, not just rhetorically worthless, but literally not worth the money and the continued move towards probing is just stupid.[/QUOTE]
Zibu 81 ANZAC ALLIANCE	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:28:00 - [585] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Batolemaeus Edited by: Batolemaeus on 07/11/2009 11:01:47 Originally by: CCP Soundwave You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, This is correct. Originally by: CCP Soundwave which is what the anomalies do This is completely wrong. Wanna know what a steady, reliable and good income stream is? Lvl4 missions in empire. They give me much more isk/h than constantly respawning anomalies of dozens of jamming gurista hacs.. No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. So just explain why would I want to bring my alt running lvl 4's in complete safety in empire out to 0.0, if I can only make simmilar amount of is, and it's only after 100 days of holding sov in that system, and putting in countless amount of isk into it? If empire offers same ammount of isk as 0.0 there's no incentive to move out, and moon income isn't an incentive, as you can do it without sov...

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:29:00 - [586] Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? CCP seeding R64 moons in providence? I personally dont even have that much issues with the anomalies, considering belt ratting here in provi is crap. However lets start by dividing the sov costs by 5, and then repost the blog. As I said, if the costs become an issue, they can always be looked at.

EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:29:00 - [587] If you're not trolling you're seriously bringing the NGE to one of the most amazing MMO's ever made.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:30:00 - [588] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? CCP seeding R64 moons in providence? I personally dont even have that much issues with the anomalies, considering belt ratting here in provi is crap. However lets start by dividing the sov costs by 5, and then repost the blog. As I said, if the costs become an issue, they can always be looked at. The costs are an issue, look at them.
Jadal McPieksu	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:30:00 - [589] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Solution to sov problems: 0.0 alliances need to start griefing the hell out of everyone who lives in empire space until they beg CCP to improve 0.0 enough that we go away. Then we'll see some worthwhile changes. I'm agreeing with a goon... Coordinated 0.0 alliance empire suicide jihad that will "enrich" the cereals of every L4 mission running carebear would probably raise some eyebrows. I mean, what else would we do? Little reason to shoot each other, little reason to hold space.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:32:00 - [590] Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. They don't scale well. An indefinite number of people can all use an agent simultaneously. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule

gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:33:00 - [591] Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. so in order to earn the isk of a lvl 4 you need to pay 1 bill for a signpost ... and risk dying to roaming gangs etc yep, we have a match: 1==2
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:34:00 - [592] Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. The higher tier anomalies don't spawn a lot in Tribute and most of 0.0. Truesec is still low and Dominion will not change that, since we can't upgrade it.. By the way, a high risk activity in 0.0 space only matching risk-free missions in empire that don't require you to invest a billion monthly? You are aware that this doesn't sound good? ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Mikal Drey Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:35:00 - [593] Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. we live in 0.0 the risk is alot higher than empire yet we need the higher tiered anomolies just to match them ? shouldnt that be the otherway around ? why would i consider installing a flag then a hub, then going rating then installing upgrade 1 then doing more rating, then installing upgrade 2 then more, them more just to generate a comparable income :/ ** it i'll clone to empire and do a mission risk free instead. what level of pirate magnet generates 3 constant anomolies in the improved system ? pirae magnet level 1 generates 2 additional** some systems have no anomolies in to begin with. while this does sound (on paper) to be sufficient and if it generates at minimum a consistant 2 anomolies i do see the isk generation working but er, um why the hell does it require so much input to get less than empire out :/
Khayman33 Section XIII Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:35:00 - [594] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Batolemaeus Edited by: Batolemaeus on 07/11/2009 11:01:47 Originally by: CCP Soundwave You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, This is correct. Originally by: CCP Soundwave which is what the anomalies do This is completely wrong. Wanna know what a steady, reliable and good income stream is? Lvl4 missions in empire. They give me much more isk/h than constantly respawning anomalies of dozens of jamming gurista hacs.. No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. Can you stop making games track with your dev blog, we will all be grateful ... Because if you expect that you do spill the beans ( wish you understand this sentence ), I think you're facing a big problem of communication about an expansion that should and will profoundly change life in 0.0, affecting thousands of players making your game so interresting for people inside and outside EvE.
Telmar12	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:37:00 - [595] Edited by: Telmar12 on 07/11/2009 11:40:23 Edited by: Telmar12 on 07/11/2009 11:37:50 now i understand that this is a dev blog and things are subject to change. with that said, I would really like the devs to hear me out. I like that you guys are trying to open up space for more people, i like the upgradable space. but what i don't understand is why is it a flat fee? why can't it be relatively cheap for an alliance to have 1 system (say 150 - 300 mill a month) but scale when you start owning more. for example if an alliance wants a single system it costs 200 mill a month, if they want two systems it bumps it up to 500 per system and so forth and so forth. it would still limit large alliance from "hogging" all the space, but let the smaller alliances have a chance without being overwhelmed by 2 bill a month taxes. for a medium sized, well established alliance affording the space isnt a big problem, its profit. those upgrades so far don't seem like "omg wtf pwn 10 mill BS spawns" kinda stuff. and for a medium alliance, 2 bill a month is basically 2 cap ships they could be making. so if they don't make more money than they already did before the "2 bill a month" tax, then its useless to have sov.
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:39:00 - [596] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? CCP seeding R64 moons in providence? I personally dont even have that much issues with the anomalies, considering belt ratting here in provi is crap. However lets start by dividing the sov costs by 5, and then repost the blog. As I said, if the costs become an issue, they can always be looked at. Once it goes live it'll be to late to look at. SOE was told that the NGE was a huge mistake. They pushed forward with it anyway the players be damned, please don't repeat their same mistake. Listen to all of us that it is to costly as you have outlined, no small or medium alliance can afford the costs as they'd need the flag, the upgrade hub, probably at least 2-3 Large POSs for refining, building etc. This in no way lowers the cost of coming to 0.0, it increases the cost, and thus it will accomplish the opposite of your desire. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:39:00 - [597] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. The higher tier anomalies don't spawn a lot in Tribute and most of 0.0. Truesec is still low and Dominion will not change that, since we can't upgrade it.. By the way, a high risk activity in 0.0 space only matching risk-free missions in empire that don't require you to invest a billion monthly? You are aware that this doesn't sound good? he walked right into that one didn't he....
Morphisat Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:39:00 - [598] Originally by: Telmar12 Edited by: Telmar12 on 07/11/2009 11:37:50 now i understand that this is a dev blog and things are subject to change. with that said, I would really like the devs to hear me out. I like that you guys are trying to open up space for more people, i like the upgradable space. but what i don't understand is why is it a flat fee? why can't it be relatively cheap for an alliance to have 1 system (say 150 - 300 mill a month) but scale when you start owning more. for example if an alliance wants a single system it costs 200 mill a month, if they want two systems it bumps it up to 500 per system and so forth and so forth. it would still limit large alliance from "hogging" all the space, but let the smaller alliances have a chance without being overwhelmed by 2 bill a month taxes. Excellent point. And from what I understood from the fanfest keynotes and previous devblogs/posts this was the concept all along. This devblog doesn't mention this at all. I guess it was too hard to implement ?
Spring Wind Ministry of War	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:41:00 - [599] Edited by: Spring Wind on 07/11/2009 11:43:28 whole new sustem of sov is fine.. but! new prices is not!! 1b per month only for claim, without any upgrades?! plus fuel for large POSes with jb/cynogens/cynojams.. you're just jokin, right? not funny at all..
Jadal McPieksu	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:41:00 - [600] Originally by: Morphisat Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. Then why go through the trouble of going to 0.0 ? Seconded. I can do Level 4s in a super-pimped marauder pwnmobile with 0 chance of losing it. Why go to 0.0, use something cheaper/faster/less effective and risk getting popped by a drive-by gang? PvE ships are still useless at PvP and all "emergent" PvP action involving players doing PvE is always "point this guy and it is a free kill" grade. Risk-Reward. Look it up. You already have a massive pile of empire-hugging carebears who do not like the risks of 0.0. You want to make sure everyone else who accepts the risk for (small) benefits bails out because 0.0 just got a huge upkeep tag added to it?

WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:41:00 - [601] Edited by: WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt on 07/11/2009 11:43:05 Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. This would be great if, like level 4's, they didn't require financial upkeep, spawned in unlimited quantity, and didn't need to be probed down. Or, in certain cases, could be performed under CONCORD protection. With the removal of R64 income, there needs to be a compelling reason to live in 0.0, something to fight over. If I can make the same income in Motsu or at worst NPC space, without upkeep cost, why would I bother? Quote: As I said, if the costs become an issue, they can always be looked at. It's worthwhile if the increased cost is made up by increased reward. If the reward is THE SAME, then there is no cost at all that is justifiable. Fix the rewards.
Dirk Mortice	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:43:00 - [602] Predicting massive moon goo price spike as everybody tries to meet the cost gap. Enjoy

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:43:00 - [603] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. The higher tier anomalies don't spawn a lot in Tribute and most of 0.0. Truesec is still low and Dominion will not change that, since we can't upgrade it.. By the way, a high risk activity in 0.0 space only matching risk-free missions in empire that don't require you to invest a billion monthly? You are aware that this doesn't sound good? The sites come off a pre-determined list, meaning that your true-sec won't matter. The entire point of this is that areas such as you mention will get access to good anomalies through upgrades, regardless of sec-status.

Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:43:00 - [604] This entire expansion needs to be put off till next summer, in order to give yourselves time to do something worthwhile. You're happy to go off and code walking in stations or some ridiculous console shooter, but can't put agents in 0.0, or just increase rat bounties and belt numbers (or do something more imaginative, that'd be cool). Jesus christ.
Caliph Scorpionsting Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:46:00 - [605] What stuns me is how does all of CCP not understand the basic principle of the path of least resistance? People are going to have two options in this model of Dominion, each one resulting in the same level of income: option A--stay in Empire, run missions, fight in a controlled environment of wardecs, and have the option of reverting back to a starter corp if you don't feel like fighting anymore option B--stay in nullsec, bust your tail running these anomalies or ratting, working to upgrade your sov, paying out a lot of money (I live in 0.0, I don't moon mine. I just rat. I don't make a billion passively every month, nor do many of my corp mates) to help the corp with refunds etc, put up with hostiles, worry about overcrowding, and rely on a bunch of other people JUST to get to the same level as someone who was doing level 4 missions all along So the path of least resistance is a common occurrence. It is clearly presented in nature on a daily basis; check out raindrop collecting and rolling down something. Check out a flood or a river or when a person walks; notice they don't run around the block usually when they are on their way to the grocery store? CCP should be taking notes right about now. The choice is obvious. Why would anyone with half a brain pick way more effort for the same rewards? And that is the point here exactly. You expect people to willingly risk much more for the same rewards as others who are making the same profit with little to no risk. How can you honestly not see this, or even try to spin it? No angle of this Dominion business looks remotely attractive. I could see if this is where you were at 6 months ago, but good god. You guys have literally less than a month, and this is what you've done? Seriously?
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:47:00 - [606] Edited by: Peryner on 07/11/2009 11:51:21 Originally by: CCP Soundwave ......... Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? wait... are you saying the reasoning for 0.0 never paying out more than level 4 mission in safe unlimited space is because of moonmining? I'm sorry but I've been in 0.0 a long time and I never saw a single isk of moon money in my pocket. So you mine moons to make the 2 bil a month. Where does that 2 bil come from? who would be able to pay that 2 bila month? oh wait, level 4 mission runners! where will that isk go? into upgrading systems and keeping them paid? then it's mute, I'll just go to highsec, you guys suck at this , seriously. Originally by: CCP Soundwave ......... Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? wait... are you saying the reasoning for 0.0 never paying out more than level 4 mission in safe unlimited space is because of moonmining? I'm sorry but I've been in 0.0 a long time and I never saw a single isk of moon money in my pocket. So you mine moons to make the 2 bil a month. Where does that 2 bil come from? who would be able to pay that 2 bila month? oh wait, level 4 mission runners! where will that isk go? into upgrading systems and keeping them paid? then it's mute, I'll just go to highsec, you guys suck at this , seriously. Originally by: CCP Soundwave The sites come off a pre-determined list, meaning that your true-sec won't matter. The entire point of this is that areas such as you mention will get access to good anomalies through upgrades, regardless of sec-status. and how long does it take to get them to the point where they make you the income of level 4 missions? 5 months? so you have to PvE in 0.0 for 5 months to get the point where you can make level 4 highsec income WHILe payign 2 bil a month plus the other 5 billion you spent on upgrading plus you can't lose the system. what the hell is wrong is wrong with you guys? If this was a one player game, I would take one look at ym options and.. never progress? because the starting area monsters gave just as much exp as the harder parts of the game? no offence, but in eve, isk is exp. there is an isk grind. You're making people grind isk which can be lost, in an open pvp game jsut to get to the point where they started out at? NO ONE IS GOING TO LEAVE THIER MANSION TO GO WORK IN TH COAL MINES FOR THE PROMISE OF ONE DAY LIVING IN A MANSION!
Rover Vitesse Gallente FinFleet IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:48:00 - [607] I think I am going to camp some of these anomalies. This sounds great, a place in 0.0 where farmers will spawn in front of my guns.
Kaeser Caldari DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:50:00 - [608] Originally by: DaiTengu Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Some words to ponder, from someone in your industry: We've learned a thing or two with our experiences with the NGE and don't plan on repeating mistakes from the past and not listening to the players. ùJohn Smedley, president of Sony Online Entertainment What these changes tell me as a paying customer for nearly four years running and 0.0 resident is that you no longer wish for me, my alliance mates, my allies, or even my enemies to ever bother you ever again with our problems by making conquerable 0.0 so tedious and unrewarding to own or fight over that we pettily squabble over the limited tracts of NPC 0.0 until our eyes bleed from boredom. This is not the "grand sandbox" you've pitched not only to us but the world as well to lift EVE up from the dregs of WoW clones. I see in these changes, and feel free to chuckle at this given my corporation, an attack on how I and both friend and foe alike conduct ourselves in this game, and a not-so-veiled punishment for all the "trouble" we've caused you and workload we've made you do to improve our game experience. Us, the vocal minority who choose not to stay in Empire and play WoW With Spaceships for our chosen kill-mission company or agency. Yes, we are the minority in your game. But we also are the people who make the stories and headlines that keep EVE relevant. I simply ask that you don't forget that. You have a unique opportunity available to you when you return, not that I doubt you're going to ever see my message here on the 17th or 18th page, to prevent EVE from being SWG Part Deux, where you saw the consequences-to-be and held back, instead of surged forward thinking it would bring you new blood to wash away the whining and tiresome masses of old. Your call, CCP. When I read this devblog, Sony's NGE is the first thing that sprang to my mind as well. It's not that we abhor change, it's that we abhor terrible changes. These are terrible changes. There's no way one system is going to support more than 10-15 people, and there's no way it's going to be cost effective. The devs say they love their epic space battles, but no one is going to want to fight over 0.0 space, and it's going to cause people to quit playing eve en-masse. I'm excited over the changes to supercapitals, but the sov changes are going to mean that we're not going to get to use them. I hung on to SWG for quite awhile after the NGE, but I, too, eventually quit as I saw the game I loved fall apart, and all my friends quit playing. If this goes through you're going to lose quite a few subscribers, and you're going to get a ton of bad press. Go back to the drawing board with this, even if you have to delay the expansion a month or more. Do it right, or don't do it at all. Agreeing 100% with this post, particularly the bolded part. Also ironic how CCP has managed to unify the warring parties of Eve in a way that nothing or no one else has ever done before to deride these changes.
John 11111	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:50:00 - [609] i love all this double talk by the dev team, he might even believe what he says. lol
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:52:00 - [610] Originally by: Rover Vitesse I think I am going to camp some of these anomalies. This sounds great, a place in 0.0 where farmers will spawn in front of my guns. Aside of shooting new types of structures, and old ones, to primary both people and income sources on a much wider required scale than before, that is the new forum of small to medium gang pew pew: kill of anyone who tries to make a move out of empire

EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:52:00 - [611] A bunch of alliances that can't agree what color coal is all agree this is utter ****.
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:53:00 - [612] Edited by: Niding on 07/11/2009 11:53:32 Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. The higher tier anomalies don't spawn a lot in Tribute and most of 0.0. Truesec is still low and Dominion will not change that, since we can't upgrade it.. By the way, a high risk activity in 0.0 space only matching risk-free missions in empire that don't require you to invest a billion monthly? You are aware that this doesn't sound good? The sites come off a pre-determined list, meaning that your true-sec won't matter. The entire point of this is that areas such as you mention will get access to good anomalies through upgrades, regardless of sec-status. If anomalies are supposed to be part of what support the upgrades, your saying there will be more of them..and more people running them. Wont the increase in anomaly modules/resources flood the market, which in turn will radically devalue the modules/resources? Seems to me there will be radically diminishing returns in short order, which will make supporting any upgrades unviable in the long run.
Natourist	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:53:00 - [613] Originally by: Alhambra Rainwalker Originally by: Natourist And from the NRDS (CVA) point of view, alliance/corps will control only limited number of systems because of the high upceep costs. The neutral players can still rat/plex/whatever in the region in systems without control! Change to present is only that neutrals are not allowed to do isk in controlled systems. Honestly, it¦s not worth ratting in un-upgraded system in providence. So why would anyone come? Actually it seems that even fully upgraded system isn¦t generating enough for it to be worth the hassle. Traditionally NRDS is not about restricting people from areas, you are free to go and use the resources as long as you don¦t bother other people while doing it. I agree that it will be hard to balance this type of things when a whole market/economy is behind it. From a lone neutral player point of view I could imagine that the thing is the balance between effort to make isk and fly decent ships. If you can make decent isk by ratting in non-restricted systems and buying the ships you are satisfied with, whats the problem? We could think it so that making isk as neutral in free systems = T1. Making isk in a controlled system = T2. Highly upgraded system/constellation and support from Alliance = T2/T3. If you take the risk and upgrade system, make effort to build it up, there must be reward to get better Isk. This I of course agree.
Elisean Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:53:00 - [614] Originally by: Kaeser Originally by: DaiTengu Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Some words to ponder, from someone in your industry: We've learned a thing or two with our experiences with the NGE and don't plan on repeating mistakes from the past and not listening to the players. ùJohn Smedley, president of Sony Online Entertainment What these changes tell me as a paying customer for nearly four years running and 0.0 resident is that you no longer wish for me, my alliance mates, my allies, or even my enemies to ever bother you ever again with our problems by making conquerable 0.0 so tedious and unrewarding to own or fight over that we pettily squabble over the limited tracts of NPC 0.0 until our eyes bleed from boredom. This is not the "grand sandbox" you've pitched not only to us but the world as well to lift EVE up from the dregs of WoW clones. I see in these changes, and feel free to chuckle at this given my corporation, an attack on how I and both friend and foe alike conduct ourselves in this game, and a not-so-veiled punishment for all the "trouble" we've caused you and workload we've made you do to improve our game experience. Us, the vocal minority who choose not to stay in Empire and play WoW With Spaceships for our chosen kill-mission company or agency. Yes, we are the minority in your game. But we also are the people who make the stories and headlines that keep EVE relevant. I simply ask that you don't forget that. You have a unique opportunity available to you when you return, not that I doubt you're going to ever see my message here on the 17th or 18th page, to prevent EVE from being SWG Part Deux, where you saw the consequences-to-be and held back, instead of surged forward thinking it would bring you new blood to wash away the whining and tiresome masses of old. Your call, CCP. When I read this devblog, Sony's NGE is the first thing that sprang to my mind as well. It's not that we abhor change, it's that we abhor terrible changes. These are terrible changes. There's no way one system is going to support more than 10-15 people, and there's no way it's going to be cost effective. The devs say they love their epic space battles, but no one is going to want to fight over 0.0 space, and it's going to cause people to quit playing eve en-masse. I'm excited over the changes to supercapitals, but the sov changes are going to mean that we're not going to get to use them. I hung on to SWG for quite awhile after the NGE, but I, too, eventually quit as I saw the game I loved fall apart, and all my friends quit playing. If this goes through you're going to lose quite a few subscribers, and you're going to get a ton of bad press. Go back to the drawing board with this, even if you have to delay the expansion a month or more. Do it right, or don't do it at all. Agreeing 100% with this post, particularly the bolded part. Also ironic how CCP has managed to unify the warring parties of Eve in a way that nothing or no one else has ever done before to deride these changes. I don't think the will lose any subs, people will just still not go to 0.0 what they are going to lose is potental subs. This is no NGE. In fact this is not a game change at all. It's the same old thing, but different, keep highsec as the best place to make money, make 0.0 hell. Not NGE by any means. it would NGE if they made you pick a ship class and then you could only fly that ship on your character and all your other sp was deleted. do NOT compared this to NGE.
Hugh Hefner Caldari Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:54:00 - [615] Edited by: Hugh Hefner on 07/11/2009 11:54:02 Originally by: Rover Vitesse I think I am going to camp some of these anomalies. This sounds great, a place in 0.0 where farmers will spawn in front of my guns. You better learn to farm yourselves, rumours are that your alliance wants to own space, lol. In this new system there will be no one that can afford to play pet to alliances such as yours :)
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:55:00 - [616] Originally by: CCP Soundwave The sites come off a pre-determined list, meaning that your true-sec won't matter. The entire point of this is that areas such as you mention will get access to good anomalies through upgrades, regardless of sec-status. I don't remember this being stated anywhere else and it doesn't match the experiences doing exploration all over new eden. Still, don't you think that the system described in the devblog is not exactly what your mission statement was which you presented at fanfest? As others have pointed out, mini profession sites, gravimetric sites and anomalies are rarely considered even worth the effort of scanning them out. Thus, the "system upgrades" presented to us don't actually upgrade our space - mining will be done in remote systems with low truesec (and thus guaranteed better ore than playing roulette with gravi sites), ratting will be done in remote locations with better truesec since asteroid belt npc loot is vastly superior to mission loot.. And to get back to anomalies vs. lvl4: Do you agree with me that an activity in an area without concord protection and with high upkeep costs attached that yields the same rewards as an activity in perfect safety without any upkeep is a direct violation of the rule of risk vs. reward? ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:57:00 - [617] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: CCP Soundwave The sites come off a pre-determined list, meaning that your true-sec won't matter. The entire point of this is that areas such as you mention will get access to good anomalies through upgrades, regardless of sec-status. I don't remember this being stated anywhere else and it doesn't match the experiences doing exploration all over new eden. Exploration was never based off of truesec, so I don't know what you're blabbing about. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Franga NQX Innovations	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:57:00 - [618] Originally by: EvilweaselFinance Dominion was explicitly intended to allow you to make more money as an average player in 0.0 and currently it is failing. You've tested this? _____________________________ Please resize sig to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:57:00 - [619] Why not just increase the rats per belt to upwards of 50+ bs per belt respawning as normal rats do.
Bonny Lee Caldari The Guardian Agency Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:58:00 - [620] Will we see new Anomalies? If you say on LvL5 we get good anomalies you only have two left per Faction. - Delete every Anomlies but Sanctums and Havens - Create 4-5 new ones like those and add 4-5 every further update. - Unnerf anomalie-bountys.

Jadal McPieksu	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:00:00 - [621] Edited by: Jadal McPieksu on 07/11/2009 12:02:03 Edited by: Jadal McPieksu on 07/11/2009 12:00:03 NGE INVOKED :red alert: CCP, you are now in deep doodoo. Suggest you start formulating some [damage control II] pretty quickly before this is all over the gaming sites and you wipe out months of careful marketing and promotion in one devblog. Once the "collective wisdom" of Internet says "Yeah that game is/was great but they are messing it up/messed it up with a NGE-style break-everything patch", EVE subscription growth will take such a critical hit that no matter how much ISK (real ISK) you spend on marketing, you can't counter it. Listen to the players, or join the pile of fail MMOs. RISK VS REWARD Print this in A3 size, plaster it to the wall of every cubicle and office with people who have a hand in redesigning 0.0, then whack them with a big hammer until they keep reciting it over and over again. Or fail. Edit: And no, it doesn't mean you should fail to the other direction either - see current WoW that dishes out free epics to everyone with a pulse. Community there is currently in a death spiral because nothing you do in that game is worth anything any more.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:00:00 - [622] Originally by: Kaeser Also ironic how CCP has managed to unify the warring parties of Eve in a way that nothing or no one else has ever done before to deride these changes. Hey, guys, I found a clue. Quick, to the magnifier.
Ivan Zhuk	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:03:00 - [623] Why would I even waste owning sov in a system after dominion? Please answer this question with something else besides "I will have roughly lvl 4 equivalent anomolies which are rediculously easy to scan down without a probing device."
Vuk Lau 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:05:00 - [624] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: EdFromHumanResources How about that "Why is level 4's the cap for income?" We can either run level 4's in empire in COMPLETE SAFETY without paying 2b a month to own the system or ya, get anally **d financially for what amounts to "almost meeting empire isk making" No Stoffer, just no. 2b a month to support 15 people doesn't even sound remotely ing acceptable. ......... Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? So at the end we still need **load of towers, but now with 25% increased fuel bill? GJ Btw 1/10 troll
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:10:00 - [625] Originally by: Niding Edited by: Niding on 07/11/2009 11:53:32 Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. The higher tier anomalies don't spawn a lot in Tribute and most of 0.0. Truesec is still low and Dominion will not change that, since we can't upgrade it.. By the way, a high risk activity in 0.0 space only matching risk-free missions in empire that don't require you to invest a billion monthly? You are aware that this doesn't sound good? The sites come off a pre-determined list, meaning that your true-sec won't matter. The entire point of this is that areas such as you mention will get access to good anomalies through upgrades, regardless of sec-status. If anomalies are supposed to be part of what support the upgrades, your saying there will be more of them..and more people running them. Wont the increase in anomaly modules/resources flood the market, which in turn will radically devalue the modules/resources? Seems to me there will be radically diminishing returns in short order, which will make supporting any upgrades unviable in the long run. At least someone took economics..... Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Sirius A StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:10:00 - [626] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? CCP seeding R64 moons in providence? I personally dont even have that much issues with the anomalies, considering belt ratting here in provi is crap. However lets start by dividing the sov costs by 5, and then repost the blog. As I said, if the costs become an issue, they can always be looked at. Are you serious? If they become an issue. Im not sure if you guys play EVE but these costs are a major issue. If you do not seriously fix the costs you can say goodbye to EVE. I guarantee. "I am expendable"
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:12:00 - [627] Quote: The first thing you should be asking when you design these upgrades are "are these actually more lucrative than a single level 4 agent?" Quote: option A--stay in Empire, run missions, fight in a controlled environment of wardecs, and have the option of reverting back to a starter corp if you don't feel like fighting anymore It's almost a year I say L4 income has to be drastically nerfed. Maybe they will just do that, so now you won't have the L4 scapegoat to grapple to and the new crap will suddenly look good. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Tarkin Hamir	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:13:00 - [628] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? CCP seeding R64 moons in providence? I personally dont even have that much issues with the anomalies, considering belt ratting here in provi is crap. However lets start by dividing the sov costs by 5, and then repost the blog. As I said, if the costs become an issue, they can always be looked at. Doctor CCP Soundwave: Eve is sufering from a bad case of POSitis Nurse: What will we do? Doctor CCP Soundwave: We will put all the alliances on a very high dose of NewSOV? Nurse: But what if that kills them? Doctor CCP Soundwave: Then we will slowly reduce the dosage!
NSA Bivas Gallente Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:16:00 - [629] waaaa waaa waaaa waaaa u'r tacking away my space where would we go now waaa waaa waaa wait and they will remove local to ummm that's gona be interesting
WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:16:00 - [630] Indeed the most important question is "what will there be to fight over?" Providing a personal income baseline no better than L4's, and kneecapping R64s, essentially means there is very little left to fight over, and even for cases that are like moons which are still valuable but not astronomically so, it's not going to be worth risking tens or even hundreds of billions of ISK worth of hardware. This expansion was sold using the pitch that 0.0 would become more habitable on the individual level, and alliances would earn money by reaping the benefits of that. Instead, it's no more habitable than the complete safety of Empire, and there are expenses attached. Why would anyone bother fighting over that, or even participate in it WITHOUT the risk of losing everything to sovereignty breakdown?

Home brew	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:17:00 - [631] What all of 0.0 needs to do now and untill this patch goes live is to camp the f**k out of every highsec solar system that has a Lvl 4 Missions. Make the Lvl 4 missions more expensive to those that run them.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:19:00 - [632] Originally by: NSA Bivas waaaa waaa waaaa waaaa u'r tacking away my space where would we go now waaa waaa waaa wait and they will remove local to ummm that's gona be interesting hehe, if they actually removed Local in the context of getting the carebears and groups who define themselves through the level 4 mission isk / hour ratio, Dominion would dwarf the Exodus expansion. We'd have absolutely nothing to shoot at besides new and more structures, since they'd all run back to empire.
LeBelInconnu Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:20:00 - [633] wait a minute... what do you gain by taking a system away form someone? you gain their bill? you don't get their upgrades your stuck with a dead system. and why would tak esov unless you could make a profit with the new system you just took? I mean... you most liekely allready have sov in 5-10 systems. You won't want anymore systems at thier prices. it's nto even scaled . Your making it so small alliances can't do ****. It SHOULD be like wardecs, the more you have, the more it costs. I can't believe you really think anyone is going to fight over paying the bill. I for one don't see anyone actully taking down or even putting up sov other than lol, we own this system. but seriously, why would anyone want more than 5-10 systems? no one is going to attack anyone. Other systems are suppose to look like a big juicy steak. Currently the only systems like that will be true sec. and I have a feeling since true sec systems are allready more rpfotable, no one will take sov, because sov won't make the system more profitable. You'll make more money by NOT having sov. wow, good job ccp? DB Preacher - "We command your game now. As long as you remain in GoonSwarm, we make you play our way..." wtf is wrong with you?
Lord Milton GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:20:00 - [634] Edited by: Lord Milton on 07/11/2009 12:23:03 Hey CCP enjoy Iceland when your company collapses due to not listening to your customers and barely listening to your CSM, I hope you guys can catch fish Not surprised by the lack of thought that has gone into the new 0.0 mechanic, look at Dust 514 for example. Hi Stoffer
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:22:00 - [635] Originally by: LeBelInconnu what do you gain by taking a system away form someone? you gain their bill? I think this sums up my disappointment with this system quite well. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:22:00 - [636] The notion of 0.0 becoming more accessable to new alliances seems to be a bit unrealistic. The current 0.0 powers will still have leadership/combat structures, and while they might not put a SOV flag in "their" systems, they more than likely will defend their "turf". So any high sec dweller that might make the mistake of putting up a claim in some seemingly empty system will be greeted by 500 ships from the previous SOV holders that still owns the outposts. So, a small entity that are looking at the immense cost of upgrading will likely judge it unviable cause they would probarly expect to be evicted brutally if they ever tried to claim space.
Amy Wang	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:23:00 - [637] Cost seem fine in general, maybe a bit steep, but thats what the expansion is about isnt it? however I would switch them around a bit like so: - claim sov in system w/o station: 5m/d - extra cost for infrastructure hub: 25m/d - claim sov in system with an outpost: 30-40m/d always bugged me that outposts have no running costs attached to them, now is the chance to indirectly introduce such a cost rest seems fine, although I would be in favor of doubling the JB cost to 25m/d as well provided you remove the need to fuel them completely
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:24:00 - [638] Originally by: Amy Wang Cost seem fine in general, maybe a bit steep, but thats what the expansion is about isnt it? however I would switch them around a bit like so: - claim sov in system w/o station: 5m/d - extra cost for infrastructure hub: 25m/d - claim sov in system with an outpost: 30-40m/d always bugged me that outposts have no running costs attached to them, now is the chance to indirectly introduce such a cost rest seems fine, although I would be in favor of doubling the JB cost to 25m/d as well provided you remove the need to fuel them completely Now that's an obvious troll.
Cerlestes Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:26:00 - [639] Edited by: Cerlestes on 07/11/2009 12:26:17 I knew why i stopped playing EVE
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:28:00 - [640] Originally by: Amy Wang Cost seem fine in general, maybe a bit steep, but thats what the expansion is about isnt it? however I would switch them around a bit like so: - claim sov in system w/o station: 5m/d - extra cost for infrastructure hub: 25m/d - claim sov in system with an outpost: 30-40m/d always bugged me that outposts have no running costs attached to them, now is the chance to indirectly introduce such a cost rest seems fine, although I would be in favor of doubling the JB cost to 25m/d as well provided you remove the need to fuel them completely Outposts have running costs atm. Its called deathstars. POSs are required now if you hope to keep the outpost from being POS spammed out of your hand before next downtime.

shantaa Caldari Chronos Evolution	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:30:00 - [641] While there is a sov shake up, how about tweaking jump bridges as well. Always seemed wrong to me that ships not capable of using a jump gate can use jump bridges.
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:31:00 - [642] Originally by: Niding The notion of 0.0 becoming more accessable to new alliances seems to be a bit unrealistic. The current 0.0 powers will still have leadership/combat structures, and while they might not put a SOV flag in "their" systems, they more than likely will defend their "turf". So any high sec dweller that might make the mistake of putting up a claim in some seemingly empty system will be greeted by 500 ships from the previous SOV holders that still owns the outposts. So, a small entity that are looking at the immense cost of upgrading will likely judge it unviable cause they would probarly expect to be evicted brutally if they ever tried to claim space. if only putting up sov markers gave some kind of defense... or benefit... oh well this is eve, getitng sov is not about advancing, it's just about bragging. now if putting up a sov marker gave you gate gun control, 25% more shields/armor.hull for your allainces ships in system, and a real time map of the system so you can see where they are coming and when. then MAYBE the 2 bil a month would be wroth it, and maybe new allainces could get a shoe in the door. plus a 25% increase in EHP would be wroth paying and fighting over. maybe different system would have different effects based on planets. Making some systems wh=ith ****tin ratting, great defencvice bonuses. SO you use the upgrade system to make it possible to make money. And you have gate gun to hide with, and extra shields incase you get attacked. even with all that it would still be NO WHERE as safe as high sec.
zzCoins UK1 Zero	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:31:00 - [643] Edited by: zzCoins on 07/11/2009 12:31:27 Sov is only needed is systems with a jumpbridge or outpost, most of 0.0 will not have any Sov in Dominion, so costs will be much less than people are calculating. Alliances will nolonger be able to afford Capital replacement schemes, hence much fewer capital PvP fights, getting away from Caps-Online looks good to me.
O'Ran Caldari The Reformed Gypsy Nation	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:32:00 - [644] Edited by: O''Ran on 07/11/2009 12:33:39 Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? CCP seeding R64 moons in providence? I personally dont even have that much issues with the anomalies, considering belt ratting here in provi is crap. However lets start by dividing the sov costs by 5, and then repost the blog. As I said, if the costs become an issue, they can always be looked at. You're supposed to do this the OTHER WAY ROUND. The transition period is key to many alliances SURVIVABILTY. You start the prices LOW and than increase them. Come on CCP - wake up.
Amy Wang	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:33:00 - [645] Originally by: Niding Outposts have running costs atm. Its called deathstars. POSs are required now if you hope to keep the outpost from being POS spammed out of your hand before next downtime. exactly, thanks for supporting my argument about the need for increased cost for holding sov in outpost systems in Dominion all those posses (bar a few to hold JBs, flag and cynojammer) are not needed any more meaning you save a lot of cost (isk and logistic wise) all of a sudden, hence sov holding in outpost systems should cost more daily maintenance then a system without an outpost
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:34:00 - [646] Good morning my little cry-babies of alliances who's members are only interested in personal income... please cry some more Yes, I'm an alt as my leadership doesn't want me topostmy POV on the issue. They're basically the same cey-babies like the ggons are, but living in the north instead. --- Stop whining about a monthly 2 billion ISK sovereignity-bill, as this is laughable cheap. You can throw away your gazillion POSs therefore and only need one or two per system now. So with two Large Towers and a fully upgraded (only the strategic upgrades!) system you're looking at 2.5 billion a month then... still laughable imho. I'm an industrialist (member of a top 10 0.0 alliance for 3 years) and our producers alone generate 20-30 billion ISK a month. And no, no POS-reactions counted here. Just buying all the stuff you need and build some Tech 2 modules and ships and sell them. We're around 15 people doing this job and we generate income for our alliance to claim 10 systems.. without ever setting a foot into 0.0-space Now if our members would actually do some ratting or plexing, then we would have the money to claim all the space we do to date without even breaking into sweat. At this point I'll repeat my initial statement: "There's only 10 players needed, each paying 7-9 Million ISK per day to pay the bill for a system after Dominion." So if your alliance want to claim that space they're holding onto now, each member only needs to do some ratting for 30 minutes a day, or fly a single LvL 4 mission and you're done. Everything after this point is netto-income. I don't care if the people actually go ratting in a system, or if they prefer to fly a LvL 4 mission, but 7-9 million ISK per member a day is cheap as hell imho to pay for your space. People talking about a second job... I laugh at you... 30 minutes of ratting can hardly be called a second job, if I compare this with the work our industrialy are doing every day as it's now. I for myself don't want to work 2-3 hours in EvE anymore to fund your toys, without you doing anything to contribute to the alliance. This is the best thing CCP has come up with in years, as it forces you lazy bums to actually do something instead of just wasting the ISK we industrialists generate for you. We'll only pay for the outpost-systems from now on, and the military and strategic systems are up to you PvP-pilots... do something for your content. --- Dominion sorts out the lazy bums and I wellcome this change. 0.0-gameplay should force every member of the alliance to contribute to their space for those 30 minutes a day. 0.0 isn't about generating tons of ISK and it never was, it's about the fighting and showing up on the Sov-map... the ISK you can generate in 0.0 are only a bonus. This a PvP-game ffs!
Comunique	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:35:00 - [647] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? Problem is most anomalies are completely and utterly worthless in comparison to the steady income of belt ratting. You will make more by belt chaining and flipping which has a better possibility of officer, faction, or massive hauler spawns than the chance of getting faction loot from an escalated anomaly. Add on top of that of a full loot and salvage table. You need to fix the fact the loot and salvage tables are borked. The chance of escalation should also be increased. Example: Haven/Sanctum are the only ones worth running that have maybe maybe a 5% chance of escalating to an 8/10 which MIGHT drop a good item. Originally by: CCP Soundwave ......... Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? Which you guys have nerfed. ./facepalm Originally by: CCP Soundwave The sites come off a pre-determined list, meaning that your true-sec won't matter. The entire point of this is that areas such as you mention will get access to good anomalies through upgrades, regardless of sec-status. Problem is upgrading doesn't actually upgrade the anomalies themselves. That would have been an amazing idea which is seems you guys decided to get lazy on. Anomaly Upgrade: -Increase the number of anomlies in the system with a [insert numer] always being constant. -Better or at least equal loot/salvage tables than belt rats. -Allow full or increased isk bounties for rats than compared to belt rats -Increase the number of waves -Increase the chance of the anomalies escalating Those would have been acceptable changes and I would make the upgrade a terrific idea. What you guys did is simply add more which doesn't even address the general issues with anomalies that don't make them comparable to mission running or even worth running. Anomaly thing is just one of the issues with the idea of Dominion. How about Grav site or general 0.0 mining? Not even worthwhile for a solo miner. Hell, it even kind of sucks for people running 3 or 4 accounts. Why not try to making mining an actual option for people instead of an option only for those with a large amount of accounts? Mining Upgrade: --The belts in a system instead become more high end and less low end --Allow system-wide mining bonuses on top of the bonuses you get from sieging a rorqual with links(more range, more yield)? --More yield per roid. 'Bigger' roids --The belts becoming more physically dense. Sometimes you see belts so spread out they're not worth mining. Handful of roids at 20km, another at 45km, another at 90km, more at 120km, more at 300km. Again, more ideas that could make 0.0 amazing which you guys could have ran with. Instead you added more and did not even address the real issues.
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:37:00 - [648] Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. And support 1 player per anomaly. Once the amount of anomalies increases beyond x, the time spend to find the ones not being run results in diminishing returns in regards to that number. I'd guess that around 10-15 it becomes are nightmare to share these at a 1:1 ratio. So your potential for this approach is around 5 players in a system. Which is sadly also a boost to current numbers. Yeah, 0.0 is that crappy for the most of it. While 1 agent can pretty much support an infinite number. Your code must be FUBAR in order for you to justify all that work, just tryng to avoid to have to try and add agents. Or are you looking for a solution to your NPC standing system, well knowing people wouldn't be able to use the agents due to their -5 standing to local NPCs? You could have saved yourself a lot whining if you had started that blog by telling us all that you can't make a system support 100-150 players in 0.0, and now your aim is 10-15. That way we'd all have known you aren't trying to match the ideas for Dominion you presented to us; Alliance pilots will not concentrate, Alliances will still need vast amounts of crappy 0.0 space to have enough good 0.0 to support its members on a personal level, Alliances will still pay for logistics with moon gold. Really, what is it you want to accomplish with this patch CCP?
shantaa Caldari Chronos Evolution	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:37:00 - [649] Originally by: zzCoins Edited by: zzCoins on 07/11/2009 12:31:27 Sov is only needed is systems with a jumpbridge or outpost, most of 0.0 will not have any Sov in Dominion, so costs will be much less than people are calculating. Alliances will nolonger be able to afford Capital replacement schemes, hence much fewer capital PvP fights, getting away from Caps-Online looks good to me. Yep, only need to claim system for a groups HQ plus bridge/cyno routes. Thus making 0.0 space easier to populate for small groups. Claiming 2 or 3 systems will give any industrious group access to deep 0.0 :)
Elisean Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:38:00 - [650] Edited by: Elisean on 07/11/2009 12:43:01 Edited by: Elisean on 07/11/2009 12:40:24 Edited by: Elisean on 07/11/2009 12:39:02 HEY! it's just like factional warfare! why own a system? what does owning a system help me do? What's that? ccp won't give a reason beyond... "because you can" I was just thinking too... this would be like is frigates did the same dps as battleships, and tanked just as well, but cost more. risk vs. reward, you pay more, you have more to lose. I frigates were as strong as battleships it would be pointless... Maybe you need hand our this new system to whoever usally does ship balancing. They at least seem to get the idea that more risk means more payoff. Just in a different way. And sometimes it's unbalanced, but at least they get in the ballpark Originally by: O'Ran You're supposed to do this the OTHER WAY ROUND. The transition period is key to many alliances SURVIVABILTY. You start the prices LOW and than increase them. Come on CCP - wake up. SEE SEE! it's factional warfare all over again! "we'll start mission rewards low to see how people run them" "we want to give the least incentives possible, if players don't fight over systems just for the pvp, then maybe we'll add reason to own a system" Originally by: Valtis Thermalion Originally by: Vivian Azure At this point I'll repeat my initial statement: "There's only 10 players needed, each paying 7-9 Million ISK per day to pay the bill for a system after Dominion." Why would anyone with even tiny amount of sanity remaining hold any sov post-dominion? It might be "only" 7 million per day, but since sov gives almost no benefits, why should alliances pay several billion isk per month? Upgrades thus far are worthless (lvl 4 isk income if fully upgraded? What on Earth have you been smoking? 10% fuel bonus? I mean, seriously). Alliances will simply hold few key systems for bridge network and cap production, and abandon rest of their systems while keeping them under control with a threat of force. This alone means that the new sov system is a utter failure; it's far more profitable to hold sov unofficially than using the ingame means provided by ccp. now if you could make double the income of level 4 missions, MAYBE losing 9 million day would be wroth it... wait, even then it wouldn't be. also wait... why would anyone want to pay 7 million a day for somethign free? This is eve not some fancy coffee shop, come on.

iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:39:00 - [651] Originally by: Amy Wang Originally by: Niding Outposts have running costs atm. Its called deathstars. POSs are required now if you hope to keep the outpost from being POS spammed out of your hand before next downtime. exactly, thanks for supporting my argument about the need for increased cost for holding sov in outpost systems in Dominion all those posses (bar a few to hold JBs, flag and cynojammer) are not needed any more meaning you save a lot of cost (isk and logistic wise) all of a sudden, hence sov holding in outpost systems should cost more daily maintenance then a system without an outpost Learn to think before posting Low moon count systems will still need full cover against spam since a pos is still a base of operations. We will need a lot more industry towers, and a lot of those large ones to compensate for income at higher exposure and risk, and I do mean a LOT (look up Akita T's spreadsheets in the market section of this forum). I'm not mentioning losing the rather staggering fuel bonus that currently applies. I've done the math for my own alliance. Without the new cost of space based sovereignty, our cost of moon industry will go up by about 1.1B isk per 30 days to achieve the same income (this is a snapshot at price levels of this week, and while some fluctuation always occurs after expansions the fundamental ratios do not change, except for this expansion because of the moon material redistribution changes). None of our corporations has fancy moons btw. And we can only hope for new Alchemy reactions to have a hope of working around the new X32 bottlenecks.
Valtis Thermalion Caldari Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:40:00 - [652] Originally by: Vivian Azure At this point I'll repeat my initial statement: "There's only 10 players needed, each paying 7-9 Million ISK per day to pay the bill for a system after Dominion." Why would anyone with even tiny amount of sanity remaining hold any sov post-dominion? It might be "only" 7 million per day, but since sov gives almost no benefits, why should alliances pay several billion isk per month? Upgrades thus far are worthless (lvl 4 isk income if fully upgraded? What on Earth have you been smoking? 10% fuel bonus? I mean, seriously). Alliances will simply hold few key systems for bridge network and cap production, and abandon rest of their systems while keeping them under control with a threat of force. This alone means that the new sov system is a utter failure; it's far more profitable to hold sov unofficially than using the ingame means provided by ccp.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:42:00 - [653] Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 07/11/2009 12:44:49 Honestly 2 bil per month for fully upgraded system is not a lot considering constant flow of isks and moon mining BUT just remember CCP maybe into something to design cool null-sec. Its not a desing of new 0.0 that is broken it is a lvl4s and hi sec. Quote: No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. Buahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahah muhahahaha rotfl.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:48:00 - [654] Originally by: Valtis Thermalion Originally by: Vivian Azure At this point I'll repeat my initial statement: "There's only 10 players needed, each paying 7-9 Million ISK per day to pay the bill for a system after Dominion." Why would anyone with even tiny amount of sanity remaining hold any sov post-dominion? It might be "only" 7 million per day, but since sov gives almost no benefits, why should alliances pay several billion isk per month? Upgrades thus far are worthless (lvl 4 isk income if fully upgraded? What on Earth have you been smoking? 10% fuel bonus? I mean, seriously). Alliances will simply hold few key systems for bridge network and cap production, and abandon rest of their systems while keeping them under control with a threat of force. This alone means that the new sov system is a utter failure; it's far more profitable to hold sov unofficially than using the ingame means provided by ccp. Why do alliances hold the space today? It's just bragging abot how 1337 you're basically, as all the interesting stuff is available without claiming Sov in 90% of your systems. You don't need Sov to do some ratting or plexing. You only need Sov in systems, where you want to protect some assets, e.g. Outposts and high-end moons. I've never understood, why we hold all this space up in the north, as we could reduce our claims to some 15 systems actually and still control the whole space we're claiming now. Dominion does not change anything in regards to the space we control, it just forces our leaders to reduce their claims (those that show on the map!) to the 15 systems that actually need to be claimed. I'm actually quiet happy with this, as I don't have to fuel some 50-60 useless POSs anymore but only those, that generate ISK or protect our assets.
Varrakk Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:50:00 - [655] Im pretty speechless after reading this dev blog and its replies. The EVE we are playing, and the EVE CCP thinks we are playing, doesnt look very similar. The costs suggested here has no graps of reality, do they really think that we all want to rat a few hours per day to pay our bills? I already work 8hours a work to do that. A one time cost on a majority of these system upgrades would solve some cost issues. I would recommend all alliance leaders from the major alliance to have a meeting, and form a united protest against CCP's proposed changes. Theres simply too many, too significant changes in this Expansion.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:52:00 - [656] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 CCP maybe into something to design cool null-sec. Yeah. CCP have a solid track record in fully following up on great concepts and translating them fully into working and stable cool stuff And if something goes wrong, they have a solid track record in picking up on things in time or even ahead of time and addressing them before things become structural problems
IT Yassir	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:52:00 - [657] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Valtis Thermalion Originally by: Vivian Azure At this point I'll repeat my initial statement: "There's only 10 players needed, each paying 7-9 Million ISK per day to pay the bill for a system after Dominion." Why would anyone with even tiny amount of sanity remaining hold any sov post-dominion? It might be "only" 7 million per day, but since sov gives almost no benefits, why should alliances pay several billion isk per month? Upgrades thus far are worthless (lvl 4 isk income if fully upgraded? What on Earth have you been smoking? 10% fuel bonus? I mean, seriously). Alliances will simply hold few key systems for bridge network and cap production, and abandon rest of their systems while keeping them under control with a threat of force. This alone means that the new sov system is a utter failure; it's far more profitable to hold sov unofficially than using the ingame means provided by ccp. Why do alliances hold the space today? It's just bragging abot how 1337 you're basically, as all the interesting stuff is available without claiming Sov in 90% of your systems. You don't need Sov to do some ratting or plexing. You only need Sov in systems, where you want to protect some assets, e.g. Outposts and high-end moons. I've never understood, why we hold all this space up in the north, as we could reduce our claims to some 15 systems actually and still control the whole space we're claiming now. Dominion does not change anything in regards to the space we control, it just forces our leaders to reduce their claims (those that show on the map!) to the 15 systems that actually need to be claimed. I'm actually quiet happy with this, as I don't have to fuel some 50-60 useless POSs anymore but only those, that generate ISK or protect our assets. Uhm ure actualy WRONG and WRONG again..with this changes logistiks will be 100% more harder as less cyno gens jb¦s etc..u will still need poses in almost nay system to mine the good GOO and as a safe spot so pos numbers will increse rather then decrese as u need more moons to make bit more isk.
Dan Grobag Caldari French Empire Squad	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:59:00 - [658] well, with constant stream of anomalies, rating in a carrier might be an option.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:00:00 - [659] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:02:15 Originally by: IT Yassir Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Valtis Thermalion Originally by: Vivian Azure At this point I'll repeat my initial statement: "There's only 10 players needed, each paying 7-9 Million ISK per day to pay the bill for a system after Dominion." Why would anyone with even tiny amount of sanity remaining hold any sov post-dominion? It might be "only" 7 million per day, but since sov gives almost no benefits, why should alliances pay several billion isk per month? Upgrades thus far are worthless (lvl 4 isk income if fully upgraded? What on Earth have you been smoking? 10% fuel bonus? I mean, seriously). Alliances will simply hold few key systems for bridge network and cap production, and abandon rest of their systems while keeping them under control with a threat of force. This alone means that the new sov system is a utter failure; it's far more profitable to hold sov unofficially than using the ingame means provided by ccp. Why do alliances hold the space today? It's just bragging abot how 1337 you're basically, as all the interesting stuff is available without claiming Sov in 90% of your systems. You don't need Sov to do some ratting or plexing. You only need Sov in systems, where you want to protect some assets, e.g. Outposts and high-end moons. I've never understood, why we hold all this space up in the north, as we could reduce our claims to some 15 systems actually and still control the whole space we're claiming now. Dominion does not change anything in regards to the space we control, it just forces our leaders to reduce their claims (those that show on the map!) to the 15 systems that actually need to be claimed. I'm actually quiet happy with this, as I don't have to fuel some 50-60 useless POSs anymore but only those, that generate ISK or protect our assets. Uhm ure actualy WRONG and WRONG again..with this changes logistiks will be 100% more harder as less cyno gens jb¦s etc..u will still need poses in almost nay system to mine the good GOO and as a safe spot so pos numbers will increse rather then decrese as u need more moons to make bit more isk. Nope, I'm spot on, and if you ask your industrialists, they will tell you the exact same thing as I do. We don't need jumpbridges in the dozens to fuel POSs or resupply in 0.0 with ships and modules... we've got jumpfreighters and Rrorquals for that. The only ones who uses our jumpbridges are the PvP-players. EDIT: We've done the whole logistics even before jumpbridges got introduced I might remind you aswell.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:00:00 - [660] Originally by: Dan Grobag well, with constant stream of anomalies, rating in a carrier might be an option. Oh god I hope you do this.

Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:00:00 - [661] Has CCP actually looked at all the consequences of this system? For one thing if you are reducing the number of POS that are needed in each system why would you add an upgrade that puts more ice belts in a system? The price of ice is going to take a serious plunge and at the same time CCP is adding more supply lol. And of course you can't use this ice to keep up your upkeep in a system. Plus there doesn't seem to be any mention of a transition. So as soon as Dominion hits alliances are going to be scrambling around taking down their POS's since they will have to pay a 2 billion price tag on each system and the cost of those POS's. Of course most of those are just going to get grinded down since we are going to have a huge supply of POS stuff that just isn't needed anymore. Then take a look at the moon mining changes. Considering that we already don't mine every moon in 0.0 the idea to lower the income from the better moons and increase the income from the lower income moons just makes every moon mediocre. Basically I expect that Tech II ships are actually going to go up in price after these changes instead of going down. Add in the 2 billion price tag on a system, well we are going to see a lot fewer battles and a lot fewer Tech II ships in those battles. Maybe I'll just head on up to high sec and train for the next year. Eventually either Eve will collapse or CCP will fix things. Of course there is one fix that CCP could put in right now that would potentially fix a lot of problems. Allow alliances to use ice to pay all or at least a major portion of their upkeep.
Speed Freek	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:03:00 - [662] Edited by: Speed Freek on 07/11/2009 13:04:49 Edited by: Speed Freek on 07/11/2009 13:04:23 So the Ratters are covered - 3 Level 4 Anomalies and 1 ratter per 8 belts. 1 Person scanning for Signatures. (So at 10% tax rate and no significant cost increase for having that upgrade, a system should pay for itself.) How does this add up to 10-15? Can we have some more information on the Gravimentric sites? At the moment to make a simillar amount of isk per hour as the ratters you have to mine Arkonor, Bistot, Crokite or Mercoxite. Will the upper level Minign upgrades provide a simillar isk per hour, when accounting for mining all roids present within the site? Speed Freek
dannyBOy16437	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:08:00 - [663] Would it be possible for a Dev to start a new thread where we can post helpful suggestions and changes in light of this dev blog? I fully support the fact that the system in the blog is terribly unrefined, but this thread is full of moaning and trolls, and very little help. Having a thread specifically for ideas and suggestions for this system would help the devs change it for the better, quicker.
Tanuki Doyle Spontane0us Combustion Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:10:00 - [664] Hmm. What a disapointment. Standing charges aside, ( which do seem a little high and a bit to much like an isk sink for CCP,) my main bugbear is that this seems like a missed opportunity to radically alter the mechanics of the frankly tired "Endgame" of Eve. Sure it means an end to tedious POS warfare and i don't know anyone that will complain about that and the high cost of holding sov may encourage cheaper renter deals for the bears. Ultimately though the benefits of upgrading your space amount to no more than a bit more of the same old crap and this makes Tanuki D very sad.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:12:00 - [665] Originally by: dannyBOy16437 Would it be possible for a Dev to start a new thread where we can post helpful suggestions and changes in light of this dev blog? I fully support the fact that the system in the blog is terribly unrefined, but this thread is full of moaning and trolls, and very little help. Having a thread specifically for ideas and suggestions for this system would help the devs change it for the better, quicker. I think the suggestions here are pretty clear, start by massively decreasing cost, and then increase benefits of upgrades.
Optime Prime	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:12:00 - [666] Originally by: Bobby Atlas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I aggre with Bobby .ccp stop smoking skit and glissen to US-players
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:14:00 - [667] Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 07/11/2009 13:14:04 Clearly CCP Soundwave has taken the time to read through the thread and its many -- many valid arguments, what else could explain his well informed replies.
Meh Orka	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:16:00 - [668] Originally by: Bobby Atlas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I aggre 100% with Bobby
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:18:00 - [669] Okay here are a couple of ideas to Fix Dominion. 1. Allow Alliances to use Ice to pay off a large portion of their upkeep every month. This will also keep the Ice market from being destroyed by this change. 2. Create an Upgrade that Lowers the True Sec status of the system it is put in. This makes all rats and anomalies better in the system instantly increasing our ability to make money. It also would keep the relative true sec status the same since a system that had lower true sec status to begin with can go lower than one that started higher. Also this gives a increase in the income that players that don't scan down anomalies can make as opposed to the current upgrades. 3. Lower upkeep costs during the first couple of months so that alliances don't get hit with double upkeep costs during the first month since they have to pay upkeep and maintain their POS's at the same time. Also what is the plan when Dominion first comes out. Do all systems that an alliance has sov in keep their sov rating, do they keep all their current upgrades such as cyno jammer's? Basically are you just going to throw a hub in every system that an alliance has Sov in already, or will it all go into chaos for the first month? I haven't seen anything telling about the transition.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:20:00 - [670] Cosmic Anomalies (CAs) require a number of changes and improvements if CCP wishes them to become the defacto 0.0 income stream. The Aims - At a base level, every 0.0 system can support 10 players (See: High Sec Missions) - With better systems, and system upgrades, more and more players can be supported. (See: High Sec Missions) - At no point should a player end up with nothing to do (See: High Sec Missions) - At no point should a player be better off running High Sec Missions. - Provide a mechanism that can seamlessly replace belt ratting - Keep PvP options open and available for CAs (this is 0.0 after all) How Many CAs? If a system is to keep 50 players busy (See: High Sec Missions), there needs to be enough CAs for 50 players (See: High Sec Missions). CAs need to respawn the moment they are completed or timed out, in the same system (See: High Sec Missions). A CA will time out after four hours after someone warps to it, or two hours after someone shoots a rat. Completion counts as killing all the rats, or if asteroids are present, by destroying a no-bounty no-loot marker/beacon/structure. By having a system along these lines, the system will not end up logjammed with no CAs, and people in system can continue running CAs (See: High Sec Missions) Rating/Level/Difficulty Every CA is rated from 1 to 10 or some other nomenclature that makes it abundantly clear what the difficulty of the CA is (See: High Sec Missions). A bottom level CA should cater for a newbie in a frigate. A top level CA should cater a team of veterans in BS/Logistics. A mid level CA should be aimed at a single battleship using full T2 gear. There should be no hard Level 5 CAs, nor easy Level 6 CAs (See: High Sec Missions). There is no reason why a newbie in a frigate should not be able to generate income in 0.0. In fact, this is probably the most important part. By allowing a newbie to enter a 0.0 alliance, they are immediately of value. Scanning When engaging the built-in ship scanner, results should be clear and automatic. If a CA is within range, you get a perfect result you can bookmark and warp to. Each result should list: - Difficulty of the CA - Number of Players inside the CA - Estimated Completion Percent - Estimated Time-out - Any Special Attributes (asteroids, one-shot, etc) Each of these should be explicitly and clearly displayed. No vague 'hard' or 'easy' rubbish. Content All NPC ships inside a CA should NOT be mission/deadspace types, but standard belt types. At a minimum, a CA could consist of a normal asteroid belt spawn. Multiple waves are possible, as is having a chance of a faction spawn at the end (and very very rarely an Officer). Deadspace/mission rats could be used, but the CA should ensure there is loot/bounty/reward at 'the end', either from an overseer spawn, officer spawn, or overseer structure. However, this starts to interfere with plexes and exploration sites in terms of loot options. Reward/Loot The primary wealth of a CA should be from bounties on rats, loot from rats, and salvage from rats, just like current 0.0 belt ratting. Deadspace Plex loot should not drop from CAs, faction items should drop but at the same rate as in normal belt ratting, and officers should be just as rare. As there is no agent behind the CA offering additional ISK, as well as LP, the value needs to be firmly kept in the NPCs, hence the emphasis on using normal belt rats.

Black Roberts Minmatar Big Guns Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:21:00 - [671] Originally by: Bobby Atlas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. CCP get yor head out of your ass and stopp this skit !!!
Leelya Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:22:00 - [672] Originally by: CCP Soundwave In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. But the point is that we'll not really be getting rid of towers and associated fuel costs... Actually, most 0.0 Sov-holder alliances don't use that much of "pure" Sov POS. Actually, POS that are holding sov are also used to protect industrial and to put logistic mods on... And we'll still need these POS : a POS to protect FLAG and others to hold infrastuctures. These are going to stay, you must keep that in mind when you're talking about getting rid of towers... As an actual POS manager, I can say that, in the end, we'll have to keep nearly the same amount of towers (minus 1 or 2 in really strategic systems, maybe) and sustain their costs, in addition to the new upkeep costs...
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:22:00 - [673] Originally by: Zahorite Okay here are a couple of ideas to Fix Dominion. 1. Allow Alliances to use Ice to pay off a large portion of their upkeep every month. This will also keep the Ice market from being destroyed by this change. 2. Create an Upgrade that Lowers the True Sec status of the system it is put in. This makes all rats and anomalies better in the system instantly increasing our ability to make money. It also would keep the relative true sec status the same since a system that had lower true sec status to begin with can go lower than one that started higher. Also this gives a increase in the income that players that don't scan down anomalies can make as opposed to the current upgrades. 3. Lower upkeep costs during the first couple of months so that alliances don't get hit with double upkeep costs during the first month since they have to pay upkeep and maintain their POS's at the same time. Also what is the plan when Dominion first comes out. Do all systems that an alliance has sov in keep their sov rating, do they keep all their current upgrades such as cyno jammer's? Basically are you just going to throw a hub in every system that an alliance has Sov in already, or will it all go into chaos for the first month? I haven't seen anything telling about the transition. You don't understand, that 0.0 is not ment to generate tons of ISK. 0.0 is there to kill people without security-hits and to show up on the map, fight against other alliances because you don't like their name etc, etc... I'm astonished that all the 1337-PvP players are the biggest carebears actually, who want to see 0.0 being made into empire-space... minimum risk + highest rewards.
TexasWARlord North Domain Defense Forces	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:25:00 - [674] Seems to me most of the complaining isnt regarding the mechanics as much as the cost associated. So CCP.. Rather than start HIGH and tweak LOWER if need be... Would it not be prudent to start LOW and tweak UP ? Reduce the numbers to 1/4 the value you have posted here. Give the current SOV holders a chance to work the new system and adapt. Give the smaller alliances a oportunity to shoot for the moon without breaking their banks... No matter how you slice this someone will complain and no doubt the action and drama will be elevated 10 fold with the new SOV system in place... So why not purposely create a bum rush for AFFORDABLE null space, give pilots a reason to do battle, large alliances time to adapt and AFTER some preliminary data is achieved THEN tweak up if need be? I see far more harm being done making it unrealisticly expensive and tweaking it down over time than making it unrealisticly cheap and tweaking it up over time... Not to mention acknowleging the concerns those that have invested time (in many cases years) by having the opportunity to see and use the new SOV mechanics and implementations (advantages / disadvantages) and adapt to them.
Anikadir DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:28:00 - [675] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:26:21 Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:25:03 You don't understand, that 0.0 is not ment to generate tons of ISK. 0.0 is there to kill people without security-hits and to show up on the map, fight against other alliances because you don't like their name etc, etc... I'm astonished that all the 1337-PvP players are the biggest carebears actually, who want to see 0.0 being made into empire-space... minimum risk + highest rewards. You think that the potencial risk in 0.0 should reward you with tons of rewards, but that was never intended by CCP. If you strive for personal wealth, then you should go play in Empire and do some production, trading and LvL 4 missions. 0.0 is a big battlefield and not a ISK-prinitng-machine... and this is intended by CCP, if you didn't notice allready. 0.0 is the place, where we can destroy all the ISK we make in empire! You so don't get 0.0..... Bleh
Groperson	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:29:00 - [676] Originally by: Optime Prime Originally by: Bobby Atlas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Haha, Bobby is completely corect, 0.0 space is worthless, not as in rhetorically worthless but literally not worth the cost of upkeep worthless.
Kye Do'lan Gallente The Whitesands Consortium Amici Noctis	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:29:00 - [677] Originally by: Zastrow IS IT WORTH IT? NO...stick with Wormhole space My Skills
Summer Days	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:30:00 - [678] We need a case study. CCP didn't just pull these number out of thin air; I'm sure the economist team had a hand in this. We need to know, for a hypothetical corporation, hypothetically how the upgrades are going to be able to cover the increased cost of doing business.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:31:00 - [679] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:33:28 Originally by: Anikadir Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:26:21 Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:25:03 You don't understand, that 0.0 is not ment to generate tons of ISK. 0.0 is there to kill people without security-hits and to show up on the map, fight against other alliances because you don't like their name etc, etc... I'm astonished that all the 1337-PvP players are the biggest carebears actually, who want to see 0.0 being made into empire-space... minimum risk + highest rewards. You think that the potencial risk in 0.0 should reward you with tons of rewards, but that was never intended by CCP. If you strive for personal wealth, then you should go play in Empire and do some production, trading and LvL 4 missions. 0.0 is a big battlefield and not a ISK-prinitng-machine... and this is intended by CCP, if you didn't notice allready. 0.0 is the place, where we can destroy all the ISK we make in empire! You so don't get 0.0..... I think I get it better then you... 4 years living in 0.0 and it has allways been that way. Seems intentional Originally by: Summer Days We need a case study. CCP didn't just pull these number out of thin air; I'm sure the economist team had a hand in this. We need to know, for a hypothetical corporation, hypothetically how the upgrades are going to be able to cover the increased cost of doing business. You don't need an economist to tell you how it works out. I've done all the calculations allready, and you need 10 people contributing 7-9 Million ISK per day to pay for the bill. Everything after that is net income.
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:32:00 - [680] Originally by: Hertford Cosmic Anomalies (CAs) require a number of changes and improvements if CCP wishes them to become the defacto 0.0 income stream. The Aims - At a base level, every 0.0 system can support 10 players (See: High Sec Missions) - With better systems, and system upgrades, more and more players can be supported. (See: High Sec Missions) - At no point should a player end up with nothing to do (See: High Sec Missions) - At no point should a player be better off running High Sec Missions. - Provide a mechanism that can seamlessly replace belt ratting - Keep PvP options open and available for CAs (this is 0.0 after all) How Many CAs? If a system is to keep 50 players busy (See: High Sec Missions), there needs to be enough CAs for 50 players (See: High Sec Missions). CAs need to respawn the moment they are completed or timed out, in the same system (See: High Sec Missions). A CA will time out after four hours after someone warps to it, or two hours after someone shoots a rat. Completion counts as killing all the rats, or if asteroids are present, by destroying a no-bounty no-loot marker/beacon/structure. By having a system along these lines, the system will not end up logjammed with no CAs, and people in system can continue running CAs (See: High Sec Missions) Rating/Level/Difficulty Every CA is rated from 1 to 10 or some other nomenclature that makes it abundantly clear what the difficulty of the CA is (See: High Sec Missions). A bottom level CA should cater for a newbie in a frigate. A top level CA should cater a team of veterans in BS/Logistics. A mid level CA should be aimed at a single battleship using full T2 gear. There should be no hard Level 5 CAs, nor easy Level 6 CAs (See: High Sec Missions). There is no reason why a newbie in a frigate should not be able to generate income in 0.0. In fact, this is probably the most important part. By allowing a newbie to enter a 0.0 alliance, they are immediately of value. Scanning When engaging the built-in ship scanner, results should be clear and automatic. If a CA is within range, you get a perfect result you can bookmark and warp to. Each result should list: - Difficulty of the CA - Number of Players inside the CA - Estimated Completion Percent - Estimated Time-out - Any Special Attributes (asteroids, one-shot, etc) Each of these should be explicitly and clearly displayed. No vague 'hard' or 'easy' rubbish. Content All NPC ships inside a CA should NOT be mission/deadspace types, but standard belt types. At a minimum, a CA could consist of a normal asteroid belt spawn. Multiple waves are possible, as is having a chance of a faction spawn at the end (and very very rarely an Officer). Deadspace/mission rats could be used, but the CA should ensure there is loot/bounty/reward at 'the end', either from an overseer spawn, officer spawn, or overseer structure. However, this starts to interfere with plexes and exploration sites in terms of loot options. Reward/Loot The primary wealth of a CA should be from bounties on rats, loot from rats, and salvage from rats, just like current 0.0 belt ratting. Deadspace Plex loot should not drop from CAs, faction items should drop but at the same rate as in normal belt ratting, and officers should be just as rare. As there is no agent behind the CA offering additional ISK, as well as LP, the value needs to be firmly kept in the NPCs, hence the emphasis on using normal belt rats. This thread is becoming a truly shocking example of agreement across both vested space holding alliances and those parties hoping to get a chance at taking a bite out of 0.0 for themselves. If anything, that combination should be significant enough. But what Mr. Goon has taken quite a bit of effort in putting together there, is quite possibly the most elegant and constructive approach of all to the Cosmic Anomaly breaking point in what sofar has a damn high chance of being "Dominion - Exodus, part deux"

Dred Tather Caldari	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:32:00 - [681] easiest way to make it more viable to hold sov is to drop all the bills to 2/3rds of their current state, thereforce reducing the current sov costs to approximatly a bit more than the current cost to hold sov.
Ga'len Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:33:00 - [682] Originally by: Bobby Atlas CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ****ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster f-u-c-k, well done CCP. CCP, you need listen to the players and alter your proposed changes. I agree with this post and apparently so does the EVE Blogging Community (http://www.google.com/reader/shared/user%2F03749674846786948488%2Flabel%2FSOV), read for their responses, additional articles will be added to this as they are published.
Valtis Thermalion Caldari Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:33:00 - [683] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:26:21 Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:25:03 You don't understand, that 0.0 is not ment to generate tons of ISK. 0.0 is there to kill people without security-hits and to show up on the map, fight against other alliances because you don't like their name etc, etc... I'm astonished that all the 1337-PvP players are the biggest carebears actually, who want to see 0.0 being made into empire-space... minimum risk + highest rewards. You think that the potencial risk in 0.0 should reward you with tons of rewards, but that was never intended by CCP. If you strive for personal wealth, then you should go play in Empire and do some production, trading and LvL 4 missions. 0.0 is a big battlefield and not a ISK-prinitng-machine... and this is intended by CCP, if you didn't notice allready. 0.0 is the place, where we can destroy all the ISK we make in empire! You know, for some of us 0.0 is about empire building. If I only wanted free-for-all pvp-only experience, I would play online fps games.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:36:00 - [684] Originally by: Hertford Cosmic Anomalies (CAs) require a number of changes and improvements if CCP wishes them to become the defacto 0.0 income stream. The Aims - At a base level, every 0.0 system can support 10 players (See: High Sec Missions) - With better systems, and system upgrades, more and more players can be supported. (See: High Sec Missions) - At no point should a player end up with nothing to do (See: High Sec Missions) - At no point should a player be better off running High Sec Missions. - Provide a mechanism that can seamlessly replace belt ratting - Keep PvP options open and available for CAs (this is 0.0 after all) How Many CAs? If a system is to keep 50 players busy (See: High Sec Missions), there needs to be enough CAs for 50 players (See: High Sec Missions). CAs need to respawn the moment they are completed or timed out, in the same system (See: High Sec Missions). A CA will time out after four hours after someone warps to it, or two hours after someone shoots a rat. Completion counts as killing all the rats, or if asteroids are present, by destroying a no-bounty no-loot marker/beacon/structure. By having a system along these lines, the system will not end up logjammed with no CAs, and people in system can continue running CAs (See: High Sec Missions) Rating/Level/Difficulty Every CA is rated from 1 to 10 or some other nomenclature that makes it abundantly clear what the difficulty of the CA is (See: High Sec Missions). A bottom level CA should cater for a newbie in a frigate. A top level CA should cater a team of veterans in BS/Logistics. A mid level CA should be aimed at a single battleship using full T2 gear. There should be no hard Level 5 CAs, nor easy Level 6 CAs (See: High Sec Missions). There is no reason why a newbie in a frigate should not be able to generate income in 0.0. In fact, this is probably the most important part. By allowing a newbie to enter a 0.0 alliance, they are immediately of value. Scanning When engaging the built-in ship scanner, results should be clear and automatic. If a CA is within range, you get a perfect result you can bookmark and warp to. Each result should list: - Difficulty of the CA - Number of Players inside the CA - Estimated Completion Percent - Estimated Time-out - Any Special Attributes (asteroids, one-shot, etc) Each of these should be explicitly and clearly displayed. No vague 'hard' or 'easy' rubbish. Content All NPC ships inside a CA should NOT be mission/deadspace types, but standard belt types. At a minimum, a CA could consist of a normal asteroid belt spawn. Multiple waves are possible, as is having a chance of a faction spawn at the end (and very very rarely an Officer). Deadspace/mission rats could be used, but the CA should ensure there is loot/bounty/reward at 'the end', either from an overseer spawn, officer spawn, or overseer structure. However, this starts to interfere with plexes and exploration sites in terms of loot options. Reward/Loot The primary wealth of a CA should be from bounties on rats, loot from rats, and salvage from rats, just like current 0.0 belt ratting. Deadspace Plex loot should not drop from CAs, faction items should drop but at the same rate as in normal belt ratting, and officers should be just as rare. As there is no agent behind the CA offering additional ISK, as well as LP, the value needs to be firmly kept in the NPCs, hence the emphasis on using normal belt rats. Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv

Summer Days	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:37:00 - [685] Originally by: Vivian Azure You don't need an economist to tell you how it works out. I've done all the calculations allready, and you need 10 people contributing 7-9 Million ISK per day to pay for the bill. Everything after that is net income. That's approx 2.7 billion! Is that just to maintain 1 system? If so my corp is dead; we're gonna have to move back to high sec.
Lord Wing Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:37:00 - [686] Edited by: Lord Wing on 07/11/2009 13:38:55 Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Hertford Cosmic Anomalies (CAs) require a number of changes and improvements if CCP wishes them to become the defacto 0.0 income stream. The Aims - At a base level, every 0.0 system can support 10 players (See: High Sec Missions) - With better systems, and system upgrades, more and more players can be supported. (See: High Sec Missions) - At no point should a player end up with nothing to do (See: High Sec Missions) - At no point should a player be better off running High Sec Missions. - Provide a mechanism that can seamlessly replace belt ratting - Keep PvP options open and available for CAs (this is 0.0 after all) How Many CAs? If a system is to keep 50 players busy (See: High Sec Missions), there needs to be enough CAs for 50 players (See: High Sec Missions). CAs need to respawn the moment they are completed or timed out, in the same system (See: High Sec Missions). A CA will time out after four hours after someone warps to it, or two hours after someone shoots a rat. Completion counts as killing all the rats, or if asteroids are present, by destroying a no-bounty no-loot marker/beacon/structure. By having a system along these lines, the system will not end up logjammed with no CAs, and people in system can continue running CAs (See: High Sec Missions) Rating/Level/Difficulty Every CA is rated from 1 to 10 or some other nomenclature that makes it abundantly clear what the difficulty of the CA is (See: High Sec Missions). A bottom level CA should cater for a newbie in a frigate. A top level CA should cater a team of veterans in BS/Logistics. A mid level CA should be aimed at a single battleship using full T2 gear. There should be no hard Level 5 CAs, nor easy Level 6 CAs (See: High Sec Missions). There is no reason why a newbie in a frigate should not be able to generate income in 0.0. In fact, this is probably the most important part. By allowing a newbie to enter a 0.0 alliance, they are immediately of value. Scanning When engaging the built-in ship scanner, results should be clear and automatic. If a CA is within range, you get a perfect result you can bookmark and warp to. Each result should list: - Difficulty of the CA - Number of Players inside the CA - Estimated Completion Percent - Estimated Time-out - Any Special Attributes (asteroids, one-shot, etc) Each of these should be explicitly and clearly displayed. No vague 'hard' or 'easy' rubbish. Content All NPC ships inside a CA should NOT be mission/deadspace types, but standard belt types. At a minimum, a CA could consist of a normal asteroid belt spawn. Multiple waves are possible, as is having a chance of a faction spawn at the end (and very very rarely an Officer). Deadspace/mission rats could be used, but the CA should ensure there is loot/bounty/reward at 'the end', either from an overseer spawn, officer spawn, or overseer structure. However, this starts to interfere with plexes and exploration sites in terms of loot options. Reward/Loot The primary wealth of a CA should be from bounties on rats, loot from rats, and salvage from rats, just like current 0.0 belt ratting. Deadspace Plex loot should not drop from CAs, faction items should drop but at the same rate as in normal belt ratting, and officers should be just as rare. As there is no agent behind the CA offering additional ISK, as well as LP, the value needs to be firmly kept in the NPCs, hence the emphasis on using normal belt rats. Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv no. Level 4's are created on a per-person bassis so it can support huge amounts, a static number, like 3, does not support huge numbers.
wild blades	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:38:00 - [687] oh ccp we lost faith in the gm a long time ago but we though the devs would hold true but i think u take a axe to the middle of your Icelandic boat. I wrote a long post of idea and then just del it as ya not going to read it and whatever ya bring but will be flawed as you seem to using old data to solve new problems (how that worked out in the past)
Ga'len Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:39:00 - [688] Originally by: Valtis Thermalion Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:26:21 Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:25:03 You don't understand, that 0.0 is not ment to generate tons of ISK. 0.0 is there to kill people without security-hits and to show up on the map, fight against other alliances because you don't like their name etc, etc... I'm astonished that all the 1337-PvP players are the biggest carebears actually, who want to see 0.0 being made into empire-space... minimum risk + highest rewards. You think that the potencial risk in 0.0 should reward you with tons of rewards, but that was never intended by CCP. If you strive for personal wealth, then you should go play in Empire and do some production, trading and LvL 4 missions. 0.0 is a big battlefield and not a ISK-prinitng-machine... and this is intended by CCP, if you didn't notice allready. 0.0 is the place, where we can destroy all the ISK we make in empire! You know, for some of us 0.0 is about empire building. If I only wanted free-for-all pvp-only experience, I would play online fps games. I think we now know why CCP is releasing Dust 514, to help you find just that mate.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:40:00 - [689] Originally by: Valtis Thermalion Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:26:21 Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 13:25:03 You don't understand, that 0.0 is not ment to generate tons of ISK. 0.0 is there to kill people without security-hits and to show up on the map, fight against other alliances because you don't like their name etc, etc... I'm astonished that all the 1337-PvP players are the biggest carebears actually, who want to see 0.0 being made into empire-space... minimum risk + highest rewards. You think that the potencial risk in 0.0 should reward you with tons of rewards, but that was never intended by CCP. If you strive for personal wealth, then you should go play in Empire and do some production, trading and LvL 4 missions. 0.0 is a big battlefield and not a ISK-prinitng-machine... and this is intended by CCP, if you didn't notice allready. 0.0 is the place, where we can destroy all the ISK we make in empire! You know, for some of us 0.0 is about empire building. If I only wanted free-for-all pvp-only experience, I would play online fps games. Building an empire is absolutely possible with the upcoming patch and the proposed numbers. You just need to have your members pay 7-9 million ISK a day, which is absolutely laughable amount of ISK. For a standard member, this is some 25% of tax... and sorry if your members are not able to generate 50 million ISK a day by ratting.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:41:00 - [690] Originally by: Virtuozzo This thread is becoming a truly shocking example of agreement across both vested space holding alliances and those parties hoping to get a chance at taking a bite out of 0.0 for themselves. If anything, that combination should be significant enough. Of course, the fatal assumption in this entire thread is that CCP will put the effort into understanding what has been posted. Quote: But what Mr. Goon has taken quite a bit of effort in putting together there, is quite possibly the most elegant and constructive approach of all to the Cosmic Anomaly breaking point in what sofar has a damn high chance of being "Dominion - Exodus, part deux" (I'm a pubbie, I never paid the :10bux:) Thank you, at least I know I'm hitting in the right direction. I actually posted the first draft of this idea on goon fleet dot com over a year ago. Of course, that's a terrible forum no-one should suffer having to read, so in hindsight maybe I should have crossposted it to the highly regarded eve online forums.

Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:41:00 - [691] Looking at the actual Blog are we sure they didn't just make a mistake in that table. If say it was supposed to be Per an Upkeep Period rather than Per a Day it would be reasonable. Roughly costing an alliance less than 100m a month instead of over 2 billion per a system. Anyway this is all still a problem for me. I was expecting this system to increase individual income for players in 0.0 allowing them to risk more in pvp, which would then increase pvp. Instead there is still no or little incentive to go to war with another alliance. There is also little incentive for people to move from high sec to null sec. 0.0 space is supposed to be the end game. High sec is supposed to be where new players get experience at playing the game with lower rewards and less risk. With this update 0.0 space is just an amusing diversion for the game rather than a vital part of the game. There are a ton of things that CCP could have done to make the game better. Instead they waste an update on this.
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:44:00 - [692] Originally by: CCP Soundwave ...stuff... Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv So, this is how CCP is really viewing the thread? We are all just angry theorycrafting? I assume so since you are a dev member and probably sitting in an office surrounded by peers that you can easily seek input from on these remarkably insightful posts you are making to counter the many valid arguments in this thread by some very intelligent individuals.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:45:00 - [693] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv Think economics of scale. The NPC route is far more stable and far easier to track and if necessary correct trends without headaches. Also, forgive me for saying this, but "static lists" takes me back of the nightmares of static plexes over the years breaking down, being subject to exploitation, nightmares of getting broken ones tweaked, months and months of getting bugged ones fixed, all across eve with its shocking amount of types and forms and implementation versions. I hope you do not misunderstand this, but it does not exactly give much confidence for reliability. Still, you're missing the sweetspots which attract the general populace, like effort and identification elements, which have their own high profile role in the holy level 4 mission grail soap opera which has arisen after years of letting that nurture itself since Exodus. Things should never be easy, but things should always be placed into perspective of what you are competing against. Want to revert Exodus? Take a good look at what caused Exodus, not just the easy superficial elements.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:47:00 - [694] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv So basically, you did read my original posts on this exact topic from over a year ago, and completely missed the point of supporting more than three players in a given 0.0 system? If a system has three anomalies in it at all times, that'll keep three people occupied. Not fifty. Where I come from, that's called basic arithmetic. When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you the difficulty rating? When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you if someone else is already in it? When you scan for an anomaly, will you automatically get a result you can bookmark remotely? And when you actually run the anomaly, would the lack of normal valuable belt rats result in you having been better off in Motsu?

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:48:00 - [695] Originally by: Bobby Atlas Originally by: CCP Soundwave ...stuff... Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv So, this is how CCP is really viewing the thread? We are all just angry theorycrafting? I assume so since you are a dev member and probably sitting in an office surrounded by peers that you can easily seek input from on these remarkably insightful posts you are making to counter the many valid arguments in this thread by some very intelligent individuals. Not everyone, but some people certainly are. There is very valuable feedback in here too, especially regarding system upkeep and so on (which is why I'm going to continue to read it).

Valtis Thermalion Caldari Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:49:00 - [696] Edited by: Valtis Thermalion on 07/11/2009 13:49:59 Originally by: Vivian Azure Building an empire is absolutely possible with the upcoming patch and the proposed numbers. You just need to have your members pay 7-9 million ISK a day, which is absolutely laughable amount of ISK. For a standard member, this is some 25% of tax... and sorry if your members are not able to generate 50 million ISK a day by ratting. But why should we go through the effort of gathering 30 billion isk per month (roughly the cost of sov in providence after dominion) and building space empires if the rewards are income comparable to lvl 4 missions and a name on the upper left corner?

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:51:00 - [697] Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 07/11/2009 13:51:06 Originally by: Hertford Originally by: CCP Soundwave Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv So basically, you did read my original posts on this exact topic from over a year ago, and completely missed the point of supporting more than three players in a given 0.0 system? If a system has three anomalies in it at all times, that'll keep three people occupied. Not fifty. Where I come from, that's called basic arithmetic. When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you the difficulty rating? When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you if someone else is already in it? When you scan for an anomaly, will you automatically get a result you can bookmark remotely? And when you actually run the anomaly, would the lack of normal valuable belt rats result in you having been better off in Motsu? When we have 10 anomalies, that will be enough for 10 people. I wrote this earlier in the thread too. When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). You will not be told if anyone is in it, that is not something I would prefer to see implemented. When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu.

Tyrael Primus Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:51:00 - [698] I know its been said before but I don't think Providence can support these strategic upgrade fees even in just our station systems.
Lord Wing Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:53:00 - [699] Originally by: CCP Soundwave When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. 100days and we are at Motsu level guys !
Morphisat Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:53:00 - [700] Originally by: CCP Soundwave When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. Then I get back to my question earlier: Why go through all this trouble if I could just stay in Motsu (of all places) ?

Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:54:00 - [701] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Hertford Lots of stuff. Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv The problem is that you haven't said you were doing any of that. You haven't said that CA's are going to respawn immediatly rather than every downtime. You haven't said you are making scanning descriptions more clear. And you haven't said that the reward is going to come from bounties and loot instead of hoping for a really good drop from the last boss as is currently the case (which can't be controlled by the alliance). You guys should have released more data on the upgrades first instead of what those upgrades are going to cost us. Every salesperson knows this, you don't start your pitch by telling us how much something is going to cost, you start it by telling us what great things we are going to get. So far everything we have seen is that you are giving us a huge cost and a benefit that is practically worthless. I would suggest that you guys immediatly go and find the guy in charge of the new upgrades and have him start writing a blog right now to tell us what exactly we are getting in those upgrades. And explain if you are changing how anomalies work and what those changes are exactly. So far all we have heard is that you are making more anomalies which most people agree aren't worth a lot as they currently are. Especially since alliances can't control those anomalies and make money from them unless the people running them are willing to give the proceeds to the alliance.
La Asesina	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:54:00 - [702] I Can't say more then that this is ****ing me off, no more fleet fights, not much roaming mabey, mabey not that is yet to be seen. But i can Promise you that many Poeple will try this new patch as you call it, but give it 1 month and players will STOP playing. With this Patch you are killing PVP, and last time i heard it is ment to be a PVP game not Carebear... IF you CCP saw the program ''Virutual Perfection'' they said that EVE was the ONLY game wheree hte Players Actully decide what to do (mostly) now u take that from them.
Zhentor	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:55:00 - [703] Originally by: Tyrael Primus I know its been said before but I don't think Providence can support these strategic upgrade fees even in just our station systems. I don't think any alliance can cover these fee's as it stands. Each station system is roughly 2 billion isk per month, and that's before you add in any extra systems to actually upgrade. Your choices end up being rat/mine in station systems or don't bother with the whole thing. Thank god for Dragons Age.
Valtis Thermalion Caldari Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:56:00 - [704] Originally by: CCP Soundwave When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. This is the key problem with the upgrades; 0.0 is far more dangerous place than Motsu, so why are the rewards similar? When you add in the fact that maintaining this system costs billion(s) per month, allows only handful of people to use them (vs. agents where there are no such limitations) and that you need to grind poor rats (sub-lvl 4 income) to even have the activity level to upgrade to highest tier, the equation is severely broken. Given the choice between this and hi sec lvl 4 missions, people will pick hi sec lvl 4 missions.
Kerdrak Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:56:00 - [705] I expect to find officers/faction spawns in those anomalies too. The chance of finding this rare spawns is what make belts still more attractive. I think CCP should make a full rebalance of "moongold" (the true alliance fuel) if we are going to pay this prohibitive prices for keeping sov... Some regions that are far from empire will need a lot of infrastructure to hold (remember we still need to buy stuff like robotics in empire) ________________________________________
Twisted Mechanic	Posted - 2009.11.07 13:57:00 - [706] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hi About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? They were not put in as "OH GOD I STRUCK GOLD" sites. You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, which is what the anomalies do. The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation. Its still **ing ****ed I will have to scan down what I am PAYING FOR!!!! Can I just goto this hub and it tells me where they are? that might be ok. for the upgrade part the 20mil a day for the teritorial upgrade unit" it dumb thou. I will man mine with amarr slaves and pay them crap.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:01:00 - [707] Originally by: Zahorite Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Hertford Lots of stuff. Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv The problem is that you haven't said you were doing any of that. You haven't said that CA's are going to respawn immediatly rather than every downtime. You haven't said you are making scanning descriptions more clear. And you haven't said that the reward is going to come from bounties and loot instead of hoping for a really good drop from the last boss as is currently the case (which can't be controlled by the alliance). You guys should have released more data on the upgrades first instead of what those upgrades are going to cost us. Every salesperson knows this, you don't start your pitch by telling us how much something is going to cost, you start it by telling us what great things we are going to get. So far everything we have seen is that you are giving us a huge cost and a benefit that is practically worthless. I would suggest that you guys immediatly go and find the guy in charge of the new upgrades and have him start writing a blog right now to tell us what exactly we are getting in those upgrades. And explain if you are changing how anomalies work and what those changes are exactly. So far all we have heard is that you are making more anomalies which most people agree aren't worth a lot as they currently are. Especially since alliances can't control those anomalies and make money from them unless the people running them are willing to give the proceeds to the alliance. No, we've said all that, it's just a question of reading this thread. Your first point I adressed personally, in my very first post in this thread: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=18#539 Seriously.

tx eight Minmatar Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:01:00 - [708] Originally by: Twisted Mechanic Its still **ing ****ed I will have to scan down what I am PAYING FOR!!!! Can I just goto this hub and it tells me where they are? that might be ok. for the upgrade part the 20mil a day for the teritorial upgrade unit" it dumb thou. I will man mine with amarr slaves and pay them crap. Calm down, man. Onboard scanner is 30 sec which is about the same time you'll spend warping to the hub.
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:01:00 - [709] Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Virtuozzo This thread is becoming a truly shocking example of agreement across both vested space holding alliances and those parties hoping to get a chance at taking a bite out of 0.0 for themselves. If anything, that combination should be significant enough. Of course, the fatal assumption in this entire thread is that CCP will put the effort into understanding what has been posted. It is not so much a case of effort, but a case of will and ability. This is not meant as an offense in any way or form. But there is a fixed timetable, limited resources, and the majority of attention takes place on a detail level, as opposed to a unifying vision statement where the big picture is checked against practicalities. Perhaps this signifies that Dominion 1.1 to 1.6 will be quite substantial patches, but there too timetables apply, and traditionally there are limits to what is adjusted or introduced before shifting to the next major set of goals for the next Expansion. However, I am getting the impression that there is a divide between concepts on paper and realities or practicalities. At this point it is probably worth CCP's while to not write off concerns as "meh angry theorycrafting" and engage in some point to point practical analysis. Another thing I think deserves mention, is the shocking amount of restraint excercised by people posting in this thread sofar. Traditionally things explode with whining and screaming and quoting a la CAOD. Instead, I am seeing an abundance of to the point voicing of concerns, constructive suggestions, clear expressions of worries, and point by point addressing of people by people on topics and subtopics. It really is shockingly significant when the very subscriber niches who typically explode like little kids when they do not like something, restrain themselves visibly, and actually sit down to get down to the heart of matters. It is quite visible that aside of a minority of posts, the discussion has gone way beyond polarised interest specific reservations, but instead has become about solid concerns for the 0.0 aspects of the game. Regardless of playstyle, niche of choice, method or doctrine, vested or aspiring pilot or group. If CCP manages to ignore this rather incredibly unique occurance, that is equally significant.
Sophie Daigneau CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:02:00 - [710] Originally by: CCP Soundwave When we have 10 anomalies, that will be enough for 10 people. I wrote this earlier in the thread too. When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). You will not be told if anyone is in it, that is not something I would prefer to see implemented. When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. I would agree that scanners should not show how many players are in an anomaly as well. However, think about the 10th person looking to rat in a system. With 10 anomalies spawns, and 9 other people in them already, he'll have a 1/10 chance of finding an empty site. After a few sites, he's going to start to get disappointed and just go back to empire and run level 4's.

Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:02:00 - [711] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 14:03:04 Originally by: Valtis Thermalion Originally by: CCP Soundwave When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. This is the key problem with the upgrades; 0.0 is far more dangerous place than Motsu, so why are the rewards similar? When you add in the fact that maintaining this system costs billion(s) per month, allows only handful of people to use them (vs. agents where there are no such limitations) and that you need to grind poor rats (sub-lvl 4 income) to even have the activity level to upgrade to highest tier, the equation is severely broken. Given the choice between this and hi sec lvl 4 missions, people will pick hi sec lvl 4 missions. The difference is, that you get the possibility to make the same amount of ISK like in Empire, but your name will show up on the map. That's what 0.0 is all about. If you are just after the ISK, then stay in empire.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:02:00 - [712] Edited by: Hertford on 07/11/2009 14:03:38 Originally by: CCP Soundwave When we have 10 anomalies, that will be enough for 10 people. I wrote this earlier in the thread too. I do hope you realise that 10 anomalies should be the baseline amount for an un-upgraded system. If for some reason the highest level of infrastructure upgrade results in 10 anomalies, then yes, we "should have gone to Motsu". Quote: When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). So newbies in caracals will effectively be locked out of running anomalies in an upgraded system? So really, they "should have gone to Motsu" or nearby to work on NPC corp standings so they can access L4 highsec missions. Quote: You will not be told if anyone is in it, that is not something I would prefer to see implemented. So a PvE'er would have to either use the scanner or warp to the anomaly to find out if they can run it, and a PvP'er would have to do the same to actually find a target. This is 0.0, there's meant to be risk. Without this, 'ratters' are even safer. I fail to see any downside at all to listing number of the players present in an anomaly scan result. Quote: When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. So really, after obtaining all the sovereignty and infrastructure installations, waiting however long for the appropriate Sov level to kick in, paying all the bills and defending the space, you "should have gone to Motsu". (With apologies to SpecSavers)
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:03:00 - [713] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Zahorite Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Hertford Lots of stuff. Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv The problem is that you haven't said you were doing any of that. You haven't said that CA's are going to respawn immediatly rather than every downtime. You haven't said you are making scanning descriptions more clear. And you haven't said that the reward is going to come from bounties and loot instead of hoping for a really good drop from the last boss as is currently the case (which can't be controlled by the alliance). You guys should have released more data on the upgrades first instead of what those upgrades are going to cost us. Every salesperson knows this, you don't start your pitch by telling us how much something is going to cost, you start it by telling us what great things we are going to get. So far everything we have seen is that you are giving us a huge cost and a benefit that is practically worthless. I would suggest that you guys immediatly go and find the guy in charge of the new upgrades and have him start writing a blog right now to tell us what exactly we are getting in those upgrades. And explain if you are changing how anomalies work and what those changes are exactly. So far all we have heard is that you are making more anomalies which most people agree aren't worth a lot as they currently are. Especially since alliances can't control those anomalies and make money from them unless the people running them are willing to give the proceeds to the alliance. No, we've said all that, it's just a question of reading this thread. Your first point I adressed personally, in my very first post in this thread: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=18#539 Seriously. I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with what is getting posted here, let alone going back and reading over 20 pages of other posts. I don't think anyone is actually going to be reading everything posted here. Maybe someone can say consolidate everything you've explained. Another dev blog soon on how the upgrades work would be a great start.
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:03:00 - [714] Originally by: CCP Soundwave ......... Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? I hardly know where to start this time... MUST we explain 0.0 to you, devs, AGAIN? First, "cute" crap like this above should not come out of a CCP's mouth. Are you referring to the non-evenly distributed moon-mining, the nerfed moon-mining, that barely pays for the POSes unless it's done on a few rare moons? Are you implying that to survive an alliance should expand to cover as many moons as possible in order to make the bills for a constellation? That would sound... alot like it is NOW! Aha, so much for "draw new alliances out to 0.0. But, no fear! Said alliance can just put their slav... er, members to work in the anomaly mines, until that is a cloaker or small gang goes to camp the system, stopping all work and destroying 100s of millions in PVE equipment needed to--literally--keep the alliance alive. You DO realize that 0.0 comes with risk, right? Even L4 income will not, itself, pay for that risk BECAUSE YOU LOSE SHIPS. You DO realize that the economic model you are promoting here is the UAxDEATH afk-slumlord empire, in which systems are "sold" to macro-ratters for about 1.3 bil per average secstatus/beltcount. NON-improved systems. With ratters who are responsible for safe-ing up themselves automatically. I am literally staggered speachless by the fail that is coming on this one. You are slapping every spaceholding entity with huge fines right off the bat, despite initial development levels--raising hurdles for entry. You are doing nothing to change the imbalances of truesec, moon distributions, and etc. You fail to understand the role of POSes in 0.0 infrastructure, and instead are slapping a massive tax on the privilege of showing on the sov map. Guess what: all you will accomplish is to make the game harder for smaller entities and drive away pilots who actually want to fight and create the politics and drama you claim to love. If you were serious, you would, in fact, be: * revising truesecs across the board, to make alliances dependent on their infrastructure, rather than it just being a bonus. * scaling system costs non-linearly (ie. with lower costs) * redoing anomalies to use belt-rats rather than mission rats * enabling upgrades to belt rat spawn rates and effective truesec * revising grav sites to use W-space sites rather than laughable existing sites (contrary to other posters, I do think grav sites are valuable... ask ED or IRC how they made money in Dronelands) ..... OK, let me tear myself away from staring at this flaming Hindenburg of the patch I once loved, to ask a few "constructive" informational question: If the "strategic level" of systems are going to transfer over (which I assume they will since that's what current sov represents), then will you also transfer over other developmental indexes--such as "military"--as you currently track and display things like "NPC ships destroyed in last 24 hours"? Or, do all presently occupied space start at zero for these two new indexes? Are salvaging sites included in your profession sites? You list hacking and archaeology, but not salvaging. ..... I am appalled, CCP. --Krum --Krum
Killljoy	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:05:00 - [715] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: DaiTengu Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Some words to ponder, from someone in your industry: We've learned a thing or two with our experiences with the NGE and don't plan on repeating mistakes from the past and not listening to the players. —John Smedley, president of Sony Online Entertainment What these changes tell me as a paying customer for nearly four years running and 0.0 resident is that you no longer wish for me, my alliance mates, my allies, or even my enemies to ever bother you ever again with our problems by making conquerable 0.0 so tedious and unrewarding to own or fight over that we pettily squabble over the limited tracts of NPC 0.0 until our eyes bleed from boredom. This is not the "grand sandbox" you've pitched not only to us but the world as well to lift EVE up from the dregs of WoW clones. I see in these changes, and feel free to chuckle at this given my corporation, an attack on how I and both friend and foe alike conduct ourselves in this game, and a not-so-veiled punishment for all the "trouble" we've caused you and workload we've made you do to improve our game experience. Us, the vocal minority who choose not to stay in Empire and play WoW With Spaceships for our chosen kill-mission company or agency. Yes, we are the minority in your game. But we also are the people who make the stories and headlines that keep EVE relevant. I simply ask that you don't forget that. You have a unique opportunity available to you when you return, not that I doubt you're going to ever see my message here on the 17th or 18th page, to prevent EVE from being SWG Part Deux, where you saw the consequences-to-be and held back, instead of surged forward thinking it would bring you new blood to wash away the whining and tiresome masses of old. Your call, CCP. When I read this devblog, Sony's NGE is the first thing that sprang to my mind as well. It's not that we abhor change, it's that we abhor terrible changes. These are terrible changes. There's no way one system is going to support more than 10-15 people, and there's no way it's going to be cost effective. The devs say they love their epic space battles, but no one is going to want to fight over 0.0 space, and it's going to cause people to quit playing eve en-masse. I'm excited over the changes to supercapitals, but the sov changes are going to mean that we're not going to get to use them. I hung on to SWG for quite awhile after the NGE, but I, too, eventually quit as I saw the game I loved fall apart, and all my friends quit playing. If this goes through you're going to lose quite a few subscribers, and you're going to get a ton of bad press. Go back to the drawing board with this, even if you have to delay the expansion a month or more. Do it right, or don't do it at all. I completely agree that systems will be able to sustain about 10, possibly 15 people active at one time (which to be fair is a pretty massive increase from what we can do now). It's not the perfect solution, but it gives us a pretty solid base to work from. In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. How about we not "revisit it" and fix it now read the post its not right as is!!! Listen to your players morons
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:09:00 - [716] Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 07/11/2009 14:09:51 itt CCP manages to mirror the Serenity situation by turning all of 0.0 into a single homogeneous group of mutually agreeing alliances. Seriously though, Stoffer, as long as you're reading this thread, please answer the following poll: "Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. [ ] Yes [ ] No CHECK ONE" Serious question, no troll zone.
Verlai GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:09:00 - [717] Edited by: Verlai on 07/11/2009 14:14:44 So if you can't tell whether or not someone is active in an anomaly, you'll be spending plenty of time simply warping from one anomaly to the next until you hit one that someone else hasn't started using yet as soon as more than a handful of people try to utilize a system. Sounds like fun. I'd be thrilled if the system generated a new cosmic anomaly whenever the player desired it, in order to ensure that less time is spent looking for fun than is spent having it. And speaking of missions, if only the high tier anomalies are worth as much as level four missions, what sort of income are the mid and low tier ones comparable to? Hopefully not level three and two missions, respectively. Actually, that's fine for newer players if the anomalies are clearly marked as such and do not take the place of high tier anomalies, forcing older players to clear them in the hopes of spawning better anomalies. Grooming belts is fun and all, but I don't want to have to groom anomalies.
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:10:00 - [718] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv You will find our "angry theorycrafting" exceeds that done by CCP on a regular basis. A brief historical review of the boards supports this. And again, "top tier" is NOT where your fabled new-entrants start. You will NOT have entities risking Titan-level investments in new space before they can break even. Also: I love how the previous dev posts of 50-150 pilots per system has become 10-15. Nice one. --Krum --Krum
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:11:00 - [719] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Seriously though, Stoffer, as long as you're reading this thread, please answer the following poll: "Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. [ ] Yes [ ] No CHECK ONE" checkbox poll, you know what to do!
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:13:00 - [720] Those infrastructure hub upgrades are... unimpressive. Seriously, that's kind of disappointing. The industrial upgrades are weak. Hidden belts are almost useless in the game. Why can't they make it something like increasing the return on ore refines, going to 110% and up? Or decreasing build costs? Or reducing build times, or blueprint copy times? Or increasing the success rate of invention? And for military...? That crap has nothing to do with an alliance's/corp's military infrastructure! Why not have something USEFUL, like "all ships belonging to the sovereign alliance within this system receive 10% additional shield HP per sovereign level?" Or increasing the amount of armor repaired? Or the speed/agility of your ships? Or the sensor strength, making your ships difficult to jam? Obviously, it would only apply to your ships if they are inside their system with that upgrade: it makes your system far more defensible! Maybe some bonuses could extend a certain range outside of your own system, such as speed/agility, but still.... The sovereignty ones are a little more understandable, but still feels kind of weak...

Vyktor Abyss Gallente The Abyss Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:14:00 - [721] Soundwave mate, You're suggesting 0.0 players grind much, much, more than currently just for "Sovreignty" of much, much, less space. This is very different to "enabling more emergent gameply in 0.0" as previously advertised and is what many folks are angry about. You do also realise that with the proposed changes you've made equivalent low-sec moons more valuable than 0.0 ones? - All hail our new Low Sec Alliance Overlords!
Speed Freek	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:14:00 - [722] Ok, I now like the Anomalies for Ratters. At the moment what is the number of rats that need to be killed to get to each of the 5 Levels? (Will all kills count or only BS? Or will it be isk based?) Given that most systems only support 1 ratter the critial number will be the first level. Once thats is completed then dedicated teams of ratters can work the system up in level over time. It would also be nice to have a comment from the Devs on the mining side. I will leave the Alliance numbers to those that run Alliances Speed Freek

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:15:00 - [723] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 07/11/2009 14:09:51 itt CCP manages to mirror the Serenity situation by turning all of 0.0 into a single homogeneous group of mutually agreeing alliances. Seriously though, Stoffer, as long as you're reading this thread, please answer the following poll: "Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. [ ] Yes [ ] No CHECK ONE" Serious question, no troll zone. Not checkbox, not voting.

Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:15:00 - [724] Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 07/11/2009 14:16:44 Dude it says "Check" right there of course it's a checkbox poll. Though I'm sure you can't actually answer it honestly for fear of alienating some part of your playerbase no matter what you'd like to choose.
Siigari Kitawa Gallente The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:16:00 - [725] lol www.siigarikitawa.com ò www.eohpoker.com ò Buy a GTC
trueblue1872 Gallente DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:16:00 - [726] Well how can i put this? This is fucking shite. That good enough?
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:16:00 - [727] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 07/11/2009 13:51:06 Originally by: Hertford Originally by: CCP Soundwave Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv So basically, you did read my original posts on this exact topic from over a year ago, and completely missed the point of supporting more than three players in a given 0.0 system? If a system has three anomalies in it at all times, that'll keep three people occupied. Not fifty. Where I come from, that's called basic arithmetic. When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you the difficulty rating? When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you if someone else is already in it? When you scan for an anomaly, will you automatically get a result you can bookmark remotely? And when you actually run the anomaly, would the lack of normal valuable belt rats result in you having been better off in Motsu? When we have 10 anomalies, that will be enough for 10 people. I wrote this earlier in the thread too. When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). You will not be told if anyone is in it, that is not something I would prefer to see implemented. When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. L4 mission can handle (essentially) infinite players, are more individually secure, and provide more effective profit (even with the 10% NPC tax in Dom) due to not having to pay money to maintain the various system upgrades, defence ops, random gankings, etc etc. So...if 0.0 is, at best, on par with L4s and will almost certainly be worse (to a greater or lesser extent) - why bother with 0.0? No, really. What's the point of 0.0 post-Dom if CCPs design paradigm is "Once it's fully upgraded it might be as good as running L4s for ten people per system. Maybe"?
tx eight Minmatar Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:17:00 - [728] Originally by: Verlai So if you can't tell whether or not someone is active in an anomaly, you'll be spending plenty of time simply warping from one anomaly to the next until you hit one that someone else hasn't started using yet as soon as more than a handful of people try to utilize a system. Sounds like fun. How is this different from splitting the belts among ratters that is the case right now? Originally by: Verlai I'd be thrilled if the system generated a new cosmic anomaly whenever the player desired it, in order to ensure that less time is spent looking for fun than is spent having it. Fun? Anomalies are for isk, pew is for fun. Besides, if you have 15 people each doing his own thing in a system, and stepping on each other toes, it's called communication breakdown.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:17:00 - [729] Originally by: Speed Freek Ok, I now like the Anomalies for Ratters. At the moment what is the number of rats that need to be killed to get to each of the 5 Levels? (Will all kills count or only BS? Or will it be isk based?) Given that most systems only support 1 ratter the critial number will be the first level. Once thats is completed then dedicated teams of ratters can work the system up in level over time. It would also be nice to have a comment from the Devs on the mining side. I will leave the Alliance numbers to those that run Alliances Speed Freek I'd prefer to not give the specifics of the points index, but any NPC in the system counts towards it, so frigates on the gates, NPCs in profession sites etc count. The mining stuff I'll have to leave to the responsible devs.

Kushmir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:18:00 - [730] So what do we fight over now?

Killljoy	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:19:00 - [731] Quote: Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? So moon mining shouldn't accually make allainces isk it should just pay for SOV is what your saying.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:19:00 - [732] Originally by: Kushmir So what do we fight over now? The Motsu undocks
Morphisat Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:20:00 - [733] Originally by: Kushmir So what do we fight over now? Over who gets to pay the 2bil bill :).
L'Artest	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:20:00 - [734] Edited by: L''Artest on 07/11/2009 14:20:33 Originally by: CCP Soundwave When we have 10 anomalies, that will be enough for 10 people. I wrote this earlier in the thread too. When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). You will not be told if anyone is in it, that is not something I would prefer to see implemented. When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. I love you man but that's really disapointing. Paying isk to make money on par with level 4 missions? That's not being on par at all.
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:22:00 - [735] Edited by: Kerfira on 07/11/2009 14:23:58 I think this is actually a great step in the right direction The structure of the system suggests that it is intended that the corp/alliances holding sov will be entities that're ACTUALLY working together for their common good, not just people who blob together for personal benefit. The comments from most of the big blobber alliances confirms this (particularly the GS posts)! Most of them seems to be from the "Me! Me! MEEEEE!!!!" people who think only of their own profit! This system will be feasible for close-knit corp/alliances, but for the big blobbers without that core closeness and willingness to work for the common good, it'll be much different. Without the crutch of moon-gold, it'll be much harder to keep the big alliances together when people actually have to contribute! Most of the upgrades, particularly the DED complex one, should make it fairly easy for a close-knit alliance/corp to claim a few systems to call home. It'll of cause require that the members are willing to give up a good percentage of their earnings to do so, and share in the non-taxable profits from DED's, but again, that rewards REAL teamwork, not just the "lets blob together for protection while we all do our own thing" 'teamwork'! The upgrade system is probably pre-nerfed until some real data on how many people a system can support is gained. I wouldn't be surprised if the benefits of upgrades gets increased later. My guess is also that the upkeep system is pre-nerfed, with prices maybe set a bit high. This may also have been done to drain away some of the huge amounts of ISK alliances has gathered from moon mining over the last year or more. It is entirely possible that CCP deliberately set the price high to force the existing large alliances to pay out from that huge stash of cash for their space, or maybe even crack under the pressure as the contributers turn against the leeches (something which would be a very good thing for the game). Not sure of this though since the amount of money is still fairly easy to get when you talk 50+ people working together.... A few things that could also contribute would have been: 1. Make costs more incremental with development 2. Until you can upgrade to level 1, you shouldn't have to pay for upkeep 3. Only own corp activities count towards development 4. Increasing upkeep the more systems an alliance/corp claims 5. Moon mining requires sov, BUT moons can also be mined by ships without sov! 6. Same alliance/corp can only claim adjecent systems 7. True-sec being non-static, changing over time 8. Agents in outposts 9. Resources used in 0.0 should be produced there! Nerf empire-to-0.0 logistics! (number 3 & 4 will be dependent on each other since otherwise we'd see plenty of alt alliances) Anyway, it looks promising! As with any completely new system, it'll need adjustments on the way, but so far it looks like it'll be a decent replacement for the COMPLETELY broken system current sov warfare is, with the potential of becoming a very good replacement with adjustments and additions! Originally by: Nahia Senne Once upon a time, there was no moon goo and alliances got by just fine. Nothing has changed, people just love to whine about anything and everything. ^ This! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Verlai GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:22:00 - [736] Edited by: Verlai on 07/11/2009 14:25:31 Originally by: tx eight How is this different from splitting the belts among ratters that is the case right now? That's my point, if the system was supposed to improve this sort of thing, it doesn't seem designed to do so that effectively. Originally by: tx eight Fun? Anomalies are for isk, pew is for fun. Besides, if you have 15 people each doing his own thing in a system, and stepping on each other toes, it's called communication breakdown. If I'm going to have to go through the hassle of organizing 15 people to ensure we all get comparable income to level four missions, why not just run level four missions without having to worry about organizational problems?
Angelus Custos Amarr Electronics	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:24:00 - [737] Originally by: CCP Soundwave When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. I like most of what you try to do with this, but this sentence really makes no sense. From a player perspective there is absolutely no incentive NOT to run those lvl 4s in Motsu if this is true. 0.0 brings roaming gangs, afk cloakers in local, inconvenient logistics and a limited market compared to a few jumps from Jita, and 0, Zero, zip, nada benefit? If you factor in downtime from when you need to stop carebearing due to external threats, the occasional gank and the extra logistics, it's a straight loss to go to 0.0. So you end up with all carebears in empire just as now, and PvPers in 0.0 still roaming empty space looking for other starving PvPers. Instead of PvPers fighting defending their own and killing the other sides hoards of juicy fat carebears assembling to graze on the fat land of 0.0? Notice I talk about the player here, not the alliance. Alliances will still claim empty space if moons and whatnot makes it worth it, but no-one will populate those systems unless they themselves benefits from it, and with rewards on par with Motsu they don't. EvE players love to do the maths, some poorly some with great skill. Unlesss the math undisputedly say you make more ISK/hour in 0.0 compared to Motsu in the long run, counting getting ganked now and then and all other quirks of 0.0, then this will fail just like all other attempts to populate 0.0. And unless alliances share their moon mining profits with the little rental guy (aka when it snows in hel) those just don't count in this equation. And I just don't see this equation holding up. Motsu in own corp with 0% tax >>>>>> Motsu - hide from gank blob - landlord tax - loss of occasional ship - effort of 0.0 Turn that equation, or nothing will happen on a fundamental level.
Killljoy	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:24:00 - [738] Will annomly now have a chance to drop faction loot? Cause thats alot of what ratting is about.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:24:00 - [739] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 14:25:31 Originally by: Itzena Originally by: CCP Soundwave Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 07/11/2009 13:51:06 Originally by: Hertford Originally by: CCP Soundwave Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv So basically, you did read my original posts on this exact topic from over a year ago, and completely missed the point of supporting more than three players in a given 0.0 system? If a system has three anomalies in it at all times, that'll keep three people occupied. Not fifty. Where I come from, that's called basic arithmetic. When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you the difficulty rating? When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you if someone else is already in it? When you scan for an anomaly, will you automatically get a result you can bookmark remotely? And when you actually run the anomaly, would the lack of normal valuable belt rats result in you having been better off in Motsu? When we have 10 anomalies, that will be enough for 10 people. I wrote this earlier in the thread too. When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). You will not be told if anyone is in it, that is not something I would prefer to see implemented. When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. L4 mission can handle (essentially) infinite players, are more individually secure, and provide more effective profit (even with the 10% NPC tax in Dom) due to not having to pay money to maintain the various system upgrades, defence ops, random gankings, etc etc. So...if 0.0 is, at best, on par with L4s and will almost certainly be worse (to a greater or lesser extent) - why bother with 0.0? No, really. What's the point of 0.0 post-Dom if CCPs design paradigm is "Once it's fully upgraded it might be as good as running L4s for ten people per system. Maybe"? Seriously... if CCP would've wanted 0.0 to be more profitable then LvL 4's in empire, they would've allready done so in the past 4 years by simply giving the rats two or three times the bounty of the ships in missions. Guess what... they didn't because they don't want 0.0 to be superior to empire in terms of ISK. 0.0 is there for you to claim space and fight against other likeminded people etc. 0.0 is there to have a space that can be marked as your space, which you can call "home" then. Originally by: Killljoy Quote: Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? So moon mining shouldn't accually make allainces isk it should just pay for SOV is what your saying. I see, we have a winner.
Kraken Kill Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:25:00 - [740] Why do FLAGs have any Fee at all? Remove this Fee COMPLETELY. whatever for the upgrades, It shouldnt cost ELEVENTY BILLION to claim a system. Ok MR 0.0 can hope to be as good as motsu someday- 10 people per system max with MAXED out upgrades. k savvy. 2b a month? wait wut. so atlas has about 2500 members. say we can get 400 on at a time. we need to have 40 systems fully upgraded to support these guys. at 2b a month. so we need to splash out 80 billion a month on 40 systems. Moon minerals are supposed to pay for this? Its **** math but all the same why are 0.0 alliances being punished for being successful and claiming areas using sov? why does it cost something? Im sure- EVERYONE** Would rather manage towers to claim sov and have it be left EXACTLY as it is than this alternative. Just Turn off Sov 4 and only have it going to 3 and we are all set. I dont want to upgrade a system, no one does. its too expensive, id rather just probe around or find a quiet system to myself to rat then have to meet CCP imposed Quotas on ratting and mining. If we live in Omist which is 4 Cyno Jumps from empire you are saying its more cost effective to get a new account paid with a GTC (60 days @ 550m) and train up 3 cyno alts on it stick them at 3 of the jump routes. Works out to hm, 90m a month for the Cyno Alt? somewhat cheaper than sticking up a cyno gen now. This is how rediculous the system is that you have. Remove the 20m a day (WTF) fee from the TCU/FLAGs COMPLETELY. Whats it for? Its just an Isk Sink restricting ANYONE who holds space to want to take anymore space.

Vyktor Abyss Gallente The Abyss Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:27:00 - [741] One other serious concern - What about the Drone Regions? No NPC bounty or direct income.... Paying billions just for Sovreignty? I doubt it.
Klebitz	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:28:00 - [742] as i see it any alliance that has to pay anything for sov is screw'd. at least corporations have bounty taxes, alliances have nothing to support them. in the end 0.0 will be run by ppl who sell gtc's. great job ccp u screw'd up again, u've killed off the little guy in favor of the super rich.
KUINNI	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:28:00 - [743] Originally by: CCP Soundwave They will not be titan level investments, I can assure you that. so, if only for current brigde map of one ally needed about 60-70b every month - it's not titan level investments?
Kushmir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:29:00 - [744] Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 07/11/2009 14:23:58 I think this is actually a great step in the right direction The structure of the system suggests that it is intended that the corp/alliances holding sov will be entities that're ACTUALLY working together for their common good, not just people who blob together for personal benefit. The comments from most of the big blobber alliances confirms this (particularly the GS posts)! Most of them seems to be from the "Me! Me! MEEEEE!!!!" people who think only of their own profit! This system will be feasible for close-knit corp/alliances, but for the big blobbers without that core closeness and willingness to work for the common good, it'll be much different. Without the crutch of moon-gold, it'll be much harder to keep the big alliances together when people actually have to contribute! Most of the upgrades, particularly the DED complex one, should make it fairly easy for a close-knit alliance/corp to claim a few systems to call home. It'll of cause require that the members are willing to give up a good percentage of their earnings to do so, and share in the non-taxable profits from DED's, but again, that rewards REAL teamwork, not just the "lets blob together for protection while we all do our own thing" 'teamwork'! The upgrade system is probably pre-nerfed until some real data on how many people a system can support is gained. I wouldn't be surprised if the benefits of upgrades gets increased later. My guess is also that the upkeep system is pre-nerfed, with prices maybe set a bit high. This may also have been done to drain away some of the huge amounts of ISK alliances has gathered from moon mining over the last year or more. It is entirely possible that CCP deliberately set the price high to force the existing large alliances to pay out from that huge stash of cash for their space, or maybe even crack under the pressure as the contributers turn against the leeches (something which would be a very good thing for the game). Not sure of this though since the amount of money is still fairly easy to get when you talk 50+ people working together.... A few things that could also contribute would have been: 1. Make costs more incremental with development 2. Until you can upgrade to level 1, you shouldn't have to pay for upkeep 3. Only own corp activities count towards development 4. Increasing upkeep the more systems an alliance/corp claims 5. Moon mining requires sov, BUT moons can also be mined by ships without sov! 6. Same alliance/corp can only claim adjecent systems 7. True-sec being non-static, changing over time 8. Agents in outposts 9. Resources used in 0.0 should be produced there! Nerf empire-to-0.0 logistics! (number 3 & 4 will be dependent on each other since otherwise we'd see plenty of alt alliances) Anyway, it looks promising! As with any completely new system, it'll need adjustments on the way, but so far it looks like it'll be a decent replacement for the COMPLETELY broken system current sov warfare is, with the potential of becoming a very good replacement with adjustments and additions! Originally by: Nahia Senne Once upon a time, there was no moon goo and alliances got by just fine. Nothing has changed, people just love to whine about anything and everything. ^ This! I'm sorry to break this too you, but with the whole Treaty thing they are working on, you are exactly what big blob alliances are looking for. Willing pubbies who will use the systems they are allowed to have to the fullest and pay some rent back to their overlords who will threaten them with eviction and destruction of their upgrades if they don't pay up. Welcome to Slumlord Online.
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:30:00 - [745] It also worth noting that with POS sov claims we can dictate our own costs relative to a system; as previously stated the vast amount of space larger alliances claim is not an actual intent but a result of corporation / corporation members setting up small/med towers for niche operations such as personal ratting, mining or plexing towers.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:32:00 - [746] Originally by: L'Artest Edited by: L''Artest on 07/11/2009 14:20:33 Originally by: CCP Soundwave When we have 10 anomalies, that will be enough for 10 people. I wrote this earlier in the thread too. When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). You will not be told if anyone is in it, that is not something I would prefer to see implemented. When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. I love you man but that's really disapointing. Paying isk to make money on par with level 4 missions? That's not being on par at all. I love you too

Guru Woopatang Primary.	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:33:00 - [747] Its iffy at best CCP. It has to be worth it, or people wont do it, and people wont fight for it... Theres lots of good points, and some bad in this thread so I wont rehash them. I will just say this: Its fine if the cost is high, but the reward also has to be higher then empire... or start low and scale up the costs at minimum. You have to give people a really good reason to go fight for space, because most people are naturally lazy and wont do something that requires this much effort "just because"... and tbh they are smart. Tweak what you got to fit the higher reward for the efforts spent and you will see people fight over space. The idea of bringing people to 0.0 is a good one.. but I dont think this will do it. In fact it might result in quite the opposite effect. I wont bash it till I have tried it...lol.. but think hard about what you are trying to achieve and I think you come to the same conclusion that I did.. "iffy at best" Looking forward to some tweaking. "Mind Over Matter: If I don't mind, it don't matter." WWW.EVE-WOOPATANG.COM
Dastycakes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:34:00 - [748] I like the idea of the whole multiple people using the same solar system. I would love it if a single system could maintain enough stuff to do for 30-40 people all day long. Its a great idea and something i have been very excited over. What i read in the blog is not what you told us about before. The upgrades need to be greater. We need massive amounts of hidden belts and static complexes that recharge every hour. Things like that that give many people many different things to do in the same system. You cant throw pvp corps into a system and expect them to mine. They will just spread out and continue to use the massive amounts of space the large alliances hold minus the sov tickers and hubs. In essence the only thing you have changed is doltans sov map. I understand and agree with the cost of a station system should be the equivelent of 5 large towers but in a normal solar system, no one will be able to pay such a large fee especialy a smaller alliance or corp. I want to see a massive amount of new alliances and corps to branch out to 00. I want you CCP to do a better job to make this happen cause right now it looks like fail. Think bigger, think better and get smarter. There are some goons -dastommy79
L'Artest	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:34:00 - [749] It's no fun when your opponent goes home because they don't have the money to hold ground instead of crushing them yourself~

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:34:00 - [750] Originally by: KUINNI Originally by: CCP Soundwave They will not be titan level investments, I can assure you that. so, if only for current brigde map of one ally needed about 60-70b every month - it's not titan level investments? It was my impression he was speaking about buying infrastructure upgrades, and not the upkeep cost. If so, I misunderstood.


Rexthor Hammerfists Rage of Inferno Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:37:00 - [751] Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists on 07/11/2009 14:37:40 Brave of you to step into the ring soundwave, for what its worth the problem i see with this expansion is that of the announced big changes, such as that alliances can and want to hold less space, that much of an alliance income would be generated by industrial player instead of moons and that many of the currently empty and useless 0.0 areas could be home for smaller alliances living in small pockets - none i can see happening. -
Lord Milton GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:38:00 - [752] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: KUINNI Originally by: CCP Soundwave They will not be titan level investments, I can assure you that. so, if only for current brigde map of one ally needed about 60-70b every month - it's not titan level investments? It was my impression he was speaking about buying infrastructure upgrades, and not the upkeep cost. If so, I misunderstood. do you miss eurosquad?
Shasis Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:38:00 - [753] Edited by: Shasis on 07/11/2009 14:38:41 CCP Soundwave, you said in one of your previous posts that with dominion, an upgraded system will be able to feed 10-15 people. Even if CCP said at first 100 people... but ok. Keep in mind that currently, people from 0.0 sov holding alliances are not farming in the same system. And with the cost of the upgrades, plus fuel for bridges, cyno gen/jam towers, those alliances won't be able to keep the sov in all those systems anymore, and then will have a lot more than 15 people in their upgraded systems at the main timezone of the alliance... Why not creating an upgrade that will put lvl4 agents in the upgraded outpost systems ? then the 10-15 people is gone...
Kerdrak Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:39:00 - [754] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: KUINNI Originally by: CCP Soundwave They will not be titan level investments, I can assure you that. so, if only for current brigde map of one ally needed about 60-70b every month - it's not titan level investments? It was my impression he was speaking about buying infrastructure upgrades, and not the upkeep cost. If so, I misunderstood. Yes, but answer it, why an alliance will have to pay 70b monthly to run "lvl 4's" in 0.0? ________________________________________
Dano Ei tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:39:00 - [755] So you put all these investments in a system, then you grind the ** out of it in a potentially very hostile environment and after all that you get what you could get in Motsu? After all that effort you should expect low sec lvl5 mission rewards attleast and not **ty hi sec lvl4 type rewards. Why would you go through all that trouble if you could get the same in hi sec for 1% of the effort....risk vs. reward remember. High sec lvl 4 type rewards shouldnt be the top you can reach in 0.0.
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:40:00 - [756] Edited by: Kerfira on 07/11/2009 14:42:28 Originally by: Kushmir I'm sorry to break this too you, but with the whole Treaty thing they are working on, you are exactly what big blob alliances are looking for. Willing pubbies who will use the systems they are allowed to have to the fullest and pay some rent back to their overlords who will threaten them with eviction and destruction of their upgrades if they don't pay up. Welcome to Slumlord Online. I AM in one of the bigger alliances This is my posting alt. In addition I have an L4 mission running character to earn money on. No matter how this system turns out, it can NOT be worse than the utter awfulness that is the current sov system! PERIOD! Reduction of moon-gold... Check! Removal of POS spamming... Check! Encouragement to people who actually work together... Check! Discouragement of big blobs of non-contributors... Check! Cost for easy logistics (bridges)... Check! Additional cost for cyno-jamming... Check! Titan nerf... Check! Additional 0.0 income options... Check! Only thing really missing is a high-sec L4 nerf If that had been in, this would have gone from Platinum to Gold-pressed Latinum! Sure, it'll need adjustments and won't be perfect from the start, but it is STILL a damned lot better than what is! I realise you depend on the currently flawed system to keep your carefree life with the alliance paying for your stuff from moon-gold.... so basically I'm lol'ing at your tears! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
L'Artest	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:40:00 - [757] I honestly don't like that it's even considerable not to hold sov in station systems because it would cost too much. Monthly payments this high don't favour small Alliances at all. I can imagine all the logistics departments (I know ours is) are currently figuring out if its even worth it to keep their jump bridge networks up and running when the space is worthless.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:40:00 - [758] I see you haven't addressed a point I made earlier, so I'll dedicate this post to it alone. In an upgraded system, anomalies will be "on par" with "Motsu", as in (I assume) Level 4 missions there. However, what does the week-old newbie in a caracal do? Should the newbie be locked out of 0.0? Is 0.0 meant to be the Elitists Backyard? From the point of view of the week-old-caracal-newbie, is upgrading anomalies in a system a bad thing? Should the same newbie have to accept to living in a ghetto (un-upgraded 0.0 system)? (A follow-on point is why an upgraded system has only one tier of anomalies. Surely it would be even better if newbies were ratting 'alongside' veterans in the same system.)
Twisted Mechanic	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:41:00 - [759] This all reminds me of a lewis black comedy set where he is talking about the USA and the enviromnet and he just say suck on our ** suck on our **. Why is CCP doing this cause they can.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:42:00 - [760] Originally by: Shasis Edited by: Shasis on 07/11/2009 14:38:41 CCP Soundwave, you said in one of your previous posts that with dominion, an upgraded system will be able to feed 10-15 people. Even if CCP said at first 100 people... but ok. Keep in mind that currently, people from 0.0 sov holding alliances are not farming in the same system. And with the cost of the upgrades, plus fuel for bridges, cyno gen/jam towers, those alliances won't be able to keep the sov in all those systems anymore, and then will have a lot more than 15 people in their upgraded systems at the main timezone of the alliance... Why not creating an upgrade that will put lvl4 agents in the upgraded outpost systems ? then the 10-15 people is gone... We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though.


iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:45:00 - [761] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Shasis Edited by: Shasis on 07/11/2009 14:38:41 CCP Soundwave, you said in one of your previous posts that with dominion, an upgraded system will be able to feed 10-15 people. Even if CCP said at first 100 people... but ok. Keep in mind that currently, people from 0.0 sov holding alliances are not farming in the same system. And with the cost of the upgrades, plus fuel for bridges, cyno gen/jam towers, those alliances won't be able to keep the sov in all those systems anymore, and then will have a lot more than 15 people in their upgraded systems at the main timezone of the alliance... Why not creating an upgrade that will put lvl4 agents in the upgraded outpost systems ? then the 10-15 people is gone... We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. You can put agents in space in 0.0, in some places those exist, and are serving as amazingly stable sources of income and concentrations of pilots. Do agents have to be docked?
Agent Known	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:46:00 - [762] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Shasis Edited by: Shasis on 07/11/2009 14:38:41 CCP Soundwave, you said in one of your previous posts that with dominion, an upgraded system will be able to feed 10-15 people. Even if CCP said at first 100 people... but ok. Keep in mind that currently, people from 0.0 sov holding alliances are not farming in the same system. And with the cost of the upgrades, plus fuel for bridges, cyno gen/jam towers, those alliances won't be able to keep the sov in all those systems anymore, and then will have a lot more than 15 people in their upgraded systems at the main timezone of the alliance... Why not creating an upgrade that will put lvl4 agents in the upgraded outpost systems ? then the 10-15 people is gone... We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. What about making the anomalies "instanced"? As in, you warp to a acceleration gate, and it brings you to a spawn of the complex in deadspace. Instant "mission". To balance risk, you can make it so probing out people running these would be able to warp directly to that pocket's starting point instead of the gate (thus allowing teams of people to go in on anomaly, etc). On another note, I also have an annoying sig. inaftertimeflux
Dastycakes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:46:00 - [763] Hey soundwave. Who did you **** off at the office or are you just a masochist? What if the this fee esculated with the number of systems you take. IE: you start out at a low price for a couple of systems (so a new small alliance or corp can afford) and then increase the fee with the more territory they consume. This way people only claim what they need. There are some goons -dastommy79
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:46:00 - [764] Originally by: CCP Soundwave In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. exquize me? Getting rid of what? Pls go check your logs, look at what kind of towers hold most of sov (here is a hint: moon mining, reaction ...). Did you calculate lose of fuel reduction in your math? You do know 10% is not the same as 30%? You do realize that with change in t2 production, alchemy and drop of prices you will need much more moon mining and reaction to compensate? That looks like more towers to me not less. Are POSs now perpetum mobile, running on space vacuum? You seriously need to get back to the drawing board, and revise all changes you are doing and how they affect each other.
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:47:00 - [765] Originally by: Kerfira Originally by: Kushmir I'm sorry to break this too you, but with the whole Treaty thing they are working on, you are exactly what big blob alliances are looking for. Willing pubbies who will use the systems they are allowed to have to the fullest and pay some rent back to their overlords who will threaten them with eviction and destruction of their upgrades if they don't pay up. Welcome to Slumlord Online. I AM in one of the bigger alliances This is my posting alt. In addition I have an L4 mission running character to earn money on. No matter how this system turns out, it can NOT be worse than the utter awfulness that is the current sov system! PERIOD! Reduction of moon-gold... Check! Removal of POS spamming... Check! Encouragement to people who actually work together... Check! Discouragement of big blobs of non-contributors... Check! Cost for easy logistics (bridges)... Check! Additional cost for cyno-jamming... Check! Titan nerf... Check! Additional 0.0 income options... Check! Only thing really missing is a high-sec L4 nerf If that had been in, this would have gone from Platinum to Gold-pressed Latinum! Sure, it'll need adjustments and won't be perfect from the start, but it is STILL a damned lot better than what is! I realise you depend on the currently flawed system to keep your carefree life.... so basically I'm lol'ing at your tears! You clearly are a member that has to deal with any of the management tasks of an alliance or deal with cost issues. When the corporation you are part of shoots it taxes up, the alliance imposes membership fee's, station services/refining tax/repair costs go up and reimbursement programs dry up - clearly you are not just going to run to empire and farm on your L4 alt who is outside of the alliance.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:47:00 - [766] Originally by: Dano Ei So you put all these investments in a system, then you grind the ** out of it in a potentially very hostile environment and after all that you get what you could get in Motsu? After all that effort you should expect low sec lvl5 mission rewards attleast and not **ty hi sec lvl4 type rewards. Why would you go through all that trouble if you could get the same in hi sec for 1% of the effort....risk vs. reward remember. High sec lvl 4 type rewards shouldnt be the top you can reach in 0.0. You can call this area of 0.0 your home, and the sov-map will show it.
Rexthor Hammerfists Rage of Inferno Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:47:00 - [767] Well, i for one would much rather see this expansion delayed by months for you to keep working on it then seeing the current version released. -
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:47:00 - [768] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Shasis Edited by: Shasis on 07/11/2009 14:38:41 CCP Soundwave, you said in one of your previous posts that with dominion, an upgraded system will be able to feed 10-15 people. Even if CCP said at first 100 people... but ok. Keep in mind that currently, people from 0.0 sov holding alliances are not farming in the same system. And with the cost of the upgrades, plus fuel for bridges, cyno gen/jam towers, those alliances won't be able to keep the sov in all those systems anymore, and then will have a lot more than 15 people in their upgraded systems at the main timezone of the alliance... Why not creating an upgrade that will put lvl4 agents in the upgraded outpost systems ? then the 10-15 people is gone... We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. Now that is something to look forward to. While your at it, can you possibly do two things. One make thee reward higher due to the increased risk of 0.0, at least put them on level with low sec lv 4's. And second put some higher level missions in, ones where capital ships could actually be used. lvl 5 missions and then lvl 6 missions, ones where people may even lose a dread while blowing up pirate dreads. May even see a use for a Titan in those missions.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:47:00 - [769] Originally by: Hertford I see you haven't addressed a point I made earlier, so I'll dedicate this post to it alone. In an upgraded system, anomalies will be "on par" with "Motsu", as in (I assume) Level 4 missions there. However, what does the week-old newbie in a caracal do? Should the newbie be locked out of 0.0? Is 0.0 meant to be the Elitists Backyard? From the point of view of the week-old-caracal-newbie, is upgrading anomalies in a system a bad thing? Should the same newbie have to accept to living in a ghetto (un-upgraded 0.0 system)? (A follow-on point is why an upgraded system has only one tier of anomalies. Surely it would be even better if newbies were ratting 'alongside' veterans in the same system.) Ideally we have a set of upgrades that are tailored for frigate and cruiser users. They would function like the pirate magnet, but intead of distributing standard 0.0 anomalies that increase in payout, they distributes sites specifically for people in frigates and cruisers. "Training Sites" like that would help lifting the financial limits EVE currently has for new players that wish to live in 0.0 from the get-go. I'd much prefer to have that than to squeeze vets and newer players into the same sites.

Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:49:00 - [770] Stoffer, I want you to take a step back from your bias as an employee for CCP hf. I want you to think real hard, considering all the griping that has been expressed in this thread. Do you really, really think that people who enjoy 0.0 sovereignty holding are going to want to forcibly grind ISK to pay for their holdings/upgrades? Why would anyone do that when they could do exactly everything in NPC 0.0, with the only exception being that enemies can dock in 'your' stations? I hope your colleagues are familiar with what happened with Star Wars: Galaxies and the horrible mistakes that occurred during their terrible, game-mechanic changing patch. These changes will probably cause many players to drop accounts or quit altogether, and tell their friends to never play That Terrible Game EVE Online. I do hope you like earning a paycheck.

Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:49:00 - [771] Edited by: Cefte on 07/11/2009 14:49:39 CCP is 'fixing' the issue of 0.0 underpopulation the same way the vet 'fixed' my tomcat. And with the same result: no kittens, and a ***ed off cat. Are you really such utter idiots as to think that the reason people in empire don't come to 0.0 is because they get shouldered out by alliances with lots of unused space, as opposed to 0.0 being incredibly unprofitable? Unused space that isn't rented out to said empire newcomers because look over there shiny? How* can you be that ignorant?
L'Artest	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:50:00 - [772] Also Soundwave, in reguard to eliminating fuel costs, Goonswarm currently shells out about 50b per month for fuel for our towers. To hold our current space we're quadrupling this value. What I'm saying is eve mail me for prices to rent space in Delve

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:50:00 - [773] Originally by: Zahorite Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Shasis Edited by: Shasis on 07/11/2009 14:38:41 CCP Soundwave, you said in one of your previous posts that with dominion, an upgraded system will be able to feed 10-15 people. Even if CCP said at first 100 people... but ok. Keep in mind that currently, people from 0.0 sov holding alliances are not farming in the same system. And with the cost of the upgrades, plus fuel for bridges, cyno gen/jam towers, those alliances won't be able to keep the sov in all those systems anymore, and then will have a lot more than 15 people in their upgraded systems at the main timezone of the alliance... Why not creating an upgrade that will put lvl4 agents in the upgraded outpost systems ? then the 10-15 people is gone... We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. Now that is something to look forward to. While your at it, can you possibly do two things. One make thee reward higher due to the increased risk of 0.0, at least put them on level with low sec lv 4's. And second put some higher level missions in, ones where capital ships could actually be used. lvl 5 missions and then lvl 6 missions, ones where people may even lose a dread while blowing up pirate dreads. May even see a use for a Titan in those missions. I definately like both your points, hopefully we can do that if agents become a reality.

Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:50:00 - [774] Originally by: L'Artest I love you man but that's really disapointing. Paying isk to make money on par with level 4 missions? That's not being on par at all. This. Currently I'm mission whoring in empire. I was really looking forward to dominion and planning on returning to 0.0. But with 0.0 income beeing "on par" with empire missions, you will very much NOT get more people to 0.0. You DO KNOW that, right? On par just doesn't cut it. I'm still dreaming of CCP finally nerfing lvl 4 missions in empire, but sadly that is unlikely to ever happen. About smaller alliances moaning: yes, bigger alliances will allways be able to kick you around. Take three small alliances and build a big one - problem solved.
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:52:00 - [775] Originally by: Vivian Azure You can call this area of 0.0 your home, and the sov-map will show it. Yeah, most people in 0.0 alliances aren't actually that narcissistic to pay 1+ bil/month just to see their alliance name in the upper left corner with no other tangible benefit, hth~
Kerdrak Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:52:00 - [776] Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. There is a nice "agents" tab in outposts currently. I think you mean "we don't want to implement a solution to make agents able to visit you guys, is hard coding and our developers are tired of rebalancing" ________________________________________
Darth Ninjabadger Caldari m3 Corp Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:52:00 - [777] Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. Well until you can I suggest that CCP take another look at those numbers and gives it another run through the calculator. I appriciate that it looks great from where you are sitting but you've sat through the meetings had coversations with the rest of the staff at CCP discussing exactly what the new system will look like and have full knoweldge of that system. We have 1 Dev blog on the subject of sov which when placed against what we already know about 0.0, anomalies and productivity of corporations and alliances you can understand the community is very very worried by this and our 'theorycrafting' is due to us attempting to finish the jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing. I would suggest that we need more information placed into one or more blogs posted ASAP so we can understand exactly what you are attempting with these changes and make better more informed opinions on the subject. Pecking around your heels like pigeons in a park for the crumbs of info you're chucking out isn't the way to prepare us for a change like this.
Rainus Max Fusion Enterprises Ltd	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:53:00 - [778] I have to say as a member of one of the "ebil whining power blocs" I have to agree that the pricing is a bit on the steep side, I know most alliances will contract significantly to reduce costs but some alliances like CVA are stuffed beyond all belief. I think the pricing definitely needs looking at or something that gives a 90% discount on your first 10 systems or 25% if you claim a whole constellation (number subject to nerfing). If we are going to be charged 12.5mill a day per system for JBs can you scrap the fuel costs for using them? Especially if this rumour of Jump Freighters not being able to jump from empire is true. Also our moon mining expenses are going to INCREASE because of this expansion, were going to lose alot of the 10% fuel reductions that we get from mining in our sov space, and CCP why base costs off 5 LARGE towers? From my experience you only need 1 tower in most systems for sov and the only reason some system have more is to stop others out spamming you, as result of the failed POS sov mechanic. Can we also have something like "deep space encounters", basically belt spawns at a beacon in space you have to scan out. Nothing fancy, no "base", no roids nothing but a typical belt spawn (including officers n commanders). Maybe, say, 5 per level of system that way you basically get 25 new belts in a system. POSes - if we are getting this new sov mechanic can you please re-do pos onlining and anchoring/unachoring timers and drop the stupid anti-spam limiter???? To be fair to CCP this does seam like a shiny new system for holding sov but weve been asking for more details since before fanfest (infact that was a big reason I went this year I was expect something on the new sov system, well more that the 2 slides we finally got). We love to shove our oar in and start planning because we all know this is a drastic change. Instead, 3 weeks before "doomsday" we get a nice big blog thats not 100% clear on a few points, knowing the general emo-yness of us EvE players im suprised we havent been spoon fed this drastic change to stop threads like this forming. Please CCP dont release sov like this. Oh and one last thing to the other sov holding alliances - if the mission runners what this we could let it happen, we could just decend on mission running hubs and "rat" there I hear some of those runners have some nice loots
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:53:00 - [779] Originally by: Bobby Atlas You clearly are a member that has to deal with any of the management tasks of an alliance or deal with cost issues. When the corporation you are part of shoots it taxes up, the alliance imposes membership fee's, station services/refining tax/repair costs go up and reimbursement programs dry up - clearly you are not just going to run to empire and farm on your L4 alt who is outside of the alliance. Actually, we already DO pay quite a high (compared to this) corp tax per month... Enough to keep sov in 10+ systems from our corp alone.... The rest of the alliance pays their share too... The mission runner money is used to: 1. Pay corp tax 2. Pay ships + fittings What the hell else is there to spend money on????? But, then again, we're one of the corp/alliances that DOESN'T have a lot of freeloaders, meaning we'll probably come off quite well from this! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:54:00 - [780] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Ideally we have a set of upgrades that are tailored for frigate and cruiser users. They would function like the pirate magnet, but intead of distributing standard 0.0 anomalies that increase in payout, they distributes sites specifically for people in frigates and cruisers. "Training Sites" like that would help lifting the financial limits EVE currently has for new players that wish to live in 0.0 from the get-go. I'd much prefer to have that than to squeeze vets and newer players into the same sites. I'm not saying newbies and bitter bitter veterans should be squeezed into the same sites. I am saying that a newbie and a bitter bitter veteran should find opportunity in the same system. "Training Sites" is a terrible name, fyi. It goes to show that my awesomepost on page 23 is in fact not what you are implementing at all. If you re-read it, I specifically mention ten tiers of difficulty, with the bottom aimed at newbie in a frigate, and the mid-level aimed at a T2 fitted battleship. That allows a nice spread from frigate, through cruiser and battlecruier, onto battleship, and then beyond for high SP players and groups.

Dano Ei tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:54:00 - [781] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Dano Ei So you put all these investments in a system, then you grind the ** out of it in a potentially very hostile environment and after all that you get what you could get in Motsu? After all that effort you should expect low sec lvl5 mission rewards attleast and not **ty hi sec lvl4 type rewards. Why would you go through all that trouble if you could get the same in hi sec for 1% of the effort....risk vs. reward remember. High sec lvl 4 type rewards shouldnt be the top you can reach in 0.0. You can call this area of 0.0 your home, and the sov-map will show it. You are talking to the e-peen crowd. I am not one of them.
Hrodgar Ortal Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:54:00 - [782] So 10-15 people doing anomalies with personal income similar to lvl4s, could be a bit more but should be easy enough to tweek (could always boost the amount from 2 extra to 4 extra for example). Hopefully that means we can have at least 5-10 people mining with a decent upgraded mining upgrade and get similar income? Meaning that the grav sites actually need to be worth squat, most 0.0 systems have crap asteroids as well as crap rats so will the extra grav sites actually be worth it? If, and thats a rather big if, that is so a system should be able to support around 30 people which seems rather ok imo. Sure the super mega alliances (goons etc) will still need lots of systems but I don't think anyone said they were to be able to only be in one. Also given that there has been hints on planetary interaction and ways to profit from that I assume alliance income streams might change as that comes which might fix part of the extra costs.
RedClaws Amarr Dragon's Rage Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:54:00 - [783] Personally I don't really like the "lvl 4 agents in 0.0" idea. It's just too ...fake. Imo, the devs should not make 0.0 income "on par with lvl 4". Add the risk of hostile players, the cost of the system + upgrades + losses over wars + expanding the alliance and THAT should be your isk/hr. Disapointed atm but I believe CCP will adjust the values enough before release to make it an alternative to lvl 4's.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:54:00 - [784] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Hertford I see you haven't addressed a point I made earlier, so I'll dedicate this post to it alone. In an upgraded system, anomalies will be "on par" with "Motsu", as in (I assume) Level 4 missions there. However, what does the week-old newbie in a caracal do? Should the newbie be locked out of 0.0? Is 0.0 meant to be the Elitists Backyard? From the point of view of the week-old-caracal-newbie, is upgrading anomalies in a system a bad thing? Should the same newbie have to accept to living in a ghetto (un-upgraded 0.0 system)? (A follow-on point is why an upgraded system has only one tier of anomalies. Surely it would be even better if newbies were ratting 'alongside' veterans in the same system.) Ideally we have a set of upgrades that are tailored for frigate and cruiser users. They would function like the pirate magnet, but intead of distributing standard 0.0 anomalies that increase in payout, they distributes sites specifically for people in frigates and cruisers. "Training Sites" like that would help lifting the financial limits EVE currently has for new players that wish to live in 0.0 from the get-go. I'd much prefer to have that than to squeeze vets and newer players into the same sites. Don't do too much of those tbh. Most functioning 0.0 alliances kick out newbies who can't fly minimum requirements to be functional in a team, not to mention those who are not already self sufficient. It's all fine and dandy to want to recreate places like D2 and Xetic and similar victim alliances, but people have kinda grown a bit, and even a newbie these days is quickly up to date on how things work for best practices. Spare yourself that development time imo.
L'Artest	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:56:00 - [785] Edited by: L''Artest on 07/11/2009 14:56:52 Originally by: Rainus Max words Unfortunatly giving a discount for holding more space is the opposite of what CCP seems to want. A constellation bonus would be great, but I'm still curious as to what "Sov 5" will do exactly. Originally by: RedClaws Personally I don't really like the "lvl 4 agents in 0.0" idea. It's just too ...fake. Imo, the devs should not make 0.0 income "on par with lvl 4". Add the risk of hostile players, the cost of the system + upgrades + losses over wars + expanding the alliance and THAT should be your isk/hr. Disapointed atm but I believe CCP will adjust the values enough before release to make it an alternative to lvl 4's. Why not? More risk, more reward. You should know this.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:56:00 - [786] Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. You are joking, right? Is this EVE Online or is this Missions Online? I certainly don't pay to continuously run missions, I am a miner and I refuse to run missions. Is this a case of adapt or leave? If so I would like to remind you that EVE is not the only game and I would rather leave than run missions, I can't stomach missions and they make me want to jump out the window. And even then, what's the point in putting LVL 4 agents in 0.0 when people can run those same stupid missions in empire, in safer area's, without the risk of roaming gangs? Ill thought out idea's being put forward, once again. I, as an industrialist, would like to see something done about me having to share my system with all the other miners in my corp. Am I going to have to mine 500 unit Arkonor, Mercoxit and Bistot rocks? This is totally ridiculous and it's not funny. I don't care about the ratters, I don't care about the hordes of mission runners, I care about mining and it's the basis of all that exists in EVE. Anyone who dares say that miners are stupid has the right not to buy anything made by miners and manufacturers... enjoy flying your noob ship in Missions Online. I don't want to be nasty but this expansion is looking ever more of a joke and I now dread its deployment, especially as all care is being taken to accomodate the ratters and mission runners. I'm willing to bet those hubs get taken over by macroers, while I sit there staring at empty belts, waiting for rocks to respawn.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:56:00 - [787] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Hertford I see you haven't addressed a point I made earlier, so I'll dedicate this post to it alone. In an upgraded system, anomalies will be "on par" with "Motsu", as in (I assume) Level 4 missions there. However, what does the week-old newbie in a caracal do? Should the newbie be locked out of 0.0? Is 0.0 meant to be the Elitists Backyard? From the point of view of the week-old-caracal-newbie, is upgrading anomalies in a system a bad thing? Should the same newbie have to accept to living in a ghetto (un-upgraded 0.0 system)? (A follow-on point is why an upgraded system has only one tier of anomalies. Surely it would be even better if newbies were ratting 'alongside' veterans in the same system.) Ideally we have a set of upgrades that are tailored for frigate and cruiser users. They would function like the pirate magnet, but intead of distributing standard 0.0 anomalies that increase in payout, they distributes sites specifically for people in frigates and cruisers. "Training Sites" like that would help lifting the financial limits EVE currently has for new players that wish to live in 0.0 from the get-go. I'd much prefer to have that than to squeeze vets and newer players into the same sites. So based on this you guys aren't finished with the upgrade system. That is fine, just make sure that they are going to balance these costs, because if they don't you are going to lose a lot of subscribers very quickly. And once you lose them your going to have to work to get them back. I like Eve and a great deal of my frustration with this is that it could very easily go very badly.
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:56:00 - [788] CPP Greyscale, what happened ? People get attracted to 0.0 for a whole bunch of reasons, but eventually they will still have to make isk. There's little currently in your proposal that provides more intensive for the average grunt to stay in 0.0 and make the isk, as opposed to returning to there level 4 agent. 1) There isn't more isk to be made in 0.0 for the average grunt. 2) It's less convenient to make isk for the average grunt in 0.0. 3) It's more risky to make isk for the average grunt in 0.0. Fix 2 out of 3 of those issues and you'll probably solve the problem and make a bunch of people happier... Anyway /o\ ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:56:00 - [789] Stoffer, please reply to my previous post. Do you want me to keep paying for the subscription to my two accounts?
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:57:00 - [790] Originally by: Nahia Senne Once upon a time, there was no moon goo and alliances got by just fine. Nothing has changed, people just love to whine about anything and everything. That must be why you've been frantically trying to capture lowsec moon goo for the past two months.

Miraqu Caldari	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:57:00 - [791] Somehow I fail to understand the concerns here. Most seem to ignore that the upgrades consist of more than just ratting. It's about having different players in your corp/alliance. A system will make profit if you have players which use all 3 sides of the upgrades. One could quite easily pay the full fee of around 3b for a full upgraded system if one has players that use all the upgrades. So we will need miners in our corp or a mining corp in our alliance, you will need to change current structures. Just using one of the three possible upgrades will either result in being unable to pay or at least putting a heavy fine/strain on the players utilizing the system. Furthermore, a good part of the corpmates are always away on roaming gangs, defenses or other ops. I never saw any corp having all online members trying to make isk at the same time.
Miklos Kowacs Amarr Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:57:00 - [792] Yes I am an alt. I live in 0.0 in a 250 man corp in a SOV 4 system. I already have a lot of members asking if they should move back to empire because of the changes. With the posting of this dev blog, I'm sure that people will already start leaving 0.0. I agree with Bobby Atlas and others that this is an ill-conceived upgrade. No 1. Eve is an closed economy. The people who play Eve produce probably 80% of the items that people buy vs the items that CCP sells from empire. What I see is CCP trying to skim off a sizable chunk of isk out of the market to encourage people to generate more. We're basically talking about removing 500 Billion to one Trillion isk a month out of the game. Once you pay your tax, it doesn't give you anything for it except sov and the ability to do certain things. The loss of operating capital from the game will only do one of 2 things. First is force some people to buy and sell GTCs to make rent, thereby putting more money in CCP's pocket. Second is loss of player base due to having to grind out isk to pay rent. After three to six months of grinding, 0.0 will be empty. 2. Is sov no longer constellation based? I am in a sov 4 system. If I only have to hold one station, does that mean anyone can come in the other two systems and claim sov because I can't afford 6 billion a month to keep sov in all 3 station systems? For my corp to remain as we are, it would cost us 16 billion isk a month to maintain sov for the stations and jumpbridges to empire. 3 Your point about POS's doesn't wash with reality. We hold sov in 3 constellations and our fuel costs are 5- 6 billion a month. We have 30 full faction deathstars that will basically be unneeded on this happens. Within 30 days faction towers will glut the market and small corps will have lost billions in assets. 4. I predict that every system within 2 jumps of empire will be contested for sov and that any area that needs more then 2 sets of Jumpbridges will slowly empty.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:57:00 - [793] Originally by: Hertford Originally by: CCP Soundwave Ideally we have a set of upgrades that are tailored for frigate and cruiser users. They would function like the pirate magnet, but intead of distributing standard 0.0 anomalies that increase in payout, they distributes sites specifically for people in frigates and cruisers. "Training Sites" like that would help lifting the financial limits EVE currently has for new players that wish to live in 0.0 from the get-go. I'd much prefer to have that than to squeeze vets and newer players into the same sites. I'm not saying newbies and bitter bitter veterans should be squeezed into the same sites. I am saying that a newbie and a bitter bitter veteran should find opportunity in the same system. "Training Sites" is a terrible name, fyi. It goes to show that my awesomepost on page 23 is in fact not what you are implementing at all. If you re-read it, I specifically mention ten tiers of difficulty, with the bottom aimed at newbie in a frigate, and the mid-level aimed at a T2 fitted battleship. That allows a nice spread from frigate, through cruiser and battlecruier, onto battleship, and then beyond for high SP players and groups. So we pretty much agree, but are arguing names and semantics?


CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:59:00 - [794] Originally by: Zahorite Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Hertford I see you haven't addressed a point I made earlier, so I'll dedicate this post to it alone. In an upgraded system, anomalies will be "on par" with "Motsu", as in (I assume) Level 4 missions there. However, what does the week-old newbie in a caracal do? Should the newbie be locked out of 0.0? Is 0.0 meant to be the Elitists Backyard? From the point of view of the week-old-caracal-newbie, is upgrading anomalies in a system a bad thing? Should the same newbie have to accept to living in a ghetto (un-upgraded 0.0 system)? (A follow-on point is why an upgraded system has only one tier of anomalies. Surely it would be even better if newbies were ratting 'alongside' veterans in the same system.) Ideally we have a set of upgrades that are tailored for frigate and cruiser users. They would function like the pirate magnet, but intead of distributing standard 0.0 anomalies that increase in payout, they distributes sites specifically for people in frigates and cruisers. "Training Sites" like that would help lifting the financial limits EVE currently has for new players that wish to live in 0.0 from the get-go. I'd much prefer to have that than to squeeze vets and newer players into the same sites. So based on this you guys aren't finished with the upgrade system. That is fine, just make sure that they are going to balance these costs, because if they don't you are going to lose a lot of subscribers very quickly. And once you lose them your going to have to work to get them back. I like Eve and a great deal of my frustration with this is that it could very easily go very badly. We certainly have ideas on how to expand the upgrade system, and everything like number of sites, upkeep cost etc can easily be adjusted, based on feedback (like this thread \o/)

Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:00:00 - [795] Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 07/11/2009 14:55:31 Originally by: Bobby Atlas You clearly are a member that has to deal with any of the management tasks of an alliance or deal with cost issues. When the corporation you are part of shoots it taxes up, the alliance imposes membership fee's, station services/refining tax/repair costs go up and reimbursement programs dry up - clearly you are not just going to run to empire and farm on your L4 alt who is outside of the alliance. Actually, we already DO pay quite a high (compared to this) corp tax per month... Enough to keep sov in 10+ systems from our corp alone.... The rest of the alliance pays their share too... The mission runner money is used to: 1. Pay corp tax 2. Pay ships + fittings What the hell else is there to spend money on????? I don't hoard ISK for the sake of hoarding ISK (which is a pretty stupid thing)... But, then again, we're one of the corp/alliances that DOESN'T have a lot of freeloaders, meaning we'll probably come off quite well from this! You have clearly made a compelling argument with an NPC alt, you are clearly so infallible that you can be transparent and tell us all who you are and what alliance you belong too. If you are already pay quite high taxes, wait till dominion when those taxes go out the ass cause the costs just went up exorbitantly. I am sorry but the case you make loses all ground when you are hiding behind an NPC alt. As for what to spend isk on, lets see - combat, reimbursements, infrastructure and capitals to name a few.
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:00:00 - [796] If ive missed it im sorry, but ive yet to see how CCP quantifies how we are supposed to justify the upgrades. Yes, we can SUBSIDIZE them from high sec income, but tbh that surely cant be CCPs intention? Have CCP run the math on the actual LONGTERM yield of anomalies? As mentioned earlier it has to be expected to see a decrease in the isk per unit value as more and more people run these anomilies, and this will (as I can see it) nullify the very shortterm value. Also, regardless of the longterm yield, SOV holding alliances are not likely to see much of the wealth that supposedly will be generated from these changes. There has been mentioned "treaties", but unless "treaties" are installed with the first patch, there are nothing to encourage neutrals to actually pay SOV holders any isk to offset the upkeep. So where is the incentive to actually upgrade? Why should we go past just controlling the outposts and patrolling our "turf", ensuring that noone else will be given a chance to claim sov?
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:01:00 - [797] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Originally by: Vivian Azure You can call this area of 0.0 your home, and the sov-map will show it. Yeah, most people in 0.0 alliances aren't actually that narcissistic to pay 1+ bil/month just to see their alliance name in the upper left corner with no other tangible benefit, hth~ So why did Goonswarm or any other alliance moved into 0.0 in the first place? 0.0 was never attractive when talking about ISK. The only interesting thing was moon-mining and some higher tier complexes. The problem with you people is, that you want CCP to make the game into a Hello-kitty-Wonderland, where you don't have to incvest anything but can milk the cow. there's tons of games where you can do so. EvE is a MMO and CCP emphatizes on the Massive Multiplayer part in 0.0. Now your members need to contribute to the whole thing, instead of just milking the cow with a few industrial players... I couldn't care less about you lazy bums actually. Like I said. If my alliance keeps their valuable systems, outpost-systems and the systems needed for logistic, then we can cut down to somewhere around 20 systems that need to be claimed. The money to pay the bills for these 20 systems is allready made in empire by our producers and the moon-mining-towers in low-sec and 0.0. If you wanna claim more sace then that, well... be my guest and start working for it.
Zeturi Caldari 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:01:00 - [798] If you actually want some costs to be reduced (read : tower fuel), why not make it so that if you have sov in a system towers of that alliance take no fuel or a small amount. To keep it from getting out of hand you could of limit the number of "free" towers to say 3-5 or something similar as that's what this upkeep price is supposed to be like.
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:02:00 - [799] Originally by: Miraqu Somehow I fail to understand the concerns here. Most seem to ignore that the upgrades consist of more than just ratting. It's about having different players in your corp/alliance. A system will make profit if you have players which use all 3 sides of the upgrades. One could quite easily pay the full fee of around 3b for a full upgraded system if one has players that use all the upgrades. So we will need miners in our corp or a mining corp in our alliance, you will need to change current structures. Just using one of the three possible upgrades will either result in being unable to pay or at least putting a heavy fine/strain on the players utilizing the system. Furthermore, a good part of the corpmates are always away on roaming gangs, defenses or other ops. I never saw any corp having all online members trying to make isk at the same time. There is no need to grind ISK to pay for upgrades while running missions/mining in highsec. Why should people who want to live in 0.0 grind ISK to pay for sov/upgrades when the overall pay is comparable to highsec? Why not live in NPC 0.0, rat and run missions there, without worrying about the biweekly sov bill?
Tia Tzu Caldari G.E.A.R.	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:03:00 - [800] Face it all you big alliances, CCP are changing things because you are making the game so boring.. If you won't be able to hold all the space you do now, then thats a good thing and really the whole point. Things need shaking up in 0.0, atm its just the same old vested interests that have been there for years hoarding all the isk from moon mining. And lol at all you ppl (mostly from goons) who say mining is pointless and ratting is the only worthwhile method of making isk, you are just so self centered you cant see past the end of your own noses. It's tragic all you rank and file have no clue about the bigger picture cos it's your alliance leaders that have been coining it in behind your backs for years. While making even simple ship reimbursements for mandatory ops like getting blood from a stone. CCP are trying to do you a favour

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:03:00 - [801] Originally by: CCP Soundwave We certainly have ideas on how to expand the upgrade system, and everything like number of sites, upkeep cost etc can easily be adjusted, based on feedback (like this thread \o/) I don't mind more sites, as long as there's something to mine there. Nobody in their right mind is going to sit in a site and mine rocks that will deplete in one and a half cycle. It's a waste of time and will just encourage people to rat and run missions. I might be overreacting but this thread has repeatedly put forward the masses of (macro) ratters and mission runners. Please, do not ignore the industrialists.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:03:00 - [802] Originally by: CCP Soundwave So we pretty much agree, but are arguing names and semantics? Everything you have posted indicates that a system will have only one level of difficulty for the anomalies within it. Upgrading changes that level of difficulty. At no point have you mentioned having a smooth progression of difficulty. The only mention of catering to newbies was "training sites", which is a new one. The give-away statement was "I'd much prefer to have that than to squeeze vets and newer players into the same sites.". iPOD: Minimum requirements for alliance warfare: Minmatar Frigate III Propulsion Jamming I High Speed Maneuvering I But that doesn't belong here. My only statement is CCP wishes to encourage more people into 0.0. Newbies are people too.
WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:05:00 - [803] How 'bout a pretty straight-forward question: With these changes, what incentive is there to live in conquerable space instead of NPC space, lowsec, or Motsu?

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:05:00 - [804] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: CCP Soundwave We certainly have ideas on how to expand the upgrade system, and everything like number of sites, upkeep cost etc can easily be adjusted, based on feedback (like this thread \o/) I don't mind more sites, as long as there's something to mine there. Nobody in their right mind is going to sit in a site and mine rocks that will deplete in one and a half cycle. It's a waste of time and will just encourage people to rat and run missions. I might be overreacting but this thread has repeatedly put forward the masses of (macro) ratters and mission runners. Please, do not ignore the industrialists. The anomalies won't have rocks, but there are mining upgrades as well, providing more rocks for you to mine :)

Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:06:00 - [805] Where is everyone getting the 2 billion a month standard from? The dev blog clearly states 900 million/month for a system with an infrastructure hub. Unless of course you're planning to have a cyno jammer and jump bridge in every single system, in which case you're a ****tard, and you deserve to lose money. Military/Industry upgrades don't add to upkeep, they're a one time fee. Even putting a cyno jammer and infrastructure hub in every system is 1.65 billion per month, which isn't exactly game breaking especially considering it isn't required. I personally make about 250 million/month for my corp. In hi-sec. By copying 3 blueprints. You poor 0.0 warriors must have it so hard, with out the option to copy blueprints, or react moon minerals, or run production lines. I feel for you guys, because your alliances only have 1 person in them who can only generate 1 isk per day, and this new system is COMMUNIST AND HORRIBLE EVEN THOUGH IT ISNT IN THE GAME YET WAAAAH. PS. I realize 250/month doesn't pay for sovereignty. I suggest your alliances run more then 3 copy jobs, and gets more then 1 member. You could also try cutting back on jump bridge routes, and have some manufacturing lines in 0.0, lessening the requirement for 0.0-empire logistics.
Dastycakes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:06:00 - [806] Simple question. How many people does this new sov system you guys introduced allow to operate at the same time in system and what is the estimated isk gained compared to the cost? There are some goons -dastommy79
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:08:00 - [807] Originally by: Tia Tzu And lol at all you ppl (mostly from goons) who say mining is pointless and ratting is the only worthwhile method of making isk, you are just so self centered you cant see past the end of your own noses. So, you're saying everyone should be able to pilot a Hulk and mine ISK? Maxed Hulks mining bistot (no arkonor in our space) earn maybe 30m an hour, and that is not considering roid popping/relocation/disruption from hostile activity. Many people in 0.0 alliances have 1 trained pilot, that being a PVP pilot. Few have two with one being able to fly a Hulk. Mining in anything less than a Hulk is painful because ISK earned per hour drops well below 0.0 ratting. There's a difference between holding space and holding sovereignty. For example, many NPC 0.0 alliances hold parts of their regions, but do not hold sovereignty. 0.0 alliances will simply drop sov everywhere and quash anyone who chooses to come near. Now, does that sound boring to you? It does to me.
Hrodgar Ortal Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:08:00 - [808] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: CCP Soundwave We certainly have ideas on how to expand the upgrade system, and everything like number of sites, upkeep cost etc can easily be adjusted, based on feedback (like this thread \o/) I don't mind more sites, as long as there's something to mine there. Nobody in their right mind is going to sit in a site and mine rocks that will deplete in one and a half cycle. It's a waste of time and will just encourage people to rat and run missions. I might be overreacting but this thread has repeatedly put forward the masses of (macro) ratters and mission runners. Please, do not ignore the industrialists. The anomalies won't have rocks, but there are mining upgrades as well, providing more rocks for you to mine :) More doesn't mean worthwhile. For example mining in most 0.0 now is (imo) worthless, I won't touch anything but the high ends since the isk/h is so bad. There needs to be good rocks not just many.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:09:00 - [809] Originally by: Vivian Azure EvE is a MMO and CCP emphatizes on the Massive Multiplayer part in 0.0. Now your members need to contribute to the whole thing, instead of just milking the cow with a few industrial players... I couldn't care less about you lazy bums actually. Multiplayer in 0.0 is turning into multi player vs NPCs in 0.0. Instead of having wars and player vs player fun, eve is slowly turning into player vs NPC. End game my ass.
Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:10:00 - [810] Edited by: Rastigan on 07/11/2009 15:10:43 Edited by: Rastigan on 07/11/2009 15:09:45 Originally by: Vivian Azure The problem with you people is, that you want CCP to make the game into a Hello-kitty-Wonderland, where you don't have to incvest anything but can milk the cow. there's tons of games where you can do so. Because hundreds of towers fuel themselves for free every month, and there arent people who disrupt logistics and once you have sov3 all friendly ships are suddenly immune from pvp harm.. Dont forget towers totally defend themseves from hostile fleets, we can rat the entire time. Most friendlies believe this.

Daneb Christofph Caldari Red Fleet Corp AAA Citizens	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:10:00 - [811] Several systems have 3-5 belts. How military/industry indexes will grow? I think that will be too hard. And those systems have the same cost as an other with 25 belts. Do you planing to grow belts amount in systems? rawr

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:10:00 - [812] Originally by: Hertford Originally by: CCP Soundwave So we pretty much agree, but are arguing names and semantics? Everything you have posted indicates that a system will have only one level of difficulty for the anomalies within it. Upgrading changes that level of difficulty. At no point have you mentioned having a smooth progression of difficulty. The only mention of catering to newbies was "training sites", which is a new one. The give-away statement was "I'd much prefer to have that than to squeeze vets and newer players into the same sites.". iPOD: Minimum requirements for alliance warfare: Minmatar Frigate III Propulsion Jamming I High Speed Maneuvering I But that doesn't belong here. My only statement is CCP wishes to encourage more people into 0.0. Newbies are people too. Ah I see what you mean now. The sites do have different difficulty, and it's true that when you reach the highest tier of upgrades, veterans will primarily benefit from this. I'd not want to put 10 tiers of sites in, because it would be relatively difficult to justify the need for all ten. Frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and BS anomalies should be enough to keep most players occupied and progress through them relatively naturally.

Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:12:00 - [813] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 07/11/2009 15:13:50 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 07/11/2009 15:12:53 Originally by: Fuujin Edited by: Fuujin on 07/11/2009 10:22:20 Originally by: Ranger 1 [ Last time I checked 2.175 Billion/month hardly equals 80 Billion/month. In reality land, assuming you had every system enhancement, your 80 Billion isk would support that single system for a bit over 3 years. Now that we have determined that you can't do basic math, and are a little hysterical, I'll point out that I was not trying to educate Zastrow on logistics. I was partially agreeing with him but bringing up some other related facts for him to consider. Perhaps you should pipe down and let wiser heads discuss the issue. Sorry, got a wire crossed. A single system fully upgraded is still 2.5-3B/month counting the still-requred POS fuel. So a Titan's ISK-worth will still be eaten by 10 systems in 2 months, or 20 in one month. So given the time it takes to manufacture, you're fortunate to break even if you build one. And with the departure of Sov 4 systems, CSAAs are the new pinata. Again, its not the raw cost of the system that is the primary problem. Its that the profitability of the vast majority of 0.0 isn't worth supporting that system. CCO needs to address that core component before they can build a system that would require it to be effective. Is like they're giving us a chalkboard, only chalk hasn't been made yet--but you can use this nail to write on it, so they chalkboard's still useful, right? There is nothing in the new sov system that says "come out to 0.0 and support your empire using native resources." Its more like "Come out to 0.0, but I hope you have an L4-running alt because you'll be falling asleep from the drudgery of trying to maintain this otherwise." No problem, and I should not have gotten crappy with you about it. It was late, I was tired. I agree with you that the direction some of the upgrades has taken is not what I would consider optimal in and of themselves. I think where CCP is going is to try and siphon off some of the surplus isk that many large alliances generate, while also reducing the space they are willing to try and directly control. To do this they are trying to create a web of enhanced isk making upgrades that make activity in your systems the key to profitability, and that they all intertwine to make the whole thing profitable. This makes it difficult to analyze all of the effects that will be in play. I also think that CCP is looking to future additions to this system (and yes planetary interaction as well) to make the whole thing function smoothly. To do the whole thing at once is probably not a financially good idea considering the extremely large amount of coding to do, so they are trying to get a framework in place that will work for now and easily integrate with upcoming expansions. However, since a large part of making this work properly over the long haul is dependent on... ... the highly stressed ability to add more advantages to upgrading a system... ... planetary interaction and its accompanying revenue stream... ... and treaties... it's hardly surprising that people are looking at the blog with heavy skepticism. For the moment I need to catch up with Dev responses before I put my foot in my mouth. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:12:00 - [814] Originally by: Daneb Christofph Several systems have 3-5 belts. How military/industry indexes will grow? I think that will be too hard. And those systems have the same cost as an other with 25 belts. Do you planing to grow belts amount in systems? The value index was tested against systems of that size. Once a system reaches level one, and thus have anomalies like bigger systems, the number of belts it has should not matter a lot to progression. But yea, some systems will take a little more work to get to level 1 than others.

Barqs Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:12:00 - [815] These costs are absolutly nuts for systems, 10 fold higher then POS fuel at current, Also military upgrade lol 2 anoms more? Seriously 2 anoms can be cleared by 1 player in 1 hour. !! 100 people in 1 system lol? Barqs-
Voltaire Leriel BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:12:00 - [816] I have to agree with many complaints above. The cost/benefit ratio is seriously out of whack. The only way to pay the upkeep on systems would be to obtain it from other sources such as T2 production in empire, level 4 missions or by taxing residents to death. All 3 of these will decrease, rather than increase populations in 0.0. I've long felt that holding 0.0 isn't really profitable, it's fun. Most 0.0 corps and alliances make enough money to survive and have fun in their areas, and some of the larger ones may turn a profit (this is excluding outside income sources). But the proposed costs don't seem to make any system profitable enough to sustain itself, let alone pay for any improvements. And none of the improvements really pipe any isk directly into an alliance, it creates wealth for individuals who may or may not contribute. With the costs stated, we won't just see large alliances shrink from entire regions to 2-3 constellations (good), but we'll also see small alliances shrink from 1 constellation to 1-3 systems (bad). Alliances will need to pool every income stream they can into simply paying for upkeep, canceling ship replacement programs, cutting back on defenses and jump bridges, raising taxes for member corporations. Increased taxes will force many deadweight corps to leave alliances (fine) but that only increases the tax burden for those who stay. It's simply making gameplay in 0.0 more limited, with a focus on isk generation rather than fun. I think the concept of dominion is great, but the cost/benefit ratio needs to be seriously looked at. _______________________________________ BIG IS RECRUITING
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:13:00 - [817] Originally by: Rastigan Edited by: Rastigan on 07/11/2009 15:10:43 Edited by: Rastigan on 07/11/2009 15:09:45 Originally by: Vivian Azure The problem with you people is, that you want CCP to make the game into a Hello-kitty-Wonderland, where you don't have to incvest anything but can milk the cow. there's tons of games where you can do so. Because hundreds of towers fuel themselves for free every month, and there arent people who disrupt logistics and once you have sov3 all friendly ships are suddenly immune from pvp harm.. Dont forget towers totally defend themseves from hostile fleets, we can rat the entire time. Most friendlies believe this. You don't get it, right? I'm one of those industrial players in a big northern alliance, fueling all these towers and doing the logistics... and yes, I like the changes being made!
Mikal Drey Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:14:00 - [818] Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. think small, act small, think like a n00b . .. . not all agents live in space you can find some agents at gates into certain 0.0 COSMOs systems :/ NOTHING is stoping you from adding agents beacons directly into space.
Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:14:00 - [819] Eve: a great game of distrust, backstabbing and evilness all around. And just when I was starting to enjoy its sinister character CCP comes up with DominionÖ!! And all of teh sudden the leaders of all major alliances are agreeing with eachother??!? Like any warmbloded geek I don't mind a piece of love and happiness, but goons agreeing with bobby? When something like this happens you know something has gone terribly wrong... So CCP: Get you thumbs out of your asses, maybe try (Iknow it will be hard but bare with me on this one) to imagine you can be as dumb as a bag of rocks and maybe (just maybe) take advice from people who spent best part of the last 5 years of their lives making your game what it is today. tl;dr: CCp you suck!!!
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:15:00 - [820] Again, how are you going to balance out the value drop of anomaly modules/resources as it floods the market? If its supposed to pay for the upkeep, im sure you have done the math on the long term value...?

Sturmwolke	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:15:00 - [821] Will there be another upcoming dev blog that describes the treaties mechanics? It looks like the days of NRDS will be ending when you tie alliances' income heavily towards direct isk generators (as opposed to indirectly right now with POS warfare). No alliance will take it too kindly if a neutral shows up at their farm, stealing plump cherries and apples without contributing to the farm upkeep. Depending on the treaties mechanics, NRDS may still be relevant - but I'm not setting my hopes high.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:16:00 - [822] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Ah I see what you mean now. The sites do have different difficulty, and it's true that when you reach the highest tier of upgrades, veterans will primarily benefit from this. Cool, we're on the same wavelength. Now hopefully my concern about newbies is clearer. Unless I'm not reading things right, upgrading anomalies is actually a downgrade if you've just started EvE. Quote: I'd not want to put 10 tiers of sites in, because it would be relatively difficult to justify the need for all ten. Frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and BS anomalies should be enough to keep most players occupied and progress through them relatively naturally. That's fair enough. Creating ten tiers of difficulty is a lot of work, and is a throwback to my original goon fleet dot com post back in August '08. The idea was to give solo newbies and organised groups of bitter vets content inside anomalies, and for everyone in-between. The original idea also distinguished between a T1 fitted BS with bad skills, an average named/T2/OK skills BS, and a fully T2/factioned/silly SP BS. Why? To let players challenge themselves, or take it easy, or group up, or follow a newbie around helping, and so on.
Killljoy	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:16:00 - [823] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: CCP Soundwave We certainly have ideas on how to expand the upgrade system, and everything like number of sites, upkeep cost etc can easily be adjusted, based on feedback (like this thread \o/) I don't mind more sites, as long as there's something to mine there. Nobody in their right mind is going to sit in a site and mine rocks that will deplete in one and a half cycle. It's a waste of time and will just encourage people to rat and run missions. I might be overreacting but this thread has repeatedly put forward the masses of (macro) ratters and mission runners. Please, do not ignore the industrialists. The anomalies won't have rocks, but there are mining upgrades as well, providing more rocks for you to mine :) That you will have to probe down or are they easy to get to as annomlies!?!?!
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:16:00 - [824] Stoffer, you don't like replying to posts which directly address you, but you insist on defending your new sov system and seeding the lie that increased anomalies constitute good income. Did you know 15-20 belts are required to support one continuous ratter? Adding more people to the mix drastically decreases hourly income. Unless you feel under 20m per hour is an acceptable income for 0.0 pilots who need to help pay for sov upgrades. I certainly don't have time to grind ISK because I have a Real Job.
gfldex	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:17:00 - [825] Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. The problem right now is that way to few pilots are in _space_ in 0.0 . How about having agents in space to lure them out?
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:17:00 - [826] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Shasis Edited by: Shasis on 07/11/2009 14:38:41 CCP Soundwave, you said in one of your previous posts that with dominion, an upgraded system will be able to feed 10-15 people. Even if CCP said at first 100 people... but ok. Keep in mind that currently, people from 0.0 sov holding alliances are not farming in the same system. And with the cost of the upgrades, plus fuel for bridges, cyno gen/jam towers, those alliances won't be able to keep the sov in all those systems anymore, and then will have a lot more than 15 people in their upgraded systems at the main timezone of the alliance... Why not creating an upgrade that will put lvl4 agents in the upgraded outpost systems ? then the 10-15 people is gone... We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. Putting aside the utterly insane isk sinks being introduced for a moment, if this is the goal, why is lvl 4 equivalence only at the top end of the infrastructure tree, and why are pirate magnets only providing enough sites for a trivial number of players? Because you do know that you guys don't have a great record on coming back to further develop these systems in future, right?
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:18:00 - [827] Originally by: Mikal Drey Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. think small, act small, think like a n00b . .. . not all agents live in space you can find some agents at gates into certain 0.0 COSMOs systems :/ NOTHING is stoping you from adding agents beacons directly into space.
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:18:00 - [828] Edited by: Kerfira on 07/11/2009 15:22:30 Originally by: Bobby Atlas Originally by: Kerfira My post You have clearly made a compelling argument with an NPC alt, you are clearly so infallible that you can be transparent and tell us all who you are and what alliance you belong too. If you are already pay quite high taxes, wait till dominion when those taxes go out the ass cause the costs just went up exorbitantly. I am sorry but the case you make loses all ground when you are hiding behind an NPC alt. Ahhhh.... The alt argument.... Always presented when you don't have anything to say against arguments.... I sure love it when people use it How about you actually argue against what I say instead of who my character is? No... I'm sorry.... That'd be too hard for you Originally by: Bobby Atlas As for what to spend isk on, lets see - combat, reimbursements, infrastructure and capitals to name a few. I see that the concept of working FOR and being a contributing member of an alliance eludes you! I pay for my own ships (for combat). I've paid for my own caps (for combat). I reimburse my own ships! Corp taxes mainly go for infrastructure. Raise it a bit? Meh, big deal! You are basically part of the "Me! Me! MEEEEE!" crowd I mentioned a few pages back..... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Miraqu Caldari	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:19:00 - [829] Originally by: Sally Bestonge So, you're saying everyone should be able to pilot a Hulk and mine ISK? Maxed Hulks mining bistot (no arkonor in our space) earn maybe 30m an hour, and that is not considering roid popping/relocation/disruption from hostile activity. Many people in 0.0 alliances have 1 trained pilot, that being a PVP pilot. Few have two with one being able to fly a Hulk. Mining in anything less than a Hulk is painful because ISK earned per hour drops well below 0.0 ratting. There's a difference between holding space and holding sovereignty. For example, many NPC 0.0 alliances hold parts of their regions, but do not hold sovereignty. 0.0 alliances will simply drop sov everywhere and quash anyone who chooses to come near. Now, does that sound boring to you? It does to me. No, not everybody, but the alliances have to change their recruiting policy and their view about the members. I am not a real fan of that and I really dread the day, when its my turn to babysit miners from empire about reading intels, watching local and stop crying if they lose a ship. But.... you know its Eve we all have to adapt.
Hot Fudge Minmatar Sweet -N- Sticky	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:19:00 - [830] I don't live the 0.0 alliance life, and even I think those prices are kinda steep. It has been stated that the costs are based on fuel costs and so on and so forth, but how many alliances actually buy the fuel (i.e. isotopes, heavy water, liquid ozone, and strontium)? I would think most alliances have mining ops to acquire that, so I don't see how it can be figured into the upkeep/sovereignty calculations, if it is. ========================= Sweet, sticky, and bad for your health.


CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:20:00 - [831] Originally by: Hertford Originally by: CCP Soundwave Ah I see what you mean now. The sites do have different difficulty, and it's true that when you reach the highest tier of upgrades, veterans will primarily benefit from this. Cool, we're on the same wavelength. Now hopefully my concern about newbies is clearer. Unless I'm not reading things right, upgrading anomalies is actually a downgrade if you've just started EvE. Quote: I'd not want to put 10 tiers of sites in, because it would be relatively difficult to justify the need for all ten. Frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and BS anomalies should be enough to keep most players occupied and progress through them relatively naturally. That's fair enough. Creating ten tiers of difficulty is a lot of work, and is a throwback to my original goon fleet dot com post back in August '08. The idea was to give solo newbies and organised groups of bitter vets content inside anomalies, and for everyone in-between. The original idea also distinguished between a T1 fitted BS with bad skills, an average named/T2/OK skills BS, and a fully T2/factioned/silly SP BS. Why? To let players challenge themselves, or take it easy, or group up, or follow a newbie around helping, and so on. Yep, I think it makes a lot of sense, and would love to put upgrades in that made sure players on every level of the game could sustain themselves financilly in 0.0. It's something I'd love to look at.

Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:20:00 - [832] Originally by: Vivian Azure You don't get it, right? I'm one of those industrial players in a big northern alliance You're a trolling alt. If your argument is so utterly weak that even you realise that it's worthless without appealing to the authority of a 'main in a big 0.0 alliance, really!' to support it, you're going to have to log in the main and post with it instead, to give your argument even the slightest credence. And if you don't log in the main, then your argument remains entirely worthless, only, everyone knows that it's worthless, and everyone knows that you know it's worthless, or you wouldn't be trying to bolster it with the imaginary authority you're appealing to. So, which will it be?
Random Asian	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:21:00 - [833] Everyone is making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Zastrow (best strow) said it back on one of the first few pages. In order for Dominion to achieve its overall goal (getting more people into 0.0), it has to answer his question: Is it worth it? Right now it's worth it at a personal level because it is worth it at an alliance level. R64 minerals provide enough alliance-level income that most/all major alliances can subsidize PvP losses, either through some form of socialism or through reimbursements. I understand that r64 income is out of hand, it's completely ridiculous that alliances like goonswarm and pl can collect 300b+ a month just by emptying some silos and moving it to jita. So the reduction in alliance-level income is necessary in that regard. But you cannot couple that reduction with a simultaneous exponential increase in alliance-level costs! As mathematically shown by several people in this thread, the increase in the cost of holding space makes holding space completely pointless, and the proposed "benefits" don't change that. It's a problem of scale. If you want an alliance to hold less space, you need to provide the means to support more people in that space. 10 anomalies in a system aren't going to do that. Especially not when it's going to cost you both initial AND recurring isk to gain that "upgrade". The people comparing this to NGE are not trolling and they are not exaggerating. I'm hoping CCP has enough perspective and humility to see that. Or it's going to do to eve just what NGE did to SWG: kill it.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:23:00 - [834] Originally by: Sally Bestonge Stoffer, you don't like replying to posts which directly address you, but you insist on defending your new sov system and seeding the lie that increased anomalies constitute good income. Did you know 15-20 belts are required to support one continuous ratter? Adding more people to the mix drastically decreases hourly income. Unless you feel under 20m per hour is an acceptable income for 0.0 pilots who need to help pay for sov upgrades. I certainly don't have time to grind ISK because I have a Real Job. I'm not "defending" the new sov system, I'm hoping to clarify what I've been working on, and collect feedback to make the changes that are needed. I disagree with your assesment of the belts needed, and part of the reasoning for adding anomalies and not just more belts, is that belts are much more difficult resources to manage than anomalies.

Dastycakes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:24:00 - [835] I dont understand how this system will help smaller corps and alliances get out to 00 besides being pets and renters. Most people wont come out because of this. Its not a good thing. do a better job and delay this patch till you do it right. There are some goons -dastommy79
Twisted Mechanic	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:25:00 - [836] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Sally Bestonge Stoffer, you don't like replying to posts which directly address you, but you insist on defending your new sov system and seeding the lie that increased anomalies constitute good income. Did you know 15-20 belts are required to support one continuous ratter? Adding more people to the mix drastically decreases hourly income. Unless you feel under 20m per hour is an acceptable income for 0.0 pilots who need to help pay for sov upgrades. I certainly don't have time to grind ISK because I have a Real Job. I'm not "defending" the new sov system, I'm hoping to clarify what I've been working on, and collect feedback to make the changes that are needed. I disagree with your assesment of the belts needed, and part of the reasoning for adding anomalies and not just more belts, is that belts are much more difficult resources to manage than anomalies. Changes that are needed Stations count as territoial clam units
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:26:00 - [837] Originally by: Dastycakes I dont understand how this system will help smaller corps and alliances get out to 00 besides being pets and renters. Most people wont come out because of this. Its not a good thing. do a better job and delay this patch till you do it right. bingo. only the biggest color blobs in EVE can afford to maintain some of their space under this new system. Forget any prospective sov holders, after investing the large down payment to hold and maintain their space (even 1 system) they surely won't be able to defend it for very long from bigger, older alliances.
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:27:00 - [838] Edited by: Destrim on 07/11/2009 15:27:48 I re-iterate my former point: Originally by: Destrim Those infrastructure hub upgrades are... unimpressive. Seriously, that's kind of disappointing. The industrial upgrades are weak. Hidden belts are almost useless in the game. Why can't they make it something like increasing the return on ore refines, going to 110% and up? Or decreasing build costs? Or reducing build times, or blueprint copy times? Or increasing the success rate of invention? And for military...? That crap has nothing to do with an alliance's/corp's military infrastructure! Why not have something USEFUL, like "all ships belonging to the sovereign alliance within this system receive 10% additional shield HP per sovereign level?" Or increasing the amount of armor repaired? Or the speed/agility of your ships? Or the sensor strength, making your ships difficult to jam? Obviously, it would only apply to your ships if they are inside their system with that upgrade: it makes your system far more defensible! Maybe some bonuses could extend a certain range outside of your own system, such as speed/agility, but still.... The sovereignty ones are a little more understandable, but still feels kind of weak... That is, the current infrastructure upgrades are... boring. And the "upgrades" provided to the system are... meek. I mean, c'mon, you're supposedly making the system into your home, for all intents and purposes, and yet the inclination for people to actually stay there and make it "peopled" is minimal. The only thing you have implemented which actually encourages them to occupy and use their space is the steep cost; there's little on the end of reward for maintaining use of a system. In psychology, you're using "punishment" and pain aversion to instill operant conditioning. There is penalty ("punishment") for holding too many systems, but there is almost no reward by comparison.
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:27:00 - [839] Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. This is scary, you know what you need to do, instead you waste time trying to achieve the same result in an easier way, while the entire 0.0 population tells you to turn around and do it right in the first place. That is not a strive for excellence, that is just mediocrity. If you can't put agents in player owned station, you put them in SPACE; until the time comes that you feel embarrassed about telling us how you "can't do this and that" with player owned objects because of your DB and actually have a look at it. Sit down with the coders who would be responsible for implementing agents in conc. 0.0, and figure out a way of getting it done, together with them. Throw the brief reading "Put agents in player owned stations" out the window and find another way.
NeoXatrix Dogs Chasing Cars	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:27:00 - [840] Through this whole thread, I'm surprised no one came up with the simple solution to fund the sov systems AND still live in 0.0. First off, you don't have to claim sov in a system to start ratting it up. It's never stopped me before. So you can place one of these towers in one system and rat the surrounding systems up. (Or run anomalies, mine, etc...) Those systems can be used to cover the cost of the one tower, including upgrades. Another solution: Have a few corp or alliance mission ops in Empire running level 4's. The taxes from some of the bounties should help towards that cost as well. What a lot of people don't realize is that it's not up to the individual to pay for sov, but the alliance as a whole. So as one of many ants in the colony, it's not that big of a deal as a lot of people make it seem.

Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:27:00 - [841] Originally by: Hot Fudge I don't live the 0.0 alliance life, and even I think those prices are kinda steep. It has been stated that the costs are based on fuel costs and so on and so forth, but how many alliances actually buy the fuel (i.e. isotopes, heavy water, liquid ozone, and strontium)? I would think most alliances have mining ops to acquire that, so I don't see how it can be figured into the upkeep/sovereignty calculations, if it is. It hasn't been based on fuel costs, it has been based on guesswork. I'd be interested to see anyone from CCP attempt to claim that more than 5 large is the average number towers in a system, and that is what they want us pay before logistics infrastructure (which is currently very low cost). Clearly the actual number of towers used is much lower.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:27:00 - [842] Originally by: Cefte Originally by: Vivian Azure You don't get it, right? I'm one of those industrial players in a big northern alliance You're a trolling alt. If your argument is so utterly weak that even you realise that it's worthless without appealing to the authority of a 'main in a big 0.0 alliance, really!' to support it, you're going to have to log in the main and post with it instead, to give your argument even the slightest credence. And if you don't log in the main, then your argument remains entirely worthless, only, everyone knows that it's worthless, and everyone knows that you know it's worthless, or you wouldn't be trying to bolster it with the imaginary authority you're appealing to. So, which will it be? If I post this with my main, which I'm not allowed to post with anyways in the forums, then I'll get kicked out for arguing against my leadership. That's why I'm posting with an alt, and just because it's an alt doesn't make my arguments worth any less. What I come to understand however is, that all the 1337 0.0 players want to make 0.0 into the happy carebearland that is called empire so far. You refuse to contribute to your alliance other then to show up for the oh so funny big blobby fleets. I'd like to see 0.0 turned into a place, where every single player has to invest tons of time, and not just a handful of industrial players doing all the work, so that you can have your fun.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:28:00 - [843] Originally by: Random Asian The people comparing this to NGE are not trolling and they are not exaggerating. I'm hoping CCP has enough perspective and humility to see that. Or it's going to do to eve just what NGE did to SWG: kill it. To be fair Dominion as it stands won't kill EVE, just 0.0
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:29:00 - [844] There's a reason I abused the "Should Have Gone To Motsu" phrase earlier in the thread; firstly because I'm a terrible unoriginal poster, and secondly because come dominion... Let's cut right back to basics. CCP wants more people in 0.0. 1) There needs to be room in 0.0. - Alliance Sov Holdings need to be cut back - 0.0 needs to be more lucrative than Motsu from the personal point of view - 0.0 Needs to support more than three players per system 2) Holding 0.0 space should be profitable without having to claim a whole region - 0.0 needs to be more lucrative than Motsu from the personal point of view - 0.0 needs to support more than three players per system 3) 0.0 needs to be attractive to players - 0.0 needs to be more lucrative than Motsu from the personal point of view - 0.0 needs to support more than three players per system
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:31:00 - [845] Originally by: Tia Tzu Face it all you big alliances, CCP are changing things because you are making the game so boring.. If you won't be able to hold all the space you do now, then thats a good thing and really the whole point. Things need shaking up in 0.0, atm its just the same old vested interests that have been there for years hoarding all the isk from moon mining. And lol at all you ppl (mostly from goons) who say mining is pointless and ratting is the only worthwhile method of making isk, you are just so self centered you cant see past the end of your own noses. It's tragic all you rank and file have no clue about the bigger picture cos it's your alliance leaders that have been coining it in behind your backs for years. While making even simple ship reimbursements for mandatory ops like getting blood from a stone. CCP are trying to do you a favour I'm glad that the alliance I am in isn't like this. Logistics, capitals and battleships get replaced without hassle. I can't believe the trouble those in charge of reimbursements have to go through to keep everyone happy and I don't envy them. 0.0 Is boring because of the napfests and blobs. It's boring having to fight the same blob over and over again. One way to fix that is limiting the blue lists.
Sperrzone Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:35:00 - [846] Half baked Turkey landing on 1st Dec. pls CCP put it back into the Oven for some more time
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:35:00 - [847] Originally by: CCP Soundwave I'm not "defending" the new sov system, I'm hoping to clarify what I've been working on, and collect feedback to make the changes that are needed. I disagree with your assesment of the belts needed, and part of the reasoning for adding anomalies and not just more belts, is that belts are much more difficult resources to manage than anomalies. You know that the only reason anomalies are being pursued as the new hot 0.0 income is because CCP refuses to modify their static database/code to allow permanent changes in system belt count. It is certainly doable and spreading the lie that the "code" is impossible to modify is unacceptable. From what I'm guessing, the source code for the oldest aspects of the game is the most cryptic, but certainly CCP in its ability to maintain EVE and work on DUST has the resources to actually fix the code and make the game modular like it should have. And if the difficulty in modifying the code is a myth, well then, why don't you do something about it? And to specifically address anomalies, having to ascertain if a site is empty is a huge time waste when one could get a personal anomaly site from an agent.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:36:00 - [848] Originally by: Dastycakes I dont understand how this system will help smaller corps and alliances get out to 00 besides being pets and renters. Not even that. Even if they were only pets and renters, getting new corps out to 0.0 would be a nice start, and pets and renters can sometimes develop into major powers in their own right. What we'll see instead is potential pets and renters looking at the options, seeing that upgrading 0.0 can, at best, offer them the same income as highsec level 4s, with all the fun of paying rent and being ganked in belts and risking your assets being trapped in a captured outpost, and stay right where they are now. Madprops to Hertford, because "Should have gone to Motsu" sums up the problems perfectly.
WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:37:00 - [849] Edited by: WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt on 07/11/2009 15:39:05 Originally by: Super Whopper I'm glad that the alliance I am in isn't like this. Logistics, capitals and battleships get replaced without hassle. I can't believe the trouble those in charge of reimbursements have to go through to keep everyone happy and I don't envy them. 0.0 Is boring because of the napfests and blobs. It's boring having to fight the same blob over and over again. One way to fix that is limiting the blue lists. Nobody is complaining about the sov mechanic updates. The vast majority of this expansion is rather well thought out. The ONLY thing that's being complained about is the completely broken risk/reward ratio, specifically the reward end of it, which is so broken as proposed that many large alliances are contemplating complete abandonment of conquerable space. This is like a landlord saying that he's unveiled new, more favorable leasing terms when his tenants are all preparing to live on the sidewalk.
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:38:00 - [850] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Cefte Originally by: Vivian Azure You don't get it, right? I'm one of those industrial players in a big northern alliance You're a trolling alt. If your argument is so utterly weak that even you realise that it's worthless without appealing to the authority of a 'main in a big 0.0 alliance, really!' to support it, you're going to have to log in the main and post with it instead, to give your argument even the slightest credence. And if you don't log in the main, then your argument remains entirely worthless, only, everyone knows that it's worthless, and everyone knows that you know it's worthless, or you wouldn't be trying to bolster it with the imaginary authority you're appealing to. So, which will it be? If I post this with my main, which I'm not allowed to post with anyways in the forums, then I'll get kicked out for arguing against my leadership. That's why I'm posting with an alt, and just because it's an alt doesn't make my arguments worth any less. No, the fact that you yourself think you have to appeal to the invisble magical main makes your argument worth less. If even the guy making the argument doens't think it can stand by its own merits, then it's even more worthless in the view of everyone else. Originally by: Vivian Azure I'd like to see 0.0 turned into a place, where every single player has to invest tons of time, and not just a handful of industrial players doing all the work, so that you can have your fun. So, you're representing as a bitter logistics director. Rather than passive-aggressive whining at how everyone in 0.0 should suffer to make almost as much money as running level 4s, and how you hate your alliance leadership and literally everyone else in 0.0 who wants to have fun, bugger off out of this thread, and out of your alliance, and go run level 4s yourself.

Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:39:00 - [851] First, thanks to CCP Soundwave for taking the time and care to adress a lot of concerns. But as usual and despite all nice talk of taking feedback into account and releasing stuff early to the test server so that the devs can listen to the players, it is again FAR to late to change a bad system. So we have to stick with the current stuff and I am pretty scared about the outlooks, it is really grim for 0.0 First of all, and I asked that already over and over and long time ago first when the static DED complexes were removed, what incentives are there for players to fight over? EVERYONE needs a reason to do things and the reason 'just because i can' might work for a few individuals but for the majority of the people this is not enough. With the removal of high end moons the biggest incentive for fleet fights and capturing things is gone. Are there new incentives introduced in Dominion? Not that I see. Doing some npc farming can be done much easier and without any risk at all better in high sec. Why should people come to 0.0 in larger numbers then? 0.0 is not about npc farming, it never was (except few individuals) because high sec is much better for that. 0.0 was always about fleet battles and tons of pvp action. How can that be increased in Dominion? I only see carebear stuff, but that is best left in high sec or wormholes. So, why going to 0.0? Now the costs. It is said 5 mil for a large pos per day? But that is WRONG. It is only 1 mil in npc goods. The other 4 mil are ice products and your corp members can mine them, so this wouldn't hurt the wallet. I don't want to analyze to pro and cons about ice mining ops but at least you could lower the fuel costs drasticallly ON YOUR OWN. The basic numbers for upkeeping the system are therefore already totally wrong (and don't come now with the argument that people could rat/plex and donate the money to the corp instead of mining ice, that are two completely different activities). And also you could use the pos for income AND sov claiming eg. reactions, moon mining, labs, assembly arrays so the numbers are even more wrong - if that is possible. In essence, many of the pos were cost neutral. So the 20 mil per system are nonsense. My biggest concern is that CCP is trying to lure carebears into 0.0 while smashing all the currently existing (social) structures into pieces with the new sov system but at the same time the carebears won't come to 0.0 because it is just not worth the effort. This way you will have NOTHING in the end. The existing social structures gone and no new ones emerging. Surely, Dominion is a pure carebear expansion and not a tiny bit pvp orientated. But carebears have their own logic and they certainly don't follow CCP's logic as already proven time over time and last seen with the wormholes. So, be VERY careful about what you are doing and keep in mind the bad examples the mmo industry showed already. Not listening to the community and to the people who make up your 0.0 game for YEARS now is surely not a clever move. ALL concerns from really experiences alliances like CVA are constantly ignored from the beginning on. No good prospects, really.
Dastycakes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:41:00 - [852] Originally by: Cefte Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Cefte Originally by: Vivian Azure You don't get it, right? I'm one of those industrial players in a big northern alliance You're a trolling alt. If your argument is so utterly weak that even you realise that it's worthless without appealing to the authority of a 'main in a big 0.0 alliance, really!' to support it, you're going to have to log in the main and post with it instead, to give your argument even the slightest credence. And if you don't log in the main, then your argument remains entirely worthless, only, everyone knows that it's worthless, and everyone knows that you know it's worthless, or you wouldn't be trying to bolster it with the imaginary authority you're appealing to. So, which will it be? If I post this with my main, which I'm not allowed to post with anyways in the forums, then I'll get kicked out for arguing against my leadership. That's why I'm posting with an alt, and just because it's an alt doesn't make my arguments worth any less. No, the fact that you yourself think you have to appeal to the invisble magical main makes your argument worth less. If even the guy making the argument doens't think it can stand by its own merits, then it's even more worthless in the view of everyone else. Originally by: Vivian Azure I'd like to see 0.0 turned into a place, where every single player has to invest tons of time, and not just a handful of industrial players doing all the work, so that you can have your fun. So, you're representing as a bitter logistics director. Rather than passive-aggressive whining at how everyone in 0.0 should suffer to make almost as much money as running level 4s, and how you hate your alliance leadership and literally everyone else in 0.0 who wants to have fun, bugger off out of this thread, and out of your alliance, and go run level 4s yourself. never thought i would see the day a Goon and Atlas member would agree on something. There are some goons -dastommy79
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:41:00 - [853] Edited by: Deldrac on 07/11/2009 15:41:50 Real effect of all of this will just be the closing of many jump bridges and the end of cyno jammers outside of CSAA systems. It will probably also kill off many alliance fleet reimbursement schemes. I would expect 0.0 alliances will only claim sov in their station systems (primarily to limit station access) and stop dropping new stations altogether. For obvious reasons it won't reduce the sprawl of alliances, or bring more people into 0.0. It will at least be interesting to see what 0.0 warfare looks like without cynojammers, I expect it'll mostly be caps dropping on non-station moon goo towers. edit: Oh, and CVA? Yeah, sorry guys, you're boned.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:45:00 - [854] Originally by: Vivian Azure If I post this with my main, which I'm not allowed to post with anyways in the forums, then I'll get kicked out for arguing against my leadership. That's why I'm posting with an alt, and just because it's an alt doesn't make my arguments worth any less. I don't want to derail the thread or devalue your arguments but will your CEO also kick you for using the wrong kind of toilet paper? This is not CAOD, this is a feedback on Dominion thread. If neither you, nor your CEO are able to grasp that then stop trolling and continue pleasing your fundamentalist CEO. Unless you're just lying and you have no idea what you're talking about and are just hiding behind some half cooked excuse. I'm more than inclined to believe the latter.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:45:00 - [855] Just to clarify my own personal point of view with regards to changes... Currently, I'm not fussed that Motsu could make me more money personally than current 0.0. I'm not here to play for seven months in highsec then quit because EvE is boring. I enjoy 0.0, the alliance warfare, and all the politics. Come Dominion, it looks like my income will take a hit, which obviously I'm not looking forward to. However, I've been posting with concern about CCP wanting more people in 0.0. Those who want to live in 0.0, or just don't like Empire space, are pretty much already in 0.0. Getting more people into 0.0 either requires more people playing (which Dominion probably won't achieve to any significant degree), or having Empire dwellers willing to risk a stake in 0.0 and to move in. But, with the current proposals and systems, I don't really see said Empire dwellers making that move. And I forsee a section of the 0.0 playerbase actually giving up 0.0, or the game entirely.
Sellmewarez	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:46:00 - [856] TLDR:;;; Dominon changes nothing apart from making it even more of a pain in the ass of every single person living in 0.0. So much for nothing CCP...
Joanne S	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:48:00 - [857] Savings due to less POS needed? Wrong. Fuel costs for POS will automatically rise 25% because of no discount for Constellation Sov. This will offset any savings from removal of Deathstars. We can pay for up keep from Moon mining? Wrong. Any new or small Alliance sticking up a POS to subsidise Sovereignty will find them knocked into reinforced every other day, just for sheer devilment. So upgrade the system for Cyno Jamming; then it all becomes cost prohibitive unless you own High-end moons. New Alliances in 0.0? I doubt it; imagine all the fun we can have watching the little guys invest Billions in a single system, then taking it away over night. ItÆs not a mistake many will make twice. It doesnÆt need to be about claiming, itÆs just because you can. Increased revenue from Ratting? Give me a break, anyone still deriving enjoyment from Ratting or Missions hasnÆt been playing long enough. ItÆs a forced grind, don't get me wrong I enjoyed it once. Many, many moons ago. Game enhancing improvements? From what I see you are offering back what we already had, at a massive cost. But hereÆs the sweetener, you can buy a few extra ratting sites. It took months to come up with that? Utter garbage.
Killljoy	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:50:00 - [858] Can we get a bail-out for CVA!!!! cause they are screwed
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:50:00 - [859] CCP, make the costs of systems scale non-linearly. As you take more systems, the prices to hold those systems go up! This makes it possible for smaller entities to control a little bit of space without going bankrupt and makes sure large entities have to scale back dramatically. If you can do that without absurd-like prices as they are now, many more people would love you.
Highfield Caldari I.M.M Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:52:00 - [860] I'd like someone from CCP to to enlighten us on the fighting side of Dominion. What is needed to make sovereignty switch? What will happen to upgrades? Can they be destroyed? Will they transfer to the new owner? Is this going to be explained in another blog? Regards, Highfield

Ophelia T'Kun	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:52:00 - [861] After reading through the 29 pages all I can say is... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! Well done CCP, kick them big self declared leet alliances even more in the nuts and raise the sovereignity-costs even further. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:53:00 - [862] Originally by: Highfield I'd like someone from CCP to to enlighten us on the fighting side of Dominion. What is needed to make sovereignty switch? What will happen to upgrades? Can they be destroyed? Will they transfer to the new owner? Is this going to be explained in another blog? Regards, Highfield You're assuming there'll be Sovereignty to contest :V
WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:57:00 - [863] Originally by: Tommy Blue CCP, make the costs of systems scale non-linearly. As you take more systems, the prices to hold those systems go up! This makes it possible for smaller entities to control a little bit of space without going bankrupt and makes sure large entities have to scale back dramatically. If you can do that without absurd-like prices as they are now, many more people would love you. This isn't possible. Attempting it will only result in off-the-books alt alliances and corps to evade the scaling issues.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:58:00 - [864] Originally by: Highfield I'd like someone from CCP to to enlighten us on the fighting side of Dominion. What is needed to make sovereignty switch? What will happen to upgrades? Can they be destroyed? Will they transfer to the new owner? Is this going to be explained in another blog? Regards, Highfield lol, big alliances are going to have to pull back their borders and some alliances are even considering just abandoning their systems. Ship replacement programs are going to be cut, and T2 ship prices are going to go way up. If Dominion is exactly what this blog says, they don't need to worry about how pvp is going to work. Besides for ganking there aren't going to be any major sov changes, what incentive is there to take over another system. Plus the cost of the upgrades are insignificant compared to the upkeep prices. A billion isk for the entire tier is far less than the 2 billion a month.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:00:00 - [865] Originally by: Pohbis Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. This is scary, you know what you need to do, instead you waste time trying to achieve the same result in an easier way, while the entire 0.0 population tells you to turn around and do it right in the first place. This is such an obvious and elegant solution that you would be totally justified in committing virtually any level of resources to make it work. It is incredibly disappointing to see you dismiss it so quickly, especially when the thread proposing the idea over in the assembly hall has unanimous support at the time of writing. From day one, CCP has never been about doing the easy thing rather than the right thing, and that's what most of us who've stayed with you really appreciate. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule
Sturmwolke	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:02:00 - [866] Originally by: Tommy Blue CCP, make the costs of systems scale non-linearly. As you take more systems, the prices to hold those systems go up! This makes it possible for smaller entities to control a little bit of space without going bankrupt and makes sure large entities have to scale back dramatically. Non-linear scaling of cost won't stand to abuse. You shall see the rise Goonswarm Feet & Legs, Goonswarm Arms & Torso and finally Goonswarm Head alliances. All form the Goon Voltron.
Zephyrante Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:06:00 - [867] What i get from this changes into Eve is that its not gona be usefull or worth living in 0.0 at the cost its going to take, atm being in 0.0 even being the worst of it gives you a better chance of having fun in this game, you can get pvp, founding for your ships, mining, exploring, almost everithing you want is there in 0.0, there is always drawbacks like fueling the damn POS but you get your rewards that i noted earlier, now with this pach we get no more sov claiming towers, but you gona have to handle twice the time in towers you where managing to sustain the costs of sov in your space or just dont live there, cause you need to milk all the resources you can get to pay the bill to sustain sov, moon gold has gone down even pre-dominion, now we need to milk even he most usseless moon you can find to get the income you need to sustain your station systems. I dont get it, you remove the pos claiming but we have now to get more POS to get isk to pay for sov and instead of making 0.0 more tempting you make it less tempting, we gona need to get rating/mining to keep your stations up, Aridia is gona be a good place to live, low sec full of moon gold and hey we dont have to pay bills! I have to agree with the guys saying this is half baked turkey...
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:06:00 - [868] Originally by: Dastycakes never thought i would see the day a Goon and Atlas member would agree on something. True, but I never thought I would see the Dev Blog where CCP declared their intent to strangle the nullsec system completely and push us all to NPC space either.
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:08:00 - [869] yo i've been contacting a couple ccp dudes as ~YOUR CSM REPRESENTATIVE~ and they don't have their head in the sand, ok just sharing. keep postin 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
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:11:00 - [870] Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Originally by: Pohbis Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. This is scary, you know what you need to do, instead you waste time trying to achieve the same result in an easier way, while the entire 0.0 population tells you to turn around and do it right in the first place. This is such an obvious and elegant solution that you would be totally justified in committing virtually any level of resources to make it work. It is incredibly disappointing to see you dismiss it so quickly, especially when the thread proposing the idea over in the assembly hall has unanimous support at the time of writing. From day one, CCP has never been about doing the easy thing rather than the right thing, and that's what most of us who've stayed with you really appreciate. CCP would be better off delaying Dominion and making it so that upgrades could increase belts, decrease True Sec status, and put lvl 4 and lvl 5 missions with equivlant rewards to mission running in low sec.

Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:13:00 - [871] Okay I've had another idea since you didn't respond to my earlier idea about needing more belts. Can we have a skill to lower the costs associated with Sovereignty. Sort of like Accounting lowers sales tax. This would probably be a Corporate Management skill call it Administration. Primary: Charisma, Secondary: Memory. Say a 3x skill. Training it lowers the cost associated with claiming sovereignty by say 10% per level up to of course level 5. It would have to be trained by the CEO of the Executor corp I guess or perhaps the corp with the flag in that system. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Stelteck Minmatar ICE is Coming to EVE Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:14:00 - [872] The goal of dominion is to help people to return to empire ? Mission accomplished.... I'am searching for a virtual rope to hang myself in game.......
Sloth Arnini Arcana Imperii Ltd.	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:14:00 - [873] In the absence of actual numbers, I took the announced changes with relative equanimity. I thought that changes would be introduced in such a way that they would at worst be cost-neutral compared to the existing system. I believe, knowing that nullsec alliance players are pretty lazy (being one myself), that they will only travel as far as they need to make their personal isk. In other words, if wealth concentration is increased so that more people can be supported by an alliance's core systems, then they won't travel to the outer fringes of their territory. This exodus from the frontier alone will open up sizable tracts of space, without forcing an alliance to shell out 560 mill/month for every system it lights up on the map (before upgrades). Many people in Atlas were actually looking forward to the prospect of ditching vast swathes of outlying space, but being rewarded for doing so by having lower sovereignty costs for what we chose to keep. As it stands, we're likely going to have to abandon space, with no reward for doing so (i.e. we'll be paying as much if not more than we do now but still with less space). That is why you're getting this deeply concerned post from me, and I imagine it is a sentiment shared by many nullsec dwellers. We've endured the current broken system for years and put up with the burdens it puts upon our playing time. We were hoping for a reprieve with Dominion. Instead we're having more burdens thrust upon us. That is why we're upset, not simply because we're expected to dismember our multiregional empires. That caricature is peddled by clueless morons with their own agendas. To CCP, I say this: make the carrots bigger and the stick smaller. Perhaps change the cost of sov so that instead of being a flat sum/system, it increases with the number of systems. A sov stacking penalty, if you will.
Zhang Ramses Chaos From Order Manifest Destiny.	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:15:00 - [874] The upgrades are terrible.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:15:00 - [875] Originally by: Zahorite CCP would be better off delaying Dominion and making it so that upgrades could increase belts, decrease True Sec status, and put lvl 4 and lvl 5 missions with equivalent rewards to mission running in low sec. Wait, you have anomalies instead that is good enough for you scum, the s***that gives us our paychecks ~ CCP, 2009*
TiaConda	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:15:00 - [876] Is there going to be a Grace period on Dec 1st to switch to the new Sov or is it all out chaos ?
Syberbolt8 Gallente Gen Tec Freedom of Elbas	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:15:00 - [877] Hey guys instead of talking about it, log onto sisi and check for contracts in FD- by syberbolt8, i have a few of the upgrades up on contract for people, if there are no contracts eve-mail me and ill get you sorted asap :) Support the DEAD HORSE POS's
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:16:00 - [878] Originally by: WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt Originally by: Tommy Blue CCP, make the costs of systems scale non-linearly. As you take more systems, the prices to hold those systems go up! This makes it possible for smaller entities to control a little bit of space without going bankrupt and makes sure large entities have to scale back dramatically. If you can do that without absurd-like prices as they are now, many more people would love you. This isn't possible. Attempting it will only result in off-the-books alt alliances and corps to evade the scaling issues. Wont having to have the the alliance members ratting/mining in a system to allow upgrades stop that from happening? And if they do it anyway, they would have to break up their large alliance into a bunch of smaller ones. The only other reason for doing so it to just hold onto space, which is pointless. As bobby said earlier a couple times, the sprawl that you see in the larger alliances is due to personal posses n such. There will be no point in holding the masses of systems just to, well, have them.
Alexi Kalashnikov GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:17:00 - [879] Originally by: CCP Soundwave I completely agree that systems will be able to sustain about 10, possibly 15 people active at one time (which to be fair is a pretty massive increase from what we can do now). It's not the perfect solution, but it gives us a pretty solid base to work from. In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. Your numbers need to be revisited now: not later. Run the numbers on most of the alliances, big and small, today and you'll find that you'll likely be demanding trillions in isk from 0.0 to simply maintain what is there today: then we want to fund wars, invasions, and other fun pew pew-pew
Ap0ll0n Gallente Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:18:00 - [880] The whole concept of the new sov system is good, but the details really suck. Your gonna boost the stuff in 0.0 that noone really cares about. Tbh, if you can¦t upgrade the truesec of a system, so that you get highend ore, and maybe even get more belts, all of this makes no sense, and won¦t change much. Why would anyone upgrade systems, just to get more complexes? We already have plenty of those, its the ore in belts we need.. Regions like Geminate, pure blind etc. just to name a few that i know of, won¦t magically turn into a industry heaven, just because you spend lots of isk on a few systems, so that you can get a gravimetric sites. That won¦t sustain 50-100 miners for long.

Dastycakes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:18:00 - [881] I'll tell you whats going to happen after the patch. Alliances will only maintain sov in their current Station Systems.(will be upgraded probably aswell) Alliances will continue to pos spam moons for their goo without bothering to put hubs down. Alliances will continue to kill off any smaller entitys around their space and take their moon goo. Pos wars will continue just as they did before minus what has to be done in station systems. Dominos will be the death of the JB network. It will not be cost effective. Basicly everything will be the same except the territory maps. Players will still control their old space even though it wont look like it on the map. There is no reason for new or smaller alliances to crop up into 00 without being renters or pets. It wont be cost effective to develop space which means we are back to 1-2 players per system max. Also CVA is gonna need a bailout or they are p. screwed. I fear the day i will nolonger hear the shouts of AMARR VICTOR in local. It was a good run CVA. Props for being killed by the devs, something the players could never do. o7 There are some goons -dastommy79
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:19:00 - [882] Originally by: Sturmwolke Originally by: Tommy Blue CCP, make the costs of systems scale non-linearly. As you take more systems, the prices to hold those systems go up! This makes it possible for smaller entities to control a little bit of space without going bankrupt and makes sure large entities have to scale back dramatically. Non-linear scaling of cost won't stand to abuse. You shall see the rise Goonswarm Feet & Legs, Goonswarm Arms & Torso and finally Goonswarm Head alliances. All form the Goon Voltron. Make upgrades unusable unless the alliance claims a large number of systems. E.g. 5 per connected jump bridge --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule
Bonefish O'Hallahan Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:29:00 - [883] Originally by: Sloth Arnini That is why you're getting this deeply concerned post from me, and I imagine it is a sentiment shared by many nullsec dwellers. We've endured the current broken system for years and put up with the burdens it puts upon our playing time. We were hoping for a reprieve with Dominion. Instead we're having more burdens thrust upon us. That is why we're upset, not simply because we're expected to dismember our multiregional empires. That caricature is peddled by clueless morons with their own agendas. Agreein' with Atlas Get OUT CCP
Misha Fillechienne Aliastra	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:29:00 - [884] ITT: Goons crying salty tears and calling Soundwave by his former player name. Delicious.
Normin Bates	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:30:00 - [885] So many tears from the large Alliances that control huge areas of empty/unused space. Claim less systems. Problem solved. ------------------------------------ I would like to know what will happen to the Drone regions though. Without bounty rats they will be abandoned wastelands with no activity or SOV. CCP?
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:31:00 - [886] Originally by: CCP Soundwave I completely agree that systems will be able to sustain about 10, possibly 15 people active at one time Did you take into account that when you have 10 anomalies and already 9 people running anomalies in the system that you will have only a 10% chance of finding the unoccupied anomaly in the first attempt? And it still is only 50/50 after checking three of the anomalies. That all will cost time. So 10 anomalies all the time can NOT realistically keep 10 people busy with npc farming all the time. Just saying. And a single pvp guy can kill ALL the activity of ALL npc runners. Did you take that into account also??
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:32:00 - [887] Originally by: Mecinia Lua Okay I've had another idea since you didn't respond to my earlier idea about needing more belts. Can we have a skill to lower the costs associated with Sovereignty. Sort of like Accounting lowers sales tax. This would probably be a Corporate Management skill call it Administration. Primary: Charisma, Secondary: Memory. Say a 3x skill. Training it lowers the cost associated with claiming sovereignty by say 10% per level up to of course level 5. It would have to be trained by the CEO of the Executor corp I guess or perhaps the corp with the flag in that system. That will just put more burden on the smaller alliances since they will have to lvl that skill up to 5. Assuming CCP believes that their numbers are correct they would have to assume that all alliances have that skill up to lvl 5 in order to maintain balance. This would mean they would have to double the costs. Of course if the numbers in that blog already assume that I would love to know. At the very least CCP needs to get rid of the 25 million a day it costs just to put up a cyno jammer. Perhaps change some of this stuff to a one time investment instead. It can be larger but at 25 million a day that is over 9 billion isk a year for each system with a cyno jammer. You could go out and fit half a dozen dreadnaughts instead. As long as you only lost one every other month you would probably end up ahead. Assuming that you have 10 systems, well it will probably be more cost effective to go buy yourself a large capital fleet.
Ceirah Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:33:00 - [888] If you want people out of the empire, dont bait them out, burn them out
Loves Porcsword	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:35:00 - [889] Your whole idea of getting large numbers into a system out in 0.0 is total garbage. your ideas on ratting and the sustainability of your proposals are severely lacking what is really required to sustain any corp no matter of size. The ONLY way you can make this work is to make any system in 0.0 just a valuable as a high sec mission running system. For example - the average mission hub in empire has over 300 people running missions at any one time. With your proposals there can be a maximum of 10 people running plexes / ratting in belts in an upgraded 0.0 system. The solution to this is to enable an anchorable device at a certain sov level and the required upgrade. This anchorable device would serve as a beacon allowing it to spawn rats at a rate relevant to the systems truesec and ugrade levels. This would need to small enough for any solo pilot to carry in their cargo holds - and different levels would be able to be purchased/created which would give you several different levels of 'complexes'. As I see it this could be the only way to achieve motsu scale support inside any 0.0 system.
Nephilim Xeno Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:35:00 - [890] This upgrade system really does not make much sense in the current form. Would make much more sense if the activity levels would reduce the sov costs by like 5% each level which would reduce the cost per systems by 75% if all activity levels are maxed out. This would make systems that are highly used very lucrative and unused systems very expensive.

Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:35:00 - [891] I think the best response by CCP right now would be to announce a delay in the release. This will do two things: 1) Let their player base know they take them seriously and their gameplay (since you're losing a lot of trust as we speak) and even I believe will lose players - who knows how many but it could be quite a few. 2) Do a little more development - maybe a month more and use the valuable feedback provided in the disastrous forum response. If I were in charge - these would be my moves to make. I know delay costs money - but you have to realize you're in damage control mode now.
WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:36:00 - [892] Originally by: Tommy Blue Wont having to have the the alliance members ratting/mining in a system to allow upgrades stop that from happening? And if they do it anyway, they would have to break up their large alliance into a bunch of smaller ones. No, you'd more likely have "administrative" alliances that exist to do nothing but hold on to isolated chunks of space or jump bridge serial systems, set blue to everyone in the "real" alliance which lives in that space. Quote: The only other reason for creating multiple smalle alliances/corps would be just to hold onto space, which is pointless. As bobby said earlier a couple times, the sprawl that you see in the larger alliances is due to personal posses n such. There will be no point in holding the masses of systems just to, well, have them. Having it be prohibitively expensive to claim a large number of systems achieves this goal by itself. It's technically still possible to have a sprawling Empire, but it will be logistically more difficult to defend, you won't get DED mails from everywhere and you won't be able to do things like cynojam an entire region.
Dream Hunter Morne Attitude	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:38:00 - [893] So unless a system has a security status of -0.35 or less, 20+ belts, an R-64 moon and several R-32, why bother trying to upgrade it? This just moves the large alliance battles from being over R-64 moons to very low sec and high belt count systems. Making it totally impractical for a small alliance let alone a small corporation to set up in 0.0 space in their own system and have a reason to upgrade it. There is a lot of small corps and alliances that were hoping to be able to buy protection from a large alliance and be able to claim / upgrade their own system. With the current CCP vision of 0.0 and the high fortnight fees that canÆt happen. What happened to trying to incent people to move to 0.0 space? Did you developers loose sight of your original goal? "Tell me what the rules are and I will tell you how I am going to win." - John Malone.
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:40:00 - [894] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: KUINNI Originally by: CCP Soundwave They will not be titan level investments, I can assure you that. so, if only for current brigde map of one ally needed about 60-70b every month - it's not titan level investments? It was my impression he was speaking about buying infrastructure upgrades, and not the upkeep cost. If so, I misunderstood. You misunderstood, CCP Soundwave. It's the whole cost. Upgrading a single system isn't the issue--that's money invested. Paying rent, and worse, paying rent on enough systems to keep your money coming in, long enough to get the development levels you need to support your population at a more concentrated density (ie. lower bills), that is the cost a starting alliance will have to bear until everything gets sorted. (30 pilots x 3 anoms = 10 systems, 30 pilots x 10 anoms = 3 systems--yes, ignoring belts) And btw, ONLY the direct isk-infusion methods will help with the rent. Mining and professions sites make zero isk for the alliance unless the alliance buys at cut-rates and runs them into Empire. Minerals can make more money if turned into cap components (I'm looking at you, Dronelands), but that requires jump bridges to be done sanely. Keep in mind, that for an alliance trying to develop space they are (they hope) spending much of their time just working on money--not running PVP sweeps or doing home defense. They do NOT want to be spending any time guarding a slow convoy of mineral freighters through the kiddie-pool of piranha we call 0.0. It's worse the further out you get, because the logistics gets worse. Supposedly the truesec gets better, but because that's not actually the case (for reasons that escape me entirely), I do in fact shed a tear for the likes of Atlas. --Krum --Krum
Bonefish O'Hallahan Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:41:00 - [895] At the current point, the new changes need to be modified in order to make this EQUIVALENT to the income of running Level 4 missions. That isn't accounting for the additional costs of transporting equipment to and from 0.0, travel time to and from 0.0, incidental costs associated with piracy, roamers, and last but not least, full scale war. To put it in a different way, the new changes will arguably allow a similar level of income to Level 4s, but with the same vastly increased incidental and non-isk related costs that Empire dwellers don't have to shoulder. 0.0 is worse than botters in level 4s in terms of profitability. Get OUT CCP
Ga'len Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:41:00 - [896] Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 07/11/2009 16:36:45 I think the best response by CCP right now would be to announce a delay in the release. This will do two things: 1) Let their player base know they take them seriously and their gameplay - since you're losing a lot of trust as we speak, and that is not good at all. 2) Do a little more development - maybe a month more and use the valuable feedback provided in this obviously disastrous forum response from players. If I were in charge - these would be my moves to make. I know delay costs money - but you have to realize you're in damage control mode now. QFE.
Evlyna	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:42:00 - [897] Edited by: Evlyna on 07/11/2009 16:41:51 Welcome to PVEve-Online.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:42:00 - [898] Originally by: Dastycakes Also CVA is gonna need a bailout or they are p. screwed. I fear the day i will nolonger hear the shouts of AMARR VICTOR in local. It was a good run CVA. Props for being killed by the devs, something the players could never do. This is hilarious. We needed to bring the Devs in to kill them off with their game-changing hacks. haha
Voltaire Leriel BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:43:00 - [899] When every bank (alliance), large and small goes bankrupt from these toxic assets (sovereignty), Iceland (CCP) will need to bail out everyone to keep any sort of financial system (0.0 gameplay) in existence. Iceland (CCP) will simply need to print as much ISK (ISK) as possible creating massive inflation while everyone continues to become unemployed (unsubscribed) and simply leave the country (game). I probably got some of the underlying facts wrong, but it's still clever satire. _______________________________________ BIG IS RECRUITING
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:45:00 - [900] Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 07/11/2009 16:36:45 I think the best response by CCP right now would be to announce a delay in the release. This will do two things: 1) Let their player base know they take them seriously and their gameplay - since you're losing a lot of trust as we speak, and that is not good at all. 2) Do a little more development - maybe a month more and use the valuable feedback provided in this obviously disastrous forum response from players. If I were in charge - these would be my moves to make. I know delay costs money - but you have to realize you're in damage control mode now. I think I'd wait a little bit before calling for a delay. I expect that any decent CCP employees are running around Iceland like chickens with their heads cut off right now. However, it's completly possible that something went wrong with that one Dev blog. For instance those costs could be per an upkeep period rather than per a day. Or the upgrade system shown is just very basic and there are dozens of other upgrades already in the system they just didn't talk about in this blog, they may have only shown the upgrades that affect anomalies and not other areas. I think the first thing they need to do is work on another blog that explains exactly what upgrades tehy have planned and any changes they have planned for anomalies and what exactly those changes are. They should be able to finish that in a day or two at most. Based on the response to that blog they could decide if Dominion needs more work or if simply tweaking the system will save it. However, they first need to say clearly that they are working on this and if they need to will delay the system. I'm willing to give them a chance to explain some more and maybe even try out the system when it comes out. But if it's as bad as this blog makes it look, I'm going to switch to a different MMO and let my Eve character train while I wait for them to fix it.

Loves Porcsword	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:48:00 - [901] Edited by: Loves Porcsword on 07/11/2009 16:49:58 Edited by: Loves Porcsword on 07/11/2009 16:48:52 All the revenue CCP gets from people with multiple accounts will drop as they will no longer be able to support them with isk earnt / P.L.E.X anymore. The stupid thing is that these proposals WOULD work if they realised they need to support more than 10people in an typical 0.0 system.
Sciencegeek deathdealer	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:50:00 - [902] Edited by: Sciencegeek deathdealer on 07/11/2009 16:52:11 Originally by: ChronoSphere Jesus this is a lot of money. For a small alliance with only 3 outposts in a constellation, this is gonna cost 5.67 bil every 28 days. I really hope these upgrades do significantly increase the amount of money you can make, cause I dunno where else one can get the cash. The benefits of the upgrades has to outweigh the costs of the system, else whats the point? Firstly the objective is to reduce the amount of space every alliance holds. secondly a small alliance wouldnt be holding a constelation, most likey a system, and wouldnt hold 3 outposts. thats a med to larger alliance. Just saying. :) CCP great job i think this will have its intened effect to help squash the super alliances that hold way too much space. just make sure that the upgrades produce enough isk to be worth it. although from what you have written it will i think. let the larger aliances begin flameing me with their tears of lost afk regions.
WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:53:00 - [903] Originally by: Normin Bates So many tears from the large Alliances that control huge areas of empty/unused space. Claim less systems. Problem solved. Again, nobody is contesting the issue of large sprawls being prohibitively expensive. They are complaining about controlling ANY systems being prohibitively expensive, and not even because the costs are high, but because the resources that currently sustain those costs are being nerfed into oblivion, and the space upgrades that were supposed to make it more lucrative to offset that are in reality extremely lame and are going to beg the question of what in 0.0 is worth fighting over at all. Quote: I would like to know what will happen to the Drone regions though. Without bounty rats they will be abandoned wastelands with no activity or SOV. CCP? The drone regions are lucrative on the alliance level due to rent charges and refinery taxes, this will not change.
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:54:00 - [904] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: CCP Soundwave We certainly have ideas on how to expand the upgrade system, and everything like number of sites, upkeep cost etc can easily be adjusted, based on feedback (like this thread \o/) I don't mind more sites, as long as there's something to mine there. Nobody in their right mind is going to sit in a site and mine rocks that will deplete in one and a half cycle. It's a waste of time and will just encourage people to rat and run missions. I might be overreacting but this thread has repeatedly put forward the masses of (macro) ratters and mission runners. Please, do not ignore the industrialists. The anomalies won't have rocks, but there are mining upgrades as well, providing more rocks for you to mine :) Actually, unless you're doing new anomalies, some of them do have rocks, but that's not the point. A hundred 500-unit Arkanor rocks is not nearly as interesting (and is in fact annoying as hell) compared to 20 2500-unit rocks. Miners do not want to waste 25% of their time mining the dregs from some stupid stone. They want to be watching Battlestar, or reading a book, or fiddling with their PSP, or vacuuming the cat. Any of the semi-afk things they do to relax while "playing" eve at the same time... because mining is... --oh, nevermind. Regardless, grav sites like you have them in W-space. Anything else is merely annoying. --Krum --Krum
Loves Porcsword	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:55:00 - [905] Thats the thing though. these proposals will not have the capability to support anyone let alone the large alliances - the smaller ones will struggle just as much - NPC 0.0 space is where everyone will be.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:01:00 - [906] Cosmic Anomolies need an enourmous overhaul. They need to be switched to regular belt rats with normal bounties and normal loot/salvage to be worth anything. Tell me why I won't just roll an alt and run Level 4s in empire?
Headwires GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:03:00 - [907] I'm not sure where you are getting this "top cosmic anomolies will be worth an empire l4" line of bull**. Maybe if you are only looking at the bounties or rewards you get from an l4, not the lp. CA rats don't drop any modules and have ty bounties. If you guys had found some way to tie in hauler spawns they might be worth running as opposed to now where no one runs them. The fact that the big 0.0 isk upgrades are hinged on cosmic anomolies, profession sites, and the equally worthless mining sites is ridiculous. Aside from **ting on the ability of 0.0 players to make any isk on par with empire dwellers, this expansion is also going to ruin the motivation for any ~good fights~ to go down seeing as how no one will want to conquer any space and the loss in value of high end moons devalues them as targets. Where are the incentives for any 0.0 alliances to actually conquer space?
Loves Porcsword	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:04:00 - [908] thats it, i just figured it out. CCP are doing this to make every player in 0.0 have yet another account which is running missions all day every day to earn your 0.0 pilots isk. Nice ploy to make more money CCP.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:05:00 - [909] Originally by: Loves Porcsword thats it, i just figured it out. CCP are doing this to make every player in 0.0 have yet another account which is running missions all day every day to earn your 0.0 pilots isk. Nice ploy to make more money CCP. Power of Two will be available right after Dominion goes live
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:06:00 - [910] Originally by: Sloth Arnini Edited by: Sloth Arnini on 07/11/2009 16:21:52 In the absence of actual numbers, I took the announced changes with relative equanimity. I thought that changes would be introduced in such a way that they would at worst be cost-neutral compared to the existing system. I believe, knowing that nullsec alliance players are pretty lazy (being one myself), that they will only travel as far as they need to make their personal isk. In other words, if wealth concentration is increased so that more people can be supported by an alliance's core systems, then they won't travel to the outer fringes of their territory. This exodus from the frontier alone will open up sizable tracts of space, without forcing an alliance to shell out 560 mill/month for every system it lights up on the map (before upgrades). Many people in Atlas were actually looking forward to the prospect of ditching vast swathes of outlying space, but being rewarded for doing so by having lower sovereignty costs for what we chose to keep. As it stands, we're likely going to have to abandon space, with no reward for doing so (i.e. we'll be paying as much if not more than we do now but still with less space). That is why you're getting this deeply concerned post from me, and I imagine it is a sentiment shared by many nullsec dwellers. We've endured the current broken system for years and put up with the burdens it puts upon our playing time. We were hoping for a reprieve with Dominion. Instead we're having more burdens thrust upon us. That is why we're upset, not simply because we're expected to dismember our multiregional empires. That caricature is peddled by clueless morons with their own agendas. To CCP, I say this: make the carrots bigger and the stick smaller. Perhaps change the cost of sov so that instead of being a flat sum/system, it increases with the number of systems. A sov stacking penalty, if you will. Though abuses will need to be managed somehow. No taxation without representation!! Er... Another point, related to this, that I've been wanting to fit into my other, now numerous, vents: Compressing an alliance population reduces outlying "tripwire" ratters/miners, who normally would report incoming hostiles to appropriate channels for home defense. If you jam everyone into a single constellation there will literally be only seconds warning to respond to an attack. Ratting/PVE ships are very different from PVP ships needed to defend space, yet there are no system upgrades to address the intelligence issue or "harden" a system from attack! Amazing. --Krum --Krum

Abraham Goldstein Rho Holding Corp GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:07:00 - [911] NPC Agents you can buy as outpost upgrades are the obvious solution to what you guys are trying to accomplish, is it that hard to code in? Stop spending all our subscription dues on rotten shark meat, blow, or whatever and hire some decent coding nerds to get this done.
Jen Ravenlock	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:07:00 - [912] Edited by: Jen Ravenlock on 07/11/2009 17:11:16 Why would anyone fight for territory over systems that they likely can't afford to keep? Edit: I am not seeing how any of this places an incentive on what defines the game: killing one-another. It seems to be less about building an empire and conquering the map, and more about huddling in a few systems shooting NPCs.
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:09:00 - [913] So. Some numbers - someone tell me what I missed :-) As it looks like on sisi, upgrades don't increase sov cost. An alliance with 2 stations (one with JB), 1 moon miner elsewhere, and 1 otherwise useless logistics system for a JB connection to empire will need 271m ISK/day to pay for the sov and the four death stars. Without upgrades, that little empire easily sustains 1 person ratting in each outpost system. So if you want to rat/mine for 8h straight (means 3 "shifts"), that's 1 (pilots) * 2 (systems) * 3 (shifts) = 12 pilots occupied. Each of them needs to pay 22.6m ISK per day for the privilege to rat in a system for 8 hours. Bit much? Yes. But you can upgrade fast. PM 1: Now you can have 3 people rat at once. 323 = 15m ISK to pay for 8h ratting rights. PM 2: 523 = 9m ISK to pay for 8h ratting rights PM 5: 1123 = 4.1m ISK to pay for 8h ratting rights. And after that, you have paid for sov and all your death star fuel. All moon income is pure profit. This ignores: 1) Miners, who can easily double that amount of pilots 2) Any other ISK-making ability with other upgrades 3) The other two cyno-jammed systems you have that people could rat and mine in 4) The ability to take and upgrade another system for 30m ISK/day. 5) The ability to rat in neighboring systems that do not have sov. And you don't even have to do it yourself - if you want sov, find some pet to work in your systems and pay dues. They will cramp the system up, making it a good target for hostile PvP groups. Which in turn means more pew pew for your PvP pilots.
GavinCapacitor	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:12:00 - [914] Edited by: GavinCapacitor on 07/11/2009 17:12:44 1. Nothing about moons. R64 moons will still be the huge cash cows they are today (relative to people that do not have them). 2. Nothing to upgrade ratting. True sec is still true sec so nothing changes. 3. Linear scaling of cost per solar system. I thought it would be exponential (or between linear and exponential) because small alliances with few systems would then have an easier than, say, the goons who hold vast swaths of space. tl,dr; All aboard the failboat. edit: I can't spell.
Loves Porcsword	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:15:00 - [915] 3 people ratting at once... jeez what do you rat in ? A 20belt system can support 2 ratters maximum, so that reduces your number drastically. A plex can be ran solo easily. So a system with 20belts and upgrades can only support 10-15 people. Where does the rest of the alliance make its money from ?
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:15:00 - [916] Originally by: Qlanth Cosmic Anomolies need an enourmous overhaul. They need to be switched to regular belt rats with normal bounties and normal loot/salvage to be worth anything. Tell me why I won't just roll an alt and run Level 4s in empire? here I will answer my own question: because Delve has Level 4 agents!
SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:17:00 - [917] Edited by: SavageBastard on 07/11/2009 17:19:52 Originally by: Arkady Sadik So. Some numbers - someone tell me what I missed :-) As it looks like on sisi, upgrades don't increase sov cost. An alliance with 2 stations (one with JB), 1 moon miner elsewhere, and 1 otherwise useless logistics system for a JB connection to empire will need 271m ISK/day to pay for the sov and the four death stars. Without upgrades, that little empire easily sustains 1 person ratting in each outpost system. So if you want to rat/mine for 8h straight (means 3 "shifts"), that's 1 (pilots) * 2 (systems) * 3 (shifts) = 12 pilots occupied. Each of them needs to pay 22.6m ISK per day for the privilege to rat in a system for 8 hours. Bit much? Yes. But you can upgrade fast. PM 1: Now you can have 3 people rat at once. 323 = 15m ISK to pay for 8h ratting rights. PM 2: 523 = 9m ISK to pay for 8h ratting rights PM 5: 1123 = 4.1m ISK to pay for 8h ratting rights. And after that, you have paid for sov and all your death star fuel. All moon income is pure profit. This ignores: 1) Miners, who can easily double that amount of pilots 2) Any other ISK-making ability with other upgrades 3) The other two cyno-jammed systems you have that people could rat and mine in 4) The ability to take and upgrade another system for 30m ISK/day. 5) The ability to rat in neighboring systems that do not have sov. And you don't even have to do it yourself - if you want sov, find some pet to work in your systems and pay dues. They will cramp the system up, making it a good target for hostile PvP groups. Which in turn means more pew pew for your PvP pilots. What you "missed" is that people don't pay a daily fee to rat. People fight for their space, they do the logistics and hard work to make that happen. Why the hell would you spend a bunch of money and time fighting for space for the privilege of paying a daily fee to rat in it. Nobody pays a daily fee for the privilege of running level 4 missions. 0.0 space is tough to get, tough to keep and tough to live in. The rewards should mirror that reality and these changes as a whole completely ignore it. Also, mining is not worth doing in every system. Some places have great, valuable ores. Others do not. Mining to make 5 mil/hour in veldspar when you can rat at 20-30 mil an hour in belts is ridiculous. Or run level 4's in empire for what...50 mil an hour? More? All without worrying about getting ganked. People have bots do it for them for ****s sake.
Bradley Strider	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:17:00 - [918] In its current form the patch fails on several high-level points: - It set out to incentivize 0.0, yet it upped the burden of being there while lowering rewards. - It set out to make it easier for smaller entities to enter 0.0. While there will be huge chunks of unclaimed space, the initial investments and the player numbers to actually make it brake even do not support this goal. - It makes pvp almost superfluous, since there is not much to fight over (I guess we'll only see "fun gangs", no more strategic fleet fights). At the same time, it makes doing lots of PvE in 0.0 almost a necessity. Which, give the current proposal, has no advantage over doing it in empire.
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:20:00 - [919] Originally by: GavinCapacitor 1. Nothing about moons. R64 moons will still be the huge cash cows they are today (relative to people that do not have them). R64 moons will be about as worthless as jaspet with the massiv prom/dypro nerf. It's all about the R32 moons. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1207775
Etien Aldragoran DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:21:00 - [920] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Sally Bestonge Stoffer, you don't like replying to posts which directly address you, but you insist on defending your new sov system and seeding the lie that increased anomalies constitute good income. Did you know 15-20 belts are required to support one continuous ratter? Adding more people to the mix drastically decreases hourly income. Unless you feel under 20m per hour is an acceptable income for 0.0 pilots who need to help pay for sov upgrades. I certainly don't have time to grind ISK because I have a Real Job. I'm not "defending" the new sov system, I'm hoping to clarify what I've been working on, and collect feedback to make the changes that are needed. I disagree with your assesment of the belts needed, and part of the reasoning for adding anomalies and not just more belts, is that belts are much more difficult resources to manage than anomalies. Where did you hire your programmers from again?

Dirac Spinor GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:21:00 - [921] The ideas behind this patch show a poor understanding of the basic economics of 0.0 over just trying to break up the major 0.0 players and create room for smaller entities. The execution is ham fisted and short sighted as the sov cost will prevent smaller entities setting up in 0.0 anyway. You cannot make 0.0 better by pricing people out of it without scaling the rewards of 0.0. So let's take a brief look at the rewards under the new system. Increased Profession Sites: These are a waste of time running I can make better ISK ratting, everyone has a ship data interface now because they also drop in lowsec sites. Thus, the demand for goods from radar and magneto sites is low and the profit is worse than ratting even though finding these sites is much more effort. In short, unless profession sites themselves are boosted this is pointless. Increased Anomalies: Worthless, anomalies are not worth running because they offer less ISK per hour than ratting. Increased Grav Sites: Mining is not profitable unless you want to run several accounts with specialized ships. Seriously, I'd like to see how many of these sites actually get run right now as oppose to just despawn. If most of them just despawn right now why make more of them appear in a certain system? Increased Wormholes: Worthless, how many wormholes currently collapse due to too many ships using them? The only way this reward is worth anything is if wormholes are actually being actively used and collapsed due to ship traffic. This is not the case, out of all the wormholes I've scanned I have only seen one that was close to collapse due to ship traffic and every other had no mass used and was reaching the end of it's natural lifetime. Increased DED sites: I don't think this one will actually make that much of a difference unless the increase in probability is significant. If this is so then we'll see an increase in jita supply of rare goods while demand remains static thus decreasing the profit for people who run them. Overall, this one doesn't really change anything but will result in perhaps a little more spread of wealth or a crashing of in the price of rare dead space modules. Thus, we see that to most players the highest form of low effort income solely based in 0.0 is ratting. Under the changes no systems can support more ratters than today and there is no increase in profits associated with ratting except the ability to anchor worthless upgrades. Thus, 0.0 on this front has received no tangible buff that cannot be disproved by simply asking 0.0 players how do you make ISK there? At this point we haven't even looked at the moon income which appears to be being heavily nerfed. Thus, there are no longer treasure troves in 0.0 and all this patch has achieved is turning 0.0 into a harmogenised mess where no space is worth more than any other. So what are we left with? All I can see is that all the current benefits of 0.0 are going to go away (jumpbridges, Cynojammers etc) while the ISK sources remain the same or are nerfed. This constitutes a heavy nerf to 0.0 as oppose to a buff. Ratting seems to remain the easiest low effort way of making ISK in 0.0. So the now the question is why remain in 0.0 as oppose to going to pirate NPC 0.0? Think about it, you don't have to worry about the new horrible Sov System, -1.0 truesec in every system and access to agents. With the current mechanics this is the end result, Pirate NPC 0.0 now becomes the most valuable space in the game.
Daneb Christofph Caldari Red Fleet Corp AAA Citizens	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:23:00 - [922] What about prices for Military/Industry upgrades? How much it will be? Or we must pay only for Sovereignty and Strategic upgrades? rawr
Sergi Povitch	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:23:00 - [923] Why will sov be link to isk outlay? How is that an ingame action. Does the US pay to keep sov over puerto rico? No we took it by force of arms and it ours....
Jadal McPieksu	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:28:00 - [924] Originally by: Bobby Atlas Originally by: Mikal Drey Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. think small, act small, think like a n00b . .. . not all agents live in space you can find some agents at gates into certain 0.0 COSMOs systems :/ NOTHING is stoping you from adding agents beacons directly into space. Bingo. Could even add them to moon warpin areas, so you could "claim" them (sort of) by planting a Deathstar POS on the moon as a welcoming committee for roaming mission runners.
Nhor Haen	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:28:00 - [925] The upkeep cost is doable. High, and possibly a barrier to small alliances trying to establish themselves in 0.0, but doable for a large alliance. But if you want people to move out to, much less fight for 0.0 it must, absolutely, be worth more than L4 missions. If you're running an anomaly in 0.0 you have to worry about being ganked by hostiles. If there are already hostiles in the system, you just have to sit in a POS or outpost and wait for them to leave. If there are 10 people farming 10 instant spawning anomalies then you have to deal with the fact that 90% of the time when you warp in to one, someone else is already running it. Why deal with any of this when you don't get anything for it? If moon mining is supposed to be worth it, then why not just have the moon miners run their towers while you mission in Empire? You don't even need sov to moon mine, so doing this would save you the billions of isk in maintenance. If the moon mining is worth enough you might setup some cyno beacons or jump bridges, but there's still no reason whatsoever to PvE in 0.0. I predict that, with the current system, no one will bother claiming sov or upgrading their systems other than maybe a few jump bridges for the rich alliances. Their members will continue ratting and moon mining as before, but sov and the upgrade hub will never be worth it. In fact, they wouldn't be worth it if the maintenance cost was 50m a month.
Loves Porcsword	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:30:00 - [926] As stated before - they wont take any of these ideas on board as they want you ALL to have yet another account running empire l4 missions. Clearly a brain fart of an idea from CCP to increasse their revenue - but it will backfire and decrease the amount of people playing.
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:32:00 - [927] Originally by: WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt No, you'd more likely have "administrative" alliances that exist to do nothing but hold on to isolated chunks of space or jump bridge serial systems, set blue to everyone in the "real" alliance which lives in that space. It would make more sense to have renters/friendlies live their and you can use their JBs. Originally by: WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt Having it be prohibitively expensive to claim a large number of systems achieves this goal by itself. It's technically still possible to have a sprawling Empire, but it will be logistically more difficult to defend, you won't get DED mails from everywhere and you won't be able to do things like cynojam an entire region. No, with the current system that CCP is introducing, it is impossible to have a large empire. Having it scale non linearly also achieves this so this point doesn't really matter since they both accomplish the same task. However the current system doesnt allow for small alliances to be present.
Caius Severus Galaxy Punks Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:36:00 - [928] 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.
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:38:00 - [929] 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. You, sir, have not seen many of the posts stating why. Most of the other posts are agreeing. The more people spam this with agreeing that the system is fail, the higher chance we have of getting it to change.
Mistres Tor	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:38:00 - [930] Edited by: Mistres Tor on 07/11/2009 17:44:26 Second EXODUS incoming lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming

Loves Porcsword	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:39:00 - [931] Good suggestion, maybe they should reduce l4 missions to the 0.0 equivalent in ratting your isk then watch you come back here whining...
pipe monster	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:40:00 - [932] Edited by: pipe monster on 07/11/2009 17:43:27 I cant believe this..This patch will destroy all the hard work and time people put into their space. You got to be kidding CCP ! I wont enjoy grinding isk to maintain the systems instead of fighting for it
Dan Grobag Caldari French Empire Squad	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:45:00 - [933] Sad the upkeep cost an arm and a leg to supposedly keep alliance from getting too much sovereignty but it also emphasize the need to have a strong presence just to keep the thing floating. This wont favor an emergent structuration as this system still work as a nothing or everything. I would sugest building the first stone to cost as little as possible while leaving you still weak but making next upgrades less profitable but giving you way more defence.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:46:00 - [934] 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
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:46:00 - [935] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Originally by: Vivian Azure You can call this area of 0.0 your home, and the sov-map will show it. Yeah, most people in 0.0 alliances aren't actually that narcissistic to pay 1+ bil/month just to see their alliance name in the upper left corner with no other tangible benefit, hth~ So why did Goonswarm or any other alliance moved into 0.0 in the first place? 0.0 was never attractive when talking about ISK. The only interesting thing was moon-mining and some higher tier complexes. The problem with you people is, that you want CCP to make the game into a Hello-kitty-Wonderland, where you don't have to incvest anything but can milk the cow. there's tons of games where you can do so. EvE is a MMO and CCP emphatizes on the Massive Multiplayer part in 0.0. Now your members need to contribute to the whole thing, instead of just milking the cow with a few industrial players... I couldn't care less about you lazy bums actually. Like I said. If my alliance keeps their valuable systems, outpost-systems and the systems needed for logistic, then we can cut down to somewhere around 20 systems that need to be claimed. The money to pay the bills for these 20 systems is allready made in empire by our producers and the moon-mining-towers in low-sec and 0.0. If you wanna claim more sace then that, well... be my guest and start working for it. YOU ARE RE TARDED It was unequivocally stated that this expansion was intended to make people who claim space both live in and utilize their space, and not claim swaths of empty abandoned 0.0. This Devblog lists changes which would accomplish the opposite and that's why everyone's ***ing. 0.0 is supposed to be profitable, the intention is NOT** that everyone run L4s in empire and just come to 0.0 to fight. Yet here you sit saying the opposite. Stop posting and go read a dev blog you inbred 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
Nyphur Pillowsoft Total Comfort	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:48:00 - [936] I didn't like your devblog so I wrote my own . It's not perfect and the numbers would need tweaking and discussion but I think it's a much better solution and fits with the goals and promises made about the new sov system. ---------------- This blog will provide an overview of two parts of the new sovereignty system in Dominion: The infrastructure system and the system upkeep costs. Infrastructure The first main goal of the new sovereignty system is to increase the number of players that can simultaneously make ISK in one system. With the new infrastructure system, players will be able to upgrade their space to the point where it can handle up to 50 pilots making ISK at the same time. To upgrade your space, you'll need to anchor and online an infrastructure hub online at an empty planet in your solar system. Once it's up and running, you can install new infrastructure upgrades for that system. Each upgrade has a reccomended Usage Level (explained below) and some require other upgrades to have been installed. Similarly, some upgrades are mutually exclusive. Three flavours of upgrades! Upgrades are divided into three groups: - Strategic - Allows the usage of sovereignty-dependant structures like jump bridges and cyno jammers. - Military - Increases the quality of NPCs in asteroid belts, gives your systems additional anomalies, other exploration dungeons and allows wormholes to be opened. - Industry - Improves the ore your system has, spawns awesome new hidden asteroid belts with giant asteroids and affects industrial jobs in the system's outpost. Some of these upgrades will be mutually exclusive paths, such that if you specialise a system down the military path, some of the high end industry upgrades will no longer be available. Similarly, you may have to choose between a number of the more powerful strategic upgrades. Usage Index The second main goal of this sovereignty redesign is to increase the cost to alliances of having large numbers of unused systems. To do this, we need a way to measure how populated and well used a system is. To do this, we have created the Usage Index. This is a five-tier system which indicates how well the system's current resources have been used as an average over the past two weeks. Things that increase the Usage Index include NPC kills and ore mined in the system. Systems that are just being claimed to expand territory and not heavily used will have a very low usage index as it will require considerable system usage to raise the index. Systems that are being consistently used to their full potential will gradually increase. A system with on average 10 pilots using it consistently should gain index level 2, 20 pilots should gain level 3, 30 pilots should hit level 4 and if 40 pilots are consistently using the system, it should hit level 5. What's the index used for? Each infrastructure upgrade has an associated reccomended usage level. The upgrade can be installed when your usage level is below this, but the cost will be multiplied by ten for every level below the mark your system is. For example, a Jump Bridge upgrade requires usage level 2 and costs 2 million isk per day to run. If your system only has usage level 1, it will cost you 20 million isk per day. Similarly, a cyno jammer has a reccomended usage level of 3 and costs 2 million isk per day to run. If you have only usage level 2 it will cost 20 million per day and if you have level 1, it will cost a huge 200m/day. This makes it completely infeasible to upgrade systems that you don't use to their fullest potential but makes it cost-effective to add strategic defence upgrades to heavily used systems. Planned upgrades The following is a list of upgrades planned and their reccomended usage levels. Remember that the cost is multiplied by ten for each level below the reccomendation that the system is. Continued... EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
Caius Severus Galaxy Punks Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:50:00 - [937] Originally by: Tommy Blue You, sir, have not seen many of the posts stating why. Most of the other posts are agreeing. The more people spam this with agreeing that the system is fail, the higher chance we have of getting it to change. I have just read this thread from the beginning, and most of it is just rabble. There are some constructive posts, but most are just noise and teeth gnashing. Spamming with whines won't change anyone's mind. Posting with well reasoned and thought out arguments will.
Hazecat	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:53:00 - [938] You're assuming that CCP will listen to reason. we want more people in 0.0! ***makes it harder to live in 0.0
GenericPlayer24	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:53:00 - [939] Originally by: Caius Severus Originally by: Tommy Blue You, sir, have not seen many of the posts stating why. Most of the other posts are agreeing. The more people spam this with agreeing that the system is fail, the higher chance we have of getting it to change. I have just read this thread from the beginning, and most of it is just rabble. There are some constructive posts, but most are just noise and teeth gnashing. Spamming with whines won't change anyone's mind. Posting with well reasoned and thought out arguments will. And, as far as I can tell, you are a troll, so what say we call it even shall we?
Nyphur Pillowsoft Total Comfort	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:54:00 - [940] ...continued. The Upkeep System As sovereignty is being decoupled from starbases, the normal fuel costs have been replaced with a fortnightly sovereignty bill. As we stated in previous devblogs, the goals of the upkeep system are: - The more space you spread your æDominion' 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. - Small alliances should be able to claim and use small areas of space. The first step in determining the cost for system upkeep was to examine the current fuel costs for maintaining sovreignty. The minimum for realistically claiming a system currently is one large deathstar tower at a fuel cost of around 4 million ISK per day. Installing 3-5 large death star POS as roadblocks and to support cyno jammers and jump bridges costs 12-20 million ISK per day. With this in mind, the new base cost is 4 million ISK per day, the approximate daily fuel cost of one large death star starbase. This bill represents the entry level for sovereignty claiming and keeps the process accessible to small alliances. On top of this base fee is an additional 4m/day fee for an infrastructure hub and additional fees for any upgrades made to the system. These values are as close as possible to the current costs of system upkeep. A system with no improvements will cost as much as one large POS. A system with an infrastructure hub will cost as much as two large POS. A system with a cyno jammer and two jump bridges will cost the same as three large POS plus you'll need to fuel two large POS for the bridges, for a total cost of around five POS's worth. How this system tackles our goals "Small alliances should be able to claim and use small areas of space." Under this system, the basic costs for holding a system are very affordable. Small alliances have a low barrier to entry and can claim a single system with some upgrades for under 500m/month. As the usage level of their system increases, they'll be able to add additional system upgrades for little additional cost. "The more space you spread your æDominion' across, the more expensive it will become to maintain." System claiming costs scale linearly with the number of systems claimed and increase as infrastructure is built. Without system upgrades, the upkeep costs will be very much the same as the current POS fuel costs. "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." Under the new system, large alliances could still claim a large number of systems they don't intend to use but those systems would be very poorly defended (and thus easier to take) without strategic upgrades. As strategic upgrades have high usage level requirements, it would be financially infeasible for an alliance to upgrade the defences in a system they don't intend to use. For example, to apply a cyno jammer to a system that's never used would cost 200m/day. "We want to see alliances properly utilizing their space and providing more places for their members to generate income." With the new military and industrial upgrades, alliances will be able to provide more places for their members to generate income. More importantly, the Strategic upgrades and higher population densities make those environments much safer to make ISK in. In Closing With Dominion, you will have the power to improve your space as you choose. In the future we are looking to add more upgrades, new 0.0 exclusive content and more paths to upgrade your system along. As with anything in development, the final figures may change before release to Tranquillity. Your feedback and questions are welcome as always. Ave - NOTChronotis EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.

Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:55:00 - [941] Originally by: Caius Severus Originally by: Tommy Blue You, sir, have not seen many of the posts stating why. Most of the other posts are agreeing. The more people spam this with agreeing that the system is fail, the higher chance we have of getting it to change. I have just read this thread from the beginning, and most of it is just rabble. There are some constructive posts, but most are just noise and teeth gnashing. Spamming with whines won't change anyone's mind. Posting with well reasoned and thought out arguments will. They add a sov bill of over 2B isk, in return we get anomalies of which some might be good enough to get in the direction of the ammount of people make by doing lvl 4 missions, assuming no reds are in system, and only a few can use them. Which part of that makes sense if you want more people in 0.0?
El Liptonez	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:55:00 - [942] Originally by: Caius Severus Originally by: Tommy Blue You, sir, have not seen many of the posts stating why. Most of the other posts are agreeing. The more people spam this with agreeing that the system is fail, the higher chance we have of getting it to change. I have just read this thread from the beginning, and most of it is just rabble. There are some constructive posts, but most are just noise and teeth gnashing. Spamming with whines won't change anyone's mind. Posting with well reasoned and thought out arguments will. No, the thread has gotten all the rabble post when Soundwave started posting. The first 20 pages with so many good thoughts have just been ignored, how many times do you think do we have to post them again?
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:57:00 - [943] Originally by: Caius Severus I have just read this thread from the beginning, and most of it is just rabble. There are some constructive posts, but most are just noise and teeth gnashing. Spamming with whines won't change anyone's mind. Posting with well reasoned and thought out arguments will. This post is really meta. It trolls itself ironically.
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:00:00 - [944] Originally by: Alexi Kalashnikov Your numbers need to be revisited now: not later. Run the numbers on most of the alliances, big and small, today and you'll find that you'll likely be demanding trillions in isk from 0.0 to simply maintain what is there today: then we want to fund wars, invasions, and other fun pew pew-pew What you're forgetting is that a large part of this expansion is to make it IMPOSSIBLE for alliances to keep anything like the number of systems they have today! Thus (of.c.) it has to become much more expensive per system! YOU!... will now have to rat/mine/etc. to upkeep your empire, and not just let swimming lazily in your incoming flows of moon-gold pay everything for you 0.0 will now require actual effort, teamwork and sacrificing own good for the common good.... Oh the horror!!!! "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of goons suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something wonderful has happened." As said before, no matter how this system is initially (it's get adjusted a few times fast after being implemented), it can in NO way be worse than what is today! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Hazecat	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:03:00 - [945] You have no clue how 0.0 alliances work do you?
Caius Severus Galaxy Punks Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:04:00 - [946] Originally by: Vadinho -a water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom -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 My complaint is with the way people are putting their opinion. Whether it is for or against these proposals, pages of rabble rabble make my eyes bleed. Also, as I said in my previous post, just because you don't happen to agree with something doesn't make it fact. This whole debate exposes some interesting viewpoints with regard to what people are expecting from the game. One would have thought that those who choose to live in 0.0 do so because it offers something more than just farming isk. If you want to do that, you might as well live in empire and farm missions. CCP said that they don't want single entities hold vast swathes of space that they never use, just because they can. The only way to realistically do that is to make it cost prohibitive. Seems that these changes do that. It is amusing how the "adapt or die" argument seems to be acceptable only in one direction. ie when it doesn't apply to those making it.
WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:05:00 - [947] Originally by: Kerfira it can in NO way be worse than what is today! Are you kidding? It's so bad just on initial impression that several alliances that have been 0.0 residents for YEARS are considering abandoning conquerable space because of it. How can it be ANY worse?
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:05:00 - [948] You are definately right, it will force large alliances to take less space. And it forces small and medium alliances to abandon 0.0.
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:07:00 - [949] i like this adapt or go back to wow
Equinox Daedalus Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:09:00 - [950] Edited by: Equinox Daedalus on 07/11/2009 18:11:30 Originally by: Itzena Originally by: Nahia Senne Once upon a time, there was no moon goo and alliances got by just fine. Nothing has changed, people just love to whine about anything and everything. Once upon a time your alliance held space. isn't what this patch is about? giving bob back its space?... clearly, they will just shut off all defense mechanisims and give ingranged alliances not even a chance to battle. Meanwhile, It alliance has been building an invasion armada of 5K players plus allies, I'm sure for this slated goal. Clever anways. At the end of the day current alliances will adapt, sov might not be a goal, jb might be non existiant, capital hotdrops will be the order of the day, security/order is lost for chaos and anarchy, I guess Jade gets her goals of eve. While CVA and its allies will adapy, i'm pretty sure that we will be not putting any isk into this system as its currently envisioned. The Legion of Spoon : Upon wings of wax I fly, never to close too the sun

WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:10:00 - [951] It's funny how virtually every counter argument is this same "durr hold less space" stuff. It isn't about having a sprawling empire, it's about holding ANY space being worthwhile. Stop regurgitating that ridiculous line until you can come up with an answer to a simple question: Why would you want to hold space if this goes live?
Sergi Povitch Gatehoppers Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:11:00 - [952] Originally by: Furb Killer You are definately right, it will force large alliances to take less space. And it forces small and medium alliances to abandon 0.0. No they will be there just won't claim sov cause it will make them a target.
Voltaire Leriel BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:11:00 - [953] Not every alliance has access moon-gold. And all the moon-gold out there will likely be claimed by the most powerful pvp alliances. They'll simply mine moon-gold with no sov claim and rake it in - killing anyone who attempts to take out their towers. "Under this system, the basic costs for holding a system are very affordable." No. A small alliance with 6 systems and 3 outposts would need 5b isk a month for a bare-bones setup. That's 3 claim things, 3 infrastructure hubs, 1 capital ship thing, 1 cyno jammer, 1 cyno beacon, 2 logistics things. Literally abandoning half of their systems leaving them with no sov. That's almost 2b isk per system just to have the bare minimum you need to exist as an entity in 0.0. Upgrades cost more, yield little, and most of the money will never make it into the alliance wallet. This patch no longer favors small alliances, it favors no one. Everyone will be forced to decrease their holds by up to 90%. Not just the big guys! It's going to turn 0.0 into a wasteland. _______________________________________ BIG IS RECRUITING
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:13:00 - [954] 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.
Praxidikai	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:14:00 - [955] Edited by: Praxidikai on 07/11/2009 18:15:37 #1 Sov prices and Cyno Jammer prices are too high #2 If they stay this high nobody will have isk to buy the other enhancements that come with Dominion #3 If Dominions purports to get more alliances into 0.0 you just priced the low entry alliances out of that game CCP - Please lower the prices so that all the other "enhancements" you want 0.0 alliances to buy/work to maintain are actually affordable.
CynoNet Two	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:14:00 - [956] Originally by: Caius Severus My complaint is with the way people are putting their opinion. Whether it is for or against these proposals, pages of rabble rabble make my eyes bleed. One would have thought that those who choose to live in 0.0 do so because it offers something more than just farming isk. If you want to do that, you might as well live in empire and farm missions. CCP said that they don't want single entities hold vast swathes of space that they never use, just because they can. The only way to realistically do that is to make it cost prohibitive. Seems that these changes do that. CCP also want people to fight over 0.0 space. These changes don't come close to altering that in the slightest. In fact if anything they're going to see the larger alliances shrink to a fraction of their current territory, while medium and small alliances either rent space or head back to NPC space. No new players will move into 0.0 because it is not economical for them to do so, they can remain in empire and make more money for little risk. The net result will be the rich alliances holding a small group of stations, with vast swathes of space that no one at all uses between them. No one will fight over it because there will be so much free they won't need to.
dtyk	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:15:00 - [957] Originally by: Nyphur I didn't like your devblog so I wrote my own . It's not perfect and the numbers would need tweaking and discussion but I think it's a much better solution and fits with the goals and promises made about the new sov system. snip CCP should hire this person. Except the gate sentry guns would be imba.
Voltaire Leriel BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:16:00 - [958] Originally by: Furb Killer You are definately right, it will force large alliances to take less space. And it forces small and medium alliances to abandon 0.0. Agree. _______________________________________ BIG IS RECRUITING
Ivan Zhuk	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:17:00 - [959] Edited by: Ivan Zhuk on 07/11/2009 18:19:26 CCP JUST KILLED PROVIDENCE NRDS. I live in 0.0 not as a holder of sov, not as a pet of some ruler, but as a free citizen within the Providence Region. CVA/PXF/-7-/AM/LFA/Cold Steel all grant me access to their 0.0 space, they allow me to run their anomolies/complexes so long as i follow a basic set of rules. These Rules include dont pirate in their space (hell i can pirate 1 system over and not get set kos) and first person in an anomoly has claim to that anomoly. Pretty basic and most people already know this. Now to get to the point of how you are killing NRDS in the region i love and have spent millions if not billions of iskies to defend even though i will never once get sov in their systems (it is not for sale it is free too anyone). You built this system where they have to pay extra money each month to maintain a system I will use. You have created nothing for them to use to generate private isk on any reasonable scale. You have only created ways for me to make isk by bankrupting their wallets. Sure the providence holders can start taxing everyone who enters their systems for use and remove all others BUT THAT IS NBSI. You dont seem to understand how free everything is in providence. Hell I dont even have to dock to use their space I can just put up cans and store loots there. Thus making me untaxable. The only thing ever asked of me from the holders was to defend their space from pirates which helps me more than it helps them in the end. These gangs I help defend against are small scale PvP uncapable of removing their sov thus rather useless against the holders other than a mere nuisance. Honestly I look at a region more heavily populated by stations than any other 0.0 in the game. I look at a 0.0 region more densley populated with players than any other 0.0 in the game. I also look at how you just ruined all of that.
Guib Lugutrinos Caldari Black-Wing	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:17:00 - [960] /signed blog and make Supercaps cost a monthly upkeep. "Lachen t÷tet die Furcht und ohne Furcht kann es keinen Glauben geben. Wer keine Furcht vor dem Teufel hat, der braucht auch keinen Gott mehr. Umberto Eco "Der Name der Rose"

Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:18:00 - [961] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 07/11/2009 18:20:15 Thank you for the comments Soundwave. Here is my problem with what you stated about anomalies: 1) If the "Highest Tier" Anomaly is 'on par' with level 4 missions, why would I want to be in 00 running anomalies, when I can run level 4's, make the same amount of isk, and do it much safer? 00 is supposed to be more profitable than empire not 'on par' with empire. 2) Anomalies are painful. You scan, wait 30 seconds, see the result. If no result warp to next planet try again. Oh I found an anomaly! Warp! Oh blast, someone's already here, lets start over again. Oh found another one! Wait it's the low level anomaly I can't make money on this one, next! That's so frustrating, yet you don't want to add in knowing if someone's already in the anomaly or what level anomaly it is. So...if it's going to be anomalies at least to start get rid of the low level ones that aren't profitable and just spawn the ones that are equal to level 4's. It IS 00 after all....and that would at least make this system bearable. But again, 00 should be better than level 4's in empire...so... See the issue? Thoughts?
Junkie Beverage GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:18:00 - [962] this winter, NGE come to EVE prepare for the dying of all lights
Vio Geraci Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:20:00 - [963] Edited by: Vio Geraci on 07/11/2009 18:24:03 Edited by: Vio Geraci on 07/11/2009 18:23:16 Edited by: Vio Geraci on 07/11/2009 18:21:47 Should level 4s in complete safety that require a brief grind but otherwise cost no maintenance nor offer any real risk make the same money that end-game players that fight and pay to live in 0.0 do? Give me a break. Put another way, I'm so glad that I can mine moons to pay for upgrades so that my corp members can have the same opportunities as nearly foolproof players in highsec do without any of the fuss, risk, or hassle. Put another way, I never talk to an L4 agent and accidentally get an L2 mission that I need to run in order to get a new L4 mission. Nor do gankers ever lock down my highsec systems and prevent me from finishing my mission, nor do other people compete to run the same mission. Give me a break.
Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:22:00 - [964] Increase all 0.0 bounties by 50% thank you.
EvilweaselFinance Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:22:00 - [965] Originally by: Vio Geraci Edited by: Vio Geraci on 07/11/2009 18:21:47 Should level 4s in complete safety that require a brief grind but otherwise cost no maintenance nor offer any real risk make the same money that end-game players that fight and pay to live in 0.0 do? Give me a break. Put another way, I'm so glad that I can mine moons to pay for upgrades so that my corp members can have the same opportunities as nearly foolproof players in highsec do without any of the fuss, risk, or hassle. you could invest in more pubbie titan lotteries lamo
Tango Zulu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:24:00 - [966] Originally by: Pringlescan Increase all 0.0 bounties by 50% thank you.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:24:00 - [967] 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!
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:24:00 - [968] Edited by: Cefte on 07/11/2009 18:25:18 Originally by: Soleil Fournier 2) Anomalies are painful. You scan, wait 30 seconds, see the result. If no result warp to next planet try again. Oh I found an anomaly! Warp! Oh blast, someone's already here, lets start over again. Oh found another one! Wait it's the low level anomaly I can't make money on this one, next! That's so frustrating, yet you don't want to add in knowing if someone's already in the anomaly or what level anomaly it is. See the issue? Thoughts? Anomaly marker should despawn whenever a player warps into the grid, with the anomaly marker spawning immediately somewhere else. If you want to upgrade a system, upgrade the quality of the anomalies, not their number. Any time you want an anomaly, scan and warp to it. You'll only jostle another member if they initiate warp between you getting a result and landing in the plex. Lose connection? You'll emergency warp back into the anomaly. If ganking gangs ***** about it, have the anomaly marker respawn as a 'pirates under attack' instead of 'pirate base', not counting towards the three co-incident anomaly markers, and make it even easier to find ratters.
emotua Gallente Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:24:00 - [969] Wow, you know the funny thing, is that I started telling people on our forums like a week ago, that in no way this was gonna be cheaper, and that's before you annonced how much the first round, of so called upgrades to keep what we had the same, was gonna cost etc... I pretty much got laughed at, told I was going all emo with the sky is falling!! to take a chill pill, yeah all that. But damn, I am actually impressed you guys messed it up far beyond what even I expected...
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:25:00 - [970] Originally by: Guib Lugutrinos /signed blog and make Supercaps cost a monthly upkeep. Just as soon as we have exorbitant fees for jumping through gates and docking in empire.

Will Hunter GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:26:00 - [971] Originally by: Kerfira Originally by: Alexi Kalashnikov YOU!... will now have to rat/mine/etc. to upkeep your empire, and not just let swimming lazily in your incoming flows of moon-gold pay everything for you 0.0 will now require actual effort, teamwork and sacrificing own good for the common good.... Oh the horror!!!! "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of goons suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something wonderful has happened." As said before, no matter how this system is initially (it's get adjusted a few times fast after being implemented), it can in NO way be worse than what is today! 0.0 doesnt mantain by itself you have to fight for ownership and people can come and kill you your dreaded moron, this is not your lvl mission running hub
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:27:00 - [972] i agree with everything bobby atlas has said itt thus far that goes to show how ridiculous these draft numbers are Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter
Galler FLAke GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:29:00 - [973] Originally by: Pringlescan Increase all 0.0 bounties by 50% thank you. Scrap all those terrible upgrades and just do this. Also remove all frig/cruiser spawns from 0.0.
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:29:00 - [974] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 07/11/2009 18:35:06 Also...please note that the Drone Region Anomalies drop crap for loot and have no bounties. We're talking 3 plush per battleship, belt rats drop 30-50. And the escalations, which are extremely rare in drone regions...aren't much better. There's also an anomaly that is a pure deathtrap in the drone regions. Basically, the drone region anomalies are NOT on par with level 4 missions and need to be looked at.
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:30:00 - [975] It certainly is amusing to watch the empire dwellers crowing about sticking it to those evil 0.0 crybabies, with their titans and their moon gold and their actually living the experience that EVE advertisement trailers misrepresent. Pity that not a single 0.0 poster in this thread has complained about moon gold being nerfed as a source of income.
Nyphur Pillowsoft Total Comfort	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:30:00 - [976] Originally by: dtyk Originally by: Nyphur I didn't like your devblog so I wrote my own . It's not perfect and the numbers would need tweaking and discussion but I think it's a much better solution and fits with the goals and promises made about the new sov system. snip CCP should hire this person. Except the gate sentry guns would be imba. To be fair, I doubt they even have time to implement the changes I suggested because they've boxed themselves in with the Dec 1st launch date. They've got three weeks to go and I think we're going to get a version of what they've described in the devblog no matter what, just with tweaked numbers based on feedback. Damn, I'm on the second last page already. That was fast. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
igres	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:30:00 - [977] Originally by: The Mittani i agree with everything bobby atlas has said itt thus far that goes to show how ridiculous these draft numbers are Do you understand how ****** bad an idea has to be to have these two agree on something. Its so bad it scares me a bit.
Pwadoc GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:31:00 - [978] The economic system upgrades only increase the supply of various commodities. If the supply increases, and demand remains the same, no net increase in value occurs. Don't you guys have an economist on staff to tell you these things?
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:32:00 - [979] Originally by: Cefte It certainly is amusing to watch the empire dwellers crowing about sticking it to those evil 0.0 crybabies, with their titans and their moon gold and their actually living the experience that EVE advertisement trailers misrepresent. Pity that not a single 0.0 poster in this thread has complained about moon gold being nerfed as a source of income. Unfortunately, I'm not an alliance director, so the moon gold nerf doesn't affect my personal wallet.
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:33:00 - [980] Originally by: Pwadoc The economic system upgrades only increase the supply of various commodities. If the supply increases, and demand remains the same, no net increase in value occurs. Don't you guys have an economist on staff to tell you these things? this guy is spot on, ccp listen to him. I think the most important thing is an increase in available NPC bounty. Then NPC Loot. These two are the backbone of any regular steady income in a solar system i would say. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG

Bradley Strider	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:34:00 - [981] So, before Dominion alliances would - pvp, to get hold of valuable resources, to fund more pvp After Dominion they need to do - pve, to pay the bills, to pve some more Hmmm...
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:34:00 - [982] 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

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:34:00 - [983] 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.

Yogos Xenobytes Stain Empire	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:38:00 - [984] Edited by: Yogos on 07/11/2009 18:39:56 Edited by: Yogos on 07/11/2009 18:39:21 CCP this changes are bad and you can do better. I understand why you don't want to touch real sec of systems, but why base price for system is same for every one of it while they are not worth it... If you think that this changes will push plp to "exodus" from empire to for example Paragon Soul with is veeery deep in 0.0 with hard logistic and avarege sec around -0.3 to pay 900mln per system per month then you are very wrong... It's crap. CCP you created in HI SEC, RISK FREE systems with unlimited reasources and high profit(L4 missions) and you have there a lot of people. And now you want to push plp to move to 0.0 giving them additional 5 belts/10 anomalies with you NEED TO PAY FOR 900 mln ISK per month, with risk you can lost ship. It's bad joke ...
Lonewolfnight Gallente Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:40:00 - [985] 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. CVA executor
Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:41:00 - [986] While that is much better how about addressing the issue that even with the new changes you make more money without any risk running l4 missions then doing ratting/mining in 0.0 More risk means MORE reward, increase all 0.0 rat bounties by 25-50%
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:41:00 - [987] that starts to answer the expense issues, now lets see how you do with making the space worth taking in the first place
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:41:00 - [988] 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 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
Hratli Smirks GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:43:00 - [989] 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 but guys guys TWO GUARANTEED ANOMALIES guys
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:43:00 - [990] Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 07/11/2009 18:46:13 I think that increasing rat bounties in 0.0 by about 30% would make a diffrence ! This with nerfing lvl4 by eliminating t1 loot , would shift risk/reward balance .

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 æDominion' 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. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
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. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
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.

Equinox Daedalus Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:07:00 - [1021] taxes. In the world they are a way to control you, you set artifically high numbers to create/cause rabble. then you say, oh, here you go, we have set them real small now, so that everyone will say, boy, thats not really that bad, instead of 2 bil isk, its now (insert something less) thats great, isteand of getting really forked we only get forked less. I really like that thank you. But at the end of the day, really, once you introduce a system by which you "tax" the tax never goes away. Why should CVA and by all rights every other sov holding alliance pay CCP taxes. Your no better than any other dictaorship or Comministic Regime in the world today. You punish excellence, harder work, and effort by rewarding those who do no want to work hard. You want the Stong to carry the weak, the weak to get whatever it is they want. Not by the strongs choice, but at the barrel of a gun. You Demand those who work hard, can sacfricie just a little sliver, as who doesn't want to help the poor, the down trodden, the weak. The sliver will only grow, until its a gaping wound bleading alliances dry. As a Major dilpomat/person in CVA, the number of totally hilarious threats cva has recived saying we will need to adapat, will need to give up our space becuase we are the "fat" of the land. Indeed many of the alt posts here, say much they same, "stop whining", just rat more: I forsee a scorched earth policy in effect much more now than ever. Any alliance that should just give up all its work, all its effort, simplpy becuase we worked to hard, we fought to well, to alliances who have done nothing have not dropped a drop of sweat down, is jsut comical. I just am saddened that a game that is so focued on market pvp, combat pvp. A game that is so strong and focuses on how the "butterfly effect" can change tides, how the stong and determined can overcome the weak.is in reality a welfare state. I'm guess only now we'll need free ships for those who make less than 15 mil isk a week. The Legion of Spoon : Upon wings of wax I fly, never to close too the sun
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:07:00 - [1022] Originally by: John Zorg 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. Generally no its not a matter of choice and as CCP like to so eloquently tell us often this is not RL and such comparisons are not suitable. The simple fact of the matter is why should a linear fee structure for jump bridges penalize those on the farther reaches of 0.0 more so than everyone else.
Mia McGee	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:07:00 - [1023] Good job, another step in the way of making 0.0 an empty wasteland. What are you all smoking?
Crucifier The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:08:00 - [1024] Originally by: TZeer 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... 1 system cant really hold up more than 2 ppl
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:08:00 - [1025] Originally by: TZeer 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... Because currently that's how many people those systems can support in terms of a self-sufficient income.
Sith8 The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:09:00 - [1026] Originally by: Cefte 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. Damn, add to this that we are basically supposed to rent the space we spent years conquering and developing from CCP (on top of paying them for subscription) and you got a nice post there.
Nyphur Pillowsoft Total Comfort	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:10:00 - [1027] Another idea I had was the possibility of taxing NPC kills in a system rather than just those within a corp. It's an idea just to support the NRDS people that can't reap taxes from the people that use their space. Perhaps they could set their hub to collect a 10% tax off NPCers in their system automatically. Maybe even make it an upgrade? EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:10:00 - [1028] Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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 :) you MUST implement this, if you want dominion to be a success. its not only an option, its an absolute and 100% MUST. If you dont do it it will fail Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:12:00 - [1029] Originally by: Nyphur Another idea I had was the possibility of taxing NPC kills in a system rather than just those within a corp. It's an idea just to support the NRDS people that can't reap taxes from the people that use their space. Perhaps they could set their hub to collect a 10% tax off NPCers in their system automatically. Maybe even make it an upgrade? This is an unironically Good Idea and I support it.
Khefron GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:12:00 - [1030] Edited by: Khefron on 07/11/2009 19:14:23 if we're paying billions for our jump bridges, will we at least no longer have to keep the damned things loaded with ozone? edit: also, cosmic anomalies suck ass whose idea was it to make an upgrade that gives you more of those? Fire that person, or at least make them the subject of public ridicule.

emotua Gallente Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:14:00 - [1031] Originally by: TZeer 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... TZer, the 100/1800 is what I based the calculation on, the 160/2600 is just us.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:14:00 - [1032] Originally by: emotua Hell, we have 100 systems for 1800 people. ... BUT you have 1800 people! well actually probably more like 720 real one ... probably 40% of that mass is really active => 288 active real people You don't need 100 systems for 288 active people. First you say that you have 1800 people so that you can say you need at least 100 systems. But then you say that you have only 288 active people and that they cannot pay all the money for so many systems. Make up your mind! Either you have 1800 active people and need 100 systems. Or you have 288 active people and then you do not need 100 systems. If you put 18 people into the system (as you claim intitially with 1800 people in 100 systems) then you only need 16 systems. And that reduces the costs to 100 mil per person per month. Yes, it is still some money, but not as ridiculous as you tried to outline first! Anyway! The jumpbridges should stay expensive beause they are so powerful! Freighter convoys and jumpfreighters are still some alternative. Carebear stuff in 0.0 won't work. A cloaked pvp gang or even a single hostile person in 0.0 can heavily disrupt the carebearing plexing. More incentives to fight over space is necessary! With the high end moons gone, what is left to fight over? Who the hell came up with the idea to pay isk for holding space in lawless space???!!! To whom is all the money paid? And why anyway if it is LAWLESS space???? Hello!!?! Sad to see that CCP couldn't come up with a better and more belivable in game solution. Why not some expensive lightweight fuel pellets which is consumed? And if that stuff is made partly from npc materials (there you have the isk sink then) and partly from the newly discovered sleeper gas sites (aka fullernes) then you could have combined an isk-sink, increased demand for sleeper stuff, wormhole exploitation and a little bit of logistic work (depending how light you make these fuel pellets) into a much better and more important, much more believable system than the current 'throw-away-isk-to-some-anonymous-law-enforcement-agency-in-lawless-space'. Also you could have made the players choose to spend more isk (by buying the pellets from the market) or to save a bit isk (by making the pellets from bought materials) or to save even more isk (by harvesting the fullernes in w-space yourself and buy only the npc materials and make the pellets yourself). But I guess it is far to late for any of such suggestions.
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:14:00 - [1033] Originally by: Khefron if we're paying billions for our jump bridges, will we at least no longer have to keep the damned things loaded with ozone?
Kuzim Blaky'all Minmatar Recycling and Recovery	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:14:00 - [1034] sup sup, a dawg talk to a dawg an him explain to a dawg that recyclien industry in mad trubblz. dig it, recyclien a rouff gig to get into, an now if a dawg aint got so much places to go, its gonan be even harder. cant sustaine more than maybe a few recycliars, an top dawgs want to make it so a dawg cant even see whats goin on? i been playing eve side since i can remember sad to see it burn in the start of december for christmas, a dawg just wanted black magic instead you givein dawgs a piece of black coal? tragic. a dawg what a buff to recyclien goods in places him call his neighborhoods but you aint doing nothin for a posse who thrive (even tho we've been a thousan tims brought alive) looks like re-re gonan take a final nap kuz da ccp posse, them dont give a crap a dawg cant afford to run him posse if him gonan be forced to be runnin at a loss, see hope to see a posse post December come an go, but da wind of change be blowin, so dawg, i dunno. no dawg, say it aint so dawg otherwise its time fo da re-re to never again log.
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:14:00 - [1035] Originally by: Zastrow this was on goonfleet dot com QFT ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
Raphael Scoria Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:15:00 - [1036] 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... {various changes] Here's the disappointing bit. You've certainly listened to people telling you how dumb the numbers are, but you've decided to make it cheaper to hold large amounts of space instead of the original idea which was to make it more profitable to live in a smaller amount of space and pointless to waste money on huge space empires. I wanted to see people like us, AAA, Atlas, the Drone Russians and the NC entities forced to choose a few constellations to live in and abandoning the rest. I wanted to see profitable 0.0 space drawing in new players from empire who could fit into the cracks, making this more Space Balkans Online instead of Space Empires Online. But what you have here will generate the opposite of that. The big players will still be able to cut away space from those who can't defend their excess holdings, sure, but they'll just hold or rent it out for themselves. A prospective 0.0 alliance without moon income and cached reserves won't be up to siezing it any more than they are now.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:15:00 - [1037] Originally by: Equinox Daedalus taxes. In the world they are a way to control you, you set artifically high numbers to create/cause rabble. then you say, oh, here you go, we have set them real small now, so that everyone will say, boy, thats not really that bad, instead of 2 bil isk, its now (insert something less) thats great, isteand of getting really forked we only get forked less. I really like that thank you. But at the end of the day, really, once you introduce a system by which you "tax" the tax never goes away. Why should CVA and by all rights every other sov holding alliance pay CCP taxes. Your no better than any other dictaorship or Comministic Regime in the world today. You punish excellence, harder work, and effort by rewarding those who do no want to work hard. You want the Stong to carry the weak, the weak to get whatever it is they want. Not by the strongs choice, but at the barrel of a gun. You Demand those who work hard, can sacfricie just a little sliver, as who doesn't want to help the poor, the down trodden, the weak. The sliver will only grow, until its a gaping wound bleading alliances dry. As a Major dilpomat/person in CVA, the number of totally hilarious threats cva has recived saying we will need to adapat, will need to give up our space becuase we are the "fat" of the land. Indeed many of the alt posts here, say much they same, "stop whining", just rat more: I forsee a scorched earth policy in effect much more now than ever. Any alliance that should just give up all its work, all its effort, simplpy becuase we worked to hard, we fought to well, to alliances who have done nothing have not dropped a drop of sweat down, is jsut comical. I just am saddened that a game that is so focued on market pvp, combat pvp. A game that is so strong and focuses on how the "butterfly effect" can change tides, how the stong and determined can overcome the weak.is in reality a welfare state. I'm guess only now we'll need free ships for those who make less than 15 mil isk a week. The change mentioned earlier would lower the costs for an upgradable system down to 6 million a day rather than 30 million. That is much more in line with what people were thinking would happen. Basically rather than a 900m a month price tag it's now down to 180 million. Considering that you don't need as many POS's to maintiain sov it actually balances out nicely. Of course if you want a jump bridge and a cyno jammer in a system it's going to cost you a lot more, over 1.1 billion isk a month. In a way I'm fine with that since you can lower that cost by getting rid of deathstars and cutting back to just the systems that you need a cyno jammer on. Basically the new costs are what were originally expected, although I still think they are a little bit high. Plus I think all of these changes are really just going to reduce pvp rather than increase pvp. I'm still not happy about everything, but there is still potential and alliances aren't going to end up cutting an running to high sec now. Or at least fewer of them are. Now we just need better upgrades and some incentive for more pvp.
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:17:00 - [1038] If you push any of these changes though in their current state or any of the "revised" states you are going to kill this game worse then Sony with its NGE. Stop this ** right **ing now and rethink it.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:20:00 - [1039] Originally by: Hertford Originally by: TZeer 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... Because currently that's how many people those systems can support in terms of a self-sufficient income. Currently yes, not after. CCP stated around 15-20 people in an upgraded system. Thats almost 10x more. So 288/15= 19,2 systems. So basically you could shrink you space from 160 systems and down to 20 and save x amount of POS fuel.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:22:00 - [1040] Originally by: TZeer Originally by: Hertford Originally by: TZeer 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... Because currently that's how many people those systems can support in terms of a self-sufficient income. Currently yes, not after. CCP stated around 15-20 people in an upgraded system. Thats almost 10x more. So 288/15= 19,2 systems. So basically you could shrink you space from 160 systems and down to 20 and save x amount of POS fuel. Except none of the upgrades can support that many people.

Junkie Beverage GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:23:00 - [1041] Originally by: Cefte 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.
Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:23:00 - [1042] OK how about this - Set sov costs for systems with outposts to be much cheaper (free?) - this rewards alliances which expend billions to deploy an outpost, it'll especially help CVA and other NRDS alliances which make income from those stations and hopefully discourage switching from NRDS to NBSI as a means of keeping revenue streams within their alliance. This of course makes outposts much more important, and therefore worth the huge amount of effort to invade and take control of. (PS: if CCP is convinced that the new sov system is better for alliances that the old one with all that POS fueling, why not just leave the old system in place in parallel with the new one, then alliance can pick whether they want to pay cash or fuel POS's - let the market decide)
Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:25:00 - [1043] Originally by: Gnulpie You don't need 100 systems for 288 active people. Yes you do. More than that actually, the systems also need to be good belt- and location-wise.
emotua Gallente Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:26:00 - [1044] ok 1800 characters in your alliance doesn't mean 1800 people, stop reading sideways :) Those 1800 characters boil down to 288 Real Active Real Life people!. Hell, most of us in 0.0 need like 2 alts, and I counted 1.5 alt per main! to bring stuff from empire, run missions in empire, whatever, so we can at least pay for the exotic dancers and the quafe.
Mistres Tor	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:27:00 - [1045] Second EXODUS incoming lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming the only big empire will be the NPC Amar Empire :D
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:28:00 - [1046] Originally by: Illectroculus Defined OK how about this - Set sov costs for systems with outposts to be much cheaper (free?) - this rewards alliances which expend billions to deploy an outpost, it'll especially help CVA and other NRDS alliances which make income from those stations and hopefully discourage switching from NRDS to NBSI as a means of keeping revenue streams within their alliance. This of course makes outposts much more important, and therefore worth the huge amount of effort to invade and take control of. (PS: if CCP is convinced that the new sov system is better for alliances that the old one with all that POS fueling, why not just leave the old system in place in parallel with the new one, then alliance can pick whether they want to pay cash or fuel POS's - let the market decide) Cause the old one let you spam cynojammers and jumpbridges with almost no extra cost.
Skilius	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:28:00 - [1047] Originally by: CCP Chronotis bla bla bla 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. Questions posted earlier that after 35 pages CCP FAILED to adress soo I'll answer Originally by: Nyphur (...) 1) What happened to the following goals of the new sov system, as stated in previous devlogs? - "The more space you spread your æDominion' 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. Plugging CCP module We thank you for the constructive feedback and euros you pay every month. We will look in to it and bla bla bla keep playing bla bla bla euros euros euros bla bla bla we also take dollars!!!! CCP Module unplugged Hope it was constructive enought and hope to see some really honest replys to those clear answers!
Yafn Robbing You of Your Space Pixels	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:29:00 - [1048] Originally by: Khefron if we're paying billions for our jump bridges, will we at least no longer have to keep the damned things loaded with ozone? Keep Quoting this.
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:30:00 - [1049] This thread is just helping confirm that 90% of the people who visit this forum have no grasp of how 0.0 actually works. That includes CCP. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Lialem	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:30:00 - [1050] I am in a 0.0 alliance and i prefer it to be expensive to hold one system. I dont see the reason to justify such huge upkeep fee reduction, unless you are considering huge income reduction in 0.0. I want every alliance to make a decision if they want that system or the other not just take everything because its cheap anyway. This way we get more alliances in 0.0, which means more conflicts, more treaties, mroe pvp, more people, more fun. I vote for an expensive upkeep fee.

Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:30:00 - [1051] Well yeah I already pointed out that the new sov system succeeds spectacularly well as a cynojammer nerf.
Normin Bates	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:30:00 - [1052] Geez. I hope CCP doesn't buckle under the pressure of the tears and whines on here. Implement as intended and adjust later FFS.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:31:00 - [1053] Originally by: Crucifier 1 system cant really hold up more than 2 ppl You are forgetting: at the same time. So with 6 hours shift a system can sustain 8 players.
Tom Carbett	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:31:00 - [1054] I dont see all trouble here, after all we could just all buy more GTC and pay the new dominion upkeep costs. Problem solved! Yay....
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:31:00 - [1055] Originally by: Yafn Originally by: Khefron if we're paying billions for our jump bridges, will we at least no longer have to keep the damned things loaded with ozone? Keep Quoting this. Not empty quoting.
Mavric Viscosity Ocularis Inferno	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:32:00 - [1056] Edited by: Mavric on 07/11/2009 19:35:04 Originally by: CCP Soundwave Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 07/11/2009 13:51:06 You will not be told if anyone is in it, that is not something I would prefer to see implemented. I have not seen anyone else yet make a counter point to this idea. I for one also think it would be a bad idea. It just makes it easier for the gankers to find you. If you are in the same corp/alliance you would be chatting in corp/alliance/local anyhow. The main sticking point I see is cost. It is quite suprising to see the large alliances not screaming foul over this. I am by no means an economist but the maintainance costs do seem to be quite high. One other thing I would like clarification on is the POS fuel needs? In dominion you would no longer have to fuel POSs? This would certainly help... I don't know a whole lot of ppl that actually ENJOY refueling them.
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:33:00 - [1057] Edited by: cok cola on 07/11/2009 19:34:42 Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Batolemaeus Edited by: Batolemaeus on 07/11/2009 11:01:47 Originally by: CCP Soundwave You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, This is correct. Originally by: CCP Soundwave which is what the anomalies do This is completely wrong. Wanna know what a steady, reliable and good income stream is? Lvl4 missions in empire. They give me much more isk/h than constantly respawning anomalies of dozens of jamming gurista hacs.. No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. WHY WOULD SMALL CAREBEAR ENTITIES COME TO 0.0 AND SPEND HUGE AMMOUNTS OF MONEY AND TAKE WAY MORE RISK JUST SO THEY CAN MATCH THEIR CURRENT CAREBEAR INCOME? ARE YOU **ING ****ED? ALSO: now that youve nerfed moongoo, give us something else to fight over for f's sakes
Hratli Smirks GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:33:00 - [1058] Originally by: c0rn1 As far as I know trial accounts can't join alliances. So that problem is already solved. cheers c0rn1 They sure can (I did)
Wu Phat	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:34:00 - [1059] A 0.0 anomaly often spawns BS class rats. You could increseing the amount of waves or the amount of the ships could also be buffed. Even have the effect's of the upgrades do this instinctively. What if they become mini missions at the hight of a systems perspective. Some sort of new self escalating anomaly. Like you start seeing warp gates. If you pick up a key from an anomaly you did earlyier and you come to this one and it has a gate. You can use that key to go to a bouns room where a faction spawn is or a hauler spawn. Some kinda of reward for doing thoose. Tax tax tax is alround that.
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:36:00 - [1060] Stoffer every things god dam thing you said in this thread is ****ed beyond comprehension. You know what it was like to live in 0.0 not this stupid ing fantasy your have concocted in your head. DO the **ing right thing and do this right or you will kill the game.

Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:36:00 - [1061] Originally by: TZeer Originally by: Hertford Originally by: TZeer 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... Because currently that's how many people those systems can support in terms of a self-sufficient income. Currently yes, not after. CCP stated around 15-20 people in an upgraded system. Thats almost 10x more. So 288/15= 19,2 systems. So basically you could shrink you space from 160 systems and down to 20 and save x amount of POS fuel. Only, you can't. Because a cosmic anomaly that provides the same isk/hour as level 4 missions is a step down from the ratting those players had before, and it's hard-coded to be limited to ten people at maximum improvement, and it comes at a sunk cost that level 4 missions don't have. So you've got thirteen players in a system, hating each other for the claustrophic feeling of scrabbling over scraps when you were eating beef yesterday, hating the corporation that makes them pay to enjoy a lower level of per hour income than an empire carebear, and most of all hating the company that thought up such an idiotic scheme and had the balls to implement it as a method of improving nullsec. Oh, and they'll hate the HAC gangs that come and gank them, as well, because HAC gangs are all that 0.0 fleet fights will ever see. Who's going to spend a capfleet to fight over... what? What is there to fight over? Upgraded systems? Let us invade Motsu and we'll talk. So, install the exploration upgrade, right? Exploration is really profitable, Cefte said so himself! Exploration does not produce isk, exploration produces plex and faction loot that is sold for isk and which is directly subject to supply and demand. Increase the supply by a factor of four and you've functionally reduced the isk/hour profitability of exploration to below level 4 missions. See where this is headed?
SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:36:00 - [1062] I appreciate that CCP is listening to the feedback in this thread and addressing some of the concerns that we have. The reduced costs at least begin to help. As everyone has pointed out the largest remaining issue is the idea that "more anomalies" is the solution to 0.0 income. It would be if they were profitable, but they aren't. We aren't just being whiny about this and we aren't upset because we wanted you to make us insanely rich with the space that we already had. You are reducing the amount of space we have and the quality of that space (less bridges and cynojammers) while at the same time doing literally nothing to improve the space that will remain. The insistence that an anomaly frequency increase was the "best" way to go on your part seems to infer that it was the easiest coding solution. I can understand that for archaic or entangled coding reasons putting agents in 0.0 stations might be hard. I think it would also backfire, since more agents for the same stuff just means lower prices and less isk. In any case, might I suggest that simply buffing the vast myriad of 0.0 exploration sites that already exist might be a rather workable solution for everyone. I don't mean the drop rates for the really rare stuff, but the more common items and the base rat bounties. Also, add a chance for them to spawn officer/faction rats just like belts. Currently there are only certain sites that are really worth running compared to belt ratting. If you made them all at least on par (on average) with belt ratting then you would have made the space itself more valuable and given people reason to move around and hold the space while also increasing the income for players who actually bother to go and run the sites, whether they be hacking, salvage or otherwise.
Elymi	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:37:00 - [1063] Just make a System tax. Outpost/Sov Holders recive 10% of the Bounty Minerals hunted/mined in this system. If player don't like to pay them, just take the sov ;)
emotua Gallente Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:37:00 - [1064] Edited by: emotua on 07/11/2009 19:41:07 Edited by: emotua on 07/11/2009 19:38:11 Originally by: TZeer Originally by: Hertford Originally by: TZeer 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... Because currently that's how many people those systems can support in terms of a self-sufficient income. Currently yes, not after. CCP stated around 15-20 people in an upgraded system. Thats almost 10x more. So 288/15= 19,2 systems. So basically you could shrink you space from 160 systems and down to 20 and save x amount of POS fuel. WRONG WRONG WRONG! First you would need to upgrade those systems, how much is it gonna cost? how much upkeep fee?, and keep in mind it's just to pay the rent. Your also still gonna want to make money for your alliance ( cap ship/ship reimbursment, cap ship prod program, alliance wide tournament, etc... ) That means a gazillion more moons with dominion, no more R64 supah gold, and hell, they are not all in the 20 systems you are gonna want to upgrade, you will still need to pay for your JB infrastructure especially if you are at the galaxy border, etc... And that doesn't change the fact, that your alliance goons ( no pun intended here ) are gonna have to work insane amount of hours to pay for something that we didn't need efore..
Alski Ministers Of Destruction.	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:38:00 - [1065] Bitter jaded Alski checking in from a very long forum hiatus here. Quick bit of background: -Have lived in 0.0 for most of the 4 years IÆve been playing, right from about 2-3 months in. -Have been highly involved in both corp and alliance level leadership/management (I know this part of the game aint no game) -Have lived in more of the 0.0 regions than I havenÆt. -Has held the title ôPOS Mind Slaveö, if you know what that means you have my sympathy. -Left 0.0 some 6 months or so ago at least partly due to the overwhelmingly repetitive ***fest that is grinding 0.0 ISK for shiny ships, and discovered just how comparatively easy it is to become filthy rich in empire. Nowà. Be so kind as to enlighten me as to which 0.0 problems are being fixed by this expansion by checking the boxes or providing an explanation if you please, because needless to say IÆm not seeing it, although I will be kind by letting you have the first few for free: [x] Removing sovereignty from POSÆs [x] Less tedious POS logistics [?] Moon ISK (dyspro will fall, something else will replace it, its inevitable and obvious, weather this is an issue depends on IF dominion changes are worth the isk they will cost and IF the rewards are capable of paying for them) [?] Lessening the ôcapitals onlineö trend (1.7b a month to not be hotdroped seems a bit steep, otoh cynojammers are overpowered, why could no-one at ccp think of a middle ground solution to go with it? Maybe a ôCheepö cyno jammer that a small BS/HAC gang could destroy* inside of 3 minutes? ) This is a general issue with this expiation, the stated goals are one thing but the implementation does something else; in my mind, lessening capital warfare that is not directly related to sov taking/defending would make 0.0 better, enhancing small fleet pvp is good, more capitals is bad (esp. since moon isk pays for most of them) [ ] The level 4 / 0.0 isk making imbalance IÆm not seeing much here that substantially improves isk per hour for the average 0.0 player, DED plexs sound nice but they only support one group at a time and of course the prices of the faction loot will drop in some way or another, which is good, but irrelevant to most of your supposed ô100 people per systemö, or even 20 for that matter. Regardless of those, if bountys / belt rats are not changing then isk per hour remains the same, the only thing that improves a little is number of supported players per system, but thatÆs irrelevant. Empire > 0.0 and has been for a long time, 0.0 is inherently much more risky due to pvp and much more expensive due to less market forces & competition and lack of industrial infrastructure (ie: 2-4 factory slots per non Amarr outposts and just 20 on AmarrÆs to support 100Æs or 1000Æs of players LOL!) 0.0 needs to have double the isk per hour of empire level 4Æs if not triple, no argument, the economy will not crash, empires will not burn, the sky will not fall, and this rebalancing is so very overdue its not even funny anymore. [ ] Scalable resources (Empire has an infinite amounts of missions, 0.0 hasà. ? ) [ ] 0.0 Rat bountys (theyÆve barely been tweaked since I started playing, missions are approximately a factor of 5x more profitable than they once were, if not double that.) [ ] Make 0.0 players more self-supporting (I hope CCP took ship/capital ship replacement programs into consideration when they priced out the cost of Dominion Sov, because I donÆt know many pilots that want to grind for replacement caps while paying a higher percentage of tax for sov holdingà tbh though, we shouldnÆt need such programs) [ ] T2 ships/mods/components production in 0.0 made practical (just add reactions slots to Caldari outposts and +100 production slots at -50% production time to Amarr outposts, +25 slots to all other races, Fixed.) [?] DED Complex distribution fixed (are we going to get the same constellation static DEDÆs weÆve always had more often, or a random selection from a global pool, or what?) - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Alski Ministers Of Destruction.	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:39:00 - [1066] Edited by: Alski on 07/11/2009 19:40:34 [?] AnomalyÆs fixed (the changes posted by CCP Soundwave sound interesting, but bounties are an issue, the sheer number of crap cruiser spawns in them is an issue, and if you donÆt get the rewards in bounty form the corp and therefore the alliance canÆt tax it to pay for the sov, also the number of extra anomalies per level is pathetically insignificant and a joke) Someone on Scrapheap (sorry whoever it was, I couldnÆt find your post again to get your name) suggested that the æpirate magnetÆ upgrade should be intractable like an agent, you ask it ôfind me a anomalyö and it gives you a mission-BM, its not a mission, thereÆs no LP store, thereÆs no faux-conversation, no fancy map, it just gives you a place to warp to and pew stuff without having to jump between 10 (pfft) anoms trying to find one that isnÆt empty (we do this already, its called belt rating, and its tedious as **) [?] Mining in 0.0 (dropping 25b on an outpost dedicated to the job, gets you a very poor base refine + alliance/corp tax, couple that with the reduction in value of high end minerals and most of the systems in Eve not being worth mining, and nearly all Grav sites in 0.0 being , and I have to ask why do we still not have +15, +20, +25 oreÆs in 0.0 yet? Also how about a +100% trit and pye ore for 0.0 while weÆre at it, huge powerful alliances relying on and being dependent of empire carebears for their ships and equipment is the antithesis of what 0.0 should be) [?] Taxation (There is no point in increasing rewards in 0.0 if the majority of them are in non-taxable form, no-one will get rich if the alliance canÆt afford to upgrade its space and the alliance wonÆt upgrade its space if it doesnÆt have the isk. [?] Belt ratting (you can improve everything else you like, but if belt rats donÆt get some form of love this entire notion of upgraded space is for naught, it IS the main source of individual player income (aside from empire mission alts), if you want alliances to hold less space, you need the space to make at least the same amount of isk for more people, and while thatÆs being done, how about some larger spawns, higher bounties, higher tier rats between ônormalö rats and faction/officer spawns that have no fancy loot but high bountyÆs, maybe even rat carrier spawns, and throw in some nos/neuting-properly-tanking-rats just to make ratting interesting, hellà how about concord LP store rewards instead of bountys, use your imagination ffs) [ ] Small alliances being able to hold sov (IÆm actually joking here, Dominion isnÆt going to do this, nothing game mechanic related can, if your small and you donÆt have friends, you will lose, deal with it, ps: there are too many terrible empire alliances these days, make the alliance formation cost 10b and fix the alliance wardec cost while ya at it.) [ ] Isk Per Hour (this is the bottom line, if 0.0 is less profitable than empire AFTER corp/alliance tax, then people just use their existing empire mission alts instead, the alliance doesnÆt get their tax, the alliances space gets less upgrades, the people who do use the space make less isk, and everyone collectively suffers because the alliance has less isk to support their members... Unless you want to go down the road of corps individually charging every single member and their alts a monthly fee, for which there is no game mechanic. [ ] 0.0 Agents / Agents in space û are these ever going to happen c/d? [ ] Proper 0.0 space rental interface/methods, standings sharing, stuff to let alliances make isk from their space from those that are not in their alliance. [ ] 0.0 / empire û Risk / reward [ ] 0.0 / empire û Risk / reward [ ] 0.0 / empire û Risk / reward Originally by:** Sperrzone Half baked Turkey landing on 1st Dec. Pretty much this, I canÆt quite express how much I was looking forward to getting back to 0.0 life, and just how very disappointed I am by the lack of real improvements and fixs in this blog. edit: woo old sig, pritty thany - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
VonRijSE Phoenix Tribe Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:39:00 - [1067] Edited by: VonRijSE on 07/11/2009 19:44:05 how about making price go linear within a constellation (first one pretty cheap) and grow exponentially with each extra constellation you take. this means smaller alliances can get in 0.0 pretty easy and it would discourage holding a lot of spacejust for the sake of it. oh and give us fuel bonus back when you have sov without any upgrades needed for it. the 280 mill/14 days should at least be worth something right?

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:42:00 - [1068] Originally by: Nyphur 1) What happened to the following goals of the new sov system, as stated in previous devlogs? - "The more space you spread your æDominion' 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." These are still there just its a multiplier of the systems you hold and their various upgrade states. At some point it will be uneconomically sound even for just a TCU in the system to hold it with no other purpose than the dot on the map and then the question of whether or not the dot is that valuable to you to defend it if the SBU's are planted. When you combine this with the carrot of not needing as much space economically it only becomes a strategic factor to hold a buffer zone at which point you may not mind renting the space to new alliances or corps. Quote: 2) What happened to small entities being able to claim space? they can, whether or not they can control it is another question only they can answer. Quote: 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. It is only the old sov system in terms of time as a limitation on how fast after conquering a system you can establish the infrastructure with the strategic upgrades. There was no sensible application of activity that really helps or makes sense here since for example jump bridge systems have very low activity levels in them generally. Quote: 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? This may well be the case though we believe that alliances will shrink to their strategically important systems regardless of what the upkeep costs might end up being and you will find sovereignty being lapsed in a large number of systems that perhaps only had purpose for constellation sovereignty for example or eventually systems they no longer need for resource gathering or as buffer zones to invasion eventually. Combine the push and pull of the economics, you must also include the changing conquest system. Systems are at their core much more vulnerable now, so the decision to defend an outlying system based on the new strategies and economics will change the decision of high command to defend or allow it to be taken as committing valuable time and assets to its defence might not be worth it. Quote: 5) Why is 0.0 not more profitable than level 4 missions, even after the upgrades? Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding. Quote: 6) The new systems will sustain 10-15 pilots when fully upgraded. What happened to the previous figure for over 50? The previous figure was a ballpark of where we want to end up. If the context around the original quote is read, we were not aiming for that figure right away but it is where we intend to go. Our analysis of scaling with the design of new upgrade sites was that we were reaching limits where we would end up with hundreds of sites/signatures if we pushed towards that figure and that was undesirable. We want the sites to scale so each site needs a group and has appropriate rewards however we face some issues as the older sites were from simpler times before lots of ship balancing and have stupid NPCs for example which turn group content into solo content in difficulty (ironically the greatest flaw in the lvl 4 missions).

Peanorue	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:42:00 - [1069] 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. One of the best posts so far, would help the corps/Alliances wanting to start out and help curtail the like of Goons from holding space not in use, also agree 0.0 income should be raised whilst l4's nerfed slightly. Intrested "will shed more light on the asteroid belt upgrades which are not the ordinary gravimetric sites FYI some of you are mentioning Wink" that thats means
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:42:00 - [1070] So why exactly do i want to run anomalies in 0.0 instead of level 4s? Whatever change you make unless it makes someone running level 4s go "wow man i need to head out to 0.0 and get me some of that!" its pointless. All these stupid ass changes make me do is go "wow i need to go out to motsu and get me some of that!"

Elassus Herron Caldari Construction Cabal Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:43:00 - [1071] Originally by: CCP Chronotis We shall explore this further :) Well, you have ... three weeks, not counting the feature freeze? Guess you'd better get cracking! I can't talk much about ratting income: I live in Prov, and ratting there mostly makes a pittance. I can, however, talk from an industrial side: unless I'm¦ able to mine out grav sites and mining plexes, the income I can make in my home systems - where I have all my support, and where I would presumably be putting the upgrades - is terrible. But assuming I do invest billions in upgrading that system, my mining operations are significantly impaired if a single cloaky clown car is lurking in the system. What steps is CCP taking to insure that all this investment can actually be used by the corporations that created them? So far, from Soundwave's lamentable comments, I haven't seen any clarification of that. Relatedly, I also don't see you addressing a more pressing issue: how are alliances to insure a return on their investments without implementing de facto NBSI? If I spend months of time and billions of ISK so I can have a couple extra CAs in the system, what good is that to me when some neuts can move in and farm them all? Why should I go to all that trouble to create a resource for other pilots to exploit? I might suggest making such sights only visible to the holding alliance, or similar. I appreciate that you're trying to clarify this terrible dev blog, but there remains much work. EH ¦by "I'm" I mean the fleet I manage for my alliance. We use the royal first person here.
Yafn Robbing You of Your Space Pixels	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:44:00 - [1072] Originally by: VonRijSE how about making price go linear within a constellation (first one pretty cheap) and grow exponentially with each extra constellation you take. this means smaller alliances can get in 0.0 pretty easy and it would discourage holding a lot of spacejust for the sake of it. That's actually a really much better idea, A constellation with 6-7 systems would be able to support a reasonably small alliance easily with 200-500 members.
MpozoY GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:46:00 - [1073] If you want a net flow of people from empire to 0.0, the amount of space held (officially or not) by major alliances is irrelevant. All that matters is risk/reward. You have to have an accessible income source that exceeds - not matches, exceeds- that of L4 missions (counting bounty, loot and LP rewards) sufficiently enough to outweigh the significant risk of being blown up / podded every time you undock, and having your stuff locked in a station you can't dock in. None of the proposed solutions come close, even in a fully upgraded system, even before you factor in upkeep fees. If you shift this risk/reward (by requiring higher taxes etc.) you will get a net flow of players from 0.0 to empire instead, assuming they stay signed up. Less reward at the individual and alliance level (i.e. nerfed moons) means less motiviation to contest space. This means less of the epic fleet fights that are critical to Eve's reputation. The larger alliances distribute moon income in the form of ships/reimbursements for PvP, but with the moon nerf, the current level of this is almost assuredly unsupportable. Shifting the risk/reward of 0.0 means fewer carebears in 0.0, meaning fewer targets for gankers. This leaves less to do for defense gangs, which leaves less to do for HAC fleets, rippling up the chain. This means fewer people in 0.0 overall, as they either log in their L4-running alts out of boredom, move to empire for good, or unsub. This is directly counter to the stated CCP goal of pushing more kids into the 0.0 sandbox. If you want to get and keep people in 0.0, you must have an income source that is noticeably superior to any empire source, especially L4's. Period. End of story. If you instead add to the cost of 0.0, people will leave and not be replaced.
Aargh	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:49:00 - [1074] The whole system would make a lot more sense if it required minerals, rather than isk, to maintain upgrades (as stated earlier, who are the actually paying the isk to?). It would also provide an excellent opportunity to rebalance mineral usage by requiring large volumes of iso/nocx, which in turn would boost lowsec/poor trusec 0.0 areas by making their minerals comparatively more valuable. That aside, unlike ephemeral isk, large volumes of minerals waiting to be used/shipped for sovereignty consumption give your opponents something physical to attack. It would also provide incentive for miners and industrialists to come to the areas, providing the Alliance holding the space could keep them safe. There are other issues to address, but that's just my take on the whole "payment" aspect of sovereignty.
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:51:00 - [1075] If you guys are too stupid to see you will kill this game with this by now then you deserve for the game to die.
SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:53:00 - [1076] Originally by: Junkie Beverage Originally by: Cefte 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. Not empty quotin the empty quote for truth.
Dualshock GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:53:00 - [1077] Originally by: Kuzim Blaky'all sup sup, a dawg talk to a dawg an him explain to a dawg that recyclien industry in mad trubblz. dig it, recyclien a rouff gig to get into, an now if a dawg aint got so much places to go, its gonan be even harder. cant sustaine more than maybe a few recycliars, an top dawgs want to make it so a dawg cant even see whats goin on? i been playing eve side since i can remember sad to see it burn in the start of december for christmas, a dawg just wanted black magic instead you givein dawgs a piece of black coal? tragic. a dawg what a buff to recyclien goods in places him call his neighborhoods but you aint doing nothin for a posse who thrive (even tho we've been a thousan tims brought alive) looks like re-re gonan take a final nap kuz da ccp posse, them dont give a crap a dawg cant afford to run him posse if him gonan be forced to be runnin at a loss, see hope to see a posse post December come an go, but da wind of change be blowin, so dawg, i dunno. no dawg, say it aint so dawg otherwise its time fo da re-re to never again log. <3
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:54:00 - [1078] Null sec should be a scary place where lots of people try to blow you up but you can make nice money in the process. With this null sec is still just a place where lots of people blow you up and you make almmmost as much as empire, amazing. Dominion: nullsec, its almost as good as empire, without concord!
Scouty McScoutersen	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:54:00 - [1079] Originally by: Professor Dumbledore If you guys are too stupid to see you will kill this game with this by now then you deserve for the game to die. There's constructive posts and then there's **** like this, stop posting thanks
Arakkis Melanogaster Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:54:00 - [1080] R64 moons were the fuel keeping the 0.0 sandbox in a constant state of war because they were extremely lucrative and unique. They were the rare material that the empire industrialists needed to produce their goods, and made it worth throwing massive war machines against each other, thus producing a cycle. Nerfing the R64 moons in coordination with the sweeping changes to 0.0 is causing a massive flux in the reason for accepting the risk and effort of living in 0.0. Fixing the sov system and implementing changes to how 0.0 works is fine (and overdue), but you must provide a carrot for people to accept taking the stick. Were the status quo in terms of R64 moons kept, even if the new system upgrade system doesn't produce the desired changes to alliance and personal income, alliances will still have a reason to hold space, and continue adapting to tweaks to the system going forward. If the system doesn't work as planned, and alliances have no incentive to continue living in 0.0, individuals will have no reason to keep putting in the work to keep the alliance going. However, should the upgraded space work with minor tweaking, there will be a adaptation period, after which R64s can be nerfed and the prices of upkeep can be tweaked. Implementing a sweeping change to the basic structure of how any game works always results in unhappy players due to the balancing the needs to take place once the playerbase discovers the unforeseen weaknesses in the plan. Implementing multiple sweeping changes to a game all at once is a recipe for disaster as most players will simply throw up their hands and move on to something else. I admire the hard work and temerity it takes to make these upcoming changes, but listen to your players and do this slower or you may risk the NGE of EVE.

Headwires GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:54:00 - [1081] Originally by: Kuzim Blaky'all sup sup, a dawg talk to a dawg an him explain to a dawg that recyclien industry in mad trubblz. dig it, recyclien a rouff gig to get into, an now if a dawg aint got so much places to go, its gonan be even harder. cant sustaine more than maybe a few recycliars, an top dawgs want to make it so a dawg cant even see whats goin on? i been playing eve side since i can remember sad to see it burn in the start of december for christmas, a dawg just wanted black magic instead you givein dawgs a piece of black coal? tragic. a dawg what a buff to recyclien goods in places him call his neighborhoods but you aint doing nothin for a posse who thrive (even tho we've been a thousan tims brought alive) looks like re-re gonan take a final nap kuz da ccp posse, them dont give a crap a dawg cant afford to run him posse if him gonan be forced to be runnin at a loss, see hope to see a posse post December come an go, but da wind of change be blowin, so dawg, i dunno. no dawg, say it aint so dawg otherwise its time fo da re-re to never again log. kuzim blak for csm 2009
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:55:00 - [1082] Originally by: ep1k So why exactly do i want to run anomalies in 0.0 instead of level 4s? Whatever change you make unless it makes someone running level 4s go "wow man i need to head out to 0.0 and get me some of that!" its pointless. All these stupid ass changes make me do is go "wow i need to go out to motsu and get me some of that!" It's even wider than that. What, exactly, is the point of 0.0 now? Moon income is nerfed, plus alchemy means that r64s aren't even necessary any more. So Alliance income is reduced. Alliances effectively have to pay rent now for their systems. So Alliance costs are increased. Individual income is, at best, on a par with highsec L4 missions. Factor in ship losses to roaming gangs, increased costs and God only knows tax rates post-Dominion and individual income is worse than highsec. So it's going to be worse for Alliances and worse for individuals. So...why bother?
Pwadoc GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:57:00 - [1083] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding. ... We want the sites to scale so each site needs a group and has appropriate rewards however we face some issues as the older sites were from simpler times before lots of ship balancing and have stupid NPCs for example which turn group content into solo content in difficulty (ironically the greatest flaw in the lvl 4 missions). Your goal with this update is to draw more players out to 0.0 space. As it stands, the modifications will have the exact opposite effect. The genesis of the problem is the disproportionate profitability of empire lvl 4s. You should have fixed that problem first, and then worked on the sov system. A simple solution to your problem exists. Remove high-sec lvl 4 agents.
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:00:00 - [1084] Originally by: Normin Bates Geez. I hope CCP doesn't buckle under the pressure of the tears and whines on here. Implement as intended and adjust later FFS. I, too, hope CCP doesn't listen to any feedback from the players who actually live in 0.0 and just ram through their horribly thought out patch that will totally ruin 0.0 space! _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Elo Behram Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:02:00 - [1085] The reason alliances hold a lot of space is that there are actually very few systems worth holding (ones with high-end moons or good truesec and belts). Basic idea behind Dominion: make space expensive in bulk so alliances have to shed unused space but lucrative in small portions that new alliances can move in and upgrade. You put the first part in but forgot the second. Anomalies and wormholes aren't going to motivate these theoretical new players to exit Empire and come to nullsec because a typical "crappy" system that the bigger powers would be abandoning and new ones moving into (think low truesec, <10 belts, and no R32 or R64 moons) can't be upgraded to a point where it's competitive with L4 missions or the "core" space that the established powers will be keeping. Anomalies aren't going to get you there. Mining and profession sites aren't going to get you there. Plexes might get you there for a while until the deadspace markets crash, and then they'll be ****ed.
Nevada Tan	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:03:00 - [1086] The funniest thing will be if CCP succeeds in their unwritten goal of utterly ruining 0.0, the numbers of suicide gankings will go up through the roof purely through people going "If I'm going to go, I'm going to go with a bang" Hope you weren't expecting to be able to run any missions anywhere, Empire newbies. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ I have done a bad thing.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:03:00 - [1087] Originally by: Mikal Drey 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 ! Suggest you take a closer look at the next update of singularity. The names we mention (both in this blog and Abathur's next blog which covers the conquest system) are the finalised names Yes we realise the TCU was its old original name . As mentioned, the TCU has changed in its role in the conquest chain to the last thing that is destroyed before you plant your own TCU as the invader. Its role therefore is purely to unlock everything else and for that dot on the map and that we feel justified the low cost of the TCU itself. However when you go from TCU to include the infrastructure hub and consequently any upgrade, the costs start to climb. We also cover seeding, in the next blog or after where we talk transition between old and new. TCU's will be seeded automatically within solar systems you are currently sovereign of and your sovereignty times will be backdated to what you have when the servers go down which will adjust the strategic index starting level as a result to effectively what level of sov you have now. We will then give you a grace period (week or more) to choose what strategic upgrades you want to continue to have in each solar system and install those after which when the grac period has passed, any strategic structures in systems not upgraded will be offlined such as what occurs when sovereignty is lost now. The hubs and upgrades will currently be available like starbase modules from the NPC market at Concord/DED stations

Tomas Russell Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:04:00 - [1088] Edited by: Tomas Russell on 07/11/2009 20:04:33 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Nyphur 5) Why is 0.0 not more profitable than level 4 missions, even after the upgrades? Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding. Do you realise that this is not even close to being an answer to his question? And that it reads like a cross between the autistic kid that eats glue in grade 3b and a marketing executive? "Gnargle gnarf blurf, square root of seventy three, incentivize the synergy of your human resource, burble". No offense meant, if you are actually the autistic kid who eats glue in grade 3b, or a CCP marketing executive. Or both.
Ariane VoxDei	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:05:00 - [1089] I'd like to take a moment to remind a lot of you of something. Remember how you were all busy gloating and mocking over the 11% NPC corp tax that mostly effects empire dwelling mission runners - and how you forgot to think about the principles at stake? You are not laughing so much any more, are you. Hello 0.0 taxation. I am not gloating or "schadenfroh", I am just saying I saw it coming and so should you. Instead you are now stuck in the same mud that you didn't want to help the carebears out of. Say no to unnessary taxation, even if it does not hit you - next time it might. Think about it.
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:08:00 - [1090] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Quote: 5) Why is 0.0 not more profitable than level 4 missions, even after the upgrades? Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding. The most important part of a 0.0 fix been left out of the 0.0 fix??? Could you just not delay the patch until you had this content built in??? ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)

Crucifier The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:08:00 - [1091] Originally by: Ariane VoxDei I'd like to take a moment to remind a lot of you of something. Remember how you were all busy gloating and mocking over the 11% NPC corp tax that mostly effects empire dwelling mission runners - and how you forgot to think about the principles at stake? You are not laughing so much any more, are you. Hello 0.0 taxation. I am not gloating or "schadenfroh", I am just saying I saw it coming and so should you. Instead you are now stuck in the same mud that you didn't want to help the carebears out of. Say no to unnessary taxation, even if it does not hit you - next time it might. Think about it. It wasn't unnecessary in highsec, lvl 4s are too much isk for no risk
L'Artest	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:08:00 - [1092] Originally by: Kuzim Blaky'all sup sup, a dawg talk to a dawg an him explain to a dawg that recyclien industry in mad trubblz. dig it, recyclien a rouff gig to get into, an now if a dawg aint got so much places to go, its gonan be even harder. cant sustaine more than maybe a few recycliars, an top dawgs want to make it so a dawg cant even see whats goin on? i been playing eve side since i can remember sad to see it burn in the start of december for christmas, a dawg just wanted black magic instead you givein dawgs a piece of black coal? tragic. a dawg what a buff to recyclien goods in places him call his neighborhoods but you aint doing nothin for a posse who thrive (even tho we've been a thousan tims brought alive) looks like re-re gonan take a final nap kuz da ccp posse, them dont give a crap a dawg cant afford to run him posse if him gonan be forced to be runnin at a loss, see hope to see a posse post December come an go, but da wind of change be blowin, so dawg, i dunno. no dawg, say it aint so dawg otherwise its time fo da re-re to never again log. this cant be quoted enough
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:10:00 - [1093] Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Originally by: Professor Dumbledore If you guys are too stupid to see you will kill this game with this by now then you deserve for the game to die. There's constructive posts and then there's **** like this, stop posting thanks Yes because its quite clear constructive posts are surely getting though their thicks skulls and undersized brains.
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:11:00 - [1094] ccp, why dont u limit the number of missions lvl 4 agents in highsec give out per hour, why should a 0.0 system ppl have paid to upgrade only support 15 (MAX) players taking risks when a risk free highsec system like motsu supports hundreds of carebears with the same isk / hr(its actually limitless and depends more on how much lag theyre willing to put up with) u said you were going to give people a reason to come to 0.0, you have NOT DONE THIS!!! dominion is lacking 2 things! something for 0.0 entities to fight over, and a reason for highsec entities to come to 0.0. proceed with the ship changes and skip the sov changes, you guys need to go back and accomplish the things you said you were going to accomplish, this is not it. This is exodus meets NGE creating more deadspace items is just going to drop their price, and these items arent even taxable by the alliance PAYING to provide their members with them. why should an alliance PAY to provide their members with the same isk/hr they could get RISK FREE with a lvl 4 mission alt which can be trained VERY QUICKLY.
Hazecat	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:12:00 - [1095] Originally by: MpozoY If you want a net flow of people from empire to 0.0, the amount of space held (officially or not) by major alliances is irrelevant. All that matters is risk/reward. You have to have an accessible income source that exceeds - not matches, exceeds- that of L4 missions (counting bounty, loot and LP rewards) sufficiently enough to outweigh the significant risk of being blown up / podded every time you undock, and having your stuff locked in a station you can't dock in. None of the proposed solutions come close, even in a fully upgraded system, even before you factor in upkeep fees. If you shift this risk/reward (by requiring higher taxes etc.) you will get a net flow of players from 0.0 to empire instead, assuming they stay signed up. Less reward at the individual and alliance level (i.e. nerfed moons) means less motiviation to contest space. This means less of the epic fleet fights that are critical to Eve's reputation. The larger alliances distribute moon income in the form of ships/reimbursements for PvP, but with the moon nerf, the current level of this is almost assuredly unsupportable. Shifting the risk/reward of 0.0 means fewer carebears in 0.0, meaning fewer targets for gankers. This leaves less to do for defense gangs, which leaves less to do for HAC fleets, rippling up the chain. This means fewer people in 0.0 overall, as they either log in their L4-running alts out of boredom, move to empire for good, or unsub. This is directly counter to the stated CCP goal of pushing more kids into the 0.0 sandbox. If you want to get and keep people in 0.0, you must have an income source that is noticeably superior to any empire source, especially L4's. Period. End of story. If you instead add to the cost of 0.0, people will leave and not be replaced. You took the word right outta my mouth.
MuCoo	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:12:00 - [1096] I am so glad that all our small alliances and corps are so rich now to afford living in0.0. I'm just wandering what is CCP thinking charging so much for the system upgrades. It cost us enought to keep pos's up and running, now we have to worry abuot the extra cost of keeping sov. I wander whats going to happen next, we aare all going to have to sell gtc's just so we can afford our systems. I guess thats what they have in mind, so they can make more real money from us.
Sergi Povitch Gatehoppers Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:13:00 - [1097] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Mikal Drey 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 ! Suggest you take a closer look at the next update of singularity. The names we mention (both in this blog and Abathur's next blog which covers the conquest system) are the finalised names Yes we realise the TCU was its old original name . As mentioned, the TCU has changed in its role in the conquest chain to the last thing that is destroyed before you plant your own TCU as the invader. Its role therefore is purely to unlock everything else and for that dot on the map and that we feel justified the low cost of the TCU itself. However when you go from TCU to include the infrastructure hub and consequently any upgrade, the costs start to climb. We also cover seeding, in the next blog or after where we talk transition between old and new. TCU's will be seeded automatically within solar systems you are currently sovereign of and your sovereignty times will be backdated to what you have when the servers go down which will adjust the strategic index starting level as a result to effectively what level of sov you have now. We will then give you a grace period (week or more) to choose what strategic upgrades you want to continue to have in each solar system and install those after which when the grac period has passed, any strategic structures in systems not upgraded will be offlined such as what occurs when sovereignty is lost now. The hubs and upgrades will currently be available like starbase modules from the NPC market at Concord/DED stations How many m3 are the upgrades? indi sized, frieghter sized? do I have to fill them with stuff like the outpost eggs. Do I have to guard them till downtime?
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:13:00 - [1098] Remove highsec L4 missions.
Magnum III Journey On Squad	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:14:00 - [1099] You got to make it not just worth it but interesting and fun to have more people go to 0.0 This just gives the leaders something to do, were is the fun for a person to want to go there and not just become a pawn being told what to do? Because the leaders will just tell you what system to stay in and mine or rat or whatever, and you darn well better do it.
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:14:00 - [1100] Originally by: Ariane VoxDei I'd like to take a moment to remind a lot of you of something. Remember how you were all busy gloating and mocking over the 11% NPC corp tax that mostly effects empire dwelling mission runners - and how you forgot to think about the principles at stake? You are not laughing so much any more, are you. Hello 0.0 taxation. I am not gloating or "schadenfroh", I am just saying I saw it coming and so should you. Instead you are now stuck in the same mud that you didn't want to help the carebears out of. Say no to unnessary taxation, even if it does not hit you - next time it might. Think about it. The principle at stake is risk versus reward. Level 4 mission runners in empire have been risking nothing for the opportunity to access infinitely scaling opportunities to reap the the second-highest isk per hour ratio in the game. 0.0 players risk playing without Concord, without the warning of wardecs, without massive NPC seeded markets, constructing their own stations and risking losing everything within those stations, for five or six people per region to exceed the isk per hour of level 4 missions with exploration, for moon gold for those few alliances lucky enough, large enough and rich enough to be able to defend it, and for a few dozen people to make roughly that isk per hour ratting in the few systems with adequate truesec and sufficient belts to sustain them. And that was bloody awful, and that's before Dominion. Now exploration is going to tank with oversupply, moon gold is going to become pointless, and ratting isk will drop from being on-par with level 4s to far below level 4s to pay for simply having basic services within space, and fighting over anomalies that will with massive investment manage to scale to support ten people at once, while you sit back and make what will now become the single most profitable per-hour exercise in the game. Post-tax. So yeah, take your carefully self-labelled 'not gloating' gloating and get the hell back to your CCP-approved isk fountain, and let us know when the issue of risk versus reward means anything to you beyond the chance that you forget to turn on your Pith X-Type Booster until you're already in structure. From rats.

JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:14:00 - [1101] Originally by: Tomas Russell Edited by: Tomas Russell on 07/11/2009 20:04:33 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Nyphur 5) Why is 0.0 not more profitable than level 4 missions, even after the upgrades? Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding. Do you realise that this is not even close to being an answer to his question? And that it reads like a cross between the autistic kid that eats glue in grade 3b and a marketing executive? "Gnargle gnarf blurf, square root of seventy three, incentivize the synergy of your human resource, burble". No offense meant, if you are actually the autistic kid who eats glue in grade 3b, or a CCP marketing executive. Or both. Well plexes and wormholes are , i guess anomalys are just to keep constant isks flows so you have always something to farm isks from.
sam0r Men in Blue Mining Corporation Cold Steel Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:15:00 - [1102] Originally by: Nyphur Another idea I had was the possibility of taxing NPC kills in a system rather than just those within a corp. It's an idea just to support the NRDS people that can't reap taxes from the people that use their space. Perhaps they could set their hub to collect a 10% tax off NPCers in their system automatically. Yeah, that would be awesome! And btw: Making sth more expensive doesn't mean that more people will buy it... the costs are way too much.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:18:00 - [1103] Originally by: Tomas Russell Edited by: Tomas Russell on 07/11/2009 20:04:33 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Nyphur 5) Why is 0.0 not more profitable than level 4 missions, even after the upgrades? Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding. Do you realise that this is not even close to being an answer to his question? And that it reads like a cross between the autistic kid that eats glue in grade 3b and a marketing executive? "Gnargle gnarf blurf, square root of seventy three, incentivize the synergy of your human resource, burble". No offense meant, if you are actually the autistic kid who eats glue in grade 3b, or a CCP marketing executive. Or both. Plain text answer for those who don't get the reference (sorry). - The jump between no risk and any risk is the most significant step, the same as no cost and some cost. The difference in mathematical terms is small but economically large. In short, it takes a disproportionate amount of reward to offset a smaller amount of risk or additional effort. - We are looking at introducing social group content as Soundwave mentions of sufficient reward to compel you either as someone who runs missions in empire to fund their pvp in null sec or as an empire dweller looking to make the leap to join up with others and seek to upgrade your solar systems to unlock these sites. These will act to both minimise the number of signatures as a whole within the solar system and to let you play together than alone. - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else.

marxist revolutionary	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:19:00 - [1104] Originally by: Cefte Originally by: Ariane VoxDei I'd like to take a moment to remind a lot of you of something. Remember how you were all busy gloating and mocking over the 11% NPC corp tax that mostly effects empire dwelling mission runners - and how you forgot to think about the principles at stake? You are not laughing so much any more, are you. Hello 0.0 taxation. I am not gloating or "schadenfroh", I am just saying I saw it coming and so should you. Instead you are now stuck in the same mud that you didn't want to help the carebears out of. Say no to unnessary taxation, even if it does not hit you - next time it might. Think about it. The principle at stake is risk versus reward. Level 4 mission runners in empire have been risking nothing for the opportunity to access infinitely scaling opportunities to reap the the second-highest isk per hour ratio in the game. 0.0 players risk playing without Concord, without the warning of wardecs, without massive NPC seeded markets, constructing their own stations and risking losing everything within those stations, for five or six people per region to exceed the isk per hour of level 4 missions with exploration, for moon gold for those few alliances lucky enough, large enough and rich enough to be able to defend it, and for a few dozen people to make roughly that isk per hour ratting in the few systems with adequate truesec and sufficient belts to sustain them. And that was bloody awful, and that's before Dominion. Now exploration is going to tank with oversupply, moon gold is going to become pointless, and ratting isk will drop from being on-par with level 4s to far below level 4s to pay for simply having basic services within space, and fighting over anomalies that will with massive investment manage to scale to support ten people at once, while you sit back and make what will now become the single most profitable per-hour exercise in the game. Post-tax. So yeah, take your carefully self-labelled 'not gloating' gloating and get the hell back to your CCP-approved isk fountain, and let us know when the issue of risk versus reward means anything to you beyond the chance that you forget to turn on your Pith X-Type Booster until you're already in structure. From rats. i wonder how weasley button would respond to this post
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:19:00 - [1105] Originally by: CCP Chronotis - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. Great! What's the planned fix?
DaiTengu Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:20:00 - [1106] Originally by: CCP Soundwave I completely agree that systems will be able to sustain about 10, possibly 15 people active at one time (which to be fair is a pretty massive increase from what we can do now). It's not the perfect solution, but it gives us a pretty solid base to work from. In terms of the upkeep costs, remember that you'll be getting rid of towers and the fuel costs for said towers. If it turns out that the system cost here is backbreaking for alliances, it's something we can re-visit. Ugh, I can't believe I just spent 2 hours reading through this thread trying to catch up. with 10-15 anomalies, you're not going to be able to support 10-15 ratters. It scales similar to asteroid belts. While the 15-20 belts I've seen mentioned for one person is a bit off, (I can make 30m+ an hour ratting in a 7-belt system by myself, after grooming it most of the day) you're going to run into problems with anomalies. If there's 10 people in system, and 15 anomalies, you have a 2/3 chance of warping to an anomaly and finding someone else there. Figure it takes a couple minutes to scan one down and warp to it. you can waste up to 15 minutes just getting to one. Now scale that up to 15 people in system, and 15 anomalies. you have a 1/15 chance of picking the one that no one is at. Good luck, I hope you don't mind wasting 30+ minutes just trying to find an anomaly that no one is at, shooting things for 5 minutes, getting 5-10m ISK if you're lucky, and then repeating the whole process. Not to mention one or two AFK cloakers in a system can completely shut down the ability to earn ISK in that system. Seriously, park an AFK newbie-alt with a protocloak in an imicus somewhere, and an alliance will be effectively dishing out 2b isk for nothing. Also, with the nerf to moon mining income, an alliance isn't going to be able to afford these upgrades. The only reason we can afford POS fuel now, or the logistics to fuel the towers is because of the R64 income. The towers aren't going to go away like you say they are. You still need bridges, jammers, and beacons. You still will have moon mining POSes as long as they can eek out a bit of passive income without too much :effort:. So what you're adding here is enough stuff to effectively double the cost of running space, while cutting the alliance-level income. I fail to see how any of this is going to result in epic battles. No one is going to want to take more space. You might get a few tiny alliances that spent months running level 4s in empire, and have some ISK to blow, so they want to try owning 0.0 space. They'll either become renter-pets, or wind up getting outblobbed by the larger alliances. They'll realize that paying a ton of ISK each month just to potentially see their name on soverignity.jpg really isn't worth it, and that they can make a lot more isk just running level 4s in empire. If you want epic space battles (I sure as hell do!) you need to make 0.0 worth it. This makes 0.0 worth LESS than what it is now. You're taking away the thing we currently fight over (R64 income), and then increasing the costs to own space. Large alliances currently subsidize their members by paying for ship losses, capital ship losses, and sometimes even handing out free supercaps. This won't be possible anymore. 0.0 is going to become stagnant. There's nothing to fight over, and no one will want to risk assets they can't afford to replace to fight for them. Even roaming ~wulfpax~ will disappear as there will be no one to shoot at. As I said before, go back to the drawing board on this one. I'm not sure if all your departments are working together or not on this, because to me it just seems like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. This potentially would have worked well had you decided not to nerf R64s as well.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:21:00 - [1107] Originally by: Sergi Povitch Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Mikal Drey 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 ! Suggest you take a closer look at the next update of singularity. The names we mention (both in this blog and Abathur's next blog which covers the conquest system) are the finalised names Yes we realise the TCU was its old original name . As mentioned, the TCU has changed in its role in the conquest chain to the last thing that is destroyed before you plant your own TCU as the invader. Its role therefore is purely to unlock everything else and for that dot on the map and that we feel justified the low cost of the TCU itself. However when you go from TCU to include the infrastructure hub and consequently any upgrade, the costs start to climb. We also cover seeding, in the next blog or after where we talk transition between old and new. TCU's will be seeded automatically within solar systems you are currently sovereign of and your sovereignty times will be backdated to what you have when the servers go down which will adjust the strategic index starting level as a result to effectively what level of sov you have now. We will then give you a grace period (week or more) to choose what strategic upgrades you want to continue to have in each solar system and install those after which when the grac period has passed, any strategic structures in systems not upgraded will be offlined such as what occurs when sovereignty is lost now. The hubs and upgrades will currently be available like starbase modules from the NPC market at Concord/DED stations How many m3 are the upgrades? indi sized, frieghter sized? do I have to fill them with stuff like the outpost eggs. Do I have to guard them till downtime? they range from industrial to the level V upgrades being freighter sized. No there is no materials needed, they are just like starbase structures. You launch for corp and anchor/online them where allowed.

MicheldiAngelo	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:21:00 - [1108] it looks that most of you is missing the point of this blog and what this introduce to eve game Before Dominion : you fuel POS`s, you have sov After Dominion : you fuel POS`s, you pay "Bill", you have sov - with "promise" for something more I dont know like you members of eve- comunity, but i feel like someone just trying to catch me in bad way. Also what is funny, becouse this is just a game, nobody can do nothing, but there are some countries that for that kind of things [ i mean this "fix sov thing" ] ppl are going to Jail - for ppl that dont simply understood - this something that was first spoted in Itally. cheers
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:22:00 - [1109] Originally by: Itzena Originally by: CCP Chronotis - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. Great! What's the planned fix? Yes, how will you be nerfing level 4 mission runners?
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:23:00 - [1110] read: we wont increase truesec, faction, # of belts, rat bounties or anything like that because we think all you people in 0.0 are a bunch of macro ratting isk farmers and we really dont give a **** about you, as long as the majority of our fanbase in empire keep paying. it makes us sad to see you destroy all the pretty little ships we designed in huge battles funded by moongoo. work harder.

Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:25:00 - [1111] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Tomas Russell Edited by: Tomas Russell on 07/11/2009 20:04:33 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Nyphur 5) Why is 0.0 not more profitable than level 4 missions, even after the upgrades? Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding. Do you realise that this is not even close to being an answer to his question? And that it reads like a cross between the autistic kid that eats glue in grade 3b and a marketing executive? "Gnargle gnarf blurf, square root of seventy three, incentivize the synergy of your human resource, burble". No offense meant, if you are actually the autistic kid who eats glue in grade 3b, or a CCP marketing executive. Or both. Plain text answer for those who don't get the reference (sorry). - The jump between no risk and any risk is the most significant step, the same as no cost and some cost. The difference in mathematical terms is small but economically large. In short, it takes a disproportionate amount of reward to offset a smaller amount of risk or additional effort. - We are looking at introducing social group content as Soundwave mentions of sufficient reward to compel you either as someone who runs missions in empire to fund their pvp in null sec or as an empire dweller looking to make the leap to join up with others and seek to upgrade your solar systems to unlock these sites. These will act to both minimise the number of signatures as a whole within the solar system and to let you play together than alone. - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. By Social group content do you mean things people dont currently do because its not even worth the effort to having to do them because there are no other ways of making money? Because that's what it sounds like to me. You are ****ing this up so bad just stop.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:26:00 - [1112] Originally by: SavageBastard In any case, might I suggest that simply buffing the vast myriad of 0.0 exploration sites that already exist might be a rather workable solution for everyone. I don't mean the drop rates for the really rare stuff, but the more common items and the base rat bounties. Also, add a chance for them to spawn officer/faction rats just like belts. A simple change: put belt rats in them instead of mission (deadspace) rats. Equivalent difficulty, about x3 bounty and x2 module drops quantity.
Aceoil Black Serpent Technologies R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:27:00 - [1113] 0.0 rats needs to give out bigger bounties. Seriously forget being comparable to lvl 4 missions. Forget it! Rat bounties in 0.0 need to increase from 3x - 5x from what they are now. Yes 0.0 ratting should be MUCH MUCH better than level 4 missions. Once you have raised the 0.0 rat bounties. Then there will be a mad rush to 0.0. I don't want to have to rat for 10 hours/week just to help my corp/alliance pay for system upgrades. - If you raised the 0.0 rat bounties. There is a mad rush to 0.0. - 0.0 fills up. - Pirates, merc corps, and carebear hunters come out of the woodwork and camp systems almost 24/7 in their cloaky ships. - Carebears respond with response gangs, and ratting in groups. But they cannot rat all the time cause there would be hostiles in system. So everything balances out.
Nyphur Pillowsoft Total Comfort	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:27:00 - [1114] Some very good points, it actually does put to rest a lot of my own concerns. I'm writing a column post on this for EVE Evolved on Sunday and I'll make sure to take your answers into account. Originally by: CCP Chronotis There was no sensible application of activity that really helps or makes sense here since for example jump bridge systems have very low activity levels in them generally. This is a very good point that I overlooked earlier. Originally by: CCP Chronotis Combine the push and pull of the economics, you must also include the changing conquest system. Systems are at their core much more vulnerable now, so the decision to defend an outlying system based on the new strategies and economics will change the decision of high command to defend or allow it to be taken as committing valuable time and assets to its defence might not be worth it. If this is true, it does circumvent many of the arguments people have been making. But we can't verify it as details on the sov combat mechanics haven't been revealed yet. Originally by: CCP Chronotis Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding. Originally by: Nyphur 6) The new systems will sustain 10-15 pilots when fully upgraded. What happened to the previous figure for over 50? The previous figure was a ballpark of where we want to end up. If the context around the original quote is read, we were not aiming for that figure right away but it is where we intend to go. Our analysis of scaling with the design of new upgrade sites was that we were reaching limits where we would end up with hundreds of sites/signatures if we pushed towards that figure and that was undesirable. So if I'm reading this right, the plan for the future (post expansion) is to create more effectively infinite resource taps in 0.0. Agents are the obvious first choice, and perhaps some new types of group-oriented site for NPCing that are geared specifically toward producing lots of ISK over time so less are needed. Effectively super-anomalies with many more waves of NPCs or something involving escalations? And the current maximum of around 10-15 players per system is just the ground floor that can be expanded later as information is collected post-expansion. Is that about right or am I misunderstanding? EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:27:00 - [1115] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Itzena Originally by: CCP Chronotis - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. Great! What's the planned fix? Yes, how will you be nerfing level 4 mission runners? 11% tax ??
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:29:00 - [1116] Originally by: ceaon 11% tax ?? oh no you might have to set up a tax shelter corp youll be out MILLIONS
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:30:00 - [1117] Edited by: Korodan on 07/11/2009 20:31:04 Originally by: ceaon Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Itzena Originally by: CCP Chronotis - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. Great! What's the planned fix? Yes, how will you be nerfing level 4 mission runners? 11% tax ?? Still lets you farm from an infinite fountain of ISK with no risk, just a slightly weaker return. edit: Or you'll just set up tax shelter corps that will disappear the second the Privs dec them.
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:33:00 - [1118] There's also the minor detail that the tax won't be applied to bonuses or LPs, which effectively makes that 11% tax actually around a 2-3% tax.
Mikal Drey Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:33:00 - [1119] Originally by: CCP Chronotis The hubs and upgrades will currently be available like starbase modules from the NPC market at Concord/DED stations which require a freighter (current SISI size) multiple freighter runs :/ remember the debacle with the need for station warehouse BPO's and without bridges theres will be a need to get hubs in BEFORE the grace period and it is gonna make taking new space a complete pita thanks for the response and i look forward to the next couple of blogs
shado20	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:33:00 - [1120] i have not read the 37 pages of this post. i jest want to make sure the question is asked. as of now i am able to drop a tower in a system and have it clame sove for the aliance. that right is given to me by my CEO/Directors. the cost of this tower could be my own or the corps, but the sove is checked to the aliance. how is the rights given out or deligated as to who can drop thos markers and how the billing is handled, is the aliance have a walet for handling the payment, or is this given to the corp that setup the marker. i have some consern as to how this works from the standpoint of spys over taxing the corp/aliance walet buy claming usless systems, as the cost gos directly to/from the walet. where the current system requiers some work to buy fuel and move fuel witch eliminates that.

Noghri ViR GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:34:00 - [1121] Nice to see that CCP is getting around to pulling a Star Wars Galaxies here. It's been fun everyone! --------------------------------------------- Noghri ViR for CSM Vote for me here: http://myeve.eve-online.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=28 http://noghri08.wordpress.com/
Hunlop	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:34:00 - [1122] Originally by: CCP Chronotis - We are looking at introducing social group content as Soundwave mentions of sufficient reward to compel you either as someone who runs missions in empire to fund their pvp in null sec or as an empire dweller looking to make the leap to join up with others and seek to upgrade your solar systems to unlock these sites. These will act to both minimise the number of signatures as a whole within the solar system and to let you play together than alone. So this is a strategy to get more accounts active so people can pvp in 0.0, nice to see you finally admitted to CCP almost forcing people to get even more accounts just so that they can grind missions in highsec to FUND 0.0 WARFARE
SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:35:00 - [1123] Originally by: CCP Chronotis - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. Then why would you release a devblog just 3 or so weeks before expected implementation that reflects no knowledge of this whatsoever? Why do you guys keep giving answers that essentially say "yes we know that 0.0 isn't going to make enough money but we'll do that with new content in the future but we're going to stick you with all the costs NOW?" Either give us all of the alleged benefits with all the costs or don't do anything at all. All of us would love more than anything to get rid of POS warfare but if you're going to piecemeal all these changes you're going to keep seeing a lot of hollering.
Hugh Hefner Caldari Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:35:00 - [1124] btw the comparison with level IV in highsec is kind of odd, instead compare with level IV in places like Ziriert(lowsec mission-"hub") = 12k loyalty-points/decent mission and several such agents. Or even compare to level V in lowsec, a excellent "social group-activity"-mission that would be perfect for 0.0. Now you suggest to make the useless part of sovereignty cheaper = the color-dots in the map, but keep the important parts expensive, the parts that makes industry and isk-making worthwhile for non-macros = jumpbridges and cynojammers. You pinch our cheeks with one hand and slap us upon the head with the other, why not let us gamers handle the slapping of other gamers, its much more easy to stomach + we can fight back against it...
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:35:00 - [1125] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Tomas Russell Edited by: Tomas Russell on 07/11/2009 20:04:33 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Nyphur 5) Why is 0.0 not more profitable than level 4 missions, even after the upgrades? Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding. Do you realise that this is not even close to being an answer to his question? And that it reads like a cross between the autistic kid that eats glue in grade 3b and a marketing executive? "Gnargle gnarf blurf, square root of seventy three, incentivize the synergy of your human resource, burble". No offense meant, if you are actually the autistic kid who eats glue in grade 3b, or a CCP marketing executive. Or both. Plain text answer for those who don't get the reference (sorry). - The jump between no risk and any risk is the most significant step, the same as no cost and some cost. The difference in mathematical terms is small but economically large. In short, it takes a disproportionate amount of reward to offset a smaller amount of risk or additional effort. - We are looking at introducing social group content as Soundwave mentions of sufficient reward to compel you either as someone who runs missions in empire to fund their pvp in null sec or as an empire dweller looking to make the leap to join up with others and seek to upgrade your solar systems to unlock these sites. These will act to both minimise the number of signatures as a whole within the solar system and to let you play together than alone. - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. Why cant you just increase bounties on rats 100%, and remove all non faction pirates under battleship size. Why cant you just increase anomaly reward ABOVE level 4s. Tell me why you cant just right now give 0.0 above empire income. These changes are not far fetched at all. You alreayd have agents floating in space giving out missions in 0.0, why cant you add more of those? Why would you even think saying these new upgrades will put you on par with motsu is even acceptable?
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:39:00 - [1126] Originally by: Aceoil 0.0 rats needs to give out bigger bounties. Seriously forget being comparable to lvl 4 missions. Forget it! Rat bounties in 0.0 need to increase. Yes 0.0 ratting should be MUCH MUCH better than level 4 missions. Once you have raised the 0.0 rat bounties. Then there will be a mad rush to 0.0. I don't want to have to rat for 10 hours/week just to help my corp/alliance pay for system upgrades. - If you raised the 0.0 rat bounties. There is a mad rush to 0.0. - 0.0 fills up. - Pirates, merc corps, and carebear hunters come out of the woodwork and camp systems almost 24/7 in their cloaky ships. - Carebears respond with response gangs, and ratting in groups. But they cannot rat all the time cause there would be hostiles in system. So everything balances out. this Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Sergi Povitch Gatehoppers Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:39:00 - [1127] they range from industrial to the level V upgrades being freighter sized. No there is no materials needed, they are just like starbase structures. You launch for corp and anchor/online them where allowed. I like the scaled sizes of the Mods. You will have to expand the number of anomlys and put a chance of facton loot in them.
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:41:00 - [1128] Originally by: Korodan Still lets you farm from an infinite fountain of ISK with no risk, just a slightly weaker return. edit: Or you'll just set up tax shelter corps that will disappear the second the Privs dec them. NPC AI have to be updates to sleeper AI or similar 50 m tax to make a corp or something like that to avoid making corps over and over again also if u war dec a corp that have 10 members and 9 of them leave you should get 90% of the money back You are going too fast! Wait five minutes and try again. THIS CCP You are going too fast! Wait five minutes and try again. THIS CCP You are going too fast! Wait five minutes and try again. THIS CCP You are going too fast! Wait five minutes and try again. THIS CCP You are going too fast! Wait five minutes and try again. THIS CCP do i really need to get a new IP each time i want to post to avoid this 5 min piece of **** ?

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:43:00 - [1129] Originally by: Nyphur Some very good points, it actually does put to rest a lot of my own concerns. I'm writing a column post on this for EVE Evolved on Sunday and I'll make sure to take your answers into account. Originally by: CCP Chronotis Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding. Originally by: Nyphur 6) The new systems will sustain 10-15 pilots when fully upgraded. What happened to the previous figure for over 50? The previous figure was a ballpark of where we want to end up. If the context around the original quote is read, we were not aiming for that figure right away but it is where we intend to go. Our analysis of scaling with the design of new upgrade sites was that we were reaching limits where we would end up with hundreds of sites/signatures if we pushed towards that figure and that was undesirable. So if I'm reading this right, the plan for the future (post expansion) is to create more effectively infinite resource taps in 0.0. Agents are the obvious first choice, and perhaps some new types of group-oriented site for NPCing that are geared specifically toward producing lots of ISK over time so less are needed. Effectively super-anomalies with many more waves of NPCs or something involving escalations? And the current maximum of around 10-15 players per system is just the ground floor that can be expanded later as information is collected post-expansion. Is that about right or am I misunderstanding? You pretty much nailed it in general direction though the final implementation might differ. The goal is content which you can upgrade and unlock which is both unique and rewarding enough in income and general enjoyment terms whilst perhaps also opening up new professions and activities. The system we have is very expandable and easily so from this point on. Adding additional upgrades and content those upgrades might unlock can be done as soon as the content is ready and even attached to existing upgrades.

Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:44:00 - [1130] Infinitely respawning Anomalies that are good regardless of True Sec are a good thing. Infinitely respawning Grav-sites are also a good thing. It'll give people a reason to fly Covetors. The fact we'll also have the same random high ISK producing abilities as we did before in 0.0 in addition to the above is also good. Yes the drone regions will have to export a lot of minerals for sale in Empire every single week. Sucks to be you. But your local market should be pretty good. If you wanted pure pew pew with no grinding... there are options besides 0.0 SOV holding alliances... Just options too horrible to contemplate.

Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:45:00 - [1131] Originally by: ceaon NPC AI have to be updates to sleeper AI or similar Oh, oho, that's a good question. These new anomalies, CCP, what will the rats be like? Are they going to be normal rats, or are the going to have the updated Sleeper AI which you implemented because the basic rats, the ones that spawn in Level 4 missions, are too easy? Which will it be, I wonder?
SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:46:00 - [1132] Originally by: ep1k Why cant you just increase bounties on rats 100%, and remove all non faction pirates under battleship size. Why cant you just increase anomaly reward ABOVE level 4s. Tell me why you cant just right now give 0.0 above empire income. These changes are not far fetched at all. You alreayd have agents floating in space giving out missions in 0.0, why cant you add more of those? Why would you even think saying these new upgrades will put you on par with motsu is even acceptable? If they are worried about isk farming then simply tie sov to these bonuses like we all thought you were going to do to begin with. Isk farmers that claim sov will become targets and be destroyed or simply wind up fighting for their space like everyone else, at which point they won't be farming they'll be PLAYING THE GAME.
Jethro Hawkins	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:46:00 - [1133] Edited by: Jethro Hawkins on 07/11/2009 20:47:16 Please CCP, do not focus on Dust 514 and Incarna too much. Eve is your ISK (literally) fountain and you don't want to break that. I only have 3 accounts out of the supposed 300k accounts. But if the game is no longer fun than I'll play another game. I speak for myself: I'd rather see a quality patch than a quantitative patch. Please don't shoot for "x patches/year" for the sake of that number. Have your developers focus on what the community wants: moon distribution, true sec, etc. BTW: nerfing lvl 4's will make me and most of my 60 man corp leave (drone region dwelling corp) seems as we make **** money right now with the lack of bounties. Mining is our only source of income right now. I have a feeling that you (CCP) know this. Break lvl 4's and you will break eve.
Wingshard Halcyon Systems Federation of Active Commonwealth Terrorists	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:48:00 - [1134] From my viewpoint this things are wrong with dominion: Originally by: CCP Soundwave When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. he also stated that tiers go upwards with sovereign. if i am not puzzling things after reading all these pages tiers are dependant on sovereign which takes time... now assuming we get the highest tier on the highest sovereign lvl... -we have to go out in force and conquer a system -we have to hold it for 100 days -we have to buy upgrades for tons of isk and paying the system daily for not being able to use it as its ment for the amount of people that will prolly be needed to capture it -we have to pay for system sovereign under the mask of "sovereign fuel" for not being.... ( see above ) -we have to keep people active and enthusiastic in a system that is far below average at the time they start for the benefits of... -having a system that is equal to motsu (on its highest tier?) epic lol -a system that can be camped and internaly disrupted by afk cloakers -a system that stil forces me to plant a 300m pos + fitting if i wanna have a base for my member -a system that stil forces me to plant a 10b? outpost if i want a decent base for my member ok now to some good points: -automatic officerental back to the bad points: market in eve is cough playerbased and "flowing"... well it was stil to a certain extend with pos fuel even through a good chunk of that had to be purchased from npc aswell. now we pay isk to a machine that tends to give us lag when we dont feed it with human-intel 24h before. Now where does the money go? Most of our work is aten by the server never seeing the economy again. This isk "sink" might be good in your eyes but it would be a lot better to see it in the form of people being more willing to risk their ships under the looks at butterfly effect trailer mask of adventure and personal decision. not to mention all the factionitems that will come to flood the market when the exploration and plexing extends. you can prolly see the markets on these items fall as they will get overfarmed. [you could reinvent the isk lost to sovereign into playerpockets who than buy said "good" items and increase the value of items that dont get reimbursed when blown up but would obviously give a sit for t2 in that case. give us a reason to plant a "reasonable" amount of pos that can stil influence the system when in a bad state or removed by a capital fleet.] things that stil need a change: -blueprint copys stil need another color -minerals stil need more uses exspecial in goods that are used on daily basis as to bring their rarity and competition with highlvl missions in line best example lowsec ore jaspet* -an activity to pay my "systemtax" through other means than isk why? cause its simple. you have a system in.. lets say period basis or omist. You have to pay the same fees as everyoneelse.. +jumpfuel or +extra jumpbridge systemcost (+liquid ozone).. or simple lots and lots more of man-hours. but you got a station there and need to pay the upkeep. who do you have for that? exactly, farmer. Minerals and exploration (items)arent direct income, so as further you are branched out from empire as lesslikely other professions will be. Of course its about logistics but you gotta pay in a 14h interval and make it through space inhabitated by as its promised lots and lots more different people. while you had ice belts in your empire so you could get your own pos fuel, the option of "do it yourself" excluding npc pos fuel is completly disabled at this point. Give player targets, tasks, something they can archieve and get respected for! none the less the biggest problem as i see it will be dominion + less skills for cloaking. Afk cloakers that can stil scan with probes out from safespots are not a good thing for dominion when you cant provide anomalys that have better payouts for sticking together.
SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:51:00 - [1135] Originally by: CCP Chronotis You pretty much nailed it in general direction though the final implementation might differ. The goal is content which you can upgrade and unlock which is both unique and rewarding enough in income and general enjoyment terms whilst perhaps also opening up new professions and activities. The system we have is very expandable and easily so from this point on. Adding additional upgrades and content those upgrades might unlock can be done as soon as the content is ready and even attached to existing upgrades. 1. That's great that the system is so expandable and enables you to create content and make 0.0 more valuable. 2. Why aren't you including this content with the changes so that we aren't stuck paying through the nose with nerfed space?
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:53:00 - [1136] Originally by: CCP Chronotis The system we have is very expandable and easily so from this point on. Adding additional upgrades and content those upgrades might unlock can be done as soon as the content is ready and even attached to existing upgrades. You said the same for just about any new mechanic you introduced but rarely followed up on it, so excuse me if i am highly sceptical. You said it for exploration in revelation, yet the actual sites that have been worthless since the start haven't seen any update at all. You still haven't used the exploration mechanic to its full potential. Chances are high that CCP will just focus on something else instead of fixing broken concepts that are already in the game. Cosmos, arcsal/hacking/mining sites and eaf are good examples of cool concepts being abandoned in favour of shelling out new game mechanics. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Pagey GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:53:00 - [1137] Originally by: Chribba excellent emptyquote ___

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:53:00 - [1138] Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 07/11/2009 20:53:39 Originally by: Wingshard From my viewpoint this things are wrong with dominion: Originally by: CCP Soundwave When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. he also stated that tiers go upwards with sovereign. if i am not puzzling things after reading all these pages tiers are dependant on sovereign which takes time... now assuming we get the highest tier on the highest sovereign lvl... -we have to go out in force and conquer a system -we have to hold it for 100 days -we have to buy upgrades for tons of isk and paying the system daily for not being able to use it as its ment for the amount of people that will prolly be needed to capture it -we have to pay for system sovereign under the mask of "sovereign fuel" for not being.... ( see above ) -we have to keep people active and enthusiastic in a system that is far below average at the time they start Just to make it clear, time day holding system count towards the strategic upgrades, not the financial ones. You have to take a system, get your guys ratting and then install upgrades. We are looking at the system upkeep and upgrades, but you can be sure the upgrades themselves will be affordable.

Archon Mar	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:54:00 - [1139] Before this I was expecting the patch to have a way to improve on a system making it entirely self sufficient and capable of leaving empire space out of an alliance entirely. Lvl 4's shouldn't be changed (it accounts for a large part of players and how they want to play). 0.0 should be profitable but most of all it should be someplace that alliances don't have to rely on empire fuels or isk generation to keep. If you can do this with the patch then I'm all game. Turn something like a drone space system into a self sufficient solar system with bounties minerals of all kinds plexes and maybe even ice/good moons. That would make empire worthless to almost everyone and people would be in 0.0 nearly 90% of the time. Empire would just become the land of 1 month old characters.
Pagey GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:56:00 - [1140] :snypa: ___

EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:56:00 - [1141] I really hope CCP isn't half as married to this idea as they seem to be. Why do you willfully accept that the system only supports 10-15 people in it's current state but YOU CAN UPGRADE IT. Why not increase the cost until it can support more than 30+ people with your "planned add ons". CCP has regularly promised us these sort of things that let them "just add on content". They add one one or two things then completely forget about it in favor of a new toy.
Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:56:00 - [1142] Originally by: Nyphur Another idea I had was the possibility of taxing NPC kills in a system rather than just those within a corp. It's an idea just to support the NRDS people that can't reap taxes from the people that use their space. Perhaps they could set their hub to collect a 10% tax off NPCers in their system automatically. Maybe even make it an upgrade? Reduce upkeep in systems with high player activity. It can be that simple and will solve most immediate problems: Look here ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:58:00 - [1143] take the crap bc spawns out of 0.0 so systems dont have to be groomed all day before ppl can make lvl 4 income add planetary spawns. give more reasons for bears to come out to 0.0 so i can shoot them. they are not going to come so they can pay fees and find anomalies.
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:00:00 - [1144] Originally by: cok cola give more reasons for bears to come out to 0.0 so i can shoot them. make a alt corp and recruit them then shoot them
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:02:00 - [1145] Originally by: CCP Chronotis We want the sites to scale so each site needs a group and has appropriate rewards however we face some issues as the older sites were from simpler times before lots of ship balancing and have stupid NPCs for example which turn group content into solo content in difficulty (ironically the greatest flaw in the lvl 4 missions). Is that really the implication? You're not really telling us that in exchange for a massive isk investment into upgrades, these cosmic anomalies that you're introducing as the 'fix' for 0.0 will use Sleeper AI, for a profitablity equivalent to level 4 missions what the hell? Gosh, I'm sure all those Gallente ratters will be thrilled to hear that not only do they have one tenth the space and five times the tax, and thus, ten times the ganking risk with half their old disposable income, they get to train another race. Or, they could go run level 4 missions. With the stupid rats. That you'll get around to fixing never, because that's where the majority of your playerbase is. Just not the playerbase you emphasise when you make marketing videos or banner ads.
Groperson	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:04:00 - [1146] "Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. [ ] Yes [ ] No CHECK ONE" Serious question, no troll zone.
Wingshard Halcyon Systems Federation of Active Commonwealth Terrorists	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:05:00 - [1147] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Just to make it clear, time day holding system count towards the strategic upgrades, not the financial ones. You have to take a system, get your guys ratting and then install upgrades. We are looking at the system upkeep and upgrades, but you can be sure the upgrades themselves will be affordable. stil it needs time to reach the requirements in which you need approriate manpower and people with the will to live in underqualified systems. also in the blog it was stated: Originally by: blog The Costs of Resource Upgrades Resource upgrades cost a relatively small amount of ISK (we are looking at a range of 50-500 million ISK) to purchase and require a certain existing appropriate activity level. even with it being "only" 50m for an upgrade to simple get it over average lvl and supply more anomalys i dont see it cost effective. Not to mention you will not only literally fk member off who than invested their time to get you to the next lvl by demanding isk from them for upgrades. aswell you would fk member of that hadnt the chance to use the new system yet and gotta pay for it. The worst you could have done through was the motsu argument as its obvious to everyone that a 0.0 system needs more worth as it comes with a lot more danger an effort aswell as organization. It may be not final or a mistage but if the worth of systems does not build a clear border profit wise between empire and 0.0 it may end up as lowsec.
Innominate GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:05:00 - [1148] Originally by: CCP Chronotis The system we have is very expandable and easily so from this point on. Adding additional upgrades and content those upgrades might unlock can be done as soon as the content is ready and even attached to existing upgrades. So basically, we should realize that you know the current system is broken, accept that it's going to be implemented anyways, and hope you fix it in the future?
Pagey GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:05:00 - [1149] Originally by: Groperson "Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. [ ] Yes [ ] No CHECK ONE" Serious question, no troll zone. [X] Yes [X] No ___
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:05:00 - [1150] Originally by: Groperson "Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. [ ] Yes [ ] No CHECK ONE" Serious question, no troll zone.

Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:05:00 - [1151] Why should group activity be mandatory to run anomalies (and, therefore, make ISK)?? CCP you do realize that most players rat since it is easily done solo and therefore will not impact their schedules in real life. Unless you only want to cater to the unemployed who can multibox every day and run all the good complexes right after downtime. heh
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:06:00 - [1152] Edited by: Tamahra on 07/11/2009 21:07:35 Originally by: cok cola add planetary spawns. THIS!!111!!!!! F.U.C.K.I.N.G THIS!! not only would it generate alot of diversity between different solar systems (the more planets the more spawns), it would also be alot of FUUUUUNNN!1111 we would have epic fights over those solar systems that have alot of planets since they would be very profitable Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Decimat Draconia	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:06:00 - [1153] Edited by: Decimat Draconia on 07/11/2009 21:10:18 Originally by: DaiTengu Also, with the nerf to moon mining income, an alliance isn't going to be able to afford these upgrades. The only reason we can afford POS fuel now, or the logistics to fuel the towers is because of the R64 income. The towers aren't going to go away like you say they are. You still need bridges, jammers, and beacons. You still will have moon mining POSes as long as they can eek out a bit of passive income without too much :effort:. So what you're adding here is enough stuff to effectively double the cost of running space, while cutting the alliance-level income. Your overlooking the buff other moons will receive. The nurff to two kinds of r64 will be balanced with a buff to the others. I hope CCP aren't doing this to make more money out of the players. We are paying more than other MMO's already, the effort needed to buy a plex looks set to shoot CCP in the foot.
Lord Milton GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:06:00 - [1154] Originally by: Groperson "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. [x] Yes [x] No CHECK ONE" Serious question, no troll zone.
Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:08:00 - [1155] Originally by: Pringlescan While that is much better how about addressing the issue that even with the new changes you make more money without any risk running l4 missions then doing ratting/mining in 0.0 More risk means MORE reward, increase all 0.0 rat bounties by 25-50% I still haven't heard a good reason why you shouldn't do this other then "it will be looked at in the future" As someone unfortunate enough to buy a black ops bs when they came out I know fully well that will take two years before its finally working as intended. WIth these changes you are reducing the need for conquest by a LOT. R64s are worth less so that isn't as important, its easier to just upgrade your space and get more people crammed in that rather then risk an assault on enemy space to get more room for your alliance there. There already isn't much shakeup in 0.0 as is and with these changes there will be even less. Improve 0.0 rat bounties by 50% and now you will get more population pressure in 0.0 as people move from highsec to take advantage of it, and you will get more wars and fights as space becomes more crowded but as it is there will be more then enough space to go around and less people willing to fight.
Critias Amarr United Constructions	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:09:00 - [1156] I have a question concerning one of the financial upgrades - the one that lets you increase the chance of DED sites appearing in the system. Do you realize what would happen to the price of deadspace mods once every space holding alliance installs those upgrades, even in only a few of their systems. DED plexes is one of the few exploration sites still worth running, and if the rewards are devalued it will just tun into current radar sites situation. Do you really have to mess with something that is not broken and provides good content to the players? Really? Cant you just, I dunno, use normal rats for the isk bounties?
mweijljaflka	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:10:00 - [1157] goon tears in tihs thread...delicious...
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:11:00 - [1158] Why not put some upgrades that Decrease respawn time, Increase bounty, or increase Spawn quality. Oh and seriously try to justify anomalies being equal to motsu. tell me why anyone should be ok with that.
Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:14:00 - [1159] Originally by: Pringlescan As someone unfortunate enough to buy a black ops bs when they came out I know fully well that will take two years before its finally working as intended. And you know, with the crazy costs of cynojammers (750million + POS costs) there'll be a whole lot fewer cynojammed systems, thus your Black Ops ships are getting nerfed again, albeit indirectly.
mweijljaflka	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:14:00 - [1160] nerf to big alliances...big alliances whining...humm wonder why..

Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:15:00 - [1161] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: CCP Chronotis The system we have is very expandable and easily so from this point on. Adding additional upgrades and content those upgrades might unlock can be done as soon as the content is ready and even attached to existing upgrades. You said the same for just about any new mechanic you introduced but rarely followed up on it, so excuse me if i am highly sceptical. You said it for exploration in revelation, yet the actual sites that have been worthless since the start haven't seen any update at all. You still haven't used the exploration mechanic to its full potential. Chances are high that CCP will just focus on something else instead of fixing broken concepts that are already in the game. Cosmos, arcsal/hacking/mining sites and eaf are good examples of cool concepts being abandoned in favour of shelling out new game mechanics. Agreed, we're not buying it this time. Fix your terrible codebase before you add another untested ****sandwich on top of it.
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:15:00 - [1162] I have one very important question for the Devs: You do realize that the real value of L4 missions is in the LP, and that when you say "This anomaly will make you as much ISK as an L4 mission!" you're pretty much coming right out and saying you have totally stopped paying any attention to your own game? _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:17:00 - [1163] Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 07/11/2009 21:20:39 Originally by: CCP Chronotis You pretty much nailed it in general direction though the final implementation might differ. The goal is content which you can upgrade and unlock which is both unique and rewarding enough in income and general enjoyment terms whilst perhaps also opening up new professions and activities. The system we have is very expandable and easily so from this point on. Adding additional upgrades and content those upgrades might unlock can be done as soon as the content is ready and even attached to existing upgrades. You damn well better make sure that the content in 0.0 is fun and rewarding immediately after the patch. Don't feed us the "just wait, it'll be fun later! We can expand it!" crap this time, because what you're pulling is very different from your normal half-done implementation. Most of the time you add a new system, and while it's far from perfect, it's forgivable because it's something new. This time you're taking away the sense of economic balance for both the alliance and the individual in 0.0 when it's barely feasible to be there to begin with. You can't expect tens of thousands of your customers to be left hanging while you try to decide when to make good on a promise to fix things that you didn't have to break in the first place. Remember, when NGE hit, tons of players left very quickly. Promises mean jack to the majority of the people playing your game and if you don't learn that now, you'll learn it very quickly to the detriment of the game.
Hendrik Stahl	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:17:00 - [1164] Since apparently we are all going to move to npc space if this ****pile launches like this, let's talk about giving the blood raiders a Q20 level 4 agent somewhere. Maybe some group mission guy too since you seem big on groups.
Magnum III Journey On Squad	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:18:00 - [1165] Edited by: Magnum III on 07/11/2009 21:19:25 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Tomas Russell Edited by: Tomas Russell on 07/11/2009 20:04:33 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Nyphur 5) Why is 0.0 not more profitable than level 4 missions, even after the upgrades? Always because the jump between 0 and 1 is the largest in cost and effort of each activity beyond that. We are acutely aware of this issue and the related issue of agents in sovereign space. Ideally we will tackle both issues with brand new content specifically designed for social groups and adequately rewarding. Do you realise that this is not even close to being an answer to his question? And that it reads like a cross between the autistic kid that eats glue in grade 3b and a marketing executive? "Gnargle gnarf blurf, square root of seventy three, incentivize the synergy of your human resource, burble". No offense meant, if you are actually the autistic kid who eats glue in grade 3b, or a CCP marketing executive. Or both. Plain text answer for those who don't get the reference (sorry). - The jump between no risk and any risk is the most significant step, the same as no cost and some cost. The difference in mathematical terms is small but economically large. In short, it takes a disproportionate amount of reward to offset a smaller amount of risk or additional effort. - We are looking at introducing social group content as Soundwave mentions of sufficient reward to compel you either as someone who runs missions in empire to fund their pvp in null sec or as an empire dweller looking to make the leap to join up with others and seek to upgrade your solar systems to unlock these sites. These will act to both minimise the number of signatures as a whole within the solar system and to let you play together than alone. - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. I don't care about any Risk. I care about them shoving me into one system to do their bidding so THEY can have fun. You got to make it not just worth it but interesting and fun to have more people go to 0.0 This just gives the leaders something to do, were is the fun for a person to want to go there and not just become a pawn being told what to do? Because the leaders will just tell you what system to stay in and mine or rat or whatever, and you darn well better do it. I'm not going out there to 0.0 to be stuck in one system just so some Allaince can keep their everage pilot numbers up in that system make isk for them. You got to be kidding. 0.0 still sounds like a dictatorship and how is that fun?
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:18:00 - [1166] CCP, what better way to showcase your new planets than with PLANETARY SPAWNS! and once again, get rid of the low end spawns containing cruisers and such and deligate those to lowsec, 0.0 is where the bs spawns should be. you should not need to groom a system all day before it is on par with lvl 4s
Calduin Caldari Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:19:00 - [1167] Add a upgrade that gives 10%/20%/30%/40%/50% upgrade to rat bounty in that system. given that lvl 5 anomaly upgrade will = lvl 4 missions this will in combination with the anomaly upgrade make those lvl 5 anomaly better than lvl 4 missions. now you got a reason to move to 0.0 space.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:22:00 - [1168] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang You damn well better make sure that the content in 0.0 is fun and rewarding immediately after the patch. Don't feed us the "just wait, it'll be fun later! We can expand it!" crap this time, because what you're pulling is very different from your normal half-done implementation. Most of the time you add a new system, and while it's far from perfect, it's forgivable because it's something new. This time you're taking away the sense of economic balance for both the alliance and the individual in 0.0 when it's barely feasible to be there to begin with. You can't expect tens of thousands of your customers to be left hanging while you try to decide when to make good on a promise to fix things that you didn't have to break in the first place. Remember, when NGE hit, tons of players left very quickly. Promises mean jack to the majority of the people playing your game and if you don't learn that now, you'll learn it very quickly to the detriment of the game. I think it comes down to CCP not wanting my money anymore. My money which pays for my 3 accounts isn't good enough. I'll let it do the talking once my subscriptions expire.
mweijljaflka	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:23:00 - [1169] Originally by: Sally Bestonge Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang You damn well better make sure that the content in 0.0 is fun and rewarding immediately after the patch. Don't feed us the "just wait, it'll be fun later! We can expand it!" crap this time, because what you're pulling is very different from your normal half-done implementation. Most of the time you add a new system, and while it's far from perfect, it's forgivable because it's something new. This time you're taking away the sense of economic balance for both the alliance and the individual in 0.0 when it's barely feasible to be there to begin with. You can't expect tens of thousands of your customers to be left hanging while you try to decide when to make good on a promise to fix things that you didn't have to break in the first place. Remember, when NGE hit, tons of players left very quickly. Promises mean jack to the majority of the people playing your game and if you don't learn that now, you'll learn it very quickly to the detriment of the game. I think it comes down to CCP not wanting my money anymore. My money which pays for my 3 accounts isn't good enough. I'll let it do the talking once my subscriptions expire. can i has your stuff goonie
Sergi Povitch Gatehoppers Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:24:00 - [1170] Originally by: Calduin Add a upgrade that gives 10%/20%/30%/40%/50% upgrade to rat bounty in that system. given that lvl 5 anomaly upgrade will = lvl 4 missions this will in combination with the anomaly upgrade make those lvl 5 anomaly better than lvl 4 missions. now you got a reason to move to 0.0 space. Nothing in empire should ever = 0.0

Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:24:00 - [1171] Edited by: Batolemaeus on 07/11/2009 21:27:21 Originally by: Calduin Add a upgrade that gives 10%/20%/30%/40%/50% upgrade to rat bounty in that system. Or even better, also add an extra bounty that goes straight to the corp holding the system. A system based tax so to say, just without taxing the players. Something like this would save CVA some hassle. They supply the space and protection, other people kill the npc and CVA directly profits by gaining money from it, no matter who kills the npc. Heck, this could even be done without any lore-bending like the new 0.0 upkeep fee. Organized pirate-decimation by alliances should be rewarded and encouraged by concord. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
pi squad Scalding Pie Services	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:25:00 - [1172] Edited by: pi squad on 07/11/2009 21:27:04 hey ccp stoffer ninjapirate, do you realize that you're being more of a smug *got than any director in the history of goonswarm? if darius johnson or even deadtear were in your place they wouldn't be half the **head you're being and nobody even paid them just think about that
marxist revolutionary	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:27:00 - [1173] Originally by: pi squad Edited by: pi squad on 07/11/2009 21:25:32 hey ccp soundwave, do you realize that you're being more of a smug *got than any director in the history of goonswarm? if darius johnson or even deadtear were in your place they wouldn't be half the * you're being just think about that he's not a goonswarm director he's a CCP employee check your premises ford cruller
Magnum III Journey On Squad	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:27:00 - [1174] Originally by: Merdaneth Originally by: Nyphur Another idea I had was the possibility of taxing NPC kills in a system rather than just those within a corp. It's an idea just to support the NRDS people that can't reap taxes from the people that use their space. Perhaps they could set their hub to collect a 10% tax off NPCers in their system automatically. Maybe even make it an upgrade? Reduce upkeep in systems with high player activity. It can be that simple and will solve most immediate problems: Look here but then you will get corp mails on everyone better get to the upgraded systems, come on now, you want them to wip you until you stay in there like a good boy?
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:28:00 - [1175] Wait a minute, "Infinite respawn." Think about that for a second. One pilot to an anomaly is stupid. The faster each one is cleared the faster the next one shows up. 2 salvaging ships and 20 DPS ships more like.
Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:29:00 - [1176] Don't listen to him stoffer we will love you again just as soon as you realize that 0.0 ratting should be more profitable then l4 missions not equal.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:29:00 - [1177] Originally by: marxist revolutionary he's not a goonswarm director he's a CCP employee check your premises ford cruller a CCP employee whose salary we directly pay is that how one should act? bite the hand that feeds?
Misaki Yuuko	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:31:00 - [1178] Originally by: Innominate Originally by: CCP Chronotis The system we have is very expandable and easily so from this point on. Adding additional upgrades and content those upgrades might unlock can be done as soon as the content is ready and even attached to existing upgrades. So basically, we should realize that you know the current system is broken, accept that it's going to be implemented anyways, and hope you fix it in the future? Another half-assed expansion by CCP, sir. Basically, since years, a lot of the problems with the game can be reduced to CCP not having the balls to fix risk-reward scheme in the ISK making business (specially regarding damn empire lvl4's). Also they must realize that for the average player, when they want to make money, they just want to they their business as safe and effortless as they can (hence empire lvl-4 running alts), if they want group/social-playign they will go pew pew. This is soemthing to take in consideration. You know what's even more funny, NPC 0.0 is in general getting a buff cause the faction ship rebalance (very worthy mission whoring), low-sec is getting a buff cause the militia's new toys (tier 1 BS's etc.). And normal 0.0 is left as ****ed up as it has allways been lol. The least thing you can do, is buffing anomalies: implement belt rats in there (not normal rats) and a chance of faction spawn (without screing too much so their value doesn't drop due to stupid supply), and in general increase bounties. Fix faction/officer hunting so people after DT does not have such and advatage while you're at it. Given the new isk sink in form of fees and the general delationary cycle macroecnomically speaking, I'm sure some incentive for the individuals to move to 0.0 is not that bad. Apart of that, stop crying about moongoo: just fyi, there is allways goign to be a bottleneck and moon mining is still very profitable, current trends are no more than knee-jerk reactions and market speculation, R64, 32, and some 16's will still give a very nice passive income. Also the impossiblity to form cartels and force prices by major alliances can't be udnerstood, as they pretty much control the market to a point they can do this (even if one majro block coordinated to force prices they could influecne prices artificially, at leats until CCP nerfed that allowing moon mineral harvesting in plexes or something like that). The difference now will be more moons to mine which are profitable, profitable alchemy etc. which means less alliance directorate getting filthy rich and more average indy trying to get a share of the profit, or mroe corp projects. Anyway: fix damn risk/reward allready.
marxist revolutionary	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:31:00 - [1179] Originally by: Sally Bestonge Originally by: marxist revolutionary he's not a goonswarm director he's a CCP employee check your premises ford cruller a CCP employee whose salary we directly pay is that how one should act? bite the hand that feeds? wah i'm a QQing lil babby whose life revolves around eve online and i believe that grandstanding over account cancellation means anything there's been plenty of constructive stuff posted in this thread, shut the **** up and stop being a child
pi squad Scalding Pie Services	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:32:00 - [1180] oh noooo i've been called out i can't hide behind my alts ;__; see i was comparing him to gs directors because i didn't think there was any group of people who are more smug and annoying than them but mr ninjapirate has apparently proven me wrong :O ~ninjas~pirates~lmao~

Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:32:00 - [1181] Okay I want to summarize a previous post by a CCP dev just in case anyone missed it. Costs have been reduced from what the blog said. The TCU will now only be 1m a day, the industrial hub will now only be 5m a day. All other costs are gone except for the jump bridge (12.5m a day) and cyno jammers (25m a day). I know that a few people won't like this but I think this needs to be tweaked just a bit more for balance sake. Just keep in mind that all of this should be put together, if some of it is taken out then it will affect numbers in other parts. This should balance the upkeep system so that alliances will only keep sov in systems that they actually are either using or serve a vital strategic purpose. Also number 4 here would give at least some incentive for NRDS alliances to stay NRDS. 1. The TCU cost should be increased again. 20m is way to high, 1m is to low to give enough incentive for alliances to pull back from systems until those systems are actually attacked. It should be set to 5m, of course I'll offset this cost with other things. 2. Startegic levels (sov levels) should reduce upkeep costs by 10% per a level. Basically the longer you own and maintain a system the less isk it will cost to continue to maintain a system. This puts buffer zones that you have held for 100 days at 2.5m a day instead of 5m a day which you would pay right after you took it. 3. Stations should reduce upkeep costs for the Industrial Hub, in fact it should reduce the Industrial Hub cost to 0 and the station should be considered an industrial Hub itself. Or the Indusrial Hub should be located near the station. Stations basically are Industrial Hubs. But Industrial Hub upgrades are just dumbed down stations which only allow you to upgrade the system. 4. Activity levels in mining and military should act to decrease maintnance levels. Roughly this would be a 2.5% decrease per a level. This would stack with the strategic level deduction so that core systems that had all 3 at level 5 would reduce the upkeep costs by a total of 75%. This would mean that core systems which alliances were active in would cost far less than systems they didn't need or buffer systems. 5. In order to balance the 75% reduction in upkeep costs I'm going to assume that CCP will need to increase the costs of jump bridges and cyno jammers by at least a little bit. I'd suggest not quite double the cost. So 20m for the jump bridge and 40m for the cyno jammer. This would mean that a newly taken over system would pay a total of 65m for sov, jump bridge, and cyno. Meanwhile one that had been held for over 100 days with active players in it would cost 16.25 million a day. In order to fix the problems with 0.0 risk/reward some other things are going to need to be done. 1. A military upgrade should be added. Each level of this upgrade will increase the bounty of everything in the system by 10%. So at max this would give a 50% increase in bounty which corps could directly tax. I'm assuming that Concord pays these bounties so just call it Concord Communication Array. 2. Level 5 missions should be added to all industrial hubs. These would promote players in 0.0 to work together. Also with the possible 50% increase from Communication Array this would be far better than lvl 4 high sec missions. Not sure how LP would work but it can just be redeemed in high sec and I don't think anyone will have a problem with that in the short term. Later lvl 6 missions that use capital ships should be introduced. 3. For the industrial side an upgrade should be added that does multiple things. a 10% increase to mining yield and 10% decrease in ice cycle time per a level, works the same as mining leadership does, so easy to implement. lvl 2 gives a 35 % refining array, lvl 3 gives 20 manufacturing slots, lvl 4 gives a 50% refining array, lvl 5 gives 20 research slots. These should increase the risk/reward in 0.0 and may be enough to get people down to 0.0 from high sec.
Andra McKay GSZ Magnum Opus.	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:35:00 - [1182] I am very much disappointed with how this is turning out. First and largest disappointment is that costs don't scale as we we're promised. There's basically no difference to the old sov system now in terms of AFK empires... Yes, every system you hold costs isk for "that dot on the map", but that's already the case and already we have AFK empires. So if costs get reduced (and they will be considering this threadnought) and we keep the linear cost scaling, nothing will change. Also the upgrades: Not what i expected and i'm quiet underwhelmed by what we get delivered here. How can 10 ppl living in a fully upgraded 0.0 system (because let's be honest, we know, it won't sustain more ppl then 10) be able to cover a bill of multiple billion isk by taxes? 50% tax rate maybe, but who's gonna put up with that. Also please CCP, what's up with risk/reward these days? Highest end anomalies will pay like lvl 4's? U serious? And all below that highest upgrade level? Even so, who's gonna run anomalies in 0.0 with the risk of getting ganked any time, making about the same or less isk/hour then your alt in hisec lvl 4's? Oh yeah and 50% of your bounties go away for tax to pay the fees on your oh so cool 0.0 system. Is going to 0.0 worth it CCP? I'm constantly trying to answer that question of my corp mates in hisec. I'll have to ask that question now myself. Non-linear scaling costs, worthwile upgrades, giev nao!
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:37:00 - [1183] Originally by: marxist revolutionary wah i'm a QQing lil babby whose life revolves around eve online and i believe that grandstanding over account cancellation means anything there's been plenty of constructive stuff posted in this thread, shut the **** up and stop being a child hardly the case there's nothing constructive about this thread when the attending devs are ignoring/failing to answer questions
pi squad Scalding Pie Services	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:37:00 - [1184] hey, you've got questions? we've got one-liner dismissals ~customer~service~
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:39:00 - [1185] Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 07/11/2009 21:38:56 Somebody said I should link this here it's a bunch of words about this bull****: http://trzzbkforcsm.blogspot.com/2009/11/dr-cripeslove-or-how-i-learned-to-hate.html _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
particle9	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:40:00 - [1186] i'm just sorry i kept telling people you guys knew what you were doing and that this would be a great update won't be doing that anymore lol
Ehris Bok Stellar Research Incorporated Emergence.	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:45:00 - [1187] Originally by: Groperson "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. [X] Yes [ ] No CHECK ONE" Serious question, no troll zone. 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.
Jethro Hawkins	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:46:00 - [1188] CCP: delay the patch.
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:46:00 - [1189] Originally by: cok cola CCP, what better way to showcase your new planets than with PLANETARY SPAWNS! this. Come on CCP, we know you want it too! Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:48:00 - [1190] 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

Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:48:00 - [1191] 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. Don't blame the CSM. The CSM gives CCP ideas, CCP nods their heads and commence implementing whatever they deem best for players
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:49:00 - [1192] ALL YOUR TEARS... overloads
marxist revolutionary	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:50:00 - [1193] Edited by: marxist revolutionary on 07/11/2009 21:50:01 Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 07/11/2009 21:38:56 Somebody said I should link this here it's a bunch of words about this bull****: http://trzzbkforcsm.blogspot.com/2009/11/dr-cripeslove-or-how-i-learned-to-hate.html whoa teh blogosphere is here thats web 2.0 as heck thanks fatty
Franga NQX Innovations	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:50:00 - [1194] Goons/MM whine is this thread is hilarious. _____________________________ Please resize sig to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:53:00 - [1195] Originally by: Franga Goons/MM whine is this thread is hilarious. You forgot all the Atlas, XXdeath, CVA, and generally every sov holding alliance of note also saying that the changes are poorly conceived.
pi squad Scalding Pie Services	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:54:00 - [1196] Edited by: pi squad on 07/11/2009 21:54:06 you're literally a dip**** if you thought the csm would actually accomplish anything and this thread is incontrovertible proof
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:54:00 - [1197] Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 07/11/2009 21:54:54 Originally by: marxist revolutionary Edited by: marxist revolutionary on 07/11/2009 21:50:01 Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 07/11/2009 21:38:56 Somebody said I should link this here it's a bunch of words about this bull**: http://trzzbkforcsm.blogspot.com/2009/11/dr-cripeslove-or-how-i-learned-to-hate.html whoa teh blogosphere is here thats web 2.0 as heck thanks fatty np do you think i should put tags on it and cloud compute it so i can really be web 2.0? or wait is cloud computing web 3.0 ** i need to go find a copy of wired. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
KarlHeinrich Marx	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:56:00 - [1198] I* am a soldier. I undock to defend for the assets of my corp/alliance and the coloured spot in the influence map. I undock to attack our enemies, who might grow stronger than us and to shoot at the enemies of our friends, who we need at times. Every time I undock I risk my ships and often I loose them, but due to my corps/alliance assets it can subsidize the ships I fly This way I only need 300m per month in average (after insurance and corp help) to buy new ships. When I buy new ships I help eves economy from the highsec miner providing many millions of tritanium every month, L4 runners for the meta4 items I fit and the inventors and T2 producers for the T2 fit. Yes, I hate shooting pos's. Now with Dominion, I am supposed to carebear to pvp ? Shoot rats to contribute to the corp wallet so we can buy the sov ? buy less ships because I can afford less because I am busy paying the bills ? Sorry, I don't get it. *) obvious alt post is obvious
Arra Lith HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:01:00 - [1199] I think new prices are much more acceptable. 30 M per system for flag (which doesnt give anything than name tag and information about new poses in system) is not too much or too little. Just to claim whole region with 100 systems its 3b per month. And sov claimed with just flag without hub is very easy to conquer (just put stops and thats it). 150 M for hub is same as 1 deathstar (hubs dont eat fuel as far as I know). Seems perfectly acceptable for me. Thats still a bit more than current sov (you can claim system with industrial poses, or put harvesting array at same deathstar pos, reducing costs significantly), but doable for even small alliances. Free maintenance for upgrades that dont have any big impact on defenses (CSAA / CB) - ok. 2x higher costs for JB as it is now (JB that is actively used usually burns at least 300m of ozone monthly). In dominion it will be added upgrade maintenance 375 M - with total for 700 M monthly for JB. JB are great logistical tools and its fine if they need to be expensive. They will need to be placed in best systems for that. 7x higher costs for Cynojammer - seems it will be placed only in key areas (supercaps production / etc) - propably only current capital systems will be jammed to increase security. Most of space will be unprotected. Well that will result in huge capital ship fleets a must for any 0.0 entity. Only 1 thing worries me - knowing CCP prices for hubs and upgrades will be too high, but we will see.
Salsbury	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:03:00 - [1200] Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together.

W1ckd Munch	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:04:00 - [1201] I'm just happy to see that most of the Eve player base seems able to spell better than Joe Phoenix.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:06:00 - [1202] Seriously Damage per second = ISK per Hour, in this system. Infinite any amount ISK is still infinite ISK. I for one welcome our new 20 man anomaly grinding fleet overlords. May the gank fit battlecruisers and battleships of a proper ratting fleet laugh as half dozen man fleets of a HACS and cruisers try to get easy kills.
Stupid McStupidson Gallente Hoek Lyne and Sinker	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:07:00 - [1203] Oh man, this thread is like tear-thanksgiving. I've no room left for any of the other forums. It's like two whole plate-fulls of butthurt, with a double helping of bawwww sauce.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:07:00 - [1204] Trzzbk made a pretty good post so I'll start by saying everyone should read that. I'll add this though. CCP has, in the last year or so or perhaps even longer, stated they want to increase the number of people in 0.0. At the same time, they don't want to alienate all the empire folks who just love running mission after mission. There is an idea that if the value of 0.0 is increased, then the value of highsec is reduced. This is a dangerous and stupid point of view Rather than approaching things with an abstract concept like value, why not approach it with an understanding of objectives? Many highsec players want nothing other than to run missions so they can buy a prettier ship so they can run missions faster so they can buy a prettier ship so they... and so on. To solve this problem, all you need to do are to increase the amount of faction and deadspace items entering the market. Moreso, even if the value of isk that's earned from missions reduces as more isk enters the market from 0.0, the value of LPs will go up. In all likelihood, it'll beat inflation out as many mission runners may make the move to 0.0. Industrialists will benefit as well as the value of their goods will go up. Importers, exporters, and everyone else will benefit. It's just that some will benefit more than others, and that will determine how population flows. Ultimately, I cannot think of a single MMO where the population has been severely hurt by inflation. You cannot have a Weimar Germany situation where money becomes useless and goods become untradeable because wealth in a game and wealth in real life occupy two very different roles. Wealth in real life represents survival. You need to buy food, shelter, health care, etc. Inflation can be devastating. Wealth in a game represents how close you are to meeting goals. Unlike in real life, it is perfectly acceptable to experiment with many ways of generating wealth in a game because there are no serious consequences for changing your behavior. You can try as many things as you have to until you find the best way for you to make money. If your goal is to make people go into 0.0, then, quite simply, you need to make that the most effective way to generate wealth for most people. That's it.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:08:00 - [1205] Originally by: Salsbury Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. On whose schedule? Unless you have in mind to reduce PVE to a semi-instanced raid culture which is the modus operandi for WoW.
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:08:00 - [1206] Originally by: pi squad Edited by: pi squad on 07/11/2009 21:54:06 you're literally a dip**** if you thought the csm would actually accomplish anything and this thread is incontrovertible proof Looks like your right. We made it explicitly clear that unless the risk vs reward balance was fixed, they wouldn't solve anything. Seems like they have just flat out ignored this advice and not made it the priority it should have been. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
Illuser	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:08:00 - [1207] Originally by: "TheCitadel MOTD" "CCP dev blog threatens the providence region. We'd encourgae you to chime in and objecto to these outragous costs! Link I do believe CVA is crying buckets? Is CVA so afraid of losing their space because they can't muster enough people to defend it? Congratulations CCP, you'll be making 0.0 live fun again, can't wait for Dominion to finally roll out
Lord Milton GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:09:00 - [1208] posting in the sky is falling thread
Mikel Banks GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:09:00 - [1209] Originally by: Headwires Originally by: Kuzim Blaky'all sup sup, a dawg talk to a dawg an him explain to a dawg that recyclien industry in mad trubblz. dig it, recyclien a rouff gig to get into, an now if a dawg aint got so much places to go, its gonan be even harder. cant sustaine more than maybe a few recycliars, an top dawgs want to make it so a dawg cant even see whats goin on? i been playing eve side since i can remember sad to see it burn in the start of december for christmas, a dawg just wanted black magic instead you givein dawgs a piece of black coal? tragic. a dawg what a buff to recyclien goods in places him call his neighborhoods but you aint doing nothin for a posse who thrive (even tho we've been a thousan tims brought alive) looks like re-re gonan take a final nap kuz da ccp posse, them dont give a crap a dawg cant afford to run him posse if him gonan be forced to be runnin at a loss, see hope to see a posse post December come an go, but da wind of change be blowin, so dawg, i dunno. no dawg, say it aint so dawg otherwise its time fo da re-re to never again log. kuzim blak for csm 2009 RE-RE tax list yo
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:13:00 - [1210] Originally by: Illuser Originally by: "TheCitadel MOTD" "CCP dev blog threatens the providence region. We'd encourgae you to chime in and objecto to these outragous costs! Link I do believe CVA is crying buckets? Is CVA so afraid of losing their space because they can't muster enough people to defend it? Congratulations CCP, you'll be making 0.0 live fun again, can't wait for Dominion to finally roll out it has nothing to do with ability to defend, but ability to pay the new levied tax apparently you don't read well

Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:14:00 - [1211] 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~~
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:16:00 - [1212] Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 07/11/2009 22:17:21 Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! I don't think you're entirely trolling here, but you seem like a really dumb pubbie so I'll answer this anyways. Quote: It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. No, they haven't. Most alliances will be holding onto more moons to pay sov bills than before. Jump bridge networks still need to go to empire. Less systems have sov than before, but big alliances will still be killing anyone that tries to set up in "their" space. Quote: In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. They aren't doing this. How do you entice new people to 0.0 when they can make more money with less risk in empire? Quote: I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. This is how it's always been done, the difference now is that the small alliances have to pay more to survive and for less reward. Quote: I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) You make less money mining per hour than you do shooting rats. I understand you think a game should be a job, but a lot of smarter people think this is a dumb way to approach things. Quote: If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Many people band together because they enjoy PvP, not because they want to be some sort of massive industrial machine. I understand there're some people who like doing just that, but it's pretty stupid to force that viewpoint on everyone. Quote: Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. Why accomplish it in 0.0 if you can do the same thing only easier in highsec? In conclusion you're a pretty terrible poster and not very smart. Sorry. PS Kuzim Blacky'all is the best poster in this thread and probably in EVE.
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:19:00 - [1213] Originally by: Vadinho Originally by: ceaon 11% tax ?? oh no you might have to set up a tax shelter corp youll be out MILLIONS i love you vadinho 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
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:19:00 - [1214] I cannot believe how many of these so called existing 0.0 alliances are absolute FAILURES. Although these proposed system costs are probably 50% - 20% too high (and what happened to the sliding scale?), the path they lead space towards is exactly what EVE needs. That need is for DENSE player concentrations in 0.0 space, not spread out AFK empires. No wonder why people like CVA and GOONS are complaining. They don't have control of their members. They don't know how to work together as TEAMS. They all run to empire to make isk instead of actually flying and defending their space. Oh and yes, your spledid PVP skills also work great for NPCs. Shoot some.
Daedalus II	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:20:00 - [1215] 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?
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:21:00 - [1216] Originally by: Mcon99 That need is for DENSE player concentrations in 0.0 space, not spread out AFK empires. No wonder why people like CVA and GOONS are complaining. Yup, CVA and Goonswarm are masters of the AFK empire. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:22:00 - [1217] Originally by: Mcon99 I cannot believe how many of these so called existing 0.0 alliances are absolute FAILURES. Although these proposed system costs are probably 50% - 20% too high (and what happened to the sliding scale?), the path they lead space towards is exactly what EVE needs. That need is for DENSE player concentrations in 0.0 space, not spread out AFK empires. No wonder why people like CVA and GOONS are complaining. They don't have control of their members. They don't know how to work together as TEAMS. They all run to empire to make isk instead of actually flying and defending their space. Oh and yes, your spledid PVP skills also work great for NPCs. Shoot some. 15 people per station system is dense?
Sergi Povitch Gatehoppers Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:24:00 - [1218] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Mcon99 I cannot believe how many of these so called existing 0.0 alliances are absolute FAILURES. Although these proposed system costs are probably 50% - 20% too high (and what happened to the sliding scale?), the path they lead space towards is exactly what EVE needs. That need is for DENSE player concentrations in 0.0 space, not spread out AFK empires. No wonder why people like CVA and GOONS are complaining. They don't have control of their members. They don't know how to work together as TEAMS. They all run to empire to make isk instead of actually flying and defending their space. Oh and yes, your spledid PVP skills also work great for NPCs. Shoot some. 15 people per station system is dense? 15 poeple in a station systems in space not defending or attacking it is unheard of.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:26:00 - [1219] 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
Illuser	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:26:00 - [1220] Originally by: Sally Bestonge Originally by: Illuser Originally by: "TheCitadel MOTD" "CCP dev blog threatens the providence region. We'd encourgae you to chime in and objecto to these outragous costs! Link I do believe CVA is crying buckets? Is CVA so afraid of losing their space because they can't muster enough people to defend it? Congratulations CCP, you'll be making 0.0 live fun again, can't wait for Dominion to finally roll out it has nothing to do with ability to defend, but ability to pay the new levied tax apparently you don't read well 10,000 carebears filling wallets all day = defense

Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:28:00 - [1221] Originally by: Daedalus II 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? Uber moons allow you to hold space effectively and reimburse PvP losses on an alliance level. For groups without one, no, 0.0 is currently not more profitable than level 4 mission running. As for incentives, I can only speak for myself, but I stay out here because even though it's less profitable than level 4s, it's more fun in my opinion and I can afford to stay out here. Following the changes, that will probably change as well.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:31:00 - [1222] Originally by: Mcon99 I cannot believe how many of these so called existing 0.0 alliances are absolute FAILURES. Although these proposed system costs are probably 50% - 20% too high (and what happened to the sliding scale?), the path they lead space towards is exactly what EVE needs. That need is for DENSE player concentrations in 0.0 space, not spread out AFK empires. No wonder why people like CVA and GOONS are complaining. They don't have control of their members. They don't know how to work together as TEAMS. They all run to empire to make isk instead of actually flying and defending their space. Oh and yes, your spledid PVP skills also work great for NPCs. Shoot some. Think about it. It's not that Goons and CVA will run away. In fact I think they will keep a presence in 0.0 space. However what is likely to happen if upkeep prices are to high and high sec is more profitable you will get two alliances. One will hold space in 0.0 and participate in pvp almost solely. The other is going to transport stuff from high sec, run high sec missions, etc. Then they will funnel the money down to the 0.0 alliance. And if they get war deced in high sec they will just jump clone down to 0.0 for a week or two and wait it out. If they get perma war deced they will just create a new alliance or split for alittle while until the war decs go away. So fundamentally you have less dense 0.0 space, in fact you only have pvp players and maybe a few others running DED complexes. You have less pvp since you can't gank the players in high sec. And you have very large areas of 0.0 space that are controlled in name only because you no longer get sov by putting up POS's for moon mining and such. Basically 0.0 has fewer targets and gets a lot messier. If you could make more money in 0.0 and the prices were reasonable (which they are about reasonable now that CCP has said they are changing them) then everything works out fine.
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:32:00 - [1223] 15 people per station system is dense? Lol. So, so misguided. I think i can see your tears from here. Think about it, you might actually have to have a mining division (gasp) active in your system, and a wormhole gang, and PVPers defending the borders. It's going to be so much fun placing stops all over goon space and watching your sov melt because you can't organize. Damn, with the wormhole generator alone a fully loaded C5 can be worth 4+billion to clear out. So get it through your heads everyone. Organized corps and alliance working all facets of 0.0 space simotaneously, living densly together, each working to benifit the greater whole while sitll making tons of personal isk. No spread out, AFK empires who don't talk to each other until it's time to drop a cap fleet somewhere. Instead, people living side by side within a 5 jump radius of each other harvesting the plentiful resources while killing intruders.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:33:00 - [1224] Originally by: Mcon99 15 people per station system is dense? Lol. So, so misguided. I think i can see your tears from here. Think about it, you might actually have to have a mining division (gasp) active in your system, and a wormhole gang, and PVPers defending the borders. It's going to be so much fun placing stops all over goon space and watching your sov melt because you can't organize. Damn, with the wormhole generator alone a fully loaded C5 can be worth 4+billion to clear out. So get it through your heads everyone. Organized corps and alliance working all facets of 0.0 space simotaneously, living densly together, each working to benifit the greater whole while sitll making tons of personal isk. No spread out, AFK empires who don't talk to each other until it's time to drop a cap fleet somewhere. Instead, people living side by side within a 5 jump radius of each other harvesting the plentiful resources while killing intruders. You realize we have all these now right?
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:37:00 - [1225] Well done CCP. By posting the initial info with joke prices you've distracted everyone from the fact this patch is total crap. (My apologies to crap this kinda stuff could give it a bad name.) It would be crap if it was free. You still haven't learnt your lessons from all the previous times you've messed things up. So let me take you back to basics. Again. The reason Eve is popular is because it's a sandbox game on a larger scale than other games. It has glorious features like Concord - by which I mean it doesn't have places you can't be attacked, it has police who beat you up if you break the law. These are roleplaying features. Stuff that makes sense in game. You have 0.0 where in theory everything that happens is determined by the players. When you design a patch you should consider ALL these points mandatory: Risk/reward ratio. People do what profits them generally. This is NOT A BETA TEST. Adding new stuff is good. Breaking the old stuff is not. Does what you are doing make sense in the game world? Keep immersion. This is a roleplaying game! You want a realistic economy. Intelligent industrial/economic decisions are only possible with long term planning. You cannot have a meaningful economy if people can't plan ahead. This patch fails on every count. It takes what was wrong with Eve and makes it worse. You are punishing people MORE for operating in 0.0 when that is supposedly what you want (moving to 0.0 that is). You are deliberately breaking the work that people have built up over years. Stuff only other players should be able to take off them. You are taking the stupid sov system and making it worse and even more unbelievable - who are we paying these outrageous taxes to? Concord who can't control empire space? You are again destroying any planning people might have put into the game. And leaving us unable to even plan with the new stuff because it's so obviously stupid many more changes must be going to come to fix it. Next: What I'd have done.
Mistres Tor	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:38:00 - [1226] I see CCP forgot about 1 thing :) So all alians should compres to less system, so let said Goons shuld be in 5 system :) becouse it is profitable for them :) So 1050 Goons in 1 system and how much should have the roming ganag going to them ?? 1000 penople ??? No weait one jump and Goons have another 1050 :) so enemy gang shoul have ??? palyers :) Will we have lag ?? :) So penople who love small scale pvp prepar to have blob on you ??? Less space = more players in one system = less smal scale pvp Second EXODUS incoming lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:38:00 - [1227] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources You realize we have all these now right? +1 Funnily enough, our mining div doesn't mine in our space, because our space is ** for mining. They have to fly elsewhere with better ores in the belts. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by:** CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:39:00 - [1228] Hell my main BobFromMarketing is a nearly maxed out industrial character that regularly flies hulks IN DELVE
Bojan Z Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:40:00 - [1229] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Shasis Why not creating an upgrade that will put lvl4 agents in the upgraded outpost systems ? then the 10-15 people is gone... We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. What about "Cosmos like" agents; i.e. in their ships in space near the infrastructure hub?
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:41:00 - [1230] Edited by: Zahorite on 07/11/2009 22:41:48 Originally by: Mcon99 15 people per station system is dense? Lol. So, so misguided. I think i can see your tears from here. Think about it, you might actually have to have a mining division (gasp) active in your system, and a wormhole gang, and PVPers defending the borders. It's going to be so much fun placing stops all over goon space and watching your sov melt because you can't organize. Damn, with the wormhole generator alone a fully loaded C5 can be worth 4+billion to clear out. So get it through your heads everyone. Organized corps and alliance working all facets of 0.0 space simotaneously, living densly together, each working to benifit the greater whole while sitll making tons of personal isk. No spread out, AFK empires who don't talk to each other until it's time to drop a cap fleet somewhere. Instead, people living side by side within a 5 jump radius of each other harvesting the plentiful resources while killing intruders. I don't think that anyone is saying that as things are currently that 0.0 space won't still be used. In fact the Corp I'm in does a lot of these things, we have an industrial division and we are highly organized. We could probably do okay in 0.0 space after Dominion. Of course since it's providence we may need to change NRDS to NBSI instead, which some people aren't going to be happy about, that isn't my decision though. What people have a problem with is that this update isn't achieving it's expectations at all. In fact it's doing the opposite of what people thought it would. A lot of people have stayed in 0.0 because they believe that this update will make things more profitable than high sec. We were also hoping to get a lot of the players that over the years have either moved up to high sec or stayed in high sec instead of coming down to 0.0 to move into 0.0. We have been hoping that the changes will open things up to provide an even better ship replacement program and that players would be able to pvp more and worry about their wallets less. There are a lot of things people were expecting to see in Dominion, and this blog is pointing towards those not happening. Since they aren't happening I'm not expecting to see many more people moving down to 0.0, in fact I'm expecting that entire corps are going to run their isk making operations out of high sec now and just run pvp out of 0.0 space, especially those alliances and corps that are in bad true sec areas.

Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:41:00 - [1231] Quote: That need is for DENSE player concentrations in 0.0 space, not spread out AFK empires. No wonder why people like CVA and GOONS are complaining. They don't have control of their members. They don't know how to work together as TEAMS. They all run to empire to make isk instead of actually flying and defending their space. Wtf? Do you have any idea what CVA is and where they are? Providence is by far most populated 0.0 region. And i wouldnt be surprised if goons take the second place. And while i dont know about the goon response to reds, i do know that the providence response is probably the fastest you get in any place in eve (ignoring those who drop a titan on every roaming gang).

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:42:00 - [1232] Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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.

Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:42:00 - [1233] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: EdFromHumanResources You realize we have all these now right? +1 Funnily enough, our mining div doesn't mine in our space, because our space is **** for mining. They have to fly elsewhere with better ores in the belts. But with the new Ore upgrades would you attract infinite Bistot Trees after a day of mining Veld?
Succubine Caldari Succubine Dynasty Technologies	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:42:00 - [1234] Originally by: DaiTengu If there's 10 people in system, and 15 anomalies, you have a 2/3 chance of warping to an anomaly and finding someone else there. Figure it takes a couple minutes to scan one down and warp to it. you can waste up to 15 minutes just getting to one. Now scale that up to 15 people in system, and 15 anomalies. you have a 1/15 chance of picking the one that no one is at. Good luck, I hope you don't mind wasting 30+ minutes just trying to find an anomaly that no one is at, shooting things for 5 minutes, getting 5-10m ISK if you're lucky, and then repeating the whole process. Consider the above carefully. Just adding more ***ty anomalies and signatures for system upgrades is going to frustrate people. No offense, but it seems as if you (CCP) want people to jump through hoops just to get the poorest content in 0.0 space; unlike empire space. Here is a suggestion - Non Wormhole (where you might get stranded 50 jumps away from home) Group content: Create an upgrade for 0.0 complexes that can be immediately seen on the overview such as in empire space. The complex would contain a single large sized room (PvP opportunity) filled with patrolling* groups of short duration re-spawning NPC's and a boss type ship in the middle that has a small chance of dropping faction loot (standard dungeon stuff). You need to make it impossible to get to the boss without aggroing multiple groups and getting annihilated. The idea would be to clear a path to the boss and not get overwhelmed by re-spawns or farm the re-spawns. Kill the boss and the complex de-spawns for 30 minutes. The complex would disappear and re-spawn elsewhere in the system every 4 hours. Critical: The NPC's need to not suck and capitals unable to enter. They must be dangerous/deadly WH space sleeper difficulty with surprises so that individuals with pimp ships or a solo pilot and his 2-3 alts can't farm them. Give your limp noodle 0.0 NPC's a massive risk/re-spawn buff and guarantee that PvE deaths are not because someone went afk for an hour in a belt. Quick and dangerous access for multiple sov holding players to make some isk to recover from losses. No convoluted designs of warping, probing, and generally wasting time for uncertain payoff and, if designed properly, able to support many pilots. How difficult would it be to make this happen?
Xavier Hayes	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:43:00 - [1235] Would all the Emo-quitters please contract assets to Xavier Hayes Thanks
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:43:00 - [1236] 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."
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:45:00 - [1237] Originally by: Mcon99 Lol. So, so misguided. I think i can see your tears from here. Think about it, you might actually have to have a mining division (gasp) active in your system Or we could just run missions in empire and buy ships off the market in Jita, for fifty to a hundred percent more efficiency per hour, infinitely scaling per player. Originally by: Mcon99 and a wormhole gang, and PVPers defending the borders. We've got both of those. Several times over. Originally by: Mcon99 It's going to be so much fun placing stops all over goon space and watching your sov melt because you can't organize. I can't wait for the deadly stop-drop-and-roll invasion of The Last Brigade. Originally by: Mcon99 Damn, with the wormhole generator alone a fully loaded C5 can be worth 4+billion to clear out. Or, with a POS in w-space with a fixed C5 exit, that can be infinitely respawned. Originally by: Mcon99 So get it through your heads everyone. Organized corps and alliance working all facets of 0.0 space simotaneously, living densly together, each working to benifit the greater whole while sitll making tons of personal isk. No spread out, AFK empires who don't talk to each other until it's time to drop a cap fleet somewhere. Instead, people living side by side within a 5 jump radius of each other harvesting the plentiful resources while killing intruders. It's instructive that apart from a muppet from Aeternus, the only people cheering over these changes are: a. Anonymous alts b. Hidden-corp-ticker muppets with zero experience of holding 0.0 sov c. Incapable of posting without spelling three or four really basic words incorrectly. d. Determined on framing this as a 'death to specific powerblock, when every powerblock in 0.0 is in this thread pointing out that the changes are actually 'death to any reason to be in 0.0, that thing you keep advertising as the pinnacle of your game'.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:45:00 - [1238] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: EdFromHumanResources You realize we have all these now right? +1 Funnily enough, our mining div doesn't mine in our space, because our space is **** for mining. They have to fly elsewhere with better ores in the belts. You think that's bad? Goonswarm's mining division is but a myth - an army of damned hulks and orcas forever wandering Delve looking for the elusive and legendary "ABC" ores.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:45:00 - [1239] Originally by: Kanatta Jing Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: EdFromHumanResources You realize we have all these now right? +1 Funnily enough, our mining div doesn't mine in our space, because our space is ** for mining. They have to fly elsewhere with better ores in the belts. But with the new Ore upgrades would you attract infinite Bistot Trees after a day of mining Veld? And putting all our eggs into one basket by upgrading one or two systems only to get a few cloakers kill mining ships all the time? Why go through that hassle if you can chose between several systems within range of your rorqual? ---------------------------------------------- Originally by:** CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:46:00 - [1240] 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. 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? _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.

Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:48:00 - [1241] p.33 Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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. soooo in numbers: plain sov: 1 mil/day - 030 mil/month plain hub: 5 mil/day - 150 mil/month StUp's CSAA : 00 mil -or- cyno gen : 00 mil jammer: lots bridges: lots a cyno generator is cute but not that game changing. 0mil would indeed be appropriate. personally, i don't mind a CSAA license fee, but i'm not into that stuff. considering what they're for, i wouldn't even mind a "huge" one, in the area of 15mil/day or more duck jammer - don't know why they're still considered to be all that evil. with AoE doomsdays gone, their initial idea to ease down on capital ships online is finally in effect. i thought that's what we wanted...? covert cynos will work regardless now, too, rite? bridges - i do kindly remember the bonding that came with freighter ops, yes. but the problem isn't so much the distances we can move in just a few minutes - the biggest problem was capitals going through them to jammed systems, thus we started connecting each and every station just for the strategic opportunities. this will no longer be necessary. the current cost of 2 (armed) large POSes does already make us think them twice over. razor's jump bridge circle around tenal isn't really game breaking, just grind-easing since the carrier-shipbay-nerf. -A- having to go all the way to impass (now probably less zig-zag'ing across catch) will remain a necessity, same for atlas, tcf, younameit i assume? rest is a matter for sand box diplomats; who may use whose bridges blahblah. so i don't see the need to push this over the top. if you really must increase this i suggest no more than 5mil/day aswell: on top of the two large towers and their 350mil fuel per month, we're looking at the new sov+hub costs of 180mil and then 150mil for the bridge upgrade - voila, roughly doubled costs already. reminds me... sov still results in ~25% fuel savings? so 30 mil for "the dot on the map" can help me reduce strain on "my" future fernite carbide production? - putting the gist back into logistics
Xavier Hayes	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:48:00 - [1242] And on a more serious note: Current 0.0 sec asteroid belts have the rarer minerals, and these minerals fuel the multiple module/ship/structure markets in Eve. Given that the numbers for the non-moon minerals haven't changed to any great degree (a few exceptions to be sure), can you confirm that asteroid belts will still be present as they are now, after the expansion, in 0.0 sec systems; or is it the intention to make the more valuable (and rarer) minerals in these belts accessable after upgrades only to the system? Cheers
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:49:00 - [1243] Originally by: Vadinho 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." 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? Lvl 4's are simply failed gameplay from any aspect. I'de love the day CCP elminated or nerfed them.
Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:50:00 - [1244] Edited by: Josh Silver on 07/11/2009 22:52:32 Originally by: Aralis Well done CCP. By posting the initial info with joke prices you've distracted everyone from the fact this patch is total crap. Now that's just mean. Reskinned faction ships, a patched in Google browser and the long overdue Assfrig fix are the icing on the cake that is the Sov overhaul, we didn't overlook that.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:50:00 - [1245] 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?
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:50:00 - [1246] Originally by: CCP Chronotis excellent clarity of vision I must say! It takes a special kind of clarity of vision to quote a post that's been thoroughly refuted without addressing, or even acknowledging the existence of the refutations. It's a similar kind of clarity that thinks, of all the posts addressing the changes, that this: Quote: Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! :D Is the sentiment you decide to pick out as your mascot. Enjoy your epic pwnage.
Narahn	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:50:00 - [1247] Originally by: Vadinho 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." ^^ This. I actually believe CCP is on the right track here, but the rewards must balance the risks. A reply from CCP is warranted.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:51:00 - [1248] Edited by: Korodan on 07/11/2009 22:51:24 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. Translation: suck harder please.
Otomo Katsuhiro	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:52:00 - [1249] Originally by: CCP Soundwave When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. With a chance to strike gold if the anomaly escalates...
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:54:00 - [1250] Chron or Soundwave, could you guys comment on the mechanic of the upkeep? Why was a "fixed cost per system" chosen over the scaling ideas listed? (IE 1 system = 1 million/day, 2 systems = 4 million/day, 3 systems = 9 million/day...etc etc) Wouldn't that type of exponential system work better? It allows small corps/alliances to get to 00 without having enormous upfront costs, and prevents the alliance sprawl...

Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:54:00 - [1251] Yes sov needed fixing. It was stupid. It violates the most basic roleplaying and sandbox essentials. eg Sov 4 system - you can't attack the pos. Sez ooh? I mean really what the hell is going on here? This is a roleplaying game not some arcane mathematical puzzle. Example of a proper solution: 1) Remove sov totally. The whole concept. Dead. If people want to place a station, a pos, a jumpbridge, whatever in 0.0 only two things should be able to stop them. Either they can't afford the module - or players beat the hell out of them and won't let them. Not some arbitrary rule about you've only held the system for 60 days. Or you have to pay tax to um well who? A single requirement that a pos must have been down for a week to build up energy reserves before it can support anything fancy. 2) Cut down on grind. Introduce NPCs who will fuel your pos for you. Operating either from a station or storage module (high fitting costs though) you can fit at a pos they will fuel pos in system. And they do this by flying like Empire hauler npcs with very slow build up to warp. Easy targets for raiders. No grind for pos owners - but if you don't defend your space raiders can do some damage. One trip per day per pos. Of course if players want to grind away at fuelling their pos let them. But perhaps make the pos storage a bit smaller. So sieging/raiding can become realistic options. 3) Make pos and stations mutually supportive. Each pos/station comes with a built in shield transfer unit affair. When it's been active for a week it goes to the system defence net. And adds half it's own shield strength to every other station/pos in system. Maybe not if it's been attacked itself in the last 10 minutes encouraging attacking of multiple targets? This way well defended systems become stronger than currently to direct dread assault. And increase the chances for defenders to get there in time. 4) Give stations their own shields like pos so people can't be ganked right outside. 5) Make Eve bigger. Let people find more space. Real space not W-space. Let us fund missions through ordinary space to erect new bridges/gates to new areas. Just the basics of a system. Could add far more but I know you aren't listening. But dump your current patch. Don't tweak it. Dump it - it's total rubbish from the ground up.
Spawinte Fallen Angel's Blade.	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:55:00 - [1252] Originally by: Pattern Clarc Originally by: pi squad Edited by: pi squad on 07/11/2009 21:54:06 you're literally a dip**** if you thought the csm would actually accomplish anything and this thread is incontrovertible proof Looks like your right. We made it explicitly clear that unless the risk vs reward balance was fixed, they wouldn't solve anything. Seems like they have just flat out ignored this advice and not made it the priority it should have been. Am I in the minority in thinking that CCP knows best and not a bunch of forum whiners who got a free trip to Iceland? I include myself among the whiners btw. Also BAAWWWWWW and AHAHAHAHAHA
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:55:00 - [1253] Originally by: Narahn Originally by: Vadinho 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." ^^ This. I actually believe CCP is on the right track here, but the rewards must balance the risks. A reply from CCP is warranted. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:55:00 - [1254] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. It's this type of response from CCP that is making me madder. Am I just a "pvp whiner"? no I'm one of the industrialists, I have three accounts a 0.0 ratter that does a little pvp, a mining alt, and a high sec mission runner. I'm telling you that my entire Corp says that this is a bad idea and we have an entire industrial division and most of our players rat over half the time even those mostly focused on pvp. Don't tell me that we are whiner's, if you keep it up you are going to lose the over 400 dollars a year I pay for my subscription along with a lot more from other players like me. Alliances in 0.0 looked for this update to bring more people to 0.0, to allow us to engage in pvp more, to balance areas so that more active corporations like the one I belong to are on a more even footing with corporations that own better true sec space and better moons but are less active. Instead we are told that we are going to get screwed by this update and are going to have even less spare isk for pvping and that there is still no incentive for players to move from high sec to 0.0, of course we are mad that this update is doing the exact opposite of what everyone thought that it would do.
Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:55:00 - [1255] Originally by: Otomo Katsuhiro Originally by: CCP Soundwave When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. With a chance to strike gold if the anomaly escalates... I can already feel the sheer joy of begging carrier/tank/logistic chars to login and run my escalation that may or may not drop anything/utter crap. Oh boy is it Christmas already?
pi squad Scalding Pie Services	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:56:00 - [1256] Originally by: Vadinho 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." ahugluhlaguulhughlgahguh slurp slurp
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:56:00 - [1257] Originally by: Josh Silver Edited by: Josh Silver on 07/11/2009 22:52:32 Originally by: Aralis Well done CCP. By posting the initial info with joke prices you've distracted everyone from the fact this patch is total crap. Now that's just mean. Reskinned faction ships, a patched in Google browser and the long overdue Assfrig fix are the icing on the cake that is the Sov overhaul, we didn't overlook that. Assfrig fix isn't going to make it in time for the patch.
Zemi Dahut GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:57:00 - [1258] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. Anyone that actually owns space is already set up like this. These changes do nothing other then confirm to everyone that CCP considers your garbage PvE content as the endgame, whereas people put up with the mindless grind in order to provoke the epic pvp fights that you like to advertise the game about. I cannot believe that you are this clueless, but again you are the company behind the boot.ini fiasco amongst the other beacons of uselessness that litters your production track record so I shouldn't be surprised.
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:58:00 - [1259] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. audhguhsga you ding dong. We realize what your VISION is, but what we're telling you is that these changes will not bring about that vision. 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
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:58:00 - [1260] Originally by: Spawinte Originally by: Pattern Clarc Originally by: pi squad Edited by: pi squad on 07/11/2009 21:54:06 you're literally a dip**** if you thought the csm would actually accomplish anything and this thread is incontrovertible proof Looks like your right. We made it explicitly clear that unless the risk vs reward balance was fixed, they wouldn't solve anything. Seems like they have just flat out ignored this advice and not made it the priority it should have been. Am I in the minority in thinking that CCP knows best and not a bunch of forum whiners who got a free trip to Iceland? I include myself among the whiners btw. Also BAAWWWWWW and AHAHAHAHAHA Hahahahahahahahaha yes you are

Innominate GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:58:00 - [1261] Edited by: Innominate on 07/11/2009 23:02:09 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. I really **ing hope this is a troll. edit: Originally by:** Salsbury I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. Isn't this what dominion was intended to put a stop to?
Treji	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:58:00 - [1262] If Goonies are whining, new expansion must be good Or are they a little miffed due to new changes hampering their system of play?
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:00:00 - [1263] Edited by: Hertford on 07/11/2009 23:03:04 Dominion? More like Dominioff. Quote: If Goonies are whining, new expansion must be good Very Happy Or are they a little miffed due to new changes hampering their system of play? Yes, that's it exactly. Come Dominion as currently proposed we are going to lose all our space, so we're pretending that the current proposals make 0.0 a step backwards from living in highsec, resulting in no-one from empire even bothering to live in 0.0. Not to mention that Delve ratting sucks and we barely exist in a state where ratting is worth doing. Come Dominion and triple the number of Battlestars per solar system, all of our incomes are set to suffer badly. We refuse to go quietly into that dark night!
Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:02:00 - [1264] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. Oh yes I can see the recruitment adverbs now "Comes to 0.0, if you are lucky enough to not be ganked, camped in by hostiles, have a proper market, or not killed while traveling you can make just as much as money running l4s in empire minus whatever we charge for protection" I'm sure people will be coming in droves.
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:02:00 - [1265] 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? All of you idiots saying "lol look at the goonies and cva whine" realize we're both in really good shape for this patch, right? We just think it's objectively crap. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Brennah GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:02:00 - [1266] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. Basically what I'm taking away from the fact that you're trolling your customers is that you as a company are emotionally/egotistically invested in these changes and are hellbent on making them happen despite 40+ pages of people telling you why this is horrible. You should probably ask Sony how well this worked for SWG and NGE. Since you are so determined to force this down our throats I suggest two new names for this expansion Eve Online: NGE Eve Online: Exodus II
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:02:00 - [1267] Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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. So inverting the composition to 95% of ratters and industrialists and 5% PVP/fleet is called balance these days
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:02:00 - [1268] Originally by: Hertford Dominion? More like Dominion - The Age of PvE.
SXYGeeK Gallente do you Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:03:00 - [1269] Edited by: SXYGeeK on 07/11/2009 23:03:59 -42- checking in on page 42.... (edit: ack, i took to long typing, its 43 now, my oppertunity for greatness has passed, :( ) wow, this is a fast growing thread. I just want to say thanks to Soundwave and Chronitis for sticking in here with us, taking our feedback, and feeding us more info. Enjoy some of your weekend guys! (though you likely somehow enjoy this...) I think that we shall certainly see a reduction in the footprint of 0.0 alliances to "meet the budget" as it where for sov maintanance bills. I'm excited by the prospect of the "Guaronteed" anomolies and mining sites, with respawn instantly elsewhere in the system. with a fully upgraded system having the rewards of the anomolies to be on par with LVL4 mission running and there will be 10 anomolie sites at all times. think about it, with belt rattin we just warp around hoping something will be there to kill, and if we are lucky we get a faction or maybe even an officer. now we will warp around between anomolies and be Guaronteed something will be there, and if we are lucky it will escalate... not only this, but we dont have to wait for them to respawn, as soon as we kill them off another one respowns. we could put several gangs of 3 or so pilots together to go rage through anomolies, the faster you do them, the more you get... and this will all strike true for mining as well, practicaly limitless ore in your favored system. -We So SeXy
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:04:00 - [1270] 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

Treji	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:06:00 - [1271] What! You don't fight for honour and glory?
Dramaticus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:06:00 - [1272] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. your vision ****ing sucks and so do your changes hope im making that clear Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan
Verlai GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:07:00 - [1273] Originally by: Treji What! You don't fight for honour and glory? He mentioned the suicide ganking.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:07:00 - [1274] Originally by: Treji What! You don't fight for honour and glory? Honour and Glory in Serious Business Internet Spaceships. That's us through and through.
Lemage Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:08:00 - [1275] woot exodus back to empire! More mission runners to suicide gank, best patch evar!
Mistres Tor	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:08:00 - [1276] do not forget to make an escalation you need time to find it, time to make it, and every time can red come :) and you can't make it alone and lv 4 in empire are safer and are more profitable and take less time to do, and you don't need to find it, and you can make it alone and always have a good reward Second EXODUS incoming lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming
pi squad Scalding Pie Services	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:08:00 - [1277] i'm rich as **** so i want you to know that these changes do not affect me in the slightest and i still think they are dumb and i could come up with better with an hour's thought
Olivor	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:08:00 - [1278] So.... I don't really understand how this stops AFK empires. I was under the impression that the more linked systems you had the more it would cost you per system (20M each per day if you only own four systems, 50M each for eight or something). Clearly you can have the central systems with military and industrial upgrades and just let the sov upgrades roll in with time?
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:10:00 - [1279] Originally by: SXYGeeK "Guaronteed" anomolies anomolie anomolies Guaronteed respowns. anomolies heh _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:11:00 - [1280] 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

ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:12:00 - [1281] Originally by: SXYGeeK Edited by: SXYGeeK on 07/11/2009 23:03:59 -42- checking in on page 42.... (edit: ack, i took to long typing, its 43 now, my oppertunity for greatness has passed, :( ) wow, this is a fast growing thread. I just want to say thanks to Soundwave and Chronitis for sticking in here with us, taking our feedback, and feeding us more info. Enjoy some of your weekend guys! (though you likely somehow enjoy this...) I think that we shall certainly see a reduction in the footprint of 0.0 alliances to "meet the budget" as it where for sov maintanance bills. I'm excited by the prospect of the "Guaronteed" anomolies and mining sites, with respawn instantly elsewhere in the system. with a fully upgraded system having the rewards of the anomolies to be on par with LVL4 mission running and there will be 10 anomolie sites at all times. think about it, with belt rattin we just warp around hoping something will be there to kill, and if we are lucky we get a faction or maybe even an officer. now we will warp around between anomolies and be Guaronteed something will be there, and if we are lucky it will escalate... not only this, but we dont have to wait for them to respawn, as soon as we kill them off another one respowns. we could put several gangs of 3 or so pilots together to go rage through anomolies, the faster you do them, the more you get... and this will all strike true for mining as well, practicaly limitless ore in your favored system. How awesome guaranteed level 4 income!!!! All you have to do is invest lots of resources and time a month and you too can be assured level 4 income. Dont worry about the potential to be ganked!. Surely ccp has factored in scan time. The fact that l4 income is mainly LP gain, we know for sure they factored that in. The current anomalies blow, no chance the future oens will not blow. We can all rest assured youll never waste time warping to a site, finding someone there and having to warp off. Dont mind that corp taxes will increase. The hordes of empire shall flow in to null sec to battle over the ability to make nearly the same ammount of cash as they made in empire. Yes i cannot freaking wait for this patch. The best way to increase null sec is to make it not at all more lucrative. CCP are genius.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:13:00 - [1282] 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? Either go away or read some more. It's not just Goon, it's every single alliance in 0.0 space. Based on a message earlier by a CCP Dev that I think a lot of people have missed things are a bit better now. 1m a day for sov claim and 5m a day for industrial hub, as opposed to the 30m a day they would have been combined. So now it's not about the upkeep, it's about the fact that a lot of 0.0 alliances and members were banking on the fact that after this update 0.0 space would be more profitable than high sec mission running as it should be (a CCP Dev posted that it should be back somewhere in this thread also), but it's not and CCP says they knows it's a problem but they "can't" fix it. Which is BS since they could just say add lvl 4 agents to 0.0 instead that offer higher rewards, or increase bounty, or any number of things, they just won't. Anyway if that isn't changed as it stands right now alliances will survive in 0.0 space. But we aren't going to see an increase in players in 0.0, and will probably actually see a decrease in players and pvp in 0.0 space.
Joe Starbreaker The Fighting Republicans	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:14:00 - [1283] 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. ... The Fighting Republicans now recruiting for a 2010 comeback campaign!
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:14:00 - [1284] Edited by: Qlanth on 07/11/2009 23:15:02 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? If there is a single sov holding alliance that doesn't need to worry about this patch it is goonswarm. We have billions of ISK in reserve and had been preparing for the likely R64 nerf for months before it was announced. It should be pretty obvious that these changes will do nothing but force people OUT of 0.0 to search for a better way to make money. That way will probably be running Level 4 missions in empire while holding some key lowsec moons of value.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:14:00 - [1285] There is that. 75% of 0.0 systems have nobody in them because those systems aren't worth doing anything in them. That's your first hurdle. Make every single 0.0 system worth using. The reason alliances claim large tracts of space is because of the remaining 25% that has stuff worth doing inside.
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:16:00 - [1286] 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. This is an amazing troll. Other posters take note. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Spawinte Fallen Angel's Blade.	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:17:00 - [1287] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Spawinte Originally by: Pattern Clarc Originally by: pi squad Edited by: pi squad on 07/11/2009 21:54:06 you're literally a dip**** if you thought the csm would actually accomplish anything and this thread is incontrovertible proof Looks like your right. We made it explicitly clear that unless the risk vs reward balance was fixed, they wouldn't solve anything. Seems like they have just flat out ignored this advice and not made it the priority it should have been. Am I in the minority in thinking that CCP knows best and not a bunch of forum whiners who got a free trip to Iceland? I include myself among the whiners btw. Also BAAWWWWWW and AHAHAHAHAHA Hahahahahahahahaha yes you are Yeah but seriously BAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:17:00 - [1288] 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
Xtreem Gallente Knockaround Guys Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:17:00 - [1289] in over six years of playing i have spent about 4 in 0.0 grunt and leading 500 and holding sov. i can say with honesty, i am glad i came back to empire and have gone semi afk, the changes are... nasty!! what i would do as an evil person is i would get my large alliance to get 30 alts of players into a corp, sit a few in each system in stealth bombers, in my reds main isk making systems and just totally ruin their isk making power, afk most of the day, pop back gank some stuff (say 3 per system, all launching a bomb would hurt alot when followed with seige) and can hide again pretty quick, would wreck allaince isk making and thus hurt there system holding. this is the worst change i think i have ever seen, and a good way to judge that is true is when you see alliance that HATE each other agreeing with each other and even quoting them!! it must be cold in hell
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:19:00 - [1290] This won't hurt us nearly as bad as people may think. Sure it'll reduce our footprint a bit but it will completely destroy any small alliances in 0.0 financially. They will struggle jsut to keep sov in one or two systems. God forbid they get in a war and cant rat 24/7

Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:20:00 - [1291] 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 just being the most vocal (as usual). If this goes through it's going to screw over everyone, even the people you like who fight us.
Pwadoc GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:21:00 - [1292] 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. I'll just run level 4 missions in empire for money, since it's the same profit with no risk.
WhiteSavage Ever Flow Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:24:00 - [1293] So THIS sucks for alliances that dont live right next to highsec... your nerfing alliances that rely on JB networks... yeah thats balanced. and an upgraded system with low truesec is still going to be extremely worthless... For all the time CCP has been taking and hype... cmon! Only kool thing was titan deathray but since that may have been nerfed into worthlessness... I know ccp is between a rock and a hard place, but this is hardly groundbreaking stuff.
Aineko Macx	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:25:00 - [1294] Originally by: Arakkis Melanogaster R64 moons were the fuel keeping the 0.0 sandbox in a constant state of war because they were extremely lucrative and unique. They were the rare material that the empire industrialists needed to produce their goods, and made it worth throwing massive war machines against each other, thus producing a cycle. Nerfing the R64 moons in coordination with the sweeping changes to 0.0 is causing a massive flux in the reason for accepting the risk and effort of living in 0.0. Fixing the sov system and implementing changes to how 0.0 works is fine (and overdue), but you must provide a carrot for people to accept taking the stick. Were the status quo in terms of R64 moons kept, even if the new system upgrade system doesn't produce the desired changes to alliance and personal income, alliances will still have a reason to hold space, and continue adapting to tweaks to the system going forward. If the system doesn't work as planned, and alliances have no incentive to continue living in 0.0, individuals will have no reason to keep putting in the work to keep the alliance going. However, should the upgraded space work with minor tweaking, there will be a adaptation period, after which R64s can be nerfed and the prices of upkeep can be tweaked. Implementing a sweeping change to the basic structure of how any game works always results in unhappy players due to the balancing the needs to take place once the playerbase discovers the unforeseen weaknesses in the plan. Implementing multiple sweeping changes to a game all at once is a recipe for disaster as most players will simply throw up their hands and move on to something else. I admire the hard work and temerity it takes to make these upcoming changes, but listen to your players and do this slower or you may risk the NGE of EVE. This. Originally by: Vadinho "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." QFT
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:25:00 - [1295] OK, just to point it out: the blog came out friday evening and we had CCP Soundwave answering lots of questions and clearifying stuff. And now, on a saturday evening, 2300hrs gmt, CCP Chronotis is still answering questions. So no matter if you think the changes are good or bad: CCP does care about the game. They are still passionate and do listen to the playerbase. This is not NGE. There will be bumps on the road but I'm sure the new 0.0 will be better in the end. Personally, I'm looking forward to what is ahead.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:25:00 - [1296] Sup Atlas we've told you a billion times our old space was complete ****. We were not kidding and it looks to only be getting worse. :)
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:25:00 - [1297] Originally by: Mistres Tor do not forget to make an escalation you need time to find it, time to make it, and every time can red come :) and you can't make it alone and lv 4 in empire are safer and are more profitable and take less time to do, and you don't need to find it, and you can make it alone and always have a good reward Second EXODUS incoming lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming You do realize how much of a failure you sound like. Actually thanks, because you are speaking for all the other high sec mission runners. Please, it's not about isk/hour. It's about emergent gameplay, which is, sorry, not happening in Lvl 4's unless your ninja salvaged or suicide ganked. Finding the site is a challenge. Navagating a different one. Avoiding a pvp engagement in your pve ship, yet another. Oh wait, your just interested in isk, not actually playing.
oniplE Aliastra	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:25:00 - [1298] I can see how this would force alliances to make better use of the systems they have instead of just having a lot of systems. This would result in a higher density of players per system, leaving more empty systems for smaller alliances, i guess that was the theory behind it all. The start up costs are a bit high though, but that can be fixed ofcourse. But.. the pay out of a maxed out system will be on par with lvl4's? That's just ridiculous. I can't even begin to comprehend how you can justify this to yourselfs CCP. It should be double the pay out of lvl4's, ATLEAST. This is just stupid. x
Static Kinetics Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:26:00 - [1299] 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.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:26:00 - [1300] They touted truesec as still being important with the upgrades. How? Because the only way youll be making money is by ratting exactly like you used to?

Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:26:00 - [1301] Originally by: WhiteSavage So THIS sucks for alliances that dont live right next to highsec... your nerfing alliances that rely on JB networks... yeah thats balanced. and an upgraded system with low truesec is still going to be extremely worthless... For all the time CCP has been taking and hype... cmon! Only kool thing was titan deathray but since that may have been nerfed into worthlessness... I know ccp is between a rock and a hard place, but this is hardly groundbreaking stuff. I was wondering how long it would take Atlas to realize how hosed they are with these changes. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Stevens Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:28:00 - [1302] Originally by: CCP HEY GUYS WE KNOW LEVEL 4s WILL STILL MAKE MORE(OR EQUAL IN 100 DAYS) MONEY AND WE WILL ADDRESS THIS. HAVE FUN PAYING BILLS! Got it thanks for clarifying that.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:28:00 - [1303] Originally by: WhiteSavage So THIS sucks for alliances that dont live right next to highsec... your nerfing alliances that rely on JB networks... yeah thats balanced. and an upgraded system with low truesec is still going to be extremely worthless... For all the time CCP has been taking and hype... cmon! Only kool thing was titan deathray but since that may have been nerfed into worthlessness... I know ccp is between a rock and a hard place, but this is hardly groundbreaking stuff. How bad is it when a goon actually feels sad for Atlas? Also, we told you that space sucked, Angel rats worst rats.
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:29:00 - [1304] Edited by: Cefte on 07/11/2009 23:31:16 Edited by: Cefte on 07/11/2009 23:30:36 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. No, they won't, you illiterate cretin, because there will be no reason to, because instead of making money in 0.0 and buying ships from highsec market hubs, or buying ships built from resources directly imported from highsec market hubs, which is the current M.O. of most 0.0 alliances, people will just run highsec level 4 missions, and then buy their ships directly from highsec market hubs, because they're not knuckle-dragging cretins like yourself. Make lots of money in highsec or make less money per hour mining veldspar in 0.0? It's not a hard choice. Originally by: Joe Starbreaker The effect will be a much denser 0.0 population No, the effect with be a massive decrease in permanent 0.0 population, with the majority presence in 0.0 being roaming HAC gangs that set out from, and end their night docking up in, Empire space. Originally by: Joe Starbreaker a much higher value of ISK Yes, the spending power of isk is going to skyrocket. Originally by: Joe Starbreaker 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. Ratter ganking doesn't work very well when there are no ratters left.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:29:00 - [1305] Originally by: oniplE I can see how this would force alliances to make better use of the systems they have instead of just having a lot of systems. It's not this we're "whining" about. We've been preparing to "scale back" for months since CCP hinted that vast blobs of color on the map were likely to become a thing of the past. These changes make it so the only reason there would be colored dots or blobs on the sov map at all would be to build supercapitals or for e-peen (hello Molle).
Jattzia Gallente Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:30:00 - [1306] 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. Postscript. Midsize nullsec alliances whose industrial wings vastly outnumber their PVP wings hate this too.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:31:00 - [1307] It's funny to see the babble about 0.0 should be more rewarding then empire... I got a fix for your problems: fly LvL 4 missions with an alt. Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted.
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:32:00 - [1308] Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 07/11/2009 23:33:24 Originally by: Cefte Originally by: Joe Starbreaker 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. Ratter ganking doesn't work very well when there are no ratters left. Or when the ratters are in fleets. Or when there are 600 people in the system where the ratters are because everybody lives there. Originally by: Vivian Azure It's funny to see the babble about 0.0 should be more rewarding then empire... I got a fix for your problems: fly LvL 4 missions with an alt. Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. Will you pay for my second account or PvP ships? _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Innominate GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:32:00 - [1309] Originally by: Static Kinetics 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.
pi squad Scalding Pie Services	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:32:00 - [1310] Originally by: Nika Dekaia OK, just to point it out: the blog came out friday evening and we had CCP Soundwave answering lots of questions and clearifying stuff. And now, on a saturday evening, 2300hrs gmt, CCP Chronotis is still answering questions. So no matter if you think the changes are good or bad: CCP does care about the game. They are still passionate and do listen to the playerbase. This is not NGE. There will be bumps on the road but I'm sure the new 0.0 will be better in the end. Personally, I'm looking forward to what is ahead. yes they care enough to troll people with legitimate concerns gosh how could i ever have doubted you ccp

Dualshock GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:33:00 - [1311] 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.
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:33:00 - [1312] Originally by: Innominate Originally by: Static Kinetics 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.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:34:00 - [1313] Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. So why are you supporting changes that force us to do more of it? Are you just that dumb?
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:35:00 - [1314] ~~~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
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:35:00 - [1315] If all the 0.0 warriors are interested in is making ISK, then go run your ****ing level 4s and quit crying. Or better yet, just buy some. For like, 20 dollars you can get a few billion ISK. Protip: Video Games are created to be entertaining. If all you're interested in is making ISK, then you should have never gotten near 0.0 in the first place. Sit in Jita, make billions a day trading. If you want to have fun, go out and play your game. Also, LOLdoomsday prophets. THE GAME IS GOING TO DIIIIIE! Just like the last 19 patches, I know. I'm glad CCP doesnt know how to run this game, and they're complete buffoons. It is possible to provide feedback without crying, over and over and over, and repeating the same thing over and over and over.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:36:00 - [1316] Originally by: ep1k Originally by: Innominate Originally by: Static Kinetics 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.
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:36:00 - [1317] Originally by: Mcon99 You do realize how much of a failure you sound like. Actually thanks, because you are speaking for all the other high sec mission runners. Please, it's not about isk/hour. It's about emergent gameplay, which is, sorry, not happening in Lvl 4's unless your ninja salvaged or suicide ganked. Finding the site is a challenge. Navagating a different one. Avoiding a pvp engagement in your pve ship, yet another. Oh wait, your just interested in isk, not actually playing. I don't think you know what 'emergent gameplay' means. Which means you're using it in the same way the devs for Darkfall used it, as a buzzword to throw into the gap left by paucity of game design. Actions taken that directly contradict the stated intention? But it's emergent gameplay, players will do something and they'll enjoy it, dammit! And they do. They leave.
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:36:00 - [1318] Originally by: Static Kinetics 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. /bandwagon ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:37:00 - [1319] 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. THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE.
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:37:00 - [1320] Edited by: Nika Dekaia on 07/11/2009 23:39:30 Originally by: Dualshock 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. They only stated they are actually aware of the issue (finally - and they knew it for years, like all of us) Question is: when are they finaly going to actually DO something about it. Linkage

oniplE Aliastra	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:38:00 - [1321] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Originally by: oniplE I can see how this would force alliances to make better use of the systems they have instead of just having a lot of systems. It's not this we're "whining" about. We've been preparing to "scale back" for months since CCP hinted that vast blobs of color on the map were likely to become a thing of the past. These changes make it so the only reason there would be colored dots or blobs on the sov map at all would be to build supercapitals or for e-peen (hello Molle). Exactly. Scaling things down is OK, it would make more room for smaller alliances. But, like you said, there's no real point for people to claim the space if they can make just as much money in high sec. Which means less people will stay in nullsec, which means less targets, which means less pvp. I guess empire war decs will become very popular :) x
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:38:00 - [1322] Just some stuff that CCP DevÆs have posted that everyone should read that was in the last 20 pages. Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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. Originally by: CCP Chronotis - The jump between no risk and any risk is the most significant step, the same as no cost and some cost. The difference in mathematical terms is small but economically large. In short, it takes a disproportionate amount of reward to offset a smaller amount of risk or additional effort. - We are looking at introducing social group content as Soundwave mentions of sufficient reward to compel you either as someone who runs missions in empire to fund their pvp in null sec or as an empire dweller looking to make the leap to join up with others and seek to upgrade your solar systems to unlock these sites. These will act to both minimise the number of signatures as a whole within the solar system and to let you play together than alone. - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:39:00 - [1323] Originally by: Dualshock 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.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:39:00 - [1324] 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.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:39:00 - [1325] Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 07/11/2009 23:39:37 Originally by: Static Kinetics 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. Oh, hey, there it is. The heart of the issue.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:39:00 - [1326] Originally by: Vivian Azure It's funny to see the babble about 0.0 should be more rewarding then empire... I got a fix for your problems: fly LvL 4 missions with an alt. Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. This has been covered over and over again. It doesn't change the fact that *you shouldn't need* to have multiple accounts to enjoy EVE if you live in 0.0.** And before you say "cry more" since you're probably trolling anyway - I have three accounts, one of which was a recent Power of Two purchase I'm regretting making now.
Wirbin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:40:00 - [1327] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. what a terrible post, do you even play your own game? pvp is all this ****pile has over world of warcraft please go make 0.0 worth living in over grinding l4s in motsu or i'm taking my business elsewhere thank you
Kal Koitar GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:40:00 - [1328] Quote: 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.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:41:00 - [1329] Originally by: Qlanth 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.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:41:00 - [1330] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 23:43:19 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. So why are you supporting changes that force us to do more of it? Are you just that dumb? EvE was once a game, where you had to invest lot's of time and efforts into the game. Today it's just a shadow of itself, getting dumbed down into the direction of ADHD-kiddies that can't be bothered to do something for longer then 2 minutes. So yes. If it was up to me, I'd make this game hardcore again, where you need to spend 1/3 of your time playing to have enough money for the ships to fly around in the other 2/3 of your time. Making ISK is way too easy these days, as is holding space.

Dualshock GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:42:00 - [1331] Edited by: Dualshock on 07/11/2009 23:45:07 any brits around here might find the situation reminiscent of this old classic interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk
Stevens Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:43:00 - [1332] Originally by: Qlanth 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.
Emily Elderburry	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:44:00 - [1333] CCP; do yourself a favor and augment the isk/hr of ratting in 0.0 to be greater that what a LVL4 mission runner yeilds in empire.
Hendrik Stahl	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:44:00 - [1334] Originally by: Korodan 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. Lot of dancing around this question.
Kernok	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:44:00 - [1335] ccp for a carebear that is grinding lvl 4 missions now and has never gone to 0.0, do you really think this horrible set of upgrades is going to encourage them to go? 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.
Innominate GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:44:00 - [1336] Originally by: Zahorite Just some stuff that CCP DevÆs have posted that everyone should read that was in the last 20 pages. the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. It's amazing how much text can say absolutely nothing.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:45:00 - [1337] You guys should check out Perpetuum, being developed by an ex-BoB guy looks pretty sweet. http://www.perpetuum-online.com/
Alski Ministers Of Destruction.	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:45:00 - [1338] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury ..."mining is a **** profession"... ...You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts... ...harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell... 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. To the OP: Isk Per Hour. Ratting isk > Mining isk, cooperation doesn't bridge this gap unless the rats in your space are really horrible (which probably means the ore is too) Chronotis: True independent industry in 0.0 has been dead for nearly 3 years if not longer, if it ever really existed at all outside of the old Delve and maybe a few little corners like ISS and such. If you have one outpost of each type, you have: 28 production slots 13 ME slots 13 PE slots 12 copy slots 11 invention slots Zero reaction slots And a 35% base ore refinery If you've ever taken even the briefest look at how many POS's you need for all the reactions and moon mining and build slots, never mind moving minerals around, and operating and fuelling the POS's that are required for an alliance to build one quarter of enough T2 ships and modules of all racial flavours to self-sustainably supply themselves with such.... You'd realise that 0.0 industry is utterly and horrifically broken, there are barely enough slots in an Amarr outpost to supply the average sized alliance with just battleships let alone anything else, and with the ridiculous amounts of added complexity of trying to build T2 from moon minerals in 0.0 it will obviously never happen with the current state of industrial infrastructure available, hauling stuff in from outside or leaving everyone to fend for themselves will always be an order of magnitude easier. As I said in my last post, if youÆd like to fix this, there are some quick and simple fixs: Caldari outpost +20 of each Lab type, +25-50 moon mineral reaction slots. Minmatar outpost from 35% to 50% base refine. Amarr outpost from 20 production slots to 100-150 slots* All outposts from 2-4 base production slots to ~25 or so. That would go about 50% of the way towards fixing 0.0 industry, next fix POS industry to make it specialised and actually have advantages where it currently has penalties, IÆm sure someone else has a walloftext somewhere about whats wrong with this stuff though and this is not the thread. Also: stuck record: +15%, +20%, +25% 0.0 Ore types, +100% yield Veld. People will Mine again. *(yes, really. Think of the number of T2 components and then assume that more than one corp per alliance might want to build them all at the same time!) - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:45:00 - [1339] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 23:43:19 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. So why are you supporting changes that force us to do more of it? Are you just that dumb? EvE was once a game, where you had to invest lot's of time and efforts into the game. Today it's just a shadow of itself, getting dumbed down into the direction of ADHD-kiddies that can't be bothered to do something for longer then 2 minutes. So yes. If it was up to me, I'd make this game hardcore again, where you need to spend 1/3 of your time playing to have enough money for the ships to fly around in the other 2/3 of your time. Making ISK is way too easy these days, as is holding space. If that was the case we would all be happy. That isn't how things work now, and this update is going to make it even worse. Right now it's about 2/3 making money for 1/3 doing pvp, after this update it will be worse.
Yafn Robbing You of Your Space Pixels	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:46:00 - [1340] Originally by: cok cola 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.

Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:47:00 - [1341] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 23:43:19 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. So why are you supporting changes that force us to do more of it? Are you just that dumb? EvE was once a game, where you had to invest lot's of time and efforts into the game. Today it's just a shadow of itself, getting dumbed down into the direction of ADHD-kiddies that can't be bothered to do something for longer then 2 minutes. So yes. If it was up to me, I'd make this game hardcore again, where you need to spend 1/3 of your time playing to have enough money for the ships to fly around in the other 2/3 of your time. Making ISK is way too easy these days, as is holding space. I already have a job. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:47:00 - [1342] Originally by: Yafn Originally by: cok cola 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.
Mistres Tor	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:47:00 - [1343] Mcon99 for simple: If i have to fly in 0.0 scaning+hinding for reds+doing anomalis for 12 hours evry day to have enoug isk for a zelot for pvp and i can do in less then 4 hours on lv 4 misoins in empires then yes it is play for isk/h, becouse i can play next 8 hours pvp. Do you like PVP or PVE ? Second EXODUS incoming lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming
Alexis Avalon Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:47:00 - [1344] Quote: 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.
Wirbin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:48:00 - [1345] Edited by: Wirbin on 07/11/2009 23:48:24 Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Qlanth 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. well, which is it?
Kazuo Karasuma GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:48:00 - [1346] 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. This thread is a train wreck. The sheer amount of ignorance from CCP (and certain other posters) is just amazing. Why make a broken system to be revised later when you can actually make it right in the first place.
Aeryn Carter	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:48:00 - [1347] Originally by: Alexis Avalon Quote: 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.
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:50:00 - [1348] Originally by: Zahorite If that was the case we would all be happy. That isn't how things work now, and this update is going to make it even worse. Right now it's about 2/3 making money for 1/3 doing pvp, after this update it will be worse. This is not counterstrike online. Fly cheaper ships, if you can't afford it. Yes, PvP should MEAN something. Not just "lulz - dock - undock in new ship"
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:50:00 - [1349] Originally by: Zahorite Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 23:43:19 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. So why are you supporting changes that force us to do more of it? Are you just that dumb? EvE was once a game, where you had to invest lot's of time and efforts into the game. Today it's just a shadow of itself, getting dumbed down into the direction of ADHD-kiddies that can't be bothered to do something for longer then 2 minutes. So yes. If it was up to me, I'd make this game hardcore again, where you need to spend 1/3 of your time playing to have enough money for the ships to fly around in the other 2/3 of your time. Making ISK is way too easy these days, as is holding space. If that was the case we would all be happy. That isn't how things work now, and this update is going to make it even worse. Right now it's about 2/3 making money for 1/3 doing pvp, after this update it will be worse. Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK.
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:50:00 - [1350] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar And before you say "cry more" since you're probably trolling anyway - I have three accounts, one of which was a recent Power of Two purchase I'm regretting making now. No please, keep crying. Obviously the complainers in this thread are failed 0.0 pilots who are so bad they need mission alts. If everyone in this thread keeps believing that complaining about the Lvl 4 income vs 0.0 is going to change CCP minds, they are nuts. Lvl 4's ARE CRAP GAMEPLAY. ALWAYS. 0.0 is the BEST GAMEPLAY (including wormholes). Total freedom. Faction drops. Solo and group PVE. The best ores. And PVP can be right around the corner. First rule for real players - never have a mission alt. Never. Never mission. Ever. Plex, rat, wormhole, explore. Mission grinding in high sec is failure. Missions in 0.0, respectable, i must admit, because the risk factor. <-- Never missioned. Never made much isk on the market, only a little through manufacturing. Don't mine. Between wormholes, 0.0 rats and plexes, and pvp returns, I have billions.

Daniel Ogden	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:51:00 - [1351] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously, stop crying about crap PvE-content in a PvP-centric game. PvE-content should get scrapped and reduced to a minimum, not boosted. So why are you supporting changes that force us to do more of it? Are you just that dumb? EvE was once a game, where you had to invest lot's of time and efforts into the game. Today it's just a shadow of itself, getting dumbed down into the direction of ADHD-kiddies that can't be bothered to do something for longer then 2 minutes. So yes. If it was up to me, I'd make this game hardcore again, where you need to spend 1/3 of your time *working* to have enough money for the ships to fly around in the other 2/3 of your time. Fixed. We don't want to WORK in our GAME. It's for FUN. So even if we balance out our alliance with miners and such that will help the alliance pay for sov but does that help me? No. I WANT to be in 0.0 and still have to go to empire to make ISK cause the ratsin null are sh!t by comparison. If I WANT to be here and have to leave to make ISK, how are newcomers going to be LURED here if there is now increase reward? I can already plex and run anomalies, having more of them doesn't help, more suck = still sucks. Make our true sec upgradeable FFS. For all those claiming it is only Goons and CVA that don't like the looks of this, here I am now STFU. I hate the both of them. This is not what was promised and the powerblocks aren't going to be crippled the way that we were all hoping because everyone is getting the same crippling effect. The difference is they have huge reserves of ISK so they are actually BETTER prepared for it. Get it? Get it?
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:52:00 - [1352] 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 the vision is gret and i agree with it , but i have 2 words for you : * hi-sec * lvl4
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:53:00 - [1353] Originally by: Vivian Azure EvE was once a game, where you had to invest lot's of time and efforts into the game. Today it's just a shadow of itself, getting dumbed down into the direction of ADHD-kiddies that can't be bothered to do something for longer then 2 minutes. So yes. If it was up to me, I'd make this game hardcore again, where you need to spend 1/3 of your time playing to have enough money for the ships to fly around in the other 2/3 of your time. Making ISK is way too easy these days, as is holding space. How dare people want to have fun in a game! They should have to do boring, repetitive tasks to accomplish their goals rather than show any skill or creativity! Having played from 2005, I can tell you that it's not any dumber than it was before. If anything, it's gotten better just because fleet fights aren't determined by who lags the least. You're just really dumb.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:53:00 - [1354] 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.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:53:00 - [1355] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Zahorite Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 07/11/2009 23:43:19 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang So why are you supporting changes that force us to do more of it? Are you just that dumb? EvE was once a game, where you had to invest lot's of time and efforts into the game. Today it's just a shadow of itself, getting dumbed down into the direction of ADHD-kiddies that can't be bothered to do something for longer then 2 minutes. So yes. If it was up to me, I'd make this game hardcore again, where you need to spend 1/3 of your time playing to have enough money for the ships to fly around in the other 2/3 of your time. Making ISK is way too easy these days, as is holding space. If that was the case we would all be happy. That isn't how things work now, and this update is going to make it even worse. Right now it's about 2/3 making money for 1/3 doing pvp, after this update it will be worse. Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK. You must be ****ing awful at PvP
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:53:00 - [1356] Originally by: Aeryn Carter Originally by: Alexis Avalon Quote: 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.
Kal Koitar GF Development Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:54:00 - [1357] Originally by: Mcon99 Originally by: Kayl Breinhar And before you say "cry more" since you're probably trolling anyway - I have three accounts, one of which was a recent Power of Two purchase I'm regretting making now. No please, keep crying. Obviously the complainers in this thread are failed 0.0 pilots who are so bad they need mission alts. If everyone in this thread keeps believing that complaining about the Lvl 4 income vs 0.0 is going to change CCP minds, they are nuts. Lvl 4's ARE CRAP GAMEPLAY. ALWAYS. 0.0 is the BEST GAMEPLAY (including wormholes). Total freedom. Faction drops. Solo and group PVE. The best ores. And PVP can be right around the corner. First rule for real players - never have a mission alt. Never. Never mission. Ever. Plex, rat, wormhole, explore. Mission grinding in high sec is failure. Missions in 0.0, respectable, i must admit, because the risk factor. <-- Never missioned. Never made much isk on the market, only a little through manufacturing. Don't mine. Between wormholes, 0.0 rats and plexes, and pvp returns, I have billions. If the most efficient isk-making locations don't conincide with the best PvP locations, things get boring really quickly.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:54:00 - [1358] Edited by: Zahorite on 07/11/2009 23:54:44 Originally by: Qlanth You guys should check out Perpetuum, being developed by an ex-BoB guy looks pretty sweet. http://www.perpetuum-online.com/ Going to have to check it out, I'm always looking for a new game lol. Then again I keep on coming back to Eve so I keep my subscriptions active. If this update goes through as is I think I may take a break and review the situation in a couple of months. CCP at least deserves a few months to fix things, although I'm not paying three subscriptions for an entire year if I decide I'm not going to use them. Anyway I'll probably go back to DDO for a month or two.
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:54:00 - [1359] Originally by: Vivian Azure Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK. So are you the long-suffering logistics ***** of your alliance who hates them and everyone else who lives in 0.0 because you spend all your time doing the logistics that lets them enjoy themselves, or are you the anonymous alt who still refuses to post on the main whose purported existence is the only crutch for your crippled arguments, or are you the 0.0 playboy who spends one tenth of his online time making billions a month and losing 5 HACs a week in PvP? Because either you're a really bad PvPer, or you're doing a whole lot of hours of PvP a week. Or you're not only an anonymous alt, but a fantasist who can't keep his story straight.
Nai'gah	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:55:00 - [1360] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK. You must be ****ing awful at PvP

Yldrad The Dandy KillerS	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:55:00 - [1361] Why so serious? It's only a game.
Raphael Scoria Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:56:00 - [1362] 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. Going to have to push you for an answer here, I'm afraid. And "we would really like to do this at some point in the future" isn't acceptable.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:58:00 - [1363] Originally by: Mcon99 Originally by: Kayl Breinhar And before you say "cry more" since you're probably trolling anyway - I have three accounts, one of which was a recent Power of Two purchase I'm regretting making now. No please, keep crying. Obviously the complainers in this thread are failed 0.0 pilots who are so bad they need mission alts. If everyone in this thread keeps believing that complaining about the Lvl 4 income vs 0.0 is going to change CCP minds, they are nuts. Lvl 4's ARE CRAP GAMEPLAY. ALWAYS. 0.0 is the BEST GAMEPLAY (including wormholes). Total freedom. Faction drops. Solo and group PVE. The best ores. And PVP can be right around the corner. First rule for real players - never have a mission alt. Never. Never mission. Ever. Plex, rat, wormhole, explore. Mission grinding in high sec is failure. Missions in 0.0, respectable, i must admit, because the risk factor. <-- Never missioned. Never made much isk on the market, only a little through manufacturing. Don't mine. Between wormholes, 0.0 rats and plexes, and pvp returns, I have billions. None of them are mission alts. They're all 0.0 support. And I'm sure we all enjoy hearing about your bling. I have a nice roll too, I just don't act like a smug ***got about it.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:58:00 - [1364] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Aeryn Carter Originally by: Alexis Avalon Quote: 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.
Perianwyr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:58:00 - [1365] Originally by: Vadinho ~~~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 if we could directly turn moons into ships that'd be fantastic hey hey hey get up get down
fireraven Caldari Nauset Light Resource Management Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:58:00 - [1366] My Corporation for example, with relatively small amount of people(like 20), already pays rent to XxdeathxX to make use of their space in the first place (good system at that). Rent is 430mil a week, if we were to upgrade and pay to keep sov(minimum 210mil a week), we're looking at paying 640mil a week. Which even at best, if we had EVERYONE working around the clock, we would barely make rent. And I don't know about everyone else in eve, but most of us have real jobs, don't have the time or energy to try and maintain a system for 10 plus hours a day. If it comes down to it and prices stay as they are, screw 0.0. Would rather live in a wormhole. SOME MUST BE TOLD OTHERS MUST BE SHOWN
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:00:00 - [1367] Originally by: Yldrad Why so serious? It's only a game. One I've paid a hundred's of dollars and spent hundreds of hours getting to the point where I'm at. I'm not worried that this is going to affect me a lot, if I don't like it I'll go play another game while my character levels up some skills. I'm worried that this is going to cause a lot of other people to quit the game. That means that CCP is going to have less money to work on new and exciting things, which means more people quite, which means eventually Eve will shut down. I'd rather that not happen, especially since I usually have fun on Eve.
Alexandros T'dra Minmatar Ion Corp. Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:03:00 - [1368] Perhaps if the infrastructure devices (upgrades and sov thingy) were fed minerals instead of ISK this would be a better situation. It rewards having an indie base, it makes camping out in 0.0 easier as it takes a load off the logistics aspect of getting goods to market in order to feed the monster and allows smaller alliances into 0.0 without having to have a jump freighter capability. Just a thought.
Faraothe BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:03:00 - [1369] Isk isk isk? You'll pay just isk and everything works? This will be a huge isk sink, well yes there's a lot isk in the game and new isk was indeed needed - but in this scale... have you considered the consequences? Wouldn't there be any point to integrate sov cost to real economy... like it being certain items manufacturable from various resources like minerals and other products of space? The isk sink portion would be easy to create by need of some only NPC sold items in empire... or the straight isk fee. I think making the cost of sov, not directly related to isk as way to go, it would also encourage industry in 0.0 to manufacture these (or part of these needed items) or even force it by forcing the construction to happen in the system the quota is needed. As former drone regions dweller pure isk fee will put ppl on those regions on disadvantage as they are forced to move all their "stuff" acquired from their space to empire and change it to iskies. tl:dr: Isn't simple isk fee bit simple minded? P.S. Don't come too low with the requirements to have the sov as low costs won't change that much compared to today's situation.
5hadow 1	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:04:00 - [1370] After living in 0.0 for over two years I agree with what CCP is doing to try to promote usage of space. A lot of 900 Lbs GorillasÆ hold vast amounts of space and it not being used. But charging these outrageous prices for holding SOV is wrong. IMO it should be the cost of one tower for upkeep for a month for your first system that you chose to plant your flag on as an alliance. Then if get your second system it should increase in price just like the empire war decks. The more systems you add to your control the more it cost you. If you have SOV in the whole constellation then you should get a discount if you have certain infrastructures in place in all the systems of that constellation. Also if you have SOV in one constellation and you take SOV in another constellation that is not connected by gate travel it should really cost you a lot. This will prevent the 900lbs gorilla alliances from getting the best space without a price or penalty. This may have been posted in here earlier so I apologize if I have repeated what someone else has said, but I do not have the time to read 45 pages of this new SOV prices are screwed which is true.

Morgoth Ars	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:05:00 - [1371] Originally by: Raphael Scoria 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. Going to have to push you for an answer here, I'm afraid. And "we would really like to do this at some point in the future" isn't acceptable.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:05:00 - [1372] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Aeryn Carter Originally by: Alexis Avalon 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. don't you get it guys CCP wants you to quit eve so DUST 514 isn't a commercial failure
Droog 1 Black Rise Inbreds	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:05:00 - [1373] Come play Eve and 'work' in 0.0.
Odyessus Amarr KINGS OF EDEN Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:06:00 - [1374] Originally by: Dualshock 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. the proposed costs for null sec alliances is outrageous. /signed
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:06:00 - [1375] Originally by: Cefte Originally by: Vivian Azure Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK. So are you the long-suffering logistics ***** of your alliance who hates them and everyone else who lives in 0.0 because you spend all your time doing the logistics that lets them enjoy themselves, or are you the anonymous alt who still refuses to post on the main whose purported existence is the only crutch for your crippled arguments, or are you the 0.0 playboy who spends one tenth of his online time making billions a month and losing 5 HACs a week in PvP? Because either you're a really bad PvPer, or you're doing a whole lot of hours of PvP a week. Or you're not only an anonymous alt, but a fantasist who can't keep his story straight. I'm all of this at the same time. I do alot of industrial stuff for my corp/alliance before primetime and then take part in nearly every fleet that forms up. While doing the above, I've got a mission-running-alt running LvL 4's (allmost 100% AFK with an Ishtar in Gallente-Space against Serpentis) on my second rig or I play the market. Do I play alot? Yes, some 6 hours a day.
Nehalennia Mellona GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:06:00 - [1376] 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.
Popillius Laenas	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:07:00 - [1377] 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.
Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:08:00 - [1378] Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 08/11/2009 00:13:31 Epic Thread! I'm enjoying the drama (more popcorn please) and I do think all the posters here have participated in a bit of Eve history. It's a memorable forum on a memorable topic. I want to compliment both the Goons for their willingness to speak up - and compliment CCP for responding so very rapidly by posting. I would say to the Goons - try not to get to vitriolic - I mean, it does look as if CCP is trying to respond. And to CCP - I would say don't get too defensive and do try to listen to what is being said. Cheers to all. Methinks we're all going to plod along with the new release - lots of good (Planets, Factions Ships, No More POS based SOV) and some clearly bad. Nothing is ever perfect. I'm glad actually to see the drama - it does show real passion for Eve. heh.
Hay Maker	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:08:00 - [1379] 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.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:08:00 - [1380] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Cefte Originally by: Vivian Azure Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK. So are you the long-suffering logistics ***** of your alliance who hates them and everyone else who lives in 0.0 because you spend all your time doing the logistics that lets them enjoy themselves, or are you the anonymous alt who still refuses to post on the main whose purported existence is the only crutch for your crippled arguments, or are you the 0.0 playboy who spends one tenth of his online time making billions a month and losing 5 HACs a week in PvP? Because either you're a really bad PvPer, or you're doing a whole lot of hours of PvP a week. Or you're not only an anonymous alt, but a fantasist who can't keep his story straight. I'm all of this at the same time. I do alot of industrial stuff for my corp/alliance before primetime and then take part in nearly every fleet that forms up. While doing the above, I've got a mission-running-alt running LvL 4's (allmost 100% AFK with an Ishtar in Gallente-Space against Serpentis) on my second rig or I play the market. Do I play alot? Yes, some 6 hours a day. I'm sorry to say it but your situation is abnormal and most people have a job and a family and cannot play a video game 6 hours a day. Most are lucky to get in 1 or 2 hours a day.

Ling Xiaoyu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:09:00 - [1381] 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.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:09:00 - [1382] Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk Originally by: Decimat Draconia Your overlooking the buff other moons will receive. The nurff to two kinds of r64 will be balanced with a buff to the others. I haven't run the math but I'm pretty sure it isn't going to all balance out. If you read Akita post about it, it is probable it compensate the decrease in value of R64 it and maybe even give a better return after the initial market adjustments. Even it that was a optimistic prevision, the decrease in total moon income will not be so great as large quantities of lesser moon minerals will become useful. The biggest change will be that the sources of that income will be more dispersed instead of a few POS.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:10:00 - [1383] You know, if this was WOW, all the little kids wouldn't know about this until it happened. And then once it happened it would take them half a month to figure out what changed lol. Part of the reason I like Eve. It has an intelligent fan base that isn't afraid to rant about things they don't like.
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:12:00 - [1384] Originally by: Hay Maker 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. . Lol now this is turning into epic quoting Please CCP, don't answer this question. As we know, it's simply irrelevant. Comparing high sec isk whoring to 0.0 cooperative gameplay and isk making is apples to oranges. Actually, please nerf L4 mission income by 80%. That will be more reflective of the amount of time people should invest into useless, dead end gameply.
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:12:00 - [1385] 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. ??????????????????
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:13:00 - [1386] Sorry dude most of us have Jobs and obligations outside internet spaceships. Must be nice to live with mom.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:13:00 - [1387] Originally by: Ling Xiaoyu 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.
Mistress Frome Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:13:00 - [1388] 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. ---
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:13:00 - [1389] 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.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:13:00 - [1390] 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. Still preferred my "Should Have Gone to Motsu" tagline, but hey I can roll with the crowd.

Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:15:00 - [1391] I think this Sov cost is more than triple what will allow a lot of corps to get to cash flow after the Sov Tax. Assume the following for a 15 person, 30 character corp in a single time zone. 2 Carrier char, BS capable - active 5 days a week 2 dread char, BS capable - active 5 days a week 6 BS/HAC/Recon with T2 guns char - active 3 days a week 10 BS with T1 guns char - active 2 days a week 6 BC newbs - active 4 days a week 4 frig newbs - active 3 days a week Expenses are: 3 large POS and infrastructure costs (600m or so) cap ship fuel ship replacement, ammo, defense Sov with cyno jammer, hub and upgrades (55m per day, 1.65b month) Income is: Taxes 900m crappy moons 600m Assume a baseline for ratting is 600m per live person, or about 9b per month for that corp. That is fairly typical for semi carebears, its about 20 hours work per person at 30m per hour. With upgrades, assume you cut it in half to 10 hours work. Non-taxable forms of income are irrelevant. Mining, wormholes and other activities will not put much cash into the corp unless it is a communist corp. Most corps are not communist. Corp tax is 10% typically, so 900m isk per month flows into corp coffers from taxes. More if you raise taxes. Cash flow is at 40% taxes, with the bulk of it going to pay for Sov. The moon argument doesn't work because all the big guys will grab them if they are worth anything at all. Show me a cash flow chart I can believe in on this. Same mistakes were made with wormholes as were made here, there isn't a workable cash flow system to put money directly in the corp wallet. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:16:00 - [1392] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Cefte Originally by: Vivian Azure Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK. So are you the long-suffering logistics ***** of your alliance who hates them and everyone else who lives in 0.0 because you spend all your time doing the logistics that lets them enjoy themselves, or are you the anonymous alt who still refuses to post on the main whose purported existence is the only crutch for your crippled arguments, or are you the 0.0 playboy who spends one tenth of his online time making billions a month and losing 5 HACs a week in PvP? Because either you're a really bad PvPer, or you're doing a whole lot of hours of PvP a week. Or you're not only an anonymous alt, but a fantasist who can't keep his story straight. I'm all of this at the same time. Originally by: Vivian Azure If you strive for personal income, then it's your problem. In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. 2 bil a month is nothing, if you divide it between 10 players. That's a laughable 7 Million ISK per day per player. Originally by: Vivian Azure 30 minutes of ratting, or flying a single LvL 4 mission can't hardly be called work tbh, if you compare it with the amount of time I spend with hauling, fueling towers and reactors or production every day. The usual grunts don't know what they're talking about, as we industrial players are the ones so far, who do all the work for them, so that they can enjoy the game. Now it's their time to contribute some time for the alliance aswell. So, pathologically lying fantastist. I'd express hope that that would be enough to shove you back into whatever hole you came from, but given that you respond to an explicitly couched exclusionary choice with 'all of it', I'm not that hopeful.
Misaki Yuuko	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:16:00 - [1393] 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. + CCP is being delusional or just plain trolling us: "oh see, you 0.0 dweller are hardcore players, does not matter how much we screw you over and over we know you will continue to pay your sub, but we won't change the fact you can do the same in empire for less effort & nuissance". This has to be a troll, only rational explanation. We are not even asking for a straight nerf, but for a serious motivation for the individuals to go to 0.0. I'm sorry but you are deluding yourself if you think people wants to be forced in groups for something else that is not PvP, majority DOES NOT WANT, because that content ios plain boring. A lot of people (most) just does pve to earn money to waste on pvp. What do you want, people farming lvl4 with alts so they can use 0.0 just as a meaningless playground??? There is not going to be empire building, drama or more PR material for you unless you start un****ing the situation up and stop trolling people who is or wants to be involved in 0.0. Why do you force that people to work much more and take more risks that some carebear in a NPC corp only to be able to archieve the same thing or barelly a bit more than them. Just stop it, please.
pi squad Scalding Pie Services	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:16:00 - [1394] Edited by: pi squad on 08/11/2009 00:18:15 Originally by: Sally Bestonge 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. let's make page 47 the best page edit aw damn stop trying to be reasonable you morons you will just get ignored
Nilania Telshua	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:18:00 - [1395] 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...
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:19:00 - [1396] Originally by: Sally Bestonge 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. CANT STOP WONT STOP
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:20:00 - [1397] 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
Verlai GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:21:00 - [1398] 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. never stop posting
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:21:00 - [1399] Originally by: Verlai 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. never stop posting
Tanuki Doyle Spontane0us Combustion Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:21:00 - [1400] Am i the only person in the universe that is crying because CCP failed to go crazy and add something "new" to 0.0 to make it a more interesting place to live rather than just because of some tedious tweeking of risk/reward ratios?

Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:21:00 - [1401] Originally by: Vadinho 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 You get two anomalies guaranteed!!! Two!! At all times!!!
Misaki Yuuko	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:21:00 - [1402] Edited by: Misaki Yuuko on 08/11/2009 00:22:58 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... Absolutlly, let's finally do it: sandbox, what is that lol, just let's convert 0.0 into the ultimate meaningless playground, CS in spaceships. p.s: I'm not a goon alt, but I sympathize with the guys. Quote: Am i the only person in the universe that is crying because CCP failed to go crazy and add something "new" to 0.0 to make it a more interesting place to live rather than just because of some tedious tweeking of risk/reward ratios? Too much :effort: for CCP, they are too bussy working on Incarna and Dust dude, you better don't distract their programmers.
pi squad Scalding Pie Services	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:23:00 - [1403] cs in spaceships could actually be fun
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:24:00 - [1404] Originally by: Slobodanka Originally by: Vadinho 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 You get two anomalies guaranteed!!! Two!! At all times!!! If those anomalies were actually worth something. f..e it were 2 anoamyls comprapable with income of c3 wormhole or higer , that would make a HUGE diffrence
IsoMetricanTaliac 2 Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:24:00 - [1405] The more I hear & read about Dominion the less I look forward to it getting here. The way things are going this new system is not going to make anything any harder or cost more it is a move to make EVE yet another one of those very boring grinding games, but instead of having to grind for a better level in EVE you will have to grind 98% of the time to keep your corp/alliance viable. 0.0 will be lucky to see any new players & may in fact see less players than it currently is. I guess I never really expected Dominion to be half of what it was being claimed to be, but the way it's going it is maybe 1% of what it started out to be & 99% rubbish. The new Sov system will probably end up being cheaper than the current one & that will see alliances holding more space seeing they now no longer need to have hundreds of POS's all over the place & can now use a minimum number without having to worry about POS spam taking Sov. (I have no idea however of the cost of currently holding sov & whether most systems that are held would actually require more than 5 large POS's to hold Sov in so my numbers could very well be wrong) With the nerf'ing of highends is that just going to cause those moon holding alliances to go take mid/low ends also to make up for the highend drops? If they do a lot of the smaller alliances that hold the low ends aren't going to be much better off are they? How glad I am that I won 12 months of Game time cause at least if it turns out a complete stuff up it won't have cost me a whole lot for the last 12 months.. Here is hoping that there are some good changes in the next 3 or so weeks cause it isn't looking to crash hot ATM from where I am sitting..... In a Time When Many Will Seek Death, There Will Always Be Those Like Me Who Won't Mind Helping Them Along Their Way!?!
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:26:00 - [1406] 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.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:26:00 - [1407] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 08/11/2009 00:28:34 Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Cefte Originally by: Vivian Azure Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK. So are you the long-suffering logistics ***** of your alliance who hates them and everyone else who lives in 0.0 because you spend all your time doing the logistics that lets them enjoy themselves, or are you the anonymous alt who still refuses to post on the main whose purported existence is the only crutch for your crippled arguments, or are you the 0.0 playboy who spends one tenth of his online time making billions a month and losing 5 HACs a week in PvP? Because either you're a really bad PvPer, or you're doing a whole lot of hours of PvP a week. Or you're not only an anonymous alt, but a fantasist who can't keep his story straight. I'm all of this at the same time. I do alot of industrial stuff for my corp/alliance before primetime and then take part in nearly every fleet that forms up. While doing the above, I've got a mission-running-alt running LvL 4's (allmost 100% AFK with an Ishtar in Gallente-Space against Serpentis) on my second rig or I play the market. Do I play alot? Yes, some 6 hours a day. I'm sorry to say it but your situation is abnormal and most people have a job and a family and cannot play a video game 6 hours a day. Most are lucky to get in 1 or 2 hours a day. Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Sorry dude most of us have Jobs and obligations outside internet spaceships. Must be nice to live with mom. Yeah, keep believing in nerds living in their parents basement... I used to work 14-16 hours a day to get to the point, where it's enough to only work some 4 hours a day. So yes, I've got plenty of time for EvE, while having time for everything else you do, but I'm not 20 anymore... far from that. Regardless... Even if you've got only 2 hours a day to play EvE, then 25% of that time isn't too much to ask to contribute to the alliance by hunting rats or flying a single LvL 4 to pay for the sov-bills.
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:27:00 - [1408] 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.
Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:28:00 - [1409] Originally by: Tanuki Doyle Am i the only person in the universe that is crying because CCP failed to go crazy and add something "new" to 0.0 to make it a more interesting place to live rather than just because of some tedious tweeking of risk/reward ratios? You know I've been thinking the same thing after reading through all 1000 posts of this forum. Almost no complaining that actually nothing really that new has been added to 0.0 other than increasing activities for what is already there - and these activities in general are grinds such as mining, ratting, anomalies which are to pay for the new upkeep costs. It doesn't seem that imaginative to me ... I was hoping for something more interesting - like new types of structures you could build maybe on asteroids - or new structures around planets, or even something really more space like with an upgrade - like the comets they were talking about. I dunno - just tweaking the numbers in what appears to be a very poor manner seems to have 1) created a huge negative response to the player base 2) not address the potential of staleness that can be fatal for many computer games What is really oddly missing with the new 0.0 Sov expansion is very little of it has to do with PvP, which IMO is the heart of 0.0 play. Go figure.
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:28:00 - [1410] Originally by: cok cola 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. is this considered spam ? just asking

Pink Money	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:28:00 - [1411] Originally by: cok cola 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.
Mistress Frome Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:29:00 - [1412] new page new post 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. ---
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:29:00 - [1413] Originally by: Vivian Azure Yeah, keep believing in nerds living in their parents basement... I used to work 14-16 hours a day to get to the point, where it's enough to only work some 4 hours a day. So yes, I've got plenty of time for EvE, while having time for everything else you do, but I'm not 20 anymore... far from that. being as insufferable as you are I am not in the least bit sorry that your life cycle consists of work, eat, EVE, sleep; rinse, repeat.
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:30:00 - [1414] 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.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:30:00 - [1415] 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. There is literally no way this will ever happen.
Tanuki Doyle Spontane0us Combustion Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:31:00 - [1416] Originally by: Dante Edmundo Originally by: Tanuki Doyle Am i the only person in the universe that is crying because CCP failed to go crazy and add something "new" to 0.0 to make it a more interesting place to live rather than just because of some tedious tweeking of risk/reward ratios? You know I've been thinking the same thing after reading through all 1000 posts of this forum. Almost no complaining that actually nothing really that new has been added to 0.0 other than increasing activities for what is already there - and these activities in general are grinds such as mining, ratting, anomalies which are to pay for the new upkeep costs. It doesn't seem that imaginative to me ... I was hoping for something more interesting - like new types of structures you could build maybe on asteroids - or new structures around planets, or even something really more space like with an upgrade - like the comets they were talking about. I dunno - just tweaking the numbers in what appears to be a very poor manner seems to have 1) created a huge negative response to the player base 2) not address the potential of staleness that can be fatal for many computer games What is really oddly missing with the new 0.0 Sov expansion is very little of it has to do with PvP, which IMO is the heart of 0.0 play. Go figure. Yeah thats pretty much my point. Such as wated opportunity interms of what the upgrades could have been. Nvm. At least JG evolution is around the corner. Maybe when they have some decent competition CCP might make a bigger effort to innovate.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:32:00 - [1417] 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:
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:32:00 - [1418] Originally by: Pink Money Originally by: cok cola 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.
Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:33:00 - [1419] Seriously add a 10% bounty to rats per tier with the rat magnet, otherwise nothing in 0.0 will change and it will just be the same alliances in the same powerblocks.
Dualshock GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:33:00 - [1420] Originally by: Slobodanka You get two anomalies guaranteed!!! Two!! At all times!!! i like dis guy

Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:34:00 - [1421] Originally by: Xtreem what i would do as an evil person is i would get my large alliance to get 30 alts of players into a corp, sit a few in each system in stealth bombers, in my reds main isk making systems and just totally ruin their isk making power, afk most of the day, pop back gank some stuff (say 3 per system, all launching a bomb would hurt alot when followed with seige) and can hide again pretty quick, would wreck allaince isk making and thus hurt there system holding. YOu could just scan down some anomalies and sit in them cloaked, then even if the system owners do come and kill all the rats you can stop it from respawning by staying in the site, do that for a few anomalies and you can effectvely shut down those 'as good as Lvl4 Missions'
Ecky X Shade. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:37:00 - [1422] Originally by: cok cola 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.
DasNara Aethelwulf Blackwater Syndicate Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:39:00 - [1423] Originally by: Vivian Azure I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Let me get this right? you loose 80-130 mil per business day in hac's alone plus mods, rigs, and if you're flying in 0.0 probably implants too. Who is your main? I'd like to pay you a visit. How does your CEO let you stay? your corp's killboard must be horrible! Oh wait, you are the CEO huh? every post you just made on this thread is now bogus....or you epicly fail. My left is in retreat, my center is giving way; situation excellent, I attack - Joffe 1916
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:39:00 - [1424] 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!!!
Etrange Phi	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:39:00 - [1425] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. With loads of posts asking good and serious questions you chose to answer THIS one? "Yeah, you lick my balls, excellent clarity of vision!" It just tells me your heads are up your asses and any attempt for serious discussion is futile. Also: 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.
pi squad Scalding Pie Services	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:39:00 - [1426] Originally by: DasNara Aethelwulf Originally by: Vivian Azure I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Let me get this right? you loose 80-130 mil per business day in hac's alone plus mods, rigs, and if you're flying in 0.0 probably implants too. Who is your main? I'd like to pay you a visit. How does your CEO let you stay? your corp's killboard must be horrible! Oh wait, you are the CEO huh? every post you just made on this thread is now bogus....or you epicly fail. k/d ratios are so important
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:42:00 - [1427] Originally by: Sally Bestonge Originally by: Vivian Azure Yeah, keep believing in nerds living in their parents basement... I used to work 14-16 hours a day to get to the point, where it's enough to only work some 4 hours a day. So yes, I've got plenty of time for EvE, while having time for everything else you do, but I'm not 20 anymore... far from that. being as insufferable as you are I am not in the least bit sorry that your life cycle consists of work, eat, EVE, sleep; rinse, repeat. The way this guy acts, I don't think rinsing is involved at all. Also... 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.
Scribone	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:42:00 - [1428] If you want more people move into 0.0, the best way to do it is to let the system owner (corporation or alliance) to tax people for the activites done in there. It will work like a normal corporation tax, but it should have the highest level. Also the system tax should be substracted from the corp tax, if the corp tax is higher since we don't want anyone to be killed by taxes :P EX: if the corp tax is 20% and system tax is 10%, first is payed the system tax of 10% and after that the 10% to the corporation (20% max = 10 + 10). If the corporation tax is lower than system tax then you pay nothing to the corp. Now, every corporation will want to hold and develop a system for the alliance and welcome anyone to rat or do other activities in there since they can actually tax everybody, like a normal country in RL. Also more people in that system -> more PVP opportunities.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:43:00 - [1429] 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
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:44:00 - [1430] Originally by: pi squad Originally by: DasNara Aethelwulf Originally by: Vivian Azure I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Let me get this right? you loose 80-130 mil per business day in hac's alone plus mods, rigs, and if you're flying in 0.0 probably implants too. Who is your main? I'd like to pay you a visit. How does your CEO let you stay? your corp's killboard must be horrible! Oh wait, you are the CEO huh? every post you just made on this thread is now bogus....or you epicly fail. k/d ratios are so important Honestly that's so bad even we'd probably kick him. ALSO ALSO 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.

Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:44:00 - [1431] Originally by: Illectroculus Defined YOu could just scan down some anomalies and sit in them cloaked, then even if the system owners do come and kill all the rats you can stop it from respawning by staying in the site, do that for a few anomalies and you can effectvely shut down those 'as good as Lvl4 Missions' smart thinking, already a flaw in the anomaly plan
Kernok	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:45:00 - [1432] 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.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:46:00 - [1433] Hordes flocking from Empire to 0.0 where the tax rate is higher than an NPC corp?
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:47:00 - [1434] Originally by: Vadinho 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 It is , i will be happy to settle in delve when you finish packing your things out and leave .
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:47:00 - [1435] Edited by: Marlona Sky on 08/11/2009 00:54:02 YES OR NO: Due to the increased tears and emo rage in this thread, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. EDIT: Fixed spelling of emo so goons wont troll me, oh wait...
KerKnight	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:47:00 - [1436] Originally by: Kernok 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.
Nilania Telshua	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:47:00 - [1437] Edited by: Nilania Telshua on 08/11/2009 00:51:59 Originally by: Vadinho Originally by: Nilania Telshua Due .. Mindless Drones.. buzz.. buzz... no because then we still wouldnt have any reason to fight over space Gods.. I hate to have to agree with a drone. Actually that comment was on point. The problem is that the NewSovExperience will not add reasons to hold space, but further remove them. Financing a fully upgraded system just takes 15 Mio isk per average system/hour system-bounty-turnover that generates 3 million isk per system/hour alliance level income if taxed at 20%. 10 instantly respawning Anomalies will easily provide for that bounty volume per hour. Yet the devil lies in the combination of the new SovClaim mechanics, with the imperative need to actually rat / mine / plex and in a specific system not only for cash but also to prevent upgrades from decaying. Assuming a contracted sphere of control and activity, receiving early warning, gathering intel and intercepting enemy activities will be a bit harder than before. Just one hilarious example: Today a cloakie afk-gang in a system is mostly an annoyance. Coming Dominion these gangs will be a risk less way for an aggressor or lolrasser to negatively impact the operations in a system and by that damage an alliance. If the planned nerf to cloaking prerequisites is factored into this scenario, afk-cloakies will be the new cyno-alts. The new SovClaim mechanism will put small and medium alliances in constant state of emergency, as every roaming gang of proud landless s****will be able to challenge them on a system to system basis. Sure there will be more pew pew, but that also means there will be more need for cash and more hassle to earn it. Meanwhile the real symbols of Epeen, alliance fluid on the SovMap and big capital fleets will be much smaller than before. So aside from mutating the state of 0.0 from entropy into chaos, what does Dominion bring ?
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:48:00 - [1438] If anyone knows about holding 0.0 space its Triumvirate. Oh wait!
Zareph Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:48:00 - [1439] Originally by: CCP Chronotis rational 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. So my question is though those two things require an entire POS to support them. Same for JBs, at least there's been no indication that the mechanic to use those devices will change. So now I have an expensive piniata that any idiot gang can run by and reinforce pausing my construction just to harass. I don't understand the concept of 'super cap construction' costing me isk on top of the pos, fuel, and the CSAA/CSMA items that are already ridiculously priced. one thing I'd be interested in is if super cap or jb's were invuln until the STOP had it's 12 hours to make them shootable. Otherwise supercap construction has gotten extremely difficult to manage. The same could be say for cyno jammers the ridiculous prices required to manage them should give you some benefit. OTherwise it just looks like you're taking more isk out of the system with no real benefit other than ha ha only the richest alliances can build them. While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:50:00 - [1440] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Vadinho 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 It is , i will be happy to settle in delve when you finish packing your things out and leave . Why yes with the reduction of moon goo needed and the oversupply of officer/deadspace items from 23/7 ratting you to can make about 5 million an hour while always being at risk of someone blowing your ass up. Dominion as it is now is less profitable than level 4 missions. Unless you just happen to find officer spawns every few minutes

Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:50:00 - [1441] Originally by: Marlona Sky YES OR NO: Due to the increased tears and emmo rage in this thread, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. What the hell is emmo? _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:52:00 - [1442] Originally by: Qlanth If anyone knows about holding 0.0 space its Triumvirate. Oh wait! We hold what we want, not take space just for the sake of taking it to make our sovereignty on the map bigger.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:52:00 - [1443] Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk Originally by: Marlona Sky YES OR NO: Due to the increased tears and emmo rage in this thread, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. What the hell is emmo? I think it's some extinct giant kiwi from New Zealand.
Poluketes GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:53:00 - [1444] Quote: 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. Also I'd really like to know what happened to the original concept of exponentially increasing sov claim costs as the number of claimed systems increases. It wasn't perfect but it had a certain logic. This linear proposal is just painful on all scales to everyone. A new alliance with 3 systems shouldn't be paying even a quarter as much per system as an established alliance with 30 systems. They need those savings to invest in infrastructure and attract new members with low tax rates. And it should be cheap as hell for a complete newbie alliance to try to claim its first 0.0 system. Once it's got a few more systems and some alliance-level income from moons then higher costs make sense, but taking its first system shouldn't require taxing its members to death or risking bankruptcy in an invasion that will probably fail the first half dozen tries.
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:56:00 - [1445] Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 08/11/2009 00:57:46 Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: Qlanth If anyone knows about holding 0.0 space its Triumvirate. Oh wait! We hold what we want, not take space just for the sake of taking it to make our sovereignty on the map bigger. ahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahaha hahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahaha hahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahah ahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahah aahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahaha hahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaah ahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahah ahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahaha hahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahah ahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahaha hahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaaha hahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahah ahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaa hahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahaha hahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaaha hahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahaha hahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahaha hahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahah ahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahah aahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahaha haahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahaha haahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahah ahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaaha hahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahah aahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahaha hahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaa hahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahaha haahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaaha hahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahah aahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahaha hahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahah ahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahah ahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahah ahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahah ahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahaha hahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahah ahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahah ahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahaha hahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahah aahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaah ahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahaha hahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahah ahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaah _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:56:00 - [1446] Originally by: Vivian Azure Yeah, keep believing in nerds living in their parents basement... I used to work 14-16 hours a day to get to the point, where it's enough to only work some 4 hours a day. So yes, I've got plenty of time for EvE, while having time for everything else you do, but I'm not 20 anymore... far from that. Regardless... Even if you've got only 2 hours a day to play EvE, then 25% of that time isn't too much to ask to contribute to the alliance by hunting rats or flying a single LvL 4 to pay for the sov-bills. I wish you would just shut up, or at least do the math. 2 hours a day means that a corp will need at least 20 players per a system they control that are willing to devote 14 hours a week at 30m isk an hour straight to the corp wallet. Most corporations don't have fanatic players that are willing to donate more than say 20% of their rat bounty (that isn't salvage and loot) Rat bounty is maybe 10m an hour if you are lucky. So 2m isk an hour. If you can only play 14 hours a week that means an alliance needs 46 players for every core system. This does not include any pvp time, or fueling POS's, or anything else in game. Considering that you just posted that you only spend 10% of your time actually ratting and the rest pvping... Each alliance needs over 460 players like you for every system they own, turning Goons controlled system down to a mere 12-13 systems. Even if these copies of your spent say a third of their time earning isk it would still drop it down to 36-40 systems. Now tell me, if I was in charge of an alliance, why would I invade any system if the density of player population in that system is over a hundred players? and they have easily a thousand players within 3 jumps? Even if I did win they would mobilize and bash my alliance to pieces, especially if they are only 3 jumps away and my alliance is based 20 jumps away. It would be much more cost effective to just add back one of they systems my alliance abandoned after Dominion came out. Or even more cost effective I'd have some of my players run lvl 4 missions in high sec.
Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:58:00 - [1447] I remember the times when I was reading "The mining guide" by Helada. The guy wrote that it is (in theory) possible to produce more than 100 mil ISK/hour in mined minerals (maxed pilot, pimped hulk, command ship giving bonuses, mining drones not even seeded anymore, implants, the lot). I thought to myself: wow, 0.0 is really great. I can use 50% of my time to mine and to do the logistics of getting the actual ISK into my wallet, and other 50% I could pew pew or just do RL stuff. At the times hulk cost about 500mil and deathspace stuff was really cheap compared to today's values (and alliances were running those static DEDs 23/7 for reduced reward, risking then quite rare capital ships). Then mining became **e. After a while exploration came along and there was a chance you could get a hundreds of millions worth of loot from those cans. Not often, but it'd happen. And ship decryptors cost 500 mil ISK in Jita. Then exploration became **e. Obviously those were the days when ravens could launch their torpedos over 100+ km range and hit for full dmg regardless of ship size, so lvl4s in empire were the proper braindead farming activity. That got nerfed. Which was good. Now we're about to see even more farming being necessary just to live in 0.0 and have the oportunity to make rougly the same amount of ISK (before taxation) than you could with empire alt (who has already been nerfed). I do regret I was not skilled enough to take part in T2 BPO lottery because that one sounded like a blast. Proper risk/reward combo. You haven't entrusted this expansion to same thinkers that came up with BPO lottery, did you CCP? You need (or should I say must?) give people reason to be in 0.0. 0.0 dwellers will probably require less cookies to stay in 0.0 because they are already in inferior space for other reasons than ISK alone. To get new people into 0.0, competing with current power blocks will take a lot more than a cookie and a glass of warm milk before you ravage their gaping rectums (with no lubrication I might add) every time they receive their "sov bill" in the mail. I only see two ways of moving more people from empire to 0.0: 1. take a big fat nerfbat and hit empire repeatedly. Nerf it to oblivion so that any reasonable life in empire will be impossible and force people to make ISK in 0.0. 2. increase the reward part of the 0.0 to such extent that people will want to live there, they will want to fight for it, they will want to loose their dread or BS defending their systems. Speaking theoretically (no one in their right mind would attempt this): if you wanted to reduce 0.0 population and prevent empire dwellers from moving into 0.0 you also have 2 options: 1. Make empire more profitable and you'll see more and more poeple making ISK there instead of 0.0. 2. Nerf 0.0 to such a level that it becomes unbearable ISK wise and people will be forced to move from 0.0 to empire to even make ends meet (reduced pvp activity and all the crap that follows ...). After listing these four possible scenarios you can choose to apply to your game it makes me kind of worried about the choice outlined in this devblog. I mean really?!?
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:58:00 - [1448] Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: Qlanth If anyone knows about holding 0.0 space its Triumvirate. Oh wait! We hold what we want, not take space just for the sake of taking it to make our sovereignty on the map bigger. "we didn't want that space anyway."
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:58:00 - [1449] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk Originally by: Marlona Sky YES OR NO: Due to the increased tears and emmo rage in this thread, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. What the hell is emmo? I think it's some extinct giant kiwi from New Zealand. mmmm.... kiwi.... But yes, I agree, 0.0 players on average should make more isk/hr than a high sec lvl 4 mission runner. Further tweaking of this expansion based on solid player feedback is needed. If only CCP would state that they will do this then maybe we can all stop theory crafting on what is to come... oh wait...
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:00:00 - [1450] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv Mothermoon is disapointed. I've played this game for 4 years, and I can't believe what i a good idea you THINK you have. And yet how horrible your putting it into the game. I've been raving to my roommates about this change, and people at school, now, I will make sure people stay away form eve. Thank you very much. No is making up anything you tawt, it's clear fact. Who is going to grind a system to get to level 4 mission rewards in 0.0? I mean, seriously, why would I even bother ratting at a rate of level 1 mission in 0.0 for the reward of level 4 missions? JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION< STOP IGNORING THE PLAYERBASE!

Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:00:00 - [1451] Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 08/11/2009 01:00:51 Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 08/11/2009 01:00:28 Originally by: Marlona Sky YES OR NO: Due to the increased tears and emmo rage in this thread, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. 1 time I spent 9 hours ratting and only made .4 billion isk. Why should 1 have to go to nullsec where there is at least 9 times the risk but the same rewards as a level.4 mission. As it is, I only get to spend about 19.4% of my time PvPing, even though I'd like to do it a lot more. But unfortunately, CCP only seems to listen to the 19 or so sycophant posters out of the hundreds in this thread that dislike the changes. I bet that's only 0.4% of the people. Oh well, I'm training a mission runner alt for 0.0 missions at least. Only 19 hours until he reaches Amarr Battleships level 4. I don't know though, I don't know what I'll be doing nineteen days from now, four months from now, or one year, nine months, and four days from now, but if these changes go through I can say there's at least a nineteenpointfourpercent chance I'll quit.
Wim'sei Gallente Semitic Sciences GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:01:00 - [1452] Originally by: ceaon Originally by: cok cola 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. is this considered spam ? just asking I have a better question: 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?
Dramaticus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:01:00 - [1453] Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: Qlanth If anyone knows about holding 0.0 space its Triumvirate. Oh wait! We hold what we want, not take space just for the sake of taking it to make our sovereignty on the map bigger. having **** space lets darknesss worry about more important things like third party transactions Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan
sih noh	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:02:00 - [1454] 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.
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:02:00 - [1455] tiny questions, not sure if this has come up in this pile ^^ are upgrades mutually exclusive? or can we throw in the anomalies upgrade along with the DED upgrade? [same for mining belts and profession sites obviously] aaand does the activity gauge only start climbing once the hub has been erected or can we go and profit from macro ravens that just wont get banned [no matter how much proof you have]? same for conquered space ofc -.- - putting the gist back into logistics
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:04:00 - [1456] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 08/11/2009 01:00:51 Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 08/11/2009 01:00:28 Originally by: Marlona Sky YES OR NO: Due to the increased tears and emmo rage in this thread, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. 1 time I spent 9 hours ratting and only made .4 billion isk. Why should 1 have to go to nullsec where there is at least 9 times the risk but the same rewards as a level.4 mission. As it is, I only get to spend about 19.4% of my time PvPing, even though I'd like to do it a lot more. But unfortunately, CCP only seems to listen to the 19 or so sycophant posters out of the hundreds in this thread that dislike the changes. I bet that's only 0.4% of the people. Oh well, I'm training a mission runner alt for 0.0 missions at least. Only 19 hours until he reaches Amarr Battleships level 4. I don't know though, I don't know what I'll be doing nineteen days from now, four months from now, or one year, nine months, and four days from now, but if these changes go through I can say there's at least a nineteenpointfourpercent chance I'll quit. At least you will always have a 100% chance of failing at trolling. But like I said above, YES, running lvl 4 missions in empire should yield less ISK than those in 0.0 farming.
Sergi Povitch Gatehoppers Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:05:00 - [1457] 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. guess i'l jump on the spam train
hepatitisDD GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:05:00 - [1458] 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. (Also, first post on eve-online dot com)
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:06:00 - [1459] Originally by: CCP Soundwave When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. mothermoon says **** YOU
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:08:00 - [1460] Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 08/11/2009 01:08:45 Originally by: Marlona Sky At least you will always have a 100% chance of failing at trolling. But like I said above, YES, running lvl 4 missions in empire should yield less ISK than those in 0.0 farming. I could've just said your alliance is terrible and couldn't successfully hold space on Sisi but I thought that'd be rude. Edit: 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.

Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:08:00 - [1461] Originally by: sih noh 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. That's it, stop posting it, just put it in your signature. I'm going to go do it right now. Obviously CCP isn't answering, maybe when they come back Monday and see a thousand players with the same phrase in their signature they will lol. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. [b]YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:09:00 - [1462] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 08/11/2009 01:09:56 Originally by: Zahorite I wish you would just shut up, or at least do the math. 2 hours a day means that a corp will need at least 20 players per a system they control that are willing to devote 14 hours a week at 30m isk an hour straight to the corp wallet. Most corporations don't have fanatic players that are willing to donate more than say 20% of their rat bounty (that isn't salvage and loot) Rat bounty is maybe 10m an hour if you are lucky. So 2m isk an hour. If you can only play 14 hours a week that means an alliance needs 46 players for every core system. This does not include any pvp time, or fueling POS's, or anything else in game. Considering that you just posted that you only spend 10% of your time actually ratting and the rest pvping... Each alliance needs over 460 players like you for every system they own, turning Goons controlled system down to a mere 12-13 systems. Even if these copies of your spent say a third of their time earning isk it would still drop it down to 36-40 systems. Now tell me, if I was in charge of an alliance, why would I invade any system if the density of player population in that system is over a hundred players? and they have easily a thousand players within 3 jumps? Even if I did win they would mobilize and bash my alliance to pieces, especially if they are only 3 jumps away and my alliance is based 20 jumps away. It would be much more cost effective to just add back one of they systems my alliance abandoned after Dominion came out. Or even more cost effective I'd have some of my players run lvl 4 missions in high sec. I've done the math, and even with the given numbers of 2 billion ISK a month (Sov + Cynojammer or Jumpbridge) it only needs 10 players each paying (ratting, flying LvL 4's, whatever) 7-9 million ISK per day. If you can't make 7-9 million ISK in 30 minutes, then you should learn to play the game. Let's assume Goonswarm has 30% active Members, i.e 2000 players... they could pay the bill for 200 systems, if each player is willing to contribute 7-9 Million ISK per day, which is totally laughable. Now factor in moon-mining, reactions and other industrial stuff and each player is down to 5 million ISK a day. 5 Million ISK is TWO battleship-spawns ffs. If you can't contribute two battleship-spawns per day to your alliance, then you should leave 0.0... seriously.
Nilania Telshua	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:09:00 - [1463] Edited by: Nilania Telshua on 08/11/2009 01:10:13 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang 1 time I spent 9 hours ratting and only made .4 billion isk. So you only earned 44 Mio/hour while ratting being at the terrible risk that one of your few hundred fellow drones in one of the bordering systems would either pod you for the lolz or scam you out of your measly profits. Meanwhile you still suffered from the fact that your alliance was reeking in billions in moon goo. Oh poor you. Oh.. what a pain it is to live in 0.0. .. Sarcasm applies only on alliances living in space providing similiar humble income by ratting, that mirrors that of a high-end mission runner in empire.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:10:00 - [1464] Edited by: Korodan on 08/11/2009 01:10:34 Originally by: sih noh 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. also mothermoon says **** you
Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:11:00 - [1465] Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 08/11/2009 01:13:28 Originally by: Poluketes Quote: 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. Also I'd really like to know what happened to the original concept of exponentially increasing sov claim costs as the number of claimed systems increases. It wasn't perfect but it had a certain logic. This linear proposal is just painful on all scales to everyone. A new alliance with 3 systems shouldn't be paying even a quarter as much per system as an established alliance with 30 systems. They need those savings to invest in infrastructure and attract new members with low tax rates. And it should be cheap as hell for a complete newbie alliance to try to claim its first 0.0 system. Once it's got a few more systems and some alliance-level income from moons then higher costs make sense, but taking its first system shouldn't require taxing its members to death or risking bankruptcy in an invasion that will probably fail the first half dozen tries. I think the reason why they went flat is the spawning of false-front alliances/corps. I.e. you would see a lot of 1 system alt-corps to keep the cost down to single system scale price. However, with just a bit of imagination, a clear solution to this problem can be put into effect. One solution would be simply to not allow certain upgrades to be used unless X number of systems were being payed for by 1 entity. This solution would remove the multiple alt-corping AND provide additional incentive for actually wanting to take more systems. What is being proposed now is not going to be enough incentive to expand - as is being pointed out copiously on this thread. The RISK in null-sec for outweighs the GAIN with the current proposal. So why bother? At least CCP has degraded the risk so far - but now what about the GAINS?
Sworn Absent GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:15:00 - [1466] 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. So you basically want to take the sand out of the sandbox and force alliances to operate in a particular way. Cool.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:15:00 - [1467] Originally by: Dante Edmundo ...The RISK in null-sec for outweighs the GAIN with the current proposal. So why bother? At least CCP has degraded the risk so far - but now what about the GAINS? Hey man, didn't you hear, you got moons! never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Bubba Coronet	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:15:00 - [1468] 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.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:17:00 - [1469] Edited by: Korodan on 08/11/2009 01:17:53 Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Dante Edmundo ...The RISK in null-sec for outweighs the GAIN with the current proposal. So why bother? At least CCP has degraded the risk so far - but now what about the GAINS? Hey man, didn't you hear, you got moons! which have been nerfed, and you won't need sov to control anymore. ALSO ALSO 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 - 2009.11.08 01:17:00 - [1470] 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!

ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:18:00 - [1471] 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.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:19:00 - [1472] Originally by: Sworn Absent 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. So you basically want to take the sand out of the sandbox and force alliances to operate in a particular way. Cool. Funny but i dont remember you being too concerned about the sandbox when they proposed npc corp taxes Your stuff iz mine through actions
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:19:00 - [1473] 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! Table for 300,000 subscribers soon to be 100,000 please. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. [b]YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable[
Flaura	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:20:00 - [1474] Couple of points: I forsee stationpingpong like in the old days before pos's were introduced. Reason is there is no defence against enemies going directly at your empires capital, camp it for the short duration of the takeover (read max the node) and suddenly block a big portion of your empires assets. NPC 0,0 will therefore be worth gold from now on, everything else is like having stuff at a POS. (Remember Goons and friends camping BOBS capitalfleet in npc delve for days?) Spies will be more powerfull then ever to locate said assets and lock it down. If holding space will be as expensive as visualed u got to stick your finger in the ground as see what eve is. You want ppl to migrate from empire to 0,0. Yet u do nothing to boost the reward of actually going claiming space in 0,0 compared to lvl4's in empire. U reduce the incentives for ppl to actually go attack each other in 0,0 except for going and blow up their upgrades once in awhile. All in all I feel this was a grand big plan and turned out to be a last minute thing as the releasedate came crashing in your face (Suddenly systems went from supporting 100 to 10-15, system upkeepcost being the same as 5 large towers each system (lol right) and adding a few anomalies with a faster respawn). All in all not impressed with the work and planning here
Jethro Hawkins	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:20:00 - [1475] 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.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:20:00 - [1476] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Dante Edmundo ...The RISK in null-sec for outweighs the GAIN with the current proposal. So why bother? At least CCP has degraded the risk so far - but now what about the GAINS? Hey man, didn't you hear, you got moons! Oh yeah awesome why don't I just go ahead and tower th.. oh right taking a moon of any value requires a fleet of Dreads or battleships to clear it from its current owner and all the profits from those moons go to fueling the hundreds of systems that do not have an R64. Also they are being nerfed in three weeks. Well at least now my alliance can spend some of that ISK to gain TWO(!) guaranteed Cosmic Anomalies!
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:20:00 - [1477] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Sworn Absent 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. So you basically want to take the sand out of the sandbox and force alliances to operate in a particular way. Cool. Funny but i dont remember you being too concerned about the sandbox when they proposed npc corp taxes Because we have little experience with it. Just as you probably have little experience with this so we appreciate you not being concerned or acting as if you have a legit opinion.
Bald Negroid	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:20:00 - [1478] 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. Srsly tho. I came to 0.0 for less grind and moar pew. Change that and I'm out.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:21:00 - [1479] Originally by: Nilania Telshua Sarcasm applies only on alliances living in space providing similiar humble income by ratting, that mirrors that of a high-end mission runner in empire. Reread my post. There is a secret hidden in the numbers.
Andra McKay GSZ Magnum Opus.	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:21:00 - [1480] 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.

Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:21:00 - [1481] Well, personally, I think the heavy tax and necessity to use the systems does an excellent job at condensing empires, and opening 0.0 up to much more people. THAT I have no problem with... even the heavy tax. What I DO have a problem with is this: the industrial/military upgrades are weaksauce. I say this because the upgrades, which are supposed to apply to an alliance's/corp's infrastructure, are not, in fact, doing much to help them achieve such ends. In other words, you have succeeded in using punishment ("pain aversion") to reign-in the ballooning miss-usage of 0.0 space (which works perfectly), but you haven't created any rewards as incentive for holding only a few systems. Penalizing works, but it only goes so far: you have to make it much more worth while to dig-in and hold the few systems they put so much time into improving. So, the improvements must be worthwhile. For me, I consider it the equivalent of creating an actual **ing HOME in EVE. Not just some space you hold, so you can wave your e-peen, but somewhere that actually means something to you. This is what I propose: Industry upgrades: Something which... Decreases build costs by x% per sov level Decreases build times by x% per sov level Decreases reaction times by x% per sov level Increases moon stuff mined per unit of time by x% per sov level Increases refine rate (going beyond 100%, so you actually get MORE from refining) by x% per sov level Retain the "hidden belts per sov level" idea Increase mining amount/speed by x% per sov level Now, for military infrastructure, I find it somewhat of a serious misnomer to use that title, and then create things which only apply to RATING. Instead, why not have it actually do something for the sovereign's military? This is key, since, with the serious condensation, and influx of smaller groups, you MUST make the new systems more defensible. I mean, think about it: you're encouraging all these people to go out and get space, but they will become little more than targets for roamers and those who hold no space. And much larger alliances. Since (with the current system) they would have to plex and scan continuously for upkeep, they become more vulnerable to small roaming gangs and cloakies than before... actually, even if they weren't doing it continually, they become vulnerable to being squished anyhoo since, as someone else already pointed out, there will be less forewarning. So, for military bonuses, you must give advantages to the sovereign's military. The rating stuff? Meh, keep it if you want, but at least include some other things which actually applies to military infrastructure. Some things which may work... Increase shield HP by x% per sov level Increase armor HP by x% per sov level Increase shield/armor repair amount by x% per sov level Increase falloff/optimal range, tracking, etc. by 3% per sov level Increase ship speed/agility by x% per sov level Decrease cap recharge by x% per sov level Decrease repair cost by x% per sov level etc There! Now your home system, which, unlike before, you are dedicating so much time and investment towards**, actually provides protection for the people inhabiting it. Maybe some of those, like ship agility/speed may extend for a limited range outside of your sov system, increasing per sov level... I dunno, just an idea I'm throwing around. Again, you have to create sufficient reward incentive to draw people out there, not just condense it by penalizing those who don't use it. Oh, and to the poll going about: yes!
Tom Peeping	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:22:00 - [1482] Ouch... I'm sorry to criticize, but I don't think a few of these changes are very well thought through. We really want to make space support more players right? Let's look at the current situation now... If you're in a busy alliance, which crosses time zones... (i.e. the kind that generally actually holds sov) then how does the current anomaly system work? Short answer is that those people who play after downtime and in the hours immediately afterward simply probe and run all the anomalies. Anyone who logs in in the later 12 hours, either doesn't runt them, or has to go far afield. The addition of a few more ... or even 10 more will not change this at all. If this is the conception on how to make space hold more people, then there's a rude awakening on it's way. You need to make a method of ratting which will support more people... not a system which inherently gears towards those who log in after down time. How about a little love to players who log in later in the day? The focus on stuff that spawns over downtime really screws a decent chunk of the player base.
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:23:00 - [1483] Edited by: Peryner on 08/11/2009 01:25:19 One last post If one of the pitches for this change was not a way to get highsec players into 0.0, then people wouldn't be complaining. Yes, 10 players can run a system and pay for the cost of the system. It's not that bad it should be easy i fact. However, why wouldn any Carebear alliances want to go out to 0.0? It sounded at fanfest like you wanted PvE players to go into 0.0 space and basicly help pay the holding alliance for higher profits. but currently the offer is, or should I say the big steak your using to lure non-pvp players out, is the offer of 100 days of hard work, full of free range pvp and level 1 income that can only support 2 people then 4 then 10. That's not a good offer at all. jezz, no one would do that. also the **** you is for acting like we don't' have valid points and we should be ignored. -mothermoon edit:p.s. the whole moon argument is mute, no alliance is going to give a penny of that moon money to carebears running around thier systems. and just to say it again, I'm not complaining about the costs, it's the rewards for those said cost.
Wirbin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:23:00 - [1484] Originally by: cok cola 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. THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:23:00 - [1485] 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! Vadinho is a hell of a goon and writes incredible ****, quote this if you're down. also 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.
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:24:00 - [1486] Originally by: Future Mutant Funny but i dont remember you being too concerned about the sandbox when they proposed npc corp taxes Do you know what NPC means? _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:24:00 - [1487] So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par??
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:24:00 - [1488] 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?
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:26:00 - [1489] Do i know what npc means? It means your a moron you hypocrite. Originally by: cok cola 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. THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. Also- everyone thats asked this question is a moron- every activity that makes isk can be done in nullsec for more isk per hour compared to highsec. Your stuff iz mine through actions
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:27:00 - [1490] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Sworn Absent 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. So you basically want to take the sand out of the sandbox and force alliances to operate in a particular way. Cool. Funny but i dont remember you being too concerned about the sandbox when they proposed npc corp taxes Because there is a very easy sandbox answer to it. Make a corp for yourself and set 0% tax. There your done.

Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:27:00 - [1491] So considering that you no longer need sov to well do anything but upgrade and put a station in a system how many alliances are just going to drop sov. Upgrades suck, so just keep sov in the systems you have a station in. You don't need sov to kill enemy reds, rat, mine, explore, and now you don't need it for POS's. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. [b]YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable[
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:27:00 - [1492] Originally by: Future Mutant Do i know what npc means? It means your a moron you hypocrite. Originally by: cok cola 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. THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. Also- everyone thats asked this question is a moron- every activity that makes isk can be done in nullsec for more isk per hour compared to highsec. Haha do you really believe this?
Drew's ID	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:28:00 - [1493] 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.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:28:00 - [1494] Originally by: Marlona Sky So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par?? The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards. Their idea is that, with full upgrades to a system, we can make approximately as much per hour as a person doing level 4 missions in highsec. This is assuming that no one is competing with you or holding anomalies open by hanging around in them cloaked. The costs would be fine if the rewards justified them. As it is, the only cost these rewards justify is less than we're paying now, especially with the reduced moon mining income.
Bald Negroid	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:29:00 - [1495] How long does it take you to scan through 20, 30+ sigs? Now, how many of those sigs are in the process of being ran by the 100+ in local or haven't despawned yet? Now, make sure you stay cloaked cause how can you scan a system while scrolling 100+ in local to keep an eye out for reds in system? I can't wait to sit in my hulk moving local up and down keeping an eye out for the 1 stray ganker waiting to get me. WTH are they thinking?
Elisean Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:30:00 - [1496] Edited by: Elisean on 08/11/2009 01:30:53 Originally by: Marlona Sky So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par?? The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards. In fact maybe they should double the upgrade and upkeep costs. Then double the rewards. That would be amuch better situation. As then players would say, THAT"S TOO MUCH! and then think, what does all that give me? and then say "oh wow, that's a lot of isk! maybe we should pay it so we can move towards that future goal. also why isn't ccp using the wardec model here? where the more systems you own the more it costs to own them?
Wait 24Hours	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:30:00 - [1497] This image really sums it up for me today; maybe if I want 24 Hours things will get better.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:30:00 - [1498] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Marlona Sky So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par?? The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards. Their idea is that, with full upgrades to a system, we can make approximately as much per hour as a person doing level 4 missions in highsec. This is assuming that no one is competing with you or holding anomalies open by hanging around in them cloaked. The costs would be fine if the rewards justified them. As it is, the only cost these rewards justify is less than we're paying now, especially with the reduced moon mining income. Yes, give us useful upgrades. Things like agents or better rat bounties, and let us tax an activity that makes use of them taking place in the system.
Kuar Z'thain Amok. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:31:00 - [1499] Military experts are calling this a Threadnaught.
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:31:00 - [1500] Originally by: Kuar Z'thain Military experts are calling this a Threadnaught. lol

Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:32:00 - [1501] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Marlona Sky So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par?? The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards. Their idea is that, with full upgrades to a system, we can make approximately as much per hour as a person doing level 4 missions in highsec. This is assuming that no one is competing with you or holding anomalies open by hanging around in them cloaked. The costs would be fine if the rewards justified them. As it is, the only cost these rewards justify is less than we're paying now, especially with the reduced moon mining income. The other thing is, why should we pay for upgrades when we can just roam and run other alliances upgrades stuff/whatever and gain the benefits without having to pay for it. I dunno. With this new system they should be able to add more 'upgrades' and adjust cost without too much programming right? (sorry, don't know much about programming so... )
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:32:00 - [1502] Originally by: Kuar Z'thain Military experts are calling this a Threadnaught. I lol'ed ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:32:00 - [1503] Originally by: Future Mutant Also- everyone thats asked this question is a moron- every activity that makes isk can be done in nullsec for more isk per hour compared to highsec. I too make more ISK from agents in Querious than Empire dwellers make from the agents in Irjunen.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:33:00 - [1504] Thread is about 100 pages short in the same time limit to be considered a threadnaught
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:33:00 - [1505] Originally by: Vadinho 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? 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? ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. [b]YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable[
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:33:00 - [1506] Originally by: Future Mutant Do i know what npc means? It means your a moron you hypocrite. Originally by: cok cola 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. THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. Also- everyone thats asked this question is a moron- every activity that makes isk can be done in nullsec for more isk per hour compared to highsec. Awwwww, this post. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:33:00 - [1507] Originally by: Future Mutant Do i know what npc means? It means your a moron you hypocrite. Originally by: cok cola 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. THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. Also- everyone thats asked this question is a moron- every activity that makes isk can be done in nullsec for more isk per hour compared to highsec. You are completely wrong.
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:36:00 - [1508] Is there any alliance or corp that has seen this change and is now super excited to leave for 0.0? And what exactly makes any space worth fighting over now that's different before. With moons gone i see even less reason to fight over territory. Oh. 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.
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:38:00 - [1509] Re-posting, because no one said anything :( Well, personally, I think the heavy tax and necessity to use the systems does an excellent job at condensing empires, and opening 0.0 up to much more people. THAT I have no problem with... even the heavy tax. What I DO have a problem with is this: the industrial/military upgrades are weaksauce. I say this because the upgrades, which are supposed to apply to an alliance's/corp's infrastructure, are not, in fact, doing much to help them achieve such ends. In other words, you have succeeded in using punishment ("pain aversion") to reign-in the ballooning miss-usage of 0.0 space (which works perfectly), but you haven't created any rewards as incentive for holding only a few systems. Penalizing works, but it only goes so far: you have to make it much more worth while to dig-in and hold the few systems they put so much time into improving. So, the improvements must be worthwhile. For me, I consider it the equivalent of creating an actual **ing HOME in EVE. Not just some space you hold, so you can wave your e-peen, but somewhere that actually means something to you. This is what I propose: Industry upgrades: Something which... Decreases build costs by x% per sov level Decreases build times by x% per sov level Decreases reaction times by x% per sov level Increases moon stuff mined per unit of time by x% per sov level Increases refine rate (going beyond 100%, so you actually get MORE from refining) by x% per sov level Retain the "hidden belts per sov level" idea Increase mining amount/speed by x% per sov level Now, for military infrastructure, I find it somewhat of a serious misnomer to use that title, and then create things which only apply to RATING. Instead, why not have it actually do something for the sovereign's military? This is key, since, with the serious condensation, and influx of smaller groups, you MUST make the new systems more defensible. I mean, think about it: you're encouraging all these people to go out and get space, but they will become little more than targets for roamers and those who hold no space. And much larger alliances. Since (with the current system) they would have to plex and scan continuously for upkeep, they become more vulnerable to small roaming gangs and cloakies than before... actually, even if they weren't doing it continually, they become vulnerable to being squished anyhoo since, as someone else already pointed out, there will be less forewarning. So, for military bonuses, you must give advantages to the sovereign's military. The rating stuff? Meh, keep it if you want, but at least include some other things which actually applies to military infrastructure. Some things which may work... Increase shield HP by x% per sov level Increase armor HP by x% per sov level Increase shield/armor repair amount by x% per sov level Increase falloff/optimal range, tracking, etc. by 3% per sov level Increase ship speed/agility by x% per sov level Decrease cap recharge by x% per sov level Decrease repair cost by x% per sov level etc There! Now your home system, which, unlike before, you are dedicating so much time and investment towards**, actually provides protection for the people inhabiting it. Maybe some of those, like ship agility/speed may extend for a limited range outside of your sov system, increasing per sov level... I dunno, just an idea I'm throwing around. Again, you have to create sufficient reward incentive to draw people out there, not just condense it by penalizing those who don't use it. Thoughts? Oh, and to the poll going about: yes!
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:39:00 - [1510] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Future Mutant Do i know what npc means? It means your a moron you hypocrite. Originally by: cok cola 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. THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. Also- everyone thats asked this question is a moron- every activity that makes isk can be done in nullsec for more isk per hour compared to highsec. You are completely wrong. He forgot to mention how anytime anyone enters 0.0 they are mystically blown up even though no one is in local. That's why he has never come out here.

Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:39:00 - [1511] 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.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:39:00 - [1512] Originally by: Elisean Edited by: Elisean on 08/11/2009 01:30:53 Originally by: Marlona Sky So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par?? The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards. In fact maybe they should double the upgrade and upkeep costs. Then double the rewards. That would be amuch better situation. As then players would say, THAT"S TOO MUCH! and then think, what does all that give me? and then say "oh wow, that's a lot of isk! maybe we should pay it so we can move towards that future goal. also why isn't ccp using the wardec model here? where the more systems you own the more it costs to own them? Yes, brilliant. Let's pay a 1 billion starting fee and 2 billion a month for 20 anomalies instead of a 500m startup cost and 1 billion for 10 anomalies. That will fix everything. That's like saying that 20 cotton balls is better than 10 cotton balls when you need to a kleenex to blow your nose. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. [b]YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable[
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:40:00 - [1513] Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 08/11/2009 01:41:06 Originally by: Destrim Decrease repair cost by x% per sov level This is how you make it painfully obvious you don't actually live in 0.0. Your ideas are actually kind of good though. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:41:00 - [1514] 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 have proposed this in Features and Ideas. It should not be tied to upgrades, but to activity level (I suppose an upgrade can be an indirect tie in). But as said there, linking upkeep cost to activity levels, makes it dynamic, punishes AFK Empires and rewards NRDS players like CVA by having activity in their systems from neutrals keeping the cost down. It also solves the difficulty of taxing players by alliances, since their contribution is directly related to the amount of activity without any administrative hassle. Should be fairly easy to code too. ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery
Elisean Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:43:00 - [1515] Originally by: Mcon99 Originally by: Vadinho 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." 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? Lvl 4's are simply failed gameplay from any aspect. I'de love the day CCP elminated or nerfed them. yes please, kill level 4 missions, remove them form highsec, and you the changes you currently have would be fine.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:43:00 - [1516] Originally by: Merdaneth 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 have proposed this in Features and Ideas. It should not be tied to upgrades, but to activity level (I suppose an upgrade can be an indirect tie in). But as said there, linking upkeep cost to activity levels, makes it dynamic, punishes AFK Empires and rewards NRDS players like CVA by having activity in their systems from neutrals keeping the cost down. It also solves the difficulty of taxing players by alliances, since their contribution is directly related to the amount of activity without any administrative hassle. Should be fairly easy to code too. Do this and make an upgrade that enhances the payout of the rats and suddenly it doesn't suck so bad.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:44:00 - [1517] Originally by: ep1k Is there any alliance or corp that has seen this change and is now super excited to leave for 0.0? And what exactly makes any space worth fighting over now that's different before. With moons gone i see even less reason to fight over territory. This is a problem with most players in EvE. Why should you do something, if you don't gain any rewards by doing so. Why do we fly around roaming at all you might ask yourself...
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:45:00 - [1518] Originally by: Vadinho 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. 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? ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. [b]YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable[
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:45:00 - [1519] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: ep1k Is there any alliance or corp that has seen this change and is now super excited to leave for 0.0? And what exactly makes any space worth fighting over now that's different before. With moons gone i see even less reason to fight over territory. This is a problem with most players in EvE. Why should you do something, if you don't gain any rewards by doing so. Why do we fly around roaming at all you might ask yourself... This isnt a philosophy discussion. It's a game mechanic discussion. GAME.
Jordan Musgrat H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:45:00 - [1520] Edited by: Jordan Musgrat on 08/11/2009 01:49:52 First, you've got to realize CCP, we're not idiots here, and we're not giving you baseless arguments. We're very clearly basing our arguments out of our personal experience, which is something that you seem to lack, when it comes to the way this game is played. And don't pretend like you know it all, or that your "vision" is perfect. Remember Exodus? Ya, now while you're doing well to reduce the costs of holding systems, the question of risk v reward is another question you need to ask yourself. As it stands, too many people are in empire already, and you've acknowledged this by posting youtube videos saying "Dominion will push more people into 0.0." Right now, there's no incentive for people to move to 0.0. Quite to the contrary, it looks like even more people may want to do lvl 4 missions in Motsu, rather than be bothered with having to pay system upkeep in addition to making personal isk, and in all probablility for most alliances, with less space to boot. So if you really want to push people into 0.0, make it MORE profitable than Motsu, not less. And yes, because only the very highest tier anomalies give equal-to-Motsu isk, and also because you will not get the very highest tier anomalies all the time, 90% of the people in 0.0 will be making less isk than the average CNR farmer in Motsu. And then, we need to factor in risk, because you will lose ships in 0.0, whereas you will not in Motsu. Face it, Motsu will be more attractive in Dominion. You might intend to fix this sometime after Dominion, but intending to break things then fix them later is a bad idea, because people will become entrenched in the whole lvl 4 isk making scheme. You know this, I know you do. Right now, it's going to be hard enough to convince lvl 4 farmers to move to 0.0, even if you were to make 0.0 isk making more profitable. So let's come to an agreement, that you need further changes to make 0.0 isk making more lucrative. I'd suggest this, and it's very simply. Give us a 100% increase on the bounties on all anomaly rats. Simply make top tier anomalies make twice as much isk as you can make in Motsu, and the 5-7 tier ones, the ones which you can do solo, have them be the equivalent of lvl 4 missions. Now, you have a reason to move from Motsu to 0.0. You'll lose a few ships sure, but you'll make twice the isk!!!. And small entities will have a great incentive to take a very small amount of space and concentrate lots of isk makers into small areas. Which is great for 0.0 in general. I don't expect that you've read this far, which is fine. If you're not going to listen to me, I hope you just fix this patch somehow. TLDR; Give anomaly rats 2x the bounties as they currently have. Then, each tier needs to spawn an additional 5 anomalies. That way, after (only lol) 100 days, we can put 30+ people into a system. P.S. With lots of anomalies, you'll have problems with people probing out tons of them, only to find people in them already, so giving us the option to see if anyone is in there would help alot. We don't need to know who, or how many, but we need to know if player(s) are in the anomalies or not. ----------- Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0...

Innominate GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:47:00 - [1521] Edited by: Innominate on 08/11/2009 01:48:01 Originally by: Destrim For me, I consider it the equivalent of creating an actual **ing HOME in EVE. Not just some space you hold, so you can wave your e-peen, but somewhere that actually means something to you. The rest of your post is mediocre, but this part is I think actually important. It goes back to the question that won't stop being repeated. Quote:** 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 also reminds me of our war fighting smash/roadkill in geminate. They folded in nearly record time, and were never able to put together a meaningful resistance. Why? Because almost all of them actually lived in empire, their space was used for little more than being on the map. They made their money running L4 missions because geminate is such godawful space. We had trouble giving it away. If you want people to make a home in 0.0, it has to be financially worth it.
Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:49:00 - [1522] Ok I thought I would try and make some changes that imo actually are worth the ISK to get them. Most of them are derived from other posts in this thread and I thought they would be easier to argue if combined together. Pirate Magnet When installed automatic 50% reduction in spawn time and bounties are increased 15%. Each level gives an additional 3% bounty increase. Ore Processing Array 1 Hidden belt per level instant respawn when mined out. Belts are on the same level as an Average W-space deposit. Belts will also spawn rats and receive benefits of Pirate magnet. Entrapment 10% increased chance of DED Complex per level. Installing upgrade limits complexes to >8/10. Complexes Respawn instantly. Survey Network Scan strength increase of 5% per level for all probes in system. This upgrade allows advanced scanning techiques that allow Cloaks to be scanned through, Sig of .05 per level for all ships with cloak active. Quantum Flux Generator 5% Increase in chances of Wormhole leading to W-Space spawning in system. Also gives all Wormholes a 2.5% increase to Mass limits and Life Cycle per level. These are off the top of my head if you don't like them flame away just trying to give some help.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:52:00 - [1523] Originally by: Vivian Azure This is a problem with most players in EvE. Why should you do something, if you don't gain any rewards by doing so. Why do we fly around roaming at all you might ask yourself... You might find your answer here Originally by: A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work.
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:52:00 - [1524] Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 08/11/2009 01:41:06 Originally by: Destrim Decrease repair cost by x% per sov level This is how you make it painfully obvious you don't actually live in 0.0. Your ideas are actually kind of good though. I didn't mean the in-station repair cost. I was referring to the cost in capacitor... My fault, poorly worded. I'll fix it.
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:54:00 - [1525] Originally by: Zahorite Originally by: Elisean Edited by: Elisean on 08/11/2009 01:30:53 Originally by: Marlona Sky So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par?? The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards. In fact maybe they should double the upgrade and upkeep costs. Then double the rewards. That would be amuch better situation. As then players would say, THAT"S TOO MUCH! and then think, what does all that give me? and then say "oh wow, that's a lot of isk! maybe we should pay it so we can move towards that future goal. also why isn't ccp using the wardec model here? where the more systems you own the more it costs to own them? Yes, brilliant. Let's pay a 1 billion starting fee and 2 billion a month for 20 anomalies instead of a 500m startup cost and 1 billion for 10 anomalies. That will fix everything. That's like saying that 20 cotton balls is better than 10 cotton balls when you need to a kleenex to blow your nose. not my nose, 20 players noses. I need 10 more cotton balls so that 10 more people can blow thier noses. this is a muliplayer game, not solo. also my point was that those 20 cotton balls would also all be twice as big. you should think of it as steak instead. right now I've got 10 1lb steaks. Now I don't need 20 2 lb steaks just to feed myself, but it would help to feed 20 people. and we'll all be more full. another point on level 4 income When a system is lost, you lose all of the upgrades right? That kinda sounds like drones to me. it would be like it they nerfed drones, ignoring the fact that can be shot down.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:56:00 - [1526] Originally by: Inferno Styx Ok I thought I would try and make some changes that imo actually are worth the ISK to get them. Most of them are derived from other posts in this thread and I thought they would be easier to argue if combined together. Pirate Magnet When installed automatic 50% reduction in spawn time and bounties are increased 15%. Each level gives an additional 3% bounty increase. Ore Processing Array 1 Hidden belt per level instant respawn when mined out. Belts are on the same level as an Average W-space deposit. Belts will also spawn rats and receive benefits of Pirate magnet. Entrapment 10% increased chance of DED Complex per level. Installing upgrade limits complexes to >8/10. Complexes Respawn instantly. Survey Network Scan strength increase of 5% per level for all probes in system. This upgrade allows advanced scanning techiques that allow Cloaks to be scanned through, Sig of .05 per level for all ships with cloak active. Quantum Flux Generator 5% Increase in chances of Wormhole leading to W-Space spawning in system. Also gives all Wormholes a 2.5% increase to Mass limits and Life Cycle per level. These are off the top of my head if you don't like them flame away just trying to give some help. Honestly, most of this post isn't too bad, as long as the rocks in the grav site are really awesome (we're talking massive ABC rocks), though the Entrapment upgrade is still bad - within a month the market for the stuff will be flooded and it'll be worthless. Should also boost the bounty bonus (because the alliance running the upgrade should be able to tax it while the ratter still sees an increase in bounty value and they won't rat if the rats seem less valuable then normal, even if they respawn more often.)
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:56:00 - [1527] I wonder if the goon percentage in this thread refelcts the goon population on the server or simply the goon threadnaughtability.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:56:00 - [1528] Originally by: Inferno Styx Ok I thought I would try and make some changes that imo actually are worth the ISK to get them. Most of them are derived from other posts in this thread and I thought they would be easier to argue if combined together. Pirate Magnet When installed automatic 50% reduction in spawn time and bounties are increased 15%. Each level gives an additional 3% bounty increase. Ore Processing Array 1 Hidden belt per level instant respawn when mined out. Belts are on the same level as an Average W-space deposit. Belts will also spawn rats and receive benefits of Pirate magnet. Entrapment 10% increased chance of DED Complex per level. Installing upgrade limits complexes to >8/10. Complexes Respawn instantly. Survey Network Scan strength increase of 5% per level for all probes in system. This upgrade allows advanced scanning techiques that allow Cloaks to be scanned through, Sig of .05 per level for all ships with cloak active. Quantum Flux Generator 5% Increase in chances of Wormhole leading to W-Space spawning in system. Also gives all Wormholes a 2.5% increase to Mass limits and Life Cycle per level. These are off the top of my head if you don't like them flame away just trying to give some help. I like the survey network. In fact just putting that in place would instantly improve my rating of Dominion by one and a half thumbs out of five. Increase in bounty is great, but it should be 10% per a level and max out at 50%. Ore one shouldn't spawn rats and the W space belts is to good, reduce it to a -1.0 truesec hidden belt and make it respawn automatically when mined out. Make Entrapment respawn instantly but don't do anything else, just gaurantee 1 in a system and make it a lvl 5 upgrade, that way the modules don't go down in price to much on the market, I'd think they will go down to half the price but the demand and supply will go up 4-10 fold. Remember those market curves aren't straight they are curved, that is why they are called demand and supply curves not lines. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. [b]YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable[
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:57:00 - [1529] Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 08/11/2009 01:41:06 Originally by: Destrim Decrease repair cost by x% per sov level This is how you make it painfully obvious you don't actually live in 0.0. Your ideas are actually kind of good though. I didn't mean the in-station repair cost. I was referring to the cost in capacitor... My fault, poorly worded. I'll fix it. MY BURN, SHE IS RUINED :( _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:57:00 - [1530] 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?

Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:59:00 - [1531] Originally by: Innominate Edited by: Innominate on 08/11/2009 01:48:01 Originally by: Destrim For me, I consider it the equivalent of creating an actual **ing HOME in EVE. Not just some space you hold, so you can wave your e-peen, but somewhere that actually means something to you. The rest of your post is mediocre, but this part is I think actually important. It goes back to the question that won't stop being repeated. Quote:** 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 also reminds me of our war fighting smash/roadkill in geminate. They folded in nearly record time, and were never able to put together a meaningful resistance. Why? Because almost all of them actually lived in empire, their space was used for little more than being on the map. They made their money running L4 missions because geminate is such godawful space. We had trouble giving it away. If you want people to make a home in 0.0, it has to be financially worth it. Well, the ideas I showed there were just suggestions. My point was that the infrastructure upgrades proposed suck (they offer very little in the way of reward). More than that, the proposed infrastructure upgrades actually do nothing for "infrastructure." What suggestions would you have for actual infrastructure upgrades? That's something which I believe should be the focus of discussion. Not the costs, nor complaints of how lackluster the rewards are, but what WE THE PLAYERS actually want for reward value on having invested time into a system.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.08 01:59:00 - [1532] Originally by: Inferno Styx Ok I thought I would try and make some changes that imo actually are worth the ISK to get them. Most of them are derived from other posts in this thread and I thought they would be easier to argue if combined together. Pirate Magnet When installed automatic 50% reduction in spawn time and bounties are increased 15%. Each level gives an additional 3% bounty increase. Ore Processing Array 1 Hidden belt per level instant respawn when mined out. Belts are on the same level as an Average W-space deposit. Belts will also spawn rats and receive benefits of Pirate magnet. Entrapment 10% increased chance of DED Complex per level. Installing upgrade limits complexes to >8/10. Complexes Respawn instantly. Survey Network Scan strength increase of 5% per level for all probes in system. This upgrade allows advanced scanning techiques that allow Cloaks to be scanned through, Sig of .05 per level for all ships with cloak active. Quantum Flux Generator 5% Increase in chances of Wormhole leading to W-Space spawning in system. Also gives all Wormholes a 2.5% increase to Mass limits and Life Cycle per level. These are off the top of my head if you don't like them flame away just trying to give some help. It's decent, the problem at least in my eyes is the pirate magnet. If you want 50-100 people per system, you need to have something like encounters. The problem is that in their current incarnation, encounters are useless. They need to have belt rats, they need to be instanced for the person doing them so you don't have 5-6 people warping to the same one, and they need to actually be challenging (ie take groups of people). Basically, level 3 to 5+ missions only without LPs and better isk bounties, plus a chance of a faction or officer. Then you'll have 50-100 happy people per system.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:01:00 - [1533] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Inferno Styx Ok I thought I would try and make some changes that imo actually are worth the ISK to get them. Most of them are derived from other posts in this thread and I thought they would be easier to argue if combined together. Pirate Magnet When installed automatic 50% reduction in spawn time and bounties are increased 15%. Each level gives an additional 3% bounty increase. Ore Processing Array 1 Hidden belt per level instant respawn when mined out. Belts are on the same level as an Average W-space deposit. Belts will also spawn rats and receive benefits of Pirate magnet. Entrapment 10% increased chance of DED Complex per level. Installing upgrade limits complexes to >8/10. Complexes Respawn instantly. Survey Network Scan strength increase of 5% per level for all probes in system. This upgrade allows advanced scanning techiques that allow Cloaks to be scanned through, Sig of .05 per level for all ships with cloak active. Quantum Flux Generator 5% Increase in chances of Wormhole leading to W-Space spawning in system. Also gives all Wormholes a 2.5% increase to Mass limits and Life Cycle per level. These are off the top of my head if you don't like them flame away just trying to give some help. It's decent, the problem at least in my eyes is the pirate magnet. If you want 50-100 people per system, you need to have something like encounters. The problem is that in their current incarnation, encounters are useless. They need to have belt rats, they need to be instanced for the person doing them so you don't have 5-6 people warping to the same one, and they need to actually be challenging (ie take groups of people). Basically, level 3 to 5+ missions only without LPs and better isk bounties, plus a chance of a faction or officer. Then you'll have 50-100 happy people per system. Instanced... lol... go play WoW!
SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:02:00 - [1534] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. Good god. What in the christ are you two even talking about? Which large 0.0 alliances are 95% pvp? And the whole point of Dominion was to ALLOW small alliances to hold sov. What you two just got all smug and self-congratulatory about is arguing that things should work exactly how they ALREADY DO.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:02:00 - [1535] Originally by: Inferno Styx Ok I thought I would try and make some changes that imo actually are worth the ISK to get them. Most of them are derived from other posts in this thread and I thought they would be easier to argue if combined together. Pirate Magnet When installed automatic 50% reduction in spawn time and bounties are increased 15%. Each level gives an additional 3% bounty increase. Ore Processing Array 1 Hidden belt per level instant respawn when mined out. Belts are on the same level as an Average W-space deposit. Belts will also spawn rats and receive benefits of Pirate magnet. Entrapment 10% increased chance of DED Complex per level. Installing upgrade limits complexes to >8/10. Complexes Respawn instantly. Survey Network Scan strength increase of 5% per level for all probes in system. This upgrade allows advanced scanning techiques that allow Cloaks to be scanned through, Sig of .05 per level for all ships with cloak active. Quantum Flux Generator 5% Increase in chances of Wormhole leading to W-Space spawning in system. Also gives all Wormholes a 2.5% increase to Mass limits and Life Cycle per level. These are off the top of my head if you don't like them flame away just trying to give some help. Dude, Spawn time on the Anomalies is Instant. This was clarified. Faster then cashing in with an Agent warping to a gate and then warping to site. Damage per Second = ISK per hour. Go 20 man anomaly grinding fleet!
Kazuo Karasuma GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:03:00 - [1536] Originally by: Inferno Styx Ok I thought I would try and make some changes that imo actually are worth the ISK to get them. Most of them are derived from other posts in this thread and I thought they would be easier to argue if combined together. Pirate Magnet When installed automatic 50% reduction in spawn time and bounties are increased 15%. Each level gives an additional 3% bounty increase. Ore Processing Array 1 Hidden belt per level instant respawn when mined out. Belts are on the same level as an Average W-space deposit. Belts will also spawn rats and receive benefits of Pirate magnet. Entrapment 10% increased chance of DED Complex per level. Installing upgrade limits complexes to >8/10. Complexes Respawn instantly. Survey Network Scan strength increase of 5% per level for all probes in system. This upgrade allows advanced scanning techiques that allow Cloaks to be scanned through, Sig of .05 per level for all ships with cloak active. Quantum Flux Generator 5% Increase in chances of Wormhole leading to W-Space spawning in system. Also gives all Wormholes a 2.5% increase to Mass limits and Life Cycle per level. These are off the top of my head if you don't like them flame away just trying to give some help. How about just making the pirate magnet make spawns that have more than 3 battleships per belt and increase their bounties.
Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:04:00 - [1537] I didn't really like the entrapment upgrade either but just off the top of my head it was what I could think of. I think it's much better for 1 all the time and a bounty increase. The mining upgrade might have been over the top with the average deposit. Though they do have an amazing amount of high ends (in the area of 10-15k Ark, and 20-30k Bistot.) Even if you do a pure -1.0 belt or the crappiest W-space belt your still looking at ore for 5-10 hulks for a couple hours. Which is going to give you lots of people in system.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:05:00 - [1538] Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 08/11/2009 02:05:54 Originally by: Vivian Azure Instanced... lol... go play WoW! Or do missions in highsec. I'm not saying make them unprobeable, but there's no other way to support more than 20 people doing encounters in a system at the same time. PS you're still an unwashed manbaby that wants a second job, not a game.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:07:00 - [1539] Originally by: Vadinho 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? 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? ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. [b]YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable[
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:08:00 - [1540] 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.

Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:09:00 - [1541] Originally by: Inferno Styx I didn't really like the entrapment upgrade either but just off the top of my head it was what I could think of. I think it's much better for 1 all the time and a bounty increase. The mining upgrade might have been over the top with the average deposit. Though they do have an amazing amount of high ends (in the area of 10-15k Ark, and 20-30k Bistot.) Even if you do a pure -1.0 belt or the crappiest W-space belt your still looking at ore for 5-10 hulks for a couple hours. Which is going to give you lots of people in system. Yeah, why not replace the entrapment upgrade with something for manufacture or research? Those would be quite valuable.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:10:00 - [1542] Edited by: Kanatta Jing on 08/11/2009 02:10:49 I'm like the only one who sees how easy it's going to be to grind in a PVP grade fleet to make stupid amounts of money, and how much more secure a system will be with a big active fleet in it? I mean rather then people being semi AFK in station spinning ships.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:10:00 - [1543] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 08/11/2009 02:12:17 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 08/11/2009 02:05:54 Originally by: Vivian Azure Instanced... lol... go play WoW! Or do missions in highsec. I'm not saying make them unprobeable, but there's no other way to support more than 20 people doing encounters in a system at the same time. PS you're still an unwashed manbaby that wants a second job, not a game. I still don't understand, why there should be 20 people ratting in a system simultanously... CCP never said anything about all those people being in a system at the same time. A day has 24 hours, so if there's 5 people in a system at every time of the day, then your system allready supports some 30-40 players. P.S.: I see EvE Online more as a hobby then a game... maybe that's the difference. Originally by: Kanatta Jing I'm like the only one who sees how easy it's going to be to grind in a PVP grade fleet to make stupid amounts of money, and how much more secure a system will be with a big active fleet in it? No, you're not the only one, but all the egomanic players in EvE don't want to share with others. They want to have solo-content in 0.0, where they can get personal income from alliance-space.
Sworn Absent GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:13:00 - [1544] Edited by: Sworn Absent on 08/11/2009 02:12:57 Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 08/11/2009 02:05:54 Originally by: Vivian Azure Instanced... lol... go play WoW! Or do missions in highsec. I'm not saying make them unprobeable, but there's no other way to support more than 20 people doing encounters in a system at the same time. PS you're still an unwashed manbaby that wants a second job, not a game. I still don't understand, why there should be 20 people ratting in a system simultanously... CCP never said anything about all those people being in a system at the same time. A day has 24 hours, so if there's 5 people in a system at every time of the day, then your system allready supports some 30-40 players. P.S.: I see EvE Online more as a hobby then a game... maybe that's the difference. you are sure as hell trolling this thread (poorly) like it's a job and not a hobby
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:13:00 - [1545] I dunno, I think we can all agree that when Dominion hits, things will be 'interesting' to see how 0.0 reacts and adapts to these changes.
Valator Uel Caldari X-pell vae Victis .	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:13:00 - [1546] Originally by: Yafn Originally by: Khefron if we're paying billions for our jump bridges, will we at least no longer have to keep the damned things loaded with ozone? Keep Quoting this. Quote: Aya > Hostile tcf gang coming to h-pa Deva Blackfire > ships? Ralarina > Yes, in ships
Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:14:00 - [1547] How about this one, Came to me when I looked at your post about research and manufacturing. Industrial Complex 5% decrease in waste of materials and time per level for all POS mounted Refineries and Manufacturing arrays. Maxed out this would give POS refineries 0 waste with perfect skills and would allow lots more production to occur in 0.0 allowing for limited supply runs.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:16:00 - [1548] Originally by: Peryner Originally by: Zahorite Originally by: Elisean Edited by: Elisean on 08/11/2009 01:30:53 Originally by: Marlona Sky So if the proposed numbers on paying for 'xyz' upgrade or whatever are too high, what would be more on par?? The problem isn't the costs so much as the rewards. In fact maybe they should double the upgrade and upkeep costs. Then double the rewards. That would be amuch better situation. As then players would say, THAT"S TOO MUCH! and then think, what does all that give me? and then say "oh wow, that's a lot of isk! maybe we should pay it so we can move towards that future goal. also why isn't ccp using the wardec model here? where the more systems you own the more it costs to own them? Yes, brilliant. Let's pay a 1 billion starting fee and 2 billion a month for 20 anomalies instead of a 500m startup cost and 1 billion for 10 anomalies. That will fix everything. That's like saying that 20 cotton balls is better than 10 cotton balls when you need to a kleenex to blow your nose. not my nose, 20 players noses. I need 10 more cotton balls so that 10 more people can blow thier noses. this is a muliplayer game, not solo. also my point was that those 20 cotton balls would also all be twice as big. you should think of it as steak instead. right now I've got 10 1lb steaks. Now I don't need 20 2 lb steaks just to feed myself, but it would help to feed 20 people. and we'll all be more full. The problem is that CCP said they would serve raw steak in 0.0 for $10 (then lowered to $8) a meal, while at the same time they are serving a cooked steak meal in high sec for $5 a meal. If they lowered the upkeep down to 0 they would still be selling an uncooked steak for $6 a meal. What they need to do is serve us a cooked steak and shrimp combo with dessert in 0.0 for $8 a meal. IE. keep upkeep how was posted in this thread (not the blog) and then increase the isk/hour to above that in high sec. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. [b]YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable[
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:23:00 - [1549] Originally by: Khefron if we're paying billions for our jump bridges, will we at least no longer have to keep the damned things loaded with ozone?
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:24:00 - [1550] I believe it would be nice if the return on refine amount increased beyond 100%. In other words, you start getting something like 110% return, etc. If the infrastructure hub actually did as its name implies, and improved the infrastructure of an alliance, then it would be exciting indeed. In so much as that, methinks the discussion on this thread should be focused towards what we think would be valid rewards for establishing a home... for investing time and effort into a single, or at least very few, systems. An old romanticism my be found in taking a useless backwater system that no one wants or would ever waste time with, and turning it into something that is yours. The currently proposed infrastructure upgrades do little to this end. The sovereignty upgrades make sense, though much more could be done there. I would rather focus on the "military" and "industry." I will not complain about the constant 2 anomolies in system... but I will complain that there is nothing in the proposed changes which actually helps the sovereign's military. I will not complain about the increase in hidden belts, which should have decent top-end ore... but I will complain that there is little which actually aids the industrial infrastructure of a sovereign. So, people... PROPOSE WHAT INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES YOU THINK SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED, Instead of simply complaining about how lackluster the current ones are (however true it may be).

Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:26:00 - [1551] Originally by: Destrim I believe it would be nice if the return on refine amount increased beyond 100%. In other words, you start getting something like 110% return, etc. This would be a very bad thing - make 100 guns, then reprocess them and make 110 guns, then reprocess those - you get the idea.
Katrinazinski	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:26:00 - [1552] You don't have to use this system if you don't want to pay for it. Just hang a can at the gates with your name on it, like the old days, to claim "system sov".
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:26:00 - [1553] Originally by: Kanatta Jing Edited by: Kanatta Jing on 08/11/2009 02:10:49 I'm like the only one who sees how easy it's going to be to grind in a PVP grade fleet to make stupid amounts of money, and how much more secure a system will be with a big active fleet in it? I mean rather then people being semi AFK in station spinning ships. Three problems with what you are seeing. 1. I can do the same running missions in high sec with a 20 man fleet (actually 4 fleets of 5 each would be more realistic) and earn even more money than you could in 0.0 space. And I won't have to stop to defend against anyone and I'll pay less for ammo and ships. If in the event I'm actually war deced I'll just jump clone everyone down to 0.0 and then I'll make the same amount as you, of course half the time I'll be making more than you. 2. If I'm your enemy I'm just going to log an alt put a cloak and a scanner on it and then scan down and cloak inside one of your anomalies. That will cause the anomaly to not despawn when you finish it and good luck finding me. Even if you do I'm in a Tech I frigate and you cost me less than a million isk while I cost you at least tens of millions of isk. All I need is ten people with alts and you can't run anything in your system. 3. I'm a giant corp that is next door to you. And I have twenty people that want to pvp and twenty people that want to grind some money. I haven't spent any money on upgrades cause you've spent that money on upgrades. So every day my forty players head over to your system. The 20 that want to pvp roam around killing everyone that comes out of POS bubbles and the station while the other 20 players run the instances you spent so much money building up. Best of all I don't even have sov in the system next to you, all my guys are sitting in a high sec station. If you want to come after us you are going to have to wardec us, and my 20 pvp players are going to love that. Meanwhile if I don't have at least 40 players online my players just run lvl 4 missions. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. [b]YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable[
Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:28:00 - [1554] I have to agree >100% refining has the potential to be game breaking. Everyone in 0.0 would just end up spinning in station all day magically making thousands of items from free.
Kernok	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:30:00 - [1555] the fact that u can just park a cloaked alt in each of someones anomalies and effectively shut off their upgrades is hillarious. small merc corps could log in right after dt, get in all 15 of a target systems anomalies, and prevent all of their anomolies / "upgrades" from respawning then demand a ransom, on top of the sov fees lol
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:31:00 - [1556] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 08/11/2009 02:31:27 Quote: Instanced... lol... go play WoW! In WoW there is nothing as ret4rded as L4 missions. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Masempa	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:32:00 - [1557] Originally by: Jethro Hawkins 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.
Innominate GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:33:00 - [1558] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Destrim I believe it would be nice if the return on refine amount increased beyond 100%. In other words, you start getting something like 110% return, etc. This would be a very bad thing - make 100 guns, then reprocess them and make 110 guns, then reprocess those - you get the idea. Not an issue if it only applies to ore.
Vittore Mos	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:34:00 - [1559] Originally by: Kernok the fact that u can just park a cloaked alt in each of someones anomalies and effectively shut off their upgrades is hillarious. small merc corps could log in right after dt, get in all 15 of a target systems anomalies, and prevent all of their anomolies / "upgrades" from respawning then demand a ransom, on top of the sov fees lol Nother reason there should be a anti-cloaker T2 destroyer
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:35:00 - [1560] Edited by: Destrim on 08/11/2009 02:41:44 That being said... some examples. These are merely hypothetical propositions to get thoughts flowing. Industry- Increase refine return past 100%, to a maximum of 150% @ sov level 5 (Clarification note: this ONLY applies to ore! The REFINE rate, not the REPROCESS rate!) Increase the mining amount/speed by x% per sov level Decrease build costs by x% per sov level Decrease build and research times by x% per sov level Insert other clever "by x% per sov level" thingy here I like the idea of increasing the chances of getting WH's, by the way... but how about letting us choose between an upgrade which increases WH's leading to w-space and WH's that are shortcuts to normal space? Military- Increase shield HP by x% per sov level Increase armor HP by x% per sov level (Can only be one or the other: cannot have BOTH armor AND shield upgrades!) Decrease capacitor cost for local/remote repair by x% per sov level Insert other clever "by x% per sov level" thingy here I liked someone else's idea about allowing one to probe for cloaked ships. That would DEFINITELY increase the security of a system, and reduce the problem of cloaky gangs. Sure, the idea of getting nice rating bonuses through military is fine... keep them. But at least add in some other options that actually add to military infrastructure!

Prognosys	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:36:00 - [1561] Originally by: Masempa Originally by: Jethro Hawkins 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.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:37:00 - [1562] Originally by: Prognosys Originally by: Masempa Originally by: Jethro Hawkins 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. Would still love an answer to this by CCP
Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:38:00 - [1563] I'm guessing your gonna get an answer when it isn't 4am
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:39:00 - [1564] Originally by: Inferno Styx I have to agree >100% refining has the potential to be game breaking. Everyone in 0.0 would just end up spinning in station all day magically making thousands of items from free. Yeah that would be horrible, I'm sure with the right skills someone could say make as much money as copying blueprints or buying ore from new players, refining it, and then selling the minerals for more than they bought the ore for. You would need a heck lot of skill points to do that. And just because you can refine or reprocess something for more than 100% of the normal gain that doesn't mean that is greater than 100% of the minerals that it took to make that item perfectly. Basically you could buy those guns from players in systems that had lower refining arrays, move them to your system and refine them for as close to possible to what a perfect manufacturer could get out of them. All CCP needs to do is calculate the lowest minerals possible to make an item and then put that as a maximum amount you could get from reprocessing that item. Of course I'm betting CCP had bad programmers write the refining code, same as the true sec code, and now they aren't sure how they could do that. First lesson in programming is to put notes in your programming so that other people know what the lines of code are actually doing. Even I learned that in highschool programming, and I still do it religiously although I'm not a great programmer. If CCP can't understand a section of code they need to hire a programmer to rewrite the code with notes, and they should have done it years ago. Better yet they should just make the orginal code before all updates open source. Within a month they could go on the internet and find a version with notes that had hundreds of upgrades. Then they can just go through and remove the upgrades that won't work with the updates and the upgrades tehy didn't like. I bet the game would even run faster and over half the current bugs that have been around for years will have been fixed. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:40:00 - [1565] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Destrim I believe it would be nice if the return on refine amount increased beyond 100%. In other words, you start getting something like 110% return, etc. This would be a very bad thing - make 100 guns, then reprocess them and make 110 guns, then reprocess those - you get the idea. Let me clarify- the REFINE rate. Not the reprocess rate. In other words, it's exclusive to ore.
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:40:00 - [1566] Originally by: Inferno Styx I'm guessing your gonna get an answer when it isn't 4am It's only 2:40!
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:43:00 - [1567] 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
Lucas Pantelis Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:44:00 - [1568] Originally by: Prognosys Originally by: Masempa Originally by: Jethro Hawkins 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.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:45:00 - [1569] Originally by: Lucas Pantelis 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. Here's to twelve more!
Salsbury	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:45:00 - [1570] Originally by: Cefte Originally by: CCP Chronotis excellent clarity of vision I must say! It takes a special kind of clarity of vision to quote a post that's been thoroughly refuted without addressing, or even acknowledging the existence of the refutations. I've read all 46 posts between mine (#1201) and this one (#1247). Would you care to link to the "thorough refutation" that you're talking about? I hope you're not referring to #1213, where one of your alliance mates called me "a really dumb pubbie", said "I understand you think a game should be a job, but a lot of smarter people think this is a dumb way to approach things." and also said: "In conclusion you're a pretty terrible poster and not very smart. Sorry. PS Kuzim Blacky'all is the best poster in this thread and probably in EVE." I'm afraid that name-calling and insulting someone's intelligence is neither thorough, nor refutation. (Follow that link if you'd like to learn more about what it actually is. HINT: Your post doesn't even come close.) Quote: It's a similar kind of clarity that thinks, of all the posts addressing the changes, that this: Quote: Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! Is the sentiment you decide to pick out as your mascot. Enjoy your epic pwnage. You gotta admit, the smack-talk in here is pretty thick... I stand by my statements. Especially all the non-smack-talk bits about collaborative playing, which you conveniently glossed over.

Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:46:00 - [1571] Edited by: Korodan on 08/11/2009 02:50:41 Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Destrim I believe it would be nice if the return on refine amount increased beyond 100%. In other words, you start getting something like 110% return, etc. This would be a very bad thing - make 100 guns, then reprocess them and make 110 guns, then reprocess those - you get the idea. Let me clarify- the REFINE rate. Not the reprocess rate. In other words, it's exclusive to ore. This would be much more acceptable - it would still have to be much lower then 10% per level - otherwise the ABC ore market would crash because there would suddenly be more mega then trit on the market, at best something like 2% per level. Enough to matter to someone mining in bulk but not game breakingly powerful. edit: also, any boost to a form of RR is a really bad idea - you will have entire alliances propped up by large RR geddon/guardian gangs or basi/drake gangs.
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:51:00 - [1572] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Destrim I believe it would be nice if the return on refine amount increased beyond 100%. In other words, you start getting something like 110% return, etc. This would be a very bad thing - make 100 guns, then reprocess them and make 110 guns, then reprocess those - you get the idea. Let me clarify- the REFINE rate. Not the reprocess rate. In other words, it's exclusive to ore. This would be much more acceptable - it would still have to be much lower then 10% per level - otherwise the ABC ore market would crash because there would suddenly be more mega then trit on the market, at best something like 2% per level. Enough to matter to someone mining in bulk but not game breakingly powerful. Agreed, 150% may be too much, but you get the idea. Something like 2% per level of sov? So, up to 110% return on the refine? That sound about right to you?
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:52:00 - [1573] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks for keeping the feedback largely constructive so far. As stated in the original blog it is trivial for us to us to change the numbers and we expected this to happen based on the next round of feedback which is happening here. The original upkeep costs in the blog were designed given a reduction in space you need to hold for income purposes so they increasingly become less as passive income increases (fixed cost/dynamic income) and act as a soft limit and prohibitive factor on how much space you want to claim. That indeed is the case since the established powerblocks will naturally look to where you can cost cut initially and potentially expand later based on purchase and installation of resource upgrades and more balanced member base to utilise those resources and that means limiting to strategically important systems to begin with regardless of the final upkeep or upgrade figures we arrive at here. But on with some specific answers to the biggest concerns: So will we look at making upkeep costs less than stated in the blog due to reasonable feedback? Yes! - Sovereignty Structures The role of the Territorial Claim Unit (TCU) changed since the original figures were generated to be only a marker for sovereignty and the last thing to be removed after a system has been taken (details on this are coming soon in Abathur's next blog). This means the cost for the TCU should be reasonable in terms of upkeep and we are looking at 1 mill per day currently for that dot on the map. The infrastructure hub is both key to strategic defence and as the base of the solar system upgrades. Here we are looking at mirroring a large starbase in equivalent operational cost so 5 million upkeep per day is more reasonable. - Strategic Upgrades The key upgrades here we want to force you to make economic decisions over are naturally the jump bridges and cynosural jammer use. The presence of these two has radical effects on the 'landscape' generally. We are looking at no upkeep cost on either of the construction arrays and cynosural field generators and then maintain significant costs the cynosural jammer and jump bridges. Hopefully that answers some concerns on the upkeep fees and that we are looking at the figures and open to adjusting them further. As for the other issues raised, we are looking at the issues around the resource sites and things like knowing if they are in use or not and will shed more light on the asteroid belt upgrades which are not the ordinary gravimetric sites FYI some of you are mentioning Keep the constructive feedback coming and we'll update the original blog monday or tuesday with new figures and updates and additional comments to clear some confusion up. I love the vision behind dominion: to get people to leave empire, cooperate with others, and populate 0.0 Which is why these new numbers are WAY TOO LOW. 6mil/system/day will do absolutely nothing to strongly discentivize larger alliances holding tremendous numbers of systems that they don't use as a buffer around the space that they do. There is a balance to be reached between being financially ruinous and expensive enough that people actually care and are discouraged from claiming space they won't actually use. Upkeep should make alliances want to free up or rent out space that isn't actually used except strategically. 6mil (or a laughable 1 for sov with no hub) just fails to do that.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:55:00 - [1574] 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?
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:57:00 - [1575] Originally by: Mahke Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks for keeping the feedback largely constructive so far. As stated in the original blog it is trivial for us to us to change the numbers and we expected this to happen based on the next round of feedback which is happening here. The original upkeep costs in the blog were designed given a reduction in space you need to hold for income purposes so they increasingly become less as passive income increases (fixed cost/dynamic income) and act as a soft limit and prohibitive factor on how much space you want to claim. That indeed is the case since the established powerblocks will naturally look to where you can cost cut initially and potentially expand later based on purchase and installation of resource upgrades and more balanced member base to utilise those resources and that means limiting to strategically important systems to begin with regardless of the final upkeep or upgrade figures we arrive at here. But on with some specific answers to the biggest concerns: So will we look at making upkeep costs less than stated in the blog due to reasonable feedback? Yes! - Sovereignty Structures The role of the Territorial Claim Unit (TCU) changed since the original figures were generated to be only a marker for sovereignty and the last thing to be removed after a system has been taken (details on this are coming soon in Abathur's next blog). This means the cost for the TCU should be reasonable in terms of upkeep and we are looking at 1 mill per day currently for that dot on the map. The infrastructure hub is both key to strategic defence and as the base of the solar system upgrades. Here we are looking at mirroring a large starbase in equivalent operational cost so 5 million upkeep per day is more reasonable. - Strategic Upgrades The key upgrades here we want to force you to make economic decisions over are naturally the jump bridges and cynosural jammer use. The presence of these two has radical effects on the 'landscape' generally. We are looking at no upkeep cost on either of the construction arrays and cynosural field generators and then maintain significant costs the cynosural jammer and jump bridges. Hopefully that answers some concerns on the upkeep fees and that we are looking at the figures and open to adjusting them further. As for the other issues raised, we are looking at the issues around the resource sites and things like knowing if they are in use or not and will shed more light on the asteroid belt upgrades which are not the ordinary gravimetric sites FYI some of you are mentioning Keep the constructive feedback coming and we'll update the original blog monday or tuesday with new figures and updates and additional comments to clear some confusion up. I love the vision behind dominion: to get people to leave empire, cooperate with others, and populate 0.0 Which is why these new numbers are WAY TOO LOW. 6mil/system/day will do absolutely nothing to strongly discentivize larger alliances holding tremendous numbers of systems that they don't use as a buffer around the space that they do. There is a balance to be reached between being financially ruinous and expensive enough that people actually care and are discouraged from claiming space they won't actually use. Upkeep should make alliances want to free up or rent out space that isn't actually used except strategically. 6mil (or a laughable 1 for sov with no hub) just fails to do that. I agree that the penalties for keeping too much space should be kept high... but my concern is that the rewards for the systems you do keep, and invest time in, are too low. What rewards (or improvements on the currently disappointing ones) would you suggest?
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:57:00 - [1576] Originally by: Destrim stuff Yeah, that seems like a very good number. I also like the idea of military upgrades, though as I noted above you can't bonus anything involving RR unless you want people to hold systems with nothing more then drakes and basis or geddons and guardians.
El Liptonez	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:58:00 - [1577] Originally by: Lucas Pantelis 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.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:58:00 - [1578] Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 08/11/2009 02:59:15 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? Because the people who like this chat are empire dwellers L33t WOLFPAXX players like Tri or Star Fraction and people who don't comprehend how the current sov system works or any of the costs and efforts involved so they damn sure won't "get" the new one. And Quote: 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 - 2009.11.08 03:01:00 - [1579] 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
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:06:00 - [1580] 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. You have to answer this at some point.

Woofybean	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:07:00 - [1581] Edited by: Woofybean on 08/11/2009 03:08:39 EDIT: Sigh, yay for timeouts. Originally by: Salsbury I've read all 46 posts between mine (#1201) and this one (#1247). Would you care to link to the "thorough refutation" that you're talking about? Did you actually read the other 50 pages, or are you sitting there all smug after being white knighted by a dev that appears to not play the same game as the rest of us? Originally by: Salsbury I stand by my statements. Especially all the non-smack-talk bits about collaborative playing, which you conveniently glossed over. If you understood as much about this game as you believe you do, you'd know just how much the Goons understand about cooperative play. Your comments are redundant.
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:07:00 - [1582] Originally by: Vadinho 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 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?
Deliceous Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:13:00 - [1583] From what I see it will be scary large improvement, Making money should be faster 0.0 space as you will be constantly be plexing in 1 system vs traveling system to go complete a mission. (making us salvager/boosters in Rorquals Handy) Several people in the System will be able to work together to fend off Invaders It is going to be Scary as hell though for the transition as we are jumping from a 4+year old system we have come to learn inside out and into something completely different. Isk will be lost in the beginning but I sincerely feel there will be isk to be earn. My biggest question what are those people who have been fueling POS on all their free time, what are they going to do now?
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:14:00 - [1584] Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Vadinho 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 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? Meh...whatever. I made my points long ago. Its just too damn expensive and you can't get to cash flow, much less equal empire. All I ask for is cash flow. If you can't survive economically, you can't survive at all. Its kind of pointless to run level 4 missions as a corp to earn isk so that you can afford to rat in 0.0. It doesn't make any sense. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:14:00 - [1585] Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Vadinho 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 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? The best sort of upgrades would be ratting upgrades, for people who play with single accounts it's easily the most effective way to make money in 0.0. So I'd like an upgrade like this: Concord Communication Array: <insert some RP BS about an uplink to the CONCORD criminal database here> For every level of this upgrade the value of rats increases by 10% - capping out at 50%. This upgrade also allows the alliance controlling the system to collect taxes on bounties from anyone ratting in the system, regardless of their alliance's relationship to them.
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:15:00 - [1586] Originally by: Deliceous My biggest question what are those people who have been fueling POS on all their free time, what are they going to do now? That, my dear sir, is a scary question indeed O_O
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:17:00 - [1587] Originally by: Deliceous From what I see it will be scary large improvement, Making money should be faster 0.0 space as you will be constantly be plexing in 1 system vs traveling system to go complete a mission. (making us salvager/boosters in Rorquals Handy) Several people in the System will be able to work together to fend off Invaders It is going to be Scary as hell though for the transition as we are jumping from a 4+year old system we have come to learn inside out and into something completely different. Isk will be lost in the beginning but I sincerely feel there will be isk to be earn. My biggest question what are those people who have been fueling POS on all their free time, what are they going to do now? You just try to find a plex to run with 20+ of your alliance mates doing the same.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:18:00 - [1588] 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!
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:21:00 - [1589] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Vadinho 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 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? The best sort of upgrades would be ratting upgrades, for people who play with single accounts it's easily the most effective way to make money in 0.0. So I'd like an upgrade like this: Concord Communication Array: <insert some RP BS about an uplink to the CONCORD criminal database here> For every level of this upgrade the value of rats increases by 10% - capping out at 50%. This upgrade also allows the alliance controlling the system to collect taxes on bounties from anyone ratting in the system, regardless of their alliance's relationship to them. Hmmm... I like that :) Now, ninja-ratters won't be such a huge problem, and allies stealing said rats wouldn't be as much a problem, either. But do you have any ideas about upgrades to the actual military infrastructure of the sovereign?
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:25:00 - [1590] Edited by: Korodan on 08/11/2009 03:28:41 Originally by: Destrim stuff Hmmm... I like that :) Now, ninja-ratters won't be such a huge problem, and allies stealing said rats wouldn't be as much a problem, either. But do you have any ideas about upgrades to the actual military infrastructure of the sovereign? Rather generic stuff mostly - small per level boosts to shield and armor HP (one or the other of course, insert technobabble about it) and/or minor bonuses to armor resists or shield resists. They have to be good enough to give some bonus to the defender but still not so incredible they let them abuse the system. So damage and ROF stuff could be pretty broken, and absolutely no upgrades for RR and cap transfers. Edit: so just about any bonuses a CS could give with a warfare link minus anything involving RR or cap transfer.

ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:25:00 - [1591] Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Vadinho 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 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? Just offer more upgrades. 3 Rat upgrades, bounty, respawn speed, and spawn quality(removing not faction sub battleship spawns. Make anomaly isk/hr above level 4's with lp factored in. Add planetary spawns. This would increase 0.0 attractiveness a great deal and allow a great deal more density of players per system.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:25:00 - [1592] Quote: 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. So beyond this point can we perhaps get the rest of "non finalized" details to see if maybe they make up for this ******ed flat pay scheme that royally bones p much everyone?
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:28:00 - [1593] Originally by: Destrim 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 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? The best sort of upgrades would be ratting upgrades, for people who play with single accounts it's easily the most effective way to make money in 0.0. So I'd like an upgrade like this: Concord Communication Array: <insert some RP BS about an uplink to the CONCORD criminal database here> For every level of this upgrade the value of rats increases by 10% - capping out at 50%. This upgrade also allows the alliance controlling the system to collect taxes on bounties from anyone ratting in the system, regardless of their alliance's relationship to them. Hmmm... I like that :) Now, ninja-ratters won't be such a huge problem, and allies stealing said rats wouldn't be as much a problem, either. But do you have any ideas about upgrades to the actual military infrastructure of the sovereign? I don't want different upgrades. I want the whole patch thrown in the bin. This is OUR space claimed on behalf of the Empire. Who are we paying these taxes to? If it's the Empire - well that's fantastic your Majesty - we're delighted to be accepted in the Empire. When can we expect Imperial patrols to start and navy sentry guns to be installed? If it's anyone else - eat laser death scumbag.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:30:00 - [1594] Edited by: Ukucia on 08/11/2009 03:33:07 Edited by: Ukucia on 08/11/2009 03:32:35 Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Vadinho 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 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? You don't quite get it. Dominion launches in 3 weeks. There is no time for massive changes and rewrites. There is no time for suggestions. There is only time to purchase some lube so it won't hurt as badly. I do appreciate how you're trying to keep this positive, but suggestions and fixes were needed months ago.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:31:00 - [1595] Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 03:31:37 Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Korodan The best sort of upgrades would be ratting upgrades, for people who play with single accounts it's easily the most effective way to make money in 0.0. So I'd like an upgrade like this: Concord Communication Array: <insert some RP BS about an uplink to the CONCORD criminal database here> For every level of this upgrade the value of rats increases by 10% - capping out at 50%. This upgrade also allows the alliance controlling the system to collect taxes on bounties from anyone ratting in the system, regardless of their alliance's relationship to them. Hmmm... I like that :) Now, ninja-ratters won't be such a huge problem, and allies stealing said rats wouldn't be as much a problem, either. But do you have any ideas about upgrades to the actual military infrastructure of the sovereign? Thats wide open to exploit. Just sayin. RMT people would stop macroing and just build systems to collect taxes. edit In Soviet Russia the plexes farm you. never stop posting...with alts.* Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:31:00 - [1596] Originally by: Destrim I agree that the penalties for keeping too much space should be kept high... but my concern is that the rewards for the systems you do keep, and invest time in, are too low. What rewards (or improvements on the currently disappointing ones) would you suggest? Honestly, I don't know. An isk per day number is simple and its implications easily understood: I can categorically say the cost is too low with the new suggested 6mil number (in that it will fail miserably at getting AFK empires to scale back) with extreme confidence that I am correct. On the reward side, since I don't use SISI (or know if its even up there), I can't test the new (and according to them, different) anomalies CCP is adding. Since I cannot test them and there is insufficient information available to judge, I cannot hold a valid opinion either way on whether they are rewarding enough and how they should or should not be changed.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:33:00 - [1597] Originally by: Tesal Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 03:31:37 Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Korodan The best sort of upgrades would be ratting upgrades, for people who play with single accounts it's easily the most effective way to make money in 0.0. So I'd like an upgrade like this: Concord Communication Array: <insert some RP BS about an uplink to the CONCORD criminal database here> For every level of this upgrade the value of rats increases by 10% - capping out at 50%. This upgrade also allows the alliance controlling the system to collect taxes on bounties from anyone ratting in the system, regardless of their alliance's relationship to them. Hmmm... I like that :) Now, ninja-ratters won't be such a huge problem, and allies stealing said rats wouldn't be as much a problem, either. But do you have any ideas about upgrades to the actual military infrastructure of the sovereign? Thats wide open to exploit. Just sayin. RMT people would stop macroing and just build systems to collect taxes. *edit In Soviet Russia the plexes farm you. Should we get rid of Hulks and Mackinaws because they make macromining easier too?
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:33:00 - [1598] Originally by: Zahorite Originally by: Kanatta Jing Edited by: Kanatta Jing on 08/11/2009 02:10:49 I'm like the only one who sees how easy it's going to be to grind in a PVP grade fleet to make stupid amounts of money, and how much more secure a system will be with a big active fleet in it? I mean rather then people being semi AFK in station spinning ships. Three problems with what you are seeing. 1. I can do the same running missions in high sec with a 20 man fleet (actually 4 fleets of 5 each would be more realistic) and earn even more money than you could in 0.0 space. And I won't have to stop to defend against anyone and I'll pay less for ammo and ships. If in the event I'm actually war deced I'll just jump clone everyone down to 0.0 and then I'll make the same amount as you, of course half the time I'll be making more than you. This is arguably true. However in anomalies you don't have to travel two jump dock, cash in the mission, turn around travel two more jumps warp to the gate, warp to the site. You can simply as the FC book mark the next site as you kill this site and when the last spawn fails to spawn, you fleet warp. The only time you aren't making money is as you warp from one anomaly to the next. Originally by: Zahorite 2. If I'm your enemy I'm just going to log an alt put a cloak and a scanner on it and then scan down and cloak inside one of your anomalies. That will cause the anomaly to not despawn when you finish it and good luck finding me. Even if you do I'm in a Tech I frigate and you cost me less than a million isk while I cost you at least tens of millions of isk. All I need is ten people with alts and you can't run anything in your system. Yes this is a bad thing for a one system empire. But, 10 AFK alts is a lot to dedicate to one system. It gets harder if you have to seed an entire constellation with AFK alts. Originally by: Zahorite 3. I'm a giant corp that is next door to you. And I have twenty people that want to pvp and twenty people that want to grind some money. I haven't spent any money on upgrades cause you've spent that money on upgrades. So every day my forty players head over to your system. The 20 that want to pvp roam around killing everyone that comes out of POS bubbles and the station while the other 20 players run the instances you spent so much money building up. Best of all I don't even have sov in the system next to you, all my guys are sitting in a high sec station. If you want to come after us you are going to have to wardec us, and my 20 pvp players are going to love that. Meanwhile if I don't have at least 40 players online my players just run lvl 4 missions. Except you need 30 PVPers to crush out the 20 man gank fleet if your own 20 man fleet only wants to grind. We don't fight fair fights here in EVE, and if you do, your doing it wrong. But other wise it is a valid tactic. Having a stable fleet of 20 gank ships is a deterent but it can easily be defeated by greater numbers, larger ships, more skills... Infact you are describing the very definition of PVP in EVE I am not a member of a Small Alliance looking to gain a foot hold in 0.0 I am a member of a Medium Alliance with a foot hold in 0.0 My advice is to scout out where your going and not move in somewhere with some jerks as neighbors and don't pick fights if you don't know you can win.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:33:00 - [1599] 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? Can't make an omlet without cracking a few eggs.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:36:00 - [1600] Originally by: Tesal Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 03:31:37 Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Korodan The best sort of upgrades would be ratting upgrades, for people who play with single accounts it's easily the most effective way to make money in 0.0. So I'd like an upgrade like this: Concord Communication Array: <insert some RP BS about an uplink to the CONCORD criminal database here> For every level of this upgrade the value of rats increases by 10% - capping out at 50%. This upgrade also allows the alliance controlling the system to collect taxes on bounties from anyone ratting in the system, regardless of their alliance's relationship to them. Hmmm... I like that :) Now, ninja-ratters won't be such a huge problem, and allies stealing said rats wouldn't be as much a problem, either. But do you have any ideas about upgrades to the actual military infrastructure of the sovereign? Thats wide open to exploit. Just sayin. RMT people would stop macroing and just build systems to collect taxes. No, because they'd lose the systems. If it's such a cash cow that the RMT folks do it, then it's a big cash cow that the at-the-keyboard alliances would take it.

Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:36:00 - [1601] Originally by: Aralis I don't want different upgrades. I want the whole patch thrown in the bin. This is OUR space claimed on behalf of the Empire. Who are we paying these taxes to? If it's the Empire - well that's fantastic your Majesty - we're delighted to be accepted in the Empire. When can we expect Imperial patrols to start and navy sentry guns to be installed? If it's anyone else - eat laser death scumbag. Well, we can't have throwing it in the bin. That's too much. However, increasing the defensibility of your system is, in my opinion, a must. I mean, seriously: you're being forced now to devote as much time as possible to simply keeping it, so you should REALLY get decent returns. Like - as you said - sentry guns and NPC patrols. Actually, CCP mentioned that they may do this in a later patch, but not on the initial Dominion release... So, since throwing it out is not negotiable, help us come up with something which alleviates your circumstances. As you said, you fought hard for the systems you've got, and you should get something for it... propose what you think would best reward your efforts, and reward your hard work.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:36:00 - [1602] Originally by: Korodan we get rid of Hulks and Mackinaws because they make macromining easier too? No, but what you are proposing is an ideal laundering solution. Its a completely anonymous transfer of isk that can be botted. It won't work and could break the game. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:37:00 - [1603] When I think about this, I realize this is actually great. I will be able to rat and make money for corp, so corp can maintain infrastructure in order for us to live in 0.0, so that I can rat and make money for corp, so corp can maintain infrastructure in order for us to live in 0.0, so that I can rat and make money for corp, so corp can maintain infrastructure in order for us to live in 0.0, so that I can rat and make money for corp, so corp can maintain infrastructure in order for us to live in 0.0, so that I can rat and make money for corp, so corp can maintain infrastructure in order for us to live in 0.0, so that I can rat and make money for corp, so corp can maintain infrastructure in order for us to live in 0.0, so that I can rat and make money for corp, so corp can maintain infrastructure in order for us to live in 0.0, so that I can rat and make money for corp, so corp can maintain infrastructure in order for us to live in 0.0. Then I can brag about living in 0.0.
NickSuccorso Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:38:00 - [1604] Quote: Sup Atlas we've told you a billion times our old space was complete ***. We were not kidding and it looks to only be getting worse. :) Yeah but who could have imagined it would end up like this. Goddamn. Quote:* if we're paying billions for our jump bridges, will we at least no longer have to keep the damned things loaded with ozone? Hey, speaking of which, can someone explain why alliances that live in places like Branch and Omist will have to pay out the ass even harder to maintain their jump bridge route to civilization, please? Maybe we can do something about this? Maybe give the bridges better range or something? Maybe jump bridges don't need to be so expensive? Also, regarding that blog, would it have been so hard to start it with giant bold letters stating that "these figures are examples only, and don't necessarily represent the final number of blah blah alksthahsgd", if this stuff was open to tweeking after feedback? 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.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:39:00 - [1605] Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Aralis I don't want different upgrades. I want the whole patch thrown in the bin. This is OUR space claimed on behalf of the Empire. Who are we paying these taxes to? If it's the Empire - well that's fantastic your Majesty - we're delighted to be accepted in the Empire. When can we expect Imperial patrols to start and navy sentry guns to be installed? If it's anyone else - eat laser death scumbag. Well, we can't have throwing it in the bin. That's too much. However, increasing the defensibility of your system is, in my opinion, a must. I mean, seriously: you're being forced now to devote as much time as possible to simply keeping it, so you should REALLY get decent returns. Like - as you said - sentry guns and NPC patrols. Actually, CCP mentioned that they may do this in a later patch, but not on the initial Dominion release... So, since throwing it out is not negotiable, help us come up with something which alleviates your circumstances. As you said, you fought hard for the systems you've got, and you should get something for it... propose what you think would best reward your efforts, and reward your hard work. Another idea - a security upgrade that lets people anchor sentry guns at gates - this would make it more difficult to gatecamp your space but as long as they work like POS guns (can be incapped, don't instalock) and you can't put up warp disruption battries it wouldn't be a bad idea.
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:40:00 - [1606] Originally by: rubico1337 you know. there are these things called moons. generally they are semi-lucrative even after dominion. maybe that isk could go to pay sov bills rather than pay for huge cap fleets and megalomaniac directors? just a thought... Yeah, great idea. We should all spend 30 days a month making money, so that we could pay sov bills, so that we could continue making money to pay sov bills, so that we could continue making money to pay sov bills, so that we could continue making money to pay sov bills, so that we could continue making money to pay sov bills, so that we could continue making money to pay sov bills... Wait, I am lost.
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:42:00 - [1607] Welcome to Farmville Online.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:43:00 - [1608] Why are goons crying the most of this?
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:44:00 - [1609] Originally by: Ukucia Edited by: Ukucia on 08/11/2009 03:33:07 Edited by: Ukucia on 08/11/2009 03:32:35 Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Vadinho 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 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? You don't quite get it. Dominion launches in 3 weeks. There is no time for massive changes and rewrites. There is no time for suggestions. There is only time to purchase some lube so it won't hurt as badly. I do appreciate how you're trying to keep this positive, but suggestions and fixes were needed months ago. The changes may not be quite so massive as you may think (at least, I don't think so). As CCP described it, the new system allows them to "plug things into it in a modular fashion," so they do not have to re-write the entire system to create a new type of hub upgrade: they only have to create the new hub upgrade, or modify the current ones. The "modules" being the upgrades, of course. You are right, however. I'm trying to keep this positive, and constructive. But then, if it's too late to propose changes/improvements, it is also too late to complain about it. I'd rather propose the improvements than the latter, regardless of which case it may be :)
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:45:00 - [1610] Originally by: Sentinel Eeex Welcome to Farmville Online. No, you got it wrong. You run Level 4 missions, so you can buy Sov so you can rat, to buy Sov. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist

Marlon Shakespeare Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:45:00 - [1611] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Zahorite Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Learn to PVP!
Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:46:00 - [1612] 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.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:49:00 - [1613] Originally by: Sentinel Eeex Welcome to Farmville Online. I play Farmville and I only have to touch it like once every 4 days and briefly every day to milk the cows.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:49:00 - [1614] Originally by: Marlona Sky Why are goons crying the most of this? We enjoy enjoy **ting in cereal - therefore we need someone else's cereal to ** in.
Lilredridinghood	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:49:00 - [1615] there seems to still be one question that needs answering 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.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:50:00 - [1616] Originally by: Marlona Sky Why are goons crying the most of this? Because Delve is about to become a death trap, and vengeful ex-Bob cloak ships on them and stuff. And they will have to pvp like crazy to hold Delve, and it will be like Mogadishu all the time and they won't be able to afford to cyno jam it all, and the region will become unprofitable with current moon prices if they hold Sov in the whole thing. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:50:00 - [1617] 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
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:56:00 - [1618] 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.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:56:00 - [1619] 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 Normal POS guns would be fine as long as you were limited to "vanilla" guns - no warp disruption equipment or NOS/neuts (webs would just make it easier for the enemy to warp off) and possibly no ECM. Just say they sip power off the gate or some **** like that. Also, allow stations to have guns too.
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:57:00 - [1620] Originally by: Marlona Sky Edited by: Marlona Sky on 08/11/2009 03:48:15 Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes? Because we are not like TRI or IT, running level 4 missions in empire to get ISK. We are actually trying to make living in 0.0. And we need to cry about something, so this is as good as anything v0v

Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:58:00 - [1621] Lots of text coming warning! The ideas that CCP have advanced to replace the sov system are not, in of themselves bad. However, as currently outlined on page 1 the implementation of them is frankly likely to be catastrophic to 0.0, especially in conquerable regions. I literally checked to be sure that the date on my clock said 2009 instead of 2004, because the logical outcome of many of these changes will to make the 0.0 geography look rather like 2004 in the end. There are so many problems with what has been outlined I barely know where to start; however some common sense has to be beaten into CCP's head to point out the logical chain of failures that is likely to occur under this system. #1. Cost vs income. What you're doing here is adding a huge new cost to 0.0 life in conquerable regions, while decreasing the income. Not only do you now have to bear sov costs, but your POS fuel bill is going to actually increase, not go down. The simple reason is that no one really operates towers just to claim sov. Nearly all of them are used for jump bridges, cyno arrays, labs, reactions, mining (both belt and moon), etc. We operate well over 100 POS in this corp last I looked and under the new system we will be able to stop operation of 2 of them. Fuel savings from these 2 POS is not significant, however the reduction in fuel savings to 10% is. Therefore fuel costs will actually increase, not go down, at the exact same time that massive new costs to support the sov system are also introduced. At the same time, the reduction of moon based income is also incoming, meaning that in order to support these new costs taxes of the playerbase will now be required to ensure solvency of the corporation and alliance, which is an active disincentive to conquerable 0.0 when compared to either missioning empire or NPC 0.0. At the same time, the income side of the equation is not being boosted to sufficient levels. As already noted, most of the upgrades are either in areas that are considered worthless (profession sites, cosmic anomalies, mining sites), or in areas that are good because of the rarity of items from them (exploration sites, wormholes) where a increase in the supply will likely cause a price crash devaluing their products. What you get is a situation where many 0.0 residents - on personal, corporation, and alliance levels - are unsure if they can financially afford to exist in 0.0, and an overall realization that someone with real life accounting skills might be required to provide enough feedback to ensure that a financial collapse does not occur due to ignorance on monetary matters (this was an issue before but is becoming more so now). None of this of course provides incentives to either retain people in 0.0 or make them want to move there. Meanwhile, as noted repeatedly, L4's in empire are mostly risk free, and have no expenses associated with them. What is not been touched enough on is that NPC 0.0 is also without any of these issues. Compared to conquerable 0.0 - where you have questionable rewards, but possibly crushing expenses - why would most 0.0 groups live in one, when they could move to a region with NPC stations and not have to worry about any of these factors? In addition, ironically NPC 0.0 has the agents that allow for infinite amounts of individuals to support themselves in one system - for free - where a fully upgraded system only allows 10-15 by CCP's own estimate after the patch. The loud sucking sound from conquerable space to empire and NPC 0.0 will be very reminiscent of exodus. Most players here I doubt were playing the game then but I recall it well; Finfleet reported to the fountian alliance council (which I was a member of at the time) that they were withdrawing from FA because almost all their playerbase had left 0.0 and they had no presence left in it, therefore no reason to be in a 0.0 alliance. There's really no reason to repeat history when it's not necessary. (next)
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:58:00 - [1622] Originally by: Korodan 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 Normal POS guns would be fine as long as you were limited to "vanilla" guns - no warp disruption equipment or NOS/neuts (webs would just make it easier for the enemy to warp off) and possibly no ECM. Just say they sip power off the gate or some ** like that. Also, allow stations to have guns too. And put guns on every celestial object. never stop posting...with alts.** Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Prognosys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:00:00 - [1623] A lot of people have suggested disabling Empire L4 missions or at least turning them down a little. While this is certainly a good idea, I think it's also important to remember that we can't just make Empire less profitable, we also have to make conquerable space more profitable in order for the sov 'fix' to not suck horribly.
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:00:00 - [1624] Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 08/11/2009 04:02:05 Originally by: Marlona Sky Edited by: Marlona Sky on 08/11/2009 03:48:15 Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes? because they are bad Also quotin' my own slightly altered words 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.
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:00:00 - [1625] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Marlona Sky Why are goons crying the most of this? Because Delve is about to become a death trap, and vengeful ex-Bob cloak ships on them and stuff. And they will have to pvp like crazy to hold Delve, and it will be like Mogadishu all the time and they won't be able to afford to cyno jam it all, and the region will become unprofitable with current moon prices if they hold Sov in the whole thing. Simpler explanation is that they just don't want to have non-goon players near them. They also want to hold delve and maintan querious as a buffer. Since they don't want pets or allies living near/with them AND really benefit from the status quo of huge territories held for strategic use but not actually used by anyone, they have the most to lose by dominion being successfully implemented (i.e. in such a way that creates a strong incentives for the big alliances to let groups of smaller groups live in their sphere of influence).
Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:03:00 - [1626] Edited by: Kai Lae on 08/11/2009 04:04:43 The flood control on this site is lame... #2. Letting the "little guy" come to 0.0 and live. This idea is bluntly based on a fallacy that a small group can directly engage a much larger, more powerful group and win under most circumstances. The sov costs seem to be aimed at causing significant territorial retraction of most 0.0 groups. This will be accomplished, because to not do so would be financially ruinous. However, this does not mean that a small alliance can then rejoice and move into the previously vacated space. Just because it is not marked on the map, does not mean it is not effectively claimed by the previous owners. Just like before the sov system came out, it is a simple matter to make a COAD post claiming a certian tract of space as being owned by a group. While the expenses of large groups in 0.0 will be increased, their ability to project power will likely remain significant. Unless the "small guy" alliance has enough combat power to directly engage the large group in head to head fighting over a system, the effect of a small group ignoring the "keep out" signs and climbing onto what is considered the large group's lawn will be the small group gets brutally boat violenced until they are destroyed or retreat. However, if any such small guy group existed that could engage such a larger one head to head, and win, there'd be nothing stopping them now from doing so and claiming a spot of the 0.0 pie. The fact that this is a very rare event should tell everyone that this entire concept is not based in fact, but is an illusion. Current 0.0 alliances will control whatever space they can hold by force, just as they do now, with the only difference being that there won't be markers on the in game map to tell everyone where group A's territory ends and B's begins. If the only effect is that the claiming of territory shifts from markers on maps to COAD announcements, what good does forcing such a contraction by in game mechanics do? #3. Opening up 0.0 to the masses. The idea seems to be that by changing the way sov works in its' mechanics, that 0.0 will become a friendly place to empire carebears, because of the financial models that will be required to succeed in 0.0. Currently it seems that the concept is that you can have 1 of 2 models. You can have (A) closed space that is only accessible to your group, where the costs of 0.0 life are therefore borne by the owning group. The second is to open up the floodgates in a way that CVA does and cover expenses off of the activities of the players admitted to 0.0 (pets, issuing of ratting passes like FA did in the old days, etc). However, there is a problem with (B) in two areas. First, as noted repeatedly, risk vs reward. If the reward does not justify the risk, the movement to 0.0 from empire will be minimal at best. However, there's a second, more important factor at play - empire carebears are empire carebears. In large part, they do not want to live in 0.0 and experience the lifestyle that it involves. They want to run their L4 missions every day at 0 risk. They want to avoid all pvp like the plague. They want to play a wow like existence in highsec, and nothing you can suggest or do will make them change their mind. Reason is simple, they enjoy playing that way, it's their style, and they don't want to change. The reason I can say this is simple. Currently, CVA has an open border, NRDS policy. Anyone who wants to move to 0.0 and live in that environment can do so. In other words, if you have an interest in doing it you can. Logically just about anyone who wants to do so therefore has done so. The fact that (not surprisingly) hightsec has not emptied itself into providence shows that the funding model based on this sort of gameplay is flawed. Where are the tenants to support it going to come from? It seems highly unlikely that sufficent amounts of farmers will be found to fund the additional expenses involved. (next)
Hun Jakuza 24th Imperial Guard	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:04:00 - [1627] Costly upkeep= megafail from CCP again bye-bye small corps in 0.0 and welcome to new lagfest Keeping a costly structure above will not be the interest of the big alliances, because of this on all of them onto a central places, even the fights too. bye-bye rainbowland
Alexi Kalashnikov GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:04:00 - [1628] Edited by: Alexi Kalashnikov on 08/11/2009 04:04:12 adwqd
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:05:00 - [1629] Originally by: Mahke Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Marlona Sky Why are goons crying the most of this? Because Delve is about to become a death trap, and vengeful ex-Bob cloak ships on them and stuff. And they will have to pvp like crazy to hold Delve, and it will be like Mogadishu all the time and they won't be able to afford to cyno jam it all, and the region will become unprofitable with current moon prices if they hold Sov in the whole thing. Simpler explanation is that they just don't want to have non-goon players near them. They also want to hold delve and maintan querious as a buffer. Since they don't want pets or allies living near/with them AND really benefit from the status quo of huge territories held for strategic use but not actually used by anyone, they have the most to lose by dominion being successfully implemented (i.e. in such a way that creates a strong incentives for the big alliances to let groups of smaller groups live in their sphere of influence). Thats what I said. Death trap. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:05:00 - [1630] Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Ukucia You don't quite get it. Dominion launches in 3 weeks. There is no time for massive changes and rewrites. There is no time for suggestions. There is only time to purchase some lube so it won't hurt as badly. I do appreciate how you're trying to keep this positive, but suggestions and fixes were needed months ago. The changes may not be quite so massive as you may think (at least, I don't think so). As CCP described it, the new system allows them to "plug things into it in a modular fashion," so they do not have to re-write the entire system to create a new type of hub upgrade: they only have to create the new hub upgrade, or modify the current ones. The "modules" being the upgrades, of course. And they're also way to close to add any new modules. Right now the time is focused on balancing and testing to find critical bugs that must be fixed before deployment. So while the infrastructure framework allows new modules to be added more easily, there is not time to add upgrades with radically different properties. There is only time to change numbers such as module cost. Quote: You are right, however. I'm trying to keep this positive, and constructive. But then, if it's too late to propose changes/improvements, it is also too late to complain about it. Complaining about it still serves a purpose: If CCP figures out this is gonna go over like a lead balloon, they might push back deployment. If that happens, then there's time to add upgrades with radically different properties.

Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:07:00 - [1631] Originally by: Mahke Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Marlona Sky Why are goons crying the most of this? Because Delve is about to become a death trap, and vengeful ex-Bob cloak ships on them and stuff. And they will have to pvp like crazy to hold Delve, and it will be like Mogadishu all the time and they won't be able to afford to cyno jam it all, and the region will become unprofitable with current moon prices if they hold Sov in the whole thing. Simpler explanation is that they just don't want to have non-goon players near them. They also want to hold delve and maintan querious as a buffer. Since they don't want pets or allies living near/with them AND really benefit from the status quo of huge territories held for strategic use but not actually used by anyone, they have the most to lose by dominion being successfully implemented (i.e. in such a way that creates a strong incentives for the big alliances to let groups of smaller groups live in their sphere of influence). I don't understand how you all can be so dumb. People just want to play a **ing game, not to have a 2nd job. Yeah, surprise, we're not 12 years old kids living in mom's basement, we have lots of old farts (that's why we're bad at this game) who have other things in life besides EVE. I am actually quite happy about announced changes, because it's so easy not to bother with EVE anymore, knowing that it's turning into complete . LG BD390 is a damn nice toy, ** EVE.
Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:09:00 - [1632] The simple fact is that you can't force people to play a game in a fashion they don't want. Well you can't in empire, or NPC 0.0. This brings me to: #4. Eve online sandbox effect. In eve, supposedly, you're in the drivers seat. Your game play experience is controlled by you. No one tells you what to do with your time in game, other than you. This now with exodus is not totally true with regards to people living in 0.0 in conquerable regions. The changing of game mechanics, and the addition of the expenses involved, means that you may have to actively and repeatedly engage in game activities you dislike, or be forced to adopt playstyles you dislike. Take for example the funding models I described in #3. You can either take on the costs yourself, or try to charge them out to another group. If you use (A), this means application of taxes to your entire playerbase, which means required farming. Not farming because you want to, but because you HAVE to, in order to pay the bills. While it's true that operations for the corp and alliance that take on activities that you may not enjoy are common in 0.0, they are usually not a constant thing. They happen possibly a few times a week at most. However, under the new model if you accept the figures being thrown around, you're going to literally have to farm, if you want to or not, daily to ensure the expenses of the corp are met. It becomes irrelevant if you want to or not, you may have to do things you actively dislike in order to afford your 0.0 existence. Remember, eve is a game. Not even analyzing the financial models involved, does this sound like fun or not? Personally I'm betting there's a lot of nots involved in the answer of this question. But all is not lost since we have a different model correct? Well it's likely the same thing under different colors. Assuming you can actually find enough farmers to pay expenses, being forced to concede a portion of your independent existence to another group is possibly a bitter pill for many to swallow. Why is NBSI so prevalent in 0.0? Because for a variety of factors, NRDS and similar systems are hell. Unfun, unworkable hell - which I can personally attest to having lived under it. There's a reason why most NRDS groups fail (CFS, big blue) or eventually scrap the concept, because the admin required and the loss of total control over your personal sandbox is more than most are willing to take. While it's true that CCP seems to want to add in game support to these areas for administration - which is badly needed - the fact is that this patch doesn't have it. Therefore, for at least several months the enormous headaches required to admin such a system will be a factor. The negatives therefore to such a model will therefore be a factor for some time to come, leaving as an effect the choice between 2 possibly equally poor choices. When alliance leadership sits down to decide which they want to do, the thought processes should never be "which system screws us less" - which is what currently seems to be the case. Another irony is that in this game pets are generally derided, because they live in 0.0 without generally having the ability to support themselves. The irony is that with these sov costs, every member of a 0.0 alliance that lives in a conquerable region was literally just turned into a pet of CCP/concord. Fail to make your payment on time, and the results will be instantly just as harsh as if rise had failed to make their payment on time to Sir Molle. At least you could have begged Molle for leniency. The AI driven concord will have none, and unlike a missed payment to bob, the effect will be instantaneous. #5. The hit squad effect. Something that hasn't been discussed extensively is the ability to destabilize this entire system by using a small attack force of the correct composition. I'll explain. Let's say you have a mid size alliance of about 1500 people. (next)
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:12:00 - [1633] 0.0 is great, that's why I make my ISK trading in empire. Game can't be broken when it's more profitable to spend 20 minutes a day to change buy/sell orders, than to rat for 4 hours. No way. And I am a **** trader. That tells something.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:12:00 - [1634] Edited by: Marlona Sky on 08/11/2009 04:13:39 Originally by: Korodan 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 Normal POS guns would be fine as long as you were limited to "vanilla" guns - no warp disruption equipment or NOS/neuts (webs would just make it easier for the enemy to warp off) and possibly no ECM. Just say they sip power off the gate or some **** like that. Also, allow stations to have guns too. So anyone not blue to the gate / station guns that is in a cruiser and smaller is fubar if they have to fight on a gate / station? Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:13:00 - [1635] Originally by: Tesal Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 04:05:30 Originally by: Mahke Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Marlona Sky Why are goons crying the most of this? Because Delve is about to become a death trap, and vengeful ex-Bob cloak ships on them and stuff. And they will have to pvp like crazy to hold Delve, and it will be like Mogadishu all the time and they won't be able to afford to cyno jam it all, and the region will become unprofitable with current moon prices if they hold Sov in the whole thing. Simpler explanation is that they just don't want to have non-goon players near them. They also want to hold delve and maintan querious as a buffer. Since they don't want pets or allies living near/with them AND really benefit from the status quo of huge territories held for strategic use but not actually used by anyone, they have the most to lose by dominion being successfully implemented (i.e. in such a way that creates a strong incentives for the big alliances to let groups of smaller groups live in their sphere of influence). Thats what I said. Death trap. edit Maybe I should root for this just because it kills Goons. Yeah, we're totally "crying" about this because we're scared of getting blown up. And not because we're the largest spaceholding alliance. We've actually got it BETTER than most of 0.0. Atlas and the Esoteria/Paragon Soul alliances are our enemies and they're going to get ***d by this. This ISN'T a damned "goons don't like this, it must be good" situation - the people who are getting screwed aren't being vocal enough.
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:14:00 - [1636] Ok, (semi-)spamming was fun, RAR has finished its thing, off I go. May the anomalies be with you o/
Boodd Gallente U-208 Blade.	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:15:00 - [1637] I can imagine lots of players will be leaving the game just from this announcement. This whole thing seems to be a total mess. I last quit just before the nano nerf. Nano-hacs were the best thing about the game. A small nano gang could take out a much larger fleet. Now the only skill to fleet warfare is bring more ships. I think alot of the suggestions people have just wont work. I dont think the game engine can support alot of the changes people are coming up with. For example if players want the true-sec value of there systems lowered - CCP will have to manually change the sec rating of the systems every DT. CCP like us dont want to spend all their time changing values in a database. Also I don't make 50 mill isk a week to pay for sov in 1 system. I dont make that much and I will never make that much because I dont PVE.
Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:15:00 - [1638] You own a area of space, with say 10 stations in it. You are able to pay your bills by taxes that come from your players. I'll stipulate that the upgrades actually provide enough isk for them to afford these taxes for the purpose of this thought experiment. What would happen if a well trained, motivated hostile group with sufficient numbers entered your space with a sizable black ops unit with coverage in all time zones? Let's say they have 20 people on basically all the time. With that, by using a combination of attacks, maneuvering, sitting in systems AFK cloaked, they can likely bring a quarter to a half of your isk farming activities to a halt. If they concentrate their efforts on the same systems, after a short time your infrastructure upgrades will begin to go offline due to inactivity. If they have the patience, it's quite possible the combination of loss of infrastructure and loss of tax revenue will cause overall funding to go into the red. At this point one of 2 things can happen. The alliance under assault can either dip into reserve funding, attempting to outlast the assault (assuming they have any), or increase the taxes to correct the deficiency. In the first case, assuming the attackers are patient enough, at some point the reserves will run out. This will force a tax increase or a catastrophic collapse will be imminent. However, a tax increase is an equally poor option because it simply exacerbates the differences between conquerable 0.0 and NPC 0.0/missioning empire. At some point the negatives to staying with the alliance under assault for the individual will reach a critical mass and then defections to NPC regions or empire will begin. A cascade failure is possible at this point. I'll note that the above scenario did not require a large force, just possibly 30 or so guys in recons/bombers/black ops in all TZ. In other words, pretty damn easy to do. It would therefore seem the ability to financially collapse alliances becomes far easier in dominion. The long term effects of this can't be fully seen as of yet, but this is not likely to be a positive if conquerable region stability is greatly compromised. The above is just what I can think of off the top of my head. My first take when looking at the proposed changes is that while it doesn't seem to make 0.0 any better, it's pretty effective at massively destabilizing/depopulating conquerable 0.0. Frankly it almost seems like the goal is complete chaos. Did Jade Constantine become a dev and get placed in charge of this project? Because as of right now, it seems that way in a lot of cases. Oh and if you actually stayed and read all of my ramblings on this, my thanks.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:15:00 - [1639] Originally by: Marlona Sky So anyone not blue to the gate guns that is in a cruiser and smaller is fubar if they have to fight on a gate? Simple, do like a lowsec pirate and have someone with a brick ****house of a tank aggress the guns and let them get plinked.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:15:00 - [1640] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar We've actually got it BETTER than most of 0.0. Atlas and the Esoteria/Paragon Soul alliances are our enemies and they're going to get ****d by this. This ISN'T a damned "goons don't like this, it must be good" situation - the people who are getting screwed aren't being vocal enough. Ahh... I thought you guys didn't care. That just plain sweet of you guys.

Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:17:00 - [1641] Originally by: Kanatta Jing Originally by: Kayl Breinhar We've actually got it BETTER than most of 0.0. Atlas and the Esoteria/Paragon Soul alliances are our enemies and they're going to get ****d by this. This ISN'T a damned "goons don't like this, it must be good" situation - the people who are getting screwed aren't being vocal enough. Ahh... I thought you guys didn't care. That just plain sweet of you guys. We would end up being king of the craphill. Even if you are the kings of it its still just a pile of crap.
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:22:00 - [1642] Originally by: Kai Lae Oh and if you actually stayed and read all of my ramblings on this, my thanks. I did read all your points, and your last one in particular hit the nail on the head for my major concern: granting security to those that call a system their home. Which leads back to my point on the military infrastructure upgrades... they don't actually do anything for your military, only rating. So, aside from being a misleading label, nothing has been done to rectify the newfound vulnerability to roaming gangs. I mean, it always used to be a problem before, but NOW the potential problem is many times worse than ever! Ergo, the military infrastructure hub upgrades, aside from quaint little rating bonuses, MUST give the sovereign more defensibility. Otherwise, there is no point. You have simply made yourself more vulnerable than ever before, without any real reward for all the increased risk.
Ehris Bok Stellar Research Incorporated Emergence.	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:22:00 - [1643] Originally by: ep1k Is there any alliance or corp that has seen this change and is now super excited to leave for 0.0? And what exactly makes any space worth fighting over now that's different before. With moons gone i see even less reason to fight over territory. . . Yeah IT Alliance lol. Remember the song "eve online is for BOB" omg It MIGHT BE TRUE!! 'GASP'
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:28:00 - [1644] Originally by: Ehris Bok Originally by: ep1k Is there any alliance or corp that has seen this change and is now super excited to leave for 0.0? And what exactly makes any space worth fighting over now that's different before. With moons gone i see even less reason to fight over territory. . . Yeah IT Alliance lol. Remember the song "eve online is for BOB" omg It MIGHT BE TRUE!! 'GASP' I am now super excited. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Cromzor Caldari Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:28:00 - [1645] I hate the 0.0 napfest, and I'm really enjoying the goontears but... 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.
Prognosys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:32:00 - [1646] Originally by: Cromzor I hate the 0.0 napfest, and I'm really enjoying the goontears but... 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. I like how this patch, specifically this question, is bringing together alliances that hate each others' guts. Enemy of my enemy, etc.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:34:00 - [1647] Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 08/11/2009 04:34:23 I like it because it jsut became insanely easy to grief players out of space by being AFK. Locate anomaly, AFK in anomaly while cloaked. Get 10 people to do this. Game over :) Quote: 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.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:35:00 - [1648] Originally by: Prognosys Originally by: Cromzor I hate the 0.0 napfest, and I'm really enjoying the goontears but... 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. I like how this patch, specifically this question, is bringing together alliances that hate each others' guts. Enemy of my enemy, etc. 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.
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:35:00 - [1649] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I like it because it jsut became insanely easy to grief players out of space by being AFK. Locate anomaly, AFK in anomaly while cloaked. Get 10 people to do this. Game over :) pretty much, then u just tell them they have to pay u to leave i may have found my new afk income p.s. 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.
Cromzor Caldari Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:39:00 - [1650] Edited by: Cromzor on 08/11/2009 04:39:20 Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 08/11/2009 04:34:23 I like it because it jsut became insanely easy to grief players out of space by being AFK. Locate anomaly, AFK in anomaly while cloaked. Get 10 people to do this. Game over :) Quote: 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. OMG, thanks for explaining how I should get my goon revenge! hmm edit: 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 - 2009.11.08 04:40:00 - [1651] 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 ****
Don Pellegrino	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:41:00 - [1652] Edited by: Don Pellegrino on 08/11/2009 04:41:52 I just wanted to point out something that apprently everybody forgot: Almost nobody is using expensive implants in 0.0 In highsec and lowsec, it is always possible to instantly warp off by spamming the Warp To button, in 0.0, you will end up being bubbled 1 time out of 2. So in 0.0, the risk of losing over 100M worth of implants (basic +4s and hardwirings) means training skills is slower unless you don't care about isk, but then making 0.0 more profitable is irrevelant. What I mean is: Everything is about risk vs reward. Please consider Slower Training Speed in the reward part. Not many empire people are willing to sacrifice their skill points to get slightly more isk in 0.0 Skill Points >>>>> ISK (for 95% of the players) ----- edit: spelling
sue denim	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:44:00 - [1653] Also I just kinda wanna note that I thought dominion was gonna make those useless .0 systems useful :( This makes them worse then useful, they're expensive time consuming and useless :\| Yay.... still lots more empty .0 space.... ;p
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:44:00 - [1654] Originally by: cok cola Edited by: cok cola on 08/11/2009 04:36:32 Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I like it because it jsut became insanely easy to grief players out of space by being AFK. Locate anomaly, AFK in anomaly while cloaked. Get 10 people to do this. Game over :) pretty much, then u just tell them they have to pay u to leave i may have found my new afk income edit: altho for this to work you actually have people coming to 0.0 and wanting to pay for sov and upgrades, and since this sov is expensive and the upgrades suck that wont happen. p.s. 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. Yup. Agreed. Thus my point: the military infrastructure upgrades MUST do something to increase the defensibility of the system. Hell, you guys in PL should know this better than anyone, just how much small cloaky and sniper-HAC gangs disrupt an alliance's operations. Sniper-HAC gangs seem to be your bread-and-butter! Aside from being demoralizing, it's excellent at disrupting economy. Now, multiply that x10, since it has been made about that many times easier to destroy an alliance's operations: the only means of making money has been concentrated to a much smaller area, and those areas are far easier to disrupt than before. I restate it for emphasis: the systems must provide the essential reward of security, which the proposed infrastructure hubs do not accomplish.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:44:00 - [1655] Btw: as an extreme Empire carebear industrialist, maybe the devs could answer this question: After these changes, why should I go to 0.0? -I can make more money in Empire. (Enemies can't easily disrupt L4s if you know what you're doing). -Having a functional market is rather important to those of us building stuff, and there isn't one in 0.0. -I have access to every raw material via the market. -I'm an industrialist. I only care about PvP in as much as it creates the demand for my products. Now I know that according to The VisionÖ, 0.0 spaceholders will import tons of carebears to build up their space so that it becomes Empire-ish, just with the spaceholders playing the role of CONCORD. But the upgrades you've announced, and how pitifully limited they are, doesn't fill me with much hope. Sure, you guys are talking a big game about how this framework lets you add future upgrades that will be AWESOMEÖ. But I remember when you introduced COSMOS missions. You talked about how it created a framework that would let you constantly add tons of unique and interesting missions with great rewards. <.< >.> Don't see 'em. I just keep rescuing this damsel who won't stay the **** at home despite her repeated kidnappings. Frankly, I'm a little concerned about these pirates that keep kidnapping her. It always ends badly for them, yet they keep going after her. "The 2,847th time's the charm boys!!". Then there's the 'mining revamp', 'industrial expansion', and a long list of changes that were proposed but never implemented. With your track record, vague promises of a glorious future filled with all sorts of wondrous upgrades doesn't cut it. You haven't followed through on your past vague promises. So, when Dominion hits, why should I, or any other 'carebear', move from living full-time in Empire to living full-time in 0.0?
Poluketes GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:45:00 - [1656] Originally by: Kai Lae ...in order to support these new costs taxes of the playerbase will now be required to ensure solvency of the corporation and alliance, which is an active disincentive to conquerable 0.0... Thank you. To everyone who's quoting the ômereö 7-9m isk per member per day contribution: If you actually enjoy Eve's PvE, I'm sure 7m/day is nothing. But a lot of us don't. Nearly all of my play time I spend in PvP, flying ships that my alliance partially reimburses. I do a little trading too but most months 210m is more than I earn total. You seriously think it's reasonable for me to pay CCP $15/month for the privilege of grinding 15 hours of mind-numbing PvE? Especially when I only play 30 hours a month, if that? I fight to win space for my alliance. In return (currently) my alliance helps reimburse my losses with the isk earned by that space. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. An alliance charging its members 7m/day is not mutually beneficial. None of these infrastructure bonuses will improve my game unless they could somehow earn me ~400m in 5 hours (210m to pay off my alliance and the rest to maintain my current income). And they won't. Individual-level conquerable 0.0 income needs to be slightly higher than empire L4 missions. Alliance-level conquerable 0.0 income needs to be enough to cover all sov claim costs for a reasonable area, infrastructure costs for logistics and to support required individual income levels, and leave enough extra to pay for basic reimbursements. It isn't too complicated.
Zekii	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:48:00 - [1657] 56 pages...... in less than 2 whole days.... someone has failed really bad? I really would love to hear the emergency meeting at CCP HQ atm.... I run three accts, pay for gametime with PLEX, and I don't rat at all cause it's worthless. Let alone running anom's etc. To add my voice. I like the sov changes... but as it has been stated the upgrades are just, worthless money sinks. I was excited about the upgrades but these are useless. The costs are ridiculous. Good bye, 0.0 pvp your about to be forgotten as everyone heads to low-sec/ npc 0.0 or high-sec. Good luck and try again.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:49:00 - [1658] How about a lvl 5 military upgrade where a group of players could gather and if someone was attacked in system they would be instantly warped to that location, a lot like Concord except that they would actually warp in rather than just appearing. No need for a message to your alliance to send help to such and such a belt in such a system. If someone wants pvp they just sit at this point and wait until someone attacks someone else in system and then they come to the rescue. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable
Yuki Sanada Caldari Polaris Rising Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:50:00 - [1659] 5-1 as CCP ignores this thread and goes ahead with the changes! Also, 3-1 as most people will pay the higher tax, ignore that you make more money in high-sec and continue loosing money and burning out. disclaimer: (The odds had to be lower, the playerbase might actually surprise me)
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:50:00 - [1660] Originally by: Zekii 56 pages...... in less than 2 whole days.... someone has failed really bad? I really would love to hear the emergency meeting at CCP HQ atm.... I run three accts, pay for gametime with PLEX, and I don't rat at all cause it's worthless. Let alone running anom's etc. To add my voice. I like the sov changes... but as it has been stated the upgrades are just, worthless money sinks. I was excited about the upgrades but these are useless. The costs are ridiculous. Good bye, 0.0 pvp your about to be forgotten as everyone heads to low-sec/ npc 0.0 or high-sec. Good luck and try again. Yup. My sentiments exactly. Which is why I'm pushing for better upgrades. So, what infrastructure upgrades would you propose to make 0.0 worth your while? From what you stated, it would appear you are the target crowd CCP is trying to get INTO 0.0, so your voice would be ideal in this.

Android5	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:52:00 - [1661] Here is how I think the system should have been set out. I realise of course that this sort of thing has been mentioned before in this thread. SOV LEVEL: 1 - Territorial Claim marker - low upkeep and easy to destroy from roaming gangs - 100 calibration points 2 - Infastructure hub - increased upkeep, harder to destroy, reinforced timers etc - 300 calibration points 3 - increased fortifications - increased upkeep, harder to destory, defensive structures placed around infastructure hub - 600 calibration points 4 - fleet fortifications - increased upkeep, harder to destroy etc etc, will probably need a large battleship fleet to attack, possibly some capitals, more defensive structures etc. - 1200 calibration points 5 - Capital fortifications - increased upkeep, harder to destroy etc etc, will probably need a large capital fleet to attack, possibly some super capitals, anti capital defensive strucutres - 2100 calibration points Each of the upgrades would cost more to upkeep, however they come with increased calibration points that can be spent on upgrades. example System Capacity Optimizer Basic: 50 calibration points 2% bonus to corp/alliance/allied capacitor recharge in system Standard: 100 calibration points 5% bonus to corp/alliance/allied cap recharge in system Elite: 300 calibration points 10% bonus to corp/alliance/allied cap recharge, 5% bonus to capacitor capacity System Armour Hardening Array Basic: 50 calibration points 2% bonus to corp/alliance/allied armour amount in system Standard: 100 calibration points 5% bonus to corp/alliance/allied armour amount in system Elite: 300 calibration points 10% bonus to corp/alliance/allied armour amount, 5% bonus to armour resistances in system Sovereignty Defence Basic: 50 calibration points increased light defencive guns/missiles Standard: 100 calibration points Upgrades defensive systems to factional, increased heavy defencive guns/missiles Elite: 300 calibration points Upgrades defensive systems to factional, increased capital defencive guns/missiles Jump Bridge Network Basic: 50 calibration points allows construction of one jumpbridge in the system Standard: 100 calibration points allows construction of two jumpbridges in the system Elite: 300 calibration points all jump bridges in the system do not require fuel. Mining Laser Optimization Basic: 50 calibration points 2% bonus to mining lazor yeild - 50 calib points Standard: 100 calibration points 5% bonus to mining lazor yeild - 100 calib points Elite: 300 calibration points 10% bonus to mining lazor yeild, 10% increase in mining lazor range - 300 calib points Of course there would be many many many areas you could invest points in. Perhaps moving down one route (say industry) would limit the opposing (say military) upgrades you could have. this is how I envisioned dominion, the ability to tailor a system the way you see fit. You would have to make a choice between turning a system into a fortress (at significant upkeep), turning it into pure industrial, perhaps a bit of both. An example: An alliance has spent a significant amount of points on industry upgrades, they have a choice of upgrading (at significant expense) and provide some security for their industry or specialise their industry some more. All depending on whether or not they find the opportunity cost of investing to be greater or less than the opportunity cost of not investing. CCP people are annoyed that sov is going to cost so much come dominion, but they are also annoyed that the system improvements are lackluster. Its astounding that you spent so much time developing this and yet you can't even come up with a robust upgrades and upkeep model.
BondGamer GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 04:59:00 - [1662] I thought the entire idea behind these changes was to upgrade systems which attracts more dangerous NPC pirates, who in turn have higher bounties and better loot. Instead you guys are just adding wormholes and mining sites which a lot of people don't even bother with. I think this design is a huge mistake and will leave 0.0 worse off than it currently is.
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:00:00 - [1663] Originally by: Android5 Here is how I think the system should have been set out. I realise of course that this sort of thing has been mentioned before in this thread. SOV LEVEL: 1 - Territorial Claim marker - low upkeep and easy to destroy from roaming gangs - 100 calibration points 2 - Infastructure hub - increased upkeep, harder to destroy, reinforced timers etc - 300 calibration points 3 - increased fortifications - increased upkeep, harder to destory, defensive structures placed around infastructure hub - 600 calibration points 4 - fleet fortifications - increased upkeep, harder to destroy etc etc, will probably need a large battleship fleet to attack, possibly some capitals, more defensive structures etc. - 1200 calibration points 5 - Capital fortifications - increased upkeep, harder to destroy etc etc, will probably need a large capital fleet to attack, possibly some super capitals, anti capital defensive strucutres - 2100 calibration points Each of the upgrades would cost more to upkeep, however they come with increased calibration points that can be spent on upgrades. example System Capacity Optimizer Basic: 50 calibration points 2% bonus to corp/alliance/allied capacitor recharge in system Standard: 100 calibration points 5% bonus to corp/alliance/allied cap recharge in system Elite: 300 calibration points 10% bonus to corp/alliance/allied cap recharge, 5% bonus to capacitor capacity System Armour Hardening Array Basic: 50 calibration points 2% bonus to corp/alliance/allied armour amount in system Standard: 100 calibration points 5% bonus to corp/alliance/allied armour amount in system Elite: 300 calibration points 10% bonus to corp/alliance/allied armour amount, 5% bonus to armour resistances in system Sovereignty Defence Basic: 50 calibration points increased light defencive guns/missiles Standard: 100 calibration points Upgrades defensive systems to factional, increased heavy defencive guns/missiles Elite: 300 calibration points Upgrades defensive systems to factional, increased capital defencive guns/missiles Jump Bridge Network Basic: 50 calibration points allows construction of one jumpbridge in the system Standard: 100 calibration points allows construction of two jumpbridges in the system Elite: 300 calibration points all jump bridges in the system do not require fuel. Mining Laser Optimization Basic: 50 calibration points 2% bonus to mining lazor yeild - 50 calib points Standard: 100 calibration points 5% bonus to mining lazor yeild - 100 calib points Elite: 300 calibration points 10% bonus to mining lazor yeild, 10% increase in mining lazor range - 300 calib points Of course there would be many many many areas you could invest points in. Perhaps moving down one route (say industry) would limit the opposing (say military) upgrades you could have. this is how I envisioned dominion, the ability to tailor a system the way you see fit. You would have to make a choice between turning a system into a fortress (at significant upkeep), turning it into pure industrial, perhaps a bit of both. An example: An alliance has spent a significant amount of points on industry upgrades, they have a choice of upgrading (at significant expense) and provide some security for their industry or specialise their industry some more. All depending on whether or not they find the opportunity cost of investing to be greater or less than the opportunity cost of not investing. CCP people are annoyed that sov is going to cost so much come dominion, but they are also annoyed that the system improvements are lackluster. Its astounding that you spent so much time developing this and yet you can't even come up with a robust upgrades and upkeep model. Ah. Yes. These are the kind of things I wanted to see, too. And, like you, this is what I was expecting to see. I even proposed similar things earlier in this thread. Anyone else agree with us?
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:05:00 - [1664] Edited by: Korodan on 08/11/2009 05:07:44 Most of those bonuses seem fine but the cap bonus is just too much, even a 10% cap bonus is massive. Edit: also, ratting upgrades as we talked about before should be considered. I like the idea of going down one path locking you out of the other to some degree - have "fortress systems" on the gateways into your empire and soft, less defensible industrial systems in the center.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:06:00 - [1665] 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.
Android5	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:11:00 - [1666] Originally by: Korodan Edited by: Korodan on 08/11/2009 05:07:44 Most of those bonuses seem fine but the cap bonus is just too much, even a 10% cap bonus is massive. Edit: also, ratting upgrades as we talked about before should be considered. I like the idea of going down one path locking you out of the other to some degree - have "fortress systems" on the gateways into your empire and soft, less defensible industrial systems in the center. It was merely an illustration of how I thought it would be setout. Yes the cap bonus is too much, in fact they are all probably a bit too much (especially jb).
caboaddict	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:12:00 - [1667] First I want to give kudos to CCP for a great plan and architecture for the changes. The problem I see is that they have not address the economy of scale. Why only have the sov costs in a "one size fits all" cost structure? I'd recommend implementing a tiered cost structure similar to the recent rig changes. Have a large, medium, small alliance cost structure. Personally I think something like 1 billion a month per system for large alliances. It doesn't break the bank, but it is a decent chunk of change. Medium alliances would pay 500 million, and small 250 million. This is enough to keep system over expanision in check and alliances will not "balloon" out of size. It allows smaller alliances to settle in and then grow their territory if they choose. If not, then there is room for more alliances and corps. just my .02 cents
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:20:00 - [1668] Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 05:22:58 Originally by: Pointfive 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. As CCP Chronitus pointed out, the amount of reward to offset a small amount of risk is allot but I also think that is a matter of perception, in either case it is not in of itself the argument being made. The actual argument being made by allot of people is the fact that 0.0 is less profitable than running LVL4 missions in empire and these upgrades in dominion do little if anything to change that situation. I personally have been playing eve for some 6 years now and I remember when I first came to 0.0 it was a niche idea that you came out here to make money, however that is something that quickly evaporated and has been the consensus for a long time that you do not come out to 0.0 to make money. This should not be the case, 0.0 should not be unprofitable or certainly not less profitable than empire - please do not counter about pvp risks etc.. as we all accept those risks and costs but that is not what we are talking about. The simple point is that 0.0 life is less profitable than LVL4 missions when in reality it should at very least be equal to or greater than. Allot of this boils down to lazy development work, I remember 2-3 years ago when the concept of touching the POS code was a nightmare to CCP, you said it wouldn't happen and were admit that it was a monumental challenge. This is the very same situation we see at the moment regarding making true sec values dynamic, belt numbers, the npc spawn density/value within and astroid types/density, all dynamic. This is something CCP needs to tackle head on, the proposed system we have in front of us now is the most indirect method possible of actually fixing the economic inadequacies of 0.0 and it is frankly very lazy way. I personally have never run a wormhole, never run an anomaly and I know for a fact I am not the only person, there is a large player base that is just not interested in it - we rather fight NPC's in belts in a far more straight forward fashion. So please, get off your collective behindes and rethink the implementation of dominion and actually addressing the economic issues and more importantly the short comings of the code base.
Salsbury	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:20:00 - [1669] Originally by: cok cola 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. THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. Oh, fer chrissakes...This is easy: If you only want to go shooting things: NO If you want to harness the full value of the resources that are literally lying all over the place (this means mining, moon mining, alchemy, etc.): YES Could we get past this skipping track, now?
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:21:00 - [1670] Originally by: caboaddict Edited by: caboaddict on 08/11/2009 05:17:26 First I want to give kudos to CCP for a great plan and architecture for the changes. The problem I see is that they have not addressed the economy of scale. Why only have the sov costs in a "one size fits all" cost structure? I'd recommend implementing a tiered cost structure similar to the recent rig changes. Have a large, medium, small alliance cost structure. Personally I think something like 1 billion a month per system for large alliances. It doesn't break the bank, but it is a decent chunk of change. Medium alliances would pay 500 million, and small 250 million. This is enough to keep system over expanision in check and alliances will not "balloon" out of size. It allows smaller alliances to settle in and then grow their territory if they choose. If not, then there is room for more alliances and corps. just my .02 cents Just basing the calculation on membership seems like a bad idea - in just about any 0.0 alliance there are a great deal of alts for running moons, manufacturing, flying caps, etc.

Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:22:00 - [1671] I am going to gank Goons in Motsu. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:24:00 - [1672] Originally by: Tesal I am going to gank Goons in Motsu. Delete all systems except for motsu. Run level 4s and gank each other all day. This is it. This is the sandbox.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:26:00 - [1673] Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 05:22:58 Originally by: Pointfive 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. As CCP Chronitus pointed out, the amount of reward to offset a small amount of risk is allot but I also think that is a matter of perception, in either case it is not in of itself the argument being made. The actual argument being made by allot of people is the fact that 0.0 is less profitable than running LVL4 missions in empire and these upgrades in dominion do little if anything to change that situation. I personally have been playing eve for some 6 years now and I remember when I first came to 0.0 it was a niche idea that you came out here to make money, however that is something that quickly evaporated and has been the consensus for a long time that you do not come out to 0.0 to make money. This should not be the case, 0.0 should not be unprofitable or certainly not less profitable than empire - please do not counter about pvp risks etc.. as we all accept those risks and costs but that is not what we are talking about. The simple point is that 0.0 life is less profitable than LVL4 missions when in reality it should at very least be equal to or greater than. Allot of this boils down to lazy development work, I remember 2-3 years ago when the concept of touching the POS code was a nightmare to CCP, you said it wouldn't happen and were admit that it was a monumental challenge. This is the very same situation we see at the moment regarding making true sec values dynamic, belt numbers, the npc spawn density/value within and astroid types/density, all dynamic. This is something CCP needs to tackle head on, the proposed system we have in front of us now is the most indirect method possible of actually fixing the economic inadequacies of 0.0 and it is frankly very lazy way. I personally have never run a wormhole, never run an anomaly and I know for a fact I am not the only person, there is a large player base that is just not interested in it - we rather fight NPC's in belts in a far more straight forward fashion. So please, get off your collective behindes and rethink the implementation of dominion and actually addressing the economic issues and more importantly the short comings of the code base. Holy **** I am quoting and completely agreeing with a Bobby Atlas post. God help us all.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:27:00 - [1674] Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 05:22:58 Originally by: Pointfive 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. As CCP Chronitus pointed out, the amount of reward to offset a small amount of risk is allot but I also think that is a matter of perception, in either case it is not in of itself the argument being made. The actual argument being made by allot of people is the fact that 0.0 is less profitable than running LVL4 missions in empire and these upgrades in dominion do little if anything to change that situation. I personally have been playing eve for some 6 years now and I remember when I first came to 0.0 it was a niche idea that you came out here to make money, however that is something that quickly evaporated and has been the consensus for a long time that you do not come out to 0.0 to make money. This should not be the case, 0.0 should not be unprofitable or certainly not less profitable than empire - please do not counter about pvp risks etc.. as we all accept those risks and costs but that is not what we are talking about. The simple point is that 0.0 life is less profitable than LVL4 missions when in reality it should at very least be equal to or greater than. Allot of this boils down to lazy development work, I remember 2-3 years ago when the concept of touching the POS code was a nightmare to CCP, you said it wouldn't happen and were admit that it was a monumental challenge. This is the very same situation we see at the moment regarding making true sec values dynamic, belt numbers, the npc spawn density/value within and astroid types/density, all dynamic. This is something CCP needs to tackle head on, the proposed system we have in front of us now is the most indirect method possible of actually fixing the economic inadequacies of 0.0 and it is frankly very lazy way. I personally have never run a wormhole, never run an anomaly and I know for a fact I am not the only person, there is a large player base that is just not interested in it - we rather fight NPC's in belts in a far more straight forward fashion. So please, get off your collective behindes and rethink the implementation of dominion and actually addressing the economic issues and more importantly the short comings of the code base. 420 unironically empty quote bobby atlas evvryday
Yiom Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:27:00 - [1675] Ok, out of curiousity, how many of you that hold 0.0 can make in 1 month in 0.0 solo. Let's pretend for **** and grinz that the corp/alliance charged ZERO tax. Anything and everything you do costs you nothing towards anyone else but yourself. So 1 month, how much do you make? I obviously don't see a problem with the whole bill process. If a corp/alliance wish's, they could ask that all the corp members (lets keep it simple, 10 members) donated 7 million each day. Thats 70 mil per day TOTAL. They then go do whatever they would like to do, tax free, no problems whats so ever, until the next day they are required to donate 7 mil each (10 players, so that makes 70 mil TOTAL) Until the end of the month, you end up with a whoopin 2.1 billion isk to pay for the rent of the system. Im not in a corp that owns 0.0 space, but through reading the pages, christ, people are kicking and screaming like a bunch of girls, with no inkling on really reading in to what is required to accomplish the goals of that CCP has set forth. Of course, I could say that 99.9% of the people who are screaming bloody marry are actually trolls. Which in some ways I think I could be right. TL:DR If you are in a 10 man corp, donate 7 million to your CEO each day. Have taxes put to 0% or 1% whatever, and go on your jolly way. p.s. Grow a pair ppl, christ, I hope no one in this whine fest is from the Euro region. Wouldn't expect that... But from lazy americans... perhaps.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:29:00 - [1676] Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 05:31:37 Originally by: ep1k Originally by: Tesal I am going to gank Goons in Motsu. Delete all systems except for motsu. Run level 4s and gank each other all day. This is it. This is the sandbox. My plan was to destroy Goons and all of 0.0. With the help of CCP, I win, you lose. Die. edit See how I quoted Molle there. Pretty sweet huh. never stop posting...with alts.* Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Killljoy	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:31:00 - [1677] Originally by: Android5 Here is how I think the system should have been set out. I realise of course that this sort of thing has been mentioned before in this thread. SOV LEVEL: 1 - Territorial Claim marker - low upkeep and easy to destroy from roaming gangs - 100 calibration points 2 - Infastructure hub - increased upkeep, harder to destroy, reinforced timers etc - 300 calibration points 3 - increased fortifications - increased upkeep, harder to destory, defensive structures placed around infastructure hub - 600 calibration points 4 - fleet fortifications - increased upkeep, harder to destroy etc etc, will probably need a large battleship fleet to attack, possibly some capitals, more defensive structures etc. - 1200 calibration points 5 - Capital fortifications - increased upkeep, harder to destroy etc etc, will probably need a large capital fleet to attack, possibly some super capitals, anti capital defensive strucutres - 2100 calibration points Each of the upgrades would cost more to upkeep, however they come with increased calibration points that can be spent on upgrades. example System Capacity Optimizer Basic: 50 calibration points 2% bonus to corp/alliance/allied capacitor recharge in system Standard: 100 calibration points 5% bonus to corp/alliance/allied cap recharge in system Elite: 300 calibration points 10% bonus to corp/alliance/allied cap recharge, 5% bonus to capacitor capacity System Armour Hardening Array Basic: 50 calibration points 2% bonus to corp/alliance/allied armour amount in system Standard: 100 calibration points 5% bonus to corp/alliance/allied armour amount in system Elite: 300 calibration points 10% bonus to corp/alliance/allied armour amount, 5% bonus to armour resistances in system Sovereignty Defence Basic: 50 calibration points increased light defencive guns/missiles Standard: 100 calibration points Upgrades defensive systems to factional, increased heavy defencive guns/missiles Elite: 300 calibration points Upgrades defensive systems to factional, increased capital defencive guns/missiles Jump Bridge Network Basic: 50 calibration points allows construction of one jumpbridge in the system Standard: 100 calibration points allows construction of two jumpbridges in the system Elite: 300 calibration points all jump bridges in the system do not require fuel. Mining Laser Optimization Basic: 50 calibration points 2% bonus to mining lazor yeild - 50 calib points Standard: 100 calibration points 5% bonus to mining lazor yeild - 100 calib points Elite: 300 calibration points 10% bonus to mining lazor yeild, 10% increase in mining lazor range - 300 calib points Of course there would be many many many areas you could invest points in. Perhaps moving down one route (say industry) would limit the opposing (say military) upgrades you could have. this is how I envisioned dominion, the ability to tailor a system the way you see fit. You would have to make a choice between turning a system into a fortress (at significant upkeep), turning it into pure industrial, perhaps a bit of both. An example: An alliance has spent a significant amount of points on industry upgrades, they have a choice of upgrading (at significant expense) and provide some security for their industry or specialise their industry some more. All depending on whether or not they find the opportunity cost of investing to be greater or less than the opportunity cost of not investing. CCP people are annoyed that sov is going to cost so much come dominion, but they are also annoyed that the system improvements are lackluster. Its astounding that you spent so much time developing this and yet you can't even come up with a robust upgrades and upkeep model. Now this thing rules the points would have to tweeked and other stuff (rats wspace) added
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:32:00 - [1678] Originally by: Yiom Ok, out of curiousity, how many of you that hold 0.0 can make in 1 month in 0.0 solo. Let's pretend for **** and grinz that the corp/alliance charged ZERO tax. Anything and everything you do costs you nothing towards anyone else but yourself. So 1 month, how much do you make? I obviously don't see a problem with the whole bill process. If a corp/alliance wish's, they could ask that all the corp members (lets keep it simple, 10 members) donated 7 million each day. Thats 70 mil per day TOTAL. They then go do whatever they would like to do, tax free, no problems whats so ever, until the next day they are required to donate 7 mil each (10 players, so that makes 70 mil TOTAL) Until the end of the month, you end up with a whoopin 2.1 billion isk to pay for the rent of the system. Im not in a corp that owns 0.0 space, but through reading the pages, christ, people are kicking and screaming like a bunch of girls, with no inkling on really reading in to what is required to accomplish the goals of that CCP has set forth. Of course, I could say that 99.9% of the people who are screaming bloody marry are actually trolls. Which in some ways I think I could be right. TL:DR If you are in a 10 man corp, donate 7 million to your CEO each day. Have taxes put to 0% or 1% whatever, and go on your jolly way. p.s. Grow a pair ppl, christ, I hope no one in this whine fest is from the Euro region. Wouldn't expect that... But from lazy americans... perhaps. The primary complaint is not directed towards the "billing" issue. It is towards the lackluster rewards.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:33:00 - [1679] Originally by: Yiom Ok, out of curiousity, how many of you that hold 0.0 can make in 1 month in 0.0 solo. Let's pretend for **** and grinz that the corp/alliance charged ZERO tax. Anything and everything you do costs you nothing towards anyone else but yourself. So 1 month, how much do you make? I obviously don't see a problem with the whole bill process. If a corp/alliance wish's, they could ask that all the corp members (lets keep it simple, 10 members) donated 7 million each day. Thats 70 mil per day TOTAL. They then go do whatever they would like to do, tax free, no problems whats so ever, until the next day they are required to donate 7 mil each (10 players, so that makes 70 mil TOTAL) Until the end of the month, you end up with a whoopin 2.1 billion isk to pay for the rent of the system. Im not in a corp that owns 0.0 space, but through reading the pages, christ, people are kicking and screaming like a bunch of girls, with no inkling on really reading in to what is required to accomplish the goals of that CCP has set forth. Of course, I could say that 99.9% of the people who are screaming bloody marry are actually trolls. Which in some ways I think I could be right. TL:DR If you are in a 10 man corp, donate 7 million to your CEO each day. Have taxes put to 0% or 1% whatever, and go on your jolly way. p.s. Grow a pair ppl, christ, I hope no one in this whine fest is from the Euro region. Wouldn't expect that... But from lazy americans... perhaps. ...he said as he sat in Motsu, gently stroking his neckbeard.
Lockefox Caldari LEGION OF PROFESSOR CHAOS Darkmatter Initiative	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:34:00 - [1680] Late to the thread as usual, but going to throw my two isk into the pile. Though the system looks very good (and a welcome change to the way things are) looking at it from my alliance's perspective, the cost of entry is much higher than I expected. We were anticipating a significant forward investment, but this seems a little absurd. 30-50m (basically) per system? On top of the other costs already associated with the move (base towers, defenses, etc) to then slap on another "5 towers of fuel" cost seems a little high. If it were my call, I'd make the system 10% or 20% of the originally stated costs (maybe boost upgrade costs) and instead make holding more systems multiply that cost (similar to war mechanics). Or some sort of exponential curve along those lines. In sum, please don't lock us smaller guys out of 0.0. We want to rat and pvp and get blown up as much as anyone else! ~Locke

Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:38:00 - [1681] Anyhoo, in an attempt to refocus things towards something more constructive... The general consensus seems to be "Great idea, CCP, but you botched it with crap infrastructure upgrades." Indeed, the infrastructure upgrades do little to actually add to "infrastructure." So, everyone, put forth your ideas on what rewards we should receive for all our time invested into developing a handful of tightly-managed systems which become our home. Personally, something high on my list is increased security.
WhiteSavage Ever Flow Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:38:00 - [1682] My worry is where tf is CCP even coming from? The initial costs were SO horrible... did CCP even think about it? DId they run the numbers? Did they not realize that now players would have had to pay extra to be in 0.0? Lowering the costs is helpfull but now onto the other changes... wtf 2 anomolies... wtf those mining things that nobody does because its not worth the time mining out the veld... IS ccp playing the same EVE we're playing? And WHERE are these "a single system will support 100-150 players at one time." WHAT happened between that statement and the horrible implementation we're being offered today?! Which feature does CCP expect will improve 0.0 at all in any way? The higher costs of living or the xtra anomolies? And of all the upgrade possibilities you give us... nothing to do with belt ratting? The #1 income for the average pilot in 0.0 like me?! wtf dudes. wtf
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:41:00 - [1683] Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 08/11/2009 05:41:55 Originally by: Lockefox Late to the thread as usual, but going to throw my two isk into the pile. Though the system looks very good (and a welcome change to the way things are) looking at it from my alliance's perspective, the cost of entry is much higher than I expected. We were anticipating a significant forward investment, but this seems a little absurd. 30-50m (basically) per system? On top of the other costs already associated with the move (base towers, defenses, etc) to then slap on another "5 towers of fuel" cost seems a little high. If it were my call, I'd make the system 10% or 20% of the originally stated costs (maybe boost upgrade costs) and instead make holding more systems multiply that cost (similar to war mechanics). Or some sort of exponential curve along those lines. In sum, please don't lock us smaller guys out of 0.0. We want to rat and pvp and get blown up as much as anyone else! ~Locke Heh, CCP Locked, Locke out of 0.0. oh and Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 05:22:58 Originally by: Pointfive 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. As CCP Chronitus pointed out, the amount of reward to offset a small amount of risk is allot but I also think that is a matter of perception, in either case it is not in of itself the argument being made. The actual argument being made by allot of people is the fact that 0.0 is less profitable than running LVL4 missions in empire and these upgrades in dominion do little if anything to change that situation. I personally have been playing eve for some 6 years now and I remember when I first came to 0.0 it was a niche idea that you came out here to make money, however that is something that quickly evaporated and has been the consensus for a long time that you do not come out to 0.0 to make money. This should not be the case, 0.0 should not be unprofitable or certainly not less profitable than empire - please do not counter about pvp risks etc.. as we all accept those risks and costs but that is not what we are talking about. The simple point is that 0.0 life is less profitable than LVL4 missions when in reality it should at very least be equal to or greater than. Allot of this boils down to lazy development work, I remember 2-3 years ago when the concept of touching the POS code was a nightmare to CCP, you said it wouldn't happen and were admit that it was a monumental challenge. This is the very same situation we see at the moment regarding making true sec values dynamic, belt numbers, the npc spawn density/value within and astroid types/density, all dynamic. This is something CCP needs to tackle head on, the proposed system we have in front of us now is the most indirect method possible of actually fixing the economic inadequacies of 0.0 and it is frankly very lazy way. I personally have never run a wormhole, never run an anomaly and I know for a fact I am not the only person, there is a large player base that is just not interested in it - we rather fight NPC's in belts in a far more straight forward fashion. So please, get off your collective behindes and rethink the implementation of dominion and actually addressing the economic issues and more importantly the short comings of the code base.
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:43:00 - [1684] Originally by: WhiteSavage My worry is where tf is CCP even coming from? The initial costs were SO horrible... did CCP even think about it? DId they run the numbers? Did they not realize that now players would have had to pay extra to be in 0.0? Lowering the costs is helpfull but now onto the other changes... wtf 2 anomolies... wtf those mining things that nobody does because its not worth the time mining out the veld... IS ccp playing the same EVE we're playing? And WHERE are these "a single system will support 100-150 players at one time." WHAT happened between that statement and the horrible implementation we're being offered today?! Which feature does CCP expect will improve 0.0 at all in any way? The higher costs of living or the xtra anomolies? And of all the upgrade possibilities you give us... nothing to do with belt ratting? The #1 income for the average pilot in 0.0 like me?! wtf dudes. wtf I feel you, believe me, but enough with the complaints. A certain amount of venting is healthy, but I believe we've done enough to fan the flames, lol! That being said, and I agree with you that their proposed infrastructure upgrades suck, please put forth what you think should be done instead. What infrastructure upgrades would you rather have?
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:47:00 - [1685] Originally by: Destrim Originally by: WhiteSavage My worry is where tf is CCP even coming from? The initial costs were SO horrible... did CCP even think about it? DId they run the numbers? Did they not realize that now players would have had to pay extra to be in 0.0? Lowering the costs is helpfull but now onto the other changes... wtf 2 anomolies... wtf those mining things that nobody does because its not worth the time mining out the veld... IS ccp playing the same EVE we're playing? And WHERE are these "a single system will support 100-150 players at one time." WHAT happened between that statement and the horrible implementation we're being offered today?! Which feature does CCP expect will improve 0.0 at all in any way? The higher costs of living or the xtra anomolies? And of all the upgrade possibilities you give us... nothing to do with belt ratting? The #1 income for the average pilot in 0.0 like me?! wtf dudes. wtf I feel you, believe me, but enough with the complaints. A certain amount of venting is healthy, but I believe we've done enough to fan the flames, lol! That being said, and I agree with you that their proposed infrastructure upgrades suck, please put forth what you think should be done instead. What infrastructure upgrades would you rather have? NPC agents in space or in stations. Bonus to rat bounties Bonus to truesec Bonus to rock composition Bonus to rat respawn speed Bonus to warp speed while in a system you control. (Minor but I can see use for it) Bonus to production in a system you control. Ability to tax any income whatsoever earned inside that system. Ability to send a beacon that decloaks anything in system with less than 0 standings towards owned alliance. Usable once every few hours. (Maybe 4 or 5 so that it cant be spammed on defense ops)
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:47:00 - [1686] I propose a new force, left over from the remnants of Goons after they die and most of them give me their stuff. I shall call this force, "the Neckbeards of Motsu". From the shattered remains of CCP and EvE, running my world from a couple of Dell Inspirons in Iceland, I shall be a god. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:52:00 - [1687] CCP could easily stop my complaining by making Cosmic Anomalies have belt rats in them instead of the nerfed rats that drop no loot or salvage they have now.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:54:00 - [1688] Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 05:54:39 Originally by: Qlanth CCP could easily stop my complaining by making Cosmic Anomalies have belt rats in them instead of the nerfed rats that drop no loot or salvage they have now. They disbanded didn't they? edit Can I have your stuff? never stop posting...with alts.* Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Tipz NexAstrum Celestial Horizon Corp. United Corporate Ventures	Posted - 2009.11.08 05:58:00 - [1689] 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. Originally by: CCP Navigator People who think I am joking or talking big are going to understand very quickly that there will be order in these forums.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:02:00 - [1690] Originally by: Yiom Ok, out of curiousity, how many of you that hold 0.0 can make in 1 month in 0.0 solo. Let's pretend for **** and grinz that the corp/alliance charged ZERO tax. Anything and everything you do costs you nothing towards anyone else but yourself. So 1 month, how much do you make? I obviously don't see a problem with the whole bill process. If a corp/alliance wish's, they could ask that all the corp members (lets keep it simple, 10 members) donated 7 million each day. Thats 70 mil per day TOTAL. They then go do whatever they would like to do, tax free, no problems whats so ever, until the next day they are required to donate 7 mil each (10 players, so that makes 70 mil TOTAL) Until the end of the month, you end up with a whoopin 2.1 billion isk to pay for the rent of the system. Im not in a corp that owns 0.0 space, but through reading the pages, christ, people are kicking and screaming like a bunch of girls, with no inkling on really reading in to what is required to accomplish the goals of that CCP has set forth. Of course, I could say that 99.9% of the people who are screaming bloody marry are actually trolls. Which in some ways I think I could be right. TL:DR If you are in a 10 man corp, donate 7 million to your CEO each day. Have taxes put to 0% or 1% whatever, and go on your jolly way. p.s. Grow a pair ppl, christ, I hope no one in this whine fest is from the Euro region. Wouldn't expect that... But from lazy americans... perhaps. Hi stupid person that doesn't know what they are talking about. Half the point of this patch is to encourage the likes of yourself out into 0.0 So let me ask you this: if what exists currently isn't enough to make you want to venture out there, how will taking what is currently there and slapping a 200mill fee per month on top help the situation. E: you just made europe look stupid. lazy americans are laughing

Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:02:00 - [1691] 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. Sorry, the Apocalypse cabaret has room for everyone.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:03:00 - [1692] 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?
Da Maddness Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:04:00 - [1693] 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.
Hrodgar Ortal Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:06:00 - [1694] Originally by: Da Maddness 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. I've seen you or someone else ask this every couple of pages. You won't get an answer that way, especially when asking it that often in the middle of the night for Icelanders.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:07:00 - [1695] Edited by: Korodan on 08/11/2009 06:08:30 Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: Da Maddness 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. I've seen you or someone else ask this every couple of pages. You won't get an answer that way, especially when asking it that often in the middle of the night for Icelanders. I don't think you "get" goons. ALSO ALSO 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.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:07:00 - [1696] Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 08/11/2009 06:07:27 6 AM is not the middle of the night. Nor is the 4pm GMT when we STARTED asking it. Quote: 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.
Lucas Pantelis Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:09:00 - [1697] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal 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.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:09:00 - [1698] Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 06:12:20 Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 06:11:50 Originally by: Vadinho 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? 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? edit Originally by:* EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 08/11/2009 06:07:27 6 AM is not the middle of the night. Nor is the 4pm GMT when we STARTED asking it. Quote: 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. Well, if you include moon minerals, it is far more income than running level 4 missions with less effort. In addition fat and lazy directors can skim the moon gold and roll around in it. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Da Maddness Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:10:00 - [1699] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal I've seen you or someone else ask this every couple of pages. You won't get an answer that way, especially when asking it that often in the middle of the night for Icelanders. You do realise that the forums are available when people wake up?
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:12:00 - [1700] Honestly i was hoping to see upgrades more along these lines. i always though of 0.0 as being like the wild west. Where you venture out to dangerous lands to get shot at, control some territory make money, and occasionaly find gold. Concord Bounty Hunter Angent Relay - Allows LP gain for killing pirates in nullsec, create a pvp geared concord lp store Bounty increase - High activity in your system has driven away all but the most dangerous pirates. 15% bonus to pirate bounty per level Respawn Speed - High activity in this region has increased pirate activity in the system. 10% bonus to pirate respawn speed per level. Pirate hideout Locator - Each level increases the chance of locating rare hidden pirate hideout anomalies. These danger pirates do not drop faction items but have significantly increased bounty. Ship quality increase - Having Faced larger ships constantly, pirates begin to only appear in more difficult ships. Each level reduces the chance of a non battleship spawn by 20% oh and 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 - 2009.11.08 06:14:00 - [1701] 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!
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:14:00 - [1702] Originally by: Pointfive Honestly i was hoping to see upgrades more along these lines. i always though of 0.0 as being like the wild west. Where you venture out to dangerous lands to get shot at, control some territory make money, and occasionaly find gold. Concord Bounty Hunter Angent Relay - Allows LP gain for killing pirates in nullsec, create a pvp geared concord lp store Bounty increase - High activity in your system has driven away all but the most dangerous pirates. 15% bonus to pirate bounty per level Respawn Speed - High activity in this region has increased pirate activity in the system. 10% bonus to pirate respawn speed per level. Pirate hideout Locator - Each level increases the chance of locating rare hidden pirate hideout anomalies. These danger pirates do not drop faction items but have significantly increased bounty. Ship quality increase - Having Faced larger ships constantly, pirates begin to only appear in more difficult ships. Each level reduces the chance of a non battleship spawn by 20% oh and 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. They can't implement these because they make too much sense and WE ACTUALLY WANT THESE CHANGES aaand Quote: 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.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:15:00 - [1703] Originally by: Pointfive Honestly i was hoping to see upgrades more along these lines. i always though of 0.0 as being like the wild west. Where you venture out to dangerous lands to get shot at, control some territory make money, and occasionaly find gold. Concord Bounty Hunter Angent Relay - Allows LP gain for killing pirates in nullsec, create a pvp geared concord lp store Bounty increase - High activity in your system has driven away all but the most dangerous pirates. 15% bonus to pirate bounty per level Respawn Speed - High activity in this region has increased pirate activity in the system. 10% bonus to pirate respawn speed per level. Pirate hideout Locator - Each level increases the chance of locating rare hidden pirate hideout anomalies. These danger pirates do not drop faction items but have significantly increased bounty. Ship quality increase - Having Faced larger ships constantly, pirates begin to only appear in more difficult ships. Each level reduces the chance of a non battleship spawn by 20% oh and 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. This, these upgrades are pretty nice.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:17:00 - [1704] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources aaand Quote: 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. Big alliances already make more than level 4 missions with their moon gold alone. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:18:00 - [1705] Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 05:22:58 Originally by: Pointfive 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. As CCP Chronitus pointed out, the amount of reward to offset a small amount of risk is allot but I also think that is a matter of perception, in either case it is not in of itself the argument being made. The actual argument being made by allot of people is the fact that 0.0 is less profitable than running LVL4 missions in empire and these upgrades in dominion do little if anything to change that situation. I personally have been playing eve for some 6 years now and I remember when I first came to 0.0 it was a niche idea that you came out here to make money, however that is something that quickly evaporated and has been the consensus for a long time that you do not come out to 0.0 to make money. This should not be the case, 0.0 should not be unprofitable or certainly not less profitable than empire - please do not counter about pvp risks etc.. as we all accept those risks and costs but that is not what we are talking about. The simple point is that 0.0 life is less profitable than LVL4 missions when in reality it should at very least be equal to or greater than. Allot of this boils down to lazy development work, I remember 2-3 years ago when the concept of touching the POS code was a nightmare to CCP, you said it wouldn't happen and were admit that it was a monumental challenge. This is the very same situation we see at the moment regarding making true sec values dynamic, belt numbers, the npc spawn density/value within and astroid types/density, all dynamic. This is something CCP needs to tackle head on, the proposed system we have in front of us now is the most indirect method possible of actually fixing the economic inadequacies of 0.0 and it is frankly very lazy way. I personally have never run a wormhole, never run an anomaly and I know for a fact I am not the only person, there is a large player base that is just not interested in it - we rather fight NPC's in belts in a far more straight forward fashion. So please, get off your collective behindes and rethink the implementation of dominion and actually addressing the economic issues and more importantly the short comings of the code base.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:20:00 - [1706] Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 05:22:58 Originally by: Pointfive 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. As CCP Chronitus pointed out, the amount of reward to offset a small amount of risk is allot but I also think that is a matter of perception, in either case it is not in of itself the argument being made. The actual argument being made by allot of people is the fact that 0.0 is less profitable than running LVL4 missions in empire and these upgrades in dominion do little if anything to change that situation. I personally have been playing eve for some 6 years now and I remember when I first came to 0.0 it was a niche idea that you came out here to make money, however that is something that quickly evaporated and has been the consensus for a long time that you do not come out to 0.0 to make money. This should not be the case, 0.0 should not be unprofitable or certainly not less profitable than empire - please do not counter about pvp risks etc.. as we all accept those risks and costs but that is not what we are talking about. The simple point is that 0.0 life is less profitable than LVL4 missions when in reality it should at very least be equal to or greater than. Allot of this boils down to lazy development work, I remember 2-3 years ago when the concept of touching the POS code was a nightmare to CCP, you said it wouldn't happen and were admit that it was a monumental challenge. This is the very same situation we see at the moment regarding making true sec values dynamic, belt numbers, the npc spawn density/value within and astroid types/density, all dynamic. This is something CCP needs to tackle head on, the proposed system we have in front of us now is the most indirect method possible of actually fixing the economic inadequacies of 0.0 and it is frankly very lazy way. I personally have never run a wormhole, never run an anomaly and I know for a fact I am not the only person, there is a large player base that is just not interested in it - we rather fight NPC's in belts in a far more straight forward fashion. So please, get off your collective behindes and rethink the implementation of dominion and actually addressing the economic issues and more importantly the short comings of the code base. I scrolled up and down like 3 times to make sure we didn't get lotka'ed to ****.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:21:00 - [1707] Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 05:22:58 Originally by: Pointfive 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. haha oh god even bobby atlas is using a goon catchphrase at this point, what has the world come to.
Jack Gates Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:33:00 - [1708] Originally by: Brennah Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. Basically what I'm taking away from the fact that you're trolling your customers is that you as a company are emotionally/egotistically invested in these changes and are hellbent on making them happen despite 40+ pages of people telling you why this is horrible. You should probably ask Sony how well this worked for SWG and NGE. Since you are so determined to force this down our throats I suggest two new names for this expansion Eve Online: NGE Eve Online: Exodus II Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk 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? All of you idiots saying "lol look at the goonies and cva whine" realize we're both in really good shape for this patch, right? We just think it's objectively crap. this needed to be said again
Clansworth	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:34:00 - [1709] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. As a long-time miner, who has spent plenty of time in/out of alliances, I can definitely attest to the LACK of desire for most alliances to 'support' a carebear unit. What I am seeing here is that it will instead be a much more mutual arrangement, where the shooters will co-depend on the carebears in a much more significant way. This, combined with the anti-sprawl effects this will have make it a win in my book. I do think the taxation issue needs to be addressed. Perhaps not so much as a tax on more activities, but instead perhaps some sort of 'free-form' billing could be implemented. Have the ability to set up recurring bills to/from parties. This would ease the 'renting of space' arrangement, by removing the tedious billing aspect. This certainly seems the natural progression of the auto-pay features being added to the wallet. Intel/Nomad
Johnster Caldari Resurrection Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:35:00 - [1710] Edited by: Johnster on 08/11/2009 06:38:07 Originally by: Pointfive Honestly i was hoping to see upgrades more along these lines. i always though of 0.0 as being like the wild west. Where you venture out to dangerous lands to get shot at, control some territory make money, and occasionaly find gold. Concord Bounty Hunter Angent Relay - Allows LP gain for killing pirates in nullsec, create a pvp geared concord lp store Bounty increase - High activity in your system has driven away all but the most dangerous pirates. 15% bonus to pirate bounty per level Respawn Speed - High activity in this region has increased pirate activity in the system. 10% bonus to pirate respawn speed per level. Pirate hideout Locator - Each level increases the chance of locating rare hidden pirate hideout anomalies. These danger pirates do not drop faction items but have significantly increased bounty. Ship quality increase - Having Faced larger ships constantly, pirates begin to only appear in more difficult ships. Each level reduces the chance of a non battleship spawn by 20% oh and 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. This is what we all expected really... The bounty hunter bonus should be anyone neut/hostile to owning alliance though, not based on their sec status, and possibly also give bounties to encourage players to defend against raiders in their home systems. Maybe also add another bonus that gives an extra percentage bonus of all bounties to alliance wallet (not taking from what the player normally would receive at all). /signed

Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:37:00 - [1711] Originally by: Johnster Originally by: Pointfive Honestly i was hoping to see upgrades more along these lines. i always though of 0.0 as being like the wild west. Where you venture out to dangerous lands to get shot at, control some territory make money, and occasionaly find gold. Concord Bounty Hunter Angent Relay - Allows LP gain for killing pirates in nullsec, create a pvp geared concord lp store Bounty increase - High activity in your system has driven away all but the most dangerous pirates. 15% bonus to pirate bounty per level Respawn Speed - High activity in this region has increased pirate activity in the system. 10% bonus to pirate respawn speed per level. Pirate hideout Locator - Each level increases the chance of locating rare hidden pirate hideout anomalies. These danger pirates do not drop faction items but have significantly increased bounty. Ship quality increase - Having Faced larger ships constantly, pirates begin to only appear in more difficult ships. Each level reduces the chance of a non battleship spawn by 20% oh and 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. This is what we all expected really... The bounty hunter bonus should be anyone neut/hostile to owning alliance though, not based on their sec status, and possibly also give bounties to encourage players to defend against raiders in their home systems. /signed Yes, this would be the **** if you'd let us collect bounties by just blowing up ships. Killing pods in 0.0 is still pretty damn hard if you don't have a bubble.
Kraken Kill Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:38:00 - [1712] What is the incentive for a 0.0 alliance with space to attack another 0.0 alliance with space? A smaller 0.0 alliance, 500 people maybe holding a constellation with 3 stations in, 8billion a month paid out. Thats without any Bridges to empire, so if they try to take some space thats fairly deep in 0.0 its even worse. 8billion for a 500man alliance with little to no moongood to hold a constellation. rly? Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 05:22:58 Originally by: Pointfive 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. As CCP Chronitus pointed out, the amount of reward to offset a small amount of risk is allot but I also think that is a matter of perception, in either case it is not in of itself the argument being made. The actual argument being made by allot of people is the fact that 0.0 is less profitable than running LVL4 missions in empire and these upgrades in dominion do little if anything to change that situation. I personally have been playing eve for some 6 years now and I remember when I first came to 0.0 it was a niche idea that you came out here to make money, however that is something that quickly evaporated and has been the consensus for a long time that you do not come out to 0.0 to make money. This should not be the case, 0.0 should not be unprofitable or certainly not less profitable than empire - please do not counter about pvp risks etc.. as we all accept those risks and costs but that is not what we are talking about. The simple point is that 0.0 life is less profitable than LVL4 missions when in reality it should at very least be equal to or greater than. Allot of this boils down to lazy development work, I remember 2-3 years ago when the concept of touching the POS code was a nightmare to CCP, you said it wouldn't happen and were admit that it was a monumental challenge. This is the very same situation we see at the moment regarding making true sec values dynamic, belt numbers, the npc spawn density/value within and astroid types/density, all dynamic. This is something CCP needs to tackle head on, the proposed system we have in front of us now is the most indirect method possible of actually fixing the economic inadequacies of 0.0 and it is frankly very lazy way. I personally have never run a wormhole, never run an anomaly and I know for a fact I am not the only person, there is a large player base that is just not interested in it - we rather fight NPC's in belts in a far more straight forward fashion. So please, get off your collective behindes and rethink the implementation of dominion and actually addressing the economic issues and more importantly the short comings of the code base.
Jack Gates Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:39:00 - [1713] Originally by: Lockefox Late to the thread as usual, but going to throw my two isk into the pile. Though the system looks very good (and a welcome change to the way things are) looking at it from my alliance's perspective, the cost of entry is much higher than I expected. We were anticipating a significant forward investment, but this seems a little absurd. 30-50m (basically) per system? On top of the other costs already associated with the move (base towers, defenses, etc) to then slap on another "5 towers of fuel" cost seems a little high. If it were my call, I'd make the system 10% or 20% of the originally stated costs (maybe boost upgrade costs) and instead make holding more systems multiply that cost (similar to war mechanics). Or some sort of exponential curve along those lines. In sum, please don't lock us smaller guys out of 0.0. We want to rat and pvp and get blown up as much as anyone else! ~Locke thanks for keeping the fresh blood out of 0.0 because you can't figure out how your own game works, ccp.
Comunique	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:40:00 - [1714] Originally by: Bobby Atlas A lot of this boils down to lazy development work, I remember 2-3 years ago when the concept of touching the POS code was a nightmare to CCP, you said it wouldn't happen and were admit that it was a monumental challenge. This is the very same situation we see at the moment regarding making true sec values dynamic, belt numbers, the npc spawn density/value within and astroid types/density, all dynamic. This is something CCP needs to tackle head on, the proposed system we have in front of us now is the most indirect method possible of actually fixing the economic inadequacies of 0.0 and it is frankly very lazy way. Just going to leave this here...
Lucas Pantelis Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:41:00 - [1715] Why would you take space from your enemies when the financial burden of it hurts them more than a loss of sov?
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:43:00 - [1716] Originally by: Lucas Pantelis Why would you take space from your enemies when the financial burden of it hurts them more than a loss of sov? This is why you don't take it, you just render it unusuable by sitting cloakers in the system so they get the bill AND no benefit.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:46:00 - [1717] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Lucas Pantelis Why would you take space from your enemies when the financial burden of it hurts them more than a loss of sov? This is why you don't take it, you just render it unusuable by sitting cloakers in the system so they get the bill AND no benefit. Time to train up covert ops skill!!! Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
Lucas Pantelis Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:47:00 - [1718] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Lucas Pantelis Why would you take space from your enemies when the financial burden of it hurts them more than a loss of sov? This is why you don't take it, you just render it unusuable by sitting cloakers in the system so they get the bill AND no benefit. I'm struggling to see the benefit even if you don't **** up the system with cloakers.
Prognosys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:48:00 - [1719] Edited by: Prognosys on 08/11/2009 06:48:02 Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: Da Maddness 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. I've seen you or someone else ask this every couple of pages. You won't get an answer that way, especially when asking it that often in the middle of the night for Icelanders. you're right there's no reason ccp would answer a question that gets asked every fifth post, it should've just been asked once and then never brought up again then again you might actually be right Quote: 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.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 06:50:00 - [1720] Originally by: Lucas Pantelis Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Lucas Pantelis Why would you take space from your enemies when the financial burden of it hurts them more than a loss of sov? This is why you don't take it, you just render it unusuable by sitting cloakers in the system so they get the bill AND no benefit. I'm struggling to see the benefit even if you don't **** up the system with cloakers. You get mini-profession sites, you know how awesome those are, don't you?

Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:00:00 - [1721] Okay, first of all I like anything that is going to increase bounty system wide and increase the number of rats. However I have a couple of things to say. First if we are basing a large part of this upgrade on instances that players run we need to have a direct way that alliances gain from this in order to pay off the system upkeep and also the cost of putting those upgrades in the system to start with. Currently the loot and salvage go to the players that complete it, and the tax goes to the corporation those players are in not the alliance. How about an instant reward that goes straight to the alliance wallet whenever an anomaly is completed in a system that alliance holds Sov in. For a 10 of 10 anomaly this would be 10 million isk for a 1 of 10 it would be 1 million isk. Basically this would cover the upkeep and upgrade costs for the system involved as long as the alliance was active. Assuming that an alliance is very active this could allow them to put more in their ship replacement programs, but overall it would be directly related to players work as opposed to moon goo. Plus this would give an incentive for NRDS alliances to stay NRDS. Second the current anomaly system isn't going to work. All an enemy has to do is put one cloaked ship in the anomaly and it won't go away and a new one won't take it's place. Although I would love a way to find afk cloaked ships in a system I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. So the solution is to put a limit on the anomaly so that once all npc's in it are killed it will despawn after 15 minutes. So putting a cloaked ship in the spawn will slow things down a bit, but only by 15 minutes unless the cloaked player moved from spawn to spawn. They are still able to go in, cloaked ships can't be found still, but this exploit won't work. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable
Lucas Pantelis Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:02:00 - [1722] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Lucas Pantelis Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Lucas Pantelis Why would you take space from your enemies when the financial burden of it hurts them more than a loss of sov? This is why you don't take it, you just render it unusuable by sitting cloakers in the system so they get the bill AND no benefit. I'm struggling to see the benefit even if you don't **** up the system with cloakers. You get mini-profession sites, you know how awesome those are, don't you? You mean those things I can already find more of than I'd want to run* without any upgrades? *to be fair though even 1 is more than I'd want
RO3	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:09:00 - [1723] Edited by: RO3 on 08/11/2009 07:10:41 I really must have had the blinkers on when i read those first dominion blogs...here's what i was looking forward to System sov costs based on the wardec system that allowed easy entry for fledgling 0.0 corps and alliances, initial system a nominal value of say 100mil per month and each additional system added getting a 20% penalty per system to prevent huge 'afk' alliances System improvement resulting in better ratting, either increasing the truesec spawn values to give better spawns or even better allowing spawns of 6 bs or so that encourage collaborative play and allow more residents of a system to rat at once System improvements for mining easy increase the respawn rate of roids to a max point that it respawns every dt Some sort of security benefit to holding sov,especially after all the investment in stations for constellation sov immunity particularly for cap ship arrays. An easily administered rental and billing system Like many others i moved to 0.0 many years ago, in search of riches, and they were there, rare asteroids in the belts, the worst kind of pirates with huge bounties, amazing modules. I got addicted to the political intrigue the ever shifting landscape etc, but there was one 'problem' you could lose it all overnight in station ping pong, and so the pos and sov system was born. We were encouraged to build bridges between the stars and populate the far away places, opening up nullsec to those that wanted it, we harvested anything we could find, and turned the isk and raw material into vast fleets of capital ships to take the conquest to our neighbours, we built vast bridge networks so the logistics of war could flow. And ccp, what do you do? you plot to undermine our great creations, and prevent others from doing the same, to prohibit the movement of pilots and goods to those far flung places. Why should they leave their safe places? What riches really await them? excuse the alt post...i only post once every 4 years...lol
Irongut H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:10:00 - [1724] [ ] YES OR [ ] NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/time/effort) than highsec L4 mission running. --
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:17:00 - [1725] Originally by: Irongut [ ] YES OR [XXX] NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/time/effort) than highsec L4 mission running. Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:19:00 - [1726] Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 07:20:26 This thread is quickly becoming a trial in patience and repetitive dialog, I think the majority of reasonable cases have been made and hope that CCP actually put time into reading through the many well articulated arguments presented.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:31:00 - [1727] Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 07:20:26 This thread is quickly becoming a trial in patience and repetitive dialog, I think the majority of reasonable cases have been made and hope that CCP actually put time into reading through the many well articulated arguments presented. This is CCP you're talking about, you have to keep bashing them over the head to get them to understand why they have a bad idea.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:31:00 - [1728] Originally by: Irongut [ ] YES OR [ ] NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/time/effort) than highsec L4 mission running. Every powerbloc in the game is now spoken for.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:42:00 - [1729] Honestly though, we really could do with some constructive input and predictions from SnotShot... Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:43:00 - [1730] << not a 0.0 sov holder here. @CCP Interesting stuff.. though a question.. would it be possible to attach a generic mission agent module to the HUB (agent in space thingy)? For starters call them "Frontier Agent 45632" and let them hand out missions (dont neet to be a full fleshed out agent really.. a mission generator like in PRIVATEER would do) This would calm down a lot of people in here I think. @Sov holding players.. If YOUR costs rise, leverage them on the products you ship out to empire. Easy. If it's more expensive to run these towers in your backyard.. sell the moon-goo (and related products) for more till it meets YOUR costs. And if you need to get rid of competition created by others, kill their towers in low sec. Kill competition and charge what you need to charge for your stuff. Simple.

Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:46:00 - [1731] Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Lucas Pantelis Why would you take space from your enemies when the financial burden of it hurts them more than a loss of sov? This is why you don't take it, you just render it unusuable by sitting cloakers in the system so they get the bill AND no benefit. Time to train up covert ops skill!!! Got cloak? never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:47:00 - [1732] Ok i occasionaly post but,ccp this time you really make the o.o population go nuts. As boby some aliance and corp mates have stated the expansion comming in this form is let say it ridicilous. Claiming you want to see more people in o.o you make the things go other way more people will leave o.o. Why should we pay as aliance 15 bil just to have our jb network to empire as we are in deep o.o,as we could move for example in esoteria or syndikate run pirate mission and get rich with no risk at alll. As our military strenght will stay intact,and just put few cyno jamers in r64 moons and thats it Basicaly the price of the upgrades and their size is wtf, the lvl 5 upgrade is a freighter size,so yeah try to move several 30+ jumps from empire and if as it stated freighters are not able to use jb,it become logistic nightmare. But yes you were able to do one thing with this patch and last blog, all the big alliance in the game even the sworn enemies are stating one thing this thing is failure as it stands now. I just dont want to coment the upgrades 2 anomalies more per system bigger chance for ded plex 1 more hidden belt, pure failure to scan is ok but you know that the best income come from escalations path and not every plex escalate and a simple anomaly is about 40-50 worth,while in the time you scan get the ship and do the anomaly a carebear in empire will make the same money. So for now dominion stay for failure about o.o honestly
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:48:00 - [1733] I bought a raven
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:48:00 - [1734] Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 07:49:37 Originally by: Tres Farmer << not a 0.0 sov holder here. @CCP Interesting stuff.. though a question.. would it be possible to attach a generic mission agent module to the HUB (agent in space thingy)? For starters call them "Frontier Agent 45632" and let them hand out missions (dont neet to be a full fleshed out agent really.. a mission generator like in PRIVATEER would do) This would calm down a lot of people in here I think. @Sov holding players.. If YOUR costs rise, leverage them on the products you ship out to empire. Easy. If it's more expensive to run these towers in your backyard.. sell the moon-goo (and related products) for more till it meets YOUR costs. And if you need to get rid of competition created by others, kill their towers in low sec. Kill competition and charge what you need to charge for your stuff. Simple. It took great wars to offset the resources for producing t2 (dysp/prom) and even then that requires a protracted great war where by the supply existing already in empire can be out paced by demand. The problem with the changes are that allot of the t2 production is getting shifted to intermediate moons where there are an order of 4-5 times as many of those intermediate moons across eve, so a great war impacting the production of t2 products will be nearly impossible if not completely impossible.
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:54:00 - [1735] Originally by: gambrinous I bought a raven I fly drakes.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:55:00 - [1736] Originally by: Irongut [ ] YES OR [ ] NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/time/effort) than highsec L4 mission running. How dare you even contemplate comparing CCP's holy cow: LVL 4's with the back end of beyond where nobody should live: 0.0!
feffrey	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:56:00 - [1737] Question: is having sov really necessary? Unless I am missing something these are all the things that are dependent on sov Anchoring cap building stuff Saving on fuel costs for towers Upgrading your system to make it better Having an outpost JB's, and cyno stuff Having systems colored by your alliance on dotlan Unless I am missing something nothing else in 0.0 NEEDS sov to work. With all these added costs why not save money and not claim sov in places where you don't need above? Even if you don't have sov, you can still rat, mine, put up pos's, etc. These prices seem really crazy high (and I do think they need to be lower) but why not consolidate the places that you have sov. Not like you can do stuff in systems that you do not have sov in. Also I thought I remember reading somewhere that fuel costs were going go way down for pos as well. Is that true?
Aquinzus Amarr Modern Marvels	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:00:00 - [1738] What you people who have never once set foot in 0.0 space, never once raised a rifter to take 0.0 space, never raised a rifter to defend 0.0 space, and never once ever lived in 0.0 space FAIL to understand is that the big juicy Alliances with all the Moon Goo Gold are not really making thier members any isk, they investing it into Capital Programs, Mothership Programs, and Titan programs. Apparantly you guys must never get to 0.0 if you think it is all fun and happy with isk dripping off the gates. How do you think 200 Titans got in game, and god knows how many Motherships and Capitals ? What do you think paid for all fo that ? Mooon Gooo Gold baby! 85% of the inhabitants of 0.0 have less ISK in thier pockets than your average Empire dweller. I frequent Providence, Great Wildlands, some Curse etc etc and peopel I speak to trade with and buy from all tell me the same, the rocks are crap, rats are crap, and Corps and Alliances pool all the Moon Goo to buy and build Capital fleets. I really feel bad for the miners in Providence, low sec Misaba and Assah has better Ore than Providence, only a few system in Great Wildlands and Curse have anything better. How are people to make any sort of income mining crap, and ratting crap? Drone regions mine with Missles, that is where 90% of the zydrine megacyte and morphite comes from that is on the market. The good systems where there is decent Ore, people will shoot you for just looking at the belts. How am I to go out there and plant a flag and be left alone so I can grow a corp and Alliance ? Never gonna happen, not when it will cost me billions per month just to plant that flag before I get the first thing out of it. Thanks but no thanks, I will stick to Empire trading mining and manufacturing where it is safer, peaceful, and I have some security and stability.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:01:00 - [1739] Originally by: Bobby Atlas Originally by: gambrinous I bought a raven I fly drakes. ** that **, let's just some smartbombing geddons and make the price of Hulks and Mackinaws spike. It'd be a gas - especially with the moon material production slowing down.
Prognosys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:02:00 - [1740] Originally by: feffrey Question: is having sov really necessary? Unless I am missing something these are all the things that are dependent on sov Anchoring cap building stuff Saving on fuel costs for towers Upgrading your system to make it better Having an outpost JB's, and cyno stuff Having systems colored by your alliance on dotlan Unless I am missing something nothing else in 0.0 NEEDS sov to work. With all these added costs why not save money and not claim sov in places where you don't need above? Even if you don't have sov, you can still rat, mine, put up pos's, etc. These prices seem really crazy high (and I do think they need to be lower) but why not consolidate the places that you have sov. Not like you can do stuff in systems that you do not have sov in. Also I thought I remember reading somewhere that fuel costs were going go way down for pos as well. Is that true? So in order to not spend all our money on upkeep, alliances should just not hold sov and therefore not be able to use the upgrades that were half the point of dominion. BRILLIANT

Taudia Gallente Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:08:00 - [1741] Edited by: Taudia on 08/11/2009 08:08:06 A few things I haven't seen pointed out yet (note that I have not read the entirety of the 50+ pages though): - This system will mean being single timezone is now a serious disadvantage. The entire thing is developed around members in system at any given time, so if your alliance are all from one country, you'll end up with people not having anywhere to make ISK in your space, due to congestion in your peak hours. This is does not mesh very well with other major difficulties of 0.0 alliances, namely maintaining activity and cohesion. - We have seen how a "site-based economy" works to an extent via wormholes - I am not sure if there are any "guaranteed" sites in w-space aside from the one WH out. Plenty people colonized especially low-difficulty w-space. - This could well be CCP's way of pushing people into using the scanning system, in preparation to remove local (and replace it with a similar, but hopefully more comprehensive scanning system).
greeny knight Amarr Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:09:00 - [1742] i live almost 5 years in 0.0 but this makes my hair stand up in the back of my head, all previus expantions whas an improvement and try to get more corps into 0.0 . at fanfest theytold us that the cost of holding systems is exponentional the more gates you 'own' the bigger the cost , now its just a flat rate per system . this is going back to npc station ping-pong and the rest of 0.0 unoccupied , or have mega alliances like northe alliance and south alliance and rest is just empire , just to have the income to sustain the cost. if i whant to work i do it in rl not in this game . now i have to . so no unwinding anymore from day to day stress .because i have to mine that ammount per day rat that ammount per day , get that ammount of income per day so i can live in my fafourite relaxation game . . . . NO THANKS it looks that i need another game to relax and unwind i understand that the cost can't be to cheap so that a corp of 5 claim o.0 but nuff said just look at the comments on that blog 58 pages already and they are not frendlie to ccp , mm maby all 0.0 alliances must say to ccp right we all comming back to empire space when you not change that rediculus cost , whasn't the idea behind this that more people go to 0.0, i whant to see a small alliance coughing that amount up ,also how you earn money when you need to rat complex all day just to get the isk to cover the cost to claim a system not to mention get money asided to buy ships for defence . and you need to spend time to defend your system mmm you need to have bloody macro miners to have the funds for the upkeep . [gold]http://www.funnet.be/greeny1.gif
Petar Quaresma GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:20:00 - [1743] 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.
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:25:00 - [1744] while we're on this topic: how about introducing some super roids for null-sec gravi sites then. veldspar that might be worthwhile. oh and an upgrade to boost hauler spawns. i believe those are more likely to find their way into _corp_ hangars than x-type loot -.- - putting the gist back into logistics
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:31:00 - [1745] YES OR NO I would like a ham sandwich. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Eint Truzenzuzex	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:31:00 - [1746] Greeting's to the Hive, i personally don't see a reason why to wine about the new sov-system. 1. it looks promising, they need maybe a bit finetune it but let see the patch hit Tranz. If all go wrong CCP get panic and make proper adjustment's and ccp can do things quickly. ( look on the CVA disbanding ). 2. A question how should small alliance get there space ? CCP do not ad new space, so the one has to be redistributed. Higher coast + lower static income = consideration of holding Space. 3. And to be honest, (okay that would be an oldy) most changes they where heavily debated on the forms where good changes, for most of the players. People are quick at complaining slow on give out a "good job"
SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:36:00 - [1747] Originally by: Eint Truzenzuzex Greeting's to the Hive, i personally don't see a reason why to wine about the new sov-system. 1. it looks promising, they need maybe a bit finetune it but let see the patch hit Tranz. If all go wrong CCP get panic and make proper adjustment's and ccp can do things quickly. ( look on the CVA disbanding ). 2. A question how should small alliance get there space ? CCP do not ad new space, so the one has to be redistributed. Higher coast + lower static income = consideration of holding Space. 3. And to be honest, (okay that would be an oldy) most changes they where heavily debated on the forms where good changes, for most of the players. People are quick at complaining slow on give out a "good job" Thanks for this completely substanceless affirmation of CCP's plan. So far nobody with any clear grasp of what this actually means for 0.0 has come out in support of it as-is. If you're wondering why enemies like Atlas, ROL and Gonswarm are all in agreement on this issue it's because we all actually live in 0.0 and understand where these changes are headed vs. where they were supposed to go.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:38:00 - [1748] Originally by: Petar Quaresma HAI OR NEIN: Dew to0 the incense disc and logical forts retired, >.> would we pour - notice - probable (in four miles/gallon) than highschool wd40 russian cunning. This patch is now about installing chinese whisper mod on forums
Anahid Brutus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:41:00 - [1749] ** 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.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:53:00 - [1750] Originally by: Anahid Brutus First off, you need objectives that people want to fight over. The more I think about it, the less I think this is true. Just set someone red, your ally grunts will already change mindset and start the hate. If you need some more motivation, throw in some sound logical reasoning to why the enemy should be shot to **. e.g. FC: they have a period in their ally name! Troop: A what? MOTHER OF GOD Troop: those ers Troop: cheating got ***ers, I will not rest until the blow up Troop: a period killed my alt THEY ALL MUST DIE!!!! TROOP: WHAT? X? OK There's a high chance I'm wrong tho, but alarm clock ops to protect moon goo I'm not even sure I see a benefit in is hardly exciting, particulary when you don't even end up with the fight you hoped for.

Anahid Brutus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 08:58:00 - [1751] Originally by: gambrinous There's a high chance I'm wrong tho, but alarm clock ops to protect moon goo I'm not even sure I see a benefit in is hardly exciting, particulary when you don't even end up with the fight you hoped for. you're dumb as ** dumb. as. . FACT: the only thing you see big fights happening over these days are r64s. oh and grunts are compensated since most alliances have reimbursement programs financed by moon porifts. ** it, i'm betting 100 bux that out of the last 1000 caps that died on tranq, 800 of them were related to r64 fights.
Mistres Tor	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:04:00 - [1752] One question why patch notes don't show nerfing of spawns and loot in 0.0 and why we have to weait 30s to spwan warp in, and slow down it is weisting our time on mision you don't have tis problem Second EXODUS incoming lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:05:00 - [1753] Originally by: Anahid Brutus Originally by: gambrinous There's a high chance I'm wrong tho, but alarm clock ops to protect moon goo I'm not even sure I see a benefit in is hardly exciting, particulary when you don't even end up with the fight you hoped for. you're dumb as ** dumb. as. . FACT: the only thing you see big fights happening over these days are r64s. oh and grunts are compensated since most alliances have reimbursement programs financed by moon porifts. it, i'm betting 100 bux that out of the last 1000 caps that died on tranq, 800 of them were related to r64 fights. but take that away and do you seriously expect peace to break out like I said I'm prob wrong, I don't run an ally or moon **, but just sayin, pvpers will pvp reguardless also my caps aren't compensated for with reimbursement, so ye, like I said, NOT SURE I really see the moon gold
Abarek	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:06:00 - [1754] Edited by: Abarek on 08/11/2009 09:12:26 If we have to pay rent on a system - how about you turn that rent, into a wage, and add an NPC defense fleet. Nothing too heavy - a few gate guns, and a small gang on each gate, similar to what you see in Empire. These would engage any hostiles or neutrals entering Sov space. As you increase your sov level, these defenses increase in strength. The beauty with this setup, is you can upgrade your systems while lessening risk of those resources being exploited by neutrals etc. Obviously, with a full out assault, these defenses mean nothing, but i dont think thats a bad thing - it will stop the solo ratters, explorers maybe a roaming pirate or two.. It also gets around the conceptual flaw of paying rent in LAWLESS space. Hell theres a whole new skill tree right there... you could even allow alliances to customize their defense fleets, they get to pick the ships - you could use your tournament point system or something similar to do this. I also really think that null sec space needs to be way more profitable than empire, as the risks are so much greater. The best idea for this seems to be increasing the rat bounty and loot considerably and make the other exploration sites comparable in isk/h to the increased ratting isk/h rate - as mentioned by numerous people in earlier post. Someone posted earlier about making the cost for gaining sov for systems in a constellation linear, but taking sov in additional constellations exponentional - i think this is a great idea, IF null sec becomes more profitable system per system. The combination would encourage alliances to abandon some systems, simply because it would be more profitable to downsize. And with the aim of cramming more and more players into an ever smaller area - i really think you should seriously buff the facilities of outposts, or bring in a new generation of bigger and better outposts. And perhaps make one of the materials needed to construct these next generation outposts, very rare, and only available in null sec. Invent a new one if you have to. Another reason to go to war.
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:10:00 - [1755] Originally by: gambrinous FC: they have a period in their ally name! Troop: A what? MOTHER OF GOD Troop: those **ers Troop: cheating got ***ers, I will not rest until the blow up Troop: a period killed my alt THEY ALL MUST DIE!!!! TROOP: WHAT? X? OK Seriously, I would X for this op.
Anahid Brutus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:11:00 - [1756] Originally by: gambrinous but take that away and do you seriously expect peace to break out like I said I'm prob wrong, I don't run an ally or moon **, but just sayin, pvpers will pvp reguardless Yeah people will pvp, but instead of dread vs dread fleets battling it out over R64sm +30 well fit BS fighting each other over a plex or expensive hacs/recons trying to disrupt ratters and avoiding defense gangs, then you'll see boring ** like in the red vs blue pvp alliance thing, which is t1 frigs and t1 cruisers basically dueling, and while that might be fun for a while, let's be honest, it isn't really that exciting.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:15:00 - [1757] In principle it could be that your neighbours disrupt your ratting/exploration stuff too much, so you decide to invade them and whipe them out, not that bad idea imo. Although it probably wont change anything and the cloakers will keep disrupting all your carebearing in those systems. Anti cloak modules pls.
Mistres Tor	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:15:00 - [1758] How much penople can have isk from lv4 hub in empire?? 1000+ and for free and system with new sov system with new upgrad, 10 players ?? and you have to pay bilions of isk to do that and maby it will be the sam whort are lv 4misions, and weait you have to defend it ,and weait you can have a cloker all the day to ruin your day ?? and a small gang can destroy your work ?? Second EXODUS incoming lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming
Kralizek Kharr	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:17:00 - [1759] CCP you are introducing a whole revamp to a MAJOR part of this game and not introducing incentive while raising the cost of upkeep... you're wrong here. I know new stuff will be introduced later (read: comets etc.) but this must be brought together it would be like giving us wormholes without sleepers/gas sites but with all logistic constraints and let us mine ore there (sarcastic - just because roids in wh are bigger). - Idea - bring sleeper mods which will be made out of loot and mins from reverse engineering ..BUT THEY MUST BE REGION DEPENDANT.. (read: to build an X mod u need mins from 5-10 regions and all must be used in same quantity or near enoguh to not make one region isk making while leaving others left with nothing) that WILL make incentive to fight over systems and also maybe even start cooperating between alliances/corporations at different level, thats what I thought you were looking for, isn't it??? - I have been in this game for 'only 3 years' but looking what you're doing to it is constant 'flatening' of everything and make it available to everyone - THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT A WAY TO GO!! if there is a bottleneck so be it, let US fight for it and let US relase it for god sake!! not by artifically increasing availability. (and no I'm not talking about moon goo, agreed for no afk isk machines in that one on par with you) If you need more time to 'adjust' rather than release it on 1st Dec please offset it and make it as it suppose to be.
Anahid Brutus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:20:00 - [1760] Originally by: Furb Killer In principle it could be that your neighbours disrupt your ratting/exploration stuff too much, so you decide to invade them and whipe them out, not that bad idea imo. Goons live 1 jump from AAA. Due to the nature of exploration/ratting(ie. it's very, very easy to do in complete safety as long as you're aligned) then even in the border areas both alliances almost definitely lose more ships to rats than hostiles.

Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:22:00 - [1761] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks for keeping the feedback largely constructive so far. As stated in the original blog it is trivial for us to us to change the numbers and we expected this to happen based on the next round of feedback which is happening here. The original upkeep costs in the blog were designed given a reduction in space you need to hold for income purposes so they increasingly become less as passive income increases (fixed cost/dynamic income) and act as a soft limit and prohibitive factor on how much space you want to claim. That indeed is the case since the established powerblocks will naturally look to where you can cost cut initially and potentially expand later based on purchase and installation of resource upgrades and more balanced member base to utilise those resources and that means limiting to strategically important systems to begin with regardless of the final upkeep or upgrade figures we arrive at here. But on with some specific answers to the biggest concerns: So will we look at making upkeep costs less than stated in the blog due to reasonable feedback? Yes! - Sovereignty Structures The role of the Territorial Claim Unit (TCU) changed since the original figures were generated to be only a marker for sovereignty and the last thing to be removed after a system has been taken (details on this are coming soon in Abathur's next blog). This means the cost for the TCU should be reasonable in terms of upkeep and we are looking at 1 mill per day currently for that dot on the map. The infrastructure hub is both key to strategic defence and as the base of the solar system upgrades. Here we are looking at mirroring a large starbase in equivalent operational cost so 5 million upkeep per day is more reasonable. - Strategic Upgrades The key upgrades here we want to force you to make economic decisions over are naturally the jump bridges and cynosural jammer use. The presence of these two has radical effects on the 'landscape' generally. We are looking at no upkeep cost on either of the construction arrays and cynosural field generators and then maintain significant costs the cynosural jammer and jump bridges. Hopefully that answers some concerns on the upkeep fees and that we are looking at the figures and open to adjusting them further. As for the other issues raised, we are looking at the issues around the resource sites and things like knowing if they are in use or not and will shed more light on the asteroid belt upgrades which are not the ordinary gravimetric sites FYI some of you are mentioning Keep the constructive feedback coming and we'll update the original blog monday or tuesday with new figures and updates and additional comments to clear some confusion up. This cost is much better. We need that additional information, should have been in there in the first place. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:25:00 - [1762] BAWL OUT WITH THE OLD IN WITH THE NEW you guys had your time in the sun and when all your isk is spent trying to protect your precious sovereignty we will rise up to cut your lines and destroy everything you've worked for. To hell with the old way and the big alliances crying about holding vast stretches of space and kicking out the smaller guys instead of helping them prosper and making them allies.. If the old alliances fail its is because they've failed to adapt this isn't a step back its an opportunity to Change strategies and advance.
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:26:00 - [1763] Originally by: Bojan Z Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Shasis Why not creating an upgrade that will put lvl4 agents in the upgraded outpost systems ? then the 10-15 people is gone... We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. What about "Cosmos like" agents; i.e. in their ships in space near the infrastructure hub? this once again proves that CCP doesnt really seem willing to give 0.0 the boost it would need with the new costs involved when you run a 0.0 system. CCP why dont you add cosmos like agents in ships who give out lvl 4 (or even lvl 5) missions in 0.0, WHIH WOULD BE MORE REWARDING THAN EMPIRE ONES. What could be so hard about that? There are so many decent ideas in this thread how to make 0.0 a good place. Yet CCP hasnt even thought about one single of them, before finishing all that sov overhaul stuff. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Floydd Heywood	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:31:00 - [1764] Dominion was always meant to make the fat and powerful established alliances lose land and power. You guys hold way too many systems already, systems that you do not nearly fully use. You need to be trimmed down. And nobody likes to be trimmed down. So if all the alliance people cry now, this is an indication that the changes are good That said, I also have my doubts about the new system. I do not understand why upkeep is linear; the first system should be a lot less expensive than owning several systems, to encourage and aid newcomers. And the upgrades seem indeed to be of limited value. I had hoped for more quality, not just more of the same. The resources of most 0.0 systems are not fully exploited right now. So why spend money on upgrades when we can just move to the next empty system?
Anahid Brutus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:32:00 - [1765] Originally by: Verlisia BAWL OUT WITH THE OLD IN WITH THE NEW you guys had your time in the sun and when all your isk is spent trying to protect your precious sovereignty we will rise up to cut your lines and destroy everything you've worked for. To hell with the old way and the big alliances crying about holding vast stretches of space and kicking out the smaller guys instead of helping them prosper and making them allies.. If the old alliances fail its is because they've failed to adapt this isn't a step back its an opportunity to Change strategies and advance. You're missing the point, nothing here is a challenge to the large alliances, except that it makes 0.0 so bad that it might make them all move into npc 0.0. And if you think smaller alliances will have a fighting chance in npc spahahahahaha
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:33:00 - [1766] Edited by: Pointfive on 08/11/2009 09:34:02 Originally by: Verlisia BAWL OUT WITH THE OLD IN WITH THE NEW you guys had your time in the sun and when all your isk is spent trying to protect your precious sovereignty we will rise up to cut your lines and destroy everything you've worked for. To hell with the old way and the big alliances crying about holding vast stretches of space and kicking out the smaller guys instead of helping them prosper and making them allies.. If the old alliances fail its is because they've failed to adapt this isn't a step back its an opportunity to Change strategies and advance. Yes the large alliances are terrified of all the people who will be rushing out to spend time and money to upgrade a system to the level of being on par with level 4s. 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.
Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:33:00 - [1767] Originally by: Anahid Brutus Originally by: Verlisia BAWL OUT WITH THE OLD IN WITH THE NEW you guys had your time in the sun and when all your isk is spent trying to protect your precious sovereignty we will rise up to cut your lines and destroy everything you've worked for. To hell with the old way and the big alliances crying about holding vast stretches of space and kicking out the smaller guys instead of helping them prosper and making them allies.. If the old alliances fail its is because they've failed to adapt this isn't a step back its an opportunity to Change strategies and advance. You're missing the point, nothing here is a challenge to the large alliances, except that it makes 0.0 so bad that it might make them all move into npc 0.0. And if you think smaller alliances will have a fighting chance in npc spahahahahaha no one cares about npc space so please be my guest. Enjoy
Salsbury	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:34:00 - [1768] Originally by: Zahorite Originally by: Kanatta Jing Edited by: Kanatta Jing on 08/11/2009 02:10:49 I'm like the only one who sees how easy it's going to be to grind in a PVP grade fleet to make stupid amounts of money, and how much more secure a system will be with a big active fleet in it? I mean rather then people being semi AFK in station spinning ships. Three problems with what you are seeing. (edited to reduce size) 2. If I'm your enemy I'm just going to log an alt put a cloak and a scanner on it and then scan down and cloak inside one of your anomalies. That will cause the anomaly to not despawn when you finish it and good luck finding me. Even if you do I'm in a Tech I frigate and you cost me less than a million isk while I cost you at least tens of millions of isk. All I need is ten people with alts and you can't run anything in your system. This one should be relatively easy to prevent. Put an activity monitor of some sort on these spaces. When no more is being "done" in there (if it's finished, as you say), then it's closed up/despawned. If there's a ship sitting in there for XX minutes that hasn't done anything, assume they're afk, disconnect it, and despawn.
Bernie Mask Phantasm Industries Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:35:00 - [1769] As a small-alliance member, I'm adding myself to the "this sucks" column. I've been hanging out for details on this for ages, because of the initial promise of shrinking back the large alliance blobs and opening up systems. The "sliding scale" of more expense per space held sounded great. We'd finally have a bargaining point with the "big kids" - we'd be able to do something cheaper and more effective than they could. Instead, we're pretty much priced out of the 0.0 game before we get get a foothold. Still. Sure creating a holding alliance to short-circuit the growing expenses would be a exploit of sorts, but honestly - with all the hassles with sharing CHA/SMA access, standings sync being impossible, starbase defense roles ... this is hard enough if you're not in the same CORP let alone a completely separate alliance. By the time you've populated a new alliance with all the chars needed to operate it and hold space in order to dodge a few billion in bills - wouldn't it be easier to "hire" a small existing alliance to hold a strategic system for you? We get a system or two, you get intel, and while we're busy getting slaughtered, you get time to throw a proper defense together. :D Of course, that what I stupidly and optimistically imagined when the first details on how this was going to work came out - that a smaller alliance would have a role, not unlike the newbie in a frigate tackling for the big and slow battleship alliances. But apparently, "getting more people into 0.0" means that we still should just continue wandering in occasionally and going home to empire at night. Maybe I read too much into the initial proposals CCP, but from the look of this thread I'm not the only one. But on the off-chance anyone's listening - implement the increasing scale of sov costs and who gives a toss if someone wants to fracture their alliance to get around it. Give small alliances a bargaining chip with the large ones. If nothing else, think of the increased potential for betrayal and associated politics and arguing.
dannyBOy16437	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:39:00 - [1770] Originally by: SavageBastard Originally by: Eint Truzenzuzex Greeting's to the Hive, i personally don't see a reason why to wine about the new sov-system. 1. it looks promising, they need maybe a bit finetune it but let see the patch hit Tranz. If all go wrong CCP get panic and make proper adjustment's and ccp can do things quickly. ( look on the CVA disbanding ). 2. A question how should small alliance get there space ? CCP do not ad new space, so the one has to be redistributed. Higher coast + lower static income = consideration of holding Space. 3. And to be honest, (okay that would be an oldy) most changes they where heavily debated on the forms where good changes, for most of the players. People are quick at complaining slow on give out a "good job" Thanks for this completely substanceless affirmation of CCP's plan. So far nobody with any clear grasp of what this actually means for 0.0 has come out in support of it as-is. If you're wondering why enemies like Atlas, ROL and Gonswarm are all in agreement on this issue it's because we all actually live in 0.0 and understand where these changes are headed vs. where they were supposed to go. The reason all of the big alliances are agreeing that the new sov system is terrible... is because all the big alliances will have to cut the number of systems they own. So stop whining and accept you will no longer be having whole multiple regions all to yourself.

Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:41:00 - [1771] Goons cry such sweet tears lol
Hail Xenu	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:44:00 - [1772] 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. Yowza! These are all great ideas! With those change, you'd have an actual sandbox where the capture and utilization of space is dependent on true activity of PLAYERS instead of arbitrary rules and contrived game mechanics set by CCP! The ease of capturing resources, unless they're PRO-ACTIVELY defended/protected by actual players instead of soul-sapping and boring game mechanics means you'll have a more DYNAMIC player experience! I'm EXCITED and MOTIVATED by these ideas!
SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:52:00 - [1773] Originally by: Deldrac Originally by: gambrinous FC: they have a period in their ally name! Troop: A what? MOTHER OF GOD Troop: those **ers Troop: cheating got ***ers, I will not rest until the blow up Troop: a period killed my alt THEY ALL MUST DIE!!!! TROOP: WHAT? X? OK Seriously, I would X for this op. That's why your corp is dead.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:58:00 - [1774] Quote: The reason all of the big alliances are agreeing that the new sov system is terrible... is because all the big alliances will have to cut the number of systems they own. So stop whining and accept you will no longer be having whole multiple regions all to yourself. Confirming i am in a big significant alliance holding multiple regions, oh wait... Maybe large ones have to cut the ammount of space they hold, and what about the smaller ones? They are screwed harder...
SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:59:00 - [1775] Originally by: dannyBOy16437 Originally by: SavageBastard Originally by: Eint Truzenzuzex Greeting's to the Hive, i personally don't see a reason why to wine about the new sov-system. 1. it looks promising, they need maybe a bit finetune it but let see the patch hit Tranz. If all go wrong CCP get panic and make proper adjustment's and ccp can do things quickly. ( look on the CVA disbanding ). 2. A question how should small alliance get there space ? CCP do not ad new space, so the one has to be redistributed. Higher coast + lower static income = consideration of holding Space. 3. And to be honest, (okay that would be an oldy) most changes they where heavily debated on the forms where good changes, for most of the players. People are quick at complaining slow on give out a "good job" Thanks for this completely substanceless affirmation of CCP's plan. So far nobody with any clear grasp of what this actually means for 0.0 has come out in support of it as-is. If you're wondering why enemies like Atlas, ROL and Gonswarm are all in agreement on this issue it's because we all actually live in 0.0 and understand where these changes are headed vs. where they were supposed to go. The reason all of the big alliances are agreeing that the new sov system is terrible... is because all the big alliances will have to cut the number of systems they own. So stop whining and accept you will no longer be having whole multiple regions all to yourself. Next time just post "I have no idea what I'm talking about but it feels good to post" and you won't look so dumb. Cause posting does feel good. And you don't know what you're talking about.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:01:00 - [1776] Originally by: dannyBOy16437 The reason all of the big alliances are agreeing that the new sov system is terrible... is because all the big alliances will have to cut the number of systems they own. So stop whining and accept you will no longer be having whole multiple regions all to yourself. Ahem... WE KNEW THIS. WE'VE PLANNED FOR IT FOR MONTHS WITH NO CONCRETE INFO UNTIL THE DEV BLOG. WE DON'T CARE THAT WE'LL NOT HAVE A HUGE MAP BLOB, JUST THAT WE'LL HAVE SPACE WORTH FIGHTING FOR, WHICH WITH THIS WE WON'T. cough Huge blobs mean massive logistics efforts and expenditures. NOT maintaining huge blobs and redundant jump bridge networks mean/meant your space was insecure. This is why we said our former space was **** - it's highly indefensible against attacks on jump bridges. ATLAS and the Esoteria/Paragon crowd are aware of this now. We wanted easier ways of maintaining and consolidating space. This isn't it.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:02:00 - [1777] ANSWER NOW: Give me a ham sandwich. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
penifSMASH GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:04:00 - [1778] I think these changes are great for my own personal enjoyment of the game. I live in 0.0 but all these changes to isk-making on the individual level don't apply to me because I'm already rich as hell from scamming. Now instead of ganking freighters, miners, and high-sec mission runners I can spend my time griefing other 0.0 inhabitants by cloak-griefing in their upgraded systems. Or I can just be a jerk and spam STOPs in hostile systems until they mess up just once and lose sov in some vital system. It would be pretty funny when they spend billions of isk upgrading some system only to lose it real quickly. And now that jump bridges will be an extravagance, I can easily gank ratters and travelers and severely cripple logistics, especially if they live deep in 0.0 (like Omist, Tenal, or Cobalt Edge for example) that are very unconnected to Empire. And since my alliance will be the de facto ruler of Delve and Querious, it would be a pretty good troll to allow some small alliance to settle in to a lesser used system in Querious, let them build up, then swoop in and destroy everything with a huge capital blob after they've already invested billions. So yeah, I'm going to have a blast griefing and messing with both long-time 0.0 inhabitants and newcomers alike because I'm filthy rich in-game and very bored. That is if they don't all move back to Empire or NPC 0.0 instead, which would be the logical thing for people to do after they realize holding sov provides no tangible benefits.
Salsbury	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:06:00 - [1779] Originally by: Woofybean Edited by: Woofybean on 08/11/2009 03:08:39 EDIT: Sigh, yay for timeouts. Originally by: Salsbury I've read all 46 posts between mine (#1201) and this one (#1247). Would you care to link to the "thorough refutation" that you're talking about? Did you actually read the other 50 pages, or are you sitting there all smug after being white knighted by a dev that appears to not play the same game as the rest of us? To be honest, I read the first 4-5, skipped over a bunch of the early ones that came in while I was sleeping, and picked up again this afternoon. I've only read ~20 pages, so far. (It's hard to keep up with this thread!) About 600 posts, so far. However, about 400 of those seem to be people reposting the "Yes or No" question over and over and over and over. (Many of them Goonswarm folks, but by no means all.) Despite the large volume of posts here, there's surprisingly little substantial content. (I miss the days of advanced Usenet readers that understood true threading, kill files/sub-thread kills, regex processing, quote collapsing, etc. This web-forum stuff is really quite primitive in comparison.) Originally by: Woofybean Originally by: Salsbury I stand by my statements. Especially all the non-smack-talk bits about collaborative playing, which you conveniently glossed over. If you understood as much about this game as you believe you do, you'd know just how much the Goons understand about cooperative play. Your comments are redundant. If they seem redundant, it's probably because they've been quoted dozens of times. However, still not nearly so much as the famed "Yes or No" question. (Which I've chimed in and given my opinion on, a few pages back.) But honestly, that's just my opinion. (And as a good friend of mine says "Opinions are like web pages: Everybody has one, and nobody cares about yours!") We'll have to see what CCP says when they get back in the office on Monday. (And I bet it's something along the lines of "Jeez! What a bunch of OCD Mother****ers we had on the boards this weekend!")
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:10:00 - [1780] 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. Sorry to be rude, but that is the most idiotic dev post I have seen in a while. Plus it lacks total understanding of how 0.0 developed over the years until now. The ONLY force in 0.0 should be players! The ONLY way to control systems and to gain sov should be due to the players! Not by removing some alliance tickers, not by not paying enough isk to some completely idotic npc-overlords in lawless space. It should be ALWAYS and ONLY the players in 0.0 And the whole idea of grinding to 'unlock' levels to get better stuff is a concept so out of the core Eve-concept that it is immensely sad to see Eve going this way. What only did happen to the original vision of Eve? No grinding, no levelling, no fixed paths forced to choose. Just freedom. All gone.

Hypan Amarr Dark Stripes. Dark Stripes	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:16:00 - [1781] as a small alliance, we expected dom to help us get a foot on the space holding ladder. the exponentinal cost of owning systems was ment to make it expensive for larger alliances to hold 200 plus sytems and the systems that would be dropped could either be grabed in conflict or paid for from the new overlords. after doing a little sisi testing most of the alliance leadership and membership now looks at 0.0 and thinks lets just get in one of the power blocks and let them sort out all the bull regarding payments and tax rates being 100%. there is no way as a none moon holding alliance we can pay those fee's and maintain any level of pvp operations, we would all have to rat our arses off none stop and if anything came up like oh noes another pvp gang we would end up being short on our sov payments and there would be no real way we could pay the over lords what has been aggreed on in the new treaty system(that is making it in this patch right?) 1 system 1 mil 2 system 5 mil 3 systems 10mil.. that is what you said would happen ccp. not this. go back redo it, make it worth while, but for the love of all things eve, dont put this S H I T in as it is now.
Salsbury	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:18:00 - [1782] Originally by: Aralis I don't want different upgrades. I want the whole patch thrown in the bin. This is OUR space claimed on behalf of the Empire. Who are we paying these taxes to? If it's the Empire - well that's fantastic your Majesty - we're delighted to be accepted in the Empire. When can we expect Imperial patrols to start and navy sentry guns to be installed? If it's anyone else - eat laser death scumbag. I'm not sure who it is, but it doesn't seem to be Empire. Near as I can tell, it's the invisible gnomes that keep the Stargates running. (What? You thought those things just grew there naturally and ran for free? Not anymore...) I think I'll name those Stargate gnomes the "Curators of the Curious Portals", or CCP for short.
Aditia Holdem Doom Guard Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:20:00 - [1783] Looks like the mechanics are sound, the numbers however are not. You guys should really run some simulations on which numbers will achieve what you would like to see for the game. From the top of my head: 1. Holding space should be an equation of how many people you can field to actually defend your space realistically; NOT of how much you are gonna force people to systematically farm and tax. Like someone said, you are currently rewarding people that use bots/mind numbing farming by renters to make ISK, like Legion of Death. Legion space is boring as f#ck, whereas providence, which is awesome, is getting it up the rear, that doesn't make sense people. Make the military aspect of holding space relatively cheap, but intensive PvP wise. Don't force people to grind for ISK just to pay their sov bills, force them to fight, and fight in a faster pace, like you intend with the elimination of POS warfare. 2. Making ISK off space should be an equation of how many people you can organize and tax, so design your ISK upgrades in a way that it only becomes valuable for an alliance when u have actual residents in your upgraded systems that you can tax. You may want to design a different tax mechanic for that so that the owner alliance of the system gets the tax off the bounties you make, not the corpotation of which the member is a pilot. A corp. would still be able to tax its members after the primary taxation to the SOV holder. This would also benefit empire builders like CVA and not ISK farming corps that introduce the boredom to EVE pilots. Summarizing: Keep your mechanics, change the numbers. Make holding space a game of organization and PvP, make making ISK in 0.0 an MMO game (in stead of the single player game it is atm, rewarding macro's and people with too much time), in a way that well organized groups that work together can make more ISK in 0.0 than in empire. DON'T KILL THE FUN OF 0.0 BY MAKING US GRIND FOR ISK JUST TO LIVE THERE PLZ
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:21:00 - [1784] Edited by: Tamahra on 08/11/2009 10:21:00 Originally by: Gnulpie Sorry to be rude, but that is the most idiotic dev post I have seen in a while. Plus it lacks total understanding of how 0.0 developed over the years until now. The ONLY force in 0.0 should be players! The ONLY way to control systems and to gain sov should be due to the players! Not by removing some alliance tickers, not by not paying enough isk to some completely idotic npc-overlords in lawless space. It should be ALWAYS and ONLY the players in 0.0 And the whole idea of grinding to 'unlock' levels to get better stuff is a concept so out of the core Eve-concept that it is immensely sad to see Eve going this way. What only did happen to the original vision of Eve? No grinding, no levelling, no fixed paths forced to choose. Just freedom. All gone. while i dont support the system how it currently is planned (doesnt support enough players in one system, income-wise, and the costs for upkeep must decline with more player activity) but your post is a bit off the grid. The new system is really good, and it is what we all wanted, if they balance out the costs / income ratio Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:27:00 - [1785] Originally by: penifSMASH Or I can just be a jerk and spam STOPs in hostile systems until they mess up just once and lose sov in some vital system. It would be pretty funny when they spend billions of isk upgrading some system only to lose it real quickly. 1) Planting STOPs in a system only makes it vulnerable to change in sov, it does not afaik destroy your upgrades or switch sov. 2) Are you still going to be spamming STOPs if they cost 10M, 20M, 50M or what ever they'll be at?
Camdim Caldari Blood and Steel Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:34:00 - [1786] Just a few things I would like to see addressed. First the initial numbers are way the heck off but you (CCP) have said you would address those and have new figures for us on Monday. Good deal. Second point 0.0 != empire. The risk of 0.0 is higher then the risk of empire. So the money has to be better. And moon isk is a corp/alliance money making endeavor for every alliance I have been in( I could have made poor choices for alliances and other corps/alliance give some of this money to their people). And that money was used to fuel cap ship replacement programs and some pos fueling etc. This leaves me to make my own money to support myself for ships and such. The longer I have to take to make that money the less I get to shoot other people and the less I get to help protect the space we have won. Which means more time grinding cash and less time having fun. Now saying that you guys can't put agents in 0.0 space is a load of bull. They exist in 0.0 already. When a sov system hits level 1 have an agent move in from each of the respective navies of each faction. Make it a level 1 agent. Then have an upgrade so that it adds a level 2 agent level 3 etc. Make them appear at a minor faction outpost they are free floating in space at their little outposts in their ships ready to hand out kill only missions to anyone with the standings to get a mission. This now allows for both new players and vets to run missions for any of the faction navies and make money from the missions just like in empire. That solves the individual money making issue. And brings some cash in the form of taxes on the rats to the corp. Just get this done the code is in the game already you just have to cut and paste it. If you don't remember where or how to do this look at the agents floating around in Vale of the silent. Don't feed us a line and say it can't be done when it already has. Next thing is if I/we have to pay maintenance on our systems for the gates to work and such shouldn't those gates work for us? This means we should control who can and cannot jump through those gates. Also shouldn't we be able to say where those gates connect to? What this does is allow for dynamic connects ( there should be light year limits on how far they can connect to other systems.) which then gives 0.0 a radical shift. Some time should be setup for how often and how much it costs to say pick a new connection and once established it has to stay there for that time limit. But this would be what smaller alliance can help to use to hold their space. It also allows for the larger alliances to have some defense for their back line territories. But this would be the mechanic that would allow larger alliances to defend their renters better and smaller alliance to get foot holds in deeper space and allow for deep 0.0 alliance to trim that logistic route down a bit more with more direct connections to empire. And the last point I want to make is: If your going to make upgrades then the buyer ( ie. Player) has to know what he is buying these means exact descriptions of what the upgrade does and how it works exactly. Not some vague crap like gives you more grav sites. How many more and what level and what is the spawn cycle etc.
Salsbury	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:45:00 - [1787] Originally by: Kai Lae #1. Cost vs income. What you're doing here is adding a huge new cost to 0.0 life in conquerable regions, while decreasing the income. Not only do you now have to bear sov costs, but your POS fuel bill is going to actually increase, not go down. The simple reason is that no one really operates towers just to claim sov. Nearly all of them are used for jump bridges, cyno arrays, labs, reactions, mining (both belt and moon), etc. We operate well over 100 POS in this corp last I looked and under the new system we will be able to stop operation of 2 of them. Fuel savings from these 2 POS is not significant, however the reduction in fuel savings to 10% is. Therefore fuel costs will actually increase, not go down, at the exact same time that massive new costs to support the sov system are also introduced. I don't think this is the case... Go back and read the dev blog post again: Originally by: CCP The Upkeep system is the fortnightly (14 days) sovereignty bill each corporation will receive for every solar system they are managing and replaces the role of starbase fuel costs in our new sovereignty system. Seems to me that "replaces" would indicate that fuel costs are no longer a concern.
Lucas Pantelis Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:46:00 - [1788] Why will anyone want to take someone else's space if all will do is cost them more money? Why will anyone want to pay for sov so they can upgrade systems if they get the same isk reward/time invested as they do without any upgrades? What will this expansion actually achieve other than making only systems with jump bridges and cyno jammers show up on the sov map?
Camdim Caldari Blood and Steel Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:47:00 - [1789] Semi ninja edit. Also upgrades should be permanent. That means that one alliance could allow another alliance to upgrade space then take them out and move in to a mostly upgraded system. The sov levels and usage levels would have to be met but the upgrades themselves would still be there. So like when a station is placed in a system it is always there. And you can lose that station by losing the system. What this allows for is another level of warfare. These upgrades could be damaged and put offline ( stations should work like this as well ). This gives a reason to use guerrilla warfare to target an enemies assets. You damage that upgrade and put it off line till it is repaired. Then they have to use some of those minerals to repair the asset. Which means that upgrades should be expensive but only have to be purchased once. A small fee should be charged for its upkeep. Also upkeep prices should be off set by donating some ice products many alliances have ice mining operations that offset POS upkeep. But there is no way but cash to pay for your maintenance. There needs to be a way to pay some of the upkeep via minerals/ice products.
ChaosOne Caldari Lux Vitae GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:48:00 - [1790] CCP states thats putting agents into Player owned stations isnt possible. I dont knwo whether this has been suggested prior, but i belive it is quite possible to place agents in space which are dotted all over the universe. how about a upgrade to seed agents in space with a upgrade (maybe 4 tiers for the different levels) and have them act like a remote agent attached to the various npc factions????

Ivana Screwyou	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:04:00 - [1791] Edited by: Ivana Screwyou on 08/11/2009 11:04:30 Originally by: ChaosOne Edited by: ChaosOne on 08/11/2009 10:56:50 CCP states thats putting agents into Player owned stations isnt possible. I dont know whether this has been suggested prior, but i belive it is quite possible to place agents in space which are dotted all over the universe. how about a upgrade to seed agents in space with a upgrade (maybe 4 tiers for the different levels) and have them act like a remote agent attached to the various npc factions???? edit. p.s The current sov change cost is far too high, and the thought that has gone into the upgrades are of a very poor quality. That would be too logical to ever happen.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:05:00 - [1792] Originally by: ChaosOne CCP states thats putting agents into Player owned stations isnt possible. lets not forget how ccp also stated grouping weapons was impossible. or modifying the nid this patch is like a slap in the face with whatever code happens to be handy while the graphics dept all gets bonuses for making a planet look shiny.
Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:06:00 - [1793] I've played EVE for a long, long time, and the best thing about 0.0 was that it loomed as the place to build an empire where YOU got to set the rules. In empire I couldn't shoot who I wanted, I couldn't get the resources I wanted, and I couldn't change the space. 0.0 was the land where all kinds of riches were 'thought' to be had. Then we went there and the realities set in, which many other posters have hit upon on this thread. Much of 0.0 isn't used, or utilized correctly. And we have and had large afk empires in 0.0. Empires where they controlled the moons, the stations, maybe had a few 'dual' personality people that mined some of their very best systems and rented the heck out of what's left. That was said to be wrong and addressed by letting "smaller" alliances get a chance at some space out here. And before some of you take the "large alliance doesn't want to lose it's space blah blah!" bs realize that alot of us don't want some of the space we have now. We prepared for shedding large portions of space and welcomed the idea since it finally meant less freaking POS's to fuel (god who doesn't hate those damn things). But this expansion EVEN with the cost reduction makes it extremely hard for new entities to get established. CCP, I really hope you realize that even with a moon 'nerf' the newest players into the 0.0 scene will be fighting an uphill battle look at the problems their facing. 1. They won't have access to any really good space, the largest alliances will hold it or defend it. 2. the costs will be high from the get go Instead of the cost increasing sov scale that was said to be coming 3. there will be costs from a campaign from the start 4. They won't have a 0.0 'core' to work/resupply/earn from If you add in regions like Cobalt Edge, Branch, Omist, Paragon Soul, or Period Basis you'll almost never see them change hands. The above regions will be PUNISHED for being further out as well. Why? Because they want to be further from empire? That shouldn't be the case in any regard, regardless of the politics or who lives anywhere it's a bad idea to punish players for developing the most remote regions in the game. I don't care how it's implemented but people that live farther out already face supply shortages, more chances to get ganked coming 'home' and more time invested in logistics. Now you want to punish them more? Please think of that when your making these changes. I don't care if it's a goon, an NC, a southerner or a drone regioner. It shouldn't be a punishment, ask the people that live in those regions, it already IS a punishment living that far out. Make their jump bridge network linked and the longer it goes (only outward not around their empire like a highway) give them a cost reduction for having to be that far out in the first place. Many of us are for giving new people a shot out in 0.0, or seeing the afk empires end. Maybe consider tying more 'activity' into more cost savings. Figure out the RP element however you want, but more mining, more ratting, more exploring and clearing should equate to cost savings. After all the system isn't AFK anymore. The upgrades don't fix the problems at the moment, mining out here isn't good, exploration sites aren't good, wh's are quickly becoming worthless. Having and holding space AND now paying massive upkeep on it, should bring good rewards. And I think anyone can say that the 'upgrades' that are listed aren't good enough for those three factors at the moment. Not by a long shot. Please put more time to this, or more revision. And I mean small, medium AND large alliances, not just us 'big boys'. Respectfully. -Ban
KhaniKirai	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:08:00 - [1794] I dont see the problem with the costs really. Some smaller alliances, that existed in 0.0 last year, could easily afford it, without ANY problem. Seems to me, the more agressive alliances, that dont build up stuff, that dont use their space, that only rent stuff out, that only try to remove others from 0.0, etc. These alliances, have often tons of systems, that are not being used at all, but somehow they think it shows how powerfull they are, having lots of little stars in their color on the soev map, without even using those. Well, now you have to grow up and learn how to play as a REAL 0.0 space alliance. Now you need to learn how to be efficient with space. But the costs, should be manageble, especially since you wont have to pay a lot of fuel costs anymore?
Salsbury	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:09:00 - [1795] Originally by: Kai Lae You own a area of space, with say 10 stations in it. You are able to pay your bills by taxes that come from your players. I'll stipulate that the upgrades actually provide enough isk for them to afford these taxes for the purpose of this thought experiment. What would happen if a well trained, motivated hostile group with sufficient numbers entered your space with a sizable black ops unit with coverage in all time zones? Let's say they have 20 people on basically all the time. With that, by using a combination of attacks, maneuvering, sitting in systems AFK cloaked, they can likely bring a quarter to a half of your isk farming activities to a halt. If they concentrate their efforts on the same systems, after a short time your infrastructure upgrades will begin to go offline due to inactivity. If they have the patience, it's quite possible the combination of loss of infrastructure and loss of tax revenue will cause overall funding to go into the red. At this point one of 2 things can happen. The alliance under assault can either dip into reserve funding, attempting to outlast the assault (assuming they have any), or increase the taxes to correct the deficiency. In the first case, assuming the attackers are patient enough, at some point the reserves will run out. This will force a tax increase or a catastrophic collapse will be imminent. However, a tax increase is an equally poor option because it simply exacerbates the differences between conquerable 0.0 and NPC 0.0/missioning empire. At some point the negatives to staying with the alliance under assault for the individual will reach a critical mass and then defections to NPC regions or empire will begin. A cascade failure is possible at this point. I'll note that the above scenario did not require a large force, just possibly 30 or so guys in recons/bombers/black ops in all TZ. In other words, pretty damn easy to do. It would therefore seem the ability to financially collapse alliances becomes far easier in dominion. The long term effects of this can't be fully seen as of yet, but this is not likely to be a positive if conquerable region stability is greatly compromised. Just had a thought about this, which could prevent such a shutdown as you describe above: What if all of the various infrastructure/system upgrade things were only visible to the people with sov. in the system? (Makes sense, if it's somehow dependent on the Infrastructure Hubs & other equipment that they're maintaining. It reports on other belts/anomalies/etc that others simply can't see.) Then you've got some guaranteed, truly beneficial profit centers that others can't camp or otherwise mess with. Hey, that might even be an incentive for some new people to move out to 0.0 space! Originally by: Kai Lae Oh and if you actually stayed and read all of my ramblings on this, my thanks. Most welcome, and thank YOU for posting some interesting and original content! It's refreshing to see in here after hundreds of posts of repetitive diarrhea.
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:11:00 - [1796] Sup. 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.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:13:00 - [1797] Originally by: Salsbury Originally by: Kai Lae The simple reason is that no one really operates towers just to claim sov. Nearly all of them are used for jump bridges, cyno arrays, labs, reactions, mining (both belt and moon), etc. We operate well over 100 POS in this corp last I looked and under the new system *we will be able to stop operation of 2 of them. Fuel savings from these 2 POS is not significant, however the reduction in fuel savings to 10% is* I don't think this is the case... Go back and read the dev blog post again: Originally by: CCP The Upkeep system is the fortnightly (14 days) sovereignty bill each corporation will receive for every solar system they are managing and replaces the role of starbase fuel costs in our new sovereignty system. Seems to me that "replaces" would indicate that fuel costs are no longer a concern. highlighted the relevant bits, I too thought that there would be savings in pos fuel, but apparently not.
Mode Al	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:14:00 - [1798] It would appear CCP are still unsure of the final mechanics of the sov system. They have not even established basic costs and are still trying various ideas/suggestions. Even the possibility of removing the whole ISK rental mechanic seems a distinct possibility on occasion. Dominion is, what, three weeks away .. this is still a work in progress. This is not final 'tweaking' before release. Admit that it needs more time to implement and pull the main feature from the expansion and we'll have to just make do with planets that 'look nice'. Al
Meno Theaetetus Wildly Inappropriate Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:18:00 - [1799] Edited by: Meno Theaetetus on 08/11/2009 11:18:53 Well honestly I think this is all hilarious, the next few months are going to be funny as hell. Let me tell you all a story, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away there was a game called swg...
Tarkina Koslix Deep Space Supplies Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:19:00 - [1800] Originally by: Nyphur Another idea I had was the possibility of taxing NPC kills in a system rather than just those within a corp. It's an idea just to support the NRDS people that can't reap taxes from the people that use their space. Perhaps they could set their hub to collect a 10% tax off NPCers in their system automatically. Maybe even make it an upgrade? Not a bad idea at all. Because that way, the ones who make it happen, benefit from their efforts to upgrade a system.

Zibu 81 ANZAC ALLIANCE	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:19:00 - [1801] You stated that with this expantion you have 3 main goals: 1. get more people (carebears) into 0.0 2. change space holding alliances into more industry based ones so that the industrial alliance funds the pvp section for providing protection. 3. stop alliances from holding unused space. And only thing you're going to achieve is maybe point 3 as you just make it more expensive. Point no 2. doesn't even make that much sense as that's how it's happening in most big space holding alliances - you have industry core which handle all the poses and reactions, who provide ship replacements to everyone else who's there for the protection of the alliance. If you want to change the balance so it's not 95% pvp members in alliance you'd have to change the whole industry side of the game, so that 10-20 people can't provide for most of the alliance. Now to get point 1 done what you'd need to do is make unupgraded 0.0 at least as profitable as lvl 4 missions with treusec being equivalent of agent quality (meaning chance of faction spawn, as that's the biggest difference between agents - LP's which allow you to buy faction items). And with upgraded it would have to be at least twice as profitable, so that even if your alliance charges you 25% tax you're still making 50% more than by running missions in empire. How you do it - well there's been couple proposals already in this thread. Now if you actually make space being able to support both individual alliance members and whole alliances with ship replacements and cap programs, etc, point 3 will happen.
Jita TradeAlt	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:23:00 - [1802] Originally by: Mode Al It would appear CCP are still unsure of the final mechanics of the sov system. They have not even established basic costs and are still trying various ideas/suggestions. Even the possibility of removing the whole ISK rental mechanic seems a distinct possibility on occasion. Dominion is, what, three weeks away .. this is still a work in progress. This is not final 'tweaking' before release. Admit that it needs more time to implement and pull the main feature from the expansion and we'll have to just make do with planets that 'look nice'. Al No, these are the final mechanics, what you see in the blog is going to happen, they're now going to 'tweak' the costs a bit, but overall, this useless piece of **** is what we'll get with dominion. They're going to roll it out, people will complain, 20-30% of 0.0 players will quit, maybe more since a lot were hoping dominion would change things for the better, while the mythical 'up and coming new corp' won't bother with 0.0 since it's now even more boring and contrived, while also not being more profitable than high-sec. End result, even less people in 0.0 but whatever
EveFairy0	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:25:00 - [1803] Now I got to thinking how does the auto-bill feature work? Because if I can issue a bill that's paid automatically by corp members, I'm totally starting a corp and rip the members off. (Think of it, throw members a bill of one billion, who ever has it in wallet has just given it to me, yay!) I think the chars that are in corp run by others will have zero wallets. Regarding the blog it's a sad read. It's about trying to force the pvp-space into carebear space, because you'd need tons of carebears doing the system upkeep for you. Trying to convert pvpers to do daily carebearing will never work. But i guess by the new standards they dont 'deserve' to claim space.
Anahid Brutus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:26:00 - [1804] Originally by: Hail Xenu 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. Yowza! These are all great ideas! With those change, you'd have an actual sandbox where the capture and utilization of space is dependent on true activity of PLAYERS instead of arbitrary rules and contrived game mechanics set by CCP! The ease of capturing resources, unless they're PRO-ACTIVELY defended/protected by actual players instead of soul-sapping and boring game mechanics means you'll have a more DYNAMIC player experience! I'm EXCITED and MOTIVATED by these ideas! Yeah i know bro! It would take CCP maybe a full 1 hour to put together, a week or two of QA and it would be STRICTLY BETTER than the dumb crap they've gotten Seleene(a dumb **) to dream up!
Moore cyno	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:31:00 - [1805] Don't know if anyone suggested this idea, as i have to admit i didn't read all 60 pages :-) I both agree and disagree with the concern that the upkeep cost is too high. It will be too much to draw out smaller alliances, and large volumes of space will become unused. However, claiming space shouldn't be so cheap/easy that large alliances will just keep all their space and the rest claimed by small entities. So, the goal is to bring out more people and smaller entities to 0.0, and force people to actively use the space. But as the grind needed to make that profitable is "a lot" it wont happen with the current numbers. Decreasing the cost too much wont open up any space as the existing alliances will just keep their space. Finding a compromise cost which achieves both goals, is in my opinion more or less impossible with the current mechanics. Solution: Link activity index to upkeep cost. Instead of just having a fixed large upkeep cost, forcing alliances to use much grinding time before any profit is seen, decrease upkeep if activity index is high. I.e. super high activity index over a month in an upkeep system, upkeep cost is decreased by 90% (or some other significant number), low activity index alliance pays the full cost. Probably should be some scaling to systems around claimed, such that ratting, mining, plexing will still improve activity index say by a factor 0.5 at neighbouring systems and so forth. Obviously passive income such as moon mining shouldn't decrease upkeep. This will accomplish exactly what was intended. Unused space will be left, actively claimed and used systems can become profitable.
Salsbury	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:38:00 - [1806] Originally by: Da Maddness Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal I've seen you or someone else ask this every couple of pages. You won't get an answer that way, especially when asking it that often in the middle of the night for Icelanders. You do realise that the forums are available when people wake up? You do realize that they aren't made any more useful being full of repeated spam? I mean, sure, easier to skim. But much harder to find the few people actually contributing useful ideas.
Tarkina Koslix Deep Space Supplies Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:44:00 - [1807] Originally by: CCP Chronotis about level 4 mission failures We want the sites to scale so each site needs a group and has appropriate rewards however we face some issues as the older sites were from simpler times before lots of ship balancing and have stupid NPCs for example which turn group content into solo content in difficulty (ironically the greatest flaw in thelvl 4 missions). There is so much wrong in it, - farming good missions up to 1 week with up to 8 level 4 agents - to static content - to static npcs - no suprises - no adventure factor and that's nearly the same for anomalies and plexes in 0.0 . it should be more like: 1) i sneak into the site and check whats there 2) depending on what i see, i decide to form a fleet with i.e. more or less logistics stealth bombers bs carriers whatevers needed. that can be done by having npcs using jammers ( oh you see that in the fight , so be prepared ) more/less neutralizer towers , so doing it in a rr BS gang would be a good idea. a.s.o. 3) if i did it right, i will be rewared with isk and stuff if i did it wrong, i die or someone else brings in a better fleet. pls get away from the "i send in the biggest tank ever and thats it" which could be done with npcs who do get aggressive by taking damage but selecting themselfes who has to pay for it first. More like our sleeper friends :) And a nice idea would be to send in a diplomat to negotiate a deal with the npcs about not attacking them, but get a "mission" from them instead against some other npc OR player alliance in a resonable way/distance. Addionally the KI can decide to entreate the player and fire on him after the job is done, as normal pirates may or may not do. Conclusion, more randomness makes the game interessting instead of brainless repeating the same steps day by day in empire missions. Maybe thats the reason why i like passive income and pvp so much. PVP is always different, you do not know all, you don't know whats waiting behind the gate(ok maybe, but whats behind the next? ) and you never knows whos coming for a visit. That makes 0.0 interessting.
Valanan Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:48:00 - [1808] Originally by: Vadinho 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? This is amazing.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 11:50:00 - [1809] Quote: Point no 2. doesn't even make that much sense as that's how it's happening in most big space holding alliances - you have industry core which handle all the poses and reactions, who provide ship replacements to everyone else who's there for the protection of the alliance. If you want to change the balance so it's not 95% pvp members in alliance you'd have to change the whole industry side of the game, so that 10-20 people can't provide for most of the alliance. Totally true. In EvE every alt can toss out inhumane volumes of stuff, even T2. Moreover, in Market Discussion the "credo" is that to earn more you must produce insane volumes at extra-reduced thin margins. This means the markets are always flooded with enormous amounts of stuff, well above the demand. Quote: Now to get point 1 done what you'd need to do is make unupgraded 0.0 at least as profitable as lvl 4 missions with treusec being equivalent of agent quality What CCP got it right in 2003 or so: To make people fight for something, the something must - exist (!) - be seen as the El Dorado - be limited and confined, in order to entice people to fight over it - somehow cater to PvPers. They eventually attract industry (alts) to fill their needs. The intended changes: - homogenize moons revenue and put "standard" spawns - are seen as crappy - are spread all over, and their cost to conquer them is vastly above the benefit to get a new system. - punts PvPers in the nuts. Being forced to farm, they will need less off industry, not more. Basically, Dominion is a dramatic failure since the planning phase. Finally, as software developer for a living: I am embarassed to play a game where their own programmers are scared to touch their own product code. Just refactor it like everyone else. I had to refactor 10 man years C++ applications (taking years myself and my team) because they were what gave us the food. CCP should also think that their old spaghetti code gives them food. What hopes can we have of improvement when the fundamental parts are of course the eldest ones, and are flagged as "untouchable"? - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Silk75 Pat Sharp's Potato Rodeo Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:02:00 - [1810] Posting because we're still waiting on the answer to this: 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.

FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:06:00 - [1811] Not posted here in months (see my profile), but this DevBlog has compelled me to put that self-imposed ban aside. I seriously hope that this is the start of some CCP based roadmap that ends in 0.0 alliances becoming empires in their own right (with the risks, rewards, and responsibilities that this brings). There have been some excellent ideas on both sides of the fence, from CCP and its customers, that appear to have fallen by the wayside. What happened to planetary sov, an idea out of the Ideas forum that seemed to have some genuine support from CCP (issuing concept art); or is this something that's now been consigned to part of the DUST514 project? How does CCP hope to thread it's current direction of 0.0 into the thread of DUST514? CCP wanted to get away from grinding, wanted to get away from large AFK empires, and wanted to get people out to 0.0; but at the moment I only see two of those aims being achieved. I've not seen anything announced that would actually want to keep me in 0.0 once the patch hits; I might as well drop back to empire for a few months, run a cookie cutter Raven setup through some level 4's each night until I can fly a carrier; then join the hundreds of other pilots playing CapShip Online. What I do the rest of the time
Nordic Warrior Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:06:00 - [1812] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha What CCP got it right in 2003 or so: To make people fight for something, the something must - exist (!) - be seen as the El Dorado - be limited and confined, in order to entice people to fight over it - somehow cater to PvPers. They eventually attract industry (alts) to fill their needs. This. In the past R64's, high truesec etc was the biggest incentives in 0.0 for major conflicts. Major conflicts bring "reason" to play EVE, having a goal thats larger than individual or corp self-interrests is what makes 0.0 interresting. If all riches in 0.0 are transferred from alliance owned values (moons, territory) to players (ratting, belts, CAs), there will be no big goal to fight over. Atleast make upgrades transferrable if sov is lost in a fully upgraded system, the new owner wins the prize and keeps the lvl5 upgrades. That'll make a good reason to fight (as long as it just doesnt mean you win a big new upkeep bill). Oh and tie the upgrades to an isk investment rather than # of days holding sov (that way the prize has a big value to fight over).
Hypan Amarr Dark Stripes. Dark Stripes	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:10:00 - [1813] they could add a race specific infra hub for agents. not based in a outpost, in the actual structure interface so not only adding agents lv1-5 but also giving people a chance to restore there faction standinsg with what ever race they have ruined while bearing it up running lvl 4's. that adds 1 hard reason for a lvl 4 bear to leave empire and go to 0.0, they might even like 0.0 while improving there faction standings and stay.. intise people to 0.0 dont put them off befoe you even put this terrbad system in place
Tiger Kior Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:21:00 - [1814] Edited by: Tiger Kior on 08/11/2009 12:22:08 We could do with the infrastructure hub being reduced in m3 to something reasonable so it at least fits in a JF (i.e: 200k m3).
Salsbury	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:25:00 - [1815] Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Anahid Brutus First off, you need objectives that people want to fight over. The more I think about it, the less I think this is true. Just set someone red, your ally grunts will already change mindset and start the hate. If you need some more motivation, throw in some sound logical reasoning to why the enemy should be shot to **. e.g. FC: they have a period in their ally name! Troop: A what? MOTHER OF GOD Troop: those ers Troop: cheating got **ers, I will not rest until they blow up Troop: a period killed my alt THEY ALL MUST DIE!!!! TROOP: WHAT? X? OK HAHAHAHAHAH! Brilliant, Gambrinous! Thanks for the laugh. It occurs to me that perhaps we've been diagnosing this thing wrong so far. We've covered all the things that fail to draw people to 0.0, and talked about LVL 4 missions to death. But we've forgotten about the ass-holes... From many of the posts just in this thread, and certainly, through general experience living in 0.0, I think many of us can safely agree that there are an abundance of ass-holes in 0.0, and perhaps THAT is what keeps so many people in Empire space, where the ass-hattery is kept to a dull-roar, compared to 0.0 space. And here's the brilliance of CCP's plan! All these new changes have prompted a bunch of these same folks to loudly proclaim that they're going to move back to Empire, start grinding LVL 4's, start ganking more people in Empire, etc. Voila!* More people move out to 0.0 space, to avoid the ass-holes swarming back to Empire! Simple, yet elegant... (Warning for the humor-impared: This may be slightly trollish. Don't take it personally.)
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:27:00 - [1816] Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 12:27:44 Originally by: Pointfive 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. As CCP Chronitus pointed out, the amount of reward to offset a small amount of risk is allot but I also think that is a matter of perception, in either case it is not in of itself the argument being made. The actual argument being made by allot of people is the fact that 0.0 is less profitable than running LVL4 missions in empire and these upgrades in dominion do little if anything to change that situation. I personally have been playing eve for some 6 years now and I remember when I first came to 0.0 it was a niche idea that you came out here to make money, however that is something that quickly evaporated and has been the consensus for a long time that you do not come out to 0.0 to make money. This should not be the case, 0.0 should not be unprofitable or certainly not less profitable than empire - please do not counter about pvp risks etc.. as we all accept those risks and costs but that is not what we are talking about. The simple point is that 0.0 life is less profitable than LVL4 missions when in reality it should at very least be equal to or greater than. Allot of this boils down to lazy development work, I remember 2-3 years ago when the concept of touching the POS code or physics engine was a nightmare to CCP, you said it wouldn't happen and were forward that it was a monumental challenge. This is the very same situation we see at the moment regarding making true sec values dynamic, belt numbers, the npc spawn density/value within and asteroid types/density, all dynamic. This is something CCP needs to tackle head on, the proposed system we have in front of us now is the most indirect method possible of actually fixing the economic inadequacies of 0.0 and it is frankly very lazy way. I personally have never run a wormhole, never run an anomaly and I know for a fact I am not the only person, there is a large player base that is just not interested in it - we rather fight NPC's in belts in a far more straight forward fashion. So please, get off your collective behindes and rethink the implementation of dominion and actually addressing the economic issues and more importantly the short comings of the code base.
Jen Ravenlock	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:35:00 - [1817] Why not forgo this idea that PVP pilots suddenly want to grind endlessly, and take the less risky road of incremental changes. Here, off the top of my head: Distortion bunker: mass: 700,000m3 online time: 5 hours defense: 10 million HP role: when onlined disables system cyno jammers There you go, a small change that improves what you currently have. Enemy moves this thing in via freighter under heavy cover into hostile territory and attempts to hold it long enough to drop the jammer and drop caps.
wealther	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:45:00 - [1818] Originally by: CCP Soundwave We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. Then put them in space, near beacons, like COSMOS agents.
c0rn1 Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:49:00 - [1819] Edited by: c0rn1 on 08/11/2009 12:50:44 Before dominion the ISK sink went like this: Ratting/missioneering/moon goo => buy ships & equipment or POSs and fuel for 0.0 => ships/POSs get blown up. Fun to be had in the players hand. After Dominion it will be: Ratting/Missioneering => pay upkeep costs for your systems => little to no money left to make fireworks => ppl move to empire because it's more profitable than 0.0 => 0.0 players will quit due to endgame content leaving the game. 0.0 used and should be the top edge of money making. Even in games like WoW the endgame content is hard (you need to gather a good amount of disciplined people to go for a raid successfully) but the rewards are high. In Eve the highest rewards will be in empire. LvL 4 missions / t2&t3 invention (and bpo) / market controlling are the top tier moneymakers. 0.0 will be completely useless to support the efforts of an alliance. There's a reason people did not want to go from empire over to 0.0 before since empire was as profitable as 0.0 was. Why should people go now when it is even less profitable? Most people supporting the current dominion state forget the fact that 0.0 gets nerfed to hell an back. Why? => No safe sov anymore to build your supercapital ships => Moon goo will be cut down in profit by 70-80% => Sov holding gets expensive => Deep space will be break-even at best => Supporting yourself will turn away from passive income to active grind with little profit (Some people just don't have the time to grind 40h a month to just play a GAME) => CCP said systems will be able to cover 100-150 people. The actual changes will cover 10-20 people at best making money Let's say a system will provide enough profitable activities. The profit in eve-o was based on scarcity in 0.0. Not everybody had access to the goods 0.0 provided. With additional complexes, mining grounds provided the prices for those goods will plummet in empire because everyone has the need to pay for his sovereignity and HAS to sell the goods for whatever price is half-arsed reasonable. Which makes it even harder to keep it. If CCP really wants people to pay for sov then they have to seriously increase the given ISK beforehand. There's basically only 1 way to do it and that would be increasing the bounty prices in 0.0 for rats by 100-300%. Everything else. roids, plexes, t2 invention materials will all plummet if you increase the supply significantly. A last question to ask the devs from my side so I can decide if I move to empire or quit the game: Due to the increased risk and logistics and additional financial (in Dominion) effort required, will 0.0 be more - not the same as - profitable (in raw isk/time/effort) than highsec L4 mission running? [ ] yes [ ] no cheers c0rn1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Life's a waste of time ...
Jomanda Madhatters Inc. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:51:00 - [1820] Since CCP hasn't spoken in over 10 pages, I very much doubt my questions will be read, let alone answered, but hey, it wont be the first pointless thing for me to do, nor the last... 1. Since JB's are vital for alliances and going to be very expensive to setup, has there been any thought to charging travelers for the use of the JB? Not much, but either a fixed fee, or a fee based on mass and jumprange or something similar. This would generate income for the alliance from the people that actually use the JB upgrade. (And no pop up warnings either, when you enter the password you agree to pay the fee). 2. How long will we have to wait for treaties? Will it be the summer patch of 2010 or will it be one of the Diminion 1.x patches? Treaties will at least offer alliances to deflect some of the extra costs to other alliances/corps(/individuals?). And therefore should be part of the planning for the alliances' sovereign space and their timeline. 3. What will be done to encourage refining in outposts and/or conquerable stations? Most of the ore mined in 0.0 is being compressed and shipped to empire to be refined there, against 0% tax and 0% loss. Alliance refineries cannot realistically compete with NPC stations in empire, without setting the tax pointlessly low (and in case of outposts, investing heavily in refining equipment). Evading refining taxes by compressing ore and jumping it to empire is too easy and too cheap. In fact there is no incentive for alliances to install Ore Prospecting Array upgrades, since it cannot be properly taxed by corporations (alliances), like NPC bounties can.

Ordais	Posted - 2009.11.08 12:57:00 - [1821] i'm terribly dissapointed, i expected much more. I see no reason to switch from lvl4 missions to 0.0 for money-making to get me my pvp-ships, as none of these upgrades will help with that. I soo looked forward to that, i really did. I used to live in 0.0 and didn't set foot in empire for 1,5 years (playing every day), but that was ages ago. Right now there is just no reason to, except going to fleets/pvp. I really hoped you wanted to change that.
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:01:00 - [1822] CCP. Get your Economist to run the numbers and show you a nice chart on what the effects of people running all these anomalies, are going to be on prices. If he doesn't know where to start, tell him to look at the "butterfly effect" (see what I did there?) the drone regions had on mineral prices. That should be a good starting point. Then please come back here and tell us how these anomalies, that you have to scan down, will support 10-15 people and equate to LVL 4 agents in Empire... with a straight face mind you.
Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:15:00 - [1823] Empire dwellers posting in this thread keep forgetting that while an agent is really good scalable ISK source for alliance members (and I'm all for moving from alliance moon goo to individual 0.0 resident ISK making, within reason of course), it also presents a very obvious choke point (just like any system upgrade that requires you to risk ships to run it). I know it is hard for you to comprehend, but recent ship changes have made 23/7 perma-cloak camping a child play. Ships with sufficient DPS to kill PvE fitted ships fast, able to fit cov ops cloak are impossible to counter. Unless of course you plan to devote your time to actually baiting and killing said cloaker, thus reducing your ISK income significantly (ratters and miners have to switch for pvp ships and wait and wait if cloaker is stupid enough to take the bait; most of them aren't). Belt rats are (currently) the only type of PvE that are at least a bit dispersed within a system. Anomalies stick out like sore thumb (and scanning them is piece of cake if you have probe launcher fitted), plexes are even more rare and if you see people in local and signature in there, all you have to do is spend 1 min scanning and then block that plex with your cloaker). I don't understand why belt rats have not been buffed yet... missions got LPs which have now become better part of ISK income for quite some mission runners. There are threads on this forums devoted only to maximizing LP/hour ratio. Belt rats got nothing. At this point I should probably mention that faction loot was nerfed in empire lvl4 mission, but then again what was faction loot doing in empire mission in the first place? The simple fact is that in today's system every major 0.0 space holder has few cloakers in their main systems 23/7. 0.0 individuals are already forced to disperse and try to rotate their "NPC hunting grounds" as much as possible to avoid drawing that big fat "pirate/police ships killed in last hour" spot on the map, attracting even more cloakers/pirates/roaming gangs. So while most of 0.0 seems wasteland, the reasons for being so are: 1. A lot of systems really suck. They have few belts (not enough to keep one drake running them in timely fashion), their true sec is crappy, and occasional spawn of an anomaly/mini site/DED does not make up for it being **e. 2. Some systems would provide satisfactory (but still below empire lvl4) income, but big guys usually hold better systems to farm 23/7 and these "acceptable" systems are rotated between more nomadicaly inclined 0.0 dwellers. When dominion hits: 1. the top systems (best ore, rats, true sec, belt #, ...) will still be held by the big guys (whether we'll see their dot on map is not relevant; if you're not blue and you go in there, you die or get chased out). Do not even try to dream of being able to live in 40 belt, -1.0 ark/bis heaven because noone will. Big guys will hold them and their enemies will grief them. 2. The really **ty systems will still be empty. They have been vacant for many years now, and this patch does not give any reason this will change. Some might try ti make a living in them, but they will leave because their big-guy neighbor will raid them too often (0.0 carebears need fun too) or they will not be able to pay for their living costs. 3. The acceptable systems will still be there, no sov in there (because you don't gain anything from it). Big guys will keep them under their control through out-of-game mechanics (I'm still shocked CCP seems to totally ignore that players have the ability to communicate and organize around their hardcoded "behavior patterns" they intended) and any red/neut thinking of using them will be killed/chased away. People will use them to make money from time to time, but most will remain the same. 4. Those colored spots on sov maps will shrink (hooray for CCP!!!)
wealther	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:20:00 - [1824] So, ask for "Enforced Decloaker" or "Cloak Prohibitor" strategic upgrade then
Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:27:00 - [1825] Originally by: wealther So, ask for "Enforced Decloaker" or "Cloak Prohibitor" strategic upgrade then I know that you think this would be a really simple and straightforward solution, but apart from "that code is untouchable" and "we are looking into that" we haven't had a constructive response from CCP _in_years_ (yes, I was not the first one to point this out as a problem, and you sir are not the first one to suggest making "uncloaking" thingy ingame). Instead of fixing symptoms of several (seemingly unrelated) problems, couldn't we just at least start to think about how to get rid of the problem? You know... cutting away your own foot because you have fungus is not really the way to go, much better to start with removing fungus only and then prevent it from ever developing again. Don't kill cloaking tactics, make a reasonable counter for them. Every other ewar in eve has counter to it (some better than others), but cloaking is "I win" button. And remember it's a game, not a second job (for most people, 0.0 alliance leaders and some empire carebears excluded).
RuleoftheBone Minmatar The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:28:00 - [1826] I really don't care what happens except: ** off and die with the sentry guns in 0.0 idea. and.... off and die with stupid decloaking devices and magical ship boosting. Silly ** spackers
wealther	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:32:00 - [1827] I was joking. The problem of cloak, imo, should be addressed throught special probing cores with 10-15 minutes scan cycle, so the cloakers can be caught only then AFK.
RuleoftheBone Minmatar The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:39:00 - [1828] Originally by: wealther I was joking. The problem of cloak, imo, should be addressed throught special probing cores with 10-15 minutes scan cycle, so the cloakers can be caught only then AFK. Spacker. Go away. Please return to large alliance cringing please.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:42:00 - [1829] Originally by: wealther I was joking. The problem of cloak, imo, should be addressed throught special probing cores with 10-15 minutes scan cycle, so the cloakers can be caught only then AFK. This, flying cloaking ships is fine, but afk cloaking should be addressed.
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:43:00 - [1830] Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 13:44:03 Originally by: Furb Killer Originally by: wealther I was joking. The problem of cloak, imo, should be addressed throught special probing cores with 10-15 minutes scan cycle, so the cloakers can be caught only then AFK. This, flying cloaking ships is fine, but afk cloaking should be addressed. Go **** up another thread about cloaking, stay on topic please.

F4G JackieChan	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:45:00 - [1831] Originally by: Silk75 Posting because we're still waiting on the answer to this: 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.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:58:00 - [1832] Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 13:44:03 Originally by: Furb Killer Originally by: wealther I was joking. The problem of cloak, imo, should be addressed throught special probing cores with 10-15 minutes scan cycle, so the cloakers can be caught only then AFK. This, flying cloaking ships is fine, but afk cloaking should be addressed. Go **** up another thread about cloaking, stay on topic please. Actually, considering they want isk to be made by ratting (doesnt really matter if it is in belts or anomalies, you still dont need probe launcher to find them), it is relevant. But to make you feel warm and fuzzy: 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.
Gregor Lavode	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:58:00 - [1833] you should be giving us more reasons to fight not less you should be giving a reason to keep our blue lists short,not cause a us(current 0.0 residents) vs. them(empire corps/alliances who **** themselves looking at a 0.0 gate but wanna hold space there and finally whined enough that ccp heard) cause short of concord being in o.o.empire will lose. you haven't said where money taken will go how bout any system holding sov gains a bounty for taking it equal to 75% of the costs put into the system makes for nice juicy targets all over the map we offset costs of towers by ice mining and such you havent addressed corp/alliance ops to help reduce fuel costs for towers into your costs ie:there needs to be things corp/alliances should be able to do other then grinding isk to pay the bills tieing all this to pure isk cost isn't realistic by any means there should be a goods exchange possible as well(say turning in 40 blocks of racial ice lowers the bill by .01%)could do it with mining stuff and could take alot of ore out of the players hands raising mineral prices and doing good things to the eve markets you talk about a individuals ability to make isk but seem to be completly blank on how corps/alliances will be able to raise funds to compete against each other ship reimbursements/cap replacement/supercap building are all part of todays enviroment and need to be addressed turning the nul sec expierience into one where a player feels like a slave is one that will soon die out i feel like i am being double billed i pay rl money to play a game i enjoy and now i am gonna have to grind isk to help pay a sov tax a ratting tax a exploration tax and a tax for sov you wanna address the sprawl of large alliances but have not adressed the cause and that is bad space when 1 system cant even generate enough spawns to satisfy 1 pilot what are alliances to do but expand and take more space till everyone has enough space to carebear and cover new ship/skillbook/module cost.Hate to say it but you,CCP are resposible for alliance sprawl and the amount of territory we need in order to satisfy the nul sec player base. In summary; give us more reasons to fight each other not less. we all ready live a life of risk all we ask is for a reasonable reward. no matter what you wanna charge until you fix true sec,rats and exploration till it is inline or better then empire mission running you wont see a change to alliance sprawl our name might not be on the map but we will be there defending as if it was. giving us no reason to fight each other,after all who wants to add to there bills,will end 0.0 conflict and that will spell the end of eve.nul sec drives the economy which keeps people mining building inventing if the fights over no matter how cheap stuff becomes no one will want it. you want people moving into 0.0 fine you have to make it worth fighting over which means there has to be benefits to 0.0 you cant get in empire. as of this time politics drives the fights in 0.0 not territory change that and people will tear into 0.0 like never before.
Ceirah Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:14:00 - [1834] Originally by: Gregor Lavode you should be giving us more reasons to fight not less you should be giving a reason to keep our blue lists short,not cause a us(current 0.0 residents) vs. them(empire corps/alliances who **** themselves looking at a 0.0 gate but wanna hold space there and finally whined enough that ccp heard) cause short of concord being in o.o.empire will lose. you haven't said where money taken will go how bout any system holding sov gains a bounty for taking it equal to 75% of the costs put into the system makes for nice juicy targets all over the map we offset costs of towers by ice mining and such you havent addressed corp/alliance ops to help reduce fuel costs for towers into your costs ie:there needs to be things corp/alliances should be able to do other then grinding isk to pay the bills tieing all this to pure isk cost isn't realistic by any means there should be a goods exchange possible as well(say turning in 40 blocks of racial ice lowers the bill by .01%)could do it with mining stuff and could take alot of ore out of the players hands raising mineral prices and doing good things to the eve markets you talk about a individuals ability to make isk but seem to be completly blank on how corps/alliances will be able to raise funds to compete against each other ship reimbursements/cap replacement/supercap building are all part of todays enviroment and need to be addressed turning the nul sec expierience into one where a player feels like a slave is one that will soon die out i feel like i am being double billed i pay rl money to play a game i enjoy and now i am gonna have to grind isk to help pay a sov tax a ratting tax a exploration tax and a tax for sov you wanna address the sprawl of large alliances but have not adressed the cause and that is bad space when 1 system cant even generate enough spawns to satisfy 1 pilot what are alliances to do but expand and take more space till everyone has enough space to carebear and cover new ship/skillbook/module cost.Hate to say it but you,CCP are resposible for alliance sprawl and the amount of territory we need in order to satisfy the nul sec player base. In summary; give us more reasons to fight each other not less. we all ready live a life of risk all we ask is for a reasonable reward. no matter what you wanna charge until you fix true sec,rats and exploration till it is inline or better then empire mission running you wont see a change to alliance sprawl our name might not be on the map but we will be there defending as if it was. giving us no reason to fight each other,after all who wants to add to there bills,will end 0.0 conflict and that will spell the end of eve.nul sec drives the economy which keeps people mining building inventing if the fights over no matter how cheap stuff becomes no one will want it. you want people moving into 0.0 fine you have to make it worth fighting over which means there has to be benefits to 0.0 you cant get in empire. as of this time politics drives the fights in 0.0 not territory change that and people will tear into 0.0 like never before. True that, if all systems were -1.0 in region we might fit into 1 region
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:16:00 - [1835] I get the distinct impression that at no point during CCPs design process did anyone sit down and write a proper Requirements Specification. A document that, literally, specifies the requirements. For example, it might have contained the following: "Dominion shall encourage players who do not live in 0.0 to consider moving to 0.0" "Dominion shall encourage alliances to hold less space" "Dominion shall discourage alliance dependency on R64 moons" "Dominion shall rebalance all R64s to be of roughly equal value" "Dominion shall provide means for individual players and alliances to generate wealth that is not a second job" And so on. Simple statements and goals, expressed clearly and concisely. Then you start the actual design process, and while throwing around wonderful ideas there's this Requirements Specification that acts as a sanity check. Because out of those five examples above, you managed to stick to two of them so far and failed on the other three.
Crias Taylor	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:25:00 - [1836] Welp. I have been meaning to roll a lvl 4 running alt anyway.
Jen Ravenlock	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:33:00 - [1837] Edited by: Jen Ravenlock on 08/11/2009 14:34:39 Originally by: Hertford I get the distinct impression that at no point during CCPs design process did anyone sit down and write a proper Requirements Specification. A document that, literally, specifies the requirements. For example, it might have contained the following: "Dominion shall encourage players who do not live in 0.0 to consider moving to 0.0" "Dominion shall encourage alliances to hold less space" "Dominion shall discourage alliance dependency on R64 moons" "Dominion shall rebalance all R64s to be of roughly equal value" "Dominion shall provide means for individual players and alliances to generate wealth that is not a second job" And so on. Simple statements and goals, expressed clearly and concisely. Then you start the actual design process, and while throwing around wonderful ideas there's this Requirements Specification that acts as a sanity check. Because out of those five examples above, you managed to stick to two of them so far and failed on the other three. I'm sure they did, but requirements analysis should be drafted after consulting the domain experts (the player base). That clearly didn't happen, or CCP's customer base wouldn't be ranting about a product they don't want 3 weeks before launch
Elassus Herron Caldari Construction Cabal Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:38:00 - [1838] Our alliance has been looking forward to this patch for some time, right up until this dev blog. From the nearly unanimous opposition to the terms of the patch thus far outlined, this looks to be a disaster. It's too bad CCP fixed the release date to 1. December, since there really isn't much time to fix what is clearly a very poorly conceived system. And since we're on a new page - though the fact that CCP stopped answering makes me wonder at its utility - let me pose the essential question again: Given that living in 0.0 is going to be much more expensive, risky, and logistically difficult, what reason would an empire L4 grinder have for moving there? The fact that the one alliance you explicitly referenced as a reason for this patch might not actually survive it should tell you something.
tsocheff karma	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:38:00 - [1839] first ever post \o/ now wheres my nuke proof suit? so, 7mill a day for me to help my ally keep sov, tax set at 20%, thats roughly 4 hours of grind/ratting, so i get back from work and ignore all the CTA's till my tax is paid, but wait, oh noes! the doorbell has gone and some visitors have arrived. i quietly seethe while i put the kettle on, talk **e for a few hours with stilted conversation hoping they'll p1ss off soon. friday, but wait, oh noes! its my going out gettin hammered day. saturday, i gotta grind for 12 hours with no pvp or my ally goes down the s*ter :( sunday, my connection goes down or some other rl contrivance. --------------------------- i would also like to complain about the "isk going to concord" malarky, what do they deserve isk for? they don't do crap all in 0.0 BUT, minerals to run the upgrades and sov markers makes more sense in game and also i imagine would give the indy guys a stiffy i.e. higher mins prices making them richer (thats pretty much their endgame innit?) and more able to help alliances by selling cheaper ships etc coz they can afford it. i can't be arsed quoting the fellow who suggested this but big up to you chap wot wot! 0.0 has to be more lucrative than empire, end of. i do not have ten accounts and 30 chars, i have one account and one char and i love helping my ally mates out by dying regularly and barely rat for myself. ccp should consider who plays this game, not everyone can devote hours upon hours of isk grinding and less people want to. ccp have also not posted here since last night, so i either assume they chucked out their toys or are thinking hard about fixing these problems, whatever, by not replying to the most asked question here they have slapped everyone who has posted here in the face. congrats to the guys who have posted clear and viable alternatives to the ccp failscade called dominion. CANCEL THE UPGRADE, YOU HAVE NOT GOT ENOUGH TIME IN 3 WEEKS TO ADDRESS HALF OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS FORUM.
wallenbergaren	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:39:00 - [1840] The only way to make 0.0 more profitable is to increase the ISK PRINTING i.e. bounties Adding asteroids or plexes doesn't help because their value is dynamic. If you add more then the value drops and you haven't made 0.0 more profitable

sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:43:00 - [1841] Loads of words in this thread, so I apologise if it has been brought up already. Basically the blog proposed a high barrier of entry (cost wise) for new alliances while old established alliances weren't hurt much, also due to the possesion of high value moons... It was somewhat changed, which made me see that the thing CCP tries to do is make the upgrades more expensive. That made me come up with a reasonable good idea that will scale depending on how big your logistics network is, and on how big your jumpbridge network is, but with added benefits. I put it in a thread on F&I since it is pretty significant and I do not believe CCP is willing to change a lot 3 weeks before release (though it seems they didn't have a problem thinking this up only a few weeks ago). http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1211066 What the crap CCP, you disappoint me with this, I know you probably have nice and good changes in store for us with this system but if this is the main feature for the patch then it's awfully weak for the time you had for it.
Treji	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:45:00 - [1842] 62 pages for comments so far, which might look like overwhelming outrage against proposed changes...until you count them all and figure out how many are from one alliance(around 80% so far, inc. some known alts ). It's to be expected I suppose when a large group of players that will have to now develop and utilise conquered 0.0 space find themselves faced with something unfamiliar... I also LOL a lot reading about 0.0 isk income compared to running lvl 4's in Empire. Especially when I read that many alliance members don't do WH's, anoms etc!!! If it is all about iskies, you really should just be trading in Jita... Change can be a good thing. Making alliances do something with all their claimed space is a smart move; much better than collecting systems to have a good ol' E-****k
Zurioc	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:49:00 - [1843] Agreed should be able to generate more isk in 0.0 than doing lvl'4s, But shesh how about more creative input then Tears from Goons and co, As CCP said Harden the .... up.
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:56:00 - [1844] Please continue to cry, your tears are fueling my mission ships
Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:57:00 - [1845] Edited by: Slobodanka on 08/11/2009 15:00:03 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. I'm getting really worried by the lack of reply to this question from CCP. This was probably outlined at the time they got the idea to make this game, not when they started to develop Dominion patch. The answer should be so clear and straightforward that if you ask a cleaning lady in CCP building this exact question, she should look at you like you've been living under a rock for the past 5 years and shoot out "yes". Everyone who ever played eve knows it, it is touted in every PR material CCP has released, it is taught from the very start you are spawned into your first pod. Obviously the question here is not the one outlined above, but rather "what is CCP doing to meet this goal". This is where things get really scary... Also: ignoring player base hasn't really worked that well in the past. Maybe CCPs profits didn't suffer as much as they should, but eve-online end game is already boring and repetitive, not to mention what will become of it post dominion. Is that spot on the map really the biggest problem with 0.0 today? Are 0.0 individuals really that rich compared to empire dwellers? Is it really so easy to make ISK in 0.0 that more of it should be flushed down the sink? I'm guessing you have the answers to these questions (after all this is your game and you should be able to get this data from your DBs), but if you don't, please get them quick and at least decide if proposed patch will have a positive effect on current state. Make 0.0 the land of opportunity. For carebears and pirates alike. No alliance leader cares about how much ISK I can make ratting in my alliance systems. No alliance leader cares how much ISK I can make mining/exploring whatever. Alliances and corps have different ISK sources than individuals (which is quite fine, although I'd like to see more ISK moved from alliances to individuals via game mechanics). It's the grunts that need ISK to buy ships. Molle will still be able to buy his titans whenever he pleases, but most of 0.0 will still ***** and moan about how much time they have to spend to be able to field that snipe BS which will instapop once primaried. "Power to the people" or something along these lines... dunno how to make this any clearer. That will make people fight for their little patch of 0.0 ISK whoring and spending all that ISK (yes empire carebears, 0.0 residents buy new ships and fittings quite often. You see, player 5 man HAC gang will eat your raven as fast as 10 BS NPC gang if not faster) fighting some other "enemy" for fun and ability to show your epeen on CAOD. EDIT: I'm also not sure if empire people realize that 0.0 is where your products are being used. 0.0 is where all those pretty pictures, videos and shocking ingame news come from. You do not want 0.0 to collapse because it's impossible to live in it, you really don't. If for no other reasons you do not want to see goons occupying high sec mission hubs turning all those factions BSs into salvage parts and scrap metal. Empire is not an isolated system.
Will Hunter GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:00:00 - [1846] Originally by: Vadinho 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? quoting this again
Treji	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:01:00 - [1847] Edited by: Treji on 08/11/2009 15:02:04 The isk question for 0.0 vrs Lvl 4 is irrelevant for this discussion- surely isk is down the scale as a reason for holding 0.0 space as an alliance? You surely are part of an alliance for larger goals... And as for the drop in playerbase: Goons are just 2-3k right?
wallenbergaren	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:03:00 - [1848] Originally by: Slobodanka Edited by: Slobodanka on 08/11/2009 15:00:03 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. Quote for answer
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:08:00 - [1849] Originally by: Treji Edited by: Treji on 08/11/2009 15:02:04 The isk question for 0.0 vrs Lvl 4 is irrelevant for this discussion- surely isk is down the scale as a reason for holding 0.0 space as an alliance? You surely are part of an alliance for larger goals... And as for the drop in playerbase: Goons are just 2-3k right? What exactly is the "larger goal" of an alliance, if not increased personal wealth for the members?
El Liptonez	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:11:00 - [1850] Originally by: Treji Edited by: Treji on 08/11/2009 15:02:04 The isk question for 0.0 vrs Lvl 4 is irrelevant for this discussion- surely isk is down the scale as a reason for holding 0.0 space as an alliance? You surely are part of an alliance for larger goals... And as for the drop in playerbase: Goons are just 2-3k right? I think it's not irrelevant if 0.0 people have to go to empire to make isk.

Antir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:11:00 - [1851] Edited by: Antir on 08/11/2009 15:12:06 Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Originally by: Treji Edited by: Treji on 08/11/2009 15:02:04 The isk question for 0.0 vrs Lvl 4 is irrelevant for this discussion- surely isk is down the scale as a reason for holding 0.0 space as an alliance? You surely are part of an alliance for larger goals... And as for the drop in playerbase: Goons are just 2-3k right? What exactly is the "larger goal" of an alliance, if not increased personal wealth for the members? More importaly do you expect people to leave empire for 0.0 where you can pay to make almost as much isk as lvl4s with mcuh more risk? Also it's funny how many people think claming a system needs sov.
Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:13:00 - [1852] Originally by: Treji And as for the drop in playerbase: Goons are just 2-3k right? I don't think you should worry about any of the big 0.0 guys emo rage quiting. Sure they will *** and moan about it but in the end they will adapt and they will still try to run as much 0.0 as they need to keep their guys fit and ready to fight. What we need is more people in 0.0. So if you are a high sec/low sec alliance with an ambition to claim and fight for a patch of 0.0 you'd like to call your own (and please keep in mind that small corps/alliances will NEVER be able to beat 2000+ man alliance just because they wished for it), please write down what needs to change so that you will be able to accomplish this goal. Originally by:** Treji The isk question for 0.0 vrs Lvl 4 is irrelevant for this discussion- surely isk is down the scale as a reason for holding 0.0 space as an alliance? You surely are part of an alliance for larger goals... Ships need to be bought (at much faster pace than you imagine), modules have to be fitted, ammo needs to be fired and big ships need to waste ice products _just_to_keep_the_space_you_fought_for_. We're not even close to making money from it. After yous space is actually yours you put up moon harvesters so your alliance will be able to recover some loss from PvP (that is protecting your space, not pew pew for ****s and giggles). After that is secure 0.0 individuals are able to make their ISK to their best ability. This is mostly done through ratting and mining, other methods are too time consuming and have frequently have to be aborted due to raiding gangs and cloakers. I was really hoping 0.0 individuals would be able to stand their own (ISK wise) more than they can now. This would make alliance reimbursement less mandatory (giving new player more advantage than they have now), put more people out of outposts/POSes and make them fight for their farming grounds.
Layla Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:18:00 - [1853] Originally by: Moore cyno Don't know if anyone suggested this idea, as i have to admit i didn't read all 60 pages :-) I both agree and disagree with the concern that the upkeep cost is too high. It will be too much to draw out smaller alliances, and large volumes of space will become unused. However, claiming space shouldn't be so cheap/easy that large alliances will just keep all their space and the rest claimed by small entities. So, the goal is to bring out more people and smaller entities to 0.0, and force people to actively use the space. But as the grind needed to make that profitable is "a lot" it wont happen with the current numbers. Decreasing the cost too much wont open up any space as the existing alliances will just keep their space. Finding a compromise cost which achieves both goals, is in my opinion more or less impossible with the current mechanics. Solution: Link activity index to upkeep cost. Instead of just having a fixed large upkeep cost, forcing alliances to use much grinding time before any profit is seen, decrease upkeep if activity index is high. I.e. super high activity index over a month in an upkeep system, upkeep cost is decreased by 90% (or some other significant number), low activity index alliance pays the full cost. Probably should be some scaling to systems around claimed, such that ratting, mining, plexing will still improve activity index say by a factor 0.5 at neighbouring systems and so forth. Obviously passive income such as moon mining shouldn't decrease upkeep. This will accomplish exactly what was intended. Unused space will be left, actively claimed and used systems can become profitable. I like this idea. It would go a long way to resolving the concerns being expressed, imo
ropnes	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:19:00 - [1854] Edited by: ropnes on 08/11/2009 15:25:20 Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Solution to sov problems: 0.0 alliances need to start griefing the hell out of everyone who lives in empire space until they beg CCP to improve 0.0 enough that we go away. Then we'll see some worthwhile changes. lol I support this idea The whole idea of sov costing raw isk is stupid anyway I thought 0.0 was lawless space
Destrim	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:31:00 - [1855] Back again from last night. My concern, as stated before, is not with the steep prices, but with the fairly weak rewards. It's important to understand a few of the dynamics of an alliance for this. First, an alliance/corp sustains itself through industry. Second, it is only the individual who sustains themselves through rat'ing, not the alliance/corp. That being said, the industry upgrades really do not help an alliance sustain itself. An increased chance of getting hidden belts really does very little. Any alliance's logistics depend very heavily on ICE, both for POS fuel, and for CAP-ship fuel... unless you guarantee icefields, the fact that people have bee condensed into small areas means that they no longer have access to ice unless they are occupying an ice-belt system. Some proposed industry infrastructure upgrades: Guarantees one (hidden?) icebelt in system at all times Increases refine (that's ore exclusively, not "reprocess," which includes modules) rate by 2% per sov level, giving the sovereign a 110% return on refine rates at sov-5 Increases the warp strength of industrial-type ships by 1 per sov level (makes them less vulnerable to ganks) Increases mining amount/speed by 2% per sov level Decreases build/research times by 2% per sov level Again, those are just ideas to get peoples' thoughts flowing. Now, for military. You know, by condensing people into smaller areas, you have made them far, FAR more vulnerable to small roaming gangs and cloakers. If I remember correctly, you (CCP) very specifically wanted to make people less vulnerable to such things, so I was expecting the "military infrastructure hug upgrades" to do just that: upgrade an alliance/corp's military infrastructure! And yet, you did no such thing, instead giving some anomalies. To make things viable, you MUST* give added system security through the military infrastructure!* That being said, here are some thoughts... and, mind you, be careful with using the word "unbalanced," since the very definition of "advantage" or even "benefit" means that things are unbalanced in someone's favor. If it bothers you, then tweak the numbers a bit, maybe lowering the % or something. But the idea is to make the system more defensible in an "active" manner... meaning that it still requires activity from people to defend. Increases shield HP by 4% per sov level (total 20% @ sov 5) Increase armor HP by 4% per sov level (can only have shield OR armor, not both) Increase local armor/shield repair amount by 2% per sov level Increase remote repair range by 4% per sov level Decrease cap recharge time by 2% per sov level Allow anchoring of POS guns around gates and stations, increasing "calibration points" of gates and stations per sov level (small guns use less cal-points than larger ones etc., so you can mix around how many of what you want to post where... still need to feed 'em ammo) Increase speed/agility of ships by 2% per sov level Increase the range of affect for military upgrades by 1 light year per sov level Again, these are just ideas. I understand that everyone ticked about the lackluster infrastructure upgrades... so PUT FORTH YOUR OWN IDEAS, ones which you think do NOT suck. Flaming really does little, other than make known our dissatisfaction.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:37:00 - [1856] Originally by: Destrim Back again from last night. My concern, as stated before, is not with the steep prices, but with the fairly weak rewards. This was the problem with 0.0 before dominion and if anything it looks worse now.
Alski Ministers Of Destruction.	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:40:00 - [1857] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Solution to sov problems: 0.0 alliances need to start griefing the hell out of everyone who lives in empire space until they beg CCP to improve 0.0 enough that we go away. Then we'll see some worthwhile changes. Gonna go one better, shift+delete 0.0 from the game, make empire 0.0, lowsec becomes the new empire, Eve will be Eve again - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:44:00 - [1858] Like the new changes, just hope CCP doesn`t backs out and give in to the cry babies Anyway: - Alliances are not supposed to have every single system withing 10 jumps of their outpost cynojammed. Without having to pay for it. - Jump bridges, also a huge tactical tool. And all of you are whining and moaning about you need it for logistics. Well after this you dont need to keep 150 systems with POS fuel and what not. Today I did a 70 jump trip from empire and into 0.0... What did I see? Alot of empty space with no people in, but sov was up. Why? Example: Open up map and have a look at Impass. How many people in thoose systems? How many systems are not in use? Also, Feythabolis, Paragon Soul, Tenerifis it`s all wasteland. Most of the systems are only in use by 1 person. And quite a few of the systems are not even used. Example: Feythabolis consists of 89 systems, when I did a count now I found 92 people in thoose systems. Thats 1,03 people per system. After patch: So the systems are upgraded to some extent, and can support 10 people in each system, You wont suddenly need 89 systems, you could reduce it to 9!!!. And suddenly there would be no need for jumpbridge networks in the scale that you have now. With the first prices CCP came with it would cost 20 mil per day per system, so you are looking at 20*9=180 mil per day. 30 days= 5,4 Bil Divide that on 92 people= 58,6 Mil per person. Then divide it with number of days, 30= 1,96 mil per day per person. In average thats the taxes from 1 hour of ratting. If you have 10% taxes. Then start adding income you get from refining, eventual docking fee if you have people in your space, rental agreements, POS mining. And I think most of thoose 58 mil should be covered by a large margin. Ofcourse if you want to start adding cynojammers and jumpdriges in every system out of thoose 9 systems it`s gonna get expensive. But thats also the point.
Kim Wilde Gallente Covenant	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:51:00 - [1859] well speaking for a smallish footprint alliance i can just say that the changes were calc'ed to cost us 50bill and most would agree that a 3k member count needs at least 50 systems with upgrades to support living there why does ccp insist on forcing 0.0 into changing to something most who has lived there can say wont work? consider that even if there is no claims flag up the system is just as claimed with a simple you come we will come as well, to perform some surprise rear pipe inspections. if you think there is a way to stop the current residents from just doing scorched earth on any infrastructure+logistics needed to even use the area then consider that most 0.0 can field a 100 man combat/reinforcement gang and no miner crew can effectivly hide from black ops etc cause if they are hiding they dont make any money, same again if in a complex you would normally expect a few expeditions and guess what try exiting your single system and i can guarantee you a risky few jumps for often no gain jumpportal+caps means inside a region the current owners would rule supreme and if you consider further nerfs to titan then ..i.. would suggest just removing em and refunding the rigs+mods etc to the pilots,
Stucks alt	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:54:00 - [1860] Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 08/11/2009 05:22:58 Originally by: Pointfive 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. As CCP Chronitus pointed out, the amount of reward to offset a small amount of risk is allot but I also think that is a matter of perception, in either case it is not in of itself the argument being made. The actual argument being made by allot of people is the fact that 0.0 is less profitable than running LVL4 missions in empire and these upgrades in dominion do little if anything to change that situation. I personally have been playing eve for some 6 years now and I remember when I first came to 0.0 it was a niche idea that you came out here to make money, however that is something that quickly evaporated and has been the consensus for a long time that you do not come out to 0.0 to make money. This should not be the case, 0.0 should not be unprofitable or certainly not less profitable than empire - please do not counter about pvp risks etc.. as we all accept those risks and costs but that is not what we are talking about. The simple point is that 0.0 life is less profitable than LVL4 missions when in reality it should at very least be equal to or greater than. Allot of this boils down to lazy development work, I remember 2-3 years ago when the concept of touching the POS code was a nightmare to CCP, you said it wouldn't happen and were admit that it was a monumental challenge. This is the very same situation we see at the moment regarding making true sec values dynamic, belt numbers, the npc spawn density/value within and astroid types/density, all dynamic. This is something CCP needs to tackle head on, the proposed system we have in front of us now is the most indirect method possible of actually fixing the economic inadequacies of 0.0 and it is frankly very lazy way. I personally have never run a wormhole, never run an anomaly and I know for a fact I am not the only person, there is a large player base that is just not interested in it - we rather fight NPC's in belts in a far more straight forward fashion. So please, get off your collective behindes and rethink the implementation of dominion and actually addressing the economic issues and more importantly the short comings of the code base.

Wait 24Hours	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:55:00 - [1861] I find it odd that I agree with so many alliances I have had disdain for so long; I find it even more odd that it kind of angers me the blatant lack of thought some posters have put into exactly what these changes mean. They will mean higher taxes for people living in 0.0 == Bad They will mean the map colors and sov will change == Good However with that said nothing is going to change; because 0.0 is before and after this change going to still be too harsh for all those carebear level 4 mission runners and empire miners who want to login and earn their isk and never loose any of it. Sure there will be those with the adventurous spirit who make a dash for nullsec the day after the patch and I don't care where they go but I am sure they will be met with roaming gangs of 0.0 pilots with near decades of pvp experience who will quickly send them packing. The tears you speak of from goons and others right now are not tears; they are warnings to CCP; that they have clearly not entirely thought this through. You can however be sure that afer Dominion goons and others will not be crying; their killboards will be full and those who thought they were getting something new and fun in Dominion will be flooding the boards with plentiful amounts of tears of how unfair 0.0 is. All of the current major power blocks will be simply posting we told you so; now stop your crying. Word of advice before you come to 0.0 make sure your clone is up to date; you're going to need it.
Alski Ministers Of Destruction.	Posted - 2009.11.08 15:58:00 - [1862] Originally by: TZeer Like the new changes, just hope CCP doesn`t backs out and give in to the cry babies Anyway: - Alliances are not supposed to have every single system withing 10 jumps of their outpost cynojammed. Without having to pay for it. - Jump bridges, also a huge tactical tool. And all of you are whining and moaning about you need it for logistics. Well after this you dont need to keep 150 systems with POS fuel and what not. Today I did a 70 jump trip from empire and into 0.0... What did I see? Alot of empty space with no people in, but sov was up. Why? Example: Open up map and have a look at Impass. How many people in thoose systems? How many systems are not in use? Also, Feythabolis, Paragon Soul, Tenerifis it`s all wasteland. Most of the systems are only in use by 1 person. And quite a few of the systems are not even used. Example: Feythabolis consists of 89 systems, when I did a count now I found 92 people in thoose systems. Thats 1,03 people per system. After patch: So the systems are upgraded to some extent, and can support 10 people in each system, You wont suddenly need 89 systems, you could reduce it to 9!!!. And suddenly there would be no need for jumpbridge networks in the scale that you have now. With the first prices CCP came with it would cost 20 mil per day per system, so you are looking at 209=180 mil per day. 30 days= 5,4 Bil Divide that on 92 people= 58,6 Mil per person. Then divide it with number of days, 30= 1,96 mil per day per person. In average thats the taxes from 1 hour of ratting. If you have 10% taxes. Then start adding income you get from refining, eventual docking fee if you have people in your space, rental agreements, POS mining. And I think most of thoose 58 mil should be covered by a large margin. Ofcourse if you want to start adding cynojammers and jumpdriges in every system out of thoose 9 systems it`s gonna get expensive. But thats also the point. Your maths seems fairly sound and in any case I wouldnÆt argue with the proposed costs of claiming sov, itÆs the rewards, or lack thereof that is the problem, a system being able to support more people sounds nice enough however the proposed implementation is terrible. Just as an example, equate the nature of these ôimprovedö and shared* resources with having a s system with 120 belts in it, sounds awesome right? 120 belts, loads of rats, great. Except how much of your time do you think your battleship will be spent in warp looking for a belt that isnÆt already taken? ThatÆs what these supposed changes offer, the exact same CRAP we already have and have had for years apon years without any significant improvement û worse infact û mining is far less profitable than the good old days when crokite was 100m isk/ph, or when your local static DED plex was worth a good 30-100m in bountys for an hours work, minus loot, and with far less competition than present. 0.0is LONG past overdue for some very serious risk/reward balancing and countless other minor fixes (industry esp.) and practically nothing in this expansion offers anything to correct that. Less POS pewing is awesome, the sovereignty system changes are somewhat intriguing, however nothing stated in this blog is anything more than scratching the surface. Off topic: Belt ratting is where the vast majority of non-empire-alt-using 0.0 players make their isk, no belt ratting improvement is no improvement at all for countless numbers of players. - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:01:00 - [1863] More tears please.
dabatman Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:01:00 - [1864] I too think this stuff is going to asplode the economy. I, unlike our beloved Bobby God, have run 0.0 anomolies and at the moment they suck really hard unless you're just looking to burn time in a less efficient way than belt ratting. If CCP is looking to make this concept work, one thing they could try is removing a whole load of items from static empire plexes for the mini professions. That might actually make it worth taking the time to do them out in 0.0. There has to be scarcity of a resource to make it worth anything meaningful. This whole new system just looks like a great way to drive down the prices of everything (dons his tin foil hat) so that people don't complain as much while CCP tries to suck tons of the avaliable currency out of the game (with the sov costs) and rebalance the isk. TL;DR dominion = markets asplode, isk worth nothing; quickly followed by it costing way too much for everything, and this thread needs more Dasty.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:03:00 - [1865] Originally by: TZeer Like the new changes, just hope CCP doesn`t backs out and give in to the cry babies Anyway: - Alliances are not supposed to have every single system withing 10 jumps of their outpost cynojammed. Without having to pay for it. - Jump bridges, also a huge tactical tool. And all of you are whining and moaning about you need it for logistics. Well after this you dont need to keep 150 systems with POS fuel and what not. Today I did a 70 jump trip from empire and into 0.0... What did I see? Alot of empty space with no people in, but sov was up. Why? Example: Open up map and have a look at Impass. How many people in thoose systems? How many systems are not in use? Also, Feythabolis, Paragon Soul, Tenerifis it`s all wasteland. Most of the systems are only in use by 1 person. And quite a few of the systems are not even used. Example: Feythabolis consists of 89 systems, when I did a count now I found 92 people in thoose systems. Thats 1,03 people per system. After patch: So the systems are upgraded to some extent, and can support 10 people in each system, You wont suddenly need 89 systems, you could reduce it to 9!!!. And suddenly there would be no need for jumpbridge networks in the scale that you have now. With the first prices CCP came with it would cost 20 mil per day per system, so you are looking at 20*9=180 mil per day. 30 days= 5,4 Bil Divide that on 92 people= 58,6 Mil per person. Then divide it with number of days, 30= 1,96 mil per day per person. In average thats the taxes from 1 hour of ratting. If you have 10% taxes. Then start adding income you get from refining, eventual docking fee if you have people in your space, rental agreements, POS mining. And I think most of thoose 58 mil should be covered by a large margin. Ofcourse if you want to start adding cynojammers and jumpdriges in every system out of thoose 9 systems it`s gonna get expensive. But thats also the point. Less jumpbridges/cynojammers etc and less systems pr alliance sounds good. The problem is the profitability of the systems that you do claim. There is a reason why there are only 1 char in space in those systems you mentioned. Its all they can support. That wont change much with dominion. While it theoretically can support larger numbers of players, they still will earn (a lot) less than in empire.
Khem Dahn	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:07:00 - [1866] Originally by: Kai Lae You own a area of space, with say 10 stations in it. You are able to pay your bills by taxes that come from your players. I'll stipulate that the upgrades actually provide enough isk for them to afford these taxes for the purpose of this thought experiment. What would happen if a well trained, motivated hostile group with sufficient numbers entered your space with a sizable black ops unit with coverage in all time zones? Let's say they have 20 people on basically all the time. With that, by using a combination of attacks, maneuvering, sitting in systems AFK cloaked, they can likely bring a quarter to a half of your isk farming activities to a halt. If they concentrate their efforts on the same systems, after a short time your infrastructure upgrades will begin to go offline due to inactivity. If they have the patience, it's quite possible the combination of loss of infrastructure and loss of tax revenue will cause overall funding to go into the red... I'll note that the above scenario did not require a large force, just possibly 30 or so guys in recons/bombers/black ops in all TZ. In other words, pretty damn easy to do. It would therefore seem the ability to financially collapse alliances becomes far easier in dominion. The long term effects of this can't be fully seen as of yet, but this is not likely to be a positive if conquerable region stability is greatly compromised... Frankly it almost seems like the goal is complete chaos. This sounds like such a fun game to play... Of course, an alliance determined to hold space will do what they have always done, pay the bills through unassailable sources of income, leaving the theoretical guerilla force spinning their ships in space with no-one to shoot at.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:10:00 - [1867] Originally by: Gnulpie Edited by: Gnulpie on 08/11/2009 11:11:32 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. Sorry to be rude, but that is the most idiotic dev post I have seen in a while. Plus it lacks total understanding of how 0.0 developed over the years until now. So, pure pvp alliances like Tri and IT will get shafted badly while alliances with a good deal of industry like CVA, Goons, NC etc. will benefit most? Can you back up your claim with any solid arguments and numbers besides the fact that we must believe you since you are a dev and know it better? Also the ONLY force in 0.0 should be players! The ONLY way to control systems and to gain sov should be due to the players! Not by removing some alliance tickers, not by not paying enough isk to some completely idotic npc-overlords in lawless space. It should be ALWAYS and ONLY the players in 0.0 And the whole idea of grinding to 'unlock' levels to get better stuff is a concept so out of the core Eve-concept that it is immensely sad to see Eve going this way. What only did happen to the original vision of Eve? No grinding, no levelling, no fixed paths forced to choose. Just freedom. All gone. Edit: But what do you have as vision? Fixed grinding paths to unlock certain features and forcing people to do things which they don't like - if they would like them to do they would do them already! - so that they can fit into a predetermined and fixed pattern. It is not details like paying a certain amount of isk or 10% less or earning xx% more in 0.0 than in high sec L4's. It is the WHOLE DIRECTION to force players doing something which they don't want to do, it is a model completely opposite of the sandbox model and contrary to the true spirit of Eve. And THAT is so alamring and bad. THIS. Someone gets it! Well done Gnulpie ty.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:13:00 - [1868] Originally by: Kim Wilde well speaking for a smallish footprint alliance i can just say that the changes were calc'ed to cost us 50bill and most would agree that a 3k member count needs at least 50 systems with upgrades to support living there I got a figure of (1m + 5m) * 30 * 50 = 10.5B for 50 systems... Perhaps your calculator is broken? Oh, and of course you'll have to add jammers and JBs for the important systems, but that shouldn't make it more than 15B for a few systems that need it.
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:15:00 - [1869] I propose that Dominion be delayed indefinitely until CCP gets it right.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:18:00 - [1870] Originally by: Kim Wilde well speaking for a smallish footprint alliance i can just say that the changes were calc'ed to cost us 50bill and most would agree that a 3k member count needs at least 50 systems with upgrades to support living there why does ccp insist on forcing 0.0 into changing to something most who has lived there can say wont work? consider that even if there is no claims flag up the system is just as claimed with a simple you come we will come as well, to perform some surprise rear pipe inspections. if you think there is a way to stop the current residents from just doing scorched earth on any infrastructure+logistics needed to even use the area then consider that most 0.0 can field a 100 man combat/reinforcement gang and no miner crew can effectivly hide from black ops etc cause if they are hiding they dont make any money, same again if in a complex you would normally expect a few expeditions and guess what try exiting your single system and i can guarantee you a risky few jumps for often no gain jumpportal+caps means inside a region the current owners would rule supreme and if you consider further nerfs to titan then ..i.. would suggest just removing em and refunding the rigs+mods etc to the pilots, What alliance is that? I would say looking at your numbers alone would be wrong. Look at GoonSwarm, they have over 5000 people in their alliance. But I could only count about 255 people in their system atm. Thats roughly 2,62 persons per system. (80 of all thoose people where seperated roughly even over 2 station systems...) New system supports about 15-20 people atm according to the CCP, let say 10 to be on the pessimistic side. So they would need roughly 26 systems if all wanted to do anything. To keep sov there, that would cost them 15,6 bil a month. Divide that on the number of people I counted right now, thats 61,17mil per person. Devided on 30 days, thats 2,03 mil. Roughly the income of 10% taxes from 1 hour of ratting. But if you want to use the numbers on the ranking list as a guideline, you get: 15,6 bil/5000=3mil per month per member. But then again, if they wanna spam thoose systems with jump bridges and cyno jammers, of course if will cost. It will now be a tactical decision, instead of "cause we can". And yes, alliances wont have the same capability to control moongold 2 regions away. And maybe capital ships will be a resource instead of something that ends up in a "LOL suicide OP" on a saturday evening.

Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:25:00 - [1871] Originally by: TZeer New system supports about 15-20 people atm according to the CCP, let say 10 to be on the pessimistic side. So they would need roughly 26 systems if all wanted to do anything. To keep sov there, that would cost them 15,6 bil a month. Divide that on the number of people I counted right now, thats 61,17mil per person. Devided on 30 days, thats 2,03 mil. Roughly the income of 10% taxes from 1 hour of ratting. No... that would be more like 7 bil per month... How can you make an argument when you're using outdated numbers?
Dregek Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:25:00 - [1872] you do know this is going to actively discourage wars between neighbors because no-one is going to be able to afford to take control of the system your fighting over.
TiaConda	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:26:00 - [1873] Originally by: Gnulpie Edited by: Gnulpie on 08/11/2009 11:11:32 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. Sorry to be rude, but that is the most idiotic dev post I have seen in a while. Plus it lacks total understanding of how 0.0 developed over the years until now. So, pure pvp alliances like Tri and IT will get shafted badly while alliances with a good deal of industry like CVA, Goons, NC etc. will benefit most? Can you back up your claim with any solid arguments and numbers besides the fact that we must believe you since you are a dev and know it better? Also the ONLY force in 0.0 should be players! The ONLY way to control systems and to gain sov should be due to the players! Not by removing some alliance tickers, not by not paying enough isk to some completely idotic npc-overlords in lawless space. It should be ALWAYS and ONLY the players in 0.0 And the whole idea of grinding to 'unlock' levels to get better stuff is a concept so out of the core Eve-concept that it is immensely sad to see Eve going this way. What only did happen to the original vision of Eve? No grinding, no levelling, no fixed paths forced to choose. Just freedom. All gone. Edit: But what do you have as vision? Fixed grinding paths to unlock certain features and forcing people to do things which they don't like - if they would like them to do they would do them already! - so that they can fit into a predetermined and fixed pattern. It is not details like paying a certain amount of isk or 10% less or earning xx% more in 0.0 than in high sec L4's. It is the WHOLE DIRECTION to force players doing something which they don't want to do, it is a model completely opposite of the sandbox model and contrary to the true spirit of Eve. And THAT is so alamring and bad. THIS
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:30:00 - [1874] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: TZeer New system supports about 15-20 people atm according to the CCP, let say 10 to be on the pessimistic side. So they would need roughly 26 systems if all wanted to do anything. To keep sov there, that would cost them 15,6 bil a month. Divide that on the number of people I counted right now, thats 61,17mil per person. Devided on 30 days, thats 2,03 mil. Roughly the income of 10% taxes from 1 hour of ratting. No... that would be more like 7 bil per month... How can you make an argument when you're using outdated numbers? Oh well, if thats the case they have nothing to complain about when it comes to the cost of sov. As long as CCP makes it expensive to put up jump bridges and cynojammers.
L'Artest	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:53:00 - [1875] Dominion was about improving the lifestyles of those in 0.0 and about making it so smaller groups could get into 0.0 There will be plenty of empty space, but who will want it? No one. Is it easier, safer, and more profitable to run L4s in highsec where you are mostly safe? Yes. 0.0 should be more profitable. We risk more, we earn more. Is it that hard to understand?
skye orionis	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:57:00 - [1876] Originally by: Dregek you do know this is going to actively discourage wars between neighbors because no-one is going to be able to afford to take control of the system your fighting over. Make station systems cost zero, then there'll be something worth fighting over. Wars in the past had strategic targets in the form of R64 moons because they were worth billions per month, well if full sov in an outpost system is free then that makes them 'worth' a couple of billion each, on top of the money that station fees can generate.
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:01:00 - [1877] Nyfur's post is spot on: Linkage
L'Artest	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:03:00 - [1878] (At least) Double rat bounties. Problem solved holy balls that was hard
Acrid Acid	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:11:00 - [1879] 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.
Fatsam Madhatters Inc. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:13:00 - [1880] Well I'm not convinced CCP has any set figures at this stage. However, there are some points I would like clearing up: 1) Will sov still give a POS fuel saving? 2) Will you get DED mails if someone anchors a POS in your sov space? 3) Will capitals be able to use jump bridges? Will you enable non-alliance members to refuel the jump bridges? 4) What additional tax options, if any, will you equip corporations with? The costs of these upgrades are very high and to just expect them to be paid for by ratting tax seems unfair considering the large amount of money you can make from exploration and mining. 5) what benefits are there in living in 0.0 space that doesn't border an empire region? Generally these regions have the best moons and true sec, but now these are effectively nullified. 6) How vulnerable are the upgrade structures? If our space got invaded, for example, and we were unable to rat/mine for 1 month would this render all the structures offline and destroyable by a roaming gang? Or could they be safely moth balled and reinstated when the distraction/campaign has ended? I think there are some valid issues you need to address, particularly the one regarding the remote 0.0 regions and mechanics at collecting revenue to pay for all the upgrades.

Dacryphile	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:17:00 - [1881] They are changing the fee to 1M per day instead of 20. Did anyone else catch that? Originally by: Doc Robertson ...take a good look at this pic and tell us which one is you.
Gramtar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:18:00 - [1882] I proposed a good, well reasoned proposal to fix the imbalance between high sec mission running and 0.0/lowsec ratting back in August. I know it was brought up and voted on in the CSM, but I don't know what CCP's response to it was. You can read the whole proposal here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1137380 Most of my suggestions can be summed up by the following: 1) Improve the quality of spawns (max BS bounty) in all systems 2) Eliminate cruiser spawns from 0.0 (all spawns have at least one BS) 3) Add POS module and permanent outpost upgrade which improve truesec of the system they operate in Of course, you could just double belt/gate rat bounties and be done with it if you want a simpler solution. I don't prefer that, because I feel very strongly players should be able to improve their space, and it tends to favor macro ratters more than regular players. Still, something obviously needs to be done, and something is better than nothing. I think the fact there was no ratting upgrade suggested in the dev blog is very telling. Someone or some group of someones in CCP plain doesn't like ratting. When you look at the suggested mining upgrades, the rationale becomes more clear. They don't like static asteroid belts. Around the time CCP removed npc's from the directional scanner (nerfing ratting - since you now have to warp to every belt to see what is up in a system), I recall reading comments from more than one dev that their goal was to pretty much eliminate static asteroid belts. Everything would be anomolies or dynamic plexes all the time. Whether I'm right about this or not is immaterial. Maybe CCP loves ratting and mining as much as every other PvE activity. The problem is they don't recognize that ratting, in particular for 0.0, is a favored activity of actual players. The best thing about ratting is you can log in, warp to a belt, and start going to town. You don't need a probe launcher and astrometric skills, you don't need to spend an hour bouncing between half a dozen systems hoping you get lucky. You can just shoot stuff for a little bit and get some isk. Here's something else CCP may not realize. Isk making generally isn't a social activity in EVE. At least, it isn't in 0.0. If the only way a player in 0.0 can make as much or more than a high sec mission runner is to get in a gang and cooperate in order to locate and take down some randomly spawned complex, then 0.0 is still crap. On a final note, several of the upgrades suggested are hilarious in that they promise "significantly increase the chance...". The problem with them is you can't parse/prove the improvement. If they worked in some systems and not others, how would anyone know? Hey, the GM responds to your petition, you just must be unlucky. Upgrades/improvements that can't be parsed are terrible. People have known this since Everquest days, when certain character abilities plain didn't work. 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.
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:19:00 - [1883] Originally by: Gaogan Nyfur's post is spot on: Linkage I have to say, I really like his proposal, too. Except, as I've been saying for a while, the military part has to add some sort of increased security. The "strategic" section is interesting, almost accomplishing this, but there needs to be actual military upgrades available through the military infrastructure hub upgrades... otherwise, the name fails at its implications. Perhaps moving the sentry guns and defensive mechanisms over to the military side...? Really, there needs to be something to increase defensibility against small gangs, since they pose far more a threat now with the new system than ever before. Like something to disrupt enemy cloaks, or at least find cloaked ships in system, for example... -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:20:00 - [1884] Not sure why anyone would be surprised about the fact that there is massive opposition to these changes from 0.0 alliances who have currently covered the map with a static system of fortifications that cheaply cyno-jam and deny any realistic danger to their holdings while letting them sit back and collect income with less overall risk than the mission-runners in hisec suffer from can-flippers and the occasional suicide ganks. The purpose of Dominion is to make 0.0 more interesting, more dynamic and more cut-throat once again. You want these huge spawling alliances to rationalize their holdings and retract down to more realistic holdings without spamming cyno-jammers and jump-bridges over half the map. Only significant issue I'm disappointed with is the lack of cost escalation on multiple claims (or perhaps geographical distance from a given alliance "capital system"). I'd like to see alliances nominate x system as their "capital" and use that a baseline low multiplier upkeep cost - with the expense increasing on distance from that capital system. Basically It'd be relatively inexpensive to upgrade and cyno jam an alliances core system but trying to do every system around within 10 jumps should be utterly impossible to afford and sustain on the current economy. But that takes a lot of work on the juggling of figures and I guess there are concerns about how this could be "gamed" with multiple alt alliances (as the Goons have already promised to do). I guess this is what leaves us with the current rather blunt instrument of fixed charges that must be high or it makes Dominion irrelevant (ie cyno jammers continue to be everywhere) while leaving a problem for genuinely new entities looking to get into 0.0 (not that there are many of these at the moment since everyone needs to be a pet of someone for defense against the uber naptrain). Still, ultimately people need to realize that this expansion is not just about providing nice things for sitting 0.0 alliances. Its about making the game board far more dynamic and addressing the things that have stagnated the 0.0 game and turned it into a deeply boring stasis over the last six months. Eve the game needs the 0.0 endgame to be harder for the players and for it to be more effort to hold a space empire. At the moment 0.0 conquest is a NAP-everything and CYNOJAM-everything no-brainer. There are no strategic choices or compromises to be made. By making empire conquest expensive they are forcing you to make choices about whether you can really justify cyno-jamming x,y,z systems within 5-10 jumps of your HQ. ThatÆs interesting and it will ultimately bring cost back into the equation of alliance-warfare. I remember the days when eve wars could be won by bankrupting the enemy alliance and believe me that was a far better game than the current reality where clicking the "disband alliance" button is the only way to win. Its going to be painful for some, and there will be an epic amount of moaning and groaning from those powers who have gotten way too used to being the afk-aristocracy of Eve with a landscape of cyno-jammers defending their territory without player input - but its a needed change and if some people ragequit and run level4 missions in protest so be it. Those with the guts and talent to adjust will do what eve players have done since the beginning of the server. They'll work with the game and find ways to play it. Its time for the 0.0 alliances to toughen up and work for their alliance tags on the map. Expansions can hurt playstyles, gameplay techniques and individual player, corp and alliance isk stability. They have been doing this since the first patches in 2003. But players adapt or they quit - the game goes on. Eve won't crash and burn because the current crop of cotten-wool-cosseted space poltroons quit their empires in protest at needing to adopt a rational funding regime to support their territorial holdings that require them to put ships in space. True Knowledge
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:27:00 - [1885] Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 17:32:22 Originally by: Aralis Originally by: Gnulpie Edited by: Gnulpie on 08/11/2009 11:11:32 Sorry to be rude, but that is the most idiotic dev post I have seen in a while. Plus it lacks total understanding of how 0.0 developed over the years until now. So, pure pvp alliances like Tri and IT will get shafted badly while alliances with a good deal of industry like CVA, Goons, NC etc. will benefit most? Can you back up your claim with any solid arguments and numbers besides the fact that we must believe you since you are a dev and know it better? Also the ONLY force in 0.0 should be players! The ONLY way to control systems and to gain sov should be due to the players! Not by removing some alliance tickers, not by not paying enough isk to some completely idotic npc-overlords in lawless space. It should be ALWAYS and ONLY the players in 0.0 And the whole idea of grinding to 'unlock' levels to get better stuff is a concept so out of the core Eve-concept that it is immensely sad to see Eve going this way. What only did happen to the original vision of Eve? No grinding, no levelling, no fixed paths forced to choose. Just freedom. All gone. Edit: But what do you have as vision? Fixed grinding paths to unlock certain features and forcing people to do things which they don't like - if they would like them to do they would do them already! - so that they can fit into a predetermined and fixed pattern. It is not details like paying a certain amount of isk or 10% less or earning xx% more in 0.0 than in high sec L4's. It is the WHOLE DIRECTION to force players doing something which they don't want to do, it is a model completely opposite of the sandbox model and contrary to the true spirit of Eve. And THAT is so alamring and bad. THIS. Someone gets it! Well done Gnulpie ty. I agree that the grinding aspect JUST TO STAY is a bit nuts, is a big negative change. Gnulpie is right on on that. Like if people play less in August in your corp, or your corp has to fight a large war, you get knocked off line because you didn't grind. It should be purely based on a one time grind like faction or status with NPC corps which would also be a sucky negative change, grinding just to stay in space, or no grind at all. Even in empire you don't have to do forced labor to keep your POS online, so it has that and also the negativity of acting like starbase charters, which should not be in 0.0 at all. That is kind of what is going on here. That said, I expect some tears. And I am glad Goons are crying buckets of them. I think the Goon tears make me reconsider this and more supportive of the patch. If it destroys the game, it could happen, but we were headed that direction anyway. Most of 0.0 is dead, a giant nap fest with out of control moon gold, the current situation has need a large shakeup, this is it. My solution would be to rely on the module AND the grind where the module needed to upgrade the space and keep it upgraded is a loot drop from plexes or perhaps purchased like LP by exchanging tags for sov. This borrows from an existing mechanic and doesn't make a new one that is stupid and pre-broken. The tag route is also an isk sink, but people can trade it before it goes to the NPC to be exchanged, so if CCP wants to have that isk sink it would still do that. It would also provide a player market. And you still have the option this way to grind tags. The big advantage is that tags can grind anywhere over all of 0.0, so the load is distributed. edit The capital idea from Jade is a good idea, cut the cost in half or a third in the capital system, that would allow an alliance to have at least one low cost system. It would cause alliance spamming though. never stop posting...with alts.* Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Juwi Kotch	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:31:00 - [1886] Generally, I like CCP's ideas. I only would wish some more dynamics in it. I have the feeling, that it will be difficult for small Alliances to finance just one system, and it will not hinder the really big Alliances to keep a whole region under control. So my proposal would be to think about reducing the costs per system to a level that 50 pilot Alliance could pay it easily, but make it disproportionally expensive to keep more than one system. Make it simple and effective, like double the cost per system with each added system or something like this. That possibly would result into a situation, that not even the biggest Alliance could, or would be willing to, pay for sovereignty in more then a constellation or two, and instead of owning whole regions in future it would be about controlling a whole constellation for a successful big Alliance.
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:31:00 - [1887] Edited by: Destrim on 08/11/2009 17:34:01 Originally by: Jade Constantine Not sure why anyone would be surprised about the fact that there is massive opposition to these changes from 0.0 alliances who have currently covered the map with a static system of fortifications that cheaply cyno-jam and deny any realistic danger to their holdings while letting them sit back and collect income with less overall risk than the mission-runners in hisec suffer from can-flippers and the occasional suicide ganks. You're missing something, here. They are not the only people with contention on the issue: a lot of the carebear empire groups are, too. And it's not for the penalties, either. We do not mind condensing our space to a smaller area... most of us don't even mind the steep costs. What we DO take exception to are the lackluster rewards. Have you not noticed that there was no real complaint until the proposed infrastructure hub upgrades were shown? Everyone was happy until then. Because, frankly, the proposed inf.-upgrades suck. To many of us, we saw it as an opportunity to make a real home for ourselves in 0.0, but it does not seem practical with the rewards proposed for building a home. The bloated alliances were punished into holding fewer systems, but there is far less incentive now to invest time in developing those systems. In essence, we were all expecting a LOT MORE from the infrastructure upgrades, and are very disappointed. Some people, in their disappointment, take their anger out towards the penalties of holding space, since the rewards are not enough to compensate for them, but that would be the wrong direction In so much as that, I would rather people post what THEY think would be better infrastructure upgrades. My personal thing is that the so-called "military" upgrades need to offer better security to those that invest so much time in making a system into their home. What's yours? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:37:00 - [1888] It's amazing how quickly people point out the flaws in certain upgrades, yet how shortsighted they are in the proposal of their own. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:38:00 - [1889] Originally by: Gramtar I proposed a good, well reasoned proposal to fix the imbalance between high sec mission running and 0.0/lowsec ratting back in August. I know it was brought up and voted on in the CSM, but I don't know what CCP's response to it was. You can read the whole proposal here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1137380 Most of my suggestions can be summed up by the following: 1) Improve the quality of spawns (max BS bounty) in all systems 2) Eliminate cruiser spawns from 0.0 (all spawns have at least one BS) 3) Add POS module and permanent outpost upgrade which improve truesec of the system they operate in Of course, you could just double belt/gate rat bounties and be done with it if you want a simpler solution. I don't prefer that, because I feel very strongly players should be able to improve their space, and it tends to favor macro ratters more than regular players. Still, something obviously needs to be done, and something is better than nothing. I think the fact there was no ratting upgrade suggested in the dev blog is very telling. Someone or some group of someones in CCP plain doesn't like ratting. When you look at the suggested mining upgrades, the rationale becomes more clear. They don't like static asteroid belts. Around the time CCP removed npc's from the directional scanner (nerfing ratting - since you now have to warp to every belt to see what is up in a system), I recall reading comments from more than one dev that their goal was to pretty much eliminate static asteroid belts. Everything would be anomolies or dynamic plexes all the time. Whether I'm right about this or not is immaterial. Maybe CCP loves ratting and mining as much as every other PvE activity. The problem is they don't recognize that ratting, in particular for 0.0, is a favored activity of actual players. The best thing about ratting is you can log in, warp to a belt, and start going to town. You don't need a probe launcher and astrometric skills, you don't need to spend an hour bouncing between half a dozen systems hoping you get lucky. You can just shoot stuff for a little bit and get some isk. Here's something else CCP may not realize. Isk making generally isn't a social activity in EVE. At least, it isn't in 0.0. If the only way a player in 0.0 can make as much or more than a high sec mission runner is to get in a gang and cooperate in order to locate and take down some randomly spawned complex, then 0.0 is still crap. On a final note, several of the upgrades suggested are hilarious in that they promise "significantly increase the chance...". The problem with them is you can't parse/prove the improvement. If they worked in some systems and not others, how would anyone know? Hey, the GM responds to your petition, you just must be unlucky. Upgrades/improvements that can't be parsed are terrible. People have known this since Everquest days, when certain character abilities plain didn't work. 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. I am quoting this because I want to make sure than someone in CCP reads it. Gramtar has had the best ideas for improving the reward to match the risk in 0.0 for as long as I can remember and if anyone truly has a grasp on what should be done I would say it was him.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:42:00 - [1890] No not WE Destrim. You (and some others). If the rewards were high and the maintenance low - this would still be crap. What happened to sandbox? What happened to epic? And to everyone suggesting a non linear cost for sov the same questions. What's the point of the game if the game itself won't LET you conquer your neighbours? Is this hello kitty? Most of us I think want sandbox, epic, freedom. We don't want to build our own little house in a nice row of identical houses with funny coloured windowboxes (which is about all these upgrades amount to). Even if the upgrades were any good what happened to game logic? How do you mystically upgrade the rats, the anomalies, the spawns? And if your answer is better detection why is this info available to everyone? Stop hiding and get off your butts CCP and make improvements to the game. Make it bigger. Develop it. Stop trying to create a different game every six months. And when you do make changes follow through. Even if we bought this pile of unmentionable **** at these new lower prices - what faith could we have that you wouldn't raise the maintenance costs soon as we bought it? What faith can we have in the stability of the game? This is a roleplaying game. Ask yourself what is happening in the Eve world and make it possible.

c0rn1 Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:43:00 - [1891] Edited by: c0rn1 on 08/11/2009 17:44:32 Edited by: c0rn1 on 08/11/2009 17:43:34 Originally by: TZeer Like the new changes, just hope CCP doesn`t backs out and give in to the cry babies Anyway: - Alliances are not supposed to have every single system withing 10 jumps of their outpost cynojammed. Without having to pay for it. - Jump bridges, also a huge tactical tool. And all of you are whining and moaning about you need it for logistics. Well after this you dont need to keep 150 systems with POS fuel and what not. Today I did a 70 jump trip from empire and into 0.0... What did I see? Alot of empty space with no people in, but sov was up. Why? Example: Open up map and have a look at Impass. How many people in thoose systems? How many systems are not in use? Also, Feythabolis, Paragon Soul, Tenerifis it`s all wasteland. Most of the systems are only in use by 1 person. And quite a few of the systems are not even used. Example: Feythabolis consists of 89 systems, when I did a count now I found 92 people in thoose systems. Thats 1,03 people per system. After patch: So the systems are upgraded to some extent, and can support 10 people in each system, You wont suddenly need 89 systems, you could reduce it to 9!!!. And suddenly there would be no need for jumpbridge networks in the scale that you have now. With the first prices CCP came with it would cost 20 mil per day per system, so you are looking at 209=180 mil per day. 30 days= 5,4 Bil Divide that on 92 people= 58,6 Mil per person. Then divide it with number of days, 30= 1,96 mil per day per person. In average thats the taxes from 1 hour of ratting. If you have 10% taxes. Then start adding income you get from refining, eventual docking fee if you have people in your space, rental agreements, POS mining. And I think most of thoose 58 mil should be covered by a large margin. Ofcourse if you want to start adding cynojammers and jumpdriges in every system out of thoose 9 systems it`s gonna get expensive. But thats also the point. Then lets do the math vice versa again and you see what I am talking about as well: You're talking about 92 people in 9 systems. Each of them would have to invest 30h per month to keep the sov up by taxes. having 92 people waste 1h per day ratting makes 2760h of grinding only to keep up your sovereignity. that's the hours a small company has on work effort in a month. 160h/person = 17.25 full time workers. You do not have: => gone to empire to buy youself a ship, fit it and brought it safely back to 0.0 => one jump done to PvP => drawn any plans of any attacks vs your enemy => not hauled 1 m¦ of fuel for your towers into 0.0 => not build up even 1 POS to defend your territory => not created a spreadsheet to calculate costs and profit in Dominion What does this patch do? => replace your hostilities against other playergroups with hostility against CCP because that are the ones forcing you to grind in belts for your place to live => distancing the borders of larger empires that far that you have to go at least 30j per pedes before you can actually reach the next empire => remove deep space as a viable option because you have to pay ***loads of cash to get logistics going => excluding small alliances from gathering in deep space since the entry points will be shut down by big alliances and there are alot of more negatives cheers c0rn1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Life's a waste of time ...
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:43:00 - [1892] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Gramtar I proposed a good, well reasoned proposal to fix the imbalance between high sec mission running and 0.0/lowsec ratting back in August. I know it was brought up and voted on in the CSM, but I don't know what CCP's response to it was. You can read the whole proposal here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1137380 Most of my suggestions can be summed up by the following: 1) Improve the quality of spawns (max BS bounty) in all systems 2) Eliminate cruiser spawns from 0.0 (all spawns have at least one BS) 3) Add POS module and permanent outpost upgrade which improve truesec of the system they operate in Of course, you could just double belt/gate rat bounties and be done with it if you want a simpler solution. I don't prefer that, because I feel very strongly players should be able to improve their space, and it tends to favor macro ratters more than regular players. Still, something obviously needs to be done, and something is better than nothing. I think the fact there was no ratting upgrade suggested in the dev blog is very telling. Someone or some group of someones in CCP plain doesn't like ratting. When you look at the suggested mining upgrades, the rationale becomes more clear. They don't like static asteroid belts. Around the time CCP removed npc's from the directional scanner (nerfing ratting - since you now have to warp to every belt to see what is up in a system), I recall reading comments from more than one dev that their goal was to pretty much eliminate static asteroid belts. Everything would be anomolies or dynamic plexes all the time. Whether I'm right about this or not is immaterial. Maybe CCP loves ratting and mining as much as every other PvE activity. The problem is they don't recognize that ratting, in particular for 0.0, is a favored activity of actual players. The best thing about ratting is you can log in, warp to a belt, and start going to town. You don't need a probe launcher and astrometric skills, you don't need to spend an hour bouncing between half a dozen systems hoping you get lucky. You can just shoot stuff for a little bit and get some isk. Here's something else CCP may not realize. Isk making generally isn't a social activity in EVE. At least, it isn't in 0.0. If the only way a player in 0.0 can make as much or more than a high sec mission runner is to get in a gang and cooperate in order to locate and take down some randomly spawned complex, then 0.0 is still crap. On a final note, several of the upgrades suggested are hilarious in that they promise "significantly increase the chance...". The problem with them is you can't parse/prove the improvement. If they worked in some systems and not others, how would anyone know? Hey, the GM responds to your petition, you just must be unlucky. Upgrades/improvements that can't be parsed are terrible. People have known this since Everquest days, when certain character abilities plain didn't work. 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. I am quoting this because I want to make sure than someone in CCP reads it. Gramtar has had the best ideas for improving the reward to match the risk in 0.0 for as long as I can remember and if anyone truly has a grasp on what should be done I would say it was him. I still think he's missing the necessity of a means by which security may be increased. The vulnerability to small roaming gangs will be increased ten-fold, especially since even small disruptions carry far greater implications: being unable to meet the monthly bill for sov. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
EvilweaselFinance Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:44:00 - [1893] Originally by: Jade Constantine ... 0.0 isn't an e-brothel why did you think anyone cared what you have to say
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:49:00 - [1894] Edited by: ceaon on 08/11/2009 17:50:19 Originally by: Gnulpie But what do you have as vision? Fixed grinding paths to unlock certain features and forcing people to do things which they don't like none force you to do so you cry because you have to work for ISK atm there are "few" ppl in each of 0.0 alliances that fuel and haul all the moon **** and POS warfare stuff you just enjoy their work the ship replacement programs are made because "few" ppl run logistics all day, did u ask them if is fun to fuel POSes ? adapt or go back to wow
Hratli Smirks GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:49:00 - [1895] 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. I'd really like an answer to this question, since I'm suspecting it will be hilarious.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:51:00 - [1896] Originally by: EvilweaselFinance Originally by: Jade Constantine ... 0.0 isn't an e-brothel why did you think anyone cared what you have to say Given this is about your alliance's standard of debate on the issue I suspect your sentiment is mirrored by those responsible for balancing the expansion at this point True Knowledge
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:51:00 - [1897] Originally by: Aralis No not WE Destrim. You (and some others). If the rewards were high and the maintenance low - this would still be crap. What happened to sandbox? What happened to epic? I never once insisted that maintenance be low. In fact, I suggested the opposite: maintenance should be kept high, as planned. Again, it's the rewards I have an issue with. Originally by: Aralis And to everyone suggesting a non linear cost for sov the same questions. What's the point of the game if the game itself won't LET you conquer your neighbours? Is this hello kitty? Most of us I think want sandbox, epic, freedom. We don't want to build our own little house in a nice row of identical houses with funny coloured windowboxes (which is about all these upgrades amount to). Even if the upgrades were any good what happened to game logic? How do you mystically upgrade the rats, the anomalies, the spawns? And if your answer is better detection why is this info available to everyone? Stop hiding and get off your butts CCP and make improvements to the game. Make it bigger. Develop it. Stop trying to create a different game every six months. And when you do make changes follow through. Even if we bought this pile of unmentionable **** at these new lower prices - what faith could we have that you wouldn't raise the maintenance costs soon as we bought it? What faith can we have in the stability of the game? This is a roleplaying game. Ask yourself what is happening in the Eve world and make it possible. Well, the attempt they are pushing for in dominion would actually accomplish this... if they executed properly. Which they hadn't. Again, I point out that no complaints, at least none as serious as posed here, were ever raised until the proposed inf.-hub upgrades were released. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:55:00 - [1898] By most people maybe. I posted my complaints weeks ago. Very reasonably I thought. And CCP gave it their usual consideration and ignored it totally.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:56:00 - [1899] Edited by: Tesal on 08/11/2009 17:56:33 YES OR NO: Ham sandwich. Answer me now. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Khariton	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:56:00 - [1900] Edited by: Khariton on 08/11/2009 17:56:50 I guess CCP gets the point after over 60 pages of comments from every major entity in game. Maybe they're planning on ending EvE completely, after all they managed to unite all powerblocks! Perhaps a massive war against Concord?

SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:58:00 - [1901] Originally by: Jade Constantine Not sure why anyone would be surprised about the fact that there is massive opposition to these changes from 0.0 alliances who have currently covered the map with a static system of fortifications that cheaply cyno-jam and deny any realistic danger to their holdings while letting them sit back and collect income with less overall risk than the mission-runners in hisec suffer from can-flippers and the occasional suicide ganks. Leave it to Jade to not read a thread and then claim that high-sec is safer than 0.0 because of can flipping.
Amy Wang	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:59:00 - [1902] 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
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:03:00 - [1903] I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it?
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:04:00 - [1904] Originally by: SavageBastard Originally by: Jade Constantine Not sure why anyone would be surprised about the fact that there is massive opposition to these changes from 0.0 alliances who have currently covered the map with a static system of fortifications that cheaply cyno-jam and deny any realistic danger to their holdings while letting them sit back and collect income with less overall risk than the mission-runners in hisec suffer from can-flippers and the occasional suicide ganks. Leave it to Jade to not read a thread and then claim that high-sec is safer than 0.0 because of can flipping. 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.
Succubine Caldari Succubine Dynasty Technologies	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:06:00 - [1905] Originally by: Tesal That said, I expect some tears. And I am glad Goons are crying buckets of them. I think the Goon tears make me reconsider this and more supportive of the patch. If it destroys the game, it could happen, but we were headed that direction anyway. Most of 0.0 is dead, a giant nap fest with out of control moon gold, the current situation has need a large shakeup, this is it. The tears from all alliances (although Goon tears are especially gratifying) is great to see concerning cyno jammer and jump bridge cost. They are pos mods for cowards and I'd prefer they didn't exist, but at least significantly increasing their expense is an improvement. These changes as well as the moon gold nerf are updates that CCP did right, in my opinion. The infrastructure upgrades however, are just plain bad. I can only conclude that CCP made high sec space too profitable and are unwilling to correct the difference in 0.0 due to economy fallout or they must be completely out of touch with the average null sec player experience.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:07:00 - [1906] Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Gramtar I proposed a good, well reasoned proposal to fix the imbalance between high sec mission running and 0.0/lowsec ratting back in August. I know it was brought up and voted on in the CSM, but I don't know what CCP's response to it was. You can read the whole proposal here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1137380 Most of my suggestions can be summed up by the following: 1) Improve the quality of spawns (max BS bounty) in all systems 2) Eliminate cruiser spawns from 0.0 (all spawns have at least one BS) 3) Add POS module and permanent outpost upgrade which improve truesec of the system they operate in Of course, you could just double belt/gate rat bounties and be done with it if you want a simpler solution. I don't prefer that, because I feel very strongly players should be able to improve their space, and it tends to favor macro ratters more than regular players. Still, something obviously needs to be done, and something is better than nothing. I think the fact there was no ratting upgrade suggested in the dev blog is very telling. Someone or some group of someones in CCP plain doesn't like ratting. When you look at the suggested mining upgrades, the rationale becomes more clear. They don't like static asteroid belts. Around the time CCP removed npc's from the directional scanner (nerfing ratting - since you now have to warp to every belt to see what is up in a system), I recall reading comments from more than one dev that their goal was to pretty much eliminate static asteroid belts. Everything would be anomolies or dynamic plexes all the time. Whether I'm right about this or not is immaterial. Maybe CCP loves ratting and mining as much as every other PvE activity. The problem is they don't recognize that ratting, in particular for 0.0, is a favored activity of actual players. The best thing about ratting is you can log in, warp to a belt, and start going to town. You don't need a probe launcher and astrometric skills, you don't need to spend an hour bouncing between half a dozen systems hoping you get lucky. You can just shoot stuff for a little bit and get some isk. Here's something else CCP may not realize. Isk making generally isn't a social activity in EVE. At least, it isn't in 0.0. If the only way a player in 0.0 can make as much or more than a high sec mission runner is to get in a gang and cooperate in order to locate and take down some randomly spawned complex, then 0.0 is still crap. On a final note, several of the upgrades suggested are hilarious in that they promise "significantly increase the chance...". The problem with them is you can't parse/prove the improvement. If they worked in some systems and not others, how would anyone know? Hey, the GM responds to your petition, you just must be unlucky. Upgrades/improvements that can't be parsed are terrible. People have known this since Everquest days, when certain character abilities plain didn't work. 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. I am quoting this because I want to make sure than someone in CCP reads it. Gramtar has had the best ideas for improving the reward to match the risk in 0.0 for as long as I can remember and if anyone truly has a grasp on what should be done I would say it was him. I still think he's missing the necessity of a means by which security may be increased. The vulnerability to small roaming gangs will be increased ten-fold, especially since even small disruptions carry far greater implications: being unable to meet the monthly bill for sov. While that may be true it is certainly better than TWO GUARENTEED COSMIC ANOMALIES!!
Merces Mercedis Minmatar Lunitic Fringe	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:08:00 - [1907] First off let me states that with the current cost of systems not one single major alliance will loose one single station system, jump bridge system or moon mining system. what they will loose is all the empty systems around those. To be honest there will be no changes at all in who owns any areas in the game, there will be no place for any one that wants to go into 0.0 to get. Will it cost a boat load of ISK to keep what they have, yes. But in the end you as players we will see no changes. Now as for the cost of the system vs the rewards. This is where CCP has screwed the pooch. I have tried to read as much of the 63 pages before I posted and here I agree that changes have to be made. I also agree that a upgraded station system has to have agents giving out LVL 4 missions and not some stupid exploration crap no one likes to do now. A upgraded system should have better belts for miners, better rats for those wanting to enjoy that part of ISK making. Why in gods name would I spend the little time I have ingame fighting for the few good belts we have in a few good systems now let alone when half of the others in a major alliance will be doing the same trying to make the ISK to pay for them? CCP you tell us a system will support 100+ players. I figured as your changes are now with a fully decked system it is 20 max. That 20 players to pay the 2.4 bill tab. Want to break down those numbers? No CCP I have seen some great suggestions here in these pages, most of them involve true upgrades to systems, as in more static belts, agents in stations, true defences, improved rat spawns, better officer spawn rates. This is just a few of them. Please CCP read these pages as in that after 63 pages you have to relize that what you are doing is the worst fix that we as players can see happening. And it is not just players in 0.0 now that can see these changes are not going to work, but those that had hoped to come into 0.0 to earn a fat chunk of ISK now see that option fading fast. LVL 4 missions in empire will be the fat ISK maker in EVE. Not the "new" 0.0 we were all told would happen. We as 0.0 players want more for what we have fought hard for, this is not it.
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:09:00 - [1908] Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? True. Methinks it would be better if we re-focused to more constructive ends. We've done enough flaming... we've made our point: we're not happy with the inf-hub upgrades, they are weaksauce. Penalizing large alliances for holding enormous amounts of space they don't use is all fine and well: it frees-up space. But that is not enough to draw people from empire... the benefits of settling a system are not enough. 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? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:09:00 - [1909] 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
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:10:00 - [1910] Another question that needs to be asked. How does this make 0.0 more fun? The POS grind we will all be glad to be rid of will be replaced by extra grind to pay for space so no real gain there. Then there will be no incentive to take space anymore since we cant pay for what we already have. When I first read about Dominion I hoped it would entice smaller entities to 0.0 with scaling costs that start low and gradually increase with space owned. This would have provided us with lots of new targets to replace the ones that are no longer worth attacking. Now that its obvious we will see fewer, not more, new alliances in 0.0 - What are we supposed to do now CCP? Also: 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. I find it funny/sad that CCP fled this thread as soon as we started demanding an answer to this question. Ill be nice and provide a hint - It concerns giving players incentive to be in 0.0 Colonies and Capitals

Ceirah Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:12:00 - [1911] I have proposal too.. Let's make empire carebears pay CONCORD for the defence You want to do mission without hostiles being able to shoot at you you have to pay CONCORD before entering mission etc. Traveling should be still free.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:14:00 - [1912] Originally by: Jade Constantine Nice speech bro. The problem is that those ebil big alliances had a positive attitude toward this change until the details were revealed. Not to mention a lot of people without connection to them had the same positive attitude and are now underwhelmed and disappointed. The situation needed to be changed, but the proposed changes aren't anything to cheer about. There was no reason to have high cost for everything. Since activity is already being measured, it could have been used to determine the cost of sov and upgrades. Very high costs for inactive and low for active systems. That would have rewarded activity and encouraged large alliances to allow more outsiders to be active in their area of influence. It would have also kept the cost low for small alliances who actively use just a few systems. Creating a strong mechanisms to allow more people to come to live there. Better for small alliances, reduces the size of large alliances and makes it more worth it for them not to **** every small alliance they get their hands on. I'm pretty sure most people aren't going to ragequit over this. This is more about destroyed dreams, espectations and hopes. This change could have been done better. My perspective is that of a grunt of an alliance and a small corp director/CEO, so I'll not comment on the logistics of paying for this. But from my limited point of view this change isn't enough to make me start living in 0.0 and the upgrades are pretty unimaginative and limited. It is an improvement of a sort, but the initial situation was so bad, that almost anything would have been an improvement.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:15:00 - [1913] Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? True. Methinks it would be better if we re-focused to more constructive ends. We've done enough flaming... we've made our point: we're not happy with the inf-hub upgrades, they are weaksauce. Penalizing large alliances for holding enormous amounts of space they don't use is all fine and well: it frees-up space. But that is not enough to draw people from empire... the benefits of settling a system are not enough. 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? Removing non-BS spawns from static belts. As in, every single spawn should have at least one battleship. This makes it so the player has to spend less time grinding out smaller spawns in the hope that a Battleship will appear. This is one of the major reasons 0.0 ratting is often not worth as much as mission running. Give cosmic anomalies regular rats instead of the nerfed, small bounty, no loot/salvage rats they currently have. Make asteroids contain 5x as many minerals as they do now in 0.0. Most of your time mining is spent moving within range of an asteroid or warping between belts to get to a new rock. This should ideally be coupled with a nerf to the drone regions and compounds in general because they have destroyed the mineral market and made mining one of the least lucrative and most boring things a person could possibly do in this game. You could also ideally get rid of those stupid "last forever" datacores than have made running hacking profession sites completely worthless unless you magically find a War Stratagem.
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:20:00 - [1914] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Destrim Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Gramtar I proposed a good, well reasoned proposal to fix the imbalance between high sec mission running and 0.0/lowsec ratting back in August. I know it was brought up and voted on in the CSM, but I don't know what CCP's response to it was. You can read the whole proposal here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1137380 Most of my suggestions can be summed up by the following: 1) Improve the quality of spawns (max BS bounty) in all systems 2) Eliminate cruiser spawns from 0.0 (all spawns have at least one BS) 3) Add POS module and permanent outpost upgrade which improve truesec of the system they operate in Of course, you could just double belt/gate rat bounties and be done with it if you want a simpler solution. I don't prefer that, because I feel very strongly players should be able to improve their space, and it tends to favor macro ratters more than regular players. Still, something obviously needs to be done, and something is better than nothing. I think the fact there was no ratting upgrade suggested in the dev blog is very telling. Someone or some group of someones in CCP plain doesn't like ratting. When you look at the suggested mining upgrades, the rationale becomes more clear. They don't like static asteroid belts. Around the time CCP removed npc's from the directional scanner (nerfing ratting - since you now have to warp to every belt to see what is up in a system), I recall reading comments from more than one dev that their goal was to pretty much eliminate static asteroid belts. Everything would be anomolies or dynamic plexes all the time. Whether I'm right about this or not is immaterial. Maybe CCP loves ratting and mining as much as every other PvE activity. The problem is they don't recognize that ratting, in particular for 0.0, is a favored activity of actual players. The best thing about ratting is you can log in, warp to a belt, and start going to town. You don't need a probe launcher and astrometric skills, you don't need to spend an hour bouncing between half a dozen systems hoping you get lucky. You can just shoot stuff for a little bit and get some isk. Here's something else CCP may not realize. Isk making generally isn't a social activity in EVE. At least, it isn't in 0.0. If the only way a player in 0.0 can make as much or more than a high sec mission runner is to get in a gang and cooperate in order to locate and take down some randomly spawned complex, then 0.0 is still crap. On a final note, several of the upgrades suggested are hilarious in that they promise "significantly increase the chance...". The problem with them is you can't parse/prove the improvement. If they worked in some systems and not others, how would anyone know? Hey, the GM responds to your petition, you just must be unlucky. Upgrades/improvements that can't be parsed are terrible. People have known this since Everquest days, when certain character abilities plain didn't work. 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. I am quoting this because I want to make sure than someone in CCP reads it. Gramtar has had the best ideas for improving the reward to match the risk in 0.0 for as long as I can remember and if anyone truly has a grasp on what should be done I would say it was him. I still think he's missing the necessity of a means by which security may be increased. The vulnerability to small roaming gangs will be increased ten-fold, especially since even small disruptions carry far greater implications: being unable to meet the monthly bill for sov. While that may be true it is certainly better than TWO GUARENTEED COSMIC ANOMALIES!! Agreed. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:20:00 - [1915] Well, to make it easier for Jade and the ****** crowd who insist on trolling... CCP needs to make 0.0 attractive to move to, take control of, and live inside. That there is your primary bottom line. Don't address that, and everything else is just secondary fall out. If you want to keep people in 0.0, If you want non-0.0 people to move to 0.0, that's what you need to address first. (I'm fine right now with 0.0 as it is not being as lucrative as Motsu & Irjunen. Those thinking of moving to 0.0 after Dominioff hits might not be as content with how things are/will be)
Elldranga	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:23:00 - [1916] CCP... you want to make systems hold more players? How about you bring back the old ratting system? Make it so that if you chain a belt, the chained spawn will gradually increase in the speed at which it spawns.... all of a sudden a system can support as many ratters as it has belts rather than the current crap where you get some guys chaining and some guys farming, and either way, with high SP players, a whole system of belts won't support many people.... Sure it got abused by farmers in empire who discovered a smartbombing BS could sit there forever until ships spawned continuously, but how hard would it be to put a limit on how fast spawns could regen at maximum?
Gulmuk Gallente Distant Light Galactic Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:24:00 - [1917] I guess what the DEV's don't get, is that with POS's you can mine the fuel, and basically currently you only have to purchase the trade goods that you can't get anywhere but high sec. My corp has about 10 active people in it with 2 large POS's and we only pay for the trade goods. We have 3 guys who can fly retrievers and/or macks and we mine enough ice every week that we don't have to guy ice products. SOOOOO, CCP how are you going to combat that claim? Even if my corp had 5 POS's, we can mine enough to keep them full of everything but trade goods. All that is going to happen is CCP is going to kill the major alliances, kill the ice market, have no use for POS's, and cram 0.0 systems with folks who can't earn a living. Oh and CCP, do you expect everyone to give all their ISK to their alliance? Cause currently we pay dues, and they won't cover your costs, or come close to it.
Elementatia Caldari Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:28:00 - [1918] This is a game and i play it because of fun. With those new changes it now seems that i have to play it, to be still part of (the 0.0) game. It¦s expensive enough to defend our systems...why do i have to pay a "rent" ?
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:30:00 - [1919] 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
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:31:00 - [1920] Edited by: Destrim on 08/11/2009 18:31:04 I suppose one can say we are all in agreement on one thing: The rewards are not enough. The proposed inf.-hub upgrades are disappointing. Am I correct in this assumption? Even if you think I'm putting it mildly, or over-simplifying? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.

Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:31:00 - [1921] I'm still thinking that they need to give a direct to alliance bonus whenever an anomaly is done in a system where that alliance holds sov. Something like 1-10m based on the difficulty of the anomaly. And then they need to reset that anomaly 15 minutes after all npc's are killed in it, that way your enemy can't just sit in it cloaked so that it doesn't reset. That along with an upgrade that boosted bounty and another that boosted mining yield would just about do it. I think we would have about as much as we expected from this patch, although not as much as we had hope for. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:37:00 - [1922] Originally by: Vadinho 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 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.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:37:00 - [1923] Edited by: Jovialmadness on 08/11/2009 18:39:19 Quote: Edited by: emotua on 07/11/2009 18:59:57 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 666/730 = 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, not a second job. Dude. SF* just SF. You state in your post the actual numbers of people an alliance might have with a reasonable amount of precision and then you have the balls to try to validate why its ok to control upwards of 100 to in your case 160 systems? Just GTF* of these forums and don't ever come back. To everyone else, the reason CCP is doing this is to force peeps like this to back down to a reasonable number of controllable systems so others can have a chance. Atlas couldn't defend that number of systems without a powerbloc if their lives depended on it. That is just a singular reason why the dev's have stated EXACTLY why what Atlas and the rest of the alliances are doing is making the game mind numbingly plain and not what they really wanted. I totally agree. If you dont like this then quit, no seriously dont argue with me just quit. This is one of the best changes ive ever seen and i have been in 0.0 for years. I am so sick and tired of diplomacy controlling space and not true sweat which is what it will require now not only in isk but in fighting. Quote: As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:40:00 - [1924] 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
Kieselguhr Kid	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:43:00 - [1925] Originally by: Jovialmadness To everyone else, the reason CCP is doing this is to force peeps like this to back down to a reasonable number of controllable systems so others can have a chance. That's a great reason. Too bad the actual effect of this change is going to be to force everyone in 0.0 back into NPC space + 3-5 critical JB systems, while leaving the rubble behind us for no one because it's worthless. If this goes through as is, you can have all the systems you want. You'll have to rat/mine/whatever for hours a day to earn the upkeep on them, we'll come back and disrupt your claims whenever we get bored of semi-AFK L4 pirate mission running, and you will never be able to import anything from Empire because we'll control all the border gate systems on the way, but you can have them. You probably won't want them, though.
Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:45:00 - [1926] Originally by: Jovialmadness Dude. SF just SF. You state in your post the actual numbers of people an alliance might have with a reasonable amount of precision and then you have the balls to try to validate why its ok to control upwards of 100 to in your case 160 systems? Just GTF* of these forums and don't ever come back. To everyone else, the reason CCP is doing this is to force peeps like this to back down to a reasonable number of controllable systems so others can have a chance. Atlas couldn't defend that number of systems without a powerbloc if their lives depended on it. That is just a singular reason why the dev's have stated EXACTLY why what Atlas and the rest of the alliances are doing is making the game mind numbingly plain and not what they really wanted. I totally agree. If you dont like this then quit, no seriously dont argue with me just quit. This is one of the best changes ive ever seen and i have been in 0.0 for years. I am so sick and tired of diplomacy controlling space and not true sweat which is what it will require now not only in isk but in fighting. There will be no opportunities for new players in 0.0 with this patch. Even if you gave them free ships and forced them to go to 0.0 current powerblocks will definitely not allow them to stay, even if the system does not have alliance name in top left corner. Goons will still control 160+ systems, atlas will still control their space, NC will still control the whole north... Only empire people will not be able to see it unless they look on those pretty .jpg maps in CAOD. Now return under your bridge and think of a way to get more people into 0.0.
Anahid Brutus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:46:00 - [1927] 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. b*mp
Antir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:51:00 - [1928] Originally by: Jovialmadness Edited by: Jovialmadness on 08/11/2009 18:39:19 Quote: Edited by: emotua on 07/11/2009 18:59:57 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 666/730 = 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, not a second job. Dude. SF* just SF. You state in your post the actual numbers of people an alliance might have with a reasonable amount of precision and then you have the balls to try to validate why its ok to control upwards of 100 to in your case 160 systems? Just GTF* of these forums and don't ever come back. To everyone else, the reason CCP is doing this is to force peeps like this to back down to a reasonable number of controllable systems so others can have a chance. Atlas couldn't defend that number of systems without a powerbloc if their lives depended on it. That is just a singular reason why the dev's have stated EXACTLY why what Atlas and the rest of the alliances are doing is making the game mind numbingly plain and not what they really wanted. I totally agree. If you dont like this then quit, no seriously dont argue with me just quit. This is one of the best changes ive ever seen and i have been in 0.0 for years. I am so sick and tired of diplomacy controlling space and not true sweat which is what it will require now not only in isk but in fighting. If you think this is going to kill big alliances or power blocs or diplomacy you're an idiot all this will do is reduce the number of systems with sov in them not the number alliances claim as their own, it's the small alliaces/newcomers who lose out here.
Armina Dottir	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:53:00 - [1929] Originally by: Slobodanka There will be no opportunities for new players in 0.0 with this patch. Even if you gave them free ships and forced them to go to 0.0 current powerblocks will definitely not allow them to stay, even if the system does not have alliance name in top left corner. Goons will still control 160+ systems, atlas will still control their space, NC will still control the whole north... Only empire people will not be able to see it unless they look on those pretty .jpg maps in CAOD. Now return under your bridge and think of a way to get more people into 0.0. This. Why invest billions if any big bully can just show up and take it all away cause you didn't pay them any rent? So while I agree that CCP prolly wants to give more ppl the opporunity to grab a piece of the pie it won't happen. One way to avoid this, might be to lower costs and work with a coefficient that multiplies the cost per extra system you own. This would lower the entry for new alliances to 0.0 and they'd try it multiple times, cause the costs are low to start with.
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:56:00 - [1930] Originally by: Pointfive Honestly i was hoping to see upgrades more along these lines. i always though of 0.0 as being like the wild west. Where you venture out to dangerous lands to get shot at, control some territory make money, and occasionaly find gold. Concord Bounty Hunter Angent Relay - Allows LP gain for killing pirates in nullsec, create a pvp geared concord lp store Bounty increase - High activity in your system has driven away all but the most dangerous pirates. 15% bonus to pirate bounty per level Respawn Speed - High activity in this region has increased pirate activity in the system. 10% bonus to pirate respawn speed per level. Pirate hideout Locator - Each level increases the chance of locating rare hidden pirate hideout anomalies. These danger pirates do not drop faction items but have significantly increased bounty. Ship quality increase - Having Faced larger ships constantly, pirates begin to only appear in more difficult ships. Each level reduces the chance of a non battleship spawn by 20% Give me these changes, not some **ty level 4 quality anomalies that wont actually be level quality income due to, comeptition, rat quality, scan time, warping around, hostiles in system shutting down income, etc etc 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.**

Pagey GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:57:00 - [1931] gently caress 65 pages did devs respond to the "less profitable than l4s" everyone was spamming last night ___
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:57:00 - [1932] Edited by: Mkiaki on 08/11/2009 19:03:57 Stop Dominion, at least until this has been sorted.
Pagey GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:58:00 - [1933] well i guess the post above mine answers that ___
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:02:00 - [1934] Quote: If you think this is going to kill big alliances or power blocs or diplomacy you're an idiot all this will do is reduce the number of systems with sov in them not the number alliances claim as their own, it's the small alliaces/newcomers who lose out here. ok let me...sum this up for you butterfly brain. Even IF this change does not create the desired change CCP wants they WILLLLLLLLLL make further changes. What they are wanting to do is fundamentally change sov mechanics and they are NOT about to just change it to something that most of you morons in this thread think will be more of the same. Quote: As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:02:00 - [1935] It has probably been overlooked by most people, because of focusing so hard on the details ... but the devblog and this feedback thread are really not what they seem to be. CCP's Upkeep devblog which shook things up so badly, is really not a devblog. It is a SPRINT review. The feedback thread is the SPRINT backlog. Because the timeline of the SCRUM for Dominion does not allow for this oh so vital element of SCRUM (the requirements churn can proove itself to be incorrect, impractical, or impossible given time and resources) we are now facing a situation where CCP can only alter cosmetic elements, and has to consciously ignore the structural problems.
Ap0ll0n Gallente Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:03:00 - [1936] Originally by: Jovialmadness Edited by: Jovialmadness on 08/11/2009 18:39:19 To everyone else, the reason CCP is doing this is to force peeps like this to back down to a reasonable number of controllable systems so others can have a chance. Atlas couldn't defend that number of systems without a powerbloc if their lives depended on it. That is just a singular reason why the dev's have stated EXACTLY why what Atlas and the rest of the alliances are doing is making the game mind numbingly plain and not what they really wanted. I totally agree. If you dont like this then quit, no seriously dont argue with me just quit. This is one of the best changes ive ever seen and i have been in 0.0 for years. I am so sick and tired of diplomacy controlling space and not true sweat which is what it will require now not only in isk but in fighting. I don¦t think you truely understand how it works tbh.. Just because my alliance owns Geminate region, doesn¦t mean we have sov in all the systems. Does this mean that other people can just come and grind our belts or plexes? Ofcourse not, and why would Dominion change that? Your right, it won¦t..
Prognosys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:05:00 - [1937] Originally by: Mkiaki Edited by: Mkiaki on 08/11/2009 19:03:57 Stop Dominion, at least until this has been sorted. I like how this post used to say 'raise the costs, you make enough on moon goo anyway' or something along those lines.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:06:00 - [1938] Originally by: Ap0ll0n I don¦t think you truely understand how it works tbh.. Just because my alliance owns Geminate region, doesn¦t mean we have sov in all the systems. Does this mean that other people can just come and grind our belts or plexes? Ofcourse not, and why would Dominion change that? Your right, it won¦t.. good call. I wouldn't pay for geminate either :V
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:09:00 - [1939] i said it will give the opportunity and the chance for others to come in. I also said it will most likely reduce the size of the larger space holding alliances. Jim Bob and his 5 buddies running in to take some of that space....will that go well? hell if i know all i care about and want to see is 1500 man alliances that actually number 300 that control 100+ systems is stupid. Oh and i dont give a good crp if you "bled, sweat and cried" for the systems pre patch or not ROFL. lets get honest and serious here. its time to get this whine fest going baby. i love what im reading. Quote:* As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:
Antir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:11:00 - [1940] Originally by: Jovialmadness Quote: If you think this is going to kill big alliances or power blocs or diplomacy you're an idiot all this will do is reduce the number of systems with sov in them not the number alliances claim as their own, it's the small alliaces/newcomers who lose out here. ok let me...sum this up for you butterfly brain. Even IF this change does not create the desired change CCP wants they WILLLLLLLLLL make further changes. What they are wanting to do is fundamentally change sov mechanics and they are NOT about to just change it to something that most of you morons in this thread think will be more of the same. Let me sum this up for you, the goal of THIS expansion (not later additions) was to get more people from empire to 0.0 and to force large afk empires to shrink. It has so far failed to do this except there will be less sov on the map, the upgrades are a poor lot at best and there is no real incentive for people to leave empire. So tell me how does this expansion do anything to encourage newcomers to 0.0 and give them a decent income?

Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:11:00 - [1941] Originally by: Jovialmadness Quote: If you think this is going to kill big alliances or power blocs or diplomacy you're an idiot all this will do is reduce the number of systems with sov in them not the number alliances claim as their own, it's the small alliaces/newcomers who lose out here. ok let me...sum this up for you butterfly brain. Even IF this change does not create the desired change CCP wants they WILLLLLLLLLL make further changes. What they are wanting to do is fundamentally change sov mechanics and they are NOT about to just change it to something that most of you morons in this thread think will be more of the same. How can CCP change the mind of bobITs to not go invade goons in delve? How can CCP change the mind of bobby to let Red Alliance back to insmother? And most importantly: How can CCP make me not shoot in the face when I see you jump into a system I fought for and have lost ships and clones over it? Big guys will not turn into hello kittys on decmber 1st. They will kill you, grief you, plant spies into your corp, reduce your morale, sabotage your industry. They will do their best to make you suffer, not because CCP told them to, but because they can. And because they have fought over the right to do so. So feel free to come into 0.0 in december and try to chase away one of them (and remember to bring lots of caps because cyno jammers will be off; what could possibly go wrong?). If you want more people into 0.0 you have to use the carrot pÜart of your plan. The stick which is meant for big alliances is already in place and big alliances don't object it. What _everyone_ objects is the lack of carrot part. Give empire a reason to come to 0.0. Give them resources, infrastructure and strategical advantages of holding (and now paying) their space.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:11:00 - [1942] Originally by: ceaon Originally by: Gnulpie But what do you have as vision? Fixed grinding paths to unlock certain features and forcing people to do things which they don't like none force you to do so you cry because you have to work for ISK atm there are "few" ppl in each of 0.0 alliances that fuel and haul all the moon ** and POS warfare stuff you just enjoy their work the ship replacement programs are made because "few" ppl run logistics all day, did u ask them if is fun to fuel POSes ? adapt or go back to wow And why would I need to grind for isk at all? If I can chase off everyone from the part of space where I am and no one attacks me and I can do whatever I like to do there without anyone hindering me there, shouldn't it be 'my' space then until someone else comes and throws me out? What would I need isk there??? I could have miners mining all the ore I need, I could have the blueprints ready to build stuff, I could have occasionally buy some npc fuel for the pos and the ice I could mine. I could build my ships and I could run radar sites to get datacores to invent the t2 items I want to have. Then what the ** would I need to grind for isk to PAY for my system then? The only reason why I am forced to leave those systems should be OTHER PLAYERS kicking me out. Not some idiotic 'you can't pay your bill so you are losing your system' message created by an anonymous and artificial system. IT SHOULD BE THE PLAYERS! And nothing else.
Killljoy	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:13:00 - [1943] Wow what kinda meeting must his simple question of caused that we don't have an anwser yet.
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:17:00 - [1944] Only way to make people in empire flock to 0.0 would be to make it so those corps can make an invulnerable base and make 0.0 more profitable then empire. _No other way_. Period.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:21:00 - [1945] Quote: Let me sum this up for you, the goal of THIS expansion (not later additions) was to get more people from empire to 0.0 and to force large afk empires to shrink. It has so far failed to do this except there will be less sov on the map, the upgrades are a poor lot at best and there is no real incentive for people to leave empire. So tell me how does this expansion do anything to encourage newcomers to 0.0 and give them a decent income? Fail. #1 you are a goon. that alone means you have no cred. Fail. #2 you are a goon. that also means you are an idiot. Fail. #3 you ar a goon and the biggest part of your fail is that the patch has not come out yet. What are you idiots going to do start dropping sov NOW before the patch comes out? why? just so you can come on these forums and scream about how horrible its going to be? NO cause you are doing that now and it tastes delicious. Quote: As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:23:00 - [1946] Originally by: Gnulpie And why would I need to grind for isk at all? If I can chase off everyone from the part of space where I am and no one attacks me and I can do whatever I like to do there without anyone hindering me there, shouldn't it be 'my' space then until someone else comes and throws me out? What would I need isk there??? I could have miners mining all the ore I need, I could have the blueprints ready to build stuff, I could have occasionally buy some npc fuel for the pos and the ice I could mine. I could build my ships and I could run radar sites to get datacores to invent the t2 items I want to have. Then what the ** would I need to grind for isk to PAY for my system then? The only reason why I am forced to leave those systems should be OTHER PLAYERS kicking me out. Not some idiotic 'you can't pay your bill so you are losing your system' message created by an anonymous and artificial system. IT SHOULD BE THE PLAYERS! And nothing else. Because ISK is the oil that makes the gears of EVE work smoothly. You pay upkeep because you have to pay the peon human workers to maintain your SOV, you have to pay to maintain what you have. It always boggles me that people complain about a tax to pay for having an alliance or owning a system. You have workers! Capsuleers are _not_ the only people in space, and they work for ISK. It's only artificial because you expect ** to be handed to you.
Normin Bates	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:23:00 - [1947] CCP please move forward with this expansion. Pay no attention to the large alliance tears posted here. They're only afraid of change and unwilling to adapt. Adjust later with a "mini-expansion" if needed. If the Alliances can't handle it they'll go back to empire space. (buh- bye!) Those who CAN handle it will adjust & adapt to whatever conditions apply to 0.0 They won't feel a need to have giant areas of empty systems and will use Dominion to their advantage. It's laughable how they keep saying that it will ruin 0.0 for everyone,,,even the smaller alliances looking to move into 0.0 Funny how they are all of a sudden concerned about smaller alliances and their ability to hold space. P.S. - Mad Props to Tri and PL for not whining and sheding buckets of tears over Dominion.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:23:00 - [1948] Originally by: Gnulpie And why would I need to grind for isk at all? If I can chase off everyone from the part of space where I am and no one attacks me and I can do whatever I like to do there without anyone hindering me there, shouldn't it be 'my' space then until someone else comes and throws me out? What would I need isk there??? I could have miners mining all the ore I need, I could have the blueprints ready to build stuff, I could have occasionally buy some npc fuel for the pos and the ice I could mine. I could build my ships and I could run radar sites to get datacores to invent the t2 items I want to have. Then what the **** would I need to grind for isk to PAY for my system then? The only reason why I am forced to leave those systems should be OTHER PLAYERS kicking me out. Not some idiotic 'you can't pay your bill so you are losing your system' message created by an anonymous and artificial system. IT SHOULD BE THE PLAYERS! And nothing else. An excellent point. Could be worded better, but nevertheless spot on.
Antir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:28:00 - [1949] Originally by: Jovialmadness Fail. #1 you are a goon. that alone means you have no cred. Fail. #2 you are a goon. that also means you are an idiot. Fail. #3 you ar a goon and the biggest part of your fail is that the patch has not come out yet. What are you idiots going to do start dropping sov NOW before the patch comes out? why? just so you can come on these forums and scream about how horrible its going to be? NO cause you are doing that now and it tastes delicious. I'm just going to quote this.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:30:00 - [1950] Originally by: Dharh Only way to make people in empire flock to 0.0 would be to make it so those corps can make an invulnerable base and make 0.0 more profitable then empire. _No other way_. Period. No! 0.0 shouldn't be about carebearing - we have empire for that. 0.0 should be about building your own empire and true sandbox. It should be about brutal battles and glorious victories. You should be able to become the next Eve Emporer there (sort of SirMolle II ) and you should have fierce enemies and also loyal allies. Or you go and try to make a safe heaven for some people. Or you try to just have some fun life there. Or or or. But it should NOT about be carebearing and simulating empire carebearing. And yes, to achieve that there should be few highly valuable things to capture and exploit until someone else comes and capture them. And there should be good space and better space and also crap space (so that you can easier build up there unhindered for example). The whole idea of turning 0.0 into carebear land is so wrong. We don't need another carebear land! We already have one in Empire and that is good and fine. 0.0 must be wild and about legendary battles and riches to discover with great risk and where the big alliances can slug it out and the smaller alliances could sneak in quietly and secretly and build up until they can unleash their powers to shake the foundations of the big guys. Not some stupid grinding for isk so that you can pay money (to whom???) that you can claim space. Bah.

Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:33:00 - [1951] i havent the foggiest notion how it will turn out. but i can guarantee that the doomsayers on this forum don't know for sure either. Quote: As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:
Prognosys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:33:00 - [1952] Originally by: Jovialmadness Quote: Let me sum this up for you, the goal of THIS expansion (not later additions) was to get more people from empire to 0.0 and to force large afk empires to shrink. It has so far failed to do this except there will be less sov on the map, the upgrades are a poor lot at best and there is no real incentive for people to leave empire. So tell me how does this expansion do anything to encourage newcomers to 0.0 and give them a decent income? Fail. #1 you are a goon. that alone means you have no cred. Fail. #2 you are a goon. that also means you are an idiot. Fail. #3 you ar a goon and the biggest part of your fail is that the patch has not come out yet. What are you idiots going to do start dropping sov NOW before the patch comes out? why? just so you can come on these forums and scream about how horrible its going to be? NO cause you are doing that now and it tastes delicious. Ahahahahahaha look at this ****ing post, it's like a goldmine of idiocy. Let me spell it out for you: 1. I'm not sure why being a goon means 'lol no cred', it's not like being a goon instantly kills your brain. 2. Don't call people idiots in a post where you misspell 'are' and 'its'. 3. The patch hasn't come out, but given the information revealed we know enough to be able to see that this is not going to have the desired effects.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:35:00 - [1953] Originally by: Jovialmadness i havent the foggiest notion how it will turn out. but i can guarantee that the doomsayers on this forum don't know for sure either. Yes you obviously have no idea how the basics of this game function. Now move alone and leave the discussion to people who actually deal with this **** on a daily basis.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:38:00 - [1954] Quote: I'm just going to quote this. I.m just going to quote this. no doubt this will be a goon masterplan tactic that involves an eventual nose rubbing in the dirt sorta plan that is meant to frighten me into thinking that the goon might be right and i might become embarrassed at a later date. Quote: As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:40:00 - [1955] Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. True Knowledge
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:42:00 - [1956] Originally by: Normin Bates CCP please move forward with this expansion. Pay no attention to the large alliance tears posted here. They're only afraid of change and unwilling to adapt. Adjust later with a "mini-expansion" if needed. Actually, a lot of empire alliances have complained, too. And non-alliance empire corporations. Originally by: Normin Bates If the Alliances can't handle it they'll go back to empire space. (buh- bye!) Those who CAN handle it will adjust & adapt to whatever conditions apply to 0.0 They won't feel a need to have giant areas of empty systems and will use Dominion to their advantage. It's not a matter of "handling it." In fact, the larger alliances have openly stated they will have the least problems in holding space. The problem is the rewards are negligible: we were all hoping for something nice and shiny out of the inf.-hub upgrades, but we got crap. Originally by: Normin Bates P.S. - Mad Props to Tri and PL for not whining and sheding buckets of tears over Dominion. While there certainly has been a lot of "whining" on this thread, even PL and Tri have posted their own concerns over the lackluster inf.-hub upgrades. A PL poster pointed out that they will have much fun ruining alliance operations, because NOW all they have to do is sit afk-cloaked inside the anomalies... or rather just the system itself, with the increased vulnerability to small gangs. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:43:00 - [1957] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. In other words, to engage in Eve's "endgame pvp experience", you need to grind PvE content. Yes, that's going to really improve things. I can see the queues of Empire dwellers lining up at 0.0 chokepoints already ready to move into 0.0. Let us know when you finally get the point, preferably in one or two sentences, not pages.
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:47:00 - [1958] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. Some of us are not interested in crying. I personally think the inf.-hub upgrades are simply very disappointing. It has nothing to do with wanting to maintain the "status quo": I'm very happy to see people being forced to use the systems they claim! I'm quite excited to see things change, and watch the influx of people to 0.0 Frankly, even with the very poor rewards, people will probably still try to move to 0.0 because, well, it's there. However, I restate my former point: I was expecting something really nice, a great incentive for holding only a handful of systems and developing them. The inf.-hub upgrades they have posted failed to meet my expectations, I suppose... they are very boring, and utterly useless, except maybe for the finding of hidden belts: it will help those holding lower-quality 0.0 space. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:49:00 - [1959] Quote: Yes you obviously have no idea how the basics of this game function. Now move alone and leave the discussion to people who actually deal with this ** on a daily basis. and i guess than makes you probably the smartest dumba$$ to ever play the game to admit to dealing with this , which it IS, on a daily basis. I have been playing since 2004 so i don't think i need to hear from you about how the basics are. To actually want to keep sov mechanics the way they are means you are either a big alliance member/leader or an idiot. I have played the 0.0 game for years including being a member of multiple alliances. I still probe into 0.0 and low sec mostly now but as far as the 0.0 game is concerned. If it doesnt change you can keep your 0.0 house you are so experienced in running your mouth over. im done with you guys till tomorrow...dinner time. Quote: As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:**
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:50:00 - [1960] Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. In other words, to engage in Eve's "endgame pvp experience", you need to grind PvE content. Yes, that's going to really improve things. I can see the queues of Empire dwellers lining up at 0.0 chokepoints already ready to move into 0.0. Yes you will need to have a worker-caste alliance peon out in the fields gathering isk to pay your rents that will make pvp content for raiders and defenders (if you intend to defend them). This is far superior to the current model where your income comes from moon pos that are invulnerable to small gang intediction and there is literally no way to scorch the earth on conquest. If you don't like the new system you are free to go back to empire and run the level4s you are talking about. I'm sure other people will be happy to take your vacated space and actually fight for it. True Knowledge

Will Hunter GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:53:00 - [1961] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. guys guys lets make 0.0 life harder so my empire hooker roleplaying corp can disrupt big alliances easily and without hassle
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:54:00 - [1962] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. In other words, to engage in Eve's "endgame pvp experience", you need to grind PvE content. Yes, that's going to really improve things. I can see the queues of Empire dwellers lining up at 0.0 chokepoints already ready to move into 0.0. Yes you will need to have a worker-caste alliance peon out in the fields gathering isk to pay your rents that will make pvp content for raiders and defenders (if you intend to defend them). This is far superior to the current model where your income comes from moon pos that are invulnerable to small gang intediction and there is literally no way to scorch the earth on conquest. If you don't like the new system you are free to go back to empire and run the level4s you are talking about. I'm sure other people will be happy to take your vacated space and actually fight for it. Oh yes, I forgot about your small-gangs-affect-sovereignty agenda. Carry on!
Lucas Pantelis Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:55:00 - [1963] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. In other words, to engage in Eve's "endgame pvp experience", you need to grind PvE content. Yes, that's going to really improve things. I can see the queues of Empire dwellers lining up at 0.0 chokepoints already ready to move into 0.0. Yes you will need to have a worker-caste alliance peon out in the fields gathering isk to pay your rents that will make pvp content for raiders and defenders (if you intend to defend them). This is far superior to the current model where your income comes from moon pos that are invulnerable to small gang intediction and there is literally no way to scorch the earth on conquest. If you don't like the new system you are free to go back to empire and run the level4s you are talking about. I'm sure other people will be happy to take your vacated space and actually fight for it. Why would these "worker-caste alliance peons" want to gather that isk in 0.0 when they can do it faster elsewhere?
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:56:00 - [1964] Funny how the Goonswarm ability to debate this hits a brick wall and falls down on its face the moment they are actually presented with an alternative viewpoint. True Knowledge
Misaki Yuuko	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:56:00 - [1965] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. Sorry but you are wrong. Most people is not complaining about upkeep and stuff. I couldn't care less, even if they stick to the original prices. Cynojammers and bridges should be awfully expensive upgrades, no problem with that. People who is far away from empire, just conquer a region/constellation closer to empire, it's more valuable (logistically) space, so be it. I still thing the way to remove others sov is a bit stupid, plain sov (FLAG) should be more easilly disruptible. I still think JB's shouldn't be so safe, a POS with a JB should be able to barelly have some small batteries online and nothing else. But there is one thing, which the majority is complaining about, which is extremelly broken. It has allways been, but with current iteration is going to be even mroe broken, because strategic assets (hi-end moons) are losing a lot of value. And this ssir is the risk-reward balance between null/low/hi-sec space, SPECIALLY for the individual. SO just keep dreaming, but unless that changes (let's not even talk about, oh hai, I can turn off anomalies by planting a cov-op alt there so they won't respawn, genious CCP ), 0.0 will be an other low-sec: useless playground where everyone plays CS in space, meaningless combat, and we allready have FW and RvB for that. Fix this and suddenlly stuff makes sense, and half of the game becomes usefull again.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:57:00 - [1966] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. In other words, to engage in Eve's "endgame pvp experience", you need to grind PvE content. Yes, that's going to really improve things. I can see the queues of Empire dwellers lining up at 0.0 chokepoints already ready to move into 0.0. Yes you will need to have a worker-caste alliance peon out in the fields gathering isk to pay your rents that will make pvp content for raiders and defenders (if you intend to defend them). This is far superior to the current model where your income comes from moon pos that are invulnerable to small gang intediction and there is literally no way to scorch the earth on conquest. If you don't like the new system you are free to go back to empire and run the level4s you are talking about. I'm sure other people will be happy to take your vacated space and actually fight for it. Yeah you dont get it. People are just going to run level 4s on alts to make their money and continue not bothering with trying to make money in tier own space because there is no point. Large alliance will still bow up any small corps that try to get even near them. There will be less fighting over space, because their isnt any new reason to take and it, and it costs more to hold. This patch was touted as making 0.0 worth it, this makes the space less attractive.
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:58:00 - [1967] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. In other words, to engage in Eve's "endgame pvp experience", you need to grind PvE content. Yes, that's going to really improve things. I can see the queues of Empire dwellers lining up at 0.0 chokepoints already ready to move into 0.0. Yes you will need to have a worker-caste alliance peon out in the fields gathering isk to pay your rents that will make pvp content for raiders and defenders (if you intend to defend them). This is far superior to the current model where your income comes from moon pos that are invulnerable to small gang intediction and there is literally no way to scorch the earth on conquest. If you don't like the new system you are free to go back to empire and run the level4s you are talking about. I'm sure other people will be happy to take your vacated space and actually fight for it. Be careful with that. One of the stated intentions by CCP for this expansion was to make alliance operations less vulnerable to small gangs, and offer better protection to the sovereign's people from small gangs. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:58:00 - [1968] Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. In other words, to engage in Eve's "endgame pvp experience", you need to grind PvE content. Yes, that's going to really improve things. I can see the queues of Empire dwellers lining up at 0.0 chokepoints already ready to move into 0.0. Let us know when you finally get the point, preferably in one or two sentences, not pages. _YES_. To do ENDGAME PVP you need the freakin resources to back such a campaign up. And that will require a fully capable alliance/corp. One that has income from many different sources, including the carebare stuff pvp always hate. If you don't like it, tough ****. Obviously changes should be made, to buff the benfits _and_ nerf lvl 4 empire missions. But all the same, hold and maintaining a sov should be _hard_.
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:59:00 - [1969] 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. Please do not feed the Jade Constantine lest he responses with WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT etc.
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 19:59:00 - [1970] Edited by: Korodan on 08/11/2009 19:59:58 Originally by: Jade Constantine words Why don't you have cybersex in your e-brothel about it? And no one will want to fight over space when they can't even pay to take it. Sov will only be claimed in major systems where caps are under construction, where there can be JBs close to empire, or station systems - the rest will be trackless waste because you can mine moons without sov, perhaps with GSCs demarcating where one empire ends and another begins. No one will want to go to 0.0 because it's **ing worthless. As usual, you're a whole lotta pretty :words: that mean nothing. I ALMOST FORGOT 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.**

Zemi Dahut GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:00:00 - [1971] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. In other words, to engage in Eve's "endgame pvp experience", you need to grind PvE content. Yes, that's going to really improve things. I can see the queues of Empire dwellers lining up at 0.0 chokepoints already ready to move into 0.0. Yes you will need to have a worker-caste alliance peon out in the fields gathering isk to pay your rents that will make pvp content for raiders and defenders (if you intend to defend them). This is far superior to the current model where your income comes from moon pos that are invulnerable to small gang intediction and there is literally no way to scorch the earth on conquest. If you don't like the new system you are free to go back to empire and run the level4s you are talking about. I'm sure other people will be happy to take your vacated space and actually fight for it. You really don't understand what the problem is here which is really not surprising. You should probably have stayed out of this thread since all you're doing is reminding everyone why you failed as a CSM. People are upset that the changes do very little if nothing at all to make 0.0 a better place to live. But keep blindly posting as we'd expect no difference from an online prostitute.
Prognosys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:01:00 - [1972] Originally by: Dharh Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. In other words, to engage in Eve's "endgame pvp experience", you need to grind PvE content. Yes, that's going to really improve things. I can see the queues of Empire dwellers lining up at 0.0 chokepoints already ready to move into 0.0. Let us know when you finally get the point, preferably in one or two sentences, not pages. _YES_. To do ENDGAME PVP you need the freakin resources to back such a campaign up. And that will require a fully capable alliance/corp. One that has income from many different sources, including the carebare stuff pvp always hate. If you don't like it, tough **. Obviously changes should be made, to buff the benfits _and_ nerf lvl 4 empire missions. But all the same, hold and maintaining a sov should be _hard_. That's the entire **ing point of this debate. We're saying that the benefits, especially compared to L4s, are too low. You're basically saying 'well if we ignore the bad thing you're complaining about, everything's fine!'
Bonefish O'Hallahan Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:01:00 - [1973] Originally by: Vadinho 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? boosh Get OUT CCP
Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:06:00 - [1974] CCP spends '2 years' thinking this up, and this is the best you can come up with? Epic Fail! Adding irrelevant upgrades and new costs, making 0.0 even more worthless...this is a bad joke. If you want a system to support 50-100 people then this **** sandwich isn't going to do it. Think up some relevant upgrades, hell maybe play the game for a month without your dev tools and you might see how utterly stupid this proposal is. Relevant upgrades would be: -- Adding more belts and NPC spawns to a system (more rats = more income = more taxes) -- Add the ability to upgrade TrueSec. -- Add the ability to put NPC mission agents in Outposts. The upgrade of adding DED to a system was the only non-*****ed idea I saw. Even so, having 50-100 people fighting over the scraps from one DED is going to suck. Might as well go to empire and grind level 4s all day. Everything you proposed will only make 0.0 a monotonous grindfest, ala 'WOW' Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200. Sober up, play your game, and try again CCP.
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:06:00 - [1975] Originally by: Bonefish O'Hallahan Originally by: Vadinho 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? boosh Goons tears are the best tears
riverini Gallente MOTHER-CORP Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:08:00 - [1976] Posting in this threadnaught....
Bonefish O'Hallahan Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:09:00 - [1977] Edited by: Bonefish O''Hallahan on 08/11/2009 20:09:31 Originally by: Mkiaki Originally by: Bonefish O'Hallahan Originally by: Vadinho 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? boosh Goons tears are the best tears Do you want me to quote all the well-reasoned arguments that are the baseline for the clever and relevant metaphor I helpfully quoted for you? Because that would take a while, what with quoting the whole thread, including representatives from every one of our enemies that isn't desperately hoping to steal our space regardless of its loss of value following the patch. Get OUT CCP
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:10:00 - [1978] Edited by: Qlanth on 08/11/2009 20:11:27 Originally by: Mkiaki Originally by: Bonefish O'Hallahan Originally by: Vadinho 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? boosh Goons tears are the best tears Ahh yes eve online player "Mkiaki" from the great Center For Advanced Studies enjoys the feeble cries of a crushed GoonSwarm
Korodan Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:10:00 - [1979] Edited by: Korodan on 08/11/2009 20:13:24 Edited by: Korodan on 08/11/2009 20:11:23 Originally by: riverini Posting in this threadnaught.... Son, this ain't no threadnaught. If it was it would have bloated to over 300 pages by this point. ALSO: CANT STOP WONT STOP 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. Another Edit: Bonerfish I saw a clown complain about the changes a few pages back too, so even people who want to invade our space are agreeing with us at this point.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:12:00 - [1980] Originally by: Zemi Dahut You really don't understand what the problem is here which is really not surprising. You should probably have stayed out of this thread since all you're doing is reminding everyone why you failed as a CSM. Actually Dominion is looking like a pretty good success for my time on the CSM right now True Knowledge

Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:12:00 - [1981] 6m ISK / day seems a bit low, really. With such a low cost, Goons might not collectively quit EVE, thus invalidating the most looked-forward-to feature of Dominion. :-\| On a more serious note, I'm not sure 180m ISK / month is high enough to encourage alliances to focus their pilots on fewer systems. Maybe increase the IH cost to 10m per day or similar, thus focusing the actually useful systems more, but still allow for the dot on the map?
Antir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:13:00 - [1982] Originally by: Dharh Obviously changes should be made, to buff the benfits _and_ nerf lvl 4 empire missions. But all the same, hold and maintaining a sov should be _hard_. Exactly, it should be difficult to maintain an empire and the rewards should justify it (basically the risk v reward of 0.0 should be balanced), that might make more people come to 0.0 and possibly shake everything up.
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:14:00 - [1983] Originally by: Prognosys Originally by: Dharh _YES_. To do ENDGAME PVP you need the freakin resources to back such a campaign up. And that will require a fully capable alliance/corp. One that has income from many different sources, including the carebare stuff pvp always hate. If you don't like it, tough **. Obviously changes should be made, to buff the benfits _and_ nerf lvl 4 empire missions. But all the same, hold and maintaining a sov should be _hard_. That's the entire **ing point of this debate. We're saying that the benefits, especially compared to L4s, are too low. You're basically saying 'well if we ignore the bad thing you're complaining about, everything's fine!' Because for all intents and purposes _nothing_ they do will probably work out of the gate. They need to see the ISK flows of Dominion and then tweak it. I do not support making it uber now, and then nerfing it later. If the income is not high enough buff it after the fact. They can also deal with lvl 4 missions later. Or maybe don't have to at all, if equilibrium can be made with 0.0.
Zemi Dahut GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:14:00 - [1984] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Zemi Dahut You really don't understand what the problem is here which is really not surprising. You should probably have stayed out of this thread since all you're doing is reminding everyone why you failed as a CSM. Actually Dominion is looking like a pretty good success for my time on the CSM right now What, making 0.0 less accessible to small alliances and gangs? You're really this delusional?
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:17:00 - [1985] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Zemi Dahut You really don't understand what the problem is here which is really not surprising. You should probably have stayed out of this thread since all you're doing is reminding everyone why you failed as a CSM. Actually Dominion is looking like a pretty good success for my time on the CSM right now Hon, put that mouth back to it's proper use - sucking ****s on a seedy corner in Jita 4-4.
Ivanna Nuke Gallente Daralux	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:17:00 - [1986] I love how silent CCP has become over this.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:18:00 - [1987] Originally by: Zemi Dahut Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Zemi Dahut You really don't understand what the problem is here which is really not surprising. You should probably have stayed out of this thread since all you're doing is reminding everyone why you failed as a CSM. Actually Dominion is looking like a pretty good success for my time on the CSM right now What, making 0.0 less accessible to small alliances and gangs? You're really this delusional? You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp. As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space. True Knowledge
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:19:00 - [1988] Originally by: Zemi Dahut Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Zemi Dahut You really don't understand what the problem is here which is really not surprising. You should probably have stayed out of this thread since all you're doing is reminding everyone why you failed as a CSM. Actually Dominion is looking like a pretty good success for my time on the CSM right now What, making 0.0 less accessible to small alliances and gangs? You're really this delusional? He is only posting here to get attention. Everyone knows he was a failure and a terrible CSM. The best bet is to just ignore him or talk around him. He gets mad pretty easily.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:23:00 - [1989] Originally by: Jade Constantine You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp. As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space. You can't read.
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:23:00 - [1990] Edited by: Mkiaki on 08/11/2009 20:23:08 sails on the tears

Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:23:00 - [1991] Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 08/11/2009 20:23:46 Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Zemi Dahut Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Zemi Dahut You really don't understand what the problem is here which is really not surprising. You should probably have stayed out of this thread since all you're doing is reminding everyone why you failed as a CSM. Actually Dominion is looking like a pretty good success for my time on the CSM right now What, making 0.0 less accessible to small alliances and gangs? You're really this delusional? You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp. As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space. How will cramming an entire alliance into 1 constellation promote small gang warfare? And how the **** do cyno jammers hurt small gang warfare? _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Zemi Dahut GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:24:00 - [1992] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Zemi Dahut Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Zemi Dahut You really don't understand what the problem is here which is really not surprising. You should probably have stayed out of this thread since all you're doing is reminding everyone why you failed as a CSM. Actually Dominion is looking like a pretty good success for my time on the CSM right now What, making 0.0 less accessible to small alliances and gangs? You're really this delusional? You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp. As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space. Large alliances will still control space even if it doesn't show it on the map, they'll just deny other people's ability to live there, just like it was before Sov levels and cynojammers were introduced. This discussion here however is how the upgrades to make the space livable do little to actually accomplish that fact. So again, stay out of the thread as you have little clue of what's actually going on. You won't however as your need for attention outweighs all common sense and Lady Scarlet.
Freidrich Hayek	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:24:00 - [1993] Originally by: Jade Constantine You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp. As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space. Yes, those small gangs that are affected by cyno jammers. Because I know I hate when I can't cyno in my vagabond. And small-gang PvP flourishes in the prime isk-generating center of... Motsu.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:25:00 - [1994] Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Jade Constantine You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp. As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space. You can't read. How many literate "sex workers" have you ever met? Let's be honest.
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:27:00 - [1995] This thread lost most of its value at page 60, stop ****ting the place up - post something on topic and constructive or do not post at all.
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:32:00 - [1996] Dominion is a monopoly alliance nerf : you heard it here first
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:32:00 - [1997] Originally by: Bobby Atlas This thread lost most of its value at page 60, stop **ting the place up - post something on topic and constructive or do not post at all. I nominate ^^ this guy^^ as our new forum . Also lol at all the supposed "pvp'ers" crying about dominion. "Our corp only makes billions off some moons per month! How do you expect us to pay to hold sov?" Well heres an answer- recruit some isk makers and have them milk the place- then tax them- problem solved. Move along ppl nothing to see here. Goons- proving its possible to suck more then bob**
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:33:00 - [1998] I, for one, am all for the scaling back of space and the increased cost of cyno jammers and jump bridgesm, and even the nerf of R64 moons. I am also certain that all of our in-game enemies and allies feel basically the same way. Right now the problem is that these changes were supposed to come with an added benefit of the ability to make this consolidated, and more vulnerable space, a good home for your alliance. As in you will not want to leave it and if you do leave it your space is more vulnerable. Except now that the space is worth even less than before. Extra cost plus no added benefits, and let me be clear these benefits are completely worthless under current mechanics, means less desire to be in 0.0 space. I can see many of the current powerblocs moving to NPC 0.0 space because of this.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:33:00 - [1999] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Bobby Atlas This thread lost most of its value at page 60, stop **ting the place up - post something on topic and constructive or do not post at all. I nominate ^^ this guy^^ as our new forum **. Also lol at all the supposed "pvp'ers" crying about dominion. "Our corp only makes billions off some moons per month! How do you expect us to pay to hold sov?" Well heres an answer- recruit some isk makers and have them milk the place- then tax them- problem solved. Move along ppl nothing to see here. You're spot on, oh so spot on. We should get people to stop running missions in highsec and instead 'rat' in anomalies, for less ISK per hour and with a higher tax rate than NPC corps. Thanks for solving all the problem brought up in this thread! Enjoy the small gang PvP when there's 50+ people in each system!
Lucas Pantelis Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:34:00 - [2000] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Bobby Atlas This thread lost most of its value at page 60, stop **ting the place up - post something on topic and constructive or do not post at all. I nominate ^^ this guy^^ as our new forum **. Also lol at all the supposed "pvp'ers" crying about dominion. "Our corp only makes billions off some moons per month! How do you expect us to pay to hold sov?" Well heres an answer- recruit some isk makers and have them milk the place- then tax them- problem solved. Move along ppl nothing to see here. Why will the isk makers move there to milk it if they earn less money there even ignoring having to pay rent?

Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:36:00 - [2001] It's a source of great amusement as to the number of posts in this thread that are from goonswarm/atlas. They're doing 90% of the whining. In typical CCP style CCP has managed to come up with something completely unique and different, much to the complete dismay of most of the players involved. The fact that maintaining sov requires pure ISK is a very interesting move by CCP. Sov is no longer able to be subsidized by macro ice miners (as you can do with POSes) and that sucking sound is CONCORD hoovering up the hundreds of billions of ISK that the alliances hold so dear. Indeed, those who want to hold space will really want to hold it in the future. One funny note is that once again we're chained to the hard limit of ISK/hour that is L4 missions in empire. Straight away everyone has compared how profitable 0.0 is vs. L4 highsec missions. I made note of this limit when addressing w-space and the cost of T3 ships due to the hard limit of L4 mission profitability but everyone told me to shut up. Now where are we? Right back at the same spot. L4 missions are once again providing a hard floor as to how much something should be worth in order to spend the effort doing it. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:37:00 - [2002] Originally by: Freidrich Hayek And small-gang PvP flourishes in the prime isk-generating center of... Motsu. If Motsu was 0.0 it would be hog-heaven. True Knowledge
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:39:00 - [2003] Originally by: Hertford Enjoy the small gang PvP when there's 50+ people in each system! Did you just say that? I need to wash out my eyes to make sure.
Ivanna Nuke Gallente Daralux	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:45:00 - [2004] Originally by: Bellum Eternus It's a source of great amusement as to the number of posts in this thread that are from goonswarm/atlas. They're doing 90% of the whining. In typical CCP style CCP has managed to come up with something completely unique and different, much to the complete dismay of most of the players involved. The fact that maintaining sov requires pure ISK is a very interesting move by CCP. Sov is no longer able to be subsidized by macro ice miners (as you can do with POSes) and that sucking sound is CONCORD hoovering up the hundreds of billions of ISK that the alliances hold so dear. Indeed, those who want to hold space will really want to hold it in the future. One funny note is that once again we're chained to the hard limit of ISK/hour that is L4 missions in empire. Straight away everyone has compared how profitable 0.0 is vs. L4 highsec missions. I made note of this limit when addressing w-space and the cost of T3 ships due to the hard limit of L4 mission profitability but everyone told me to shut up. Now where are we? Right back at the same spot. L4 missions are once again providing a hard floor as to how much something should be worth in order to spend the effort doing it. This really...
Blackjack Turner Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:51:00 - [2005] Actually, from the dev blog information and the responses in here it appears that the initial goal for CCP is a major wipe of almost all 0.0 entities. Call it a reset. I'm, sure that within 30-60 days after deployment, they'll "adjust" the costs as well as tweaking the upgrades to get everyone moving back out there.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:53:00 - [2006] Edited by: Qlanth on 08/11/2009 20:53:43 Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Freidrich Hayek And small-gang PvP flourishes in the prime isk-generating center of... Motsu. If Motsu was 0.0 it would be hog-heaven. 0.0 does have its own Motsu http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/G-ME2K/agents#Tiet_Saggilo And if the changes go through the way CCP has layed out the only thing in 0.0 worth fighting over will be access to NPC stations and systems like this one.
Gabriel Youngs Caldari Controlled Carnage Crimson Steel Empire	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:53:00 - [2007] Wow, this threadnaught surpassed the four year old dead horse POS thread in three days!! 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.
Hratli Smirks GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:55:00 - [2008] 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. Would like this answered because seriously, if 0.0 is supposed to be less profitable than 0.0 then there's no reason to try to live out here as opposed to hang out in Empire and NPC sov which end up having the most profitable resource general alliance membership have direct access to (level 4 Q20 agents) ((except for Blood Raider NPC space which doesn't have a Q20 L4 agent)) And if alliance members don't make money in their space then they don't spend time in their territory at which point there is no point sending a small gang through for ~good fights~ because there won't be anyone to shoot. I mean I guess a small gang could drop those sov stealing gadgets but unless they did it in a valuable moon system (which are getting nerfed and thus less valuable) nobody would bother showing up. If you did do it in a sov'd R64 moon system (predicated on R64 moons still being that much more valuable than anything else) then chances are it will have a cynojammer and jumpbridge upgrade and haha wow POS fights over moons in cynojammed/JB systems wooooooooooooo. Honestly at this point I'm more excited about talk of moving to Syndicate or NPC Delve or Stain than I am about any of those sov improvements
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:56:00 - [2009] Originally by: Layla Originally by: Moore cyno Don't know if anyone suggested this idea, as i have to admit i didn't read all 60 pages :-) I both agree and disagree with the concern that the upkeep cost is too high. It will be too much to draw out smaller alliances, and large volumes of space will become unused. However, claiming space shouldn't be so cheap/easy that large alliances will just keep all their space and the rest claimed by small entities. So, the goal is to bring out more people and smaller entities to 0.0, and force people to actively use the space. But as the grind needed to make that profitable is "a lot" it wont happen with the current numbers. Decreasing the cost too much wont open up any space as the existing alliances will just keep their space. Finding a compromise cost which achieves both goals, is in my opinion more or less impossible with the current mechanics. Solution: Link activity index to upkeep cost. Instead of just having a fixed large upkeep cost, forcing alliances to use much grinding time before any profit is seen, decrease upkeep if activity index is high. I.e. super high activity index over a month in an upkeep system, upkeep cost is decreased by 90% (or some other significant number), low activity index alliance pays the full cost. Probably should be some scaling to systems around claimed, such that ratting, mining, plexing will still improve activity index say by a factor 0.5 at neighbouring systems and so forth. Obviously passive income such as moon mining shouldn't decrease upkeep. This will accomplish exactly what was intended. Unused space will be left, actively claimed and used systems can become profitable. I like this idea. It would go a long way to resolving the concerns being expressed, imo Simple and excellent idea. Maybe double initial suggested costs in the devblog to create a baseline cost. Then make the cost of actually holding sov be the baseline cost / highest economic development index (whether it be military, mining, whatever). So a system with development 2 would be costs as in devblog. Highest development level of 4 would be half the cost, etc. That way the costs for holding highly developed space would be reasonable, but, the unnecessary sprawl that is currently hurting the game would be spectacularly unsustainable. To make the numbers work, the time it takes to increase development level would have to be lowered so there would not be a prohibitive cost while waiting for highly used systems to increase in development level: this is a good thing anyway; 100 days to reach development level 5 is a VERY strong disincentive to wars of conquest (sure, the other guy might have better space than yours, but, if it will take 100 days for it to get as good as your old space, probably not worth doing)
Dualshock GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:57:00 - [2010] Originally by: Bobby Atlas This thread lost most of its value at page 60, stop ****ting the place up - post something on topic and constructive or do not post at all. you forgot to quote a jade post when you wrote this

Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:58:00 - [2011] Originally by: Gabriel Youngs Wow, this threadnaught surpassed the four year old dead horse POS thread in three days!! You're wrong. It's only been two. :) -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
Kieselguhr Kid	Posted - 2009.11.08 20:58:00 - [2012] Originally by: Bellum Eternus The fact that maintaining sov requires pure ISK is a very interesting move by CCP. Sov is no longer able to be subsidized by macro ice miners (as you can do with POSes) and that sucking sound is CONCORD hoovering up the hundreds of billions of ISK that the alliances hold so dear. Why would we hold sov in any of Delve/Querious except the handful of JB systems we need for logistics? We're not going to, so the isk sink you're suggesting doesn't exist. Quote: Indeed, those who want to hold space will really want to hold it in the future. Correct. We won't hold sov. We'll just shoot anyone who tries to move into the D/Q backwater areas. They won't be able to leave without getting past us, won't be able to import anything and won't be able to PvE without running into cloaked goons, but if they really want to hold sov and spend billions of isk on useless systems they could probably do it for a few weeks before we get bored and drop caps. Drunk and Stoned managed to sit in their one Delve system for 3 months now before anyone cared enough so you can expect much the same thing, except that Drunk and Stoned didn't pay CCP several billion isk for the privilege of upgrading their system before we took it back. Quote: One funny note is that once again we're chained to the hard limit of ISK/hour that is L4 missions in empire. maybe CCP should address that limit instead of proposing that we spend 100b+ upgrading all of Delve to be slightly worse than highsec when we have several NPC L4 agents in the middle of our space as it is and do tell how small gang pvp is going to flourish in G-TT with 100 GS and Rebellion crammed into it 24/7
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:02:00 - [2013] Originally by: Mahke 100 days to reach development level 5 is a VERY strong disincentive to wars of conquest (sure, the other guy might have better space than yours, but, if it will take 100 days for it to get as good as your old space, probably not worth doing) And this is yet another major flaw in the current Dominion proposals. Every invasion becomes Scorched Earth, with no capture capability.
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:02:00 - [2014] Originally by: Itzena 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. Are you talking simply in terms of isk/hr from combat PvE? How about 0.0 WH running compared to L4 mission running? How about trade/manufacturing opportunities in 0.0 compared to high sec? Perhaps individual moon mining / reacting now that POSes aren't required for SoV? To answer the isk/hr question you pose: For the average corporation member within an alliance? Not necessarily. For contributing corporations within a successful alliance? Yes. For a successful alliance as a whole? Yes. Sharpen your question and you may get an answer. At the moment your just mission-runner baiting.
Kieselguhr Kid	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:04:00 - [2015] Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Itzena 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. To answer the isk/hr question you pose: For the average corporation member within an alliance? Not necessarily. if 0.0 should not be as profitable for the average corp member as highsec is, 0.0 is worthless.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:08:00 - [2016] Originally by: Kieselguhr Kid Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Itzena 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. To answer the isk/hr question you pose: For the average corporation member within an alliance? Not necessarily. if 0.0 should not be as profitable for the average corp member as highsec is, 0.0 is worthless. Yes, why even go? The entire point of Dominion was to attract hi-sec carebears out to 0.0 with the promise of more money for the individual.
Mistres Tor	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:09:00 - [2017] Honest Smedley I have RL and max 1h/day to play , and all what you listed i can't do in that time , maby a lv 4 mision in 1 hour . About production ... all my slot are for corp and i like to heav some isk for PVP Second EXODUS incoming lv4 agents in EMPIRE be ready :) I'm coming
Dualshock GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:09:00 - [2018] Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Itzena 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. Are you talking simply in terms of isk/hr from combat PvE? How about 0.0 WH running compared to L4 mission running? How about trade/manufacturing opportunities in 0.0 compared to high sec? Perhaps individual moon mining / reacting now that POSes aren't required for SoV? To answer the isk/hr question you pose: For the average corporation member within an alliance? Not necessarily. For contributing corporations within a successful alliance? Yes. For a successful alliance as a whole? Yes. Sharpen your question and you may get an answer. At the moment your just mission-runner baiting. grats on either not reading or not understanding the thrust of this entire thread
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:12:00 - [2019] Originally by: Kieselguhr Kid Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Itzena 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. To answer the isk/hr question you pose: For the average corporation member within an alliance? Not necessarily. if 0.0 should not be as profitable for the average corp member as highsec is, 0.0 is worthless. Your viewpoint is too narrow. 0.0 is an open PVP zone and this is a huge draw. Quite a lot of content (bombs, bubbles, advanced building etc) is only usuable in 0.0. Additionally it is the part of the game where those seeking fame and glory can write their name onto the map and gain whatever boasting rights come from that deed. This stuff has little to do with isk and you are wrong to look at a tight level4/0.0 income comparison here. 0.0 is where you go as an territorial leader when you want to leave an imperialist legacy in the legend of eve really. If all you care about is profit and isk-making then you probably shouldn't have left the hisec mission hubs in the first place. True Knowledge
chiisai sakana	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:13:00 - [2020] Edited by: chiisai sakana on 08/11/2009 21:13:23 Originally by: Bellum Eternus It's a source of great amusement as to the number of posts in this thread that are from goonswarm/atlas. They're doing 90% of the whining. In typical CCP style CCP has managed to come up with something completely unique and different, much to the complete dismay of most of the players involved. The fact that maintaining sov requires pure ISK is a very interesting move by CCP. Sov is no longer able to be subsidized by macro ice miners (as you can do with POSes) and that sucking sound is CONCORD hoovering up the hundreds of billions of ISK that the alliances hold so dear. Indeed, those who want to hold space will really want to hold it in the future. One funny note is that once again we're chained to the hard limit of ISK/hour that is L4 missions in empire. Straight away everyone has compared how profitable 0.0 is vs. L4 highsec missions. I made note of this limit when addressing w-space and the cost of T3 ships due to the hard limit of L4 mission profitability but everyone told me to shut up. Now where are we? Right back at the same spot. L4 missions are once again providing a hard floor as to how much something should be worth in order to spend the effort doing it. You too fail spectacularly to understand the risk vs reward function. W-space is a place where you can possibly make more money than in L4 missions and the risks are greater, logistics are straight from hell and intelligence local is shining with its nonexistence. thus you can make more money. Why make money when you can make more, easily and with little to no risk instead of huge risk. "Kowloon Walled City is fascinating. If I recall, it's an area of Hong Kong only about the size of a few city blocks that neither the Chinese nor British claimed ownership of, so it became a lawless place of anarchy and people just haphazardly stacked homes on top of each other." to quote reality. In that place you could probably get away with murder much like in 0.0 but would anyone want to move there? So lets take our Lawyer subject "P. Bateman" who wants to kill people and wear shiny suits. Would he rather make much money with lawyer stuff in the habitable part of the city than less than that in the Kowloon city with the added possibility of getting killed himself.

Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:14:00 - [2021] Originally by: Jade Constantine Your viewpoint is too narrow. 0.0 is an open PVP zone and this is a huge draw. Quite a lot of content (bombs, bubbles, advanced building etc) is only usuable in 0.0. Additionally it is the part of the game where those seeking fame and glory can write their name onto the map and gain whatever boasting rights come from that deed. This stuff has little to do with isk and you are wrong to look at a tight level4/0.0 income comparison here. 0.0 is where you go as an territorial leader when you want to leave an imperialist legacy in the legend of eve really. If all you care about is profit and isk-making then you probably shouldn't have left the hisec mission hubs in the first place. The people you just described are already in 0.0. So Dominion will bring into 0.0 how many more players?
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:14:00 - [2022] Honor, glory, ~good fights~
Gabriel Youngs Caldari Controlled Carnage Crimson Steel Empire	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:17:00 - [2023] Here is an idea, get rid of sov as a mechanic all together. The powerblocks are going to deny access to "thier space" regardless of sov mechanics. The only thing that made POS bashing a requirement was tying the POS to the dot on the map. So drop sov all together. Allow system upgrades that make it more profitable than high sec, (WH spawns would be nice, all those ABCs and sleepers) Make it so that when you take a system it keeps its upgrades, and allow enemies to raid your system and destroy your upgrades, that would encourage fighting over systems instead of moons. Make it viable for null sec industry to actually function (more production slots, more research etc...) so that there is less need for JB's except as a tactical advantage for large Alliances (which I think they were intended in the first place) Taxing all activity in the system is a great idea, I endorse it. 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.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:19:00 - [2024] Originally by: Jade Constantine 0.0 is an open PVP zone and this is a huge draw. Quite a lot of content (bombs, bubbles, advanced building etc) is only usuable in 0.0. Additionally it is the part of the game where those seeking fame and glory can write their name onto the map and gain whatever boasting rights come from that deed. Yes most of 0.0 is not deserted at all but crowded systems. Quote: This stuff has little to do with isk and you are wrong to look at a tight level4/0.0 income comparison here. Indeed noone in 0.0 alliances have empire alts to make isk. Quote: 0.0 is where you go as an territorial leader when you want to leave an imperialist legacy in the legend of eve really. Confirming that having my alliance name on a sov map is why i live in 0.0
Kieselguhr Kid	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:20:00 - [2025] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Kieselguhr Kid Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Itzena 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. To answer the isk/hr question you pose: For the average corporation member within an alliance? Not necessarily. if 0.0 should not be as profitable for the average corp member as highsec is, 0.0 is worthless. Your viewpoint is too narrow. 0.0 is an open PVP zone and this is a huge draw. Quite a lot of content (bombs, bubbles, advanced building etc) is only usuable in 0.0. Additionally it is the part of the game where those seeking fame and glory can write their name onto the map and gain whatever boasting rights come from that deed. This stuff has little to do with isk and you are wrong to look at a tight level4/0.0 income comparison here. 0.0 is where you go as an territorial leader when you want to leave an imperialist legacy in the legend of eve really. If all you care about is profit and isk-making then you probably shouldn't have left the hisec mission hubs in the first place. well spoken by prominent 0.0 presence Jade Constantine, clearly hoping that post-Dominion Star Fraction will have a place in some forgotten corner of Delve except that bored goons with no sov to hold and no real reason to go to 90% of our space anymore except to ~good fights~ small fry trying to sneak past us are much more likely to camp Star Fraction into your various hubs than anything else
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:21:00 - [2026] jade is under the delusion than most people are like him and strive only to have their name appear on a generated space MMO map.
De'Vadder Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:22:00 - [2027] I know it has been mentioned before but what if the sovholder would get something from each bounty earned in his systems? Im thinking of something along the lines of 1/2 of the rats bounty gets taxed by the killers corp and 1/2 of the rats bounty gets taxed by the alliance that holds sov in the system it happened. Obviously i just guessed those numbers and i suppose empires would need to take some tax like this as well, not sure though. This would surely help NRDS organisations and give them some reasons to upgrade your systems and wouldnt bother NBSI either, it would just make the amount of ISK the corps need to pay to the alliance a little less. Though it still doesnt adress that for more than one NRDS 0.0 region to work, they NEED to be somehow more profitable than highsec lvl4, has been mentioned one hundred times but its just that the best way for an individual to make money is at the same time the most save. Oh and could the Dev BLOG get updated as the thread goes on? Nobody reads through 67 pages and thereby most people wont know of any CCP responds. And another good point i read about, if its technically impossible to place agents in player outposts, why not place them in ships, for example next to upgrade hubs? Or at beacons? Thats impossible too? And why is there still nothing that sets content apart from signature? Is that intentional or technically imposible?
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:23:00 - [2028] Originally by: Qlanth Honor, glory, ~good fights~ To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women. fyp
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:25:00 - [2029] Jade should be quiet when adults are talking.
Aadi Grox TASTY SHRIMP	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:28:00 - [2030] Yes yes you should be able to make more isk in empire then 0.0! haha jade please please shut up for a while.

Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:30:00 - [2031] Originally by: De'Vadder I know it has been mentioned before but what if the sovholder would get something from each bounty earned in his systems? Im thinking of something along the lines of 1/2 of the rats bounty gets taxed by the killers corp and 1/2 of the rats bounty gets taxed by the alliance that holds sov in the system it happened. Obviously i just guessed those numbers and i suppose empires would need to take some tax like this as well, not sure though. Yeah I see thousands of people just waiting to go to 0.0 where they can be killed in a number of ways just to make 2 million ISK an hour after taxes
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:30:00 - [2032] Originally by: Jade Constantine 0.0 is an open PVP zone and this is a huge draw. Quite a lot of content (bombs, bubbles, advanced building etc) is only usuable in 0.0. afaik proposed changes suggest 0.0 should become PVE heaven Originally by: Jade Constantine Additionally it is the part of the game where those seeking fame and glory can write their name onto the map and gain whatever boasting rights come from that deed. afaik, in eve today that is what ppl do on CAOD not in 0.0, look at your example. Originally by: Jade Constantine This stuff has little to do with isk and you are wrong to look at a tight level4/0.0 income comparison here. again, it has everything to do with ISK. The ability to generate ISK in 0.0 is severely diminished with proposed changes, and not only that but the risk of even atempting to do so are much higher then in empire doing for example lvl4's (that just accidentally gives you the same amount of isk risk free) Originally by: Jade Constantine 0.0 is where you go as an territorial leader when you want to leave an imperialist legacy in the legend of eve really. To leave imperialist legacy requires you to gain vast resources that give you power to do so, apart from other requirements like wits. All wars in human history where fought over resources (tho not always publicly admitted), countries even regions where held cause of it.
Sloth Arnini Arcana Imperii Ltd.	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:33:00 - [2033] Quote: 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. To add something constructive on the subject of agents in space. I know something similar was proposed around P60 but what the hell. Clearly it isn't a great chore to introduce agents in space. I believe some were added in Apocrypha, and I know for a fact that some were added whenever boosters were introduced. So why not have an upgrade plugged into that hub that spawns an agent? Tie it to the existing tiers of upgrades, so at L1, you get an L1 agent, at L2 and L2 agent etc. Of course, he's a Q20 agent. Perhaps you get racially flavoured agents. The upgrade might provide a Caldari Navy, Amarr Navy, Federation Navy or Republic Fleet agent (chosen when upgrade is brought). Perhaps more corps could be added later (maybe even EOM!). This eliminates the problems of pirate agents (poor standings from killing all the belt rats, high sec issues). Perhaps an alliance pays a monthly fee for him. They do not need to provide direct access to the LP store, though their missions give LP for their corp. It's hardly a chore to go to Empire to cash in your LPs every now and then, much as one might pop into empire occasionally to farm their RP. At the very least, you're only allowed one set of L1-4 agents/hub. Maybe 1/constellation. The agent spawns just outside the hub so he's easy to find. Maybe instead of a "ship", he operates from a tough bunker to prevent people killing him for lols. But it has all the properties of an agent ship except that its really tough, and maybe shoots back with big guns. He offers combat missions to all who meet his standing requirements. He does not despawn when the hub changes hands. Because of the existing rules where lower sec=higher rewards, he should already be paying out more than anyone in Motsu. Of course, alone he isn't going to draw people out from Motsu, but at the very least, he deals with the question quoted at the beginning of this post. And we'll still have our +2 guaranteed anomalies etc. Very valuable isk fountains are not necessarily bad for the game. They provoke alliance conflicts. The advantage with an agent isk fountain rather than a moon (within CCP's current stated objectives for 0.0) is that, in order to make money from him, people have to actually do missions for him. So he weans an alliance off passively harvested moongoo, offers guaranteed bread and butter income for alliance membership and adds considerable value to a system. Because my proposal would limit the number of agents that could be installed in a system (or better yet, a constellation). Maybe he even provokes a few fights because Alliance A wants a Caldari Navy agent and doesn't have one and doesn't have anywhere to install one. I'd like to end with the observation that the schadenfreude of Jade and his crowd is laughable. I know for a fact that Atlas has already made decisions about space it is going to abandon. And it's not a slice here and there. As many people have said more eloquently than I, we actually don't care how many systems are lit under our name. Atlas is the archetype of the current alliance sprawl AND WE DO NOT WANT TO SPRAWL. We do it for political and resource reasons. If the carrots are big enough, we will consolidate into a smaller area, and thank CCP for letting us relinquish outlying territories that we currently have to pay for. What other people do with the space that is freed up and how we would respond to them is just part of the sandbox. If we can make a similar amount of isk with a smaller territory than we currently have, I honestly doubt we'd actually object to seeing newcomers set up.
General Ranchor M. Corp	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:35:00 - [2034] Yeah that's right CCP! You ***slap those nullsec-gots for actually trying to achieve something! Who are they to try and make an advanced game with politics and * when THEY SHOULD BE RATTING AND MINING! Also, conspiracy tiem**: CCP is turning EVE Online into a singleplayer-game because they need the server power for TLDR514.
Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:36:00 - [2035] to make 0.0 attractive you honestly need to make about 50% more then high sec at the least. If you can make 50% more isk then you'll see lots of people running out to 0.0. Other ways to make combat more effective imho: Capability to capture the hub. Capability to destroy your own hub if your gonna lose the system. Also a way to prevent it from being destroyed. reduce logistics chain requirements by 80%-90% I'll add more later as I think of them.
Hyperforce99 Gallente Infinite Covenant Xenogenesis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:37:00 - [2036] I'd say that if an alliance loses controll of a system the build up stats on a system should decrease by say 1/10th. But certainly not go back to scratch. If you want people to fight over territory there should allways be a nice big fish to catch. I was also wondering if exploration sites and the like will (with increased system stats) also spawn better and bigger resources. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Antir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:38:00 - [2037] Increasing rat bounties and putting belt rats into analomalies still seems like a good quick fix. CCP why no love for ratting, sure it's mind numbing but it's a good taxable source of income.
L'Artest	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:40:00 - [2038] Edited by: L''Artest on 08/11/2009 21:41:24 Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. Great, now read the thread and realize that there have been some great suggestions on how to fix it, and that CCP agreed with a pile of them and is probably going over what they are doing wrong. Your no content trolling isn't appreciated here. Do you even know what 0.0 is like now? Maybe you should experience it first before criticizing it. Also regarding your post on this page, everything in this game costs money. Not everyone trade e-sex for items here.
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:41:00 - [2039] Quote: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. YES. Provided you don't limit yourself to only ratting and farming moon goo.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:52:00 - [2040] Originally by: Dharh YES. Provided you don't limit yourself to only ratting and farming moon goo. very few alliances allow moon goo to be an integral part of personal income. in other words, it sounds like you want moon goo to push earning ISK in 0.0 over the edge, outside of providing income alliances need to hold sov / do reimbursements (you're dumb)

De'Vadder Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:52:00 - [2041] Originally by: Breaker77 Yeah I see thousands of people just waiting to go to 0.0 where they can be killed in a number of ways just to make 2 million ISK an hour after taxes Thats why i added that 1/2 of the bounty gets taxed by one side, 1/2 by the other, that means that you still pay taxes for the bounty once. Ill explain it: Lets say a rat gives you 1m of bounty. You are in a corp that takes 20% tax. Currently that would leave you with 800k. Lets say you did it in the space of an NRDS alliance that has the 'killed rat in my space'-tax set to 10%. Now 500k would get taxed by your corp at 20% and 500k would be taxed by the sov holder at 10% leaving you at 850k. It wouldnt cut at all in the individual carebears income but its corp, thats true, and i understand that cutting every highsec corps income into half wouldnt work, i guess. But maybe if a Alliance indeed takes that tax first and it would most of the time be like 5%? 95% of a 0.0 rat in an upgraded system might be better than some other rat, but again, the main problem is that when it comes to individual carebearing, nothing beats lvl4 what is imho one of the biggest problems of 0.0 altogether. And why is there still nothing that sets content apart from signature? Is that intentional or technically imposible?
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:53:00 - [2042] Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 08/11/2009 21:53:31 Originally by: Dharh YES. Provided you don't limit yourself to only ratting and farming moon goo. Sorry but those are the two most profitable reliable ways of isk generation in 0.0. vOv 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.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:54:00 - [2043] Originally by: Kieselguhr Kid Originally by: Bellum Eternus The fact that maintaining sov requires pure ISK is a very interesting move by CCP. Sov is no longer able to be subsidized by macro ice miners (as you can do with POSes) and that sucking sound is CONCORD hoovering up the hundreds of billions of ISK that the alliances hold so dear. Why would we hold sov in any of Delve/Querious except the handful of JB systems we need for logistics? We're not going to, so the isk sink you're suggesting doesn't exist. Quote: Indeed, those who want to hold space will really want to hold it in the future. Correct. We won't hold sov. We'll just shoot anyone who tries to move into the D/Q backwater areas. They won't be able to leave without getting past us, won't be able to import anything and won't be able to PvE without running into cloaked goons, but if they really want to hold sov and spend billions of isk on useless systems they could probably do it for a few weeks before we get bored and drop caps. Drunk and Stoned managed to sit in their one Delve system for 3 months now before anyone cared enough so you can expect much the same thing, except that Drunk and Stoned didn't pay CCP several billion isk for the privilege of upgrading their system before we took it back. Quote: One funny note is that once again we're chained to the hard limit of ISK/hour that is L4 missions in empire. maybe CCP should address that limit instead of proposing that we spend 100b+ upgrading all of Delve to be slightly worse than highsec when we have several NPC L4 agents in the middle of our space as it is and do tell how small gang pvp is going to flourish in G-TT with 100 GS and Rebellion crammed into it 24/7 You're preaching to the wrong guy noob. You spent your entire post whining and telling me about just how much you're not going to hold space or pay fees etc. I know you won't. I certainly wouldn't. Quote: Why would we hold sov in any of Delve/Querious except the handful of JB systems we need for logistics? We're not going to, so the isk sink you're suggesting doesn't exist . I'm saying if anyone did, it would, but of course no one will. Wasted effort pointing that out to me. Quote: maybe CCP should address that limit instead of proposing that we spend 100b+ upgrading all of Delve to be slightly worse than highsec when we have several NPC L4 agents in the middle of our space as it is and do tell how small gang pvp is going to flourish in G-TT with 100 GS and Rebellion crammed into it 24/7 DUHHHHHHH. Again, you're not telling me anything I don't already know/get. Why am I going to tell you how small gang PVP is going to flourish? It won't. I know it won't. Most players know it won't. You're whining at the wrong guy. The 0.0 alliances are all butthurt over this and it's pretty funny to me personally. The alliances are used to billions in passive income and now CCP is removing that across the board and everyone is being a girl about it. The easy money in 0.0 is going away and it's not coming back. Good. Now all we need is an adjustment to L4s in empire so that it's less profitable to run L4s than it is to live in 0.0 and we're set. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:00:00 - [2044] Originally by: Jade Constantine 0.0 is where you go as an territorial leader when you want to leave an imperialist legacy in the legend of eve really. If all you care about is profit and isk-making then you probably shouldn't have left the hisec mission hubs in the first place. You're delusional and fail to appreciate the amount of effort that is required to hold sov, something you have absolutely no experience doing. If it were the case that highsec was the endgame in ISK earning via NPC means, then 0.0 would be just as barren as lowsec. It just so happens that 0.0 has very profitable items still left (r64s, and the 10/10 complex that should be removed in BJD4), although r64 value will be decimated come Dominion.
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:01:00 - [2045] Originally by: Sally Bestonge Originally by: Dharh YES. Provided you don't limit yourself to only ratting and farming moon goo. very few alliances allow moon goo to be an integral part of personal income. in other words, it sounds like you want moon goo to push earning ISK in 0.0 over the edge, outside of providing income alliances need to hold sov / do reimbursements (you're dumb) That's the status quo. 0.0 space is about equivalent to empire for individual isk earning (funny enough, the places were the real isk is from pve content (as opposed to building/trading) is wh-space and lowsec (yes, lowsec: level 5's and fw missions are hugely lucrative)). Moon mining IS what puts 0.0 over the top and yes, its better for the individual if the isk goes to ship reimbursements and capital programs (as opposed to supercap programs and director RMT). This will not change: moon minerals aren't being nerfed if you look at the numbers; the high value is just shifting from dysprosium and prom to technetium (bottleneck will be just as bad if not worse, so value will be just as high if not higher). As long as there is huge collective income, individual income can be equivalent and its still worth it to be there if your corporation uses it for the common good. Because of CCP's math fail with the moon mineral changes, this will not change. I'd accept your argument if the moon mineral bottleneck/overvalue problem was actually getting fixed, but, its not. Despite the equivalent values for individuals it still makes sense for individuals to go out to 0.0 now because of the collective benefit for their group and that won't change.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:03:00 - [2046] I read 67 pages of this, and the first thing I have to post when I get to the bottom of it is...a post making fun of Jade Constantine. FML. Originally by: Jade Constantine You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp. As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space. You are, as ever, letting your prejudices in favour of your personal play style run away with your brain here. Most people in this thread - yes, even the Goons - agree that alliances being forced to scale back their claims is good. Losing the universal cyno jam is less popular, but most of the people who have expressed anything other than sticker shock seem to like that as well. The thing is, if you want alliances to scale back, you have to let them scale back. If Goons are going to shed 60% of their space and fall back to Delve only(which I think is about the smallest you can reasonably expect them to shrink to), they need to be able to support a 5000-man alliance out of one region - reimbursement programs, capital construction, Titans, player ships, jump freighters, ratting ships, sniper HAC gangs, the works, on an individual, corporate, and alliance level. And while the Goons have agents in NPC Delve to fall back on, most alliances don't, so I'll ignore them for a second. This proposal doesn't give alliances the money they need. Even if anomalies become everything that everyone wants them to be, you'll still get maybe 5-10 players in the average system. Unless just about every system in Delve hits max upgrades, it won't be able to support GoonSwarm. In other words, no matter what the sov claims say, or what the cyno jammer configuration looks like, they'll own pretty much as much space as they do now. As for the bit about small groups, you seem to have missed the point. When people talk about small groups in 0.0, they don't mean roving gangs of "guerrillas". They mean a 200-man alliance holding a couple systems. Small gangs will always be able to move around, and occasionally find fights - I agree that they need more targets for them, but that wasn't the point of Dominion. The point of Dominion from the point of view of small players was supposed to be allowing small groups to hold space, not to fly around and gank/get ganked. Anyone can fly around, but at present, nobody under about 1000 members can hold so much as a system without big friends. That is what this was supposed to fix, but unless it actually succeeds at shrinking big alliances(which the current proposal won't do, because it doesn't let them move inward and still have anything to do), then it won't loosen anything up, no matter what the coloured dots say. That is why this expansion fails - not because it makes GoonSwarm's life harder, but because it makes Random 300-Man Wannabes Alliance's life no easier. It's the status quo with a hat.
Daemonspirit An Android Lust	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:05:00 - [2047] Originally by: cok cola <<snippage>> dominion is lacking 2 things! something for 0.0 entities to fight over, and a reason for highsec entities to come to 0.0. <<<more snippage>>> why should an alliance PAY to provide their members with the same isk/hr they could get RISK FREE with a lvl 4 mission alt which can be trained VERY QUICKLY. >>>>NEWSFLASH!<<<< Take every mission out of the game (except for starter missions for newbs). Still won't create a mass exodus out to 0.0. Why? People have no reason to care about 0.0 power blocks. Nor are they ever given a reason to care - doesn't have a dhammn thing to do with lvl 4's... ôEveryone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.ö
Winchestori Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:05:00 - [2048] CCP I would like to tell you the story of this company called SOE that made an MMO called Star Wars Galaxies... (you're killing this game)
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:07:00 - [2049] Originally by: Mahke Despite the equivalent values for individuals it still makes sense for individuals to go out to 0.0 now because of the collective benefit for their group and that won't change. You're right in that regard, as long as those individual groups are part of a large alliance with guaranteed protection. I happen to fall into that case, owning a large amount of highly-profitable moons (that is, until speculation killed the market). Anyone else attempting a venture not allied its neighbors will be curb stomped, very much unlike what CCP wants (I guess). And the crazy thing that CCP doesn't understand is that control and influence is not directly tied to sov claiming and never has.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:08:00 - [2050] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 08/11/2009 22:14:09 OK, I got a simple solution to adress the problems most people seem to have with the new system. People say, that the cost of holding Sov itself is not the problem, but that LvL 4 missions do give better/more rwards then the new system will give in 0.0. So what about lowering the rewards of all missions in empire-space by 50%? Would that make the people more happy? Inflating the economy with ISK by adding more rewards in 0.0 is not the solution tbh. CCP tries to install a very big ISK-sink with the new sovereignity bills, and rightfully so, as theres way too much money injected into the system right now. So yes, let's cut all empire-mission rewards by 50% and the problem is solved, allthough we keep the announced changes. --- But guess what. Empire-dwellers won't leave towards 0.0, not even a single one. They simply will stay in empire-space flying LvL 4 missions, but now they need to fly twice as much missions before they can buy that new shiny ship or module. You people need to understand, that those players in empire are not interested in PvP or alliance-warfare etc... they just want to shoot at the red cross' after a day at work. These people are people who would play WoW or whatever, if there where spaceships instead of dwarfs and elves. With Star Trek, Star Wars, Jumpgate Evolution and Black Prophecy near release, EvE will see a big exodus of these empire-dwellers, so just wait and see how the next 6 month is paying out.

Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:10:00 - [2051] EVE Online Dominion Death & Taxes in the Sandbox Sign up now! (could not resist)
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:11:00 - [2052] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I read 67 pages of this, and the first thing I have to post when I get to the bottom of it is...a post making fun of Jade Constantine. FML. Originally by: Jade Constantine You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp. As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space. You are, as ever, letting your prejudices in favour of your personal play style run away with your brain here. Most people in this thread - yes, even the Goons - agree that alliances being forced to scale back their claims is good. Losing the universal cyno jam is less popular, but most of the people who have expressed anything other than sticker shock seem to like that as well. The thing is, if you want alliances to scale back, you have to let them scale back. If Goons are going to shed 60% of their space and fall back to Delve only(which I think is about the smallest you can reasonably expect them to shrink to), they need to be able to support a 5000-man alliance out of one region - reimbursement programs, capital construction, Titans, player ships, jump freighters, ratting ships, sniper HAC gangs, the works, on an individual, corporate, and alliance level. And while the Goons have agents in NPC Delve to fall back on, most alliances don't, so I'll ignore them for a second. This proposal doesn't give alliances the money they need. Even if anomalies become everything that everyone wants them to be, you'll still get maybe 5-10 players in the average system. Unless just about every system in Delve hits max upgrades, it won't be able to support GoonSwarm. In other words, no matter what the sov claims say, or what the cyno jammer configuration looks like, they'll own pretty much as much space as they do now. As for the bit about small groups, you seem to have missed the point. When people talk about small groups in 0.0, they don't mean roving gangs of "guerrillas". They mean a 200-man alliance holding a couple systems. Small gangs will always be able to move around, and occasionally find fights - I agree that they need more targets for them, but that wasn't the point of Dominion. The point of Dominion from the point of view of small players was supposed to be allowing small groups to hold space, not to fly around and gank/get ganked. Anyone can fly around, but at present, nobody under about 1000 members can hold so much as a system without big friends. That is what this was supposed to fix, but unless it actually succeeds at shrinking big alliances(which the current proposal won't do, because it doesn't let them move inward and still have anything to do), then it won't loosen anything up, no matter what the coloured dots say. That is why this expansion fails - not because it makes GoonSwarm's life harder, but because it makes Random 300-Man Wannabes Alliance's life no easier. It's the status quo with a hat. This is a Good Post and I endorse it.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:12:00 - [2053] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I read 67 pages of this, and the first thing I have to post when I get to the bottom of it is...a post making fun of Jade Constantine. FML. That might be worth a couple of dozen goon votes for you Herschel. But its a very long way from convincing me that you have a point. 0.0 becomes more interesting when the existing power-blocs need to struggle for their existence and make significant strategic choices on spending their income. Still, if CCP hangs tough and sticks to their guns I'll guess we'll see in a month or two. If they fold and reduce rents to a nominal nonsense fee then nothing will change and 0.0 stays the same as it has for the last year. Ultimately this is simply one of those moments in the history of Eve that people will need to adapt or die. (or whine against the "nerf"). Time will tell which way was the best option. Coming out "against" the Dominion rent model is probably good for a few votes for you though Herschel so don't let me stop you True Knowledge
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:12:00 - [2054] Originally by: Sally Bestonge Originally by: Dharh YES. Provided you don't limit yourself to only ratting and farming moon goo. very few alliances allow moon goo to be an integral part of personal income. in other words, it sounds like you want moon goo to push earning ISK in 0.0 over the edge, outside of providing income alliances need to hold sov / do reimbursements (you're dumb) HURR. Moon goo and ratting are pretty good profits. They just aren't going to be good _enough_ for the new costs. Thus you will need to diversify. I don't want moon good to be what 'push[es] earning ISK in 0.0 over the edge'. However, I seriously think its a broken concept that ratting and moon goo could ever possibly be enough to sustain a sov.
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:12:00 - [2055] Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 08/11/2009 22:15:37 Originally by: Vivian Azure OK, I got a simple solution to adress the problems most people seem to have with the new system. People say, that the cost of holding Sov itself is not the problem, but that LvL 4 missions do give better/more rwards then the new system will give in 0.0. So what about lowering the rewards of all missions in empire-space by 50%? Would that make the people more happy? Inflating the economy with ISK by adding more rewards in 0.0 is not the solution tbh. CCP tries to install a very big ISK-sink with the new sovereignity bills, and rightfully so, as theres way too much money injected into the system right now. So yes, let's cut all empire-mission rewards by 50% and the problem is solved, allthough we keep the announced changes. I'm sure the lowsec and 0.0 dwellers would be content with that, but realistically, CCP simply cannot do that because they would lose a good part of their majority subscriber base (that being highsec missionrunners). Whether you make 0.0 more profitable or highsec less is functionally equivalent from a risk/reward viewpoint, but from an economic standpoint CCP simply can't risk nerfing their big cash cow. That's why people are suggesting mostly measures that make 0.0 better, even if it would lead to some amount of inflation. I have no idea how bad that would end up being, I'm not an economist, maybe CCP should hire one to figure this out. e: Originally by: Jade Constantine 0.0 becomes more interesting when the existing power-blocs need to struggle for their existence and make significant strategic choices on spending their income. You still haven't given a reason why living in 0.0 should be harder and less profitable than highsec apart from "I expect everyone to be so narcissistic as to spend a lot of money/be willing to earn less money for nothing but seeing his alliance name on an autogenerated sov map."
Daemonspirit An Android Lust	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:16:00 - [2056] Originally by: Inferno Styx to make 0.0 attractive you honestly need to make about 50% more then high sec at the least. If you can make 50% more isk then you'll see lots of people running out to 0.0. You could make 0.0 250% more than hi-sec, and you might get some people out there. But srsly, those who want to be in 0.0 are. Those who couldn't care less aren't - Dominion will not change that equation because it doesn't address the problem. The problem being (NOT LEVEL 4's!) but rather this: Why should I care? Or, why should anyone care? If you can't answer that question without talking about lvl 4's - you don't have a clue why people don't go to 0.0. ôEveryone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.ö
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:16:00 - [2057] Originally by: Vivian Azure So yes, let's cut all empire-mission rewards by 50% and the problem is solved, allthough we keep the announced changes. It's not going to happen since that would impact the majority of players who play EVE On Line. And that would be bad business. I don't believe there's too much ISK in the game, but I do believe that EVE is suffering from an extreme imbalance in wealth due to constructs such as r64 moon goo and T2 BPOs. Fixing ISK flow and the economy in EVE will require a big overhaul, not just one simple 'fix' that many people ascribe to.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:17:00 - [2058] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I read 67 pages of this, and the first thing I have to post when I get to the bottom of it is...a post making fun of Jade Constantine. FML. 0.0 becomes more interesting when the existing power-blocs need to struggle for their existence and make significant strategic choices on spending their income. Hint: there is 69 pages of posts explaining why it wont do any of that.
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:19:00 - [2059] Originally by: Daemonspirit Why should I care? Or, why should anyone care? I can't speak for you, but other people may care because they want money as quickly as possible (without buying PLEXes) and 0.0 would offer that more than highsec? I dunno, greed is usually a pretty good motivator.
Daemonspirit An Android Lust	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:21:00 - [2060] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Originally by: Daemonspirit Why should I care? Or, why should anyone care? I can't speak for you, but other people may care because they want money as quickly as possible (without buying PLEXes) and 0.0 would offer that more than highsec? I dunno, greed is usually a pretty good motivator. ôEveryone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.ö

Xeronn Amarr ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:22:00 - [2061] Oh how shortsigthed people tend to be ok lets immagine for a second CCP gets there numbers right (wishfull thinking...but indulge me) , and0.0 becumes 50% better then empire isk-wise from rats ok...now what if EVERYONE can upgrade everything ...in the end you can be sure people will take the path of least resistance and you`ll end up with all of 0.0 fully upgraded , no reason whatsoever to go for another system since it wont be any better or worse then your system..... and we`ll all be equal , no more social discriminations , perfect comunism , we`ll all farm exactly the same rats , we`ll all fly exactly the same roaming hacs , fighting our neighbours hacs...then return to our little hubs to farm just as much isk/hour as every other bastard in eve this to me looks like a horrible arena scenario imho eve cant work without resource scarcity . If everyone can get it "free" (as in not killing other people for it) , people WILL get it free sure , e-pen wars will last a while but they will eventually die off . In a few generations , the bees will only remember there hatred for bobits as stuff of legends
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:23:00 - [2062] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat You still haven't given a reason why living in 0.0 should be harder and less profitable than highsec apart from "I expect everyone to be so narcissistic as to spend a lot of money/be willing to earn less money for nothing but seeing his alliance name on an autogenerated sov map." Granted its difficult to find in the torrent of spam but I have given you plenty of reasons in previous posts. If you click on my avatar to the left of the message you can read back. Have fun! True Knowledge
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:24:00 - [2063] Originally by: Jade Constantine 0.0 becomes more interesting when the existing power-blocs need to struggle for their existence and make significant strategic choices on spending their income. Still, if CCP hangs tough and sticks to their guns I'll guess we'll see in a month or two. If they fold and reduce rents to a nominal nonsense fee then nothing will change and 0.0 stays the same as it has for the last year. Ultimately this is simply one of those moments in the history of Eve that people will need to adapt or die. (or whine against the "nerf"). Time will tell which way was the best option. Coming out "against" the Dominion rent model is probably good for a few votes for you though Herschel so don't let me stop you You don't realize that NPC 0.0 space is going to become the prime real estate? And that without 0.0 landmarks (r64s, static complexes of yore, etc) there will be no reason to fight? Unless you really believe that 0.0 should just be a constant free-for-all zone with no significant means to support its population?
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:24:00 - [2064] I doubt anyone is going to read this far, but my three simple requests anyway: 1. Increase three of the upkeep costs - supercap construction upkeep 1mil -> 10mil - base cost 20mil -> 30mil - cyno jammer cost 25mil -> 40mil 2. Remove all forms of insurance on all capitals as they're a moronic isk faucet that goes against the intended purpose of basic insurance, of capitals, and of giant alliance wars. 3. POS should be made easier to kill. - No offensive or defensive capability on HIGH SEC POS, industrial arrays only. Also has the benefit of enabling short term mercenary contract goals and giving people a reason to base their operations in low sec. - Using industrial arrays prevents use of shield hardeners. Unlike high sec restrictions, EW/neut/warp/web is still allowed. This means the only proper deathstars in EVE are military logistics depots with hangars and ship arrays. - Structures which are NOT ONLINE should only have a fraction of their HP. This makes abandoned offline crap easier to clean up, and means you might actually have to defend an onlining tower.
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:24:00 - [2065] Originally by: Daemonspirit Your masterful rolleyes has slain the idea that someone might do things for a reason that has been considered for at least thousands of years one of the great sins. Why don't you work on lust, next.
Daemonspirit An Android Lust	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:28:00 - [2066] Edited by: Daemonspirit on 08/11/2009 22:28:43 Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 08/11/2009 22:25:49 Originally by: Daemonspirit Your masterful rolleyes has slain the idea that someone might do things for a reason that has been considered for at least thousands of years one of the great sins. Why don't you work on lust, next. Ok, let me try this: I know plenty of people that reside in low-sec or hi-sec. They don't have time for, or interest in, the politics of 0.0. Without an interest in the politics of 0.0, and the ability to find pvp either in low-sec or hi-sec wars, just why would anyone go to 0.0? Jade is closest when he mentions the epic wars, disagreements, etc., but he just gets trolled left and right... Which is another disincentive to go anywhere near 0.0. Get it now? ôEveryone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.ö
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:29:00 - [2067] Originally by: Jade Constantine That might be worth a couple of dozen goon votes for you Herschel. But its a very long way from convincing me that you have a point. Please, Goons will vote for Goons. I don't have a shot there. I'm going for the Atlas vote Originally by: Jade Constantine 0.0 becomes more interesting when the existing power-blocs need to struggle for their existence and make significant strategic choices on spending their income. Agreed. It should never be a walk in the park to live in 0.0 space. Originally by: Jade Constantine If they fold and reduce rents to a nominal nonsense fee then nothing will change and 0.0 stays the same as it has for the last year. The fees are not the problem. I liked the original fee structure - taking a system should be a serious hit to the wallet. The problem is that there's not much actual reason to take a system right now. I want upgrades that let a good system house 50 people making 40 mil/hour each, at a minimum. If you put that into place, nobody would give a solitary damn about the fees. Originally by: Jade Constantine Coming out "against" the Dominion rent model is probably good for a few votes for you though Herschel so don't let me stop you I'm for the rent model, though I'm not sure whether isk is the right commodity to be paying rent in(but that's a minor issue). I'm just saying, the proposed upgrades look like very good ones to add for the first tier. Where are the other four tiers?
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:30:00 - [2068] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Originally by: Daemonspirit Why should I care? Or, why should anyone care? I can't speak for you, but other people may care because they want money as quickly as possible (without buying PLEXes) and 0.0 would offer that more than highsec? I dunno, greed is usually a pretty good motivator. No. You don't get 50% of EvE's population apparently. Those, who are not alt-characters of 0.0-players. Those people will be happily flying LvL 4 missions in empire and not think for a second about moving to 0.0, even if you would boost the rewards by 500%. The reason for them to stay in empire is, that they're not interested in PvP, or being ganked etc. They just want to shoot at these NPCs after a day at work, chatting with some friends etc.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:30:00 - [2069] Originally by: Xeronn imho eve cant work without resource scarcity . If everyone can get it "free" (as in not killing other people for it) , people WILL get it free You touch upon the key to why lvl4's have such an impact on everything else in the game and why they badly need a nerf. Every active way to make isk is measured up to that endless risk free isk faucet.
Gabriel Youngs Caldari Controlled Carnage Crimson Steel Empire	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:32:00 - [2070] People are asking "if not moongoo then what do we fight over?" Think about what would be the ultimate resource in space in RL...having trouble... I'll help you out...EARTH-LIKE PLANETS!!! Bring us planetary interaction where every planet has a base index that never changes, more like earth the higher the index, less like earth the lower. The index controls how much infrastructure can be placed on it. More infrastructure means more money. Planatary economies produce a straight ISK supply to the controlling alliance in the form of taxes as well as minerals from mining and trade goods from industry. When one planet is producing 10-20 billion a month in revenue of one type or another because of its infrastructure it makes it hard NOT to justify attacking and conquering it...or at least planetary bombing raids to decrease your enemies ISK supply. 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.

KayTwoEx Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:33:00 - [2071] Edited by: KayTwoEx on 08/11/2009 22:34:29 Hm, this HUGE costs per upgraded system makes EVERY souv-warfare so cost-intensive that nobody will do anything like that as long as they already got some space with upgraded systems. Per example big alliances such as GoonSwarm, Morsus Mihi, Atlas Alliance, Against ALL Authorities, Razor Alliance, Pandemic Legion, Mostly Harmless, Solar Fleet, Legion of xXDeathXx, Red.Overlord, Sons of Tangra, Cuatores Veritatis Alliance, Zenith Affinity, The Initiative., Wildly Inappropriate, Majesta Empire, Tau Ceti Federation, Stain Empire, Stainless, Systematic-Chaos, C0VEN and many more wont be able to pay for the space they are currently holding and therefore will diminish their space making it payable for themselves. These alliances wont be siegeing other systems, constellations, regions as they wont be able to actually tkae the souv. The whole 0.0 will get a huge rainbow-land with rats, wormholes, signatures and anomalies and there will just be some smallscale-pvp so the people actually do something and don't get bored with sitting in the belts. I am hereby forecasting that you will lose many paying customers in the free 0.0 space as the game gets dry and tedious. I'm telling you the current souv-system is bad but your new plans on souv are even worse. Please think about what you are going to do. We as customers don't care if you need some more month to invent a new, better, souv-system as long as it is better than the current system and fair for everyone while making it worth going to 0.0 and fighting for the space. Make truesec dynamic as well as the asteroid-minerals but do not take millions and millions of isk per day just for holding souv in a system. Nerf the doomsday while making titans worth the price the people are paying for it. Think about what you are doing. There actually is a reason why you have a brain in your head and not a stone. Regards
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:34:00 - [2072] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 08/11/2009 21:53:31 Originally by: Dharh YES. Provided you don't limit yourself to only ratting and farming moon goo. Sorry but those are the two most profitable reliable ways of isk generation in 0.0. vOv 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. Be that as it may. I think that could change, and should. Personally I wish all forms of gaining ISK had built in diminishing returns (like X number of bounties to collect per 24 hours, or X rats spawn per 24 hours). Then these diminishing returns would be upgraded through the sov system. If you do a bit of each thing you can sustain yourself, if you focus on only one thing it would be impossible.
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:36:00 - [2073] Originally by: Dharh Be that as it may. I think that could change, and should. Personally I wish all forms of gaining ISK had built in diminishing returns (like X number of bounties to collect per 24 hours, or X rats spawn per 24 hours). Then these diminishing returns would be upgraded through the sov system. If you do a bit of each thing you can sustain yourself, if you focus on only one thing it would be impossible. Yeah that'd be great, I'd love to have five or more different yet equal opportunities for revenue. Sadly that's just not how it is and this patch won't make it so either vOv
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp.	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:39:00 - [2074] Originally by: Shawna Gray Originally by: TZeer Example: Feythabolis consists of 89 systems, when I did a count now I found 92 people in thoose systems. Thats 1,03 people per system. There is a reason why there are only 1 char in space in those systems you mentioned. Its all they can support. ASCN circa early 2006 would like a word with you. /Ben
SavageBastard Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:40:00 - [2075] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Hertford I like how Jade spews forth a veritable wall of words that is just a rehash of CCPs aims without mentioning any of the issues brought up in the rest of this thread. But then this is a terrible thread; Can you blame Jade for not reading it? To be brutal. This thread is pretty much the same 20 people repeating "waaa-waaaa-it's-not-fair-waaaaa!" again and again and again interspaced with some more spam. As I said earlier - you guys are missing the point with Dominion. Its not about preserving the status quo its about blowing the status quo into a thousand little pieces and seeing what happens to 0.0 without an omni cyno-jammer security blanket for its current occupants. You will need to struggle to pay upkeeps in Dominion. Thats the point. You will need to retract the size of your claims and focus to keep your head above water. You will need to adapt or die and if you can't survive there will be other players and player entities that can. The status quo is boring and deeply unattractive. Eve 0.0 endgame needs to change. Not sure how I can explain that any better for you. You know a thread has reached its endgame when Jade has showed up to attention *****. Lock away.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:43:00 - [2076] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Jade Constantine That might be worth a couple of dozen goon votes for you Herschel. But its a very long way from convincing me that you have a point. Please, Goons will vote for Goons. I don't have a shot there. I'm going for the Atlas vote Originally by: Jade Constantine 0.0 becomes more interesting when the existing power-blocs need to struggle for their existence and make significant strategic choices on spending their income. Agreed. It should never be a walk in the park to live in 0.0 space. Originally by: Jade Constantine If they fold and reduce rents to a nominal nonsense fee then nothing will change and 0.0 stays the same as it has for the last year. The fees are not the problem. I liked the original fee structure - taking a system should be a serious hit to the wallet. The problem is that there's not much actual reason to take a system right now. I want upgrades that let a good system house 50 people making 40 mil/hour each, at a minimum. If you put that into place, nobody would give a solitary damn about the fees. Originally by: Jade Constantine Coming out "against" the Dominion rent model is probably good for a few votes for you though Herschel so don't let me stop you I'm for the rent model, though I'm not sure whether isk is the right commodity to be paying rent in(but that's a minor issue). I'm just saying, the proposed upgrades look like very good ones to add for the first tier. Where are the other four tiers? And what about the problem with cosmic anomalies? They are completely inferior to belt ratting in every way regardless of how many guaranteed ones there are in a system at any time. I don't mean to try and quiz you in this thread but don't you agree that cosmic anomalies need to be fixed before CCP starts basing their entire "ratting" upgrade on them?
Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:43:00 - [2077] Originally by: Bellum Eternus The 0.0 alliances are all butthurt over this and it's pretty funny to me personally. The alliances are used to billions in passive income and now CCP is removing that across the board and everyone is being a girl about it. The easy money in 0.0 is going away and it's not coming back. Good. Now all we need is an adjustment to L4s in empire so that it's less profitable to run L4s than it is to live in 0.0 and we're set. #1. It's not that people really object to R64 income being nerfed, it's that it seems there's nothing being added to replace it. Jade is a complete idiot but made a correct point that having a huge income source that is difficult to disrupt is a bad idea. However now we find out as things stand you have much greater expenses and nothing to even approach replacing the income, which is a huge letdown and a source of great anxiety. #2. L4's in empire will never be nerfed. You know this, I know this. There are too many subscribers in empire doing them - the majority of the eve playerbase - and enough would likely ragequit if any such change was made that financially it would make no sense to CCP. Right and wrong in this area have nothing to do with reality.
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:46:00 - [2078] Originally by: Kai Lae Originally by: Bellum Eternus The 0.0 alliances are all butthurt over this and it's pretty funny to me personally. The alliances are used to billions in passive income and now CCP is removing that across the board and everyone is being a girl about it. The easy money in 0.0 is going away and it's not coming back. Good. Now all we need is an adjustment to L4s in empire so that it's less profitable to run L4s than it is to live in 0.0 and we're set. #1. It's not that people really object to R64 income being nerfed, it's that it seems there's nothing being added to replace it. Jade is a complete idiot but made a correct point that having a huge income source that is difficult to disrupt is a bad idea. However now we find out as things stand you have much greater expenses and nothing to even approach replacing the income, which is a huge letdown and a source of great anxiety. #2. L4's in empire will never be nerfed. You know this, I know this. There are too many subscribers in empire doing them - the majority of the eve playerbase - and enough would likely ragequit if any such change was made that financially it would make no sense to CCP. Right and wrong in this area have nothing to do with reality. Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed. The technetium bottleneck will be worse than the dysprosium/promethium one was. That means that prices will go up, not down, in the medium and long term for moon minerals as a basket and for t2 unless CCP fixes the problem (which they probably will, eventually). Although technetium is even more regionally concentrated than the old good r64s, which will be......interesting....to watch the results of.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:48:00 - [2079] If I understand new mechanics correctly, is this is how things should work? Space ownership: Alliance will drop sovereignty over most of their systems and keep only those with jump bridges or other strategical value. The space that alliance currently control gets utilized and instead of highly valuable R64 moon income, they will make the same or more ISK by actualy mining moons of lower rarity, which will be easy to do because of available moons after starbases being removed from sovereignty mechanics. Optionaly, alliance members will claim sovereignty over another system(s) to provide better ratting/mining/exploration opportunities for their members. I am kind of missing the point here. You will hold sovereignty over few systems only but you will control much more. I thought sovereignty is a flag you rise so others can see you control this particular system. I guess not... I also thought that changes are supposed to make 0.0 more alive and fail to see how goals like: Originally by: CCP Greyscale # A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system # A better conquest experience # More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat # Less territorial sprawl by major alliances # A more diverse and interesting political landscape # More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec will be accomplished by upcoming changes. 1) Dominion 0.0 is many but transparent. 2) Starbase bashing was replaced by bashing some other POS, same blobs. You will still need to take numerous starbases down. 3) Small-fleet combat - huh? 4) Controlled space remains unchanged because it was never a subject of sovereignty but military power only. 5) Considering those changes are going to kill CVA and their multicultural unique space, I don't know what you had on mind... 6) Renting a space? Maybe. Apart from supported grinding and new bugs, what are we getting with Dominion?
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:48:00 - [2080] Originally by: Mahke Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed. So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes. Yeah moon mining nerf.

Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:49:00 - [2081] Originally by: Qlanth And what about the problem with cosmic anomalies? They are completely inferior to belt ratting in every way regardless of how many guaranteed ones there are in a system at any time. I don't mean to try and quiz you in this thread but don't you agree that cosmic anomalies need to be fixed before CCP starts basing their entire "ratting" upgrade on them? That's exactly my point, yes. I don't care whether the income source is cosmic anomalies, L4 missions, belt ratting, mini-profession sites, mining, or anything else our twisted minds can come up with. I just want it to be fun, available in good quantity, and significantly(50-100%) better than L4 highsec missions. If anomalies do that, great - I loved Hertford's post on that 50 or so pages back. If not, CCP needs to find something that does.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:50:00 - [2082] I'll say again that all 0.0 alliances have known about the nerf to R64 for months and probably heard it coming long before it was announced. And we have known that we would be spending far more money to be able to lock down our systems with cyno-jammers and jumpbridges as well. Most 0.0 entities, including GoonSwarm, were the ones calling for these changes from the beginning. Our CSM representatives along with others were the ones pushing for them. The problem arises from the promise of upgrades that were lauded as fantastic changes that would increase the profitability of 0.0 space for the average player and allow 50-100 people to be making those profits at the same time, per system.
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:52:00 - [2083] Edited by: Mahke on 08/11/2009 22:52:46 Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Mahke Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed. So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes. Yeah moon mining nerf. Cost of cyno jammer is 30 days/month * 25 mil/day = 750/month. The hysteria in this thread based on incorrect or dishonest (who knows) math is terrible. And yes, if current t2 production levels after the patch takes approx 120% of current technetium production, that is a buff on moon mining when technetium value spikes higher than dysprosium ever was (assuming CCP doesn't fix that coming disaster).
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:54:00 - [2084] The changes to 0.0 I am looking for should be totally unaffected by Sov. All Cosmic Anomalies would be fixed by giving them belt level rats. All rocks in 0.0 should have 5x as many minerals in them as they do now. etc. I have laid out exactly my suggestions several times. You can keep your upgrades exactly as they are now because the problems with 0.0 require more than sovereignty upgrades to fix.
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:58:00 - [2085] Originally by: Qlanth I'll say again that all 0.0 alliances have known about the nerf to R64 for months and probably heard it coming long before it was announced. And we have known that we would be spending far more money to be able to lock down our systems with cyno-jammers and jumpbridges as well. Most 0.0 entities, including GoonSwarm, were the ones calling for these changes from the beginning. Our CSM representatives along with others were the ones pushing for them. The problem arises from the promise of upgrades that were lauded as fantastic changes that would increase the profitability of 0.0 space for the average player and allow 50-100 people to be making those profits at the same time, per system. Yup. My point as well. Neither myself, my corp, nor anyone I know personally, has a problem with the steep prices. And we're happy about the changes forcing a condensation of powers: it opens up a lot of space! What I and most others are dissatisfied with is just how disappointing the inf.-hub upgrades are. They are arbitrarily useless and boring... except maybe for the WH and hidden belt ones; the latter would help people holding low-quality 0.0 space with crap roids. The military infrastructure ones in particular need to be re-hashed entirely. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
Exordium8 Minmatar Royal Hiigaran Navy Maru Ka'ge	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:58:00 - [2086] Massive threadnaught is massive --------------------------------- Pillage, then burn. Everything is air-droppable at least once. There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'time to reload. When the going gets tou
De'Vadder Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:59:00 - [2087] Edited by: De''Vadder on 08/11/2009 23:02:05 Originally by: Kepakh If I understand new mechanics correctly, is this is how things should work? Space ownership: Alliance will drop sovereignty over most of their systems and keep only those with jump bridges or other strategical value. The space that alliance currently control gets utilized and instead of highly valuable R64 moon income, they will make the same or more ISK by actualy mining moons of lower rarity, which will be easy to do because of available moons after starbases being removed from sovereignty mechanics. Optionaly, alliance members will claim sovereignty over another system(s) to provide better ratting/mining/exploration opportunities for their members. I am kind of missing the point here. You will hold sovereignty over few systems only but you will control much more. I thought sovereignty is a flag you rise so others can see you control this particular system. I guess not... I also thought that changes are supposed to make 0.0 more alive and fail to see how goals like: Originally by: CCP Greyscale # A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system # A better conquest experience # More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat # Less territorial sprawl by major alliances # A more diverse and interesting political landscape # More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec will be accomplished by upcoming changes. 1) Dominion 0.0 is many but transparent. 2) Starbase bashing was replaced by bashing some other POS, same blobs. You will still need to take numerous starbases down. 3) Small-fleet combat - huh? 4) Controlled space remains unchanged because it was never a subject of sovereignty but military power only. 5) Considering those changes are going to kill CVA and their multicultural unique space, I don't know what you had on mind... 6) Renting a space? Maybe. Apart from supported grinding and new bugs, what are we getting with Dominion? Wow, your very right, I for my part completely forgot they said the new sov was ment to be descriptive. I guess that wont be the case when Alliances just drop sov because of the price but keep the space as theirs. And why is there still nothing that sets content apart from signature? Is that intentional or technically imposible?
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:00:00 - [2088] Originally by: Mahke Edited by: Mahke on 08/11/2009 22:52:46 Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Mahke Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed. So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes. Yeah moon mining nerf. Cost of cyno jammer is 30 days/month * 25 mil/day = 750/month. The hysteria in this thread based on incorrect or dishonest (who knows) math is terrible. And yes, if current t2 production levels after the patch takes approx 120% of current technetium production, that is a buff on moon mining when technetium value spikes higher than dysprosium ever was (assuming CCP doesn't fix that coming disaster). Yes CCP does need to rebalance the technetium bottleneck, but unless you plan on using escorted freighters/jump freighters/transport ships you will also need a jump bridge network to get the goods to empire. Depending how far the moons are that will require sov, jump bridges, and cyno jammers in otherwise useless systems adding to the cost. It will be a logistical nightmare otherwise.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:07:00 - [2089] I remember when they did the dev blog on the carrier nerf, the thread went over 100 pages, and then they announced it was not happening. Keep posting those tears!!... well, you know what I mean. From the looks of this threadnought, I am having doubts that it will be implemented as is. Keep posting constructive feedback. Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:11:00 - [2090] Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Mahke Edited by: Mahke on 08/11/2009 22:52:46 Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Mahke Moon mining income is NOT being nerfed. So you are going to pay 2+ billion to cyno jam a system with good moons and another 2+ billion for POSes to mine it every month?? Not to mention that sov will not reduce fuel usage or give invulnerable POSes. Yeah moon mining nerf. Cost of cyno jammer is 30 days/month * 25 mil/day = 750/month. The hysteria in this thread based on incorrect or dishonest (who knows) math is terrible. And yes, if current t2 production levels after the patch takes approx 120% of current technetium production, that is a buff on moon mining when technetium value spikes higher than dysprosium ever was (assuming CCP doesn't fix that coming disaster). Yes CCP does need to rebalance the technetium bottleneck, but unless you plan on using escorted freighters/jump freighters/transport ships you will also need a jump bridge network to get the goods to empire. Depending how far the moons are that will require sov, jump bridges, and cyno jammers in otherwise useless systems adding to the cost. It will be a logistical nightmare otherwise. The logistical changes are a separate issue, imo. Those alliances with the best moons will easily be able to pay to cover increasing titan and JF proliferation, and the costs of JB/cyno systems. But yeah, it'll become harder/pricier, no doubt there. However, that increased difficulty won't make up for increased profits from the tech bottleneck for those (northern) alliances that hold most of those moons, not nearly. Honestly if CCP finds some way to actually succesfully nerf moon minerals (maybe a new asteroid available at development 5 mining anomalies that can be reacted with any given moon mineral to create more of that mineral, incentivizing 0.0 player owned space mining and solving the perenial bottleneck issue), I have no objections to lower upkeeeps and better upgrades, because then it would just be a matter of shifting collective profit to individual profit rather than massive economic power creep that leaves other areas of the game that are even higher risk than 0.0 (lowsec and wh-space) behind.

Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:17:00 - [2091] Edited by: Destrim on 08/11/2009 23:19:08 Originally by: Marlona Sky I remember when they did the dev blog on the carrier nerf, the thread went over 100 pages, and then they announced it was not happening. Keep posting those tears!!... well, you know what I mean. From the looks of this threadnought, I am having doubts that it will be implemented as is. Keep posting constructive feedback. There is no one whining/crying about losing sov. The only real complaint being raised is that the rewards (the shiny inf.-hub upgrades we were all expectantly waiting for) suck. Really, they are weaksauce. However, I would agree to the need for constructive feedback (though it seemed you were being sarcastic o.o). What should be discussed is what inf.-hub upgrades we think would actually work. What would you suggest for the inf.-hub upgrades? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:27:00 - [2092] Originally by: Marlona Sky I remember when they did the dev blog on the carrier nerf, the thread went over 100 pages, and then they announced it was not happening. Keep posting those tears!!... well, you know what I mean. From the looks of this threadnought, I am having doubts that it will be implemented as is. Keep posting constructive feedback. Nice sig. Goons don't have enough of a pet program, and they probably will never have a good pet program because the carebears are afraid of being scammed by them, which is a legitimate fear I might add. That and they are realizing the kinds of fights they are being set up for now that their participation is down. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Jonathan Pryde Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:27:00 - [2093] I normally avoid posting on Eve-O for my own reasons, but here goes. I've been living/working in 0.0 for a better part of a few years. I'm not THAT knowledable at how much it costs an Alliance to live out in 0.0 but I do know it's in the tens of billions range. That being said, if the R64 moons get the nerf they're getting (Yes, its a nerf since we won't be mining the same ammounts anymore) This effecitvely cuts your income a considerable ammount. As it stands, the upgrades don't provide any real means of helping alliances out. Do they help the individuals.. maybe. MAYBE. i don't really see it as a plus. Too many questions left unanswered there. CCP, I implore you to re-think how you are going about this SOV revamp. The one thing that is deffinitely broken (and i think a lot of 0.0 holders might agree with me) is that the true-sec crap that exists in game is horribly broken. It needs to be fixed or revamped. Fix that, and then we can say you're doing progress. NPC Agents in 0.0 would be anice addition, instead of limiting them to NPC 0.0. I, myself, would like to see those agents in conquerable stations. All you gotta do is take the local rats, and set your agents to work with THEM like Sansha Agents in Stain, the Angel agents in Curse. It honestly can't be that hard to do. Please, CCP... Think about what you're doing and if it will BENEFIT the alliances AND the players, not just you. Jonathan Pryde 8492nd Tactical Fleet
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:28:00 - [2094] One last time... Infinite any amount of ISK is still infinite ISK. Infinite Anomaly ISK is still more infinite then finite Dypro moon income. You just have an instance where more work yields more ISK, and in this instance extra work isn't a waste.
ShadowMaiden Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:29:00 - [2095] ITT - Be careful what you wish for... Alliances have long been whining about Sov Warfare being a pain and wanted it changing. Well you have it now, so better suck it up or find another MMO to play.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:29:00 - [2096] Originally by: Destrim There is no one whining/crying about losing sov. The only real complaint being raised is that the rewards (the shiny inf.-hub upgrades we were all expectantly waiting for) suck. Really, they are weaksauce. However, I would agree to the need for constructive feedback (though it seemed you were being sarcastic o.o). What should be discussed is what inf.-hub upgrades we think would actually work. What would you suggest for the inf.-hub upgrades? What's wrong with upgrades currently? I think this is a matter of expectation only. Since mining and exploration means no income for space holder, at 10% tax rate you will need 6B in bounties to get basic upkeep paid. Is that not enough or too much to reflect 10 guaranteed anomalies(I wonder what respawn rate on those will be)?
Halaxi Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:30:00 - [2097] 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.
Shmak DatAsh Malus Exitium Consortium.	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:32:00 - [2098] 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. /signed
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:38:00 - [2099] 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
Prognosys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:40:00 - [2100] 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.

Lucas Pantelis Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:44:00 - [2101] Edited by: Lucas Pantelis on 08/11/2009 23:44:50 Originally by: Kanatta Jing One last time... Infinite any amount of ISK is still infinite ISK. Infinite Anomaly ISK is still more infinite then finite Dypro moon income. You just have an instance where more work yields more ISK, and in this instance extra work isn't a waste. They can respawn as quickly and frequently as they like, they're still a finite resource limited by how quickly and for how long they can be run.
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:47:00 - [2102] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Destrim There is no one whining/crying about losing sov. The only real complaint being raised is that the rewards (the shiny inf.-hub upgrades we were all expectantly waiting for) suck. Really, they are weaksauce. However, I would agree to the need for constructive feedback (though it seemed you were being sarcastic o.o). What should be discussed is what inf.-hub upgrades we think would actually work. What would you suggest for the inf.-hub upgrades? What's wrong with upgrades currently? I think this is a matter of expectation only. Since mining and exploration means no income for space holder, at 10% tax rate you will need 6B in bounties to get basic upkeep paid. Is that not enough or too much to reflect 10 guaranteed anomalies(I wonder what respawn rate on those will be)? Have you ever run anomalies? They're crap. I remember when I was in SE, back in 4-E... you could easily find 4 of them in our home system at almost any given time! No one ever used them, or seldom ever did: the rats in there are almost always far less in quality than what one can find in the belts. Even if you constantly have 2 of them in system at all time, you still get more money from killing rats in belts, unless you significantly improve the quality of rats in anomalies. However, all of that is besides the point. In the case of "military" upgrades, they actually do absolutely nothing for a sovereign's military. And that is disappointing. The usefulness of all the inf.-hub upgrades is negligible, really giving almost no reward for all the time (note that I'm not talking about money) invested in making a system yours. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:50:00 - [2103] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Destrim There is no one whining/crying about losing sov. The only real complaint being raised is that the rewards (the shiny inf.-hub upgrades we were all expectantly waiting for) suck. Really, they are weaksauce. However, I would agree to the need for constructive feedback (though it seemed you were being sarcastic o.o). What should be discussed is what inf.-hub upgrades we think would actually work. What would you suggest for the inf.-hub upgrades? What's wrong with upgrades currently? I think this is a matter of expectation only. I realize this is a long thread, but could you at least skim it before blathering on incoherently? I'm an empire carebear. The point of Dominion was to make me want to move to 0.0. To make it possible to set up a real home out in 0.0 where you live full time. The proposed upgrades mean that I can make only as much as running L4s. In L4s, my ship will never be destroyed. In a fully upgraded 0.0 system, which takes 100 days to reach, I can be destroyed very easily. And I'll have to pay lots of ISK to be there. And 10 AFK cloakers can completely shut down the ISK faucet that cost billions to install - assuming the neighbors don't just lock down our fully-upgraded system and run the anomalies themselves. It would be insanely stupid for me to move to 0.0. And the people who live there right now will still have to come back to Empire to make ISK, so they won't have a real 0.0 home. THAT is why people are complaining. THAT is why me, an empire carebear who has no 0.0 assets nor 0.0 allies is complaining. Quote: Is that not enough or too much to reflect 10 guaranteed anomalies(I wonder what respawn rate on those will be)? And if you'd bothered to read the thread, the respawn is instant. But that doesn't do you much good when your enemies park an AFK cloaker in the anomolies, preventing them from respawning at all.
Ivan Zhuk	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:52:00 - [2104] I would like to note the first responses from CCP in this thread were mocking some characters and pointing out more flaws in their idea. The second set of responses ingnored all but 1 major problem (they may adjust costs) and talked mostly about anomolies. And now for the past 25 pages they have said nothing..... way to go CCP
LiMu Bai Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:52:00 - [2105] Well, the current Sov-System ist not really optimal. Everyone knows this, but the upcoming one is far, far worse. The prices are totally stupid and much to high. In contrast the benefits are close to worthless. Also jumpbridges and cynojammers will not be just overproced, their use and aviablility is also impaired. That means even big alliances will only own very few systems, since they cant afford this horrendous bills. To make this desaster complete, also the fuelboni the current system grants will be cut to zero. Higher bills everywhere. And as I said....theres nothing an alliance can do to compensate this steady loss of isk every month. Me, for sure, will not farm stupid anomalies to pay this stuff. I like eve online because of the Fleet Combat. I love big campaigns and epic slugfests. Thats why I startet with this game. But tbh, I dont see what we should fighting over after Dominion? There wont be any big campaings anymore to take hostile space, since an big alliance will never be able to have more than a handfull of systems. Another big reason for fights are good moonminerals. I guess this will also be nerfed after dominion. CCP, what should we fight for? What should our massive fleets and capital blobs do after dominion? Just a crusade to **, pillage and destroy? This doesnt feel right. Everone, except some roaming-pvp entities will just sit in their few systems and carebear the ** out of it to pay billing-online. Boring! I suggest you to delay the Sov-Upgrade until you have a clue. Develop a better system. As far as this process lasts let the Sov as it is. For the Dominion expansion you can take the nice, new graphics, the fleet-finder and the changes for the capital battlefield (Titans, Dreads, Moms, Docking upgrade for MoMs). But plz, dont introduce this horrendous new sov-system.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:53:00 - [2106] Edited by: Ukucia on 08/11/2009 23:54:21 Originally by: Ben Derindar Originally by: Shawna Gray Originally by: TZeer Example: Feythabolis consists of 89 systems, when I did a count now I found 92 people in thoose systems. Thats 1,03 people per system. There is a reason why there are only 1 char in space in those systems you mentioned. Its all they can support. ASCN circa early 2006 would like a word with you. /Ben As a member of ASCN circa early 2006, let me just say: Originally by: Shawna Gray There is a reason why there are only 1 char in space in those systems you mentioned. Its all they can support. Unless you're gonna try and count those of us who were 'manning the production lines' as being supported by the system.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:53:00 - [2107] 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. exactly
ovenproofjet Caldari hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:56:00 - [2108] Originally by: Jade Constantine You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp. As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space. Star Fraction would like a lack of cyno-jammers, then you can jump your carriers in and give a station a nice big friendly carrier bear hug! You know, capitals defeating the whole small gang warfare thing....stick to low sec mate Anyhow....back on track, the proposed charges do seem a little over the top. Weren't they intended to be around the same level as up keeping POS towers is? I'm sure no alliance in their right mind spends 2bil a month to hold any of their systems
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:01:00 - [2109] Originally by: Ivan Zhuk And now for the past 25 pages they have said nothing..... way to go CCP and not suprisingly someone else fails to realize that IT'S THE WEEKEND!!! The people with the power to make any changes or comments about the feedback are more than likely off work.
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:01:00 - [2110] Originally by: Tesal Goons don't have enough of a pet program, and they probably will never have a good pet program because the carebears are afraid of being scammed by them, which is a legitimate fear I might add. That and they are realizing the kinds of fights they are being set up for now that their participation is down. Yes, we should be punished for using our space ourselves instead of making idiots pay us for it. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.

Kieselguhr Kid	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:02:00 - [2111] Originally by: Ukucia And if you'd bothered to read the thread, the respawn is instant. But that doesn't do you much good when your enemies park an AFK cloaker in the anomolies, preventing them from respawning at all. The anomalies are even more worthless than that. Okay, you have 10 of them in a system, all (absolute best case!) comparable to belts in a system with bad truesec (nobody in broken truesec Delve is even bothering, of course). But you don't need to probe them down, so any ganker knows where they (you) are in 30 seconds just like with a belt. You can't tell which ones are already taken by other people, so you need to keep warping around until you find a free one. And once you find it, it will never escalate, because anomalies escalate to existing plexes, those plexes are going to be "upgraded" into the one system in the region that's got the plex spawn upgrade, and everyone and their mother is going to pile into that system to run it immediately after DT. No, plexes do not spawn after downtime (only wormholes spawn in between DTs), and no, plexes do not respawn immediately when they are run (again, only after the next DT.) CCP is not just relying on everyone to pile into anomalies, they're saying "spend 10b a month, and you can upgrade a system to have essentially static plexes in it." Remember when they already had that, and it sucked ass?
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:09:00 - [2112] Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk Originally by: Tesal Goons don't have enough of a pet program, and they probably will never have a good pet program because the carebears are afraid of being scammed by them, which is a legitimate fear I might add. That and they are realizing the kinds of fights they are being set up for now that their participation is down. Yes, we should be punished for using our space ourselves instead of making idiots pay us for it. And not keeping around fractious, spy-ridden cannon fodder.
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:10:00 - [2113] Edited by: Mahke on 09/11/2009 00:13:23 Edited by: Mahke on 09/11/2009 00:12:16 Originally by: Mrs Trzzbk Originally by: Tesal Goons don't have enough of a pet program, and they probably will never have a good pet program because the carebears are afraid of being scammed by them, which is a legitimate fear I might add. That and they are realizing the kinds of fights they are being set up for now that their participation is down. Yes, we should be punished for using our space ourselves instead of making idiots pay us for it. Not at all. And IF you were using the space you wouldn't be. However, owning space just to farm the moons and have an empty strategic buffer (Querious much) SHOULD be punished to the point of making it a Bad Idea, because its bad for the game as a whole. Lets be honest: upkeep won't do that because lol 6mil/day with new numbers is a total joke, and even with the original prices one could just not claim sov but still effectively own it, but, it makes that ownership/playstyle of owning empty space a lot more difficult to maintain. edit: Quote: And not keeping around fractious, spy-ridden cannon fodder. No one is saying the status quo is bad for you in specific. It's not: thats part of why you do it. We're saying its bad for the game as a whole and something that dominion is intended to and should address.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:11:00 - [2114] Originally by: Destrim Have you ever run anomalies? They're crap. I remember when I was in SE, back in 4-E... you could easily find 4 of them in our home system at almost any given time! No one ever used them, or seldom ever did: the rats in there are almost always far less in quality than what one can find in the belts. Even if you constantly have 2 of them in system at all time, you still get more money from killing rats in belts, unless you significantly improve the quality of rats in anomalies. The bounties on deadspace rats are affected by true sec status. However, the anomalies itself is something I haven't seen nor anyone else since space upgrades are not working on test server yet. Therefore you complain is a bit moot. Space upgrades as I understand them are not supposed to be ISK income. They are there to make 'use' of the system. If you can pay for upkeep through space upgrades income it is working fine, if there are some ISK leftovers, good for you. I think this is the only thing that concept wise works fine in Dominion.
Pyus 4 wing	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:13:00 - [2115] Unless another dev blog comes along and details more improvements or explains more thoroughly the ones proposed in this blog, I have to agree with the "whiners" here - this appears to be some really, really lazy and ill-thought game "development". As noted in a previous dev blog, all of the 0.0 problems - sov mechanics, low 0.0 population, risk/reward, etc. - have been known to exist for at least 2 years. We have been patiently waiting for you to devote some effort here. At thispoint, 3 weeks to go before the patch, it looks like we have very little effort at this point. This isn't the wrong direction for 0.0 space, as much as it's just a very lazy implementation of the right direction.
Deja Thoris Invicta. Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:14:00 - [2116] Originally by: Kai Lae #1. It's not that people really object to R64 income being nerfed, it's that it seems there's nothing being added to replace it. Jade is a complete idiot but made a correct point that having a huge income source that is difficult to disrupt is a bad idea. However now we find out as things stand you have much greater expenses and nothing to even approach replacing the income, which is a huge letdown and a source of great anxiety. Right and wrong in this area have nothing to do with reality. The reality is EvE is broken with R64 income as it is now. Losing cap fleets should hurt and recently it's just been "lol we lost another 100 - no worries we have jewgold" It's right that they are fixing it. In fact, the devs move as slow as glaciers, they should have done it ages ago. Now income will reduce. If you have no other source of endless ISK to replace it this means that your spending habits need to change. Itmay come as a shock to a lot of people but it will hopefully shake up the game and allow the smaller up and comers to compete rather than to be absorbed into bigger entities in order to survive. I think work needs to be done on the rewards a system brings if they really want to accommodate the numbers of people they are talking about. I also think that costs to hold sov should scale the same way wardecs do now. Cheap, less cheap, ouch!
CrazzyElk Big Shadows Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:18:00 - [2117] Just wanted to ad a few thoughts to this somewhat lengthy thread. You(CCP) are changing the sov mechanics, fine it was in need of a fix. You are changing supercaps, fine anyone who have been on a recieving end of a tripple DD or saw that carrier get DD:d to hell was hoping you would. You are nerfing highend moons witch is by far the biggest moneymaker for alliances in 00 and the biggest catalyst for war in "recent" times, a nerf was due here as well with the silly ammounts of money a lot of alliances made and the sillyness that brought with it. You are upping the cost of claiming space, something not entierly wrong in my opinion BUT you are doing it at the same time as the changes above. The thing isnt so much one of the above changes but the combination of all of them, and primairly nerfing highend moons and increasing the costs of alliances at the same time. The thing about this is that most alliances will loose their primary source of income while at the same time not be given enough time to figure out new ways of getting money to pay the increased costs you are also proposing. The system upgrades, while not entierly worthless as some portray them, are not in anyway bringing in money directly to the alliances. But are all bringing in money to the players themselves, or atleast give them that oppurtunity. You say this is intended as to make pure pvp alliances require a industrial backbone or loose space. Something a lot would disagree with but for sake of argument lets say this is the goal everyone wants. Almost all successful 00 alliances are more or less pvp and you are asking everyone to adabt and get industrial NOW or see your empires implode to small husks of it's former selves. Requiring all alliances to turn carebearing into an artform for the greater good of the alliance is not something that will go quickly or easily. When the highends hit rock buttom from the forementioned changes alliances will have nothing but their savings to lean on as no one has alliance whide mining ops any more. I suspect the idea was that the new treaty system would give alliances a chance to use the huge numbers of miners etc and gain the isk required to fund all these upgrades and maintenence. But since that part of dominion got canceled you can't expect them to be able to pay these huge numbers. The main thing all of these changes combined does is create chaos, if that was you intent CCP then by all means do it. But I feel you really don't want alliances sutch as CVA who has put in enormous work to their space to turn into a land with no sov cause no one can afford it. What I propose is that you lower the costs of holding sov etc to a lower level. Then when you can see how all the other changes pan out (how low the highends drop and maybee even launch that treaty thingie) you start to raise the fees. If you don't think you've reached a desired level you just raise the fees once more. The beuty o this system is that you can easily adjust it as you go. And yes I think you are on the right track with a lot of things just trying to mutch at the same time and inviting undesired consequences in the process. Sorry for the wall of text but it's very important internet spaceship business so you haveto be very thourough. / CrazzyElk
Kieselguhr Kid	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:29:00 - [2118] Originally by: Mahke Not at all. And IF you were using the space you wouldn't be. However, owning space just to farm the moons and have an empty strategic buffer (Querious much) SHOULD be punished to the point of making it a Bad Idea, because its bad for the game as a whole. Lets be honest: upkeep won't do that because lol 6mil/day with new numbers is a total joke, and even with the original prices one could just not claim sov but still effectively own it, but, it makes that ownership/playstyle of owning empty space a lot more difficult to maintain. edit: Quote: And not keeping around fractious, spy-ridden cannon fodder. No one is saying the status quo is bad for you in specific. It's not: thats part of why you do it. We're saying its bad for the game as a whole and something that dominion is intended to and should address. If the expansion gave us a reason to rent or do something else with Querious while keeping it a useful region, that would have been fine because it would be worth fighting over. Okay, fine, we have to settle renters or even pets in there, but there's plenty of things to do in it = not the end of the world. Instead, it's a strategic threat, but a useless region overall just like every other part of "upgraded" 0.0. So now it gets to sit entirely empty (yes, even emptier than today). You'd think an empty region would be an attractive takeover target, but it turns out the best part of owning it is so you can upgrade some systems to be "almost as good as running L4 missions" while getting ganked by our camps in A2- and 3-FKCZ every time you try to bring in a T2 armor hardener. Also, if you upgrade your systems too much, we'll probably just scorch earth them. This is now how to upgrade 0.0 unless "upgrading" means "make a bunch of people move to a different game".
PVP Turd	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:33:00 - [2119] Yeah some BS from CCP to make us pay for GTC's. They would do anything to steal the isk you earn back from you. Make changes that will help players not cost them.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:33:00 - [2120] Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 00:24:15 Originally by: Destrim Have you ever run anomalies? They're crap. I remember when I was in SE, back in 4-E... you could easily find 4 of them in our home system at almost any given time! No one ever used them, or seldom ever did: the rats in there are almost always far less in quality than what one can find in the belts. Even if you constantly have 2 of them in system at all time, you still get more money from killing rats in belts, unless you significantly improve the quality of rats in anomalies. The bounties on belt rats are affected by true sec status. However, the anomalies itself is something I haven't seen nor anyone else since space upgrades are not working on test server yet. Therefore you complain is a bit moot. Well, again if you had read the thread, you'd have learned that the anomaly spawns are not tied to truesec. However, the devs also said in this thread that running the best anomalies were comparable to running L4s as far as income. (They were vague as to if this included LPs or not) Quote: Space upgrades as I understand them are not supposed to be ISK income. Then you don't understand a damn thing. Apparently you can't read the earlier Dominion dev blogs, nor this thread.

Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:50:00 - [2121] I saw this post on the Assembly Hall, and I think it fixes at least half the problems with this proposal in one fell swoop. Thus, I empty quote. Originally by: Galen Darksmith To quote Joshua back on SHC: http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?p=1031922#1031922 "Allow people who are docked in outposts with the proper system upgrades to talk to their normal agents. IE: People in Delve can talk to their Caldari navy agents and get missions in delve; - this allows 0.0 people to move back to their alliance space - the only limit on players making money per system is lag - alliances have more people in their space to help defend stuff - the enemy has more targets to try and kill - plus theres a small motivation for empire people to move to 0.0 as they can still use their normal agents and theyd get a ton more LP in -1 0.0 systems then they do in empire. - also since the people who dont want to go to empire can then run missions in 0.0 corps would make more on corp taxes." Essentially, allow an upgrade for outposts: Comms Relay tower. Has 5 levels, each level allows agents of the corresponding level to be contacted from afar, so a level 2 tower lets you run level 2 missions and below, level 5 tower lets you run all missions.
ShadowMaiden Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:50:00 - [2122] Originally by: CrazzyElk Just wanted to ad a few thoughts to this somewhat lengthy thread. You(CCP) are changing the sov mechanics, fine it was in need of a fix. You are changing supercaps, fine anyone who have been on a recieving end of a tripple DD or saw that carrier get DD:d to hell was hoping you would. You are nerfing highend moons witch is by far the biggest moneymaker for alliances in 00 and the biggest catalyst for war in "recent" times, a nerf was due here as well with the silly ammounts of money a lot of alliances made and the sillyness that brought with it. You are upping the cost of claiming space, something not entierly wrong in my opinion BUT you are doing it at the same time as the changes above. The thing isnt so much one of the above changes but the combination of all of them, and primairly nerfing highend moons and increasing the costs of alliances at the same time. The thing about this is that most alliances will loose their primary source of income while at the same time not be given enough time to figure out new ways of getting money to pay the increased costs you are also proposing. The system upgrades, while not entierly worthless as some portray them, are not in anyway bringing in money directly to the alliances. But are all bringing in money to the players themselves, or atleast give them that oppurtunity. You say this is intended as to make pure pvp alliances require a industrial backbone or loose space. Something a lot would disagree with but for sake of argument lets say this is the goal everyone wants. Almost all successful 00 alliances are more or less pvp and you are asking everyone to adabt and get industrial NOW or see your empires implode to small husks of it's former selves. Requiring all alliances to turn carebearing into an artform for the greater good of the alliance is not something that will go quickly or easily. When the highends hit rock buttom from the forementioned changes alliances will have nothing but their savings to lean on as no one has alliance whide mining ops any more. I suspect the idea was that the new treaty system would give alliances a chance to use the huge numbers of miners etc and gain the isk required to fund all these upgrades and maintenence. But since that part of dominion got canceled you can't expect them to be able to pay these huge numbers. The main thing all of these changes combined does is create chaos, if that was you intent CCP then by all means do it. But I feel you really don't want alliances sutch as CVA who has put in enormous work to their space to turn into a land with no sov cause no one can afford it. What I propose is that you lower the costs of holding sov etc to a lower level. Then when you can see how all the other changes pan out (how low the highends drop and maybee even launch that treaty thingie) you start to raise the fees. If you don't think you've reached a desired level you just raise the fees once more. The beuty o this system is that you can easily adjust it as you go. And yes I think you are on the right track with a lot of things just trying to mutch at the same time and inviting undesired consequences in the process. Sorry for the wall of text but it's very important internet spaceship business so you haveto be very thourough. / CrazzyElk No-one is forcing you to claim Sov, that is an act of choice. If you want it in Dominion, you will have to pay for it, or don't bother. It aint CCP's fault you whiners are so fixated with "owning" pretend real-estate.
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:51:00 - [2123] CCP, WHILE YOU SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THIS THREAD EXISTS, THE QUESTION STILL HAS GONE UNANSWERED 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. YOUR UPGRADES ARE S H I T, PURE *****
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:51:00 - [2124] I don't know if anyone of you noticed this, but the sovereignity bills will be paid from the corp-wallet of the corp, which places the FLAG/TCU in a system on behalf of it's alliance. So you can directly tax your corp-members to pay the bills. The bills aren't paid from the alliance-wallet. Moon-mining will get reduced, yes, but this was way too long overdue. There'll be more moons however, that will be economical to harvest, with the coming Tech 2-production changes and changes to alchemy. The upgrades you can make for your systems, don't look all that good, I'll give you that, and they won't making money as easy as flying LvL 4 missions, but it's not that bad at all tbh. Flying anomalies in -0.2 or doing plexes in such "crap" systems is still worth it, if you count in the loot and salvage. Actually alot of anomalies nets you 20 million ISK without the loot or salvage, and having them respawn instantly, they're up par with LvL 4 missions, you just don't get the additional LP. I still have the oppinion, that it's not too much to ask your members to contribute some 5-10 million ISK a day, if your members get their fleet-ships in return paid by the corp. My corp does pays for fleet-ships in that regard. So if the changes draw money out of the system, so that the alliances have to work a little bit more for their huge cap-fleets we see today... well... I guess I don't have a problem with this, as it was getting ridiculous to waste 50 Dreads and have them instantly recovered. I don't understand the general mindset in here, that 0.0 should be measured vs. empire-space. 0.0 has other things to it, then just making ISK. It's a big playground, where we can fly around and have some nice fights going on, without any repercussions like loss of security. I live in the mindset, that 0.0 should only pay for itself, if you have a good empire-based industrial backbone and that claimed 0.0 is only there to reflect your power. I have the slight impression, that CCP is seeing this similar, as all the stuff they've thought of for Dominion reflects this. So no. I don't think that the costs are too high, and I don't think that the rewards in 0.0 PvE-content should be boosted. 0.0 should not be about personal wealth, but about teamplay and pewpew. The decision to not have any upgrades that influence the true-sec of the systems is a good one at this point, as alliances will still fight for the better regions as it happens now with the high-end moons. Systems that nobody cares about to upgrade them will free up to some extend for people who don't actually like to live in 0.0 or claim space, but only do some ratting or plxing from time to time, as they can jump in a Rorqual put up a small tower for some safety without the big alliances getting informed via mail, that someone has put up a tower in their space. Alot of the big entities see this different, but tbh I don't really care for them, as I think they are playing the game wrong and do not understand what possibilities will open up. Small gang roaming will be effective again, as you can enter a system you know of being upgraded and find yourself some targets or atleast disrupt their activities. And hey... disrupting their activities, preventing them from upgrading their system just adds another layer of warfare actually. I say: Go on CCP, don't listen to the whiners and do what you have announced so far. Shake up the sandbox and level the playingground once more.
Igor Epocci Minmatar Fringe Industries EMS	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:51:00 - [2125] Edited by: Igor Epocci on 09/11/2009 00:52:07 Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Itzena Originally by: CCP Chronotis - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. Great! What's the planned fix? Yes, how will you be nerfing level 4 mission runners? One of your 'anomalies' will be a gate to a random in-progress hi-sec L4 mission, and a CONCORD "You are Weapons Free" card.....
William Dardrachen Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:53:00 - [2126] 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. Much of it comes down to this. I'm also a bit concerned with the trend that when asked why they won't implement/change something, CCP answers "Because of coding." They really risk painting themselves into a corner.
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 00:58:00 - [2127] Edited by: Quesa on 09/11/2009 00:59:28 Originally by: Jovialmadness Dude. SF just SF. You state in your post the actual numbers of people an alliance might have with a reasonable amount of precision and then you have the balls to try to validate why its ok to control upwards of 100 to in your case 160 systems? Just GTF* of these forums and don't ever come back. To everyone else, the reason CCP is doing this is to force peeps like this to back down to a reasonable number of controllable systems so others can have a chance. Atlas couldn't defend that number of systems without a powerbloc if their lives depended on it. That is just a singular reason why the dev's have stated EXACTLY why what Atlas and the rest of the alliances are doing is making the game mind numbingly plain and not what they really wanted. I totally agree. If you dont like this then quit, no seriously dont argue with me just quit. This is one of the best changes ive ever seen and i have been in 0.0 for years. I am so sick and tired of diplomacy controlling space and not true sweat which is what it will require now not only in isk but in fighting. What actually makes you think that ATLAS will not continue to control the space it already has? What actually makes you think the coalitions that exist today will dissolve? If you ACTUALLY had a clue as to why Alliances hold major swaths of space you MIGHT be able to make an educated post which wouldn't make you seem like anything but a current or past resident of 0.0. All this will do is solidify the need of coalitions, drastically reduce the feasibility for major conflicts and reduces the chance for smaller Alliances to do anything in 0.0 w/o the ok of or installation support from a larger Alliance/coalition. Are you ACTUALLY that disillusional?
Alice Teal	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:01:00 - [2128] Originally by: Igor Epocci Edited by: Igor Epocci on 09/11/2009 00:52:07 Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Itzena Originally by: CCP Chronotis - yes we are very aware of the 'level four missions' issue in relative activity income potentials to everything else. Great! What's the planned fix? Yes, how will you be nerfing level 4 mission runners? One of your 'anomalies' will be a gate to a random in-progress hi-sec L4 mission, and a CONCORD "You are Weapons Free" card..... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!! Here's how you integrate it into the storyline: the pirate faction (say, Angels for Angels Extravaganza) give you a "countermission": Stop the Missioner. They put a 30 minute module on you which jams Concord's sensors. This would fix Eve.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:04:00 - [2129] Edited by: Korodan on 09/11/2009 01:04:12 Originally by: Alice Teal PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!! Here's how you integrate it into the storyline: the pirate faction (say, Angels for Angels Extravaganza) give you a "countermission": Stop the Missioner. They put a 30 minute module on you which jams Concord's sensors. This would fix Eve. Quoting this because it needs to happen.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:12:00 - [2130] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 01:13:48 Originally by: Quesa Edited by: Quesa on 09/11/2009 00:59:28 Originally by: Jovialmadness Dude. SF just SF. You state in your post the actual numbers of people an alliance might have with a reasonable amount of precision and then you have the balls to try to validate why its ok to control upwards of 100 to in your case 160 systems? Just GTF* of these forums and don't ever come back. To everyone else, the reason CCP is doing this is to force peeps like this to back down to a reasonable number of controllable systems so others can have a chance. Atlas couldn't defend that number of systems without a powerbloc if their lives depended on it. That is just a singular reason why the dev's have stated EXACTLY why what Atlas and the rest of the alliances are doing is making the game mind numbingly plain and not what they really wanted. I totally agree. If you dont like this then quit, no seriously dont argue with me just quit. This is one of the best changes ive ever seen and i have been in 0.0 for years. I am so sick and tired of diplomacy controlling space and not true sweat which is what it will require now not only in isk but in fighting. What actually makes you think that ATLAS will not continue to control the space it already has? What actually makes you think the coalitions that exist today will dissolve? If you ACTUALLY had a clue as to why Alliances hold major swaths of space you MIGHT be able to make an educated post which wouldn't make you seem like anything but a current or past resident of 0.0. All this will do is solidify the need of coalitions, drastically reduce the feasibility for major conflicts and reduces the chance for smaller Alliances to do anything in 0.0 w/o the ok of or installation support from a larger Alliance/coalition. Are you ACTUALLY that disillusional? So far, you need 1 system to have PvE-content for 2 players. That includes belt-ratting and anomalies. After the patch, you need one system to have PvE-content for 10 players, as the anomalies will instantly respawn after they're finished, and there'll be more of them aswell. You may not find them anomalies worthwile, but that's your personal problem, if you allways ever compare ISK/h to LvL 4 missions. As I see it, 0.0 was never intended to have higher rewards then empire-mission-running, but approx the same. The only difference between 0.0 and empire is, that you can enforce your own rules in 0.0 shooting at everyone you don't like etc... If you're only looking for ISK, then go to empire and fly LvL 4 missions... it's that easy. Nobody forces you to strive out into 0.0.

Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:14:00 - [2131] Edited by: Mrs Trzzbk on 09/11/2009 01:14:37 Originally by: ShadowMaiden No-one is forcing you to claim Sov, that is an act of choice. If you want it in Dominion, you will have to pay for it, or don't bother. It aint CCP's fault you whiners are so fixated with "owning" pretend real-estate. Yeah I know who would ever think people would become attached to the endgame content of EVE? _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:15:00 - [2132] Originally by: Korodan Edited by: Korodan on 09/11/2009 01:04:12 Originally by: Alice Teal PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!! Here's how you integrate it into the storyline: the pirate faction (say, Angels for Angels Extravaganza) give you a "countermission": Stop the Missioner. They put a 30 minute module on you which jams Concord's sensors. This would fix Eve. Quoting this because it needs to happen. So let me get this straight- your so against "carebears" that you refuse to work with any (ie share your precious corp with those that would guarantee you could pay your bills) and instead you want a(nother) way to pvp in highsec with no consequences?
adriaans Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:16:00 - [2133] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Zemi Dahut Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Zemi Dahut You really don't understand what the problem is here which is really not surprising. You should probably have stayed out of this thread since all you're doing is reminding everyone why you failed as a CSM. Actually Dominion is looking like a pretty good success for my time on the CSM right now What, making 0.0 less accessible to small alliances and gangs? You're really this delusional? You need to stop listening to the spam and consider the arguments. You have it directly backwards. Losing the landscape of cyno-jammers and omni-claims will make 0.0 much more accessible for small gang pvp. As indeed will the increased need for standing alliances to earn money in actual space. how on earth does cyno jammers and sov claims affect small gang pvp? never stopped us from roaming wherever it pleases us. what it stops is smaller entities claiming sov, and so does insane costs. and how a -censored- like you ever got on the csm i have no idea... -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze crystals for Amarr! Originally by: UMEE if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail. QFT!
Orb Lati Minmatar ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:18:00 - [2134] While in principle I agree that 0.0 space needs to be attractive and profitable I am worried about the calls to just increase the influx of both ISK and mineral resources into the game via these upgrades. If we are going to increase either, then we need to find more sinks for isk, and more uses for the additional minerals coming into the system. For isk sinks if we are going to start having the lvl4 earning potential in 0.0 as with Hi-Sec then we should start looking at some thing like a NPC product to be using as subcap ship fuel. Ie a sink that can be applied to both mission runners and 0.0 players, and not 0.0 exclusively like a majority of the existing sinks. Perhaps a empire based ship registration fee if flying in hi sec (similar to car registration)  . In all honesty I donÆt know what a suitable sink could be but I am of the opinion that there should be a cost for the protection of hi sec. As for mineral, I donÆt know. Perhaps nerfing both loot drops and scrap refine rates? Or releasing mineral BPOs for the upgrade hubs and modules. The key point is, brining more mineral into the system without out increasing the demand is not going to make miners any more money and will just end up tanking the prices even further. "We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible"
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:22:00 - [2135] Originally by: Orb Lati While in principle I agree that 0.0 space needs to be attractive and profitable I am worried about the calls to just increase the influx of both ISK and mineral resources into the game via these upgrades. If we are going to increase either, then we need to find more sinks for isk, and more uses for the additional minerals coming into the system. For isk sinks if we are going to start having the lvl4 earning potential in 0.0 as with Hi-Sec then we should start looking at some thing like a NPC product to be using as subcap ship fuel. Ie a sink that can be applied to both mission runners and 0.0 players, and not 0.0 exclusively like a majority of the existing sinks. Perhaps a empire based ship registration fee if flying in hi sec (similar to car registration)  . In all honesty I donÆt know what a suitable sink could be but I am of the opinion that there should be a cost for the protection of hi sec. As for mineral, I donÆt know. Perhaps nerfing both loot drops and scrap refine rates? Or releasing mineral BPOs for the upgrade hubs and modules. The key point is, brining more mineral into the system without out increasing the demand is not going to make miners any more money and will just end up tanking the prices even further. With the sovereignty costs as they are that is already adding pretty large isk sinks. Most of population dosent even live in 0.0 as is, so the inflationary effect shoudlnt even be that large. Eve needs some inflation right now anyways, with many ships being sold at or near insurance scam profit prices.
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp.	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:23:00 - [2136] Originally by: Ukucia Originally by: Ben Derindar Originally by: Shawna Gray Originally by: TZeer Example: Feythabolis consists of 89 systems, when I did a count now I found 92 people in thoose systems. Thats 1,03 people per system. There is a reason why there are only 1 char in space in those systems you mentioned. Its all they can support. ASCN circa early 2006 would like a word with you. Unless you're gonna try and count those of us who were 'manning the production lines' as being supported by the system. Call it 'manning the production lines', call it whatever you want. My point is you were there, and so was I. If TZeer were to have checked his Feyth map 3.5 to 4 years ago, he would have seen a lot more people out there then than what there are now, regardless of what we were doing. /Ben
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:31:00 - [2137] Originally by: Orb Lati The key point is, brining more mineral into the system without out increasing the demand is not going to make miners any more money and will just end up tanking the prices even further. Mineral prices will not tank anymore than they are now. If they do then it would be profitable to build T1 ships, insure them, and self destruct them. Insurance will hold mineral prices to a certain price.
hepatitisDD GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:33:00 - [2138] Originally by: Inferno Styx Survey Network Scan strength increase of 5% per level for all probes in system. This upgrade allows advanced scanning techiques that allow Cloaks to be scanned through, Sig of .05 per level for all ships with cloak active. HAHAHAHAHA Came for the cloak whining, did not leave disappointed.
Clone 333558	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:34:00 - [2139] my 2isk (and first post on eve forums) I was expecting/hoping there would be more meaningful requirements for alliances to have active players with a wide range of professions, not just mine X amount of ore and you get to upgrade your ore. I think there should be more bonuses to manufacturing in 0.0 space, to encourage alliances to not rely on empire for as many items. a few ideas- -Upgrades to ore in a system significantly increases its density -When mining said ore, high bounty/good drop pirates relentlessly attack the mining party (miners require combat pilots/ratters, and combat pilots/ratters require miners) -Production times/efficiency in a system can be significantly upgraded -The cost of sovereignty could be similar or slightly less than what is proposed in the blog to discourage alliances holding space them cant actively "harvest" -Implement some sort of "alliance store" to allow for easy exchange of ships/modules between alliance members. This would make it feasible for a smallish alliance to take a few systems and really live in them, but they would need miners for ore, industrialists for ships/modules, and pvpers for defense against rats and raiding parties. This combined with the new expense of jump bridges (which I like) would encourage players to live in 0.0 and only go into empire for a few scarce resources every so often. Maybe its just how I imagine 0.0 - rich in raw resources ready to be had if people are willing to work for it (less passive moon income) and defend against the risks associated with lawless space.
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:34:00 - [2140] Originally by: Vivian Azure So far, you need 1 system to have PvE-content for 2 players. That includes belt-ratting and anomalies. After the patch, you need one system to have PvE-content for 10 players, as the anomalies will instantly respawn after they're finished, and there'll be more of them aswell. You may not find them anomalies worthwile, but that's your personal problem, if you allways ever compare ISK/h to LvL 4 missions. If you're only looking for ISK, then go to empire and fly LvL 4 missions... it's that easy. Nobody forces you to strive out into 0.0. Hey you, don't make comparisons to lvl4 missions. BTW, go to Empire and run lvl4 missions to make ISK. The hypocracy of people who don't know/live in 0.0 is immense. Quote: As I see it, 0.0 was never intended to have higher rewards then empire-mission-running, but approx the same. The only difference between 0.0 and empire is, that you can enforce your own rules in 0.0 shooting at everyone you don't like etc... Right now you make more money running level 4's in safe space. If we keep gravitating towards risk vs. reward comparisons then my ability to make ISK should increase as my risk increases. Thus my isk in lawless space should be more than that of empire, you know, where rules prevent you from being destroyed 99.99999999% of the time?

Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:34:00 - [2141] Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Orb Lati The key point is, brining more mineral into the system without out increasing the demand is not going to make miners any more money and will just end up tanking the prices even further. Mineral prices will not tank anymore than they are now. If they do then it would be profitable to build T1 ships, insure them, and self destruct them. Insurance will hold mineral prices to a certain price. There's a simple and quick way to cause mineral prices to rise - nerf compounds dropped by rouge drones. Nearly all of the game's minerals come from there now, with a trickle from refining.
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:36:00 - [2142] Edited by: Dharh on 09/11/2009 01:36:46 Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Orb Lati The key point is, brining more mineral into the system without out increasing the demand is not going to make miners any more money and will just end up tanking the prices even further. Mineral prices will not tank anymore than they are now. If they do then it would be profitable to build T1 ships, insure them, and self destruct them. Insurance will hold mineral prices to a certain price. There's a simple and quick way to cause mineral prices to rise - nerf compounds dropped by rouge drones. Nearly all of the game's minerals come from there now, with a trickle from refining. Kinda this. IMO this right here supersedes _all_ this other crap over 0.0
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:43:00 - [2143] Originally by: Lucas Pantelis Edited by: Lucas Pantelis on 08/11/2009 23:44:50 Originally by: Kanatta Jing One last time... Infinite any amount of ISK is still infinite ISK. Infinite Anomaly ISK is still more infinite then finite Dypro moon income. You just have an instance where more work yields more ISK, and in this instance extra work isn't a waste. They can respawn as quickly and frequently as they like, they're still a finite resource limited by how quickly and for how long they can be run. Your right, I don't think GoonSwarm has enough members to perpetually run Anomalies and Gravsites. The rest of EVE has long known of the crippling shortage of members that GoonSwarm suffers from. Yes... So... how many AFK cloakers at a rate of 15 per system do we need to shut down all of Delve again?
Misaki Yuuko	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:44:00 - [2144] Originally by: Orb Lati Stuff. What you don't realize is that there won't be more input into the system, but the same. The same people running lvl4's in empire with alts will be the ones using 0.0 content to make money, only you will make it somewhat faster (if the upgrades were worth it, not like as suggested). It's actually easy to tweak isk sinks/faucets for CCP and a slight increase in percentage of certain sinks will be enough, one thing I agree though is sinks should be made specially to empire players, as this disavantage between 0.0 and empire is allready becoming too much of a joke. The mineral value problem is an entire different problem that has to be looked at, but not directlly related to all this. @Vivian Azure, stop posting. If you don't realize how bad is for game balance and game play for someone in 0.0 or even lowsec having to put so much more effort and overcome so much trouble to barelly make the same income as emprie lvl4 running you are trully biased and/or desillusional. Or you have drink too much Jade kool-aid 8which is the same anyway). heck, I would say that in the incoming patch W-space (which value are almost enterelly player driven by supply/demand), NPC 0.0 and lowsec are much more balanced and almost fine in risk/reward grand scheme of things comparing them with baseline (empire lvl4 mission-whoring). Lowsec specially with FW missions and lvl5's (and occationally with exploration, even if that's not much casual-friendlly), and NPC 0.0 with broken truesec, higher faction/officer spawn chance, and pirate agents, specially with new rebalanced pirate ships which make them trully worth it (sansha were allready). But the rest of 0.0 is 'meh' at best even AFTER max upgrading.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:45:00 - [2145] Originally by: Quesa Originally by: Vivian Azure So far, you need 1 system to have PvE-content for 2 players. That includes belt-ratting and anomalies. After the patch, you need one system to have PvE-content for 10 players, as the anomalies will instantly respawn after they're finished, and there'll be more of them aswell. You may not find them anomalies worthwile, but that's your personal problem, if you allways ever compare ISK/h to LvL 4 missions. If you're only looking for ISK, then go to empire and fly LvL 4 missions... it's that easy. Nobody forces you to strive out into 0.0. Hey you, don't make comparisons to lvl4 missions. BTW, go to Empire and run lvl4 missions to make ISK. The hypocracy of people who don't know/live in 0.0 is immense. Quote: As I see it, 0.0 was never intended to have higher rewards then empire-mission-running, but approx the same. The only difference between 0.0 and empire is, that you can enforce your own rules in 0.0 shooting at everyone you don't like etc... Right now you make more money running level 4's in safe space. If we keep gravitating towards risk vs. reward comparisons then my ability to make ISK should increase as my risk increases. Thus my isk in lawless space should be more than that of empire, you know, where rules prevent you from being destroyed 99.99999999% of the time? Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post with my main in public forums. Just to get this out of the way for you. And no, as I see it, your rewards in 0.0 shouldn't increase, as there's actually no personal risk at all in 0.0. I get informed about every neutral/hostile 10 systems ahead of time to get safe before they arrive in my system. Why is this anymore risk then in empire exactly? And even if there's no warning ahead, then I've got plenty of timeto get safe as the neutral/hostile enters the system I'm ratting in. This risk vs. reward thing only applies to corp/alliance assets like POSs or Outposts, but the moons and industrial backbone of my corp/alliance covers this allready. I'm actually amused, that all the people in here are talking about this "risk vs reward" thing all the time, as I've never encountered a risky situation, if I've not actively searched for those situations by roaming around or joining a fleet-OP.
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:50:00 - [2146] Edited by: Quesa on 09/11/2009 01:50:11 Double post. This forum really sucks.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:55:00 - [2147] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 01:48:05 Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 01:47:14 Originally by: Quesa Originally by: Vivian Azure So far, you need 1 system to have PvE-content for 2 players. That includes belt-ratting and anomalies. After the patch, you need one system to have PvE-content for 10 players, as the anomalies will instantly respawn after they're finished, and there'll be more of them aswell. You may not find them anomalies worthwile, but that's your personal problem, if you allways ever compare ISK/h to LvL 4 missions. If you're only looking for ISK, then go to empire and fly LvL 4 missions... it's that easy. Nobody forces you to strive out into 0.0. Hey you, don't make comparisons to lvl4 missions. BTW, go to Empire and run lvl4 missions to make ISK. The hypocracy of people who don't know/live in 0.0 is immense. Quote: As I see it, 0.0 was never intended to have higher rewards then empire-mission-running, but approx the same. The only difference between 0.0 and empire is, that you can enforce your own rules in 0.0 shooting at everyone you don't like etc... Right now you make more money running level 4's in safe space. If we keep gravitating towards risk vs. reward comparisons then my ability to make ISK should increase as my risk increases. Thus my isk in lawless space should be more than that of empire, you know, where rules prevent you from being destroyed 99.99999999% of the time? Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post with my main in public forums. Just to get this out of the way for you. And no, as I see it, your rewards in 0.0 shouldn't increase, as there's actually no personal risk at all in 0.0. I get informed about every neutral/hostile 10 systems ahead of time to get safe before they arrive in my system. Why is this anymore risk then in empire exactly? And even if there's no warning ahead, then I've got plenty of timeto get safe as the neutral/hostile enters the system I'm ratting in. This risk vs. reward thing only applies to corp/alliance assets like POSs or Outposts, but the moons and industrial backbone of my corp/alliance covers this allready. I'm actually amused, that all the people in here are talking about this "risk vs reward" thing all the time, as I've never encountered a risky situation, if I've not actively searched for those situations by roaming around or joining a fleet-OP in the past 3 years living in 0.0. Do away with local-chat, then there'll be some risk involved actually. Can you mitigate risk in 0.0, sure of course you can. But to say there is no risk is just stupid. Yes if you perform perfectly, are always aligned, have super reliable intel channel fit cloaks, never get scrammed by rats, dont get caught on a gat camp, you wont die. But if you pull off all of things perfectly every time you decide to make money that takes a degree of skill. 0.0 requires both an increase in skill and and increase in risk. That should be rewarded.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:56:00 - [2148] Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 09/11/2009 01:58:23 Originally by: Quesa Hey you, don't make comparisons to lvl4 missions. BTW, go to Empire and run lvl4 missions to make ISK. The hypocracy of people who don't know/live in 0.0 is immense. Vivian Azure of KLONKRIEGER: Standings of Klonkrieger (two person corp): Federation Navy 9.75 The Scope 9.55 Federal Intelligence Office 9.03 Roden Shipyards 8.13 + more L4s are something he seems to know well. waits to have his own 9.xx Fed Navy standing from 2005 dragged out as proof of his 'hypocrisy'
Misaki Yuuko	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:02:00 - [2149] Originally by: Vivian Azure Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post with my main in public forums. Just to get this out of the way for you. And no, as I see it, your rewards in 0.0 shouldn't increase, as there's actually no personal risk at all in 0.0. I get informed about every neutral/hostile 10 systems ahead of time to get safe before they arrive in my system. Why is this anymore risk then in empire exactly? And even if there's no warning ahead, then I've got plenty of timeto get safe as the neutral/hostile enters the system I'm ratting in. This risk vs. reward thing only applies to corp/alliance assets like POSs or Outposts, but the moons and industrial backbone of my corp/alliance covers this allready. I'm actually amused, that all the people in here are talking about this "risk vs reward" thing all the time, as I've never encountered a risky situation, if I've not actively searched for those situations by roaming around or joining a fleet-OP in the past 3 years living in 0.0. Do away with local-chat, then there'll be some risk involved actually. Why don't you fail moar about it? All these intel networks and crapp you are talking about, yes, they have to be done and managed by players. Players have to work for their own safity, but in empire you don't need to pay neither waste your time doing that. Also, if an alliance will upgrade a handfull of systems, these are gonna be easilly disruptible by other players, an AFK cov-op can screw your anomalies respawning, you don't need to even fire a single gun. I think, too, you're one of these clueless guys who think mienral is free cause they mine theirshelves, because afterall all the time you spend cloaked in a safe because there are hostiles in the system is not valuable to you. But hey, you can keep being dellusional about it, running missions which never run out of supply, with personal bookmarks, without having to pay attetion to any intel, and no oen being able to disrupt your activity 8except ninja-salvagers), it's totally balanced and fair. Just gtfo.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:03:00 - [2150] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 02:04:58 Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 09/11/2009 01:58:23 Originally by: Quesa Hey you, don't make comparisons to lvl4 missions. BTW, go to Empire and run lvl4 missions to make ISK. The hypocracy of people who don't know/live in 0.0 is immense. Vivian Azure of KLONKRIEGER: Standings of Klonkrieger (two person corp): Federation Navy 9.75 The Scope 9.55 Federal Intelligence Office 9.03 Roden Shipyards 8.13 + more L4s are something he seems to know well. waits to have his own 9.xx Fed Navy standing from 2005 dragged out as proof of his 'hypocrisy' Yes, I do know LvL 4 missions very well, like I know allmost every **ing system in the north pretty well. And I even have an -10 alt, that knows nearly every **ing low-sec-system from Everyshore to Lonetrek pretty well. I don't play EvE for only one aspect of the game, I do enjoy all of the content... I've got enough time to do so and several accounts ofc

Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:09:00 - [2151] Originally by: Korodan There's a simple and quick way to cause mineral prices to rise - nerf compounds dropped by rouge drones. Nearly all of the game's minerals come from there now, with a trickle from refining. Yes, because the way to fix 0.0 is to completely screw over eight regions of it. And no, drone compounds aren't a big part of the problem - they're maybe a quarter of minerals, tops. Disproportionately high in nocxium, and to a lesser extent zydrine, but they're not that huge a part of the market. What's far bigger is mission/ratting loot drops, the T1 stuff that always winds up in a refinery. I believe that more minerals are produced that way than from all mining combined.
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:12:00 - [2152] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Korodan There's a simple and quick way to cause mineral prices to rise - nerf compounds dropped by rouge drones. Nearly all of the game's minerals come from there now, with a trickle from refining. Yes, because the way to fix 0.0 is to completely screw over eight regions of it. And no, drone compounds aren't a big part of the problem - they're maybe a quarter of minerals, tops. Disproportionately high in nocxium, and to a lesser extent zydrine, but they're not that huge a part of the market. What's far bigger is mission/ratting loot drops, the T1 stuff that always winds up in a refinery. I believe that more minerals are produced that way than from all mining combined. You are completely undervaluing drone poop. It's extremely efficient, in terms of compression and extremely valuable for builders. The problem with Drones is the reward from a drone is directly effected by the mineral market and takes exceedingly more time/logistics/effort to squeeze the isk out of it.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:15:00 - [2153] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Korodan There's a simple and quick way to cause mineral prices to rise - nerf compounds dropped by rouge drones. Nearly all of the game's minerals come from there now, with a trickle from refining. Yes, because the way to fix 0.0 is to completely screw over eight regions of it. And no, drone compounds aren't a big part of the problem - they're maybe a quarter of minerals, tops. Disproportionately high in nocxium, and to a lesser extent zydrine, but they're not that huge a part of the market. What's far bigger is mission/ratting loot drops, the T1 stuff that always winds up in a refinery. I believe that more minerals are produced that way than from all mining combined. If you tell me who's excited enough mining all those minerals needed that are currently coming from loot, then you could do away with all the crappy Tech 1 loot imho. Unfortuantely there's not alot of people willing to sit in a mining-barge for several hours a day, for the current value of the minerals. But hey, I'd like to see mining-ops again like we had some 4 or 5 years back in time
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:17:00 - [2154] Originally by: Vivian Azure If you strive for personal income, then it's your problem. In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. 2 bil a month is nothing, if you divide it between 10 players. That's a laughable 7 Million ISK per day per player. Originally by: Vivian Azure Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK So which one is it? All of your isk goes to alliance and it works? Or you make a bunch of personal isk because it doesn't work? Patiently awaiting "both" as a reply. please stop posting
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:18:00 - [2155] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Korodan There's a simple and quick way to cause mineral prices to rise - nerf compounds dropped by rouge drones. Nearly all of the game's minerals come from there now, with a trickle from refining. Yes, because the way to fix 0.0 is to completely screw over eight regions of it. And no, drone compounds aren't a big part of the problem - they're maybe a quarter of minerals, tops. Disproportionately high in nocxium, and to a lesser extent zydrine, but they're not that huge a part of the market. What's far bigger is mission/ratting loot drops, the T1 stuff that always winds up in a refinery. I believe that more minerals are produced that way than from all mining combined. If you tell me who's excited enough mining all those minerals needed that are currently coming from loot, then you could do away with all the crappy Tech 1 loot imho. Unfortuantely there's not alot of people willing to sit in a mining-barge for several hours a day, for the current value of the minerals. But hey, I'd like to see mining-ops again like we had some 4 or 5 years back in time But but that would require there be an incentive in 0.0 for that to happen. 0.0 is fine and dosent need income boosted at all.
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:19:00 - [2156] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Korodan There's a simple and quick way to cause mineral prices to rise - nerf compounds dropped by rouge drones. Nearly all of the game's minerals come from there now, with a trickle from refining. Yes, because the way to fix 0.0 is to completely screw over eight regions of it. And no, drone compounds aren't a big part of the problem - they're maybe a quarter of minerals, tops. Disproportionately high in nocxium, and to a lesser extent zydrine, but they're not that huge a part of the market. What's far bigger is mission/ratting loot drops, the T1 stuff that always winds up in a refinery. I believe that more minerals are produced that way than from all mining combined. If you tell me who's excited enough mining all those minerals needed that are currently coming from loot, then you could do away with all the crappy Tech 1 loot imho. Unfortuantely there's not alot of people willing to sit in a mining-barge for several hours a day, for the current value of the minerals. But hey, I'd like to see mining-ops again like we had some 4 or 5 years back in time There are more than enough miners. If on the _off_ chance that there was a true lack of supply of minerals due to it being 'too boring' there are plenty of things that have been suggested over the years by players to add some more activity to mining.
Etrange Phi	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:19:00 - [2157] Edited by: Etrange Phi on 09/11/2009 02:25:21 Edited by: Etrange Phi on 09/11/2009 02:22:59 Originally by: Vivian Azure there's actually no personal risk at all in 0.0 On one hand it's admirable that you keep voicing your opinion against an overwhelming majority, on the other hand general statements such as the one quoted above deprives you of any credibility, if you ever had any. Edit: spelign
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:21:00 - [2158] Originally by: Quesa Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Korodan There's a simple and quick way to cause mineral prices to rise - nerf compounds dropped by rouge drones. Nearly all of the game's minerals come from there now, with a trickle from refining. Yes, because the way to fix 0.0 is to completely screw over eight regions of it. And no, drone compounds aren't a big part of the problem - they're maybe a quarter of minerals, tops. Disproportionately high in nocxium, and to a lesser extent zydrine, but they're not that huge a part of the market. What's far bigger is mission/ratting loot drops, the T1 stuff that always winds up in a refinery. I believe that more minerals are produced that way than from all mining combined. You are completely undervaluing drone poop. It's extremely efficient, in terms of compression and extremely valuable for builders. The problem with Drones is the reward from a drone is directly effected by the mineral market and takes exceedingly more time/logistics/effort to squeeze the isk out of it. The drone regions just feel like they were horribly planned out tbh. They seem tailor made for the pet/master relationship.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:24:00 - [2159] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 02:25:37 Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Vivian Azure If you strive for personal income, then it's your problem. In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. 2 bil a month is nothing, if you divide it between 10 players. That's a laughable 7 Million ISK per day per player. Originally by: Vivian Azure Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK So which one is it? All of your isk goes to alliance and it works? Or you make a bunch of personal isk because it doesn't work? Patiently awaiting "both" as a reply. please stop posting 1 account flying LvL 4 missions in empire, nearly AFK, 1 account doing the production and hauling in empire, 1 account active in 0.0. So yes, I'm doing even more then those two things at the same time actually. But I see we're not talking about the same level of dedication to the game and corp/alliance. If you've read another one of my posts, I was allready stating to be playing atleast 6 hours a day.
Will Hunter GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:29:00 - [2160] Originally by: Vivian Azure I was allready stating to be playing atleast 6 hours a day. Originally by: Vivian Azure playing atleast 6 hours a day. Originally by: Vivian Azure 6 hours a day.

Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:29:00 - [2161] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Vivian Azure If you strive for personal income, then it's your problem. In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. 2 bil a month is nothing, if you divide it between 10 players. That's a laughable 7 Million ISK per day per player. Originally by: Vivian Azure Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK So which one is it? All of your isk goes to alliance and it works? Or you make a bunch of personal isk because it doesn't work? Patiently awaiting "both" as a reply. please stop posting 1 account flying LvL 4 missions in empire, nearly AFK, 1 account doing the production and hauling in empire, 1 account active in 0.0. So yes, I'm doing even more then those two things at the same time actually. But I see we're not talking about the same level of dedication to the game and corp/alliance. If you've read another one of my posts, I was allready stating to be playing 6 hours a day. So the majority of your income is from empire. What a shocker that you would not want nullsec rewards increased. Lets just drive everyone to make their isk afk in empire. No one will be able to have their income directly attacked, wars will be rare adn with nothing of value ever really gained. WE can all just be afk in empire instead of afk in 0.0. Im pretty sure your constant garbage posts are the only thing keeping your head from exploding with cognitive dissonance.
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:30:00 - [2162] Edited by: Quesa on 09/11/2009 02:30:47 Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Quesa Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Korodan There's a simple and quick way to cause mineral prices to rise - nerf compounds dropped by rouge drones. Nearly all of the game's minerals come from there now, with a trickle from refining. Yes, because the way to fix 0.0 is to completely screw over eight regions of it. And no, drone compounds aren't a big part of the problem - they're maybe a quarter of minerals, tops. Disproportionately high in nocxium, and to a lesser extent zydrine, but they're not that huge a part of the market. What's far bigger is mission/ratting loot drops, the T1 stuff that always winds up in a refinery. I believe that more minerals are produced that way than from all mining combined. You are completely undervaluing drone poop. It's extremely efficient, in terms of compression and extremely valuable for builders. The problem with Drones is the reward from a drone is directly effected by the mineral market and takes exceedingly more time/logistics/effort to squeeze the isk out of it. The drone regions just feel like they were horribly planned out tbh. They seem tailor made for the pet/master relationship. Oh, I completely agree. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say the initial design of all 0.0 is horrible. I was just commenting how the OP very much undervalued Drone Poop.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:33:00 - [2163] Originally by: Will Hunter Originally by: Vivian Azure I was allready stating to be playing atleast 6 hours a day. Originally by: Vivian Azure playing atleast 6 hours a day. Originally by: Vivian Azure 6 hours a day. Quoting for emphasis.
Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:35:00 - [2164] So, I'm still not comfortable with the fact that the claiming mechanism is largely based on ISK which, could be most efficiently generated by an army of macros running lvl4 missions in empire, or simply by selling PLEXs or other activities utterly unrelated to the space you're trying to hold. I got to thinking, what does claiming sov really mean? Well it's about demonstrating control over some corner of space, one might imagine that without players doing their thing that NPC pirate rats would roam the belts uncontested, in some ways alliances are claiming sov from the pirates. So, why isn't that the primary driver for claiming Sov rather than simply qualifying for upgrades, whenever a kill happens in a system, whether it be a PVP or PVE kill the alliance making the kill gets some credit towards gaining or maintaining sov. You need to maintain some baseline to keep qualified for holding sov and without it your claims start to drop. But on top of this, kills by other alliances start to weaken your claim. Of course... dream as i might it's probably too late to stop this current train wreck from driving everyone back to empire.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:35:00 - [2165] Originally by: Pointfive So the majority of your income is from empire. What a shocker that you would not want nullsec rewards increased. Lets just drive everyone to make their isk afk in empire. No one will be able to have their income directly attacked, wars will be rare adn with nothing of value ever really gained. WE can all just be afk in empire instead of afk in 0.0. Im pretty sure your constant garbage posts are the only thing keeping your head from exploding with cognitive dissonance. Nothing wrong with making alot of money in empire tbh. I know people who make several billion ISK a week by just setting up buy- and sell-orders in Jita on an alt.
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:35:00 - [2166] Originally by: Vivian Azure I was allready stating to be playing atleast 6 hours a day. Originally by: Vivian Azure playing atleast 6 hours a day. Originally by: Vivian Azure 6 hours a day. Must be nice not having a life.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:41:00 - [2167] Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Vivian Azure I was allready stating to be playing atleast 6 hours a day. Originally by: Vivian Azure playing atleast 6 hours a day. Originally by: Vivian Azure 6 hours a day. Must be nice not having a life. Probably lives in a basement, a nocturnal lizard sipping the finest Mountain Dew and sampling the most compelling and deep of animes, stroking his fleshlite of a five year old girl lovingly as he missions in a CNR.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:43:00 - [2168] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 02:40:28 Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 02:37:39 Originally by: Pointfive So the majority of your income is from empire. What a shocker that you would not want nullsec rewards increased. Lets just drive everyone to make their isk afk in empire. No one will be able to have their income directly attacked, wars will be rare adn with nothing of value ever really gained. WE can all just be afk in empire instead of afk in 0.0. Im pretty sure your constant garbage posts are the only thing keeping your head from exploding with cognitive dissonance. Nothing wrong with making alot of money in empire tbh. I know people who make several billion ISK a week by just setting up buy- and sell-orders in Jita on an alt. So 0.0 is so profitable that you have 2 accounts dedicated two making money in empire.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:44:00 - [2169] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Vivian Azure I was allready stating to be playing atleast 6 hours a day. Originally by: Vivian Azure playing atleast 6 hours a day. Originally by: Vivian Azure 6 hours a day. Must be nice not having a life. Probably lives in a basement, a nocturnal lizard sipping the finest Mountain Dew and sampling the most compelling and deep of animes, stroking his fleshlite of a five year old girl lovingly as he missions in a CNR. Why am I not surprised, that you're saying this? Totally unimaginable for you apparantly, that there's people outthere, who don't have to work anymore
Terranid Meester Tactical Assault and Recon Unit	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:46:00 - [2170] The upgrades are boring. Personally I will reserve judgement until after Dominion comes out. Would have been nice to have some unique upgrades but I think that sovereignity is going the wrong direction anyway.

Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:47:00 - [2171] I have a 40+ hour a week job and I still manage almost 6 hours a day in EVE. WTF are you tards talking about?
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:49:00 - [2172] Originally by: Dharh I have a 40+ hour a week job and I still manage almost 6 hours a day in EVE. WTF are you tards talking about? I know it's like there are people that aren't hiding from the wife by playing EVE. Shhh! I think she heard me!
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:52:00 - [2173] vivian understand that what you do and the amount of time you investing playing internet spaceships is an exception and not the rule to which 0.0 players should be held to afford sovereignty and upgrades.
Kara Mitsui The New Era Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:53:00 - [2174] 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. It took you so long to think of this because you didn't think of it - I wrote it on scrapheap challenge about an hour ago. it's what we need but it's not going to happen in a million years.
Etrange Phi	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:54:00 - [2175] YES OR NO: The game should be balanced around a playtime of at least 6 hours per day per character.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:55:00 - [2176] Originally by: Sally Bestonge vivian understand that what you do and the amount of time you investing playing internet spaceships is an exception and not the rule to which 0.0 players should be held to afford sovereignty and upgrades. 5-10 Million ISK a day is all you need to contribute to your corp/alliance to pay all the bills after these changes go live. That's some 10-30 minutes of shooting some rats, depending on the system and the spawns in the belts.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:56:00 - [2177] Edited by: Qlanth on 09/11/2009 02:58:31 Vivian you should also keep in mind that not everyone has multiple accounts to use. Either I am in 0.0 making money to keep upgrades online and make sure my space is defended, or I am in Empire running Level 4 missions to keep ISK in my own wallet. e: and when considering changes you should also be assuming that most people only have and use one account.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:58:00 - [2178] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 02:25:37 Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Vivian Azure If you strive for personal income, then it's your problem. In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. 2 bil a month is nothing, if you divide it between 10 players. That's a laughable 7 Million ISK per day per player. Originally by: Vivian Azure Learn to make ISK. I spend some 1/10 of my time making enough ISK in EvE to fly around in Tech 2 cruisers the whole day and loose some 5 HACs a week. Making 1 billion ISK a week is a piece of cake and can be done 90% AFK So which one is it? All of your isk goes to alliance and it works? Or you make a bunch of personal isk because it doesn't work? Patiently awaiting "both" as a reply. please stop posting 1 account flying LvL 4 missions in empire, nearly AFK, 1 account doing the production and hauling in empire, 1 account active in 0.0. So yes, I'm doing even more then those two things at the same time actually. But I see we're not talking about the same level of dedication to the game and corp/alliance. If you've read another one of my posts, I was allready stating to be playing atleast 6 hours a day. This is why you shouldn't post, and what makes all of your posts invalid. You have no basis for you stance. You cannot support two mutually exclusive and opposing ideals simultaneously. On the one hand you support the communistic approach and expect everyone to give 100% of their income to the corp/alliance. But while supporting this, you play as a capitalist and earn all of your income outside the corp where it can't be taken. To simplify: "I support communism. Because it works so well I am a capitalist" Also your vision is rather limited. You only see EVE from your own multiple account point of view, and through the jaded eyes of one who doesn't really enjoy most of what he does.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:58:00 - [2179] Originally by: Kanatta Jing Originally by: Dharh I have a 40+ hour a week job and I still manage almost 6 hours a day in EVE. WTF are you tards talking about? I know it's like there are people that aren't hiding from the wife by playing EVE. Shhh! I think she heard me! Is she one of the disabled ones mang? Those ones are really ***ing crazy, chicks in wheelchairs can do drive-bys in your own ***ing house and blind ones always have a large blunt weapon on hand - it don't matter if they can't see, they're eventually gonna hit you with a heavy ass metal stick and knock you the **** out.
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:58:00 - [2180] Originally by: Kara Mitsui 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. It took you so long to think of this because you didn't think of it - I wrote it on scrapheap challenge about an hour ago. it's what we need but it's not going to happen in a million years. This proposal is OLD. Far as I can tell its a no go from CCP. More likely, and certainly would help things alot is diminishing returns for missions (enough for an hour or three of missioning per day), nerf mission 4 a bit (maybe alot), buff missions in low/null, add an agent upgrade for sov.

Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:04:00 - [2181] Originally by: Quesa You are completely undervaluing drone poop. It's extremely efficient, in terms of compression and extremely valuable for builders. The problem with Drones is the reward from a drone is directly effected by the mineral market and takes exceedingly more time/logistics/effort to squeeze the isk out of it. I've got nothing against drone poop. It's neat stuff. But it's not the source of "nearly all of the game's minerals" like Korodan suggested. Originally by: Vivian Azure If you tell me who's excited enough mining all those minerals needed that are currently coming from loot, then you could do away with all the crappy Tech 1 loot imho. Unfortuantely there's not alot of people willing to sit in a mining-barge for several hours a day, for the current value of the minerals. But hey, I'd like to see mining-ops again like we had some 4 or 5 years back in time Oh, I agree, the patch that removes T1 drops from missions/ratting had better be the same patch that makes mining an activity that doesn't have a frontal lobotomy as a virtual requisite. Still, if you want mineral prices to go up, there's worse ways to do it than to start by cutting away big parts of the supply.
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:05:00 - [2182] 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. /This Bears repeating, despite the 40 pages of replies between it and the present. Nullsec space does not necessarily scale in value based on distance. This ... would make sense, but when does EVE make sense? The end result is that there are "pockets" of inherently valuable truesec space scattered around, but most of 0.0 is pretty darn bad. It is not, therefore, sensible to penalize the JB costs in this kind of linear fashion unless you also do something to address the truesec values of these distant regions in a more comprehensive fashion. Look: I know you don't WANT to mess with truesec values, but they've not changed since the beginning of the game, and it's time to step in with a new look and apply some common sense. You additionally have an issue in which it is more economical for Alliances to rent space they "control"--but do not exert sov over or develop--based on the truesec of the systems, and to players who are strangely online 23/7 with miraculous reflexes to hide when someone enters the system.... --Krum (who does not live in the arse end of the map) --Krum
Kaldor Mintat Nomads Of Eve	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:05:00 - [2183] My eve career so far have been pure carebearing in highsec and thus i know very little about nullsec. That said i have trouble seeing how Dominion will lure many more highsecdwellers out to nullsec (especially in those numbers that some are talking about). Let us face the facts -those that would do so already have or would have done so anyway (talking those with a serious interest, there are loads more that would like to go there as long as they could get filthy pixel rich without any risks whatsoever). Most will continue missioning to get better stuff to mission better/faster to get better stuff etc until they have the best then after awhile quit the game. For myself i enjoy missioning now and again as well as even mining (yes, i am a sucker for selfsuffering) but its a sad state of affairs when no risk afking a mission gives the most rewards and as risk increases rewards grow less. Whatever the changes i am soon of for nullsec and hope to see some of the posters here in one way or another (i will probably litter killmails everywhere but that do not bother me) A last note: i hear alot about about having alts for mission running and trading in highsec to earn isk. Nothing wrong with this in general but the point is you should NOT NEED to have that to be able to support yourself.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:11:00 - [2184] Originally by: Kaldor Mintat A last note: i hear alot about about having alts for mission running and trading in highsec to earn isk. Nothing wrong with this in general but the point is you should NOT NEED to have that to be able to support yourself. EvE Online is setup to have more then a single character... CCP makes more ISK this way. hint Power of Two hint
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:13:00 - [2185] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Nyphur Another idea I had was the possibility of taxing NPC kills in a system rather than just those within a corp. It's an idea just to support the NRDS people that can't reap taxes from the people that use their space. Perhaps they could set their hub to collect a 10% tax off NPCers in their system automatically. Maybe even make it an upgrade? This is an unironically Good Idea and I support it. I find your product and/or service strangely compelling, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. More seriously: Territorial Asset eXtraction Enhancement System (TAXES) When online, imposes a configurable tax on CONCORD bounties collected by pilots for pirate kills within the system, paid to the controlling alliance. This tax is in addition to corporate taxes and alliance taxes on member corporations. There, done. Now you have a tool to both directly extract the resources needed at an appropriate level, and something to direct your member activity. Usage is of course, optional. --Krum --Krum
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:17:00 - [2186] Edited by: gambrinous on 09/11/2009 03:19:52 Edited by: gambrinous on 09/11/2009 03:19:13 Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Kaldor Mintat A last note: i hear alot about about having alts for mission running and trading in highsec to earn isk. Nothing wrong with this in general but the point is you should NOT NEED to have that to be able to support yourself. EvE Online is setup to have more then a single character... CCP makes more ISK this way. hint Power of Two hint like a scout perhaps. that's how they market it, pretty sure they don't say "get another alt so your 0.0 dude can actually make some money on comparatively lucrative, risk free hisec missions" e: still waiting for you to clarify how you should give all your money to corp except for all your money go away pls
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:17:00 - [2187] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Nyphur Another idea I had was the possibility of taxing NPC kills in a system rather than just those within a corp. It's an idea just to support the NRDS people that can't reap taxes from the people that use their space. Perhaps they could set their hub to collect a 10% tax off NPCers in their system automatically. Maybe even make it an upgrade? This is an unironically Good Idea and I support it. This is an excellent idea and will curtail use of a system by non-alliance members (farmers ratting in your space? set a high tax and earn money from them! NB: might have an adverse effect from alliance members)
DreadedTaipan	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:18:00 - [2188] Hello CCP, As a player currently living in a highly populous region of null sec the Dominion changes are not what I was hoping for. As things are at the moment I find it hard to generate ISK due to competition for Rats/Ore/Complexes and the changes don't go far enough to sustain the expection of 50-100 players per system. The upgrades need to add belts, increase rat frequency and improve quality and the cost of sov must be balanced by the abiltiy to generate more profit to pay for it in proportion. I LIKE living in null sec and would like to be able to PvP, make stuff etc. I want to make some ISK without having to go back to empire to do lvl 4's. I work full time and can usually only do 1 or 2 hours aday like most normal people! I don't want to spend my time funding sov. Its not too late! Make some changes please! DT
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:20:00 - [2189] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Kaldor Mintat A last note: i hear alot about about having alts for mission running and trading in highsec to earn isk. Nothing wrong with this in general but the point is you should NOT NEED to have that to be able to support yourself. EvE Online is setup to have more then a single character... CCP makes more ISK this way. hint Power of Two hint CCP has made it easier and more attractive to allow and foster people owning multiple accounts for the game. Trying to pass this off to the general players as a the GAME being setup to have multiple players is not only ridiculous but insulting to people of higher than ape intelligence. Please, try to validate your obsession to a game more please. PS, they don't make ISK, they make money.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:21:00 - [2190] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Kaldor Mintat A last note: i hear alot about about having alts for mission running and trading in highsec to earn isk. Nothing wrong with this in general but the point is you should NOT NEED to have that to be able to support yourself. EvE Online is setup to have more then a single character... CCP makes more ISK this way. hint Power of Two hint You cannot possibly be suggesting that every person playing this game needs two characters to do it "correctly". If you think that CCP is designing game mechanics based on the assumption that every subscriber is using two accounts you are wrong. If you think that every person must have two accounts to enjoy the game you are wrong. If you think that 0.0 is not broken because everyone should have another character in highsec running missions you are wrong.

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:28:00 - [2191] Originally by: Vivian Azure One account is making money for myself, the other one is making money for the corp/alliance. Just to clarify on this for you. And tbh, I couldn't care less, if 0.0 is profitable or not for me personally. 0.0 is 100% corp/alliance-wallet. You're that guy in Wedding Crashers who crashes funerals because it's easier to get laid, that is if you could find the exit to your basement. You've proven you have absolutely no clue how 0.0 works. You have admitted 0.0 isn't profitable and you are scared that your precious empire will get nerfed and you can't run missions semi afk in your super 200b tanked faction ship. You and your arguments are insignificant and irrelevant now. You no longer need to hide behind the lie that "Your CEO will kick you if you posted with your 'main'." If that's the case, and I have already said it, leave your fascist, fundamentalist corp and find people who are sensible and intelligent. But you can't because you're lying. Ignore this useless troll, it's just posting to attract flame because it's bored and its life in EVE has, obviously, no purpose beyond running lvl 4 missions.
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:33:00 - [2192] Originally by: CCP Chronotis We want the sites to scale so each site needs a group and has appropriate rewards however we face some issues as the older sites were from simpler times before lots of ship balancing and have stupid NPCs for example which turn group content into solo content in difficulty (ironically the greatest flaw in the lvl 4 missions). Obviously the solution is to use the smarter AI (sleepers) for rats in the new anomalies you want to deploy, give them higher bounties (and drops) but not the extremely high damage of sleepers across all resists, and you have acceptable semi-group content. I say "semi" because deadspace-pimped ships will still be able to solo such sites, depending. In fairness to the discussion, it needs to be pointed out that IF these anomalies (in current form) respawn IMMEDIATELY after completion, then the most efficient way to exploit them is to get into a medium-sized gang and steamroller the spawns... sending in salvage/looters afterwards once the site reverts to empty space. In this fashion, a system could support a large number of players wrecking sites in 10 minutes or so. Effective? Yes. Mechanically repetitive and rather boring? Also yes. I recommend the above enhancements to the 'rat AI/rewards. While we're taking about the anomalies (and other improvement-spawned sites), PLEASE *for the love of sanity* make the sites that spawn do so with a numerical indicator after their name (-1, -2, -3, etc.) indicating their special status as improvement sites in a distinguishable manner from each other. This would go a long way to reducing contention between pilots working a system.... --Krum --Krum
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:34:00 - [2193] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Kaldor Mintat A last note: i hear alot about about having alts for mission running and trading in highsec to earn isk. Nothing wrong with this in general but the point is you should NOT NEED to have that to be able to support yourself. Be prepared to be trolled by me, the high sec mission runner who lies about my fascist ceo and my knowledge of the game. You cannot possibly be suggesting that every person playing this game needs two characters to do it "correctly". If you think that CCP is designing game mechanics based on the assumption that every subscriber is using two accounts you are wrong. If you think that every person must have two accounts to enjoy the game you are wrong. If you think that 0.0 is not broken because everyone should have another character in highsec running missions you are wrong. Actually the troll has proven that 0.0 isn't profitable, if it was it wouldn't be running missions in Empire. After claiming that Empire and 0.0 need to be equal in profitability it failed epically and revealed the truth: it's an empire high-sec farmer who wouldn't go to 0.0 because there isn't enough money to be made there that would make the risks worthwhile. Oh, the slips of the tongue... or finger in this case. EPIC FAIL TROLL!
Flaming Lemming Caldari Puppeteer Press	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:39:00 - [2194] Originally by: Quesa Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Kaldor Mintat A last note: i hear alot about about having alts for mission running and trading in highsec to earn isk. Nothing wrong with this in general but the point is you should NOT NEED to have that to be able to support yourself. EvE Online is setup to have more then a single character... CCP makes more ISK this way. hint Power of Two hint CCP has made it easier and more attractive to allow and foster people owning multiple accounts for the game. Trying to pass this off to the general players as a the GAME being setup to have multiple players is not only ridiculous but insulting to people of higher than ape intelligence. Please, try to validate your obsession to a game more please. PS, they don't make ISK, they make money. Well, the Icelandic currency is ISK..... But, on a more serious note, why should people have to wait through 100 days of upgrading to get as much money as running level 4s? AT the VERY least, level 1 upgrade should = level 4 missions scaling up 25%/level so level 5 = double the isk of level 4s in Motsu. Hey CCP, 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.? inquiring minds want to know
NuroCorp	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:41:00 - [2195] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Kanatta Jing Originally by: Dharh I have a 40+ hour a week job and I still manage almost 6 hours a day in EVE. WTF are you tards talking about? I know it's like there are people that aren't hiding from the wife by playing EVE. Shhh! I think she heard me! Is she one of the disabled ones mang? Those ones are really ***ing crazy, chicks in wheelchairs can do drive-bys in your own ***ing house and blind ones always have a large blunt weapon on hand - it don't matter if they can't see, they're eventually gonna hit you with a heavy ass metal stick and knock you the **** out. A piece of my soul died as i laughed so hard i found it hard to breathe....
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:49:00 - [2196] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Kaldor Mintat A last note: i hear alot about about having alts for mission running and trading in highsec to earn isk. Nothing wrong with this in general but the point is you should NOT NEED to have that to be able to support yourself. Be prepared to be trolled by me, the high sec mission runner who lies about my fascist ceo and my knowledge of the game. You cannot possibly be suggesting that every person playing this game needs two characters to do it "correctly". If you think that CCP is designing game mechanics based on the assumption that every subscriber is using two accounts you are wrong. If you think that every person must have two accounts to enjoy the game you are wrong. If you think that 0.0 is not broken because everyone should have another character in highsec running missions you are wrong. Actually the troll has proven that 0.0 isn't profitable, if it was it wouldn't be running missions in Empire. After claiming that Empire and 0.0 need to be equal in profitability it failed epically and revealed the truth: it's an empire high-sec farmer who wouldn't go to 0.0 because there isn't enough money to be made there that would make the risks worthwhile. Oh, the slips of the tongue... or finger in this case. EPIC FAIL TROLL! After all his trolling he ended up making himself a perfect example of why 0.0 income gain should be increased. Now that he is done with though im goign to get back to this. 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.
JiMeiNi	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:54:00 - [2197] Quote: CCP Chronotis Quote: Sovereignty Index The sovereignty index is one you should all be familiar with which is identical to the current sovereignty level system you have now and is based on days you have held sovereignty for according to the following scheme Lvl 1 = sov held for 7 days Lvl 2 = sov held for 21 days Lvl 3 = sov held for 35 days Lvl 4 = sov held for 65 days Lvl 5 = sov held for 100 days The levels at which each strategic upgrade is unlocked is the same as the current sovereignty level limited structures. Does this mean all 0.0 is RESET to NO sov ? Or does existing Sov holders get upgraded to LVL5 as we ALREADY own the space ? surely if its a complete reset we should be getting some sort of compensation ? and 99% of 0.0 currently has been held for more than 100days which CCP should spawn all the modules per system and upgrades... Or maybe while your at it ... Why dont you RESET every player to 0 SP ??? Since your screwing everybody over... and for what to get more people into 0.0 because your servers cant handle the empire load - oh no wait! You want everybody get to closer to "end game" ummmm fat chance in hell you will be doing that since your nerfing 0.0 oh my! I'll rather go run lvl4's in empire, because well i'll make more isk than anything in 0.0 with upgraded systems. Funny how BOB gets booted from Delve "Delve gets FIXED from true sec & random bugs" Then CCP decides "Selenne" that oh wait lets reset Sov into something new and screw over 0.0 so Tinfoil hats can take back some space since u wont have Sov4 protecting 0.0 entry systems - CCP you fail so bad!
Laendra Universalis Imperium	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:54:00 - [2198] Do we have the ability to set an alliance tax on bounties paid in our sovereign systems? -------------------
Hratli Smirks GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:59:00 - [2199] 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. This is a really good question, and I bet CCP really doesn't want to answer it
Sebastian GZ	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:05:00 - [2200] Your charges will only make 0.0 harder for small corps and alliances. Currently,CVA allows anyone to use it space (except hostiles) but if suddenly we must pay billions to have SOV in exchange for the ability to upgrade so that we can pay the outrageous amounts of isk that you are requiring then we will have to exclude non alliance members because we cant have them taking the isk as we will need it to pay for tax. Who came up with this idea (Nancy Pelosi and company) CCP epic fail.

WhiteSavage Ever Flow Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:10:00 - [2201] Quote: 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. please ccp if you would
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:11:00 - [2202] Originally by: JiMeiNi Does this mean all 0.0 is RESET to NO sov ? (rant continues) CCP has already answered this. Sov will carry over - if you have sov 2 now, you'll have sov 2 afterwards. Not sure how levels 4-5 work, but since nothing requires them(except the crazy outpost upgrade nobody uses because it costs a hundred billion isk), it shouldn't matter too much if you have sov 3 or sov 5. CCP deserves to be yelled at for a few things here, but this isn't one of them.
Prognosys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:12:00 - [2203] Originally by: Hratli Smirks 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. :allears:
Capitan Tyler	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:18:00 - [2204] ccp fail . the patch would be 1/4 cost.
Frezinviper Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:21:00 - [2205] Jumpbridges and CynoJamers should cost at least what was innitally suggusted 12.5 and 25 million isk per day... specially if you are lowering the SOV and HUB units to 1 and 5 million isk per day! I suggust 20 per JB and 50 per Cyno Jammer per day that will make things interesting! Also Perhaps give the JB/CYNOJAMMERS a boost in HP as well to makup for the cost? ...
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:24:00 - [2206] welp, in a few hours people are going to start trundling into the CCP offices again, let's hope when I get up then we'll finally have a decent answer to the little overlooked question of 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.
Fitz VonHeise Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:24:00 - [2207] All I can say is... I'm glad I moved into a worm hole. I seriously don't see this accomplishing what CCP wants. People in 0.0 mostly play to kill stuff... not to mine or to run plexs. The leadership gets their isk t obuy ships from moon mining. There is no mechanic given in this that allows the directors and CEO's to make isk as they would from moon mining. I see this as a way to slowly take away the advantages larger Alliances have had to make isk but it will take quite a while for all the moon mins to get sold off. And I think you will see many of the Alliances loosing a lot of people as they quite or move on to other places that allow them to kill stuff without having to be an industrial/ratting person for 3/4's of there play time.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:27:00 - [2208] Originally by: Hratli Smirks 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. This is a really good question, and I bet CCP really doesn't want to answer it This question is ******ed and heres why- How much can a miner in god mode make in highsec? maybe 10 mill- how much can the same miner make in null? 60 mill+ Now can any of you goons tell me which number is higher- 10 mill or 60 mill? Do the math for other activities and null always wins- ratting- null makes more, plex sites- null makes more, missions- null makes more Is there any activity done in null that makes less then hisec? No because pretending to be a pirate makes the same amount no matter where you do it.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:31:00 - [2209] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Hratli Smirks 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. This is a really good question, and I bet CCP really doesn't want to answer it This question is ******ed and heres why- How much can a miner in god mode make in highsec? maybe 10 mill- how much can the same miner make in null? 60 mill+ Now can any of you goons tell me which number is higher- 10 mill or 60 mill? Do the math for other activities and null always wins- ratting- null makes more, plex sites- null makes more, missions- null makes more Is there any activity done in null that makes less then hisec? No because pretending to be a pirate makes the same amount no matter where you do it. How can you have the nerve to post when you are so ignorant? Throughout the vast majority of 0.0 it is NOT more profitable to mine than in high sec. Yes ratting makes more - but not compared to missions. FOr most of nullsec - what missions!? Nobody is disputing that faction owned space is a good place to be. Indeed many posters have suggested that's where everyone in 0.0 should run to. For the real claimable 0.0 there are NO missions.
Becka Call	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:32:00 - [2210] Originally by: Future Mutant This is a really good question, and I bet CCP really doesn't want to answer it This question is ******ed and heres why- How much can a miner in god mode make in highsec? maybe 10 mill- how much can the same miner make in null? 60 mill+ Now can any of you goons tell me which number is higher- 10 mill or 60 mill? Do the math for other activities and null always wins- ratting- null makes more, plex sites- null makes more, missions- null makes more Is there any activity done in null that makes less then hisec? No because pretending to be a pirate makes the same amount no matter where you do it. WTB; Sov space with L4 mission agents.

Ehris Bok Stellar Research Incorporated Emergence.	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:36:00 - [2211] Edited by: Ehris Bok on 09/11/2009 04:37:22 personaly i dont have a problem with ccp's new pay for sov system. as was quoted earlier (if correct): Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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. ^^ seeing that made me a happy camper so with these numbers we end up with. basic no frills sov = 30mill a month sov + The infrastructure hub = 180mill to me that doesnt sound to bad (if i have miss understood plz correct me however i do think CCP has failed epicly with the system upgrades. anoms are crap & just coz u get more of them per level doesnt make them any less crap lol. As many have said b4 make them worth more & upgrade the AI. 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.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:38:00 - [2212] Edited by: gambrinous on 09/11/2009 04:39:02 Originally by: Future Mutant This question is ****ed and heres why- How much can a miner in god mode make in highsec? maybe 10 mill- how much can the same miner make in null? 60 mill+ Now can any of you goons tell me which number is higher- 10 mill or 60 mill? Do the math for other activities and null always wins- ratting- null makes more, plex sites- null makes more, missions- null makes more Is there any activity done in null that makes less then hisec? No because pretending to be a pirate makes the same amount no matter where you do it. Can't speak for mining but: Ratting - comparable, or less I'd say in my space. Unless I spend 3 hours grooming the belts, but then some num nuts will just come along and "accidentally" destroy that work Missioning: what? there are no **ing agents Plexing: only the really good ones, and these are farmed completely, and even if they weren't, it's not constant, you could plex every night for a week and earn L4 ish for MORE effort, or just do one and get 2 bill
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:39:00 - [2213] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Hratli Smirks 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. This is a really good question, and I bet CCP really doesn't want to answer it This question is ******ed and heres why- How much can a miner in god mode make in highsec? maybe 10 mill- how much can the same miner make in null? 60 mill+ Now can any of you goons tell me which number is higher- 10 mill or 60 mill? Do the math for other activities and null always wins- ratting- null makes more, plex sites- null makes more, missions- null makes more Is there any activity done in null that makes less then hisec? No because pretending to be a pirate makes the same amount no matter where you do it. You just proved you don't know what you are talking about. And yes, missioning is actually very profitable compared to just about anything in 0.0 and it's not limited in any way unlike missions available to anyone who spends a week grinding standings.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:42:00 - [2214] Originally by: Quesa Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Hratli Smirks 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. This is a really good question, and I bet CCP really doesn't want to answer it This question is ****ed and heres why- How much can a miner in god mode make in highsec? maybe 10 mill- how much can the same miner make in null? 60 mill+ Now can any of you goons tell me which number is higher- 10 mill or 60 mill? Do the math for other activities and null always wins- ratting- null makes more, plex sites- null makes more, missions- null makes more Is there any activity done in null that makes less then hisec? No because pretending to be a pirate makes the same amount no matter where you do it. You just proved you don't know what you are talking about. And yes, missioning is actually very profitable compared to just about anything in 0.0 and it's not limited in any way unlike missions available to anyone who spends a week grinding standings. He proved that like 40 pages ago actually. I see that Jade woke up as I went to bed and spent his day ting up the thread with his HIGH SEC HAS MORE RISK nonsense. I am glad to see CCP is looking into this and will be releasing a statement monday or tuesday. Let's hope it's more effective than stoffer's kicking of the anthill. We still <3 you stoffer but holy dont ** on our 0.0 :(
LightZenith GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:44:00 - [2215] 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. pretty sure this can't be quoted enough
cok cola Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:49:00 - [2216] Originally by: Kuar Z'thain Military experts are calling this a Threadnaught. 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. THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:00:00 - [2217] Originally by: cok cola Originally by: Kuar Z'thain Military experts are calling this a Threadnaught. 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. THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. I think the fact they haven't answer is pretty telling. For some reason they view Level 4's as some sort of hardcap for non moon goo player isk earned per hour and woe is he who suggests some aspects of the game should be reliably more income without counting on a random drop system.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:05:00 - [2218] There needs to be a direct way for alliances to gain from the new upgrades. Right now most of the upgrades will benefit players (even if they are below lvl 4 high sec mission running) but they won't benefit the alliances actually paying upkeep and putting the upgrades in the systems. I'm going to suggest that there is an instant bonus paid every time that an anomaly is completed that goes straight to the alliance wallet, or whatever wallet pays the upkeep on that system. This would vary from 1-10 million isk based on the difficulty of the anomaly. Yes this is actually going to net a little bit more than the current upkeep of systems for alliances. Still alliances are going to pull back their borders and this still requires that players do the actual work. Also this would help replace moon mining for the alliance ship replacement programs. If the numbers need tweaked a bit then they can be after they are put in. Let's say that a group of 5 players can run a top tier anomaly in an hour and net their alliance 10 million isk from it. The other anomalies should tier at about the same amount. And saying that the average players during the day stays at 5 players (the low points and peaks even eachother out) this would net the alliance around 200m isk a day, not including bounties and such since those already go to the corp before Dominion. So assuming this is a cyno jammed system, it's a core fully upgraded system, this pays roughly 165m more than upkeep a day, or enough to replace around 3 fully fit interceptors or 1 fit HAC. I don't think that is a major increase, especially since that extra isk will be used in pvp either defending the system or attacking other alliances. Also if CCP doesn't want to do this because it will put more isk in the game rather than less you could always change it to something like loyalty points. Then those points can be exchanged for pvp ships and modules in 0.0 space. That might be more work but it would be a great change to 0.0 space. Just allow them to purchase them from a LP store in a station and the ships and modules go to an alliance hanger that they determine and will then be passed out to players. Even if you can't add that in 0.0 space you can put it in high sec and alliances will just have to sell it up there or transport it down. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:07:00 - [2219] 22 days till TOTAL HELL DEATH!!! Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:08:00 - [2220] Boy you "endgame" players really know how to spit the proverbial dummy don't you.

Ecky X Shade. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:08:00 - [2221] Originally by: cok cola Originally by: Kuar Z'thain Military experts are calling this a Threadnaught. 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. THIS NEEDS ANSWERING CCP, WERE ALL ASKING, WERE ALL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE.
Stucks alt	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:11:00 - [2222] how much pages have we had without a dev post?
Ryixezu Amarr Big Shadows Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:13:00 - [2223] TLDR: moving gains from alliance to individual level must equal to an individual what an alliance gains with moons. The expansion is trying to fix a two-fold problem with one solution actually. First, two assumptions: 1) 0.0 needs more warfare, skirmishes and conflicts on alliance level, not coalition level. 2) For the random grunt in a spaceholding alliance, living in 0.0 should at least not net him or her less income than living in empire. If you disagree with one of the points above you might as well stop reading since the rest of the text revolves around those two statements. Let's recap the situation as of today. We have large powerblocs whose only reasons to fight are moongoo and to a lesser extent "good fights"¬. But let's discuss the moongoo, what does it exactly do for me, as an individual? - I get reimbursed for losses during larger fleet fights, given certain conditions. - We do have one or more JB-fairies refilling bridges after we move fleets. - Titanbridge every now and then. It's still just moving me from A to B. That's about the only thing me and many others get out of the moongoo. Sure the alliance itself may be rich and I'm not that blue-eyed that I don't think some guys end up with a better deal than me. However, I'm sure the select few are in the positions to have earned it, as should be the case. I suspect that sentence is open for argument by many of you and it may differ between individuals but personally, if someone makes the effort of refueling whatever needs refueling, I say let him get a piece of the cake. So that is what you get as an individual living in 0.0 because of the moongoo. You do get a lot of other things making your life easier as well, like the magical freighter-fairy who magically moves your stuff, but that's on the corporation level and would still be done even if we didn't own any moons. What the moongoo serves as is a reason for fights on the strategic level. This is important, because this reason needs to be replaced with something else if moons are to play a lesser role. The point here is rather loglcal: - The game has a huge area without any restrictions for fights (0.0). - For strategic warfare to occur, there must be a reason to take a part of this area. Today the reason is, as stated, moons. It is not any of the following: truesec, mining opportunities, exploration sites, profession sites or wormhole entries. I agree all of these are nice perks to regions but I don't think I'm wrong to say that very few large conflicts have occured lately because of alliances wanting better ratting space. (continues)
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:13:00 - [2224] Originally by: Stucks alt how much pages have we had without a dev post? Since they went to sleep maybe? Jesus, they have to sleep sometime. Give it a freakin rest.
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:14:00 - [2225] Originally by: Prognosys Originally by: Hratli Smirks 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.
Ryixezu Amarr Big Shadows Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:15:00 - [2226] With that said, moons are not a good reason to use for fights because of reasons stated many times before, not only in this thread. However, any of the areas affected by the system upgrades could potentially be reasons for fights. Potentially meaning here that to be worth fighting for, capturing the resource(s) would involve benefits for either the alliance or yourself and you would be better off with the resource than without it. Today, alliances that own moons are clearly at an advantage versus alliances without moons. Still, the moons as a mechanic aren't working very well anymore and they don't promote the kind of gameplay in 0.0 most of us want. This is where (2) come into the picture: "for the random grunt in a spaceholding alliance, living in 0.0 should at least not net him or her less wealth than living in empire.". You see, with the moons equaling income on alliance level those two are not really connected as I explained earlier. Moving the incentive to fight over space from alliance level (moons) to individual level (any of the upgrades) is a great idea - the catch is that you are replacing moons (which as I said, gives the alliance a huge advantage versus other alliances) with something on individual level that just doesn't compare. If you still don't get it; the advantage you get on individual level must equal what you get today on alliance level. This is why trying to fix the stalemate that is 0.0 and moving incentive to fight to individual level are really two different problems but come Dominion will be connected: - Making 0.0 a vivid battleground would not necessarily require upgrading space or changing moon minerals; merely changing the mechanic to enter, get started and succeed in alliance warfare would fix this. Then you would get less of a stalemate and more wars going. - The goal of this expansion was not to make the people living in 0.0 wealthy - that could be fixed just by increasing rat bounties. Intertwining these two are the reasons people argue about level 4-missions since they act as a baseline. Many of the people already living in 0.0 use these as a solid source of ISK and have done so for a long time now. It's the current state of the game: you don't move to 0.0 as an individual to become rich, as simple as that. Sure the discussions about the income from mission running has gone on for a while but it has until now been separated from the discussions about a stale 0.0. This expansion is about to change that, thus it's no surprise that the two become connected. So, with reasons for owning space on the individual level, you must give us nonames in spaceholding alliances personal reasons to fight. Most of us would be reluctant to fight if the resources we conquer equals what we already have on our alts. However, give us good reasons to fight for space and we would gladly sacrifice countless of ships for the cause.
Holly Hotdrop Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:15:00 - [2227] 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
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:16:00 - [2228] Originally by: Mkiaki Boy you "endgame" players really know how to spit the proverbial dummy don't you. What the hell do you think we do all day? Run missions?
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:23:00 - [2229] the crappiest 0.0 should match highsec missioning in terms of single character income potential. top end systems ie -.75 or better should be double that. having elite space should be a reward, not the bare minimum for usefulness.
Twigand Berries Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:24:00 - [2230] hi 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.

Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:26:00 - [2231] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Mkiaki Boy you "endgame" players really know how to spit the proverbial dummy don't you. What the hell do you think we do all day? Run missions? What hes talking about is the fact that some null secers are so full of themselves that they think they are doing the 'endgame', when in fact there is no such thing as 'endgame' in EVE. Some parts are harder than others, some parts have newest features or content, some parts are the most uber ISK/hour. None of it is endgame.
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:27:00 - [2232] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Mkiaki Boy you "endgame" players really know how to spit the proverbial dummy don't you. What the hell do you think we do all day? Run missions? ***** and whine about things you want changed. Yup, that's about it.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:29:00 - [2233] 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
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:33:00 - [2234] Originally by: Vadinho Originally by: Mkiaki Boy you "endgame" players really know how to spit the proverbial dummy don't you. big time whining is what we do, if this was a internet video we are the angry german kid Fixed for accuracy.. You guys don't own EVE, and for an Alliance who dubbed themselves to be here for fun, boy you take this seriously.. CCP are likely quiet in meetings, forming up a change to these plans. Either way you wanted these changes
Esplin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:38:00 - [2235] 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.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:41:00 - [2236] Originally by: Graalum the crappiest 0.0 should match highsec missioning in terms of single character income potential. top end systems ie -.75 or better should be double that. having elite space should be a reward, not the bare minimum for usefulness. unironically empty quoting Atlas posters again. it still feels weird to me.
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:48:00 - [2237] 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. Wow, this would be spectacular. Actually making living in BFE worth it. Giving those very remote corners of eve space worth fighting over. I'd also be down for some r64 redistribution but we can only hope for 1 small, possitive change to the game a year.
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:49:00 - [2238] Edited by: Yon Krum on 09/11/2009 05:50:44 Edited by: Yon Krum on 09/11/2009 05:49:25 Ok, so there have been some good suggestions for defensive hardening/blanket "leadership boost" -style upgrades to systems, of the sort that one would expect to find in a "military" index. Actually, we probably need another index, called "security", to base such upgrades on, but could use the strategic index. In addition to previous suggestions along these lines, the current system upgrade list is missing some critical components, and most importantly a way to decloak ships in space. I'll be short on this: Gravitic Harmonics Scanning Array (GHSA) A central control antenna located at the hub, primarily designed to detect the presence of cloaked ships and their general locations in the system, made possible by the seeding of thousands of small sensors to detect gravity fluctuations and harmonics of vessels that are not registered with stargate shipping lists. (Could also be used to do system wide scans for anomalies, if desired, or other such features. Uses the usual scanner interface if your ship is within 2500m, but does not give a resolution on a cloaked ship sufficient for a warp-in. Could cost fuel per use if desired.) Gravitic Orthogonal Distortion Inducer (GOD-I) Targets a selected item on the scanning results pane and fires a massive gravity distortion wave at the item's grid location, destabilizing any active cloaking devices on that grid and preventing their use for 20 seconds. Consumes fuel per activation. Tada. Now if you sink the investment into your system, the morons trying to bork it with cloakers have to actually be at the keyboard! Combine this with the TAXES module in my post (on page 74, I think), and you have something that starts to answer operational concerns we have. --Krum --Krum
ElanMorin6 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:53:00 - [2239] 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.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.09 05:54:00 - [2240] If they moved all level 4 mission agents to low sec, would that boost low sec and bring more balance to the 0.0 vs. High sec risk vs. reward? Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?

Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:02:00 - [2241] Originally by: Marlona Sky If they moved all level 4 mission agents to low sec, would that boost low sec and bring more balance to the 0.0 vs. High sec risk vs. reward? It would help but CCP would never actually tamper with the sacred cow.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:05:00 - [2242] Originally by: Marlona Sky If they moved all level 4 mission agents to low sec, would that boost low sec and bring more balance to the 0.0 vs. High sec risk vs. reward? Its not that level 4s themselves are terrible. Just that nullsec does offer a greatly increased income over them. Level 4s being safe money for people that want to run them all day is fine by me. But nullsec income being = to these with the chagnes its just awfull. Increase 0.0 income and most people running level 4s wont care or notice.
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:08:00 - [2243] since we never got the revamp of loot tables to compensate for the increased tech1 volumes, allow me to get back to the idea we had back then: hauler spawn upgrade plz - putting the gist back into logistics
Cayleu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:08:00 - [2244] Originally by: Marlona Sky If they moved all level 4 mission agents to low sec, would that boost low sec and bring more balance to the 0.0 vs. High sec risk vs. reward? Nerfing hi-sec L4 missions and/or rewards would definitely help, but the masses in empire would scream bloody murder. An alternative solution would be to simply buff up zero-sec so that the individual player - after accounting for taxes and possible costs needed by the alliance for infrastructure - can earn more money than L4 missions. Inflation would take care of the rest. Purchasing power wouldnt change in 0.0, and would be reduced in empire, which would achieve the same thing as a L4 nerf without starting a riot.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:16:00 - [2245] Originally by: Roemy Schneider since we never got the revamp of loot tables to compensate for the increased tech1 volumes, allow me to get back to the idea we had back then: hauler spawn upgrade plz Hmmm, if they put a Hauler Spawn as a random pop up in anomalies... That would be neat.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:19:00 - [2246] Originally by: Kanatta Jing Originally by: Roemy Schneider since we never got the revamp of loot tables to compensate for the increased tech1 volumes, allow me to get back to the idea we had back then: hauler spawn upgrade plz Hmmm, if they put a Hauler Spawn as a random pop up in anomalies... That would be neat. But make sure it only has valuable minerals - no one wants to haul 240k of trit through 0.0. Make sure it's **** like Zydrine and Megacyte.
Lady Pluiedecoups	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:25:00 - [2247] something else have been forget : systm are not all equal a lot of system have no valuable moon raws a lot of system have really few belts having a system sov don't mean you have acces to all moon if a large alliance allready own the R64 in your system and you are a small ally never you'll gonna take it down for your own price must be depending of system value , you want small ally to have access to 0.0 let them take something they can hold by themslef actually a 50 member ally can take a sov and earn what it need without moons , with new system pilots will have to spend more time to play as 0.0 carebears to earn isk to pay the ukeep if player are farming they are not figting , one of the great pleasure of 0.0 is to fight sov system based on isk is changing 0.0 in empire carebear region.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:29:00 - [2248] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 06:31:52 Originally by: Esplin 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. I don't suppose you have considered that while yes anomalies will be as profitable as level 4 missions, you will also have additional lucrative sources of income not readily available in high sec. More lucrative, hidden belts might mean you will have to actually have some people on hand that know how to mine properly (and profitably). Repeated claiming that nobody mines in null sec because it isn't as profitable as ratting makes you look a bit... inept. Sorry. Upgraded mini-profession sites (which admittedly could use some tweaking), high end complexes, and access to more and better Wormholes are all money makers that are either not readily available or will be rarer or of lower quality than in Empire space. Of course there are still your high end moons, which while not as valuable as before are still a resource most often found in null sec (or at worst within easy range of null sec). I don't think what we currently have proposed in Dominion is perfect yet, far from it. However singling out one of the several high end upgradeable revenue streams that will be available to you, and then quoting each other endlessly because because one of them is "merely" as profitable as the best monetary resource in the game is pretty short sighted. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:35:00 - [2249] Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 06:31:52 Originally by: Esplin 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. I don't suppose you have considered that while yes anomalies will be as profitable as level 4 missions, you will also have additional lucrative sources of income not readily available in high sec. More lucrative, hidden belts might mean you will have to actually have some people on hand that know how to mine properly (and profitably). Repeated claiming that nobody mines in null sec because it isn't as profitable as ratting makes you look a bit... inept. Sorry. Upgraded mini-profession sites (which admittedly could use some tweaking), high end complexes, and access to more and better Wormholes are all money makers that are either not readily available or will be rarer or of lower quality than in Empire space. Of course there are still your high end moons, which while not as valuable as before are still a resource most often found in null sec (or at worst within easy range of null sec). I don't think what we currently have proposed in Dominion is perfect yet, far from it. However singling out one of the several high end upgradeable revenue streams that will be available to you, and then quoting each other endlessly because because one of them is "merely" as profitable as the best monetary resource in the game is pretty short sighted. that's because the best monetary resource in the game is literally the safest. 0.0 has to be more profitable then running missions in hisec because you will get ganked, lose implants (even more expensive then losing you ratting ship sometimes) and possibly losing access to all your assets when your station switches hands, along with higher prices on basic goods (something many people have forgotten to mention) and having to import anything that isn't T1 or pay absolutely exorbitant prices.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:38:00 - [2250] Might as well post... everyone else is... Here are the basics as I see it.... Sov will now cost a fortune. To solve this pvpers are going to have to be required to farm for isk... to pay for the new changes. Before they had to fight to keep there space, now they have to farm to do so... Utter fail from a game supposedly the ultimate pvp game. Turning pvpers into farmers.... ultimate fail.

Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:41:00 - [2251] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: Kanatta Jing Originally by: Roemy Schneider since we never got the revamp of loot tables to compensate for the increased tech1 volumes, allow me to get back to the idea we had back then: hauler spawn upgrade plz Hmmm, if they put a Hauler Spawn as a random pop up in anomalies... That would be neat. But make sure it only has valuable minerals - no one wants to haul 240k of trit through 0.0. Make sure it's **** like Zydrine and Megacyte. hummm actually i was aiming for "useful" rather than another wealth faucet, especially with ratters getting out of the belts and into the plexes. alternatively, we could have them drop LOADS of modules/ammo; imagine a spawn with 100k doom torps or 10k passive targeters -.- - putting the gist back into logistics
Sarah Norbulk Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:42:00 - [2252] 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. I'd like to here the answer to this myself.
Bilbo II Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:48:00 - [2253] Originally by: Sarah Norbulk 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. I'd like to here the answer to this myself. As would I
Bloodhands hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:49:00 - [2254] Originally by: Sarah Norbulk 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. I'd like to here the answer to this myself. Very good question indeed.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:51:00 - [2255] Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 06:31:52 Originally by: Esplin 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. I don't suppose you have considered that while yes anomalies will be as profitable as level 4 missions, you will also have additional lucrative sources of income not readily available in high sec. More lucrative, hidden belts might mean you will have to actually have some people on hand that know how to mine properly (and profitably). Repeated claiming that nobody mines in null sec because it isn't as profitable as ratting makes you look a bit... inept. Sorry. Upgraded mini-profession sites (which admittedly could use some tweaking), high end complexes, and access to more and better Wormholes are all money makers that are either not readily available or will be rarer or of lower quality than in Empire space. Of course there are still your high end moons, which while not as valuable as before are still a resource most often found in null sec (or at worst within easy range of null sec). I don't think what we currently have proposed in Dominion is perfect yet, far from it. However singling out one of the several high end upgradeable revenue streams that will be available to you, and then quoting each other endlessly because because one of them is "merely" as profitable as the best monetary resource in the game is pretty short sighted. Utterly irrelevant. You can only do one of these things at a time. Unlimited numbers of you could do level 4 missions. So at BEST you only need to count the best resource in 0.0.
Jethro Hawkins	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:52:00 - [2256] 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. Quoted it before, will keep quoting it. What's the worst that happens? CCP won't answer... probably. Please don't break the game until I actually can fly my capital ship wish list please.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:54:00 - [2257] Originally by: Jethro Hawkins 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. Quoted it before, will keep quoting it. What's the worst that happens? CCP won't answer... probably. Please don't break the game until I actually can fly my capital ship wish list please.
Scouty McScoutersen	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:55:00 - [2258] the obvious answer is they don't want to increase 0.0 isk and cause inflation, or decrease empire isk and cause carebear (ie most of the people playing this game) ragequits.
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 06:59:00 - [2259] Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Edited by: Scouty McScoutersen on 09/11/2009 06:55:54 the obvious answer is they don't want to increase 0.0 isk and cause inflation, or decrease empire isk and cause carebear (ie most of the people playing this game) ragequits. nullseccers are screwed and the only way to stay viable is to have an alt running missions in empire, oh well Yes oh well. Dont bother trying to fix it scouty mcsoutersen has declared it impossible. Some inflation in the game would not be that harmfull as eve currently seems to be in a deflation and will be more so with the current sov prices. Empire dweller spending power goes down, null sec spending power goes up, hooray! 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.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:01:00 - [2260] Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Edited by: Scouty McScoutersen on 09/11/2009 06:55:54 the obvious answer is they don't want to increase 0.0 isk and cause inflation, or decrease empire isk and cause carebear (ie most of the people playing this game) ragequits. nullseccers are screwed and the only way to stay viable is to have an alt running missions in empire, oh well At this point we need inflation because some ships are selling at near insurance fraud prices, if it gets to a certain point you could literally have people buying ships, insuring them, then just undocking and blowing it up.

Scouty McScoutersen	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:03:00 - [2261] Originally by: ep1k Yes oh well. Dont bother trying to fix it scouty mcsoutersen has declared it impossible. [/b] why bother since the current system is working fine and hasn't caused ragequits OR inflation ? get a mission running alt, problem solved ofc after the expansion will be different because non NPC 0.0 will become uninhabited desert with these proposed changes
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:07:00 - [2262] Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Originally by: ep1k Yes oh well. Dont bother trying to fix it scouty mcsoutersen has declared it impossible. [/b] why bother since the current system is working fine and hasn't caused ragequits OR inflation ? get a mission running alt, problem solved ofc after the expansion will be different because non NPC 0.0 will become uninhabited desert with these proposed changes Because its a terrible system that noone wants. put the rewards where the risks are. They want more people in dangerous space, put more income there. And you talk like inflation is 100% a terrible thing. Its not, and deflation is a much worse thing.
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:09:00 - [2263] Learn to grind Goons, it's what the rest of EVE has to do.
Scouty McScoutersen	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:09:00 - [2264] Originally by: ep1k Because its a terrible system that noone wants. well ccp wants it because 1) it stops carebears from quitting and 2) makes pew pewers to get additional account for missioning it up. if this game has proven anything its that ppl will eat any amounts of **** to go the extra mile
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:12:00 - [2265] Originally by: Korodan Edited by: Korodan on 09/11/2009 07:10:17 Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Edited by: Scouty McScoutersen on 09/11/2009 06:55:54 the obvious answer is they don't want to increase 0.0 isk and cause inflation, or decrease empire isk and cause carebear (ie most of the people playing this game) ragequits. nullseccers are screwed and the only way to stay viable is to have an alt running missions in empire, oh well At this point we need inflation because some ships are selling at near insurance fraud prices, if it gets to a certain point you could literally have people buying ships, insuring them, then just undocking and blowing it up. edit: I'm not at a machine that can run EVE right now, can someone tell me if any T1 ship selling in Jita has finally reached insurance fraud prices? Last I checked they were getting pretty damn close. This has happened a few times in EVE history. Eventually the cost of the ships rise again due to the demand. Go figure.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:15:00 - [2266] 1) Moon income is supposedly getting spread over other moons. That means only what you mine is changing, the income will remain most likely the same. 2) People in 0.0 are already ratting, running sites and some say that they even mine. This will remain unchanged and you get improvement in form of space upgrades to do it more comfortably. Will those changes improve 0.0 gameplay? Not really. Will it make the game better in future? Maybe. Could it be done better? Most likely. Is Dominion a fail? Of course it is. No sky is falling(yet).
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:15:00 - [2267] Originally by: Mkiaki Learn to grind Goons, it's what the rest of EVE has to do. You've obviously never had to fuel a tower or 500+. We grind more than you. And thanks for the single-out so everyone knows you're just being a troll and not looking to add anything but a Nelson laugh from your jewgold-inlaid ivory tower in Motsu.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:16:00 - [2268] Originally by: Mkiaki Learn to grind Goons, it's what the rest of EVE has to do. Ever have to haul POS fuel?
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:17:00 - [2269] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 07:22:18 Originally by: Aralis Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 06:31:52 Originally by: Esplin 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. I don't suppose you have considered that while yes anomalies will be as profitable as level 4 missions, you will also have additional lucrative sources of income not readily available in high sec. More lucrative, hidden belts might mean you will have to actually have some people on hand that know how to mine properly (and profitably). Repeated claiming that nobody mines in null sec because it isn't as profitable as ratting makes you look a bit... inept. Sorry. Upgraded mini-profession sites (which admittedly could use some tweaking), high end complexes, and access to more and better Wormholes are all money makers that are either not readily available or will be rarer or of lower quality than in Empire space. Of course there are still your high end moons, which while not as valuable as before are still a resource most often found in null sec (or at worst within easy range of null sec). I don't think what we currently have proposed in Dominion is perfect yet, far from it. However singling out one of the several high end upgradeable revenue streams that will be available to you, and then quoting each other endlessly because because one of them is "merely" as profitable as the best monetary resource in the game is pretty short sighted. Utterly irrelevant. You can only do one of these things at a time. Unlimited numbers of you could do level 4 missions. So at BEST you only need to count the best resource in 0.0. I do get your point, but you missed mine I think. High sec has basically one highly lucrative income source, null sec will have several to choose from to match your taste. This is taking the amount of resources that you currently have spread across large tracts of space and concentrating them in a much smaller area. You have the same earnings potential as those people you have bitterly complained about in the past. And you will have this increased (over what you have now) earnings potential without the pain in the ass of having to spread out over countless systems to give everyone room to harvest them as you currently do. Yes, Dominion was designed to siphon off some of the over abundance of non-participation requiring wealth that most null sec alliances have (this part is more directly pointed at those alliances that boast of their limitless income) and instead put more money making potential into the hands of the members (compared to what they have now). Lets face it, CCP would be foolish to make Dominion so lucrative that it causes more harm than good, and does nothing to reduce the over abundance of isk that makes its way into alliance leadership hands. So equal financial footing, but with more risk. Lets face it, its the risk part of that equation that has the appeal for most people looking to get into (or already in) null sec. That is the price you pay for the unlimited pew pew that so many in this thread state is the main reason for them being there to begin with. You want the pew pew (and the freedom/ability to shape your space to match your vision of it), so you accept the risk... all financial issues are now on equal footing and therefore a non-issue. Complaining that Dominion will force people to care bear, and then complaining that said care bearing isn't profitable enough is a bit much. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:18:00 - [2270] Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Originally by: ep1k Because its a terrible system that noone wants. well ccp wants it because 1) it stops carebears from quitting and 2) makes pew pewers to get additional account for missioning it up. if this game has proven anything its that ppl will eat any amounts of **** to go the extra mile well I can only speak for myself and the dozen or so that I personally know with alts, but neither me or any of them bought an extra account to run missions. It is mostly to help out (scout/haul/dual box) or train stuff you otherwise wouldn't on your main. Running missions is just an extra, and obvious, thing to do with it because it's lucrative, easy, and risk free - although mind numbingly boring)

Scouty McScoutersen	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:19:00 - [2271] Originally by: Ranger 1 Complaining that Dominion will force people to care bear, and then complaining that said care bearing isn't profitable enough is a bit much. how is it a 'bit much', it's like the central problem with these changes are you a ****ing idiot?
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:20:00 - [2272] we could just ditch sov altogether, hand all stations over to NPC and seed them with agents - putting the gist back into logistics
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:21:00 - [2273] Let us assume that Dominion will indeed lure a lot more people into 0.0 (which not only I doubt pretty much). And let us assume that they will do all the new profession sites. What happens then with the new and heavily increased supply? If there won't be a new demand then prices will crash totally. As example: already we see a lot of the t2 salvage parts around 50k per piece and only a few really expensive at 10 mil - but those will crash in price also if the supply increases drastically. So the proposed good income will turn out to be worth nothing. Or is CCP planning to add some new demand to balance the increased supply? Same with the high end ores. Yes sure you can add a bunch of them, easy to mine, but that again will crash the market - if all the idea behind Dominion comes true and lots more people go into 0.0 doing profitable stuff. Or are you going to throw the concept of player driven markets away and introduce just tons of isk faucets from npc's? (You already started to do that with introducing the sleeper tags in wormholes - a major part of the profits from wormholes comes from those tags which are nothing but artificial isk faucets and shouldn't have any place in a player-driven economy.) And these questions ARE important because people need to pay the fixed and completely artificial upkeep costs in isk. And it doesn't matter for that artificial upkeep system what the player driven economy is doing and if the original numbers are still met or not. Actually I would go forth and say that such an artificial and fixed system is pretty much incompatible with a truely player driven economy and market. Would be nice if CCP could point out their opinion about this (and please don't come with something like 'we will watch it closely and adjust it if necessary' because we all know how that goes in the long run. If you care to answer, give some real thoughts and answers and not just some nonsense, better don't answer at all then).
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:27:00 - [2274] Originally by: Roemy Schneider we could just ditch sov altogether, hand all stations over to NPC and seed them with agents This would be better then Dominion, true fact.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:28:00 - [2275] I don't think 0.0 needs to be equal to a level 4. I wouldn't want 0.0 to even work like a level 4. It just needs to get close to cash flow without high end moons. That way a corp can stay there without running out of isk. I think CCP should probably say the minimum corp size they are figuring, and show a path to cash flow, including all the major costs. If they can't do that, that is a problem. If a corp can gut it out, they can start getting into cap ships, and get some high ends, and crappy nerfed high ends are still pretty decent. I also remind Goons especially that of the low sec high ends, those moons are abused to support the big 0.0 powers in addition to the 0.0 moons. Moons are a great isk fountain for a corp, but they are a terribly abused mechanic. This has been paying for their fuel and cyno jammers and cap fleets and ship replacement. Without those fat high ends, you are in a similar position cash wise even if the Sov part of the patch is delayed. so delaying the Sov portion of the patch will only forstall the abandoning of space. Part of the pain of this patch is you figuring what you will do without enough isk from moons. The Goon tears however make me believe this patch will work to break up entrenched powers. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:32:00 - [2276] Originally by: Tesal I don't think 0.0 needs to be equal to a level 4. I wouldn't want 0.0 to even work like a level 4. It just needs to get close to cash flow without high end moons. That way a corp can stay there without running out of isk. I think CCP should probably say the minimum corp size they are figuring, and show a path to cash flow, including all the major costs. If they can't do that, that is a problem. If a corp can gut it out, they can start getting into cap ships, and get some high ends, and crappy nerfed high ends are still pretty decent. I also remind Goons especially that of the low sec high ends, those moons are abused to support the big 0.0 powers in addition to the 0.0 moons. Moons are a great isk fountain for a corp, but they are a terribly abused mechanic. This has been paying for their fuel and cyno jammers and cap fleets and ship replacement. Without those fat high ends, you are in a similar position cash wise even if the Sov part of the patch is delayed. so delaying the Sov portion of the patch will only forstall the abandoning of space. Part of the pain of this patch is you figuring what you will do without enough isk from moons. The Goon tears however make me believe this patch will work to break up entrenched powers. Noone in this thread has been complaining about moon goo. The main complaint is that personal income in null sec is crap now. And at best if you pay your huge montly sove bill, its equal to level 4s. That is the complaint. And if you think thats fine just go back to running your level 4s and dont bother yourself with null sec discussion.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:37:00 - [2277] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 07:39:33 Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Originally by: Ranger 1 Complaining that Dominion will force people to care bear, and then complaining that said care bearing isn't profitable enough is a bit much. how is it a 'bit much', it's like the central problem with these changes are you a ****ing idiot? Relax my friend. The people that like to care bear in null sec will continue to do so and it will be more profitable than before. If not enough people are willing to do it because it interferes with their PVP habit, then smart alliances well bring in people that DO like to do it to keep things upgraded. How can I put this to make more sense to you? How about this. You have people that say they are PVP only, and are upset because PVE will have more impact than it currently has. And yet those same people in their very next breath whine about how profitable their care bearing will be. There is more than a little irony in that, I'm sorry if you don't get it. Then to increase the irony levels a bit more, those same people complain that they won't be making any more than level 4 mission runners (which these same people have bitterly condemned as making too much money in the past). These people are going to have to make up their mind what is really important to them. Your income stream is now equal to the best empire has to offer (and more diverse) but... if you want unlimited pew pew, you have to accept the risk that it is going to occasionally interfere with your money making potential. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:42:00 - [2278] There is no irony at all Ranger. They don't want to carebear. If their carebearing income sucks it means they have to do it for longer. ANd they'd need to do it a lot to support these ridiculous sov mechanics. And cost is just the obvious part of the problem. Only a few people like Gnulpie have really latched on to what is so wrong with this sov part of the patch.
Sarah Norbulk Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:43:00 - [2279] Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 07:39:33 Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Originally by: Ranger 1 Complaining that Dominion will force people to care bear, and then complaining that said care bearing isn't profitable enough is a bit much. how is it a 'bit much', it's like the central problem with these changes are you a ****ing idiot? Relax my friend. The people that like to care bear in null sec will continue to do so and it will be more profitable than before. If not enough people are willing to do it because it interferes with their PVP habit, then smart alliances well bring in people that DO like to do it to keep things upgraded. How can I put this to make more sense to you? How about this. You have people that say they are PVP only, and are upset because PVE will have more impact than it currently has. And yet those same people in their very next breath whine about how profitable their care bearing will be. There is more than a little irony in that, I'm sorry if you don't get it. Then to increase the irony levels a bit more, those same people complain that they won't be making any more than level 4 mission runners (which these same people have bitterly condemned as making too much money in the past). These people are going to have to make up their mind what is really important to them. Your income stream is now equal to the best empire has to offer (and more diverse) but... if you want unlimited pew pew, you have to accept the risk that it is going to occasionally interfere with your money making potential. Why would anyone in their right mind pay for space that generates income to a mediocre mission runner in empire when there is so much more risk. It makes no sense. 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.
Scouty McScoutersen	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:44:00 - [2280] Edited by: Scouty McScoutersen on 09/11/2009 07:45:12 Originally by: Ranger 1 How can I put this to make more sense to you? How about this. You have people that say they are PVP only, and are upset because PVE will have more impact than it currently has. And yet those same people in their very next breath whine about how profitable their care bearing will be. There is more than a little irony in that, I'm sorry if you don't get it. you do not understand what irony means and lack the mental faculties to process what most people in this thread are concerned about hint: these changes will depopulate 0.0 and reduce the amount of pvp in the game

Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:46:00 - [2281] Originally by: Aralis There is no irony at all Ranger. They don't want to carebear. If their carebearing income sucks it means they have to do it for longer. ANd they'd need to do it a lot to support these ridiculous sov mechanics. And cost is just the obvious part of the problem. Only a few people like Gnulpie have really latched on to what is so wrong with this sov part of the patch. 600M per month is hardly ridiculous...
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:46:00 - [2282] Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: Tesal I don't think 0.0 needs to be equal to a level 4. I wouldn't want 0.0 to even work like a level 4. It just needs to get close to cash flow without high end moons. That way a corp can stay there without running out of isk. I think CCP should probably say the minimum corp size they are figuring, and show a path to cash flow, including all the major costs. If they can't do that, that is a problem. If a corp can gut it out, they can start getting into cap ships, and get some high ends, and crappy nerfed high ends are still pretty decent. I also remind Goons especially that of the low sec high ends, those moons are abused to support the big 0.0 powers in addition to the 0.0 moons. Moons are a great isk fountain for a corp, but they are a terribly abused mechanic. This has been paying for their fuel and cyno jammers and cap fleets and ship replacement. Without those fat high ends, you are in a similar position cash wise even if the Sov part of the patch is delayed. so delaying the Sov portion of the patch will only forstall the abandoning of space. Part of the pain of this patch is you figuring what you will do without enough isk from moons. The Goon tears however make me believe this patch will work to break up entrenched powers. Noone in this thread has been complaining about moon goo. The main complaint is that personal income in null sec is crap now. And at best if you pay your huge montly sove bill, its equal to level 4s. That is the complaint. And if you think thats fine just go back to running your level 4s and dont bother yourself with null sec discussion. I call it like I see it. Personal income is not the problem, corp and alliance level income is the issue. On the corp and alliance level, you have to be able to pay for Sov infrastructure, ship replacement, POS and POS gear, cap ships and so on. These costs are substantial, and if you can't pool resources effectively, you can't get it to work. Its irrelevant if players support themselves as individuals, leadership won't have time to rat usually, and will have to front the costs for POS gear, fuel, equipment and the cost of a ship replacement program. That takes billions even for a small alliance. So unless you can get to cash flow, what leader is not going to eternally bleed cash to support their alliance? It doesn't work. It leaves them working all the time just so other people can play. How individual players get their isk is of secondary importance frankly, because if you can't even get set up as a corp or alliance in 0.0, earning a living there as an individual is impossible. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:50:00 - [2283] Originally by: Tesal I don't think 0.0 needs to be equal to a level 4. I wouldn't want 0.0 to even work like a level 4. It just needs to get close to cash flow without high end moons. That way a corp can stay there without running out of isk. I think CCP should probably say the minimum corp size they are figuring, and show a path to cash flow, including all the major costs. If they can't do that, that is a problem. Nobody is saying they want it to work like a level 4. What we are saying is that bigger alliances NEED alot of space because the overwhelming majority of space is not worth getting into a ship to belt rat in. The majority of probe-able complexes and anoms aren't worth running. Even mining isn't nearly as profitable as doing a level 4. There is a general lack of ISK in nullsec for the average player. All the while, nullsec has the hazards of lawless space, it's not always hazardous but the chance of getting killed in nullsec far outstrip the hazards of getting killed in empire. Originally by: Tesal If a corp can gut it out, they can start getting into cap ships, and get some high ends, and crappy nerfed high ends are still pretty decent. I also remind Goons especially that of the low sec high ends, those moons are abused to support the big 0.0 powers in addition to the 0.0 moons. Moons are a great isk fountain for a corp, but they are a terribly abused mechanic. This has been paying for their fuel and cyno jammers and cap fleets and ship replacement. Without those fat high ends, you are in a similar position cash wise even if the Sov part of the patch is delayed. so delaying the Sov portion of the patch will only forstall the abandoning of space. If you think that anyone outside a large alliance or powerbloc is going to have a shot at r64's, you are smoking crack. Even worse is that now the r32's will be in high demand from these larger entities as their value is drastically increased thus removing more income from smaller entities. So you can just remove your Moon-Goo argument right there. Originally by: Tesal Part of the pain of this patch is you figuring what you will do without enough isk from moons. Part of it, yes. The biggest issue that sov-holding alliances have isn't moon-goo. We all knew the passive income stuff was ridiculous and we all saw the change coming. However, that's not even close to what the arguments are originating from. We, space-holding alliances, want to see actual benefits from upgrading our space. As it stands, the upgrades benefit a very small handful of individuals and cost a great deal to maintain. Originally by: Tesal The Goon tears however make me believe this patch will work to break up entrenched powers. It's funny because it's not only Goons that are thinking this will be a bad move. I'm for alot of changes in 0.0. I'm for more combat in 0.0. I'm for more entities owning space in 0.0. The changes they listed don't make it particularly attractive to live in 0.0. Contrary to popular Empire-dweller belief, large Alliances don't take large swaths of space for looks. It's more a function of the ISK making prospects, or lack thereof, of the regions they take and yes, sometimes for a buffer used to slow down an attacker. Take for instance ATLAS space. We currently control Omist, Detorid and Insmother. When you take a close look at those regions we have 4, maybe 5 constellations that have decent enough true-sec to warrant moving a BS to it and using even T1 ammo to rat in. Now, about 2/3 of the systems contained within those constellations have barely enough belts to house 1 ratter. That leaves us with about 1/3 that MIGHT be able to sustain 2 ratters. So that's maybe 50 ratters being sustained by 3 entire regions. Lets not mention that it takes a good 30-45 minutes (if not more) to groom a system before it comes to the 30-40m/hour mark.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:50:00 - [2284] Quote: Why would anyone in their right mind pay for space that generates income to a mediocre mission runner in empire when there is so much more risk. It makes no sense. Why do they do it now for even less? And you will be making at least as much as what has been purported to be one of the most lucrative occupations in the game. Lets not change the level 4 mission runners income for "outlandish" to "mediocre" just because this thread isn't about how overly profitable Empire is for a change. I'm making a concession here by the way. The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong. For the purposes of this discussion however we should probably keep it simple and say its equal. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Scouty McScoutersen	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:51:00 - [2285] Originally by: Ranger 1 The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong. no that really isn't the truth, you don't know what the ** you're talking about holy **
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:52:00 - [2286] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: Tesal I don't think 0.0 needs to be equal to a level 4. I wouldn't want 0.0 to even work like a level 4. It just needs to get close to cash flow without high end moons. That way a corp can stay there without running out of isk. I think CCP should probably say the minimum corp size they are figuring, and show a path to cash flow, including all the major costs. If they can't do that, that is a problem. If a corp can gut it out, they can start getting into cap ships, and get some high ends, and crappy nerfed high ends are still pretty decent. I also remind Goons especially that of the low sec high ends, those moons are abused to support the big 0.0 powers in addition to the 0.0 moons. Moons are a great isk fountain for a corp, but they are a terribly abused mechanic. This has been paying for their fuel and cyno jammers and cap fleets and ship replacement. Without those fat high ends, you are in a similar position cash wise even if the Sov part of the patch is delayed. so delaying the Sov portion of the patch will only forstall the abandoning of space. Part of the pain of this patch is you figuring what you will do without enough isk from moons. The Goon tears however make me believe this patch will work to break up entrenched powers. Noone in this thread has been complaining about moon goo. The main complaint is that personal income in null sec is crap now. And at best if you pay your huge montly sove bill, its equal to level 4s. That is the complaint. And if you think thats fine just go back to running your level 4s and dont bother yourself with null sec discussion. I call it like I see it. Personal income is not the problem, corp and alliance level income is the issue. On the corp and alliance level, you have to be able to pay for Sov infrastructure, ship replacement, POS and POS gear, cap ships and so on. These costs are substantial, and if you can't pool resources effectively, you can't get it to work. Its irrelevant if players support themselves as individuals, leadership won't have time to rat usually, and will have to front the costs for POS gear, fuel, equipment and the cost of a ship replacement program. That takes billions even for a small alliance. So unless you can get to cash flow, what leader is not going to eternally bleed cash to support their alliance? It doesn't work. It leaves them working all the time just so other people can play. How individual players get their isk is of secondary importance frankly, because if you can't even get set up as a corp or alliance in 0.0, earning a living there as an individual is impossible. And this is why large alliances will be the only ones left, every major alliance has seen this coming from miles away and hoarded as much ISK as possible, most larger alliances will continue on like before - the only differences being fewer jumpbridges and cynojammers. War will become even rarer because no one will have the money to contest sov and no one will want to because of these ****ty uprades and almost every system now having a negative value - the reason large alliances hold so much space is because so much of it sucks so badly.
WhiteSavage Ever Flow Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:53:00 - [2287] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Aralis There is no irony at all Ranger. They don't want to carebear. If their carebearing income sucks it means they have to do it for longer. ANd they'd need to do it a lot to support these ridiculous sov mechanics. And cost is just the obvious part of the problem. Only a few people like Gnulpie have really latched on to what is so wrong with this sov part of the patch. 600M per month is hardly ridiculous... x50 yes that is rediculous. 1 system fully upgraded will only be able to support maybe 10 people at once... and only for 4-5 hours each. And your not including JB's, cyno gens, cyno jammers, etc etc etc redonkulous is redonkulous. Oh and ccp... let us upgrade the BELT RATS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. These system upgrades are worthless!!!!
Vanzatoarea	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:54:00 - [2288] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 02:58:32 Originally by: Sally Bestonge vivian understand that what you do and the amount of time you investing playing internet spaceships is an exception and not the rule to which 0.0 players should be held to afford sovereignty and upgrades. 5-10 Million ISK a day is all you need to contribute to your corp/alliance to pay all the bills after these changes go live. That's some 10-30 minutes of shooting some rats, depending on the system and the spawns in the belts. Or you can make yourself an alt in a Raven and do some 2 quick LvL 4 mission, which will cover the costs you've to contribute for a whole week. for **s sake you ** (ccp , if you can moderate for personal attacks you can sure do more in this thread?) so as i said , you obnoxious **ed up little piece of trash the question is WHY if the answer is "because you have to be masochistic to be in 0.0" or some variation of this , like you will do it not because it`s more efficient , more fun etc etc but because you crave for teamwork PvE and a name on the map...newsflash...this rare bread of people is allready in 0.0 so what`s CCP purpose here then? Obviously not to draw in more people...you know...the ones looking for efficiency/fun etc , but drive away the ones who so far managed to put up with 0.0 are you really telling me the whole purpose of this expansion is for people to go make isk in empire?
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:55:00 - [2289] Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Originally by: Ranger 1 The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong. no that really isn't the truth, you don't know what the ** you're talking about holy ** Interesting that you can't seem to figure out how to make money in 0.0 actually. It really not difficult. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:56:00 - [2290] Originally by: WhiteSavage Oh and ccp... let us upgrade the BELT RATS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. We told you the southeast was bad, angel rats are ****ing terrible. I actually feel bad for the average Atlas pilot having to shoot at them.

Scouty McScoutersen	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:57:00 - [2291] Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 07:55:52 Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Originally by: Ranger 1 The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong. no that really isn't the truth, you don't know what the ** you're talking about holy ** Interesting that you can't seem to figure out how to make money in 0.0 actually. It's really not difficult. interesting that you seem to be posting moronic trolls with nothing to back it up. it's pretty easy and even more effortless than L4 mission running!
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 07:57:00 - [2292] Originally by: WhiteSavage x50 yes that is rediculous. 1 system fully upgraded will only be able to support maybe 10 people at once... and only for 4-5 hours each. And your not including JB's, cyno gens, cyno jammers, etc etc etc redonkulous is redonkulous. Oh and ccp... let us upgrade the BELT RATS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. These system upgrades are worthless!!!! Don't do 50x then... Claim as much space as you can pay for, control as much as your military allows you. Simple as that.
WhiteSavage Ever Flow Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:00:00 - [2293] Originally by: Ranger 1 The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong. lol. enlighten us poor average souls. considering the posts of 100+ people here your either an idiot or just warping around to everyones systems looking for faction spawns and getting lucky.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:01:00 - [2294] Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 07:55:52 Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen Originally by: Ranger 1 The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong. no that really isn't the truth, you don't know what the ** you're talking about holy ** Interesting that you can't seem to figure out how to make money in 0.0 actually. It's really not difficult. interesting that you seem to be posting moronic trolls with nothing to back it up. it's pretty easy and even more effortless than L4 mission running! Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. My posts have explained my point of view (hopefully in a concise but reasonably complete manner). Your posts have been nothing more than strings of curses and name calling. Calm your hysteria a bit. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:04:00 - [2295] Originally by: WhiteSavage Originally by: Ranger 1 The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong. lol. enlighten us poor average souls. considering the posts of 100+ people here your either an idiot or just warping around to everyones systems looking for faction spawns and getting lucky. Honestly he must be popping whatever the name of the damn Angel topped rank officer is because even Domination BS spawns give **** loot.
Scouty McScoutersen	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:05:00 - [2296] Originally by: Ranger 1 Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. My posts have explained my point of view (hopefully in a concise but reasonably complete manner). Your posts have been nothing more than strings of curses and name calling. Calm your hysteria a bit. you are a ****ing fgt posting utter nonsense based on nothing, the fact that you're posting verbose word salads filled with delusional 'facts' means that no other kind of response is merited feel free to explain how making isk in 0.0 is so hugely profitable
Scouty McScoutersen	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:06:00 - [2297] Edited by: Scouty McScoutersen on 09/11/2009 08:06:59 Originally by: WhiteSavage Originally by: Ranger 1 The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong. lol. enlighten us poor average souls. considering the posts of 100+ people here your either an idiot or just warping around to everyones systems looking for faction spawns and getting lucky. no you see everyone just gets faction and plex loot all the time, that's why the markets are flooded with it and they're worth so little!
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:06:00 - [2298] Originally by: Quesa Take for instance ATLAS space. We currently control Omist, Detorid and Insmother. When you take a close look at those regions we have 4, maybe 5 constellations that have decent enough true-sec to warrant moving a BS to it and using even T1 ammo to rat in. Now, about 2/3 of the systems contained within those constellations have barely enough belts to house 1 ratter. That leaves us with about 1/3 that MIGHT be able to sustain 2 ratters. So that's maybe 50 ratters being sustained by 3 entire regions. Lets not mention that it takes a good 30-45 minutes (if not more) to groom a system before it comes to the 30-40m/hour mark. QFT, the real reason most of 0.0 is not used is because it is useless. it plain sucks. but ccp won't look at that because its too hard. like grouping weapons was too hard.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:11:00 - [2299] Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Quesa Take for instance ATLAS space. We currently control Omist, Detorid and Insmother. When you take a close look at those regions we have 4, maybe 5 constellations that have decent enough true-sec to warrant moving a BS to it and using even T1 ammo to rat in. Now, about 2/3 of the systems contained within those constellations have barely enough belts to house 1 ratter. That leaves us with about 1/3 that MIGHT be able to sustain 2 ratters. So that's maybe 50 ratters being sustained by 3 entire regions. Lets not mention that it takes a good 30-45 minutes (if not more) to groom a system before it comes to the 30-40m/hour mark. QFT, the real reason most of 0.0 is not used is because it is useless. it plain sucks. but ccp won't look at that because its too hard. like grouping weapons was too hard. Maxed space upgrades gain your system 10 insta respawn anomalies independent on true sec.
Sarah Norbulk Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:13:00 - [2300] Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: Why would anyone in their right mind pay for space that generates income to a mediocre mission runner in empire when there is so much more risk. It makes no sense. Why do they do it now for even less? And you will be making at least as much as what has been purported to be one of the most lucrative occupations in the game. Lets not change the level 4 mission runners income for "outlandish" to "mediocre" just because this thread isn't about how overly profitable Empire is for a change. I'm making a concession here by the way. The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong. For the purposes of this discussion however we should probably keep it simple and say its equal. Find me any belt ratter in 0.0 that can make 45+ mil/hr from bounties and get LP while doing it. I'll keep my mission alt thank-you very much. You have confirmed you have no clue what you're talking about. Most sov is held by mining towers with the check box ticked. It costs nothing extra from what it would cost anyway. High-ends may have a deathstar with a cynojammer in it, but most of 0.0 is held by the bare minimum of POSes that work double duty as industry platforms that basically pay for their running costs.

Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:14:00 - [2301] Originally by: Tesal Edited by: Tesal on 09/11/2009 07:57:00 I call it like I see it. Personal income is not the problem, corp and alliance level income is the issue. On the corp and alliance level, you have to be able to pay for Sov infrastructure, ship replacement, POS and POS gear, cap ships and so on. These costs are substantial, and if you can't pool resources effectively, you can't get it to work. Its irrelevant if players support themselves as individuals, leadership won't have time to rat usually, and will have to front the costs for POS gear, fuel, equipment and the cost of a ship replacement program. That takes billions even for a small alliance. So unless you can get to cash flow, what leader is not going to eternally bleed cash to support their alliance? It doesn't work. It leaves them working all the time just so other people can play. How individual players get their isk is of secondary importance frankly, because if you can't even get set up as a corp or alliance in 0.0, earning a living there as an individual is impossible. *edit I would add that the place where personal income enters, is tax, that only affects killing rats, nothing else, not mining, not wormholes, nothing. The only other corp/alliance income source is moons. Other income sources exist, but don't dump isk directly into the corp wallet easily. Maximum tax I could charge is 20% probably, 40% is too high to keep players. The rewards/upgrades will never be able to make up for a situation where a 40% tax is required for the corp to stay in 0.0. That's not entirely true. My guild for instance specifically does mining ops with which it taxes a certain percentage of the ore. It's not the same auto-tax from missions/ratting but all the same corps/alliance can make ISK from mining of their members and it can be quite profitable. What alliances are going to have to do now is gather corps to fill in the roles. Such as a mining corp, ratting corp, exploration corp, etc and assign them. They surely can get the taxes needs from such corps to pay for alliance costs. Whether the upgrades are enough to entice the necessary people from empire to fill those roles is another story. It is gonna need to be substantial enough for the risks involve. There is a reason many corps forgo 0.0 and do most of their stuff in empire + WH. Alliances are going to have to guarantee the safety of their non-pvp member corps.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:16:00 - [2302] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Quesa Take for instance ATLAS space. We currently control Omist, Detorid and Insmother. When you take a close look at those regions we have 4, maybe 5 constellations that have decent enough true-sec to warrant moving a BS to it and using even T1 ammo to rat in. Now, about 2/3 of the systems contained within those constellations have barely enough belts to house 1 ratter. That leaves us with about 1/3 that MIGHT be able to sustain 2 ratters. So that's maybe 50 ratters being sustained by 3 entire regions. Lets not mention that it takes a good 30-45 minutes (if not more) to groom a system before it comes to the 30-40m/hour mark. QFT, the real reason most of 0.0 is not used is because it is useless. it plain sucks. but ccp won't look at that because its too hard. like grouping weapons was too hard. Maxed space upgrades gain your system 10 insta respawn anomalies independent on true sec. so that's 10 ppl that can "mission", what about the other 1000? oh ye, just claim a 100 systems ... wait
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:16:00 - [2303] Goons tears are the best tears... as said before it shall be said again. CRY MOAR
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:16:00 - [2304] Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: Why would anyone in their right mind pay for space that generates income to a mediocre mission runner in empire when there is so much more risk. It makes no sense. Why do they do it now for even less? Some people like the 0.0 play style, and are willing to take a hit to play the game that way. That's cool, good for them. Some people hate it, and are willing to stay in Motsu even if the worst -0.01 system in Geminate was promising free officer gear for everyone who jumped a shuttle in. Again, that's fine. But there's a whole bunch of people in the middle who are willing to trade risk for reward, but have no conceivable reason to try at present. Why would you rat for 20M/hour when you can mission for 20M/hour instead, and never get blown up? The goal of Dominion was supposed to be to clear room for those people to come to 0.0, and then give them a reason to bother. Increase the population density of non-safe space, add to the number of people who fight instead of just bearing around, and make 0.0 cool again for a reason other than ludicrous x64 passive income. This patch won't drive the 0.0 lovers away, but it won't bring the risk-tolerant out of empire either. That's why it's a failure - not because people who are willing to put up with crappy 0.0 mechanics will suddenly balk at putting up with slightly less crappy 0.0 mechanics, but because the people who you were trying to draw just won't care.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:19:00 - [2305] Here is what is missing in this. You will still have access to neighboring systems, that will still have the same true sec, and you will still be able to rat in them just as you did before, its just that you won't have Sov there, and you will have to fight people if they show up. You won't be under a cyno jammer with jump bridges all the time, you are going to have to venture out. Once you are out there, people will kill you. As for Goons caring about the little guy, that is bull**. They don't give a crap about anyone except themselves. They have always been that way. never stop posting...with alts.** Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:20:00 - [2306] Originally by: Sarah Norbulk Find me any belt ratter in 0.0 that can make 45+ mil/hr from bounties and get LP while doing it. I'll keep my mission alt thank-you very much. You have confirmed you have no clue what you're talking about. Most sov is held by mining towers with the check box ticked. It costs nothing extra from what it would cost anyway. High-ends may have a deathstar with a cynojammer in it, but most of 0.0 is held by the bare minimum of POSes that work double duty as industry platforms that basically pay for their running costs. You make +45M/hour on single account mission running only if you run a Marauder. LP revenue is already included in +45M mark as well as loot and other mission income. As for the rest of the post...I don't know a single alliance that would hold their space just because of moons. Sov holding is solely depending on your military/diplomatic effort. Sorry, it is you being clueless here.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:25:00 - [2307] Originally by: Korodan Originally by: WhiteSavage Originally by: Ranger 1 The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong. lol. enlighten us poor average souls. considering the posts of 100+ people here your either an idiot or just warping around to everyones systems looking for faction spawns and getting lucky. Honestly he must be popping whatever the name of the damn Angel topped rank officer is because even Domination BS spawns give **** loot. Actually I prefer to take my faction gear from other peoples wrecks. Depends on my mood actually. If I want to earn substantial isk quickly, I can always track down a moderate wormhole with a good small team (or a high end one with a larger team). My share is usually a few hundred million isk for the evenings entertainment. Being in null sec makes the good ones much easier to find. I also do a lot of production, and occasional ratting/anomalies/plex's to keep the sec status from going to far south. Its' pretty rare that I go see my level 4 agents, I find it mind numbingly boring (although the epic arcs are mildly entertaining). Heck, even our miners make pretty good money. Probably because they are well organized for it and reap maximum yields for their time working as a team. That was always something I couldn't get into however. Be that as it may, as I said I'm not going to debate the level of income in null sec (either currently or after Dominion upgrades) being better than empire. Lets just go with "equal after Dominion" for the purposes of this thread. I have to hang it up for the evening though gentlemen. We'll have to discuss this more at a later time. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:26:00 - [2308] Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 08:26:33 Originally by: gambrinous so that's 10 ppl that can "mission", what about the other 1000? oh ye, just claim a 100 systems ... wait do you live there? I do, those upgrades are meaning less to me. E: btw where did all the uninformed trolls come from all of a sudden, lol is ccp back at work and poasting on their alts? 10 guaranteed anomalies seems better than 2 belt ratters. In any case it is better than what you have now and the numbers are a subject to change so stop trolling.
Ryixezu Amarr Big Shadows Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:29:00 - [2309] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Some people like the 0.0 play style, and are willing to take a hit to play the game that way. That's cool, good for them. Some people hate it, and are willing to stay in Motsu even if the worst -0.01 system in Geminate was promising free officer gear for everyone who jumped a shuttle in. Again, that's fine. But there's a whole bunch of people in the middle who are willing to trade risk for reward, but have no conceivable reason to try at present. Why would you rat for 20M/hour when you can mission for 20M/hour instead, and never get blown up? The goal of Dominion was supposed to be to clear room for those people to come to 0.0, and then give them a reason to bother. Increase the population density of non-safe space, add to the number of people who fight instead of just bearing around, and make 0.0 cool again for a reason other than ludicrous x64 passive income. This patch won't drive the 0.0 lovers away, but it won't bring the risk-tolerant out of empire either. That's why it's a failure - not because people who are willing to put up with crappy 0.0 mechanics will suddenly balk at putting up with slightly less crappy 0.0 mechanics, but because the people who you were trying to draw just won't care. I think you just increased your chances for the CSM by at least tenfold. Quoting not only for the obvious truth but also because it's expressed in a fool-proof way and catch the essence of what just about all of us probably want the expansion to be. I don't think it can be said enough though - those already in 0.0 will most probably stay there. Those already in empire will most probably stay there. This was supposed to change.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:30:00 - [2310] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Sarah Norbulk Find me any belt ratter in 0.0 that can make 45+ mil/hr from bounties and get LP while doing it. I'll keep my mission alt thank-you very much. You have confirmed you have no clue what you're talking about. Most sov is held by mining towers with the check box ticked. It costs nothing extra from what it would cost anyway. High-ends may have a deathstar with a cynojammer in it, but most of 0.0 is held by the bare minimum of POSes that work double duty as industry platforms that basically pay for their running costs. You make +45M/hour on single account mission running only if you run a Marauder. LP revenue is already included in +45M mark as well as loot and other mission income. As for the rest of the post...I don't know a single alliance that would hold their space just because of moons. Sov holding is solely depending on your military/diplomatic effort. Sorry, it is you being clueless here. ah no, that's pretty standard, there's a thread somewhere also, not sure how much it weighs on the equation, but the highsec missions can be done semi afk, try that in 0.0 (e.g. come home from work, start mission, manage agro, go cook dinner)

Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:34:00 - [2311] Originally by: gambrinous Edited by: gambrinous on 09/11/2009 08:18:33 Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Quesa Take for instance ATLAS space. We currently control Omist, Detorid and Insmother. When you take a close look at those regions we have 4, maybe 5 constellations that have decent enough true-sec to warrant moving a BS to it and using even T1 ammo to rat in. Now, about 2/3 of the systems contained within those constellations have barely enough belts to house 1 ratter. That leaves us with about 1/3 that MIGHT be able to sustain 2 ratters. So that's maybe 50 ratters being sustained by 3 entire regions. Lets not mention that it takes a good 30-45 minutes (if not more) to groom a system before it comes to the 30-40m/hour mark. QFT, the real reason most of 0.0 is not used is because it is useless. it plain sucks. but ccp won't look at that because its too hard. like grouping weapons was too hard. Maxed space upgrades gain your system 10 insta respawn anomalies independent on true sec. so that's 10 ppl that can "mission", what about the other 1000? oh ye, just claim a 100 systems ... wait do you live there? I do, those upgrades are meaning less to me. E: btw where did all the uninformed trolls come from all of a sudden, lol is ccp back at work and poasting on their alts? 1 person per infinite and instant respawning anomaly would be a waste. Stop and think about it seriously until you see how something containing the words infinite and instant can be exploited. And I do live in 0.0 and I'm tired of earning ISK solo when I know I should be able to make more as part of a fleet.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:36:00 - [2312] Originally by: gambrinous ah no, that's pretty standard, there's a thread somewhere also, not sure how much it weighs on the equation, but the highsec missions can be done semi afk, try that in 0.0 (e.g. come home from work, start mission, manage agro, go cook dinner) I know the thread. You won't make the ISK semi AFK. The guy is running the most efficient mission ship in the game with good skills and game knowledge. Stop trolling, ffs.
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:37:00 - [2313] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: Why would anyone in their right mind pay for space that generates income to a mediocre mission runner in empire when there is so much more risk. It makes no sense. Why do they do it now for even less? Some people like the 0.0 play style, and are willing to take a hit to play the game that way. That's cool, good for them. Some people hate it, and are willing to stay in Motsu even if the worst -0.01 system in Geminate was promising free officer gear for everyone who jumped a shuttle in. Again, that's fine. But there's a whole bunch of people in the middle who are willing to trade risk for reward, but have no conceivable reason to try at present. Why would you rat for 20M/hour when you can mission for 20M/hour instead, and never get blown up? The goal of Dominion was supposed to be to clear room for those people to come to 0.0, and then give them a reason to bother. Increase the population density of non-safe space, add to the number of people who fight instead of just bearing around, and make 0.0 cool again for a reason other than ludicrous x64 passive income. This patch won't drive the 0.0 lovers away, but it won't bring the risk-tolerant out of empire either. That's why it's a failure - not because people who are willing to put up with crappy 0.0 mechanics will suddenly balk at putting up with slightly less crappy 0.0 mechanics, but because the people who you were trying to draw just won't care. I think if I wasn't voting for Zastrow I'd vote for you at this point. Atlas vote for this dude he isn't stupid.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:38:00 - [2314] Edited by: gambrinous on 09/11/2009 08:44:56 Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 08:26:33 Originally by: gambrinous so that's 10 ppl that can "mission", what about the other 1000? oh ye, just claim a 100 systems ... wait do you live there? I do, those upgrades are meaning less to me. E: btw where did all the uninformed trolls come from all of a sudden, lol is ccp back at work and poasting on their alts? 10 guaranteed anomalies seems better than 2 belt ratters. In any case it is better than what you have now and the numbers are a subject to change so stop trolling. it's not better than what I have now, now I have to JC to empire to run L4, post patch this won't change. I'm an average grunt in some average space in 0.0, these benefits don't mean anything at all to me. E: Originally by: Kepakh I know the thread. You won't make the ISK semi AFK. The guy is running the most efficient mission ship in the game with good skills and game knowledge. fair point, I forgot what he was using, it's irrelevant tho, I'm not trolling, the patch contains no improvements for 0.0, and CCP has admited isk/hour will be on par with L4, which can be run afk, and in near complete safety. sum total: I will likely pay more to keep the same crappy space while still earning isk in highsec; whilst the goals of encouraging more to enter 0.0 will not be fulfilled
NickSuccorso Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:43:00 - [2315] Originally by: Tesal Here is what is missing in this. You will still have access to neighboring systems, that will still have the same true sec, and you will still be able to rat in them just as you did before, its just that you won't have Sov there, and you will have to fight people if they show up. You won't be under a cyno jammer with jump bridges all the time, you are going to have to venture out. Once you are out there, people will kill you. So...why bother changing the sov system at all then, if the big alliances are still gonna use large amounts of territory other than their "official" holdings? Just because it isn't marked on the influence map, and doesn't have a cyno jammer, doesn't mean that some little empire alliance that wants to reach for the stars is going to challenge for it. They'd just get crushed, and they know it, because damnit we need to use this lousy space anyway because there isn't enough room in our super upgraded home systems to support everyone. Granted the hypothetical person is only going to make 20 million isk/hour after 2 hours of grooming, but he's going to take that because it beats sitting docked in station spinning his Rifter with his BS5 character.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:44:00 - [2316] Originally by: gambrinous it's not better than what I have now, now I have to JC to empire to run L4, post patch this won't change. I'm an average grunt in some average space in 0.0, these benefits don't mean anything at all to me. No harm to you being done to you with Dominion, that's no reason for complaining and trolling.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:45:00 - [2317] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: gambrinous ah no, that's pretty standard, there's a thread somewhere also, not sure how much it weighs on the equation, but the highsec missions can be done semi afk, try that in 0.0 (e.g. come home from work, start mission, manage agro, go cook dinner) I know the thread. You won't make the ISK semi AFK. The guy is running the most efficient mission ship in the game with good skills and game knowledge. Stop trolling, ffs. One last thing for the evening. Kepakh, all of your posts have been both factual and to the point. Well done. Nice to see someone who isn't running around screaming inane Memes. Kanatta Jing, I think you may be operating at a level well beyond the one in this thread. It may be obvious to you and I that these instantly re spawning anomalies can be worked endlessly by large groups that never have to leave their home system, and generate huge amounts of convenient ISK, but most won't get that. That's why I have avoided bringing it up and focused on other matters. However, since common sense is only generating hysterical replies perhaps your approach will get through to them. You may have to explain it to them a couple of times though. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Ryixezu Amarr Big Shadows Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:48:00 - [2318] Edited by: Ryixezu on 09/11/2009 08:52:04 Originally by: Ranger 1 Kanatta Jing, I think you may be operating at a level well beyond the one in this thread. It may be obvious to you and I that these instantly re spawning anomalies can be worked endlessly by large groups that never have to leave their home system, and generate huge amounts of convenient ISK, but most won't get that. That's why I have avoided bringing it up and focused on other matters. Absolutely, having an infinite resource available with instant respawn as soon as you complete it would be extremely abused. EDIT: I do really dislike using irony on forums but this one was too good to let go.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:53:00 - [2319] Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 08:45:51 Originally by: gambrinous it's not better than what I have now, now I have to JC to empire to run L4, post patch this won't change. I'm an average grunt in some average space in 0.0, these benefits don't mean anything at all to me. No harm being done to you with Dominion, means no reasons for complain and trolling. u went from telling me it was better to telling me it's the same
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:58:00 - [2320] Originally by: gambrinous u went from telling me it was better to telling me it's the same No, I didn't. It is objectively better, the fact you won't use space upgrades is your personal choice only. Do you mind to stop trolling?

gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:59:00 - [2321] Originally by: Ryixezu Edited by: Ryixezu on 09/11/2009 08:52:04 Originally by: Ranger 1 Kanatta Jing, I think you may be operating at a level well beyond the one in this thread. It may be obvious to you and I that these instantly re spawning anomalies can be worked endlessly by large groups that never have to leave their home system, and generate huge amounts of convenient ISK, but most won't get that. That's why I have avoided bringing it up and focused on other matters. Absolutely, having an infinite resource available with instant respawn as soon as you complete it would be extremely abused. EDIT: I do really dislike using irony on forums but this one was too good to let go. empty quoting atlas cause it's the thing to do now :P doh, going too fast, so while I wait: it supports 10 ppl, if ccp would just chuck agents in there, then yes1!!, but that is too hard (TM) my question still stands, what to do with the other 990 alliance members aside from grab 100 more systems to fill with anomalies? if ccp wants alliances to reduce their space they need to make it usable.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:04:00 - [2322] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: gambrinous u went from telling me it was better to telling me it's the same No, I didn't. It is objectively better, the fact you won't use space upgrades is your personal choice only. Do you mind to stop trolling? What do you even mean? The fact I won't use them is because they aren't any better than what I do already. aren't . any . better . how about you stop trolling me (actually don't worry too much, I'm just alt tabbing to a mission anyway sigh)
Korodan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:04:00 - [2323] Originally by: Ryixezu Edited by: Ryixezu on 09/11/2009 08:52:04 Originally by: Ranger 1 Kanatta Jing, I think you may be operating at a level well beyond the one in this thread. It may be obvious to you and I that these instantly re spawning anomalies can be worked endlessly by large groups that never have to leave their home system, and generate huge amounts of convenient ISK, but most won't get that. That's why I have avoided bringing it up and focused on other matters. Absolutely, having an infinite resource available with instant respawn as soon as you complete it would be extremely abused. EDIT: I do really dislike using irony on forums but this one was too good to let go. At this point I feel nothing at unironically quoting Atlas, nothing. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE CCP.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:06:00 - [2324] Whole risk vs reward whine is invalid. There is no risk in 0.0, there is a certain loss only. It is only a matter of time when you lose something. This is not that much a matter of risk balancing since being in 0.0 or low sec is your choice and your prefered playstyle but what is important here is to offer players who gets their things blown up a way to recover from their loses. You need this income so the game won't turn into grind fest with PVP being too ISK/grind dependant. Moon income fills this role and this role is not being changed. Space upgrades will remain your pocket ISK as current 0.0 belts/deadspace are, just slightly improved.
Vanzatoarea	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:07:00 - [2325] god...everyone suporting this crap is a troll? come on , no serious good arguments for this patch? fact : a decent mission runner that knows what he`s doing can manage 4 x l4`s/hour now i cant quite remember what the payoff for those is in empire but... factoring my income in l4`s for sansha in stain and calculating lp @ 1k/lp (it`s more i know but humor me) , without taking loot into consideration and keeping in mind that in there rats have no bounty (so i`m talking just reward+bonus+lp) i can climb to 60-70m/hour easy...now rating there on the other hand (-1.0 , as good as rating gets) ..it`s really hard to hit 30=35m/hour mark exploration isnt really worth mentioning as 90% of it is utter crap and i didnt even factor the "no risk" thing in yet...for me on a personal level , 30m/hour without risk in semi-afk mode while i can fly a cloaky ship somewhere with my main is far more attractive then 30-40m/hour rating while always checking intel and pausing to switch ships whenever some red comes around ...only to return and find someone else moved in my chained system or **ed up my chains so why? because there is (was?) something to aim for. The "power" was there for the taking for someone determined enough . If only in the illusion of once my alliance grabbing a r64 somehow and getting filthy rich..even though that would probably still leave me rating...it was a nice thing to aim for...oh and destroying goons...that is always a nice goal now what is there to look forward to in 0.0? Am i missing something here? Because it cant be the opportunity to pay a load of isk so i can farm worse then i am now to keep paying isk ... I`m not in it for the tears....those are easy enough to farm suiciding in highsec...so what`s left in 0.0? See i`m one of those willing to put up with crap if there is something there to aim for...so please enlighten me...what ??? Again , if i didnt make myself clear enough , what is there left to aim for in 0.0 ? Mediocre passive income from nerfed moons is all i can come up with now , and that coupled with the rediculous costs that come with sov now , that wont make anyone overpowered and /or filthy rich anymore the CHANCHE to become overpowered someday is a good thing...a leveled playing field where everyone gets to be just as special as the next kid is a bad thing! So what? is the entire ideea to get everyone the same income nomatter what they do or dont do? ** you CCP!!
Sarah Norbulk Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:08:00 - [2326] Originally by: Kepakh You make +45M/hour on single account mission running only if you run a Marauder. LP revenue is already included in +45M mark as well as loot and other mission income. As for the rest of the post...I don't know a single alliance that would hold their space just because of moons. Sov holding is solely depending on your military/diplomatic effort. Sorry, it is you being clueless here. The thread where that information is listed is a decent benchmark, but is not the most effective way to run missions. With a torp golem you gank your way through the mission as fast as possible, cherry picking wrecks as you go. This leaves you with 35+ mil/hr in bounties, doubles your LP, and still gets you decent loot and salvage. Where you can hold space is decided through diplomatic means, the act of holding space is run through towers, which can be used to perform in some industrial capacity to help mitigate the cost of running the towers in the first place. Come dominion most alliances will probably let sov slip and just keep the towers up if they still economically viable.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:14:00 - [2327] Originally by: gambrinous empty quoting atlas cause it's the thing to do now :P doh, going too fast, so while I wait: it supports 10 ppl, if ccp would just chuck agents in there, then yes1!!, but that is too hard (TM) my question still stands, what to do with the other 990 alliance members aside from grab 100 more systems to fill with anomalies? if ccp wants alliances to reduce their space they need to make it usable. 10 people on line at a time...6 hours game time each, 24 hours in a day = 40 people + the original numbers from before from belts, idling in station, plexing and so forth and so on. basically means an alliance with 1000 active members would only need 20 systems... Cause if your alliance had 1000 active members all at once you'd be 1/5 of all the people on eve on a busy day, and by rights you would have a 1/5 chunk of 0.0 space at least right? Assuming of course... One person to an anomaly and no one wants to mine Bistot. Because no one would want to risk a Covetor to mine the best ores in the game right? Seriously I think you can fully exploit the power of a 1000 man alliance in as little as 10 systems.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:18:00 - [2328] Originally by: Kepakh Whole risk vs reward whine is invalid. There is no risk in 0.0, there is a certain loss only. It is only a matter of time when you lose something. This is not that much a matter of risk balancing since being in 0.0 or low sec is your choice and your prefered playstyle but what is important here is to offer players who gets their things blown up a way to recover from their loses. You need this income so the game won't turn into grind fest with PVP being too ISK/grind dependant. Moon income fills this role and this role is not being changed. Space upgrades will remain your pocket ISK as current 0.0 belts/deadspace are, just slightly improved. Yes there is no risk because, you have decided to rename risk loss. Hint when people say risk they mean you risk losing something. Also because someone chooses to go to a dangerous space it should have no reward is insane. The whole point of this expansion is to drive people out to nullsec. They are going to choose to do it if they dont get anything out of the deal. Paying to upgrade space to make the money they already make in high sec with the risk of dying, how awesome. People want PERSONAL gain to increase, moon goo has nothing to do with it.
Biggi Raeubertochter Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:21:00 - [2329] Edited by: Biggi Raeubertochter on 09/11/2009 09:25:19 correct me if im wrong, but POS upkeep costs can to a large part be covered by ice-mining, and only a relative minor part comes from buying stuff from NPC¦s. So, with the current sov system, the major part of the sov upkeep costs could be covered with ice mining and then producing isotopes out of it. In other words: 0.0 sov holders could actively produce stuff to cover a large part of their upkeep costs. But now CCP did away with the part where you can cover most of the upkeep costs by yourself. Now its becoming a pure isk sink. And you can do nothing to reduce the isk sink. I think thats wrong. Thats why they need to reduce the upkeep costs they have planned significantly, to a reasonable level. Please quote this, if you agree
Gordon Reiss XERCORE Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:24:00 - [2330] It's the mechanics STUPID! I'm just another naive hopeful that bought into the poetic vision that Greyscale sang some months back. I really had great hope and excitement for Dominion. But the machine you describe in this Dev Blog is boxlike and boring. And it does nothing to liven up null sec in my mind. I see no signs of the vision so eloquently described over the last few months. Where are the stratigic targets for alliances to fight over? What is the incentive for new pilots to venture in to null sec? I don't get it. Sorry CCP, but please elaborate because something BIG is missing here. You guys need to quit this silent treatment and just spill it already. There is no way this is it...

Vanzatoarea	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:24:00 - [2331] Originally by: Kanatta Jing QFT, the real reason most of 0.0 is not used is because it is useless. it plain sucks. but ccp won't look at that because its too hard. like grouping weapons was too hard. Maxed space upgrades gain your system 10 insta respawn anomalies independent on true sec. so that's 10 ppl that can "mission", what about the other 1000? oh ye, just claim a 100 systems ... wait do you live there? I do, those upgrades are meaning less to me. E: btw where did all the uninformed trolls come from all of a sudden, lol is ccp back at work and poasting on their alts? 1 person per infinite and instant respawning anomaly would be a waste. Stop and think about it seriously until you see how something containing the words infinite and instant can be exploited. And I do live in 0.0 and I'm tired of earning ISK solo when I know I should be able to make more as part of a fleet. GAAAAAH idiot!!!!! dude , l4`s are just as infinite if you have any ideea what you`re up to you can get most of them in same system or 1 j away at most! 3 or 4 of them at the same time! if you have 3 (20 is a waste of firepower moron) determined people you can prety much be shooting rats non-stop , the only "pause" beeing the warp time between mission spots and (gasp!) the eventual need to go 1j awya (the horor! all of 30 sec to do 1 jump!) now compare that to 10x anomalies that may just MAY not be pure utter crap...and in fact act like 10 belts you need to probe down...you can keep 10 people max in there because in 90% of these anomalies more then 1 person is a waste . ANd as it has been said before,these 10 persons will each go for a separate anomaly (it simply isnt worth geting 2x people in one for the same reason it aint worth getin 2 people in a l4)...and will end up steping on eachother`s toes
Zerakix Minmatar LEAP Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:31:00 - [2332] How hard is it to kill a flag? How much will cost a corp time and money (Fee and purchase costs)wise if you pop a fully pimped out flag and hub with sov 5 compared to a maxed out sov system now? I fail.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:31:00 - [2333] Originally by: Kanatta Jing basically means an alliance with 1000 active members would only need 20 systems... until those 20 systems get shut down by afk cloakers earning money in 0.0: 100% attention to local never afk scouts/intel channels to move anywhere a single red hangs in your sys = interrupted isk flow earning money in highsec: grab one of the infinite insta respawning missions do it, semi afk ?? I think there's a clue store somewhere round here
Aquinzus Amarr Modern Marvels	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:34:00 - [2334] I just wish one person could tell me why CCP cant just fix the Ore in 0.0? How hard would it be to adjust what ore is where so Miners could mine something worth mining. How hard would it be to put each ore type in every belt in 0.0 just less of the best ore like Bistot etc, but at least some of it. That is something I have never understood. Ore is ass backwards, your in 0.0 so you should have all ore types in each belt, but more of the rarer ores in the better true sec, but at least some ore in the ** systems as well. I mean why is Kernite in Empire Amarr space and not in 0.0 Amarr space but Omber is ? And then Pyroxeres is everywhere in Empire but not any where in 0.0 space, it is beter to mine in low sec that in 0.0 that should tell you something about 0.0 right there. I once found a grav site in Empire that had better Ore than most 0.0 space that I have ever seen, if you can put that ore in grav sites you can stick it in the regular belts. The belts dont have to be stuffed full of it but it should be there. I propose a breakdown like this: Veldspar - 15% Scordite - 15% Plagioclase - 10% Omber - 10% Kernite - 10% Pyroxeres - 10% Jaspet - 4% Hedbergite - 4% Hemorphite - 4% Dark Ochre - 3% Gneiss - 3% Spudomain - 3% Arknor - 3% Bistot - 3% mercoxit - 3% And how hard would it be to actually buff the rats that spawn in 0.0 ? I mean your in 0.0 even if it is ** 0.0 you should be able to make better isk than in 0.8 running missions care free. This is just so wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:39:00 - [2335] Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 09:45:54 Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 09:44:24 Originally by: Pointfive Yes there is no risk because, you have decided to rename risk loss. Hint when people say risk they mean you risk losing something. Also because someone chooses to go to a dangerous space it should have no reward is insane. The whole point of this expansion is to drive people out to nullsec. They are going to choose to do it if they dont get anything out of the deal. Paying to upgrade space to make the money they already make in high sec with the risk of dying, how awesome. People want PERSONAL gain to increase, moon goo has nothing to do with it. I didn't rename anything, it is the way it is. Moon income has everything to do with it. Are you willing to fund Station deployment or your shiny super cap loss through your personal wallet? I guess not. 0.0 is not a solo content thus making it more rewarding than other solo content like empire is not very reasonable. There is no need for High sec mk2. This is the main concern and worries about changes that will come after the Dominion and whines for higher personal rewards make it even worse. 0.0 needs more group rewards than anything else.
Jita TradeAlt	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:41:00 - [2336] 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
Karanth Gallente Independent Fleet THE KLINGONS	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:48:00 - [2337] Edited by: Karanth on 09/11/2009 09:47:49 Quote: 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. I want to know the answer to this here question. Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans Sorry, no. You have to go into wormholes and get farmed by the new AI NPCs like everyone else...
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:50:00 - [2338] Originally by: Aquinzus I just wish one person could tell me why CCP cant just fix the Ore in 0.0? How hard would it be to adjust what ore is where so Miners could mine something worth mining. For the same reason the guaranteed grav site upgrade is of marginal utility: the minerals go into a secondary market that gets its ISK from primary sources such as missions/rat bounties/insurance. In other words, if too much mining happens of "valuable" ores the price crashes. Exhibit A: Drone regions and high-ends. Dominion is shaping up to be a huge ISK-sink (with likely economic effects concurrent to that, which I shan't get into atm). CCP needs a similar mineral-sink before increasing the availability of ores more freely. I am already expecting high-end prices to crash over the next six months (unless more macroers get banned, of course). --Krum --Krum
Cuchulin DEFCON. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:53:00 - [2339] Quote: 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. simple answer to this question ccp.... Cuchulin
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:54:00 - [2340] Originally by: Vanzatoarea GAAAAAH idiot!!!!! dude , l4`s are just as infinite if you have any ideea what you`re up to you can get most of them in same system or 1 j away at most! 3 or 4 of them at the same time! if you have 3 (20 is a waste of firepower moron) determined people you can prety much be shooting rats non-stop , the only "pause" beeing the warp time between mission spots and (gasp!) the eventual need to go 1j awya (the horor! all of 30 sec to do 1 jump!) now compare that to 10x anomalies that may just MAY not be pure utter crap...and in fact act like 10 belts you need to probe down...you can keep 10 people max in there because in 90% of these anomalies more then 1 person is a waste . ANd as it has been said before,these 10 persons will each go for a separate anomaly (it simply isnt worth geting 2x people in one for the same reason it aint worth getin 2 people in a l4)...and will end up steping on eachother`s toes I spent like 20 minutes trying to think of how to convince you I was right. Then I realized that was silly. The real test as to who is right will be in the months following Dec 1. See you in 6 months, we'll know who was being foolish then.

Zerakix Minmatar LEAP Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:58:00 - [2341] Edited by: Zerakix on 09/11/2009 10:02:04 Originally by: Karanth Edited by: Karanth on 09/11/2009 09:47:49 Quote: 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. I want to know the answer to this here question. Didn't a CCP guy imply or at least I read it as that they'll increase 0.0 profit after this patch because they need to see how it works out first before they can add ya know profit to 0.0 so it will be out soonish. Kinda like walking in stations err Incara. So.. 0.0 will be profitable in Winter 2013... make that winter 2015! Actually given what was sorta implied for Spring 2010 update my money is on the profit being from planetary interaction and new content related to it. I fail.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:01:00 - [2342] Originally by: Gordon Reiss It's the mechanics STUPID! I'm just another naive hopeful that bought into the poetic vision that Greyscale sang some months back. I really had great hope and excitement for Dominion. But the machine you describe in this Dev Blog is boxlike and boring. And it does nothing to liven up null sec in my mind. I see no signs of the vision so eloquently described over the last few months. Where are the stratigic targets for alliances to fight over? What is the incentive for new pilots to venture in to null sec? I don't get it. Sorry CCP, but please elaborate because something BIG is missing here. You guys need to quit this silent treatment and just spill it already. There is no way this is it... That is exactly the point. Remember all the goons a couple of years ago in rifters mixing up the landscape? Did they care if they could earn more isk running l4's in high sec? NO!! Do the alliance members in 0.0 currently care if they can earn more in high sec grinding npc mission after npc mission? NO!! They are almost all in 0.0 because of the thrilling PVP! Because of fleet battles. Because of forming empires and kicking their enemies in the balls where it hurts. They are in 0.0 because of banding together for a goal to achieve. If you want to grind PVE then go to empire. Or go to wormholes where you can earn 5 times as much as in l4's - at least. Yes, it is good to have OPTIONS available for the alliances. If some alliance wants to be more industry based and their members mining, okay, they should have the option. If some alliances want to exploit other resources, fine, let them. And if other alliances want pvp, great. BUT DO NOT FORCE PEOPLE TO DO A SINGLE PLAYSTYLE!!! Don't force people to grind grind grind stupid pve stuff only that they can afford the system bill - especially not when they have enough pvp people to defend the system easily. That should be enough! It absolutely doesn't make any sense that you would lose a system when you are strong enough to hold it and no one would ever be able to capture it nor even attempted to capture it! Such a game mechanic is idiotic and should have no place in 0.0 or anywhere else in Eve!!
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:09:00 - [2343] Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Ryixezu Edited by: Ryixezu on 09/11/2009 08:52:04 Originally by: Ranger 1 Kanatta Jing, I think you may be operating at a level well beyond the one in this thread. It may be obvious to you and I that these instantly re spawning anomalies can be worked endlessly by large groups that never have to leave their home system, and generate huge amounts of convenient ISK, but most won't get that. That's why I have avoided bringing it up and focused on other matters. Absolutely, having an infinite resource available with instant respawn as soon as you complete it would be extremely abused. EDIT: I do really dislike using irony on forums but this one was too good to let go. empty quoting atlas cause it's the thing to do now :P doh, going too fast, so while I wait: it supports 10 ppl, if ccp would just chuck agents in there, then yes1!!, but that is too hard (TM) my question still stands, what to do with the other 990 alliance members aside from grab 100 more systems to fill with anomalies? if ccp wants alliances to reduce their space they need to make it usable. If those 10 guys are on 23/7, yes you need 99 other upgraded systems for the other 990 members of the alliance. The point is that you have 10 constant, ever present anomalies. Every one of those anomalies can accommodate at least one player. So, instead of having 2 players combing the belts in 6 hours shifts (so about 8 alliance member in a day using a system) you can have 2 players in the belts and 10 in the anomalies at the same times. In 6 hour shifts it mean a single system can provide a living for 48 players. And your 1.000 alliance members can live in 20 upgraded systems (that is without considering mining or other activities). You really think that a 500% increase of the people using a system is bad?
Sarah Norbulk Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:10:00 - [2344] Originally by: Kepakh I didn't rename anything, it is the way it is. Moon income has everything to do with it. Are you willing to fund Station deployment or your shiny super cap loss through your personal wallet? I guess not. 0.0 is not a solo content thus making it more rewarding than other solo content like empire is not very reasonable. There is no need for High sec mk2. This is the main concern and worries about changes that will come after the Dominion and whines for higher personal rewards make it even worse. 0.0 needs more group rewards than anything else. It seems you and CCP have different ideas as to what 0.0 is supposed to be like. In case you didn't know CCP is nerfing the value of moongoo, which coincidentally nerfs the income of most 0.0 alliances. Ofc this was all well and good as alliances would be able to upgrade their space to make it viable for the alliance members to make isk there. Then the corps and through proxy the alliance would make isk from taxes. Well, the dev blog comes out and it turns out that the upgrades barely make collecting isk from 0.0 as effective as collecting isk from empire. You see the main issue is that the ability of the alliance to provide for it's members will diminish while owning space doesn't offer the members enough incentives over empire or NPC space to justify holding space. The loss of isk to the alliance from the moongoo directly effects the ability of the alliance to fund programs like ship replacement for its members, leading to the average 0.0 player being worse off.
Notitius Novos	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:15:00 - [2345] Someone should compile the best bits of this thread into a mega-ragequit/"CCP-are-fail" thread, particularly any Dev replies, with 79 pages of mostly inane posts I cba digging through to find the gems.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:18:00 - [2346] Originally by: Venkul Mul empty quoting atlas cause it's the thing to do now :P doh, going too fast, so while I wait: it supports 10 ppl, if ccp would just chuck agents in there, then yes1!!, but that is too hard (TM) my question still stands, what to do with the other 990 alliance members aside from grab 100 more systems to fill with anomalies? if ccp wants alliances to reduce their space they need to make it usable. If those 10 guys are on 23/7, yes you need 99 other upgraded systems for the other 990 members of the alliance. The point is that you have 10 constant, ever present anomalies. Every one of those anomalies can accommodate at least one player. So, instead of having 2 players combing the belts in 6 hours shifts (so about 8 alliance member in a day using a system) you can have 2 players in the belts and 10 in the anomalies at the same times. In 6 hour shifts it mean a single system can provide a living for 48 players. And your 1.000 alliance members can live in 20 upgraded systems (that is without considering mining or other activities). You really think that a 500% increase of the people using a system is bad? Using man hours is more predicative. 10 anomalies per system is 23*30 = 690 man hours.
Locii	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:19:00 - [2347] so now as a new small alliance wanting to take some space i have to pay ccp my sub's i have to pay concord for the right to place a flag and hub i hvae to pay what ever over lords i need for support (YOU HAVE SORTED THE TREATY SYSTEM TO GO IN WITH THIS, HAVNT YOU CCP?) i have to pay for alliance capitals and replacments, while saving some isk for a rainy day...lol i have to moon mine low end crap thats not been taken by the over lords i have to rat/plex/mine to keep any upgrades when do i get to pvp? when do i get to see a little bit of what i see as the end game?.
Zerakix Minmatar LEAP Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:22:00 - [2348] Originally by: Gnulpie It absolutely doesn't make any sense that you would lose a system when you are strong enough to hold it and no one would ever be able to capture it nor even attempted to capture it! Such a game mechanic is idiotic and should have no place in 0.0 or anywhere else in Eve!! Probably not what you meant but isn't already impossible for all but the largest of fleets hammering non-stop on a cynojammed system just about impossible to capture with out you know disbanding the defending alliance? I fail.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:28:00 - [2349] Originally by: Vanzatoarea GAAAAAH idiot!!!!! dude , l4`s are just as infinite if you have any ideea what you`re up to you can get most of them in same system or 1 j away at most! 3 or 4 of them at the same time! if you have 3 (20 is a waste of firepower moron) determined people you can prety much be shooting rats non-stop , the only "pause" beeing the warp time between mission spots and (gasp!) the eventual need to go 1j awya (the horor! all of 30 sec to do 1 jump!) now compare that to 10x anomalies that may just MAY not be pure utter crap...and in fact act like 10 belts you need to probe down...you can keep 10 people max in there because in 90% of these anomalies more then 1 person is a waste . ANd as it has been said before,these 10 persons will each go for a separate anomaly (it simply isnt worth geting 2x people in one for the same reason it aint worth getin 2 people in a l4)...and will end up steping on eachother`s toes What part of anomalies are you missing? The one where they can be probed at 100% accuracy with 1 single probe covering a whole system maybe? The horror. You need to launch one probe and scan 30 seconds to get all the anomalies in system. You can get them with the on board scanner too, the only limit is that its range is smaller and you need to warp to the different planets. Exactly identical to warping to belt, check rats, kill rats, warp to next belt. With the added benefit that the anomaly and the rats respawn immediately. So the equivalent of 10 missions without the need to recover stuff for the agent or to kill structures. You don't even need to care for standing or failing a mission. So it is identical to your mission description.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:30:00 - [2350] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Ryixezu Edited by: Ryixezu on 09/11/2009 08:52:04 Originally by: Ranger 1 Kanatta Jing, I think you may be operating at a level well beyond the one in this thread. It may be obvious to you and I that these instantly re spawning anomalies can be worked endlessly by large groups that never have to leave their home system, and generate huge amounts of convenient ISK, but most won't get that. That's why I have avoided bringing it up and focused on other matters. Absolutely, having an infinite resource available with instant respawn as soon as you complete it would be extremely abused. EDIT: I do really dislike using irony on forums but this one was too good to let go. empty quoting atlas cause it's the thing to do now :P doh, going too fast, so while I wait: it supports 10 ppl, if ccp would just chuck agents in there, then yes1!!, but that is too hard (TM) my question still stands, what to do with the other 990 alliance members aside from grab 100 more systems to fill with anomalies? if ccp wants alliances to reduce their space they need to make it usable. If those 10 guys are on 23/7, yes you need 99 other upgraded systems for the other 990 members of the alliance. The point is that you have 10 constant, ever present anomalies. Every one of those anomalies can accommodate at least one player. So, instead of having 2 players combing the belts in 6 hours shifts (so about 8 alliance member in a day using a system) you can have 2 players in the belts and 10 in the anomalies at the same times. In 6 hour shifts it mean a single system can provide a living for 48 players. And your 1.000 alliance members can live in 20 upgraded systems (that is without considering mining or other activities). You really think that a 500% increase of the people using a system is bad? currently 10000000000000000 ppl can use one 0.0 system, because they're all running empire alts. post patch, no significant difference except it costs more. if you want [more] people to actually live 100% in 0.0 this is not a solution. but anyway, back to the real problem: CCP DOES ACTUALLY KNOW BETTER, BUT TEH CODE IS TOO HARD!! LEGACY!!!!

Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:35:00 - [2351] Originally by: Sarah Norbulk It seems you and CCP have different ideas as to what 0.0 is supposed to be like. In case you didn't know CCP is nerfing the value of moongoo, which coincidentally nerfs the income of most 0.0 alliances. Ofc this was all well and good as alliances would be able to upgrade their space to make it viable for the alliance members to make isk there. Then the corps and through proxy the alliance would make isk from taxes. Well, the dev blog comes out and it turns out that the upgrades barely make collecting isk from 0.0 as effective as collecting isk from empire. You see the main issue is that the ability of the alliance to provide for it's members will diminish while owning space doesn't offer the members enough incentives over empire or NPC space to justify holding space. The loss of isk to the alliance from the moongoo directly effects the ability of the alliance to fund programs like ship replacement for its members, leading to the average 0.0 player being worse off. It is difficult to say what vision CCP got since they do thing on the fly with little time spent thinking about the whole concept. They follow the rule do now, think later. There is a major flaw in our argumenting: Moon mining is not getting nerfed, if anything it is getting boosted - more moon ISK for more enitties. Current R64 owners will just focus on other moons to mine because those will rise in demand. As said, it is difficult to say wheter it is intentional, flaw or bad concept.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:38:00 - [2352] I do like how everyone has gone down to the isk equation.... cant wait for the carebears to realise that lots of things they do right now (like ice mining) are gonna be useless... and when those that dont quit stay and start inhabiting highsec mission zones.... perhaps then they wont think its so funny. Besides how much a system is worth is irrelevant to alot of people. Here is one way of looking at it.. and is pretty common for alot of nulsec dwelers. We dont care about moon mins, sov or anything else, thats dealt with by tiny minorities that have at the moment very little to do with the majority of people in 0.0 Were in 0.0 for pvp... seriously why else be there? So why the hell does some idiot in ccp think giving us better rats, better plex's, better anything pve to pay for a huge bill is gonna make anyone happy?!?!? I've been down in 0.0 for nearly a year, I cant stand ratting or mining there boring as hell. If I have a bad month I go to empire for my isk as its low risk. I think CCP believe that we enjoy having to farm isk or something to pvp.... 0.0 if you follow it is a great turmoil of changing borders big fights death and destruction. These new changes are going to make nulsec the home of the leet and rich. large wars.. why bother neither side no longer wants to conquer anymore space as its to expensive. I remember seeing an interview with some ccp dufus saying the changes are to make nulsec more dynamic... How is ratting and mining for an isk bill we didn't have before more dynamic for a pvp zone? When they first announced sov. changes I thought great, always good to shake it up a bit, I think myself like many thought id would help smaller groups, and I wanted to see less empty 0.0 space with more than just a sov marker in it. From what I'm seeing there will still be huge expanses of empty nulsec, except now they will be unofficially claimed by someone, as the new mechanic means they cant game implement there control, even though they still will. Current nulsec isn't great sov. wise, but the costs were based in the player field as in pos fuels had to be mined and transported etc. and they replace that with an isk bill. What happened to one of the idea's of the whole thing being a multiplier based on systems so a few systems wasn't a fortune but allot was... Perhaps make the bills more relevant than just the generic isk sink (IC where the hell does it go???) maybe have the cost ofset by pos fuel or something. Before if you could mine your pos fuels its was your space.... Now its your space till the bank manager of uberdoom calls forfeit.... that part gets me... so no isk and the thing just breaks?? Wish I could be more constructive, but right now ccp is failing so much I wish they'd release the new star wars mmo sooner.
mr passie Minmatar Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:43:00 - [2353] ok here's my 2 cents. I don't mind change, in fact I'm one who just adapts to whatever comes, that doesnt mean all change is good though. I would like to see smaller alliances making a foothold and grow. I could even understand (a little ;))that some of the larger alliances have too much space to make it possible for this to happen (as well as the numbers). the current system however does not allow for the proper changes it'll be way too expensive for small alliances to get a foothold. what needs to be done is to create an incentive for smaller alliances and make it progressively harder for large ones. Why not make holding sov in one system ridiculously cheap snd make it progressively harder? Make it to the point where you indeed need a cap fleet and defend R64 income if you want to maintain more then one region, so it'll be difficult but not impossible the way it is atm basically. Saying that, It should never get so expensive that individual members need to be extra taxed to support sov. members make isk to buy ships to pvp/defend/attack space. Alliance make isk to provide sov. If alliances cannot afford to risk pvp fleets anymore no one will attack another entity and things will grow evenmore boring then it is atm. on the other side, if you are a small alliance and claim sov in only one system it should be really cheap, no more then 100m a month, your alliance prolly won't be able to pay for more considering you will get attacked lots and need lots of ships to defend. if you want to make it really interesting, also adjust hp for sov holding structures by the amount of systems controlled. That way large alliances will be mostly safe from small hit and run stuff and can only really be attacked by other large alliances/cap fleets. The only problem left is that small alliances will still live at the whim of large ones, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.
Sarah Norbulk Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:52:00 - [2354] Originally by: Kepakh It is difficult to say what vision CCP got since they do thing on the fly with little time spent thinking about the whole concept. They follow the rule do now, think later. There is a major flaw in our argumenting: Moon mining is not getting nerfed, if anything it is getting boosted - more moon ISK for more enitties. Current R64 owners will just focus on other moons to mine because those will rise in demand. As said, it is difficult to say wheter it is intentional, flaw or bad concept. I was basing my interpretation of the goal of Dominion off of what was said on the Alliance tournament. I believe it was Greyscale who said that they wanted to see people out in the belts again. I guess so long as CCP aim to have t2 ships/equipment cost the same that the overall value will remain roughly the same. Of course then you run into the issue that there will always be a bottleneck in production and those mins will be the most valuable moons to own. I'm guessing the top 20 alliances will quickly beat out any small alliance that holds any moon of value so base income will remain stable, but you will run into an issue with the POS costs rising meaning less net profit. It also still leaves the little guys in a ****ty situation as holding decent moons will be just as difficult as it is today plus on top of that they'll have to pay for Sov and upgrades.
Effloresco	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:56:00 - [2355] Here is a constructive post as CCP asked. Objective 1: Get Carebears to 0.0 In order for a mission runner to come to 0.0, he might be able to easily earn 60m/hour from either ratting or mining. Safety issues and extra income from plex or anomalies will be 0.0's ups and downs. Objective 2: Boost PVP The reason why people are in 0.0 is because they are looking for PVP. We need definite Boost here. - Make Sov Modules large so that they can only be carried by Freighters. So, logistics will need lots of escort and camping. There is a change for PVP. - Another one would be making roaming gangs a thread for alliances. They can shoot your Sov modules so that you will have to rep them up again. Give us a chance to harm the sov or the farming traffic. - Make Sov mechanics movable/adaptable/changeable. When a friend alliance needs help, we could be able to go up there and help them. Lately freelance alliances like Outbreak/MC disappeared from EVE because everything is about SOV/r64/SOV/Power Blocks/SOV. Change this so people can freely roam around help whoever they want. Objective 3: Kill Huge Alliances and make room for small ones. - I know this might sound like an economist but I actually am one. So try to decrease fixed costs and increase Variable costs. Make it cumulative so large power blocks diminish. Make the Sov costs exponential so 100man alliance wont have 65 systems.
Glassback Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:15:00 - [2356] Edited by: Glassback on 09/11/2009 11:15:29 Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. Which is the problem. You spend all the time/isk getting a system upgraded, just so you can make as much isk as in Empire? Nahh.. You need 0.0 to be worth double Empire income, otherwise why would you go to 0.0 to make isk?
Sazumaan Johnza Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:19:00 - [2357] Originally by: Effloresco Here is a constructive post as CCP asked. [Stuff. Ok, some really good stuff here. I agree with almost all of this, exponential costs attached to n+1 alliance size is a great idea. ----- "Eve is more filling than roast steaks slowly grilling over a rotating fire whilst marinating in a combination of Australian fruity wines and the best imported herbs..." - SChimera [16.4.07
ShadowMaiden Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:29:00 - [2358] Originally by: Korodan Probably lives in a basement, a nocturnal lizard sipping the finest Mountain Dew and sampling the most compelling and deep of animes, stroking his fleshlite of a five year old girl lovingly as he missions in a CNR. * warning, personal attacks are not allowed - CCP Ildoge A Something Awful Forum member implying someone is a pedo? LOL, Hypocrisy...
Aylara	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:29:00 - [2359] I was hoping for an exponential increase in costs with size, at least this was what CCP implied in previous blogs :(
zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:31:00 - [2360] Edited by: zelalot on 09/11/2009 11:34:56 Originally by: Glassback Edited by: Glassback on 09/11/2009 11:15:29 Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. Which is the problem. You spend all the time/isk getting a system upgraded, just so you can make as much isk as in Empire? Nahh.. You need 0.0 to be worth double Empire income, otherwise why would you go to 0.0 to make isk? That is a great point. More isk, More isk for pvp, current game mechanics means those alliances that arent on good moons or occupy good ratting systems have to rat for at least 3 x 6hour shifts for a decent tech 2 ship, in fact even if you have good rats thats about right. i really think pinning the "massive" blob alliances down is a great idea but i have to admit this game mechanic doesn't do it for me. The exponential idea is a great idea. if the systems you occupy contained more belts more plexes more moons more plexes fitting a 300 man alliance in 1 system should be able to farm that system as they please. i just have a feeling that the system cost structure, will again mean those alliances that are cash rich will survive, and those that are trying to build will be restricted to what their "overlords" demands of them.

Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:33:00 - [2361] Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 11:35:11 Originally by: Sarah Norbulk I was basing my interpretation of the goal of Dominion off of what was said on the Alliance tournament. I believe it was Greyscale who said that they wanted to see people out in the belts again. I guess so long as CCP aim to have t2 ships/equipment cost the same that the overall value will remain roughly the same. Of course then you run into the issue that there will always be a bottleneck in production and those mins will be the most valuable moons to own. I'm guessing the top 20 alliances will quickly beat out any small alliance that holds any moon of value so base income will remain stable, but you will run into an issue with the POS costs rising meaning less net profit. It also still leaves the little guys in a ****ty situation as holding decent moons will be just as difficult as it is today plus on top of that they'll have to pay for Sov and upgrades. And that's the whole point here. To understand wheter the system is working as intended you need a developed concept first. Something CCP has got not because they do things on the fly. Considering the goals highlighted in dev blogs, Dominion is complete fail because they won't be achieved but you have to keep in mind that CCP often speaks about in 'one day' time frame. Wheter the changes are good or bad, working as intened or doing the contrary I can't say. As it is now, they mean only little change for current state of things and more will be depending on what changes will follow. The system as it is currently designed is very flexible. You can turn 0.0 into grindfest as easily as you can make it more rewarding then current R64 moon mining. What is the CCP intention I don't really know and we will have to wait for more dev blogs and until more stuff is released on test server.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:41:00 - [2362] Originally by: Glassback Which is the problem. You spend all the time/isk getting a system upgraded, just so you can make as much isk as in Empire? Nahh.. You need 0.0 to be worth double Empire income, otherwise why would you go to 0.0 to make isk? No you don't. You want to be paid for fighting for your space, not grinding like mission runner. Empire income: Solo 100M 0.0 income: Solo 60M + alliance/corp 50M This is a path how to make 0.0 more diverse, more fun, more attractive, more challenging and more meaningfull.
Andrew Gaspurr Caldari Abrucco Cold Fusion.	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:42:00 - [2363] 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. As such, we would have been glad to take a seat at the 00 table and have a nice time together with you. I say ôwouldö, because now things changed. I did not read each and every comment of this 79-page-manifesto of ôthey all failö but I think I got an impression of the overall mood most people are in. Indeed we planned to move to 00 and were eagerly anticipating the incentives CCP would offer to a relatively small alliance to carve out a decent niche there. Of course we knew it would not be for free and of course we knew that initially we would need some kind of goodwilling protector in order to survive long enough to establish ourselves. Providence sounded like a good idea, but thatÆs an example of one of the more attractive regions in space. But with all that which I read here the initial investments and the following upkeep system are just way too expensive for a small alliance to cope with. Plus, there are no incentives that outweigh them. If the major players claim those systems that are (just) valuable enough to make a 00 living, the crap, as it was called by multiple different alliance members before, will be the leftovers for those newly arriving Empire dwellers. Of course the established factions have the knowledge of what systems are profitable and they will move swiftly to claim them; which is understandable of course. Tbis means that newcomers will inevitably moonmine Bantha Poodo, mine Hemorphite, scan for Gneiss and generally chase Frigates and BCs around the block. Not that itÆs not fun, but it cannot compensate the immense upkeep Dominion demands. Ah, and being a somewhat PvP-oriented area of space (I am told), most arguments come from a barrel there so you have to calculate the occasional lost ship as well. I might add more details here but most of you have of course the red line already and know where this is going: 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 "Quotes in forum signatures are unnecessary and annoying." -(P. Body)
Tiger Kior Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:50:00 - [2364] Originally by: Aylara I was hoping for an exponential increase in costs with size, at least this was what CCP implied in previous blogs :( CCP actually clearly stated AGAINST exponential costs at fanfest as quite simply most alliances can circumvent a system that scales exponentially through alt alliances. So yes, that in of itself is not the solution, as many have noted, the solution is to fix the actual problems and that is true sec status and belt counts/contents. CCP needs to spearhead the problem of managing its own code base and make true sec status dynamic and subsequently the number of belts, density of rat spawns, density of roid spawns and type of roid spawns all dynamic.
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:51:00 - [2365] Quote: I don't know if anyone of you noticed this, but the sovereignity bills will be paid from the corp-wallet of the corp, which places the FLAG/TCU in a system on behalf of it's alliance. So you can directly tax your corp-members to pay the bills. The bills aren't paid from the alliance-wallet. Moon-mining will get reduced, yes, but this was way too long overdue. There'll be more moons however, that will be economical to harvest, with the coming Tech 2-production changes and changes to alchemy. The upgrades you can make for your systems, don't look all that good, I'll give you that, and they won't making money as easy as flying LvL 4 missions, but it's not that bad at all tbh. Flying anomalies in -0.2 or doing plexes in such "crap" systems is still worth it, if you count in the loot and salvage. Actually alot of anomalies nets you 20 million ISK without the loot or salvage, and having them respawn instantly, they're up par with LvL 4 missions, you just don't get the additional LP. I still have the oppinion, that it's not too much to ask your members to contribute some 5-10 million ISK a day, if your members get their fleet-ships in return paid by the corp. My corp does pays for fleet-ships in that regard. So if the changes draw money out of the system, so that the alliances have to work a little bit more for their huge cap-fleets we see today... well... I guess I don't have a problem with this, as it was getting ridiculous to waste 50 Dreads and have them instantly recovered. I don't understand the general mindset in here, that 0.0 should be measured vs. empire-space. 0.0 has other things to it, then just making ISK. It's a big playground, where we can fly around and have some nice fights going on, without any repercussions like loss of security. I live in the mindset, that 0.0 should only pay for itself, if you have a good empire-based industrial backbone and that claimed 0.0 is only there to reflect your power. I have the slight impression, that CCP is seeing this similar, as all the stuff they've thought of for Dominion reflects this. So no. I don't think that the costs are too high, and I don't think that the rewards in 0.0 PvE-content should be boosted. 0.0 should not be about personal wealth, but about teamplay and pewpew. The decision to not have any upgrades that influence the true-sec of the systems is a good one at this point, as alliances will still fight for the better regions as it happens now with the high-end moons. Systems that nobody cares about to upgrade them will free up to some extend for people who don't actually like to live in 0.0 or claim space, but only do some ratting or plxing from time to time, as they can jump in a Rorqual put up a small tower for some safety without the big alliances getting informed via mail, that someone has put up a tower in their space. Alot of the big entities see this different, but tbh I don't really care for them, as I think they are playing the game wrong and do not understand what possibilities will open up. Small gang roaming will be effective again, as you can enter a system you know of being upgraded and find yourself some targets or atleast disrupt their activities. And hey... disrupting their activities, preventing them from upgrading their system just adds another layer of warfare actually. I say: Go on CCP, don't listen to the whiners and do what you have announced so far. Shake up the sandbox and level the playingground once more You man are an idiot,I suppose you never lived in o.o. Ok the problem is not the sov change nor the moon nerf,we all knew it is coming it was coming for good,the problem is the way it is coming,forcing people to carebear forcing aliances to abandon space to abandon reimbusement programs just ot pay sov bils, is wrong.Why should we keep our space why should we atack someone,as we will gain nothing.and yeah the way things are going npc o.o will get major boost and low sec.
Fun Bunny	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:54:00 - [2366] 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 great ideas, m8 focus on player interactions instead of dumb contrived **
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:55:00 - [2367] Doesnt salvaging count as a mini profession anymore ?
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:57:00 - [2368] Originally by: Sazumaan Johnza Originally by: Effloresco Here is a constructive post as CCP asked. [Stuff. Ok, some really good stuff here. I agree with almost all of this, exponential costs attached to n+1 alliance size is a great idea. No it is a god damn horrible idea. The reason is that CCP should not be in the business of deciding what size an alliance can be by such strong artificial means. Activity level is a good measurement, since the goal is to liven 0.0 and remove claims on unused space. If an alliance has the size to actively use massive amounts of space, the should be able to do it. Artificial size limit would also only force people to create alt alliances and ignore all the actual problems and goals CCP needs to reach. The goals should be to create mechanics that allow smaller entities an easier access, bring more people and playstyles to 0.0 and allow empire building. The first can't be forced upon players. The only realistic way to do it is to make them desirable to the bigger entities. CCP can help by bringing initial/small scale costs closer to zero and creating easier ways to facilitate treaties between the entities. The second and third can be done by making more room/increasing income earning potential of systems and making them as varied as possible. When you get enough people in a system, you will also need to be able to supply for them and CCP should try to facilitate local market/industrial hubs. The more and varied upgrades CCP allows the better the empire building aspect becomes. A few lacking income upgrades have very little to do with actual empire building, but help to condense the existing empires.
Amy Wang	Posted - 2009.11.09 11:58:00 - [2369] How about gradual changes to implement this better? Start with low 0.0 maintenance costs and increase them over the course of some months gradually to what is proposed now. And now the kicker: At the same time gradually lower the rewards empire space has to offer: - decrease payout of missions (yes I know LP/isk ratio will just improve first but with faction loot from 0.0 providing a new baseline that has bounds) - increase refining tax so that there is no perfect refining in empire any more - increase market taxes - reduce asteroid spawn rates - increase npc corp tax above the 11% that is planned - increase repair costs at stations - drastically increase office rental/factory/lab slot costs - drastically increase the cost of starbase charters etc. That might get more people out to 0.0 cause now it looks better then empire suddenly, granted it might also get at least the same amount of highsec bears to emoragequit, but still better then this not well thought out concept.
FourDrink Minimum	Posted - 2009.11.09 12:13:00 - [2370] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Salsbury Y'know, I have to admit that watching all this smack-talk about CCP from the people who don't like the changes is pretty funny. Epic pwnage by CCP! It seems to me that the whole intent of CCP was to stir things up, reduce unused system sprawl, and make alliances really consider whether a system will be profitable to keep around. In this regard, I think they've already succeeded admirably. In the 100+ posts I've read on this thread, one striking deficiency that I've noticed is the lack of almost any mention of cooperation, banding together, and INCREASING alliance inter-operation. This is, in fact, core to the design of what CCP is trying to accomplish. Getting more people out to 0.0, building new relationships between corps, encouraging renting out of sub-systems in alliance space, etc. I've seen lots of people saying "small alliances won't be able to survive!" Well, start banding together with other smaller alliances, and become larger. I've seen LOTS AND LOTS of funny PvP'ers whining that they simply won't be able to shoot enough stuff to pay the bills, while at the same time saying "mining is a **** profession" and the like. Well, it's time for you to learn how to cooperate with other players. You need to start getting some mining & industry going in your systems, to leverage those belts, rather than simply ignoring them, or ratting, then flying away. (You might even want to train some new skills, so you can produce some wealth in ways other than simply shooting stuff. You might be surprised.) If it helps you to reframe the idea of cooperation, think of it as different strategic wings of a fleet. You've got some who are doing PvE ratting, protecting those who are helping to harvest those rocks and provide you with resources to build with/sell. You need to balance your skills & strengths to achieve the larger objective. One person can't do it all. That's the whole point of having fleets, corps, and alliances. Think bigger than what you can do alone. Think about what you can accomplish together. 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. This is still the dumbest post in this thread.

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.

Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:32:00 - [2401] Originally by: Uphill Gardner 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. If you didn't suggest making other 0.0 resources(rats, plexes, ore) more valuable to compete with moon mining as I thought, I don't understand what your point is then.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:34:00 - [2402] I and alot of people play in nulsec for pvp. I'll also make a broad asumption that alot of us arent rich and have to grind isk to pvp as it is. Fact that more isk bills are going to come in, means more non pvp to allow pvp... thats a bit fail. I left other MMO's because I hated the farming and grinding, I do it here because the pvp is more intense and worth it, sadly I believe this expansion will kill that, both in needing to farm more AND it killing the spirit of nulsec warfare. Empty 0.0 is sad lonely and boring, but parts of it are vibrant and full of action, these mechanics are going to utterly destroy some aspect's of nulsec. Its designed to fix nulsec, well arent the opinions of the tens of thousands of current nulsec residents worth listening too... from this thread clearly not.
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:34:00 - [2403] Originally by: Gefex 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. how about this for the allanices that dont want to grind, BRING IN PEOPLE THAT DO! Theirs hundereds of people i've met that LIKE GRINDING, they like mining and hanging out with people just chilling, and many many many want to move from high to nullsec for better ores, but dont because its not a nice place to go and is inaccessible, maybe if the bigger alliances will put out a call for small industrial corps etc, to do the grinding, they'll be able to overcome the grinding difficulty, and also maintain their PVP selves... As CCP said, no longer will PvP war machines, be able to get along without having a carebear wing of their organization that needs to be defended while they grind away.
zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:34:00 - [2404] Originally by: Lord Helghast 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 CCP predicts more alliances will be set up under a banner name. Alliance a Alliance b Alliance c and that way they will only ever pay a small fee for the systems.
Sellmewarez	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:35:00 - [2405] I think it should be pointed out that nerfing level 4's or moving them to lowsec is entirely the wrong direction to take. It should be buffing lowsec and 0.0 rewards most of all so that people WANT to come out to that space to make ISK. Eve needs more money in the hands of players anyway, just take a look at the market now to where it was 8 months ago and you will see a massive drop in the prices because people are buying less ships due to no major 0.0 wars. That is crucial since it hurts the industrial side of eve. Also, if i was to bet, in Dominion under the announced changes there will be an even greater chance that major wars are unlikely to happen because people will not be fighting over extra space far away from their home regions... simply because it won't be feasable or worth the effort to hold it themselves other than to hand it off to renters and hope they don't die horribly. This expansion is just going to make eve more stale than it already is.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:37:00 - [2406] Originally by: Itzena 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. That question makes no sense at all. Should I be paid for each jump through 0.0 because it is more risky than jumping through high sec gate? That is what you actualy ask.
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:40:00 - [2407] Originally by: Sellmewarez I think it should be pointed out that nerfing level 4's or moving them to lowsec is entirely the wrong direction to take. It should be buffing lowsec and 0.0 rewards most of all so that people WANT to come out to that space to make ISK. Eve needs more money in the hands of players anyway, just take a look at the market now to where it was 8 months ago and you will see a massive drop in the prices because people are buying less ships due to no major 0.0 wars. That is crucial since it hurts the industrial side of eve. Also, if i was to bet, in Dominion under the announced changes there will be an even greater chance that major wars are unlikely to happen because people will not be fighting over extra space far away from their home regions... simply because it won't be feasable or worth the effort to hold it themselves other than to hand it off to renters and hope they don't die horribly. This expansion is just going to make eve more stale than it already is. moving L4's to lowsec, means more mission runners getting popped by oppertunistic pirates which would equate to more ships going boom and more ships and equip needing to be bought, and would rename L4's to DANGEROUS instead of no-danger at all as they currently are seen. The increased ships and equip demand would spawn higher need for minerals, which would increase profitability of mining, both lowsec and highsec ores, and make mining both in nullsec and highsec more valuable and the mining upgrades in nullsec even more demanded and needed.
JfG D00MSAYER Caldari	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:45:00 - [2408] Who in hell pulled that numbers outa his fingers? Even if u lower the cost for sov etc the upcoming sov-payment-system still sucks. Looking at all the formulas u already need for this game (shield/cap charge rate, missile damage etc) it seems like u use that 20million per day per sov-system out of lazyness In my opinion daily sov cost should be related to a (number of sov systems)/(alliance members) equation. With this a small alliance can actually afford 2 sov systems and a rent to a bigger alliance without going broke after a month and a big alliance is actually able to afford the systems its members need to make a living. I think the same easy math would help with cynojammers like: (cynojammed system)/(number of sov systems) Means, having 1 cynojammed system in your alliances constellation just costs a bit, but if u try to cynojam every system concord will empty your wallet in a month. Having 1/4 of your sov systems cynojammed can be good enough maybe?
Primnproper	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:47:00 - [2409] Originally by: Kepakh 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. Where when how, cus I can't bloody see it and neither can anyone else, you warthog faced baffoon. Its not hard all we want is a bloody answer from CCP to this simple question. ... 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.
Sellmewarez	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:47:00 - [2410] Edited by: Sellmewarez on 09/11/2009 13:53:38 Edited by: Sellmewarez on 09/11/2009 13:51:46 Edited by: Sellmewarez on 09/11/2009 13:47:48 Originally by: Lord Helghast Originally by: Sellmewarez I think it should be pointed out that nerfing level 4's or moving them to lowsec is entirely the wrong direction to take. It should be buffing lowsec and 0.0 rewards most of all so that people WANT to come out to that space to make ISK. Eve needs more money in the hands of players anyway, just take a look at the market now to where it was 8 months ago and you will see a massive drop in the prices because people are buying less ships due to no major 0.0 wars. That is crucial since it hurts the industrial side of eve. Also, if i was to bet, in Dominion under the announced changes there will be an even greater chance that major wars are unlikely to happen because people will not be fighting over extra space far away from their home regions... simply because it won't be feasable or worth the effort to hold it themselves other than to hand it off to renters and hope they don't die horribly. This expansion is just going to make eve more stale than it already is. moving L4's to lowsec, means more mission runners getting popped by oppertunistic pirates which would equate to more ships going boom and more ships and equip needing to be bought, and would rename L4's to DANGEROUS instead of no-danger at all as they currently are seen. The increased ships and equip demand would spawn higher need for minerals, which would increase profitability of mining, both lowsec and highsec ores, and make mining both in nullsec and highsec more valuable and the mining upgrades in nullsec even more demanded and needed. Directly nerfing playstyles is not going to win you any favours with your customer base and wont make eve a better game than it is. The ONLY way you can entice people to come out en-mass is by making the rewards greater than what they are currently doing. Buffing rewards in lowsec/0.0 is a nerf to high sec income in reality, it is just a stealth nerf and more diplomatic

zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:48:00 - [2411] Originally by: Lord Helghast Originally by: Gefex 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. how about this for the allanices that dont want to grind, BRING IN PEOPLE THAT DO! Theirs hundereds of people i've met that LIKE GRINDING, they like mining and hanging out with people just chilling, and many many many want to move from high to nullsec for better ores, but dont because its not a nice place to go and is inaccessible, maybe if the bigger alliances will put out a call for small industrial corps etc, to do the grinding, they'll be able to overcome the grinding difficulty, and also maintain their PVP selves... As CCP said, no longer will PvP war machines, be able to get along without having a carebear wing of their organization that needs to be defended while they grind away. i too know a lot of people that like playing eve by grinding away. Its a tough choice, we leave it the way it is and the blob alliances continue to have too much influence on how the game is played for a lot of people who want to pvp, or they try to eleviate the bottle neck and give everyone an even playing field. Massive blob fleets are hell fun, small pvp fleets are also fun. But 1 day on a R64 means i can by my ship back and more, where are those that dont occupy a high end have to grind isk for pvp. a few things, reduce an alliances dependance on a high end, reduce the cost of a ship or increase the bountys on ratting and plexing so that 1 ship loss for a small time pvper isnt a weeks worth of grinding whilst those on a high end blink an eye and have a new ship ready to go.
Aineko Macx	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:49:00 - [2412] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Itzena 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. That question makes no sense at all. Should I be paid for each jump through 0.0 because it is more risky than jumping through high sec gate? That is what you actualy ask. Don't play dumb, no one suggested being paid per jump. But just to answer your troll-ish question: A sensible trader would indeed be paid indirectly for each risky jump, he would offset the risk by setting appropriate prices for the hauled goods. It's all about risk/reward.
Primnproper	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:52:00 - [2413] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Itzena 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. That question makes no sense at all. Should I be paid for each jump through 0.0 because it is more risky than jumping through high sec gate? That is what you actualy ask. I thought you said a second ago that it had beeen answered now it makes no sense at all, oh wait thats right your a troll poluting the forums with meaningless posts that do nothing but get in the way of discussions.... And it makes perfect sense, should people be able to make more money in 0.0 using the various income sources available there or in highsec doing level 4s, easy question easy answer... ... 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.
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:53:00 - [2414] Originally by: JfG D00MSAYER Who in hell pulled that numbers outa his fingers? Even if u lower the cost for sov etc the upcoming sov-payment-system still sucks. Looking at all the formulas u already need for this game (shield/cap charge rate, missile damage etc) it seems like u use that 20million per day per sov-system out of lazyness In my opinion daily sov cost should be related to a (number of sov systems)/(alliance members) equation. With this a small alliance can actually afford 2 sov systems and a rent to a bigger alliance without going broke after a month and a big alliance is actually able to afford the systems its members need to make a living. I think the same easy math would help with cynojammers like: (cynojammed system)/(number of sov systems) Means, having 1 cynojammed system in your alliances constellation just costs a bit, but if u try to cynojam every system concord will empty your wallet in a month. Having 1/4 of your sov systems cynojammed can be good enough maybe? Have to agree with you 110% here, and that where im coming from, i have friends in 3 corps, but their all small corps 2-10 people in each, and we wanted to setup a small alliance and make a grab for 1 system after dominion and lock it down and call it our own, but at current prices thats insane, the way it is now looks to be more to cut back on large alliances, but does little to help the newcoming smaller alliances, as this was originally set out to be... the complaint that big alliances would just make up a bunch of smaller alliances to capture systems is a bunch of BS, i mean realistically goons already doing it for other reasons (ganking), so why not make this change to give the little guys atleast a fighting chance at affording a system! I highly doubt that goon or one of the big ones is gonna make 9000 small alliances to capture 9000 systems its just not logistically possible or optimal for them. If anything make it so that the discount costs are only for the first system to really make alt-alliances a pretty much useless practice (considering high cost of alliance setup, and logistical usefullness of hundreds of extra alliances just to hold cheap sov for no reason)
Gefex Genco Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:54:00 - [2415] Originally by: zelalot Originally by: Lord Helghast Originally by: Gefex 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. how about this for the allanices that dont want to grind, BRING IN PEOPLE THAT DO! i too know a lot of people that like playing eve by grinding away. The problem isn't the grinding, its the fact that individuals grinding systems gives no way for the space holding alliance to make money to pay for the ludicrous upkeep costs.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:54:00 - [2416] Originally by: Aineko Macx Don't play dumb, no one suggested being paid per jump. But just to answer your troll-ish question: A sensible trader would indeed be paid indirectly for each risky jump, he would offset the risk by setting appropriate prices for the hauled goods. It's all about risk/reward. I am not plying anything, the question is as dumb. The question is not about whether you are trader or anything, it just asks if you should be paid just because you are in potentionaly more dangerous area.
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:03:00 - [2417] Edited by: Lord Helghast on 09/11/2009 14:04:59 Originally by: Gefex The problem isn't the grinding, its the fact that individuals grinding systems gives no way for the space holding alliance to make money to pay for the ludicrous upkeep costs. I get your prob, the better rat spawns = more tax income for alliance/corp but when it comes to mining etc, theirs now direct route for the cash to get to the alliance... I guess in that way it will come down to corp fees and alliance fees etc, is my guess. EDIT, and even at max upgrade thats only 10 extra rat spawns so not a huge bonus for the people or alliance, personally i actually wish they had made the max 20
zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:06:00 - [2418] LOL - i just looked at the Balance of the "Master Wallet" (figure 1). WTB 10trillion please. Seriously how is somone going to sustain PVP against that?
Iyotaka Iyotaka Union	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:10:00 - [2419] I guess the most difficult thing for most who are complaining is that they will have to change. When Exodus came out - I hated Eve, but kept playing because I had paid for it - and after a month or two, some tweaking by CCP it got to be fun again. The next major patch was a repeat, hated it, learned it, I am still here... Basically, I have learned that one of the things that makes Eve the game it is - is because the rules do change - often drastically. Some call it nerfing - I know I do often enough - but either you accept that the Eve world turns itself upside down every now and then - and just play the game as it is, or you whine and whine and leave, or something in between. It is fairly obvious that the game as it is now is broken. Where is the fun? Even the pvp is largely "grinding". my two cents: the real leadership of the ¿powerblocks are making their plans, and they shall reform as needed. Nothing CCP does or does not do is going to change their leading positions. If it does they were not leaders but were just lucky in the old game. Real leaders adapt to the field and make it work for them. Choices are made and executed. Noone who knows Eve well expects it to be what it was just because that is the way it was. Only the lazy, and rank whiners. Let them go. I am very curious about what I am actually going to be upset about - as I remind myself than a POS tower at 90M isk, when exodus first came out, was thought to be an extremely high price - that there were be a max of 10 titans in game because of the difficulty of building them, and the cost, etc, etc.. * Cost has never been a barrier - but a motivator for inventive people to make the new rules work for them - while whiners only look back. Sure I'll probably hate lots of the new features when EvE first comes up after patch day, but I am not going to let that stop me from learning how to play the game again - and hopefully find fun again.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:11:00 - [2420] Originally by: zelalot LOL - i just looked at the Balance of the "Master Wallet" (figure 1). WTB 10trillion please. It's only $580,000. Pay up, you cheapskate. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

Otin Bison Gallente Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:11:00 - [2421] Edited by: Otin Bison on 09/11/2009 14:14:18 A couple of things come to mind when reading through this. Especially as a small corp CEO with an eye to retruning to 0.0 and anticipating the upcoming release. - Costs for a small industrial corp (under 25 people) are pretty rough - Can't see any of the big alliances "allowing" us near them. There is no benifit I can see for them to change their current mode of "renting" to prevent griefing. - Costs are not prohibitive for the currnet high-end moon holders. Even with a reduced profitability of moons, will still be more than enough to pay the bill and a lot more. That's about it. I am still keenly interested in carving out a little piece of the pie for my corp but, i think I will have to wait and see how this plays out. Side note for the folk currently in 0.0 alliances. Umm .. your personal ISK is only small because your alliance doesn't share any of the untold billions of passive ISK monthly from moons. And now they want a tax on the individual out there? Nothing especially witty to say at this time.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:16:00 - [2422] Edited by: Batolemaeus on 09/11/2009 14:23:32 Originally by: Otin Bison Umm .. your personal ISK is only small because your alliance doesn't share any of the untold billions of passive ISK monthly from moons. That's because my personal isk are my personal isk, FYI. They're for strategically useless expenditures, like buying a few hundred exotic dancers to put in my cargo during ops, or losing weirdly fitted guardians while flying solo. My alliance (or corp, rather. Alliances don't have wallets as per game mechanic) is handing me free dreads, battleships, logistics, dictors however. Guess how those are being paid for..or the jump bridge infrastructure i can use for free. The fuel for my capitals that i get for free. All the little things that i get for free because in the end i'm one of the guys helping to sustain that stuff. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:16:00 - [2423] Originally by: Lord Helghast Originally by: Gefex 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. how about this for the allanices that dont want to grind, BRING IN PEOPLE THAT DO! How? They can make more money in safety in highsec. 0.0 literally offers them nothing because these upgrades are full of suck.
Uphill Gardner Minmatar DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:17:00 - [2424] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Uphill Gardner 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. If you didn't suggest making other 0.0 resources(rats, plexes, ore) more valuable to compete with moon mining as I thought, I don't understand what your point is then. I suggested "for CCp to implement more dispersed targets worth fighting for (and elected to leave then the details of implementation)". I don't know how to be any clearer than that. ***** Miss Pator 3 years running, stripped of title when they realised i was male.
WaiKin Beldar	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:17:00 - [2425] Let¦s keep it simple: 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? I am awaiting your answer, CCP
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:19:00 - [2426] If CCP would change the upkeep cost away from just paying stupid isk to some completely ridiculous all-controlling entitfy in lawless 0.0 to something better, then there could be hope again. For example they could introduce FUEL consumption. Lightweight fuel pellets which are consumed by the different infrastructure things. The fuel pellets should be that light that you can easily carry a month of it in a normal industrial ship like the iteron. The fuel pellets should be manufacturable from a blueprint as well as being sold by npc in the beginning. The fuel pellets should use some npc stuff to act as an isk sink. They should use also some of the gas from wormhole stuff to promote more interaction between the different parts of Eve. They should contain some 'normal' resources which can be harvested in normal Eve space. THAT would be a much better way for the upkeep system than just paying isk. To whom should we pay it anyway and why?!
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:25:00 - [2427] From the newest QEN - top used ships in Eve currently: 1) Hulk 2) Drake 3) Kestrel 4) Rifter 5) Retriever So that are the ships which most of the people fly. I want to see how you go to 0.0 with that, capture and defend systems. Somehow things aren't adding up.
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:36:00 - [2428] Edited by: Lord Helghast on 09/11/2009 14:42:26 Originally by: Ukucia Originally by: Lord Helghast Originally by: Gefex 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. how about this for the allanices that dont want to grind, BRING IN PEOPLE THAT DO! How? They can make more money in safety in highsec. 0.0 literally offers them nothing because these upgrades are full of suck. You see this is where your mistaken, i and about 30 other friends i know WANT TO MOVE TO NULLSEC, we're MINERS and ratters, and hell we'd love to move to lowsec, we hate mission running, and their are many more beyond the ones i know... Just because you wouldnt move from L4 area to 0.0 because of ISk difference doesnt mean their arent many that want to. Give me an alliance that will offer security against pirates (Even basic security) and i'll be glad to come in and mine the **** out of their belts and help out with logistics and i know of many more that would as well... just because grinding ore and the likes isnt your thang doesnt mean its not others, i'd love a nice deposite of hemorphite, especially if their are several max upgraded belts with extra belts and hidden belts i'd go frigging nuts. For miners, this change would mean all the world, as a miner i'd love to move down, to this as its very attractive, to missioners, theirs still L5's in lowsec that beat L4's i believe so thats still a benefit. Miners and ratters both get improvements exploration get improvements, so i'm still seeing 0.0 as very attractive, i see it unattractive to giant alliances that want to try to keep huge swaths of space. If goonswarm starts an industrial wing and invites down 100's of miners, to work under their wing mining minerals, taking ore/minerals for ships and a bit of isk, you'd be surprised how many people would want to come down from highsec... l4's may pay the best, but the fact is their not fun and not very interactive with friends, and theirs more to life than ISK, theirs the experience of the game, and thats what draws alot of people or makes alot of people want to go to nullsec, but as of so far the best alliances tend to not want the carebears, atleast pre-dominion.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:40:00 - [2429] Originally by: Gnulpie From the newest QEN - top used ships in Eve currently: 1) Hulk 2) Drake 3) Kestrel 4) Rifter 5) Retriever So that are the ships which most of the people fly. I want to see how you go to 0.0 with that, capture and defend systems. Somehow things aren't adding up. Wrong. The most used is a group of rookie ships, shuttles and pods.
zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:40:00 - [2430] Edited by: zelalot on 09/11/2009 14:40:26 Originally by: Lord Helghast Originally by: Ukucia Originally by: Lord Helghast Originally by: Gefex 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. how about this for the allanices that dont want to grind, BRING IN PEOPLE THAT DO! How? They can make more money in safety in highsec. 0.0 literally offers them nothing because these upgrades are full of suck. You see this is where your mistaken, i and about 30 other friends i know WANT TO MOVE TO NULLSEC, we're MINERS and ratters, and hell we'd love to move to lowsec, we hate mission running, and their are many more beyond the ones i know... Just because you wouldnt move from L4 area to 0.0 because of ISk difference doesnt mean their arent many that want to. Give me an alliance that will offer security against pirates (Even basic security) and i'll be glad to come in and mine the **** out of their belts and help out with logistics and i know of many more that would as well... just because grinding ore and the likes isnt your thang doesnt mean its not others, i'd love a nice deposite of hemorphite, especially if their are several max upgraded belts with extra belts and hidden belts i'd go frigging nuts. Accepting Applications hit me up in game

Verone Gallente Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:01:00 - [2431] All the 0.0 alliances are ****ing and moaning because they've got huge amounts of space, in some cases 5 or 6 regions. This is going to force even the largest of alliances to downsize their claims to space and focus on one region. It's also going to mean you're going to see smaller alliances forming treaties and pacts, claiming constellations in the same region because they can't afford to claim a whole region to themselves, and working together to form a coalition that holds a region between it. It's actually going to make 0.0 politics more interesting again and promote claiming space to actually use it, rather than land grabbing for e-peen purposes. Taking a constellation is going to be something that's considered, pondered upon, checked out, scouted, looked over and decided upon, then the invasion takes place if its deemed both profitable and tactically advantageous to take and own the space. It's way better and more immersive than saying "lol guys, lets go take Immensea for teh lulz!1" What this means is that an alliance will have to take space, and hold it for a considerable amount of time, upgrading along the way to ensure its going to be useful to them as a long term investment. This is effectively causing space to seem much larger in terms of territorial claim, purely because the costs of owning and maintaining space are massively magnified in comparison to current mechanics. Awesome idea. \o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF 2008! \o/ >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<<
Jackman Herzog	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:06:00 - [2432] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Gnulpie From the newest QEN - top used ships in Eve currently: 1) Hulk 2) Drake 3) Kestrel 4) Rifter 5) Retriever So that are the ships which most of the people fly. I want to see how you go to 0.0 with that, capture and defend systems. Somehow things aren't adding up. Wrong. The most used is a group of rookie ships, shuttles and pods. The report left those out because they are not representative of what the average EVE player uses in actual gameplay. Come to think of it, I did see this guy mining in his pod one time. True Story.
ju4n1ta Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:07:00 - [2433] Originally by: Lord Helghast how about this for the allanices that dont want to grind, BRING IN PEOPLE THAT DO! How? They can make more money in safety in highsec. 0.0 literally offers them nothing because these upgrades are full of suck. You see this is where your mistaken, i and about 30 other friends i know WANT TO MOVE TO NULLSEC, we're MINERS and ratters, and hell we'd love to move to lowsec, we hate mission running, and their are many more beyond the ones i know... Just because you wouldnt move from L4 area to 0.0 because of ISk difference doesnt mean their arent many that want to. Give me an alliance that will offer security against pirates (Even basic security) and i'll be glad to come in and mine the **** out of their belts and help out with logistics and i know of many more that would as well... just because grinding ore and the likes isnt your thang doesnt mean its not others, i'd love a nice deposite of hemorphite, especially if their are several max upgraded belts with extra belts and hidden belts i'd go frigging nuts. For miners, this change would mean all the world, as a miner i'd love to move down, to this as its very attractive, to missioners, theirs still L5's in lowsec that beat L4's i believe so thats still a benefit. Miners and ratters both get improvements exploration get improvements, so i'm still seeing 0.0 as very attractive, i see it unattractive to giant alliances that want to try to keep huge swaths of space. If goonswarm starts an industrial wing and invites down 100's of miners, to work under their wing mining minerals, taking ore/minerals for ships and a bit of isk, you'd be surprised how many people would want to come down from highsec... l4's may pay the best, but the fact is their not fun and not very interactive with friends, and theirs more to life than ISK, theirs the experience of the game, and thats what draws alot of people or makes alot of people want to go to nullsec, but as of so far the best alliances tend to not want the carebears, atleast pre-dominion. Just to get few things straight: - There is no security in 0.0. If you're not able to mine in low.sec you will die mining in 0.0. The best you can hope for is gang to chase attackers away, maybe kill few if they are stupid, but your barge/hauler will die regardless. - If you put 100 miners in a 0.0 system all mining, rest assured spies will leak your location and you will get attacked and there is nothing you can do against that except hide (and if you do that you're not mining, are ya?) - Goons will love your 30 man corp, contact them ingame. Admittance fee will probably be reduced because you're such a swell fella. - Don't forget that 0.0 is... well... 0.0. Refined mins cost less there (even less ISK for you), haulers get ganked on empire and region chokepoints (unless you use rorq or JF, then rorq/JF will get ganked on the way to/from empire), it's not easy to get replacement ship/modules/ammo when you die. And most of all, hauling ore for 30 man hulk gang is not fun at all. Especially if you live 40+ jumps into 0.0 (where the good ore is). - your 30 man hulk gang will clean out an entire system on few hours (entire system, not just highends). Then what? Wait for respawn? Move to another system (probably further away from outpost)? I can understand how you feel because I started when Heladas mining guide was top reading for ISK making. It sucked back then (also not as much) and it still sucks today (a lot more than it used to). And don't forget, now you'll have to pay sov bill as well. Does it still sounds like phun?
Korizan Red Mercury Incorporated	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:08:00 - [2434] As I think about this perhaps decreasing the the cost across the board is not the answer. Well yes and no. In order to get SOV 4 alliances where forced to drop 3 stations per constellation Now that same mechanism is going to bankrupt them. So perhaps CCP would be better served if the alliances got a discount for having that 3 third station in the constellation. Say full price for 1 and 2 station in a constellation and if they drop 3 they are given something for free. THis is another way of saying stay together it costs less but if you are spread out it will cost you ALOT more. You could also take it even further by extending discounts to a entire constellation. This would encourage an alliance to develop that constellation. The rest is maybe..... I suppose you could take it even further by saying costs change based on distance from the capital if you needed to, basically the farther away from the core you get the higher the cost on some things not across the board. Of course that would mean alliance would have to tag a capital constellation. probably too late for this kind of change. Something along those lines might work, and would help enforce the idea of staying together is better then spreading out.
Uphill Gardner Minmatar DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:16:00 - [2435] Originally by: Verone All the 0.0 alliances are **ing and moaning because they've got huge amounts of space, in some cases 5 or 6 regions. This is going to force even the largest of alliances to downsize their claims to space and focus on one region. Why? Apart from the fact that no alliance is stupid enough to pay sov bills as proposed for Dominion, they will still have "huge amounts of space". No downsizing, just not paying sov. Nothing changes. Well one thing will change: it will be much much easier to grief 0.0 spaceholders. STOP spamming and infrastructure shooting will be annoying and (by the looks of it) require quite immediate response. Obviously if you don't pay for sov, you don't have to respond (any more than you do now if towers are attacked). Putting cloakers in sov'd systems with industrial upgrades will cause even more grief. Quote: It's actually going to make 0.0 politics more interesting again and promote claiming space to actually use it, rather than land grabbing for e-peen purposes. I'm not familiar with your epeen practices but how will 0.0 politics be more interesting? Because moons are still best income for alliances? Because 0.0 space it self is worth less than empire? Because you said so? You will have less targets to shoot and possibly more griefing opportunity. Awsome!! *** Miss Pator 3 years running, stripped of title when they realised i was male.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:17:00 - [2436] Originally by: ju4n1ta Originally by: Lord Helghast how about this for the allanices that dont want to grind, BRING IN PEOPLE THAT DO! How? They can make more money in safety in highsec. 0.0 literally offers them nothing because these upgrades are full of suck. You see this is where your mistaken, i and about 30 other friends i know WANT TO MOVE TO NULLSEC, we're MINERS and ratters, and hell we'd love to move to lowsec, we hate mission running, and their are many more beyond the ones i know... Just because you wouldnt move from L4 area to 0.0 because of ISk difference doesnt mean their arent many that want to. Give me an alliance that will offer security against pirates (Even basic security) and i'll be glad to come in and mine the **** out of their belts and help out with logistics and i know of many more that would as well... just because grinding ore and the likes isnt your thang doesnt mean its not others, i'd love a nice deposite of hemorphite, especially if their are several max upgraded belts with extra belts and hidden belts i'd go frigging nuts. For miners, this change would mean all the world, as a miner i'd love to move down, to this as its very attractive, to missioners, theirs still L5's in lowsec that beat L4's i believe so thats still a benefit. Miners and ratters both get improvements exploration get improvements, so i'm still seeing 0.0 as very attractive, i see it unattractive to giant alliances that want to try to keep huge swaths of space. If goonswarm starts an industrial wing and invites down 100's of miners, to work under their wing mining minerals, taking ore/minerals for ships and a bit of isk, you'd be surprised how many people would want to come down from highsec... l4's may pay the best, but the fact is their not fun and not very interactive with friends, and theirs more to life than ISK, theirs the experience of the game, and thats what draws alot of people or makes alot of people want to go to nullsec, but as of so far the best alliances tend to not want the carebears, atleast pre-dominion. Just to get few things straight: - There is no security in 0.0. If you're not able to mine in low.sec you will die mining in 0.0. The best you can hope for is gang to chase attackers away, maybe kill few if they are stupid, but your barge/hauler will die regardless. - If you put 100 miners in a 0.0 system all mining, rest assured spies will leak your location and you will get attacked and there is nothing you can do against that except hide (and if you do that you're not mining, are ya?) - Goons will love your 30 man corp, contact them ingame. Admittance fee will probably be reduced because you're such a swell fella. - Don't forget that 0.0 is... well... 0.0. Refined mins cost less there (even less ISK for you), haulers get ganked on empire and region chokepoints (unless you use rorq or JF, then rorq/JF will get ganked on the way to/from empire), it's not easy to get replacement ship/modules/ammo when you die. And most of all, hauling ore for 30 man hulk gang is not fun at all. Especially if you live 40+ jumps into 0.0 (where the good ore is). - your 30 man hulk gang will clean out an entire system on few hours (entire system, not just highends). Then what? Wait for respawn? Move to another system (probably further away from outpost)? I can understand how you feel because I started when Heladas mining guide was top reading for ISK making. It sucked back then (also not as much) and it still sucks today (a lot more than it used to). And don't forget, now you'll have to pay sov bill as well. Does it still sounds like phun? I must say you are overdramaticing this a little bit. Sounds like as soon as you undock with your ship in 0.0 your ship instapops...
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:18:00 - [2437] Originally by: Niamota Olin I've been down in 0.0 for nearly a year, I cant stand ratting or mining there boring as hell. If I have a bad month I go to empire for my isk as its low risk. I think CCP believe that we enjoy having to farm isk or something to pvp.... No wonder you found it boring, it seems you didn't do any exploration. Hey, did you know dominion will be a huge exploration boost?
Biggi Raeubertochter Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:22:00 - [2438] Edited by: Biggi Raeubertochter on 09/11/2009 15:24:32 This: Getting a bill from concord for your own 0.0 space that you conquered and they do nothing to defend makes no sense and does not fit the eve sandbox player driven economy. You want to replace pos with FLAGs? Fine... make them burn FUEL then, not send a chunk of your isk to the bit bucket. You want to make cyno jammers more costly? Fine, then make them consume FUEL. Say 1 stront and 10 heavy water an hour. Jump bridges? They already require a large pos to host them, and eat massive amounts of ozone. Why do you feel they need to cost any more than they do now? its from another forum section. My personal opinion is, that a chunk of the upkeep costs should be from structures consuming fuel, and the other part being an isk sink. But it being a 100% isk sink without any possibility to produce at least some of the stuff needed for the upkeep by yourself, is bad i think
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:23:00 - [2439] look at that, past 3 p.m. in Iceland and still no answer, hmm 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.
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:23:00 - [2440] Quote: All the 0.0 alliances are **ing and moaning because they've got huge amounts of space, in some cases 5 or 6 regions. This is going to force even the largest of alliances to downsize their claims to space and focus on one region./ Quote: we do not moan,you mister pirate may stay in your low sec and have fun killing noobs,we just ask why things are being changed without further thinking. We will abandon systems this is sure,but why and how we will put small aliances there using treaties who will take a 10 belt system at best without high end ores,and low true status.upgrade it pay for it 1 bil montly and let say 1 bil to us as his defenders. Let me tell you noone. Why would we stay quiet,when instead of pvp-ing i am forced to grind isk to keep upgrades active and ect. Moongold is removed for good noone in the right mind argue for this,but they just cut the 0.0 and make it uselless,at best,estimations show that if you have made 70 bil with your r64 at month now you will make 7 bil and the same time,ccp are making us pay 2 bil per system,jsut because we are strong and we have conquered it wtf,where is the logic. And this speaking for reward/risk is useless,ratting in 0.0 if you are not extremly lucky is 30-40 mil at best with highend rats,normaly it is arround 20 mil per hour,as not all bets have rats and you always have this cruizer and bc spawns,mining is a bit more profitable let say trained max bonused hulk is 60 mil per hour,but if you mine arkonor,let me tell you how fast arkonor disaper,right after it respawn,and gravimetric sites are uterly useless. What ed me off,is when we people in o.o try to make a point all empire noobs and wannabe pvpers aka pirates start to yell were a moaning because we want our goodies,but if we have so much good things come and get them from us don't stay safe or killing noobs blobing single targets in low sec. I want to fly my t2 maxed out hacs ect,not to use t2 fited bc because they are cheaper and not forcing me to grind like mad. You know how much cost a reasonable fit? a close range rr geddon is well arround 200 mil,but with the changes ccp want to impliment they will make it even harder for making money in o.o. Yes i don't have crap ton of alts ect I love to play the game for fun to log to go kill ** and log off, and make some isk from time to time for shiney ships,paying the game with isk is not priorty.So ccp i hope you turn attention over this thread seriously.

Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:24:00 - [2441] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat look at that, past 3 p.m. in Iceland and still no answer, hmm 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. Search pages 25-60, it is burried somewhere there.
propotkin's alt	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:28:00 - [2442] I really dont understand why "most" people are so negative. A corp with only 10 active characters can easily afford to keep a system. 72.5 mil per day for the system (that includes the cyno jammer upgrades etc) / 10 players = 7.25mil per person per day. That is a laughable amount to get. Everybody needs to stop moaning and start playing instead of sitting in their ivory towers while afk isk earning.
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:32:00 - [2443] Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 09/11/2009 15:32:44 Originally by: Kepakh Search pages 25-60, it is burried somewhere there. Hmm, you mean http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=25#723 this? Because that's the only dev response to it at all, and it's not an answer but rather just a weak avoidance of the question get out stop trolling I've read the thread and know it hasn't been answered and nobody's gonna fall for it and be dumb enough to reread 35 pages so stop feeling so great about how you're ~the puppetmaster~ because you're not nearly as smart as you think, okay, well, bye
Suboran Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:37:00 - [2444] Edited by: Suboran on 09/11/2009 15:44:37 The whole cost concept does seem cost-prohibitive for new smaller alliances to make it into 0.0. I am also saddened to see that true sec values wont be dynamic as a system is upgraded or used more frequently. New alliances to 0.0 wont be able to harvest better resources as there sov claim progresses. Also I think the fee system (paying to take control of empty and abandoned space) is rather silly and should be scrapped in favour of a more EVE-like solution.
Malena Shiva	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:37:00 - [2445] so if I am reading this right, they have basically eliminated the need for ice fields and the ice mining class of ships? Cause really cap and super caps using ice products certainly can't provide enough demand that the mackinaw, modules, implants SKILL TRAINING TIME won't be made obsolete, or near useless? Someone PLEASE correct me, cause I would really rather not have all that time be no longer useful and all that ISK no longer getting an ROI.
Zareph Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:37:00 - [2446] 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. While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
FourDrink Minimum	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:38:00 - [2447] Originally by: propotkin's alt I really dont understand why "most" people are so negative. A corp with only 10 active characters can easily afford to keep a system. 72.5 mil per day for the system (that includes the cyno jammer upgrades etc) / 10 players = 7.25mil per person per day. That is a laughable amount to get. Everybody needs to stop moaning and start playing instead of sitting in their ivory towers while afk isk earning. The thing is: holding the space doesn't give you any advantage. And if you're going to grind out 72.5M a day, you're going to do it in under two hours in Irjunen and over two hours in your ****ty little corner of 0.0. So why do it?
Destrim Koshaku	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:38:00 - [2448] Originally by: ThreadnaughtTroll Originally by: Threadnaught WTF is up with these "upgrades???" LOL what r you complaining 'bout? They're bootiful! -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Good judgment usually comes from experience. Experience usually comes from poor judgment.
zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:41:00 - [2449] Originally by: Zareph 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. for my linking living in 0.0 should be more profitable for the pure reason we play the game against other players and need the isk to pay for ships. Mission running is boring and produces nothing worthy of the RISK/REWARD.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:44:00 - [2450] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 09/11/2009 15:32:44 Originally by: Kepakh Search pages 25-60, it is burried somewhere there. Hmm, you mean http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=25#723 this? Because that's the only dev response to it at all, and it's not an answer but rather just a weak avoidance of the question get out stop trolling I've read the thread and know it hasn't been answered and nobody's gonna fall for it and be dumb enough to reread 35 pages so stop feeling so great about how you're ~the puppetmaster~ because you're not nearly as smart as you think, okay, well, bye Yep, that's it. Perfect answer for stupid question of such type. Even further in the thread Chronotis(?) admits that CCP is aware of high profitability of L4. 0.0 PVE is more profitable than doing the same thing in high sec. - better belt rats - better ore to mine - better mission rewards - better exploration sites Risk vs reward is a myth.

Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:45:00 - [2451] Originally by: FourDrink Minimum Originally by: propotkin's alt I really dont understand why "most" people are so negative. A corp with only 10 active characters can easily afford to keep a system. 72.5 mil per day for the system (that includes the cyno jammer upgrades etc) / 10 players = 7.25mil per person per day. That is a laughable amount to get. Everybody needs to stop moaning and start playing instead of sitting in their ivory towers while afk isk earning. The thing is: holding the space doesn't give you any advantage. And if you're going to grind out 72.5M a day, you're going to do it in under two hours in Irjunen and over two hours in your ****ty little corner of 0.0. So why do it? Especially considering how easy it would be to start controlling only lowsec moons and have roaming gangs leaving from empire every day to go to 0.0 instead of leaving from an outpost to another region of 0.0
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:50:00 - [2452] Originally by: Kepakh Yep, that's it. Perfect answer for stupid question of such type. Even further in the thread Chronotis(?) admits that CCP is aware of high profitability of L4. I think you don't understand what 'answer' means. Also I hope next time you call the police, they're just gonna go "We are aware that your house has been broken into and you're probably going to get ****d." and do nothing else. Also in case you haven't been paying attention to the thread or Eve itself at all, conquerable 0.0 has no agents, completely invalidating your profitability arguement.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:54:00 - [2453] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 09/11/2009 15:32:44 Originally by: Kepakh Search pages 25-60, it is burried somewhere there. Hmm, you mean http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=25#723 this? Because that's the only dev response to it at all, and it's not an answer but rather just a weak avoidance of the question get out stop trolling I've read the thread and know it hasn't been answered and nobody's gonna fall for it and be dumb enough to reread 35 pages so stop feeling so great about how you're ~the puppetmaster~ because you're not nearly as smart as you think, okay, well, bye Yep, that's it. Perfect answer for stupid question of such type. Even further in the thread Chronotis(?) admits that CCP is aware of high profitability of L4. 0.0 PVE is more profitable than doing the same thing in high sec. - better belt rats - better ore to mine - better mission rewards - better exploration sites Risk vs reward is a myth. You are wrong on a number of points. Rats: To start making decent amounts of ISK ratting you need to grind out any chain of rats that is worth under 3 million ISK combined. In some areas of space (Feythabolis, Providence) this is almost impossible because of truesec limitations. In places where it is possible (Delve) this can still take sometimes over an hour. Meanwhile in this time you are killing cruiser/frigate groups with the occaisional battleship. In bounties and loot you can expect to be making 15m/h your first hour and probably 30 mil/hr every hour after that. If you can only play one hour a day, we;lp! Mining: The Drone regions have made mining high-end ores completely worthless. The price of minerals has crashed so hard that right now the 4th most profitable rock to mine is Veldspar. If you want to mine, say, Arkanor (the most profitable) in 0.0 space you find a group, your lasers cycle twice and you must find a new group. You will spend most of your time finding a new group of rocks to shoot. You can expect to make 15-20mil/hr mining Arkanor, assuming your region even has it. Missions only exist in (I believe) 4 or 5 different regions. My alliance once controlled 8 regions all connected and not one had an agent. Most exploration sites have been completely devalued by CCP. The most obvious one is Hacking where CCP invented a new kind of infinite use datacore that makes old datacores completely useless. The only point to running a hacking site is hoping for a War Stratagem which is worth around 14 million ISK last I found one. In one hacking site you can expect to make around 5 million ISK total. The closest you might come to making more than a Level 4 mission is with ratting, if you spend the time to do so, or with finding a 6/10 complex and hoping for a good drop.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:55:00 - [2454] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat conquerable 0.0 has no agents, completely invalidating your profitability arguement. When there is no L4 in claimed 0.0, there is nothing to compare, nothing to answer. Simple, isn't it? It is only invalidtaing the stupid question...
Uphill Gardner Minmatar DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:00:00 - [2455] Originally by: Kepakh Yep, that's it. Perfect answer for stupid question of such type. Even further in the thread Chronotis(?) admits that CCP is aware of high profitability of L4. 0.0 PVE is more profitable than doing the same thing in high sec. - better belt rats - better ore to mine - better mission rewards - better exploration sites Risk vs reward is a myth. You have not been to 0.0 to make ISK ever, have you? It is true that 1. IF you're in good true sec 2. IF you've groomed belts to have triple BS rats with highest bounties 3. If you don't have competition so you can just warp to belt and shoot 4. IF you get lucky enough not to run across empty belt and 5. IF you're not disturbed by pirates/reds you can make more than with lvl4 missions. But then again you can't sell loot in 0.0 (at least most of it), so you have to get it to empire (-time, -ISK). You will loose ships (-time (for getting new ships to 0.0), -ISK). You will need to defend your space from other people (-time). There will be cloaker in your system if you use it too much (-ISK). Now how much do you recon will be left of that "more profitable PVE"? And I can tell you from my own experience: -0.6 true sec, about 20 belts, 1.5 hours grooming, about 7 hours ratting. Only one red visited for a while and then got out, no ships lost. Total bounties were around 200mil ISK, obviously no faction spawns if you chain rats. Loot is still in 0.0 (because it's not worth taking it to empire ATM). Please note that this was not a bad true sec and I was the only one in the system. Was using nighthawk (can GTFO quick) and was too fast for some respawns. Do you wanna see my AE farming ISK balance? ***** Miss Pator 3 years running, stripped of title when they realised i was male.
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:06:00 - [2456] CCP, i was excited to hear about dominion coming in to change the Null sec space issues many of players have complained about for the past few years or months that i have actually concerned myself with that space. That is to say i was excited up until this blog. The way i understand this blog has only made me worried and concerned about how you are planning on implementing changes. First off i would like to point out that when you first highlighted that changes would be made in your speeches at fan fest i came away with the notion that you were going to make it so we could upgrade our systems in null sec space with higher quality sites and rats to kill which would net more isk in those regions. I had visions of finding a few more sites than already present in system but also that we would find more quality items worth more. For example, a few more ore sites with rarer ores to mine, or hacking sites with a greater chance of more valuable loot. After reading the blog i understand it now as if you are just adding a few more sites per upgrade level. this i thought was fine up until i read about the reality of the current sites from the pilots out in null sec space. Now i can't collaborate their claims as to think that most sites are worthless as i haven't spent too much time in null sec but their claims are rather disturbing and undermines your idea of quantity of sites overt he quality of them. After all if the miners in my corporation want to mine our system more they would want to find not only the typical menial ore like tritanium and pyrite but also some more rare stuff like zydrine to make it more profitable for them. Another thing i noticed was the cost you have posted to maintain sovereignty of a system. I could understand the way you got the price for the territorial claim unit being 20 million a day. that being the price of fuel for 5 POS's a day. Does this mean we no longer need fuel for the 5 POS we have in a system with a TCU in place? Because not only were the POS profitable because they not only served to claim sovereignty but also allowed you to run other jobs like research, or building ships that turned out much of our profit to begin with. Now here is what your current system is doing to operations in null sec and why there is such an outrage at the cost. Not only do you have the operational cost of POS's still to deal with, but you are taking away a feature that made POS's affordable and why people spent that much for fuel, but your adding on the same price of fuel to hold systems now. Your doubling the price of holding space for people... which as i know wont make it more accessible for other corporations or alliances to access. Another thing is the price of the addons. as i stated with the previous paragraph your charging us twice for holding a system currently and now with the cynosoral field jammer and jump bridges in particular your taking more things a POS was good for and charging us AGAIN for those things. Only increasing the price and further alienating new corps from seeking null sec space. I can understand why you priced them so high however to prohibit people from making every system have every upgrade. So what im trying to say is with the current numbers you are only marginally increasing the net profitability of systems while exponentially increasing the price of holding space, because as i remember you also said about slowly increasing the price as people held more space on top of the base price. Please i implore you to reconsider the numbers you have posted and lower them significantly. I could understand the current prices if you were going to hold say 2 plus CONSTELLATIONS worth of systems, but for starters i propose these numbers. TCU - 7 mil per day INFS Hub - 3 mil per day supercapital construction - 1 mil per day cynosoral navigation - 3 mil per day ADV logistics network - N/A Cynosural suppression - 4 mil per day Now i say no logistics network because...
Junkie Beverage GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:11:00 - [2457] @CCP 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. circle one please
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:12:00 - [2458] to only hold one system you can't have a jump bridge network and i dont know how you would work that into the mechanics but im sure you could figure it out somehow. The price for everything i have listed is 18 million a day. For a new corporation in null sec i would think this would be reasonable considering that for say operating 4 POS's they can hold a system and have access to plus allow them to anchor the addons like the jammer or nav beacon at 1 or 2 ACTUAL POS's in the system. All in all still cost quite a bit to hold space but is more in line with as i see a reasonable cost for a new corp to null sec space. Now i can't know what you are thinking or planning behind your closed doors with this update so i suggest these numbers on the basis that this would be for holding one system. All in all if they want to upgrade the system then for the price of operating 5 POS's they can have everything you have listed. I believe this would enable people who at know how to operate in null sec to at least hold some space and would make it easier for more people to claim space as their own. Now for those who are already in null sec, or have the desire to hold more space you should adjust the prices accordingly to reflect creating networks. for example you could for every system held after the first increase the price by 10% So the next system you hold in your list of systems under your control would look like this... TCU - 7.7 mil per day INFS Hub - 3.3 mil per day supercapital construction - 1 mil per day cynosoral navigation - 3.3 mil per day ADV logistics network - 3.3 mil per day Cynosural suppression - 4.4 mil per day (i didnt tax the construction addon for the sake of keeping the numbers even.) So now you own 2 systems and have the combined cost not only of the 18 mil to operate both at full addons but an additional tax of 2 million isk per day PER system. So total cost to run 2 systems is now 40 million isk per day. Now i dont know the numbers at all your looking at. I could be dead wrong in my prices and i wont kid myself to think i have the answer but i think what im suggesting could work. Now an idea i had would be for controlling constellations. I believe that if you have the power and industry to hold an entire constellation there should be some semblance of a discount that locks in the price of that network of stars. As in if you go and claim a few other systems outside of your main constellation you wont be charged more on the constellations stars. The price to claim other stars however would cost more and be close to the model that you originally posted. like this perhaps Cost of solar system PLUS 1 constellations already controlled TCU - 15 mil per day INFS Hub - 5 mil per day supercapital construction - 2 mil per day cynosoral navigation - 4 mil per day ADV logistics network - 6.25 mil per day Cynosural suppression - 12.5 mil per day Basically i think half of your currently posted prices. This of course would face a 10% tax per system held. but say you claim another constellation. Well this is where i think it could get complicated or interesting... which ever choice of words you like to use...lol. A tax on holding constellations and the subsequent price of the services in those systems would then increase again. im going to throw out a number say 20% ON TOP of the 10% per system. This may seem ludicrous and i believe it should be because this would then limit peoples conquistadorian nature and stop people from expanding too much and holding space for sake and still allow people with ridiculous amounts of isk to hold their desired space. All in all this is just an idea im throwing out there as an alternative idea to what you have proposed and i hope people tear this apart so we can CONSTRUCTIVELY come to a better model than people just *****ing and saying its too high instead of giving ideas to fix it. i dont know if im the first to do this but kudos to people who may have done this before me.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:12:00 - [2459] Edited by: Tippia on 09/11/2009 16:13:47 Originally by: Kepakh Yep, that's it. Perfect answer for stupid question of such type. Incorrect. It's not an answer, nor is it a stupid question: it's a very fundamental question about the reason to have 0.0 at all. If they can't answer it — and by the looks of it, they can't — then 0.0 serves no purpose. Quote: Even further in the thread Chronotis(?) admits that CCP is aware of high profitability of L4. Yes, and? It doesn't answer the question, but rather says that they should have had an answer to it a loo-o-ong time ago, and yet they can't/won't answer. Quote: 0.0 PVE is more profitable than doing the same thing in high sec. - better belt rats - better ore to mine - better mission rewards - better exploration sites …and infinitely less capable of sustaining a population. This makes it less profitable than highsec, and less attractive to highsec-dwellers, which was one of the problems Dominion was intended to solve. Quote: Risk vs reward is a myth. Apparently so, since they've only said so far that 0.0 in Dominion will be, at best, as good as highsec, except with the risks ramped up. Therefore, the aim of getting more people into 0.0 will fail, because highsec is always a better choice. Getting the 0.0-alliances to hire PvE:ers will fail because highsec is a better choice. Getting more alliances out into 0.0 will fail because there's no room for them, because the much-hyped alliance compression won't happen. That said, in a sense you're absolutely right. Yes, the question is stupid, because the answer is an obligatory "yes". If CCP can't live up that obligation, they might as well skip the sov revamp part of Dominion, write off the assets and code done so far as a complete waste of time and immediately reassign the teams that did it to fix some bugs instead, because none of the stated goals with the revamp will be fulfilled. The problem, I suspect, is that they don't dare give the correct answer, because then they will have to immediately revamp some of the key elements of the economy (again, and thus also trash all the work that went into the moonjuice rebalancing), which will delay the patch for a year or two… edit: Oh and… Quote: When there is no L4 in claimed 0.0, there is nothing to compare, nothing to answer. Simple, isn't it? It is only invalidtaing the stupid question... This is incorrect. It's actually very easy to compare — they did it themselves, which prompted the very clever question that they so far have failed to answer. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Kalisti	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:16:00 - [2460] If EVE wants alliances to maintain infrastructure in nullsec, let's take that sandbox all the way and fix nullsec once and for all. They say that the upkeep costs are to maintain the jump gates? Let's get rid of nullsec NPC jump gates entirely and replace it with an entirely player-driven mechanic. Nullsec PvP'ers don't want to farm for income? Let's get a realistic passive income option into play for nullsec alliances. CCP is unhappy with the dominance of point-source moon mining driving all nullsec strategy into identical cookie-cutter behaviors? Let's broaden the spectrum of income options WITHOUT forcing nullsec pilots to farm, let alone to farm at a rate that doesn't even match empire farm income. Add an entirely new passive income mechanic; planetary taxation and growth. Let's turn alliances into real empires within the scope of the game. Despite the fact that the much-vaunted player driven economy is an important part of EVE, the reality is that the economy in question is the CAPSULEER economy; the economy of ships and modules. We know that in reality, the capsuleer is an elite of EVE society, and the average empire's income comes from the everyday taxation of normal citizens living on all those pretty light-filled planets we never get to visit. So let's take that realistic approach and apply it to nullsec. Alliance control of nullsec should not be just about point source resources being exploited and shipped back to empire. As long as that is the case, only a select few are ever going to choose to (or even be able to) live exclusively in nullsec. Let's add in planetary economies and NPC expansion into nullsec space, based on how player alliances manage their nullsec regions and how attractive and safe they make it for settlement. In short, turn alliances into empires and nullsec capsuleers into their militaries. The goal of an alliance should be to beef up their controlled territories to the point that they LOOK LIKE empire space. They should be required to BUILD the jump gates and establish safe trade routes, after first securing the region with their jump-capable fleets. Then prepare the planets for colonization, so that they can be filled with NPC populations and economies, whose tax base makes up the majority income source for the alliance. Who in turn build NPC stations filled with high quality agents for alliance players to use (and, oh yeah, let the alliance tax the agent rewards). The primary difference is that it is still nullsec; anyone can come in and blow up anyone else, but instead of getting CONCORDed, it is now the job of the alliance military (i.e. pvp players) to decide how to respond. Security is poor? People (real and NPC) will move out, your tax base shrinks, your alliance is unhappy. The final necessary mechanic is that taking over an alliance's territory should not be about blowing everything up and replacing it with your own stuff. It should be about capturing valuable economic assets; planets that alliances have invested in to increase the tax base should switch hands, not be wiped out to reset at 0. Jump gates, NPC stations, planetary populations, should be valuable strategic assets that an invading alliance will think very hard about blowing up, because replacing it may take them months of effort and billions of ISK. Rather than regions of nullsec space being more or less valuable as an intrinsic property, nullsec space should ALL START EQUAL, and the primary value should come from the investments made by alliances in creating jump gates, establishing trade routes, and promoting planetary economies. That is how you will get people to move to 0.0 space, and produce compelling pvp at every scale. Let alliances become empires. Frankly, anything short of this will never accomplish the goal of moving people into 0.0 space. It will always be populated by those devoted to 0.0 pvp for the sake of 0.0 pvp, and they will simply work around whatever broken mechanics CCP continues to introduce.

Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:19:00 - [2461] I was looking forward to Dominion. I wanted to see all the large alliances (including us) compressed into smaller areas of space, because a few sprawling mega-empires holding 90% of 0.0 is boring. I wanted to see new groups form up from Empire to try their luck, because it means new people to shoot at and/or form alliances with. I wanted to see turmoil and upheaval and a dozen brushwars springing up at once across the galaxy, because drama is what EVE players feed on. I wanted to see 0.0 full of all varieties of players, because who wants to live in a deserted wasteland? I wanted to see new lucrative resources, because the risk vs reward principle has been much neglected. What are we looking to get? The same old stagnation under a different system, the smaller alliances priced out of contention, larger alliances pulling down the sovereignty claims but retaining de facto control, the consolidation of highsec L4s, aspiring 0.0 alliances told that fighting for space will (if they're skilled and dedicated and lucky and willing to wait 3 months) gain them the same sort of rewards (for a limited number of their players at a time) as they could have got (in infinitely scalable form) by just relocating to Motsu in the first place. Quote: 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? At this point I'm just going to hope that the reason CCP haven't answered yet is because they're too busy fixing this gigantic balls-up of an expansion, although I guess the other possibility is that the dev team have been tempbanned for trolling their own feedback thread.
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:21:00 - [2462] Edited by: Lolion Reglo on 09/11/2009 16:23:22 Originally by: Kalisti If EVE wants alliances to maintain infrastructure in nullsec, let's take that sandbox all the way and fix nullsec once and for all. They say that the upkeep costs are to maintain the jump gates? Let's get rid of nullsec NPC jump gates entirely and replace it with an entirely player-driven mechanic. Nullsec PvP'ers don't want to farm for income? Let's get a realistic passive income option into play for nullsec alliances. ... ... ... ... Frankly, anything short of this will never accomplish the goal of moving people into 0.0 space. It will always be populated by those devoted to 0.0 pvp for the sake of 0.0 pvp, and they will simply work around whatever broken mechanics CCP continues to introduce. Kudos to this idea as well. i like it. And the goon post above me. I want to see another dev blog addressing the concerns we have posted here so we know they are watching what we are saying and making the changes necessary to fix this gigantic train wreck i am foreseeing.
Ker HarSol Minmatar Zip - I	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:21:00 - [2463] How should people start wars and capture enemy territory if they can't even afford their own space? Ridiculous
Kane Turner	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:24:00 - [2464] I think CCP want to just remove 0.0 from game... How to start a wars ? Move to empire to not pay anything for system and grind lvl4's :)
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:28:00 - [2465] Originally by: Qlanth You are wrong on a number of points. Rats: To start making decent amounts of ISK ratting you need to grind out any chain of rats that is worth under 3 million ISK combined. In some areas of space (Feythabolis, Providence) this is almost impossible because of truesec limitations. In places where it is possible (Delve) this can still take sometimes over an hour. Meanwhile in this time you are killing cruiser/frigate groups with the occaisional battleship. In bounties and loot you can expect to be making 15m/h your first hour and probably 30 mil/hr every hour after that. If you can only play one hour a day, we;lp! Mining: The Drone regions have made mining high-end ores completely worthless. The price of minerals has crashed so hard that right now the 4th most profitable rock to mine is Veldspar. If you want to mine, say, Arkanor (the most profitable) in 0.0 space you find a group, your lasers cycle twice and you must find a new group. You will spend most of your time finding a new group of rocks to shoot. You can expect to make 15-20mil/hr mining Arkanor, assuming your region even has it. Missions only exist in (I believe) 4 or 5 different regions. My alliance once controlled 8 regions all connected and not one had an agent. Most exploration sites have been completely devalued by CCP. The most obvious one is Hacking where CCP invented a new kind of infinite use datacore that makes old datacores completely useless. The only point to running a hacking site is hoping for a War Stratagem which is worth around 14 million ISK last I found one. In one hacking site you can expect to make around 5 million ISK total. The closest you might come to making more than a Level 4 mission is with ratting, if you spend the time to do so, or with finding a 6/10 complex and hoping for a good drop. You are comparing and mixing numerous things together. 1) As I hinted out, if you do the exact same thing in high sec and then you do it in 0.0, you get better rewards in 0.0. This works fine. - you don't need chaining 0.0 rats to make more ISK then you could do on high sec ratting :) - drones have no equiqalent in high sec, don't compare(not saying it is no issue) - I would need to look for some info for exploration since I didn't followed much the changes made there for some time 2) Availability of 0.0 PVE resources is unrelated. In a matter of fact, 0.0 is more rewarding for the same activity. The issue is that you compare L4 to ratting which might be closest in procedure, completely different in mechanics. I understand very well what you and all posters demanding the answer are asking but that does not make the question less stupid. If you want an answer, ask properly. Why is risk vs reward a myth. People ask for dangerous space yielding more rewards basing on simple fact that it is more dangerous. This logic as well as motivation is invalid. I am in a system with cyno jammer and bubbled gates are perma camped by 200+ man blobs. I undock and warp to first belt. Should rats have higher bounties there just because I am in 0.0? Where is the risk? None, nada. The only reason why you should get more rewarded is because of team work. Your alliance making an effort to claim a space, run a cyno jammer and perma camp gates. This is the only reason you ever get rewarded in compulsory PVP areas - not becauseof risk, but because of teamplay benefits. Rising rewards and transfering exact same activities you can do in high sec space will only turn 0.0 into high sec with no Concord. That's just pointless. 0.0 needs another layer of benefits for 0.0 citizens. Introduce more alliance/corp level income like moon mining, taxes bound to sovereignty and tons of new tools how distribute those resources. This is what will actualy make 0.0 interesting and diverse.
mcnuggetlol Amarr Via Crucis Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:28:00 - [2466] Where have the blue bars gone?
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:29:00 - [2467] Kalisti also has a lot of good ideas.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:30:00 - [2468] Originally by: FourDrink Minimum 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. This is still the dumbest post in this thread. No way. The dumbest post in the thread was this one: Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: EdfromHumanResources How about that "Why is level 4's the cap for income?" We can either run level 4's in empire in COMPLETE SAFETY without paying 2b a month to own the system or ya, get anally **d financially for what amounts to "almost meeting empire isk making" No Stoffer, just no. 2b a month to support 15 people doesn't even sound remotely **ing acceptable. ......... Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? Yours is a pretty good #2, though.
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:35:00 - [2469] Originally by: Kepakh Holy **** I'm dumb. We are comparing the best available highsec income source to the best available 0.0 income source. The highsec one is more valuable. That is the problem. Also are you seriously insinuating that if you have a system with TWO HUNDRED PEOPLE doing nothing but camping the gate so that one guy can rat in safety, that one guy shouldn't be making more money than in highsec? Considering that if all those people were in highsec, they'd ALL be making money without risk? By your own logic, that one guy should be making over 200 times the amount a highsec L4 runner does.
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:35:00 - [2470] What I get from this thread: (I am no longer arguing mechanics, you ppl are flippin nuts on this) 1) whaaaaa change is scary1!!!!!111 (I'm quoting CCP on this) 2) Because we were so epic, worked so hard for what we own, there should be NO change WHATSOEVER. How DARE you make us change our playstyle!!!11!!! (Which btw has been changing for the last 4+ years. IE: exploration, POS setups, Orca, Jump drives, T2, T3, combat styles (removal of nano=invincible), I could go on here....) Aralis, I'm looking at you on this. CVA, while I may support them in their goals, (Amarr Victor!) doesn't deserve special treatment. Your asking that it should. That's what I get from your posts. Your generally unhappy that Supercapital production is unsafe and that Moon mining is not the ultimate goal. (which it still is) You constantly quote "RP reasons" but hey dude: since when does infinite moon resources make any logical RP Sense ever? Or invulnerable POSes? Current 0.0 mechanics make no sense whatsoever RP wise. 3) Small Alliances have no chance of taking sov. So they have no chance now? LOL. Without a massive Dread fleet, trillions of isk and 1000s of members, small alliances have little to no chance. This expansion gives us a chance. (We only need hundreds of dreads, not thousands )(Btw, who said anything about 1 small alliance per area? Have fun defending against many alliances. CVA sure does) This whole argument is bogus. Small alliances will either A: take systems or B: not. CCP cannot give us a solution to this as that would require they nerf Goonies and we all know those annoying bees will never stop . 4) Isk VS Reward =/= equate. So....what's your point? Low-sec has S*** reward for high-risk, yet I've had the most fun in low-sec. This argument is also pointless. People will come to 0.0 for their own reasons. Your never going to convince lvl 4 runners to come to low/null sec. Even if you remove lvl 4s altogether. Even if 0.0 was 2x more profitable. That is HUMAN NATURE. You all scream and yell, yet many arguement are pointless. Also, quit maxing out systems with cyno-jammers and jump bridges. You'll find funny enough, your isk cost is drastically reduced. --Isaac P.S. nothing in this post is mechanic-accurate, but spirit-accurate. Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"

Mikal Drey Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:36:00 - [2471] Originally by: Verone All the 0.0 alliances are **ing and moaning because they've got huge amounts of space, in some cases 5 or 6 regions. This is going to force even the largest of alliances to downsize their claims to space and focus on one region. It's also going to mean you're going to see smaller alliances forming treaties and pacts, claiming constellations in the same region because they can't afford to claim a whole region to themselves, and working together to form a coalition that holds a region between it. It's actually going to make 0.0 politics more interesting again and promote claiming space to actually use it, rather than land grabbing for e-peen purposes. Taking a constellation is going to be something that's considered, pondered upon, checked out, scouted, looked over and decided upon, then the invasion takes place if its deemed both profitable and tactically advantageous to take and own the space. It's way better and more immersive than saying "lol guys, lets go take Immensea for teh lulz!1" What this means is that an alliance will have to take space, and hold it for a considerable amount of time, upgrading along the way to ensure its going to be useful to them as a long term investment. This is effectively causing space to seem much larger in terms of territorial claim, purely because the costs of owning and maintaining space are massively magnified in comparison to current mechanics. Awesome idea. you know i expected better from you tbvfh. this new sov mechanic does nothing towards staking a claim. you need sov purely to upgrade a SYSTEM and put up a STRATEGIC pos. you could easily just completely ignore the sov system and never upgrade a system whatsoever. there is no regional claims and no constelation claims its a pointless system claim. CCP have added a upgrade system with a isk cost to get isk back its a pay to play where theres no point except for keeping it in a single system. if i want a jump bridge/Cyno Gen/Jammer i NEED sov but thats the ONLY reason i need sov. the system upgrades are a isk sink in a form of tax. you have to now ofset the entire cost of installing and maintaining the upgrades before any profits are taken into consideration. like everyone else have realised ... ** it i'll jump back to empire instead. for a new alliance to move in from a fresh regional claim they are facing a logistical nightmare with freighter escorts galore and huge setup and maintenence costs. and for what ? a few anomolies and plexes in 1 system . . . .rotfl im no going to badmouth the system that much but its very very illconceived and is ANOTHER beta feature. I do like the upgrades but they are far from the awesome that we are about to get blogged with. CCP Soundwave foolishly mentioned a full upgrade is EQUIVILANT to empire and that helped spawn 80+ pages of rhetoric. what i have now is a 0.0 where sov is pretty pointless and if i want sov im basically turning it into empire where carebearing is the norm. I have lost a major reason to fight for something. fighting for a pay to play system is ridiculous catching something you mentioned in that an improved constelation would actually be vastly better than 1 system supporting 10 people :/ OFC a constelation magnet has a balance issue.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:42:00 - [2472] Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 16:42:09 Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat We are comparing the best available highsec income source to the best available 0.0 income source. The highsec one is more valuable. That is the problem. Also are you seriously insinuating that if you have a system with TWO HUNDRED PEOPLE doing nothing but camping the gate so that one guy can rat in safety, that one guy shouldn't be making more money than in highsec? Considering that if all those people were in highsec, they'd ALL be making money without risk? By your own logic, that one guy should be making over 200 times the amount a highsec L4 runner does. The best income? Why aren't you pulling out things like moon mining, cap production, scam or trading then? /facepalm for the rest of the post.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:51:00 - [2473] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 09/11/2009 16:47:41 What I get from this thread: (I am no longer arguing mechanics, you ppl are flippin nuts on this) 1) whaaaaa change is scary1!!!!!111 2) Because we were so epic, worked so hard for what we own, there should be NO change WHATSOEVER. How DARE you make us change our playstyle!!!11!!! (Which btw has been changing for the last 4+ years. IE: exploration, POS setups, Orca, Jump drives, T2, T3, combat styles (removal of nano=invincible), I could go on here....) Aralis, I'm looking at you on this. CVA, while I may support them in their goals, (Amarr Victor!) doesn't deserve special treatment. Your asking that it should. That's what I get from your posts. Your complaint is that there is a change period. So? Change happens. You also constantly quote "RP reasons" but hey dude: since when does infinite moon resources make any logical RP Sense ever? Or invulnerable POSes? Current 0.0 mechanics make no sense whatsoever RP wise. 3) Small Alliances have no chance of taking sov. So they have no chance now? LOL. Without a massive Dread fleet, trillions of isk and 1000s of members, small alliances have little to no chance. This expansion gives us a chance. (We only need hundreds of dreads, not thousands )(Btw, who said anything about 1 small alliance per area? Have fun defending against many alliances. CVA sure does) This whole argument is bogus. Small alliances will either A: take systems or B: not. CCP cannot give us a solution to this as that would require they nerf Goonies and we all know those annoying bees will never stop . But really, we cannot cater to smaller alliances, at the same time, this expansion gives them the best chance they have. Because right now, they sure as hell have no chance of getting any. 4) Isk VS Reward =/= equate. So....what's your point? Low-sec has S*** reward for high-risk, yet I've had the most fun in low-sec. This argument is also pointless. People will come to 0.0 for their own reasons. Your never going to convince lvl 4 runners to come to low/null sec. Even if you remove lvl 4s altogether. Even if 0.0 was 2x more profitable. That is HUMAN NATURE. You all scream and yell, yet in the big scheme of things, it means...well, it means w/e. CCP will listen but ultimately, your opinion is 1 of hundreds of thousands. Just because your suggestion is not taken doesn't mean CCP doesn't listen. Also, quit maxing out systems with cyno-jammers and jump bridges. You'll find funny enough, your isk cost is drastically reduced. --Isaac P.S. nothing in this post is mechanic-accurate, but is spirit-accurate. Isaac I am not and have never defended the level 4 sov mechanism. It's stupid. The whole sov CONCEPT is stupid. But this patch makes things worse not better.
Wait 24Hours	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:51:00 - [2474] Edited by: Wait 24Hours on 09/11/2009 16:51:37 In the future is cynojamming, generating and achoring of jump bridges even going to be possible anywhere you choose? The reason I ask is because the desciption on the upgrade says anchorable at starbases and to me that doesn't equal a POS. If these upgrades aren't available to non outpost systems wont it make people who are trying to venture in nullsec lives even more difficult? Since they will basically be fresh meat for estabilished alliances and their capital fleetS? correct me if I am wrong but this would be pretty significant. e: grammar
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:52:00 - [2475] [quote/] Isaac I am not and have never defended the level 4 sov mechanism. It's stupid. The whole sov CONCEPT is stupid. But this patch makes things worse not better. I see....thanks for clarifying. --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:54:00 - [2476] Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 16:55:21 Originally by: Aralis Isaac I am not and have never defended the level 4 sov mechanism. It's stupid. The whole sov CONCEPT is stupid. But this patch makes things worse not better. If only taxes would involve sovereignty, it would be a blast for CVA. Also, tax based on mining laser yield sounds good :)
NxN	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:57:00 - [2477] Edited by: NxN on 09/11/2009 16:57:40 Yeah, this is really bad. It shifts the whole thing entirely. I WANT TO HOLD THE SYSTEM BECAUSE I CAN DEFEND IT!!! Not because I can pay damn bills... Really get a grip CCP. Besides you need ISK to PvP anyways. ùùù ≡v≡
Daedalus II	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:58:00 - [2478] I don't understand why you constantly say that new alliances will have so much trouble getting into 0.0 after Dominion? From what I hear in this thread 0.0 will completely deserted only days after Dominion hits, because all previous inhabitants have either moved to high sec to run lvl 4 missions or ragequit One month after Dominion, 0.0 will be full of happily mining carebears while the 0.0 people have taken over the high sec lvl 4 mission running even though they utterly hate that There is only one other thing I can add here: HTFU!
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:59:00 - [2479] Originally by: NxN Yeah, this is really bad. It shifts the whole thing entirely. I WANT TO HOLD THE SYSTEM BECAUSE I CAN DEFEND IT!!! Not because I can pay damn bills... Really get a grip CCP. You don't have to hold sovereignty over all space you want to control. Defending it will be quite a challenge actually.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 16:59:00 - [2480] Originally by: Verone All the 0.0 alliances are **ing and moaning because they've got huge amounts of space, in some cases 5 or 6 regions. This is going to force even the largest of alliances to downsize their claims to space and focus on one region. It's also going to mean you're going to see smaller alliances forming treaties and pacts, claiming constellations in the same region because they can't afford to claim a whole region to themselves, and working together to form a coalition that holds a region between it. It's actually going to make 0.0 politics more interesting again and promote claiming space to actually use it, rather than land grabbing for e-peen purposes. Taking a constellation is going to be something that's considered, pondered upon, checked out, scouted, looked over and decided upon, then the invasion takes place if its deemed both profitable and tactically advantageous to take and own the space. It's way better and more immersive than saying "lol guys, lets go take Immensea for teh lulz!1" What this means is that an alliance will have to take space, and hold it for a considerable amount of time, upgrading along the way to ensure its going to be useful to them as a long term investment. This is effectively causing space to seem much larger in terms of territorial claim, purely because the costs of owning and maintaining space are massively magnified in comparison to current mechanics. Awesome idea. Everyone's agreed that it's an awesome idea. The vision you outline is a great one, and CCP, 0.0 players, and empire-dwellers all agree on that. The problem isn't the idea, it's the execution. In order for what you propose to actually happen, the system upgrades have to be big and useful, or else alliances won't stop sprawling. Right now, the upgrades are small and crap, so nobody cares and nothing will change. It's a shame, really. Also, because it's not Sunday night any more, it's time to start spamming the question again: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.**

Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:01:00 - [2481] Edited by: Lolion Reglo on 09/11/2009 17:04:53 perhaps a change in price then of what it will cost to control a system?... hmm oh wait didnt i propose that a few posts back? wouldnt that fix half the issues people are ***ing about right now? just an idea. you know,... maybe if people would look at it and debate if the numbers i propsed we might get ccp to change the price to fix this... you know... maybe. not trying to drop a HUGE **ING HINT HERE. rofl. Edit: Linky if anyone you know... is just curious... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=82#2456
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:04:00 - [2482] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Also, because it's not Sunday night any more, it's time to start spamming the question again: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M? It is indeed increased risk to move around 0.0 as well as logistical challenge.
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:05:00 - [2483] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Also, because it's not Sunday night any more, it's time to start spamming the question again: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. It's not Sunday night anymore, but it's 5 p.m. in Iceland so all the devs are probably going home again already, gg nextmap no re~
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:07:00 - [2484] Originally by: Verone All the 0.0 alliances are **ing and moaning because they've got huge amounts of space, in some cases 5 or 6 regions. This is going to force even the largest of alliances to downsize their claims to space and focus on one region. Yes you see our logistics guys really really enjoy fuelling hundreds of towers in empty space just for the hell of it, flying round in a lumbering fat jump freighter and dealing with buggy POS mechanics is so exciting. Quote: Taking a constellation is going to be something that's considered, pondered upon, checked out, scouted, looked over and decided upon, then the invasion takes place if its deemed both profitable and tactically advantageous to take and own the space. Hint: it won't be. Any rational assessment of an invasion will quickly conclude that it isn't worth the bother and the alliance may as well just go to farm L4s in Motsu (with, if they fancy themselves as PvPers as well, the occasional roaming gang into lowsec or syndicate) instead. Quote: It's way better and more immersive than saying "lol guys, lets go take Immensea for teh lulz!1" Who, at any time during the current incarnation of the Sovereignty mechanics, has decided to take over a region 'for teh lulz'? Owning 0.0 space isn't fun, it involves literally hundreds of man hours of tedious bullshit involving towers and anchoring timers and modules and fuel, and under the new system will involve many tedious man hours of ratting (or more likely, L4 highsec missioning on alts) to pay a sov tax. Quote: What this means is that an alliance will have to take space, and hold it for a considerable amount of time, upgrading along the way to ensure its going to be useful to them as a long term investment. What it means is that a new alliance arriving in 0.0 will have to conjure up a large amount of ISK to start paying the sov tax right away, spend more ISK on buying and putting up installations, all in the hope that a few months down the line they might hopefully start to get a highsec L4-equivalent income from them just as long as one of their neighbours doesnt invade and take it off them (or just camp the ratters in with a handful of recons). Or, you know, they could just go to Motsu and get that highsec L4 income straight away, free, easy, CONCORD protected, with a highsec market on the doorstep and docking rights for all. Quote:** This is effectively causing space to seem much larger in terms of territorial claim, purely because the costs of owning and maintaining space are massively magnified in comparison to current mechanics. Awesome idea. Confirming that making 0.0 harder, more tedious, less secure and no more rewarding than highsec is an awesome idea to encourage more people to take part in it.
Prof Fail Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:08:00 - [2485] I'm not exactly a roleplayer, but I have to agree with some of the posters here: Besides all other downsides of this Expansion, it makes really no sense to pay bills to concord in lawless 0.0 space. Concord is supposed to be in Empire. 0.0 space is totally empty, lawless and free to claim by players. To involve Concord in this process ist dumb.
Alekanderu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:09:00 - [2486] Originally by: Kepakh I am in a system with cyno jammer and bubbled gates are perma camped by 200+ man blobs. I undock and warp to first belt. Should rats have higher bounties there just because I am in 0.0? Where is the risk? None, nada. how can you post something this stupendously moronic and expect anyone to take anything you say even remotely seriously?
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:10:00 - [2487] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Also, because it's not Sunday night any more, it's time to start spamming the question again: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. Yes, but that must include the corp level reward (i.e. the moon goo) after you have removed the operative costs.
Otin Bison Gallente Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:10:00 - [2488] Originally by: Batolemaeus Edited by: Batolemaeus on 09/11/2009 14:23:32 Originally by: Otin Bison Umm .. your personal ISK is only small because your alliance doesn't share any of the untold billions of passive ISK monthly from moons. That's because my personal isk are my personal isk, FYI. They're for strategically useless expenditures, like buying a few hundred exotic dancers to put in my cargo during ops, or losing weirdly fitted guardians while flying solo. My alliance (or corp, rather. Alliances don't have wallets as per game mechanic) is handing me free dreads, battleships, logistics, dictors however. Guess how those are being paid for..or the jump bridge infrastructure i can use for free. The fuel for my capitals that i get for free. All the little things that i get for free because in the end i'm one of the guys helping to sustain that stuff. So, you get your PvP on for free? Is what you're saying? So, why all the consternation by folk about their ISK making in 0.0 ? I seem to be missing somthing here? Will continure to read ... Sorry for the double quotes ... but needed in this case. ------- Nothing especially witty to say at this time.
marxist revolutionary	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:11:00 - [2489] all this is going to do is drive more people away from 0.0 and make it even emptier than it is. anyone who doesn't see this is a drooling idiot
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:13:00 - [2490] Edited by: Tamahra on 09/11/2009 17:14:18 Originally by: marxist revolutionary all this is going to do is drive more people away from 0.0 and make it even emptier than it is. anyone who doesn't see this is a drooling idiot not only that, i fear. CCP is in a real danger to pull their own NGE now, if they mess up with Dominion. As of now, its required to delay the expansion and put it back to the drawingboard. Once the harm is done, it is done. but they can still turn the wheel and come up with something good. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG

Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:13:00 - [2491] Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 08:26:33 Originally by: gambrinous so that's 10 ppl that can "mission", what about the other 1000? oh ye, just claim a 100 systems ... wait do you live there? I do, those upgrades are meaning less to me. E: btw where did all the uninformed trolls come from all of a sudden, lol is ccp back at work and poasting on their alts? 10 guaranteed anomalies seems better than 2 belt ratters. In any case it is better than what you have now and the numbers are a subject to change so stop trolling. you forget that anoms are ****
Hot Fudge Minmatar Sweet -N- Sticky	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:14:00 - [2492] What happened with the Dev responses? Kinda dried up, eh? ========================= Sweet, sticky, and bad for your health.
marxist revolutionary	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:15:00 - [2493] Originally by: Tamahra Originally by: marxist revolutionary all this is going to do is drive more people away from 0.0 and make it even emptier than it is. anyone who doesn't see this is a drooling idiot not only that, i fear. CCP is in a real danger to pull their own NGE now, if they mess up with Dominion. no they won't, doesn't most of the playerbase live out of 0.0 ?
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:15:00 - [2494] Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 16:55:21 Originally by: Aralis Isaac I am not and have never defended the level 4 sov mechanism. It's stupid. The whole sov CONCEPT is stupid. But this patch makes things worse not better. If only taxes would involve sovereignty, it would be a blast for CVA. They need to allow for taxation on the alliance level, and for treaty-specific taxation rates in the coming treaty system.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:16:00 - [2495] Originally by: Alekanderu how can you post something this stupendously moronic and expect anyone to take anything you say even remotely seriously? Because I am expecting someone else but Goons read this thread, someone being able to understand that exaggareted example serves for better demonstration of principles behind it. You can read the comparison with shuttle couple posts above if that is more understandable for you.
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:18:00 - [2496] Considering the work day is nearly over in Iceland and we have not had a CCP reply in about 2 days, it is safe to assume they are not going to reply to this thread anymore. What will probably happen is they make a new devblog with revised numbers and hopefully some other changes relative to this thread then we all have to start commenting in that one.
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:20:00 - [2497] EUREKA! IVE GOT IT! Lets all whine and complain about how CCP is going to ruin null sec space and comment on each others whine posts instead of proposing ways they can FIX the train wreck we are seeing with the costs being so high in null sec and there being little to no rewards for the risk of being out there. Lets continue to dabble among ourselves in the unproductive way and really show them that no idea we have should ever be taken seriously. Brilliant. Now if we are all quite finished highlighting the ways Null sec will suck if the current proposal by them goes through lets think of ways we can give them to FIX this issue like my post here Linkage or maybe even this post here Linkage or any on of other ideas people have put up that no one is commenting on helping to flesh out so that CCP might be able to use it TO FIX WHAT YOUR *****ING ABOUT! am i the only one seeing this trend or are there at least a few others seeing this pointless bickering going on? Cause if i am ill sit back and at least get plenty drunk off of all this wine you guys are posting. perhaps that will numb the sting from ccp's plan...rofl.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:23:00 - [2498] Originally by: Tamahra not only that, i fear. CCP is in a real danger to pull their own NGE now, if they mess up with Dominion. As of now, its required to delay the expansion and put it back to the drawingboard. Once the harm is done, it is done. but they can still turn the wheel and come up with something good. When theres such a huge outcry from the playerbase, you as a developer MUST react to it. Pulling it through, as it is planned now, goes against the vast majority of the goons and other huge alliances. And that would be an NGE. Fixed that for you.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:23:00 - [2499] Originally by: Graalum you forget that anoms are **** And you sir, is forgetting that: 1) anomalies are independent on true sec status 2) anomalies rewards scales up with upgrade level 3) no one has seen those anomalies yet so nor there are numbers on how much they should yield
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:31:00 - [2500] Originally by: Tamahra Edited by: Tamahra on 09/11/2009 17:16:20 not only that, i fear. CCP is in a real danger to pull their own NGE now... Quote: And that would be an NGE. You keep using that acronym. I do not think it means what you think it means. Tamahra, I played through NGE, and the proposed changes in Dominion are no NGE.

Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:31:00 - [2501] Edited by: Tippia on 09/11/2009 17:33:20 Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Graalum you forget that anoms are ** And you sir, is forgetting that: 1) anomalies are independent on true sec status 2) anomalies rewards scales up with upgrade level 3) no one has seen those anomalies yet so nor there are numbers on how much they should yield We know that, at best, they will be no more valuable than a high-sec L4 agent, except not infinitely scalable, risk-free and uninterruptible the way a high-sec agent is. Quote:** The best income? Why aren't you pulling out things like moon mining, cap production, scam or trading then? Because what people moving out will have to relate to is L4s. Because moon mining isn't something that they will see in their personal wallets. Because the supposed "draw" of nullsec will be the relationship between these two: will people see more ISK in their wallets in relation to the effort they have to put in compared to what they could do if they stayed in highsec? If you had actually understood the question, rather than calling it stupid because you didn't, this would already have been abundantly clear to you. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:37:00 - [2502] Originally by: Verone All the 0.0 alliances are **ing and moaning because they've got huge amounts of space, in some cases 5 or 6 regions. This is going to force even the largest of alliances to downsize their claims to space and focus on one region. really? how so? Quote: It's also going to mean you're going to see smaller alliances forming treaties and pacts, claiming constellations in the same region because they can't afford to claim a whole region to themselves, and working together to form a coalition that holds a region between it. It costs nothing but your ships and a crude jump bridge network to control a region. [q]It's actually going to make 0.0 politics more interesting again and promote claiming space to actually use it, rather than land grabbing for e-peen purposes. Taking a constellation is going to be something that's considered, pondered upon, checked out, scouted, looked over and decided upon, then the invasion takes place if its deemed both profitable and tactically advantageous to take and own the space. we actually use the only valuable things in our space (the moons). lol at the belts and asteroids. We don't claim space fro the lulz, we do it for the fuel bonuses. Quote: What this means is that an alliance will have to take space, and hold it for a considerable amount of time, upgrading along the way to ensure its going to be useful to them as a long term investment. This is effectively causing space to seem much larger in terms of territorial claim, purely because the costs of owning and maintaining space are massively magnified in comparison to current mechanics. which part of upgrading it makes it more useful? the part where it costs more or the part where everyone will still just JC to empire to run l4's? Quote: Awesome idea. ** you're dumb.
Kanoubi Amarr Ja POSte	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:39:00 - [2503] Originally by: Lolion Reglo EUREKA! IVE GOT IT! You¦re my eyes , my consumer rights of posting an opinion, my forum god! Please everyone ! .. stop posting , this man/woman is our voice. Aleluia brother!
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:39:00 - [2504] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Also, because it's not Sunday night any more, it's time to start spamming the question again: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. Yes, but that must include the corp level reward (i.e. the moon goo) after you have removed the operative costs. Profit includes all costs and income, including moon goo funded reimbursement programs, fleet losses defending your space/moon goo, etc.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:41:00 - [2505] Originally by: Tippia We know that, at best, they will be no more valuable than an L4 agent, except not infinitely scalable the way the agent is. Seems ok. Originally by: Tippia Because moon mining isn't something that they will see in their personal wallets. Someone should hire you and put you in a dictor. Sadly so many spoiled *****s fly around and they are given caps for free and their BS, HAC, BC and ceptros reimbursted. I guess you think someone is running L4 to run the reimburstement programs...
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:42:00 - [2506] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 09/11/2009 15:32:44 Originally by: Kepakh Search pages 25-60, it is burried somewhere there. Hmm, you mean http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1210267&page=25#723 this? Because that's the only dev response to it at all, and it's not an answer but rather just a weak avoidance of the question get out stop trolling I've read the thread and know it hasn't been answered and nobody's gonna fall for it and be dumb enough to reread 35 pages so stop feeling so great about how you're ~the puppetmaster~ because you're not nearly as smart as you think, okay, well, bye Yep, that's it. Perfect answer for stupid question of such type. Even further in the thread Chronotis(?) admits that CCP is aware of high profitability of L4. 0.0 PVE is more profitable than doing the same thing in high sec. - better belt rats - better ore to mine - better mission rewards - better exploration sites Risk vs reward is a myth. my mission rewards in axdx are outstanding, and triple battlecruiser spawns are the best
Verone Gallente Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:42:00 - [2507] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Everyone's agreed that it's an awesome idea. The vision you outline is a great one, and CCP, 0.0 players, and empire-dwellers all agree on that. The problem isn't the idea, it's the execution. In order for what you propose to actually happen, the system upgrades have to be big and useful, or else alliances won't stop sprawling. Right now, the upgrades are small and crap, so nobody cares and nothing will change. It's a shame, really. Originally by: Scatim Helicon Random quotes and retorts, etc... Originally by: Mikal Drey you know i expected better from you tbvfh. Mikal, I'm happy to disappoint, and I'll give a response along with a response to the quotes above. CCP is performing a MASSIVE change to game mechanics. The logic, and principle behind the change is outstanding, and all the whining about having to fuel towers and babysit 1000 control towers to keep your space, or destroy 1000 hardened control towers to take someone's space is going to be gone. This change to mechanics isn't going to happen overnight with the launch of Dominion. It's a massive overhaul of how Eve operates, and it instantaneously affects TENS OF THOUSANDS of players the second Dominion goes live. It's not a case of changing the slot layout of a ship, or tweaking its stats. It's potentially game breaking on the most fundamental of levels. The fact of the matter is, giving too much reward too soon would give the game's economy a massive heart attack. Of course CCP are going to implement it with pre-nerfed rewards. Its going to be monitored, tweaked, worked on, fiddled with and monitored some more before they're happy with it. Something this big as a change in game isn't going to be complete overnight, its part of the core of the game. Its going to take time to balance it and watch to see how Eve reacts to it. This kind of thing is so large that its impossible to test on a development server. It has to be done in live play, because its not possible to simulate the effects of play on the scale of TQ on any of the test servers. The only thing that they can do is make sure the mechanics work fully. 0.0 alliances have whined for years about having the Sovereignty system overhauled. CCP has the answer to it and the logic and ideas behind it are sound and well thought out. Its just going to take time to implement and the best way to do it is by pre-nerfing the rewards until the dust settles around the launch of Dominion and CCP can see how alliances react to the new mechanics. I wouldn't be surprised if over time the rewards get better, but for now all they're doing is playing it safe to make sure that they don't totally butt**** the game's economy by pouring trillions of ISK into the market because they made a bad call on the rewards for sov. Sadly, people are more intent on spitting their lollipops out, whining like spoiled kids and demanding answers rather than getting their heads together and deciding how best to use the mechanics. Its laughable to be honest, when so many have complained about the sov system. This is something so large its not gonna be fixed overnight, it'll take time to adjust and tweak and there's nothing wrong with playing it safe so the game's economy doesn't get shafted in the process. \o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF 2008! \o/ >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<<
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:42:00 - [2508] I think some of the best idea's have been NEW ways to get income out of nulsec, not just rehashed crap like whats put in at the moment. Great woopey doo beter rats, more ore... could it get any more boring....? Someone else has grazed on this, 0.0 was supposed to be the pvp playground, what players do and enforce down here is how it works, no neut stations no sentries no sec... just what you got vs what they got. Granted it meant the big got very big and scare the crap out alot of the rest of us, but its not stagnant, systems are changing hands constantly though its just slow, but slow imho actually worked, it meant you couldn't get caught utterly screwed after a day or so, there was always the chance of a good fight to resolve it... Now of course sov is handled by an omnipotent bank manager who takes large amounts of isk... for what exactly??? Before the isk to sustain was clearly visible, its pos fuel JB fuel etc. Now its gonna just be some brain dead isk sink game mechanic... great thinking ccp. This is just going to end up with lots of unclaimed space as the old big alliances use the uncyno'd space that is abundant to masacre the unsuspecting. This is a warning to all those who are thinking of grabbing a few flags and an upgrade pos. Every alliance I know of has been practicing dropping dreads to pop noob sov grabbers, just so you know. ccp want 0.0 to be used more, that was a truely worthwhile goal, but whoever came up with this crock of ** idea needs to get fired, as it clearly isnt playin to what anyone wants. Old alliances arent happy (that was a certainty anyway) But even many new alliances now see the flaws, just because you took away a huge alliance's claims to sovereignty... you really think that'll stop them still claiming huge area's of space? And think about this.. there you are just a day away from final upgrades on a system, you've lasted long enough... oh crap what a coincidence thats just when the big bad old landlords show up.. why, because its eve nature to kick em not only where it hurts but at the worst time for maximum loss. But back to trying to be useful... the biggest issues seem to be the double whammy of moon mins being nerfed while tagging on a HUGE bill at the same time. Someone had an idea for planetary taxes of an upgraded system.. perhaps said taxes could directly reduce the maintenance costs? Introduce some form of reduced system cost if there say in the same constelation, that would encourage small close nit area's. Have costs of one or two systems low, but have a multiplier for say a whole constelation, but to negate the alt alliance effect say allow one free cyno or JB per constelation. I dunno, but please stop and think ccp, this expansion is gonna ** lots of initially. And once the dust has settled and many have died trying to get into 0.0 and failing even more so will be let down. I feel most sorry for those who commited more RL cash into investing into nulsec as it was, for all that to now be defunct, its hardly an incentive to invest any additional money into EVE beyond subscription when you not only change the goal posts, but rewrite the whole thing.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:46:00 - [2509] Originally by: Graalum my mission rewards in axdx are outstanding, and triple battlecruiser spawns are the best Good for you. I am quite sure there will be enough happy people to jump on those anomalies.
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:51:00 - [2510] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Graalum you forget that anoms are **** And you sir, is forgetting that: 1) anomalies are independent on true sec status 2) anomalies rewards scales up with upgrade level 3) no one has seen those anomalies yet so nor there are numbers on how much they should yield i have done anoms before, these are not new and ccp has not stated that they intend to change them

Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:55:00 - [2511] Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 09/11/2009 17:55:25 I forgot to add this: The PVP playground that you guys keep complaining about being changed is really not being changed. Hell, I'd say its being improved. No more long-ass seiges over towers with dreads. (Not saying that dreads won't ever hit the green-siege-button-of-doom), more targets, etc, you get my point. The fact that pure PVP alliances will actually have difficulty holding space: too bad. None of what they are changing is going to bankrupt you. Sure, you won't have Cyno-jammers every system or Jump Bridges, but overall, its not hurting you that badly. Your just taking the worst case senario and applying it to every system. Guess what? Your not going to homogenize systems, because if you do, well...LOL....facepalm --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:55:00 - [2512] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Tippia We know that, at best, they will be no more valuable than an L4 agent, except not infinitely scalable the way the agent is. Seems ok. Not if it's going to attract highsec dwellers, since it means they won't have the same infinite resources to pull ISK from. I.e. they'll get less ISK if they move out of highsec. Quote: Originally by: Tippia Because moon mining isn't something that they will see in their personal wallets. Someone should hire you and put you in a dictor. Sadly so many spoiled ****s fly around and they are given caps for free and their BS, HAC, BC and ceptros reimbursted. I guess you think someone is running L4 to run the reimburstement programs... I'm already in a dictor. As for a reimbursement scheme, it doesn't particularly matter: if they're getting their PvP ships replaced, then their personal ship loss will be the same as in highsec… except for the PvE ships lost to reds; the implants lost no matter what the reason; the time* lost not grinding ISK (which translates into ISK lost)… …and they'll end up with less money in their wallet than if they had stayed in highsec. And that's assuming there is a reimbursement program (which I'm guessing is your argument for how moongoo profits end up in individual persons' wallets) — if there isn't, then they'll have a lot less in their personal wallets. Either way, they'll earn less and lose more — not a brilliant scheme for attracting people. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:55:00 - [2513] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Tamahra not only that, i fear. CCP is in a real danger to pull their own NGE now, if they mess up with Dominion. As of now, its required to delay the expansion and put it back to the drawingboard. Once the harm is done, it is done. but they can still turn the wheel and come up with something good. When theres such a huge outcry from the playerbase, you as a developer MUST react to it. Pulling it through, as it is planned now, goes against the vast majority of the goons and other huge alliances. And that would be an NGE. Fixed that for you. maybe. on the other side its quite normal that a good number of posts in this thread is from dem members of the huge alliance, since they are the ones who are affected the most. And they are the backbone of Eve. Even if the majority of the population is living in high sec, its the 0.0 space that keeps most players hooked to eve online, because they know theres something bigger beyond the boundaries of empire space. This knowledge alone, and to have the possibility of being part of all the 0.0 warfare one day, is a major hook. Sooooo, its important for CCP to not mess it up. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:56:00 - [2514] Quote: Sadly, people are more intent on spitting their lollipops out, whining like spoiled kids and demanding answers rather than getting their heads together and deciding how best to use the mechanics. Alliances will adapt and I'm sure are already planning on exploiting the game mechanics to the fullest. What you don't understand is all that the giant cluster**** that has been proposed will do is reduce sov claimed systems. That's it... No more people in 0.0 than there are now and even less reason for war in 0.0. They will adapt to a less interesting future instead of what CCP had promised earlier. That's what people are complaining about. Not some "we fear change" mantra that you have mistakenly arrived at.
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:58:00 - [2515] Originally by: Kanoubi Originally by: Lolion Reglo EUREKA! IVE GOT IT! You¦re my eyes , my consumer rights of posting an opinion, my forum god! Please everyone ! .. stop posting , this man/woman is our voice. Aleluia brother! Finally someone!...rofl. Originally by: Verone Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Everyone's agreed that it's an awesome idea. The vision you outline is a great one, and CCP, 0.0 players, and empire-dwellers all agree on that. The problem isn't the idea, it's the execution. In order for what you propose to actually happen, the system upgrades have to be big and useful, or else alliances won't stop sprawling. Right now, the upgrades are small and crap, so nobody cares and nothing will change. It's a shame, really. Originally by: Scatim Helicon Random quotes and retorts, etc... Originally by: Mikal Drey you know i expected better from you tbvfh. Mikal, I'm happy to disappoint, and I'll give a response along with a response to the quotes above. CCP is performing a MASSIVE change to game mechanics. The logic, and principle behind the change is outstanding, and all the whining about having to fuel towers and babysit 1000 control towers to keep your space, or destroy 1000 hardened control towers to take someone's space is going to be gone. This change to mechanics isn't going to happen overnight with the launch of Dominion. It's a massive overhaul of how Eve operates, and it instantaneously affects TENS OF THOUSANDS of players the second Dominion goes live. It's not a case of changing the slot layout of a ship, or tweaking its stats. It's potentially game breaking on the most fundamental of levels. The fact of the matter is, giving too much reward too soon would give the game's economy a massive heart attack. Of course CCP are going to implement it with pre-nerfed rewards. Its going to be monitored, tweaked, worked on, fiddled with and monitored some more before they're happy with it. Something this big as a change in game isn't going to be complete overnight, its part of the core of the game. Its going to take time to balance it and watch to see how Eve reacts to it. This kind of thing is so large that its impossible to test on a development server. It has to be done in live play, because its not possible to simulate the effects of play on the scale of TQ on any of the test servers. The only thing that they can do is make sure the mechanics work fully. 0.0 alliances have whined for years about having the Sovereignty system overhauled. CCP has the answer to it and the logic and ideas behind it are sound and well thought out. Its just going to take time to implement and the best way to do it is by pre-nerfing the rewards until the dust settles around the launch of Dominion and CCP can see how alliances react to the new mechanics. I wouldn't be surprised if over time the rewards get better, but for now all they're doing is playing it safe to make sure that they don't totally butt**** the game's economy by pouring trillions of ISK into the market because they made a bad call on the rewards for sov. Sadly, people are more intent on spitting their lollipops out, whining like spoiled kids and demanding answers rather than getting their heads together and deciding how best to use the mechanics. Its laughable to be honest, when so many have complained about the sov system. This is something so large its not gonna be fixed overnight, it'll take time to adjust and tweak and there's nothing wrong with playing it safe so the game's economy doesn't get shafted in the process. I actually didn't realize that aspect. Your right however i still think the price of sovernty is still a little step and think they should lower it for the sake of making it easier for people to access that space and use the upgrades mentioned. read my post for what i mean. Linkage
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:59:00 - [2516] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Graalum my mission rewards in axdx are outstanding, and triple battlecruiser spawns are the best Good for you. I am quite sure there will be enough happy people to jump on those anomalies. All those empire dwellers who have never set foot in nullsec will be dyinggggg to come out to run these anomalies. Just have to find some space, not get killed by your neighbors, pay your large monthly bill, wait months for your system to be fully upgrades, and then hooray they can go back to making the same isk for hour they made safely in empire! Wow what a bargain that is. But oh wait, a cloaker has come to the system, isk drops, a local pvp gang comes to system, isk drops, the system starts getting crowded, isk drops, you also spend most of your time scanning and warping back to new anomalies slowing it down a bit, and oops you have 10 people in system and you guys keep warping to anomaly that someone is already at. All that work and ships going boom to end up paying money to be worse off than you were.
Mikal Drey Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:06:00 - [2517] @Verone CCP have gone from having a sov system to almost completely removing a sov system. dont get me wrong I like the upgrades and its a good step in the right direction for longevity and survival in 0.0 i would love to give my full support to it but its a have a feature that should never be released to live test. THATS WHAT SISI is DESIGNED for. the continual rush for a 6 month turnover and a massive feature rush has broken the game. we are sick to death of half a feature and full promotion about its awesomeness. sov now serves no purpose and what we actually wanted was Soverignty and to have a place to actually call "ours" we want somthing of value to fight over. this new soverignty system isnt there to claim space its there to anchor a pos. CCP said about removing the costs from the pos spam but have replaced it with a convoluted mechanic and called it a sov change. a JB pos only has fuel to maintain and now theres a 2bil "fee" per jumpbridge pos ontop of the actual pos charging yourself to own space that noone actually owns :/ which ** came up with that. as already mentioned CONCORD fees in 0.0 ? lol !! the Upgrade system IS good and IS everything we could want**and IS what you say and i have no doubts that it will be improved BUT CCP no longer have my trust. what they advertise does NOT reflect ingame. 1 system supporting 10-15 people out of an entire alliance ? deraded if youy DONT FARM, barely on par with EMPIRE ? thats broken before it even starts. I DONT want epic rewards from the get go but id at least expect sustainability. flag+hub purely to anchor a pos :/ thats an epic joke. capture the pointless flag is an outdated concept tl;dr Upgrades = good (just not balanced right) hubs for sov = ludicrous
Uphill Gardner Minmatar DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:06:00 - [2518] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: NxN Yeah, this is really bad. It shifts the whole thing entirely. I WANT TO HOLD THE SYSTEM BECAUSE I CAN DEFEND IT!!! Not because I can pay damn bills... Really get a grip CCP. You don't have to hold sovereignty over all space you want to control. Defending it will be quite a challenge actually. Why? Who in their right mind will haul freighter 40+ jumps into 0.0 few systems away from 200 dread fleet? Who would be even stupid enough to try and anchor that thing, and then pay billions for a promise of few anomalies in the system? Do you know how much it takes to make 40 jumps with freighter?? With gatecamps along the way? Yeah, I', betting those small alliances wanting their piece of 0.0 will have a blast! ***** Miss Pator 3 years running, stripped of title when they realised i was male.
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:07:00 - [2519] 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. Still waiting....
Brunaburh	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:16:00 - [2520] Originally by: Bobby Atlas You forget the fact that a single solar system will not sustain 50 active pilots, the current incarnation of the upgrades will support maybe 25 very active players. Even then, a single solar system, devoting all your time to farming isk to maintain it - something just does not seem right about that in context of the larger plan that dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access easier for smaller entities - not time and cost prohibitive. Forget the fact if this small theoretical alliance should have to ever defend the system, they will run out of isk so fast that they will have no choice but to leave 0.0. One of the things that keeps confusing me about this thread is that everyone talks as if: (a) they need SOV in every system they use... and (b) they need to keep SOV in every system they have now. So an "upgraded" system doesn't support 50-100? We don't know yet (but I doubt it) Is there not a jump gate to a system next door? or two, or three? This is an ISK sink for the mega-alliances that are just sitting on huge swaths of space, to force them to either contract in occupied space or turn all their PvP kings into PvE pages. So you don't get to hold a whole region as SOV space -who says you can't fly through and kill anyone trying to move in? So you can't own every system, and you don't want any old enemy moving in next door? Heard of the concept of fleet ops and roams? Aren't treaties coming soon(tm)? Gee, you have to DO something rather than sit in your secure solar system, buried behind tens of SOV systems, earning ISK off your moon goo? As for smaller alliances, since when have they ever moved into SOV 0.0 and set up shop on day 1? There is ALWAYS logistics before action, except for those of you who just joined the big 0.0 alliances as n00b players and never knew anything else. I look at those numbers and say crap - that's a lot of money, just like the rest of you. Difference is my main toon is in a small alliance looking to move, and we are used to controlling small amounts of space and roaming into other people's territory, and running our own reaction chains. We can almost afford to have a fully upgraded 0.0 SOV system, based on those numbers, and still have isk in the wallet. Holding one or two primary systems and roaming outwards isn't new or news to us, and I'm sure as heck going to go to another system to rat if there are already 10 guys going at it. DUH. I don't expect that every system I fly into is likely to be blue. DUH, that's life in 0.0. THAT'S the 0.0 life CCP is going to introduce that to the mega-alliances, who won't have tons of "safe" 0.0 to rat and plex and mine and moon mine in - because it will cost too much. Whine away, or give me all you stuff and quit. Here's my prediction three weeks out: Whiner mega alliances will leave SOV 0.0 and wreak havoc in NPC 0.0 and empire for a while, then slowly fade into meaninglessness as they did not adapt. Practical mega alliances will contract their SOV into the important systems (major moons, jump bridges, really low true sec status, etc) and (when available) have treaties with others in the neighboring systems to maintain security. Smaller alliances will (if they are smart) wait out the initial panic, then start examining what's happening with SOV, where do they want to go, and start contacting their future "neighbors" to determine if that's a good move. Non-SOV alliances will continue to operate status quo. Empire will continue to operate status quo. NPC 0.0 will get very busy for a while - apparently with angry goonfleets taking out their frustration with CCP.

Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:16:00 - [2521] Originally by: NickSuccorso Originally by: Tesal Here is what is missing in this. You will still have access to neighboring systems, that will still have the same true sec, and you will still be able to rat in them just as you did before, its just that you won't have Sov there, and you will have to fight people if they show up. You won't be under a cyno jammer with jump bridges all the time, you are going to have to venture out. Once you are out there, people will kill you. So...why bother changing the sov system at all then, if the big alliances are still gonna use large amounts of territory other than their "official" holdings? Just because it isn't marked on the influence map, and doesn't have a cyno jammer, doesn't mean that some little empire alliance that wants to reach for the stars is going to challenge for it. They'd just get crushed, and they know it, because damnit we need to use this lousy space anyway because there isn't enough room in our super upgraded home systems to support everyone. Granted the hypothetical person is only going to make 20 million isk/hour after 2 hours of grooming, but he's going to take that because it beats sitting docked in station spinning his Rifter with his BS5 character. They will get crushed, but the labor needed to crush them is much higher now because they can immediately get a cyno jammer and a jump bridge. Once that happens, people will start to creep into the cracks of space that are left open. There is now at least a chance. Some people will claim space just to start fights too. And if ten people claim space at the same time, you are left with a few months work just to clean them out with your giant blob. It will be a never ending struggle, and eventually the big guys will give up, and little guys will take over in the margins of space between the big guys where they don't care too much. So in the short term, I don't expect much difference at all, but you are going to have to fight people, you won't be able to have pets who are afk all the time, its going to be more like Fountain I expect, and a lot less like the Drone Regions. The pets are going to have to learn how to fight. You will need some vicious poodles. People who don't guard their space well are also going to have big problems. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:17:00 - [2522] Originally by: Tippia Not if it's going to attract highsec dwellers, since it means they won't have the same infinite resources to pull ISK from. I.e. they'll get less ISK if they move out of highsec. I don't know nor I do care wheter it is supposed to attract high sec dwellers. People are ratting in 0.0 regardless of L4 and those people will like those changes. That's good. Originally by: Tippia I'm already in a dictor. As for a reimbursement scheme, it doesn't particularly matter: if they're getting their PvP ships replaced, then their personal ship loss will be the same as in highsecà except for the PvE ships lost to reds; You losing ships while ratting? lulz Originally by: Pointfive All those empire dwellers who have never set foot in nullsec will be dyinggggg to come out to run these anomalies. Just have to find some space, not get killed by your neighbors, pay your large monthly bill, wait months for your system to be fully upgrades, and then hooray they can go back to making the same isk for hour they made safely in empire! Wow what a bargain that is. But oh wait, a cloaker has come to the system, isk drops, a local pvp gang comes to system, isk drops, the system starts getting crowded, isk drops, you also spend most of your time scanning and warping back to new anomalies slowing it down a bit, and oops you have 10 people in system and you guys keep warping to anomaly that someone is already at. All that work and ships going boom to end up paying money to be worse off than you were. Same as above: Originally by: Kepakh I don't know nor I do care wheter it is supposed to attract high sec dwellers. People are ratting in 0.0 regardless of L4 and those people will like those changes. That's good.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:20:00 - [2523] Edited by: Qlanth on 09/11/2009 18:21:10 Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 16:55:04 You are comparing and mixing numerous things together. 1) As I hinted out, if you do the same thing in high sec and then you do it in 0.0, you get better rewards in 0.0. This works fine. 2) Availability of 0.0 PVE resources is unrelated. In a matter of fact, 0.0 is more rewarding for the same activity. The issue is that you compare L4 to ratting which might be closest in procedure but completely different in mechanics. I understand very well what you and all posters demanding the answer are asking but that does not make the question less stupid. If you want an answer, ask properly. Why is risk vs reward a myth. People ask for dangerous space yielding more rewards basing on simple fact that it is more dangerous. This logic as well as motivation is invalid. I am in a system with cyno jammer and bubbled gates are perma camped by 200+ man blobs. I undock and warp to first belt. Should rats have higher bounties there just because I am in 0.0? Where is the risk? None, nada. *The only reason why you should get ever more rewarded is because of team work.* Your alliance making an effort to claim a space, run a cyno jammer and perma camp gates. This is the only reason you ever get rewarded in compulsory PVP areas - not because of risk, but because of teamplay benefits. Rising rewards and transfering exact same activities you can do in high sec space will only turn 0.0 into high sec with no Concord. That's just pointless. 0.0 needs another layer of benefits for 0.0 citizens. Introduce more alliance/corp level income like moon mining, taxes bound to sovereignty and tons of new tools how distribute those resources. This is what will actualy make 0.0 interesting and diverse. You have obviously never been in 0.0 space or tried to make money there. Cyno Jammers are there not to protect the average person running around trying to make ISK to buy a ship. They are there to protect logistics (jumpbridges) or to protect R64 moons. No one uses a capital ship to disrupt mining, ratting, or exploring unless they are heinously rich. Also I have never been in a system with 200+ people that wasn't the focus of a war. My alliance on average has 500-600 people online (assuming there are no critical ops) and these people are spread over most of Delve and the rest of the galaxy doing whatever it is they do. The most people I have ever seen in a non-contested, non-empire system at once is probably in NOL- with 50-60 people in system, 45-50 of them docked and the rest moving in and out. No one puts 200 blues and bubbles every gate to protect ratters. In fact I can't remember the last time anyone bubbled an entire gate to protect themselves from the possibility of a roaming gang. It is not reasonable and ends up disrupting the average player more than a gang that may or may not be coming. No one perma camps a gate to protect ratters. The closest thing to a perma camp you will ever see is probably on the lowsec/0.0 border gates - but most roaming gangs don't start from lowsec. They start in other regions of 0.0 In a normal day in the system I normally base out of I see about 2 reds come through every hour. Most of these are just passing through but some of them are actually looking to kill some ratters. Of course you can't tell which is which so you need to stop what you are doing to get safe or else risk losing your ship but still preserving your ISK/hr Or I could just run missions in high sec and be completely safe making the exact same amount.
Verone Gallente Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:20:00 - [2524] Originally by: Mikal Drey ...dont get me wrong I like the upgrades and its a good step in the right direction... I'd like to point something out. Originally by: Mikal Drey ...dont get me wrong I like the upgrades and its a good step in the right direction... Originally by: Mikal Drey ...I like the upgrades and its a good step in the right direction... Originally by: Mikal Drey ...its a good step in the right direction... Originally by: Mikal Drey ...step in the right direction... Originally by: Mikal Drey ...step in the right direction... Originally by: Mikal Drey ...step... One of many. It's going to take a while, and the new system will adapt as time goes on, just like people will adapt to use it as it evolves. Something is big as this doesn't just happen overnight. If CCP **** it up and give too much free ISK away, they're going to shaft the economy. It just takes time is all, we Eve players are an unpredictable bunch and always find ways to do random things with the most basic of mechanics. \o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF 2008! \o/ >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<<
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:25:00 - [2525] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Tippia Not if it's going to attract highsec dwellers, since it means they won't have the same infinite resources to pull ISK from. I.e. they'll get less ISK if they move out of highsec. I don't know nor I do care wheter it is supposed to attract high sec dwellers. People are ratting in 0.0 regardless of L4 and those people will like those changes. That's good. Originally by: Tippia I'm already in a dictor. As for a reimbursement scheme, it doesn't particularly matter: if they're getting their PvP ships replaced, then their personal ship loss will be the same as in highsecà except for the PvE ships lost to reds; You losing ships while ratting? lulz Originally by: Pointfive All those empire dwellers who have never set foot in nullsec will be dyinggggg to come out to run these anomalies. Just have to find some space, not get killed by your neighbors, pay your large monthly bill, wait months for your system to be fully upgrades, and then hooray they can go back to making the same isk for hour they made safely in empire! Wow what a bargain that is. But oh wait, a cloaker has come to the system, isk drops, a local pvp gang comes to system, isk drops, the system starts getting crowded, isk drops, you also spend most of your time scanning and warping back to new anomalies slowing it down a bit, and oops you have 10 people in system and you guys keep warping to anomaly that someone is already at. All that work and ships going boom to end up paying money to be worse off than you were. Same as above: Originally by: Kepakh I don't know nor I do care wheter it is supposed to attract high sec dwellers. People are ratting in 0.0 regardless of L4 and those people will like those changes. That's good. People are ratting in 0.0 despite of level 4 missions because they do not have multiple characters and if you are expected to be able to defend your space from hostiles you cannot be in Motsu running a storyline, you need to be ready in an instant. 0.0 is a terrible excuse for a "home" and the only reason people put up with it right now is the insane alliance-level profit from R64s that give tjhe ability for alliances to afford Titans/more Outposts to Sov4 R64 moons and the ability to PvP without penalty.
Static Kinetics Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:27:00 - [2526] seems to me the only ppl that dont have a problem with this change is npc corp lvl 4 carebears who dont go to 0.0 now, and wont go to 0.0 with the new changes, but dont see that as a problem cuz they loves their lvl 4's. their arguments make it pretty obvious they have never been to 0.0 and dont know **. "oh but but you can make so much on 0.0 lvl 4's sov space is littered with lvl 4 agents, and the mining is fantastic" 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.**
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:29:00 - [2527] Edited by: Pointfive on 09/11/2009 18:31:17 Edited by: Pointfive on 09/11/2009 18:29:49 Originally by: Kepakh I don't know nor I do care wheter it is supposed to attract high sec dwellers. People are ratting in 0.0 regardless of L4 and those people will like those changes. That's good. I'm sure if your boss came and told you were getting a raise to the same income as the guy who sits next to you and works half as much as time as you do , you would be freaking ecstatic. Maybe you dont care if this attracts empire dwellers, but that was a goal of the patch. Maybe you dont care you make the same as l4's, im assuming because you run level 4's. Otherwise its awesome that you do not value your own time. Even if the anomalies made more than level 4's most of the time due to having actual competition for spawns and cosntantly having people wanting you dead, you will rarely see that much isk.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:30:00 - [2528] Edited by: Gnulpie on 09/11/2009 18:31:42 Originally by: Verone CCP is performing a MASSIVE change to game mechanics. The logic, and principle behind the change is outstanding. The principles behind the changes are indeed outstanding. Outstanding idiotic. Instead of a better sandbox where you can really develop your space on your own and free from limits we will have a totally artificial system that requires people to grind to 'unlock' the next 'level of upgrades'. Originally by: Verone And all the whining about having to fuel towers and babysit 1000 control towers to keep your space, or destroy 1000 hardened control towers to take someone's space is going to be gone. Who whined about that? Only the losers whinened because they didn't take the effort to do so. Goons didn't whine about taking (undefended) Delve. Atlas didn't whine about taking (undefended) Omist. Atlas didn't whine about kicking RA out. Ev0ke isn't whining about Cloud Ring. IT isn't whining. Please show me those whines from the pvp guys. With enough firepower a pos will pop anyway pretty fast. Besides that, if hardened towers would be the problem, maybe change the hardeners then? lol The guys who are doing the pvp didn't whine. Only some guys who cannot be arsed to get their ass up and do some stuff, they did whine. But guess what. It won't become easier for them! Quite the contrary. Because now they do not only need to fight all their enemies, they additionally need to pay for all the space they already have. Originally by: Verone 0.0 alliances have whined for years about having the Sovereignty system overhauled. CCP has the answer to it and the logic and ideas behind it are sound and well thought out. Oh yeah sure, that's why even 20 days before launch the major parts of the overhaul aren't finalized. That is indeed very sound. And well thought out? Yes, if you want a fixed theme park, then it is well thought out. Because nothing else is what CCP is implementing. They are throwing away the sandbox. And besides that, if things are so well thought out, then why is recieving CVA the finger then? Those guys are the role model for successful 0.0 management and the base idea for CCP for this expansion. Only to bad that they will be wiped from existance. Yeah, very sound indeed. It looks to me that CCP lost their direction and vision on a massive scale. TIME TO WAKE UP! POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes and and and But POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES!
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:31:00 - [2529] Originally by: Brunaburh One of the things that keeps confusing me about this thread is that everyone talks as if: (a) they need SOV in every system they use... and (b) they need to keep SOV in every system they have now. Well, probably what will happen is alliances will only claim sov in a few key systems, but prevent anyone from moving into the systems that they don't have sov in. I don't think this is something CCP should be encouraging -- it's going to lead to two maps, the "real territory map", the space that each alliance claims, and the "sov map", the space where the alliance actually has sov. The FLAGs should have no upkeep, only infrastructure hubs, since as far as I know there's no benefit from having a FLAG with no infrastructure hub.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:32:00 - [2530] Originally by: Uphill Gardner Why? Who in their right mind will haul freighter 40+ jumps into 0.0 few systems away from 200 dread fleet? Who would be even stupid enough to try and anchor that thing, and then pay billions for a promise of few anomalies in the system? Do you know how much it takes to make 40 jumps with freighter?? With gatecamps along the way? Yeah, I', betting those small alliances wanting their piece of 0.0 will have a blast! What? Why would I jump +40 jump in a freighter? How many systems do you need for jump bridge network to empire considering you live 50 jumps away? 5 or 6 top. Currently the alliance is holding sovereignty over all those 50 systems leading to high sec. You can drop 45 systems just to keep JB network and establish mining arrays in the surrounding systems. No sovereignty is needed for that. This make you ISK your alliance need. Then you let corps to claim other systems to get a grip on space upgrades or claim and develope some other systems with startegical value. This is how Dominion will curently work.

Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:33:00 - [2531] 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
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:37:00 - [2532] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Tippia I'm already in a dictor. As for a reimbursement scheme, it doesn't particularly matter: if they're getting their PvP ships replaced, then their personal ship loss will be the same as in highsecà except for the PvE ships lost to reds; You losing ships while ratting? lulz I take it you've never been to 0.0? Here's a hint: there are people trying to kill you out here. Some of them even know how to run a half-competent gate camp.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:40:00 - [2533] It still seems like people do not understand basic things: Almost every major 0.0 alliance not only supports but has been pushing for changes to make cyno-jammers less desirable and more expensive. Our CSM representatives are the ones who suggested it, we are the ones who supported it. Almost every 0.0 alliance also supports the idea of scaling back the amount of space they hold. If you think that Atlas alliance holds 7 regions of space because they want to and not because they HAVE TO to support their players you are wrong. The logistics involved in fueling 7 regions of systems and keeping a jump bridge network online is intense. I'm 100% sure that all of ATLAS would gladly shed those regions GIVEN THAT THEY CAN SUPPORT THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE. These changes make it very difficult to afford a huge number of regions (good) but give a TERRIBLE alternative for those people to support themselves in consolidated space. Adding two Cosmic Anomalies will support 0 new players because no one runs them in the first place. They are terrible. Fix Cosmic Anomalies, make it 5 guaranteed in every system with the upgrade and you will be on the right track for making this balance out.
Bill'Husker'Adama	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:40:00 - [2534] Originally by: Kalisti If EVE wants alliances to maintain infrastructure in nullsec, let's take that sandbox all the way and fix nullsec once and for all. They say that the upkeep costs are to maintain the jump gates? Let's get rid of nullsec NPC jump gates entirely and replace it with an entirely player-driven mechanic. Nullsec PvP'ers don't want to farm for income? Let's get a realistic passive income option into play for nullsec alliances. CCP is unhappy with the dominance of point-source moon mining driving all nullsec strategy into identical cookie-cutter behaviors? Let's broaden the spectrum of income options WITHOUT forcing nullsec pilots to farm, let alone to farm at a rate that doesn't even match empire farm income. Add an entirely new passive income mechanic; planetary taxation and growth. Let's turn alliances into real empires within the scope of the game. Despite the fact that the much-vaunted player driven economy is an important part of EVE, the reality is that the economy in question is the CAPSULEER economy; the economy of ships and modules. We know that in reality, the capsuleer is an elite of EVE society, and the average empire's income comes from the everyday taxation of normal citizens living on all those pretty light-filled planets we never get to visit. So let's take that realistic approach and apply it to nullsec. Alliance control of nullsec should not be just about point source resources being exploited and shipped back to empire. As long as that is the case, only a select few are ever going to choose to (or even be able to) live exclusively in nullsec. Let's add in planetary economies and NPC expansion into nullsec space, based on how player alliances manage their nullsec regions and how attractive and safe they make it for settlement. In short, turn alliances into empires and nullsec capsuleers into their militaries. The goal of an alliance should be to beef up their controlled territories to the point that they LOOK LIKE empire space. They should be required to BUILD the jump gates and establish safe trade routes, after first securing the region with their jump-capable fleets. Then prepare the planets for colonization, so that they can be filled with NPC populations and economies, whose tax base makes up the majority income source for the alliance. Who in turn build NPC stations filled with high quality agents for alliance players to use (and, oh yeah, let the alliance tax the agent rewards). The primary difference is that it is still nullsec; anyone can come in and blow up anyone else, but instead of getting CONCORDed, it is now the job of the alliance military (i.e. pvp players) to decide how to respond. Security is poor? People (real and NPC) will move out, your tax base shrinks, your alliance is unhappy. The final necessary mechanic is that taking over an alliance's territory should not be about blowing everything up and replacing it with your own stuff. It should be about capturing valuable economic assets; planets that alliances have invested in to increase the tax base should switch hands, not be wiped out to reset at 0. Jump gates, NPC stations, planetary populations, should be valuable strategic assets that an invading alliance will think very hard about blowing up, because replacing it may take them months of effort and billions of ISK. Rather than regions of nullsec space being more or less valuable as an intrinsic property, nullsec space should ALL START EQUAL, and the primary value should come from the investments made by alliances in creating jump gates, establishing trade routes, and promoting planetary economies. That is how you will get people to move to 0.0 space, and produce compelling pvp at every scale. Let alliances become empires. Frankly, anything short of this will never accomplish the goal of moving people into 0.0 space. It will always be populated by those devoted to 0.0 pvp for the sake of 0.0 pvp, and they will simply work around whatever broken mechanics CCP continues to introduce. This. I see a lot of complaining, however a lot of people seem to not realize that dominion is only the first step in revamping 0.0. CCP have stated that the above post is where they want to eventually take 0.0. It will take time, trial and error. Be patient, quit complaining and offer constructive ideas. You all want to see the game improved. Give the devs a chance to do it.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:41:00 - [2535] YES OR NO: Ham sandwich or tuna salad. Still waiting. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:41:00 - [2536] Originally by: Qlanth You have obviously never been in 0.0 space or tried to make money there. Cyno Jammers are there not to protect the average person running around trying to make ISK to buy a ship. They are there to protect logistics (jumpbridges) or to protect R64 moons. No one uses a capital ship to disrupt mining, ratting, or exploring unless they are heinously rich. Also I have never been in a system with 200+ people that wasn't the focus of a war. My alliance on average has 500-600 people online (assuming there are no critical ops) and these people are spread over most of Delve and the rest of the galaxy doing whatever it is they do. The most people I have ever seen in a non-contested, non-empire system at once is probably in NOL- with 50-60 people in system, 45-50 of them docked and the rest moving in and out. No one puts 200 blues and bubbles every gate to protect ratters. In fact I can't remember the last time anyone bubbled an entire gate to protect themselves from the possibility of a roaming gang. It is not reasonable and ends up disrupting the average player more than a gang that may or may not be coming. No one perma camps a gate to protect ratters. The closest thing to a perma camp you will ever see is probably on the lowsec/0.0 border gates - but most roaming gangs don't start from lowsec. They start in other regions of 0.0 In a normal day in the system I normally base out of I see about 2 reds come through every hour. Most of these are just passing through but some of them are actually looking to kill some ratters. Of course you can't tell which is which so you need to stop what you are doing to get safe or else risk losing your ship but still preserving your ISK/hr Or I could just run missions in high sec and be completely safe making the exact same amount. Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Alekanderu how can you post something this stupendously moronic and expect anyone to take anything you say even remotely seriously? Because I am expecting someone else but Goons read this thread, someone being able to understand that exaggareted example serves for better demonstration of principles behind it. You can read the comparison with shuttle couple posts above if that is more understandable for you. Originally by: Qlanth People are ratting in 0.0 despite of level 4 missions because they do not have multiple characters and if you are expected to be able to defend your space from hostiles you cannot be in Motsu running a storyline, you need to be ready in an instant. 0.0 is a terrible excuse for a "home" and the only reason people put up with it right now is the insane alliance-level profit from R64s that give tjhe ability for alliances to afford Titans/more Outposts to Sov4 R64 moons and the ability to PvP without penalty. Ok, so you want L4 income + moon profits. I think you need to be way more reasonable in your wantings... Originally by: Pointfive I'm sure if your boss came and told you were getting a raise to the same income as the guy who sits next to you and works half as much as time as you do , you would be freaking ecstatic. Maybe you dont care if this attracts empire dwellers, but that was a goal of the patch. Maybe you dont care you make the same as l4's, im assuming because you run level 4's. Otherwise its awesome that you do not value your own time. Even if the anomalies made more than level 4's most of the time due to having actual competition for spawns and cosntantly having people wanting you dead, you will rarely see that much isk. Read my other posts, I explained why 0.0 ratting shouldn't be equal not even being compared to L4.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:43:00 - [2537] The problem with "this is only the first step!" is that if you take the first step in a weak, half-assed, almost "pre-nerfed" way then you will see a lot of people get fed up and leave before they can take the second step. CCP has been really good lately about releasing things completely prenerfed and then wondering why everyone is completely underwhelmed by what they did (see: Black-Ops battleships, Tech 3 Cruisers) and then taking 6 months to un-nerf them.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:45:00 - [2538] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Tippia Not if it's going to attract highsec dwellers, since it means they won't have the same infinite resources to pull ISK from. I.e. they'll get less ISK if they move out of highsec. I don't know nor I do care wheter it is supposed to attract high sec dwellers. In other words, you don't care whether Dominion will achieves the stated goals of CCP. So why are you even in this thread if you don't care about the topic being discussed? Quote: People are ratting in 0.0 regardless of L4 and those people will like those changes. That's good. People ratting in 0.0 won't be affected by these changes. Not good. Quote: You losing ships while ratting? lulz The people Dominion was slated to bring out there will. Of course, since there's nothing in the patch to achieve this goal, they will stay in highsec. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:46:00 - [2539] Originally by: Itzena 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. Still waiting.... Still a bad question. Moon mining is more profitable than in high sec (of course) if you do it right. Ratting is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. Mining is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. WHing is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right.
Locii	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:48:00 - [2540] Originally by: Mikal Drey @Verone flag+hub purely to anchor a pos :/ thats an epic joke. you are shi**ing me on this arnt you? i need to take a freighter into a system to get sov just so i can anchour a pos to live in what is effectivly a empty useless system?

Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:48:00 - [2541] Originally by: Honest Smedley Moon mining is more profitable than in high sec (of course) if you do it right. Ratting is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. Mining is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. WHing is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. And missioning in Irjunen is more profitable than all of those if you're doing it right. Well done for trying to misrepresent the current risk/reward paradigm.
Elassus Herron Caldari Construction Cabal Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:49:00 - [2542] Originally by: Verone It's going to take a while, and the new system will adapt as time goes on, just like people will adapt to use it as it evolves. Verone, I agree with you: this is a massive change to the game mechanic, and it would be stupid to try to change it so much all at once. If I understand CCP correctly - and they haven't made it easy - they are focusing on building the system first, so that they can tweak the numbers later. Fine. But the current upgrades suck so hard, and the current fees are so murderous, that CCP risks killing exactly the kind of gameplay they're trying to cultivate. Nobody is going to invest months of time, defense, ships, etc., spend billions on infrastructure, and on and on: just so they can have one system that can provide 10-15 people with the equivalent income that L4s could have been making them from the first day. When I first heard about the upgrades, I was honestly excited. Finally! The crappy truesec where I live could maybe be turned into something more lucrative. So far, nothing I've read from CCP suggests that my time wouldn't be better spent going back to Motsu. (and btw, crashing mineral prices would be fine, if it meant I could build myself many more nice ships in exchange for the time I spent mining). As Niamota Olin says: what we in 0.0 would really like would be something that fuels our pvp habits much more effectively, makes the politics more interesting, the encounters more dynamic, etc.. That was a stated goal of this patch. Nothing I've heard suggests that this patch won't do exactly the opposite. I would consider it an ideal situation if I never had to go to hisec, for anything, ever, and could feed all the pvp I could ever want (and buy all my shineys, and whatever else I wanted) from my home system(s). I also haven't seen anything explaining how CCP is going to avoid XYZ-Alliance claiming sov in only the half-dozen constellations where they do their cap construction, and then dropping cans by every gate across three regions warning off intruders. Great. Now they own all that space without having to claim it! Well done! Sure hope you guys at HQ have been spending today in meetings trying to figure out how to fix this, and not just ignoring us. EH
Jessibel Kwao	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:51:00 - [2543] Let's see... Over 80 pages with all the big fat space-holding and moon-mining entities, which are rpelacing capital ships like they were frigates are starting a threadnought and are whining that they have to work for their wealth after Dominion hits TQ. Yes, I like it... keep it coming CCP
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:51:00 - [2544] Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 18:52:11 CCP stated that pure military alliance will be haveing trouble keeping space , i am sure you all goonies missed that part.
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:52:00 - [2545] Originally by: zelalot Originally by: Lord Helghast 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 CCP predicts more alliances will be set up under a banner name. Alliance a Alliance b Alliance c and that way they will only ever pay a small fee for the systems. You also missed the rest of that conversation/thread. They didn't seem concerned about it because entities like that would lose cohesion between each other in the long run.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:52:00 - [2546] relating to the pos fueling thing.... Most pos's will likely stay up anyway. They said all along that part of dominion was to be more dynamic and stop the slow pos grind.... So they bring in 12 hour timed attacks/defences and require you to take down at least one structure that is basically an uber POS... erm how exactly is that getting away from a pos grind.. so its faster... great so with the new systems we pay for and upgrade with more isk etc, we can loose it quicker too, fabulous change.... but still basically a pos grind disguised as a kids capture the flag game.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:52:00 - [2547] Originally by: Qlanth The problem with "this is only the first step!" is that if you take the first step in a weak, half-assed, almost "pre-nerfed" way then you will see a lot of people get fed up and leave before they can take the second step. CCP has been really good lately about releasing things completely prenerfed and then wondering why everyone is completely underwhelmed by what they did (see: Black-Ops battleships, Tech 3 Cruisers) and then taking 6 months to un-nerf them. Verone has a good argument for CCP pre-nerfing this, and its likely isk sources will get turned up once its known how to do it in the right way. You should probably read his post, its very good and makes a lot of sense. CCP is taking a very bold step here, and it is risky in many ways, but it has to be done because 0.0 is currently extremely broken along the lines of current Sov, cap ships, naps and moons. This patch is INTENDED to force you to drop Sov. That is the goal. This was pointed out from the start. Confronted with the reality of that you are freaking out and crying. Everyone has known this for months. Stop whining so much. There will be chaos, anarchy and dislocation. This means war, this means profit. I am for it. So I have one question for you punk: Can I have your stuff? never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:54:00 - [2548] Edited by: Qlanth on 09/11/2009 18:55:47 Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Alekanderu how can you post something this stupendously moronic and expect anyone to take anything you say even remotely seriously? Because I am expecting someone else but Goons read this thread, someone being able to understand that exaggareted example serves for better demonstration of principles behind it. You can read the comparison with shuttle couple posts above if that is more understandable for you. Originally by: Qlanth People are ratting in 0.0 despite of level 4 missions because they do not have multiple characters and if you are expected to be able to defend your space from hostiles you cannot be in Motsu running a storyline, you need to be ready in an instant. 0.0 is a terrible excuse for a "home" and the only reason people put up with it right now is the insane alliance-level profit from R64s that give tjhe ability for alliances to afford Titans/more Outposts to Sov4 R64 moons and the ability to PvP without penalty. Ok, so you want L4 income + moon profits. I think you need to be way more reasonable in your wantings... Originally by: Pointfive I'm sure if your boss came and told you were getting a raise to the same income as the guy who sits next to you and works half as much as time as you do , you would be freaking ecstatic. Maybe you dont care if this attracts empire dwellers, but that was a goal of the patch. Maybe you dont care you make the same as l4's, im assuming because you run level 4's. Otherwise its awesome that you do not value your own time. Even if the anomalies made more than level 4's most of the time due to having actual competition for spawns and cosntantly having people wanting you dead, you will rarely see that much isk. Read my other posts, I explained why 0.0 ratting shouldn't be equal not even being compared to L4. Once again you are doing a great job letting everyone know you have never been to 0.0 space. No average player is going to have a goddamn R64 moon towered up raking in profits for themselves. An average player in my alliance won't have any moon above an R16. The alliance mines those moons and uses profits to pay for fuel for holding the rest of the space we require to support a 6,000 man alliance, or super-capitals to help defend it. My alliance, or most alliances, does not hand out free ships to people to fly. If you want a ship to fly you make ISK for it. You buy your ship and defend our space or try to take other peoples space. If you have the skills and fit your ship to an alliance standard you can be eligible for reimbursement for your losses paid for by moon income. This makes it so after insurance costs you will only lose 20-30 million ISK instead of losing 40-50 million ISK. You are completely out of touch if you think that an average 0.0 alliance member sees R64 profits beyond "here we will help cushion your losses you suffered while defending these moons."
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:54:00 - [2549] Edited by: Kepakh on 09/11/2009 18:54:13 Originally by: Qlanth The problem with "this is only the first step!" is that if you take the first step in a weak, half-assed, almost "pre-nerfed" way then you will see a lot of people get fed up and leave before they can take the second step. CCP has been really good lately about releasing things completely prenerfed and then wondering why everyone is completely underwhelmed by what they did (see: Black-Ops battleships, Tech 3 Cruisers) and then taking 6 months to un-nerf them. As I said earlier: Originally by: Kepakh And that's the whole point here. To understand wheter the system is working as intended you need a developed concept first. Something CCP has got not because they do things on the fly. Considering the goals highlighted in dev blogs, Dominion is complete fail because they won't be achieved but you have to keep in mind that CCP often speaks in 'one day' time frame. Wheter the changes are good or bad, working as intened or doing the contrary I can't say. As it is now, they mean only little change for current state of things and more will be depending on what changes will follow. The system as it is currently designed is very flexible. You can turn 0.0 into grindfest as easily as you can make it more rewarding then current R64 moon mining. What is the CCP intention I don't really know and we will have to wait for more dev blogs and until more stuff is released on test server. Originally by: Tippia In other words, you don't care whether Dominion will achieves the stated goals of CCP. So why are you even in this thread if you don't care about the topic being discussed? I am discussing how EVE will be changed by Dominion. Originally by: Tippia People ratting in 0.0 won't be affected by these changes. Not good. Only people in player controlled are a subject of changes. Originally by: Tippia The people Dominion was slated to bring out there will. Of course, since there's nothing in the patch to achieve this goal, they will stay in highsec. Correct.
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:54:00 - [2550] Edited by: teji on 09/11/2009 18:56:05 Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 18:52:11 CCP stated that pure military alliance will be haveing trouble keeping space , i am sure you all goonies missed that part. Goonies aren't even close to a pure military alliance. I'm sure you missed that part. Or you might have missed the part where the current costs make it unprofitable for any type of alliance to hold many systems in 0.0.

Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:55:00 - [2551] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Also, because it's not Sunday night any more, it's time to start spamming the question again: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M? It is indeed increased risk to move around 0.0 as well as logistical challenge. Guy in Motsu: "Oh crap, I'm out of ammo. /me buys a million rounds off market" Guy in AB-CDE: "Oh crap, I'm out of ammo. /me flies 8j to the nearest station with any on market" Guy in Motsu: "Well, that's enough loot to be worth selling. /me flies 6j to Jita and sells it all in half an hour...Nice, I can afford a Nightmare!" Guy in AB-CDE: "Well, that's enough loot to be worth selling...oh wait, I just got ganked flying through 17j of nullsec to deliver all my money to market. This is a nightmare." I don't claim that living in 0.0 is like the labours of Hercules, but even the most cursory glance at how you have to live out there will tell you that the logistics effort is considerable, even for someone who isn't tasked with keeping the POS infrastructure up and running. Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Also, because it's not Sunday night any more, it's time to start spamming the question again: YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. Yes, but that must include the corp level reward (i.e. the moon goo) after you have removed the operative costs. That's not true at all. If we say that 0.0 is allowed to be bad for individuals because the group income is good, then you're making it such that the optimal strategy is to hold moons in 0.0 and spend all your time in highsec missioning. That's stupid. 0.0 needs to be better on the individual level, not just the alliance level. I agree that moons need to get bludgeoned half to death with a nerfbat, but even if they stay at their current income level, 0.0 still needs to be better for individuals trying to earn cash than anywhere in highsec. Originally by: Verone The fact of the matter is, giving too much reward too soon would give the game's economy a massive heart attack. Of course CCP are going to implement it with pre-nerfed rewards. Its going to be monitored, tweaked, worked on, fiddled with and monitored some more before they're happy with it. Something this big as a change in game isn't going to be complete overnight, its part of the core of the game. I get what you're saying, and I don't even completely disagree, but the problem is that we've seen this kind of thing from CCP before. They never go back and fix it half as quickly as they should, and we're left with a whole bunch of really cool, totally unusable content for years. Bombs came in in Rev 2, summer '07, and didn't see use until after Apocrypha because CCP pre-nerfed them and didn't give them a serious fix for two years. Black ops, Trinity, late 07, the ones CCP explicitly stated that they pre-nerfed intentionally, still not usable for very much above the level of comedy ops. And let's not forget such CCP success stories as combat boosters, epic arcs, COSMOS, or the current awful sovereignty mechanics that it took them five years to fix. I have very little faith in CCP's ability to see and fix their errors in a short period of time if it's not done in advance of the first implementation. Right now, they're replacing a broken system with another broken system, and the fixes are vague wishlists as far as I can tell. You'll forgive me if I'm not optimistic. And of course, 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.
Alekanderu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:56:00 - [2552] Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Itzena 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. Still waiting.... Still a bad question. Moon mining is more profitable than in high sec (of course) if you do it right. Ratting is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. Mining is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. WHing is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. are you aware of these facts: 1) most 0.0 systems have really poor truesec and/or amount of belts, which makes ratting there substantially less profitable than, for example, running missions in highsec 2) ratting in a good truesec system with plenty of belts and no competition will net your more isk/hour than mission running, but this applies to literally like 5% of all 0.0 at MOST, and it quickly becomes unprofitable even there as soon as enough people do it 3) mining in 0.0 is completely worthless unless you run 10 macroed accounts 4) missions, unlike ratting, is an infinite resource without competition, whereas ratting is a highly limited resource that quickly becomes unprofitable with increased competition because it doesn't seem like you are!
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:58:00 - [2553] Edited by: Nobani on 09/11/2009 19:01:00 Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 18:52:11 CCP stated that pure military alliance will be haveing trouble keeping space , i am sure you all goonies missed that part. Post under your main please. So YES or NO: 0.0 space should be more profitable (in isk/h) than Empire due to the logistics, risk, and cost of maintaining sov?
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:59:00 - [2554] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Niamota Olin I've been down in 0.0 for nearly a year, I cant stand ratting or mining there boring as hell. If I have a bad month I go to empire for my isk as its low risk. I think CCP believe that we enjoy having to farm isk or something to pvp.... No wonder you found it boring, it seems you didn't do any exploration. Hey, did you know dominion will be a huge exploration boost? Lol, no it won't. Unless you call exploration: >> Jumping into upgraded system. >> Drop a Deep Space Probe >> Run scan >> Find anom! A whole 10 seconds of exploration!
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:59:00 - [2555] Originally by: Honest Smedley Moon mining is more profitable than in high sec (of course) if you do it right. Moon mining won't affect the individuals Dominion was slated to bring out into 0.0. Quote: Ratting is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. Ratting won't affect the individuals Dominion was slated to bring out into 0.0 and remains untouched in the patch. Quote: Mining is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. Mining isn't profitable in 0.0 to begin with, and will be even less so with Dominion. Quote: WHing is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. WHing won't affect the individuals Dominion was slated to bring out into 0.0. There is nothing in Dominion that effects the goal of bringing people into 0.0. Without this influx, the goal of alliance compression won't be met. Without the compression, there won't be room for more alliances out there, even among those who wants to get into the game regardless of the Dominion changes. That's why it's a good question: is it CCPs intent not to provide any incentive to bring people out into nullsec, and thus fail to reach any of the stated goals of the sov revamp? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:02:00 - [2556] Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Honest Smedley Moon mining is more profitable than in high sec (of course) if you do it right. And missioning in Irjunen is more profitable than all of those if you're doing it right. Well done for trying to misrepresent the current risk/reward paradigm. Not so much, no. Those jump bridges networks and throw away cap fleets aren't materializing out of nowhere... and your alliance isn't funding them off the backs of people grinding out missions in Irjunen. If you aren't personally benefitting from the silly money your alliance is rolling in as much as you think you should, consider finding a new alliance. Did you think the titan conga line came out of an Irjunen-based LP store?
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:02:00 - [2557] Originally by: teji Edited by: teji on 09/11/2009 18:56:05 Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 18:52:11 CCP stated that pure military alliance will be haveing trouble keeping space , i am sure you all goonies missed that part. Goonies aren't even close to a pure military alliance. I'm sure you missed that part. Or you might have missed the part where the current costs make it unprofitable for any type of alliance to hold many systems in 0.0. Great i hope you leaving delve, when you finish packing your stuff i will be happy to move there.
Alekanderu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:03:00 - [2558] Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Honest Smedley Moon mining is more profitable than in high sec (of course) if you do it right. And missioning in Irjunen is more profitable than all of those if you're doing it right. Well done for trying to misrepresent the current risk/reward paradigm. Not so much, no. Those jump bridges networks and throw away cap fleets aren't materializing out of nowhere... and your alliance isn't funding them off the backs of people grinding out missions in Irjunen. If you aren't personally benefitting from the silly money your alliance is rolling in as much as you think you should, consider finding a new alliance. Did you think the titan conga line came out of an Irjunen-based LP store? moon mining =/= individual isk making, i don't know why people have such a hard time grasping this relatively simple concept
Elassus Herron Caldari Construction Cabal Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:05:00 - [2559] Originally by: Kalisti If EVE wants alliances to maintain infrastructure in nullsec, let's take that sandbox all the way and fix nullsec once and for all. ...stuff... Also, holy crap, this. I could see all sorts of ways this could be awesome. Consider: system scanners (on your upgraded sov tower) are now capable of scanning new solar systems beyond the current map. You send a scout ship - which just warps towards it, and maybe takes a week or two to get there - which lights a cyno on arrival. You drop a jump freighter in, plant the jumpgate, and online it. Boom, you have a new system. Name it whatever! Start planting POSs! Start planting a beacon for civilian transports to come colonize the planets (which you then tax). Start bringing in the Dust514 mercenaries to guard said planets. Start mining the ice fields, asteroids, and gas clouds to fuel the jumpgate you just built. Start anchoring gate guns to guard against the reds that now see this new system on the map, owned by you. Start exploring the system for the untouched resources that are now all yours. Such a system would make EVE truly dynamic. And I agree with Kalisti: there should be more ways to gain ISK from a system besides grinding stupid belt rats, so I have more time to pvp, and there are more ways to do it than besieging POSs all day. But Kalisti said it better. This would make 0.0 a lot more fun, and I really hope that's where we end up. EH
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:06:00 - [2560] Originally by: Alekanderu Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Honest Smedley Moon mining is more profitable than in high sec (of course) if you do it right. And missioning in Irjunen is more profitable than all of those if you're doing it right. Well done for trying to misrepresent the current risk/reward paradigm. Not so much, no. Those jump bridges networks and throw away cap fleets aren't materializing out of nowhere... and your alliance isn't funding them off the backs of people grinding out missions in Irjunen. If you aren't personally benefitting from the silly money your alliance is rolling in as much as you think you should, consider finding a new alliance. Did you think the titan conga line came out of an Irjunen-based LP store? moon mining =/= individual isk making, i don't know why people have such a hard time grasping this relatively simple concept It's because they have absolutely no grasp on the amount of ISK it takes to run a successful alliance. They think there is an R64 in every system and we are raking in trillions of ISK a day while our space costs nothing to uphold.

Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:07:00 - [2561] Originally by: Alekanderu moon mining =/= individual isk making, i don't know why people have such a hard time grasping this relatively simple concept Because they're mouth-breathing, semi-literate, uninformed and clueless, and can't resist entering into debate with the classic unbiased apolitical no-hidden-agenda-honest "lol goonie tears" tactic.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:09:00 - [2562] Moon mining profits should be going down next patch. Infrastructure costs will be going up. The moon money that some of you people are going insane about, very little of that helps the individual. People aren't getting their pve ships reimbursed by them thats for sure. 0.0 profits not going up, 0.0 costs to maintain increasing, how is that making nullsec worth it at all. Not a single person here that wants nullsec income to remain the same has posted what they do right now to gain income and how much they make, or done so with their main. The only ones that have have admitted to running level 4s.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:09:00 - [2563] Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Alekanderu moon mining =/= individual isk making, i don't know why people have such a hard time grasping this relatively simple concept Because they're mouth-breathing, semi-literate, uninformed and clueless, and can't resist entering into debate with the classic unbiased apolitical no-hidden-agenda-honest "lol goonie tears" tactic. Unbiased lol Goons are the most worthless, least able, worst complainers- this whole thread reads like WAHHHHHHHHHH and he calls them "unbiased" lol
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:11:00 - [2564] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: teji Edited by: teji on 09/11/2009 18:56:05 Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 18:52:11 CCP stated that pure military alliance will be haveing trouble keeping space , i am sure you all goonies missed that part. Goonies aren't even close to a pure military alliance. I'm sure you missed that part. Or you might have missed the part where the current costs make it unprofitable for any type of alliance to hold many systems in 0.0. Great i hope you leaving delve, when you finish packing your stuff i will be happy to move there. Once again I will say that as an alliance GoonSwarm has been preparing for R64 nerf, an increase to the cost of maintaining space, and an increase to the cost of infrastructure (jump brides, cyno jammers). I won't speak for other alliances but I am sure they have been doing the exact same thing. If there is a single alliance, however, that has nothing to fear after this patch it is GoonSwarm. Smaller alliances or alliances deep in 0.0 without direct access to empire (those that rely heavily on jumpbridge networks to keep their logistics chain intact) are the ones who have to most to lose from this patch. The carrot at the end of the stick was supposed to be the ability for average alliance members to be able to support themselves on an individual level while also maintaining their own space for upgrades. CCP has given us the stick, but there was no carrot.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:12:00 - [2565] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 CCP stated that pure military alliance will be haveing trouble keeping space Currently there are exactly zero pure military alliances holding space in 0.0 All of the currently alliances have an industry backbone to some degree. ALL the large alliances have an extended and pretty large industry backbone. The pure military alliances do not hold space but live in 0.0 npc space or in low sec and start their roamings from that space. So they are not affected from sov changes at all. They couldn't care less about paying upkeeps.
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:13:00 - [2566] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: NxN Yeah, this is really bad. It shifts the whole thing entirely. I WANT TO HOLD THE SYSTEM BECAUSE I CAN DEFEND IT!!! Not because I can pay damn bills... Really get a grip CCP. You don't have to hold sovereignty over all space you want to control. Defending it will be quite a challenge actually. Big alliances will continue to control the space they deem necessary to hold. You're delusional to think that no-sov systems in a region will make that region easier to take but then again, I've been reading your posts for the last few payges.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:13:00 - [2567] Originally by: Future Mutant Unbiased lol Goons are the most worthless, least able, worst complainers- this whole thread reads like WAHHHHHHHHHH and he calls them "unbiased" lol You haven't read this thread. This thread where on multiple occasions people state that the current proposals won't bring anyone new into 0.0, and that we're in an excellent position anyway, and that we're looking forward to many more factions, powerblocs and organisations moving to 0.0 to we can have even more politics. Semi-literate much?
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:13:00 - [2568] Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Honest Smedley Moon mining is more profitable than in high sec (of course) if you do it right. And missioning in Irjunen is more profitable than all of those if you're doing it right. Well done for trying to misrepresent the current risk/reward paradigm. Not so much, no. Those jump bridges networks and throw away cap fleets aren't materializing out of nowhere... and your alliance isn't funding them off the backs of people grinding out missions in Irjunen. If you aren't personally benefitting from the silly money your alliance is rolling in as much as you think you should, consider finding a new alliance. Did you think the titan conga line came out of an Irjunen-based LP store? Someone update this if there's stuff I missed Empire mission running Income Mission rewards Scavenging Taxes (in Dominion) Recurring costs Ammo 0.0 ratting Income Bounties Scavenging Reimbursement programs Recurring cost Ammo Importing/Exporting Piracy losses Fleet losses Corp dues
Alekanderu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:14:00 - [2569] Edited by: Alekanderu on 09/11/2009 19:14:29 Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Hertford Originally by: Alekanderu moon mining =/= individual isk making, i don't know why people have such a hard time grasping this relatively simple concept Because they're mouth-breathing, semi-literate, uninformed and clueless, and can't resist entering into debate with the classic unbiased apolitical no-hidden-agenda-honest "lol goonie tears" tactic. Unbiased lol Goons are the most worthless, least able, worst complainers- this whole thread reads like WAHHHHHHHHHH and he calls them "unbiased" lol our worst enemies in-game are posting in this very thread agreeing with us 100% this has nothing to do with what alliance you belong to, and everything to do with living in 0.0 also like everyone else has pointed out, this affects large alliances like us the least
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:14:00 - [2570] Originally by: Kepakh Ok, so you want L4 income + moon profits. I think you need to be way more reasonable in your wantings... Actually, I want income significantly above what L4s offer, as well as moon profits(albeit significantly reduced moon profits). It's 0.0, it's supposed to be profitable, to make it worth dealing with all the crap. Originally by: Honest Smedley Moon mining is more profitable than in high sec (of course) if you do it right. Of course. But then, corps have no infrastructure costs - like, literally zero - in highsec. In nullsec, it's measured in tens of billions, for small alliances. Big alliances will own the better part of a trillion worth of outposts, and probably another trillion worth of POSes. You need corp-level and alliance-level income far more in 0.0 than you do in highsec. Originally by: Honest Smedley Ratting is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. Ratting in highsec is a tolerable way for a week-old newbie to earn some isk. Ratting in nullsec is supposed to be the way that five year old players earn the bulk of their money for capital/faction/T2 ships. They're not comparable. Compare ratting to L4 missions, the highsec content that's actually equivalent. Originally by: Honest Smedley Mining is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. If you're mining, you're not doing it right. Also, are you factoring into your profits the cost of a Minmatar outpost? I hear they're a tad on the expensive side. Originally by: Honest Smedley WHing is more profitable in 0.0 than in high sec if you're doing it right. True, but this is a lot like the true part of ratting. Highsec WHs are designed for one guy in a Drake. Nullsec WHs are designed for a dozen guys in well-coordinated balls of logistics ships and BSes. Of course, there is no comparable highsec content for a group like that(more's the pity), but still, you can't really compare them straight across. Originally by: Jessibel Kwao Let's see... Over 80 pages with all the big fat space-holding and moon-mining entities, which are rpelacing capital ships like they were frigates are starting a threadnought and are whining that they have to work for their wealth after Dominion hits TQ. Yes, I like it... keep it coming CCP Turn off the jealousy and schadenfreude for a minute and actually look at the issues at hand. 0.0 people agree that the status quo is idiotic, they just want a fix to it that's actually good. This isn't a zero sum game, where 0.0 getting worse implies that you'll be better off. A bad change is a bad change, whether it hurts you directly or not. Stop cheerleading for it just because it hurts people you don't like.

Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:14:00 - [2571] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Guy in Motsu: "Oh crap, I'm out of ammo. /me buys a million rounds off market" Guy in AB-CDE: "Oh crap, I'm out of ammo. /me flies 8j to the nearest station with any on market" Guy in Motsu: "Well, that's enough loot to be worth selling. /me flies 6j to Jita and sells it all in half an hour...Nice, I can afford a Nightmare!" Guy in AB-CDE: "Well, that's enough loot to be worth selling...oh wait, I just got ganked flying through 17j of nullsec to deliver all my money to market. This is a nightmare." I don't claim that living in 0.0 is like the labours of Hercules, but even the most cursory glance at how you have to live out there will tell you that the logistics effort is considerable, even for someone who isn't tasked with keeping the POS infrastructure up and running. You nicely elaborated what I said but avoided the question. Is it justifying ie. higher rat bounties? I say big NO. 0.0 is group content therefore you should benefit from being in a group. More alliance/corp income, more tools how to distribute them = lower personal profit, high benefits of claimed space. Transfering high sec mechanics into 0.0 will just turn the space into High sec mk2. Originally by: Qlanth Once again you are doing a great job letting everyone know you have never been to 0.0 space. No average player is going to have a goddamn R64 moon towered up raking in profits for themselves. An average player in my alliance won't have any moon above an R16. The alliance mines those moons and uses profits to pay for fuel for holding space the rest of the space we require to support a 6,000 man alliance, or super-capitals to help defend it. Whats the point discussing with you when you don't read/understand post you are replying to? Originally by: Qlanth My alliance, or most alliances, does not hand out free ships to people to fly. Dude, face it. Your alliance sucks.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:17:00 - [2572] Originally by: Kepakh Dude, face it. Your alliance sucks. That's about the only thing you've gotten right so far in your febrile inane ramblings.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:22:00 - [2573] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Guy in Motsu: "Oh crap, I'm out of ammo. /me buys a million rounds off market" Guy in AB-CDE: "Oh crap, I'm out of ammo. /me flies 8j to the nearest station with any on market" Guy in Motsu: "Well, that's enough loot to be worth selling. /me flies 6j to Jita and sells it all in half an hour...Nice, I can afford a Nightmare!" Guy in AB-CDE: "Well, that's enough loot to be worth selling...oh wait, I just got ganked flying through 17j of nullsec to deliver all my money to market. This is a nightmare." I don't claim that living in 0.0 is like the labours of Hercules, but even the most cursory glance at how you have to live out there will tell you that the logistics effort is considerable, even for someone who isn't tasked with keeping the POS infrastructure up and running. You nicely elaborated what I said but avoided the question. Is it justifying ie. higher rat bounties? I say big NO. 0.0 is group content therefore you should benefit from being in a group. More alliance/corp income, more tools how to distribute them = lower personal profit, high benefits of claimed space. Transfering high sec mechanics into 0.0 will just turn the space into High sec mk2. Originally by: Qlanth Once again you are doing a great job letting everyone know you have never been to 0.0 space. No average player is going to have a goddamn R64 moon towered up raking in profits for themselves. An average player in my alliance won't have any moon above an R16. The alliance mines those moons and uses profits to pay for fuel for holding space the rest of the space we require to support a 6,000 man alliance, or super-capitals to help defend it. Whats the point discussing with you when you don't read/understand post you are replying to? Originally by: Qlanth My alliance, or most alliances, does not hand out free ships to people to fly. Dude, face it. Your alliance sucks. I understand perfectly what I am replying to. You said "You want L4 Missions running profits + moon income. You want too much" I said "No average member of my alliance sees moon income beyond the level of cushioning losses for PvP done defending those moons, or acquiring more moons (this is essentially what all 0.0 warfare boils down to)." I do not want to see Level 4 mission running income. I want to see income better than that because I am risking more and expected to do more than a corp member in an empire corp that has 0 logistics infrastructure and 0 risk to account for. You are only showing that you know less and less about the issue by suggesting an average player is seeing alliance level R64 income.
Alekanderu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:24:00 - [2574] Originally by: Kepakh Transfering high sec mechanics into 0.0 will just turn the space into High sec mk2. what are you talking about "high sec mechanics" means concord, faction navies and stations that let everyone dock what you don't seem to grasp - either because you're utterly clueless or because you're being intentionally obtuse - is that for the vast majority of players, the vast majority of the time, making isk in 0.0 is not worth it compared to highsec mission running; this is what it all boils down to if you want more people to move into 0.0 then you need to create more incentive for people to do so under current mechanics, the only real advantage of conquerable 0.0 space is r64 moon mining and supercap production in invulnerable sov 4 systems; with the current suggested changes, moon mining will be less profitable and invulnerable supercap producing poses go away, while the other aspects of 0.0 remain unchanged, so that there is less incentive for anyone to want to move to 0.0; this is exacerbated by the fact that small alliances will find it much harder to survive and stay profitable in 0.0 compared to large ones
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:24:00 - [2575] Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 19:24:24 Originally by: Qlanth Once again I will say that as an alliance GoonSwarm has been preparing for R64 nerf, an increase to the cost of maintaining space, and an increase to the cost of infrastructure (jump brides, cyno jammers). I won't speak for other alliances but I am sure they have been doing the exact same thing. If there is a single alliance, however, that has nothing to fear after this patch it is GoonSwarm. Smaller alliances or alliances deep in 0.0 without direct access to empire (those that rely heavily on jumpbridge networks to keep their logistics chain intact) are the ones who have to most to lose from this patch. The carrot at the end of the stick was supposed to be the ability for average alliance members to be able to support themselves on an individual level while also maintaining their own space for upgrades. CCP has given us the stick, but there was no carrot. IF its not worth it then why are you staying there ????? Are you stupid ? Oh wait ...
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:25:00 - [2576] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Guy in Motsu: "Oh crap, I'm out of ammo. /me buys a million rounds off market" Guy in AB-CDE: "Oh crap, I'm out of ammo. /me flies 8j to the nearest station with any on market" Guy in Motsu: "Well, that's enough loot to be worth selling. /me flies 6j to Jita and sells it all in half an hour...Nice, I can afford a Nightmare!" Guy in AB-CDE: "Well, that's enough loot to be worth selling...oh wait, I just got ganked flying through 17j of nullsec to deliver all my money to market. This is a nightmare." I don't claim that living in 0.0 is like the labours of Hercules, but even the most cursory glance at how you have to live out there will tell you that the logistics effort is considerable, even for someone who isn't tasked with keeping the POS infrastructure up and running. You nicely elaborated what I said but avoided the question. Is it justifying ie. higher rat bounties? I say big NO. 0.0 is group content therefore you should benefit from being in a group. More alliance/corp income, more tools how to distribute them = lower personal profit, high benefits of claimed space. Transfering high sec mechanics into 0.0 will just turn the space into High sec mk2. I'll say this bluntly, though I'm sure you've already inferred my position on this from my previous posts. - Reward should be, at least broadly, proportional to risk, both in general and in the context of any given activity type available across risk categories. - 0.0 is riskier than highsec, by several orders of magnitude. - Thus, 0.0 should pay better than highsec in every meaningful way. Solo content, group content, corp-level income, the works. I don't care about the mechanism. If you want to do it by upping rat bounties, rat quality, rat quantity, rat droppings, officer spawn rates, or just by having magic isk fairies floating around on nullsec gates, that's cool with me. As long as it's fun, profitable, and scalable, I'm cool with anything. But it's absurd to say that moons justify 0.0 being crap for players - "hold the moons, mission in highsec" is awful gameplay and moronic design.
Uberfrau	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:26:00 - [2577] Originally by: Qlanth It still seems like people do not understand basic things: Almost every major 0.0 alliance not only supports but has been pushing for changes to make cyno-jammers less desirable and more expensive. Our CSM representatives are the ones who suggested it, we are the ones who supported it. Almost every 0.0 alliance also supports the idea of scaling back the amount of space they hold. If you think that Atlas alliance holds 7 regions of space because they want to and not because they HAVE TO to support their players you are wrong. The logistics involved in fueling 7 regions of systems and keeping a jump bridge network online is intense. I'm 100% sure that all of ATLAS would gladly shed those regions GIVEN THAT THEY CAN SUPPORT THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE. These changes make it very difficult to afford a huge number of regions (good) but give a TERRIBLE alternative for those people to support themselves in consolidated space. Adding two Cosmic Anomalies will support 0 new players because no one runs them in the first place. They are terrible. Fix Cosmic Anomalies, make it 5 guaranteed in every system with the upgrade and you will be on the right track for making this balance out. I'm in total agreement with this. Except we don't hold 7 regions, but.... Needing less space == good. Current implementation of that goal == not so good. Flaming, *****ed angry shtposting == pointless.
Mikal Drey Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:29:00 - [2578] Originally by: Locii Originally by: Mikal Drey @Verone flag+hub purely to anchor a pos :/ thats an epic joke. you are shiing me on this arnt you? i need to take a freighter into a system to get sov just so i can anchour a pos to live in what is effectivly a empty useless system? Drum roll . .. tada i ** you not. you cannot anchor a cynojammer, cyno beacon, jump bridge or build a supercap WITHOUT a flag+hub+sov for a set period. setup a pos yes, setup moon goo yes. do anything logistical - no. and thats pretty much what 90% of the complaints are about. its a MASSIVE bill for effectivly just setting up a jump bridge :/ @V your funny, short, and northern. remind me i owe you a johnny walker
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:31:00 - [2579] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 19:24:24 Originally by: Qlanth Once again I will say that as an alliance GoonSwarm has been preparing for R64 nerf, an increase to the cost of maintaining space, and an increase to the cost of infrastructure (jump brides, cyno jammers). I won't speak for other alliances but I am sure they have been doing the exact same thing. If there is a single alliance, however, that has nothing to fear after this patch it is GoonSwarm. Smaller alliances or alliances deep in 0.0 without direct access to empire (those that rely heavily on jumpbridge networks to keep their logistics chain intact) are the ones who have to most to lose from this patch. The carrot at the end of the stick was supposed to be the ability for average alliance members to be able to support themselves on an individual level while also maintaining their own space for upgrades. CCP has given us the stick, but there was no carrot. IF its not worth it then why are you staying there ????? Are you stupid ? Oh wait ... I stay in 0.0 because it means I can PvP without being penalized like in every other region of Eve. I enjoy large fights over R64 moons, I enjoy playing with a large group of people to obtain an objective (R64 Moons), and I enjoy the politics involved with these things. If this patch goes through as is I believe you will see most alliances consolidate their space, but not in the way CCP intended. Fights will take place over who has access to NPC sov 0.0 and the best agents. Stain will become the richest most contested region in the Eve Universe. My alliance will probably maintain Sov in R64 systems while basing entirely out of NPC space, or even lowsec.
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:32:00 - [2580] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 IF its not worth it then why are you staying there ????? Are you stupid ? Oh wait ... Yes. To the extent that I try to make ISK in 0.0, I'm quite dumb. I should give up and just grind isk on my empire alt. What people in this thread are saying is that we'd like the game to change so that it is no longer the smart thing to do to give up on 0.0. I personally feel that the focus on ratting is just the tip of the iceberg, but I guess we can put off talking about industry until the ratting situation is resolved.

Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:33:00 - [2581] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 19:24:24 Originally by: Qlanth Once again I will say that as an alliance GoonSwarm has been preparing for R64 nerf, an increase to the cost of maintaining space, and an increase to the cost of infrastructure (jump brides, cyno jammers). I won't speak for other alliances but I am sure they have been doing the exact same thing. If there is a single alliance, however, that has nothing to fear after this patch it is GoonSwarm. Smaller alliances or alliances deep in 0.0 without direct access to empire (those that rely heavily on jumpbridge networks to keep their logistics chain intact) are the ones who have to most to lose from this patch. The carrot at the end of the stick was supposed to be the ability for average alliance members to be able to support themselves on an individual level while also maintaining their own space for upgrades. CCP has given us the stick, but there was no carrot. IF its not worth it then why are you staying there ????? Are you stupid ? Oh wait ... I stay in 0.0 because it means I can PvP without being penalized like in every other region of Eve. I enjoy large fights over R64 moons, I enjoy playing with a large group of people to obtain an objective (R64 Moons), and I enjoy the politics involved with these things. If this patch goes through as is I believe you will see most alliances consolidate their space, but not in the way CCP intended. Fights will take place over who has access to NPC sov 0.0 and the best agents. Stain will become the richest most contested region in the Eve Universe. My alliance will probably maintain Sov in R64 systems while basing entirely out of NPC space, or even lowsec. Then you and I will frolic, arm in arm, around the Stain mission hubs!
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:33:00 - [2582] Originally by: Kepakh You nicely elaborated what I said but avoided the question. Is it justifying ie. higher rat bounties? I say big NO. 0.0 is group content therefore you should benefit from being in a group. More alliance/corp income, more tools how to distribute them = lower personal profit, high benefits of claimed space. How do you make your money and how much do you make? Its nice to want group content to be there and to award greater rewards, but its not there and this patch does nothing for that. Basing your whole argument over something they might do in the future maybe is stupid. Increase personal gain now, increase group gain even more in the future. You dont have to **** up this thread about how no one should be able to make money by themselves because you have some fantasy of awesome group content that wont be here any time soon.
Baaldor Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:33:00 - [2583] This new expansion will do nothing more than trade one soul crushing grind for another. It does not solve anything.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:34:00 - [2584] Originally by: Qlanth I understand perfectly what I am replying to. You said "You want L4 Missions running profits + moon income. You want too much" Originally by: Kepakh Ok, so you want L4 income + moon profits. I think you need to be way more reasonable in your wantings... All the ISK pouring from moon mining gets spread in the alliance - it is funding the alliance infrastructure and providing alliance/corp level benefits as well as funding military efforts. But you still don't include it into your personal wallet. If there were no moons, you would need to run quite more of L4 to run the things you are enjoying due moon mining now. You are profiting from moon mining everytime you dock in their station, everytime you see GoonSwarm dot on sovereignty map. Oh god, it is so tiring talking to Goon :(
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:34:00 - [2585] Yeah for those catching the last 20 odd pages of this thread do not in any way think this is a goon only grief. Hell most of us hate goons, its what they are there for and there terrific at it... this is different. You should realize what a big deal it is when alliances like goons/aaa/atlas/morsus/cva and all the others actually agree on something... its almost unheard of. The unprecedented unity from most of nulsec in basically saying dominion sov changes are a tad on the rubbish side... MMO's that ignore such a strong reaction from such a large part of there player base end up going the way of SWG's Yes I'm a doomsayer, I see EVE crumbling at every opportunity as i have a big lack of faith in companies that run them, this whole thing makes me really worried, because normally its just me quietly grumbling about it all... well not this time it seems.
Uberfrau	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:35:00 - [2586] Originally by: Qlanth If this patch goes through as is I believe you will see most alliances consolidate their space, but not in the way CCP intended. Fights will take place over who has access to NPC sov 0.0 and the best agents. Stain will become the richest most contested region in the Eve Universe. My alliance will probably maintain Sov in R64 systems while basing entirely out of NPC space, or even lowsec. Or perhaps even highsec. A solid means of protest would be Jihad Mk II, in which the NC and GBC, along with any other 0.0 entities, band together to continuously beat the snot out of everyone in Empire.
Treji	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:39:00 - [2587] Quote: I said "No average member of my alliance sees moon income beyond the level of cushioning losses for PvP done defending those moons, or acquiring more moons (this is essentially what all 0.0 warfare boils down to)." Actually, you are missing the point of the expansion- CCP are moving 0.0 warfare AWAY from moon aquisition. Moons were essentially a passive isk income after you established good cyno jamming etc and the infrastructure to defend them. If members could be arsed, there are lots of ways to make isk in 0.0 sec space. However, a lot of players think 0.0 space is just for PvP purposes; sure, PvP conflict with competing alliances etc needed, but utilising the space to build an empire is better. You can't expect to sit about PvPing and just pop off for a quick hour of isk making to cover expenses once a month. Building empires takes time and effort, planning, co-operation and peserverance. I'm sure there are many corps itching to take your spots if you decide that it's to much effort and go mission-running.... The majority of the *****ing is from a couple allainces that probably had grandiose schemes of taking over all regions of 0.0 etc. The reality of actually utilising that space and making it pay its way obviously is too much of a reality check, since many in such allainces haven't the inclination to do much apart from PvP for 'free' (on account of moon incomes). They throw the toys and wail loudly to get noticed, but they may get smart and find a region to consolidate in and try new things... I, and many other players, don't think 0.0 space income can possibly be compared to 0.0 space expected income. The two are completely different animals. If its about personal isk income, then you shouldn't be in 0.0 in the first place...especially if you depended on allainces to supply ships etc, and now are faced with the fat provider cow being slaughtered...
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:40:00 - [2588] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Qlanth I understand perfectly what I am replying to. You said "You want L4 Missions running profits + moon income. You want too much" Originally by: Kepakh Ok, so you want L4 income + moon profits. I think you need to be way more reasonable in your wantings... All the ISK pouring from moon mining gets spread in the alliance - it is funding the alliance infrastructure and providing alliance/corp level benefits as well as funding military efforts. But you still don't include it into your personal wallet. If there were no moons, you would need to run quite more of L4 to run the things you are enjoying due moon mining now. You are profiting from moon mining everytime you dock in their station, everytime you see GoonSwarm dot on sovereignty map. Oh god, it is so tiring talking to Goon :( Moon money = infrastructure support. Moon money makes 0.0 something thats not a god awful place. Even with all that moon moey, nullsec is still not as useful as empire. So after spending all that money to make the space usable, now you a little left over. With that you can maybe make pvp loses sometimes less. The individual barely sees that. You still lose money dying, you still lose ships. In empire you can have your head full of all the implants you want training faster. In nullsec you cannot. In empire you can go pve and make money whenever you want. In nullsec you cannot. So after the moon goo i spent making my space usable, i might get to be reimbursed half the money i lost on a major fight. Saying this makes up for the difference in risk and reward for level 4s is stupid. I ask you again, how do you make your money and how much do you make.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:40:00 - [2589] Right now I am feeling a sense of camaraderie between myself Atlas members. CCP should feel ashamed.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:41:00 - [2590] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: teji Edited by: teji on 09/11/2009 18:56:05 Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 18:52:11 CCP stated that pure military alliance will be haveing trouble keeping space , i am sure you all goonies missed that part. Goonies aren't even close to a pure military alliance. I'm sure you missed that part. Or you might have missed the part where the current costs make it unprofitable for any type of alliance to hold many systems in 0.0. Great i hope you leaving delve, when you finish packing your stuff i will be happy to move there. Once again I will say that as an alliance GoonSwarm has been preparing for R64 nerf, an increase to the cost of maintaining space, and an increase to the cost of infrastructure (jump brides, cyno jammers). I won't speak for other alliances but I am sure they have been doing the exact same thing. If there is a single alliance, however, that has nothing to fear after this patch it is GoonSwarm. Smaller alliances or alliances deep in 0.0 without direct access to empire (those that rely heavily on jumpbridge networks to keep their logistics chain intact) are the ones who have to most to lose from this patch. The carrot at the end of the stick was supposed to be the ability for average alliance members to be able to support themselves on an individual level while also maintaining their own space for upgrades. CCP has given us the stick, but there was no carrot. Because Goons like helping the "little guys" more than anyone! This is the stupidest thing I have read yet. Goons are not saying this stuff out of the goodness of your heart; your cold, black, merciless heart. Your big problem right now is that anyone who would potentially rent from you would have to be a total idiot, and they will most likely end up getting scammed. Yah, carebears are going to bring their Hulks in to mine in your space! So you are stuck having to raise revenues from your existing players base and don't have any other options. Yah, I can see why you are crying in this thread more than anyone. Moonswarm is over, either adapt or you will be a victim of evolution. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist

Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:43:00 - [2591] Originally by: Tesal Because Goons like helping the "little guys" more than anyone! This is the stupidest thing I have read yet. Goons are not saying this stuff out of the goodness of your heart; your cold, black, merciless heart. Your big problem right now is that anyone who would potentially rent from you would have to be a total idiot, and they will most likely end up getting scammed. Yah, carebears are going to bring their Hulks in to mine in your space! So you are stuck having to raise revenues from your existing players base and don't have any other options. Yah, I can see why you are crying in this thread more than anyone. Moonswarm is over, either adapt or you will be a victim of evolution. Thank you for your unbiased and totally apolitical opinions on the dev blog.
Alekanderu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:46:00 - [2592] Edited by: Alekanderu on 09/11/2009 19:47:17 Originally by: Treji Actually, you are missing the point of the expansion- CCP are moving 0.0 warfare AWAY from moon aquisition. Moons were essentially a passive isk income after you established good cyno jamming etc and the infrastructure to defend them. the point of the expansion is to get more people into 0.0, not to nerf moon mining Quote: If members could be arsed, there are lots of ways to make isk in 0.0 sec space. However, a lot of players think 0.0 space is just for PvP purposes; sure, PvP conflict with competing alliances etc needed, but utilising the space to build an empire is better. You can't expect to sit about PvPing and just pop off for a quick hour of isk making to cover expenses once a month. Building empires takes time and effort, planning, co-operation and peserverance. I'm sure there are many corps itching to take your spots if you decide that it's to much effort and go mission-running.... why would you ever go to that effort when you can just make good isk for significantly less effort and risk doing missions in highsec/npc space while keeping sov in the valuable moon systems? what would be the point? where is the reward? and, given that you're telling 0.0 players how to build empires, what have you accomplished yourself in that regard? Quote: The majority of the ***ing is from a couple allainces that probably had grandiose schemes of taking over all regions of 0.0 etc. The reality of actually utilising that space and making it pay its way obviously is too much of a reality check, since many in such allainces haven't the inclination to do much apart from PvP for 'free' (on account of moon incomes). They throw the toys and wail loudly to get noticed, but they may get smart and find a region to consolidate in and try new things... "a couple alliances" meaning "everyone who currently lives in 0.0" Quote:** I, and many other players, don't think 0.0 space income can possibly be compared to 0.0 space expected income. The two are completely different animals. If its about personal isk income, then you shouldn't be in 0.0 in the first place...especially if you depended on allainces to supply ships etc, and now are faced with the fat provider cow being slaughtered... you've never even been in 0.0 have you
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:47:00 - [2593] Edited by: Nobani on 09/11/2009 19:47:10 Originally by: Treji I, and many other players, don't think 0.0 space income can possibly be compared to 0.0 space expected income. The two are completely different animals. If its about personal isk income, then you shouldn't be in 0.0 in the first place...especially if you depended on allainces to supply ships etc, and now are faced with the fat provider cow being slaughtered... So you're 0.0 players should trade flying good ships for the e-honour of having a dot on the map?
Encalderante	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:47:00 - [2594] Bah, at worst, big alliances crumble. Yay!
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:49:00 - [2595] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: teji Edited by: teji on 09/11/2009 18:56:05 Goonies aren't even close to a pure military alliance. I'm sure you missed that part. Or you might have missed the part where the current costs make it unprofitable for any type of alliance to hold many systems in 0.0. Great i hope you leaving delve, when you finish packing your stuff i will be happy to move there. Once again I will say that as an alliance GoonSwarm has been preparing for R64 nerf, an increase to the cost of maintaining space, and an increase to the cost of infrastructure (jump brides, cyno jammers). I won't speak for other alliances but I am sure they have been doing the exact same thing. If there is a single alliance, however, that has nothing to fear after this patch it is GoonSwarm. Smaller alliances or alliances deep in 0.0 without direct access to empire (those that rely heavily on jumpbridge networks to keep their logistics chain intact) are the ones who have to most to lose from this patch. The carrot at the end of the stick was supposed to be the ability for average alliance members to be able to support themselves on an individual level while also maintaining their own space for upgrades. CCP has given us the stick, but there was no carrot. Because Goons like helping the "little guys" more than anyone! This is the stupidest thing I have read yet. Goons are not saying this stuff out of the goodness of your heart; your cold, black, merciless heart. Your big problem right now is that anyone who would potentially rent from you would have to be a total idiot, and they will most likely end up getting scammed. Yah, carebears are going to bring their Hulks in to mine in your space! So you are stuck having to raise revenues from your existing players base and don't have any other options. Yah, I can see why you are crying in this thread more than anyone. Moonswarm is over, either adapt or you will be a victim of evolution. You must be ignoring a lot to not realize that smaller alliances will be hurt far more than the larger richer ones.
Locii	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:51:00 - [2596] Originally by: Mikal Drey Originally by: Locii Originally by: Mikal Drey @Verone flag+hub purely to anchor a pos :/ thats an epic joke. you are shiing me on this arnt you? i need to take a freighter into a system to get sov just so i can anchour a pos to live in what is effectivly a empty useless system? Drum roll . .. tada i ** you not. you cannot anchor a cynojammer, cyno beacon, jump bridge or build a supercap WITHOUT a flag+hub+sov for a set period. setup a pos yes, setup moon goo yes. do anything logistical - no. and thats pretty much what 90% of the complaints are about. its a MASSIVE bill for effectivly just setting up a jump bridge :/ @V your funny, short, and northern. remind me i owe you a johnny walker well screw sov. as part of a small alliance that wants 0.0 why would we bother getting sov. all it seams to ammount to is a big target on the map with no real gain, well apart from the massive bill so i can run anom's after 14 days of loads of hard work, risk and paying out isk. yay for Dominion
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:54:00 - [2597] Originally by: Verone It's going to take a while, and the new system will adapt as time goes on, just like people will adapt to use it as it evolves. Yes, I'm sure that eventually CCP will figure out the correct balance between the costs and the rewards, but what happens in the meantime? We're seeing a system imposed where 0.0 alliances pour their ISK down the toilet on sov taxes while CCP imposes worthless pre-nerfed "upgrades" which we have to pay for and grind up just to keep running, conspicuously avoids introducing any upgrades to belt ratting (the most valuable method of money making in conquerable 0.0 and the method used by most of its occupants), and says the real benefits are coming Real Soon Now Guys We Promise. This is supposed to be the patch which opens up whole swathes of 0.0 for the empire hordes wanting to make their fame and fortunes, but CCP wants them to pay through the nose for the privilege from day one while they wait .... 3 months? 6 months? A year? Two years? .... for the actual benefits to arrive. This is not like a new shiptype or module where if its pre-nerfed to the stone age people will just use something different until CCP get around to fixing it. This is the basis of 0.0. and if its pre-nerfed then people 'using something different' means conquerable 0.0 becoming a stagnant wasteland because everyone is running L4s in highsec or Stain/Curse/Venal instead.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:55:00 - [2598] Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 09/11/2009 19:47:10 Originally by: Treji I, and many other players, don't think 0.0 space income can possibly be compared to 0.0 space expected income. The two are completely different animals. If its about personal isk income, then you shouldn't be in 0.0 in the first place...especially if you depended on allainces to supply ships etc, and now are faced with the fat provider cow being slaughtered... So you're 0.0 players should trade flying good ships for the e-honour of having a dot on the map? No, you should die, and I should laugh. Sov map says it all. Look it over. compare it with population and how much the systems are used. Its easy to see who can, and who cannot adjust easily. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:56:00 - [2599] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 09/11/2009 19:47:10 Originally by: Treji I, and many other players, don't think 0.0 space income can possibly be compared to 0.0 space expected income. The two are completely different animals. If its about personal isk income, then you shouldn't be in 0.0 in the first place...especially if you depended on allainces to supply ships etc, and now are faced with the fat provider cow being slaughtered... So you're 0.0 players should trade flying good ships for the e-honour of having a dot on the map? No, you should die, and I should laugh. Sov map says it all. Look it over. compare it with population and how much the systems are used. Its easy to see who can, and who cannot adjust easily. You seem to be under the delusion that corps will be trying to move to nullsec space and will have a chance against any large alliance.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:59:00 - [2600] Maybe they accidentally hit the zero one too many times. This ocean of tears thread, best thread. Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?

Verone Gallente Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:59:00 - [2601] Originally by: Gnulpie Edited by: Gnulpie on 09/11/2009 18:31:42 Originally by: Verone CCP is performing a MASSIVE change to game mechanics. The logic, and principle behind the change is outstanding. The principles behind the changes are indeed outstanding. Outstanding idiotic. Instead of a better sandbox where you can really develop your space on your own and free from limits we will have a totally artificial system that requires people to grind to 'unlock' the next 'level of upgrades'. Originally by: Verone And all the whining about having to fuel towers and babysit 1000 control towers to keep your space, or destroy 1000 hardened control towers to take someone's space is going to be gone. Who whined about that? Only the losers whinened because they didn't take the effort to do so. Goons didn't whine about taking (undefended) Delve. Atlas didn't whine about taking (undefended) Omist. Atlas didn't whine about kicking RA out. Ev0ke isn't whining about Cloud Ring. IT isn't whining. Please show me those whines from the pvp guys. With enough firepower a pos will pop anyway pretty fast. Besides that, if hardened towers would be the problem, maybe change the hardeners then? lol The guys who are doing the pvp didn't whine. Only some guys who cannot be arsed to get their ass up and do some stuff, they did whine. But guess what. It won't become easier for them! Quite the contrary. Because now they do not only need to fight all their enemies, they additionally need to pay for all the space they already have. Originally by: Verone 0.0 alliances have whined for years about having the Sovereignty system overhauled. CCP has the answer to it and the logic and ideas behind it are sound and well thought out. Oh yeah sure, that's why even 20 days before launch the major parts of the overhaul aren't finalized. That is indeed very sound. And well thought out? Yes, if you want a fixed theme park, then it is well thought out. Because nothing else is what CCP is implementing. They are throwing away the sandbox. And besides that, if things are so well thought out, then why is recieving CVA the finger then? Those guys are the role model for successful 0.0 management and the base idea for CCP for this expansion. Only to bad that they will be wiped from existance. Yeah, very sound indeed. It looks to me that CCP lost their direction and vision on a massive scale. TIME TO WAKE UP! POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes and and and But POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! You're so fundamentally wrong that I'm not going to even try to bother dissecting that mess you just posted. \o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF 2008! \o/ >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<<
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:01:00 - [2602] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Verone It's going to take a while, and the new system will adapt as time goes on, just like people will adapt to use it as it evolves. Yes, I'm sure that eventually CCP will figure out the correct balance between the costs and the rewards, but what happens in the meantime? We're seeing a system imposed where 0.0 alliances pour their ISK down the toilet on sov taxes while CCP imposes worthless pre-nerfed "upgrades" which we have to pay for and grind up just to keep running, conspicuously avoids introducing any upgrades to belt ratting (the most valuable method of money making in conquerable 0.0 and the method used by most of its occupants), and says the real benefits are coming Real Soon Now Guys We Promise. This is supposed to be the patch which opens up whole swathes of 0.0 for the empire hordes wanting to make their fame and fortunes, but CCP wants them to pay through the nose for the privilege from day one while they wait .... 3 months? 6 months? A year? Two years? .... for the actual benefits to arrive. This is not like a new shiptype or module where if its pre-nerfed to the stone age people will just use something different until CCP get around to fixing it. This is the basis of 0.0. and if its pre-nerfed then people 'using something different' means conquerable 0.0 becoming a stagnant wasteland because everyone is running L4s in highsec or Stain/Curse/Venal instead. This post right here is on the money. If CCP wants people to move to 0.0, if CCP wants current 0.0 alliances to "consolidate" and not "abandon" conquerable 0.0 space they will read this post right here and realize they cannot release these changes pre-nerfed.
Sawyer LaFleur	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:04:00 - [2603] Originally by: CCP Soundwave No, financially the higher tier anomalies pretty much match level 4s. This doesn't make any sense. To attrack more players to 0.0 and to get more 0.0 players to spend more of their game time (use of alts) in 0.0 there time spent earning isk there needs to be SIGNIFICANTLY more profitable. It needs to be profitable enough to pay for the additional ship losses that are bound to happen ... is that 30% I'm not sure. If attracting current high sect corps to 0.0 is a goal they'll need to make enough to Pay significant rent to alliances that control choke points now (instead of just flagging the space). They'll need enough to pay for support pos's. They'll need enough for ship losses. I'd guess they'd need 50% more income per hour than lvl4s.. maybe more, to allow them to pay additional expenses and still come out a bit ahead. Any per hour calculation needs to take into account the increased difficulty of running two clients at once without losing undue numbers of ships to roaming gangs. I'd think that maybe you need to compare the income running one client to that of running two clients in high sec. So you'd need to make 50% more running 1 client than you'd make running two clients in high sec. Now, if this were the case, the new system might truly ecourage more people to 0.0 . The new system does appear to make it less desirable to tag space, but the large alliances would still have control. Because there would be less of an ego blow allowing other corps within to tag sovereignity. The renters, could provide additional services like jump bridges and access.. they would be desirable to have in your space (especially if the tiered level of expenses per systems control is still somehow worked in) Eventually, through cooperation, service, or in cases where the protectorate corp began to fold, the newer renter entries would have stature enough to be players in their own right, earning their "freedom" so to speak, which has happened repeatly even under the old system. It would be even more attractive to both sides now, IF the increased income by moving to 0.0 greatly exceeded the hourly of running level 4s to both pay higher expenses of living there and to dangle a carrot. It would make for interesting politics etc, any keep players interested in the game who might otherwise just burn out and leave if they just missioned for a couple years then moved on to another mmo Where are the incentives to get more people in 0.0 and to get people to spend more of their playing time in 0.0? Also, I'm not sure how focusing people on one system helps more roving bands. It seems like giving people more reason to stray apart from others creates more small pods of people that might engage in combat. I think the wormhole system is really your best bet, and the wormhole ratting , events etc, need to be extremely more lucrative(or give some tactical equipment?), than outside space.. but maybe give those wormholes 3 or 4 entrances only to other 0.0 space, and maybe have the events spaces spaced out a few hours apart and have none available until a few hours after the entrances formed, so that they'd be well known to 0.0 corps in different regions to create mele situations of limited size fleets. (some tweaks to entrance decay would be needed to keep you from just going in and out the entrance to other peoples space to preclude them from being able to launch a decent sized fleet i) oops, digressing there.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:04:00 - [2604] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 09/11/2009 19:47:10 Originally by: Treji I, and many other players, don't think 0.0 space income can possibly be compared to 0.0 space expected income. The two are completely different animals. If its about personal isk income, then you shouldn't be in 0.0 in the first place...especially if you depended on allainces to supply ships etc, and now are faced with the fat provider cow being slaughtered... So you're 0.0 players should trade flying good ships for the e-honour of having a dot on the map? No, you should die, and I should laugh. Sov map says it all. Look it over. compare it with population and how much the systems are used. Its easy to see who can, and who cannot adjust easily. I am in an alliance which uses all their systems. How does that benefit us? With dominion sov costs will skyrocket in adition to losing alot of our protection against capital hotdrops.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:12:00 - [2605] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I'll say this bluntly, though I'm sure you've already inferred my position on this from my previous posts. - Reward should be, at least broadly, proportional to risk, both in general and in the context of any given activity type available across risk categories. - 0.0 is riskier than highsec, by several orders of magnitude. - Thus, 0.0 should pay better than highsec in every meaningful way. Solo content, group content, corp-level income, the works. I don't care about the mechanism. If you want to do it by upping rat bounties, rat quality, rat quantity, rat droppings, officer spawn rates, or just by having magic isk fairies floating around on nullsec gates, that's cool with me. As long as it's fun, profitable, and scalable, I'm cool with anything. But it's absurd to say that moons justify 0.0 being crap for players - "hold the moons, mission in highsec" is awful gameplay and moronic design. And no, I don't want L4 mechanics. They're really kind of boring, which is why I've basically stopped doing them. I want L4 profit and then some. The mechanics can be whatever you like, it's the money that's the problem. Hm... 'I don't want you to make more ISK in 0.0, I want you to have all T2 ships for free.' Do you understand the difference? Risk vs reward is a myth. When there is a risk somewhere, the best way to lower the risk is to team up with other people. In the end, you are not rewarded for higher risk but co-operation. This is what needs to be supported. You proposed this mechanics: High risk -> better reward to justify high risk Proper motivation: High risk -> Better co-operation -> Better reward. High sec is solo content with no teaming up required. In 0.0 on the other hand, co-operation is mandatory and you get rewarded for that - your own stations, safer claimed space, infratruture, cap production etc. High sec and 0.0 works on completely different principles.
Jackman Herzog	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:13:00 - [2606] Right now, moon goo pays for our ships and mods after all the infrastructure costs. We fly pretty good ships, can make some titans, have supercap fleets, and make system ownership worth something. After this change, we'll be doing recon in t1 frigs while blobbing in Abbadons and Rhoks. Because that's what we'll be able to afford unless we move to Stain or run to highsec for missions one week out of the month. At least for the smaller alliances. Goons and Atlas will shrink on the map, but they'll still own the same space by default with roving gangs and cloaked carriers and such. The big guys could get even bigger since they'll just curbstomp the rest of us who can't afford to hold more than a single constellation, if that. Logistics will be harder, isk making will be harder, and risk will exponentially increase for the little guys. And all for lvl 4 income after 3 months of barely holding on to the little space we'll be forced into after Dominion. Good job, CCP. Thanks for making the strong stronger and weak weaker. Up the rewards to 3x's lvl 4 income at least, or watch 0.0 collapse into a worthless waste for everyone but the superrich. And even they'll have nothing to do once everyone else is forced out.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:13:00 - [2607] Edited by: Tesal on 09/11/2009 20:15:19 Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 09/11/2009 19:47:10 Originally by: Treji I, and many other players, don't think 0.0 space income can possibly be compared to 0.0 space expected income. The two are completely different animals. If its about personal isk income, then you shouldn't be in 0.0 in the first place...especially if you depended on allainces to supply ships etc, and now are faced with the fat provider cow being slaughtered... So you're 0.0 players should trade flying good ships for the e-honour of having a dot on the map? No, you should die, and I should laugh. Sov map says it all. Look it over. compare it with population and how much the systems are used. Its easy to see who can, and who cannot adjust easily. You seem to be under the delusion that corps will be trying to move to nullsec space and will have a chance against any large alliance. That depends on what you mean by "a chance". I think most people believe that 0.0 is not the place for helpless carebears to thrive and survive. What the hell, you think people are going to claim sov with a fleet of Hulks or something? Also, I will claim Sov just to mess with you. Why you think I bought this alliance. Free ratting and jump bridge, AND all the Goons you can kill. edit You are lucky I am lazy or you would be so dead. never stop posting...with alts.* Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Sawyer LaFleur	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:18:00 - [2608] Originally by: Home brew What all of 0.0 needs to do now and untill this patch goes live is to camp the f**k out of every highsec solar system that has a Lvl 4 Missions. Make the Lvl 4 missions more expensive to those that run them. This really would be truly emergent game play, in the Sandbox. The big bosses could call a "meeting of the 5 families" of the big 0.0 corporations. They could agree, that until lvl 4 missions paid Significantly less than 0.0 life, that, for the true desire for milatary dominance, they'd need to cripple the relative financial might of high sec care bears. (this isn't griefing, it has a sound role play motivation). Different sectors would be assigned to differnt0.0 corps . War decs, and ninja salvaging could be focussed on key weekend periods, even if only for a few hours at a time at first to make a show of strenth. Deny, or crimp 2 hours of prime time Saturday mission profits with concerted efforts for weeks on end and there might be a call on all sides to look for some diplomatic solutions. If nothing else, it would really lead to interesting and dynamic QQ threads, and send interesting waves throughout the game. Not griefing, but a show of pvp might and collective political intrigue which the game is rather unique in having.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:25:00 - [2609] Originally by: Pointfive How do you make your money and how much do you make? Its nice to want group content to be there and to award greater rewards, but its not there and this patch does nothing for that. Basing your whole argument over something they might do in the future maybe is stupid. Increase personal gain now, increase group gain even more in the future. You dont have to ** up this thread about how no one should be able to make money by themselves because you have some fantasy of awesome group content that wont be here any time soon. I see no urge to raise personal 0.0 income. Originally by:** Pointfive Moon money = infrastructure support. Moon money makes 0.0 something thats not a god awful place. Even with all that moon moey, nullsec is still not as useful as empire. So after spending all that money to make the space usable, now you a little left over. With that you can maybe make pvp loses sometimes less. The individual barely sees that. You still lose money dying, you still lose ships. In empire you can have your head full of all the implants you want training faster. In nullsec you cannot. In empire you can go pve and make money whenever you want. In nullsec you cannot. So after the moon goo i spent making my space usable, i might get to be reimbursed half the money i lost on a major fight. Saying this makes up for the difference in risk and reward for level 4s is stupid. I ask you again, how do you make your money and how much do you make. If 0.0 is so awfull place for you to live in, don't. Can't give you better advice. I do pretty much everything that I feel like, enjoy and interests me. Slowly turning towards industry now. However, it is none of your business nor I am going to share it with you.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:28:00 - [2610] Originally by: Locii well screw sov. as part of a small alliance that wants 0.0 why would we bother getting sov. all it seams to ammount to is a big target on the map with no real gain, well apart from the massive bill so i can run anom's after 14 days of loads of hard work, risk and paying out isk. yay for Dominion bingo

Lord Helghast	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:30:00 - [2611] i stand by the fact that 0.0 is still a miners dream, and for whoever the fck thinks that highsec is safe is a douche thats been living in nullsec for too long, or your just so blind to realize theirs hundreds/thousands of people on the other side of all the god dan suicide ganking, i know a few corps planning a move to nullsec for the shear fact that it can't be much worse than highsec mining lately for all the gank teams.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:31:00 - [2612] Originally by: Sawyer LaFleur Originally by: Home brew What all of 0.0 needs to do now and untill this patch goes live is to camp the f**k out of every highsec solar system that has a Lvl 4 Missions. Make the Lvl 4 missions more expensive to those that run them. This really would be truly emergent game play, in the Sandbox. The big bosses could call a "meeting of the 5 families" of the big 0.0 corporations. They could agree, that until lvl 4 missions paid Significantly less than 0.0 life, that, for the true desire for milatary dominance, they'd need to cripple the relative financial might of high sec care bears. (this isn't griefing, it has a sound role play motivation). Different sectors would be assigned to differnt0.0 corps . War decs, and ninja salvaging could be focussed on key weekend periods, even if only for a few hours at a time at first to make a show of strenth. Deny, or crimp 2 hours of prime time Saturday mission profits with concerted efforts for weeks on end and there might be a call on all sides to look for some diplomatic solutions. If nothing else, it would really lead to interesting and dynamic QQ threads, and send interesting waves throughout the game. Not griefing, but a show of pvp might and collective political intrigue which the game is rather unique in having. Despite the newfound common ground we've all found in this thread I don't think there's the mutual trust between all the 0.0 entities to do this without the inevitable backstab messing things up (I'm pretty sure our enemies wouldn't trust us for a start) but I agree it would be completely hilarious.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:31:00 - [2613] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 20:32:13 Originally by: Alekanderu the point of the expansion is to get more people into 0.0, not to nerf moon mining The point of this expansion is to need more people actively do something in 0.0 to claim the space. Remember? They wanna get rid of AFK-empires. And those were feeded with moon-goo.
Treji	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:34:00 - [2614] Quote: You still lose money dying, you still lose ships. In empire you can have your head full of all the implants you want training faster. In nullsec you cannot. In empire you can go pve and make money whenever you want. In nullsec you cannot. You can't make isk in nullspace Pve? I always thought it quite the goldmine, especially running through the nice littl' WH into Empire with the loot to sell. You may need to get out and about a little more instead of camping in that station awaiting the enemy ships... Alternatively, you could move to Empire, which Goons etc are banging on about being so lucrative (which accounts for average wallet being around 500 mil with 80% players in Empire huh?). If you say something enough times, you might get idiots to believe it... I especially like the 'All alliances are against it' quotes.Make me **** myself really, since there are members of large allainces here saying the new expansion is very good. Adapt, or move out...your dominion has ended.
Normin Bates	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:35:00 - [2615] Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 09/11/2009 19:47:10 Originally by: Treji I, and many other players, don't think 0.0 space income can possibly be compared to 0.0 space expected income. The two are completely different animals. If its about personal isk income, then you shouldn't be in 0.0 in the first place...especially if you depended on allainces to supply ships etc, and now are faced with the fat provider cow being slaughtered... So you're 0.0 players should trade flying good ships for the e-honour of having a dot on the map? No, you should die, and I should laugh. Sov map says it all. Look it over. compare it with population and how much the systems are used. Its easy to see who can, and who cannot adjust easily. You seem to be under the delusion that corps will be trying to move to nullsec space and will have a chance against any large alliance. That's the problem with large Alliances right now. You claim huge areas of space that never get used or are empty just for the sake of claiming it. If a smaller group tries to move in you squash them just because you can...while ignoring any diplomatic efforts. If they're smaller what threat are they? NO threat at all, yet instead of working with them and having a relationship other than renters you immediately go in and kill them with 100 man cap fleets. Maybe you're upset that having renters won't be so viable anymore? With Dominion you'll prob operate the same way: Squash anyone that comes near yet leave the space unclaimed. So much for small gang PvP huh? Face it. You're afraid of change. You're afraid to adapt. You want to control huge areas of unused space just because you can. Boil it down and you've asked for Dominion exactly as it is in the Dev blog...you're just to daft with tunnel vision to realize it.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:37:00 - [2616] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I'll say this bluntly, though I'm sure you've already inferred my position on this from my previous posts. - Reward should be, at least broadly, proportional to risk, both in general and in the context of any given activity type available across risk categories. - 0.0 is riskier than highsec, by several orders of magnitude. - Thus, 0.0 should pay better than highsec in every meaningful way. Solo content, group content, corp-level income, the works. I don't care about the mechanism. If you want to do it by upping rat bounties, rat quality, rat quantity, rat droppings, officer spawn rates, or just by having magic isk fairies floating around on nullsec gates, that's cool with me. As long as it's fun, profitable, and scalable, I'm cool with anything. But it's absurd to say that moons justify 0.0 being crap for players - "hold the moons, mission in highsec" is awful gameplay and moronic design. And no, I don't want L4 mechanics. They're really kind of boring, which is why I've basically stopped doing them. I want L4 profit and then some. The mechanics can be whatever you like, it's the money that's the problem. Hm... 'I don't want you to make more ISK in 0.0, I want you to have all T2 ships for free.' Do you understand the difference? Risk vs reward is a myth. When there is a risk somewhere, the best way to lower the risk is to team up with other people. In the end, you are not rewarded for higher risk but co-operation. This is what needs to be supported. You proposed this mechanics: High risk -> better reward to justify high risk Proper motivation: High risk -> Better co-operation -> Better reward. High sec is solo content with no teaming up required. In 0.0 on the other hand, co-operation is mandatory and you get rewarded for that - your own stations, safer claimed space, infratruture, cap production etc. High sec and 0.0 works on completely different principles. so the rewards for all that should be a slightly worse empire with no security? Great. Explain to me the rewards that are there post dominion. Tell me what i should be motivated for. Not jsut you general garbage you keep spewing, give me a real example
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:37:00 - [2617] Originally by: Tesal I think most people believe that 0.0 is not the place for helpless carebears to thrive and survive. What the hell, you think people are going to claim sov with a fleet of Hulks or something? Theres the frigging problem that CCP is trying to solve with this patch and why so many PVP a$$hats are ****ed, 0.0 IS FOR CAREBEARS, or atleast its for carebears under the defence of their alliances pvp defence fleets as it should be alliances need to have a logistical and a pvp wing.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:38:00 - [2618] Originally by: Treji You can't make isk in nullspace Pve? I always thought it quite the goldmine, especially running through the nice littl' WH into Empire with the loot to sell. You may need to get out and about a little more instead of camping in that station awaiting the enemy ships... It is, until more than two people try to rat in the same system. Ever wondered why these alliances claim whole regions and multiple regions?
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:38:00 - [2619] Originally by: Pointfive so the rewards for all that should be a slightly worse empire with no security? Great. Explain to me the rewards that are there post dominion. Tell me what i should be motivated for. Not jsut you general garbage you keep spewing, give me a real example pretty much this.... Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:43:00 - [2620] Quote: Face it. You're afraid of change. You're afraid to adapt. You want to control huge areas of unused space just because you can. Alliances will adapt just fine and 0.0 will be even more boring than it currently is (which is what people are actually complaining about). Face it you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about.

Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:46:00 - [2621] Originally by: Alekanderu what are you talking about "high sec mechanics" means concord, faction navies and stations that let everyone dock what you don't seem to grasp - either because you're utterly clueless or because you're being intentionally obtuse - is that for the vast majority of players, the vast majority of the time, making isk in 0.0 is not worth it compared to highsec mission running; this is what it all boils down to if you want more people to move into 0.0 then you need to create more incentive for people to do so under current mechanics, the only real advantage of conquerable 0.0 space is r64 moon mining and supercap production in invulnerable sov 4 systems; with the current suggested changes, moon mining will be less profitable and invulnerable supercap producing poses go away, while the other aspects of 0.0 remain unchanged, so that there is less incentive for anyone to want to move to 0.0; this is exacerbated by the fact that small alliances will find it much harder to survive and stay profitable in 0.0 compared to large ones No, high sec mechanics means: more time spent = more ISK. This is bad. It is the typical L4 grind. There is no need to create another grind land. As I explained in one of the posts above, I do not want you to make more ISK, I want you to benefit more from higher level income. More moon goo like resources! Moon mining is not really going to be nerfed. Just instead of R64 moon, you will mine couple of others. Since lots of your moons will free up, it will be not much of an issue. I don't give a damn wheter the expansion brings more people into 0.0 Originally by: Pointfive so the rewards for all that should be a slightly worse empire with no security? Great. Explain to me the rewards that are there post dominion. Tell me what i should be motivated for. Not jsut you general garbage you keep spewing, give me a real example Please re-read the post again. I indeed want you to make 'less' ISK because your lost ship will get replaced - for free, discounted price or you get any other form of 'refund'. I want you to 'need' less ISK. That practicaly means less time spent making ISK and more fun.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:47:00 - [2622] Originally by: Lord Helghast Originally by: Tesal I think most people believe that 0.0 is not the place for helpless carebears to thrive and survive. What the hell, you think people are going to claim sov with a fleet of Hulks or something? Theres the frigging problem that CCP is trying to solve with this patch and why so many PVP a$$hats are ****ed, 0.0 IS FOR CAREBEARS, or atleast its for carebears under the defence of their alliances pvp defence fleets as it should be alliances need to have a logistical and a pvp wing. Right so while not making large amounts of isk thats now needed the pvpers have to sit directly on belts that miners mine in, is that your idea... because there is no such thing as a defence fleet for miners less there already in the belt with you. And you do know why mining so sucks in 0.0 right.. that without an outpost your max refine is 75% MAX in any current pos refining structure, so add 25% loss to your mining equation. And I think alot of people are mising the point of why alot of nulsec residents are moaning, its certainly not going to be the end of the large alliances, in fact there laughing so hard right now looking at all those med sized alliances that have hid behind jammers so long they are probably really looking forward to it. They are complaining that dominion fails in all its aledged goals.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:48:00 - [2623] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 20:49:40 Originally by: Pointfive so the rewards for all that should be a slightly worse empire with no security? Great. Explain to me the rewards that are there post dominion. Tell me what i should be motivated for. Not jsut you general garbage you keep spewing, give me a real example Your motivation to form an alliance and venture into 0.0 claiming space should be to be presented on the map, making yourself a name. Even if you make belt-rats, anomalies and complexes 10 times worth of LvL 4 missions, there won't be anymore people looking forward to move into 0.0. All space in 0.0 is allready occupied by the big powerblocs and nothing will change that. The big powerblocs will simply make more money and keep killing anyone within 50 jumps of their base, as it happens atm. Making money is no motivator to go into 0.0 for all tose empire-dwellers, as those empire-dwellers are simply not interested in PvP. You can remove all LvL 4 agents from high-sec and nothing will change. People will just start to grind LvL 3 missions instead, or start mining etc... they won't move into 0.0, no matter what.
Dregek Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:53:00 - [2624] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks for keeping the feedback largely constructive so far. As stated in the original blog it is trivial for us to us to change the numbers and we expected this to happen based on the next round of feedback which is happening here. The original upkeep costs in the blog were designed given a reduction in space you need to hold for income purposes so they increasingly become less as passive income increases (fixed cost/dynamic income) and act as a soft limit and prohibitive factor on how much space you want to claim. That indeed is the case since the established powerblocks will naturally look to where you can cost cut initially and potentially expand later based on purchase and installation of resource upgrades and more balanced member base to utilise those resources and that means limiting to strategically important systems to begin with regardless of the final upkeep or upgrade figures we arrive at here. But on with some specific answers to the biggest concerns: So will we look at making upkeep costs less than stated in the blog due to reasonable feedback? Yes! - Sovereignty Structures The role of the Territorial Claim Unit (TCU) changed since the original figures were generated to be only a marker for sovereignty and the last thing to be removed after a system has been taken (details on this are coming soon in Abathur's next blog). This means the cost for the TCU should be reasonable in terms of upkeep and we are looking at 1 mill per day currently for that dot on the map. The infrastructure hub is both key to strategic defence and as the base of the solar system upgrades. Here we are looking at mirroring a large starbase in equivalent operational cost so 5 million upkeep per day is more reasonable. - Strategic Upgrades The key upgrades here we want to force you to make economic decisions over are naturally the jump bridges and cynosural jammer use. The presence of these two has radical effects on the 'landscape' generally. We are looking at no upkeep cost on either of the construction arrays and cynosural field generators and then maintain significant costs the cynosural jammer and jump bridges. Hopefully that answers some concerns on the upkeep fees and that we are looking at the figures and open to adjusting them further. As for the other issues raised, we are looking at the issues around the resource sites and things like knowing if they are in use or not and will shed more light on the asteroid belt upgrades which are not the ordinary gravimetric sites FYI some of you are mentioning Keep the constructive feedback coming and we'll update the original blog monday or tuesday with new figures and updates and additional comments to clear some confusion up. ugh now you made it too low lol. costs per month would be 168million. i think it should be around 500mil per system per month
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:53:00 - [2625] Edited by: Sethur Blackcoat on 09/11/2009 20:53:27 Originally by: Vivian Azure Making money is no motivator to go into 0.0 for all tose empire-dwellers, as those empire-dwellers are simply not interested in PvP. You can remove all LvL 4 agents from high-sec and nothing will change. People will just start to grind LvL 3 missions instead, or start mining etc... they won't move into 0.0, no matter what. So how about all those posts by small, newer corps/alliances that said they were planning to move into 0.0 with Dominion but aren't going to bother now.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:54:00 - [2626] Originally by: Encalderante Bah, at worst, small alliances crumble. Yay! Fixed it for you. To afford these upgrades and properly defend them small alliances will have to band together with other alliances.
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:54:00 - [2627] Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 20:49:40 Originally by: Pointfive so the rewards for all that should be a slightly worse empire with no security? Great. Explain to me the rewards that are there post dominion. Tell me what i should be motivated for. Not jsut you general garbage you keep spewing, give me a real example Your motivation to form an alliance and venture into 0.0 claiming space should be to be presented on the map, making yourself a name. Ah, you're Jade Constantine. No wonder your posting is so bad. Also: 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.
Treji	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:02:00 - [2628] Makes me still laugh Goons are asking one question: You don't have increased risk and logistics in 0.0, since you own the space and the your alliance members patrol and protect it. It's as risky as Empire is when some other entity declares war, just on a larger scale. Not to mention the logistics and risk is spread between large gangs/fleets, as opposed to the mission runner who generally goes solo...
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:03:00 - [2629] Originally by: Itzena Also: 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: Kepakh What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M? It is indeed increased risk to move around 0.0 as well as logistical challenge.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:05:00 - [2630] YES OR NO: Can I have your stuff. Seriously. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist

Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:10:00 - [2631] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Itzena Also: 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: Kepakh What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M? It is indeed increased risk to move around 0.0 as well as logistical challenge. Alright I concede. There really is no more risk in 0.0 space than in empire.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:11:00 - [2632] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Itzena Also: 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: Kepakh What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M? It is indeed increased risk to move around 0.0 as well as logistical challenge. Alright I concede. There really is no more risk in 0.0 space than in empire. I'm still hoping someone blue reconquers Itamo so I get my stuff back.
Grady Eltoren	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:15:00 - [2633] CCP - 88 pages of people being ****ed...Guess I am not the only guy that sees this as bad. BOHICA - CCP does more to get you to spend more time playing and recieve less isk earned/less productive. Why can't this game be for the fricken casual player? Furthermore for those of us that are enjoying wormholes or exploring 0.0 - I have a big question about the rest of those undeveloped 0.0 systems... Scan down to the END... 0.0 alliances will have the option of upgrading their new SOV systems with devices that increase the chance of wormholes popping up in their system - in other words - professional 0.0 alliance w hole hunters. The only thing that keeps you safe is chance that your worm hole out of thousands will not open up to their space and maybe if it does they just wont care. And once it does, what is to say if there are only a handful of 0.0 alliances that have this wormhole structure that when we close it it will not cycle back to theirs in short order. I don't get any feeling from this article that 0.0 will yield ded complexs, mini-profession complexes, w holes, grav sites, etc unless that 0.0 system is developed. Can anyone confirm or deny this? It maters for the above resaons. Who is looking out for the 0.0 explorer here? The guy that risks pod and limb to venture into some big alliances territory? So when we do pop out into 0.0 that is safe - expect to find nothing or a whole lot of trouble. Sounds like worm holes will be for really xenophobic people who just want to mine/run sleeper sites / t3. But will carry more danger per what I figure above.
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp.	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:18:00 - [2634] Originally by: Kerdrak The funniest of all this topic is that CCP will end NERFING empire lvl4's to balance this expansion I'm actually seriously starting to wonder the same thing. If it starts to look like CCP will take a subscriber hit regardless of what they do next, moving the remaining high-sec L4 agents to low-sec may actually emerge as the best option for the game at that point. /Ben
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:19:00 - [2635] Edited by: Gnulpie on 09/11/2009 21:24:15 Originally by: Ben Derindar Originally by: Kerdrak The funniest of all this topic is that CCP will end NERFING empire lvl4's to balance this expansion I'm actually seriously starting to wonder the same thing. If it starts to look like CCP will take a subscriber hit regardless of what they do next, moving the remaining high-sec L4 agents to low-sec may actually emerge as the best option for the game at that point. Haha, yeah sure. Only problem is that most of the subscribers are hardcore carebears and if CCP will take away their toys then they will just quit. They certainly will NOT go to low sec or 0.0. Look how many people are in 0.0 (20%?) and how many are in high sec (80%?) and then you can get an idea what is more important to CCP, 0.0 or high sec. Anyway ... I didn't read anything about alliance level management tools. Any news on that front? Especially important when you are going to have a lot more renters/pets in your space. Can alliances set up and collect individual gate fees based on standings (within reasonable amounts)? Also, will it be possible for alliances to grant certain groups/individuals automatic standing increases for certain activities? (eg. helping shooting enemies on a op or for a certain time will give 0.1 better standings towards the host alliance, standing increases and everything else should be individually settable by alliances) Somehow I missed those basic functions. But ah! I see, it is all about grinding to "unlock" features of the game. How exciting... lol Seriously, what happend to all those great visions you had once and which made Eve so special? It seems all to be only about "grinding", "unlocking features" and predetermined fixed paths. What happened with the complete freedom of the sandbox? (okay, it was never a completely free sandbox, but much less determined and fixed than the proposed theme park concept) Or am I missing something really big and vital here?
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:20:00 - [2636] Originally by: Kepakh Please re-read the post again. I indeed want you to make 'less' ISK because your lost ship will get replaced - for free, discounted price or you get any other form of 'refund'. I want you to 'need' less ISK. Corp/Alliance ticker or STFU. Which alliance reimburses ships outside of fleet ops? I want in on that.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:21:00 - [2637] "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." They still dont get it. Cyno jammers are the only thing preventing the really big alliances swamping everyone. Everyone know that those few alliances with majority 64 moons have for years just been building up cap fleets, as it was for uber defence, take out jammers accross the board and itll end up a nulsec with 1/2 uber alliances controling directly what they can and killing everything else with the benefits reaped from what there trying to fix.
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:22:00 - [2638] Edited by: Lolion Reglo on 09/11/2009 21:22:44 Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Ham sandwich or tuna salad. Still waiting. A ham sanvich OK. i give up worrying about this update. Thank you Verone for at least shoring up my faith that CCP knows what they are doing, and time to roll with this as far as it rolls. survive and adapt after all. I still think the cost of upkeep is gonna sting though... cant they lower the initial base price down some?
Nicolo da'Vicenza Amarr Dissonance Corp D0GS OF WAR	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:24:00 - [2639] Originally by: Treji Makes me still laugh Goons are asking one question: You don't have increased risk and logistics in 0.0, since you own the space and the your alliance members patrol and protect it. Yes, because goons haul countless freighters full of ice minerals to dozens of moons each of over a hundred systems to keep their space functioning (instead of NPCs doing it for free) and patrol these systems themselves (instead of NPCS doing it for free), that means goons don't have a higher level of risk and logistics then any given empire station hugger. Anyone who thinks raising the requirements of holding space to the point where the most logistically coordinated and powerful alliances can hold no more then a couple of constellations means that their tiny empire alliance, that has only faced wardecs until this point, is "getting a chance to break into 0.0" is insane.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:24:00 - [2640] Originally by: Kepakh Hm... 'I don't want you to make more ISK in 0.0, I want you to have all T2 ships for free.' Do you understand the difference? Risk vs reward is a myth. When there is a risk somewhere, the best way to lower the risk is to team up with other people. In the end, you are not rewarded for higher risk but co-operation. This is what needs to be supported. You proposed this mechanics: High risk -> better reward to justify high risk Proper motivation: High risk -> Better co-operation -> Better reward. High sec is solo content with no teaming up required. In 0.0 on the other hand, co-operation is mandatory and you get rewarded for that - your own stations, safer claimed space, infratruture, cap production etc. High sec and 0.0 works on completely different principles. Originally by: Kepakh No, high sec mechanics means: more time spent = more ISK. This is bad. It is the typical L4 grind. There is no need to create another grind land. As I explained in one of the posts above, I do not want you to make more ISK, I want you to benefit more from higher level income. More moon goo like resources! Moon mining is not really going to be nerfed. Just instead of R64 moon, you will mine couple of others. Since lots of your moons will free up, it will be not much of an issue. Do you have any idea how real alliances operate? Nobody gives out free T2 ships - some of the richer ones subsidize them well, but actual freebies? There's no such thing as an alliance rich enough that it's members don't have to work. We're talking about Delve, not Dubai. And as long as the membership has to work to keep their hangars full(which will always be the case), they're going to have the choice between L4 missions and 0.0 content. If 0.0 players - ones who live in 0.0 with their main, ones who like 0.0 gameplay, ones who have friends in 0.0 - are being told that they should be making their money in Dodixie, then there is something very wrong with the system. I agree that more group content is needed - high-end wormhole sites are the best PvE that Eve has to offer, and there should be more stuff like it, in 0.0 and 1.0 both. I would have no objections to placing the emphasis on individual income in highsec and 10-man group income in nullsec, as long as there's still opportunities for people to play in groups of the "wrong" size and make money. But a wishlist entry of "better group content" does not justify the actual, existing individual content being junk. If the group stuff was coming out in Dominion 1.0, sure, but it's not. Until it does, I havbe to judge 0.0 by the content it has, not by the content I wish it had. Originally by: Kepakh I don't give a damn wheter the expansion brings more people into 0.0 Than you're the only one. Originally by: Lord Helghast i stand by the fact that 0.0 is still a miners dream, and for whoever the fck thinks that highsec is safe is a douche thats been living in nullsec for too long, or your just so blind to realize theirs hundreds/thousands of people on the other side of all the god dan suicide ganking, i know a few corps planning a move to nullsec for the shear fact that it can't be much worse than highsec mining lately for all the gank teams. Yes, because nobody has ever lost a Hulk in nullsec. Nobody is claiming that highsec is perfectly safe - that would be a silly argument. But it is much safer than 0.0 is. This is hyperbole on the level of "Dominion is Eve's NGE".

Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:38:00 - [2641] For those planning on going to nullsec to mine be prepared to be sorely disappointed. While you CAN make more ISK than mining Veldspar, Veld is currently the 4th most profitable ore to mine. The drone regions have crashed mineral prices so drastically it is barely worth the effort.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:49:00 - [2642] Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Can I have your stuff. Seriosly. CCP: * 75 % of crying post are off goons, sudden defenders of small alliances . * Changes and upkeep cost sound pretty good but there IS still problem with lvl4. * Consider icreasing bounties of rats so running anomalies will be some more profitable of lvl4 . * It could good to add some more usefull upgrades some of which were mentioned in this thread. * Chaniging moon stuff in BPO requirments for t2 stuff was the worst way to deal with moon minerals changes , i am dissapointed in this regard. We still dont know how it will impact EVE economy
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:50:00 - [2643] A lot of you seem to think that we're "whining" because we don't want to lose our big D&Q-shaped "blob" on the map. This isn't the case. We've been chatting for months on how we'd probably be forced to "consolidate" our space and how to do so while retaining the most defensibility. Little did we know that with these changes the space wouldn't be worth keeping at all save for CSAAs. This is not a "Goon" thing. As usual we're just the most vocal. Rooting for this because it hurts us hurts everyone who has space who doesn't like us. There would be nothing to do but defend and carebear. Going to war, you know, those things that give EVE such good press, would be entirely suicidal in this new system, and either wouldn't happen, or would simply cease after a few battles. Exciting, huh? But you don't care. This is CAOD. Here any nameless/corpless ******* can post something as if he knows what the hell he's talking about (or troll, snipe, or egg on) and be heard as if he did know what he was talking about. Maybe just to possibly see himself quoted or to get some sense of "power" over someone he feels needs to be taken down a peg. Under this patch, with these "upgrades," 0.0 space will not be worth holding. NPC 0.0 will become the de facto new "must have." The "nerf" to moon mining will mean less T2 submaterials on the market which in turn will mean drastically higher prices for everything T2. Less ABC ores on the market will hurt everything else. So yeah, have your fun claiming "you've got ten alts all of which are in 0.0, billionaires, and are 'important men in the internet spaceship community.'" You'll suffer as much as us if this goes through.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:53:00 - [2644] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Do you have any idea how real alliances operate? Nobody gives out free T2 ships - some of the richer ones subsidize them well, but actual freebies? There's no such thing as an alliance rich enough that it's members don't have to work. We're talking about Delve, not Dubai. And as long as the membership has to work to keep their hangars full(which will always be the case), they're going to have the choice between L4 missions and 0.0 content. If 0.0 players - ones who live in 0.0 with their main, ones who like 0.0 gameplay, ones who have friends in 0.0 - are being told that they should be making their money in Dodixie, then there is something very wrong with the system. I agree that more group content is needed - high-end wormhole sites are the best PvE that Eve has to offer, and there should be more stuff like it, in 0.0 and 1.0 both. I would have no objections to placing the emphasis on individual income in highsec and 10-man group income in nullsec, as long as there's still opportunities for people to play in groups of the "wrong" size and make money. But a wishlist entry of "better group content" does not justify the actual, existing individual content being junk. If the group stuff was coming out in Dominion 1.0, sure, but it's not. Until it does, I havbe to judge 0.0 by the content it has, not by the content I wish it had. omfg... Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Than you're the only one. Yeah, I openly admit that I do not suffer any ill obsession to make bears populating 0.0 since it is completely stupid and pointless.
Sky Marshal IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:53:00 - [2645] Edited by: Sky Marshal on 09/11/2009 21:54:12 On an individual view, Dominion wont't change nothing to me : I already have an Alt in Empire to do missions, same if I expected Dominion to make 0.0 a few more economically viable. For all other views, this expansion will be a failure for all reasons already exposed by many contributors here. The most impressive is when you read some fanboys or Jade-Like posts, and some CCP posts. How can people be so delusional... _______ Local is fine, period. CCP devs, you nerfed shield resists by 8.3% but armor by 7.1% (The old Explo/EM "10 points" Nerf). When will you correct this inconsistency ?
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:54:00 - [2646] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Can I have your stuff. Seriosly. CCP: * 75 % of crying post are off goons, sudden defenders of small alliances . * Changes and upkeep cost sound pretty good but there IS still problem with lvl4. * Consider icreasing bounties of rats so running anomalies will be some more profitable of lvl4 . * It could good to add some more usefull upgrades some of which were mentioned in this thread. * Chaniging moon stuff in BPO requirments for t2 stuff was the worst way to deal with moon minerals changes , i am dissapointed in this regard. We still dont know how it will impact EVE economy The majority of the goons re not whining about moon or sov prices, they are complaining about the same ****. The null sec income being crap and level 4s being too good.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 21:54:00 - [2647] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Can I have your stuff. Seriosly. CCP: * 75 % of crying post are off goons, sudden defenders of small alliances . * Changes and upkeep cost sound pretty good but there IS still problem with lvl4. * Consider icreasing bounties of rats so running anomalies will be some more profitable of lvl4 . * It could good to add some more usefull upgrades some of which were mentioned in this thread. * Chaniging moon stuff in BPO requirments for t2 stuff was the worst way to deal with moon minerals changes , i am dissapointed in this regard. We still dont know how it will impact EVE economy So even though we are arguing the exact same point goons are crying and you are...?
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:01:00 - [2648] Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 09/11/2009 22:01:08 Originally by: Qlanth So even though we are arguing the exact same point goons are crying and you are... He's not one of "us" so that means he's more relevant, duhhhhhh.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:02:00 - [2649] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 * 75 % of crying post are off goons, sudden defenders of small alliances . ITT: Goons are the most vocal alliance around. Shocking, I know.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:03:00 - [2650] Edited by: Batolemaeus on 09/11/2009 22:05:45 Originally by: Otin Bison So, you get your PvP on for free? Is what you're saying? So, why all the consternation by folk about their ISK making in 0.0 ? You seem to be confused. I'm talking about now. As in, now, before dominion, i get free ships for strategically relevant operations funded by the moon stuff i'm (partly) protecting. The isk from moon goo doesn't just sink somewhere, it gets invested. The 100% refinery or the lvl3 industry upgraded station or the jump bridges that take me to empire, all funded by moons. The moon isk don't just vanish like you said, i'm directly profiting from them. However, my alliance surely won't come up for the ships i lose outside of strategically relevant ops. Those are the majority of ops, however. I will still have to make money to support that. And now CCP steps in and declares that i should be using worthless anomalies that are sub par to mission running in empire as a promised upgrade to the space i protect? Why the hell should i even do that? Now, pay attention to this very closely: If i want to make money, and believe me, sometimes i just need some isk, i get to choose between different activities. I'll choose the one that is most profitable while being as easy as possible to do while half asleep. This is mission running in empire. So no, i'm not complaining that isk making in 0.0 is worse than in empire, both before and after dominion. I get my isk anyways. I'm complaining that the expansion that was supposed to bring tons of players to 0.0 and make it possible to live there doesn't deliver. Why bother with anomalies as the only steady stream of income (all assuming we'd react like ccp wants us to and concentrate in a few systems only) when i can make more money elsewhere? If CCP wants us to live in the place we hold for nostalgic reasons, then they failed at changing it so we'd reconsider our behaviour. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.

Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:06:00 - [2651] It's a shame this thread will end up locked, because bumping it around the middle of next summer would no doubt be mildly amusing.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:10:00 - [2652] One thing that has definitely become glaringly clear is that CCP is completely out of touch with 0.0 moneymaking or else they are just ignoring it completely to push an agenda regarding static belts. I honestly would love to run Cosmic Anomalies instead of doing belt ratting because they are far more interesting. But in typical CCP fashion they released them pre-nerfed and they are basically worthless when compared to normal belt ratting. The sad part is this could be easily fixed but they seem to have absolutely no motivation to do so. (Hint CCP: these Sov changes were and are perfect motivation)
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:10:00 - [2653] Originally by: Batolemaeus So no, i'm not complaining that isk making in 0.0 is worse than in empire, both before and after dominion. I get my isk anyways. I'm complaining that the expansion that was supposed to bring tons of players to 0.0 and make it possible to live there doesn't deliver. Why bother with anomalies as the only steady stream of income (all assuming we'd react like ccp wants us to and concentrate in a few systems only) when i can make more money elsewhere? If CCP wants us to live in the place we hold for nostalgic reasons, then they failed at changing it so we'd reconsider our behaviour. this Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:13:00 - [2654] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar A lot of you seem to think that we're "whining" because we don't want to lose our big D&Q-shaped "blob" on the map. This isn't the case. We've been chatting for months on how we'd probably be forced to "consolidate" our space and how to do so while retaining the most defensibility. Little did we know that with these changes the space wouldn't be worth keeping at all save for CSAAs. This is not a "Goon" thing. As usual we're just the most vocal. Rooting for this because it hurts us hurts everyone who has space who doesn't like us. There would be nothing to do but defend and carebear. Going to war, you know, those things that give EVE such good press, would be entirely suicidal in this new system, and either wouldn't happen, or would simply cease after a few battles. Exciting, huh? But you don't care. This is CAOD. Here any nameless/corpless ******* can post something as if he knows what the hell he's talking about (or troll, snipe, or egg on) and be heard as if he did know what he was talking about. Maybe just to possibly see himself quoted or to get some sense of "power" over someone he feels needs to be taken down a peg. Under this patch, with these "upgrades," 0.0 space will not be worth holding. NPC 0.0 will become the de facto new "must have." The "nerf" to moon mining will mean less T2 submaterials on the market which in turn will mean drastically higher prices for everything T2. Less ABC ores on the market will hurt everything else. So yeah, have your fun claiming "you've got ten alts all of which are in 0.0, billionaires, and are 'important men in the internet spaceship community.'" You'll suffer as much as us if this goes through. My corp/alliance will have absolutely no problems holding space with the upcoming changes. Sure, we don't hold as much space as Goons, but we don't need this much anyways for our 1000 members. The moon-mining will not change anything in the T2-production for us aswell, it just get's more wide-spread across the moon-materials. Some moons loose their value, some others do increase. The prices will stay pretty much as they are. Will we drop the Sov on some of the currently claimed systems? Sure we will do drop sov here and there, where we don't use the systems other then for some belt-hunting, but we're considering to place a flag there, if CCP changes the costs from 20 million to 1 million per day. Sov without even placing a tower, for a laughable 30 million ISK a month... Why not? Yes, I don't post with my main and an alliance or corp-ticker, as we all know what happens if you do so. It doesn't have to do anything with credibility and i really don't care about it tbh, but in my example, I'm not allowed to raise my oppinion in public forums with my main-character for the reason, that my own oppinion will be seen as the oppinion of my whole corp/alliance, which it isn't. And yes, I'm not the casual-player like alot of you're pretending to be, but I've spoken with alot of corp/alliance-members about this, and noone of them would've a problem with contributing some 5-10 million ISK a day to the corp to keep up with the bills. And why should they complain? All fleet-ships are 100% funded by the corp, and that even includes the needed Tech 2-ships like Interceptors, Dictors, HICs and Logistics. HACs are given out for some special OPs aswell. I don't know what alot of corps/alliances are doing differently, that this doesn't work out for them, but I guess it's greed and egoism. So yeah... we're happily looking forward to the expansion, as nothing really changes for us, but we'll have the option to invest some money to provide some more PvE-content for our members in 0.0.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:14:00 - [2655] for those of you who believe 0.0 PVPers get free ships while in large alliances you are terribly delusional. T1 ships see some reimbursement, as do capitals, but very few T2 ships see much reimbursement, if any.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:14:00 - [2656] For the few high sec miners here claiming 0.0 is safe and they would love to mine there: Why arent you mining in providence right now? We got plenty of crappy roids you may mine.
Issler Dainze Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:15:00 - [2657] I have to say CCP failing to deliver what was promised is a disappointment. We were told to expect a system with expenses for holding space that increase on a curve and that the cost for only have a small holding would be set to encourage smaller alliances to move to 0.0. What we get instead will make it even less likely that a small alliance could make their home in 0.0. We were planning on finding a system or two out in the wild to make our own. I can't seen any way to make the ISKs work for that now. I now have gone from being REALLY excited about this expansion to being reminded CCP really just don't like industrialist and being a sad panda as my hope for a 0.0 home for BEEP clearly isn't going to happen any time soon. Issler
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:18:00 - [2658] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Kayl Breinhar A lot of you seem to think that we're "whining" because we don't want to lose our big D&Q-shaped "blob" on the map. This isn't the case. We've been chatting for months on how we'd probably be forced to "consolidate" our space and how to do so while retaining the most defensibility. Little did we know that with these changes the space wouldn't be worth keeping at all save for CSAAs. This is not a "Goon" thing. As usual we're just the most vocal. Rooting for this because it hurts us hurts everyone who has space who doesn't like us. There would be nothing to do but defend and carebear. Going to war, you know, those things that give EVE such good press, would be entirely suicidal in this new system, and either wouldn't happen, or would simply cease after a few battles. Exciting, huh? But you don't care. This is CAOD. Here any nameless/corpless ******* can post something as if he knows what the hell he's talking about (or troll, snipe, or egg on) and be heard as if he did know what he was talking about. Maybe just to possibly see himself quoted or to get some sense of "power" over someone he feels needs to be taken down a peg. Under this patch, with these "upgrades," 0.0 space will not be worth holding. NPC 0.0 will become the de facto new "must have." The "nerf" to moon mining will mean less T2 submaterials on the market which in turn will mean drastically higher prices for everything T2. Less ABC ores on the market will hurt everything else. So yeah, have your fun claiming "you've got ten alts all of which are in 0.0, billionaires, and are 'important men in the internet spaceship community.'" You'll suffer as much as us if this goes through. My corp/alliance will have absolutely no problems holding space with the upcoming changes. Sure, we don't hold as much space as Goons, but we don't need this much anyways for our 1000 members. The moon-mining will not change anything in the T2-production for us aswell, it just get's more wide-spread across the moon-materials. Some moons loose their value, some others do increase. The prices will stay pretty much as they are. Will we drop the Sov on some of the currently claimed systems? Sure we will do drop sov here and there, where we don't use the systems other then for some belt-hunting, but we're considering to place a flag there, if CCP changes the costs from 20 million to 1 million per day. Sov without even placing a tower, for a laughable 30 million ISK a month... Why not? Yes, I don't post with my main and an alliance or corp-ticker, as we all know what happens if you do so. It doesn't have to do anything with credibility and i really don't care about it tbh, but in my example, I'm not allowed to raise my oppinion in public forums with my main-character for the reason, that my own oppinion will be seen as the oppinion of my whole corp/alliance, which it isn't. And yes, I'm not the casual-player like alot of you're pretending to be, but I've spoken with alot of corp/alliance-members about this, and noone of them would've a problem with contributing some 5-10 million ISK a day to the corp to keep up with the bills. And why should they complain? All fleet-ships are 100% funded by the corp, and that even includes the needed Tech 2-ships like Interceptors, Dictors, HICs and Logistics. HACs are given out for some special OPs aswell. I don't know what alot of corps/alliances are doing differently, that this doesn't work out for them, but I guess it's greed and egoism. So yeah... we're happily looking forward to the expansion, as nothing really changes for us, but we'll have the option to invest some money to provide some more PvE-content for our members in 0.0. Lets make sure to point out you admit to having 2 accounts dedicated solely to making money in empire, and play over 6 hours a day. The fact that those 2 accounts arent in nullsec making cash, is really all that needs being said.
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:19:00 - [2659] Edited by: Trent Nichols on 09/11/2009 22:20:59 Originally by: Kayl Breinhar The small alliance line is laughable. The biggest enemy to us is peace. This expansion will force that on everyone. Peace in EVE is boring as hell. This right here is the other part of what makes Dominion such a disaster. There will be very few wars between the current sov holding alliances after dominion. If grabbing space only gets you more bills why do it? This wouldn't be so bad if that PVP void was going to be filled by hoards of empire alliances charging into now vacant 0.0 but that isn't going to happen. The insane fees and the fact that they are flat rate insures there will still be no room for new alliances in 0.0 and they wouldn't be able to afford it even if there was. Thats twice Ive quoted goons in this thread... What have you done CCP? Colonies and Capitals
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:19:00 - [2660] Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Can I have your stuff. Seriosly. CCP: * 75 % of crying post are off goons, sudden defenders of small alliances . * Changes and upkeep cost sound pretty good but there IS still problem with lvl4. * Consider icreasing bounties of rats so running anomalies will be some more profitable of lvl4 . * It could good to add some more usefull upgrades some of which were mentioned in this thread. * Chaniging moon stuff in BPO requirments for t2 stuff was the worst way to deal with moon minerals changes , i am dissapointed in this regard. We still dont know how it will impact EVE economy The majority of the wgoons re not hining about moon or sov prices, they are complaining about the same ***. The null sec income being crap and level 4s being too good. I have heards goons crying about : Star wars game and expansion that killed it NGE ? And saying it is coming to eve * That 0.0 is now worthless and they are going to farm lvl4 , then saying they stay for other reasons when i am talking about moving to delve. * insulting other poeple beggining on that some have no idea of 0.0 and they(goons) knows everything ending on nerds that lives in mothers basement. * complaints that now they cant pvp in carriers and titans for free. * complaining that now they cant cyno jam and jump bridge entire regions. * crying about small alliances that they suddenly feel so much sympathy for that they cant afford to hold sov. and many more that i missed ... And no, null sec is no crap after expansion. Moons + rats + hi lvl plexes + hi lvl wormholes gives very decent income. You just have to work a litte more ( no more afk empires ) and cant roll caps like they were rifters. The anomalies are there to give you opportunity to keep isks flowing 23/7. The only thing i dont like they are at the level with lvl4.They should give more. Also mining is broken beacuse of : lvl4 loot and drones .But thats the diffrent story. Also CCP what about drones regions. How do you compensate no bounties thing ?

Xunasy	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:21:00 - [2661] Ahaha what a horrible update, I feel sorry for whoever wasted their time on this pile of ****.
Uberfrau	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:22:00 - [2662] Originally by: Vivian Azure And yes, I'm not the casual-player like alot of you're pretending to be, but I've spoken with alot of corp/alliance-members about this, and noone of them would've a problem with contributing some 5-10 million ISK a day to the corp to keep up with the bills. So, wait, you don't currently have a tax set on your corp?
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:28:00 - [2663] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 22:29:22 Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 22:28:58 Originally by: Pointfive Lets make sure to point out you admit to having 2 accounts dedicated solely to making money in empire, and play over 6 hours a day. The fact that those 2 accounts arent in nullsec making cash, is really all that needs being said. How many players in your alliance have multiple accounts and invest alot of time to make the game more fun for those, who can't do so? 75% of our corp are playing with a single account and they can live very well with it. Even with the upcoming changes. Originally by: Uberfrau Originally by: Vivian Azure And yes, I'm not the casual-player like alot of you're pretending to be, but I've spoken with alot of corp/alliance-members about this, and noone of them would've a problem with contributing some 5-10 million ISK a day to the corp to keep up with the bills. So, wait, you don't currently have a tax set on your corp? Our corp-tax is 10%.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:29:00 - [2664] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar A lot of you seem to think that we're "whining" because we don't want to lose our big D&Q-shaped "blob" on the map. This isn't the case. We've been chatting for months on how we'd probably be forced to "consolidate" our space and how to do so while retaining the most defensibility. Little did we know that with these changes the space wouldn't be worth keeping at all save for CSAAs. This is not a "Goon" thing. As usual we're just the most vocal. Rooting for this because it hurts us hurts everyone who has space who doesn't like us. There would be nothing to do but defend and carebear. Going to war, you know, those things that give EVE such good press, would be entirely suicidal in this new system, and either wouldn't happen, or would simply cease after a few battles. Exciting, huh? But you don't care. This is CAOD. Here any nameless/corpless ******* can post something as if he knows what the hell he's talking about (or troll, snipe, or egg on) and be heard as if he did know what he was talking about. Maybe just to possibly see himself quoted or to get some sense of "power" over someone he feels needs to be taken down a peg. Under this patch, with these "upgrades," 0.0 space will not be worth holding. NPC 0.0 will become the de facto new "must have." The "nerf" to moon mining will mean less T2 submaterials on the market which in turn will mean drastically higher prices for everything T2. Less ABC ores on the market will hurt everything else. So yeah, have your fun claiming "you've got ten alts all of which are in 0.0, billionaires, and are 'important men in the internet spaceship community.'" You'll suffer as much as us if this goes through. This isn't CAOD. You answer to everyone in this forum, including "nameless" corps. Yes, you suffering would make me happy. Yes, under this patch space isn't worth holding. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE PATCH. It is to force you to consolidate. All the same rats that exist now, will be there after the patch, except there will be more rats in upgraded space. The big change/loss is in moon gold. This is INTENDED to deprive you of income. The idea of Sov is being changed to its core, it is a flag, its no longer the literal indication of control it used to be. For real military control you will have to fight outside your Sov areas. You are pushing an agenda that you think will give you the most advantage. Your posting indicates a strategy where you replace moon gold with rat gold, that shifts the balance from empire to 0.0 in isk generation, maintaining your advantage, and nullifying your need to pull back on systems and cyno jammers. My position is different from Goons, as is a lot of other people who have posted. You shouldn't presume to speak for other people, speak for yourself. I don't buy this "white hat" stuff coming from Goons, the entire idea of your alliance is to act like bastards. Its also a campaign launched straight from Goonfleet forums, not some spontaneous uprising. I also get the CVA and Atlas type issues. The CVA issues especially are very different from Goons. Goons are, as usual, shouting over everyone else. Just because you are the loudest doesn't mean you are the only voice. Can I have your stuff? never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:30:00 - [2665] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 22:32:20 Quote: I honestly would love to run Cosmic Anomalies instead of doing belt ratting because they are far more interesting. But in typical CCP fashion they released them pre-nerfed and they are basically worthless when compared to normal belt ratting. I keep seeing comments similar to this. You will be happy to know that anomalies will be getting bumped to be as lucurative as level 4's when fully upgraded. You gain 2 per upgrade (in addition to any that naturally occur), the respawn insantly and without limit. These 10 high end anomalies should keep quite a few people busy over a 23hr period (4-6hrs per person per anomaly over a period of a day adds up to quite a few people). Keep in mind this is in addition to the natural resources that are already in that system. Also keep in mind that the surrounding systems will be just as lucurative as the are currently. Most importantly, keep in mind that this is only one of the 5 sources of upgradeable income, and some of the others (high quality plexs, high end wormholes) provide even more income for even larger groups. And finally, more upgrade options are being planned, they wish to see how these pan out first. Bottom line, the average member of a 0.0 alliance is going to have far more isk making potential than they ever had before... concentrated in their home systems. Yes, running level 4's is comparable to what the anomalies will be , but that is only one source of income available (nor the most lucurative)... which is very, very nice if mission running doesn't thrill you to support your PVP habit. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:30:00 - [2666] Originally by: Vivian Azure And yes, I'm not the casual-player like alot of you're pretending to be, but I've spoken with alot of corp/alliance-members about this, and noone of them would've a problem with contributing some 5-10 million ISK a day to the corp to keep up with the bills. And why should they complain? All fleet-ships are 100% funded by the corp, and that even includes the needed Tech 2-ships like Interceptors, Dictors, HICs and Logistics. HACs are given out for some special OPs aswell. I don't know what alot of corps/alliances are doing differently, that this doesn't work out for them, but I guess it's greed and egoism. So yeah... we're happily looking forward to the expansion, as nothing really changes for us, but we'll have the option to invest some money to provide some more PvE-content for our members in 0.0. Pretty much this. If you want to change anything about 'homogeneous' 0.0 as stated in the dev blog, you need to give corp/alliance MORE passive ISK, not less. More ISK and tools how to manage your resources means more possibiltities for leaders to run their corps/alliance and in the end making 0.0 more attractive as well as more fun. PVE grind is nice bonus but far from any deal breaker affecting how 0.0 works. Thanks for post, Vivian.
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp.	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:30:00 - [2667] Originally by: Gnulpie Originally by: Ben Derindar Originally by: Kerdrak The funniest of all this topic is that CCP will end NERFING empire lvl4's to balance this expansion I'm actually seriously starting to wonder the same thing. If it starts to look like CCP will take a subscriber hit regardless of what they do next, moving the remaining high-sec L4 agents to low-sec may actually emerge as the best option for the game at that point. Haha, yeah sure. Only problem is that most of the subscribers are hardcore carebears and if CCP will take away their toys then they will just quit. As opposed to pretty much everyone in 0.0 threatening the same thing? Read what I wrote again: if people are going to quit regardless, then it matters less whatever CCP does next. Originally by: Gnulpie Look how many people are in 0.0 (20%?) and how many are in high sec (80%?) and then you can get an idea what is more important to CCP, 0.0 or high sec. That's a bit simplistic. I for one would love to see a breakdown of that 80%: 1. How many are RMT farmers who we all want gone from the game anyway? 2. How many of them are alts of 0.0 types who would move back to 0.0 once that became the more lucrative option? 3. How many belong to that very group of people that Dominion is aimed at, the smaller corps/alliances who would also consider a move to 0.0 if they too saw it as being sufficiently worthwhile, but currently don't (and rightly so)? Let's take another look at this often-asked question: Quote: 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 If the question were to be worded in a more generic sense, such as: Quote: 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 the most lucrative high-sec activity ...with the assumption that high-sec income options are somewhat balanced relative to each other, then I would answer a resounding YES. But the original question is much harder to answer because it highlights not the lack of income opportunities in 0.0, but the fact that highsec L4 mission running trumps them all. So then the argument becomes "OK, so nerf L4s". OK sure, so some in highsec would quit the game I don't deny that, but I think your numbers are overstated, and if enough 0.0 folk are upset about Dominion at this point to consider quitting over it anyway, then your point becomes moot. Again I propose that the problem here is not 0.0 being underpowered, but that highsec L4 missions are overpowered, but at what point does the price of fixing them anyway become worthwhile? By the look of this thread, I just wonder if that point may be closer than we realise. /Ben
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:33:00 - [2668] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Can I have your stuff. Seriosly. CCP: * 75 % of crying post are off goons, sudden defenders of small alliances . * Changes and upkeep cost sound pretty good but there IS still problem with lvl4. * Consider icreasing bounties of rats so running anomalies will be some more profitable of lvl4 . * It could good to add some more usefull upgrades some of which were mentioned in this thread. * Chaniging moon stuff in BPO requirments for t2 stuff was the worst way to deal with moon minerals changes , i am dissapointed in this regard. We still dont know how it will impact EVE economy The majority of the wgoons re not hining about moon or sov prices, they are complaining about the same ***. The null sec income being crap and level 4s being too good. I have heards goons crying about : Star wars game and expansion that killed it NGE ? And saying it is coming to eve * That 0.0 is now worthless and they are going to farm lvl4 , then saying they stay for other reasons when i am talking about moving to delve. * insulting other poeple beggining on that some have no idea of 0.0 and they(goons) knows everything ending on nerds that lives in mothers basement. * complaints that now they cant pvp in carriers and titans for free. * complaining that now they cant cyno jam and jump bridge entire regions. * crying about small alliances that they suddenly feel so much sympathy for that they cant afford to hold sov. and many more that i missed ... And no, null sec is no crap after expansion. Moons + rats + hi lvl plexes + hi lvl wormholes gives very decent income. You just have to work a litte more ( no more afk empires ) and cant roll caps like they were rifters. The anomalies are there to give you opportunity to keep isks flowing 23/7. The only thing i dont like they are at the level with lvl4.They should give more. Also mining is broken beacuse of : lvl4 loot and drones .But thats the diffrent story. Also CCP what about drones regions. How do you compensate no bounties thing ? I am challenging you right now to find a single post where a GoonSwarm member is complaining about any one of those bullet points. Keep in mind that no one is "crying for" smaller alliances we are just pointing out that larger alliances like ours are hurt the least by this. Sometimes I really wish I could sit down and talk to someone face to face about this because you apparently are having a very hard time understanding when it is written.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:36:00 - [2669] Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 22:38:40 Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 09/11/2009 22:37:13 dude i will not sort through 90 pages , really. I am sure there are there , maybe your not one of them personally though. And i agree arguing on forums is like ... i am sure we both know this.
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:47:00 - [2670] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Kayl Breinhar A lot of you seem to think that we're "whining" because we don't want to lose our big D&Q-shaped "blob" on the map. This isn't the case. We've been chatting for months on how we'd probably be forced to "consolidate" our space and how to do so while retaining the most defensibility. Little did we know that with these changes the space wouldn't be worth keeping at all save for CSAAs. This is not a "Goon" thing. As usual we're just the most vocal. Rooting for this because it hurts us hurts everyone who has space who doesn't like us. There would be nothing to do but defend and carebear. Going to war, you know, those things that give EVE such good press, would be entirely suicidal in this new system, and either wouldn't happen, or would simply cease after a few battles. Exciting, huh? But you don't care. This is CAOD. Here any nameless/corpless ******* can post something as if he knows what the hell he's talking about (or troll, snipe, or egg on) and be heard as if he did know what he was talking about. Maybe just to possibly see himself quoted or to get some sense of "power" over someone he feels needs to be taken down a peg. Under this patch, with these "upgrades," 0.0 space will not be worth holding. NPC 0.0 will become the de facto new "must have." The "nerf" to moon mining will mean less T2 submaterials on the market which in turn will mean drastically higher prices for everything T2. Less ABC ores on the market will hurt everything else. So yeah, have your fun claiming "you've got ten alts all of which are in 0.0, billionaires, and are 'important men in the internet spaceship community.'" You'll suffer as much as us if this goes through. This isn't CAOD. You answer to everyone in this forum, including "nameless" corps. Yes, you suffering would make me happy. Yes, under this patch space isn't worth holding. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE PATCH. It is to force you to consolidate. Hey, you do realise that half of Delve is NPC 0.0 and therefore will cost us nothing, right? In fact, it's even got L4 missions in it. Quote: All the same rats that exist now, will be there after the patch, except there will be more rats in upgraded space. Terrible deadspace rats with awful loot/bounties. Quote: The big change/loss is in moon gold. This is INTENDED to deprive you of income. The idea of Sov is being changed to its core, it is a flag, its no longer the literal indication of control it used to be. For real military control you will have to fight outside your Sov areas. To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money?

Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:51:00 - [2671] Originally by: Itzena To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money? Nothing worth fighting for? I don't like you. I want to see you die and your empire burn. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:55:00 - [2672] Edited by: Itzena on 09/11/2009 22:55:16 Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Itzena To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money? Nothing worth fighting for? I don't like you. I want to see you die and your empire burn. I'm hurt.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:57:00 - [2673] Quote: Terrible deadspace rats with awful loot/bounties. No. Upgraded deadspace rats that generate income comparable to running level 4's, that respawn instantly and without limit. Just keeping you honest, carry on. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:57:00 - [2674] Edited by: Tesal on 09/11/2009 23:00:10 Originally by: Itzena Edited by: Itzena on 09/11/2009 22:55:16 Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Itzena To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money? Nothing worth fighting for? I don't like you. I want to see you die and your empire burn. I'm hurt. Remember the feeling when you took Delve? Did you really fight BoB for isk? You have to ask what it all means. never stop posting...with alts.* Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:59:00 - [2675] Originally by: Tesal Remember the feeling when you took Delve? Did you really fight BoB for isk? What? Did they fight?
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:00:00 - [2676] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 09/11/2009 23:02:01 Originally by: Itzena Edited by: Itzena on 09/11/2009 22:55:16 Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Itzena To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money? Nothing worth fighting for? I don't like you. I want to see you die and your empire burn. I'm hurt. Seriously. The biggest wars on earth were'nt fought over ressources, but because of religious, political or social reasons. So just start a campaign against some other alliance, because they have a period in their name or whatever. If you really want to fight, then you'll find a reason. If you don't wanna fight however, and just do the carebear-stuff and get utterly rich... well... then leave 0.0 and do the carebearing in empire
Adam Ridgway Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:04:00 - [2677] Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously. The biggest wars on earth were'nt fought over ressources, but because of religious, political or social reasons. Not only you are clueless about EVE, you also are compeltlly clueless about RL. GTFO.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:05:00 - [2678] Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: I honestly would love to run Cosmic Anomalies instead of doing belt ratting because they are far more interesting. But in typical CCP fashion they released them pre-nerfed and they are basically worthless when compared to normal belt ratting. I keep seeing comments similar to this. You will be happy to know that anomalies will be getting bumped to be as lucurative as level 4's when fully upgraded. You gain 2 per upgrade (in addition to any that naturally occur), the respawn insantly and without limit. These 10 high end anomalies should keep quite a few people busy over a 23hr period (4-6hrs per person per anomaly over a period of a day adds up to quite a few people). Yes, anomalies will be just as good as L4 missioning...unless there's a red in system. Or you're under attack. Or you run out of ammo. Or you get your anomaly-running ship trapped in an outpost held by reds. Remind me again why "it will eventually be as good as L4 missions" is supposed to be a good thing? Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Itzena To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money? Nothing worth fighting for? I don't like you. I want to see you die and your empire burn. Hey, we all want to see that particular empire burn, it's why Yih has been having so much fun lately. Doesn't mean anyone is going to saddle up a trillion isk of cap ships to do it, though.
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:07:00 - [2679] Originally by: Adam Ridgway Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously. The biggest wars on earth were'nt fought over ressources, but because of religious, political or social reasons. Not only you are clueless about EVE, you also are compeltlly clueless about RL. GTFO. I'm not speaking of wars that happened in the last century... they were'nt that big actually, but you'll figure it out.
Kaydin Versailles	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:09:00 - [2680] I have a different complaint than everyone else. I like how EVE tries to keep things believable most of the time, and although I know the names and descriptions are still a work in progress, they don't sound very natural at all. It makes the entire system seems mechanical, instead of feeling natural. When I first heard of the ideas CCP had for the Sov changes, I imagined the additions to be more along the lines of discoveries. I thought we would be given the ability to unlock content that, in the world of EVE, already existed but was hidden and that a more natural approach would be taken to reveal these things. I think it needs to be dressed up A LOT more. It breaks the immersion aspect greatly when Alliances are suppose to just purchase Pirate Magnets to increase the amount of pirates in their system(s) while paying their fortnightly fee too...who exactly? If you own the system and it's devoid of Concord/Empire control than who are you paying to and why can't you blow them up and make the additions yourself (for free!)?

Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:12:00 - [2681] Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: Terrible deadspace rats with awful loot/bounties. No. Upgraded deadspace rats that generate income comparable to running level 4's, that respawn instantly and without limit. Just keeping you honest, carry on. No, top tier anomalies being barely on par if not worse than lvl4 missions. Only a small percentage of anomalies are top tier. I'd like you to stick to the facts Ranger 1. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Yun Cap	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:13:00 - [2682] I'll try to be positive: - About afk empires and sov cost. If you want to force alliances to use their space or leave it, why not link cost to system use? Each time you kill a rat in a belt, sov upkeep reduces by x ISK, each time a roid is cleared, reduce y from upkeep, each time an anomally is cleared, reduce z from upkeep, each time a plex is completed, reduce upkeep... This could make upkeep near 0 if the system is used constantly and i think fits with the idea of active empires and would reduce the weight on individual player of sov manteniance. You do it working-living there, not just paying. - About getting fights-conquest. Right now with this changes, why an alliance would bother in conquest space if the cost of sov is bigger than the benefits? This are my ideas: - Make outpost-hubs-flags-any structure destructible and lootable. It gives a new option in wars, conquer to have or raid it to get the treasure (conan style)! Actual evacuations would be nothing compared to a scenario where you loose (no more assets->contracts) all your assets if you don't evacuate it, fight till the end or loose all. For structures without hangar, add loot tables. Alliances would have in this way another possible income source and at same time add an isk sink. - Make upgrades last longer than hub. If you take upgraded systems and you take the sov you still have the benefits (or some at least). Make space more desirable not only by moons, belt number or true sec, but for upgrades in it too. - Personal income Ok, let's face it. With this expansion, where alliances will be forced to make their people work (not only fight) for them to keep sov, inividual members will see their income cripled (Actual income - sov upkeep/members). Right now, for the mainstream of alliance members its almost better run lvl4 in empire (JC or alt) than rat (only real liquid isk provider), plex, mine (hauling, market dependency returns), so with new added cost it looks worse. Projected upgrades only add quantity, not quality, and what 0.0 needs to atrack people is quallity. If you want to bring bears to 0.0, use candies to attrack them, not only rocks: you will be taxed to hell and killed by evil players for the same return of lvl4 misions inm hisec, doesn't seem very interesting. Add true-sec upgrades, add asteroid size upgrades, add bounty upgrades... Oh, this is hard codding... Well ccp, you are a software company, its your job. - Upgrades Well, seems that the general opinion of this upgrades is that are crap. Anyway, i think that general opinion about the intentions of Dominion is that are in the right way too, so take your time, rethink implementation and bring us a decenmt upgrade system with more possibilities, better returns and enjoyable for all. My 2 cents, xcuse my poor english.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:13:00 - [2683] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Itzena To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money? Nothing worth fighting for? I don't like you. I want to see you die and your empire burn. I like you. Your e-hate is warm and delicious. I suggest that since it's obvious CCP isn't going to post here anymore that this conversation needs to be moved to CAOD so all of these important anonymous internet spaceship moguls have to at least switch to their Empire holding corp tags.
Clurk Brodon Yog-Sothoth Heavy Industries	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:13:00 - [2684] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I get what you're saying, and I don't even completely disagree, but the problem is that we've seen this kind of thing from CCP before. They never go back and fix it half as quickly as they should, and we're left with a whole bunch of really cool, totally unusable content for years. Bombs came in in Rev 2, summer '07, and didn't see use until after Apocrypha because CCP pre-nerfed them and didn't give them a serious fix for two years. Black ops, Trinity, late 07, the ones CCP explicitly stated that they pre-nerfed intentionally, still not usable for very much above the level of comedy ops. And let's not forget such CCP success stories as combat boosters, epic arcs, COSMOS, or the current awful sovereignty mechanics that it took them five years to fix. Let's not forget faction drones, or the whole T1 mineral market for that matter. CCP expected people to fight in the Fictional Warfare for no actual reward - it failed. They're now expecting carebears to get ganked in 0.0 for lower income than Hi-sec mission running, AND pay infrastructure upkeep + a rent to their landlord.
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:13:00 - [2685] Originally by: Vivian Azure I'm not speaking of wars that happened in the last century... they were'nt that big actually, but you'll figure it out. Are you talking about the many wars scattered throughout history where religious / nationalist fervor was stoked to incite a war that was in fact for more mundane political and economic gain?
Static Kinetics Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:18:00 - [2686] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Tesal Remember the feeling when you took Delve? Did you really fight BoB for isk? What? Did they fight? can we expect to see u in 0sec in dominion or are you just another dumb**** carebear that will never go and sees this as a possible threat to ur lvl 4 isk and are speaking out against it
Mobius Q	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:22:00 - [2687] Edited by: Mobius Q on 09/11/2009 23:24:22 Originally by: Vivian Azure And yes, I'm not the casual-player like alot of you're pretending to be, but I've spoken with alot of corp/alliance-members about this, and noone of them would've a problem with contributing some 5-10 million ISK a day to the corp to keep up with the bills. And why should they complain? All fleet-ships are 100% funded by the corp, and that even includes the needed Tech 2-ships like Interceptors, Dictors, HICs and Logistics. HACs are given out for some special OPs aswell. I don't know what alot of corps/alliances are doing differently, that this doesn't work out for them, but I guess it's greed and egoism. So yeah... we're happily looking forward to the expansion, as nothing really changes for us, but we'll have the option to invest some money to provide some more PvE-content for our members in 0.0. You say your corp is 100% taxed, so where would those members get the extra 300mill a month? (pls stop saying 5-10 mill, the numbers you throw around are the equivalent of $15 US a month in plex) OT, but: Do you also give out +4 implants? snakes? faction mods? ur communism idea is a lie. Why would you need to provide more pve content? I mean do your members actually rat with 100% tax? srsly??????? pls stop posting, the only case you are making is that you are actually functionally ******ed. E: you say now your tax is 10%, earlier you claimed 100%
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:23:00 - [2688] Haha, I've just realised that Groon are going to have better space post-Dominion than quite a lot of the big alliances.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:24:00 - [2689] Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: Terrible deadspace rats with awful loot/bounties. No. Upgraded deadspace rats that generate income comparable to running level 4's, that respawn instantly and without limit. Just keeping you honest, carry on. Comparable to lvl 4's if you forget about LP, increased risk, logistics costs, increased market prices in 0.0, costs for the upgrade, upkeep costs on the system, etc. Just keeping you honest. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:25:00 - [2690] Originally by: Mobius Q Originally by: Vivian Azure And yes, I'm not the casual-player like alot of you're pretending to be, but I've spoken with alot of corp/alliance-members about this, and noone of them would've a problem with contributing some 5-10 million ISK a day to the corp to keep up with the bills. And why should they complain? All fleet-ships are 100% funded by the corp, and that even includes the needed Tech 2-ships like Interceptors, Dictors, HICs and Logistics. HACs are given out for some special OPs aswell. I don't know what alot of corps/alliances are doing differently, that this doesn't work out for them, but I guess it's greed and egoism. So yeah... we're happily looking forward to the expansion, as nothing really changes for us, but we'll have the option to invest some money to provide some more PvE-content for our members in 0.0. You say your corp is 100% taxed, so where would those members get the extra 300mill a month? (pls stop saying 5-10 mill, the numbers you throw around are the equivalent of $15 US a month in plex) OT, but: Do you also give out +4 implants? snakes? faction mods? ur communism idea is a lie. Why would you need to provide more pve content? I mean do your members actually rat with 100% tax? srsly??????? pls stop posting, the only case you are making is that you are actually functionally ******ed. My corp is taxed at 10%. Thanks for not being able to read.

Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:26:00 - [2691] Originally by: Mobius Q Edited by: Mobius Q on 09/11/2009 23:24:22 You say your corp is 100% taxed What a failure... Originally by: Vivian Azure Our corp-tax is 10%.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:27:00 - [2692] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 09/11/2009 23:15:58 Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Itzena To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money? Nothing worth fighting for? I don't like you. I want to see you die and your empire burn. I like you. Your e-hate is warm and delicious. I suggest that since it's obvious CCP isn't going to post here anymore that this conversation needs to be moved to CAOD so all of these important anonymous internet spaceship moguls have to at least switch to their Empire holding corp characters. A Goon without a sense of humor is like insert crappy analogy here. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:28:00 - [2693] Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: Terrible deadspace rats with awful loot/bounties. No. Upgraded deadspace rats that generate income comparable to running level 4's, that respawn instantly and without limit. Just keeping you honest, carry on. There is a limit and that limit is 10. That limit is a lot less than level 4's which is infinity. Also the vast majority of level 4s are run in empire. The low sec and nullsec level 4s are not attracting the hordes of people to come do those. Because slightly increased gain for infinitely increased risk does not work. Giving the same reward for even more risk is just insulting.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:31:00 - [2694] Originally by: Pointfive There is a limit and that limit is 10. That limit is a lot less than level 4's which is infinity. Also the vast majority of level 4s are run in empire. The low sec and nullsec level 4s are not attracting the hordes of people to come do those. Because slightly increased gain for infinitely increased risk does not work. Giving the same reward for even more risk is just insulting. If you find high sec so much better, just live there instead of 0.0 There is no point comparing those two since they are 2 completely different things nor there is a need to turn one into another.
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:32:00 - [2695] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Adam Ridgway Originally by: Vivian Azure Seriously. The biggest wars on earth were'nt fought over ressources, but because of religious, political or social reasons. Not only you are clueless about EVE, you also are compeltlly clueless about RL. GTFO. I'm not speaking of wars that happened in the last century... they were'nt that big actually, but you'll figure it out. Yeah WWI and WWII weren't big at all. I mean seriously millions of people may have died but in wars before that billions died right :P Most wars are fought at least partially over money. And on a video game that is even more the case since there aren't political ideals and religious ideals that have built up over hundreds if not thousands of years. Sure if a video game was going for a few hundred years that might be the case, but it isn't. Of course if you translated those beliefs into the game you could have some giant fights over it, for instance if all the republicans and all the democrats joined different alliances next to eachother, probably you would have huge fights every four years at least. But I don't think that is going to happen. In order to get people in video games to fight you have to offer them something that is potentially worth more than the time they spend fighting. Unless of course they don't lose anything if they lose the fight, which is what moon mining did to a degree, but we want people to lose something. So that leaves offering rewards greater than the possible losses. ________________________________________________ If you can't beat them join them. YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:32:00 - [2696] Originally by: Alexander Knott Originally by: Vivian Azure I'm not speaking of wars that happened in the last century... they were'nt that big actually, but you'll figure it out. Are you talking about the many wars scattered throughout history where religious / nationalist fervor was stoked to incite a war that was in fact for more mundane political and economic gain? Yes, this is the tack this thread needs to be put on. :arsed:
Mobius Q	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:33:00 - [2697] Originally by: Vivian Azure My corp is taxed at 10% and it allways was. The 100% statement was being made as an example previously, or maybe you're mixing it up with the mentioned 100% reimbursement for fleet-ships. earlier Originally by: Vivian Azure In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. excuse me for not realising that when you implied you had 100% tax you were flat out lying
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:34:00 - [2698] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Pointfive There is a limit and that limit is 10. That limit is a lot less than level 4's which is infinity. Also the vast majority of level 4s are run in empire. The low sec and nullsec level 4s are not attracting the hordes of people to come do those. Because slightly increased gain for infinitely increased risk does not work. Giving the same reward for even more risk is just insulting. If you find high sec so much better, just live there instead of 0.0 There is no point comparing those two since they are 2 completely different things nor there is a need to turn one into another. Cool when the prices of ships and all items are no longer effected by empire i will gladly stop caring. But thats not the case.
Diashi	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:35:00 - [2699] Edited by: Diashi on 09/11/2009 23:35:11 What a load of nonsense, 0.0 warfare will move to empire gateways, the rest will go unclaimed. No access for ze leet noobs wanting a share as they will not be able to control the empire gateways (and the path to their new home) from the major alliances. The achilles heel of the whole idea of Dominion. No, you didnt think of that did you? Shame...
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:35:00 - [2700] Originally by: Mobius Q Originally by: Vivian Azure My corp is taxed at 10% and it allways was. The 100% statement was being made as an example previously, or maybe you're mixing it up with the mentioned 100% reimbursement for fleet-ships. earlier Originally by: Vivian Azure In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. excuse me for not realising that when you implied you had 100% tax you were flat out lying I said, there SHOULD be 100%... but yeah, keep trying

Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:35:00 - [2701] Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: Terrible deadspace rats with awful loot/bounties. No. Upgraded deadspace rats that generate income comparable to running level 4's, that respawn instantly and without limit. Just keeping you honest, carry on. There is a limit and that limit is 10. That limit is a lot less than level 4's which is infinity. Also the vast majority of level 4s are run in empire. The low sec and nullsec level 4s are not attracting the hordes of people to come do those. Because slightly increased gain for infinitely increased risk does not work. Giving the same reward for even more risk is just insulting. You could always quit instead of stinking up the forum with your endless "i wanna make lvl 4 isk while station spinning" I mean damn- YES OR NO: CAN I HAVE YOUR STUFF? PS take the goonbabies with you
Static Kinetics Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:36:00 - [2702] Edited by: Static Kinetics on 09/11/2009 23:41:06 Edited by: Static Kinetics on 09/11/2009 23:39:59 Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Pointfive There is a limit and that limit is 10. That limit is a lot less than level 4's which is infinity. Also the vast majority of level 4s are run in empire. The low sec and nullsec level 4s are not attracting the hordes of people to come do those. Because slightly increased gain for infinitely increased risk does not work. Giving the same reward for even more risk is just insulting. If you find high sec so much better, just live there instead of 0.0 There is no point comparing those two since they are 2 completely different things nor there is a need to turn one into another. why are u such a **ing **, ccp said dominion would cause a mass exodus to 0.0, people here are saying that wont work cuz the upgrades are , and costly. your on here telling ppl to go to highsec if they dont like it? do you not see a conflict with your statement and with what ccp has said it is trying to accomplish? do u think exodus part two, 0.0 players moving to highsec, is what ccp wants to see? because they have stated otherwise. why are you even posting here? as a sidenote, vivian azure, you too are a ing **, the world wars werent very big huh? the gulf war wasnt about resources huh? shut the ** up and quit posting, do you think throwing an emoticon after everything stupid you say makes it any less stupid? and then theres the mutant, another person for the changes, another lvl 4 carebear that has never been to 0.0, stating lvl 4 missions (which are so abundant in 0.0) pay more than they do in highsec, you too, are an idiot.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:38:00 - [2703] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 09/11/2009 23:42:53 Originally by: Batolemaeus No, top tier anomalies being barely on par if not worse than lvl4 missions. Only a small percentage of anomalies are top tier. I'd like you to stick to the facts Ranger 1. Actually, Soundwave said about 70 pages back that they were bringing in new anomalies, and that a max-upgraded system would have earnings potential on par with L4s. He's wrong on a bunch of other stuff, but not on this. At least, if CCP is more trustworthy on that issue than they were on "systems that can support 50-100 players at once". Originally by: Clurk Brodon Let's not forget faction drones, or the whole T1 mineral market for that matter. Actually, I had forgotten about those. God, talk about wonderful design decisions... Originally by: Future Mutant You could always quit instead of stinking up the forum with your endless "i wanna make lvl 4 isk while station spinning" Who wants to earn while spinning ships? Everyone's against that kind of "gameplay". The goal is for 0.0 to be better money than highsec, not for money to flow in without working for it.
Mobius Q	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:39:00 - [2704] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Mobius Q Originally by: Vivian Azure My corp is taxed at 10% and it allways was. The 100% statement was being made as an example previously, or maybe you're mixing it up with the mentioned 100% reimbursement for fleet-ships. earlier Originally by: Vivian Azure In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. excuse me for not realising that when you implied you had 100% tax you were flat out lying I said, there SHOULD be 100%... but yeah, keep trying Originally by: Vivian Azure 100% tax Originally by: Vivian Azure That's how it works for us how can you say 100% tax is how it works for you with a 10% tax how can you say communism works when you don't use it
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:43:00 - [2705] Originally by: Mobius Q Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: Mobius Q Originally by: Vivian Azure My corp is taxed at 10% and it allways was. The 100% statement was being made as an example previously, or maybe you're mixing it up with the mentioned 100% reimbursement for fleet-ships. earlier Originally by: Vivian Azure In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. excuse me for not realising that when you implied you had 100% tax you were flat out lying I said, there SHOULD be 100%... but yeah, keep trying Originally by: Vivian Azure 100% tax Originally by: Vivian Azure That's how it works for us how can you say 100% tax is how it works for you with a 10% tax how can you say communism works when you don't use it Are you really incapable of reading and understandug what I wrote there? I said, that in 0.0 there SHOULD be 100% tax, not that we actually have 100% tax. The statement that it works for us is in regard to the assets needed for fleet-ops being paid by the alliance. Maybe that makes it more clear for you.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:47:00 - [2706] Originally by: Static Kinetics why are u such a **ing **, ccp said dominion would cause a mass exodus to 0.0, people here are saying that wont work cuz the upgrades are , and costly. your on here telling ppl to go to highsec if they dont like it? do you not see a conflict with your statement and with what ccp has said it is trying to accomplish? do u think exodus part two, 0.0 players moving to highsec, is what ccp wants to see? because they have stated otherwise. why are you even posting here? as a sidenote, vivian azure, you too are a ing **, the world wars werent very big huh? the gulf war wasnt about resources huh? shut the ** up and quit posting, do you think throwing an emoticon after everything stupid you say makes it any less stupid? and then theres the mutant, another person for the changes, another lvl 4 carebear that has never been to 0.0, stating lvl 4 missions (which are so abundant in 0.0) pay more than they do in highsec, you too, are an idiot. I absolutely don't care about what CCP says or their intentions are nor I do care about their ill obsession to populate 0.0 with bears. This is what they are going to release, this is what wil happen. Adapt or whine.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:47:00 - [2707] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 09/11/2009 23:50:07 Originally by: Mobius Q how can you say communism works when you don't use it Oh, come on, saying that communism works without any reference to anything other than bad theory is an old and noble tradition among a certain class of idiots. How else do you explain the 1960s? Originally by: Kepakh This is what they are going to release, this is what wil happen. Adapt or whine. Is that even a choice? Whine, obviously.
Crias Taylor GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:50:00 - [2708] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Itzena To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money? Nothing worth fighting for? I don't like you. I want to see you die and your empire burn. We goons have bath tubs to fill with sweet, sweet isk. These bathtubs are president Taft size and we really don't care what insults are thrown unless attacking you is going to steal your bathtub of isk to fill ours.
Static Kinetics Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:50:00 - [2709] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Static Kinetics why are u such a **ing **, ccp said dominion would cause a mass exodus to 0.0, people here are saying that wont work cuz the upgrades are , and costly. your on here telling ppl to go to highsec if they dont like it? do you not see a conflict with your statement and with what ccp has said it is trying to accomplish? do u think exodus part two, 0.0 players moving to highsec, is what ccp wants to see? because they have stated otherwise. why are you even posting here? as a sidenote, vivian azure, you too are a ing **, the world wars werent very big huh? the gulf war wasnt about resources huh? shut the up and quit posting, do you think throwing an emoticon after everything stupid you say makes it any less stupid? and then theres the mutant, another person for the changes, another lvl 4 carebear that has never been to 0.0, stating lvl 4 missions (which are so abundant in 0.0) pay more than they do in highsec, you too, are an idiot. I absolutely don't care about what CCP says or their intentions are nor I do care about their ill obsession to populate 0.0 with bears. This is what they are going to release, this is what wil happen. Adapt or whine. since you never plan on leaving highsec, and dont care about ccps "ill obsession", once again, why the ** are you posting here? ps, these changes are not final, they are not on tq yet, and we are hoping to see ccp take some feedback from its player base and for them to do a bit of adapting too.
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:50:00 - [2710] Originally by: Kepakh This is what they are going to release, this is what wil happen. Adapt or whine. That's a pretty stupid thing to post in a feedback thread.

Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:51:00 - [2711] Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 09/11/2009 23:53:52 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Mobius Q how can you say communism works when you don't use it Oh, come on, saying that communism works without any reference to anything other than bad theory is an old and noble tradition among a certain class of idiots. How else do you explain the 1960s? Communism does work actually... If your not all a bunch of greedy, corrupt, self-centered people that care about only themselves. (Not that I'm accusing anyone of this) (BTW, I'm being sarcastic, geez) At this point, I'm not surprised CCP hasn't responded yet, they'll get flamed whether or not they make a serious/unserious/"troll" post. Would you? --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:53:00 - [2712] if you truly believe that the GREAT SANDBOX of 0.0 is intended for communist gameplay please stop posting forever 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
Crias Taylor GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:56:00 - [2713] Edited by: Crias Taylor on 09/11/2009 23:58:29 Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Mobius Q how can you say communism works when you don't use it Oh, come on, saying that communism works without any reference to anything other than bad theory is an old and noble tradition among a certain class of idiots. How else do you explain the 1960s? Communism does work actually... If your not all a bunch of greedy, corrupt, self-centered people that care about only themselves. Get out of my space captilism game. --Isaac
Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.09 23:58:00 - [2714] Originally by: Crias Taylor Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Mobius Q how can you say communism works when you don't use it Oh, come on, saying that communism works without any reference to anything other than bad theory is an old and noble tradition among a certain class of idiots. How else do you explain the 1960s? Communism does work actually... If your not all a bunch of greedy, corrupt, self-centered people that care about only themselves. Get out of my space captilism game. Yeah, capitalism... and see where we currently ended up with it.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:02:00 - [2715] Betting Vivian Azure is LadyScarlet. Just a hunch.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:02:00 - [2716] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Mobius Q how can you say communism works when you don't use it Oh, come on, saying that communism works without any reference to anything other than bad theory is an old and noble tradition among a certain class of idiots. How else do you explain the 1960s? Communism does work actually... If your not all a bunch of greedy, corrupt, self-centered people that care about only themselves. (Not that I'm accusing anyone of this) Yes, if you're not human, communism works just fine. Termites love it, I hear. Originally by: Isaac Starstriker At this point, I'm not surprised CCP hasn't responded yet, they'll get flamed whether or not they make a serious/unserious/"troll" post. Would you? CCP devs made a few dozen posts in this thread, and only three or four got seriously ridiculed(and the ones that did deserved it). When they said things that weren't stupid, the thread was more or less fine with it. And in conclusion, ~~Carthago delenda est~~ 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.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:03:00 - [2717] Originally by: Alexander Knott That's a pretty stupid thing to post in a feedback thread. Actualy not. I do not imply any personal gains on new system and comment on raw functionality only. Truth hurts, I guess. I have already stated that space upgrades need to be tuned down first since they yield potentional to make 0.0 a grindfest or another moon goo. All you can read from Goons is a cry for L4 rewards which is completely baseless, unconstructive and meaningless.
Gordon Reiss XERCORE Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:06:00 - [2718] Originally by: Vivian Azure In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. Originally by: Vivian Azure Are you really incapable of reading and understandug what I wrote there? I said, that in 0.0 there SHOULD be 100% tax, not that we actually have 100% tax. The statement that it works for us is in regard to the assets needed for fleet-ops being paid by the alliance. Maybe that makes it more clear for you. Not really. You were ambiguous at best, certainly not CLEAR. But then I'm guessing you're just a Troll anyway. And I'm bored, too. Bored in 0.0. Bored with incomprehensible blabbermouths & pseudo-mathematicians. Bored waiting around for CCP to make the Mechanics match the Vision.
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:12:00 - [2719] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker (BTW, I'm being sarcastic, geez) Keyword of my post btw. Sheesh, some touchy people. Need some more love around here Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
Alice Celadon	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:13:00 - [2720] !THREAD SUMMARY! I just read the whole thread. I'm going to try to be helpful. Let's list the points that aren't being disputed in this thread. 1. Having upgraded space is going to be more costly than just holding sov. 2. Nullsec point source income (moon mining) is getting nerfed (CCP Soundwave's earlier comment about this is baffling). 3. Living in 0.0 will provide less income for an individual player at much greater risk than living in 0.5+. It is amazing that no one is arguing over #1 and #2. The Goons, PL, Atlas, AAA don't care that their almost effortless isk is getting the nerfbat. As an empire dweller myself, I find this acceptance of change both commendable and amazing (although it's understandable; I'd be bored silly with content-devoid moongoo after 5 years). If someone was taking the bat to my invention/manufacturing business, I would flip. The rest of the arguments are over point #3, and boil down to the following two statements: I. The greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.0 should exceed the greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.5+ VS. II. 0.0 life should be about wars and conquest and danger, not about making isk. Individuals should be willing to sacrifice time and isk for the perk of living in 0.0 Finally, CCP seems to have already sided with I.(see CCP Chrons posts), but doesn't seem to have laid out a picture consistent with 0.0 being more attractive after a risk assessment than 0.5+.

Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:13:00 - [2721] Edited by: Zastrow on 10/11/2009 00:13:42 I'm going to plug myself now. zastrow.nanoaugur.net Look at my latest post. I drew up this sweet whiteboard during a discussion at the CSM3 summit about why 0.0 sucks. As you can see I not only made the same risk:reward (cost:benefit) argument that's been happening in this thread, but I made it 2 months ago and live in-person at ccp. So basically I represent your interests vote for me thanks 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
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:21:00 - [2722] Originally by: Alice Celadon Edited by: Alice Celadon on 10/11/2009 00:15:50 !THREAD SUMMARY! I just read the whole thread. I'm going to try to be helpful. Let's list the points that aren't being disputed in this thread. 1. Having upgraded space is going to be more costly than just holding sov. 2. Nullsec point source income (moon mining) is getting nerfed (CCP Soundwave's earlier comment about this is baffling). 3. Living in 0.0 will provide less(maybe equal) income for an individual player at much greater risk than living in 0.5+. It is amazing that no one is arguing over #1 and #2. The Goons, PL, Atlas, AAA don't care that their almost effortless isk is getting the nerfbat. As an empire dweller myself, I find this acceptance of change both commendable and amazing (although it's understandable; I'd be bored silly with content-devoid moongoo after 5 years). If someone was taking the bat to my invention/manufacturing business, I would flip. The rest of the arguments are over point #3, and boil down to the following two statements: I. The greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.0 should exceed the greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.5+ VS. II. 0.0 life should be about wars and conquest and danger, not about making isk. Individuals should be willing to sacrifice time and isk for the perk of living in 0.0 Finally, CCP seems to have already sided with I.(see CCP Chrons posts), but doesn't seem to have laid out a picture consistent with 0.0 being more attractive after a risk assessment than 0.5+. Congratulations! :) 1) Strategical upgrades are a bit costly but base fee for sov holding depends on space upgrades. Those are not even on test server yet so until then, there is not much to discuss. 2) Moon mining isn't getting such nerf. R64 income is getting diluted into lower rarity moons. In worst case, you will have put up more mine arrays. In 'best' case there will be new bottleneck to milk.
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:22:00 - [2723] Edited by: Itzena on 10/11/2009 00:22:57 Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Betting Vivian Azure is LadyScarlet. Just a hunch. Nah, he's Jade Constantine. E: 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.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:23:00 - [2724] Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 10/11/2009 00:23:47 Originally by: Alice Celadon Edited by: Alice Celadon on 10/11/2009 00:15:50 !THREAD SUMMARY! I just read the whole thread. I'm going to try to be helpful. Let's list the points that aren't being disputed in this thread. 1. Having upgraded space is going to be more costly than just holding sov. 2. Nullsec point source income (moon mining) is getting nerfed (CCP Soundwave's earlier comment about this is baffling). 3. Living in 0.0 will provide less(maybe equal) income for an individual player at much greater risk than living in 0.5+. It is amazing that no one is arguing over #1 and #2. The Goons, PL, Atlas, AAA don't care that their almost effortless isk is getting the nerfbat. As an empire dweller myself, I find this acceptance of change both commendable and amazing (although it's understandable; I'd be bored silly with content-devoid moongoo after 5 years). If someone was taking the bat to my invention/manufacturing business, I would flip. The rest of the arguments are over point #3, and boil down to the following two statements: I. The greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.0 should exceed the greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.5+ VS. II. 0.0 life should be about wars and conquest and danger, not about making isk. Individuals should be willing to sacrifice time and isk for the perk of living in 0.0 Finally, CCP seems to have already sided with I.(see CCP Chrons posts), but doesn't seem to have laid out a picture consistent with 0.0 being more attractive after a risk assessment than 0.5+. 0.0 already is about sacrificing time (alarm clocking, POS timers) so...
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:24:00 - [2725] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Itzena To what purpose? If there's nothing worth fighting over any more, and Alliance income is nerfed...why risk capfleets to seize more worthless space that will only cost money? Nothing worth fighting for? I don't like you. I want to see you die and your empire burn. What empire? Do you mean the jumpbridge network?
Alice Celadon	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:31:00 - [2726] Edited by: Alice Celadon on 10/11/2009 00:33:05 Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Alice Celadon Edited by: Alice Celadon on 10/11/2009 00:15:50 !THREAD SUMMARY! I just read the whole thread. I'm going to try to be helpful. Let's list the points that aren't being disputed in this thread. 1. Having upgraded space is going to be more costly than just holding sov. 2. Nullsec point source income (moon mining) is getting nerfed (CCP Soundwave's earlier comment about this is baffling). 3. Living in 0.0 will provide less(maybe equal) income for an individual player at much greater risk than living in 0.5+. It is amazing that no one is arguing over #1 and #2. The Goons, PL, Atlas, AAA don't care that their almost effortless isk is getting the nerfbat. As an empire dweller myself, I find this acceptance of change both commendable and amazing (although it's understandable; I'd be bored silly with content-devoid moongoo after 5 years). If someone was taking the bat to my invention/manufacturing business, I would flip. The rest of the arguments are over point #3, and boil down to the following two statements: I. The greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.0 should exceed the greatest isk/hr rewards in 0.5+ VS. II. 0.0 life should be about wars and conquest and danger, not about making isk. Individuals should be willing to sacrifice time and isk for the perk of living in 0.0 Finally, CCP seems to have already sided with I.(see CCP Chrons posts), but doesn't seem to have laid out a picture consistent with 0.0 being more attractive after a risk assessment than 0.5+. Congratulations! :) 1) Strategical upgrades are a bit costly but base fee for sov holding depends on space upgrades. Those are not even on test server yet so until then, there is not much to discuss. 2) Moon mining isn't getting such nerf. R64 income is getting diluted into lower rarity moons. In worst case, you will have put up more mine arrays. In 'best' case there will be new bottleneck to milk. (1) is something CCP said they want...for this improved space to cost more than regular space. I'm guessing it will, and no one's been arguing that much. Hmm. Maybe (2) can be disputed. However, if CCP said "we're going to add three more layers to invention" and I had to treble my inventing to achieve the same revenue, I would call that a definite nerf (my profit would decline, btw). POSes need upkeep, maintenance, not to mention defending, so 2x or 3x as many...definite nerf. And again, no one's been arguing this point.
Holly Hotdrop Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:44:00 - [2727] 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
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:46:00 - [2728] Originally by: Alice Celadon Hmm. Maybe (2) can be disputed. However, if CCP said "we're going to add three more layers to invention" and I had to treble my inventing to achieve the same revenue, I would call that a definite nerf (my profit would decline, btw). POSes need upkeep, maintenance, not to mention defending, so 2x or 3x as many...definite nerf. And again, no one's been arguing this point. I suppose I am lazy to run calcs at this hour but you have to consider that while you will lose fuel cost reductions, you will also need less starbases in general so it might actualy not be that bad. And again, space upgrades will play a role here. So far, it seems undecided wheter they are supposed to be focused on personal income(as it is now 10 anomalies for 20M per day) or corp/alliance level ISK flow(proposed 1m per day).
Natalia Kovac Minmatar Phoenix Tribe Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:50:00 - [2729] I think the prices really need to come down, A LOT, before this is viable for smaller alliances like us.
WhiteSavage Ever Flow Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 00:57:00 - [2730] Edited by: WhiteSavage on 10/11/2009 00:58:27 Originally by: Vivian Azure In 0.0 there should be 100% tax and the ally paying for all the assets you need to do the fighting for them. That's how it works for us... it's called communism, and it actually works in EvE. vivian azure get out. You are not welcome here! If anything was left up to you EVE would be the worst game of all time. Go back to doing your thing in EVE and rl and PLEASE NEVER POST HERE AGAIN.

Smoky McGee	Posted - 2009.11.10 01:03:00 - [2731] Edited by: Smoky McGee on 10/11/2009 01:03:30 This thread has enlightened me to something- 0.0 space and alliances in general are ass-backwards in this game as it stands. Most people who currently live in 0.0 enjoy the fleet battles and pvp that eve offers. To restate, the people who live in 0.0 and fight over the space there do so essentially just for the sake of the fight. Miner/Industrial/PvE players don't go into 0.0 because it makes less money (more chance of loss). I suggest reordering things such that Miner/Industrial players can make enough isk in 0.0 to pay for the ships/salary of pvp pilots to protect them, as well as make a slightly higher profit than they would in highsec (even after the inevitable ship loses). This would lead to a more capitalistic game where industrial players hire the best pvpers they can afford and strike out into 0.0 to reap the benefits found there. I may be way off, as I dont live in 0.0, but I am an industrial player who has thought about moving out there...
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 01:14:00 - [2732] I'd argue that the original implementation of nullsec was flawed. The tool they used to determine a system worth was Truesec. It's how this Truesec value was given to the systems throughout nullsec, which is illogical at best, and leaves the greatest portion of New Eden worthless to utilize. Now, in the beginning, most nullsec was profitable and even more so when they introduced moon mining and the start of the T2 production chain. When you start to see how moons are distributed throughout New Eden, you again see flawed implementation - albeit they might have been thinking these high valued moons might be the catalyst for nullsec conflict - but they never thought twice about dumping 30+ r64's into single regions. Whatever. I still think the most dominant issue with nullsec is how worthless most of it is. While it WASN'T worthless when people first started colonizing nullsec, CCP just hasn't updated the profitability to that of much safer, more remedial activities in empire. Most of the people on the EveO forums think the nullsec alliances are full of greedy no gooders who only want their moon-goo. This couldn't be further from the truth and unfortunately that's what the debate has started to digress too. What we DO want is for nullsec to be the gold mine that it SHOULD have been. Nullsec is where you go to risk it all for riches and glory, at least that's the impression I got when reading one of EveO's descriptions of lawless space when I started. YES, it was the place where you could find these riches and glory but we are working with a dynamic, player driven economy and inflation has caught up to us. Dominion was supposed to be the answer. It was supposed to alleviate the need to control 3 regions because the upgrades to our core systems would allow dozens of pilots to make money in each system while the Alliance drastically reduced it's dependency on moon-goo to keep the engine running. This is where things went wrong. We were given a bill of goods, which nearly EVERYONE liked (yes, even the part about no jammers and sov4 protections) but it ended up being a system where we would be forced to drop sov in the majority of our systems and the ability to remove the 250 sov towers we have deployed to hold the space. That's about all this is doing for us, that's it. The promise of being able to cut back to 2-3 constellations and rid ourselves from holding 3 regions is gone. The prospect of increased isk-density in systems suddenly morphed into this instant re-spawn anom thing - which CCP is ****ed because this will get abused to hell and back. Our hopes and dreams of nullsec mining becoming something that is profitable are quashed. The prayers of mining Veld in nullsec would finally be more efficient than buying 20k citadel torps and repro-ing them in your refinery station are dashed. Again, the only thing that will change is the visual on the Sov map. Atlas will still control and defend the 3 regions it holds so we still have the 15~ish decent systems to rat in so our members can make money.
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.10 01:24:00 - [2733] 92 pages, epic cryathon guys.
Karte Vagor	Posted - 2009.11.10 01:34:00 - [2734] 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.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.10 01:40:00 - [2735] YES OR NO: CAN I HAVE YOUR STUFF?
WatchWatch	Posted - 2009.11.10 01:45:00 - [2736] If you dont benefit from living in nullsec more now or after these changes than you would from grinding lvl 4 missions in highsec....you should improve your own strategy. Tripling the upgrade costs and requirements and quadrupling the upgrade benefits could be even nicer. Would add more economical warfare in nullsec and concentrate home areas. Intruders should be able to disrupt the financial basis of space-holders heavily, but if the space is sucessfully defended, the holder really deserves a super nice (active) income. CCPs concept boosts active income, simple as that. NRDS will find strategies to survive for sure either way. Generally spoken: New strategies, yes please.
Fyrkraag Caldari The Knights Templar	Posted - 2009.11.10 01:55:00 - [2737] Originally by: Quesa I'd argue that the original implementation of nullsec was flawed. The tool they used to determine a system worth was Truesec. It's how this Truesec value was given to the systems throughout nullsec, which is illogical at best, and leaves the greatest portion of New Eden worthless to utilize. Originally by: Quesa I still think the most dominant issue with nullsec is how worthless most of it is. Originally by: Quesa Nullsec is where you go to risk it all for riches and glory, I live in that part of nullsec you're talking about that is worthless, and I defend it, along with the rest of my alliance, with our blood daily. I thought Dominion would allow us to make something of our space, but now even us small alliances are going to yoked with Game Punishments. The end result is that systems with good true sec become more enviable, a tragic worsening of the very problem you're talking about. Originally by: Quesa were given a bill of goods, which nearly EVERYONE liked (yes, even the part about no jammers and sov4 protections) It's true, you can only bash so many POS's before your eyeballs fall out. Originally by: Quesa regions is gone. The prospect of increased isk-density in systems suddenly morphed into this instant re-spawn anom thing - which CCP is ****ed because this will get abused to hell and back. We've already laid plans to abuse it. Originally by: Quesa Again, the only thing that will change is the visual on the Sov map. Atlas will still control and defend the 3 regions it holds so we still have the 15~ish decent systems to rat in so our members can make money. So nothing changes. I can see it now, the dream of every capsuleer in Empire will be to go out to 0.0 and become a despised renter. This is CCP's vision of the future? --------- TKT - Fyrkraag The Knights Templar - Achievement with style: Maturity, integrity, respect.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:02:00 - [2738] Originally by: Fyrkraag Originally by: Quesa regions is gone. The prospect of increased isk-density in systems suddenly morphed into this instant re-spawn anom thing - which CCP is ****ed because this will get abused to hell and back. We've already laid plans to abuse it. Make sure that you let the large alliances know. They'll come camp your fully upgraded system, abuse the anomalies you bought until they're bored, and then blow up the billions and 100 days you spent upgrading. 'Course if it's a particularly sadistic alliance, they'll just put cloakers in the anomalies so you can't run 'em, and laugh as your system devolves due to lack of activity. We should start a new game in this thread: The corpless/allianceless alts that love the changes are alts of which CCP dev?
Daemonspirit An Android Lust	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:02:00 - [2739] Edited by: Daemonspirit on 10/11/2009 02:03:31 Speaking as one of those despised empire dwellers, I still haven't heard anything about this expansion that makes me think 0.0 is any more desirable. I don't have any pretensions to hold Sov, and I suck at PvP. So the two things that 0.0 does better than Hi-Sec don't interest me. CCP has said ever since this expansion was announced that their goal was to get more people into 0.0. From what I've read, this expansion and these changes don't address any of the problems inherent in living in 0.0, or attracting other players there. /golfclap... Congrats to CCP for getting ready to deploy Exodus II. (edit: yeah, spelling. Sue me!) ôEveryone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.ö
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:04:00 - [2740] Originally by: Quesa What we DO want is for nullsec to be the gold mine that it SHOULD have been. Nullsec is where you go to risk it all for riches and glory, at least that's the impression I got when reading one of EveO's descriptions of lawless space when I started. I agree with this 100% Take for example Arkonor and it's description Quote: The rarest and most sought-after ore in the known universe. A sizable nugget of this can sweep anyone from rags to riches in no time. You can get more megacyte in less time running level 4 missions in highsec and reprocessing the loot and it's still worthless.

Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:10:00 - [2741] Ok guys here it goes i'll get CCP's attention. CCP, You need to iterate on this paradigm to achieve emergent gameplay. my work here is done 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
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:12:00 - [2742] Originally by: Quesa I'd argue that the original implementation of nullsec was flawed. The tool they used to determine a system worth was Truesec. It's how this Truesec value was given to the systems throughout nullsec, which is illogical at best, and leaves the greatest portion of New Eden worthless to utilize. Now, in the beginning, most nullsec was profitable and even more so when they introduced moon mining and the start of the T2 production chain. When you start to see how moons are distributed throughout New Eden, you again see flawed implementation - albeit they might have been thinking these high valued moons might be the catalyst for nullsec conflict - but they never thought twice about dumping 30+ r64's into single regions. Whatever. I still think the most dominant issue with nullsec is how worthless most of it is. While it WASN'T worthless when people first started colonizing nullsec, CCP just hasn't updated the profitability to that of much safer, more remedial activities in empire. Most of the people on the EveO forums think the nullsec alliances are full of greedy no gooders who only want their moon-goo. This couldn't be further from the truth and unfortunately that's what the debate has started to digress too. What we DO want is for nullsec to be the gold mine that it SHOULD have been. Nullsec is where you go to risk it all for riches and glory, at least that's the impression I got when reading one of EveO's descriptions of lawless space when I started. YES, it was the place where you could find these riches and glory but we are working with a dynamic, player driven economy and inflation has caught up to us. Dominion was supposed to be the answer. It was supposed to alleviate the need to control 3 regions because the upgrades to our core systems would allow dozens of pilots to make money in each system while the Alliance drastically reduced it's dependency on moon-goo to keep the engine running. This is where things went wrong. We were given a bill of goods, which nearly EVERYONE liked (yes, even the part about no jammers and sov4 protections) but it ended up being a system where we would be forced to drop sov in the majority of our systems and the ability to remove the 250 sov towers we have deployed to hold the space. That's about all this is doing for us, that's it. The promise of being able to cut back to 2-3 constellations and rid ourselves from holding 3 regions is gone. The prospect of increased isk-density in systems suddenly morphed into this instant re-spawn anom thing - which CCP is ****ed because this will get abused to hell and back. Our hopes and dreams of nullsec mining becoming something that is profitable are quashed. The prayers of mining Veld in nullsec would finally be more efficient than buying 20k citadel torps and repro-ing them in your refinery station are dashed. Again, the only thing that will change is the visual on the Sov map. Atlas will still control and defend the 3 regions it holds so we still have the 15~ish decent systems to rat in so our members can make money. Agreeing with the atlas poster here, what a weird thing to say.
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:25:00 - [2743] Edited by: Honest Smedley on 10/11/2009 02:34:47 Military experts agree; not all threadnaught equally. As of post 2741, page 92: Top 20 Alliances Posting ------------------------ 744 GoonSwarm 262 (unaffiliated) 112 Atlas Alliance 48 Morsus Mihi 41 Curatores Veritatis Alliance 30 Against ALL Authorities 24 Wildly Inappropriate. 23 Triumvirate. 22 Pandemic Legion 14 The Initiative. 13 Vertigo Coalition 12 Ushra'Khan 11 The Star Fraction 11 R.A.G.E 10 Systematic-Chaos 10 Shadow of xXDEATHXx 10 Paxton Federation 9 Solyaris Chtonium 9 Aeternus. 8 Intrepid Crossing Top 20 Pilots Posting ------------------------ 82 Korodan 56 Vivian Azure 56 Kepakh 51 EdFromHumanResources 47 Qlanth 45 Vadinho 43 Zahorite 41 Hertford 41 Destrim 37 Tesal 34 Sally Bestonge 31 gambrinous 29 Pointfive 23 Bobby Atlas 22 Mrs Trzzbk 22 Kanatta Jing 21 Tamahra 21 Itzena 19 Marlona Sky 19 Herschel Yamamoto That is all.
NickSuccorso Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:31:00 - [2744] Originally by: Honest Smedley Military experts agree; not all threadnaught equally. As of post 2741, page 92: Top 20 Alliances Posting ------------------------ 744 GoonSwarm 262 (unaffiliated) 112 Atlas Alliance 48 Morsus Mihi 41 Curatores Veritatis Alliance 30 Against ALL Authorities 24 Wildly Inappropriate. 23 Triumvirate. 22 Pandemic Legion 14 The Initiative. 13 Vertigo Coalition 12 Ushra'Khan 11 The Star Fraction 11 R.A.G.E 10 Systematic-Chaos 10 Shadow of xXDEATHXx 10 Paxton Federation 9 Solyaris Chtonium 9 Aeternus. 8 Intrepid Crossing Top 20 Corporations Posting ------------------------ 538 GoonFleet 87 Merch Industrial 59 Ars ex Discordia 49 Di-Tron Heavy Industries 41 Koshaku 24 Atlas Alliance 24 Arcana Imperii Ltd. 22 Mothership Connection Inc. 21 Danke fuer den Fisch 21 Agent-Orange 20 sniggerdly 20 D00M. 18 4S Corporation 17 Free-Space-Ranger 17 Ace Adventure Corp 16 Ultrapolite Socialites 16 The Collective 15 The Scope 14 Miner Tech 14 Deep Core Mining Inc. Top 20 Pilots Posting ------------------------ 82 Korodan 56 Vivian Azure 56 Kepakh 51 EdFromHumanResources 47 Qlanth 45 Vadinho 43 Zahorite 41 Hertford 41 Destrim 37 Tesal 34 Sally Bestonge 31 gambrinous 29 Pointfive 23 Bobby Atlas 22 Mrs Trzzbk 22 Kanatta Jing 21 Tamahra 21 Itzena 19 Marlona Sky 19 Herschel Yamamoto That is all. Look at all those 0.0 alliances that wholly agree with each other that something is very wrong with this expansion right now.
Tweekism Caldari Black Arrows Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:40:00 - [2745] Originally by: Zastrow Ok guys here it goes i'll get CCP's attention. CCP, You need to iterate on this paradigm to achieve emergent gameplay. my work here is done You forgot to mention Synergies. You see it is the synergies that emergent the paradigm iterations.
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:42:00 - [2746] Edited by: Breaker77 on 10/11/2009 02:44:35 Originally by: Honest Smedley Military experts agree; not all threadnaught equally. As of post 2741, page 92: Top 20 Alliances Posting ------------------------ 744 GoonSwarm 262 (unaffiliated) 112 Atlas Alliance 48 Morsus Mihi 41 Curatores Veritatis Alliance 30 Against ALL Authorities 24 Wildly Inappropriate. 23 Triumvirate. 22 Pandemic Legion 14 The Initiative. 13 Vertigo Coalition 12 Ushra'Khan 11 The Star Fraction 11 R.A.G.E 10 Systematic-Chaos 10 Shadow of xXDEATHXx 10 Paxton Federation 9 Solyaris Chtonium 9 Aeternus. 8 Intrepid Crossing Kinda funny that after goons, unaffiliated make up almost as much as everyone else combined. Oh and lets not forget that goons control Delve which is rich in NPC 0.0 and some of the best truesec in EVE. If they are *****ing about making ISK then something is wrong with the expansion. Also lets not forget that the unaffiliated were hoping for a piece of 0.0 but will never be able to afford it. Also the fact that level 4 missions in highsec are just as profitable, if not more, than living in 0.0. Why would I want to risk everything when I can make billions in empire??
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:49:00 - [2747] Originally by: Breaker77 Kinda funny that after goons, unaffiliated make up almost as much as everyone else combined. Oh and lets not forget that goons control Delve which is rich in NPC 0.0 and some of the best truesec in EVE. If they are ***ing about making ISK then something is wrong with the expansion. Originally by:** Crias Taylor We goons have bath tubs to fill with sweet, sweet isk. These bathtubs are president Taft size and we really don't care what insults are thrown unless attacking you is going to steal your bathtub of isk to fill ours.
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:54:00 - [2748] Originally by: Breaker77 Edited by: Breaker77 on 10/11/2009 02:44:35 Kinda funny that after goons, unaffiliated make up almost as much as everyone else combined. Bad regexp on my part. GoonSwarm is second to unaffiliated.
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 02:56:00 - [2749] Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Breaker77 Edited by: Breaker77 on 10/11/2009 02:44:35 Kinda funny that after goons, unaffiliated make up almost as much as everyone else combined. Bad regexp on my part. GoonSwarm is second to unaffiliated. Well then the further reinforces that a lot of people were wanting to venture out into 0.0 when Dominion hit and are ****ed that they might not be able to afford it.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:01:00 - [2750] **** I have to post more than 30 times to be the top poster in this thread?

ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:07:00 - [2751] Edited by: ep1k on 10/11/2009 03:09:36 I sure wish a ccp dev was on that top poster list.
NickSuccorso Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:16:00 - [2752] Originally by: ep1k Edited by: ep1k on 10/11/2009 03:09:36 I sure wish a ccp dev was on that top poster list. After their performance in the first quarter of this thread?
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:17:00 - [2753] Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Breaker77 Edited by: Breaker77 on 10/11/2009 02:44:35 Kinda funny that after goons, unaffiliated make up almost as much as everyone else combined. Bad regexp on my part. GoonSwarm is second to unaffiliated. Well then the further reinforces that a lot of people were wanting to venture out into 0.0 when Dominion hit and are ***ed that they might not be able to afford it. Uh huh - and did you count people that actually say the change is good and should be friggin expensive? Or you just took it as granted that everyone* hates this? Because i do love the changes and IMO jammers/bridges should be even more expensvie than they are now (and yeah i know about changes from around page 30).
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:20:00 - [2754] Originally by: ep1k Edited by: ep1k on 10/11/2009 03:09:36 I sure wish a ccp dev was on that top poster list. That is only the pilot list. I figured including the devs might get the thread locked, so they do not appear on that list.
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:25:00 - [2755] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Uh huh - and did you count people that actually say the change is good and should be friggin expensive? Or you just took it as granted that everyone hates this? Because i do love the changes and IMO jammers/bridges should be even more expensvie than they are now (and yeah i know about changes from around page 30). Oh don't get me wrong. I think the ISK sink is a good thing, and so do some of the big alliances. However the dream of supporting 100 people per system once fully upgraded and the crap upgrades themselves make this a bad idea and not really worth it for a smaller alliance (100-200 person) as there is no way you can sustain yourself without having daily highsec L4 mission ops. The bigger alliances such as Goonswarm, Atlas, ect.. can still maintain a core group of systems and still have the manpower leftover to control the space they currently do.
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:30:00 - [2756] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: Terrible deadspace rats with awful loot/bounties. No. Upgraded deadspace rats that generate income comparable to running level 4's, that respawn instantly and without limit. Just keeping you honest, carry on. No, top tier anomalies being barely on par if not worse than lvl4 missions. Only a small percentage of anomalies are top tier. I'd like you to stick to the facts Ranger 1. according to this idiot, the best anoms in fully upgraded space will be almost as good as l4 missions, based on some hypotheticals that he says ccp is going to do, yet has not publicly even hinted at. Almost as good as l4's should not be the standard for fully upgraded top tier space.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:36:00 - [2757] Originally by: Graalum Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: Terrible deadspace rats with awful loot/bounties. No. Upgraded deadspace rats that generate income comparable to running level 4's, that respawn instantly and without limit. Just keeping you honest, carry on. No, top tier anomalies being barely on par if not worse than lvl4 missions. Only a small percentage of anomalies are top tier. I'd like you to stick to the facts Ranger 1. according to this idiot, the best anoms in fully upgraded space will be almost as good as l4 missions, based on some hypotheticals that he says ccp is going to do, yet has not publicly even hinted at. Almost as good as l4's should not be the standard for fully upgraded top tier space. Actually, it was CCP Soundwave earlier in this thread that stated that if you have upgraded the anomalies to level 5 they would be equivalent in income to level 4's. Who is the bigger idiot? The one who relays an official response, or the one who can't read? Carry on. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:52:00 - [2758] Edited by: Graalum on 10/11/2009 03:52:10 Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Graalum Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: Ranger 1 No. Upgraded deadspace rats that generate income comparable to running level 4's, that respawn instantly and without limit. Just keeping you honest, carry on. No, top tier anomalies being barely on par if not worse than lvl4 missions. Only a small percentage of anomalies are top tier. I'd like you to stick to the facts Ranger 1. according to this idiot, the best anoms in fully upgraded space will be almost as good as l4 missions, based on some hypotheticals that he says ccp is going to do, yet has not publicly even hinted at. Almost as good as l4's should not be the standard for fully upgraded top tier space. Actually, it was CCP Soundwave earlier in this thread that stated that if you have upgraded the anomalies to level 5 they would be equivalent in income to level 4's. Who is the bigger idiot? The one who relays an official response, or the one who can't read? Carry on. strange, perhaps you didn't notice that what you posted confirms exactly what i posted. Quote: the best anoms in fully upgraded space will be almost as good as l4 missions, based on some hypotheticals that he says ccp is going to do, yet has not publicly even hinted at. Almost as good as l4's should not be the standard for fully upgraded top tier space. what exactly is ccp going to do to make l4's worthwhile compared to l4's in a max upgraded system? What hints have they given that they are going to change anything? What long line of good decision making do they have on gameplay issues to give them any trust? And where did ccp ever say this: Quote: No. Upgraded deadspace rats that generate income comparable to running level 4's, that respawn instantly and without limit.
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:52:00 - [2759] Originally by: Breaker77 Kinda funny that after goons, unaffiliated make up almost as much as everyone else combined. that'll do, goons. that'll do. 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
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:59:00 - [2760] Edited by: Aralis on 10/11/2009 04:02:50 OK suggestion for salvaging the patch based somewhat on what you're doing already. Big changes but not starting from scratch - which is what you should be doing. 1) These industrial and military upgrades - most people think they are worthless but if they benefit anyone it will be noobs and encourage them into 0.0. You're gonna make them cheap anyway. So what the heck - upgrade all systems to this standard automatically. What's the downside? 2) Remove the FLAGs and hubs altogether. This whole sov business is ridiculous really. Who says you have sov, who are you paying taxes to? If you really want a sov marker for maps base it on ownership of stations - a real mark of real power. Isn't stations what it's supposed to revolve around now anyway? 3) Remove the cynodamper, cynobeacon, jumpbridge pos mods from the game totally - and make them station upgrades instead on a different path. None of this silly maintenance but if you think they should be expensive make them appropriately so. And remove this fuelling grind for jumpbridges. 4) Give stations defences upgrades. 5) Sometime soon get around to the really important stuff of making Eve bigger and helping explorers find new starts and new regions to take stuf to. Some real exploration with slow running between systems into the void or expensive robots sent out ahead to generate a cynobeacon there for you.

Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:05:00 - [2761] Originally by: Graalum what exactly is ccp going to do to make l4's worthwhile compared to l4's in a max upgraded system? What hints have they given that they are going to change anything? What long line of good decision making do they have on gameplay issues to give them any trust? And where did ccp ever say this: Quote: No. Upgraded deadspace rats that generate income comparable to running level 4's, that respawn instantly and without limit. In CCP Soundwaves first post on this thread... Page 18! Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hi About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? They were not put in as "OH GOD I STRUCK GOLD" sites. You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, which is what the anomalies do. The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:09:00 - [2762] Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 04:09:40 Infinitely respawning anomalies 95% of which will not even be close to the amount of ISK you will be able to make belt ratting regardless of how often you hit an empty belt, let alone a level 4 mission. Easy fix to this is to switch out the pre-nerfed terrible rats in anomalies and replace them with belt rats. That would easily make the current Pirate Magnet worth it (at least for first tear)
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:17:00 - [2763] Originally by: Ranger 1 Almost as good with added danger and costs. Oh and if you dont do them enough they dissapear. Better hope some cloaker dosent show up and shut the system down then you lose your max anomaly upgrade. Back to grinding at even less isk than level 4s. Or Better, for no cost. I bet everyone is just torn up inside over that very difficult choice.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:18:00 - [2764] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 07/11/2009 13:51:06 Originally by: Hertford Originally by: CCP Soundwave Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv So basically, you did read my original posts on this exact topic from over a year ago, and completely missed the point of supporting more than three players in a given 0.0 system? If a system has three anomalies in it at all times, that'll keep three people occupied. Not fifty. Where I come from, that's called basic arithmetic. When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you the difficulty rating? When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you if someone else is already in it? When you scan for an anomaly, will you automatically get a result you can bookmark remotely? And when you actually run the anomaly, would the lack of normal valuable belt rats result in you having been better off in Motsu? When we have 10 anomalies, that will be enough for 10 people. I wrote this earlier in the thread too. When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). You will not be told if anyone is in it, that is not something I would prefer to see implemented. When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. Further down that page his next post refers to his first post. Since you are having difficulty finding it... Quote: Hi Cool About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? They were not put in as "OH GOD I STRUCK GOLD" sites. You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, which is what the anomalies do. The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation. Note that he does not say, "not as good as level 4's". He says "on par with level 4's" and of course mentions that you have the possibility of an escalation on top of that. I would suggest you actually read the information posted instead of name calling and talking down to people offering factual information. I'll not do your searching for you again. I will continue to point out where you (among others) are taking liberties with the facts as they have been presented. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:18:00 - [2765] Guys, im gonna let you finish but first... this is the hic best wine ive had in years!! HIC... seriously this must have been fermenting forever... HIC anyone got any cheese?
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:19:00 - [2766] Quote: I also get whats going on in Atlas. They have way too much space right now and are scrambling to fill it with anyone. The last few renters they had fail cascaded one after the other (with some Goon help I might add). They are facing a massive collapse in Sov after the patch and RA is going to be out to cut them. I get why they are complaining. They face a long, economically devastating war. They are vastly overextended. Thank you for telling us what to do.As for the sov no we wont collapse ect. As goons have stated most aliances have taken precaution steps to be ready. As for Ra let them come we killed them 2times we will kill them again,it is not that we need insmother it will be just for the fun. As for the topic.It is ****ing off to see empire people and pirates trying to tell us why and how we live in o.o. For 3 years in game i don't have and 2 weeks in empire and I like it this way.Yes moongold was going for sov poses jb's fuels and caps,also for reimbusement. Now after dominion not only reimbusement programs will be called off also and the most of cap building at aliance level. So lets face it if you are regular member of the aliance before you get a dread or carier when you ready and if you lose it you get other one in few days now,you will need to grind week or more to alow yourself to get in dread,while in the same time you have to go to cta's or if you want to have fun go to pvp. So they ruin my fun in the game. People dont understand why aliances hold sov,they hold it for the jb networks and cynojamers in systems,it is true that small amount of the systems are inhabited,yes we tend to gather arround the lowest true sec in our regions but why not when the chance for something good is best there,better chance to hit oficer better chance to have faction with actualy worthile loot better chance for good plex and ect.Would we hold whole constilations if not needed sake no,but for sov 4 right now you need to do it. So basicaly with the changes ccp will make us keep control on few key systems and go roam explore our other space,and people do not understand that the free systems without sov won't be free, we will be there we will use them kill neutrals there ect,the soft empire corps and aliances thinking they will just come plant markers ect because we don't hold systems are on a wrong path,we actualy will welcome them for some pvp,not needing to go 20+ jumps or roam 3 hours to kill a dozen of ships...
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:26:00 - [2767] Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 04:09:40 Infinitely respawning anomalies 95% of which will not even be close to the amount of ISK you will be able to make belt ratting regardless of how often you hit an empty belt, let alone a level 4 mission. Easy fix to this is to switch out the pre-nerfed terrible rats in anomalies and replace them with belt rats. That would easily make the current Pirate Magnet worth it (at least for first tear) Case in point. What you have stated does not jibe with the facts we have been presented, as you can clearly read above. Since the rats in these anomalies will have their quality determined by the level of your upgrades you can NOT state that they are going to be the same as current anomaly rats. You have been told that is incorrect. Quit distorting the information presented to further your own ends. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:30:00 - [2768] Edited by: Graalum on 10/11/2009 04:32:16 Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: CCP Soundwave Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 07/11/2009 13:51:06 Originally by: Hertford Originally by: CCP Soundwave Except for replacing the NPCs, this is pretty much what we're putting in, which is being conveniently ignored in favor of angry theorycrafting. We could replace the NPCs, but at the top tier the sites seeded wil make it financially viable without changing the npcs. vOv So basically, you did read my original posts on this exact topic from over a year ago, and completely missed the point of supporting more than three players in a given 0.0 system? If a system has three anomalies in it at all times, that'll keep three people occupied. Not fifty. Where I come from, that's called basic arithmetic. When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you the difficulty rating? When you scan for an anomaly, will it explicitly tell you if someone else is already in it? When you scan for an anomaly, will you automatically get a result you can bookmark remotely? And when you actually run the anomaly, would the lack of normal valuable belt rats result in you having been better off in Motsu? When we have 10 anomalies, that will be enough for 10 people. I wrote this earlier in the thread too. When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). You will not be told if anyone is in it, that is not something I would prefer to see implemented. When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. Further down that page his next post refers to his first post. Since you are having difficulty finding it... Quote: Hi Cool About the anomalies: Anomalies are a good way of injecting single player content into a certain system. The way it's currently set up is that the site instantly re-spawns when run, meaning it's not three sites per day; it's three sites constantly. Financially, having guaranteed access to NPCs should provide a much more solid stream of income than jumping from belt to belt, hoping that rats have re-spawned. We could have added more belts to systems, but why would we want you to jump around in a growing list of belts when we can just have you jump into a single anomaly and make money? They were not put in as "OH GOD I STRUCK GOLD" sites. You don't make 0.0 financially inhabitable for thousands by adding extra officer spawns, you do it by providing a constant flow of content that makes a good amount of money, which is what the anomalies do. The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation. Note that he does not say, "not as good as level 4's". He says "on par with level 4's" and of course mentions that you have the possibility of an escalation on top of that. I would suggest you actually read the information posted instead of name calling and talking down to people offering factual information. I'll not do your searching for you again. I will continue to point out where you (among others) are taking liberties with the facts as they have been presented. again, where did he say upgraded rats, mr taking liberties with the facts? What is going to make the currently useless anomalies worthwhile? Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 04:09:40 Infinitely respawning anomalies 95% of which will not even be close to the amount of ISK you will be able to make belt ratting regardless of how often you hit an empty belt, let alone a level 4 mission. Easy fix to this is to switch out the pre-nerfed terrible rats in anomalies and replace them with belt rats. That would easily make the current Pirate Magnet worth it (at leas
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:32:00 - [2769] Originally by: Ranger 1 Quit distorting the information presented to further your own ends. Oh the irony. None of the posts from Soundwave indicate they actually tackled the problem of useless anomalies. You're just pulling stuff out of your arse. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:39:00 - [2770] Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 04:43:45 Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 04:41:57 Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 04:09:40 Infinitely respawning anomalies 95% of which will not even be close to the amount of ISK you will be able to make belt ratting regardless of how often you hit an empty belt, let alone a level 4 mission. Easy fix to this is to switch out the pre-nerfed terrible rats in anomalies and replace them with belt rats. That would easily make the current Pirate Magnet worth it (at least for first tear) Case in point. What you have stated does not jibe with the facts we have been presented, as you can clearly read above. Since the rats in these anomalies will have their quality determined by the level of your upgrades you can NOT state that they are going to be the same as current anomaly rats. You have been told that is incorrect. Quit distorting the information presented to further your own ends. Every single thing a CCP employee has posted has said absolutely nothing about "fixing" anomalies or making them worth running. Just that there would be a certain number ALWAYS available and that the top tier anomaly will be "almost on par" with a level 4 mission. They are completely ambiguous about whether they are referring to the current top tier of anomalies, which are incredibly difficult to find (I would say around 5% of current anomalies are worth running over belt ratting), or if they are planning on changing anything about anomalies to make them worth as much as a level four (add new anomalies, up bounties in anomalies, or increase the rate at which to-tier anomalies spawn. I am not misrepresenting anything in my previous post. If they do nothing to change anomalies aside from how many guaranteed ones there will be (this is the only thing they have EXPLICITLY stated or even alluded to) they will not be worth running over belt ratting. They would be worth running, however, if instead of the degraded 1/2 bounty, no loot, no salvage rats they were replaced with their regular loot. regular salvage. regular bounty. belt rat counterparts. e: Keep in mind that I am not suggesting replacing the rats as an upgrade but as a complete overhaul to ALL anomalies regardless of sovereignty. Right now anomalies are a joke - they were released pre-nerfed and despite them being a great idea (they really are a good way to replace current statsic belts) were completely ignored after being implemented.

Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:46:00 - [2771] Quote: When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. and Quote: When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). and Quote: The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation. Bolded for the most pertinent part. Now what do you suppose is different about top tier anomalies anomalies that makes them "much more profitable than ratting"? What do you think "on par with level 4's means in terms of tackling the issue of current anomalies being useless? If you are going to try to continue persuading people that this can not possibly mean the quality of rats (not to mention volume of them available to shoot) is significantly better than current anomalies then there is no point to trying to continue any sort of rational discussion with you. You've already made up your mind and are just blowing smoke. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:48:00 - [2772] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: Ranger 1 Quit distorting the information presented to further your own ends. Oh the irony. None of the posts from Soundwave indicate they actually tackled the problem of useless anomalies. You're just pulling stuff out of your arse. Yes someone will have to be the hero and clear out the rally points and ports so Havens and Sanctums can spawn... I recommend making the new guy do it. PS: this is a 4 spawn Sanctum, they scale up to 7 spawns.
Manfred Sideous H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:55:00 - [2773] CCP jus tossing this out here. You know Ive noticed a pattern forming on these dev blogs. The seem to only get alot of replies when something really bad is about to happen. Disabling Ghost Training http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=896318 207 pages where you tried to explain it as a bug. But us the customer knew it was really you wanted more money. Starbase Exploit http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=945010 95 pages of you explaining that you were too incompetent to fix a exploit that was happening for years and had altered the eve economy to great extents. Nano Nerf http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=831524 144 Pages where you explained that small gang wasnt important and that carebear tears are making you nerf a pvp mmo. The great carrier nerf http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=618279 110 pages where you made motherships a POS ornament and they proceeded to sit in POS's for the next 2 years. T20 anyone http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=526462 Here is where you had to finnally had to come clean at being inept at even making sure your employs weren't cheating. So I think this is a pretty clear inidication that when a thread garners this much attention you are doing something terribly wrong. Now we the paying customers you know the ones that provide you with a job are saying ..... WE DONT LIKE THE PRODUCT YOUR TRYING TO SELL. So for your own sake your families and childrens well being please do a better job. O and perhaps listen to the people that pay the bills. Game Set Match /Thread ______________________________
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 04:58:00 - [2774] Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: When you run the highest tiers of anomalies, you will financially be on par with Motsu. and Quote: When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). and Quote: The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly. Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Added to that, they have a chance of escalation. Bolded for the most pertinent part. Now what do you suppose is different about top tier anomalies anomalies that makes them "much more profitable than ratting"? What do you think "on par with level 4's means in terms of tackling the issue of current anomalies being useless? If you are going to try to continue persuading people that this can not possibly mean the quality of rats (not to mention volume of them available to shoot) is significantly better than current anomalies then there is no point to trying to continue any sort of rational discussion with you. You've already made up your mind and are just blowing smoke. They cannot possibly mean the quality of rats because they have specifically said right here that the higher the upgrade, the higher the TIER of anomaly will be likely to spawn. Like I said before about 5% of anamolies are currently worth running. They have said nothing about WHAT EXACTLY the new chance of these top tier anomalies will be when they spawn. They have said NOTHING about making the other 95% of anomalies worthwhile to run PERIOD. As in, while the top tier are worth running over belt ratting, the lower 19 tiers are far worse. And you wouldn't need to make only the top tier worthwhile if only the rats in them were regular and not pre-nerfed. This would make it on par with belt ratting and sometimes even better than belt ratting, and for the top 25-30% better than a Level 4
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 05:03:00 - [2775] To make it clear when I say "because of the risk and increased logistics of 0.0 space I should be able to make more, not as much as a L4 in empire" I am not sayign I want to make 300% more ISK, 200% more ISK or even 100% more ISK than what L4 mission runners make. I want to make maybe 20-30% more than a mission runner in highsec makes because to defend my own space I am constantly battling and losing ships. I would very much enjoy for the end-game of Eve to be able to facilitate my ability to defend my space and not make it so that I decide "I might as well just have an alt in empire so i can more reliably make ISK"
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.10 05:11:00 - [2776] Now I know what is throwing you, and since not all of his responses are quoted I can see where it might be easy to make this mistake. Look at this part again. Quote: When you scan for an anomaly, that anomaly will be based on your upgrade tier, making a specific number superflous (since the tier collectively replaces that). These anomalies are based on your UPGRADE tier, not on the standard anomaly tier system. I can certainly understand your error in this case, the terminology "tier" is describing two different mechanics, and people tend to automatically think "anomaly quality tier" when the word tier is used in discussing anomalies. By the way, your arguments have been both civil and well worded. Thanks for that. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Alex Under H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.10 05:11:00 - [2777] Quoting my friend here... Originally by: Manfred Sideous CCP jus tossing this out here. You know Ive noticed a pattern forming on these dev blogs. The seem to only get alot of replies when something really bad is about to happen. Disabling Ghost Training http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=896318 207 pages where you tried to explain it as a bug. But us the customer knew it was really you wanted more money. Starbase Exploit http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=945010 95 pages of you explaining that you were too incompetent to fix a exploit that was happening for years and had altered the eve economy to great extents. Nano Nerf http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=831524 144 Pages where you explained that small gang wasnt important and that carebear tears are making you nerf a pvp mmo. The great carrier nerf http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=618279 110 pages where you made motherships a POS ornament and they proceeded to sit in POS's for the next 2 years. T20 anyone http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=526462 Here is where you had to finnally had to come clean at being inept at even making sure your employs weren't cheating. So I think this is a pretty clear inidication that when a thread garners this much attention you are doing something terribly wrong. Now we the paying customers you know the ones that provide you with a job are saying ..... WE DONT LIKE THE PRODUCT YOUR TRYING TO SELL. So for your own sake your families and childrens well being please do a better job. O and perhaps listen to the people that pay the bills. Game Set Match /Thread
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.10 05:19:00 - [2778] Originally by: Alex Under Quoting my friend here... Originally by: Manfred Sideous CCP jus tossing this out here. You know Ive noticed a pattern forming on these dev blogs. The seem to only get alot of replies when something really bad is about to happen. Disabling Ghost Training http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=896318 207 pages where you tried to explain it as a bug. But us the customer knew it was really you wanted more money. Starbase Exploit http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=945010 95 pages of you explaining that you were too incompetent to fix a exploit that was happening for years and had altered the eve economy to great extents. Nano Nerf http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=831524 144 Pages where you explained that small gang wasnt important and that carebear tears are making you nerf a pvp mmo. The great carrier nerf http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=618279 110 pages where you made motherships a POS ornament and they proceeded to sit in POS's for the next 2 years. T20 anyone http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=526462 Here is where you had to finnally had to come clean at being inept at even making sure your employs weren't cheating. So I think this is a pretty clear inidication that when a thread garners this much attention you are doing something terribly wrong. Now we the paying customers you know the ones that provide you with a job are saying ..... WE DONT LIKE THE PRODUCT YOUR TRYING TO SELL. So for your own sake your families and childrens well being please do a better job. O and perhaps listen to the people that pay the bills. Game Set Match /Thread Might be a better idea to discuss the actual issues in the thread rather than attempt mudslinging. If you want to discuss ANY of those issues (and I'm sure there will be a great many people that would be happy to dispute your assertions) then start your own thread. And FYI, being a paying customer does not make you competent in game design. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
NickSuccorso Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 05:21:00 - [2779] Quote: So for your own sake your families and childrens well being please do a better job. O and perhaps listen to the people that pay the bills. I'm sure CCP is very happy that you're taking an interest in their corporate budget, but this ranks up there with "I'm going to cancel all 14 of my accounts if this isn't fixed RIGHT NOW" in the pantheon of really bad arguing. Other than that, your post actually makes me pretty disappointed in everyone's effort in this thread. This is at least as big as the other issues there, barring T20 and moongate, yet isn't garnering near the amount of outraged keyboard mashing.
Hendrik Stahl	Posted - 2009.11.10 05:32:00 - [2780] Originally by: Ranger 1 And FYI, being a paying customer does not make you competent in game design. Apparently neither does being a game designer

Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.10 05:32:00 - [2781] Why the need for military upgrades anyway? Why do we need to 'unlock' and 'install' those upgrades? That is totally artificial and not fitting into Eve! Instead if you rat enough the space should upgrade itself! Constantly and with finer grains. Not every level 2 more guaranteed anomalies, but every 1% of military index improvement, a 2% more chance to find one more anomaly. Just for example. Get rid of these totally idiotic payment system for upgrades. If the players improve the space by their presence and by their doings, then the space should get improved automatically!! I can understand the installation for cynofield jammers ... though that is bad also. Just make it chancewise. You should be able to light up a cyno always. But when the space is strategically powerful enough, then the jumprange to that cyno should become shorter and shorter. When the space is not improved by player doings, the jumprange should be just like to a normal cyno. And then the range reduces to 99% etc. until it hits 0% and the system is jammed. THAT would be better. And more logical. And it wouldn't need that stupid and completely artificial payment system. And best, both things are easy to implement! Now, if you still want some isk sink, then go and consider those fuel pellets I mentioned earlier for the infrastructure hub. Those pellets should be manufactured using npc goods (for the isk sink), gas from sleeper space (for the better interaction between parts of eve) and they should be lightweigt (to reduce logistics). Think about it. All player actions should impact. Player actions should NOT go completely to waste unless they first fit into a predetermined pattern.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.10 05:37:00 - [2782] Originally by: Hendrik Stahl Originally by: Ranger 1 And FYI, being a paying customer does not make you competent in game design. Apparently neither does being a game designer Heh, I saw that one coming. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
mine mi	Posted - 2009.11.10 05:39:00 - [2783] I think the mayor problem is why this magical thing happens. We need to answer some questions, before we can understand these changes If I pay for the sovereignty, for example administrate stargates on the solar system, what happens in the unclaimed sectors, I canÆt jump? , and more important, if I control the star gate why hostiles can use it? Some answer could be. You need to pay a toll to use it, X isk, and if you are at war with this alliance sector you must to pay double, a type of bribe. Ok this is just an example; with this modification you can loose an entire fleet, (in isk) without a single shot in a rooming, but is an answer of a question we can resonate and understand. Other questions could be, if a have more pirate activities in my sector, why? Because my economic prosper and if is the case, where came from? Again possible answer, from my neighborhood solar system And you guys make questions, and CCP reasonable answer, no magical mechanic game play.
Arronicus Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2009.11.10 06:05:00 - [2784] Got very excited about described changes at fanfest, and all the other dev blogs, passed on that excitement to alot of other plans, did theory crafting, helped with testing, etc, and now this hits. VERY VERY DISSAPOINTING. The fees? No escalation, so no true deterrent to holding alot of property as long as some people are willing to maintain a jumpbridge out to that part via some fees every 2 weeks. As for making systems capable of making it profitable for 50 people to live in them at once? What a joke. An extra plex or 2 a day? 1-2 people are gonna log on after downtime, run them, and then go back to the belts. Great, now systems can hold an extra.... 2-4 people with GOOD levels of upgrading? Im sorry, but your report card for upgrades available garners a lowercase F. (The capital F is reserved for a better fail. this one didnt put in enough effort)
Ava Santiago Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.10 06:05:00 - [2785] Originally by: Destrim Edited by: Destrim on 08/11/2009 01:53:27 Re-posting, because no one said anything :( Well, personally, I think the heavy tax and necessity to use the systems does an excellent job at condensing empires, and opening 0.0 up to much more people. THAT I have no problem with... even the heavy tax. What I DO have a problem with is this: the industrial/military upgrades are weaksauce. I say this because the upgrades, which are supposed to apply to an alliance's/corp's infrastructure, are not, in fact, doing much to help them achieve such ends. In other words, you have succeeded in using punishment ("pain aversion") to reign-in the ballooning miss-usage of 0.0 space (which works perfectly), but you haven't created any rewards as incentive for holding only a few systems. Penalizing works, but it only goes so far: you have to make it much more worth while to dig-in and hold the few systems they put so much time into improving. So, the improvements must be worthwhile. For me, I consider it the equivalent of creating an actual ***ing HOME in EVE. Not just some space you hold, so you can wave your e-peen, but somewhere that actually means something to you. This is what I propose: Industry upgrades: Something which... Decreases build costs by x% per sov level Decreases build times by x% per sov level Decreases reaction times by x% per sov level Increases moon stuff mined per unit of time by x% per sov level Increases refine rate (going beyond 100%, so you actually get MORE from refining) by x% per sov level Retain the "hidden belts per sov level" idea Increase mining amount/speed by x% per sov level <snip> I wanted to go back to 0.0 and build things for alliance in dominion. As it stands, Dominion does not help with that and the Dominion industry upgrades do not offset the loss of security resulting from "distance to the border decreased". More ores and refined modules... does not offset increased risk to researched blueprints. The proposal above is an effective means of making manufacturing and researching in 0.0 more attractive - reducing ship build times by 10% in a Sov 5 industry system.. would force alliances to create manufacturing hubs - and thereby generate strategically important sites/systems. Profit + target. This is the kind of synergy that Eve needs.. the stuff on offer deserves the "weaksauce" label. Concord doesn't provide consequences. Concord provides insurance payouts.*
Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.10 06:23:00 - [2786] Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 06:24:18 Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 06:24:00 Gnulpie writes: "POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes etc." I agree Gnulpie. I suggest CCP release everything except the SOV changes for the time being. There is a lot of good content that has received overall positive feedback (except perhaps the Titan nerf). There are just too many unknowns right now and too many good points brought up in this EPIC threadnaught - for CCP just to mindlessly go for the Dec 2nd deadline. Exodus Part Duex anyone? Why rush it? The game isn't going to disappear - and I think from reading this thread, most alliances will be content with the status quo until many of the very excellent issues I think that have been brought up in this forum are addressed. DELAY SOV - BUT RELEASE THE REST OF DOMINION. IT IS SUFFICIENT. And then work closely with alliance player leadership who seem very passionate about making null-sec a better place - and I would say almost ALL OF THEM AGREED WITH YOUR GOALS CCP but few of them have agreed with your solution. I don't think you will lose much by just holding back on the SOV changes.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.10 06:57:00 - [2787] What the eve community needs is an elected body by the players that voices concerns to CCP. People that 'represent' the eve community. People that tell CCP what we want to see and not be there for selfish reasons and such. People that truly want to represent the EVE community and not want just free stuff like trips to events and things. What do you guys think? Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.10 07:08:00 - [2788] Originally by: Manfred Sideous CCP jus tossing this out here. You know Ive noticed a pattern forming on these dev blogs. The seem to only get alot of replies when something really bad is about to happen. Arkanon's News Item on the recent allegations of developer misconduct (2007.05.25) Top Forum Warriors In Thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 146 Elmo Noguchi ( Imperial Academy ) 90 Prall Grosserbauch ( GoonFleet ) [ GoonSwarm ] 70 Shadow Elk 60 Alice Cholmondeley ( I Am Legend ) 57 Sentinel Eeex ( DarkStar 1 ) [ GoonSwarm ] Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog (2007.10.21) Top Forum Warriors In Thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71 Icome4u ( The Mining Consortium ) 45 XoPhyte ( Black Nova Corp ) 45 Vandalias 43 Cadela Fria ( Dark-Rising ) [ IT Alliance ] 42 Kerfira New Dev Blog: Speed Rebalanced by Nozh (2008.07.25) Top Forum Warriors In Thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113 Haakelen ( United Forces ) 74 Haniblecter Teg ( F.R.E.E. Explorer ) [ Wildly Inappropriate. ] 70 Andnowthenews ( State War Academy ) 69 Matrix Skye ( State War Academy ) 56 sophisticatedlimabean ( Templars of Space ) Disabling ghost training - the blog edition (2008.10.13) Top Forum Warriors In Thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 129 Squirrrel ( Squirrrel Industries ) 87 Catherine Frasier 63 Richard Aiel ( Caldari Provisions ) 58 IR Scoutar ( State War Academy ) 50 James Marshalll Starbase exploit addressed (2008.12.10) Top Forum Warriors In Thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 124 Etho Demerzel ( Holy Clan of the Cone ) 52 URUS FORGE ( THE TRUST INCORPORATED ) 36 Gamer4liff ( Metalworks ) [ Majesta Empire ] 33 Cadela Fria ( Dark-Rising ) [ IT Alliance ] 33 Gnulpie ( Miner Tech ) Upgrading and Upkeep of Sovereign Solar Systems in Dominion (2009.11.06) Top Forum Warriors In Thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82 Korodan ( GoonFleet ) [ GoonSwarm ] 56 Vivian Azure 56 Kepakh 52 EdFromHumanResources ( GoonFleet ) [ GoonSwarm ] 51 Qlanth ( Merch Industrial ) [ GoonSwarm ]
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.10 07:13:00 - [2789] The alliance stuff is a bit off due to inactive accounts not reflecting corp/alliance changes since going inactive... Arkanon's News Item on the recent allegations of developer misconduct (2007.05.25) Most Posts By Alliances ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3012 Unallied or Unknown 780 GoonSwarm 124 IT Alliance 97 Band of Brothers 84 Pandemic Legion Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog (2007.10.21) Most Posts By Alliances ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1920 Unallied or Unknown 107 GoonSwarm 106 IT Alliance 90 Atlas Alliance 83 Against ALL Authorities New Dev Blog: Speed Rebalanced by Nozh (2008.07.25) Most Posts By Alliances ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2654 Unallied or Unknown 368 Pandemic Legion 154 GoonSwarm 87 Wildly Inappropriate. 82 Triumvirate. Disabling ghost training - the blog edition (2008.10.13) Most Posts By Alliances ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4832 Unallied or Unknown 133 GoonSwarm 60 Atlas Alliance 59 RAZOR Alliance 45 Ethereal Dawn Starbase exploit addressed (2008.12.10) Most Posts By Alliances ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2067 Unallied or Unknown 85 IT Alliance 44 Morsus Mihi 43 Majesta Empire 39 GoonSwarm Upgrading and Upkeep of Sovereign Solar Systems in Dominion (2009.11.06) Most Posts By Alliances ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1350 Unallied or Unknown 754 GoonSwarm 143 Atlas Alliance 49 Morsus Mihi 48 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Black Omne Caldari House Of BlackStar Semper-Mortis	Posted - 2009.11.10 07:16:00 - [2790] Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 06:30:51 Gnulpie writes: "POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes etc." I agree Gnulpie. I suggest CCP release everything except the SOV changes for the time being. There is a lot of good content that has received overall positive feedback (except perhaps the Titan nerf). There are just too many unknowns right now and too many good points brought up in this EPIC threadnaught - for CCP just to mindlessly go for the Dec 2nd deadline. Exodus Part Duex anyone? Why rush it? The game isn't going to disappear - and I think from reading this thread, most alliances will be content with the status quo until the SOV changes can be polished more. DELAY SOV CCP GODS - BUT RELEASE THE REST OF DOMINION. IT IS SUFFICIENT. And then I suggest work with alliance player leadership who seem passionate about making null-sec a better place - and I would say almost ALL OF THEM AGREED WITH YOUR GOALS CCP but few of them have agreed with your current methods. I don't think you or the players will lose much by just holding back on the SOV changes. /signed The SOV changes need a lot more work before they are put into place.

Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 07:24:00 - [2791] Originally by: NickSuccorso I'm sure CCP is very happy that you're taking an interest in their corporate budget, but this ranks up there with "I'm going to cancel all 14 of my accounts if this isn't fixed RIGHT NOW" in the pantheon of really bad arguing. Other than that, your post actually makes me pretty disappointed in everyone's effort in this thread. This is at least as big as the other issues there, barring T20 and moongate, yet isn't garnering near the amount of outraged keyboard mashing. Plenty of outrage, just not much rational discussion. I partly agree with Gnulpie, the game should not require grinding just to live in a place. That very much goes against the tradition in EvE. What is next, grinding for skills? What happens if you have to fight a large war and don't have time to rat for a month? They should drop that part of this. The time based part will still work for purchasing upgrades. I also agree with Verone, in his post. Originally by: Verone Mikal, I'm happy to disappoint, and I'll give a response along with a response to the quotes above. CCP is performing a MASSIVE change to game mechanics. The logic, and principle behind the change is outstanding, and all the whining about having to fuel towers and babysit 1000 control towers to keep your space, or destroy 1000 hardened control towers to take someone's space is going to be gone. This change to mechanics isn't going to happen overnight with the launch of Dominion. It's a massive overhaul of how Eve operates, and it instantaneously affects TENS OF THOUSANDS of players the second Dominion goes live. It's not a case of changing the slot layout of a ship, or tweaking its stats. It's potentially game breaking on the most fundamental of levels. The fact of the matter is, giving too much reward too soon would give the game's economy a massive heart attack. Of course CCP are going to implement it with pre-nerfed rewards. Its going to be monitored, tweaked, worked on, fiddled with and monitored some more before they're happy with it. Something this big as a change in game isn't going to be complete overnight, its part of the core of the game. Its going to take time to balance it and watch to see how Eve reacts to it. This kind of thing is so large that its impossible to test on a development server. It has to be done in live play, because its not possible to simulate the effects of play on the scale of TQ on any of the test servers. The only thing that they can do is make sure the mechanics work fully. 0.0 alliances have whined for years about having the Sovereignty system overhauled. CCP has the answer to it and the logic and ideas behind it are sound and well thought out. Its just going to take time to implement and the best way to do it is by pre-nerfing the rewards until the dust settles around the launch of Dominion and CCP can see how alliances react to the new mechanics. I wouldn't be surprised if over time the rewards get better, but for now all they're doing is playing it safe to make sure that they don't totally butt** the game's economy by pouring trillions of ISK into the market because they made a bad call on the rewards for sov... Sov in 0.0 is badly broken. It has to be fixed. Waiting is not an option I am afraid. The people claiming they will quit eve over this are outnumbered by the people actually quitting eve under the current system. The supernaps, the moon gold, the cap ships, pos wars and so on are strangling the game. This is a huge risk by CCP. But to stay where we are now will mean we die. If we move forward there is a chance. I think I can shorten this and add an appropriate amount of invective so that it translates into troll, a language Goons can understand. You must die so that EvE can live. Now die! never stop posting...with alts.** Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 07:57:00 - [2792] What incentives are CCP adding in the proposed changes for empire dwellers to consider or commit to moving from empire and living in 0.0?
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.10 08:11:00 - [2793] Originally by: Hertford What incentives are CCP adding in the proposed changes for empire dwellers to consider or commit to moving from empire and living in 0.0? Same as before. Battleship rats you don't need massive faction standing to kill and Exotic Ores in abundance. It's just that now more Alliances may need the Taxes/Rents and may have to more actively court either new kinds of members or maybe another renter alliance. At least that how I think It's going... I could imagine a maybe one or two new alliances yoinking suddenly SOV less constellations of minuscule value somewhere maybe. But hey, it would be a chance for new blood if they was feisty enough.
Chantacas	Posted - 2009.11.10 08:21:00 - [2794] Simply as a paying customer, CCP need to listen up. Risk must be compatible with reward. This simply isnt the case with the new proposals. How about allowing afk cloakers in motsu that can shoot anyone without concorde interfering? I predict recons will be the most used 0.0 ships in dominion. Nice one ccp. I'll be flying one; in a fully upgraded system near you.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.10 08:23:00 - [2795] Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 06:30:51 Gnulpie writes: "POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes etc." thumbs up, you forgot faction ship changes/additions ccp, give yourselves a pat on the back for that much and go back to the drawing board (read that as fix the code that is broken to allow yourselves to do what you already know is right) re sov and 0.0 upgrades.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.10 08:31:00 - [2796] Originally by: Chantacas Simply as a paying customer, CCP need to listen up. Risk must be compatible with reward. This simply isnt the case with the new proposals. How about allowing afk cloakers in motsu that can shoot anyone without concorde interfering? I predict recons will be the most used 0.0 ships in dominion. Nice one ccp. I'll be flying one; in a fully upgraded system near you. I await you and your 7 Redeemers.
NickSuccorso Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 08:45:00 - [2797] Quote: Sov in 0.0 is badly broken. It has to be fixed. Waiting is not an option I am afraid. The people claiming they will quit eve over this are outnumbered by the people actually quitting eve under the current system. The supernaps, the moon gold, the cap ships, pos wars and so on are strangling the game. This is a huge risk by CCP. But to stay where we are now will mean we die. If we move forward there is a chance. I think I can shorten this and add an appropriate amount of invective so that it translates into troll, a language Goons can understand. You must die so that EvE can live. Now die! People keep saying this as if current 0.0 alliance members in this thread aren't in agreement that the current sovereignty system and moon gold is out of whack. Everybody knows that **** needs to change, and everybody has known that it's coming. We all welcome the change, and the original vision of 0.0 filling up with many alliances reaching for the brass ring while territories and pos responsibilities shrink makes us smile. We don't like how they plan to go about it right now, because it's going to strangle these small alliances, and make very little change to the territorial situation in 0.0.
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 09:19:00 - [2798] Good morning dear CCP devs, are you ready for another day of avoiding player feedback questions? Here I'll give you one to start you off with: 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. I look forward to not seeing a reply from you!
Elymi	Posted - 2009.11.10 09:21:00 - [2799] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Good morning dear CCP devs, are you ready for another day of avoiding player feedback questions? Here I'll give you one to start you off with: 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. I look forward to not seeing a reply from you! YES OR NO: "I am hungry" You don't have a question, you have a statement.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 09:22:00 - [2800] Originally by: Sethur Blackcoat Good morning dear CCP devs, are you ready for another day of avoiding player feedback questions? Here I'll give you one to start you off with: 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. I look forward to not seeing a reply from you! Originally by: Kepakh What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M? It is indeed increased risk to move around 0.0 as well as logistical challenge.

Llone Kila	Posted - 2009.11.10 09:25:00 - [2801] The prices are alittle too much even for the new people.. My alliance does not even hold sov and this will make us never want to.
IR Scoutar Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.11.10 09:28:00 - [2802] What i want to know is if say you have a good constelation with -0.8 and lower truesec will them upgrades will make your system even better while others in the rest of the ****ty solar systems (90% of 0.0 ) struggle to barely make it better ? or will truesec be completly dumped ?
Solar Blade	Posted - 2009.11.10 09:37:00 - [2803] Edited by: Solar Blade on 10/11/2009 09:42:58 People complain CCP doesn't respond to their questions, or doesn't think about their upgrades. Others have been saying something needs to change about the current system forever but now its actually happening all I see is whining. ------ CCP does look at this thread, they would be stupid to ignore player feedback or worries and I'm sure they are highly aware of the problems. (I feel sorry for the guy who has to do this though) That CCP doesn't respond to this thread is simple. For every comment they make on a persons questions 30 more people jump on the DEV and say he's nuts. do this 10 more times and they won't even bother to respond. AFAIK this has been happening so much over the years CCP just said, well lets only respond when we really have to and for the rest just see what people have to say. Also, People want change but expect perfection, there isn't such a thing. whatever changes there are, good or bad, they can never be perfect or they would have been done allready. All you can do is get as close as possible and then improve on it, especially with a change of this magnitude. An example... During a certain situation last year people wanted change. One year later there is change, but everyone is now screaming high and low that this change will only bring doom upon them. People don't think about what good thing the change WILL bring anymore, only what bad things it CAN bring. CCP KNOWS what they are doing. They've been doing it for years. And with the complexity that is eve-online, I think we can at least put some faith in them this will all turn out fine. If CCP were to listen to every player in eve and not follow their own vision for the game world everyone would be flying titans right now, have "500 million isk" rats in 1.0 systems and ganking would be A-OK in all of highsec without concord.
IskDigger	Posted - 2009.11.10 09:44:00 - [2804] I think this will be counter-productive to your goals. We will see alliances holding sov for a couple of station-systems and leave any other systems for a 5-system radius unclaimed. And they will make sure no one else claims them either. the only 0.0 systems being worth the trouble are those that arn't paid for. Anyone else see this scenario becoming a reality? on the other hand WH-space just became AWESOME in comparison. but since that wasn't the goal, it's all still fail.
Sethur Blackcoat Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 09:46:00 - [2805] Originally by: Solar Blade CCP KNOWS what they are doing. They've been doing it for years. boot.ini (Yes it's a strawman and hyperbole but what I'm saying is that even with good intentions you can mess up and do something wrong and it seems that is what happened here)
Locii	Posted - 2009.11.10 09:47:00 - [2806] Originally by: Solar Blade CCP KNOWS what they are doing. you are joking arnt you? we are still dealing with so many bugs that ccp knows about but seem unable to do anything about. we suffer with so many half finished projects that they implmented and just never fixed. the sov mechanic will be just that, a half arsed system that wont get fixed for years to come, if ever. so many parts are missing for the first patch, no treaties, no way of taking more isk of alliances for holding more space( 1 system 1 mil, 2 systems 3 mil, 3 systems 6 mil etc etc) like they said there would be. ccp are a joke most of the time tbh only reason im still playing after 4 and half years is there is still nothing like this as a space game out there. soon as there is something that allows people to shoot other people in the face, while in a space ship, you know we will all give it a go.
Altaica Amur Ichizoku	Posted - 2009.11.10 09:47:00 - [2807] A few things strike me about the changes being made to sov and the adjustments being made in this thread as well as the counter-arguments being offered. For one there's a lack of balance in the approach thusfar to changing sov mechanics. From one end the prices for keeping sov and the mechanics associated with such came pre-buffed, very high and costly, presumably to push the big alliances out of space they weren't using but the current system isn't particularly good at doing that. Some of the proposed ideas that encourage higher costs for higher numbers of systems or lower costs for well-used systems could help here. One the other side the benefits of this new system seem to be 'pre-nerfed' an approach that CCP seems to be heading towards, with some good reason but the slowness with which things are un-nerfed makes one wonder what chaos might reign in 0.0 in the interim. I think that one step in the right direction would be to make all 0.0 rats, be they in a complex, anomaly or otherwise have the full belt rat value both in drops and bounty to help compete with lvl4s. Reducing the number of poor spawns in space that should be able to do better would also be a step in the right direction if you want to increase the concentration of players in a system. In spite of what some here are saying about faction gear suffering price drops with over harvesting of exploration content I would point out that this is also an innate nerf to LP as that's one of the sources for the same faction modules. Personally I think that with the changes to pirate faction ships on one hand and the expansion of capital and super-capital ships in the game has expanded demand for faction drops without improving the production of such a push to improve the amount of faction gear acquired through exploration and perhaps ratting may well provide an answer to improve 0.0 income while suppressing rising faction-gear costs.
Hallan Turrek Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.11.10 10:02:00 - [2808] Just holding sov in a system will cost you 600 million. Holding sov and upgrading a system will cost a billion. It's only if you want to cynojam and jump bridge that the costs start to skyrocket. This will not deter smaller alliances from taking a piece of the pie(since a lot of pieces will be left on the plate now), and it will encourage people to fight more often. You'll see more alliances taking just one system and holding it. And using it. I like these changes. ________________________________________ A merry life and a short one shall be my motto. Bartholomew Roberts Check out my blog.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.10 10:08:00 - [2809] Originally by: Solar Blade Edited by: Solar Blade on 10/11/2009 09:42:58 People complain CCP doesn't respond to their questions, or doesn't think about their upgrades. Others have been saying something needs to change about the current system forever but now its actually happening all I see is whining. CCP KNOWS what they are doing. They've been doing it for years. And with the complexity that is eve-online, I think we can at least put some faith in them this will all turn out fine. CCP stated it was impossible to group weapons oh look, grouped weapons be thankful for the "whining" (this is the exact same thing, ccp is saying legacy code is preventing them from addressing the real problems of 0.0)
Tyr Aeron	Posted - 2009.11.10 10:12:00 - [2810] Wow, instead of moving our alliance out to 0.0, I think we'll stay in empire and keep missioning, mining, and producing. With the sov costs CCP is proposing, I give it 6 months before my alliance has more ISK than Goon & AAA combined. In a year, 0.0 will be a deserted wasteland you go to for PvP. Friggin' genious. I'm thinking CCP's decision making process started with jello shots and ended wiping the vomit off their shoes with our subscription money. Awsome.

Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 10:16:00 - [2811] Originally by: NickSuccorso Quote: Sov in 0.0 is badly broken. It has to be fixed. Waiting is not an option I am afraid. The people claiming they will quit eve over this are outnumbered by the people actually quitting eve under the current system. The supernaps, the moon gold, the cap ships, pos wars and so on are strangling the game. This is a huge risk by CCP. But to stay where we are now will mean we die. If we move forward there is a chance. I think I can shorten this and add an appropriate amount of invective so that it translates into troll, a language Goons can understand. You must die so that EvE can live. Now die! People keep saying this as if current 0.0 alliance members in this thread aren't in agreement that the current sovereignty system and moon gold is out of whack. Everybody knows that ** needs to change, and everybody has known that it's coming. We all welcome the change, and the original vision of 0.0 filling up with many alliances reaching for the brass ring while territories and pos responsibilities shrink makes us smile. We don't like how they plan to go about it right now, because it's going to strangle these small alliances, and make very little change to the territorial situation in 0.0. I accept the premise set out in Verone's post. I think it is spot on. This isn't to say I agree with everything CCP is doing. I trust however that the current changes are not the last word. They are the pre-nerfed version of what is to come. I take that on faith, and with the knowledge that CCP has every reason to see this succeed. If they fail, its over. never stop posting...with alts.** Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.10 10:50:00 - [2812] Edited by: zelalot on 10/11/2009 10:52:25 ever thought about just increasing the ~ of moons and making it so a region of space can sustain its self without having to trek system upon system to complete a complex reaction? Just in hind sight it would mean in x amount of systems you could produce all the simple / complex reactions you need to sustain any sort of manufacturing, whilst making pos engagements strategic, not just about the high end. The problem I am seeing is once your in 0.0 unless you land the good moons to manufacture ships you are constantly shipping backwards and forwards which is another reason why the blob alliances have continued to influence 0.0, they have the ISK backing regardless of being 25 jumps out of the space they occupy. thats the problem right there if you live in a region you should only be allowed to farm those systems right there. The game has become all about greed and "dont worry i can make the 6 - 700 mill needed for my time card from this pos right here oh and if you try to take over it, i got my mates who i can give a ship to becuase i am on a high end back in my own region".
Zerakix Minmatar LEAP Corp	Posted - 2009.11.10 10:59:00 - [2813] Originally by: Marlona Sky What the eve community needs is an elected body by the players that voices concerns to CCP. People that 'represent' the eve community. People that tell CCP what we want to see and not be there for selfish reasons and such. People that truly want to represent the EVE community and not want just free stuff like trips to events and things. What do you guys think? Hehe might work but them NDAs make it unlikely since it would be such a small pool of people giving feed back on it that it's bound to go over badly when it finally goes public. Might even say you wouldn't want anyone who gave positive feed back on this in a position to have any more say or help in guiding future patch development on behalf of the players. Love the sig though I fail.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.10 11:03:00 - [2814] Originally by: Tesal I accept the premise set out in Verone's post. I think it is spot on. This isn't to say I agree with everything CCP is doing. I trust however that the current changes are not the last word. They are the pre-nerfed version of what is to come. I take that on faith, and with the knowledge that CCP has every reason to see this succeed. If they fail, its over. One can only hope, but I fear if they go ahead we will just end up worse off in 12 months because they will regurgitate the current excuses they do now: "legacy code, can't change it" I noticed on about day 3 (ok more than that, eve is hard) they had problems. Things like ending up at the same dialogue box, but one was modal while the other wasn't, for e.g. If you want a nice example to try: notice how sentries will often not follow orders. Other drones will, but not sentries. The code to attack should be the same for all drones, but obviously it isn't. This is their major hurdle. Legacy code that programmers don't like playing with (who can blame them - it is not fun). I think it's been mentioned before in this thread, this is the problem CCP faces with the sov patch. They believe it is too hard to fix what needs to be fixed, and are applying bandaids and duct tape in whatever form they can find them on the shelf. I was really looking forward to this patch, but I would rather wait till next one and see it done properly.
Hebril Amolebin	Posted - 2009.11.10 11:11:00 - [2815] Edited by: Hebril Amolebin on 10/11/2009 11:14:41 I still see people saying we O.O people whine. God sake We do not whine we just ask the questions which should be asked. Let see the upgrades - 1 more belt in system/in the moment gravimetric sites are fail pure fail noone mine them because in most roids there is only 1-2 cycles for the miners/ -2 more anomalies,if they are static they will get abused done again and again,but also the big money are not in the anomalies but in the escalations you possibly get. Does it happen frequently no,does it always reward you no. Yes sometimes you strike gold get A type or some bpc but if you compare time to effort and reward it is low income People think small aliances will come in our space,only if we allow them,we will still roam our regions and these next to us more people arround us mean more targets. And why should empire corp or aliance pay 2 bil to upgrade fully a system that can't even sustain its upkeep Lets take example : a -40 system in detorid with 30 belts,average spawn is 600-1 mil rat,no high end roids and low class anomalies and plexes mostly. If the upgrades were made right way this system would have become a heaven for isk making but with proposed changes it will be hell,and burn out ratting just to keep the cost of holding it. I thought isk should be easy to make in o.o but it goes the other way with dominion,ok wwe will all start fly t1 fited bs and bc but why not fly our shiney zealots and ect. Moongold is gone, sov poses ect will eat a lot of money so no reimbusement programs,so losing ship will make you go to belts for a while when you just was able to pvp before. This is what makes me shake my head. Why would i fit my geddon for 200 mil,with the basic rr fit,when i can either do it for 100 mil with lame t1 fit without rigs ect. I thought 0.0 is for the elite players with skills willing to get the reward when fighting and defending it. In the moment i wonder why i shoot 1000+ poses taking over detorid and ect, just to have my corp and aliance burn out weird money for the space that we hold with our own right. If someone want to take it from us let them come take it in force as we did. Hm seemed i posted with alt. Either way my main is in Atlas and my corp is prio.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 11:17:00 - [2816] Wanna see whining? Cut bounties in missions by 80% and remove all non salvage loot from them as well.
Mookuh Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2009.11.10 11:28:00 - [2817] Probably this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it: Won't the drone regions be completely shafted by this system? You don't get any bounties whatsoever from them, just minerals, which players have to pay you for, else your sov will collapse, because you didn't pay your fee to...eh...hmm... who maintains the Stargates in the drone regions again? I was gonna say drones, but a wise man once told me that Drones are not interested in politics (which is not even true according to some backstories, they 'infested' political leaders and interfered with politics in some EON story) or money. I'm not too familiar with the drone regions, but are there even DED plexes there? If so, what do they actually give? Faction Drone BPCs and components? Does CCP really believe that any Alliance is willing to make the sale of faction drones (that are so unused that Alliance Tournement commentators didn't even know they existed) their primary source of income? Along with minerals which are at the lowest possible price? (You can buy a Battleship in Jita/Amarr, insure it, blow it up, make some ISK + salvage) The DED-Plex upgrade will likely be a complete waste in these systems... Likewise, are there even Drone hacking or Archeology sites? As I said, my knowledge of the drone regions is limited, but it looks like they will get royally screwered by much more expensive space holding and nothing (yes, that's even less than elsewhere) that's worth mentioning in return? ------------------------------------------------ Terry 'Mookuh' Hijakosji CAIN Public Relations
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 11:30:00 - [2818] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Wanna see whining? Cut bounties in missions by 80% and remove all non salvage loot from them as well. Remove jump bridges/jump portals/jump freighters and kill cargo bays/corporate hangars/ship maintenance bays on carriers, moms and titans and we have a deal. In exchange i could even pass with ship bays on freighters.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 11:47:00 - [2819] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Wanna see whining? Cut bounties in missions by 80% and remove all non salvage loot from them as well. Remove jump bridges/jump portals/jump freighters and kill cargo bays/corporate hangars/ship maintenance bays on carriers, moms and titans and we have a deal. In exchange i could even pass with ship bays on freighters. And this here is a prime example of what I am talking about.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 11:52:00 - [2820] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/11/2009 11:54:28 Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Wanna see whining? Cut bounties in missions by 80% and remove all non salvage loot from them as well. Remove jump bridges/jump portals/jump freighters and kill cargo bays/corporate hangars/ship maintenance bays on carriers, moms and titans and we have a deal. In exchange i could even pass with ship bays on freighters. And this here is a prime example of what I am talking about. This is prime example of bull** you and other members of 0.0 are spewing around. "life in 0.0 is risky" "life in 0.0 is hard" "logistics in 0.0 are hard". No, they are not. They WERE hard few years ago, before freighters were introduced. Freighters helped a lot but they still needed to be escorted (risk part). Nowadays 0.0 is almost risk free, easy to get rich area of the game with ** easy logistics. Jump carrier to random system, npc/plex/whatever around, jump back to empire. Basically - no chance someone will nab you on the way. When you use POSes as landing point or jump bridges to travel it gets even easier faster. So your "example of what I am talking about" is just another typical rhetorics of most 0.0 allies that has almost no coverage in reality. EDIT: and on topic. CCP dropped down the sov costs then i guess there really is no need anymore to put 100's of players in system or even try it. Instead of fixing the amount of players per system issue so it justifies the cost you wanted lower cost. So vice versa - lower cost = no need to have many players working for the sys = we are back at status quo. Clap, clap, whole point of expansion got just screwed over.

EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 11:53:00 - [2821] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Wanna see whining? Cut bounties in missions by 80% and remove all non salvage loot from them as well. Remove jump bridges/jump portals/jump freighters and kill cargo bays/corporate hangars/ship maintenance bays on carriers, moms and titans and we have a deal. In exchange i could even pass with ship bays on freighters. And this here is a prime example of what I am talking about. This is prime example of bull** you and other members of 0.0 are spewing around. "life in 0.0 is risky" "life in 0.0 is hard" "logistics in 0.0 are hard". No, they are not. They WERE hard few years ago, before freighters were introduced. Freighters helped a lot but they still needed to be escorted (risk part). Nowadays 0.0 is almost risk free, easy to get rich area of the game with ** easy logistics. Jump carrier to random system, npc/plex/whatever around, jump back to empire. Basically - no chance someone will nab you on the way. When you use POSes as landing point or jump bridges to travel it gets even easier faster. So your "example of what I am talking about" is just another typical rhetorics of most 0.0 allies that has almost no coverage in reality. You sound pretty mad about the idea of having your missions nerfed. You should take a break, go have lunch or dinner or whatever timezone you live in. Take a few deep breaths.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 11:57:00 - [2822] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources You sound pretty mad about the idea of having your missions nerfed. You should take a break, go have lunch or dinner or whatever timezone you live in. Take a few deep breaths. Another example why you have no clue and are biased towards empire corps is just above. I dont run missions in empire, the rewards are too low. Plexing = isk. But what would you know when you didnt try all isk-making ways
McDaddy Pimp Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:11:00 - [2823] It seems that the biggest concern here is that the isk/hour in 0.0 wont be much better then lvl4s to justify the upkeep of a 0.0 system. Suggestion for the isk/hour issue (military upgrade) 1. Increase rat bounties, per upgrade lvl, since increasing belt count seems impossible. 2. Increase resistance against rats type of all ships within the system/ decrease rats tank 3. Increase respawn rate of rats in belt, or even better each level of "pirate magnet" upgrade will give an extra spawn after all the rats/trigger of rats belt is kills. ie; At lvl 5, a 3 BS rat gang will spawn 5 more times instantly ones the last BS the first gang is cleared. For industrial upgrade 1. Give mining bonus to all ships in an upgraded system, like mining gang links, and these bonuses wont be stack penalized if a mining fleet is also running mindlinks 2. New cool indy bonuses for ships in the system, like increased cargo capacity, ore compression, hacking time/success rate etc Of course the bonuses could be set to apply only to corp/alliance only or based on standings* For strategic upgrades 1. Again, using the current code for ganklinks, a strategic upgrade could provide resist/hp/dmg bonus for ships in the system. Same as above, which ships that receive these bonus can will be decide by the system owners For "peaceful" type alliance. 1. System wide taxation of rat bounties. A percentage of each rat bounties will go to the system owners, and these can also be set to percentage based on standings etc. Blues pay 5%, neutral 10%, reds 20% etc. CVA wont go bankrupt and we probally will see more CVA-type alliance. CCP stated they want more empire carebear coming to 0.0, imo the only way to archive this is by making 0.0 more carebear friendly. Here are some suggestions (disclaimer, these ideas may sound a bit extrema, so maybe CCP can figure out a more toned-down version of them) 1. Bubble immunity (!) bonus to ships within system (make it an infrastructure upgrade which cost isk per day) 2. Align time bonus infrastructure upgrade 3. Warp speed bonus infrastructure upgrade 4. Warp strength bonus (max +2 maybe) infrastructure upgrade, this combined with bubble immunity, will make some 0.0 system true carebear heaven. Although tackling ships is still possible...
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:17:00 - [2824] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: EdFromHumanResources You sound pretty mad about the idea of having your missions nerfed. You should take a break, go have lunch or dinner or whatever timezone you live in. Take a few deep breaths. Another example why you have no clue and are biased towards empire corps is just above. I dont run missions in empire, the rewards are too low. Plexing = isk. But what would you know when you didnt try all isk-making ways Yes obviously the real flaw here is my lack of psychic powers. It's all so clear now. Hahaha
Droog 1 Black Rise Inbreds	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:26:00 - [2825] Who is running this game. CCP or Goons?
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:27:00 - [2826] Originally by: McDaddy Pimp It seems that the biggest concern here is that the isk/hour in 0.0 wont be much better then lvl4s to justify the upkeep of a 0.0 system. for now and only with the currently unveiled upgrades. over time ccp can keep adding upgrades to make motsu isk/hr look like chump change, something most people don't consider. Originally by: McDaddy Pimp For "peaceful" type alliance. 1. System wide taxation of rat bounties. A percentage of each rat bounties will go to the system owners, and these can also be set to percentage based on standings etc. Blues pay 5%, neutral 10%, reds 20% etc. except every (NBSI) alliance will set non-blue taxes to 100%. Originally by: McDaddy Pimp CVA wont go bankrupt and we probally will see more CVA-type alliance. they shat out outposts left and right, maybe they deserve to go bankrupt. "too big to fail" sound familiar? Originally by: McDaddy Pimp CCP stated they want more empire carebear coming to 0.0, imo the only way to archive this is by making 0.0 more carebear friendly. Here are some suggestions (disclaimer, these ideas may sound a bit extrema, so maybe CCP can figure out a more toned-down version of them) 1. Bubble immunity (!) bonus to ships within system (make it an infrastructure upgrade which cost isk per day) oh, HELL NO! its bad enough that T3 cruisers can warp through bubbles but you want to extend that to all ships? overpowered, atleast T3 have to make fitting sacrifices and deal with the price tag. Originally by: McDaddy Pimp 2. Align time bonus infrastructure upgrade 3. Warp speed bonus infrastructure upgrade 4. Warp strength bonus (max +2 maybe) infrastructure upgrade, this combined with bubble immunity, will make some 0.0 system true carebear heaven. Although tackling ships is still possible... umm tackling will be IMPOSSIBLE... as it stands NO ratter in 0.0 EVER gets tackled IF he/she is watching local. even a plated bs has plenty of time to align and warp to safe then cloak before a tackler can shake jump cloak, find ratter and then align+warp, target and lay 1 point on ratter. now you want to make it so the ratter aligns faster, warps faster AND require a tackler to fit THREE points??? dude im a carebear and i think that's f-ing ******ed. the stuff i didn't quote don't have any glaring obvious issues i noticed. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:30:00 - [2827] Making 0.0 more attractive to empire dwellers... Possible upgrades. Empire defense arrays on gates. Concord depots. Bubble suppressors Bomb launcher blockers. Stations with L4 agents And an insta port to jita to sell your stuff. Hows that? Yes it would be pretty lame as it'd just turn 0.0 into empire space. I start to see what ccp are doing though... Say goodbye to our beloved sandbox where players get to decide what happens and welcome to the new and improved ccp playpen. Even though I love the idea of no more empty unused 0.0 so much for a space game of interstellar conquest, your local isk bank manager says NO.
Manuka	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:33:00 - [2828] Originally by: Droog 1 Who is running this game. CCP or Goons? Maybe IT are Game Designer & Programmer alts and Goons are QA & Marketing alts?
TexasWARlord North Domain Defense Forces	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:34:00 - [2829] Quote: For "peaceful" type alliance. 1. System wide taxation of rat bounties. A percentage of each rat bounties will go to the system owners, and these can also be set to percentage based on standings etc. Blues pay 5%, neutral 10%, reds 20% etc. CVA wont go bankrupt and we probally will see more CVA-type alliance. You might be onto something here McDaddy. However if they ever read this and mull it over may be another story. IF - This was incorporated into the new TREATY system (And We Have No Idea What That Will Even Be) this could work, not just for CVA but other Alliances in as much as it would encourage making treaties with people in order to not only raise the value of their system but help them pay the rent. Just a simple tax on BLUE would suffice, Nuet and RED still improve the system overall but if you didnt want to be hunted and chased out it would be wise to make a treaty with the SOV owners and it would be incentive for the owners to do it. Again this idea might take some tweaking but as I said personaly think your on the right track
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:34:00 - [2830] Originally by: Droog 1 Who is running this game. CCP or Goons? depends on who you ask... the majority of posters in this thread, CCP "Stoffer" Soundwave, or the CSM. seriously though i don't think it's just the goons ... it's the vast majority of the playerbase that has an undue sense of entitlement running rampant. to wit: demanding CCP to answer any question a player comes up with, demanding game changes, threatening CCP financially, threatening CCP employees, the list goes on. when all i said and done CCP owns this game, "our" characters, the servers, this forum. the only thing we RENT from CCP is access to the game servers. IF 200k subs got canceled over this as some goon ranted about 90pages ago CCP would most likely reduce expansion release time to one per 2yrs and simply throw their manpower into World of Darkness and Dust. Games die.. I doubt CCP depends on our subs for their daily bread though they make a pretty penny of us. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."

Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:47:00 - [2831] 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.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:48:00 - [2832] Originally by: Itzena 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: Kepakh What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M? It is indeed increased risk to move around 0.0 as well as logistical challenge.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:52:00 - [2833] Originally by: Kepakh beating his head against the wall dude it's an enraged bee.. you can swat it with rolled up reason and spray it with common sense and it'll just keep on buzzing. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:58:00 - [2834] Quote: Maybe IT are Game Designer & Programmer alts and Goons are QA & Marketing alts? I am beta tester, not game designer. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Adam Ridgway Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:59:00 - [2835] Originally by: Deva Blackfire This is prime example of bull** you and other members of 0.0 are spewing around. "life in 0.0 is risky" "life in 0.0 is hard" "logistics in 0.0 are hard". No, they are not. They WERE hard few years ago, before freighters were introduced. Freighters helped a lot but they still needed to be escorted (risk part). Nowadays 0.0 is almost risk free, easy to get rich area of the game with easy logistics. Jump carrier to random system, npc/plex/whatever around, jump back to empire. Basically - no chance someone will nab you on the way. When you use POSes as landing point or jump bridges to travel it gets even easier faster. So your "example of what I am talking about" is just another typical rhetorics of most 0.0 allies that has almost no coverage in reality. EDIT: and on topic. CCP dropped down the sov costs then i guess there really is no need anymore to put 100's of players in system or even try it. Instead of fixing the amount of players per system issue so it justifies the cost you wanted lower cost. So vice versa - lower cost = no need to have many players working for the sys = we are back at status quo. Clap, clap, whole point of expansion got just screwed over. Difference is: in 0.0 you can go and ** their JB, poses, outposts, or whatever... oh wait: you won't. But then is you the one who is lazzy? No you are not, I won't be as biased as you. People recognizes there are problems: too much passive income by moon mining, too easy to conquer and hold space, too easy to plant JB's and cynojammers over the place, all this reduces risk & effort at no additional costs and helps status quo because no oen can challenge stablished powers cause they are too rich etc. This all is getting fixed by adding costs (and I think cost of JB's and cynojammers per system should be higher) and making sov a bit more easy to contest (should be even easier if you ask me). But reward is awfull for the individual. Here is a problem with plexing: is limited, if good plexes are increased reward will be reduced cause income is dependent on supply:demand of faction items. So it CAN'T compete with lvl4's, you need a fixed way of making money and which is worth it, or people will be doing business in empire and just use 0.0 as a pew pew meanigless playground.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:04:00 - [2836] Edited by: Tippia on 10/11/2009 13:05:07 Originally by: Kepakh What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M? You keep posting this as some kind of strawman retort to the most pertinent question of the thread, and I just have to ask: Do you really don't know the answer? Or is it that you don't understand the question? Or are you just trolling? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:06:00 - [2837] ENOUGH! Adapt or die. It is in fact that simple. Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:10:00 - [2838] Originally by: Kanatta Jing Same as before. Battleship rats you don't need massive faction standing to kill and Exotic Ores in abundance. Firstly, those battleship rats spawn in belts. The majority of 0.0 systems have enough belts to support 1 ratter. A lesser amount can support 2 or 3, and very very few can support more than that. Nothing in the Dominion features is changing this. Ratting is comparable to L4 missioning in terms of reward. Of course, there's more risk in 0.0 ratting than L4 missioning. So overall, there isn't much to entice empire dwellers to move and live in 0.0 in terms of ratting. Exotic ores are more common in 0.0. Arkonor, Bistot and Crokite are worth mining, as is Veldspar. However, stations are far fewer in 0.0, massively increasing logistics (hauling ore to a refinery which can't do manufacturing properly, then hauling minerals to a factory), and of course there's still the 0.0 risk in the mining and the hauling. A group of miners can empty a belt in an hour, so even then the ISK is not infinite and guaranteed. And the ISK is again comparable to L4 missioning, but with a lot more logistical effort involved. Again, not exactly a massive incentive for empire dwellers to move and live in 0.0. Don't get me wrong. I want to see 0.0 more lively, more busy, more active, and more dynamic. I want to see more players move to and live in 0.0. I'm completely in favour of shrinking alliance sov claims so that there's a greater density of population in 0.0. But as proposed, there's no carrot to get people to actually move from empire to 0.0 and join in the political, economic and military mixing pot. And that's my concern. I'm not overly worried that Goonswarm will have to squeeze into fewer systems, I'm sure we'll adapt just fine. Who is going to move into the supposed empty space that Dominion will create? I would imagine most players who want to be in 0.0 are already in 0.0. So, as I stated many pages back, either new subs or existing empire dwellers, neither of which currently appears likely, because Dominion 0.0 is not enough of an incentive.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:11:00 - [2839] Originally by: Marlona Sky ENOUGH! Adapt or die. It is in fact that simple. i'm with you on this, but i doubt it will end this threadnought. also it's amazing that people still expect CCP responses after 60 pages of silence and the treatment CCP soundwave and CCP chronotis received. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:20:00 - [2840] Originally by: Hertford I would imagine most players who want to be in 0.0 are already in 0.0. i have to disagree here, there are tons of players interested in 0.0. the cost for sov isn't holding them back, the current alliances are... dominion won't change that one bit. wannabe nullsec alliance finds some "empty" space, plops down towers and gets annihilated for the lulz. then either wiped out or forced into virtual slave labor as meat shield pets to be reset and wiped out whenever the overlords are bored. whether the current powerblocks are all over the sov map or reduce sov to key systems won't change the fact that YOU are the biggest stick of 0.0. yes 0.0 is all about the survival of the fittest but if you won't let a weakling live today you won't have sport tomorrow. the only benefit to a small outfit post dominion is the lack of umbrella cyno jammers and MAYBE some solar systems without any towers up already. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."

Adam Ridgway Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:20:00 - [2841] Originally by: Marlona Sky ENOUGH! Adapt or die. It is in fact that simple. Because current spaceholding alliances are gonna lose all they have and die... You're clueless, the thing is, all what CCP was trying to archieve with this expansion, they will fail. Will you stop the memes and try for a second see what CCP intentions were with the patch and how they are failing? Or is your hate agaisnt big alliances so big that you won't, despite the patch as it's now will make the status quo continue.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:21:00 - [2842] Originally by: Adam Ridgway Difference is: in 0.0 you can go and ** their JB, poses, outposts, or whatever... oh wait: you won't. But then is you the one who is lazzy? No you are not, I won't be as biased as you. You can suicide gank in empire too ya know? And yeah i did get my share of kills on JB poses. Suicide ganking is actually tad harder, especially if you want to continue it for prolonged time (uh oh sec status, tho it can be evaded to some degree). Quote: People recognizes there are problems: too much passive income by moon mining, too easy to conquer and hold space, too easy to plant JB's and cynojammers over the place, all this reduces risk & effort at no additional costs and helps status quo because no oen can challenge stablished powers cause they are too rich etc. This all is getting fixed by adding costs (and I think cost of JB's and cynojammers per system should be higher) and making sov a bit more easy to contest (should be even easier if you ask me). Isnt this what i said somewhere earlier in the thread? Sov costs/hub costs can go down, no problem here (and they actually did). But up the jammer/bridge costs 2x so fully developed (defended) system costs around 2b. Quote: But reward is awfull for the individual. Here is a problem with plexing: is limited, if good plexes are increased reward will be reduced cause income is dependent on supply:demand of faction items. So it CAN'T compete with lvl4's, you need a fixed way of making money and which is worth it, or people will be doing business in empire and just use 0.0 as a pew pew meanigless playground. And yet even now with 'undeveloped' systems 0.0 people sit in 0.0 most of the time grinding belts/anomalies/whatever. And anomalies are fixed income. People dont bother because "someone said that anomalies are **". They arent. Granted, there are quite a few crap anomalies (for example ressuply point or w/ever its named from guristas - housing mostly BCs) but its same as with spawns or mission lottery. You can get few crap missions in a row (lol buzz kill) and few goods (blockades). I didnt run anomalies every time i found them only because i didnt really have time. And if you have 3x 8/10 + 5x 6/10 to run and 5 anomalies to compete you will always take DED plex. But when i didnt find much i actually did run anomalies and they can also give decent ISK afk way (get good tank on drake, put FOFs, jam F1 key, go afk, come back, collect loot). Also they tend to spawn commanders quite often. IMO the best way to improve system would be giving even more anomalies. Usually one anomaly can keep one person occupied for 30-60 minutes. If its permanent anomaly - you can assume it keeps one person busy. So 10 perma anomalies = 10 people served. Now i know it cant keep 100 people at once but i think everyone is missiong one point. Its 100 people during the day not 100 people at once. In reality those 10 anomalies will easily serve 50 people. Add plexes and other crap (crap as in = i dont care about it, maybe s1 else likes doing magneto/radar sites or mining) and you up it a bit again.
zacuis Great Big Research	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:29:00 - [2843] at page 95 in sure no one is gonna read this. so im not gonna say much. but frankly i think people are wrong generally in this thread the moon mineral income isnt gonna be reduced if the numbers on sisi stay the same its just that other things will be come worth more not just prom and dyspro atika seems to be quiet sure it`ll just become tech and neodyspro that replace them. i think ccp should think long and hard if they are gonna tweak that before dominion. in light of the fact they upgrades will add little to 0.0 income. perhaps they should do it once they can add agents to player stations as upgrades. i long for the days when i was drawn to 0.0 and its riches. that left with the drone regions and the hi end mineral crash. and the removal of static plexs. currently the only reason to be in 0.0 is to fight over the hi end moons and i dont think thats gonna change. ccp`s vision to move the riches back to the individual is the right idea if they want more people in 0.0 but this patch is not gonna achieve that. what a pity
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:32:00 - [2844] Originally by: ServantOfMask i have to disagree here, there are tons of players interested in 0.0. the cost for sov isn't holding them back, the current alliances are... dominion won't change that one bit. wannabe nullsec alliance finds some "empty" space, plops down towers and gets annihilated for the lulz. then either wiped out or forced into virtual slave labor as meat shield pets to be reset and wiped out whenever the overlords are bored. whether the current powerblocks are all over the sov map or reduce sov to key systems won't change the fact that YOU are the biggest stick of 0.0. yes 0.0 is all about the survival of the fittest but if you won't let a weakling live today you won't have sport tomorrow. the only benefit to a small outfit post dominion is the lack of umbrella cyno jammers and MAYBE some solar systems without any towers up already. Thank you for, what appears to me to be, a pretty reasonable response. Now, I can agree there's currently players not in 0.0 who want to move to 0.0, and that the current powerblocs will be too powerful for the newcomers to establish themselves, and that Dominion will result in the same regions being claimed by the current crop of alliances, just in a more skeletal manner. I now ask the question that if 0.0 was more of an incentive than it currently is, would there be more players joining the "Want to Move to 0.0" camp? I would say yes. And if there's more players willing to move to 0.0, then they will have a greater strength to actually establish themselves. The bottom line still remains. 0.0 needs to be more attractive to those not currently in 0.0. Dominion does not address this.
fuze Gallente Quam Singulari Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:33:00 - [2845] Originally by: Verone CCP is performing a MASSIVE change to game mechanics. The logic, and principle behind the change is outstanding, and all the whining about having to fuel towers and babysit 1000 control towers to keep your space, or destroy 1000 hardened control towers to take someone's space is going to be gone. The logic behind is severely flawed. New Eden started out with empire being an economically struggle for (new) players. For riches you had to go out in low-sec or even 0.0 to make serious Isk. Current intended implementation is just the complete opposite of that. To add to this from a roleplaying (lol roleplayer) perspective it makes absolutely no sense having to pay in LAWLESS space to a NON EXCISTING entity in order to have structures in place that entitles you to use that space. These new mechanics has to replace the broken mechanics of POS/SOV/MOONS that were introduced by CCP despite many 'whines' anyway. From the start the implementation of POS and Moons were flawed anyway. POS being too much of a pain to keep up and knock down. Moons for being too juicy. They should have been randomized just like the PLEX. Originally by: Verone I wouldn't be surprised if over time the rewards get better, but for now all they're doing is playing it safe to make sure that they don't totally butt** the game's economy by pouring trillions of ISK into the market because they made a bad call on the rewards for sov. Dyspro much? But seriously. The majority of 0.0 people are PvP'ers. The ones that have access to moongold have less troubles keeping up with ship losses. But the smaller alliances fully rely on missioning (lol carebear) in empire. Now they have to grind in 0.0 as well to keep up a handfull of sov systems that could be knocked down any day by a smaller group just for the lulz. This also means enforcing players into a play style they do not like. So I fully agree with Tha Bees (lol goons) and Atlas (oh hai) that the smaller alliances will get kicked in the teeth severely. And to add several people in this thread already indicated that these new mechanics aren't any incentive to venture into 0.0 to carebear (lol). Originally by:** Verone This is something so large its not gonna be fixed overnight, it'll take time to adjust and tweak and there's nothing wrong with playing it safe so the game's economy doesn't get shafted in the process. Like you said these new mechanics are massive so they will change the economy anyway. If CCP would realize that they have to be carefull not to mess up things too much they should react sooner to forementioned caveats. Create real incentives for carebears to be in 0.0 for gathering resources including moongold. (eg. deplete current moons graduately and re-introduce comets instead, lol comet magnets) Give both PvP'ers and carebears (lol) the tools to support the need of eachother. (eg. Rental contracts, access to resources etc.) My proposition would be to have the SOV costs at (nearly) same level as keep up currently deployed POS and randomize depleting havestable moons. Start iterating further on this idea and keep the original Eve outset in mind. (lol roleplayer) That would be a way more safe approach than these radical changes that are proposed. TLDR version: Eve and its sandbox model clashes with enforced grinding to try and fix a broken game mechanic.
Doc Grey	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:36:00 - [2846] In answer to the question Originally by: Itzena .....should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running. I think that at lvl 4, for the military upgrades (entrapment etc) it should be as profitable, at lvl 5, more so. The problem with this question though is that this will always depend on how many people a system can effectively support. Asking it every page isn't going to change that and so those that insist on asking it need to wise up and rephrase it to put it into a specific context. Are we talking about income from those that grind lvl 4's? Those that do them casually, those that salvage as well or those that just do them for standings as quick as possible? How many people per system are they reckoning on being in a system before it raises these kinds of income? With regards to the changes as a whole, I'm not sure that they are as game-breaking as many are suggesting. Game changing, yes, perhaps... but change isn't always bad - and the devs have already indicated that they are responsding to constructive suggestions in this thread. Still a month or so to go isn't there? How long till we have 'code-freeze'?
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:39:00 - [2847] Originally by: fuze And to add several people in this thread already indicated that these new mechanics aren't any incentive to venture into 0.0 to carebear (lol). Which all by itself is a perfectly valid point. Want to establish yourself in the 0.0 arena of alliance pvp? Grind more PvE. The current Sov system has it's downsides. But it does boil down to a simple, pvp-centric paradigm: It's your space until someone comes along and forcibly removes your claim.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:48:00 - [2848] Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 13:54:08 Originally by: Deva Blackfire IMO the best way to improve system would be giving even more anomalies. Usually one anomaly can keep one person occupied for 30-60 minutes. If its permanent anomaly - you can assume it keeps one person busy. So 10 perma anomalies = 10 people served. Now i know it cant keep 100 people at once but i think everyone is missiong one point. Its 100 people during the day not 100 people at once. In reality those 10 anomalies will easily serve 50 people. Add plexes and other crap (crap as in = i dont care about it, maybe s1 else likes doing magneto/radar sites or mining) and you up it a bit again. 1 anomaly = 23*7 accessability, that's 690 hours per month. Max upgraded system with 10 anomalies and yield of 25M per hour is 172B ISK worth. Let's assume you will utilize 1/4 at 10% tax, that is 4.3B income in taxes. Did I miss something? Do you still want better rewards for anomalies? Do you still want to have more anomalies at 1M upkeep lately proposed by Chronotis? Now imagine you run bots there...
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.10 13:51:00 - [2849] It is to late to change the system as a whole. So my suggestions are not the best solution in general, but only specifically good under these circumstances. THROW AWAY ALL UPGRADE INSTALLATIONS Space should upgrade itself automatically when utilized enough. Use the military/strategic/industry index which you have available to calculate the quality of space each downtime. Depending on the quality of space, reduce the range of cynofields (thus effectivly jamming the system from some point on if the range goes to zero), increase rat bounties and amount of anomalies, increase ore and mining sites. If the quality of space goes down, then reverse the good effects of course. This way you will have at least a somewhat logical and consistant sandbox effect.
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:12:00 - [2850] Originally by: Hendrik Stahl Originally by: Ranger 1 And FYI, being a paying customer does not make you competent in game design. Apparently neither does being a game designer boosh. +rep 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

Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:21:00 - [2851] Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 13:54:08 Originally by: Deva Blackfire IMO the best way to improve system would be giving even more anomalies. Usually one anomaly can keep one person occupied for 30-60 minutes. If its permanent anomaly - you can assume it keeps one person busy. So 10 perma anomalies = 10 people served. Now i know it cant keep 100 people at once but i think everyone is missiong one point. Its 100 people during the day not 100 people at once. In reality those 10 anomalies will easily serve 50 people. Add plexes and other crap (crap as in = i dont care about it, maybe s1 else likes doing magneto/radar sites or mining) and you up it a bit again. 1 anomaly = 23*7 accessability, that's 690 hours per month. Max upgraded system with 10 anomalies and yield of 25M per hour is 172B ISK worth. Let's assume you will utilize 1/4 at 10% tax, that is 4.3B income in taxes. Did I miss something? Do you still want better rewards for anomalies? Do you still want to have more anomalies at 1M upkeep lately proposed by Chronotis? Now imagine you run bots there... They don't like the idea of anomalies, plexes or wormholes, because they can't run bots in them, like they do run their bots in the belts. That's why they want the bounties for belt-rats being doubled or tripled instead of any other possible upgrades. This patch works against Atlas and Goons the most, as they have the least active members compared to the size of their territory. And I'm talking active members here, not total alliance members. The Patch however will require you to actively do something. And that's the reason why they're against the announced mechanics. I do not even wonder about that, as it's blatantly obvious. Your numbers there don't even take belt-rats and possible complexes into account, so I think we can round this one up to some 200 billion ISK for a fully upgraded System. So the systems do pay for themselves 50-fold, with the tweaked numbers, where a cynojammed system with a jumpbridge costs 1.305 billion a month.
Andrew Gaspurr Caldari Abrucco Cold Fusion.	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:23:00 - [2852] Originally by: Hertford What incentives are CCP adding in the proposed changes for empire dwellers to consider or commit to moving from empire and living in 0.0? Hi, itÆs me again. That unknown guy from a virtually unknown corp (at least in 00). Remember, we Empire corps were supposed to be made happy about joining you out there in 00? Fine! So what did CCP provide us with in order to hit the trail? Actually (after having read more and more pages in this thread) I think they had a pretty nanve approach in that they just wanted ôus EmpireÆlersö to have fun elsewhere than in boring HighSec. I remember one of the first preview videos of EVE where a female voice said something about ôtaking up a seat among the godsö. CCP tried to drill this further down for Empire inhabitants, I think. CCP wanted to make those things easy for us in 00 that those people who already live there for years find boring and ôcrappyö. I really mean it, no irony (well, hardly). They think that waves of settlers arriving find it funny and fulfilling to mine the lower 00 ores, to ratt among the Gods û if only frigates and BC û and so develop a feeling of belonging there and sitting at one table with (in)famous alliances that seem to have existed there forever. Thus, CCP wanted to implement a virtual module called the ôLarge 00-Atmosphere Transporterö and nail it on each and every jumpgate in zerozero. Ah, I just got a bit ironic so forgive me. Like I said, I think they really mean it and they mean it for good. Existing in 00 means building up resources, because sooner or later someone will come looking whoÆs the new majordomo next door. This is where the isk is burnt that those newcomers must heap up in order to survive. So far, so good, so acceptable, so funny (in terms of game fun). Existing in 00 as I understand it by reading your comments, forces one to make isk. ôForcesö. In Empire one can get the impression that the economy somehow exists around oneself. In 00 I think you greatly shape the economy and are urgently struggling to keep it up. ThatÆs the essence I gathered from this threadmonster and thatÆs perfectly acceptable of course. Now with Dominion the struggle seems to increase sharply because isk have to go into an anonymous automated CCP blackbox. The incentives CCP tries to offer fall short, when it comes to that upkeep system (its costs specifically), because in its starter position, a newly founded alliance in 00 needs its isk elsewhere. Of course there are costs purely associated to SOV, but on the other hand we are speaking of ôcrappyö 00. I cannot say if a non-SOV alliance can sustain itself in low quality 00 and rely on you as experts. In the long run, I assume, SOV is needed to secure oneÆs holdings. I would strongly vote for a staged upkeep system that is based on the number of star systems you claim. I could well imagine a parallel to feudal times (like a few of you did), where an overlord could not possibly rule all his domains (dominions) and was forced to give some territory to his tenants. This ôland grantö however would need those afore mentioned Treaties in order to generate resources for the overlord and I absolutely fail to understand why this feature was not brought into an expansion that is called ôDominionö and is supposed to somewhat revitalize the universe map. Andrew Gaspurr P.S.: HereÆs just some keywords for ChribbaÆs eve-search: BS , LVL 4 , isk/h , grief , exodus , goons , atlas , agree "Quotes in forum signatures are unnecessary and annoying." -(P. Body)
Rage Trade	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:30:00 - [2853] Everyone is talking about lvl4s here ratting there ... has anyone mentioned about the possible market effects? Ice products market is going to disappear because nothing is going to replace the consuption of thousands of POS that are going to be useless. POS market and pos modules, faction or not, market is going to tank see above. Mineral market is probably going to collapse, capital ships are a big mineral sink and what's going to be the incentive to use them? No more hundreds of poses to shoot only a couple of structures you take a 200 man BS fleet(now with a reduced risk because there is no more DDD) to kill so I think capitals will be useless. Possibly more people doing lvl 4s and refining the mods and selling the mins. Faction mods market is probably going to colapse, lots of addiotional sites to run and so more modes to collect and sell. ... etc etc. Very thought out expansion . Its a lose lose situation for empire and 0.0 dwelers.
Mr McAlt	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:40:00 - [2854] Edited by: Mr McAlt on 10/11/2009 14:42:35 Quick question about the Grav Sites that can be got with the upgrades... You said that the Grav sites obtained with the new sov upgrades will be 'different'. It has also been said you want to reduce the dependence on high-end moons. Putting 1 and 1 together, will the new grav sites have harvestable moon materials?
Arela Xen Gallente Evoke. Ev0ke	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:42:00 - [2855] No, we don¦t want afk empires.
Morphisat Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:43:00 - [2856] Originally by: Rage Trade Everyone is talking about lvl4s here ratting there ... has anyone mentioned about the possible market effects? <snip> Very thought out expansion . Its a lose lose situation for empire and 0.0 dwelers. In my of my 1st responses earlier in the thread, I mentioned that all of these changes will effect everyone in Eve. Not just the 0.0 people. Either directly or indirectly in the ways you mentioned. That's why this whole thing seems to be poorly thought out by CCP (imho).
Adam Ridgway Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:44:00 - [2857] Originally by: fuze Create real incentives for carebears to be in 0.0 for gathering resources including moongold. (eg. deplete current moons graduately and re-introduce comets instead, lol comet magnets) Give both PvP'ers and carebears (lol) the tools to support the need of eachother. (eg. Rental contracts, access to resources etc.) This would be the best solution to two of the main problems: - Awfull income for the individual. - Too much passive income for alliances. Also it would make easier: - Preventing creation of cartels by alliances. - Making it way easier than current mess to balance T2 production.
Andrew Gaspurr Caldari Abrucco Cold Fusion.	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:44:00 - [2858] Originally by: Rage Trade Everyone is talking about lvl4s here ratting there ... has anyone mentioned about the possible market effects? Ice products market is going to disappear because nothing is going to replace the consuption of thousands of POS that are going to be useless. (...) Faction mods market is probably going to colapse, lots of addiotional sites to run and so more modes to collect and sell. The effects on the market have been addressed before I think. If any new alliances show up in 00 after Dominion I find it quite likely that they will need an intact market of ice products. The way I understand it ice products and the need for them will not be eliminated in the game. Also, I think it's quite possible that the faction market will redirect itself within 00 when those new folks arrive, because there will be new dealings, new friendships and possibly shorter or less harassed space lanes to transport that stuff. Young alliances might not have the means to run each and every high class site so they'll gladly take whatever faction loot suits them. That is my guess about it. "Quotes in forum signatures are unnecessary and annoying." -(P. Body)
Rhomega	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:50:00 - [2859] Having the costs increased for upkeep "exponentially" untill they reach a certain amount related to the number of systems that are controlled seems an excellent idea. After all, there should be a discount for 1 "capital" system, if only to make sure that if the ** hits teh fan there is something cheap to fall back to. (Whether or not these should be linked to the Sov lvl and whether or not that should make the costs increase or not I'll leave to smarter people then me) All in all that should be very very EZ te code, and lets face it, all the whine here won't do at this point, it's too late to call it off, but a small suggestion (I quoted a guy above me) like this is very possible to implement at this late date with a very large effect. I'd also like to add that I hope that upgrades will keep people more centered around an area, while increasing their profits without shooting eachother in the foot. I for one think Dominion is gonna be a thrill, and I know that "balance" is soon to follow, whatever doomsayers might say. OT; GREAT thread this is :D The Bold and the Beautiful aint got ** on this stuff Kind of addicting really
Sky Marshal IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:58:00 - [2860] Edited by: Sky Marshal on 10/11/2009 14:59:26 Originally by: Kepakh Max upgraded system with 10 anomalies and yield of 25M per hour is 172B ISK worth. Let's assume you will utilize 1/4 at 10% tax, that is 4.3B income in taxes. Did I miss something? Do you still want better rewards for anomalies? Do you still want to have more anomalies at 1M upkeep lately proposed by Chronotis? Now imagine you run bots there... You missed this : A L4 Mission give an income of 52M per hour. And your maths supposes that the anomalies will be used at all time... _______ Local is fine, period. CCP devs, you nerfed shield resists by 8.3% but armor by 7.1% (The old Explo/EM "10 points" Nerf). When will you correct this inconsistency ?

Halaxi Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 14:58:00 - [2861] CCP, I know it can sometimes be a pain to reply in these forums, but there have been a fair number of excelent points made here since your last reply. Could you possibly reply before the EvE-O site gets taken down for maintenance? Hal.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 15:10:00 - [2862] Originally by: Sky Marshal Edited by: Sky Marshal on 10/11/2009 14:59:26 Originally by: Kepakh Max upgraded system with 10 anomalies and yield of 25M per hour is 172B ISK worth. Let's assume you will utilize 1/4 at 10% tax, that is 4.3B income in taxes. Did I miss something? Do you still want better rewards for anomalies? Do you still want to have more anomalies at 1M upkeep lately proposed by Chronotis? Now imagine you run bots there... You missed this : A L4 Mission give an income of 52M per hour. And your maths supposes that the anomalies will be used at all time... No. His maths suppose that anomalies will be used 25% of the time. Even if you drop to 12,5% it will still be enough to pay for the system by system tax alone. 12,5% is just 3 hours per day of farming all anomalies in system (3 hours x 10 anomalies).
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.10 15:12:00 - [2863] Originally by: Hertford Thank you for, what appears to me to be, a pretty reasonable response. Now, I can agree there's currently players not in 0.0 who want to move to 0.0, and that the current powerblocs will be too powerful for the newcomers to establish themselves, and that Dominion will result in the same regions being claimed by the current crop of alliances, just in a more skeletal manner. * No sov means no automatic notification that there's someone putting up a tower in the wastelands between alliances. You need to check every single system to figure out if it's just a few lone ninja-ratters or someone putting up house. * How much of a response are you going to get telling your minions there's a tower up in the wastelands (you might call it 'buffer zone', but they'll be doing mental translations so just start calling it the wastelands), so they should drop their ratting/plexing/hacking/wormholing/carrier-spinning and get out there to shoot at a tower for a couple hours. Good luck on the 50th time. * Large areas with no sov is an invitation.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 15:21:00 - [2864] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab * No sov means no automatic notification that there's someone putting up a tower in the wastelands between alliances. You need to check every single system to figure out if it's just a few lone ninja-ratters or someone putting up house. Sov prices got dropped to mere 30mil/month (or was it 60 and 30 for hub?). So its WAY easier to sov-up whole 0.0.
fuze Gallente Quam Singulari Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.10 15:27:00 - [2865] Originally by: Arela Xen No, we don¦t want afk empires. Agreed. But we don't want not Empires by proxy either. Since Goons (lol goons) already told that they will move into NPC stations and only keep up the economically interesting systems. Any other large alliance with half a brain will do this as well. The rest won't bother for scraps that much.
Sky Marshal IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.11.10 15:30:00 - [2866] Edited by: Sky Marshal on 10/11/2009 15:31:30 Originally by: Deva Blackfire No. His maths suppose that anomalies will be used 25% of the time. Even if you drop to 12,5% it will still be enough to pay for the system by system tax alone. 12,5% is just 3 hours per day of farming all anomalies in system (3 hours x 10 anomalies). All the time of the 25% a day, my bad ^^ It is still 6 hours for 10 people per system, with an upgrade who can disable himself if the activity is not constant. Same if we can reduce to 3 hours of work per system... As a mission give 2X guaranted income than an anomaly with no risks and as it don't have any obligation of attendance, the choice is easy. _______ Local is fine, period. CCP devs, you nerfed shield resists by 8.3% but armor by 7.1% (The old Explo/EM "10 points" Nerf). When will you correct this inconsistency ?
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 15:34:00 - [2867] Originally by: Sky Marshal Originally by: Deva Blackfire No. His maths suppose that anomalies will be used 25% of the time. Even if you drop to 12,5% it will still be enough to pay for the system by system tax alone. 12,5% is just 3 hours per day of farming all anomalies in system (3 hours x 10 anomalies). All the time of the 25% a day, my bad ^^ It is still 6 hours for 10 people per system, with an upgrade who can disable himself if the activity is not constant. As a mission give 2X guaranted income than an anomaly with no risks and as it don't have any obligation of attendance, the choice is easy, same if we can reduce to 3 hours of work per system... Even if it took 5 minutes to pay itself you would be whining TBFH. Some people have just built-in whine generators. Fact is: its quite cheap. Another fact is: its better than it ever was. Also: it is about paying for full defended system with bridges and jammers. If you want to pay for sov+hub system (90mil/month) then: 10 anomalies give 250mil/hour. To pay 90mil ou need to farm them 90/250 = 21 minutes during whole month. If you divide it by 30 days you need to farm said anomalies LESS THAN A MINUTE per day. Happy? And if you really want jammer/bridge then its your problem. They are not industry/isk making elements and are not necessary.
Harlon Cross Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.11.10 15:40:00 - [2868] *BREAKING NEWS* Linkage Definitely some good insight on the upcoming changes there.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.10 15:48:00 - [2869] Originally by: Harlon Cross *BREAKING NEWS* Linkage Definitely some good insight on the upcoming changes there. Pretty much that tbfh. And my sig! Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 15:49:00 - [2870] Edited by: Tippia on 10/11/2009 15:51:25 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Sky Marshal Originally by: Kepakh Max upgraded system with 10 anomalies and yield of 25M per hour is 172B ISK worth. Let's assume you will utilize 1/4 at 10% tax, that is 4.3B income in taxes. Did I miss something? Do you still want better rewards for anomalies? Do you still want to have more anomalies at 1M upkeep lately proposed by Chronotis? Now imagine you run bots there... You missed this : A L4 Mission give an income of 52M per hour. And your maths supposes that the anomalies will be used at all time... No. His maths suppose that anomalies will be used 25% of the time. Even if you drop to 12,5% it will still be enough to pay for the system by system tax alone. 12,5% is just 3 hours per day of farming all anomalies in system (3 hours x 10 anomalies). Above all, his maths supposes that the income will go towards maintaining the system, which isn't what the complaint is about. It also assumes an even distribution of people online, which is not even remotely realistic, which is another thing the actual complaint is about. Either way, it's completely off the mark and hardly relevant at all to the main criticism of the proposed changes. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

Kernok	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:03:00 - [2871] Originally by: Static Kinetics Edited by: Static Kinetics on 09/11/2009 23:41:06 Edited by: Static Kinetics on 09/11/2009 23:39:59 Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Pointfive There is a limit and that limit is 10. That limit is a lot less than level 4's which is infinity. Also the vast majority of level 4s are run in empire. The low sec and nullsec level 4s are not attracting the hordes of people to come do those. Because slightly increased gain for infinitely increased risk does not work. Giving the same reward for even more risk is just insulting. If you find high sec so much better, just live there instead of 0.0 There is no point comparing those two since they are 2 completely different things nor there is a need to turn one into another. why are u such a **ing **, ccp said dominion would cause a mass exodus to 0.0, people here are saying that wont work cuz the upgrades are , and costly. your on here telling ppl to go to highsec if they dont like it? do you not see a conflict with your statement and with what ccp has said it is trying to accomplish? do u think exodus part two, 0.0 players moving to highsec, is what ccp wants to see? because they have stated otherwise. why are you even posting here? as a sidenote, vivian azure, you too are a ing **, the world wars werent very big huh? the gulf war wasnt about resources huh? shut the ** up and quit posting, do you think throwing an emoticon after everything stupid you say makes it any less stupid? and then theres the mutant, another person for the changes, another lvl 4 carebear that has never been to 0.0, stating lvl 4 missions (which are so abundant in 0.0) pay more than they do in highsec, you too, are an idiot. * Warned for personal attacks - CCP Ildoge CCP Ildoge since your here reading this could you please answer a few questions? 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. in what way is this going to encourage an exodus to 0.0? how will this patch help to achieve emergent gameplay? where is the "synergy" in this?
Wingshard Halcyon Systems Federation of Active Commonwealth Terrorists	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:08:00 - [2872] since ccp obviously lost interest in their failthread i would point out a problem from arround page 38. lets say we get the anomalys working "as intented". for now they dont vanish aslong as a single player is in them, same for exploration, ... so what to do once a merccorp same example as used before decides to place cloaker in every anomaly? even a single person with altchars could completely and AFK disrupt the whole process of a system. so would you prefer AFK empires that "ninjas" can stil rogue exploit or having your own system constantly disabled by an AFK griefer? 1 person + multible accounts alone could have massive influence that way this is a serious matter to be addressed exspecial with the cloaking skill having eve less requirements.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:09:00 - [2873] Originally by: Sky Marshal ... As a mission give 2X guaranted income than an anomaly with no risks and as it don't have any obligation of attendance, the choice is easy. As a trader I make 20x times more than any L4 grinder. The choice is easy. Please do the whine for L4 reward increase too when you are at whine marthon already.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:15:00 - [2874] Originally by: Tippia Above all, his maths supposes that the income will go towards maintaining the system, which isn't what the complaint is about. It also assumes an even distribution of people online, which is not even remotely realistic, which is another thing the actual complaint is about. Either way, it's completely off the mark and hardly relevant at all to the main criticism of the proposed changes. Well, if you can't count nor you understand those numbers, it is indeed 'completely off the mark' and no one can help it.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:16:00 - [2875] Originally by: Kepakh Well, if you can't count nor you understand those numbers, it is indeed 'completely off the mark' and no one can help it. I take it you don't understand why they're irrelevant, then? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:21:00 - [2876] Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 16:21:48 ** REPOSTED * PLEASE SIGN IF YOU AGREE Gnulpie writes: "POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes, faction ship changes, etc." I agree Gnulpie. I suggest CCP release everything except the SOV changes for the time being. There is a lot of good content that has received overall positive feedback (except perhaps the Titan nerf). There are just too many unknowns right now and too many good points brought up in this EPIC threadnaught - for CCP just to mindlessly go for the Dec 2nd deadline. Exodus Part Duex anyone? Why rush it? The game isn't going to disappear - and I think from reading this thread, most alliances will be content with the status quo until the SOV changes can be polished more. DELAY SOV CCP GODS - BUT RELEASE THE REST OF DOMINION. IT IS SUFFICIENT. And then I suggest work with alliance player leadership who seem passionate about making null-sec a better place - and I would say almost ALL OF THEM AGREED WITH YOUR GOALS CCP but few of them have agreed with your current methods. I don't think you or the players will lose much by just holding back on the SOV changes.
LiMu Bai Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:31:00 - [2877] Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:42 Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:16 Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 16:21:48 ** REPOSTED * PLEASE SIGN IF YOU AGREE Gnulpie writes: "POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes, faction ship changes, etc." I agree. Screw the ****ty sov revamp.
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:35:00 - [2878] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Itzena 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: Kepakh What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M? It is indeed increased risk to move around 0.0 as well as logistical challenge. this is a horrifyingly dumb argument
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:38:00 - [2879] Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 16:39:53 Originally by: Graalum this is a horrifyingly dumb argument Yes, it is as dumb as the question replying to because that is what it basicaly says.
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:42:00 - [2880] Originally by: Dante Edmundo ** REPOSTED * PLEASE SIGN IF YOU AGREE Gnulpie writes: "POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes, faction ship changes, etc." I agree. Screw the ****ty sov revamp. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG

Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:47:00 - [2881] Edited by: Vivian Azure on 10/11/2009 16:51:02 Originally by: LiMu Bai Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:42 Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:16 Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 16:21:48 ** REPOSTED * PLEASE SIGN IF YOU AGREE Gnulpie writes: "POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes, faction ship changes, etc." I agree. Screw the ****ty sov revamp. Read: "Please don't do anything that will result in having us to actively do something for our income, or forces us to revamp our tactics/playing-style/whatever." Imho, CCP could keep their new browser, new graphics, new faction-ships etc. and just implement the new sov-system and tech 2 production changes. They could even keep their industrial and military upgrade-possibilities in that regard. If all of you are moaning about the empire-dwellers getting filthy rich, then why don't you do it yourself? The empire-dwellers are just getting filthy rich, because they don't do PvP and don't loose something. It was your choice to strive out into 0.0 and risk your ISK. Don't blame anyone else for your decisions.
Graalum Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:50:00 - [2882] Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 16:39:53 Originally by: Graalum this is a horrifyingly dumb argument Yes, it is as dumb as the question replying to because that is what it basicaly says. no it isn't. Noone has said that you should be paid to jump through gates. Nothing even remotely close. 0.0 ratting and mining even in marginal space should be much better isk wise than 0.0 ratting, the best space should be much better.
Kernok	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:53:00 - [2883] Originally by: Vivian Azure Originally by: LiMu Bai Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:42 Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:16 Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 16:21:48 ** REPOSTED * PLEASE SIGN IF YOU AGREE Gnulpie writes: "POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes, faction ship changes, etc." I agree. Screw the ****ty sov revamp. Read: "Please don't do anything that will result in having us to actively do something for our income, or forces us to revamp our tactics/playing-style/whatever." Imho, CCP could keep their new browser, new graphics, new faction-ships etc. and just implement the new sov-system and tech 2 production changes. They could even keep their industrial and military upgrade-possibilities in that regard. ppl alrdy work hard for their isk out here silly, and most ppl arent complaining about the moon goo, they wanted 0.0 more attractive to people who havent already come so that 0.0 has a higher population density and also so that alliances that are in low truesec space will have a chance to improve their space. i agree, ccp, drop sov from the list of things to do on dominion and just put out the rest of it. tackle sov later when you have the time to do it properly.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:53:00 - [2884] Originally by: Graalum no it isn't. Noone has said that you should be paid to jump through gates. Nothing even remotely close. 0.0 ratting and mining even in marginal space should be much better isk wise than 0.0 ratting, the best space should be much better. It does. Basicaly you ask for whatever you do in 0.0 yield more ISK than anywhere else just because it is 0.0 That is just stupid. (In fact it ask to be more rewarding than L4 lol, but screw this 'detail')
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:56:00 - [2885] Originally by: LiMu Bai Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:42 Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:16 Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 16:21:48 ** REPOSTED * PLEASE SIGN IF YOU AGREE Gnulpie writes: "POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes, faction ship changes, etc." I agree. Screw the ****ty sov revamp. Lulz this gets funnier by the page. CCP, bring on new Sov, cause obviously the large powerblocks are hopeless to reform their organizations away from afk living in level 4's to actually using and exploiting every aspect of their both from a pve, mining and pvp perspective to actually make a living. They might actually 'gasp' have to form their members around productive teams living in close proximity to each other, each focusing on the game aspect they want. Most others are looking foward to these changes as they actively force group and communal living and up-to-the-minute coordination. Thats what makes 0.0 and EVE fun, not griding for isk in safe npc missions, but instead living in lawless space with your corp mates, constantly on voice comms, working together towards greater goals. Thats what these sprawling alliances are afraid of - they know most of their members are only in it when pvp time comes around, and they won't actively work with others for the greater good. Not to say that larger groups cannot work in the future. I suspect a upgraded regular 0.0 constellation, ie. with a 0.0 sec status, could support 300-400 online members, which leads to an alliance size of maybe 1500. A true sec constellation could easily double that. Notice I'm saying constellation, not region. Goons probably need delve only to support themselves. Atlas, AAA, maybe 3-4 constallations. Thats is about the proper size to allow for all kinds of variety in ownerships across 0.0, from the 200 man alliance holding a system to the 5000 man alliance holding 1 region. Thats what scares the goons etc, trying to install a sense of gameplay and teamwork that would successfuly allow for effective explotation of even one consetallation. Instead, I think their reality will be a few pvp'ers hanging around, everyone else in empire running lvl 4's laughing about all the isk they are making, while their systems decay both from lack of activity and lack of quick response to stops, tower planting or sov grabs. Thats where this stupid level 4 mission isk arguement fails. This patch is about 0.0 changing the face of 0.0 gameplay to support concentrated corp/alliance living in any 0.0 system. That is a choice of lifestyle, not a choice about isk.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:58:00 - [2886] ANSWER NOW: Can I have your stuff. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 16:59:00 - [2887] Edited by: Tippia on 10/11/2009 17:04:06 Originally by: Kepakh It does. Basicaly you ask for whatever you do in 0.0 yield more ISK than anywhere else just because it is 0.0 No, that's not what the question is about, nor is it what your strawman counter-claim is. So I'll ask again: do you really don't know the answer to your question? Or is it that you don't understand the question? Or are you just trolling? Originally by: Mcon99 Thats where this stupid level 4 mission isk arguement fails. This patch is about 0.0 changing the face of 0.0 gameplay to support concentrated corp/alliance living in any 0.0 system. That is a choice of lifestyle, not a choice about isk. You're confusing two separate issues. One is that the patch will not change 0.0 gameplay in the way you indicate, and people are calling it out on this fact. The other is that the patch will not draw more people into 0.0, quite the opposite — that's what the ISK argument is about. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:01:00 - [2888] Quote: Most others are looking foward to these changes Euhm, i am 100% sure basicly no one is actually looking forward to this who lives either in 0.0 or seriously wants to live there.
Cyberus Caldari Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:03:00 - [2889] I dont know tbh if it will be good or bad those upgrade changes. Normaly i did not bother with npc and or cosmic anomalys ( thoug i tryed those couple of times) and it is true those were are suck badly. But today i did try again ( mostly because of boredom) i just hitthe scaner found one near sttion and warped to. What i have discovered is that this anomaly was not bad at all since every spawn (totaly 5) has atleast 4 rats with 1m+ bountys on those. In slow mode i finished this anomaly in like 50 minets and total bounty reward of 36 million isk. So generaly i think if it those anomalys will be after upgrade like this one or even better then probably this is not an bad move at all. Anyways that is just my 2 cents ===== * Your signature file is broken. Please use one that will display - Fallout
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:04:00 - [2890] Originally by: Mcon99 CCP, bring on new Sov, cause obviously the large powerblocks are hopeless to reform their organizations away from afk living in level 4's to actually using and exploiting every aspect of their both from a pve, mining and pvp perspective to actually make a living. They might actually 'gasp' have to form their members around productive teams living in close proximity to each other, each focusing on the game aspect they want. That's not what people are saying at all. What we're saying is that it's more profitable to do L4s and there's no drawback for doing them, so we'll just do that instead of developing our space. It's really not that tough a concept -- players always gravitate towards shortest path to the cheese. To the extent that CCP is fine with conquerable space being the breeding ground for alliances that aren't ready to hold NPC 0.0, I guess that's fine, but I really don't think that's what they intended.

Vivian Azure	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:15:00 - [2891] Originally by: Mcon99 Originally by: LiMu Bai Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:42 Edited by: LiMu Bai on 10/11/2009 16:31:16 Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 16:21:48 ** REPOSTED * PLEASE SIGN IF YOU AGREE Gnulpie writes: "POSTPONE THE SOV CHANGES! The expansion without the sov changes will be great already: new planetary graphics, new browser, new fleet organisation, new corp management tools, new eden (aka cosmos) web-interface, changes to high end moons, supercap changes, faction ship changes, etc." I agree. Screw the ****ty sov revamp. Lulz this gets funnier by the page. CCP, bring on new Sov, cause obviously the large powerblocks are hopeless to reform their organizations away from afk living in level 4's to actually using and exploiting every aspect of their both from a pve, mining and pvp perspective to actually make a living. They might actually 'gasp' have to form their members around productive teams living in close proximity to each other, each focusing on the game aspect they want. Most others are looking foward to these changes as they actively force group and communal living and up-to-the-minute coordination. Thats what makes 0.0 and EVE fun, not griding for isk in safe npc missions, but instead living in lawless space with your corp mates, constantly on voice comms, working together towards greater goals. Thats what these sprawling alliances are afraid of - they know most of their members are only in it when pvp time comes around, and they won't actively work with others for the greater good. Not to say that larger groups cannot work in the future. I suspect a upgraded regular 0.0 constellation, ie. with a 0.0 sec status, could support 300-400 online members, which leads to an alliance size of maybe 1500. A true sec constellation could easily double that. Notice I'm saying constellation, not region. Goons probably need delve only to support themselves. Atlas, AAA, maybe 3-4 constallations. Thats is about the proper size to allow for all kinds of variety in ownerships across 0.0, from the 200 man alliance holding a system to the 5000 man alliance holding 1 region. Thats what scares the goons etc, trying to install a sense of gameplay and teamwork that would successfuly allow for effective explotation of even one consetallation. Instead, I think their reality will be a few pvp'ers hanging around, everyone else in empire running lvl 4's laughing about all the isk they are making, while their systems decay both from lack of activity and lack of quick response to stops, tower planting or sov grabs. Thats where this stupid level 4 mission isk arguement fails. This patch is about 0.0 changing the face of 0.0 gameplay to support concentrated corp/alliance living in any 0.0 system. That is a choice of lifestyle, not a choice about isk. /this I know when I started playing EvE and set course for 0.0 with some people for the first time. We were a corp with 10 people and we were basically living out of a single POS and only doing some ratting and mining in two systems. These two systems alone paid for the ships and POS-fuel we needed back then, and there wasn't even anomalies or scannable complexes, nor did we know anything about moon-harvesting etc. We had a good time, and some small and very enjoyable fights for some month... then our corp got bigger and joined an alliance, started to claim whole constellations and began with moon-mining... It didn't got better from that point on, but only worse. Then came jump-freighters, jumpbridges, cynojammers, mental capital fleets etc and here we are... not enjoying it anymore. If it was up to me personally, then I'd wish to remove it alltogether and have the game resetted to 2005, just after Cold War hit the servers.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:16:00 - [2892] Originally by: Alexander Knott That's not what people are saying at all. What we're saying is that it's more profitable to do L4s and there's no drawback for doing them, so we'll just do that instead of developing our space. It's really not that tough a concept -- players always gravitate towards shortest path to the cheese. To the extent that CCP is fine with conquerable space being the breeding ground for alliances that aren't ready to hold NPC 0.0, I guess that's fine, but I really don't think that's what they intended. OK. However it is stupid to compare misssion runner income and 0.0 citizen income, at least let's get some real numbers. 1) How much more ISK would you need to make if there was no alliance/corp income from moons, industry projects, remibustrement programs, free caps, etc.?
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:16:00 - [2893] Originally by: Tesal ANSWER NOW: Can I have your stuff. My stuff is all in Delve, you'd have to actually set foot outside the safety of highsec to go and get it.
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:20:00 - [2894] Originally by: Alexander Knott Originally by: Mcon99 CCP, bring on new Sov, cause obviously the large powerblocks are hopeless to reform their organizations away from afk living in level 4's to actually using and exploiting every aspect of their both from a pve, mining and pvp perspective to actually make a living. They might actually 'gasp' have to form their members around productive teams living in close proximity to each other, each focusing on the game aspect they want. That's not what people are saying at all. What we're saying is that it's more profitable to do L4s and there's no drawback for doing them, so we'll just do that instead of developing our space. It's really not that tough a concept -- players always gravitate towards shortest path to the cheese. To the extent that CCP is fine with conquerable space being the breeding ground for alliances that aren't ready to hold NPC 0.0, I guess that's fine, but I really don't think that's what they intended. So, so misguided. At least some of us realize that the cheese is about teamwork and group play in all aspects of eve - pvp, pve and mining (rather than maximum isk), with the constant element of risk thrown in - ie. 0.0 space, whether that is on map or in a wormhole. Level 4's provide none of that. You are free to play whatever game you want, but non balanced alliances are obviously dooming themselves to failure.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:21:00 - [2895] Edited by: Tippia on 10/11/2009 17:26:05 Originally by: Kepakh OK. However it is stupid to compare misssion runner income and 0.0 citizen income, at least let's get some real numbers. No it is not, since that's the benchmark against which the personal income is compared. Quote: 1) How much more ISK would you need to make if there was no alliance/corp income from moons, industry projects, remibustrement programs, free caps, etc.? You're mixing up incomes and outlays. Originally by: Mcon99 So, so misguided. No, he's pointing towards the pragmatic stance CCP had suggested the patch would adopt, but which has not been completely dropped. Your views are idealistic — admirable, but idealistic — and therefore completely misses the point of the question being raised: that the patch will fail to address the problem of nullseck lacking in draw — at best it will remain the same as before, but more likely it will decrease the attractiveness of living in 0.0 space. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:33:00 - [2896] Forgive me if this has been addressed but I'm not keen on reading through nighty six pages. This all seems geared towards NPCing and Mining with nothing in there for the protection of ones space. What about development of military infrasture that allows for more solid system defence. Afterall, the whole idea of this is to stop POS seiges which is where all the defence is. It seems any fool will now be able to roll up and disrupt soverignty and attack your station without having to launch an assualt with no defences to even make them think twice. Far from increasing PvP, this system appears, at least on the surface, to be geared towards reducing PvP and increasing NPCing with Alliances reduced to dealing with perpetual griefing of stations from small, well organised groups, when we're offline or off on campaign. Nice for them, not so nice for us in Alliances who spend all our time retaking our own station. Do we really want a return to Station Ping Pong? So with that in mind, will we be seeing player deployable defences at stations in the near future? Across the galaxy there is only war.
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:36:00 - [2897] Originally by: Alexander Knott Originally by: Mcon99 CCP, bring on new Sov, cause obviously the large powerblocks are hopeless to reform their organizations away from afk living in level 4's to actually using and exploiting every aspect of their both from a pve, mining and pvp perspective to actually make a living. They might actually 'gasp' have to form their members around productive teams living in close proximity to each other, each focusing on the game aspect they want. That's not what people are saying at all. What we're saying is that it's more profitable to do L4s and there's no drawback for doing them, so we'll just do that instead of developing our space. It's really not that tough a concept -- players always gravitate towards shortest path to the cheese. To the extent that CCP is fine with conquerable space being the breeding ground for alliances that aren't ready to hold NPC 0.0, I guess that's fine, but I really don't think that's what they intended. The argument all the big power blocs use is a flawed. They all try to argue the assumption that 0.0, and the game is purely about maximizing isk/hour, so 0.0 needs to provide a higher income then high sec for anyone to bother heading to 0.0. That is a load of horse ****. This game is about fun. For some, that may be by maximizing isk/hour. Those people are sitting in Jita trading. They make millions/billions per day, with absolutely 0 risk. For everyone else, the game has other attractions besides making the most money. Being an MMO, you could assume the "other attractions" revolve around team play. The new sov changes greatly emphasize team work and cooperation to support your alliance, not solo profit. If this isn't your cup of tea, get out of 0.0, and start soloing level 4s. Thats what this game offers people who desire to conform to a solo playstyle. If you want to work with a large group of people to have fun, stay in 0.0 and make less money. Sucks, not being able to have everything you want huh? Almost like CCP wants choices in their game to have consequences.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:42:00 - [2898] Originally by: John McCreedy Forgive me if this has been addressed but I'm not keen on reading through nighty six pages. This all seems geared towards NPCing and Mining with nothing in there for the protection of ones space. What about development of military infrasture that allows for more solid system defence. Afterall, the whole idea of this is to stop POS seiges which is where all the defence is. It seems any fool will now be able to roll up and disrupt soverignty and attack your station without having to launch an assualt with no defences to even make them think twice. Far from increasing PvP, this system appears, at least on the surface, to be geared towards reducing PvP and increasing NPCing with Alliances reduced to dealing with perpetual griefing of stations from small, well organised groups, when we're offline or off on campaign. Nice for them, not so nice for us in Alliances who spend all our time retaking our own station. Do we really want a return to Station Ping Pong? So with that in mind, will we be seeing player deployable defences at stations in the near future? To place sov disrutptors at gates, you need to take down an Infrastructure hub down first, if there is a station in the system, you need to take down the station because it make the hub invulnerable. After you took down the station and hub, you need to sustain 24 hours onlining of sov disruptor at least at 51% of the gates in the system. All disruptors must be online to make sov marker vulnerable. Any fool can do it, heh?
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:49:00 - [2899] Originally by: Orthaen The argument all the big power blocs use is a flawed. They all try to argue the assumption that 0.0, and the game is purely about maximizing isk/hour, so 0.0 needs to provide a higher income then high sec for anyone to bother heading to 0.0. That is a load of horse **. Tell that to the people who originally made the argument: the highsec dwellers. Quote: This game is about fun. For some, that may be by maximizing isk/hour. …and those are the ones the upgrade system were meant to move. Quote:** The new sov changes greatly emphasize team work and cooperation to support your alliance, not solo profit. And that's the other issue with the presented solution: the upgrade system does not support these team work operations, but are rather aimed at solo efforts… except that the solo efforts it offers don't pay well enough to make them worth doing solo either. So, it fails at providing group efforts, it fails at providing solo efforts, and it fails at providing any reason for new much-touted highsec exodus. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:50:00 - [2900] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 10/11/2009 17:35:13 You may have seen the teamwork as the main draw, but Dominion was never aimed at you, but rather at those who didn't see it your way. So the complaint isn't misguided at all ù it's just not directed at anything that has to do with how you play the game, just as the patch itself isn't directed at you (at least not the parts the complain revolves around). Please check what your saying. Dominion was to promite non-team players to move to 0.0? That is problematic. 0.0 game play always has been and always will be about team play - it's lawless space, and upgrades should never be able to turn a system into a total carebear heaven. The exceptions you see, of course, are things like multi account stealth ratters who leverage wormholes to move around, and i give credo to them for a good job. If you never wanted to team play, than 0.0 was never for you, but now especially more so after the sov changes. It will make it much more like the experience in wh space, especially in c3 or greater wh's where anything pve solo is pretty much out, scanning has to be coordinated, gameplay is dependant on the spawns for that day, wh mass has to be accouted for, pvp has to be expected at any moment, etc. Living in a wh is a good comparison of what the new 0.0 reality will be like, except it will be even better because of the upgrades, as we are all aware of the wh spawn issues. Also mirrors the kind of 'travel' restrictions you see in wh space, especially high class ones, where travelling 2 or more jumps through further wh's gets kind of dicey. Your generally very attached to your home wh system - as it will be in the new 0.0. Which is be fine, cause there will be lots of people to work with, and lots of stuff to do. I can't think of any reasonable kind of way to attract many solo players to 0.0. Thats fine, they can grind lvl 4's, buy all kind of fancy navy ships with faciton fittings, run more lvl 4's, get rich, get bored, and quit. lol.

Nilania Telshua	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:51:00 - [2901] Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 13:54:08 Originally by: Deva Blackfire IMO the best way to improve system would be giving even more anomalies. Usually one anomaly can keep one person occupied for 30-60 minutes. If its permanent anomaly - you can assume it keeps one person busy. So 10 perma anomalies = 10 people served. Now i know it cant keep 100 people at once but i think everyone is missiong one point. Its 100 people during the day not 100 people at once. In reality those 10 anomalies will easily serve 50 people. Add plexes and other crap (crap as in = i dont care about it, maybe s1 else likes doing magneto/radar sites or mining) and you up it a bit again. 1 anomaly = 23*7 accessability, that's 690 hours per month. Max upgraded system with 10 anomalies and yield of 25M per hour is 172B ISK worth. Let's assume you will utilize 1/4 at 10% tax, that is 4.3B income in taxes. Did I miss something? No. Most people just can not do basic math. Its the same issue with crowd that calls to nerf the income of highly skilled and geared PVE pilots in empire. They simply have no idea how much more one can earn with properly executed trading or invention operations, that do not require one to ever fire a shot...
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:54:00 - [2902] Originally by: Mcon99 Lulz this gets funnier by the page. CCP, bring on new Sov, cause obviously the large powerblocks are hopeless to reform their organizations away from afk living in level 4's to actually using and exploiting every aspect of their both from a pve, mining and pvp perspective to actually make a living. They might actually 'gasp' have to form their members around productive teams living in close proximity to each other, each focusing on the game aspect they want. What you, and many other empire-dwellers, fail to realize is that most nullsec entities want a change. While this change is happening we also want nullsec to become attractive for both the current residents and future residents. The only real way you are going to do this is to make nullsec what it was supposed to be - a vast area of lawless space that would allow you to risk it all for the riches and glory. Currently, nullsec isn't this land of plenty. Originally by: Mcon99 Most others are looking foward to these changes as they actively force group and communal living and up-to-the-minute coordination. Thats what makes 0.0 and EVE fun, not griding for isk in safe npc missions, but instead living in lawless space with your corp mates, constantly on voice comms, working together towards greater goals. Thats what these sprawling alliances are afraid of - they know most of their members are only in it when pvp time comes around, and they won't actively work with others for the greater good. Not to say that larger groups cannot work in the future. I suspect a upgraded regular 0.0 constellation, ie. with a 0.0 sec status, could support 300-400 online members, which leads to an alliance size of maybe 1500. A true sec constellation could easily double that. Notice I'm saying constellation, not region. Goons probably need delve only to support themselves. Atlas, AAA, maybe 3-4 constallations. Thats is about the proper size to allow for all kinds of variety in ownerships across 0.0, from the 200 man alliance holding a system to the 5000 man alliance holding 1 region. Your numbers are wrong. You haven't even looked at the last round of dev posts or even those posts who support the same view as your own. A constellation has maybe 5-6 systems. By your numbers that's nearly 70-80 pilots able to participate in efficient isk-making activities per system. At the current upgrades incarnation that just isn't possible. A good deal, at least my own, of the nullsec entities are pretty damn good at organizing alot of pilots and have the ability to keep the cohesion between them. I don't know what you think you, or any empire/lowsec corps/alliance, do better but I pose this challange. *If you think we are terrible at organization or aren't good at working together towards greater goals, come try to take our space.* Before you say, "that's not what I meant", let me first say, "that's what I thought". Originally by: Mcon99 ...<snip>... Thats where this stupid level 4 mission isk arguement fails. This patch is about 0.0 changing the face of 0.0 gameplay to support concentrated corp/alliance living in any 0.0 system. That is a choice of lifestyle, not a choice about isk. The level 4 mission isk argument/comparison is used because it's the best, and most well known, standard when speaking of isk/hour. Yes, this patch is about changing the face of nullsec gameplay. Yes, the vast majority of nullsec alliances like the foundation of the changes. Here is the thing. We want nullsec to be very attractive and lucrative more pilots around New Eden. Why? We want more players in nullsec. We want more conflict, some small scale and some large scale. The residents of nullsec know how it works because we've lived here for years. We've dealt with small scale and large scale conflict. I think we have a better understanding of what will/will not happen in light of the general changes proposed.
Uberfrau	Posted - 2009.11.10 17:55:00 - [2903] So, let's say that 10 alliances each upgrade 5 systems, each with CCP's dream of hundreds of pilots per system. These alliances have upgraded several times to have better chances of wormholes spawning. That's 50 specific, heavily-trafficked systems that suddenly will be full of wormhole exits, thus increasing the odds of you exiting a wormhole into extremely hostile territory. Am I wrong about this?
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:03:00 - [2904] Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 18:04:17 Originally by: Uberfrau So, let's say that 10 alliances each upgrade 5 systems, each with CCP's dream of hundreds of pilots per system. These alliances have upgraded several times to have better chances of wormholes spawning. That's 50 specific, heavily-trafficked systems that suddenly will be full of wormhole exits, thus increasing the odds of you exiting a wormhole into extremely hostile territory. Am I wrong about this? I have thougth about it already but since no one ever seen Space upgrade yet, you can't judge anything. Considering wormhole mass limitation, it would be more a case of nice perk rather than any real threat.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:03:00 - [2905] Originally by: Orthaen Originally by: Alexander Knott The argument all the big power blocs use is a flawed. They all try to argue the assumption that 0.0, and the game is purely about maximizing isk/hour, so 0.0 needs to provide a higher income then high sec for anyone to bother heading to 0.0. That is a load of horse **. This game is about fun. For some, that may be by maximizing isk/hour. Those people are sitting in Jita trading. They make millions/billions per day, with absolutely 0 risk. For everyone else, the game has other attractions besides making the most money. Being an MMO, you could assume the "other attractions" revolve around team play. The new sov changes greatly emphasize team work and cooperation to support your alliance, not solo profit. If this isn't your cup of tea, get out of 0.0, and start soloing level 4s. Thats what this game offers people who desire to conform to a solo playstyle. If you want to work with a large group of people to have fun, stay in 0.0 and make less money. Sucks, not being able to have everything you want huh? Almost like CCP wants choices in their game to have consequences. Here is my problem with your argument: Making a stake in 0.0 requires TONS of ISK. Even under current mechanics. Take a heavily contested system like 49- a few months back. This system had something like 50 moons on it and to keep Sov you needed 51% of all POS in system. So when band of Brothers (Kenzoku) took the system they proceeded to put a large tower on 51% of the moons in the system. I would eastimate that they spent around 20-30 billion ISK in fuel and towers to keep a hold on this system. That's currently 2 months worth of R64 money (soon to be 4 or 5 months) How much does your corp or alliance actually spend to keep their position in Motsu or Irujen? Probably office fees. Maybe a few million a month. For most most systems in space an alliance will be paying more under new mechanics to claim sovereignty, this is absolutely fine. To make up for these costs an alliance needs to supplement their income. R64s are being nerfed. Currently on an alliance/corporate level my alliance mines all R64s and R32s, and leaves unused towers to individuals to mine (first come first served) Either my alliance is going to have to start taking R16 moons from individuals to help supplement their income or else they are going to have to raise taxes far higher than they have ever been. Either way this results in a net loss of individual profit. The individual in any alliance is expected to help defend their space. To do this they need to make ISK. If I only have one account I can only be in one place at one time. I am either in Motsu running Level 4 s to make the most guaranteed and reliable income or I am in 0.0 space making ISK so i can be ready at a moments notice to defend against roaming gangs (which will be far more dangerous than ever before). I am completely leaving out of this example the cost of man power for increased logistics in 0.0, and the cost of importation of goods (modules, ships, fuel, T2 ammo) that is required for a successful alliance. It's almost as if some of you have absolutely no idea the level of cost and manpower required to keep an alliance running in 0.0. I'm sure a group like Atlas would be able to tell you how incredibly difficult it is to keep space running when you are 40 jumps from empire. There are other smaller alliances as well deep in 0.0 that are absolutely going to be destroyed by these changes because increased cost without any compensation is basically unacceptable.** Smaller 0.0 alliance are barely scraping by as is. When my alliance (the largest one) controlled ALL of the South including about 7 different regions (required to keep players with personal ISK) we had basically no profit margin whatsoever. If you recall we had 1 (one) titan until we moved to Delve where the R64 profits started flowing like mad and we were able expand in that respect.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:06:00 - [2906] Originally by: Uberfrau So, let's say that 10 alliances each upgrade 5 systems, each with CCP's dream of hundreds of pilots per system. These alliances have upgraded several times to have better chances of wormholes spawning. That's 50 specific, heavily-trafficked systems that suddenly will be full of wormhole exits, thus increasing the odds of you exiting a wormhole into extremely hostile territory. Am I wrong about this? Theoretically that might be correct. But under the current changes each system will be very lucky to be holding more than 7-10 people making ISK per system. On average I would say probably 4-5 people will be able to make ISK. This is actually an improvement but only because currently a single system in 0.0 can sustain about 1-2 people with the highest true-sec highest belt count systems maybe supporting 3.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:10:00 - [2907] Edited by: Hertford on 10/11/2009 18:12:16 Originally by: Quesa What you, and many other empire-dwellers, fail to realize is that most nullsec entities want a change. While this change is happening we also want nullsec to become attractive for both the current residents and future residents. The only real way you are going to do this is to make nullsec what it was supposed to be - a vast area of lawless space that would allow you to risk it all for the riches and glory. Currently, nullsec isn't this land of plenty. And to clarify that last point, we're not clamouring here for a massive buff to 0.0 value for selfish reasons. It looks like it, but it's not. We're already living in 0.0 and we're pretty happy with it as it stands, otherwise we wouldn't be here. We're just thinking beyond our own personal wallets and realising that Dominion-as-is won't attract any significant amount of non-0.0 players into 0.0. Quote: The level 4 mission isk argument/comparison is used because it's the best, and most well known, standard when speaking of isk/hour. Though to be fair, the point about teaming up or soloing is valid. Missioning is pretty much a solo affair. Using L4 mission ISK/hr is a somewhat flawed yardstick to measure things by, but it's still a valid baseline to work from. And if 0.0 is less lucrative than empire, what's the draw, the incentive, for those empire dwellers that CCP says are going to flood to 0.0? Quote: Yes, this patch is about changing the face of nullsec gameplay. Yes, the vast majority of nullsec alliances like the foundation of the changes. Here is the thing. We want nullsec to be very attractive and lucrative more pilots around New Eden. Why? We want more players in nullsec. We want more conflict, some small scale and some large scale. The residents of nullsec know how it works because we've lived here for years. We've dealt with small scale and large scale conflict. I think we have a better understanding of what will/will not happen in light of the general changes proposed. Again, spot on. EvE needs more small-scale warfare, because the current powerbloc game is not good for smaller organisations. But Dominion offers nothing to draw empire dwellers into 0.0. Telling, isn't it? Goonswarm is terrible at Eve and pretty much fully agrees with Atlas who are terrible at posting. The bottom-line (which the 'lol goonie tears' brigade conveniently avoid addressing) is simple: Dominion is meant to shrink Alliance space and encourage more players into 0.0, and it achieves neither.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:16:00 - [2908] Originally by: Qlanth Here is my problem with your argument: Making a stake in 0.0 requires TONS of ISK. Even under current mechanics. Take a heavily contested system like 49- a few months back. This system had something like 50 moons on it and to keep Sov you needed 51% of all POS in system. So when band of Brothers (Kenzoku) took the system they proceeded to put a large tower on 51% of the moons in the system. I would eastimate that they spent around 20-30 billion ISK in fuel and towers to keep a hold on this system. That's currently 2 months worth of R64 money (soon to be 4 or 5 months) Except you are forgetting to say that you will only need 2B per month to maintain the exact same system which completely invalidates your already invalid arguments. Nice try though.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:22:00 - [2909] Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:23:07 Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 18:18:12 Originally by: Qlanth Here is my problem with your argument: Making a stake in 0.0 requires TONS of ISK. Even under current mechanics. Take a heavily contested system like 49- a few months back. This system had something like 50 moons on it and to keep Sov you needed 51% of all POS in system. So when band of Brothers (Kenzoku) took the system they proceeded to put a large tower on 51% of the moons in the system. I would eastimate that they spent around 20-30 billion ISK in fuel and towers to keep a hold on this system. That's currently 2 months worth of R64 money (soon to be 4 or 5 months) Except you are forgetting to say that you will only need 2B per month to maintain the exact same system under new mechanics which completely invalidates your already invalid arguments. Nice try though. The cost of maintaining contested systems like 49- that cost 30 billion ISK a month under current mechanics will be cheaper. every other systems (all 100 some of them) will be about twice as expensive. Are you now, quite hilariously, trying to suggest keeping space will be cheaper after the expansion?
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:24:00 - [2910] Originally by: Kepakh Except you are forgetting to say that you will only need 2B per month to maintain the exact same system under new mechanics which completely invalidates your already invalid arguments. Alliances don't generally maintain 51% majorities unless a system is being actively contested since that's simply unsustainable. Also, 49- has R64s, so it was worth fighting over. It may still be worth fighting over after Dominion due to its location, but it doing so will probably be a fiscal loser.

Shidousha Caldari	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:26:00 - [2911] Is there any chance we will get those sov upgrades seeded anytime soon?
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:26:00 - [2912] Originally by: Qlanth The cost of maintaining contested systems like 49- that cost 30 billion ISK a month under current mechanics will be cheaper. every other systems (all 100 some of them) will be about twice as expensive. How many of the them do you actualy need for sov level only? Drop those and the numbers are far far away from what you are trying to imply. No wonder you are so vehemently asking for more rewarding PVE content when you can't work with numbers...
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:29:00 - [2913] Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:30:11 Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Qlanth The cost of maintaining contested systems like 49- that cost 30 billion ISK a month under current mechanics will be cheaper. every other systems (all 100 some of them) will be about twice as expensive. How many of the them do you actualy need for sov level only? Drop those and the numbers are far far away from what you are trying to imply. No wonder you are so vehemently asking for more rewarding PVE content when you can't work with numbers... How many systems do we currently need to support our playerbase? Every single one because current mechanics do not facilitate an individual making decent ISK with more than one person in a system. How many will we need after this expansion? Essentially the exact same amount because the changes do so little to actually facilitate a denser population they might as well have added nothing at all.
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:30:00 - [2914] Originally by: Kepakh How many of the them do you actualy need for sov level only? Drop those and the numbers are far far away from what you are trying to imply. No wonder you are so vehemently asking for more rewarding PVE content when you can't work with numbers... Yase, that's it. The reason 0.0 alliances want 0.0 to be more rewarding for individuals is because we can't work out how to use Excel.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:33:00 - [2915] Originally by: Alexander Knott Alliances don't generally maintain 51% majorities unless a system is being actively contested since that's simply unsustainable. Also, 49- has R64s, so it was worth fighting over. It may still be worth fighting over after Dominion due to its location, but it doing so will probably be a fiscal loser. As well as you don't need all upgrades in every system you have sovereignty over. The new system is scalable as well.
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:34:00 - [2916] Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:23:07 Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 18:18:12 Originally by: Qlanth Here is my problem with your argument: Making a stake in 0.0 requires TONS of ISK. Even under current mechanics. Take a heavily contested system like 49- a few months back. This system had something like 50 moons on it and to keep Sov you needed 51% of all POS in system. So when band of Brothers (Kenzoku) took the system they proceeded to put a large tower on 51% of the moons in the system. I would eastimate that they spent around 20-30 billion ISK in fuel and towers to keep a hold on this system. That's currently 2 months worth of R64 money (soon to be 4 or 5 months) Except you are forgetting to say that you will only need 2B per month to maintain the exact same system under new mechanics which completely invalidates your already invalid arguments. Nice try though. The cost of maintaining contested systems like 49- that cost 30 billion ISK a month under current mechanics will be cheaper. every other systems (all 100 some of them) will be about twice as expensive. Are you now, quite hilariously, trying to suggest keeping space will be cheaper after the expansion? Then why did you use 49- as your "baseline" example of how expensive 0.0 is? "Making a stake" in 0.0 involves taking a super powers capital system does it? And for ****s sake people, stop using the stupid "2 billion per system" imaginary number. The dev blog stated 950 odd million per month. Those numbers have since been reduced significantly, due to all the QQing in this thread. The only systems that will get anywhere close to 2 bil/month are jump bridge/cyno jammed systems, coming in at like 1.6 billion/month. You plan to cyno jam and jump bridge every single system you control? Well, good for you. Enjoy your unsustainable sov tax. 0.0 will be a more enjoyable, less POS-spamming experience. It might cost more, it might not. That has been established. If you are only interested in making ISK, trade in jita. You want to have fun? Play the game. It is your decision.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:34:00 - [2917] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Qlanth The cost of maintaining contested systems like 49- that cost 30 billion ISK a month under current mechanics will be cheaper. every other systems (all 100 some of them) will be about twice as expensive. How many of the them do you actualy need for sov level only? Drop those and the numbers are far far away from what you are trying to imply. No wonder you are so vehemently asking for more rewarding PVE content when you can't work with numbers... Or do you mean how many POSs do we need to maintain Sov? In a heavily contested system like 49- you want to control at least 51% of the moons which is why it is so expensive (I said this in my original post). In an R64 system you probably have 51% moon coverage by smalls and a cynojammer. In any other system you will only have one or two large POS. The cost is minimal. Under new mechanics this cost will easily double in price.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:36:00 - [2918] Originally by: Orthaen Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:23:07 Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 18:18:12 Originally by: Qlanth Here is my problem with your argument: Making a stake in 0.0 requires TONS of ISK. Even under current mechanics. Take a heavily contested system like 49- a few months back. This system had something like 50 moons on it and to keep Sov you needed 51% of all POS in system. So when band of Brothers (Kenzoku) took the system they proceeded to put a large tower on 51% of the moons in the system. I would eastimate that they spent around 20-30 billion ISK in fuel and towers to keep a hold on this system. That's currently 2 months worth of R64 money (soon to be 4 or 5 months) Except you are forgetting to say that you will only need 2B per month to maintain the exact same system under new mechanics which completely invalidates your already invalid arguments. Nice try though. The cost of maintaining contested systems like 49- that cost 30 billion ISK a month under current mechanics will be cheaper. every other systems (all 100 some of them) will be about twice as expensive. Are you now, quite hilariously, trying to suggest keeping space will be cheaper after the expansion? Then why did you use 49- as your "baseline" example of how expensive 0.0 is? "Making a stake" in 0.0 involves taking a super powers capital system does it? And for ****s sake people, stop using the stupid "2 billion per system" imaginary number. The dev blog stated 950 odd million per month. Those numbers have since been reduced significantly, due to all the QQing in this thread. The only systems that will get anywhere close to 2 bil/month are jump bridge/cyno jammed systems, coming in at like 1.6 billion/month. You plan to cyno jam and jump bridge every single system you control? Well, good for you. Enjoy your unsustainable sov tax. 0.0 will be a more enjoyable, less POS-spamming experience. It might cost more, it might not. That has been established. If you are only interested in making ISK, trade in jita. You want to have fun? Play the game. It is your decision. I used 49- as an example of how expensive a system can be for an alliance trying to maintain its space. Either from invasion or day to day activities. I should have been more clear though, so hopefully my other post makes that.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:37:00 - [2919] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Alexander Knott Alliances don't generally maintain 51% majorities unless a system is being actively contested since that's simply unsustainable. Also, 49- has R64s, so it was worth fighting over. It may still be worth fighting over after Dominion due to its location, but it doing so will probably be a fiscal loser. As well as you don't need all upgrades in every system you have sovereignty over. The new system is scalable as well. Why take sov if you're not gonna put in any upgrades? None of the significant alliances care about dots on the auto-generated map. Because we're going to go back to the old days when the sov map was maintained via a thread in CAOD where alliances can claim systems/constallations/regions. I realize you are desperate to find some possible way that the devs didn't completely botch this, but your flailing about in the last 40 pages or so isn't gonna win any arguments. Especially since you've spent the last 10 pages claiming there should be no correlation between risk and reward.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:38:00 - [2920] Originally by: Qlanth How many systems do we currently need to support our playerbase? Every single one because current mechanics do not facilitate an individual making decent ISK with more than one person in a system. How many will we need after this expansion? Essentially the exact same amount because the changes do so little to actually facilitate a denser population they might as well have added nothing at all. Every single one? No, you don't. You only need sov where you want to have upgrades which is not 'every single one'. Once you place a hub in the system, and it is actualy used, it will easily pay for itself and if used effectively, it leaves you nice ISK in corp wallet. If you insist on having all systems you touch fully upgraded, it is only your choice, don't blame the system though.

Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:41:00 - [2921] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Itzena 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: Kepakh What effort? Jumping through gate in a shuttle? Should I be paid for that? 1 hour of jumping through 0.0 gates making me +45M? It is indeed increased risk to move around 0.0 as well as logistical challenge. You keep repeating this. Care to give some actual explanation of what you're trying to say, instead of just repeating an absurdity? Originally by: Harlon Cross *BREAKING NEWS* Linkage Definitely some good insight on the upcoming changes there. The most common complaint on this thread is that a patch that was supposed to bring people from empire to 0.0 will fail miserably at its intended mission. How is HTFU relevant to that? I live in highsec, these changes won't do much of anything to me personally. I'm just offended by the **poor game design. Originally by:** Kepakh Basicaly you ask for whatever you do in 0.0 yield more ISK than anywhere else just because it is 0.0 That is just stupid. How so? I always thought this was the whole point of 0.0 - risk vs reward, and all that. I mean, there's some activities that should be less profitable in 0.0 than in empire - trading, say - but PvE content should definitely be far more profitable in dangerous space than in safe space. Originally by: Nilania Telshua Originally by: Kepakh 1 anomaly = 237 accessability, that's 690 hours per month. Max upgraded system with 10 anomalies and yield of 25M per hour is 172B ISK worth. Let's assume you will utilize 1/4 at 10% tax, that is 4.3B income in taxes. Did I miss something? No. Most people just can not do basic math. Its the same issue with the crowd that calls to nerf the income of highly skilled and geared PVE pilots that run non-afk missions in empire. They simply have no idea how much more one can earn with properly executed trading or invention operations, that do not require one to ever fire a shot... Some alliance PVP Wunderkinder simply expect that holding space not only entitles them to earn enough cash that loosing T2 ships and capitals becomes painless, they also want to get personally stinking rich on top of that. Risk vs. Reward is probably the most misunderstood formula in the whole game. Here's some basic math for you. A moon produces 100 units per hour. Dysprosium, at its peak, was worth around 200k/unit. That means a dysprosium moon makes 20 million an hour. That's less than a mediocre L4 missioner in a T1 battleship. Furthermore, a really big alliance might have a few dozen high-end moons, but they'll have hundreds of missioners. Now, can you explain to me why alliances used dysprosium to make their money, and not L4 missions? There is a fundamental difference between money that looks good on paper and money that actually winds up in a corp wallet somewhere. Originally by:* Uberfrau So, let's say that 10 alliances each upgrade 5 systems, each with CCP's dream of hundreds of pilots per system. These alliances have upgraded several times to have better chances of wormholes spawning. That's 50 specific, heavily-trafficked systems that suddenly will be full of wormhole exits, thus increasing the odds of you exiting a wormhole into extremely hostile territory. Am I wrong about this? I don't think so, but anyone colonizing C5-C6 wormholes has to expect that sort of thing even as it is. Lower-end holes probably won't open to there nearly as often, since they don't generally go to 0.0 at all. Besides, I'm willing to mess with wormholes a bit to make sov warfare better.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:44:00 - [2922] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Qlanth How many systems do we currently need to support our playerbase? Every single one because current mechanics do not facilitate an individual making decent ISK with more than one person in a system. How many will we need after this expansion? Essentially the exact same amount because the changes do so little to actually facilitate a denser population they might as well have added nothing at all. Every single one? No, you don't. You only need sov where you want to have upgrades which is not 'every single one'. Once you place a hub in the system, and it is actualy used, it will easily pay for itself and if used effectively, it leaves you nice ISK in corp wallet. If you insist on having all systems you touch fully upgraded, it is only your choice, don't blame the system though. See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money. In current mechanics each system will support on average two people. Under new mechanics each system will support on average 3 or 4 people. That is including the improvements on upgrades. The problem with 0.0 money making has more to do with scalability of resources than ISK/hr. The changes will double our costs while not affecting player income, maybe even hurting it because R64 moons, the crux of alliance level income, will be losing their value.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:49:00 - [2923] You should also keep in mind that my alliance controls easily the best true-sec region of the entire game and we are able to support all of our members in two regions because of this. We used to control 7 different regions and struggled to make ends meet on most occasions because of terrible true-sec and a lack of R64 moons.
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:53:00 - [2924] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Orthaen Then why did you use 49- as your "baseline" example of how expensive 0.0 is? "Making a stake" in 0.0 involves taking a super powers capital system does it? And for ****s sake people, stop using the stupid "2 billion per system" imaginary number. The dev blog stated 950 odd million per month. Those numbers have since been reduced significantly, due to all the QQing in this thread. The only systems that will get anywhere close to 2 bil/month are jump bridge/cyno jammed systems, coming in at like 1.6 billion/month. You plan to cyno jam and jump bridge every single system you control? Well, good for you. Enjoy your unsustainable sov tax. 0.0 will be a more enjoyable, less POS-spamming experience. It might cost more, it might not. That has been established. If you are only interested in making ISK, trade in jita. You want to have fun? Play the game. It is your decision. I used 49- as an example of how expensive a system can be for an alliance trying to maintain its space. Either from invasion or day to day activities. I should have been more clear though, so hopefully my other post makes that more clear. I never though I'd meet an internet debater that doesn't flame hard every post. Your alliance would be shamed, honestly. And...I think we sort of agree? 0.0 systems will be able to support more people, with combat anomalies not sucking so much ass, and significantly more DED plexes, even if deadspace prices do drop some. Crazy expensive systems won't be crazy expensive anymore, so alliances wont have to shell out huge sums of money on random POSes to contest a system. Just think how much bigger your fleet could have been when you hit 49- if instead of buying 30 billion of deathstars, you dropped that 30 billion on your combat fleet. Small cheap systems shouldnt get any more expensive, with the prices quoted by CCP somewhere earlier in this thread. Your empire might shrink, but you would only stand to gain ISK from this shrink because of cheaper sov costs(from less POSes, and more ratting). Well, not goons maybe. All of the not-superpoweres only stand to gain ISK, which may suck for the superpowers, but I don't think CCP cares overly much.
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:53:00 - [2925] right then... after reading through this forum a little bit more today i have decided to share my knowledge with you guys on how i am getting drunk off of all this wine. There are lots of varieties in this thread and such and i'm sure your wondering how to pick and choose the best wine available that will give you not only the best buzz but also the smoothest taste as it goes down. So here it is. supplied with links and everything to my recommend wines and their characteristics. First off lets start with what the bad wines are. These are typically classified by their pointless bickering, name calling and argumentative fashion that really doesn't serve any purpose other than fueling a fire that quite honestly i'm sure people want put out. They're one step above trolls in that they aren't doing it for lulz they actually mean what they say but here is a few examples of what i have found not very satisfying and very mildewy of past hate No taste at all with a horrid after taste leaves you wondering why even bother with such a bad wine another example of the above but without the after taste. this one just tries too hard. still to young a wine to have too have enough alcohol and still has a yeasty flavor to it. not satisfying at all. So those are the bad wines. the ones that may get you drunk, but that is about it, no pleasant taste or enjoyment of this fine art of forum brewing. However we have better examples... these are your middle road decent wines, not bad but aren't the classics well aged ones we all would love to have. nice staple wine, clean not much taste but does the job and isn't an ass about it this is like a sparkling grape juice honestly. cute in its own right and great for the kids. comic relief that is occasionally needed. another sparkling grape juice but this one has more of a bite to it. still funny and good in its own right. very decent wine. good all around but doesn't quite give too many examples of what this thread needs. Now were onto the true greats of wine in this thread. the ones people should really take notice of because of their IDEAS rather than OPINIONS. excelent taste and very smooth argument clean and crisp with beautiful taste different taste and adds a whole new layer to ideas and thinking in the thread. These are truly marvelous wines to take in and enjoy. I would love to see more like these in the thread but then again you cant get the best all the time now can you? until then ill continue to sample the wines in this thread and ill pinpoint out the good and bad from this post on. until then continue to enjoy the wines i have listed and discuss more.
Kushmir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:53:00 - [2926] There is literally nothing static in 0.0 worth fight over anymore.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:56:00 - [2927] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Here's some basic math for you. A moon produces 100 units per hour. Dysprosium, at its peak, was worth around 200k/unit. That means a dysprosium moon makes 20 million an hour. That's less than a mediocre L4 missioner in a T1 battleship. Furthermore, a really big alliance might have a few dozen high-end moons, but they'll have hundreds of missioners. Now, can you explain to me why alliances used dysprosium to make their money, and not L4 missions? I will respond to this part because I already replied to what you asked and this post only demonstrates how you either intentionaly manipulate the facts and number or you are just not very bright. It is indeed basic math and you still fail at it. That said mission runner make 0 ISK if he is not online, the moon goes 24/7. In fact you need 2 or 3 times a month to haul fuel and ore which takes you 4 hours top. So now you can compare your earned moon goo billions for 4 hours of mission running.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:57:00 - [2928] Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: Most others are looking foward to these changes Euhm, i am 100% sure basicly no one is actually looking forward to this who lives either in 0.0 or seriously wants to live there. It's unfair to quote a percentage like that without offering 1 million ISK of hush money to anyone who falls outside of that number.
Pervin Mervin	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:04:00 - [2929] Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:46:21 Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Qlanth How many systems do we currently need to support our playerbase? Every single one because current mechanics do not facilitate an individual making decent ISK with more than one person in a system. How many will we need after this expansion? Essentially the exact same amount because the changes do so little to actually facilitate a denser population they might as well have added nothing at all. Every single one? No, you don't. You only need sov where you want to have upgrades which is not 'every single one'. Once you place a hub in the system, and it is actualy used, it will easily pay for itself and if used effectively, it leaves you nice ISK in corp wallet. If you insist on having all systems you touch fully upgraded, it is only your choice, don't blame the system though. See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money. In current mechanics each system will support on average two people. Under new mechanics each system will support on average 3 or 4 people. That is including the improvements on upgrades. The problem with 0.0 money making has more to do with scalability of resources than ISK/hr. The changes will double our costs while not affecting player income, maybe even hurting it because R64 moons, the crux of alliance level income, will be losing their value. CCP has said themselves they want an upgraded system to be able to to support 50-100 people. Tell me how two cosmic anomalies are going to do this when they barely support one person each (each of those people could easily be making more belt ratting). These changes are a VERY far cry from what it will take to support 50-100 people. Here's a question for you. Why do you need to maintain and hold sov in those extra systems for people to "fan out" and make isk from. If the systems remain unclaimed won't people still be able to use them therefore freeing you from the shackles of ccp rent?
Baaldor Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:05:00 - [2930] Wasn't this patch supposed to free us from the chain of POS warfare and free up more time to actually peeveepee? All I am seeing is trading one grind for another.

Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:05:00 - [2931] Originally by: Mcon99 Dominion was to promite non-team players to move to 0.0? It was to promote the idea that, while team play comes at a personal cost, the gains would now be high enough to offset those costs, thus making 0.0 a tempting proposition even if your main personal motivation was the size of your wallet. Note the word "main" here, because that's the important bit. It's basically a fairly simple shift of focus: you represent the idea of team first, personal advantages second (or third, or twentieth), which was the "one true way" of nullsec in many ways — if you didn't subscribe to that ideal, you'd move back to highsec sooner or later. The patch, as originally pitched, would shift this proposition slightly: it would now allow room for (or, more importantly, give a role to) me-first/team-second players in nullsec. This would not mean that team-haters would have any place, but it would allow people who valued the team second to fulfil that secondary goal without sacrificing their primary motivation. Quote: upgrades should never be able to turn a system into a total carebear heaven. And that's really one of the key problems with the patch as presented: in order to get the most out of the systems, you need to carebear it up to make it worth investing in, which means you need to carebear it up even more to get the most out of that investment. If you don't turn it into carebear heaven, there's very little point in having it to begin with because it will only be a burden, but you can't turn it into a carebear heaven because — even if you do it for the team — you're better of being in highsec… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:06:00 - [2932] Originally by: Qlanth How much does your corp or alliance actually spend to keep their position in Motsu or Irujen? Probably office fees. Maybe a few million a month. Now now, office fees in the Motsu mission station are like 500 mil a month. That's like one large POS, plus a month of fuel. Truly, a jaw-dropping amount of isk - there's no way a 0.0 alliance can fathom it. Originally by: Kepakh Except you are forgetting to say that you will only need 2B per month to maintain the exact same system under new mechanics which completely invalidates your already invalid arguments. Nice try though. Yes, because under the new mechanics nobody will ever drop a bunch of POSes to base out of. I admit, they won't need as many, but the sort of all-or-nothing (one-system-or-nothing?) fighting we saw in 49- will still use billions like water. Perhaps fewer billions, but it'll hardly be cheap. Originally by: Kepakh How many of the them do you actualy need for sov level only? Drop those and the numbers are far far away from what you are trying to imply. No wonder you are so vehemently asking for more rewarding PVE content when you can't work with numbers... How many of what? POSes? Under the current mechanics, a serious sov fight basically requires you to keep 51% of moons POSed until you can drive your opponents off. Theoretically, one POS can hold sov, but in practice the numbers are far higher. Originally by: Kepakh As well as you don't need all upgrades in every system you have sovereignty over. The new system is scalable as well. Yes, it can be scaled from its current "lmao" all the way up to "lol", if you're willing to invest a few billion. Originally by: Orthaen Then why did you use 49- as your "baseline" example of how expensive 0.0 is? "Making a stake" in 0.0 involves taking a super powers capital system does it? Setting up in 0.0 requires a large tower and some fuel. Surviving in 0.0 means having a war chest that can fund all-out fighting for weeks - losing cap ships by the dozen, battleships by the hundred, and still having the cash to POS spam a 60-moon system to hold sov over it. You won't necessarily be needing cash on the same level that the Goons did, because the fleets involved will be smaller if it's not superpower warfare, but POS spamming doesn't care much how big an alliance you are - if the other guy is willing to dedicate 31 POSes to a 60-moon system, you'd better be willing to match him if you want to hold it. And yes, that will change some under the new mechanics. But it'll change less than you think - a serious fight will still be fought in fairly similar ways to how it is now. You might not need to spam 31 POSes, but you'll still want a good number, so you don't get your fleet bubbled on login. It's not going to be cheap, even after the changes. Originally by: Kepakh I will respond to this part because I already replied to what you asked and this post only demonstrates how you either intentionaly manipulate the facts and number or you are just not very bright. It is indeed basic math and you still fail at it. That said mission runner make 0 ISK if he is not online, the moon goes 24/7. In fact you need 2 or 3 times a month to haul fuel and ore which takes you 4 hours top. So now you can compare your earned moon goo billions for 4 hours of mission running. The reason I raised that point was that you, and several others, seem to be relying on the talking point of "Well you just need X guys for Y hours a day at Z% taxes to pay for this". You think the numbers are any different right now? Goons have 5k players, and make, say, 500B/month off moons. That's 100M/player/month, or 3M/day. One hour of missioning per player per day at 10% tax will give Goons half a trillion a month. So why don't they fund their alliance that way right now? Because it doesn't work! Just because you're going to change the carebearing in question slightly doesn't mean it'll work any better after the changes.
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:08:00 - [2933] Originally by: Kushmir There is literally nothing static in 0.0 worth fight over anymore. Lols. /me passes Goons a tissue. Cry more or adapt - you've always got the option of just being a roaming / raiding fleet of pvpers if you cant reach your inner bear. C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Prognosys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:12:00 - [2934] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Kushmir There is literally nothing static in 0.0 worth fight over anymore. Lols. /me passes Goons a tissue. Cry more or adapt - you've always got the option of just being a roaming / raiding fleet of pvpers if you cant reach your inner bear. C. Yes, how silly we are for neglecting the passing of 0.0 warfare, which for many people is half the fun of Eve.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:12:00 - [2935] Originally by: Pervin Mervin Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 18:46:21 Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Qlanth How many systems do we currently need to support our playerbase? Every single one because current mechanics do not facilitate an individual making decent ISK with more than one person in a system. How many will we need after this expansion? Essentially the exact same amount because the changes do so little to actually facilitate a denser population they might as well have added nothing at all. Every single one? No, you don't. You only need sov where you want to have upgrades which is not 'every single one'. Once you place a hub in the system, and it is actualy used, it will easily pay for itself and if used effectively, it leaves you nice ISK in corp wallet. If you insist on having all systems you touch fully upgraded, it is only your choice, don't blame the system though. See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money. In current mechanics each system will support on average two people. Under new mechanics each system will support on average 3 or 4 people. That is including the improvements on upgrades. The problem with 0.0 money making has more to do with scalability of resources than ISK/hr. The changes will double our costs while not affecting player income, maybe even hurting it because R64 moons, the crux of alliance level income, will be losing their value. CCP has said themselves they want an upgraded system to be able to to support 50-100 people. Tell me how two cosmic anomalies are going to do this when they barely support one person each (each of those people could easily be making more belt ratting). These changes are a VERY far cry from what it will take to support 50-100 people. Here's a question for you. Why do you need to maintain and hold sov in those extra systems for people to "fan out" and make isk from. If the systems remain unclaimed won't people still be able to use them therefore freeing you from the shackles of ccp rent? This is true and probably how things will work out. My alliance will control parts of space and not pay for any upgrades (they are essentially worthless without a more grandiose 0.0 fix). Either that or we will consolidate our space on our own terms instead of CCPs. By moving to NPC space and only claiming sovereignty in systems with valuable moons so we can keep them cynojammed. Really though this speaks volumes toward CCPs failure at incentivising 0.0 space. It looks like they were aiming for alliances to want to claim sovereignty in any system they control to be able to take advantage of the upgrades. I would rather bypass the upgrades completely and just continue making ISK without paying for the cost of sovereignty.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:14:00 - [2936] Originally by: Qlanth See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money. Ok, so you failed to run the numbers on space costs but it is me that I don't understand something here...right. I say it again: I absolutely don't care how sov changes are SUPPOSED to work, all I am concerned about is what they WILL actually do. Sovereignty changes are fail in regards to determined goals but this was obvious with first dev blogs released. That does not however mean that the system isn't working on functional level or breaking the game like many people try to imply.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:16:00 - [2937] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto One hour of missioning per player per day at 10% tax will give Goons half a trillion a month. So why don't they fund their alliance that way right now? Because it doesn't work! And you know why it doesnt work? Because due to all r64 **** people got lazy. I dont need to do anything, the afk-ISK-from-thin-air will fund me everything: from SOV, to POS to stations to ships. Atm all 0.0 alliances get reality check: suddenly they HAVE to participate in making isk. You know what would be perfect? Moon mining being changed to manual mode. Also its funny how everything is compare dto lv4 missions yet almost noone from people whining here runs them. Most of whiners still go on auto9matic moon goo. Again: change it to manual and give 2x lv4 income per hour. Happy? Of course no, because suddenly your income will be able to be both disrupted and will be much lesser. And will not be AFK.
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:19:00 - [2938] Originally by: Prognosys Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Kushmir There is literally nothing static in 0.0 worth fight over anymore. Lols. /me passes Goons a tissue. Cry more or adapt - you've always got the option of just being a roaming / raiding fleet of pvpers if you cant reach your inner bear. C. Yes, how silly we are for neglecting the passing of 0.0 warfare, which for many people is half the fun of Eve. Wait..wait..wut? The "passing of .0 warfare"? So on one hand you're not going to make enough ISK to pay for sov (and make a cash profit in the process) - surely this means you're not fighting but ratting / pve'ing? Doesnt it? Hmm? Or on the other hand you're a alliance of warmongering, pillaging pod pilots who wouldnt care about the pve rewards anyway? So what is it? Dominion means you have to choose: settled farming life, ploughing those belts and reaping those npc rats or you're ghengis khan style nomadic warriors. You cant have both. C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:23:00 - [2939] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Qlanth See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money. Ok, so you failed to run the numbers on space costs but it is me that I don't understand something here...right. I say it again: I absolutely don't care how sov changes are SUPPOSED to work, all I am concerned about is what they WILL actually do. Sovereignty changes are fail in regards to determined goals but this was obvious with first dev blogs released. That does not however mean that the system isn't working on functional level or breaking the game like many people try to imply. I don't understand your first statement. What costs should I be running? How much ISK players make? Or the cost of holding Sovereignty in 100 systems in current mechanics? Or the cost of holding Sovereignty under future mechanics? As far as the rest of your post: In this regard you are absolutely correct. 0.0 alliances will be able to make some ISK with the changes. Not every bit of ISK we make will be going toward maintaining sovereignty and we will be able to survive (GoonSwarm especially). We will, however, be making decidedly less ISK than before because of the increased cost of maintaining space without increasing the amount of ISK earnable by players. Basically all these changes are going to do on a personal level for me is make me not want to claim sovereignty. I think there are a lot of other alliances feeling the same way. Especially groups like Atlas who live DEEP in 0.0 with terrible true-sec systems, very few R64 moons, and HEAVY reliance on jumpbridge networks to keep them supplied. I do not want to see this happen because I enjoy large scale PvP, and having all of my enemies abandon 0.0 space (I'm betting a large amount would just abandon the game) would be very very boring for me.
NickSuccorso Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:31:00 - [2940] Quote: And you know why it doesnt work? Because due to all r64 **** people got lazy. I dont need to do anything, the afk-ISK-from-thin-air will fund me everything: from SOV, to POS to stations to ships. Atm all 0.0 alliances get reality check: suddenly they HAVE to participate in making isk. You know what would be perfect? Moon mining being changed to manual mode. Also its funny how everything is compare dto lv4 missions yet almost noone from people whining here runs them. Most of whiners still go on auto9matic moon goo. Again: change it to manual and give 2x lv4 income per hour. Happy? Of course no, because suddenly your income will be able to be both disrupted and will be much lesser. And will not be AFK. R64 income goes into helping pay for alliance upkeep, not personal wallets. If there's an alliance out there that you can show me that supplies there people's PVP ships, please show me who it is.

Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:31:00 - [2941] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Qlanth See here is what you do not understand. The new system does not improve the problem of density in 0.0. To keep all our players with ISK in wallet and ships at hand we need to control 100 some systems so they can all spread out and make decent money. Already shown before. Currently system can hold circa 1 person per 8-10 belts + 1-2 people more thx to exploration stuff. With changes EVERY anomaly can hold 1 more person. That is 1-5 people via belts + 0-10 people via anomalies. Why 1 person per anomaly? If you FINISH it you warp out and new anomaly is spawned instead. Implying that 10 anomaly system can keep only 3-4 players busy is just plain lie. Unless you run 2 sites AT SAME TIME using one character. So you already get 1-15 people per system (dependant on belts/anomalies) + more due to mining stuff (tho gravi sites suck) + at least few people who can perma-farm radars/magnetos (no idea if its +1 or +1 per level up to 5 or 10 sites - still its one person per site). So you can get up to around 20-25 people working at same time in fully developed system. This is excluding any mining (and i do exclude it coz mining in 0.0 is worthless in most cases. Hint, hint CCP). That all assumes that the anomalies will actually be worth running. I said earlier in this thread that I would estimate about 5% of all anomalies are currently worth running over belt ratting. If I come into a system and see that all the anomalies are terrible I might as well start ratting because I'll make more ISK. It seems I was mistaken. I thought that the upgrade just gave a flat 2 anomalies period. if it does indeed give 10 anomalies at max level then that is actually a much better improvement than I thought. I still think however than if you want to fix 0.0 money making you need to fix those anomalies so that all anomalies are worth running because they are on par with belt ratting (the top tier is better, the majority is on par, the bottom tier is slightly worse but you need to finish them for a new one to spawn) or else I will just keep on belt ratting because I can make more ISK more reliably.
Bodega Cat	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:31:00 - [2942] I'm currently a wormhole dweller, and i'm still pretty new and myself with friends run a small outfit of about 5 accounts total in a low class w-hole making really good money with low skill points but we work hard. After reading this entire thread, I would like to offer up how i feel about all this as a young, and ambitious player who "knows" of null sec but can't make any assertations about it's true complexity, but would love to get involved down there someday after i retire as a frontiersman. So yea, I want to move there but don't see why I should right now. The problem I see is quite simply like everyone else, it doesn't seem to be economicaly benefitial to play around down there by any means, perhaps even more so after these changes. This isn't just about the baseline isk per hour either... In wormholes, you need good logistics too, and you need miner guys to maximize those sites, as well as some research/industry skills to maximize what your anchored POS can do, hauling, cloakers, warships etc. and we value those skills equally as all part of the team. In nullsec however, I just don't see the incentive to get those kinds of players involved down there when it's so much easier (like isk), to just do most of that stuff in high sec and pipe it down to null as combat ready assets. Wasn't that one of the big goals? Get those kinds of players who enjoy that stuff to see a sensible reason to go there (and i feel bad for all the poor pvpers that live down there now that are disgusted with the idea of having to do it, and the shame is their realy is people that WANT to, why can't this be attractive to them)? This couples up with the fact that most people down there are gungho about pvp like i said, and rather have accounts logged in on combat-centric players than not. I want to see bonuses to industry, research, refining, and any market based skills. Promote growth and promote the inclusion of that percentage of the playerbase and it will be healthy for nullsec with what the user goals are for this expansion. Now this leads to my last issue, how is security going to be improved for the small corp down there at all (particularly if you want to attract industrial minded folks, how can they SOMETIMES feel even just a small bit of saftey)? If he can't even get cyno jammers and stuff untill WAAYYY late in his systems development, how the heck is he ever going to last that long? Shouldn't it be easier and more cost effective to ESTABLISH a good base of ops, and then harder and harder to keep it safe as time goes on, giving the homesteaders a chance to grow in parallel to be ready? At least then, you may have some more curious types who are resigned to the fact that they'll go down for a month or two, make as much money as they can, and then just go belly up when they slowly, inevitably, get beaten to death. Right now, the penetration just seems worthless to even bother taking a gamble to even give it a try. Additionally, it needs to be very clear how you will promote the inevitable fiefdom aspect to all of this, as realistically, that is the only way i can see it to be work out for the small guy? Why is it going to be more beneficial for the dominant alliances to really try and let the smaller corps "work the land" so to speak and take a reasonable enough cutt so that both can feel good about the deal (which again, null just needs to be more profitable)? And why will he rather not just swallow them up but allow them to continue to be somewhat independent of the larger alliances sphere of influence? The sad thing is, i just don't see how mechanics of +1 scannable site for each rank answers any of these questions!
wallenbergaren	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:34:00 - [2943] The solution to nullsec is to make it more like w-space
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:37:00 - [2944] Edited by: Shawna Gray on 10/11/2009 19:37:02 Originally by: Deva Blackfire And you know why it doesnt work? Because due to all r64 ** people got lazy. I dont need to do anything, the afk-ISK-from-thin-air will fund me everything: from SOV, to POS to stations to ships. Atm all 0.0 alliances get reality check: suddenly they HAVE to participate in making isk. You know what would be perfect? Moon mining being changed to manual mode. Lol. Pretty much everyone in 0.0 has a empire alt to make isk, or at the very least rats/mines etc. Originally by:** Cailais Dominion means you have to choose: settled farming life, ploughing those belts and reaping those npc rats or you're ghengis khan style nomadic warriors. Or just continue as they do now, keep a empire alt to make isk and pvp with their other char in 0.0
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:38:00 - [2945] Originally by: Qlanth I still think however than if you want to fix 0.0 money making you need to fix those anomalies so that all anomalies are worth running because they are on par with belt ratting (the top tier is better, the majority is on par, the bottom tier is slightly worse but you need to finish them for a new one to spawn) or else I will just keep on belt ratting because I can make more ISK more reliably. People in this thread, from testing, and CCP responses have indicated that this is what will happen. The anomalies quality will be at least on par with ratting, once you've upgraded them. Ideally, better. On the topic of 0.0 mining being worthless....why? Is it the logistics, or getting the ore refined? ABC ores are 2-3 times more profitable then mining in hi-sec. I know, a lot of poor trusec systems have absolutely laughable ores, but grav sites are always better then the resident ores, meaning they would be primarily ABC ores in 0.0 grav sites, with some dark ochre, gneiss, and mercoxit on the site.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:41:00 - [2946] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/11/2009 19:43:38 Originally by: NickSuccorso R64 income goes into helping pay for alliance upkeep, not personal wallets. If there's an alliance out there that you can show me that supplies there people's PVP ships, please show me who it is. From alies i know? TRI (prolly back again due to dyspro), PL, most (if not all) of NC, im quite sure -A- and you do it too. It is called "ship reimbursement program" which de facto is moving alliance isk (in form of assets) to players wallets (hands). Another thing - i had my personal r64 for a while, so again it went into my wallet. I know few people who also have personal r64s (even under alliance cover) tho its obvious i cant say names (alliances will get mad and as those are some of my friends i dont want them to lose easy income). Plus - they go to help keep ally upkeeps because you did rule so as an alliance. Clap clap - you actually managed to TAX moon income (with 100% tax rate). Which still doesnt change a thing. If it was manual nothing would stop you from putting 100% tax on moons or doing lol "mandatory" moon mining ops. Or to make it easier? Just mining unprocessed moon mins which could be taxed in stations while being processed. Options aplenty, but you are too short sighted to even think about them. All you can do is repeat same old mantra "all r64 goes to alliance". Quote: That all assumes that the anomalies will actually be worth running. I said earlier in this thread that I would estimate about 5% of all anomalies are currently worth running over belt ratting. If I come into a system and see that all the anomalies are terrible I might as well start ratting because I'll make more ISK. From what ive seen while scanning geminate (that being 1000+ anomaly sites) around 15% of them are total crap (frigs and cruisers), another 15% are mix of BC/BS and rest have plenty of battleships inside. On lv4 level. With additional cherry of top named faction spawns. Quote: Lol. Pretty much everyone in 0.0 has a empire alt to make isk, or at the very least rats/mines etc. Another generalisation which has absolutely no cover in facts. And in quite a lot cases it is wrong (at least from allies ive been in that being tri, celes, razor and having additional insider on few southern ones). Otherwise you wouldnt see people doing belting or plexing like crazy.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:50:00 - [2947] Originally by: Qlanth I don't understand your first statement. What costs should I be running? How much ISK players make? Or the cost of holding Sovereignty in 100 systems in current mechanics? Or the cost of holding Sovereignty under future mechanics? As far as the rest of your post: In this regard you are absolutely correct. 0.0 alliances will be able to make some ISK with the changes. Not every bit of ISK we make will be going toward maintaining sovereignty and we will be able to survive (GoonSwarm especially). We will, however, be making decidedly less ISK than before because of the increased cost of maintaining space without increasing the amount of ISK earnable by players. Basically all these changes are going to do on a personal level for me is make me not want to claim sovereignty. I think there are a lot of other alliances feeling the same way. Especially groups like Atlas who live DEEP in 0.0 with terrible true-sec systems, very few R64 moons, and HEAVY reliance on jumpbridge networks to keep them supplied. I do not want to see this happen because I enjoy large scale PvP, and having all of my enemies abandon 0.0 space (I'm betting a large amount would just abandon the game) would be very very boring for me. The costs on your space after Dominion. No doubt some alliances will lose ISK - personal and alliance level, especialy the big ones with generous programs - like your mentioned free moons. Some will get hurt more, some less, some will gain. It all depends on alliance management only. As for myself, I am all for cutting personal income and replacing it by alliance/corp level income. Originally by: NickSuccorso R64 income goes into helping pay for alliance upkeep, not personal wallets. If there's an alliance out there that you can show me that supplies there people's PVP ships, please show me who it is. Oh boy, another expert at aconomy. If you do not have that R64 you will have to pay it from your own wallet so don't tell me it is not affecting you. Reimbusrtement programs, free caps, discounted ships, free ammo and modules, etc - nothing unusual.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:53:00 - [2948] Originally by: Orthaen Originally by: Qlanth I still think however than if you want to fix 0.0 money making you need to fix those anomalies so that all anomalies are worth running because they are on par with belt ratting (the top tier is better, the majority is on par, the bottom tier is slightly worse but you need to finish them for a new one to spawn) or else I will just keep on belt ratting because I can make more ISK more reliably. People in this thread, from testing, and CCP responses have indicated that this is what will happen. The anomalies quality will be at least on par with ratting, once you've upgraded them. Ideally, better. On the topic of 0.0 mining being worthless....why? Is it the logistics, or getting the ore refined? ABC ores are 2-3 times more profitable then mining in hi-sec. I know, a lot of poor trusec systems have absolutely laughable ores, but grav sites are always better then the resident ores, meaning they would be primarily ABC ores in 0.0 grav sites, with some dark ochre, gneiss, and mercoxit on the site. Because of the drone regions and drone compounds in general mineral prices have been steadily crashing. ABC ores are not worth as much as they were a year ago and actually if you crunch the numbers Veldspar is probably the 4th best ore to mine.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:54:00 - [2949] The essence of complaints is simple. dominion will turn people who enjoy pvping in 0.0 into pve'ers due to the need of isk from individuals. No matter how many times people say adapt or whatever, people play a GAME for there fun, if there fun is pvp how is forcing them to change play style good for the game? And the whole ting about getting bears to come into 0.0.. thats just the same in reverse, if your in 0.0 your going to find pvp whether you like it or not, thus it turns pve'ers into pvpers. Forget the isk per hour arguments, this is about ccp FORCING us to play how they want to fit there game. ie no more sandbox, its a becoming a controlled playpen like every other mmo.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:06:00 - [2950] Originally by: Deva Blackfire R64 income goes into helping pay for alliance upkeep, not personal wallets. If there's an alliance out there that you can show me that supplies there people's PVP ships, please show me who it is. From alies i know? TRI (prolly back again due to dyspro), PL, most (if not all) of NC, im quite sure -A- and you do it too. It is called "ship reimbursement program" which de facto is moving alliance isk (in form of assets) to players wallets (hands). An Yes if you lose a ship doing an important fight you will get some of your isk reimbursed. Pretty much the only fights deemed important are the fights that protect the r64s themselves. Pretty much everyone trying to defend 0.0 isk income and say that level 4s being better than the vast majority are just super mad because they somehow think all 0.0 players just sit around getting rich off moon goo. They dont. Maybe a few do. And some people who are lucky enough can get money off of complexes. The average palyer is making less than level 4s and this is not right. Making the game so you spend your time on an alt in empire making cash so you can go back to 0.0 and be able to fight again is just sad.

Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:07:00 - [2951] Originally by: Shawna Gray Lol. Pretty much everyone who can't cut it in 0.0 has a empire alt to make isk, or at the very least rats/mines etc. Fixed that typo for you.
NickSuccorso Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:09:00 - [2952] Quote: From alies i know? TRI (prolly back again due to dyspro), PL, most (if not all) of NC, im quite sure -A- and you do it too. It is called "ship reimbursement program" which de facto is moving alliance isk (in form of assets) to players wallets (hands). Pretty sure nobody gives 100% reimbursement on everything, nor do they shower members with ships at no cost.
Marchocias Silent Ninja's	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:10:00 - [2953] Wooooo! Almost 100 pages to this threadnaught already! Everyone.... get ready to link arms and drunkenly sing Auld Lang Syne! ---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it).
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:12:00 - [2954] Dont increase 0.0 income because i want my level 4 alt to make me money forever. I am also a big baby who has never been in a large 0.0 alliance and thinks the average player get nonstop free money from moons.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:12:00 - [2955] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/11/2009 19:47:04 Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/11/2009 19:43:38 Originally by: NickSuccorso R64 income goes into helping pay for alliance upkeep, not personal wallets. If there's an alliance out there that you can show me that supplies there people's PVP ships, please show me who it is. From alies i know? TRI (prolly back again due to dyspro), PL, most (if not all) of NC, im quite sure -A- and you do it too. It is called "ship reimbursement program" which de facto is moving alliance isk (in form of assets) to players wallets (hands). Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm in one of those alliances, my ships aren't reimbursed Ships are only reimbursed on approved ops (generally just an official FC) but even then, not all ships. Caps? NO, HACS? NO Recons? NO So best case scenario is full reimbursement if I only ever PVP when there's an official fleet formed, and only if I fly a sub cap that is on a list. Yay. I dunno wtf is wrong with all you trolls. This thread is now just ghey with people that don't know what they are talking about.
xxxak Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:16:00 - [2956] Originally by: Quesa Edited by: Quesa on 06/11/2009 22:57:11 Nothing I have seen so far has even come close to SUGGESTING we will be able to find activity for even 50 people for more than an hour in a single, fully upgraded system. 1 person can clear 4 anoms in an hour. 2 people can clear a DED 7-9/10 plex in an hour. Mining is **** until you fix Grav sites and give us a reason to actually mine VELD. All I've seen are enough activities to keep 20-30 people busy for 3-4 hours. I'm begging you to explain how you even came CLOSE to the number of 100-150 being able to keep themselves busy in a single upgraded system. I'm not trolling, I REALLY REALLY REALLY want you to explain to us how this is even remotely possible. This really.
Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:16:00 - [2957] lol more goon tears please I've children to feed lol
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:20:00 - [2958] Here is some constructive criticism for ccp The first person in your next dev meeting to use a buzz word like synergy or dynamic... Fire them.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:21:00 - [2959] Originally by: Verlisia lol more goon tears please I've children to feed lol read the post at the top of this page. realise you are a fgt. gtfo.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:21:00 - [2960] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/11/2009 20:25:29 Originally by: gambrinous Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm in one of those alliances, my ships aren't reimbursed Ships are only reimbursed on approved ops (generally just an official FC) but even then, not all ships. Caps? NO, HACS? NO Recons? NO So best case scenario is full reimbursement if I only ever PVP when there's an official fleet formed, and only if I fly a sub cap that is on a list. Yay. You know whats the funniest part about this thread? People contradict themselves all the time. But when they contradict themselves in one post - this is just comedy gold. EDIT: And a bit back at 1st post on this page Quote: If he can't even get cyno jammers and stuff untill WAAYYY late in his systems development, how the heck is he ever going to last that long? You see, the issue is you (as in you = players) just killed your own immunity by... reducing SOV costs. When clear system costed 300m/month just to keep sov it meant noone would really try and take it from you coz keeping it to yourself would cost them a bit. Now with reduced sov costs it is again feasible just to sov up all systems within 100 jumps so noone else sits there. Whats funnier keeping sov will be even EASIER now than before. 30m/month is less than small tower costs.

Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:24:00 - [2961] Edited by: Gnulpie on 10/11/2009 20:24:34 Edit: Failpost
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:25:00 - [2962] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: gambrinous Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm in one of those alliances, my ships aren't reimbursed Ships are only reimbursed on approved ops (generally just an official FC) but even then, not all ships. Caps? NO, HACS? NO Recons? NO So best case scenario is full reimbursement if I only ever PVP when there's an official fleet formed, and only if I fly a sub cap that is on a list. Yay. You know whats the funniest part about this thread? People contradict themselves all the time. But when they contradict themselves in one post - this is just comedy gold. Are you daft? Some ships are reimbursed most are not. Maybe he was flying one that isnt. You decide to go do some pvp on your own? No reimbursement. You decide to form a big gang? No reimbursement. Get ganked doing any form of pve? No reimbursement. If you fly a specific ship for a very specific flight. You get some of your loss reduced. You still lose isk. Woah man these freakin moons make 0.0 and isk fountain for the average man.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:25:00 - [2963] Originally by: xxxak Originally by: Quesa Edited by: Quesa on 06/11/2009 22:57:11 Nothing I have seen so far has even come close to SUGGESTING we will be able to find activity for even 50 people for more than an hour in a single, fully upgraded system. 1 person can clear 4 anoms in an hour. 2 people can clear a DED 7-9/10 plex in an hour. Mining is **** until you fix Grav sites and give us a reason to actually mine VELD. All I've seen are enough activities to keep 20-30 people busy for 3-4 hours. I'm begging you to explain how you even came CLOSE to the number of 100-150 being able to keep themselves busy in a single upgraded system. I'm not trolling, I REALLY REALLY REALLY want you to explain to us how this is even remotely possible. This really. Until there are space upgrades on Sisi or there is another devblog released you can only troll like Quesa does. So far we can only say that you will gain guarateed 230 man hours of anomaly grinding per max military upgraded system. Not much info on hidden belts, mini-profession sites, complexes or such.
Hrin Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:26:00 - [2964] Originally by: Gnulpie page 100 snipa! (always wanted to do that ) 30 posts in a page
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:27:00 - [2965] Adapt or die. Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:28:00 - [2966] Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: gambrinous Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm in one of those alliances, my ships aren't reimbursed Ships are only reimbursed on approved ops (generally just an official FC) but even then, not all ships. Caps? NO, HACS? NO Recons? NO So best case scenario is full reimbursement if I only ever PVP when there's an official fleet formed, and only if I fly a sub cap that is on a list. Yay. You know whats the funniest part about this thread? People contradict themselves all the time. But when they contradict themselves in one post - this is just comedy gold. Are you daft? Some ships are reimbursed most are not. Maybe he was flying one that isnt. You decide to go do some pvp on your own? No reimbursement. You decide to form a big gang? No reimbursement. Get ganked doing any form of pve? No reimbursement. If you fly a specific ship for a very specific flight. You get some of your loss reduced. You still lose isk. Woah man these freakin moons make 0.0 and isk fountain for the average man. Are you stupid? If SOME ships are reimbursed then he IS reimbursed. So his first line is a blatant lie. I wrote about reimbursement at all not full or whatever. Which he confirmed - in some cases he gets ship back = reimbursement program exists.
Ivanna Nuke Gallente Daralux	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:28:00 - [2967] It all relates to cowbell.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:32:00 - [2968] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Shawna Gray Lol. Pretty much everyone who can't cut it in 0.0 has a empire alt to make isk, or at the very least rats/mines etc. Fixed that typo for you. Lol you are not "special" if you can make some isk in 0.0. But if you are smart you put your monemaking char where he can do an optimal job, and thats in empire.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:33:00 - [2969] Most ship reimbursement programs I know of are a falisy, they normally relate to t1 ships and you get back isk relating to insurance payout's. So with insurance and a boost you can normally get a hull back easily and reinsure it (sometimes) but mods are lost and its all t1 only in many cases. Ship reimbursement is a bad name for it.
Gordon Reiss XERCORE Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:33:00 - [2970] Got 99 problems...

Sen Roo Gallente Net 7 The Last Brigade	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:34:00 - [2971] Originally by: Niamota Olin The essence of complaints is simple. dominion will turn people who enjoy pvping in 0.0 into pve'ers due to the need of isk from individuals. Um no. The Dominion expansion is not going going to force PvPers into PvErs. What you are going to have to do is recruit some industrial corps into your nullsec space and use your Mad PvP skill z to safe guard them while they make you isk and build your ships. Kinda like in real life the military guards the borders of a nation so its citizens can live and work in peace. Oh and those who are complaining and saying that Dominion won't work? Unless you give at least one constructive idea for fixing what they are doing you all are just *****ing and whining. --------- "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, now would it." - Albert Einstein "Lead me not to temptation, for I can find it myself."
Halaxi Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:34:00 - [2972] In breaking news, CCP responds to the issues raised since their last reply god knows how many pages ago, acknowledging the points raised, and stating their intended course of action. Oh wait...my bad, I was daydreaming again Not many days left until December 1st CCP, it would be nice to have even a simple 'hey guys, we've looked at what you've said, we're working on it' before then. Hal.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:34:00 - [2973] Originally by: Marlona Sky Adapt or die. This patch hurts major alliances not at all. 0.0 income still isnt that great, small alliances still will not be attracted to come out. Adapt to what? Crappy game design? No one will be dying as much as you seem to be getting yourself off with tought of it.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:36:00 - [2974] Edited by: Tippia on 10/11/2009 20:39:08 Originally by: Kepakh So far we can only say that you will gain guarateed 230 man hours of anomaly grinding per max military upgraded system. We can't even say that. We get a potential 230MH of anomalies per maxed system. Originally by: Sen Roo Um no. The Dominion expansion is not going going to force PvPers into PvErs. What you are going to have to do is recruit some industrial corps into your nullsec space and use your Mad PvP skillz to safe guard them while they make you isk and build your ships. The problem is that the Dominion expansion fails to give you anything to entice them into accepting that kind of recruitment offer. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:36:00 - [2975] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/11/2009 20:25:29 Originally by: gambrinous Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm in one of those alliances, my ships aren't reimbursed Ships are only reimbursed on approved ops (generally just an official FC) but even then, not all ships. Caps? NO, HACS? NO Recons? NO So best case scenario is full reimbursement if I only ever PVP when there's an official fleet formed, and only if I fly a sub cap that is on a list. Yay. You know whats the funniest part about this thread? People contradict themselves all the time. But when they contradict themselves in one post - this is just comedy gold. EDIT: And a bit back at 1st post on this page Quote: If he can't even get cyno jammers and stuff untill WAAYYY late in his systems development, how the heck is he ever going to last that long? You see, the issue is you (as in you = players) just killed your own immunity by... reducing SOV costs. When clear system costed 300m/month just to keep sov it meant noone would really try and take it from you coz keeping it to yourself would cost them a bit. Now with reduced sov costs it is again feasible just to sov up all systems within 100 jumps so noone else sits there. Whats funnier keeping sov will be even EASIER now than before. 30m/month is less than small tower costs. well since I mainly fly caps in fleet ops (as that's what is asked for) so it's pretty accurate. the best case scenario should illustrate why it's necessary to earn isk, but I guess that went over your head (hint: because it's a pretty ** option) u think I should only pvp when there is an official fleet up? srs what is with the trolls now also re 1st post: I meant it's not just goons, it's everyone that has a modi**of common sense
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:39:00 - [2976] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: gambrinous Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm in one of those alliances, my ships aren't reimbursed Ships are only reimbursed on approved ops (generally just an official FC) but even then, not all ships. Caps? NO, HACS? NO Recons? NO So best case scenario is full reimbursement if I only ever PVP when there's an official fleet formed, and only if I fly a sub cap that is on a list. Yay. You know whats the funniest part about this thread? People contradict themselves all the time. But when they contradict themselves in one post - this is just comedy gold. Are you daft? Some ships are reimbursed most are not. Maybe he was flying one that isnt. You decide to go do some pvp on your own? No reimbursement. You decide to form a big gang? No reimbursement. Get ganked doing any form of pve? No reimbursement. If you fly a specific ship for a very specific flight. You get some of your loss reduced. You still lose isk. Woah man these freakin moons make 0.0 and isk fountain for the average man. Are you stupid? If SOME ships are reimbursed then he IS reimbursed. So his first line is a blatant lie. I wrote about reimbursement at all not full or whatever. Which he confirmed - in some cases he gets ship back = reimbursement program exists. No you said "I dont need to do anything, the afk-ISK-from-thin-air will fund me everything: from SOV, to POS to stations to ships." And thats far far from some isk for a few specific shiptypes on a few specific ops.
Baitin	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:40:00 - [2977] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: gambrinous Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm in one of those alliances, my ships aren't reimbursed Ships are only reimbursed on approved ops (generally just an official FC) but even then, not all ships. Caps? NO, HACS? NO Recons? NO So best case scenario is full reimbursement if I only ever PVP when there's an official fleet formed, and only if I fly a sub cap that is on a list. Yay. You know whats the funniest part about this thread? People contradict themselves all the time. But when they contradict themselves in one post - this is just comedy gold. Are you daft? Some ships are reimbursed most are not. Maybe he was flying one that isnt. You decide to go do some pvp on your own? No reimbursement. You decide to form a big gang? No reimbursement. Get ganked doing any form of pve? No reimbursement. If you fly a specific ship for a very specific flight. You get some of your loss reduced. You still lose isk. Woah man these freakin moons make 0.0 and isk fountain for the average man. Are you stupid? If SOME ships are reimbursed then he IS reimbursed. So his first line is a blatant lie. I wrote about reimbursement at all not full or whatever. Which he confirmed - in some cases he gets ship back = reimbursement program exists. Mate learn basic logic. Some types of ships are reimbursed under very specific set of circumstances, IE. If the Fleet is "official". If the ship lost is of a limited and specific type. If you actually loose a ship. If you ask for a reimbursement. So if the Op never fly in "official" fleets. (timezones can be a ***** in some alliances) OR always flies a non-aproved ship (FUN!) OR never looses a ship during any of the official fleets (very possible if you're a good cov op pilot) OR never ask for reimburment. (some of us likes to pay our own way) He/she have never been reimbursed. QED
KeratinBoy GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:41:00 - [2978] Dear CCP, There have been a lot of words about your proposed changes. Mostly, they point out the proposed changes will have the opposite effect to the aim of the design document. Or, to put it succinctly, Jade Constantine thinks the proposed changes are a good idea. Jade. Constantine. The ISK/hour question is a good one. Why do people move to dangerous places when they can stay at home? The money. Always and forever. What, precisely, is the problem with nullsec being more profitable than empire for the individual? Things still need exporting and importing. Quite frankly, who cares if empire mission farmers get huffy if ratting in nullsec makes better money? Either they dip their toe in 0.0 or they stick with farming missions to pimp dat raven, at the same rate they have been doing for years. Or is the Dominion trailer a HD advert for rescuing that Damsel in 5.1?
Mithrasith	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:42:00 - [2979] Despite the fact that this will be either the bottom of page 99 or top of 100, I figured I would drop in my 2 cents as well. I was originally FOR Dominion. The proposal sounded great as 0.0 was becoming a stale NAP fest, with massive fleet battles and hot drops becoming "average". Dreads have become the staple of fleets, the modern day equivalent of the BS. Something had to be done. However, having read the proposal, Im quite worried. Its possible that CCP has a few tricks up their sleeve to make this all work, but I would like to echo a few sentiments of others on this thread, and no I dont come from a big alliance currently, but I have been in large alliances before. 1)As a player, I went to 0.0 to make ISK FOR MYSELF. Call me what you will, but I also enjoyed PVP'ing, running with gangs etc, but the primary motivation is so that I could become rich, and to a certain extent I did (not 100's of billions mind you but wealthy enough). If the changes are geared at "taxing" work of players so that corporations can become wealthy and distribute the funds down and/or pay fees, sorry, Im not interested. Most likely Ill widdle away my time in Empire to see if the changes will reverse course, and if not, resign my accounts. This isnt an EMO rage quit or anything of the sort, like I said I was very much in favour of Dominion, but from what Im hearing, I cannot possibly become a wealthy player under this new system in 0.0 (and I hate running missions in Empire). 2) Other players are absolutely right regarding faction loot and plexes. I have an empire alt not in the alliance strictly designed to get faction gear from a null sec bridge point to empire to sell it. The Corp gets 0 taxes out of the situation, and quite frankly I dont care. If the thinking is the corp will set taxes to 100% to acheive all funds from bounties, and then whatever a player gets out of faction gear they get to keep, think again. A) There isnt enough plexes and faction gear to go around, and B) Even if there was enough faction gear to go around it would sink prices to the point that it wouldnt be profitable. 3) Mining? The ISK they yield is next to nothing. Logistics are a PITA. Not only that but if you have many splintered alliances of smallish nature, a large percentage are going to be stuck without a bridge system to Empire, and thus, transporting the materials to Empire where they are useful wont happen. Local markets? Unlikely. Risk vs Reward isnt there 4) Professional sites? Useless. Radar sites used to be quite lucrative once upon a time, but with the current attributes of the Data interfaces (being that they never decay nor are they destroyed) there is little to no incentive to run the Radar sites, nor mag sites, nor grav sites 5) Anomolies? They might be ok for your average newer player, as their cost requirements arent the same, but overall they dont yield a lot of isk, and certainly not enough to fuel the demand of the corporation, alliance and individual player. Perhaps its CCP's theory that the amount of money each player should have is significantly less than what it is currently. Combined with the reduction in price for T2 materials, maybe they feel each player will need less isk, thus yield needs to be less. Combined with a view that capitals should be rare and not common and not owned by the individual player, in their mind it might balance out. If that's the case, its not something Im interested in.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:43:00 - [2980] Originally by: Shawna Gray No you said "I dont need to do anything, the afk-ISK-from-thin-air will fund me everything: from SOV, to POS to stations to ships." And thats far far from some isk for a few specific shiptypes on a few specific ops. Yes i wrote that. And yes it does fund SOV, POSes. And it also does fund ships in reimbursement mode. If it doesnt reimburse ones you fly or alliance reimburses crap that is not needed i guess thats the problem of said alliance? Back in Tri we had caps and dictors reimbursement program. Considering we had MUCH less moons than any other alliance in the list and we could replace all losses i dare to ask - who pockets the surplus of isk? Especially when their ship losses werent that heavy over past months? And if the isk goes into supercap production - it is still going towards ships, amrite?

Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:43:00 - [2981] Edited by: Mkiaki on 10/11/2009 20:43:52 EPIC TEAR THREAD IS EPIC! Hawt dawm pirates and alliance leaders you guys can whine better than a carebear caught in low sec in their only mining ship. This thread should be archived and brought back at any time you guys even hint at mentioning the term "crying".
Oosha Minmatar Kinetic Vector	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:44:00 - [2982] soo, after playing EVE for while..... when will the beta test finish??
Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:47:00 - [2983] people who complain about having to bring everything from empire are just stupid. You can build almost everything on site with the right towers and stations. The only thing anyone should have to bring down are maybe componets to build T2 stuff and maybe some things for invention. If your Alliance is based on Ratters and Moongoo then that's your problem. Clearing a single system of its minerals refining them in the local station/pos with good skills and having people build all manner of stuff you need solves the whole ship replacement problem as well. My group does only 1 major mining op a week and we manage to collect enough materials to build enough cruisers/battle cruisers to supply everyone with replacements and were only based in high/low sec. Null sec groups have access to much greater quantities of materials then we do they just don't properly utilize their full potential. If you idiots used the materials on hand to build what you needed instead of grinding rats all day to pay for stuff then you'd be better off. Anyone who doesn't maximize efficiency of the materials given to them rather then just depending on the direct income of bounties and moons deserve to fail.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:48:00 - [2984] Originally by: Sen Roo Originally by: Niamota Olin The essence of complaints is simple. dominion will turn people who enjoy pvping in 0.0 into pve'ers due to the need of isk from individuals. Um no. The Dominion expansion is not going going to force PvPers into PvErs. What you are going to have to do is recruit some industrial corps into your nullsec space and use your Mad PvP skill z to safe guard them while they make you isk and build your ships. Kinda like in real life the military guards the borders of a nation so its citizens can live and work in peace. Oh and those who are complaining and saying that Dominion won't work? Unless you give at least one constructive idea for fixing what they are doing you all are just *****ing and whining. Have you ever tried protecting industrialists in 0.0? Here is how it works, you either sit in a belt with them for hours preventing an attack. No pvp happens as your guard is effective thus boredom, or you and your indies die from a stronger attack force thus no isk made. Protecting bears in 0.0 = boredom for pvpers or death and destruction thus no isk. Most of my suggestion i think are in the 80 page range of this thread, I supported alternative routes of isk income, or reduced running costs on systems based on system use and development. As well as an exponential increase in system sov to stop huge empires combined with perks for holding constelations to stop an alt alliance system developing. My statement you picked out was in reference to try and explain why people are putting so much feedback (whining/tears/whatever) on this thread. 0.0 is lawless space supposed to be the pvp playground, its been broken for years with only the really large alliances having the good moon goo and they now sit happily with huge cap fleets laughing about how everyone is gonna loose cyno protection. Goons and other big guys will gain most from these upgrades, so they loose sov over large expanses of space... SO what? doesn't stop them having the physical benefits they have got from all the years previous, and kudos to most to them for pointing out why this patch fails in its aims. Who is gonna wanna come out to 0.0 when it costs a fortune AND your at the mercy of these now free to roam wherever cap fleets.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:50:00 - [2985] There's a lot of complaints on these 99 pages..... Some of them have legitimacy, a lot of them are trolls, but most of them are people just venting fear and frustration about changes they have little control over and poor understanding of... This is understandable, as eve is a game these people have invested significants amount of time and effort into. But change isn't always a bad thing, we agree the sov system is broken, and this is a legit attempt to fix it. Thank you for your work ccp, please keep it up, and please keep us informed!! On another note, I have a random question to address the costs associated with sovereignty. While I've lived in null-sec for about 9 months, I'll admit I don't know a lot about POS activities (I just pewpew). Given the income from R16 moons & R32 moons, in a decent constellation of 7 systems, what percentage of these resources would be left available for individuals to capitalize on after the alliance takes enough resources to cover the sov operating costs of the constellation? A reasonable figure in my head would leave somewhere between 40-70% of these resources for individual members, depending on distribution of the resources (if its more distributed, then more should be left for the individuals).
xxxak Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:52:00 - [2986] Originally by: Alice Celadon The REAL problem hasn't been mentioned yet, and it's a simple economic one. We don't sell our finished goods to NPCs in this game...they all go to other players. That means there is a mostly static pool of available ISK in the game which facilitates transactions. CCP just created a monumental ISK sink. Buckets of ISK are about to disappear every 14 days. What mechanic has been put in place to increase the influx of ISK? None. Let me repeat this slowly, because I don't think people get this yet. Moon goo doesn't make ISK. Mining doesn't make ISK. T3 production doesn't make ISK. Bounties, mission rewards, and tags (sleeper belongings, etc.) are the ONLY things that make ISK, and these haven't been buffed in the slightest...but the availability of ISK in general is about to take a massive hit. ... This means one of 3 things. 1. Massive isk generation mechanism CCP hasn't revealed yet. 2. 0.0 gets really abandoned, really quickly. 3. The market goes batpoo insane. As Trit falls off a freaking cliff in comparison to ISK value, BS manufacture/insurance/self-destruct becomes the de-facto method for making ISK. Seriously CCP...don't you morons have an economist working for you? Walk down the freakin hall and ask him about this. omg. its even worse than I thought. Emergency solution -- double 0.0 rat spawns or watch the game die. LOL!
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:53:00 - [2987] Originally by: Verlisia people who complain about having to bring everything from empire are just stupid. You can build almost everything on site with the right towers and stations. The only thing anyone should have to bring down are maybe componets to build T2 stuff and maybe some things for invention. If your Alliance is based on Ratters and Moongoo then that's your problem. Clearing a single system of its minerals refining them in the local station/pos with good skills and having people build all manner of stuff you need solves the whole ship replacement problem as well. My group does only 1 major mining op a week and we manage to collect enough materials to build enough cruisers/battle cruisers to supply everyone with replacements and were only based in high/low sec. Null sec groups have access to much greater quantities of materials then we do they just don't properly utilize their full potential. If you idiots used the materials on hand to build what you needed instead of grinding rats all day to pay for stuff then you'd be better off. Anyone who doesn't maximize efficiency of the materials given to them rather then just depending on the direct income of bounties and moons deserve to fail. You fail. Minerals are not free. Its costs time just like ratting. Optimise your isk/time.
Graysteel	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:56:00 - [2988] I thought the whole point for Dominion was to generate a purpose for the alliances in 0.0 to have a need for the carebear corps, not so much turn the PvP corps into carebears. When I first read the blogs I thought it would be great to give those PvP's someone to defend, not just pixils on the screen but some one on the other side (I mean it is a massively multiplayer game after all right?). I know a lot of carebears that dont care to pvp but are more then willing to generate industry, expand faction warefare, and create economies. Being a carebear, I welcome the idea of my industrial corp being needed for the survival of an alliance. And in turn I enjoy the idea of having (needing) a pvp backbone to protect (and attack enemy space )not just the sov of a system but the people in it. Now the pvpers have more meaning then just being called up for some blob battle or some pos bashing. I doubt that those pvpers will have much time to farm isk via mining or ratting and will need to rely on the indutrial corps to generate the isk for the alliance. Perhaps the alliance should hire their pvpers to do what they enjoy. (Hey now you dont have to farm isk at all you get paid to do what you like to do, shoot things, probably as soon as you log on to when you log off.) I dont think that alliance will rely soly on the tax income from rat farming or moon goo but perhaps more from the economies that are generated in their systems by their industrial corps (who are protected by not only the pvpers but also the pve'ers, becuase i konw i dont want to shoot pvpers or rats in my hulk i more then welcome those pvper/pve'er to shoot them for me). Just think you attract enough renters or locals or even neighboring alliances that make your system a mini jita which now you are generating income off of. In short i think the devs are doing what they intended. Making it so if you want to own space you will have to include all aspecs of the game. The pvpers wont have to farm isk but rely on the industrials who in turn rely on the pvper and the pve'er to make things go boom. Also your industrial corps will be create local economies that passer bys or renters will buy from. Maybe im wrong but i think that is what everyone wanted, pvpers didnt want to farm, pve'er wanted to farm, both want to be part of social group that can come on and have fun competing with their neighbors both economically and militarly.
Mkiaki Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:56:00 - [2989] TEARS, so many lovely tears from pirates...
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:57:00 - [2990] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Shawna Gray No you said "I dont need to do anything, the afk-ISK-from-thin-air will fund me everything: from SOV, to POS to stations to ships." And thats far far from some isk for a few specific shiptypes on a few specific ops. Yes i wrote that. And yes it does fund SOV, POSes. And it also does fund ships in reimbursement mode. If it doesnt reimburse ones you fly or alliance reimburses crap that is not needed i guess thats the problem of said alliance? Back in Tri we had caps and dictors reimbursement program. Considering we had MUCH less moons than any other alliance in the list and we could replace all losses i dare to ask - who pockets the surplus of isk? Especially when their ship losses werent that heavy over past months? And if the isk goes into supercap production - it is still going towards ships, amrite? so now you're blanket stating that any alliance that doesn't fully fund every single ship loss is mismanaged and ripping off its members?

Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:57:00 - [2991] Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 20:58:23 Originally by: Verlisia people who complain about having to bring everything from empire are just stupid. You can build almost everything on site with the right towers and stations. The only thing anyone should have to bring down are maybe componets to build T2 stuff and maybe some things for invention. If your Alliance is based on Ratters and Moongoo then that's your problem. Clearing a single system of its minerals refining them in the local station/pos with good skills and having people build all manner of stuff you need solves the whole ship replacement problem as well. My group does only 1 major mining op a week and we manage to collect enough materials to build enough cruisers/battle cruisers to supply everyone with replacements and were only based in high/low sec. Null sec groups have access to much greater quantities of materials then we do they just don't properly utilize their full potential. If you idiots used the materials on hand to build what you needed instead of grinding rats all day to pay for stuff then you'd be better off. Anyone who doesn't maximize efficiency of the materials given to them rather then just depending on the direct income of bounties and moons deserve to fail. No matter how many miners you have clearing out your system, to survive in 0.0 you will always need to import at the very least Tritanium. Battleships are the bread and butter of every 0.0 fleet looking to accomplish anything substantial (take moons, take systems). You could mine dry and entire system in 0.0 and get enough Trit for maybe two or three battleships. Now keep in mind you need to replace these on an alliance level. You need to replace ~20 battleships every week assuming you don't have a major loss. Often times it is much easier and more cost effective to import Tritanium or just import ships. Also things like: implants, POS modules, and of course fuel among other things often cannot be acquired outside of importation either because they are NPC seeded or because they do not exist in your region.
xxxak Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:57:00 - [2992] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 07/11/2009 00:31:57 Originally by: Vivian Azure And again... a system will cost 2 billion ISK a month with a few upgrades. If you have 10 players, each of them has to pay a laughable 7 million ISK a day to pay this bill. Stop whining. Vivian has a point. 2 billion divided amongst 10 players for a period of 30 days and each day is around 6.5-7million a day. Wow, that's like shooting...what, 8-10 Battleships in Providence space? (In belts mind you). Its not really that bad. Though the upgrades I agree need to be looked over, but I believe CCP might have forgotten the belt-related ones....unless they have no intention of fixing those. (I hope not btw...) Further edit: Btw, that's with 10 FREAKING PEOPLE. Imagine around 50 which is about the minimum any alliance is going to need to take any system in any 0.0 space. A whopping 1.5million a day. OH NO, 2 RATS!!!!!!!!!! sheesh, work together for once, I think that's what 0.0 lacks right now, wayyyy too much solo within corps/alliances, not enough working together. --Isaac Yea.. but how crowded will that system be? Will it be possible to rat in a system with 15 belts and 100 players crammed in there? How many BS will be left to kill?
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:58:00 - [2993] There is a new build on test server >.>
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.10 20:59:00 - [2994] Originally by: Shawna Gray Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Shawna Gray Lol. Pretty much everyone who can't cut it in 0.0 has a empire alt to make isk, or at the very least rats/mines etc. Fixed that typo for you. Lol you are not "special" if you can make some isk in 0.0. But if you are smart you put your monemaking char where he can do an optimal job, and thats in empire. No, if you are "smart" you make better than level 4's do by actually leveraging what 0.0 has to offer that empire does not. It is'nt that hard to make better money in 0.0 but you have to apply yourself to it, which most people are unwilling to do. Level 4's are just easier to do without really paying attention. This is irrelevant though, as personal income levels will be vastly improved in Dominion. So much so that any knuckle head that can hit F1-F10 will be able to make level 4 income (and feel like he has finally become smart). ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:00:00 - [2995] Originally by: Verlisia people who complain about having to bring everything from empire are just stupid. You can build almost everything on site with the right towers and stations. The only thing anyone should have to bring down are maybe componets to build T2 stuff and maybe some things for invention. If your Alliance is based on Ratters and Moongoo then that's your problem. Clearing a single system of its minerals refining them in the local station/pos with good skills and having people build all manner of stuff you need solves the whole ship replacement problem as well. My group does only 1 major mining op a week and we manage to collect enough materials to build enough cruisers/battle cruisers to supply everyone with replacements and were only based in high/low sec. Null sec groups have access to much greater quantities of materials then we do they just don't properly utilize their full potential. If you idiots used the materials on hand to build what you needed instead of grinding rats all day to pay for stuff then you'd be better off. Anyone who doesn't maximize efficiency of the materials given to them rather then just depending on the direct income of bounties and moons deserve to fail. [x] Ignorant of value of own time. [x] No understanding of term 'opportunity cost' [ ] Pathologically risk averse. Two out of three for the empire pubbie trifecta.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:00:00 - [2996] Originally by: Graysteel Being a carebear, I welcome the idea of my industrial corp being needed for the survival of an alliance. And in turn I enjoy the idea of having (needing) a pvp backbone to protect (and attack enemy space )not just the sov of a system but the people in it. Now the pvpers have more meaning then just being called up for some blob battle or some pos bashing. I doubt that those pvpers will have much time to farm isk via mining or ratting and will need to rely on the indutrial corps to generate the isk for the alliance. Perhaps the alliance should hire their pvpers to do what they enjoy. (Hey now you dont have to farm isk at all you get paid to do what you like to do, shoot things, probably as soon as you log on to when you log off.) That sounds good in theory but dominion wont do that. The carebears wont have a reason to joins such an alliance in dominion.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:07:00 - [2997] Edited by: Shawna Gray on 10/11/2009 21:07:34 Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Shawna Gray Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Shawna Gray Lol. Pretty much everyone who can't cut it in 0.0 has a empire alt to make isk, or at the very least rats/mines etc. Fixed that typo for you. Lol you are not "special" if you can make some isk in 0.0. But if you are smart you put your monemaking char where he can do an optimal job, and thats in empire. No, if you are "smart" you make better than level 4's do by actually leveraging what 0.0 has to offer that empire does not. It is'nt that hard to make better money in 0.0 but you have to apply yourself to it, which most people are unwilling to do. Level 4's are just easier to do without really paying attention. This is irrelevant though, as personal income levels will be vastly improved in Dominion. So much so that any knuckle head that can hit F1-F10 will be able to make level 4 income (and feel like he has finally become smart). BS. A moneymaking char in empire can do much more and can be available to do so when you are on pvp ops with your other char as you dont have to pay attention to local. You can trade, mission, do invention etc on a char to combine passive and active income in empire. The top markets are in empire, and the safety means you can do everything semi-afk in multibillionisk ships and still not lose any. The good part of 0.0 is the moongold and thats alliance level income, not personal income.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:08:00 - [2998] Originally by: Cefte [x] Ignorant of value of own time. [x] No understanding of term 'opportunity cost' [ ] Pathologically risk averse. Two out of three for the empire pubbie trifecta. The real problem here is that people are too lazy to train everything. If they did they could mine every mineral and build every ship themselves so they'd be free in fact with insurance they'd actually make money with every ship they lost who's laughing now stoopid PvPers
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:14:00 - [2999] There's a larger problem with the whole PvPers should defend industrial corps idea. People play this off as some sort of brilliant new idea, but it's been done before many times. Remember ASCN and who knows how many other alliances? Every time, it fails for the same reasons. The carebears rarely contribute sufficient amounts to the alliance to justify their defense, or it ends up being perceived by the PvPers as such. The success of the carebears leads to more carebears joining with the sole objective of making money rather than contributing, leading to further dilution of identity. Finally, when they experience any real pressure the normal response is a relatively collapse as the two groups within the alliance get angry at each other and go separate ways.
Normin Bates	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:16:00 - [3000] Originally by: Cefte [x] Ignorant of value of own time. [x] No understanding of term 'opportunity cost' [ ] Pathologically risk averse. Two out of three for the empire pubbie trifecta. [x] Patently lazy and tear soaked goon. [x] Unwilling to adapt. [x] Fears losing vast areas of unused space. [ ] Now seriously concerned about smaller alliances' ability to hold space. [x] Hopes CCP will buckle under the tears posted here. [ ] Is honest & genuine. Fixed that for ya.

Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:17:00 - [3001] Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 20:58:23 Originally by: Verlisia people who complain about having to bring everything from empire are just stupid. You can build almost everything on site with the right towers and stations. The only thing anyone should have to bring down are maybe componets to build T2 stuff and maybe some things for invention. If your Alliance is based on Ratters and Moongoo then that's your problem. Clearing a single system of its minerals refining them in the local station/pos with good skills and having people build all manner of stuff you need solves the whole ship replacement problem as well. My group does only 1 major mining op a week and we manage to collect enough materials to build enough cruisers/battle cruisers to supply everyone with replacements and were only based in high/low sec. Null sec groups have access to much greater quantities of materials then we do they just don't properly utilize their full potential. If you idiots used the materials on hand to build what you needed instead of grinding rats all day to pay for stuff then you'd be better off. Anyone who doesn't maximize efficiency of the materials given to them rather then just depending on the direct income of bounties and moons deserve to fail. No matter how many miners you have clearing out your system, to survive in 0.0 you will always need to import at the very least Tritanium. Battleships are the bread and butter of every 0.0 fleet looking to accomplish anything substantial (take moons, take systems). You could mine dry and entire system in 0.0 and get enough Trit for maybe two or three battleships. Now keep in mind you need to replace these on an alliance level. You need to replace ~20 battleships every week assuming you don't have a major loss. Often times it is much easier and more cost effective to import Tritanium or just import ships. Also things like: implants, POS modules, and of course fuel among other things often cannot be acquired outside of importation either because they are NPC seeded or because they do not exist in your region. That's not true though about the trit... you only need 13 or so million trit to build a abaddon for instance with a ME of 0. there's more than 13 Mill worth of trit in one belt in empire belts. ( we mine usually about 2 belts at a time and at the end of it all we typically end up with about 25-30+ mill of trit depending on if we concentrante solely on veld or not. so that's a battle ship per belt and they respawn fairly often enough that you could draw in enough materials in a week with a group of dedicated industry guys who know what their doing to provide loads of ships including bs's.
Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:23:00 - [3002] Originally by: Normin Bates Originally by: Cefte [x] Ignorant of value of own time. [x] No understanding of term 'opportunity cost' [ ] Pathologically risk averse. Two out of three for the empire pubbie trifecta. [x] Patently lazy and tear soaked goon. [x] Unwilling to adapt. [x] Fears losing vast areas of unused space. [ ] Now seriously concerned about smaller alliances' ability to hold space. [x] Hopes CCP will buckle under the tears posted here. [ ] Is honest & genuine. Fixed that for ya.
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:23:00 - [3003] Originally by: Shawna Gray Originally by: Graysteel Being a carebear, I welcome the idea of my industrial corp being needed for the survival of an alliance. And in turn I enjoy the idea of having (needing) a pvp backbone to protect (and attack enemy space )not just the sov of a system but the people in it. Now the pvpers have more meaning then just being called up for some blob battle or some pos bashing. I doubt that those pvpers will have much time to farm isk via mining or ratting and will need to rely on the indutrial corps to generate the isk for the alliance. Perhaps the alliance should hire their pvpers to do what they enjoy. (Hey now you dont have to farm isk at all you get paid to do what you like to do, shoot things, probably as soon as you log on to when you log off.) That sounds good in theory but dominion wont do that. The carebears wont have a reason to joins such an alliance in dominion. Mining? Exploration? All the things dominion adds? These are all far superior to hi-sec. Despite complaints that mining in 0.0 is worthless, it is far far far better then mining in hi-sec. Veldspar comes in at 81 isk/m3. Arkonor rocks out at 481 isk/m3. Gneiss, Dark Ochre, Bistot, Crokite, Spodumain, and Mercoxit are all also noticeably more valuable to a miner then veldspar and hi-sec ores. Drones may be a more effective way for you PvPers to get the minerals and money. But there are people (Read:Industrial corp carebears) that WANT to mine. They would be orgasmic to be able to quadruple their hourly income, and that includes a substantial corp tax to "pay" for the right. But right now...evidently, you just shoot some drones, get your minerals, and call it good. Why bother letting them mine in your space? Also, as for protection...a halfway decent intel channel constitutes significant carebear protection. If no one can get within 5 jumps of the miners without them knowing, they aren't really in danger. Also, if local gains 10 reds/a cyno field, hope they're smart enough to dock/hide on their own.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:24:00 - [3004] Originally by: Verlisia Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 20:58:23 Originally by: Verlisia people who complain about having to bring everything from empire are just stupid. You can build almost everything on site with the right towers and stations. The only thing anyone should have to bring down are maybe componets to build T2 stuff and maybe some things for invention. If your Alliance is based on Ratters and Moongoo then that's your problem. Clearing a single system of its minerals refining them in the local station/pos with good skills and having people build all manner of stuff you need solves the whole ship replacement problem as well. My group does only 1 major mining op a week and we manage to collect enough materials to build enough cruisers/battle cruisers to supply everyone with replacements and were only based in high/low sec. Null sec groups have access to much greater quantities of materials then we do they just don't properly utilize their full potential. If you idiots used the materials on hand to build what you needed instead of grinding rats all day to pay for stuff then you'd be better off. Anyone who doesn't maximize efficiency of the materials given to them rather then just depending on the direct income of bounties and moons deserve to fail. No matter how many miners you have clearing out your system, to survive in 0.0 you will always need to import at the very least Tritanium. Battleships are the bread and butter of every 0.0 fleet looking to accomplish anything substantial (take moons, take systems). You could mine dry and entire system in 0.0 and get enough Trit for maybe two or three battleships. Now keep in mind you need to replace these on an alliance level. You need to replace ~20 battleships every week assuming you don't have a major loss. Often times it is much easier and more cost effective to import Tritanium or just import ships. Also things like: implants, POS modules, and of course fuel among other things often cannot be acquired outside of importation either because they are NPC seeded or because they do not exist in your region. That's not true though about the trit... you only need 13 or so million trit to build a abaddon for instance with a ME of 0. there's more than 13 Mill worth of trit in one belt in empire belts. ( we mine usually about 2 belts at a time and at the end of it all we typically end up with about 25-30+ mill of trit depending on if we concentrante solely on veld or not. so that's a battle ship per belt and they respawn fairly often enough that you could draw in enough materials in a week with a group of dedicated industry guys who know what their doing to provide loads of ships including bs's. There is also the issue that while I am mining Veldspar and Scordite 23 hours a day I could be ratting or running Level 4 missions and make more than enough ISK to just buy the Tritanium and import it. In actuality I can gather more Tritanium faster by ratting and using my ISK to buy it in empire and import it to 0.0 than i could by just mining it.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:25:00 - [3005] Originally by: Verlisia That's not true though about the trit... you only need 13 or so million trit to build a abaddon for instance with a ME of 0. there's more than 13 Mill worth of trit in one belt in empire belts. ( we mine usually about 2 belts at a time and at the end of it all we typically end up with about 25-30+ mill of trit depending on if we concentrante solely on veld or not. so that's a battle ship per belt and they respawn fairly often enough that you could draw in enough materials in a week with a group of dedicated industry guys who know what their doing to provide loads of ships including bs's. Ill do fast explanation to you. Lets say it takes you one hour to mine 10mil trit with 2 people (no idea how fast it is in reality). this means 2 people made 30mil isk = 15mil/hour/person. If those 2 people did NPCing/lv4's/whatever giving 30mil/hour you would end up with 60mil isk. For 30mil isk you buy the trit you would have mined anyways and rest 30mil isk is spares you can use for whatever (or to buy another 10mil trit). As a result your 2 "miners" end up with 10mil trit in hands and 2 "npcers" end up with 20 mil in same time. Understood? And in reality thats the mining issue in 0.0. Its easier to NPC/plex and buy needed trit from empire afk-miners/macros instead of mining it yourself. Increase trit amount per m3 by factor of 5 (or more, need to do maths here) and it suddenly starts being comeptetive.
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:29:00 - [3006] Originally by: Qlanth There is also the issue that while I am mining Veldspar and Scordite 23 hours a day I could be ratting or running Level 4 missions and make more than enough ISK to just buy the Tritanium and import it. In actuality I can gather more Tritanium faster by ratting and using my ISK to buy it in empire and import it to 0.0 than i could by just mining it. We have an inconsistency. (Maybe. I didnt actually keep track of who exactly was complaining about what.) On one hand, there is no reason to mine trit in 0.0 because you can just make money ratting and import the stuff. On the other hand, 0.0 is SOOOO HARD because it takes so much work and logistics to import stuff and its unfair and totally not cool. Either import the stuff, and deal with the logistics, or mine it yourself and don't. The opportunity cost, as people here seem to be so fond of bringing up, of importing stuff is that...you have to do the importing. Perhaps a mining gang could spend less time to mine it themselves, and then in the time saved not hauling **** you could rat/whatever. Even more money! And again, some people like mining. They dont want to rat all day every day.
Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:34:00 - [3007] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Verlisia Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 20:58:23 Originally by: Verlisia people who complain about having to bring everything from empire are just stupid. You can build almost everything on site with the right towers and stations. The only thing anyone should have to bring down are maybe componets to build T2 stuff and maybe some things for invention. If your Alliance is based on Ratters and Moongoo then that's your problem. Clearing a single system of its minerals refining them in the local station/pos with good skills and having people build all manner of stuff you need solves the whole ship replacement problem as well. My group does only 1 major mining op a week and we manage to collect enough materials to build enough cruisers/battle cruisers to supply everyone with replacements and were only based in high/low sec. Null sec groups have access to much greater quantities of materials then we do they just don't properly utilize their full potential. If you idiots used the materials on hand to build what you needed instead of grinding rats all day to pay for stuff then you'd be better off. Anyone who doesn't maximize efficiency of the materials given to them rather then just depending on the direct income of bounties and moons deserve to fail. No matter how many miners you have clearing out your system, to survive in 0.0 you will always need to import at the very least Tritanium. Battleships are the bread and butter of every 0.0 fleet looking to accomplish anything substantial (take moons, take systems). You could mine dry and entire system in 0.0 and get enough Trit for maybe two or three battleships. Now keep in mind you need to replace these on an alliance level. You need to replace ~20 battleships every week assuming you don't have a major loss. Often times it is much easier and more cost effective to import Tritanium or just import ships. Also things like: implants, POS modules, and of course fuel among other things often cannot be acquired outside of importation either because they are NPC seeded or because they do not exist in your region. That's not true though about the trit... you only need 13 or so million trit to build a abaddon for instance with a ME of 0. there's more than 13 Mill worth of trit in one belt in empire belts. ( we mine usually about 2 belts at a time and at the end of it all we typically end up with about 25-30+ mill of trit depending on if we concentrante solely on veld or not. so that's a battle ship per belt and they respawn fairly often enough that you could draw in enough materials in a week with a group of dedicated industry guys who know what their doing to provide loads of ships including bs's. There is also the issue that while I am mining Veldspar and Scordite 23 hours a day I could be ratting or running Level 4 missions and make more than enough ISK to just buy the Tritanium and import it. In actuality I can gather more Tritanium faster by ratting and using my ISK to buy it in empire and import it to 0.0 than i could by just mining it. So i suppose that running lvl 4 missions for an hr gets you as much trit and isk then gathering 10 or so people to clear a belt in the same amount of time and i suppose having to move it all the way out to your base of production while running the lvl 4's are all done within that same amount of time? we donate our time for that one day to fund the free ships and do 50/50 ops to pay people for their time as well to suppliment the weekly donation. given that we can build nearly all the ships we need and equipment as well our members dont have to grind as much to pay for their own goods and instead of spending it on ships spend it on better gear and implants... but i suppose your methods of looking out only for yourselves is a much better way of doing thing?
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:36:00 - [3008] Originally by: Alice Celadon The REAL problem hasn't been mentioned yet, and it's a simple economic one. We don't sell our finished goods to NPCs in this game...they all go to other players. That means there is a mostly static pool of available ISK in the game which facilitates transactions. CCP just created a monumental ISK sink. Buckets of ISK are about to disappear every 14 days. What mechanic has been put in place to increase the influx of ISK? None. Let me repeat this slowly, because I don't think people get this yet. Moon goo doesn't make ISK. Mining doesn't make ISK. T3 production doesn't make ISK. Bounties, mission rewards, and tags (sleeper belongings, etc.) are the ONLY things that make ISK, and these haven't been buffed in the slightest...but the availability of ISK in general is about to take a massive hit. ... This means one of 3 things. 1. Massive isk generation mechanism CCP hasn't revealed yet. 2. 0.0 gets really abandoned, really quickly. 3. The market goes batpoo insane. As Trit falls off a freaking cliff in comparison to ISK value, BS manufacture/insurance/self-destruct becomes the de-facto method for making ISK. Seriously CCP...don't you morons have an economist working for you? Walk down the freakin hall and ask him about this. Insurance. It transmute minerals into isk. Ant that is the reason why minerals have a value. Without insurance they would be wort even less.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:37:00 - [3009] Originally by: Orthaen Originally by: Qlanth There is also the issue that while I am mining Veldspar and Scordite 23 hours a day I could be ratting or running Level 4 missions and make more than enough ISK to just buy the Tritanium and import it. In actuality I can gather more Tritanium faster by ratting and using my ISK to buy it in empire and import it to 0.0 than i could by just mining it. We have an inconsistency. (Maybe. I didnt actually keep track of who exactly was complaining about what.) On one hand, there is no reason to mine trit in 0.0 because you can just make money ratting and import the stuff. On the other hand, 0.0 is SOOOO HARD because it takes so much work and logistics to import stuff and its unfair and totally not cool. Either import the stuff, and deal with the logistics, or mine it yourself and don't. The opportunity cost, as people here seem to be so fond of bringing up, of importing stuff is that...you have to do the importing. Perhaps a mining gang could spend less time to mine it themselves, and then in the time saved not hauling **** you could rat/whatever. Even more money! And again, some people like mining. They dont want to rat all day every day. And that is fine. They can mine all day but they need to realize their opportunity cost. I can be making 30 million ISK/hr ratting, but if I mine to make 15million ISK/hr, I am suffering a 15 million ISK opportunity cost. And guess what? 0.0 alliances have been dealing with the logistics of importation from, literally, day one. People complain about this but no one expects CCP to start seeding 0.0 space with NPC goods. The problem arises when people either fail or refuse to recognize that increase risk and increase in work maintaining that space should result in increased reward. CCP does recognize this because they are attempting to give us the incentive of being able increase the profitability of our space through sovereignty upgrades. Except the upgrades are almost completely worthless and still do very little to address the issue of scalability of resources in 0.0. Level 4s are infinitely scalable. You can have essentially thousands of players running missions from the exact same agent in the exact same system. Every 0.0 system can hold at most 2 people.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:40:00 - [3010] Originally by: Verlisia Originally by: Qlanth You could mine dry and entire system in 0.0 and get enough Trit for maybe two or three battleships. That's not true though about the trit... you only need 13 or so million trit to build a abaddon for instance with a ME of 0. there's more than 13 Mill worth of trit in one belt in empire belts Do you see the where you didn't manage to argue, disprove or contradict the point he made? Originally by: Orthaen Mining? Exploration? All the things dominion adds? These are all far superior to hi-sec. …apart from the fact that a CCP representative has claimed that the only thing we have any actual info on will not be far superior — it will, in fact, be on par, at best, with the equivalent highsec activity. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:41:00 - [3011] Originally by: Verlisia Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Verlisia Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 20:58:23 No matter how many miners you have clearing out your system, to survive in 0.0 you will always need to import at the very least Tritanium. Battleships are the bread and butter of every 0.0 fleet looking to accomplish anything substantial (take moons, take systems). You could mine dry and entire system in 0.0 and get enough Trit for maybe two or three battleships. Now keep in mind you need to replace these on an alliance level. You need to replace ~20 battleships every week assuming you don't have a major loss. Often times it is much easier and more cost effective to import Tritanium or just import ships. Also things like: implants, POS modules, and of course fuel among other things often cannot be acquired outside of importation either because they are NPC seeded or because they do not exist in your region. That's not true though about the trit... you only need 13 or so million trit to build a abaddon for instance with a ME of 0. there's more than 13 Mill worth of trit in one belt in empire belts. ( we mine usually about 2 belts at a time and at the end of it all we typically end up with about 25-30+ mill of trit depending on if we concentrante solely on veld or not. so that's a battle ship per belt and they respawn fairly often enough that you could draw in enough materials in a week with a group of dedicated industry guys who know what their doing to provide loads of ships including bs's. There is also the issue that while I am mining Veldspar and Scordite 23 hours a day I could be ratting or running Level 4 missions and make more than enough ISK to just buy the Tritanium and import it. In actuality I can gather more Tritanium faster by ratting and using my ISK to buy it in empire and import it to 0.0 than i could by just mining it. So i suppose that running lvl 4 missions for an hr gets you as much trit and isk then gathering 10 or so people to clear a belt in the same amount of time and i suppose having to move it all the way out to your base of production while running the lvl 4's are all done within that same amount of time? we donate our time for that one day to fund the free ships and do 50/50 ops to pay people for their time as well to suppliment the weekly donation. given that we can build nearly all the ships we need and equipment as well our members dont have to grind as much to pay for their own goods and instead of spending it on ships spend it on better gear and implants... but i suppose your methods of looking out only for yourselves is a much better way of doing thing? Your argument doesn't make any sense because you are talking about one person running a Level 4 versus 10 people mining. If I have 10 people running level 4s and using all of their profits to purchase Tritanium off of the market versus 10 people in Hulks mining out belts in 0.0 space the people running Level 4s will be able to produce more Tritanium by the end of the week. Its not a matter of opinion its a fact. Do you really think if people could get more Tritanium faster by mining in 0.0 they wouldn't already be doing it? People strive in this game to make as much ISK as fast as they possibly can.
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:44:00 - [3012] Edited by: Mahke on 10/11/2009 21:44:34 Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Alice Celadon The REAL problem hasn't been mentioned yet, and it's a simple economic one. We don't sell our finished goods to NPCs in this game...they all go to other players. That means there is a mostly static pool of available ISK in the game which facilitates transactions. CCP just created a monumental ISK sink. Buckets of ISK are about to disappear every 14 days. What mechanic has been put in place to increase the influx of ISK? None. Let me repeat this slowly, because I don't think people get this yet. Moon goo doesn't make ISK. Mining doesn't make ISK. T3 production doesn't make ISK. Bounties, mission rewards, and tags (sleeper belongings, etc.) are the ONLY things that make ISK, and these haven't been buffed in the slightest...but the availability of ISK in general is about to take a massive hit. ... This means one of 3 things. 1. Massive isk generation mechanism CCP hasn't revealed yet. 2. 0.0 gets really abandoned, really quickly. 3. The market goes batpoo insane. As Trit falls off a freaking cliff in comparison to ISK value, BS manufacture/insurance/self-destruct becomes the de-facto method for making ISK. Seriously CCP...don't you morons have an economist working for you? Walk down the freakin hall and ask him about this. Insurance. It transmute minerals into isk. Ant that is the reason why minerals have a value. Without insurance they would be wort even less. Confirmed that minerals --> insurance isk is going on on a massive scale atm.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:44:00 - [3013] Originally by: Verlisia So i suppose that running lvl 4 missions for an hr gets you as much trit and isk then gathering 10 or so people to clear a belt in the same amount of time and i suppose having to move it all the way out to your base of production while running the lvl 4's are all done within that same amount of time? we donate our time for that one day to fund the free ships and do 50/50 ops to pay people for their time as well to suppliment the weekly donation. given that we can build nearly all the ships we need and equipment as well our members dont have to grind as much to pay for their own goods and instead of spending it on ships spend it on better gear and implants... but i suppose your methods of looking out only for yourselves is a much better way of doing thing? If all those people running level 4s donated their isk to a collective pool they would be able to purchase more tritanium than if they spent the same amount of time mining it. Does this make sense to you or are you really just this dumb?
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:45:00 - [3014] Mining in 0.0 1, MAX refinery in a pos structure is 75%, its irrelevant of skills. 2, People seem to think that all of nulsec belts are full of all the rare mins, again shows complete lack of knowledge, some region may have one or two systems that have special mins, and guess what. They like the rare moons are in the hands of the big alliances and thus it shall remain.
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:45:00 - [3015] Originally by: Deva Blackfire And in reality thats the mining issue in 0.0. Its easier to NPC/plex and buy needed trit from empire afk-miners/macros instead of mining it yourself. Unless, of course, you limit NPC/plexing resources such that not everyone can be doing it at any given time. By doing so, even though the amount earned mining will still be less per hour than when ratting, 0.0 will then require a more diverse skill set among your alliance members to fully exploit the space you live in. People are basically arguing that there isn't enough strawberry (ratting) in the neopolitan ice cream that is 0.0 space.
Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:48:00 - [3016] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Verlisia Originally by: Qlanth You could mine dry and entire system in 0.0 and get enough Trit for maybe two or three battleships. That's not true though about the trit... you only need 13 or so million trit to build a abaddon for instance with a ME of 0. there's more than 13 Mill worth of trit in one belt in empire belts Do you see the where you didn't manage to argue, disprove or contradict the point he made? Originally by: Orthaen Mining? Exploration? All the things dominion adds? These are all far superior to hi-sec. àapart from the fact that a CCP representative has claimed that the only thing we have any actual info on will not be far superior ù it will, in fact, be on par, at best, with the equivalent highsec activity. He said that there was only enough trit for maybe 2 or 3 battleships in an entire system. There's enough trit in one belt for a battleship usually. so under that thinking a system doesn't have enough for 2 or 3 it has enough to build nearly an equal to the number of belts in the system. Most systems have at least 4-6 belts so there's 4-6 battleships putting your mining operations in a system with 10 or more belts and having dedicated miners and industrialist exploiting them would produce a good quantities of ships every day.... and that's battle ships you can build a hell of alot more cruisers and battle cruisers for the same amount of materials as a single battle ship.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:50:00 - [3017] Over 100 pages of WAHHHHH. Awesome. I bet goons would be ultra rich if dominion paid any amount of isk per hour for *****ing. Theres really two points made That the new "sov" is too expensive for the benefits. The individual in null doesnt make enough isk per hour. Too this i say- A. deal with it, B. Stop being lazy and do something other then gate camp and maybe you will make some isk
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:51:00 - [3018] Edited by: Tippia on 10/11/2009 21:55:40 Originally by: Honest Smedley Unless, of course, you limit NPC/plexing resources such that not everyone can be doing it at any given time. By doing so, even though the amount earned mining will still be less per hour than when ratting, 0.0 will then require a more diverse skill set among your alliance members to fully exploit the space you live in. …or, as people have been trying to get across, just clonejump back to empire and do infinite amounts of L4s to get the same level of income. So no, it will not require a more diverse skill set — it just requires that people spend less time in 0.0, contrary to the goals of the patch. Originally by: Verlisia He said that there was only enough trit for maybe 2 or 3 battleships in an entire system. There's enough trit in one belt for a battleship usually. Ok, so you didn't see the crucial detail where what you said didn't in any way comment on what he said. He said there wasn't enough trit in a nullsec system. You said there was enough trit in a highsec belt. In other words, here too, the best way to provide resources for your 0.0 empire will be not to be in 0.0, but in empire, contrary to the stated goals of the patch. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:52:00 - [3019] Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Deva Blackfire And in reality thats the mining issue in 0.0. Its easier to NPC/plex and buy needed trit from empire afk-miners/macros instead of mining it yourself. Unless, of course, you limit NPC/plexing resources such that not everyone can be doing it at any given time. By doing so, even though the amount earned mining will still be less per hour than when ratting, 0.0 will then require a more diverse skill set among your alliance members to fully exploit the space you live in. People are basically arguing that there isn't enough strawberry (ratting) in the neopolitan ice cream that is 0.0 space. Not when you have an unlimited strawberry called empire.
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:53:00 - [3020] Originally by: Qlanth And that is fine. They can mine all day but they need to realize their opportunity cost. I can be making 30 million ISK/hr ratting, but if I mine to make 15million ISK/hr, I am suffering a 15 million ISK opportunity cost. And guess what? 0.0 alliances have been dealing with the logistics of importation from, literally, day one. People complain about this but no one expects CCP to start seeding 0.0 space with NPC goods. The problem arises when people either fail or refuse to recognize that increase risk and increase in work maintaining that space should result in increased reward. CCP does recognize this because they are attempting to give us the incentive of being able increase the profitability of our space through sovereignty upgrades. Except the upgrades are almost completely worthless and still do very little to address the issue of scalability of resources in 0.0. Level 4s are infinitely scalable. You can have essentially thousands of players running missions from the exact same agent in the exact same system. Every 0.0 system can hold at most 2 people. The point I was making that alliances dont HAVE to deal with the hell of importing, at least not to the same degree. You can make 30 mil/hour ratting compared to the 15 mil/hour of Veldspar, but the trit you buy has to get to 0.0 somehow. Someone in your alliance imports it. Instead, the 2 of you could mine veldspar for an hour, make 15 million, then save 2 hours importing, and then rat for 2 hours and make 30 million each. Yes, Qlanth has made less isk, but GoonSwarm has made more isk. The focus of Dominion is on cooperation between alliance members to succeed, supposedly. By making jump bridges so much more expensive, and mining much viable they seem to be succeeding. Because eventually, the monkey you've got spending all of his time importing so YOU can make more ISK is going to quit, and then you'll be **ed.. Well, not you...Goons will always have a long line of willing monkey-recruits. But, ya know...other alliances. Also, bull dung "the only upgrade we know about is only on par with empire" All upgrades are currently on SiSi. That means you can test every single upgrade if you want. Mining, at the very least provides 43 million/hour in a meager hulk, not counting hauling time. In hi-sec, you're looking at 10 million. No difference? No incentive for to work towards 0.0? Can't speak for Radar/Magnetometric/Ladar sites. I assume they're more profitable in 0.0, purely from rat bounties. 6/10-10/10 plexes are also worth less then 2/10 plexes, hmm? I think a lot of the people complaining about how much better hi-sec is havent spent much time in hisec. I've already covered level 4s. More then 0.0 is open to debate, I suppose. I dont see how...a single officer drop from ratting and you're in the lead by a long shot. Yes, they make money. Yes, they're boring. If all you want to do is make ISK, then become a trader and quit your ***ing. Games are about FUN. That includes FUN ways of making isk. Lets do more opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of you having fun in 0.0 is marginally less isk then running level 4s. If the fun isnt worth it to you, then get out of 0.0. Make more room for the people that want to play the game.

Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:55:00 - [3021] Originally by: Verlisia Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 20:58:23 No matter how many miners you have clearing out your system, to survive in 0.0 you will always need to import at the very least Tritanium. Battleships are the bread and butter of every 0.0 fleet looking to accomplish anything substantial (take moons, take systems). You could mine dry and entire system in 0.0 and get enough Trit for maybe two or three battleships. Now keep in mind you need to replace these on an alliance level. You need to replace ~20 battleships every week assuming you don't have a major loss. Often times it is much easier and more cost effective to import Tritanium or just import ships. Also things like: implants, POS modules, and of course fuel among other things often cannot be acquired outside of importation either because they are NPC seeded or because they do not exist in your region. That's not true though about the trit... you only need 13 or so million trit to build a abaddon for instance with a ME of 0. there's more than 13 Mill worth of trit in one belt in empire belts. ( we mine usually about 2 belts at a time and at the end of it all we typically end up with about 25-30+ mill of trit depending on if we concentrante solely on veld or not. so that's a battle ship per belt and they respawn fairly often enough that you could draw in enough materials in a week with a group of dedicated industry guys who know what their doing to provide loads of ships including bs's. There is also the issue that while I am mining Veldspar and Scordite 23 hours a day I could be ratting or running Level 4 missions and make more than enough ISK to just buy the Tritanium and import it. In actuality I can gather more Tritanium faster by ratting and using my ISK to buy it in empire and import it to 0.0 than i could by just mining it. So i suppose that running lvl 4 missions for an hr gets you as much trit and isk then gathering 10 or so people to clear a belt in the same amount of time and i suppose having to move it all the way out to your base of production while running the lvl 4's are all done within that same amount of time? we donate our time for that one day to fund the free ships and do 50/50 ops to pay people for their time as well to suppliment the weekly donation. given that we can build nearly all the ships we need and equipment as well our members dont have to grind as much to pay for their own goods and instead of spending it on ships spend it on better gear and implants... but i suppose your methods of looking out only for yourselves is a much better way of doing thing? Your argument doesn't make any sense because you are talking about one person running a Level 4 versus 10 people mining. If I have 10 people running level 4s and using all of their profits to purchase Tritanium off of the market versus 10 people in Hulks mining out belts in 0.0 space the people running Level 4s will be able to produce more Tritanium by the end of the week. Its not a matter of opinion its a fact. Do you really think if people could get more Tritanium faster by mining in 0.0 they wouldn't already be doing it? People strive in this game to make as much ISK as fast as they possibly can. you may make more in a hr that way but you have to deal with the logistics of moving the minerals and the risk is higher (usually) when you have to move goods through several jumps than and it takes time to do that as well in which your not earning any isk at all. Plus why do you need all that isk anyway whats the point in having 5 billion isk when you only fly sub capitol ships (talking myself here) I don't need to worry about tons of isk to suppliment my losses i just work on taking fewer losses so i don't have to grind missions or isk to support a pvp habit.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:56:00 - [3022] Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Deva Blackfire And in reality thats the mining issue in 0.0. Its easier to NPC/plex and buy needed trit from empire afk-miners/macros instead of mining it yourself. Unless, of course, you limit NPC/plexing resources such that not everyone can be doing it at any given time. By doing so, even though the amount earned mining will still be less per hour than when ratting, 0.0 will then require a more diverse skill set among your alliance members to fully exploit the space you live in. People are basically arguing that there isn't enough strawberry (ratting) in the neopolitan ice cream that is 0.0 space. I think they're more whining that the neopolitan is made of strawberry, mud, and snow when it should be made of strawberry, choc, and vanilla. ****ing whining goons I make my ice cream from your tears
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:00:00 - [3023] Edited by: Tesal on 10/11/2009 22:02:50 Originally by: Qlanth And that is fine. They can mine all day but they need to realize their opportunity cost. I can be making 30 million ISK/hr ratting, but if I mine to make 15million ISK/hr, I am suffering a 15 million ISK opportunity cost. And guess what? 0.0 alliances have been dealing with the logistics of importation from, literally, day one. People complain about this but no one expects CCP to start seeding 0.0 space with NPC goods. The problem arises when people either fail or refuse to recognize that increase risk and increase in work maintaining that space should result in increased reward. CCP does recognize this because they are attempting to give us the incentive of being able increase the profitability of our space through sovereignty upgrades. Except the upgrades are almost completely worthless and still do very little to address the issue of scalability of resources in 0.0. Level 4s are infinitely scalable. You can have essentially thousands of players running missions from the exact same agent in the exact same system. Every 0.0 system can hold at most 2 people. Ok, now you are just whining and repeating yourself. Stop crying. edit Hey, here is an idea, fly your T3 cruiser gang into a wormhole with your fancy new wormhole generator upgrades, rat your brains out, then jump back home with your loot. never stop posting...with alts.* Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:02:00 - [3024] Quote: Mining? Exploration? All the things dominion adds? These are all far superior to hi-sec. Despite complaints that mining in 0.0 is worthless, it is far far far better then mining in hi-sec. Veldspar comes in at 81 isk/m3. Arkonor rocks out at 481 isk/m3. Gneiss, Dark Ochre, Bistot, Crokite, Spodumain, and Mercoxit are all also noticeably more valuable to a miner then veldspar and hi-sec ores. Then how comes that all those (few systems a region or so that is) ABC roids stay idle, while CCP had to raise the respawn or "lol income" tritanium in high sec? Expecially after they banned most miner bots? For my question: how do the expansion changes entice my Empire based alt corp to move to 0.0? Because if this is the expansion intent, I don't see... why. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:02:00 - [3025] Why do people assume that every 0.0 system or even constellation can be self sustaining mineral wise for production, its so far from the truth its laughable. I say again the majority of 0.0 systems do not have all the mins. Also to have an effective industry do you realise how many more pos's need to be put up for all the needed construction arrays, that of course then need fueling... all this just to try and be on level par with empire manufacturing, which it wont ever be from the base loss of 25% of your minerals from pos refining your ore... wonder how many also realise that refining in a pos ISN'T instant either, thus more pos's to refine quickly enough. For those trying to argue that non logistically supported 0.0 manufacturing is even remotely on par with empire needs to get there head out there ass and learn some facts.
Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:06:00 - [3026] My replies in red, because I feel like it Originally by: ServantOfMask Originally by: McDaddy Pimp For "peaceful" type alliance. 1. System wide taxation of rat bounties. A percentage of each rat bounties will go to the system owners, and these can also be set to percentage based on standings etc. Blues pay 5%, neutral 10%, reds 20% etc. except every (NBSI) alliance will set non-blue taxes to 100%. Or CCP could make it so that the most in system ratting by an ALLIANCE can be set is 20% so it can't be abused and even enemies can rat your space, just call ratting by anyone not in alliance "unknown" so people can't be locator agented. Originally by: McDaddy Pimp CVA wont go bankrupt and we probally will see more CVA-type alliance. they shat out outposts left and right, maybe they deserve to go bankrupt. "too big to fail" sound familiar? They shat out outposts in the WORST region of space (seriously even IMMENSEA and PUREBLIND have better resources) and they turned it into a 0.0 mecha for anyone that could abide by the rules. They litterally took a region that has the economics of low sec and turned it into something that most everyone in this game can respect. That isn't 'to big to fail' it's hard work in a crappy place that shouldn't be punished.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:07:00 - [3027] Originally by: Verlisia So i suppose that running lvl 4 missions for an hr gets you as much trit and isk then gathering 10 or so people to clear a belt in the same amount of time and i suppose having to move it all the way out to your base of production while running the lvl 4's are all done within that same amount of time? we donate our time for that one day to fund the free ships and do 50/50 ops to pay people for their time as well to suppliment the weekly donation. given that we can build nearly all the ships we need and equipment as well our members dont have to grind as much to pay for their own goods and instead of spending it on ships spend it on better gear and implants... but i suppose your methods of looking out only for yourselves is a much better way of doing thing? Qlanth is right on this one. I understand your point of view and I guess this is what CCP wanted to do with 0.0 but.. Example situation: I am looking for someone to build ships for me and I have 2 options: 1) Ship manufacturer with perfect skills who can rat/mission for 30M/hour and trade it for minerals worth 30M/hour. 2) Ship manufacturer with perfect skills who can mine minerals worth 15M/hour. I have no reason to hire a miner unless I hire 2 of them instead of 1 mission runners. What are the benefits of hiring the miners? Next to none. (miners might be actually cheaper workers...?)
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:07:00 - [3028] Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 22:11:12 Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 22:09:34 Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 22:09:10 Quote: Quote: Quote: Originally by: Verlisia There is also the issue that while I am mining Veldspar and Scordite 23 hours a day I could be ratting or running Level 4 missions and make more than enough ISK to just buy the Tritanium and import it. In actuality I can gather more Tritanium faster by ratting and using my ISK to buy it in empire and import it to 0.0 than i could by just mining it. So i suppose that running lvl 4 missions for an hr gets you as much trit and isk then gathering 10 or so people to clear a belt in the same amount of time and i suppose having to move it all the way out to your base of production while running the lvl 4's are all done within that same amount of time? we donate our time for that one day to fund the free ships and do 50/50 ops to pay people for their time as well to suppliment the weekly donation. given that we can build nearly all the ships we need and equipment as well our members dont have to grind as much to pay for their own goods and instead of spending it on ships spend it on better gear and implants... but i suppose your methods of looking out only for yourselves is a much better way of doing thing? Your argument doesn't make any sense because you are talking about one person running a Level 4 versus 10 people mining. If I have 10 people running level 4s and using all of their profits to purchase Tritanium off of the market versus 10 people in Hulks mining out belts in 0.0 space the people running Level 4s will be able to produce more Tritanium by the end of the week. Its not a matter of opinion its a fact. Do you really think if people could get more Tritanium faster by mining in 0.0 they wouldn't already be doing it? People strive in this game to make as much ISK as fast as they possibly can. you may make more in a hr that way but you have to deal with the logistics of moving the minerals and the risk is higher (usually) when you have to move goods through several jumps than and it takes time to do that as well in which your not earning any isk at all. Plus why do you need all that isk anyway whats the point in having 5 billion isk when you only fly sub capitol ships (talking myself here) I don't need to worry about tons of isk to suppliment my losses i just work on taking fewer losses so i don't have to grind missions or isk to support a pvp habit. Lets say I imposed a race on 20 players split into two groups of 10. They each had 7 days to gather as much Tritanium as possible and put it in my home system of C3N. One group decides to mine it with hulks right inside the C3N system, which is a refinery. The other group decides to run Level 4 missions, buy the Tritanium from Empire with ISk and import it to 0.0 space using freighters or jump freighters. What would be the outcome? Every hour the miners would gathering 15 million ISK of tritanium. Every hour the mission runner would be gathering 30 million ISK of tritanium. After 3 and a half days of this competition the mission runners will have so much tritanium that the other team will not be able to catch up in the remaining 3 and a half days. So after, say, 5 days the mission runners stop and begin importing their tritanium. By the 7th day they will have all their tritanium in the system. Even though the miners never left C3N and even though the miners had to import it in the end the risk and work of importing gives a better reward. e: Edited this post so that it didnt get cut off
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:09:00 - [3029] Originally by: Verlisia you may make more in a hr that way but you have to deal with the logistics of moving the minerals and the risk is higher (usually) when you have to move goods through several jumps than and it takes time to do that as well in which your not earning any isk at all. No, what you do is that you also use the minerals in highsec to build, say, ships. Suddenly, those ~200,000m¦ worth of minerals that go into building an Abaddon becomes a… well, Abaddon, which only requires 50,000m¦ to move (and can even move by its own, if you can't find a hauler). By keeping the process in highsec for as long as possible, you increase the return on your time, you improve on your manufacturing capabilities, and you decrease the logistical requirements. Ore compression ftw. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:09:00 - [3030] Originally by: Niamota Olin Why do people assume that every 0.0 system or even constellation can be self sustaining mineral wise for production, its so far from the truth its laughable. I say again the majority of 0.0 systems do not have all the mins. Also to have an effective industry do you realise how many more pos's need to be put up for all the needed construction arrays, that of course then need fueling... all this just to try and be on level par with empire manufacturing, which it wont ever be from the base loss of 25% of your minerals from pos refining your ore... wonder how many also realise that refining in a pos ISN'T instant either, thus more pos's to refine quickly enough. For those trying to argue that non logistically supported 0.0 manufacturing is even remotely on par with empire needs to get there head out there ass and learn some facts. We use our pos's to build stuffs as well we don't refine in them obviously but yes the whole chain of production is a pain in the ass for any one or 4 people that's why you have people who handle each step independently of each other while still working together. we have one team who focus on gathering one on reprocessing and moving stuff that needs to be moved and one that handles production and if you keep your arrays in constant use by several people you can get alot done within a fair amount of time. each team is made up of several people so that the resonsiblilites are spread out and on one person going idle breaks the chain. Then there's a whole other group that handles the pos's and other stuff that needs to be done as well.

Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:14:00 - [3031] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: Mining? Exploration? All the things dominion adds? These are all far superior to hi-sec. Despite complaints that mining in 0.0 is worthless, it is far far far better then mining in hi-sec. Veldspar comes in at 81 isk/m3. Arkonor rocks out at 481 isk/m3. Gneiss, Dark Ochre, Bistot, Crokite, Spodumain, and Mercoxit are all also noticeably more valuable to a miner then veldspar and hi-sec ores. Then how comes that all those (few systems a region or so that is) ABC roids stay idle, while CCP had to raise the respawn or "lol income" tritanium in high sec? Expecially after they banned most miner bots? Because the miners are in hi-sec, mining veldspar. if they come near the ABC roids, they get BLOWN UP. That is the 0.0 alliances choice, to restrict access to their space to people they consider a viable asset, i.e. combat pilots. In return, they have to deal with importing everything from hisec. Again, that is their choice. The changes in dominion add a greater incentive to mine the stuff yourself, by greatly increasing mineral quantity in 0.0, and increasing the cost of import. As to production in 0.0...yes, all systems to do have minerals to support production...in Dominion. Thats what the expansion does. As I mentioned, if you cant deal with the POS refine rates, refine in an NPC station, or get an outpost. About manufacturing slots in 0.0...yes, they could use a buffing. But, you're greatly overestimating how many POSes you'd need to manufacture in 0.0. One POS could put out 6-9 BSes every 3 hours or so. One POS could produce an enormous amount of modules, somewhere around 100 manufacturing slots. The same applies to ammo, and smaller ships. The only real concern is BSes and cap ships, and if your alliance needs more then 30 BSes a day, well...get a second POS. Big deal. For the nine hundredth time, if you want to stay in empire running level 4s, nothing CCP will do can change your mind. The game is yours to play how you choose.
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:16:00 - [3032] Originally by: Shawna Gray Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Deva Blackfire And in reality thats the mining issue in 0.0. Its easier to NPC/plex and buy needed trit from empire afk-miners/macros instead of mining it yourself. Unless, of course, you limit NPC/plexing resources such that not everyone can be doing it at any given time. By doing so, even though the amount earned mining will still be less per hour than when ratting, 0.0 will then require a more diverse skill set among your alliance members to fully exploit the space you live in. People are basically arguing that there isn't enough strawberry (ratting) in the neopolitan ice cream that is 0.0 space. Not when you have an unlimited strawberry called empire. ...and that is where people are wrong. Empire missioning is vanilla; safe, predictable, always available and boring. Some people do prefer vanilla, however.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:16:00 - [3033] Originally by: Qlanth Lets say I imposed a race on 20 players split into two groups of 10. They each had 7 days to gather as much Tritanium as possible and put it in my home system of C3N. One group decides to mine it with hulks right inside the C3N system, which is a refinery. The other group decides to run Level 4 missions, buy the Tritanium from Empire with ISk and import it to 0.0 space using freighters or jump freighters. What would be the outcome? Every hour the miners would gathering 15 million ISK of tritanium. Every hour the mission runner would be gathering 30 million ISK of tritanium. After 3 and a half days of this competition the mission runners will have so much tritanium that the other team will not be able to catch up in the remaining 3 and a half days. So after, say, 5 days the mission runners stop and begin importing their tritanium. By the 7th day they will have all their tritanium in the system. Even though the miners never left C3N and even though the miners had to import it in the end the risk and work of importing gives a better reward. e: Edited this post so that it didnt get cut off I am starting to develope an idea here. While you transfer everthing into ISK/hour, one thing you overlook here is time value. That means that some people can work 'harder' for the same ISK... What if you could spent /input random number here/ hours less by grinding because you have x miners in your 0.0 space to get all the minerals you need?
Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:17:00 - [3034] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Verlisia So i suppose that running lvl 4 missions for an hr gets you as much trit and isk then gathering 10 or so people to clear a belt in the same amount of time and i suppose having to move it all the way out to your base of production while running the lvl 4's are all done within that same amount of time? we donate our time for that one day to fund the free ships and do 50/50 ops to pay people for their time as well to suppliment the weekly donation. given that we can build nearly all the ships we need and equipment as well our members dont have to grind as much to pay for their own goods and instead of spending it on ships spend it on better gear and implants... but i suppose your methods of looking out only for yourselves is a much better way of doing thing? Qlanth is right on this one. I understand your point of view and I guess this is what CCP wanted to do with 0.0 but.. Example situation: I am looking for someone to build ships for me and I have 2 options: 1) Ship manufacturer with perfect skills who can rat/mission for 30M/hour and trade it for minerals worth 30M/hour. 2) Ship manufacturer with perfect skills who can mine minerals worth 15M/hour. I have no reason to hire a miner unless I hire 2 of them instead of 1 mission runners. What are the benefits of hiring the miners? Next to none. (miners might be actually cheaper workers...?) most miners i know who stick with industry eventually turn into producers ... mining may only make you 15 mill an hr in some cases but you neglect the fact that we can take those minerals that can build things that will sell for a much nicer profit aka i build one item that costs only 60k to build each and eventually sell them for over 500k a piece in one of the major trade hubs... so yes it may be less right now at that moment but it translates into a very nice profit margin when it sells off to the people who grind for 30 mill an hr. i usually play an hr to 2 a day everyother day of the week and i can clear 200 mill a week with only about 6-10 hrs of game time a week is mining so bad at that rate?
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:18:00 - [3035] Originally by: Orthaen For the nine hundredth time, if you want to stay in empire running level 4s, nothing CCP will do can change your mind. The game is yours to play how you choose. True, but that's also the core of the complaint: contrary to the stated goals, Dominion does nothing to change this — quite the opposite. No incentives are added to move out. In fact, by the looks of things, it rather provides further incentives to move to highsec to maintain that 0.0 empire… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:21:00 - [3036] Originally by: Verlisia most miners i know who stick with industry eventually turn into producers ... mining may only make you 15 mill an hr in some cases but you neglect the fact that we can take those minerals that can build things that will sell for a much nicer profit aka i build one item that costs only 60k to build each and eventually sell them for over 500k a piece in one of the major trade hubs... so yes it may be less right now at that moment but it translates into a very nice profit margin when it sells off to the people who grind for 30 mill an hr. i usually play an hr to 2 a day everyother day of the week and i can clear 200 mill a week with only about 6-10 hrs of game time a week is mining so bad at that rate? Wheter you have manufacturing skills or not is irrelevant since you will get the shiip build by alliance in a way or another. It is just a matter of factory slot. It boils down to that you will need to cut your profits if it has to make any sense...which is turning you back to ISK/hour.
Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:23:00 - [3037] Well - I'll take comfort in the fact that I attempted to do something before the train wreck. As for me, I ain't going to be going to null-sec any time soon. And I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not the only one in hi-sec that is thinking same.
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:23:00 - [3038] Originally by: Orthaen For the nine hundredth time, if you want to stay in empire running level 4s, nothing CCP will do can change your mind. The game is yours to play how you choose. They could increase the isk rewards in null sec. That pretty much what this thread boils down too. People want to go to nullsec and make money, but people arent dumb. They dont want to risk dying to make equal or less money. Even if anomalies are the exact same income as level 4s you wont make the exact same money. Youll be taxed to pay upkeep, your ship will get blown up losing you money, and losing you time to replace it, which could be used to be making money, meaning you lose even more money. If people thought they could make double or triple what they make doing level 4s they would flock to try to get to that. They would fight to try to get it, and this expansion would be a success. Sure not everyone would come, but many would. You say nullsec ores are better. Sure some of them are sometimes. But then that ore just dosent turn into minerals when you look at it. Hauling refining and risk are all issues. Even when alliances want to take advantage of them. It only takes one ganker in a system to prevent that. Also the level 4 problem isnt just that it gives you more money than mining would Level 4 loot being refined into minerals is a very huge source of them. Running a level 4 is essentially mining with missiles. Increase the null sec income potentials, drive people out to it. Make them want to stop running level 4s. Then there will be a gap where there loot was giving you minerals. Now maybe people will have a reason to mine.
Renada Trinity	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:25:00 - [3039] Well I actually read most of this...there are good points, but mostly complaining, sorry my opinion. Let me tell you, took a trip in my force recon, down thru the middle of delve, past KIA and ZAF, came up around -a- and atlas then into NC space. Well guess what, most of the systems are empty, nothing, not being used! This patch will allow some of that space to free up and let smaller corp/alliances to form in 0.0 space. Cost, alls I see on these forums CAOD, how all these alliance generated gazillions of isk. Example someone throwing up contract for 10 titans after they lost one. Maybe they nerf the moongoo. What I see is the upgrade is going to make people have to actually work for once in order to keep thier space. Blobs sitting aroud doing nothing doesnt generate tax monies, thats mainly what you see unless there is some fleet battle here or there thru-out the week. Simple fact is, get up, do some work, earn your space, work your space (to make it better) give up what you dont need, the 50 system buffer zones and stop complaining. I think CCP has to look at its customer base, and after not being able to expand into 0.0 why play? That is one reason for this patch too. My $0.02
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:26:00 - [3040] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Orthaen For the nine hundredth time, if you want to stay in empire running level 4s, nothing CCP will do can change your mind. The game is yours to play how you choose. True, but that's also the core of the complaint: contrary to the stated goals, Dominion does nothing to change this ù quite the opposite. No incentives are added to move out. In fact, by the looks of things, it rather provides further incentives to move to highsec to maintain that 0.0 empireà Many new incentives are added. More rare minerals, more deadspace mods, more rats to make more money on. YOU find them unappealing. I'm not sure why. So do many others. I don't understand how having LESS logistic work and MORE money is an incentive to move to empire. Also, mining Arkonor is more profitable then running level 4s. I would imagine mining is not the most profitable activity in 0.0. No matter how many times people try to twist it (mostly by assuming hauling **** 30 jumps through 0.0 is free, but whatever) there are people that would be willing to mine those "worthless" ABC ores and ginormous veldrocks and create a market in 0.0. These are people stuck in hi-sec because the alliances dont see them as worthwhile. The expansion adds more reasons for the alliances to recruit people that WANT to mine. This is a success, by the goals CCP put forth. Sorry if the current residents are butthurt, but they'll get over it, mostly when they realize the expansion doesnt really effect their heaven-like ratting lifestyle. And yeah, it sort of sucks it doesnt add a lot for the combat pilots...but it does make 0.0 more appealing for the player base at large.

Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:29:00 - [3041] Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 22:29:36 >> but it does make 0.0 more appealing for the player base at large. No - it doesn't.
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:31:00 - [3042] Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 22:29:36 >> but it does make 0.0 more appealing for the player base at large. No - it doesn't. Proof or GTFO. Expansion adds things for every brand of player except pure-ratters, who will have more competition. It does nothing to make 0.0 less attractive. Yeah, you're right.
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:32:00 - [3043] Originally by: Kepakh While you transfer everthing into ISK/hour, one thing you overlook here is time value. That means that some people can work 'harder' for the same ISK... What if you could spent /input random number here/ hours less by grinding because you have x miners in your 0.0 space to get all the minerals you need? That's essentially what already happens, except the miners are actually high sec mission runners and 0.0 ratters for the most part. Turns out that it's much cheaper to buy minerals from mission runners and import them than it is to pay a miner to mine the rocks. Part of this is the increasingly cheap cost of importation, part of it is refinables making mining an increasingly irrelevant profession.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:32:00 - [3044] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Orthaen For the nine hundredth time, if you want to stay in empire running level 4s, nothing CCP will do can change your mind. The game is yours to play how you choose. True, but that's also the core of the complaint: contrary to the stated goals, Dominion does nothing to change this ù quite the opposite. No incentives are added to move out. In fact, by the looks of things, it rather provides further incentives to move to highsec to maintain that 0.0 empireà Spot on, the new system kinda removes the need to even go to your empire if you don't want to, you can pay the new bills after earning your isk in empire. At least before the bill was fuel which HAD to be delivered to 0.0 The new system almost encourages 0.0 to be funded from empire as its so much easier, all you need to do now is take new ships made/brought in empire down every now and then and nothing else.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:33:00 - [3045] Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 22:29:36 >> but it does make 0.0 more appealing for the player base at large. No - it doesn't. YES OR NO: Dominion is a Sov nerf, but a resource buff. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:34:00 - [3046] Originally by: ep1k They could increase the isk rewards in null sec. That pretty much what this thread boils down too. People want to go to nullsec and make money, but people arent dumb. They dont want to risk dying to make equal or less money. Even if anomalies are the exact same income as level 4s you wont make the exact same money. Youll be taxed to pay upkeep, your ship will get blown up losing you money, and losing you time to replace it, which could be used to be making money, meaning you lose even more money. If people thought they could make double or triple what they make doing level 4s they would flock to try to get to that. They would fight to try to get it, and this expansion would be a success. Sure not everyone would come, but many would. You say nullsec ores are better. Sure some of them are sometimes. But then that ore just dosent turn into minerals when you look at it. Hauling refining and risk are all issues. Even when alliances want to take advantage of them. It only takes one ganker in a system to prevent that. Also the level 4 problem isnt just that it gives you more money than mining would Level 4 loot being refined into minerals is a very huge source of them. Running a level 4 is essentially mining with missiles. Increase the null sec income potentials, drive people out to it. Make them want to stop running level 4s. Then there will be a gap where there loot was giving you minerals. Now maybe people will have a reason to mine. Stop this crap already. If anyone wants to live in 0.0, he's are already there and fund himself by missions/whatever flies your boat. Increasing ratting rewards won't make anyone coming to 0.0, it will only make more ISK to current 0.0 inhabitans. In fact, more profitable ratting means more PVP resulting in: 1) less profitable ratting 2) static 0.0 because everyone is ratting 2) static 0.0 because anyone who is not ratting is protecting the ratters leaving no aggresors (half-serious on this one)
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:34:00 - [3047] Originally by: Orthaen Many new incentives are added. More rare minerals, more deadspace mods, more rats to make more money on. More of the same minerals, which are already not worth-while to mine. More of them makes them even less worth-while. More deadspace mods makes them less worth-while. More rats makes no difference since they're no better than what you can get in highsec. Quote: The expansion adds more reasons for the alliances to recruit people that WANT to mine. This is a success, by the goals CCP put forth. Yes, there's a reason to recruit miners, as long as they stay in highsec, where they can do some good. None of the goals set up by CCP are met. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:35:00 - [3048] Originally by: Orthaen Many new incentives are added. Nope, we have them in game already and I've tried them. They aren't worth doing... ever. Quote: No matter how many times people try to twist it (mostly by assuming hauling **** 30 jumps through 0.0 is free, but whatever) there are people that would be willing to mine those "worthless" ABC ores and ginormous veldrocks and create a market in 0.0. Yes and morons in high-sec will sell battleships below insurance levels. The current residents know that no competent entities will move to nullsec as a result of these negative changes. Also, there is a vibrant market economy in 0.0 right now! Amazing huh...
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:35:00 - [3049] Originally by: Orthaen Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 22:29:36 >> but it does make 0.0 more appealing for the player base at large. No - it doesn't. Proof or GTFO. Expansion adds things for every brand of player except pure-ratters, who will have more competition. It does nothing to make 0.0 less attractive. Yeah, you're right. Mostly I would say the proof is that every major 0.0 space holding alliance has posted in this very thread saying they think CCP has done a poor job creating incentive for even current 0.0 holding alliances to stay. These alliances include but are not limited to, GoonSwarm, MM, PL, Razor, Legion of xXDeathXx, Atlas and Against ALL Authorites
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:36:00 - [3050] Originally by: Kepakh I am starting to develope an idea here. While you transfer everthing into ISK/hour, one thing you overlook here is time value. That means that some people can work 'harder' for the same ISK... What if you could spent /input random number here/ hours less by grinding because you have x miners in your 0.0 space to get all the minerals you need? Except that there's no incentive for them to come down to our space. What do we have to offer them? "Hey guys come and mine in 0.0, the market is kinda crappy, you might get ganked by a HAC gang, you might get camped into an outpost or POS and make no money tomorrow, if we get invaded all your assets might be locked away in a station and lost forever, and even if none of that happens you'll still be making less money than you could be by staying safely in highsec!" What are 0.0 alliances supposed to offer to bring this mining army down to 0.0? Meet them out-of-game once every 3 months and give them candy floss and blowjobs?

Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:39:00 - [3051] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Orthaen Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 22:29:36 >> but it does make 0.0 more appealing for the player base at large. No - it doesn't. Proof or GTFO. Expansion adds things for every brand of player except pure-ratters, who will have more competition. It does nothing to make 0.0 less attractive. Yeah, you're right. Mostly I would say the proof is that every major 0.0 space holding alliance has posted in this very thread saying they think CCP has done a poor job creating incentive for even current 0.0 holding alliances to stay. These alliances include but are not limited to, GoonSwarm, MM, PL, Razor, Legion of xXDeathXx, Atlas and Against ALL Authorites YES OR NO: Dominion is a Sov nerf, but a resource buff. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Sky Marshal IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:40:00 - [3052] Originally by: Orthaen The point I was making that alliances dont HAVE to deal with the hell of importing Yes, they have. Same if import require few days of preparation of security protocols, some people mobilisation, fuelling POS, etc... And so same if it has a preparation cost, it is faster to import 1 B of Tritanium than mine the same amount in 0.0 within the same time. Quote: 6/10-10/10 plexes are also worth less then 2/10 plexes [...] I dont see how... A single officer drop from ratting and you're in the lead by a long shot. I did them now only to change from missions sometimes, because I did plexes for 8 months before, and I won... 5 B with bounties and faction loot. That means... 625M a month so... 13.5 hours of L4 Missions per month by comparison... Well, per month is a lie, as I got 750M only between February and August. I got the rest because I was really lucky the first week of August (3 * faction Med Shield Boosters...), a luck that I didn't have a new time. Plexes don't guarantee faction loots, or valuable faction loots, so stable income. L4 missions guarantees stable income. For the rest, you seem like Jade Constantine or some others : You confuse "game" and "work". _______ Local is fine, period. CCP devs, you nerfed shield resists by 8.3% but armor by 7.1% (The old Explo/EM "10 points" Nerf). When will you correct this inconsistency ?
Roger Douglas Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:41:00 - [3053] Originally by: Verlisia people who complain about having to bring everything from empire are just stupid. You can build almost everything on site with the right towers and stations. The only thing anyone should have to bring down are maybe componets to build T2 stuff and maybe some things for invention. If your Alliance is based on Ratters and Moongoo then that's your problem. Clearing a single system of its minerals refining them in the local station/pos with good skills and having people build all manner of stuff you need solves the whole ship replacement problem as well. My group does only 1 major mining op a week and we manage to collect enough materials to build enough cruisers/battle cruisers to supply everyone with replacements and were only based in high/low sec. Null sec groups have access to much greater quantities of materials then we do they just don't properly utilize their full potential. If you idiots used the materials on hand to build what you needed instead of grinding rats all day to pay for stuff then you'd be better off. Anyone who doesn't maximize efficiency of the materials given to them rather then just depending on the direct income of bounties and moons deserve to fail. uhhh...wow. Let's take this a bit at a time: Mining - using a POS to refine. Either have a 1 hour cycle time @ 35% or a 3 hour cycle time at 75%. 40k max refine at one time. Then, you have to mine ice for fuel, and you still need stuffs from empire to fuel the pos. Try mining veld in 0.0, or mining minerals that aren't prevalent like iso or mex. It is incredibly annoying. Production- Building stuff at posses? Great! That means you need more posses for building stuffs. Building BS will be non-fun, cause mining all the minerals you need for BS is a lot more than your cruiser/BC comparison. If you are trying to have a t2 production chain, then you have an invention pos, 10 or so reactor posses, and you better hope you have an amarr station because t2 ship building arrays have a 10% material penalty and only one slot. Not to mention that you have to have a component building array. How about storage? Your corp hangar or three can't hold all of the stuff you need. In short, have at least 2 types of stations (minnie and amarr), plus full pos chains for mining and reactions, plus defense networks, jump points, cap arrays, and all the people to make it work. Oh, and be prepared to haul in or build all the fuel, materials, ships and mods you can't build yourself, because you just can't fly next door to a market station and buy what you need from npc's. In short, you don't get 0.0 . You won't get it, either, while you stay in high or low sec. Go move out to a 0.0 NPC system with your corp and then tell me how i'm underutilizing my resources. Casually assuming that you'll have access to a station with goods to buy is the hallmark of a highsec dweller. Casually assuming you'll even be able to undock a mining barge or hauler in npc 0.0 is a happy day for a pirate or a roaming gang. Oh, and we do make everything but npc materials up here in 0.0. It takes a lot of effort, team play, and willingness to bust skullz. I don't think you'd last a week under our mining director, and you would flee back to empire if you had to take care of POS. Not to mention you'd never be able to replace all of your PVP losses unless you were ratting for isk. It's not a couple ships a week lost, but 2-3 a day during hard fighting. so don't tell me i'm underutilizing my resources, and i'm not whining about bringing stuff from empire. I'm in a large space holding alliance, and i know exactly what it takes to live and operate in 0.0. Unless Dominion is tweaked, especially with some of these upgrades, I don't think anyone but well established alliances are still going to be able to make a go of it out here. The rest are going to scurry back to empire because 0.0 is still hardmode, and dominion is not going to make it easier.
Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:43:00 - [3054] Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 22:44:06 Originally by: Scatim Helicon What are 0.0 alliances supposed to offer to bring this mining army down to 0.0? Meet them out-of-game once every 3 months and give them candy floss and blowjobs? What kind of candy floss? Maybe we could have a candy floss upgrade?
Tappits Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:43:00 - [3055] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Except that there's no incentive for them to come down to our space. What do we have to offer them? "Hey guys come and mine in 0.0, the market is kinda crappy, you might get ganked by a HAC gang, you might get camped into an outpost or POS and make no money tomorrow, if we get invaded all your assets might be locked away in a station and lost forever, and even if none of that happens you'll still be making less money than you could be by staying safely in highsec!" What are 0.0 alliances supposed to offer to bring this mining army down to 0.0? Meet them out-of-game once every 3 months and give them candy floss and blowjobs? QBIC There is no incentive other wise 70% of peple in game would not still be in Empire lol all coments are null and void because this IS TRUE also if your posting in this topic on a noob alt all your doing is troling tbo and are not worth replying to. ---------------------------------------------- Pro BOB????? I fail At forums
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:44:00 - [3056] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Orthaen Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 22:29:36 >> but it does make 0.0 more appealing for the player base at large. No - it doesn't. Proof or GTFO. Expansion adds things for every brand of player except pure-ratters, who will have more competition. It does nothing to make 0.0 less attractive. Yeah, you're right. Mostly I would say the proof is that every major 0.0 space holding alliance has posted in this very thread saying they think CCP has done a poor job creating incentive for even current 0.0 holding alliances to stay. These alliances include but are not limited to, GoonSwarm, MM, PL, Razor, Legion of xXDeathXx, Atlas and Against ALL Authorites YES OR NO: Dominion is a Sov nerf, but a resource buff. No, once again we will go back to opportunity cost. If I can make 20 million ISK running a cosmic anomaly (this is actually a fair estimate given current mechanics) or 35 million ISK belt ratting (I would also say this is a fair estimate given current mechanics), which should I chose? Belt ratting right? No matter how many cosmic anomalies I can have guaranteed to spawn, unless every single one of those is a top tier anomaly I should still be trying to maximize my ISK/hr by ratting in a belt.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:44:00 - [3057] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Except that there's no incentive for them to come down to our space. What do we have to offer them? "Hey guys come and mine in 0.0, the market is kinda crappy, you might get ganked by a HAC gang, you might get camped into an outpost or POS and make no money tomorrow, if we get invaded all your assets might be locked away in a station and lost forever, and even if none of that happens you'll still be making less money than you could be by staying safely in highsec!" What are 0.0 alliances supposed to offer to bring this mining army down to 0.0? Meet them out-of-game once every 3 months and give them candy floss and blowjobs? I can already think about ways how to attract miners into 0.0, this is the least issue for me. When there is a demand, supply will be created. The question still remains: Do I have an efective use for them?
Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:45:00 - [3058] Originally by: Mkiaki Edited by: Mkiaki on 10/11/2009 20:43:52 EPIC TEAR THREAD IS EPIC! Hawt dawm pirates and alliance leaders you guys can whine better than a carebear caught in low sec in their only mining ship. This thread should be archived and brought back at any time you guys even hint at mentioning the term "crying". Thank you for the amazing, intelligent, and constructive posts (99% like the one above) they truly add well thought out, indepth perspective to the situation at hand. ....
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:46:00 - [3059] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Orthaen Many new incentives are added. More rare minerals, more deadspace mods, more rats to make more money on. More of the same minerals, which are already not worth-while to mine. More of them makes them even less worth-while. More deadspace mods makes them less worth-while. More rats makes no difference since they're no better than what you can get in highsec. Quote: The expansion adds more reasons for the alliances to recruit people that WANT to mine. This is a success, by the goals CCP put forth. Yes, there's a reason to recruit miners, as long as they stay in highsec, where they can do some good. None of the goals set up by CCP are met. I already covered this. I quit, after this...people dont bother to read. Yes, the ores are worthless TO YOU. CCP doesnt give a ** about you, random forum dweller. But those are ores are worthwile to miners. More deadspace mods make them worth less to the individual, but on the hole it is perfectly plausible more people will be making more isk. I'm not going to bother commenting on how rats in hisec are the same as 0.0 rats. If you think 400k is the same as 1.4 million, thats cool with me. Want to talk business in game? I have some magic beans to sell. Mining in 0.0 is better then mining in hi sec. This matters to miners. Maybe not to you. Tough . As to "all the big blobs are unahppy, it must be bad." I LAUGH AT YOU! The expansion was designed to them off, and forcibly remove some of their empires. CCP is unhappy with the size and the stagnation, so they made changes that are very directly designed to of all the big powerblocs, who are, in CCPs words, 95% military. Sounds like they met their goal, **ed all the big armies right off.
Verlisia	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:47:00 - [3060] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Kepakh I am starting to develope an idea here. While you transfer everthing into ISK/hour, one thing you overlook here is time value. That means that some people can work 'harder' for the same ISK... What if you could spent /input random number here/ hours less by grinding because you have x miners in your 0.0 space to get all the minerals you need? Except that there's no incentive for them to come down to our space. What do we have to offer them? "Hey guys come and mine in 0.0, the market is kinda crappy, you might get ganked by a HAC gang, you might get camped into an outpost or POS and make no money tomorrow, if we get invaded all your assets might be locked away in a station and lost forever, and even if none of that happens you'll still be making less money than you could be by staying safely in highsec!" What are 0.0 alliances supposed to offer to bring this mining army down to 0.0? Meet them out-of-game once every 3 months and give them candy floss and blowjobs? This would be nice

Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:50:00 - [3061] Originally by: Normin Bates Originally by: Cefte [x] Ignorant of value of own time. [x] No understanding of term 'opportunity cost' [ ] Pathologically risk averse. Two out of three for the empire pubbie trifecta. [x] Patently lazy and tear soaked goon. [x] Unwilling to adapt. [x] Fears losing vast areas of unused space. [ ] Now seriously concerned about smaller alliances' ability to hold space. [x] Hopes CCP will buckle under the tears posted here. [ ] Is honest & genuine. Fixed that for ya. - It's me I'm patently lazy - I've literally just made an empire l4 running alt, gogo evolution. - I visit every system in Goonswarm regions every three days. Gogo exploration! - I'm not concerned about that at all. More pubbies to shoot would be great, but so would coca, and I just made myself coca. CCP seems to be concerned about it, though, and it's pretty funny how badly they're reliving Exodus, but you don't need to adhere to their vision to point out the gulf between vision and implementation. - I have no hope that CCP will buckle under the tears here. When people in a position of massive authority start trolling their powerless critics, they're emotionally invested, and their ego will prevent them from backing down. This thread is more a pre-emptive 'we told you so'. - Yassih, it's genu-wine Hires.
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:50:00 - [3062] Edited by: ep1k on 10/11/2009 22:52:36 Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: ep1k They could increase the isk rewards in null sec. That pretty much what this thread boils down too. People want to go to nullsec and make money, but people arent dumb. They dont want to risk dying to make equal or less money. Even if anomalies are the exact same income as level 4s you wont make the exact same money. Youll be taxed to pay upkeep, your ship will get blown up losing you money, and losing you time to replace it, which could be used to be making money, meaning you lose even more money. If people thought they could make double or triple what they make doing level 4s they would flock to try to get to that. They would fight to try to get it, and this expansion would be a success. Sure not everyone would come, but many would. You say nullsec ores are better. Sure some of them are sometimes. But then that ore just dosent turn into minerals when you look at it. Hauling refining and risk are all issues. Even when alliances want to take advantage of them. It only takes one ganker in a system to prevent that. Also the level 4 problem isnt just that it gives you more money than mining would Level 4 loot being refined into minerals is a very huge source of them. Running a level 4 is essentially mining with missiles. Increase the null sec income potentials, drive people out to it. Make them want to stop running level 4s. Then there will be a gap where there loot was giving you minerals. Now maybe people will have a reason to mine. Stop this crap already. If anyone wants to live in 0.0, he's are already there and fund himself by missions/whatever flies your boat. Increasing ratting rewards won't make anyone coming to 0.0, it will only make more ISK to current 0.0 inhabitans. In fact, more profitable ratting means more PVP resulting in: 1) less profitable ratting 2) static 0.0 because everyone is ratting 2) static 0.0 because anyone who is not ratting is protecting the ratters leaving no aggresors (half-serious on this one) I never even mentioned ratting. Make the ore a bigger step above veld. Make anomalies not on par with level 4 but double. Give rewards that you want to fight to keep. Make it so making your income has risk and large payoffs. Noone here wants free isk. They want large isk that you die for. Would this cause more pvp? Yes it would. And your statement of wah wah we already make money doing level 4s is just idiotic. Thats the problem. You cant fight someone to hurt their income because its in motsu. You have no reason to take over someones space and gain thier previous rewards, because their rewards are in motsu. Tye high isk gain to owning space. Reduce the space you can control. Then we will have an interesting null sec. I am all for having less space for large alliances.
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:51:00 - [3063] ccp need to postpone the sov changes. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:54:00 - [3064] Originally by: Orthaen I already covered this. I quit, after this...people dont bother to read. Yes, the ores are worthless TO YOU. No. Look at the people posting: they're worthless in 0.0. Quote: But those are ores are worthwile to miners. Only if someone is willing to take them off their hands… Quote: More deadspace mods make them worth less to the individual, but on the hole it is perfectly plausible more people will be making more isk. On the whole, maybe, but it's the individual that needs to be incentivised. Quote: I'm not going to bother commenting on how rats in hisec are the same as 0.0 rats. Not rats — missions. Remember, the increase in rats come from one source: more anomalies, which, as stated, will be on par with L4s (except not infinitely scalable). So yes, highsec will be the better choice. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:56:00 - [3065] YES OR NO: Dominion is a Sov nerf, but a resource buff. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:57:00 - [3066] Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Dominion is a Sov nerf, but a resource buff. Originally by: Qlanth No, once again we will go back to opportunity cost. If I can make 20 million ISK running a cosmic anomaly (this is actually a fair estimate given current mechanics) or 35 million ISK belt ratting (I would also say this is a fair estimate given current mechanics), which should I chose? Belt ratting right? No matter how many cosmic anomalies I can have guaranteed to spawn, unless every single one of those is a top tier anomaly I should still be trying to maximize my ISK/hr by ratting in a belt.
Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.10 22:59:00 - [3067] Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 23:02:31 Originally by: Tamahra ccp need to postpone the sov changes. Agreed. Postpone SOV changes - release everything else. Nothing has received the amount of negative response than these SOV proposed changes. Almost every other new feature in Dominion has been met with positive if not enthusiastic welcome. So why not just release the good - and work on polishing SOV more since many players clearly dislike these changes - whether they actually will work or not really doesn't matter at this point. Many players - especially null-sec players don't like these changes.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:01:00 - [3068] Originally by: ep1k I never even mentioned ratting. Make the ore a bigger step above veld. Make anomalies not on par with level 4 but double. Give rewards that you want to fight to keep. Make it so making your income has risk and large payoffs. Noone here wants free isk. They want large isk that you die for. Would this cause more pvp? Yes it would. And your statement of wah wah we already make money doing level 4s is just idiotic. Thats the problem. You cant fight someone to hurt their income because its in motsu. You have no reason to take over someones space and gain thier previous rewards, because their rewards are in motsu. Tye high isk gain to owning space. Reduce the space you can control. Then we will have an interesting null sec. I am all for having less space for large alliances. Ratting, anomalies, roids, w/e is all the same and making it more rewarding does not make anyone who is not already living in 0.0 to live there. Risk vs Reward is just nonsense. According to this logic you should be paid more for as you expose yourself to higher risk. If that is the case, you are just stupid and deserve to get podded.
KeratinBoy GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:02:00 - [3069] Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? Fixed that silly question for you.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:02:00 - [3070] Originally by: Renada Trinity Well I actually read most of this...there are good points, but mostly complaining, sorry my opinion. (...) This patch will allow some of that space to free up and let smaller corp/alliances to form in 0.0 space. Then you didn't read this thread. Increased Sov costs just means that the big alliances will only officially claim key systems. They will still occupy the same space as they do today. The upgrades are so terrible that they can not reduce their footprint in order to sustain their pilots. So yes, the blobs on the in-game map will be smaller. The blobs on the map that will be generated out of a thread on CAOD will be exactly the same. And if a little guy tries to move into one of the systems that is unclaimed officially, but claimed in CAOD, they will be crushed like a bug. Because that big alliance is still using that space for ratting, which remains the only reasonable income stream for the individual pilots trying to live full-time in 0.0. If CCP buffs the anomalies well above what the blues have described in this very thread, then you might see alliances contract. But when those anomalies offer equal income to L4s in Empire, take 100 days to get, and can be completely shut down by parking an afk cloaker in an anomaly so it can't respawn, they are not worth buying. Quote: What I see is the upgrade is going to make people have to actually work for once in order to keep thier space. And you've apparently never tried to live in 0.0.

Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:04:00 - [3071] Originally by: KeratinBoy Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? Which hand you talking about?
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:05:00 - [3072] Originally by: Renada Trinity Well I actually read most of this...there are good points, but mostly complaining, sorry my opinion. Let me tell you, took a trip in my force recon, down thru the middle of delve, past KIA and ZAF, came up around -a- and atlas then into NC space. Well guess what, most of the systems are empty, nothing, not being used! This patch will allow some of that space to free up and let smaller corp/alliances to form in 0.0 space. Cost, alls I see on these forums CAOD, how all these alliance generated gazillions of isk. Example someone throwing up contract for 10 titans after they lost one. Maybe they nerf the moongoo. What I see is the upgrade is going to make people have to actually work for once in order to keep thier space. Blobs sitting aroud doing nothing doesnt generate tax monies, thats mainly what you see unless there is some fleet battle here or there thru-out the week. Simple fact is, get up, do some work, earn your space, work your space (to make it better) give up what you dont need, the 50 system buffer zones and stop complaining. I think CCP has to look at its customer base, and after not being able to expand into 0.0 why play? That is one reason for this patch too. My $0.02 There is a problem with this. I'll put it in the form of a question. Do you think that removing the color(sovereignty) from those empty areas means that the alliance won't control that space anymore? It is very unlikely they will just give them up without getting something in return. You will still be required to get permission to settle those systems, but with the expansion you actually can grind up more income from them than today. So there should propably be at least more renters, but that brings up another issue. Since income potential for most players will remain higher in empire and the upkeep is just an ISK bill, why would you try to earn that ISK in 0.0? Some won't care about income and will live there anyway, but most of those are propably already living there. Some can make a good living there, but not that many. For those who can't or who have better options it will remain just a place to keep a jumpclone and a few ships(same as today). The bottom line is, that people who don't care about efficiency or ISK making are already doing 0.0 or what ever other thing they find enjoyable. If you want to bring new people into 0.0 you need to actually change the results of some of these profit and efficiency calculations people make(losses and time wasted on not earning matter here) or accept, that they are not an intended audience for 0.0. Ofcourse CCP could introduce new things unique to 0.0 to attract more of those people who don't care about efficiency calculations, but that doesn't seem to be the approach CCP is taking.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:06:00 - [3073] Originally by: KeratinBoy Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? Fixed that silly question for you. ANSWER THE QUESTION: YES OR NO, Dominion is a Sov nerf but a resource buff. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Jonathan Dawnchaser Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:07:00 - [3074] 1. Just because your alliance can't Flag all those systems doesn't mean you can't utilize them still. You are still able to rove through them ratting and what not. 2. Even if another alliance tries to move it, it will take 7 days to get to Sov level 1. When does Cyno Jammer become available? Level 3? (based on the dev blog showing strategic 3 with cyno suppression as a "?") That takes 35 days. I am sure a big alliance can cobble together some sort of fleet op given 7 weeks. 3. It would be nice if the "biweekly" cost could be subsidized by minerals. Thereby allowing mining to directly pay for system costs, but that would tamper with the market (unless the mineral floor was less than the market rates). But then it removes player interaction. 3b. Instead what your alliance can do is to try to establish "little Jitas." Hubs on the edge of low-high sec to vend all the stuff you loot. Put enough bulk for a particular segment and you can attract usage (be it buy or sell orders). The only reason Jita is popular is because of its "one-stop shopping" appeal. You or I might not get the best prices, but we aren't going to have many of the 200-300 unique item stacks left over for lack of a potential buyer/seller. 4. Yeah it sucks that POS refining isn't instant, but if it was, those POSes would be offlined until there is a large quantity of ore ready to be refined. Refining time is to encourage pipelining, which encourages stations always being on. Maybe CCP can be convinced to allow a refinery array to be tied to the system Sov (i.e. can't be offlined) and then get a bonus from the Industry Level to reduce the refining time. Since the Industrial level is tied to utilization, the more you use it, the better you get at using it. 5. Yeah the market value of a lot of ore/minerals is low. And while there isn't anything that can be done for highsec minerals, but nullsec minerals can be increased in value by engaging in corporate sabotage. Go attack each other. You don't even need to necessarily fight, just being in the constellation can send miners scurrying to their holes. Congratulations, you didn't blow up a ship, but you just interrupted production. This effects the supply of minerals on the market, which can in turn drive up the demand price. 6. I know I am suggesting changes in our behavior, but that is what CCP is going for with Dominion. They are changing the rules of the game to force player groups to adapt their strategies because as it is now (pre-Dominion), certain strategies are just so effective (moon mining) that others can be neglected entirely. And it is entirely possible that these changes may encourage CCP to make refinery arrays better than 75% yield as a best case. No matter what, I know that just whining is not going to convince CCP of anything except that they need to make another HTFU rap video (shiver). This post wouldn't be complete if I didn't plug my bid for a seat on CSM4. To everyone that didn't "TL;DR": Thanks for reading. _____________ JD for CSM4
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:07:00 - [3075] Edited by: Qlanth on 10/11/2009 23:07:59 Originally by: Ukucia Originally by: Renada Trinity Well I actually read most of this...there are good points, but mostly complaining, sorry my opinion. (...) This patch will allow some of that space to free up and let smaller corp/alliances to form in 0.0 space. Then you didn't read this thread. Increased Sov costs just means that the big alliances will only officially claim key systems. They will still occupy the same space as they do today. The upgrades are so terrible that they can not reduce their footprint in order to sustain their pilots. So yes, the blobs on the in-game map will be smaller. The blobs on the map that will be generated out of a thread on CAOD will be exactly the same. And if a little guy tries to move into one of the systems that is unclaimed officially, but claimed in CAOD, they will be crushed like a bug. Because that big alliance is still using that space for ratting, which remains the only reasonable income stream for the individual pilots trying to live full-time in 0.0. If CCP buffs the anomalies well above what the blues have described in this very thread, then you might see alliances contract. But when those anomalies offer equal income to L4s in Empire, take 100 days to get, and can be completely shut down by parking an afk cloaker in an anomaly so it can't respawn, they are not worth buying. Quote: What I see is the upgrade is going to make people have to actually work for once in order to keep thier space. And you've apparently never tried to live in 0.0. Agree completely with this post and the key statement is: Quote: Increased Sov costs just means that the big alliances will only officially claim key systems. They will still occupy the same space as they do today. The upgrades are so terrible that they can not reduce their footprint in order to sustain their pilots. I would LOVE to be able to shed systems in favor of a more dense space-empire. In fact that's what the changes were meant to facilitate. these were the changes our CSM representatives pushed for. But CCP came up short so its time for them to considering a better incentive My suggestion was an overhaul of anomalies that essentially involved replacing them with regular belt rats with regular bounties, loot, and salvage.
Roger Douglas Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:08:00 - [3076] Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Dominion is a Sov nerf, but a resource buff. Sov nerf: yes. Nerfs all the perks of sov: cyno gens/jammers/JB's/CSAAs/sov4 Resource Buff: No. Given that we can't test/have no idea how the effects will play out. Pirate magnet: more guaranteed anomalies. Better than belting? No. Profession sites: This is mentioned a lot. Mags/radars are poor income. Ladars are only in Cosmos. Grav's are good only in WH's. Complexes: Probably a bright side here. However, there better be a lot of them, because if you have 20 probers looking for one site, only one guy is going to get lucky. WH generator: Yessiree baby! Excellent idea, and would rock if L5 would create a constantly open WH that would not decay. The bummer is that to adequately extract WH resources you need to live there. Mining Upgrades: If this means spawning hidden belts with the composition and density of current system belts or (heaven forbid!) grav sites, then this is worthless. If you are talking about spawning a WH class grav site, i'm all over that. Superdense roids ftw! By the way, you'd generate a ton of goodwill if you multiplied the average output of a veld roid in 0.0 by 4-5x. That would make 0.0 mining much easier.
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:08:00 - [3077] Originally by: Cefte Originally by: Normin Bates Originally by: Cefte [x] Ignorant of value of own time. [x] No understanding of term 'opportunity cost' [ ] Pathologically risk averse. Two out of three for the empire pubbie trifecta. [x] Patently lazy and tear soaked goon. [x] Unwilling to adapt. [x] Fears losing vast areas of unused space. [ ] Now seriously concerned about smaller alliances' ability to hold space. [x] Hopes CCP will buckle under the tears posted here. [ ] Is honest & genuine. Fixed that for ya. - It's me I'm patently lazy - I've literally just made an empire l4 running alt, gogo evolution. - I visit every system in Goonswarm regions every three days. Gogo exploration! - I'm not concerned about that at all. More pubbies to shoot would be great, but so would coca, and I just made myself coca. CCP seems to be concerned about it, though, and it's pretty funny how badly they're reliving Exodus, but you don't need to adhere to their vision to point out the gulf between vision and implementation. - I have no hope that CCP will buckle under the tears here. When people in a position of massive authority start trolling their powerless critics, they're emotionally invested, and their ego will prevent them from backing down. This thread is more a pre-emptive 'we told you so'. - Yassih, it's genu-wine Hires. I like this cefte post. Also in the pre-emptive "told-ya-so" category, this dev blog really hurts because I was a CSM and it was my job to give player feedback specifically on 0.0, and lol here is a devblog that sure as **** looks like ccp completely ignored me. I told them pretty much everything that was reiterated in this thread except I said it in person. Still no results. 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
KeratinBoy GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:09:00 - [3078] Originally by: Dante Edmundo Which hand you talking about? Pimp, duh. Originally by: Tesal Originally by: KeratinBoy Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? Fixed that silly question for you. ANSWER THE QUESTION: YES OR NO, Dominion is a Sov nerf but a resource buff. Originally by: KeratinBoy Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? Fixed that silly question for you. P.S., this forum is a bag of **** on the coding level. Fix with haste (AHAHAHAHAHA) tia.
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:09:00 - [3079] YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught getting beaten by your wife? Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:12:00 - [3080] Edited by: Tesal on 10/11/2009 23:13:14 Originally by: Roger Douglas Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Dominion is a Sov nerf, but a resource buff. Sov nerf: yes. Nerfs all the perks of sov: cyno gens/jammers/JB's/CSAAs/sov4 Resource Buff: No. Given that we can't test/have no idea how the effects will play out. Pirate magnet: more guaranteed anomalies. Better than belting? No. Profession sites: This is mentioned a lot. Mags/radars are poor income. Ladars are only in Cosmos. Grav's are good only in WH's. Complexes: Probably a bright side here. However, there better be a lot of them, because if you have 20 probers looking for one site, only one guy is going to get lucky. WH generator: Yessiree baby! Excellent idea, and would rock if L5 would create a constantly open WH that would not decay. The bummer is that to adequately extract WH resources you need to live there. Mining Upgrades: If this means spawning hidden belts with the composition and density of current system belts or (heaven forbid!) grav sites, then this is worthless. If you are talking about spawning a WH class grav site, i'm all over that. Superdense roids ftw! By the way, you'd generate a ton of goodwill if you multiplied the average output of a veld roid in 0.0 by 4-5x. That would make 0.0 mining much easier. There will be more ratting resource than there was before. Why do you deny that? Ratting is not being nerfed, there will not be fewer rats. Why do you deny that? edit I demand an answer to this question. never stop posting...with alts.* Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist

KeratinBoy GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:14:00 - [3081] Originally by: Tamahra YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? I get to reframe, you do not. :smugbert:
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:16:00 - [3082] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Roger Douglas Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Dominion is a Sov nerf, but a resource buff. Sov nerf: yes. Nerfs all the perks of sov: cyno gens/jammers/JB's/CSAAs/sov4 Resource Buff: No. Given that we can't test/have no idea how the effects will play out. Pirate magnet: more guaranteed anomalies. Better than belting? No. Profession sites: This is mentioned a lot. Mags/radars are poor income. Ladars are only in Cosmos. Grav's are good only in WH's. Complexes: Probably a bright side here. However, there better be a lot of them, because if you have 20 probers looking for one site, only one guy is going to get lucky. WH generator: Yessiree baby! Excellent idea, and would rock if L5 would create a constantly open WH that would not decay. The bummer is that to adequately extract WH resources you need to live there. Mining Upgrades: If this means spawning hidden belts with the composition and density of current system belts or (heaven forbid!) grav sites, then this is worthless. If you are talking about spawning a WH class grav site, i'm all over that. Superdense roids ftw! By the way, you'd generate a ton of goodwill if you multiplied the average output of a veld roid in 0.0 by 4-5x. That would make 0.0 mining much easier. There will be more ratting resource than there was before. Why do you deny that? Ratting is not being nerfed, there will not be fewer rats. Why do you deny that? First of all Cosmic Anomalies are not the same as belt ratting. They are worth less per hour than belt ratting under current mechanics and will stay that way unless CCP has some changes they have yet to release. It is not a "ratting resource." Second of all no poster in this thread has made any mention of a nerf to ratting, aside from you in this post right here.
Jonnuus	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:18:00 - [3083] Originally by: Tesal There will be more ratting resource than there was before. Why do you deny that? Ratting is not being nerfed, there will not be fewer rats. Why do you deny that? *edit I demand an answer to this question. Because "Please don't do this" doesn't flow as well when followed by a "even though you are making more opportunities for wealth."
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:19:00 - [3084] Edited by: Tesal on 10/11/2009 23:24:54 Originally by: KeratinBoy Originally by: Tamahra YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? I get to reframe, you do not. :smugbert: ANSWER THE QUESTION: YES OR NO: THERE WILL BE MORE RATS IN DOMINION THAN THERE ARE NOW, RIGHT? I did all caps and added an arrow, you have no choice but to answer the question. edit Originally by:* Qlanth First of all Cosmic Anomalies are not the same as belt ratting. They are worth less per hour than belt ratting under current mechanics and will stay that way unless CCP has some changes they have yet to release. It is not a "ratting resource." Second of all no poster in this thread has made any mention of a nerf to ratting, aside from you in this post right here. So you admit that all the rats we have now will be there in the future? Also, for the second time, Cosmic Anomalies has been disbanded. They used to live in 4c and 33fn with little green men. They are gone now. They were ratted to extinction. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:20:00 - [3085] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: ep1k I never even mentioned ratting. Make the ore a bigger step above veld. Make anomalies not on par with level 4 but double. Give rewards that you want to fight to keep. Make it so making your income has risk and large payoffs. Noone here wants free isk. They want large isk that you die for. Would this cause more pvp? Yes it would. And your statement of wah wah we already make money doing level 4s is just idiotic. Thats the problem. You cant fight someone to hurt their income because its in motsu. You have no reason to take over someones space and gain thier previous rewards, because their rewards are in motsu. Tye high isk gain to owning space. Reduce the space you can control. Then we will have an interesting null sec. I am all for having less space for large alliances. Ratting, anomalies, roids, w/e is all the same and making it more rewarding does not make anyone who is not already living in 0.0 to live there. Risk vs Reward is just nonsense. According to this logic you should be paid more for as you expose yourself to higher risk. If that is the case, you are just stupid and deserve to get podded. So all the posts of people saying they were planning to bring their alliance out to 0.0 then when they saw the upgrades decided not to. They were disspointed that nullsec still wasnt that great of income.. If you seriously cant figure out that isk income is important for people deciding where to go and amke money, you are a fool. By you logic if you increased 00. income 500x noone would move there. If you cut level 4 income down to 10% noone would move to 0.0. Isk drives everything, and its the reason people arent happy with this patch. If you want people to move to nullsec, you increase the reward. And according to everythign ccp has said they do. Im telling you this is not enough. The small alliances are telling them its not enough. You admit you dotn want more people in nullsec, adn that you dont care.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:21:00 - [3086] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: KeratinBoy Originally by: Tamahra YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? I get to reframe, you do not. :smugbert: ANSWER THE QUESTION: YES OR NO: THERE WILL BE MORE RATS IN DOMINION THAN THERE ARE NOW, RIGHT? I did all caps and added an arrow, you have no choice but to answer the question. The real question is if I have rats in an anomaly and rats in a belt and the rats in the anomaly are worth 2/3rds the amount of ISK as the ones in the belts why would I bother shooting them?
Roger Douglas Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:21:00 - [3087] Edited by: Roger Douglas on 10/11/2009 23:23:11 There will be more ratting resource than there was before. Why do you deny that? Ratting is not being nerfed, there will not be fewer rats. Why do you deny that? *edit I demand an answer to this question. Because chaining BS in belts > anomalies. The amount of rats is not the question. How much they are worth in isk and how much time is required to get the maximum payout is the correct question. I've seen quite a few systems in 0.0 where people don't go that are packed with a dozen anomalies. They aggregate in systems where they don't get run. They don't get run because their income is insufficent next to running belts in or nearby station systems. If the choice is between belts and anomalies, I'm taking belts. Chaining is another perk. Good spawns keep coming. This is not the case with anomalies. edit: goon replies were better than mine. I fail.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:23:00 - [3088] Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Shawna Gray Originally by: Honest Smedley Originally by: Deva Blackfire And in reality thats the mining issue in 0.0. Its easier to NPC/plex and buy needed trit from empire afk-miners/macros instead of mining it yourself. Unless, of course, you limit NPC/plexing resources such that not everyone can be doing it at any given time. By doing so, even though the amount earned mining will still be less per hour than when ratting, 0.0 will then require a more diverse skill set among your alliance members to fully exploit the space you live in. People are basically arguing that there isn't enough strawberry (ratting) in the neopolitan ice cream that is 0.0 space. Not when you have an unlimited strawberry called empire. ...and that is where people are wrong. Empire missioning is vanilla; safe, predictable, always available and boring. Some people do prefer vanilla, however. Ah when you dont have any real arguments go for the "fun" factor. Empire missioning is safe, boring and predictable just like any other pve activities in this game. EVE pve sucks, there are far better games out there for pve. The people living in 0.0 want to spend as little as possible time on making isk to support the activities they find to be fun. In other words they keep their moneymaker in empire and the pvp'er in 0.0 or just jumpclones back and forth.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:23:00 - [3089] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: KeratinBoy Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? Fixed that silly question for you. ANSWER THE QUESTION: YES OR NO, Dominion is a Sov nerf but a resource buff. **** you are dumb sov nerf: If you think tickers on the map are what controlling space is about, in reality: NO THE BIG ALLIANCES WILL STILL _CONTROL_ THEIR SPACE resource buff: If you think more of the same is a buff, in reality: NO THE RESOURCES AREN'T BEING USED AS IT IS re the risk/reward thing, here is how it actually is: I live in 0.0 I earn isk in empire because it is isk/hr comparable with a bonus of safety/afkablity When I am in empire I am not in 0.0 That means 1 less player in 0.0 Less players in 0.0 is bad .: empire being comparable isk/hr to 0.0 is bad .: 0.0 needs a buff or empire needs a nerf QED (oh go ahead and tell me I suck at earning isk yada yada)
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:28:00 - [3090] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: KeratinBoy Originally by: Tamahra YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? I get to reframe, you do not. :smugbert: ANSWER THE QUESTION: YES OR NO: THERE WILL BE MORE RATS IN DOMINION THAN THERE ARE NOW, RIGHT? I did all caps and added an arrow, you have no choice but to answer the question. Show me all the alliances that have been screaming to move to nullsec in order to earn level 4 income. Adding something thats provides no value to the people you are trying to attract is not a buff.

Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:29:00 - [3091] Edited by: Tesal on 10/11/2009 23:31:12 Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Tesal Originally by: KeratinBoy Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? Fixed that silly question for you. ANSWER THE QUESTION: YES OR NO, Dominion is a Sov nerf but a resource buff. ** you are dumb sov nerf: If you think tickers on the map are what controlling space is about, in reality: NO THE BIG ALLIANCES WILL STILL _CONTROL_ THEIR SPACE resource buff: If you think more of the same is a buff, in reality: NO THE RESOURCES AREN'T BEING USED AS IT IS re the risk/reward thing, here is how it actually is: I live in 0.0 I earn isk in empire because it is isk/hr comparable with a bonus of safety/afkablity When I am in empire I am not in 0.0 That means 1 less player in 0.0 Less players in 0.0 is bad .: empire being comparable isk/hr to 0.0 is bad .: 0.0 needs a buff or empire needs a nerf QED (oh go ahead and tell me I suck at earning isk yada yada) I AM WRITING IN ALL CAPS. I AM SAYING CRITICAL STUFF THAT EVERYONE MUST HEAR REPEATEDLY. YOU SUCK AT EARNING ISK.** THAT WAS BOLD, AND TWICE AS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WAS BOLD. IF I REPEAT MYSELF ENOUGH EVERYONE WILL BELIEVE ME. EDIT Originally by:* Pointfive Originally by: Tesal Originally by: KeratinBoy Originally by: Tamahra YES OR NO: Have you ever been caught beating your wife? I get to reframe, you do not. :smugbert: ANSWER THE QUESTION: YES OR NO: THERE WILL BE MORE RATS IN DOMINION THAN THERE ARE NOW, RIGHT? I did all caps and added an arrow, you have no choice but to answer the question. Show me all the alliances that have been screaming to move to nullsec in order to earn level 4 income. Adding something thats provides no value to the people you are trying to attract is not a buff. THEY WILL SHOW UP ONCE YOU ARE DEAD, THEY WILL CLAIM SOV ON THE BROKEN REMAINS OF YOUR EMPIRE. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:29:00 - [3092] Originally by: Kepakh Risk vs Reward is just nonsense. According to this logic you should be paid more for as you expose yourself to higher risk. If that is the case, you are just stupid and deserve to get podded. Then what is 0.0? Is it just there as a pointless battlegrounds/epeen generator for some player generated map?
Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:30:00 - [3093] yay for red text. Anyway, the thing that most people frothing at the mouth and screaming "LOL 0.0 alliance abc is whining about this expansion" keep missing what the majority of us are saying. So I'll 'try' to clarify it as much as possible and hope someone at CCP even glances at this post (doubtful they will) 1. We 0.0 mega alliances DO NOT WANT ALL THE SPACE WE HAVE CURRENTLY. We pretty much only have it all because systems can support 1 to 3 ratters at a time and even the -1.0 systems can only support a dedicated team of miners for maybe a day (too bad ore responds only twice a week....) So with that statement above we need more space to accommodate all those people. Convo any person who's run more then 2 pos's for more then 30 days. THEY HATE IT. It's boring, we don't want to do it, it's chores and when you get into the 50+ mark it's work. From Goon to AAA, IT to NC we've all wanted to decouple POS running to sov since the stupid things suck the life outta people. Would most alliances like to dump everyone into 3 or 4 constellations or less? HOLY CRAP YES!!!!!!! I talk to people daily in my own corp that I haven't seen in space in weeks at a time because they have to spread out so much to find income making systems in our space that isn't full to the brim with people. hell yeah we want less space!!! but the upgrades (still) listed as the way they are won't support the fabled 50 people per system we wanted, not to mention NEED. It's looking like they'll barely even support 25 people at at time for most systems. That isn't us being greedy, or whining, that's us saying "it's broken please fix it so we CAN give up more space!" [white] <--- read that last line before you say we're whining [white] 2. Moon goo nerf - Please, everyone in 0.0 seems to be saying "nerf it NOW lets do it!" everyone knew it was broken, and everyone took advantage of it. Pretty telling that it seems EVERYONE is saying nerf it and not a single peep of 'that's not fair!' 3. Freedom - 0.0 meant freedom at it's most basic level, you made good income from less activity because THERE WAS MORE DEFENSE/OFFENSE then carebearing 23/7 yeah you made better income then lvl 4's but you needed that income to make up for all the crap you were losing against roamers, wars, and pirates. That equation fell in the floor years ago and was never fixed. Now their adding a massive tax to the 0.0 holders that doesn't seem to give us the means to support it/pay for it. Then they couple it with a moon nerf. So lets look at this as a basic equation shall we? Problem/Bills Sov costs Alliance costs Corp costs Logistics costs Ship costs Defense costs Answer/Income Moon goo (-50% profitably)(+unknown time cost to gather over more moons to pay same costs AND new sov costs) Ratting (-75% space, +50% value or remaining space... hrm 100 - 75% = 25 system +50% value = 50 system value. needed 100 in the first place...er? wut?) Mining (not enough ore, will lose systems, not sure grav sites will make up for it, many people compress and send to empire anyway, alliances shafted STILL) Anoms (currently very, very low income, belt ratting better (haven't seen evidence that CCP will FIX anoms before they become primary source for many ratters) not enough of them in the space anyone would keep to fuel their incomes needed.[orange] I'm not trying to be a smart@ss here, these changes will effect everyone in 0.0. Many of them are going to have to make changes and that [orange]is a good thing as it's stagnant as hell atm but as it stands unless drastic changes are made to the various upgrades 'most' alliances are going to be hurting. (next post because of wall-o-text)
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:32:00 - [3094] Originally by: ep1k So all the posts of people saying they were planning to bring their alliance out to 0.0 then when they saw the upgrades decided not to. They were disspointed that nullsec still wasnt that great of income.. If you seriously cant figure out that isk income is important for people deciding where to go and amke money, you are a fool. By you logic if you increased 00. income 500x noone would move there. If you cut level 4 income down to 10% noone would move to 0.0. Isk drives everything, and its the reason people arent happy with this patch. If you want people to move to nullsec, you increase the reward. And according to everythign ccp has said they do. Im telling you this is not enough. The small alliances are telling them its not enough. You admit you dotn want more people in nullsec, adn that you dont care. You can make silly ISK in wormholes by sleeper gridning, still the space is dead empty. Stop doing things the way it doesn't work.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:35:00 - [3095] Originally by: Banlish yay for red text. NEXT TIME WRITE IN ALL CAPS TOO. AND ALSO TRY BOLD. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:36:00 - [3096] Continued wall-o-text So the big boys (the 1000+ member alliances are going to have to make the same income off 1/4th the space (if not less) but systems can only support about 50% of what CCP said YET is still thinking that 50 people+ will fit in a system. So how will these new alliances fit in? This is me making rational request for the SMALL alliances They get saddled with giant costs if the space they've taken they try to upgrade yet they have no good ore, no good rats, no good moons and yet costs spiral up sharply. Oh and lets not forget they have to other protectorate themselves to the 'big guy' in the area or fight them. So we add in costs for war too. Hrm, not sure how these little alliances are going to have around 5 to 10 bill to try to take even a single constellation, but it sure does seem like they won't even try. I'd love to see most of 0.0 turn into something 'like' Providence, you have something like 7 alliances holding space there, another 50+ in there, not holding space but working/living in the space. Tons of blues, and Tons of reds all mashing together to make Providence one of the most populated/visited/active 0.0 regions in the game. Will we? I hope so. Will we with Dominion as it is now? Nope. Give those little guys a shot and give them an adjusting sov scale price yes you'll have alliances abuse it with alliance a, b, c, d, etc. but that messes up communication and makes things a nightmare anyway. The 'true' small alliances that only have one should be rewarded for trying to get some space for themselves. First 0.0 system free. Or let them designatate a capital system that has no costs per alliance. The more systems the more it costs (yes that means Goons, ATLAS, AAA, Drone lands has to lose the most but we're all prepared to do so AND think it should happen). Personally I want to see the map like it was in 06 when we had over a hundred alliances in 0.0. Regions were split many ways and 2 or 3 outposts were enough for most alliances. Not this 20+ outposts and 3+ regions we're seeing. Notice that means my own alliance would have to shed outposts and systems, WE WANT IT!!! More brush fire wars (meaning don't tax us into oblivion, find more ways to make more fights that DON'T mean bringing 500vrs500.) MORE WAR! MORE people out here doing EVERYTHING they possibly can. I'm trying not to be biased, I want to see even a 09 player get out here, not just those of us that have stuck with it all this time and REALLY like pounding on each other (hi 2 goons). Sorry for the rant, but you other speak up and say "at least I tried" or you don't get the right to complain when the problem you saw coming hits. -Ban
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:41:00 - [3097] Originally by: Kepakh You can make silly ISK in wormholes by sleeper gridning, still the space is dead empty. Stop doing things the way it doesn't work. There are several people in this thread saying they currently make good money in wormhole space and wanted to move their corps to 0.0. But the isk income is not enticing enough for them to do it. they want to do something. but wont do something that actually hurts them. People dont want to make less money to take longer to do what they enjoy. so yes, iw oudl say income does alter these peoples positions. You can keep ignoring the point of this expansion all you want, and you will continue to miss the point. This was supposed to drive people to nullsec, and it wont untill there are increased incentives.
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:44:00 - [3098] Originally by: Banlish [red] Continued wall-o-text So the big boys (the 1000+ member alliances are going to have to make the same income off 1/4th the space (if not less) but systems can only support about 50% of what CCP said YET is still thinking that 50 people+ will fit in a system. So how will these new alliances fit in? This is me making rational request for the SMALL alliances Cute. Now SUDDENLY you care about small alliances? Lmao. You dont give **** about them, as you never did before. If you really want to know what small alliance wants then ask them, not goons, atlas, nc or whoever else posts here.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:45:00 - [3099] Originally by: ep1k Originally by: Kepakh You can make silly ISK in wormholes by sleeper gridning, still the space is dead empty. Stop doing things the way it doesn't work. There are several people in this thread saying they currently make good money in wormhole space and wanted to move their corps to 0.0. But the isk income is not enticing enough for them to do it. they want to do something. but wont do something that actually hurts them. People dont want to make less money to take longer to do what they enjoy. so yes, iw oudl say income does alter these peoples positions. You can keep ignoring the point of this expansion all you want, and you will continue to miss the point. This was supposed to drive people to nullsec, and it wont untill there are increased incentives. No this was supposed to fix Sov and get rid of afk empires. This is not the patch for the carebears to rise up from Jita and fly into 0.0. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:51:00 - [3100] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: ep1k Originally by: Kepakh You can make silly ISK in wormholes by sleeper gridning, still the space is dead empty. Stop doing things the way it doesn't work. There are several people in this thread saying they currently make good money in wormhole space and wanted to move their corps to 0.0. But the isk income is not enticing enough for them to do it. they want to do something. but wont do something that actually hurts them. People dont want to make less money to take longer to do what they enjoy. so yes, iw oudl say income does alter these peoples positions. You can keep ignoring the point of this expansion all you want, and you will continue to miss the point. This was supposed to drive people to nullsec, and it wont untill there are increased incentives. No this was supposed to fix Sov and get rid of afk empires. This is not the patch for the carebears to rise up from Jita and fly into 0.0. So, the devs lied in all their earlier blogs?

gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:51:00 - [3101] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: ep1k Originally by: Kepakh You can make silly ISK in wormholes by sleeper gridning, still the space is dead empty. Stop doing things the way it doesn't work. There are several people in this thread saying they currently make good money in wormhole space and wanted to move their corps to 0.0. But the isk income is not enticing enough for them to do it. they want to do something. but wont do something that actually hurts them. People dont want to make less money to take longer to do what they enjoy. so yes, iw oudl say income does alter these peoples positions. You can keep ignoring the point of this expansion all you want, and you will continue to miss the point. This was supposed to drive people to nullsec, and it wont untill there are increased incentives. No this was supposed to fix Sov and get rid of afk empires. This is not the patch for the carebears to rise up from Jita and fly into 0.0. and what would be the point of getting rid of afk empires? oh ye, to make room for new ones, once that come from ... empier maybe? ur mistake was not typing in caps
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:53:00 - [3102] Edited by: Kepakh on 10/11/2009 23:55:10 Originally by: ep1k There are several people in this thread saying they currently make good money in wormhole space and wanted to move their corps to 0.0. But the isk income is not enticing enough for them to do it. they want to do something. but wont do something that actually hurts them. People dont want to make less money to take longer to do what they enjoy. so yes, iw oudl say income does alter these peoples positions. You can keep ignoring the point of this expansion all you want, and you will continue to miss the point. This was supposed to drive people to nullsec, and it wont untill there are increased incentives. Higher rewards won't make people come to 0.0 as I demonstrated on wormholes which were supposed to attract people the same way and failed nor there is any point in an effort spent on 'attracting' someone into 0.0 life. Instead, make 0.0 more enjoyable for current inhabitans and if you do it well, more new people will come.
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:54:00 - [3103] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: ep1k Originally by: Kepakh You can make silly ISK in wormholes by sleeper gridning, still the space is dead empty. Stop doing things the way it doesn't work. There are several people in this thread saying they currently make good money in wormhole space and wanted to move their corps to 0.0. But the isk income is not enticing enough for them to do it. they want to do something. but wont do something that actually hurts them. People dont want to make less money to take longer to do what they enjoy. so yes, iw oudl say income does alter these peoples positions. You can keep ignoring the point of this expansion all you want, and you will continue to miss the point. This was supposed to drive people to nullsec, and it wont untill there are increased incentives. No this was supposed to fix Sov and get rid of afk empires. This is not the patch for the carebears to rise up from Jita and fly into 0.0. Given that EVE was designed to be a sandbox where the players can establish and topple each other's empires in nullsec, what kind of problems do you see with the sovereignty system as it exists today? The thing is that sovereignty hasn't evolved much since we introduced it, so we're seeing a lot of flaws coming out over time that we want to address. It's also that we want to allow much more build up and infrastructure and also enable more people to live out there. So what we're looking at long term is that an alliance can control a region and create treaties with other corporations and license them to get in, and there's actually an infrastructure where you can have a relationship where both sides benefit from it. It's not a free form thing anymore. What we'd like to see are more ways to establish and defend sovereignty, but also at the same time have more opportunities to really build up your own space and harness its resources - and become an empire. Sov needs fixing, and thats fine. Every single large alliance wants less space. You are so mad at them you cant see this but ok. No small corp is going to start paying to use the space. They aret going to pay sov tax, then tax to alliance to earn level 4 income. And the current upgrades do not turn your space into a super empire.
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:55:00 - [3104] The constant comparisons to level IV missions and .0 income are irrelevant. Ask yourself this question: why do you fight for sovereignty? Answer - to make more ISK, to gain more sov. This is a loss making activity, or at best a cost neutral one. Everytime you fight to attack or defend a resource (e.g moon goo) you run a risk of losing x amount of ships (isk) in the process. e.g how much isk did Goonswarm lose in the war vs BOB? Did they recoup their loses in isk terms or make a profit as a result: probably not. Level IVs in Empire are gain making activity - you lose nothing but gain isk (unless your stupid or very unlucky). In fact regardless of how much ISK you make doing missions in high sec you will always surpass (given enough time) someone fighting for sov in .0 So provided the competition system for sov is a level playing field the 'isk income' is irrelevant. Alliance 'A' will only make so much ISK in .0, and so will Alliance 'B' who they are competing against. Nobody is actually 'competing' against the high sec mission runner, because he's not in the same competition for sov. To put it another way, if your goal is to "become rich" then run missions in high sec. If your goal is to become 'infamous / famous' for owning space then go to .0 and fight. (Incidentally this is why its difficult to attract care bears to .0, its because they understand this fundamental equation and are not interested in 'owning space' as 'being rich' is their own reward.) So what if the rules for owning space have changed? They've changed for everyone: just get on and adapt to it. C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Halaxi Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.10 23:59:00 - [3105] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Banlish [red] Continued wall-o-text So the big boys (the 1000+ member alliances are going to have to make the same income off 1/4th the space (if not less) but systems can only support about 50% of what CCP said YET is still thinking that 50 people+ will fit in a system. So how will these new alliances fit in? This is me making rational request for the SMALL alliances Cute. Now SUDDENLY you care about small alliances? Lmao. You dont give **** about them, as you never did before. If you really want to know what small alliance wants then ask them, not goons, atlas, nc or whoever else posts here. Actually, I reckon the current 0.0 alliances would like to see more peeps enter 0.0. Why? Because it gives them someone different to interact with, it changes the scenary. Instead of roaming the same 15 jumps to kill the same bunch of people, we would now have to adapt to new organisations coming in, make new arrangements (or pew pew them in the face). Contrary to certain opinion, we would love to have more competition from more people. However, what would the incentive be for these new alliances to try? Like you, I would like to here from some aspiring 0.0 corps/alliances - what incentive do you see to basing out of 0.0, with the proposed pros and cons, rather than basing in Empire and taking day trips into 0.0? Hal.
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:03:00 - [3106] Originally by: Shawna Gray Originally by: Kepakh Risk vs Reward is just nonsense. According to this logic you should be paid more for as you expose yourself to higher risk. If that is the case, you are just stupid and deserve to get podded. Then what is 0.0? Is it just there as a pointless battlegrounds/epeen generator for some player generated map? Essentially yes. EVE is a game, the reward for some players in playing this game is a sense of achievement by: 1. Having the best ship / most ISK. AND/OR 2. Having their own patch of the game world. AND/OR 3. Depriving another player of points 1 & 2 C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:03:00 - [3107] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Cute. Now SUDDENLY you care about small alliances? Lmao. You dont give **** about them, as you never did before. If you really want to know what small alliance wants then ask them, not goons, atlas, nc or whoever else posts here. I like how someone else is telling us what we think, even after we have stated our opinion many times in this thread.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:06:00 - [3108] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: ep1k There are several people in this thread saying they currently make good money in wormhole space and wanted to move their corps to 0.0. But the isk income is not enticing enough for them to do it. they want to do something. but wont do something that actually hurts them. People dont want to make less money to take longer to do what they enjoy. so yes, iw oudl say income does alter these peoples positions. You can keep ignoring the point of this expansion all you want, and you will continue to miss the point. This was supposed to drive people to nullsec, and it wont untill there are increased incentives. Higher rewards won't make people come to 0.0 as I demonstrated on wormholes which were supposed to attract people the same way nor there is any point in an effort spent on 'attracting' someone into 0.0 life. You did no such thing. There's lots of folks living in wormholes now. The logistics nightmare means it will never be as populated as 0.0. But if you go through any wormhole from Empire, there will be someone else in the system. Quote: Instead, make 0.0 more enjoyable for current inhabitans and if you do it well, people will come. Great! You finally agree with us. See, our point was that dominion was supposed to make 0.0 a permanent home for players. Not some place they JC to PvP, then JC back to Empire to replace their losses. That's why I was looking forward to it, and I'm an ultra-carebear. The idea of being able to set up shop selling stuff to people out in 0.0 appeals to me. But that's not gonna work out until the density of the players goes up, which Dominion was supposed to do. These upgrades will not provide a significant boost to density, which means no significant markets, which means it would be dumb for me to move out there. And before you come back with a moronic 'you can go there right now and make stuff!' response, I'm not interested in taking a massive nerf to my logistics and safety in exchange for a nerf to my profits. The folks who move out to 0.0 for the 'dream of owning a little space' are the ones who are no longer there. They were annihilated by the capitalists who currently occupy all of 0.0. If your design relies on hopes and dreams to get people to move forever into 0.0, your design will fail. Let me put it this way: I hate the Goons. I believe they are the antithesis of what good gaming is. They are vile anti-social bastards that get off on the pain of others. Their removal from EvE would give me great joy. And I agree with them.
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:09:00 - [3109] Originally by: Halaxi However, what would the incentive be for these new alliances to try? Like you, I would like to here from some aspiring 0.0 corps/alliances - what incentive do you see to basing out of 0.0, with the proposed pros and cons, rather than basing in Empire and taking day trips into 0.0? Hal. The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing. Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying. In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'. C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:13:00 - [3110] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Halaxi However, what would the incentive be for these new alliances to try? Like you, I would like to here from some aspiring 0.0 corps/alliances - what incentive do you see to basing out of 0.0, with the proposed pros and cons, rather than basing in Empire and taking day trips into 0.0? Hal. The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing. Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying. In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'. C. Adding more billboard space to the ghetto to write your name on is not going drive more people to live there.

Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:15:00 - [3111] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Banlish Continued wall-o-text So the big boys (the 1000+ member alliances are going to have to make the same income off 1/4th the space (if not less) but systems can only support about 50% of what CCP said YET is still thinking that 50 people+ will fit in a system. So how will these new alliances fit in? This is me making rational request for the SMALL alliances Cute. Now SUDDENLY you care about small alliances? Lmao. You dont give ** about them, as you never did before. If you really want to know what small alliance wants then ask them, not goons, atlas, nc or whoever else posts here. Originally by:** Banlish [red] yay for red text. Anyway, the thing that most people frothing at the mouth and screaming "LOL 0.0 alliance abc is whining about this expansion" keep missing what the majority of us are saying. So I'll 'try' to clarify it as much as possible and hope someone at CCP even glances at this post (doubtful they will) Read the above. Also ITT you know what I'm thinking. Stop being such a moron and realize that a few of us DO give a crap about other alliances and people besides ourselves. It's called a game, and the only way a MMO or "massive MULTIPLAYER online" game is any good is if there are MORE PEOPLE IN IT. I guess in your rush to point a finger and say you know what's going on in my head you forgot that fact. More alliances means more targets, more people to interact with and more people to do stuff with. But hey, you didn't read anything but what you wanted to in my replies and instead frothed at the mouth and looked like a moron. Good show, no go back under your bridge you stupid troll.
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:20:00 - [3112] Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Halaxi However, what would the incentive be for these new alliances to try? Like you, I would like to here from some aspiring 0.0 corps/alliances - what incentive do you see to basing out of 0.0, with the proposed pros and cons, rather than basing in Empire and taking day trips into 0.0? Hal. The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing. Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying. In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'. C. Adding more billboard space to the ghetto to write your name on is not going drive more people to live there. Your ascribing a 'isk value' or monetary worth to .0. Thats not the point. You dont go to .0 space to claim sov in order to "get rich". You go because of the challenge and reward of owning sovereignty - that's the reward in and of itself. To use your analogy - at least I can write my name on the .0 'ghetto bill board': high sec doesnt have a bill board to write on... C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
KeratinBoy GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:22:00 - [3113] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Halaxi However, what would the incentive be for these new alliances to try? Like you, I would like to here from some aspiring 0.0 corps/alliances - what incentive do you see to basing out of 0.0, with the proposed pros and cons, rather than basing in Empire and taking day trips into 0.0? Hal. The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing. Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying. In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'. C. Hubris, Cailais is thy name. Tell me, what other subjects do you feel qualified to speak about re the motives of more than one hundred thousand people?
Kismeteer BGG	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:28:00 - [3114] Replying to this massive thread at the suggestion of CCP Zymurgist: Instead of having CONCORD get all the isk, forever, why not have the players take over how much space should cost? This would put the control back in the hands of the players rather than siphoning off the isk. There are plenty of other isk sinks that could be used. Anyway, these ideas could be accomplished in two ways. The first way would be to have an auction for owning a region of space. You have a contract that owns all of Dek, for instance. That first buy out period is the critical one, of course. But after that, maybe those contracts come up for bid every so often. Then, when people put up towers in Dek, their isk goes to the person owning the contract. and maybe that contract owner can change the prices involved for certain systems, using financing to declare war. This would also improve smaller corps chance for getting 0.0 space, as they would be paying the owners of the space for the privilege. The second way would be to make 0.0 similar to the rents of offices. The more occupied systems in a region there are, the higher the price goes. You start off small, 10 mil per month, for the first 5, have it ratcheting up as more systems are occupied. Or have it based on free market there, the ability to put up a tower is done on a 'I will pay this much'. Once again, economic might translates to owning more space. Anyway, a little late to implement in time for Dominion, but I think that the isk should go somewhere, not just to concord. There are better isk sinks if you want them. -- Kismeteer, carebear extraordinaire
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:33:00 - [3115] Originally by: KeratinBoy Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Halaxi However, what would the incentive be for these new alliances to try? Like you, I would like to here from some aspiring 0.0 corps/alliances - what incentive do you see to basing out of 0.0, with the proposed pros and cons, rather than basing in Empire and taking day trips into 0.0? Hal. The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing. Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying. In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'. C. Hubris, Cailais is thy name. Tell me, what other subjects do you feel qualified to speak about re the motives of more than one hundred thousand people? I wouldnt say it's hubris, its just common sense. Id admit that another aspect that deters people from trying to get a foothold in .0 is the mind numbingly boring activity of POS warfare - the proposed mechanics sound a little less boring, that could be a good incentive. But ultimately it still boils down to the kudos (status?) of being an sov holding alliance. For example write down all the names of .0 Alliances you can think of on one piece of paper. Now do the same for high sec alliances. Compare the two. C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:34:00 - [3116] Edited by: Trent Nichols on 11/11/2009 00:35:22 Originally by: Cailais The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing. Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying. In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'. C. No it isn't. If anything, the cost of setting up shop in Dominion 0.0 will ensure that no new colors arrive on the map to challenge the old anytime soon. To be clear about us in the existing 0.0 alliances wanting to see new people out in 0.0 - We don't want this because we care about the small alliances themselves. We care about having more people to fight, closer to home. We also would like to fight some different people from time to time. Dominion 0.0 will be a ghost town. No reason to fight our old enemies and no new enemies to fill the void. The biggest problem with Dominion isn't the weak upgrades or the insane costs but what it all adds up to - boredom. Colonies and Capitals
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:36:00 - [3117] Originally by: Hertford I now ask the question that if 0.0 was more of an incentive than it currently is, would there be more players joining the "Want to Move to 0.0" camp? the answer to your question is an empathic HELL YEAH! i first ventured out into 0.0, solo flying my rupture into a wartorn region (catch during the MC/FIX assault on IAC). because IAC allowed me to rat around FAT-6P in exchange for intel. now why did i go there when i hardly had enough isk to buy ammo, let alone replace my ship? because in a few hours of killing sansha BS spawns i had tripled my eve assets... a few days and ruptures later i was in a typhoon... talk about incentive. i grant you that Dominion as it stands does not provide a large enough incentive to counter the LVL4 holy grail. but we all know CCP likes to roll out barebone stuff and flesh it out over time, patience with the upgrades is key here i think. however i propose (yet again) that lvl 4 agents in high sec should only have x amount of missions per hour available. say 100 missions per agent per hour to start with. leave low sec agents alone and we have a massive carrot for low sec living, while at the same time skewing the isk/hr relation of high sec and null sec toward null and a more risky lifestyle. the total removal of lvl 4 missions from highsec is too heavy handed same as knocking off 80% profit. off topic: im agreeing with a goon and not only is he being civil he agrees with me if dominion achieves NOTHING, it has atleast brought a level of actual discussion to this forum that i have never seen before. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:40:00 - [3118] Edited by: Breaker77 on 11/11/2009 00:41:34 Originally by: Kismeteer I think that the isk should go somewhere, not just to concord. There are better isk sinks if you want them. Just because you pay for something or buy something off the market does not make it an ISK sink. ISK faucets: Rat bounties Mission Rewards ISK sinks: Any item bought from an NPC sell order (364 days) Wardec costs Alliance / Corp fees Office rent NPC factory/science slot fees The problem is that only office rent, monthly alliance fees, and only a very small percentage of POS fuels are monthly ISK sinks, and very very small sinks at that. Yes you might buy a supercap from someone, but they get the ISK, it is not taken out of the game.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:47:00 - [3119] Originally by: Cailais To put it another way, if your goal is to "become rich" then run missions in high sec. If your goal is to become 'infamous / famous' for owning space then go to .0 and fight. (Incidentally this is why its difficult to attract care bears to .0, its because they understand this fundamental equation and are not interested in 'owning space' as 'being rich' is their own reward.) It's you who doesn't understand. The reason it should be more profitable in 0.0 is so that 0.0ers don't have to go to empire for ISK. More ppl in 0.0 already. Just with that. It's not about getting rich, it's about having a reason to grind in 0.0 over empire.
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:52:00 - [3120] Originally by: Trent Nichols Edited by: Trent Nichols on 11/11/2009 00:35:22 Originally by: Cailais The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing. Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying. In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'. C. No it isn't. If anything, the cost of setting up shop in Dominion 0.0 will ensure that no new colors arrive on the map to challenge the old anytime soon. To be clear about us in the existing 0.0 alliances wanting to see new people out in 0.0 - We don't want this because we care about the small alliances themselves. We care about having more people to fight, closer to home. We also would like to fight some different people from time to time. Dominion 0.0 will be a ghost town. No reason to fight our old enemies and no new enemies to fill the void. The biggest problem with Dominion isn't the weak upgrades or the insane costs but what it all adds up to - boredom. Ive emphasised the critical bit here: remembering the base question "Ask yourself this question: why do you fight for sovereignty? Answer - to make more ISK, to gain more sov". So the dilemma here is whether the ISK cost of getting sov is worth getting your name 'on the map'. The basic costs (not including cyno jammers, jump bridges et al) aren't that high. A sov .0 system (and the surrounding unclaimed systems) will probably cover the cost of holding sov in the first place. If you're lucky a Alliance might even make a small profit. It will be a significant challenge. Id expect quite a lot of 'fledgling alliances' to try, and fail but then that's all part of the process. A bit like starting up a small business I guess. Growth is a increased challenge as an Alliance will need to match its player base against its extent of sovereign space. Grow too fast and an Alliance will out strip its ability to maintain and cultivate that space. Too slowly and its surrounding area will become saturated. Should be interesting to see how corps and alliances approach that balancing act. C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:58:00 - [3121] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Trent Nichols Edited by: Trent Nichols on 11/11/2009 00:35:22 Originally by: Cailais The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing. Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying. In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'. C. No it isn't. If anything, the cost of setting up shop in Dominion 0.0 will ensure that no new colors arrive on the map to challenge the old anytime soon. To be clear about us in the existing 0.0 alliances wanting to see new people out in 0.0 - We don't want this because we care about the small alliances themselves. We care about having more people to fight, closer to home. We also would like to fight some different people from time to time. Dominion 0.0 will be a ghost town. No reason to fight our old enemies and no new enemies to fill the void. The biggest problem with Dominion isn't the weak upgrades or the insane costs but what it all adds up to - boredom. Ive emphasised the critical bit here: remembering the base question "Ask yourself this question: why do you fight for sovereignty? Answer - to make more ISK, to gain more sov". So the dilemma here is whether the ISK cost of getting sov is worth getting your name 'on the map'. The basic costs (not including cyno jammers, jump bridges et al) aren't that high. A sov .0 system (and the surrounding unclaimed systems) will probably cover the cost of holding sov in the first place. If you're lucky a Alliance might even make a small profit. It will be a significant challenge. Id expect quite a lot of 'fledgling alliances' to try, and fail but then that's all part of the process. A bit like starting up a small business I guess. Growth is a increased challenge as an Alliance will need to match its player base against its extent of sovereign space. Grow too fast and an Alliance will out strip its ability to maintain and cultivate that space. Too slowly and its surrounding area will become saturated. Should be interesting to see how corps and alliances approach that balancing act. C. And i will argue that the people willing to fight for the sake of a name or to fight are already doing so. If their goal of growing 0.0 is to be met new goals need to be established. More isk would be a compelling one for many people. And if done right could encourage eve more fighting to control the rewards. not just fighting because what the hell else am i going to do.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:58:00 - [3122] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 11/11/2009 00:59:51 Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 11/11/2009 00:59:01 (Notice I don't talk about 0.0 inhabitants that are there today) Quote: Mining in 0.0 is better then mining in hi sec. This matters to miners. Maybe not to you. I have 5 hulks, and they stay in hi sec because I have seen what happens when you bring them in 0.0. If you search my post history you'd see I started as miner, had high, lo sec and 0.0 sec experiences including Rorqual and multiple areas in 0.0. Even with all the roids in the world ATM it's not worth it for an empire guy that pondered migrating into 0.0. Once the patch comes, yay more roids... that none cares about. It's just better to go and get them in a WH like everyone else does (in case you did not notice where last months high ends price drop comes from now. Not from 0.0). More quantity of something not used as is, is not the solution The mindset of those who live in hi sec is highly incompatible with 0.0 and its chores, and the patch does exactly Z E R O to convince them. Quantity is not the answer. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:02:00 - [3123] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha It's just better to go and get them in a Level 4 mission like everyone else does
Boris Petroshevski	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:02:00 - [3124] Ok so first of all when is CCP going to give a **** and actually respond again. Dont care if you simply say "we are reading your responses" atleast that means you notice your player base.
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:02:00 - [3125] Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Cailais To put it another way, if your goal is to "become rich" then run missions in high sec. If your goal is to become 'infamous / famous' for owning space then go to .0 and fight. (Incidentally this is why its difficult to attract care bears to .0, its because they understand this fundamental equation and are not interested in 'owning space' as 'being rich' is their own reward.) It's you who doesn't understand. The reason it should be more profitable in 0.0 is so that 0.0ers don't have to go to empire for ISK. More ppl in 0.0 already. Just with that. It's not about getting rich, it's about having a reason to grind in 0.0 over empire. Well firstly you dont have to go to empire for ISK - its the sensible thing to do if you're saving ISK because you've drastically reduced the risk of losing ISK in the process. In that respect empire will always be the better choice, even if you half'd the value of level 4s tomorrow. However you can make a decent amount of ISK in .0. Should it be more? Perhaps slightly more but even if you quadrupled the isk value of BS spawns in .0 still most would not come because you're just as likely to lose that amount of ISK in the long term trying to acquire it. Its the equivalent of firing faction ammo at high sec rats in a belt: if you're not careful you spend more on ammo than you make in bounties. C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:12:00 - [3126] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: Cailais To put it another way, if your goal is to "become rich" then run missions in high sec. If your goal is to become 'infamous / famous' for owning space then go to .0 and fight. (Incidentally this is why its difficult to attract care bears to .0, its because they understand this fundamental equation and are not interested in 'owning space' as 'being rich' is their own reward.) It's you who doesn't understand. The reason it should be more profitable in 0.0 is so that 0.0ers don't have to go to empire for ISK. More ppl in 0.0 already. Just with that. It's not about getting rich, it's about having a reason to grind in 0.0 over empire. Well firstly you dont have to go to empire for ISK - its the sensible thing to do if you're saving ISK because you've drastically reduced the risk of losing ISK in the process. In that respect empire will always be the better choice, even if you half'd the value of level 4s tomorrow. However you can make a decent amount of ISK in .0. Should it be more? Perhaps slightly more but even if you quadrupled the isk value of BS spawns in .0 still most would not come because you're just as likely to lose that amount of ISK in the long term trying to acquire it. Its the equivalent of firing faction ammo at high sec rats in a belt: if you're not careful you spend more on ammo than you make in bounties. C. From a personal stand point, that is not true. If 0.0 earned me more money than missions, I would do that instead. Why? Because all of pve is just a boring grind, I just want to use the quickest method to get whatever ISK I need. There is very, very little risk ratting in 0.0. Watch local + watch intel = safe. I'm not suggesting that an increase in isk/hour of 0.0 would make everyone run out there, but I'm stating a very good reason that it should be more profitable than empire. So people live there, not just pvp there. Though I suspect it would have some influence at least.
Alice Rubidinous Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:12:00 - [3127] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Trent Nichols Edited by: Trent Nichols on 11/11/2009 00:35:22 Originally by: Cailais The incentive is simple: to have their name on the map. That's the only incentive, perhaps the only real reason to be in .0 fighting for sov. It's an epeen, kudos thing. Currently the large Alliances have taken all of that space. The current mechanics make it very hard to capture any of it which de-incentivizes (sic) fledgling alliances from even trying. In stark terms this is a 0.0 're-set'. C. No it isn't. If anything, the cost of setting up shop in Dominion 0.0 will ensure that no new colors arrive on the map to challenge the old anytime soon. To be clear about us in the existing 0.0 alliances wanting to see new people out in 0.0 - We don't want this because we care about the small alliances themselves. We care about having more people to fight, closer to home. We also would like to fight some different people from time to time. Dominion 0.0 will be a ghost town. No reason to fight our old enemies and no new enemies to fill the void. The biggest problem with Dominion isn't the weak upgrades or the insane costs but what it all adds up to - boredom. Ive emphasised the critical bit here: remembering the base question "Ask yourself this question: why do you fight for sovereignty? Answer - to make more ISK, to gain more sov". So the dilemma here is whether the ISK cost of getting sov is worth getting your name 'on the map'. The basic costs (not including cyno jammers, jump bridges et al) aren't that high. A sov .0 system (and the surrounding unclaimed systems) will probably cover the cost of holding sov in the first place. If you're lucky a Alliance might even make a small profit. It will be a significant challenge. Id expect quite a lot of 'fledgling alliances' to try, and fail but then that's all part of the process. A bit like starting up a small business I guess. Growth is a increased challenge as an Alliance will need to match its player base against its extent of sovereign space. Grow too fast and an Alliance will out strip its ability to maintain and cultivate that space. Too slowly and its surrounding area will become saturated. Should be interesting to see how corps and alliances approach that balancing act. C. Yeah. The QENs show us that EVE is able to respond on the hour to market forces and nerfs/boosts. Everything in EVE is evaluated on its utility to the individual pilot...except 0.0 space. 0.0 space is magically different. By the way, your "signature" betrays your sense of self-importance. I have no doubt that YOU might try to "put your name on a map".
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:13:00 - [3128] Originally by: ep1k If their goal of growing 0.0 is to be met new goals need to be established. I would 100% agree with that. Originally by: ep1k isk would be a compelling one for many people. Short term yes - but those that failed to make a lot of ISK or lost assets will just return to Empire. Those that will make a lot of ISK through increasing the rewards are the large alliances that are already established. The question is then do we want more players and more diversity in .0, or just a bigger Goonswarm? I guess I can already work out your answer to that? C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:13:00 - [3129] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 10/11/2009 22:29:36 >> but it does make 0.0 more appealing for the player base at large. No - it doesn't. YES OR NO: Dominion is a Sov nerf, but a resource buff. Yes it's a sov nerf. No it's not a resource buff. Please engage brain before posting.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:15:00 - [3130] My popcorn is running low. I need more whining from atlas and goons tbh.

Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:16:00 - [3131] Originally by: Aralis Yes it's a sov nerf. No it's not a resource buff. Please engage brain before posting. Higher moon goo accessability is not a resource buff? Insta-respawn anomalies per system is not a resource buff?
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:18:00 - [3132] Originally by: Alice Rubidinous By the way, your "signature" betrays your sense of self-importance. I have no doubt that YOU might try to "put your name on a map". My sig? Not sure what thats got to do with anything - its from the film 'Sunshine' (pretty good sci-fi film if you've not seen it). C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Alice Rubidinous Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:19:00 - [3133] Originally by: Cailais Well firstly you dont have to go to empire for ISK - its the sensible thing to do if you're saving ISK because you've drastically reduced the risk of losing ISK in the process. In that respect empire will always be the better choice, even if you half'd the value of level 4s tomorrow. However you can make a decent amount of ISK in .0. Should it be more? Perhaps slightly more but even if you quadrupled the isk value of BS spawns in .0 still most would not come because you're just as likely to lose that amount of ISK in the long term trying to acquire it. Its the equivalent of firing faction ammo at high sec rats in a belt: if you're not careful you spend more on ammo than you make in bounties. C. NEVER STOP POSTING! You are so gosh darn smart!!! Tell us more about how risks and rewards work! I mean, in EVE there's no way to hedge against getting ganked in 0.0 space. You have to fly around with uninsured CNRs, just like in empire. Also, you get ganked continuously in 0.0, so it's IMPOSSIBLE to make isk. Even if the rats in 0.0 were worth a billion each, it would NEVER be worth it. EVER.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:20:00 - [3134] Edited by: Ukucia on 11/11/2009 01:20:44 Originally by: Cailais Well firstly you dont have to go to empire for ISK - its the sensible thing to do if you're saving ISK because you've drastically reduced the risk of losing ISK in the process. In that respect empire will always be the better choice, even if you half'd the value of level 4s tomorrow. Nope. What you seem to not understand is the people leaving 0.0 to run L4s aren't saving ISK. It's a necessary evil so that they can enjoy their primary gaming activity. They need cash so they can buy new ships to get blown up. As such, they are going to take the fastest way to make that ISK, because it's not fun. Until activities in 0.0 surpass the ISK/hour of L4s, they're going to be doing L4s so they can get back to the fun part of the game. (And the ISK/hour calculations they will be making for 0.0 assume losing their ship every so often). The goal of getting them to stay out in 0.0 is: 1) spread everyone out so we're not all packed in a tiny part of space called "Empire" 2) make people feel like they have a home in 0.0. Not that it's some transitory place they go to just to PvP. That way they'll 3) fight tooth-and-nail to defend the most ass-backward and worthless system in 0.0, because it's their home. As long as people have to leave 0.0 in order to spend time in 0.0, it will never truly be their home. It'll just be a spot on the map.
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:21:00 - [3135] Economies thrive in stable countries: 1st world countries <-> High Sec Thugs and warlords thrive in chaos: War Zones <-> Null Sec Pirates thrive in the **** holes serving as buffers between the two: Somalia <-> Low Sec Most 0.0 empires today are run like Kim Jong-il is at the helm. Hopefully Dominion will force most of them to open up a bit out of necessity. CCP is still controlling your game, and like with the nano-nerf, doing a damn fine job at it. Evolve or fade away.
rand0mch1ck	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:25:00 - [3136] Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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. So its Wednesday, and i see no updated blog, any danger of getting some more / clarified information to digest ?
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:26:00 - [3137] Originally by: Honest Smedley CCP is still controlling your game, and like with the nano-nerf, doing a damn fine job at it. Oh yeah...that's why AF got AB bonus recently on test server and why no one is complaining about laser fotm. You have odd measurements of what is a fine job done.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:27:00 - [3138] Originally by: rand0mch1ck Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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. So its Wednesday, and i see no updated blog, any danger of getting some more / clarified information to digest ? Doubtful. When the response to the first information is "YOU IDIOTS! GO BACK AND DO IT AGAIN!!" they either are busy back at the drawing board, or are disinclined to release the parts of the design they left out that are so bad they held 'em back.
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:28:00 - [3139] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Honest Smedley CCP is still controlling your game, and like with the nano-nerf, doing a damn fine job at it. Oh yeah...that's why AF got AB bonus recently on test server and why no one is complaining about laser fotm. You have odd measurements of what is a fine job done. They're doing well enough to take your money apparently.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:29:00 - [3140] Originally by: Banlish Originally by: McDaddy Pimp CVA wont go bankrupt and we probally will see more CVA-type alliance. they shat out outposts left and right, maybe they deserve to go bankrupt. "too big to fail" sound familiar? They shat out outposts in the WORST region of space (seriously even IMMENSEA and PUREBLIND have better resources) and they turned it into a 0.0 mecha for anyone that could abide by the rules. They litterally took a region that has the economics of low sec and turned it into something that most everyone in this game can respect. That isn't 'to big to fail' it's hard work in a crappy place that shouldn't be punished. i concede the other point but CVA chose their spot. It's self-inflicted pain nothing else. yes they deserve recognition for what they accomplished BUT that does not entitle them to special treatment. they over-extended themselves by exploiting a broken sov system and should have realized it wouldn't last when rumors of a sov change started. instead they engaged goonswarm in a race of how many outposts an alliance can dump onto the map. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."

Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:32:00 - [3141] Originally by: Honest Smedley They're doing well enough to take your money apparently. The fact that people do not vote with their wallet immediately does not make your job well done, it just means you didn't screw that much to make people leave.
xxxak Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:33:00 - [3142] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: Hopefully you have supplementary ways of making money, you know, like moon mining? CCP seeding R64 moons in providence? I personally dont even have that much issues with the anomalies, considering belt ratting here in provi is crap. However lets start by dividing the sov costs by 5, and then repost the blog. As I said, if the costs become an issue, they can always be looked at. Costs are an issue. Look at them.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:33:00 - [3143] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: ep1k Originally by: Kepakh You can make silly ISK in wormholes by sleeper gridning, still the space is dead empty. Stop doing things the way it doesn't work. There are several people in this thread saying they currently make good money in wormhole space and wanted to move their corps to 0.0. But the isk income is not enticing enough for them to do it. they want to do something. but wont do something that actually hurts them. People dont want to make less money to take longer to do what they enjoy. so yes, iw oudl say income does alter these peoples positions. You can keep ignoring the point of this expansion all you want, and you will continue to miss the point. This was supposed to drive people to nullsec, and it wont untill there are increased incentives. No this was supposed to fix Sov and get rid of afk empires. This is not the patch for the carebears to rise up from Jita and fly into 0.0. So according to you are there any non afk empires?
KeratinBoy GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:35:00 - [3144] Originally by: ServantOfMask i concede the other point but CVA chose their spot. It's self-inflicted pain nothing else. yes they deserve recognition for what they accomplished BUT that does not entitle them to special treatment. they over-extended themselves by exploiting a broken sov system and should have realized it wouldn't last when rumors of a sov change started. instead they engaged goonswarm in a race of how many outposts an alliance can dump onto the map. So, the devs stated that this expansion would help smaller alliances in crappier space and chose CVA as their example. Looking at the proposed changes, CVA get surprised without lube. And you see nothing wrong with that disconnect?
Cailais Amarr Diablo Advocatus	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:36:00 - [3145] Edited by: Cailais on 11/11/2009 01:42:05 Originally by: Alice Rubidinous Originally by: Cailais Well firstly you dont have to go to empire for ISK - its the sensible thing to do if you're saving ISK because you've drastically reduced the risk of losing ISK in the process. In that respect empire will always be the better choice, even if you half'd the value of level 4s tomorrow. However you can make a decent amount of ISK in .0. Should it be more? Perhaps slightly more but even if you quadrupled the isk value of BS spawns in .0 still most would not come because you're just as likely to lose that amount of ISK in the long term trying to acquire it. Its the equivalent of firing faction ammo at high sec rats in a belt: if you're not careful you spend more on ammo than you make in bounties. C. NEVER STOP POSTING! You are so gosh darn smart!!! Tell us more about how risks and rewards work! I mean, in EVE there's no way to hedge against getting ganked in 0.0 space. You have to fly around with uninsured CNRs, just like in empire. Also, you get ganked continuously in 0.0, so it's IMPOSSIBLE to make isk. Even if the rats in 0.0 were worth a billion each, it would NEVER be worth it. EVER. /sigh Ive got to go - work beckons. But sure fine. Have it your way. But basically if you make sov systems produce more ISK, and cost less to maintain a sov alliance will expand to control more territory. It will need to spend less time in it's sov sys and will roam further where upon it will squish the fledgling alliances CCP are trying to encourage and we'll all be back right where we started. C. edit: quick question - if its possible to hedge against getting ganked in .0, then isn't it just as safe as empire so why should you get more ISK as a reward? Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
xxxak Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:38:00 - [3146] My Solution to the ******ED EVE DOMINION PATCH: Higher levels of Sov allow the hiring of better and better faction mission agents at PLAYER CONTROLLED stations. For example, if Mostly Harmless has SOV 5 in P-2TTL, we can "hire" a LEVEL 5 Caldari Navy agent and run level 5 missions in P-2TTL nullsec. There, SOLVED. 0.0 is now less safe than Empire, but the convenience and rewards are finally worth it. Thank you ISK can be sent to XXXAK.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:39:00 - [3147] Originally by: xxxak Costs are an issue. Look at them. Costs look ok. In any case, if they need to be touched, it will be after space upgrades are polished. Relation upkeep <-> upgrades <-> moons determines how 0.0 will work.
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:43:00 - [3148] Imma address a few things im reading. Though since it's at like 100 pages already of bleh. Meh. Quote: 1)Anomolies - currently considered worthless, and are never run. This isnt that true if you have **ty space. Goto cloud ring or providence. I bet you wont find anomalies. Quote: 2)Grav sites - I believe these have too few minerals to be worth bothering with and nobody in 0.0 uses them. It's more to the fact that mining is horrendously boring that you lose interest. Add on top of that the local watching and fear of neutrals. Then the logistics of moving that ore to a station where you have good refine. Which doesnt really exist because the best you can get out of a POS is 75% refine. The minnie outposts are rarely upgraded enough to get good refine. So you end up relying on rorquals. Which according to the latest dev blog. Are pretty damn rare. Quote: 3)Profession sites - now that interfaces are worthless Radar sites are not worth the time to run. With the collapse of the salvage market, neither are mag sites. This will be even worse when the POS market is glutted making faction POS's and pos mods worthless. They arent bad for goood 0.0. Often you are getting 10/10s in good 0.0. So you cant solo run them. Instead you get the good radars. Which in of themselves have decent rats in them. Quote: the only upgrades that are worth a damn are Entrapment (DED complexes are still worth something, though the market will rapidly crash if not done right) Massive amount of new plexes which are soloable and have no faction spawns or deadspace mods? But good bounty income? Ya could be really good indeed. Will that happen? Very unlikely. Quote:** and the flux generator (can generate more wormholes to empire for logistics). That's what gets me. They make it much harder to have jump bridges and such. Which really isnt going to mean much in the larger sense because those with jump bridges can keep the upgrade up anyway. So really wont be that much of a burden to keep the current easy logistics. They then add this and make it even easier to do logistics? I dont get it. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:47:00 - [3149] Originally by: Cailais Edited by: Cailais on 11/11/2009 01:42:05 Originally by: Alice Rubidinous Originally by: Cailais Well firstly you dont have to go to empire for ISK - its the sensible thing to do if you're saving ISK because you've drastically reduced the risk of losing ISK in the process. In that respect empire will always be the better choice, even if you half'd the value of level 4s tomorrow. However you can make a decent amount of ISK in .0. Should it be more? Perhaps slightly more but even if you quadrupled the isk value of BS spawns in .0 still most would not come because you're just as likely to lose that amount of ISK in the long term trying to acquire it. Its the equivalent of firing faction ammo at high sec rats in a belt: if you're not careful you spend more on ammo than you make in bounties. C. NEVER STOP POSTING! You are so gosh darn smart!!! Tell us more about how risks and rewards work! I mean, in EVE there's no way to hedge against getting ganked in 0.0 space. You have to fly around with uninsured CNRs, just like in empire. Also, you get ganked continuously in 0.0, so it's IMPOSSIBLE to make isk. Even if the rats in 0.0 were worth a billion each, it would NEVER be worth it. EVER. /sigh Ive got to go - work beckons. But sure fine. Have it your way. But basically if you make sov systems produce more ISK, and cost less to maintain a sov alliance will expand to control more territory. It will need to spend less time in it's sov sys and will roam further where upon it will squish the fledgling alliances CCP are trying to encourage and we'll all be back right where we started. C. edit: quick question - if its possible to hedge against getting ganked in .0, then isn't it just as safe as empire so why should you get more ISK as a reward? BECAUSE IT'S MORE LABOURIOUS **SAKE STOP COMMENTING ON ** YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT also you could have chosen one of the less sarcastic posts that correct your thinking /sigh
xxxak Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:53:00 - [3150] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Shasis Edited by: Shasis on 07/11/2009 14:38:41 CCP Soundwave, you said in one of your previous posts that with dominion, an upgraded system will be able to feed 10-15 people. Even if CCP said at first 100 people... but ok. Keep in mind that currently, people from 0.0 sov holding alliances are not farming in the same system. And with the cost of the upgrades, plus fuel for bridges, cyno gen/jam towers, those alliances won't be able to keep the sov in all those systems anymore, and then will have a lot more than 15 people in their upgraded systems at the main timezone of the alliance... Why not creating an upgrade that will put lvl4 agents in the upgraded outpost systems ? then the 10-15 people is gone... We cannot currently put level four agents into 0.0 stations owned by players. I completely agree that it would be a very good solution, as they are one of the few non-finite resources, but it's simply not possible at present. I can promie you that it is high on the list of stuff many of us would love to see, though. What do you mean we "cannot". YOU CODE THE GAME. You can do anything you want. Your jobs depend on this working. This is not a "game" it is your job bro. Putting Level 4-5 (6?) agents in to player owned stations would solve it ALL. Risk / reward = perfect.

ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.11 01:56:00 - [3151] Originally by: KeratinBoy So, the devs stated that this expansion would help smaller alliances in crappier space and chose CVA as their example. Looking at the proposed changes, CVA get surprised without lube. And you see nothing wrong with that disconnect? what disconnect? so some dev shot of at the mouth about how he loves CVA... since when is CVA a small alliance? looking at what we know of the changes CVA is only getting "surprised without lube" because they rely on broken cyno jammers, sov 4 pos invulnerability to defend the crap heap of outposts they built. The extent of Treaties hasn't even been revealed, it is highly feasible that Treaties will make NRDS the de-facto only way to go in 0.0 by say permitting the taxing of non-alliance pilots. that alone could finance the 1.6bil / mo for a fully sov'ed, bridged, jammed system for each of their outposts. it may not, the point is WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS TIME HOW SHAFTED THEY ARE! "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
KeratinBoy GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:07:00 - [3152] You agree we are getting shafted then? Look, every 0.0 holding alliance, irrespective of personal feelings, has stated why the upcoming changes are bad. Paying through the nose for, well, the same experience is something none of us are inclined to do. What if, along with these changes, CCP decided to charge players through the nose for, well, the same experience? Can you people get it through your heads yet that this is NOT GOOD?
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:13:00 - [3153] Originally by: KeratinBoy You agree we are getting shafted then? Look, every 0.0 holding alliance, irrespective of personal feelings, has stated why the upcoming changes are bad. Paying through the nose for, well, the same experience is something none of us are inclined to do. What if, along with these changes, CCP decided to charge players through the nose for, well, the same experience? Can you people get it through your heads yet that this is NOT GOOD? Don't you see we are all just crying because we cannot adapt. Adapt or die.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:15:00 - [3154] MS just went from 3 drones per level of carrier to 1 on SISI. **** 0.0 players amirite right?
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:16:00 - [3155] Adapt or die Ed.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:17:00 - [3156] Originally by: Alexander Knott Adapt or die Ed. That's a pretty easy adaption. WTS 1 wyvern
fuze Gallente Quam Singulari Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:19:00 - [3157] Originally by: Boris Petroshevski Ok so first of all when is CCP going to give a **** and actually respond again. Dont care if you simply say "we are reading your responses" atleast that means you notice your player base. They are gagged by PR/Marketing dept and there are some people frantically typing some dev blogs which are trying to explain how brilliant their plans actually are. (Ofc I'm being sarcastic now.) The arguments given by the players are IMHO insightful enough for CCP to rethink this again and have them re-evaluate that they will meet their set goals.
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:20:00 - [3158] Originally by: KeratinBoy What if, along with these changes, CCP decided to charge players through the nose for, well, the same experience? The updated patch notes now state that they are trying to reduce empire alt sprawl, you know, condense empire carebears into fewer, more lucrative alts. As a result you will have to pay 7 mill a day for any character that logs on in empire. To make things more lucrative, there are now 10 more lvl 3 agents in every system.
WhiteSavage Ever Flow Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:21:00 - [3159] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Aralis Yes it's a sov nerf. No it's not a resource buff. Please engage brain before posting. Higher moon goo accessability is not a resource buff? Insta-respawn anomalies per system is not a resource buff? Moon goo isk is just being distrubuted more towards R32's etc. My dreads jump drive reaches out just as far as it did b4... so no. And 2 anomolies is not a resource buff lmao. i make more isk from ratting then i do from anomolies...
xxxak Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:26:00 - [3160] Originally by: ep1k 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.

Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:28:00 - [3161] Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: KeratinBoy What if, along with these changes, CCP decided to charge players through the nose for, well, the same experience? The updated patch notes now state that they are trying to reduce empire alt sprawl, you know, condense empire carebears into fewer, more lucrative alts. As a result you will have to pay 7 mill a day for any character that logs on in empire. To make things more lucrative, there are now 10 more lvl 3 agents in every system. This is an excellent post.
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:29:00 - [3162] Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: KeratinBoy What if, along with these changes, CCP decided to charge players through the nose for, well, the same experience? The updated patch notes now state that they are trying to reduce empire alt sprawl, you know, condense empire carebears into fewer, more lucrative alts. As a result you will have to pay 7 mill a day for any character that logs on in empire. To make things more lucrative, there are now 10 more lvl 3 agents in every system. Pretty much this. Making people pay more and giving them less isnt how you charge up the player base.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:30:00 - [3163] Originally by: KeratinBoy You agree we are getting shafted then? YOU aren't getting shafted, i admitted that CVA is getting shafted. i argue that CVA brought it on themselves though. Goons are in a great position post expansion with the best space 0.0 has to offer. not to mention you have the member base to actually exploit all that space. so how exactly are YOU getting shafted? because you can move into a cluster of npc stations, run pirate lvl 4's and continue to exploit all of delve's resources even without strangling it with sov 3...? or is the loss of the delve subway THAT big of a deal? i admit it was nice having that on hand when pushing back AAA and Kenny but is it THAT important to you? "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Paha Soho	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:58:00 - [3164] I think this is a trajedy. I've waited and waited for word to come about how much these upgrades will cost and how much the new sov mechanic will cost and i'm just floored. I live in providence region and have enjoyed what has been built there. I'm sure CVA has a large industrial base to pay the bills and all but how in the name of god is any alliance expected to hold sov over an entire region now? This will ruin 0.0 absolutely and utterly. Look at goonswarm and what they have! How can they possibly maintain it (not that i wouldnt mind seeing them disappear personally)? People say "dont own what you dont use"...well providence is used from corner to corner. Providence has always been a free move region so long as you obey the rules and now ccp is almost forcing CVA to look at that policy and determine how detrimental that could be. This could very well bring the major alliances to their knees and ruin what they have worked so hard to get. You guys have worked for years at getting ppl into 0.0 sec and now it feels like you are abandoning that goal. Most of the major alliances own a large amount of systems...its what they have been made to do in order to survive. Now that is being used against them and in my opinion ccp just cut their own throats. Alliances such as CVA that roleplay have just been undermined. Their goal is to maintain control of providence for the Amarr empire. But, the amarr empire isnt going to be paying the bills for those systems. Will CVA have to abandon one its most basic principles and relinquish control of some of the region they hold for simple financial issues brought about by the very people who say providence is the example of what ccp wanted 0.0 to be. It seems that ccp says one thing and does another...this is FAIL imho...FAIL.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.11 03:04:00 - [3165] Originally by: Paha Soho how in the name of god is any alliance expected to hold sov over an entire region now? they're not.. that's half the reason for the sov change. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 03:09:00 - [3166] Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: KeratinBoy What if, along with these changes, CCP decided to charge players through the nose for, well, the same experience? The updated patch notes now state that they are trying to reduce empire alt sprawl, you know, condense empire carebears into fewer, more lucrative alts. As a result you will have to pay 7 mill a day for any character that logs on in empire. To make things more lucrative, there are now 10 more lvl 3 agents in every system. i like your posting 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
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 03:12:00 - [3167] Originally by: ServantOfMask Originally by: KeratinBoy You agree we are getting shafted then? YOU aren't getting shafted, i admitted that CVA is getting shafted. i argue that CVA brought it on themselves though. Goons are in a great position post expansion with the best space 0.0 has to offer. not to mention you have the member base to actually exploit all that space. so how exactly are YOU getting shafted? because you can move into a cluster of npc stations, run pirate lvl 4's and continue to exploit all of delve's resources even without strangling it with sov 3...? or is the loss of the delve subway THAT big of a deal? i admit it was nice having that on hand when pushing back AAA and Kenny but is it THAT important to you? Have you ever seen a picture of the delve subway? i have a hell of a time understanding it with how many intersecting lines and directions is goes.
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.11.11 03:21:00 - [3168] Originally by: Cailais To put it another way, if your goal is to "become rich" then run missions in high sec. If your goal is to become 'infamous / famous' for owning space then go to .0 and fight. (Incidentally this is why its difficult to attract care bears to .0, its because they understand this fundamental equation and are not interested in 'owning space' as 'being rich' is their own reward.) It's not that. The issue is that you fight to hold moons currently. The isk of that goes to the pocket of the alliance leaders. Which often goes to supercapitals. You pretty much wont be changing this. Except instead of the isk pretty much going from moon-> alliance leader's pockets. It goes from space/belts/pirates-> corp tax -> outpost tax -> alliance leader's pockets. At least there's somewhere in the chain the people are involved. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.11 03:25:00 - [3169] Originally by: Professor Dumbledore Have you ever seen a picture of the delve subway? i have a hell of a time understanding it with how many intersecting lines and directions is goes. i still have a few printouts i annotated on my desk right here. the ones i have are pretty straight forward. what i found most annoying was the constant re-connecting, latest list said X links to Y but it actually linked to A, but on the third wednesday after a heavy rainstorm it linked to B which linked to Y. good defense against abuse since goonies have the most public jumpy pswd ever. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 03:26:00 - [3170] Originally by: ServantOfMask Originally by: KeratinBoy You agree we are getting shafted then? YOU aren't getting shafted, i admitted that CVA is getting shafted. i argue that CVA brought it on themselves though. Goons are in a great position post expansion with the best space 0.0 has to offer. not to mention you have the member base to actually exploit all that space. so how exactly are YOU getting shafted? because you can move into a cluster of npc stations, run pirate lvl 4's and continue to exploit all of delve's resources even without strangling it with sov 3...? or is the loss of the delve subway THAT big of a deal? i admit it was nice having that on hand when pushing back AAA and Kenny but is it THAT important to you? We'll almost assuredly retain at least one arm to Empire and probably spend the majority of our time defending it, as will every other 0.0 alliance. They'll be forced to, above little else. AAA went nuts over defending HED before this - imagine it after? Yes, we're not getting shafted nearly as much as Atlas, the Paragon/Esoteria crowd, or the far northern alliances. Delve is one giant 100% coverage blob for one reason - the current Sovereignty system. Sov 3 + jammers = a near hands-off defense system. This won't be the case post-Dominion. We know this now, and we suspected it months ago. Our logistics people, who know the word "grind" far better than any mission-runner, were ecstatic that soon they wouldn't have to keep hundreds of towers in over 150 systems running anymore. They still are since this system, altered or left as-is, means less work for them. Again, the problems with this patch are: 1. The upgrades/rewards do not befit the risk or over L4s in Empire, and those who live in 0.0 should not be forced to have 2+ accounts to utilize repetitious missions for funding. 2. Holding of space for any reason other than CSAA deployment is meaningless save for "prestige." 3. Far-reaching alliances are at a severe disadvantage and face destruction by attrition by CCP's plans. 4. No further incentive to war past small gang and harassment warfare, which further exacerbates the point raised in #1. Yeah, it's strange that we're "sticking up for the little guy" here. But the little guys often end up joining with the bigger guys we don't like all that much, and that leads to ~good fights~. L4 missions don't generate press, and even the "exclusive LP rewards" have failed to generate much more attention or support for faction warfare. 0.0 warfare is what gets EVE its press and legitimacy over the endless masses of farm-n-grind MMOs out there. This patch threatens to "normalize" the game, what some of you call a "reset." There's nothing wrong with a reset so long as there's still a reason to regain what was "lost." There isn't right now. If you think that supporting this patch merely because it hurts someone or something you don't like, you're not assessing the damage it could potentially do to the game you pay to enjoy as well. More boring 0.0 means there's less chances for you to do other things when the monotony stick hits you upside the head. So Goon-bash and troll all you like. We've been doing this a while. We were prepared to make concessions - and even wondered what to do should CCP have decided to forego a grace period at all. We were prepared for almost everything - except being told that we really wouldn't have much to fight for when it was done.

Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 03:32:00 - [3171] Originally by: Jason Edwards Originally by: Cailais To put it another way, if your goal is to "become rich" then run missions in high sec. If your goal is to become 'infamous / famous' for owning space then go to .0 and fight. (Incidentally this is why its difficult to attract care bears to .0, its because they understand this fundamental equation and are not interested in 'owning space' as 'being rich' is their own reward.) It's not that. The issue is that you fight to hold moons currently. The isk of that goes to the pocket of the alliance leaders. Which often goes to supercapitals. You pretty much wont be changing this. Except instead of the isk pretty much going from moon-> alliance leader's pockets. It goes from space/belts/pirates-> corp tax -> outpost tax -> alliance leader's pockets. At least there's somewhere in the chain the people are involved. Because POSes fuel themselves, moon goo ships itself to empire and lists itself on the market, right?
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.11 03:40:00 - [3172] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar many good points i agree with most of what you typed, with a few exceptions. the greatest wars were fought over purely player created drama.. SirTrolle's speeches of total EvE subjugation fuelled a hatred and subsequent vicious war. You as a Goon of all people should know what happened when he said he'd kill you off completely. all this talk of no more large scale warfare due to lack of R64 importance is misguided. post-dominion there will be 4 R64 to fight over not 2, as well as 2(?) types of R32's? how about the few sov'ed systems alliances will continue to hold?? talk about a friggin multi-billion isk target ... i agree that goons will keep parts of the subway running and so will any other alliance worth their logisticians... but with the increased cost and effort of building and maintaining a JB route it increases dramatically in target profile! again just by existing its worth a few billion in upgrades and x days of sov. just a few points on warfare post dominion as i see it. about goons standing up for the little guy... well i have a hard time believing EVE's resident scammer alliance. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 03:52:00 - [3173] Originally by: ServantOfMask Originally by: Kayl Breinhar many good points i agree with most of what you typed, with a few exceptions. the greatest wars were fought over purely player created drama.. SirTrolle's speeches of total EvE subjugation fuelled a hatred and subsequent vicious war. You as a Goon of all people should know what happened when he said he'd kill you off completely. all this talk of no more large scale warfare due to lack of R64 importance is misguided. post-dominion there will be 4 R64 to fight over not 2, as well as 2(?) types of R32's? how about the few sov'ed systems alliances will continue to hold?? talk about a friggin multi-billion isk target ... i agree that goons will keep parts of the subway running and so will any other alliance worth their logisticians... but with the increased cost and effort of building and maintaining a JB route it increases dramatically in target profile! again just by existing its worth a few billion in upgrades and x days of sov. just a few points on warfare post dominion as i see it. about goons standing up for the little guy... well i have a hard time believing EVE's resident scammer alliance. We stand to gain absolutely nothing from even our enemy alliances abandoning 0.0 space. Even if they all did and we didn't why would we want to take more space under the new mechanics? The entirety of the Eve Universe relies on constant war to keep the economy moving. And plus we like to be the ones that destroy alliances, instead of watching them die to bad game mechanics.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 04:07:00 - [3174] Originally by: ServantOfMask about goons standing up for the little guy... well i have a hard time believing EVE's resident scammer alliance. Not our fault people don't ask around before falling for it repeatedly.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.11 04:19:00 - [3175] Originally by: gambrinous The updated patch notes now state that they are trying to reduce empire alt sprawl, you know, condense empire carebears into fewer, more lucrative alts. As a result you will have to pay 7 mill a day for any character that logs on in empire. To make things more lucrative, there are now 10 more lvl 3 agents in every system. Thats brilliant :) but... to make it a fairer comparison it would be 7mil per day whether you logged on or not...
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.11 04:26:00 - [3176] Top Forum Warriors In Thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87 - Kepakh 81 - Korodan - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 77 - Qlanth - Merch Industrial, GoonSwarm 59 - Vivian Azure 58 - EdFromHumanResources - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 50 - Tesal 46 - Hertford - Ars ex Discordia, GoonSwarm 45 - gambrinous 45 - Vadinho - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 43 - Zahorite Most Posts By Corporations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1035 - Unknown 545 - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 121 - Merch Industrial, GoonSwarm 70 - Ars ex Discordia, GoonSwarm 63 - Di-Tron Heavy Industries, Atlas Alliance 41 - Koshaku 31 - GoonFleet (had Alliance ticker suppressed) 29 - Arcana Imperii Ltd., Atlas Alliance 25 - Unknown, Atlas Alliance (had Corp ticker suppressed) 24 - Danke fuer den Fisch Most Posts By Alliances -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1604 - Unallied/Unknown 828 - GoonSwarm 161 - Atlas Alliance 51 - Morsus Mihi 50 - Curatores Veritatis Alliance 32 - Against ALL Authorities 27 - Triumvirate. 24 - Wildly Inappropriate. 22 - Pandemic Legion 21 - Vertigo Coalition
L'aeolan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 04:39:00 - [3177] Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: KeratinBoy What if, along with these changes, CCP decided to charge players through the nose for, well, the same experience? The updated patch notes now state that they are trying to reduce empire alt sprawl, you know, condense empire carebears into fewer, more lucrative alts. As a result you will have to pay 7 mill a day for any character that logs on in empire. To make things more lucrative, there are now 10 more lvl 3 agents in every system. +rep
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.11 04:45:00 - [3178] Hah, reducing motherships to the same DPS as carriers (except when they have fighter bombers out, in which case they'll have the same DPS as a seiged dreadnaught). It's like CCP decided they've been big enough ******s with the 0.0 changes so now they can move on to screw up other stuff.
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.11 04:45:00 - [3179] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Delve is one giant 100% coverage blob for one reason - the current Sovereignty system. Sov 3 + jammers = a near hands-off defense system. This won't be the case post-Dominion. (Massive Threadnaught is breaking forums quoting....) Logistics efforts will narrow down to the key systems needed to keep things running, making attacks on those systems both more effective overall, plus eliciting greater response. Single points of failure, and all that. You will still see a lot of random systems getting sov, simply because they have R64s or R32s (now) in them that make onlining a cynojammer critical. Otherwise, yes, the moons will draw fights simply because relative to the previous system, they can be taken more easily. The larger number of pseudo-profitable moons means there are many more targets... it's dependent on the pockets of a given alliance whether they can cover all of them in their space, at once. Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Again, the problems with this patch are: 1. The upgrades/rewards do not befit the risk or over L4s in Empire, and those who live in 0.0 should not be forced to have 2+ accounts to utilize repetitious missions for funding. 2. Holding of space for any reason other than CSAA deployment is meaningless save for "prestige." 3. Far-reaching alliances are at a severe disadvantage and face destruction by attrition by CCP's plans. 4. No further incentive to war past small gang and harassment warfare, which further exacerbates the point raised in #1. Regarding your: Point #1-- 0.0 now will have repetitious missions, we just call them "guaranteed anomalies", and you don't get LP for them. Point #2-- Holding space will be done to protect Outposts, moons (see my comment above), and JB networks. Infrastructure development will be done in those systems, and maybe a few around them if the native geography is conducive to use. Point #3-- Far-reaching (by which I take you mean "expansive") alliances will have to become less-so. I don't by the Atlas argument that they will still only have 15 systems out of 3 regions to use post-Dominion... only if they choose not to upgrade the space at all. Point #4-- Moons. Otherwise, yeah... the incentive remains the clash of egos, which we must admit has been the driver of EVE's "great wars" since day one. Rolling around looking for a fight may be both harder and easier, to some extent. But, if you find a fight, it's likely to be larger than just ganking a single ship on the gate. Bring yer blob, in other words. Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Yeah, it's strange that we're "sticking up for the little guy" here. But the little guys often end up joining with the bigger guys we don't like all that much, and that leads to ~good fights~. L4 missions don't generate press, and even the "exclusive LP rewards" have failed to generate much more attention or support for faction warfare. 0.0 warfare is what gets EVE its press and legitimacy over the endless masses of farm-n-grind MMOs out there. This patch threatens to "normalize" the game, what some of you call a "reset." There's nothing wrong with a reset so long as there's still a reason to regain what was "lost." There isn't right now. Very astute. Much is made of the Goon's erstwhile goal of "ruining EVE", but on an individual level at least I'm certain they just want people to shoot in fun ways--exactly like the rest of us. Anything that makes that not happen is bad. For all of us. --Krum --Krum
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.11 04:53:00 - [3180] Originally by: Honest Smedley Top Forum Warriors In Thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87 - Kepakh 81 - Korodan - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 77 - Qlanth - Merch Industrial, GoonSwarm 59 - Vivian Azure 58 - EdFromHumanResources - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 50 - Tesal 46 - Hertford - Ars ex Discordia, GoonSwarm 45 - gambrinous 45 - Vadinho - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 43 - Zahorite Most Posts By Corporations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1035 - Unknown 545 - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 121 - Merch Industrial, GoonSwarm 70 - Ars ex Discordia, GoonSwarm 63 - Di-Tron Heavy Industries, Atlas Alliance 41 - Koshaku 31 - GoonFleet (had Alliance ticker suppressed) 29 - Arcana Imperii Ltd., Atlas Alliance 25 - Unknown, Atlas Alliance (had Corp ticker suppressed) 24 - Danke fuer den Fisch Most Posts By Alliances -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1604 - Unallied/Unknown 828 - GoonSwarm 161 - Atlas Alliance 51 - Morsus Mihi 50 - Curatores Veritatis Alliance 32 - Against ALL Authorities 27 - Triumvirate. 24 - Wildly Inappropriate. 22 - Pandemic Legion 21 - Vertigo Coalition Like I have been saying... Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?

Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.11 04:56:00 - [3181] Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: Honest Smedley Top Forum Warriors In Thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87 - Kepakh 81 - Korodan - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 77 - Qlanth - Merch Industrial, GoonSwarm 59 - Vivian Azure 58 - EdFromHumanResources - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 50 - Tesal 46 - Hertford - Ars ex Discordia, GoonSwarm 45 - gambrinous 45 - Vadinho - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 43 - Zahorite Most Posts By Corporations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1035 - Unknown 545 - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 121 - Merch Industrial, GoonSwarm 70 - Ars ex Discordia, GoonSwarm 63 - Di-Tron Heavy Industries, Atlas Alliance 41 - Koshaku 31 - GoonFleet (had Alliance ticker suppressed) 29 - Arcana Imperii Ltd., Atlas Alliance 25 - Unknown, Atlas Alliance (had Corp ticker suppressed) 24 - Danke fuer den Fisch Most Posts By Alliances -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1604 - Unallied/Unknown 828 - GoonSwarm 161 - Atlas Alliance 51 - Morsus Mihi 50 - Curatores Veritatis Alliance 32 - Against ALL Authorities 27 - Triumvirate. 24 - Wildly Inappropriate. 22 - Pandemic Legion 21 - Vertigo Coalition Like I have been saying... 27 Triumvirate posts? I would've thought it'd be closer to 19.7.
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 04:59:00 - [3182] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: Honest Smedley Top Forum Warriors In Thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87 - Kepakh 81 - Korodan - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 77 - Qlanth - Merch Industrial, GoonSwarm 59 - Vivian Azure 58 - EdFromHumanResources - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 50 - Tesal 46 - Hertford - Ars ex Discordia, GoonSwarm 45 - gambrinous 45 - Vadinho - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 43 - Zahorite Most Posts By Corporations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1035 - Unknown 545 - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 121 - Merch Industrial, GoonSwarm 70 - Ars ex Discordia, GoonSwarm 63 - Di-Tron Heavy Industries, Atlas Alliance 41 - Koshaku 31 - GoonFleet (had Alliance ticker suppressed) 29 - Arcana Imperii Ltd., Atlas Alliance 25 - Unknown, Atlas Alliance (had Corp ticker suppressed) 24 - Danke fuer den Fisch Most Posts By Alliances -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1604 - Unallied/Unknown 828 - GoonSwarm 161 - Atlas Alliance 51 - Morsus Mihi 50 - Curatores Veritatis Alliance 32 - Against ALL Authorities 27 - Triumvirate. 24 - Wildly Inappropriate. 22 - Pandemic Legion 21 - Vertigo Coalition Like I have been saying... 27 Triumvirate posts? I would've thought it'd be closer to 19.7. Large alliance full of people from a message board. I am shocked they post the most.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:00:00 - [3183] Goons are make vocal and make posts. This, and sports!, at 11
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:02:00 - [3184] Our dream for Dominion was that lucrative upgrades meant people lived in 0.0 instead of running L4 missions. Lucrative 0.0 upgrades means carebears are happy. More people actually living in 0.0 means more targets for combat players. People playing in the 0.0 sandbox means emergent gameplay so the developers are happy. Unless 0.0 individual player income generation is lucrative and JUST WORTH IT, then you don't have carebears in 0.0. No carebears means no targets. No targets means pvpers leave. No emergent gameplay. Nobody's happy, everything sucks. It all starts with making 0.0 profitable on the individual level. so there ok i just rehashed exactly what i said to ccp months ago, can we actually move forward now 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
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:03:00 - [3185] Originally by: Zastrow Our dream for Dominion was that lucrative upgrades meant people lived in 0.0 instead of running L4 missions. Lucrative 0.0 upgrades means carebears are happy. More people actually living in 0.0 means more targets for combat players. People playing in the 0.0 sandbox means emergent gameplay so the developers are happy. Unless 0.0 individual player income generation is lucrative and JUST WORTH IT, then you don't have carebears in 0.0. No carebears means no targets. No targets means pvpers leave. No emergent gameplay. Nobody's happy, everything sucks. It all starts with making 0.0 profitable on the individual level. so there ok i just rehashed exactly what i said to ccp months ago, can we actually move forward now And we did, from messing up 0.0 to nerfing motherships.
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:07:00 - [3186] im expecting a new dev blog that's going to resolve all of this any second now 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
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:14:00 - [3187] Originally by: Zastrow im expecting a new dev blog that's going to resolve all of this any second now The Council of Stellar Management ladies and gentleman
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:20:00 - [3188] Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Zastrow im expecting a new dev blog that's going to resolve all of this any second now The Council of Stellar Management ladies and gentleman I'm glad CCP is listening to the representatives from the playerbase. Speaking of which, did any of you make an offhand joke about nerfing blasters in the bathroom because they'll probably do something like that next.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:20:00 - [3189] Edited by: ServantOfMask on 11/11/2009 05:25:20 Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Zastrow im expecting a new dev blog that's going to resolve all of this any second now The Council of Stellar Management ladies and gentleman yeah i guess this is a slap in the face for anyone who thought voting for 0.0-centric CSM candidates would matter. edit: and this is coming from one Mazzillu's voters... god what a waste of my votes. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:28:00 - [3190] Originally by: Zastrow Our dream for Dominion was that lucrative upgrades meant people lived in 0.0 instead of running L4 missions. Lucrative 0.0 upgrades means carebears are happy. More people actually living in 0.0 means more targets for combat players. People playing in the 0.0 sandbox means emergent gameplay so the developers are happy. Unless 0.0 individual player income generation is lucrative and JUST WORTH IT, then you don't have carebears in 0.0. No carebears means no targets. No targets means pvpers leave. No emergent gameplay. Nobody's happy, everything sucks. It all starts with making 0.0 profitable on the individual level. so there ok i just rehashed exactly what i said to ccp months ago, can we actually move forward now Zas, seriously, what happened? Did CCP just go in some completely different direction? During the Fanfest they said that the sov changes they took some ideas from you CSM, but is this it? Also, Helen Highwater stated that many of the upcoming changes in this expansion including the sov changes were spear-headed by Darius Johnson. What gives? I mean if this is what goons wanted to happen then why??? Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?

Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:38:00 - [3191] Edited by: Qlanth on 11/11/2009 05:39:15 Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: Zastrow Our dream for Dominion was that lucrative upgrades meant people lived in 0.0 instead of running L4 missions. Lucrative 0.0 upgrades means carebears are happy. More people actually living in 0.0 means more targets for combat players. People playing in the 0.0 sandbox means emergent gameplay so the developers are happy. Unless 0.0 individual player income generation is lucrative and JUST WORTH IT, then you don't have carebears in 0.0. No carebears means no targets. No targets means pvpers leave. No emergent gameplay. Nobody's happy, everything sucks. It all starts with making 0.0 profitable on the individual level. so there ok i just rehashed exactly what i said to ccp months ago, can we actually move forward now Zas, seriously, what happened? Did CCP just go in some completely different direction? During the Fanfest they said that the sov changes they took some ideas from you CSM, but is this it? Also, Helen Highwater stated that many of the upcoming changes in this expansion including the sov changes were spear-headed by Darius Johnson. What gives? I mean if this is what goons wanted to happen then why??? What Zastrow is saying is that we wanted to get rid of huge empires hiding behind cyno-jammers because it is no fun. We wanted to nerf titans because they are no fun. We wanted to increase the scalability of 0.0 resources in 0.0 so more people could make money faster without having to spread themselves across the galaxy to do so. The CSM, in the end, have no control over what CCP decides or does not decide to implement. They relay to CCP what they believe to be the best decisions. In this case I have the utmost faith that Zastrow, Avalloc and other 0.0-centric CSMs presented their case as best they could. Unfortunately I don't think CCP listened very carefully.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:42:00 - [3192] Originally by: Tesal YES OR NO: Dominion is a Sov nerf, but a resource buff. No. The current numbers on sov-holding costs aren't a nerf at all(1 million/system/day? lol), though it does certainly qualify as a bridge/jammer nerf. And as the last 3000-odd posters have said, the resources being buffed are irrelevant anyways. It'd be like making all the regular Jaspet in belts into Pristine Jaspet. Hey, it's a 10% buff, across the board! Doesn't change the fact that nobody in their right minds would ever mine it, buff or no buff. Originally by: Deva Blackfire Cute. Now SUDDENLY you care about small alliances? Lmao. You dont give ** about them, as you never did before. If you really want to know what small alliance wants then ask them, not goons, atlas, nc or whoever else posts here. Plenty of smaller groups have posted here. I'm a director in a 77-man corp living in highsec, for example. I make no claims that we'd jump into 0.0 the day Dominion drops even if it'd been everything we could ever want, but it's something we would have aimed for long-term, but that we won't go for now. I'm not the only one saying that, either. Originally by:** Cailais To put it another way, if your goal is to "become rich" then run missions in high sec. If your goal is to become 'infamous / famous' for owning space then go to .0 and fight. A lot of people live in 0.0 for the notoriety or the excitement - most of the current population, really. But the thing is, you need to pay for that somehow. I think we'd all prefer not to make 0.0 people do missions in highsec to bankroll themselves. And really, that's the fundamental complaint here. Originally by: Cailais Originally by: ep1k isk would be a compelling one for many people. Short term yes - but those that failed to make a lot of ISK or lost assets will just return to Empire. As opposed to what? The status quo? Originally by: Cailais its from the film 'Sunshine' (pretty good sci-fi film if you've not seen it). Okay, now I know you're trolling us. Originally by: Ukucia Doubtful. When the response to the first information is "YOU IDIOTS! GO BACK AND DO IT AGAIN!!" they either are busy back at the drawing board, or are disinclined to release the parts of the design they left out that are so bad they held 'em back. Much as I'd like to see a quick and dirty revamp to the upgrades, I don't really expect it. Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: KeratinBoy What if, along with these changes, CCP decided to charge players through the nose for, well, the same experience? The updated patch notes now state that they are trying to reduce empire alt sprawl, you know, condense empire carebears into fewer, more lucrative alts. As a result you will have to pay 7 mill a day for any character that logs on in empire. To make things more lucrative, there are now 10 more lvl 3 agents in every system. You, sir, win. Originally by: Qlanth Originally by: Zastrow im expecting a new dev blog that's going to resolve all of this any second now The Council of Stellar Management ladies and gentleman Hey, to be fair, they don't all act like idiots. There's also several morons, and one or two high-functioning savants. Originally by: Marlona Sky Zas, seriously, what happened? Did CCP just go in some completely different direction? During the Fanfest they said that the sov changes they took some ideas from you CSM, but is this it? Also, Helen Highwater stated that many of the upcoming changes in this expansion including the sov changes were spear-headed by Darius Johnson. What gives? I mean if this is what goons wanted to happen then why??? Sadly, talking does not always imply listening, it seems.
Zhayan Joruni	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:45:00 - [3193] A much better model for the pricing would be a sliding scale. First system costs 1m per day base cost (and the rest in proportion). Subsequent systems claimed would cost more. Naturally large alliances would split to take advantage, but that in itself would render them less stable. On top of that, force contiguous sov. Once sov is claimed in one system, subsequent claims should be made on contiguous systems to existing sov. That makes it harder to control large areas of 0.0 by exercising sov in strategic systems only. Making sure all new claims are next door to a system you already own will go a long way towards reducing spheres of influence. Finally I think some people are getting hung up on Carebear vs PvP as if you shouldn't be doing both within a single corp or even alliance. I have spent many months at a time living in 0.0 over the years and one of the most difficult aspects is when your corp is regarded as lacking in commitment because many members are running the POS, mining and ratting and working logistics, and organising imports and developing the local market, instead of devoting 90% of their time to PvP. I have never felt, when I'm enjoying some good fleet PvP, that my pleasure is diminished because I know some carebears are mining in another part of the region. We're both doing what we enjoy: what's the problem? But some people make it one. I am not sure this will change with Dominion because it's an attitude thing rather than a mechanic thing, but anything that increases the variety of stuff you can do in 0.0 to make a valuable contribution to corp and alliance is worth trying.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:50:00 - [3194] Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang on 11/11/2009 05:53:46 Originally by: Marlona Sky Zas, seriously, what happened? Did CCP just go in some completely different direction? During the Fanfest they said that the sov changes they took some ideas from you CSM, but is this it? Also, Helen Highwater stated that many of the upcoming changes in this expansion including the sov changes were spear-headed by Darius Johnson. What gives? I mean if this is what goons wanted to happen then why??? Seriouspostin' I don't think any goon (that still plays regularly) wants these changes. In spite of the jokes about us wanting to ruin this game, I don't think any of us want changes that reduce the amount of fun that can be had in 0.0. I, personally, and most of the people I talked to were very excited about the changes as they were first presented. Make it so alliances can't hold vast tracks of space, but make it so they don't need more than 2-3 constellations. The result would be more people in 0.0, smaller powerblocs, and a more dynamic game. Instead we're being offered a more frustrating, awkward nullsec experience that reduces the incentive to produce the "emergent" gameplay the developers seem so keen on. This benefits no one, regardless of what side of the line you think you on. Roaming PvPer? Less targets. Small alliance looking to make the big nullsec leap? Have fun getting people when they get more rewards with less risk in highsec. Inventor/tech 2 producer? Try more expensive materials and less demand due to reduced PvP. Miner? Less demand for many ships, combined with a lot more people hanging around highsec that think suicide ganks are fun. Importer? The only hubs worth importing to will be mission running hubs. Mission runner? Have fun knowing that running missions is your endgame and if you ever put more than a few hundred million isk into modules for your ship, you'll be suicide ganked as well. I can't really think of anything good coming of this. One more thing. A lot of people are mistaken about the real issue here. It is not the cost of holding space. It's the rewards. They can double or triple the cost if the adjust the rewards appropriately. As it is, no matter how much they nerf the cost there's no point unless the rewards are greater than highsec empire. That's all there is to it.
Junkie Beverage GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 05:59:00 - [3195] anyone getting warnings posting in this thread b/c at least then we would know that they are reading it
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 06:06:00 - [3196] Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: Zastrow Our dream for Dominion was that lucrative upgrades meant people lived in 0.0 instead of running L4 missions. Lucrative 0.0 upgrades means carebears are happy. More people actually living in 0.0 means more targets for combat players. People playing in the 0.0 sandbox means emergent gameplay so the developers are happy. Unless 0.0 individual player income generation is lucrative and JUST WORTH IT, then you don't have carebears in 0.0. No carebears means no targets. No targets means pvpers leave. No emergent gameplay. Nobody's happy, everything sucks. It all starts with making 0.0 profitable on the individual level. so there ok i just rehashed exactly what i said to ccp months ago, can we actually move forward now Zas, seriously, what happened? Did CCP just go in some completely different direction? During the Fanfest they said that the sov changes they took some ideas from you CSM, but is this it? Also, Helen Highwater stated that many of the upcoming changes in this expansion including the sov changes were spear-headed by Darius Johnson. What gives? I mean if this is what goons wanted to happen then why??? I think the CSM is a great concept, but it's still a work in progress. I don't think people realize just how little communication there actually was between CCP and the CSM. I ***ed about this in Iceland, but except for when we were actually inside CCP HQ in iceland or at fanfest, we don't hear anything back from CCP, communication was entirely one-way. It's really awful for a group of people that are supposed to be the feedback focus group for expansions like this. At the summit, basically the CSM just yelled at the same 3 or 4 devs for the weekend and hoped some of what we said stuck. Abathur and Soundwave seemed to pay attention to us the most, and I think we had some great discussions with them. The other devs, well there are some working on Dominion that we never even met. Some other devs gave me the impression that they think we are bat** insane, and made it obvious through body language that they didn't care at all what we were saying (dude with the glasses who we were ranting about logoffski with). Like they are clearly superior at game design and when we didn't agree, nothing would change their mind. Almost EVERY talking point and argument raised in this thread I had already raised at the CSM3 summit. Soundwave, Abathur, and others I spoke to seemed to be completely in-line with these arguments already, so I came out of the summit feeling really good about Dominion. Flash-forward to last week. This devblog surprised the hell out of me because it seems so completely out-of-touch with the discussions we had in Iceland. I haven't completely lost hope. It's possible it was just an AWFULLY drafted blog and the state of Dominion really isn't this bad. I eagerly await your next blog, Abathur. 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
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.11 06:30:00 - [3197] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 11/11/2009 06:30:45 Originally by: Junkie Beverage anyone getting warnings posting in this thread b/c at least then we would know that they are reading it A couple posts did get removed earlier, so at a minimum someone reported it and they followed through. Given that this thread is obviously nothing but Goon tears though, I can't imagine a Goon reporting a comment for a bit of joking about domestic violence, so it must be CCP reading it themselves Originally by: Zastrow I think the CSM is a great concept, but it's still a work in progress. I don't think people realize just how little communication there actually was between CCP and the CSM. I ***ed about this in Iceland, but except for when we were actually inside CCP HQ in iceland or at fanfest, we don't hear anything back from CCP, communication was entirely one-way. It's really awful for a group of people that are supposed to be the feedback focus group for expansions like this. At the summit, basically the CSM just yelled at the same 3 or 4 devs for the weekend and hoped some of what we said stuck. Abathur and Soundwave seemed to pay attention to us the most, and I think we had some great discussions with them. The other devs, well there are some working on Dominion that we never even met. Some other devs gave me the impression that they think we are bat** insane, and made it obvious through body language that they didn't care at all what we were saying (dude with the glasses who we were ranting about logoffski with). Like they are clearly superior at game design and when we didn't agree, nothing would change their mind. Almost EVERY talking point and argument raised in this thread I had already raised at the CSM3 summit. Soundwave, Abathur, and others I spoke to seemed to be completely in-line with these arguments already, so I came out of the summit feeling really good about Dominion. Flash-forward to last week. This devblog surprised the hell out of me because it seems so completely out-of-touch with the discussions we had in Iceland. I haven't completely lost hope. It's possible it was just an AWFULLY drafted blog and the state of Dominion really isn't this bad. I eagerly await your next blog, Abathur. Okay, now this just makes me sad.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.11 07:18:00 - [3198] Originally by: WhiteSavage Moon goo isk is just being distrubuted more towards R32's etc. My dreads jump drive reaches out just as far as it did b4... so no. And 2 anomolies is not a resource buff lmao. i make more isk from ratting then i do from anomolies... Yeah, just now unless you own R64 you can jump your dread to some 'worthless' lower rarity moons...Those moons increase in worth thus more people can enjoy moon goo. 10 anomalies in fully upgraded system, they are insta-respawn, independent on true sec status and their rewards are currently unknown yet.
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.11 07:23:00 - [3199] wow, I missed a entire threadnaught while studying for exams =s. Anyways, seems to me with moon goo changes and CCP's plans to make money from taxes and to have upkeep.... it looks like living in 0.0 is gonna be expensive. too expensive. ------------------------------ Just a crazy inventor ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.11 07:25:00 - [3200] Originally by: Kepakh 10 anomalies in fully upgraded system, they are insta-respawn, independent on true sec status and their rewards are currently unknown yet. No, those are the only things we know anything about yet: they'll be on par with a highsec L4, income-wise (which makes them worse, since they're limited and don't provide the fringe benefits). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.11 07:28:00 - [3201] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: WhiteSavage Moon goo isk is just being distrubuted more towards R32's etc. My dreads jump drive reaches out just as far as it did b4... so no. And 2 anomolies is not a resource buff lmao. i make more isk from ratting then i do from anomolies... Yeah, just now unless you own R64 you can jump your dread to some 'worthless' lower rarity moons...Those moons increase in worth thus more people can enjoy moon goo. 10 anomalies in fully upgraded system, they are insta-respawn, independent on true sec status and their rewards are currently unknown yet. Unknown other than the devs saying they should be almost as good as level fours. Almost as good as level four income man. Thats like almost average isk come of what people are doing afk from null sec. Surely to stop afk empires we will entice them back to using their space by giving them subpar rewards. Then they have to be there more, because it will take longer to make money. Awesome plan. I used to think you were desperately trying to convince everyone else hwo awesome this patch was, now i just think you are trying to convince yourself. Its kind of sad.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.11 07:29:00 - [3202] Originally by: Tippia No, those are the only things we know anything about yet: they'll be on par with a highsec L4, income-wise (which makes them worse, since they're limited and don't provide the fringe benefits). They are not on par with L4, they are supposed to be on par with L4. Until they are introduced on test server, nothing is certain. However, L4 comparison is completely irrelevant.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.11 07:33:00 - [3203] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Tippia No, those are the only things we know anything about yet: they'll be on par with a highsec L4, income-wise (which makes them worse, since they're limited and don't provide the fringe benefits). They are not on par with L4, they are supposed to be on par with L4. Until they are introduced on test server, nothing is certain. However, L4 comparison is completely irrelevant. Devs respond comparing them to level 4s. I would say if the devs themselves are comparing them to level 4 income, maybe they think that comparison is valid.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2009.11.11 07:47:00 - [3204] Originally by: Pointfive Thats like almost average isk come of what people are doing afk from null sec. Surely to stop afk empires we will entice them back to using their space by giving them subpar rewards. Then they have to be there more, because it will take longer to make money. Awesome plan. Which would you prefer: near-level-4-mission income every day that you are in nullsec with no jumpclone cooldown stopping you getting involved with an incursion or defense, or afk level 4 income once a week, with the rest of the week being in your nullsec clone staring mindlessly at local while hovering around a gate? I know which scenario looks like more fun to me! Some people will prefer the mindless level 4 grinding during the week, jumping out to a clone in nullsec for the weekends - the upgrades for Dominion mean they're still more likely to find action when they get out there. Gate camps, incursions, sov disruption - there's going to be plenty of stuff to do to keep people occupied. The only people who won't give it a try are folks who are so risk-averse they have a habit of undocking when a blinky red pod jumps through the gate into Dodixie. [Aussie players: join channel ANZAC]
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.11 07:55:00 - [3205] Quote: Some people will prefer the mindless level 4 grinding during the week no one prefers grinding level 4 missions you idiots. That's the whole point, we don't want the best income to be un-fun. Fun in not an income. don't put words into peoples mouths. Grinding level missions are not fun, but they give the most income in the game. You don't have to be genius to note what is wrong with this. "were ccp! lets release this expansion called... exdous! it will make 0.0 really fun and it will be full of people!... oh wait we also released level 4 missions, ruining 0.0 forever." And that's a damn fact. Because honestly, 0.0 is just as fun right now, and people still don't go to 0.0 space. It's more fun to bum around doing level 4 missions while chatting with corpmates. then maybe running some missions together.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.11 08:00:00 - [3206] Edited by: Kepakh on 11/11/2009 08:00:44 Originally by: Peryner And that's a damn fact. Because honestly, 0.0 is just as fun right now, and people still don't go to 0.0 space. It's more fun to bum around doing level 4 missions while chatting with corpmates. then maybe running some missions together. That's how vast majority MMO playerbase is - PVE focused grinders, and that is all fine. It is fighting a windmills if you want to make them live in 0.0
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.11 08:03:00 - [3207] Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 11/11/2009 08:00:44 Originally by: Peryner And that's a damn fact. Because honestly, 0.0 is just as fun right now, and people still don't go to 0.0 space. It's more fun to bum around doing level 4 missions while chatting with corpmates. then maybe running some missions together. That's how vast majority MMO playerbase is - PVE focused grinders, and that is all fine. It is fighting a windmills if you want to make them live in 0.0 Do not even attempt it. Is is impossible to move one person from pve to pvp. It has never been done and never will be done. Even thoguh that is a goal of this expansion, noone should focus on that at all. ignores counteless posters saying they were planning to move to 0.0 before the patch notes showed the isk gain was not better than what they already have
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.11 08:18:00 - [3208] Originally by: Pointfive Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 11/11/2009 08:00:44 Originally by: Peryner And that's a damn fact. Because honestly, 0.0 is just as fun right now, and people still don't go to 0.0 space. It's more fun to bum around doing level 4 missions while chatting with corpmates. then maybe running some missions together. That's how vast majority MMO playerbase is - PVE focused grinders, and that is all fine. It is fighting a windmills if you want to make them live in 0.0 Do not even attempt it. Is is impossible to move one person from pve to pvp. It has never been done and never will be done. Even thoguh that is a goal of this expansion, noone should focus on that at all. ignores counteless posters saying they were planning to move to 0.0 before the patch notes showed the isk gain was not better than what they already have :P see I think the best end goal for 0.0 should be even higher costs! Allainces should be able to build PvE centers, and then get a tax off of everyone doing stuff in that system. That way the PvE people will be paying for the PvP peoples to keep sov. Hell, if you increase the income to double of level 4 missions, then allaince could put down 20% taxes to pay for PvP ships. and thus the PvP people and the PvE people would play together. Just keep the current costs in the blog the same, and make it so you can make the upkeeps even higher by doing even more missions and thus even more income! seriously the PvP and PvE people could support each other. And with treaties they wouldn't even need to be in the same alliance. it could be like how you mission in empire space. you don't work for the people that own the systems. I think it would be awesome if while going around 0.0 you across player built empires. but that will require some good steak. hell they had the right idea with NPC corp tax. Now if you make treaty impossible with NPC corps, and increase profits in 0.0 then players will leave NPC corps to get higher profit. it's risk vs.reward not risk vs. fun
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.11 08:19:00 - [3209] Originally by: Mara Rinn Which would you prefer: near-level-4-mission income every day that you are in nullsec with no jumpclone cooldown stopping you getting involved with an incursion or defense, or afk level 4 income once a week, with the rest of the week being in your nullsec clone staring mindlessly at local while hovering around a gate? I know which scenario looks like more fun to me! You, like most trolls, are always leaving something out of the picture to prop up your own warped world view. I'm honestly not sure if you are stupid or trolling. You mentioned a specific one account case. For that you will have someone JC to empire when isk is low, and run belts when there is no action - while they have ships in their hangar. Net result, less people in 0.0. Which is bad. Seriously, do you live there? do you have any friends there? perhaps single account friends? never heard anyone say "**** I gotta buy a GTC", or "sry, missioning, broke"?
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 08:43:00 - [3210] Quote: wow, I missed a entire threadnaught while studying for exams =s. Anyways, seems to me with moon goo changes and CCP's plans to make money from taxes and to have upkeep.... it looks like living in 0.0 is gonna be expensive. too expensive. Imho the "expensive" part is where people are concerned the less. But what many including CCP don't get at all is that if Dominion was aimed at making hi sec bears and corps move to 0.0 they have to make something to entice exactly those guys. I mean, after 100+ pages no one split the issue in two: - What happens to those already in 0.0 (hugely covered) - What happens to those who are not in 0.0 and were planning to consider the option. I understand this was one main goal of this expansion. Now, what's being done to entice the latter to lose their super-safe and high income and migrate in 0.0, with its many insecurity and hassles? - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz

Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.11 08:52:00 - [3211] I suggest any new players from hi-sec that decide to band together and try out a system in null-sec, leaving their free ratting and LVL 4 agents behind - and instead paying 7 mil a day for the privilege of being in a null-sec system - so other players can shoot them down as they try to mine or rat in their expensive PvE ships - I suggest that for each new player from hi-sec to null-sec CCP should send 1 gummy bear per day for the 7 million worth of ratting or anomaly finds the new players do. I think the best name for this would be the gummy bear upgrade. And those alliances who have accrued 30 gummy bears by end of month after sending 210 million of their ratting profits to CCP - will no longer have to endure the hardships of free system use in hi-sec anymore, nor will they have to worry about all the damn CONCORD protection. And if a new null-sec alliance collect over 50 gummy bears they get the Mother Bear System upgrade - which will only cost them a paltry 15million a day to keep, and it will allow them to mine one extra asteroid field in their null-sec system a day with whatever Hulks they would like to lose to PvP'rs.
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 09:04:00 - [3212] Quote: Point #3-- Far-reaching (by which I take you mean "expansive") alliances will have to become less-so. I don't by the Atlas argument that they will still only have 15 systems out of 3 regions to use post-Dominion... only if they choose not to upgrade the space at all. Well we will do it. Why would we need something else besides the strategic outpost and jb systems,and maybe the few systems with -9 ect true sec and the few moons that are worth. But we will still be ther like AAA PL Goons,on the map it may look as systems are empty but we will be there ratting exploring,pvp-ing,but not paying the excessive costs. So any newcomer will struggle against anyone one of the big aliances if he does not come as blue. CCP are failing in exactly this making o.o lucrative for newcomers.They just make it harder for them and boring for us the o.o residents. People are talking for income and ect but they don't get it,money exploration yeah but how many people explore how many good sites you find and how many of them escalate?,how many good systems with nice true sec you have for ratting....and ect with 300-400+ people in aliance chat you certainly need a lot of system just to keep your people pvp ready,now ccp want to impliment a whole new level of grinding. And let me tell you something pve players can't survive in o.o period.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.11 09:08:00 - [3213] Edited by: Kepakh on 11/11/2009 09:13:33 Originally by: Peryner :P see I think the best end goal for 0.0 should be even higher costs! Allainces should be able to build PvE centers, and then get a tax off of everyone doing stuff in that system. That way the PvE people will be paying for the PvP peoples to keep sov. Hell, if you increase the income to double of level 4 missions, then allaince could put down 20% taxes to pay for PvP ships. and thus the PvP people and the PvE people would play together. Just keep the current costs in the blog the same, and make it so you can make the upkeeps even higher by doing even more missions and thus even more income! seriously the PvP and PvE people could support each other. And with treaties they wouldn't even need to be in the same alliance. it could be like how you mission in empire space. you don't work for the people that own the systems. I think it would be awesome if while going around 0.0 you across player built empires. but that will require some good steak. hell they had the right idea with NPC corp tax. Now if you make treaty impossible with NPC corps, and increase profits in 0.0 then players will leave NPC corps to get higher profit. it's risk vs.reward not risk vs. fun Ok, so you basicaly tranfer everything except Concord protection to 0.0 and increase the outcomes. What will happen is: 1) People will still grind their L4 in empire because no rewards can make them move into 0.0 2) You turned 0.0 primarily being team work acheivement into solo grind content. 3) You just wasted lots of time on bad concept. One of the great things about EVE is that it can offer different playstyles depending on space you live in and it will be very unfortunate if this gets ruined due narrow-minded obtuse developers.
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 09:30:00 - [3214] Fresh news i am just reposting what i post on our forums : Quote: Just logged on the sisi,the new dominion black screen is epic cool,hm they let redeeming ms and faction ships again intresting. And in the moment i am trying to see or get info if something new added for the sov and ect edit: they seeded the different industrial strategic and ect upgrades for systems don't know if it is new though i log for first time after almost a week or so. Yep they are new and they are **** : the strategic upgrades range from 200 000m3 for the capital construction upgrade to 500 000m3 for the cynojamer upgrade the system upgrades : only the ore and survey upgrades are seeded grow in size expotentialy with upgrade lvl 1 5000m3 lvl 2 10 000m3 lvl 3 100 000m3, lvl 4 250 000m3, and lvl 5 500 000m3. It is becoming a logistical nightmare tbh
Locii	Posted - 2009.11.11 09:39:00 - [3215] Originally by: Astal Atlar Fresh news i am just reposting what i post on our forums : Quote: Just logged on the sisi,the new dominion black screen is epic cool,hm they let redeeming ms and faction ships again intresting. And in the moment i am trying to see or get info if something new added for the sov and ect edit: they seeded the different industrial strategic and ect upgrades for systems don't know if it is new though i log for first time after almost a week or so. Yep they are new and they are **** : the strategic upgrades range from 200 000m3 for the capital construction upgrade to 500 000m3 for the cynojamer upgrade the system upgrades : only the ore and survey upgrades are seeded grow in size expotentialy with upgrade lvl 1 5000m3 lvl 2 10 000m3 lvl 3 100 000m3, lvl 4 250 000m3, and lvl 5 500 000m3. It is becoming a logistical nightmare tbh so if your a large alliance and have teh ability to titan bridge freighters everywhere your good, smaller alliances are just gonna have to lube up and freighter everything about gate by gate. oh yay.
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.11 09:45:00 - [3216] Originally by: Locii so if your a large alliance and have teh ability to titan bridge freighters everywhere your good, smaller alliances are just gonna have to lube up and freighter everything about gate by gate. oh yay. No titan bridges in Dominion as well as no cap ships(excpet jump freighters) using jump bridges. It is the very first implemention of space upgrades, volumes as well as other attributes are subject to change of course.
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 09:57:00 - [3217] Quote: No titan bridge in Dominion as well as no cap ship(except jump freighters) can use POS jump bridge. only that titan jump has nothing to do with jump bridge system Stay in empire noobie. As for volumes as we see the hub size i doubt there will be a lot of difference.And it is already the 11th, so 20 days before the expansion i doubt we will see a lot more tweaking. And yeah i cant see how making taking catching a single system worth of 3 freighter jumps at all at least makes it easier for smaller entities
soul diva	Posted - 2009.11.11 10:04:00 - [3218] Ok I think it is apparant that WE as CUSTOMERS are not happy. All the reasons why have been expressed, cut and pasted etc for the last gazillion pages. I think Bobby Atlas nailed it exactly to be honest. Must be true as every enemy of Atlas agreed with him as do I. So let's just look at the situation. We pay for the game and CCP use our money to pay their salaries which in turn offers updates to improve what we get for our buck. Ok that's like any company then when you think about it. So as a customer I have choices. If it is a material item I can take a look and go yeah that's cool or actually I don't like it. EVE is not a material possesion it is a service. We get game play for cash. So what do you do if you are getting bad sevice....complain as many have done in this thread. What should the service provider do.... listen to their CUSTOMERS views and address the situation. As a CUSTOMER if you are still not happy you can complain or cancel the contract and walk away. I suspect the last thing CCP want is for all EVE players to cancel their subscriptions unless they are trying to disband eve and just make cash from Dust in the future? This could be a way of trying to make us all emo quit. So with that in mind why not try and turn this thread from a oooo this is XXXX to more of a well CCP if you did this it might work out better. If I worked at CCP at this tiem and read this thread I would probably be looking for another job in blind panic or thinking "This needs fixing but how can we fix it". So I'll throw a couple of random ideas in that they might want to consider. These are not just about the patch but about EVE in general in some instances 1. I agree with Bobby and others so will not replicate them but this point is to cover all that his post said 2. 0.0 in general needs sorting. Out of the last 6 10/10 plexes i got zip, nothing crap. I could have earnt more isk L4 missioning for the time spent. 3. 0.0 anomolies are pretty useless in terms of earning isk, the hacking sites are slighlty better but not brilliant and don't get me started on mining sites. These could do with a boost to be honest. I don't mind if you make them harder to find but at least put some reward in there. 4. Faction rat loot. OMG this is poor. The last ten Domi rats I had...1 dropped domi loot, 9 dropped named rubbish and I had a 13 mill bounty domi that dropped a miner 1 and a t1 drone amongst low isk value named stuff. I sugest your random loot generator needs a kick 5. Re the flag situation in Dominion. We will potentially end up with hundreds of people in one system scanning in the hope to find an anomoly that will last ten minutes and spawn 20 mill isk......back to emp L4's it is then. Not to mention the increased lag situation that you have been trying to resolve since EVE began. So what about rethinking it. why could you not have one system that you stick a flag in, build up, make better ect but this has a total effect on the whole region. After you have reached X number of days sov you have the ability to put smaller flags free of charge and upkeep in other systems. The longer you maintain the main station base system the more smaller system flags you can plant. These smaller flags at a very reduced cost can be upgraded to increase the value of these sytems. This way smaller groups could have one or two systems and larger groups more. It will make all 0.0 systems become occupied and utilised because if you spend your small flag allocation in a specific system, surely you will look after, maintain and use it. The 0.0 systems that never see anyone from one month to the next will be taken by other groups and thus giving you CCP the desired effect of more poeple being able to use 0.0 space. If you think about this it is scalable from small alliances to huge allainces. It also will encourage more 0.0 pvp as there will be many more small flags for the taking and not just cluster XXXX battles in station systems.
Locii	Posted - 2009.11.11 10:06:00 - [3219] Originally by: Kepakh Edited by: Kepakh on 11/11/2009 09:46:05 Originally by: Locii so if your a large alliance and have teh ability to titan bridge freighters everywhere your good, smaller alliances are just gonna have to lube up and freighter everything about gate by gate. oh yay. No titan bridge in Dominion as well as no cap ship(except jump freighters) can use POS jump bridge. It is the very first implemention of space upgrades, volumes as well as other attributes are subject to change of course. always nice to see people comment with out knowing anything about what there talking about
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.11 10:06:00 - [3220] The Volumes aren't that restrictive if you don't have to import the hubs from Empire. If you have to import Hubs from Empire...well..good luck. You're not getting a freighter through our chokepoints, i can assure you. And yeah, smaller alliances without titans will have a slight problem getting their hubs past us. A very slight problem.. It's not a big deal for us established alliances obviously. We've been using titan portals for freighters for ages. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.

soul diva	Posted - 2009.11.11 10:11:00 - [3221] Cont..... We could also have smaller flags affecting larger flags. The battles in the smaller systems could in time reduce the effectiveness of the larger flag thus reducing the benefits in all systems held. The possibilities for creative thinking here are endless. Come on CCP think about it. WE ARE YOUR CUSTOMERS who love the game but not he stupid random weed induced idea's that you have sometimes. Get involved with your customers, listen to them, utlise their brains and most importantly KEEP THEM AS CUSTOMERS
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.11.11 10:30:00 - [3222] Originally by: Locii always nice to see people comment with out knowing anything about what there talking about Didn't they remove Titan's jump bridge ability for Dominion? I was under impression they didn't like the taxi driver role and were going to 'fix it.
Col Callahan Caldari The Lazy Boys	Posted - 2009.11.11 10:31:00 - [3223] I can't wait to log in after down time and see every one evac from 0.0, I don't expect any system without a station to have sov anymore. Oh goody, so much fun. I heard you the last time.
zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.11 10:33:00 - [3224] Edited by: zelalot on 11/11/2009 10:34:43 this is fairly worrying to see so many pages of bad comments but on the other hand some fairly unique suggestions as well. I hope CCP look at the comments and blog us again soon. There are so many un-answered questions and also a seemingly un-transparency feel to all the blogs and fanfest. The whole sov mechanic needed changing. My perception of the first few blogs it appeared appealing, nerfing the blob alliances, giving smaller alliances a chance to get a foot hold in 0.0 and encourages many empire dwellers into the unknown. From this blog i am still awaiting the answers to many questions i still have about the expansion (is expansion the correct word becuase it looks like a contraction) - Im usually a laid back kinda guy who has always just taking any new expansions as they come out. But with what has been explained in this dev blog i seriously have to question what on earth is this expansion aimed at?
Locii	Posted - 2009.11.11 10:42:00 - [3225] Originally by: Kepakh Originally by: Locii always nice to see people comment with out knowing anything about what there talking about Didn't they remove Titan's jump bridge ability for Dominion? I was under impression they didn't like the taxi driver role and were going to 'fix it. link?
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.11 11:00:00 - [3226] there was a time when everybody agreed that null-sec logistics and therefore ~life should be made easier... now we're faced with the necessity to spam more industrial towers than ever before (see t2 component reshuffle) in combination with less sov fuel savings, appearantly heavily "taxed" jump bridges and other upgrades. ... easier in order to lower the bar for "young" entities ... to leave time for pewpew, the only sink that's fun (most of the time) basically my GTC is supposed to go directly to concord now? be that by my own grinding or selling it to a grinder/macro? blatant rip-off - putting the gist back into logistics
gambrinous	Posted - 2009.11.11 11:07:00 - [3227] Quote: I had visions of 50 people being able to sustain themselves in one system I'm sure others have realised it, but just to clarify: local becomes exponentially useless over about 25-30 in system. I'm happy with that. But definitely not at L4 wages.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.11 11:10:00 - [3228] Originally by: gambrinous local becomes exponentially useless over about 25-30 in system. you need a bigger screen come to think of it... so do i "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.11 12:03:00 - [3229] Originally by: ServantOfMask Originally by: gambrinous local becomes exponentially useless over about 25-30 in system. you need a bigger screen come to think of it... so do i lolz need a bigger screen too. For a ratter even one person in the system you are trying to chain can be useless in the end. Rat to pvp, but how can you with 15 other people trying to rat at the same time. "well move to another system them" - "why? the other systems arent worth ratting in with the crap bounty's", "well plex then" - "I scanned something down, oh wait its been completed all ready". "You guys are fail, you cant pvp" - "How are we fail, you occupy system upon system of empty space and are able to cap every good moon so that even when your asleep you still turning isk. We on the other hand cant sustain loosing a ship a day, and unless you give me something to harvest thats of worth, we will always be running to a pos or station or better yet, stay in empire". FACT: its a viscious cycle.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 12:05:00 - [3230] So, seeing as there's people willing to throw numbers around in an attempt to show how Dominion will achieve it's goals, here's a question for you: What percentage increase in 0.0 population will Dominion bring?

Leanne Pausic	Posted - 2009.11.11 12:15:00 - [3231] This .. Originally by: Aceoil 0.0 rats needs to give out bigger bounties. Seriously forget being comparable to lvl 4 missions. Forget it! Rat bounties in 0.0 need to increase from 3x - 5x from what they are now. Yes 0.0 ratting should be MUCH MUCH better than level 4 missions. Once you have raised the 0.0 rat bounties. Then there will be a mad rush to 0.0. I don't want to have to rat for 10 hours/week just to help my corp/alliance pay for system upgrades. - If you raised the 0.0 rat bounties. There is a mad rush to 0.0. - 0.0 fills up. - Pirates, merc corps, and carebear hunters come out of the woodwork and camp systems almost 24/7 in their cloaky ships. - Carebears respond with response gangs, and ratting in groups. But they cannot rat all the time cause there would be hostiles in system. So everything balances out. because plexing in 0.0 is can be pretty poor. Having been in 0.0 for 9 months and having run 40 or so plexes / DED sites i have only made 400 odd million from the actual faction loot drops. Its just not worth doing when the odds are so stacked against you, especially compared to lvl 4 missions.
mesosorry	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:03:00 - [3232] does the isk cost seems high or is that cause i am a noob. (\_/) (o.0) (>.<)
zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:08:00 - [3233] Edited by: zelalot on 11/11/2009 13:13:33 Originally by: Leanne Pausic Edited by: Leanne Pausic on 11/11/2009 12:43:59 This .. Originally by: Aceoil 0.0 rats needs to give out bigger bounties. Seriously forget being comparable to lvl 4 missions. Forget it! Rat bounties in 0.0 need to increase from 3x - 5x from what they are now. Yes 0.0 ratting should be MUCH MUCH better than level 4 missions. Once you have raised the 0.0 rat bounties. Then there will be a mad rush to 0.0. I don't want to have to rat for 10 hours/week just to help my corp/alliance pay for system upgrades. - If you raised the 0.0 rat bounties. There is a mad rush to 0.0. - 0.0 fills up. - Pirates, merc corps, and carebear hunters come out of the woodwork and camp systems almost 24/7 in their cloaky ships. - Carebears respond with response gangs, and ratting in groups. But they cannot rat all the time cause there would be hostiles in system. So everything balances out. because plexing in 0.0 is can be pretty poor. Having been in 0.0 for 9 months and having run 40 or so plexes / DED sites i have only made 400 odd million from the actual faction loot drops. All that time scanning down plexes, then running, 6/10, 8/10, 10/10 and other unrated sites, for so little income. Its just not worth doing when the odds are so stacked against you, especially compared to lvl 4 missions. Anomolies are even worse - pretty much not worth doing. Grav and Radar sites are generally not done either due to thier poor returns considering time to run and scan down. Bring back the system scan module that is part of a upgrade unlocked within a system!Make it so the module is expensive to maintain but is affordable from being able to locate MORE and BIGGER and HIGHER rewarded plexes than probing. Make it so the module should be able to say if the plex is engaged or empty and if its been complete it dissipears from scan. = pvp wise, enemy knows of this module and strategically makes plans to burn it.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:01:00 - [3234] My suggestion for medium and small sized infrastructure hubs for the smaller alliances: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1212655
Rage Trade	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:08:00 - [3235] Fellow dwellers of 0.0 I say to you that its of no use to try and tell the rest of the folks the total amount of crap that this update is. Its of no use because its in the human nature that the grass is always greener on the other side. You are trying to talk about 0.0 to people who never lived in 0.0, to folks that see 0.0 has this mythical land of richest unimaginable where the isk just drops in your account by the millions without effort, its like trying to say to a religious zealot that his religion is an ilusion. So its no use to try and use logic and reasoning in this situation because they simply don't want to learn and accept the facts that go against their beliefs, the fact that 0.0 is alot of harwork. The fact that 90% of the 0.0 systems are crap. But don't worry they will learn what 0.0 is the hard way the 0.0 way. They will learn when they spend hundreds of millions in hardware and set it up in 0.0 only to see it return almost no profit for alot of addional work. They will learn when they get camped by pirates and roamers not allowing them to carry out their ratting and mining and eventually blowing up their ships. They will learn when they get 100 dreads dorped on them and all their hardware blown up. An they will especially learn when they return to empire to try and regain their losses doing what they previously did there, only to see that the markets have gone to **** and that their previous occupation is a lot less profitable. So let Dominion come and when first the empire folks start to leave the game because of a ruined market and them when the 0.0 people start to leave the game because there is nothing worth fighting for and the days of easy ganks are over then and only then will CCP cry and see what a total load of crap Dominion his.
ShadowMaiden Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:16:00 - [3236] Ok, CCP slashes the proposed fees by 75%, but you lose Local, sound fair Alliance carebears? Also, cry more.
PaulTheConvoluted	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:26:00 - [3237] Originally by: ShadowMaiden Ok, CCP slashes the proposed fees by 75%, but you lose Local, sound fair Alliance carebears? Also, cry more. Why would anyone but pirates roaming in enemy territory want to remove local? With these upgrades being PvE oriented as they are removing local would only result in even more ppl running to high-sec for ISK, as you've just made PvE a hell of a lot more dangerous. It's true 0.0 is (was?) all about PvP, but if you practically require people to PvE in order to keer their home, at least make it remotely possible to do so (with a net profit, preferably a decent one at that). At the very least, removing local will even further chase off carebears, while inviting them to 0.0 seemed like the main goal of the patch.
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:38:00 - [3238] For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day
Deva Blackfire 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:47:00 - [3239] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 11/11/2009 14:47:16 Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day IMO: TCU should cost 5, HUB 1m/day. Stops spamming TCUs everywhere just to "cover area". CSAA - doesnt matter too much for me but spamming 10 CSAAs in cap construction system = 300m/month = cheap. And gives almost same invulnerability as sov4 (i dont see raid behind enemy lines and taking out 10 POSes being normal way of dealing with them anyways). Jammers and bridges should be even more expensive for all i care. Or maybe increased price if both are in system? Still it looks better than it did till now on TQ.
Pac SubCom Stealthfield Ihatalo Cartel Navy	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:56:00 - [3240] Quote: inviting them to 0.0 seemed like the main goal of the patch. And the method to do so is breaking the hold of the existing alliances. Only few bridges and cynojammers mean that the degree of actual physical control over space will decrease. That is enough. It is not intended to give a free ride to empire dwellers. They still have to fight or talk their way in. But the point is, much space can not be developed by the big alliance empires, since it is too expensive to do so. --------------- ∞ TQFE

Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:36:00 - [3241] Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day Really? OK, that throws out the idea that the little guy won't be able to afford Sov. People can stop "defending" them now. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:38:00 - [3242] Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted Originally by: ShadowMaiden Ok, CCP slashes the proposed fees by 75%, but you lose Local, sound fair Alliance carebears? Also, cry more. Why would anyone but pirates roaming in enemy territory want to remove local? With these upgrades being PvE oriented as they are removing local would only result in even more ppl running to high-sec for ISK, as you've just made PvE a hell of a lot more dangerous. It's true 0.0 is (was?) all about PvP, but if you practically require people to PvE in order to keer their home, at least make it remotely possible to do so (with a net profit, preferably a decent one at that). At the very least, removing local will even further chase off carebears, while inviting them to 0.0 seemed like the main goal of the patch. Listen carefully Paul, you will hear the tears of the wannabe pirates who can't get what they see as their due; the little ratter or miner. In fact their only due is repeated podding but that's beside the point, but beware or else you will drown in their 1337 pvp against the super pvp Hulk. Cry moar ShadowFailure because local won't be removed. If you want no local go live in a WH. WH's are boring . Who's crying again little child?
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:04:00 - [3243] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day Really? OK, that throws out the idea that the little guy won't be able to afford Sov. People can stop "defending" them now. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that big alliances don't need Sov to control space.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:25:00 - [3244] Originally by: Tesal Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day Really? OK, that throws out the idea that the little guy won't be able to afford Sov. People can stop "defending" them now. Good to know CCP don't change their minds and can't alter things before release on TQ. Anyone remember the Rorq jump range prior to release on TQ? For those who don't it was 100000000 LY or something like that. However, if these are the new numbers and CCP stick to them then sov might become cost effective and people will claim it. Otherwise only a few systems will be claimed and the rest of space will remain defended by death stars.
Sloth Arnini Arcana Imperii Ltd.	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:27:00 - [3245] So, someone in alliance kindly linked a devblog outlining how the new sov system worked. Most of the principles of that system actually seem quite sound (to me at least). Then I noticed that if I'm reading the conquest flowchart correctly (here) we have to destroy the infrastructure hub to take the system. So, not only do defenders have to splash out to drop the hub and all its lolupgrades in the first place, the attackers need to build it all up again themselves once they take the system. So, why should anyone attack a system just so they can spend a large sum of isk that goes to waste if someone else occupies the system (even if only for a day)? At the very least make the hub capturable rather than destructible. If I invade someone's space, I don't just want to explode their spaceship pixels, I want to take their stuff and make it my own. If I just want to make spaceship pixels explode, I'll join a roaming gang. I want something to show for my trouble when actaully assaulting territory. As it stands, the only reward the Dominion sov system offers, over the existing one, is the sight of a big explosion when you blow away the hub, and a second explosion when you take out the TCU. So CCP, why should we bother attacking each other's space? Tears are all well and good, but insufficient on their own.
Clone 10101	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:31:00 - [3246] Originally by: ShadowMaiden lose Local yes please.
SELENE VAMP	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:44:00 - [3247] Hi. IÆd like to present you some ideas about the fact that sov bonuses should be linked to the sov holder and the corporations and alliances the sov holders decides , instead of the solar system, to prevent enemies and neutrals to make the most of the sov upgrades. For example, instead of a bonus to the number of pops and the average bounty, the bonus brought by the military bonus HUB could be an extra percentage of bounty given to all the members of the sov holding alliance and the alliances specifically allowed to farm here and benefit the bonus. Moreover, this upgrade could for example give a bonus to the scan res/tracking/opti/resist jam (or whatever you may imagine) to the sov holding alliance members and their authorized allies. This would help them defending their territory and help them make money more effectively by increasing slightly the speed people farm plexes and belts. You can even boost mining and ice harvesting rate this way, the important idea is that this bonus should be applied to the sov holder and his allies instead of being automatically given to anyone entering the system. Another idea I had in order to help people protecting their system is the possibility to anchor fighter hangars @ POSes, POS gunners could deploy directly to targets at range or and assign to friends. This would help farming, especially for small alliances who canÆt field often carriers assisting farmers, or even pvpers, helping fighting against hostiles and needs active pilots, contrary to anchored defense at gates and outposts. Moreover it would help a lot these small alliances who canÆt field many pilots on some bad timezone for them. Please discuss these ideas. many thanks.
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:27:00 - [3248] Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day If these numbers are the new prices for begining alliance i support them whole heartedly. sounds decent imho and afordable to even to noobest of groups. NOW what ithink should happen is if they dont want big alliances to spam systems they should scale the cost of upkeep, as in if you have so many systems under your control your price per system increases 25%. then if you reach antoehr teir it goes to 50%. That is how i understood the mechanics at fan fest as to how this would work and how i think it should still be. If we could have CCP confirm this with releasing the numbers and the scale to what its going to cost to have a super empire then all my fears of this expansion will be extinguished. they can fiddle around with quality of upgrades when it drops and adjust as needed to demand and market strength.
Ap0ll0n Gallente Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:31:00 - [3249] Originally by: Lolion Reglo Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day If these numbers are the new prices for begining alliance i support them whole heartedly. sounds decent imho and afordable to even to noobest of groups. NOW what ithink should happen is if they dont want big alliances to spam systems they should scale the cost of upkeep, as in if you have so many systems under your control your price per system increases 25%. then if you reach antoehr teir it goes to 50%. That is how i understood the mechanics at fan fest as to how this would work and how i think it should still be. If we could have CCP confirm this with releasing the numbers and the scale to what its going to cost to have a super empire then all my fears of this expansion will be extinguished. they can fiddle around with quality of upgrades when it drops and adjust as needed to demand and market strength. Yeah, tbh, i dont see what people are crying about.. 1m a day is cheaper than towers, and if you keep your carebearing to maybe 5-10 systems, its actually getting cheaper to hold sov..
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:34:00 - [3250] I know. For being apart of an alliance that holds about 6 or 7 systems in null sec all im concerned about is how much the price will scale and how much of a tax or lien the allaince will place on its corps to help support its claim to space. The fact the prices have dropped to this level means we can not only hold sov but also run a few POSes as well for about the same price we are currently running at. So thank you CCP for responding to our concerns and adjusting the prices. I know you don't hear that often but hey, im just glad things seem to be looking up again.

Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:42:00 - [3251] Originally by: Ap0ll0n Originally by: Lolion Reglo Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day If these numbers are the new prices for begining alliance i support them whole heartedly. sounds decent imho and afordable to even to noobest of groups. NOW what ithink should happen is if they dont want big alliances to spam systems they should scale the cost of upkeep, as in if you have so many systems under your control your price per system increases 25%. then if you reach antoehr teir it goes to 50%. That is how i understood the mechanics at fan fest as to how this would work and how i think it should still be. If we could have CCP confirm this with releasing the numbers and the scale to what its going to cost to have a super empire then all my fears of this expansion will be extinguished. they can fiddle around with quality of upgrades when it drops and adjust as needed to demand and market strength. Yeah, tbh, i dont see what people are crying about.. 1m a day is cheaper than towers, and if you keep your carebearing to maybe 5-10 systems, its actually getting cheaper to hold sov.. We're crying about the upgrades and their total worthlessness. Not the costs. Not even at the initial prices.
Zen Sung	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:53:00 - [3252] I was sure there had been mention of Sentry gun upgrades at some stage so you could have some guarding your space. Did I make this up in my head or was this mentioned at some point? That was the kind of upgrade I was looking forward to with dominion.
Ap0ll0n Gallente Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:57:00 - [3253] Originally by: Zen Sung I was sure there had been mention of Sentry gun upgrades at some stage so you could have some guarding your space. Did I make this up in my head or was this mentioned at some point? That was the kind of upgrade I was looking forward to with dominion. That wont happen. That would ruin small roaming gangs..
Zen Sung	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:15:00 - [3254] Setting aside the fact it should be hard for small roaming gangs to challenge people in their sovereign space, there could always be workarounds (making player turrets vulnerable to ecm is just one thing that comes instantly to mind).
Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:18:00 - [3255] Hey i have an idea, please quote if you find it good: Why not scale the upkeep costs by the amount of solar systems that you own, lets say in steps of 5 solar systems. Lets say the upkeep costs for each of the first 5 solar systems that you own, are (im taking the numbers from the current sisi build) TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day The 6th through 10th solar systems that you own, will have increased upkeep costs, lets say by 30%. The 11th through 15th solar systems that you own, will have even more increased upkeep costs, lets say by 60%. And so on. BUT STILL: The Upgrade Levels will grant you a discount on the upkeep costs for each individual solar system. That way, both smaller and big alliances can own their part of the space, and still CCP could prevent a single alliance from gaining domination over several regions. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:30:00 - [3256] Honestly I would have been fine with the old prices. it's the supposed "upgrades" that need to be reworked.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:34:00 - [3257] Edited by: Qlanth on 11/11/2009 18:33:51 Originally by: Mokita maybe if we increase the spawn rates of things that are both unpopular and unprofitable, people will use them to make more isk This quote basically applies to every single infrastructure hub upgrade except the complex spawning one.
Roger Douglas Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:34:00 - [3258] Originally by: Qlanth Honestly I would have been fine with the old prices. it's the supposed "upgrades" that need to be reworked. I can't believe I agree with goons, but he's right. What is the universe coming to?
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:37:00 - [3259] Another thing I have been purposely avoiding but is a problem I have feared since the announcement of R64 nerf is: What exactly is my motivation for taking new space? I can imagine some of my alliance's enemies will be trying to take our space for the sake of pure revenge but what is supposed to fuel my fire after the first 6 months? 0.0 needs something static to fight over as for years the only thing alliances EVER fought over were: Static complexes Static R64 moons Both of which have been nerfed.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:58:00 - [3260] I still think the best thing they could do is make a cyno jammer a pos deployable module that doesnt require sov to place. Turn it on its head from a defensive use to a genuine offensive one by forcing an alliance to pop said pos to allow there caps to get out of there space. Its not like all the 0.0 alliances arent gonna have loads of pos's to chuck away now anyway. So they fixed the cost thing... it wont help. Read between the lines of all the big alliance posts they want more targets in 0.0, they word it as new pilots but some slipped, they want more people who are unprepared and weak so they can enjoy being big and nasty still... Plenty have said it already. Big alliance dont need sov to hold space.

Tamahra Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:59:00 - [3261] Originally by: Qlanth Another thing I have been purposely avoiding but is a problem I have feared since the announcement of R64 nerf is: What exactly is my motivation for taking new space? I can imagine some of my alliance's enemies will be trying to take our space for the sake of pure revenge but what is supposed to fuel my fire after the first 6 months? 0.0 needs something static to fight over as for years the only thing alliances EVER fought over were: Static complexes Static R64 moons Both of which have been nerfed. i agree. There needs to be something worth fighting for Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. StevieSG
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:59:00 - [3262] Originally by: Qlanth Another thing I have been purposely avoiding but is a problem I have feared since the announcement of R64 nerf is: What exactly is my motivation for taking new space? I can imagine some of my alliance's enemies will be trying to take our space for the sake of pure revenge but what is supposed to fuel my fire after the first 6 months? 0.0 needs something static to fight over as for years the only thing alliances EVER fought over were: Static complexes Static R64 moons Both of which have been nerfed. Not to metion the whole point of this new system is to "make your systems more proftable" what's the point of fighting over territory when you can make it all the same. CCP is **ing ****ed but we all already knew that.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:01:00 - [3263] Originally by: Clone 10101 Originally by: ShadowMaiden lose Local yes please. Sure, less targets in space :P Goals for Dominion: bleed old x64 isk - yes, but based on very long term view less grind - no, still structures / timers / blob incentives faster pace of conflicts - yes, fast timers, less volume repopulate space - lol, fail If we're going to have 0.0 repopulated again, it is going to have to be worth it for people to move there, only a minority of people are not sheep, and if we want to have easy fun ganks again and preying on easy players, then we first really need to actually get them out here again
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:04:00 - [3264] There needs to be reasons to live in the space and reasons to want to take over space. With this current setup the majority of players are still going to make their money in empire and as making money is a pretty large part of the game, they will be spending most of their time in empire. I have to believe someone on the dev team understands this.I think tying the systems to true sec might help. At least then some space is better than other space. A max upgraded system of the lowest true sec should be on par with level 4 income. The highest sec status max upgraded should be 250% of level 4s. I dont think 0.0 dwellers want to pve all day and get rich. They want to pve less and have some territory conflict. There should also be some upgrades that draw out industry people. I think system upgrades that focues on giving 0.0 industry would be nice. Make it so only the best systems can have these upgrades turning the best true se systems into both pve. and market hubs. An upgrade that lowers build time. An upgrade that makes tech invention easier. An upgrade that allows you to build ships for less minerals, but those ships can never go to empire. Just make up some bs about them using illegal materials and being dangerous. Have minerals that can only be used in nullsec and can be used to build ships more efficiently, again dangerous unregulated minerals that oncord will blwo you up for trying to take to high sec.
Barwinius Ars ex Discordia	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:20:00 - [3265] If Cyno Jammers are so expensive they should get a big buff. Give Cyno Jammers a HP boost!
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:49:00 - [3266] Originally by: iP0D Originally by: Clone 10101 Originally by: ShadowMaiden lose Local yes please. Sure, less targets in space :P Goals for Dominion: bleed old x64 isk - yes, but based on very long term view less grind - no, still structures / timers / blob incentives faster pace of conflicts - yes, fast timers, less volume repopulate space - lol, fail If we're going to have 0.0 repopulated again, it is going to have to be worth it for people to move there, only a minority of people are not sheep, and if we want to have easy fun ganks again and preying on easy players, then we first really need to actually get them out here again there's no way to try to ** an alliance of "old money" without **ing up the system for new alliances. Also why should you punish an alliance for being successful in the past by bleeding out their hard earned spacebux. This isn't and shouldn't be a goal of Dominion. the rest- ok whatever 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
Nick Bison Gallente Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:01:00 - [3267] Originally by: Ap0ll0n Originally by: Zen Sung I was sure there had been mention of Sentry gun upgrades at some stage so you could have some guarding your space. Did I make this up in my head or was this mentioned at some point? That was the kind of upgrade I was looking forward to with dominion. That wont happen. That would ruin small roaming gangs.. Question: would that ruin small roaming gangs or just the gate-camping parties? A roam keeps moving and doesn't necissarily hang out at gates long enough to get locked-up by those slow-@ss sentries.
Ap0ll0n Gallente Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:05:00 - [3268] Originally by: Nick Bison Originally by: Ap0ll0n Originally by: Zen Sung I was sure there had been mention of Sentry gun upgrades at some stage so you could have some guarding your space. Did I make this up in my head or was this mentioned at some point? That was the kind of upgrade I was looking forward to with dominion. That wont happen. That would ruin small roaming gangs.. Question: would that ruin small roaming gangs or just the gate-camping parties? A roam keeps moving and doesn't necissarily hang out at gates long enough to get locked-up by those slow-@ss sentries. Not taking killing ratters in belts into account, 90% of fights happens at gates, and yes, sometimes you do hold on a gate while a scout is tracking down a ratter, or your waiting for someone to jump through the gate..

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:12:00 - [3269] Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost). There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary.

Prognosys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:13:00 - [3270] Originally by: gambrinous Originally by: KeratinBoy What if, along with these changes, CCP decided to charge players through the nose for, well, the same experience? The updated patch notes now state that they are trying to reduce empire alt sprawl, you know, condense empire carebears into fewer, more lucrative alts. As a result you will have to pay 7 mill a day for any character that logs on in empire. To make things more lucrative, there are now 10 more lvl 3 agents in every system. just giving this another quote

Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:21:00 - [3271] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost). There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary. Any chance we can get some response on the upgrades? Thats pretty much the main thinkg people are upset about.
skye orionis	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:23:00 - [3272] Originally by: Qlanth Another thing I have been purposely avoiding but is a problem I have feared since the announcement of R64 nerf is: What exactly is my motivation for taking new space? I can imagine some of my alliance's enemies will be trying to take our space for the sake of pure revenge but what is supposed to fuel my fire after the first 6 months? 0.0 needs something static to fight over as for years the only thing alliances EVER fought over were: Static complexes Static R64 moons Both of which have been nerfed. How about removing all sov costs for outpost systems, that would make outpost systems worth holding.
Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:26:00 - [3273] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost). There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary. Any response about the upgrades that aren't going to provide the 50+ people per system that everyone is wondering about? It's the main concern really and we're wondering about other more resources to make it possible to drop more space (PLEASE) or the ability to compensate in some other way that other hasn't been released or you guys are holding back from us. Any reply would be welcomed.
Wulfnor Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:49:00 - [3274] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost). There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary. Does the CSAA upgrade allow an unlimited number of CSAAs to be placed in a system? or is there a limit that grows with cost?
SXYGeeK Gallente do you Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:55:00 - [3275] I'm very concerned about how dificult it is to get the military index up, especialy in systems with low belt counts. I had 6+ pilots running my 5 belt system and anomolies in it for most of the day yesterday after patch. killed almost 1000 rats (1000, not a typo) and got 12% toward lvl 1. came back today and it was back at 0%, killed another 200 rats and no movement at all, still red down arrow. something must be wrong here. read more here... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1211774 -We So SeXy
ShadowMaiden Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:02:00 - [3276] Edited by: ShadowMaiden on 11/11/2009 21:04:48 Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted Originally by: ShadowMaiden Ok, CCP slashes the proposed fees by 75%, but you lose Local, sound fair Alliance carebears? Also, cry more. Why would anyone but pirates roaming in enemy territory want to remove local? With these upgrades being PvE oriented as they are removing local would only result in even more ppl running to high-sec for ISK, as you've just made PvE a hell of a lot more dangerous. It's true 0.0 is (was?) all about PvP, but if you practically require people to PvE in order to keer their home, at least make it remotely possible to do so (with a net profit, preferably a decent one at that). At the very least, removing local will even further chase off carebears, while inviting them to 0.0 seemed like the main goal of the patch. Listen carefully Paul, you will hear the tears of the wannabe pirates who can't get what they see as their due; the little ratter or miner. In fact their only due is repeated podding but that's beside the point, but beware or else you will drown in their 1337 pvp against the super pvp Hulk. Cry moar ShadowFailure because local won't be removed. If you want no local go live in a WH. WH's are boring . Who's crying again little child? Oh I know local won't ever be removed, I was suggesting its removal in return for lower costs, (but as usual, you null-sec pets want it all your own way). You obviously missed that part before you started attempting a witty putdown. Null-sec carebear rage best rage amirite?
Kernok	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:49:00 - [3277] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost). There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary. does it not seem a problem ccp that a upgraded system can basically have all of its upgrades turned off by cloaky alts parking in them shortly after downtime? seems like the most logical thing to do if you dont want to be an anomalie farmer and would like some nice afk supplimental income actually, i can see an afk empire of these alts ransoming upgraded systems hmm, afk empire...
centurion zulu ATRISC	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:11:00 - [3278] Originally by: Bobby Atlas CCP, you have lost the plot, truly and utterly ****ed. Lets rehash a few things - Instead of actually fixing titans and assigning them a role, CCP replaces it with a poorly conceived "death ray". However, it was received mildly accepted after some player review but then CCP decides to give everyone supercaps on sisi which was a brilliant idea and garnered mountains of invaluable feedback (read: sarcasm )... Which resulted in the "death ray" getting nerfed to a useless state of 10 minute rof, making titans all but relegated to a POS ornament - contrary to CCP own stated intentions at fan fest to see titans used on grid but not have an instant "i own grid" button. The expectation that people will use them "because they do 2x the turret damage of a dread" is short sighted at best, considering most titan holding alliances can already field 50-100+ dreads. - Instead of actually fixing highend passive income, ccp again chooses a poorly conceived solution that redistributes the passive income across more moons. This is but a temporary solution and 0.0 entities will simply start to react / hoard larger quantities of intermediate moons to generate roughly the same relative amount of passive income. - Instead of actually fixing the long standing issue of poorly distributed and static true sec value of systems, ccp wimps out and decides to not touch the true sec values cause of coding complexities, similar notes are made regarding why belts will not be added to systems. Instead a system is created where by infrastructure must first be planted and upgraded to add an array of cosmic signatures that provide various additional resources. This system as it turns out through testing is not nearly as profitable nor as accommodating to the amount of players as CCP indicated it would be at fan fest, the tie in to sov mechanics, especially the loss of such upgrades when sov is lost in a system, will make upgrades a **ed and convoluted concept. - Dominion is supposed to make 0.0 access for smaller entities easier, this could not be further from the truth. To hold 0.0 is now going to be exceedingly cost prohibitive, if a smaller entity wants to break into 0.0 they need to generate large amounts of initial capital before they can even begin the conquest of space. The actual killer on the whole thing will be the critical mass point that makes it nearly impossible for most smaller entities; that is actually having to engage in a sov war to take some 0.0 space, the costs of a war +initial costs of sov claiming will make it so cost prohibitive that most entities are just not going to bother. - Alliances that are based further out into 0.0 such as branch and omist for instance, are penalized much more than alliances sitting on the border of empire. CCP has been playing this whole "Balance everything" card for the last 2 months with ships, modules and skills but has turned a blind eye to the concept of distance between far out 0.0 regions and empire. For an alliance living in branch or omist, to run a JB network to empire you are talking 10bn+ a month, that is absolutely ***ed and exceedingly unbalanced. .... I could keep going but i think the point has been made ... dominion is going to be a cluster inappropriate text removed - CCP Ildoge, well done CCP. I'll also have to agree with Bobby on this. CCP, do any of you play this game anymore. I mean, wtf are you folks thinking about, or are you thinking at all. Comeon guys, get real here.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:19:00 - [3279] Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 11/11/2009 22:22:53 Originally by: SXYGeeK I'm very concerned about how dificult it is to get the military index up, especialy in systems with low belt counts. I had 6+ pilots running my 5 belt system and anomolies in it for most of the day yesterday after patch. killed almost 1000 rats (1000, not a typo) and got 12% toward lvl 1. came back today and it was back at 0%, killed another 200 rats and no movement at all, still red down arrow. something must be wrong here. read more here... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1211774 This needs more attention. ~1,000 rats for 12%? Does that mean ~10,000 for 100%? Just for Level 1? Are you insane? Here's an idea, do what people have been saying and eliminate frigate/cruiser spawns from 0.0 entirely and scale the "points per kill" on the quality/type of rats killed, and if you're not going to replace the anomaly rats with basic ones, double or triple their "point worth." Too many questions leading into this, CCP. Back off the death march and let us help you make this not a disaster.
Laina Delapore Caldari Red Sun Industries	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:26:00 - [3280] Upgrades to system Truesec / security class enabling better / more belts with better rats and better ore. Most people have already stated that a few extra anomalies simply won't cut it, and that the increased income from any potential faction loot drops will be temporary before the influx created by all the extra plexes makes the market crash. Improved truesec merely allows for a greater chance of Faction rats and even with use won't spew out -so- many shinies that the market in phat lewtz dies. Plus, the increased personal / corporate income makes paying for your PVP and your sov more workable. Cap truesec upgrades if you will, say a system cannot have its truesec lowered by more than a) a factor of 10 (i.e a -0.08 system cannot be upgraded to lower than -0.8) or b) no system in a constellation be upgraded to have a lower truesec rating than the lowest truesec in the constellation or c) fixed percentage improvement per upgrade level - but this would still have to quite effective to make it worthwhile.

SXYGeeK Gallente do you Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:30:00 - [3281] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 11/11/2009 22:22:53 Originally by: SXYGeeK I'm very concerned about how dificult it is to get the military index up, especialy in systems with low belt counts. I had 6+ pilots running my 5 belt system and anomolies in it for most of the day yesterday after patch. killed almost 1000 rats (1000, not a typo) and got 12% toward lvl 1. came back today and it was back at 0%, killed another 200 rats and no movement at all, still red down arrow. something must be wrong here. read more here... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1211774 This needs more attention. ~1,000 rats for 12%? Does that mean ~10,000 for 100%? Just for Level 1? Are you insane? Here's an idea, do what people have been saying and eliminate frigate/cruiser spawns from 0.0 entirely and scale the "points per kill" on the quality/type of rats killed, and if you're not going to replace the anomaly rats with basic ones, double or triple their "point worth." Too many questions leading into this, CCP. Back off the death march and let us help you make this not a disaster. Agreed, this stuff must just not be ready yet or something , cause i can't get anyone to respond on this. I don't think anyone else is realy testing this yet, there arent any Mil index ssytems on the map (except one lvl5 up in CCP land) -We So SeXy
centurion zulu ATRISC	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:42:00 - [3282] Originally by: Loike While I expected you to increase sov holding costs, by this much is just stupid. You say you want to make larger alliances lower their claims, but this also completely hinders small alliance growth. Your new method of sov warfare is now completely based on blobbing, something you have clearly said you want to get rid of :/ What do you really expect from CCP. They did the same overboard crap with the speed nerf, and just about everything else they have done. This should have been expected. By the time CCP is done with this, is there going to be anything left worth fighting over, or are we done here. ?
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:19:00 - [3283] Edited by: Mahke on 11/11/2009 23:21:36 Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day And these prices are going to discourage control of unused systems and force strategic choices about anything except cynojammers how..............? There is a balance in not being financially backbreaking and being significant enough to even matter (and thus force people to make choices about buffers, sprawl, and cost). Except for the cyno jammer price these new numbers fail the latter. Honestly; just tie prices to non-strategic development level. The more development (aka the more the system is actually used) the lower the prices, and vice-versa (unused space extremely costly, heavily utilized space extremely cheap). edit: Quote: This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost). There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary. Is an improvement because it forces tactical choices about how many TCUs to spam. Still not ideal but much better already.
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:24:00 - [3284] Yeah, I'm actually a bit surprised that industrial and military levels aren't taken into account, or stations, station slots used, etc for that matter.
Adam Ridgway Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:40:00 - [3285] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost). Cynojammers & JB still are TOO cheap, double them, at least. In other news: - A lof of the system is based on usage. - For moar heavy usage you need PLENTY of new people in 0.0. - Without incentives to be in 0.0, people is goign to carebear in hisec. Too much hasle for so few rewards. - 0.0 will still be devoid of any life and 'emergent' play, status quo will remain, and still the same. Gratz on an useless expansion, after all your effort. Until you understand that: - people who considers to be in 0.0, does mostlly because of the pvp. EXTREME CAREBEARS ARE NOT POTENTIAL TARGETS BECAUSE THEY ARE TOTALLY RISK-AVERSE (for a number of reasons). - they do grind to have isk to pvp. - the potential 0.0 dweller that now is in empire is there because: too much effort, too few reward. And you factor these facts into your gamedesign, until then, you will have a 0.0 with allways same faces, same 'elite', same status quo, same wasteland without any life. :CCP:
Blue Harrier Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:42:00 - [3286] In case anyone missed it, this was in the other 'Storming the Gates' thread. Quote: Originally by: Smurphy1 One question that a lot of people seem to be asking is what happens to the upgrades when you take a system from someone? I think that if you take a system you should have to put up a new infrastructure hub but the activity levels(except for time of course) are still there from the previous owner. The levels will have degraded somewhat due to the fighting but the conqueror should not have everything destroyed. Or possibly make it like looting a ship, some mods got destroyed and some are in the wreck. Answer from CCP Chronotis; The military and industrial indexes are preserved though will continue to decay as normal through time, only the strategic index will reset when system sovereignty changes hands. Whilst the system is contested it is highly unlikely there will not be as much resource gathering going on so you may lose a level or two depending on how long it takes to conquer the system. You could find yourself seizing a system with a high index level and good combo of base level resources or location value/gate count combo. Makes things a tiny bit better.
Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:57:00 - [3287] Originally by: Adam Ridgway In other news: - A lof of the system is based on usage. - For moar heavy usage you need PLENTY of new people in 0.0. - Without incentives to be in 0.0, people is goign to carebear in hisec. Too much hasle for so few rewards. - 0.0 will still be devoid of any life and 'emergent' play, status quo will remain, and still the same. Actually, all of the core strategic upgrades (JB/CSAA/Cyno stuff) only depends on cold hard cash, so for alliances who can't make the cash from moon goo their best bet is to put together a PVE corps, which runs missions in HiSec. That's one of the biggest bits of brokenness - the fact that the money has no relation to the space being claimed. The whole system would be vastly improved if the code that tracks the military index feeds credits directly into that system's upkeep budget instead of letting alliances use hi-sec carebearing to fund their claims.
Rizan Solace	Posted - 2009.11.12 00:02:00 - [3288] I see a lot of people complaining about the price for smaller corps and alliances. How about charge by a percent in a way that smaller corps can afford to be in 0.0 as well. :)
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.12 00:34:00 - [3289] Originally by: SXYGeeK I'm very concerned about how dificult it is to get the military index up, especialy in systems with low belt counts. I had 6+ pilots running my 5 belt system and anomolies in it for most of the day yesterday after patch. killed almost 1000 rats (1000, not a typo) and got 12% toward lvl 1. came back today and it was back at 0%, killed another 200 rats and no movement at all, still red down arrow. something must be wrong here. read more here... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1211774 haha oh wow
Lorn Cholaxu Gallente Monadyne Exogalactic	Posted - 2009.11.12 00:44:00 - [3290] Hello, Speaking only on behalf of myself and several of the friends I currently run missions with. We want to get out of empire, because nothing we do there has any real meaning. But, with the announced changes coming in Dominion, there will be no incentive to go to 0.0. If we're going to undertake that level of risk, it will be in w-space because there are logistical advantages to orienting ourselves around a nomadic "lifestyle" in the game. There are resources in w-space that exist nowhere else in great quantities, and those resources make the risk absolutely worthwhile in terms of ISK/hour. I'm hoping that CCP reconsiders the comments from the many alliances in this thread (Atlas, Goonswarm, CVA, etc) and does two things. First, they need to make exploration sites more worthwhile. This needs to be done in two ways. First, increase the incentives for running exploration sites across the board, in terms of both ISK/Battleship and Battleship spawns per hour per system. If the ISK/hour of ratting belts is greater than the ISK/hour of exploration, this leaves little to no incentive to upgrade a system. Grav/LADAR/RADAR/Mag sites ought to be comparable to C5 or C6 systems, depending on the sec rating. Complexes ought to have a much higher chance of dropping faction modules and of producing escalations. And if the system is upgraded, there had better always always ALWAYS be sites to work in. If we clear one, another ought to form immediately afterward. Second, as someone posted earlier, systems with Outposts ought to be able to either hire outright or somehow attract combat mission agents to their space for NPC corporations. Someone mentioned Sov 4 being a prerequisite to bring in an L4 agent, and I think that sounds great, or the quality of the agent could be influenced by the degree of sovereignty. If the rats in these missions payed bounties comparable to other nullsec battleship rats, it would only sweeten the deal more. Especially if these agents are for pirate corporations, the increased availability for pirate faction ships and equipment would provide another resource to nullsec that does not exist anywhere in highsec. Maybe there is only a fixed number of these agents, so alliances have to compete to keep them, providing extra incentive to stay in the area and recruit new pilots to come to your space. If upgrades could also help mitigate some of the risk involved with nullsec, it could be a very good thing for everyone involved. Simple things like making it more difficult (due to system-wide jammers) to probe down anomalies unless you're in the alliance that holds a system would confer a significant home-field advantage to defenders of a system, and reduce the likelihood that they will lose hulls while working on sites due to a sudden attack (common and easy in belts) and give exploration sites another edge on belts. Given the currently announced incentives, I wouldn't recommend to my friends that we head out to nullsec to stake a claim. We would definitely head to w-space instead. Thanks for everyone else's input. It was an educational read. ---- "The Creed is Greed."

Nick Bete	Posted - 2009.11.12 00:45:00 - [3291] After all the complaints I have a pretty simple question to those vehemently opposed to the changes as they currently stand; How much of a buff would you recommend CCP give to the money making activities in 0.0 to make it worthwhile? What types of buffs would you like to see? For example, would tripling the number of static belts, rat spawns and rat bounties along with tripling the quality of ore be enough? Quadrupling? Would you want to also see changes to plexes and if so, what? As much as I don't trust (some of) the messengers that doesn't invalidate the message. With so many people agreeing on the major points it seems like a good idea to revisit the idea of buffing null income in a significant way. Personal aside: I feel that upping the rewards are only part of the equation; no matter if you raised the rewards by a game-breaking amount without a lowering of the risks involved with null living there will never be large numbers of people living there. Also, the attitudes of many of the null crowd towards empire people is a huge turn-off. I know I don't want to be viewed as a "pubbie" who doesn't belong or just as a target and there seems to be a lot of animosity towards empire folks in many of the comments I've read over my time in game.
Gefex Genco Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 00:50:00 - [3292] Originally by: Illectroculus Defined The whole system would be vastly improved if the code that tracks the military index feeds credits directly into that system's upkeep budget instead of letting alliances use hi-sec carebearing to fund their claims. Quoting this for a brilliant idea.
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.12 01:21:00 - [3293] Some people obviously haven't noticed the change in price for the system upgrades and holding space now. The prices right now i could easily supply between ratting a system and doing a few other activities. So to say new alliances will have issues getting a system is a laughable argument now. The issues i still see and the only reason i see it is that will the price of holding space increase based on how many systems you control. A graph, or a equation or SOMETHING to explain to people how the cost will scale with the systems you control will put to rest peoples question as to how this stops huge alliances from still holding space. The other argument id like to highlight because i agree with it is the concern about the QUALITY of null sec isk making. anomalies, mining, those with the system upgrades should improve the QUALITY of the spawns sopeople can make more. also with that the quantity should be increased so the systems can support more people as you said you wanted. The way this works I think should be as follows. 1st level of the upgrades say tier 1 maybe 2 should increase the quality of spawns more than quantity. say 3 to quality to 1 to quantity in terms of ratio. as you get higher levels the quality wont increase as much opposed to the quantity of spawns in a system. THUS the quality hits the system right off the bat attracting more people to it which in turn grows the system which then promotes more people in space till it reaches its full capacity. This "Idea" obviously only works with a "you must be active to grow the levels" type mechanic which if im reading right sounds to be what you guys are implementing. So if you have similar ideas or are working along these lines kudos, if not you may want to consider at least taking a look at the idea and really tear it apart to see if it could work. Look forward to the next Blog CCP, keep up the hard work and don't disappoint.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.12 01:33:00 - [3294] So will Pirate Magnet will be changed to "Contraband Warehouse," "Vulnerable Merchant Quarters," "Seedy Space Bar," or simply "DED Detention area?"
Nhor Haen	Posted - 2009.11.12 01:41:00 - [3295] Yeah, I don't really buy that small alliances wont be able to hold space. It costs 20b to build an outpost, and if you're looking at that level of investment even the original costs are quite affordable (alternately, if you're planning on stealing one, stop complaining about having to pay 1/20th the value in maintenance fees). If you're just planning on operating in an empty system without an outpost, you don't really need sov at all. What I do agree is that there's nothing to motivate players into 0.0. Currently the most valuable activity in 0.0 (the low truesec parts, at least) is ratting; moon mining isn't an infinite source of cash like some people seem to think. The current upgrades don't change ratting, and they don't make anything else more profitable, so the profit from 0.0 will remain mostly the same, but with added costs; no matter how low these costs are they'll only serve to make 0.0 less desirable.
Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2009.11.12 01:45:00 - [3296] Originally by: Gefex Originally by: Illectroculus Defined The whole system would be vastly improved if the code that tracks the military index feeds credits directly into that system's upkeep budget instead of letting alliances use hi-sec carebearing to fund their claims. Quoting this for a brilliant idea. Why thank you :) Let me run with it a little more: We're really claiming 0.0 from the pirates who would otherwise roam free through the unclaimed 0.0. By killing those pirates you're taming the system and gaining control. But the deeper you get into negative truesec the more effort is needed, so you need to kill more pirates per day to stop them chipping away at your infrastructure. i.e. the stronger the rats, the more you have to kill to claim the space. This would mean that claiming 'poor' regions like Providence requires less work than the deepest darkest drone regions. This is the reverse of the current proposed fees where the systems with the best rats need less work to maintain.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.12 03:06:00 - [3297] Originally by: Gefex Originally by: Illectroculus Defined The whole system would be vastly improved if the code that tracks the military index feeds credits directly into that system's upkeep budget instead of letting alliances use hi-sec carebearing to fund their claims. Quoting this for a brilliant idea. Why stop there? It only makes sense if the holding corp building up infrastructure in the system gets an additional bounty for each rat killed in that system. It would make perfect sense to help strangers come to your space, or at least parts of your space, to make money and earn you a nice profit too. That would help populate 0.0. And people who get sucked into 0.0 are likely to stay there and fight. For their own space, for the space they lived in, or whatever people like to fight for. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Apollyon Qrr	Posted - 2009.11.12 03:17:00 - [3298] I see the new costs as a money making scheme. This way ppl that enjoy sovereignty will have to buy plex cards to be able to afford the costs. This is outrageous and shouldnt be done. I think that if ccp implements this, everyone that wrote here should cancel their accounts and go to Jumpgate Evolution. I for one like Eve but we cant sit around and let a company take advantage of our addiction to online games!
Zahorite	Posted - 2009.11.12 03:33:00 - [3299] Well I hope that CCP or somebody actually reads this. I'm going to assume that CCP is going to have a tough time programming in changes in order to get anything fixed with these issues before Dominion is actually scheduled to release. Right now I think the only things they are really thinking about is increasing the number of anomalies or decreasing the upkeep costs. I want to propose a couple other things that they could easily implement in order of the easier ones to the harder ones. 1. Give an instant bounty to the holding alliance for completed anomalies. However you do it, either from respawn time, or when the boss is killed, this will be a major boost to 0.0 and gives a direct incentive for alliances to upgrade their systems and have players run those anomalies. It should be relativly easy since you won't have to bother with old code, instead you are putting in new code. 2. Make it so that an afk ship in an anomaly will not keep it from respawning. This is vital in order to prevent a major exloit that is going to happen in the game. A way to find cloaked ships would be better, even if you could only scan anomaly rooms, but that would require more programming than simply making it so that an anomaly respawns after all npc ships have been destroyed or something like that. 3. Add an upgrade that increases the bounty gained from all npc ships. This will increase both player income and the tax income corporations get. I'd start with somewhere between a 25-50% bounty boost for now depending on how much incentive you want for people to head to 0.0 space, later if it's to much or to little it can be easily changed. This may be harder to program in, but it may be possible to use part of the code from the skill that would do the same, I know it's on evemon but it's not in the game. If the code is there you might be able to modify it and save some time. In fact just releasing that skill would be a boost since 0.0 space individual income is more bounty based than high sec income. 4. Base upkeep prices on use of a system. A system with higher levels should be cheaper to upkeep than a system that is rarely used. This would be difficult to program but would be useful for the game. 5. Base Upkeep prices on the distance of the 0.0 region from the nearest high sec system. This will help offset the disadvantage that alliances that are further from high sec would have under the new changes. Plus it makes logical sense because a system further out probably isn't going to have to pay as much to claim things like TCU or the rights to put up a cyno jammer. In fact you might just remove upkeep almost completly for some upgrades in systems that are far enough away from high sec. Anyway those are some of the things I would suggest looking into before Dominion is released. They may not be perfect but they will make the difference between a below average update and an update that most people are happy with, although getting an ecstatic response may be impossible at this point.
Manfred Sideous H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.12 03:47:00 - [3300] CCP Please I ask you please push back the launch of Dominion. A very good majority of players are unhappy with what you have showed us so far. The Sov system needs alot of work. Supercaps deffinately need to be re re thinked. I really think its in the best interest for everyone to delay and do a better job. Your whole campaign of Excellence that you promoted during fanfest suggest that this course is the logical one. Excellence > Expedience . Just a few weeks ago everyone was pumped about dominion. The supercap changes were cool the sov system was sounding cool and the idea was it would make alliances scale back there space and open up 0.0 to upstart alliances. Well the nerfbat has stung the titan twice and now the supercarrier relegating them to trophy ornament status at best. I can tell you I am part of the discussion in my alliance for our plans for our space in Dominion. I can tell you we dont plan on giving up space we already found a work around as im sure most have. Only difference is were shooting different type of structures , we dont have to fuel as many pos and we will have to deal with squatters. Im pretty bummed as im sure alot of the 0.0 population is. Dominion has the potential to be a game changer that would relight the spark in 0.0 for many and attract many anew pilot/corp/alliance to nullsec. With the changes as they are as of now. Its more of the same just a different facade . So Please do the right thing push this expansion back and make it excellent the first time. ______________________________

Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.12 04:37:00 - [3301] Originally by: Manfred Sideous CCP Please I ask you please push back the launch of Dominion. A very good majority of players are unhappy with what you have showed us so far. The Sov system needs alot of work. Supercaps deffinately need to be re re thinked. I really think its in the best interest for everyone to delay and do a better job. Your whole campaign of Excellence that you promoted during fanfest suggest that this course is the logical one. Excellence > Expedience . Just a few weeks ago everyone was pumped about dominion. The supercap changes were cool the sov system was sounding cool and the idea was it would make alliances scale back there space and open up 0.0 to upstart alliances. Well the nerfbat has stung the titan twice and now the supercarrier relegating them to trophy ornament status at best. I can tell you I am part of the discussion in my alliance for our plans for our space in Dominion. I can tell you we dont plan on giving up space we already found a work around as im sure most have. Only difference is were shooting different type of structures , we dont have to fuel as many pos and we will have to deal with squatters. Im pretty bummed as im sure alot of the 0.0 population is. Dominion has the potential to be a game changer that would relight the spark in 0.0 for many and attract many anew pilot/corp/alliance to nullsec. With the changes as they are as of now. Its more of the same just a different facade . So Please do the right thing push this expansion back and make it excellent the first time. CCP, I please ask you to ignore the ramblings of the large 0.0 alliances who in one breath say they want much more settlement and diversity in 0.0 yet at the same time do not want their space shrunk, legacy profits wiped out or super capitals nerfed. Welcome to the new landscape, where sov is more contestable, moon goo income is distributed, and alliances have to been all around pvp, pve and mining, and actually LIVING in their space!
Bobby Random	Posted - 2009.11.12 04:45:00 - [3302] Thats the new cost? 1 person can do that in a little over an hour per day. That isnt any increase in cost and no real reason to stop all the bufferzone practice of the major stake holders now. There should be a multiplier, the more system one owns, the more the price goes up per system. A fixed cost that low I have to laugh at. To be honest here, I really see no change other than mixing the mechanics of the game around.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2009.11.12 06:43:00 - [3303] Originally by: Bobby Random There should be a multiplier, the more system one owns, the more the price goes up per system. A fixed cost that low I have to laugh at. The Sov marker should have a cost based on a power function: as you deploy more sov markers or disruptors, the cost of maintaining each one rises geometrically (eg: 1.007^x in millions of ISK a day, x being the total number of markers and disruptors). Thus not only will big alliance have their coffers drained faster, but more militant alliances wil have their coffers drained faster too. Allowing alliances to start small, with money left over from a few days worth of level 4 missioning, will encourage people to try staking their own claims. More numerous alliances, with smaller holdings, will make for a much more dynamic nullsec environment - even if half of them are "GoonSwarm Alpha", "GoonSwarm Beta" etc. [Aussie players: join channel ANZAC]
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.12 07:27:00 - [3304] Originally by: Mcon99 CCP, I please ask you to ignore the ramblings of the large 0.0 alliances who in one breath say they want much more settlement and diversity in 0.0 yet at the same time do not want their space shrunk, legacy profits wiped out or super capitals nerfed. Welcome to the new landscape, where sov is more contestable, moon goo income is distributed, and alliances have to been all around pvp, pve and mining, and actually LIVING in their space! Really? CCP are nerfing Fountain, Delve and Esoteria? No, didn't think so. Which way were lvl 4 missions again, you obviously got lost on your way and ended up on these forums spouting nonsense.
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.12 07:55:00 - [3305] Originally by: Mcon99 Originally by: Manfred Sideous CCP Please I ask you please push back the launch of Dominion. A very good majority of players are unhappy with what you have showed us so far. The Sov system needs alot of work. Supercaps deffinately need to be re re thinked. I really think its in the best interest for everyone to delay and do a better job. Your whole campaign of Excellence that you promoted during fanfest suggest that this course is the logical one. Excellence > Expedience . Just a few weeks ago everyone was pumped about dominion. The supercap changes were cool the sov system was sounding cool and the idea was it would make alliances scale back there space and open up 0.0 to upstart alliances. Well the nerfbat has stung the titan twice and now the supercarrier relegating them to trophy ornament status at best. Dominion has the potential to be a game changer that would relight the spark in 0.0 for many and attract many anew pilot/corp/alliance to nullsec. With the changes as they are as of now. Its more of the same just a different facade . So Please do the right thing push this expansion back and make it excellent the first time. CCP, I please ask you to ignore the ramblings of the large 0.0 alliances who in one breath say they want much more settlement and diversity in 0.0 yet at the same time do not want their space shrunk, legacy profits wiped out or super capitals nerfed. Welcome to the new landscape, where sov is more contestable, moon goo income is distributed, and alliances have to been all around pvp, pve and mining, and actually LIVING in their space! your such a tool the sov system was sounding cool and the idea was it would make alliances scale back there space and open up 0.0 to upstart alliances I can tell you we dont plan on giving up space we already found a work around as im sure most have. he doesn't WANT alliances holding large areas of space, that's his POINT, you didn't read his post at all. he is disappointed because they won't be giving up any of their space because the costs are too low and not dynamic. He is saying they won't be living in their space at all and nothing will change. TOOL
Hrodgar Ortal Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:00:00 - [3306] Originally by: Manfred Sideous CCP Please I ask you please push back the launch of Dominion. A very good majority of players are unhappy with what you have showed us so far. A majority of vocal forum goers seem unhappy. That isn't the same as a majority of players. (in general forums are visited by a minority to start with)
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:53:00 - [3307] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: Manfred Sideous CCP Please I ask you please push back the launch of Dominion. A very good majority of players are unhappy with what you have showed us so far. A majority of vocal forum goers seem unhappy. That isn't the same as a majority of players. (in general forums are visited by a minority to start with) Very few in AAA, Atlas and Goons are unhappy. Evem the NC are very unhappy about this... oops... that's the majority.
Vladimir Griftin Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.12 10:14:00 - [3308] Edited by: Vladimir Griftin on 12/11/2009 10:14:14 Originally by: Batolemaeus Why stop there? It only makes sense if the holding corp building up infrastructure in the system gets an additional bounty for each rat killed in that system. It would make perfect sense to help strangers come to your space, or at least parts of your space, to make money and earn you a nice profit too. That would help populate 0.0. And people who get sucked into 0.0 are likely to stay there and fight. For their own space, for the space they lived in, or whatever people like to fight for. I think any system that gave individuals the opportunity to 'work' for the space would be great (wasn't that a primary stated goal?). Not some magical development index that creates anomalies, something that creates cold hard ISK for the people paying for the space. Upgrading a system currently is a pointless waste of ISK for the holders, so they just wont do it. Why would an alliance upgrade space if they were simply paying out a crippling amount of ISK and never seeing any return? Under the current system I can see most alliances upgrading a few key systems in order to use Jump Bridges and just covering the rest with flags, and only flags in order to retain a buffer. It will be much like we have now, only more ISK will need to be forked out, and all the industrial's will operate from empire.
Sky Marshal IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.11.12 10:57:00 - [3309] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal A majority of vocal forum goers seem unhappy. That isn't the same as a majority of players. (in general forums are visited by a minority to start with) Classical politician argument : The majority don't speak, so they agree with us (same if we know that it is wrong, it just to shut up some protesters with a twisted logic) _______ Local is fine, period. CCP devs, you nerfed shield resists by 8.3% but armor by 7.1% (The old Explo/EM "10 points" Nerf). When will you correct this inconsistency ?
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 11:04:00 - [3310] Quote: Welcome to the new landscape, where sov is more contestable, moon goo income is distributed, and alliances have to been all around pvp, pve and mining, and actually LIVING in their space! Why should they LIVE in that space? - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz

Aquinzus Amarr Modern Marvels	Posted - 2009.11.12 12:04:00 - [3311] After speaking to many of the larger Alliances about after Dominion allowing my small crew move to 0.0 and claim a single system we were met with either pay us rent, no, let me scam you, pay rent, no, pay rent, hell no, let me scam you some more, so for smaller operations to actually move to 0.0 it is just not going to happen because the guys with the bigger guns are still going to dictate what and who are allowed to move in reguardless of if they have Sov in a system or not.
Ra Jackson Canis Canem Edit	Posted - 2009.11.12 12:18:00 - [3312] Originally by: Pointfive There needs to be reasons to live in the space and reasons to want to take over space. With this current setup the majority of players are still going to make their money in empire and as making money is a pretty large part of the game, they will be spending most of their time in empire. I have to believe someone on the dev team understands this.I think tying the systems to true sec might help. At least then some space is better than other space. A max upgraded system of the lowest true sec should be on par with level 4 income. The highest sec status max upgraded should be 250% of level 4s. I dont think 0.0 dwellers want to pve all day and get rich. They want to pve less and have some territory conflict. There should also be some upgrades that draw out industry people. I think system upgrades that focues on giving 0.0 industry would be nice. Make it so only the best systems can have these upgrades turning the best true se systems into both pve. and market hubs. An upgrade that lowers build time. An upgrade that makes tech invention easier. An upgrade that allows you to build ships for less minerals, but those ships can never go to empire. Just make up some bs about them using illegal materials and being dangerous. Have minerals that can only be used in nullsec and can be used to build ships more efficiently, again dangerous unregulated minerals that oncord will blwo you up for trying to take to high sec. This. CCP, give this man a job. If nullsec is not better than empire.. well, why live there?
WaiKin Beldar	Posted - 2009.11.12 13:31:00 - [3313] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: Manfred Sideous CCP Please I ask you please push back the launch of Dominion. A very good majority of players are unhappy with what you have showed us so far. A majority of vocal forum goers seem unhappy. That isn't the same as a majority of players. (in general forums are visited by a minority to start with) Excuse me, Mr. Clever**. But who the f* are you for telling the forum who is who and put labels? I'm not a forum vocal for anyone. I speak for myself and if you are unable to understand what is going on OR you don't like what we have to say as base players, plz refrain yourself for twisting/manipulating/bull****ting this thread.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.12 13:49:00 - [3314] Quote: Excuse me, Mr. Clever**. But who the f* are you for telling the forum who is who and put labels? I'm not a forum vocal for anyone. I speak for myself and if you are unable to understand what is going on OR you don't like what we have to say Quote: null as base players, plz refrain yourself for twisting/manipulating/bull****ting this thread. maybe you should st&$ and stay out bro. He is right. The warrioirs come out to play every time something big happens..you should know this. I do because I am one. Now go crawl back under your bed and spew that bile somewhere else.
Hrodgar Ortal Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics	Posted - 2009.11.12 14:04:00 - [3315] Originally by: WaiKin Beldar Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: Manfred Sideous CCP Please I ask you please push back the launch of Dominion. A very good majority of players are unhappy with what you have showed us so far. A majority of vocal forum goers seem unhappy. That isn't the same as a majority of players. (in general forums are visited by a minority to start with) Excuse me, Mr. Clever**. But who the f* are you for telling the forum who is who and put labels? I'm not a forum vocal for anyone. I speak for myself and if you are unable to understand what is going on OR you don't like what we have to say as base players, plz refrain yourself for twisting/manipulating/bull****ting this thread. Thats Mr. Ortal to you haha Who I am? Well I'm someone who never talks for anyone other than myself. I responded to one thing there, he is assuming he speaks for the majority, the majority has in most likelihood not read nor cared about this thread so assuming he speaks for them and asking for a expansion delay since he speaks for the majority isn't very sincere. Show me the census data that shows he is speaking for the majority of players and not for the majority of players in this thread? There is none. He can not claim to speak for the majority unless he can back that up with anything. If he, you and others in this thread want to delay, say so. You will probably be very disappointed with the result as you will probably not get one. But try to be a bit more polite and not use that many swearwords next time. Asterisks are a bit annoying to read.
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.12 14:04:00 - [3316] Originally by: Jovialmadness Quote: Excuse me, Mr. Clever**. But who the f* are you for telling the forum who is who and put labels? I'm not a forum vocal for anyone. I speak for myself and if you are unable to understand what is going on OR you don't like what we have to say Quote: null as base players, plz refrain yourself for twisting/manipulating/bull**ting this thread. maybe you should st&$ and stay out bro. He is right. The warrioirs come out to play every time something big happens..you should know this. I do because I am one. Now go crawl back under your bed and spew that bile somewhere else. Top Forum Warriors In Thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93 - Kepakh 83 - Qlanth** - Merch Industrial, GoonSwarm 79 - Korodan - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 59 - Vivian Azure 58 - EdFromHumanResources - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 51 - Tesal 47 - gambrinous 47 - Hertford - Ars ex Discordia, GoonSwarm 45 - Vadinho - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 44 - Zahorite 41 - Destrim - Koshaku 40 - Pointfive 34 - Sally Bestonge - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 28 - Kanatta Jing 26 - Tamahra - Danke fuer den Fisch 26 - Zastrow - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 26 - Sidus Sarmiang - GoonFleet 26 - ep1k - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 25 - Marlona Sky - D00M., Triumvirate. 23 - Herschel Yamamoto - Agent-Orange 23 - Itzena - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 23 - Bobby Atlas - Di-Tron Heavy Industries, Atlas Alliance 22 - Niamota Olin 22 - Mrs Trzzbk - Mothership Connection Inc., GoonSwarm 22 - Ukucia - The Scope 21 - Ranger 1 - Dynaverse Corporation, Vertigo Coalition 21 - Tippia - raddick Explorations 20 - Kayl Breinhar - GoonFleet, GoonSwarm 20 - Graalum - Di-Tron Heavy Industries, Atlas Alliance 20 - Deva Blackfire - 24th Imperial Crusade
Honest Smedley	Posted - 2009.11.12 14:16:00 - [3317] Originally by: WaiKin Beldar Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: Manfred Sideous CCP Please I ask you please push back the launch of Dominion. A very good majority of players are unhappy with what you have showed us so far. A majority of vocal forum goers seem unhappy. That isn't the same as a majority of players. (in general forums are visited by a minority to start with) Excuse me, Mr. Clever**. But who the f* are you for telling the forum who is who and put labels? I'm not a forum vocal for anyone. I speak for myself and if you are unable to understand what is going on OR you don't like what we have to say as base players, plz refrain yourself for twisting/manipulating/bull**ting this thread. Clearly this is a representative slice of the EvE player base and not just a majority of vocal forum goers. Most Posts By Alliances -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1699 - Unallied/Unknown 842 - GoonSwarm 165 - Atlas Alliance 53 - Morsus Mihi 51 - Curatores Veritatis Alliance 33 - Against ALL Authorities 29 - Triumvirate. 27 - Wildly Inappropriate. 22 - Pandemic Legion 21 - Vertigo Coalition 18 - Mostly Harmless 14 - The Initiative. 12 - IT Alliance 12 - Ushra'Khan 12 - R.A.G.E 11 - The Star Fraction 10 - Aeternus. 10 - Paxton Federation 10 - Cult of War 10 - Systematic-Chaos 10 - Shadow of xXDEATHXx 9 - Solyaris Chtonium 9 - Tau Ceti Federation 9 - Initiative Mercenaries 9 - Libertas Fidelitas 8 - Intrepid Crossing 8 - Sev3rance 8 - Deep Space Engineering 7 - Total Comfort 6 - Fidelas Constans**
gnome blood	Posted - 2009.11.12 14:53:00 - [3318] Edited by: gnome blood on 12/11/2009 14:54:59 1. Where did CCP state that Dominion was meant to address 0.0 economics? There are issues, and CCP know about them. The words extensible and infrastructure seem to pass people by. One has to wonder how these people survive in nullsec as it is. 2. Most of the whines about the new sov system appear to be protection of investment, lack of imagination, laziness or failure in basic reading comprehension. There are legitimate concerns, but Dominion 1.0a on December 1st is not the final word on sov mechanics or nullsec. edit for typo.
WaiKin Beldar	Posted - 2009.11.12 15:02:00 - [3319] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: WaiKin Beldar Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: Manfred Sideous CCP Please I ask you please push back the launch of Dominion. A very good majority of players are unhappy with what you have showed us so far. A majority of vocal forum goers seem unhappy. That isn't the same as a majority of players. (in general forums are visited by a minority to start with) Excuse me, Mr. Clever**. But who the f* are you for telling the forum who is who and put labels? I'm not a forum vocal for anyone. I speak for myself and if you are unable to understand what is going on OR you don't like what we have to say as base players, plz refrain yourself for twisting/manipulating/bull****ting this thread. Thats Mr. Ortal to you haha Who I am? Well I'm someone who never talks for anyone other than myself. I responded to one thing there, he is assuming he speaks for the majority, the majority has in most likelihood not read nor cared about this thread so assuming he speaks for them and asking for a expansion delay since he speaks for the majority isn't very sincere. Show me the census data that shows he is speaking for the majority of players and not for the majority of players in this thread? There is none. He can not claim to speak for the majority unless he can back that up with anything. If he, you and others in this thread want to delay, say so. You will probably be very disappointed with the result as you will probably not get one. But try to be a bit more polite and not use that many swearwords next time. Asterisks are a bit annoying to read. Dude, we're not interested on census, data or any other statistics. Keep yourself on the topic or go with your garbage anywhere else. Btw, blunt data manipulation, as you are trying to make effective, is a serious lack of politeness to any intelligent person.
Kernok	Posted - 2009.11.12 15:12:00 - [3320] Edited by: Kernok on 12/11/2009 15:14:28

Vladimir Griftin Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.12 15:39:00 - [3321] Originally by: gnome blood 1. Where did CCP state that Dominion was meant to address 0.0 economics? In a dev blog entitled 'The Streams Must Flow'
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.12 15:45:00 - [3322] Originally by: Vladimir Griftin Originally by: gnome blood 1. Where did CCP state that Dominion was meant to address 0.0 economics? In a dev blog entitled 'The Streams Must Flow' …and fanfest before that. …and alliance tournament 7 before that. …and hints towards the winter expansion before that. Originally by: gnobe blood 2. Most of the whines about the new sov system appear to be protection of investment They may appear that way, but are in fact about the lack of incentives in 0.0 compared to highsec and about falling very short of the stated goals to compress the nullsec territories (yes, you read that right: the current nullsec dwellers are complaining that they will not hold less space after the patch). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
WaiKin Beldar	Posted - 2009.11.12 15:57:00 - [3323] Originally by: Jovialmadness Quote: ... stuff ... maybe you should st&$ and stay out bro. He is right. The warrioirs come out to play every time something big happens..you should know this. I do because I am one. Now go crawl back under your bed and spew that bile somewhere else. Thank you very much for enlightening me on how supportive is the Forum Warrior Guild among yourselves. Really interesting, but again, could you plz focus on the topic and post something interesting? Originally by: gnome blood Edited by: gnome blood on 12/11/2009 14:54:59 1. Where did CCP state that Dominion was meant to address 0.0 economics? There are issues, and CCP know about them. The words extensible and infrastructure seem to pass people by. One has to wonder how these people survive in nullsec as it is. 2. Most of the whines about the new sov system appear to be protection of investment, lack of imagination, laziness or failure in basic reading comprehension. There are legitimate concerns, but Dominion 1.0a on December 1st is not the final word on sov mechanics or nullsec. edit for typo. Tell me something that doesn't affect EVE's economy within the game. Tell me HOW YOU PLAY THIS GAME without protecting YOUR investments.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.12 17:02:00 - [3324] Originally by: gnome blood Edited by: gnome blood on 12/11/2009 14:54:59 1. Where did CCP state that Dominion was meant to address 0.0 economics? There are issues, and CCP know about them. The words extensible and infrastructure seem to pass people by. One has to wonder how these people survive in nullsec as it is. 2. Most of the whines about the new sov system appear to be protection of investment, lack of imagination, laziness or failure in basic reading comprehension. There are legitimate concerns, but Dominion 1.0a on December 1st is not the final word on sov mechanics or nullsec. edit for typo. To address your first point: At the corp and alliance level, people survive with moon gold, it dumps lots of isk into the alliance wallet. From there, corps and individuals often do reactions and other projects which siphon off isk. I suspect that will be the case moving forward. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Sellmewarez	Posted - 2009.11.12 17:14:00 - [3325] Edited by: Sellmewarez on 12/11/2009 17:17:47 You are all playing the game the wrong way, CCP has made it clear with their recent announcements that empire is truely where its at. So lets all go back to running missions, i know i am. I will probably get really bored and stop playing but hey, thats $35 less i need to pay everytime
Nick Bison Gallente Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.11.12 17:26:00 - [3326] Originally by: Sellmewarez Edited by: Sellmewarez on 12/11/2009 17:17:47 You are all playing the game the wrong way, CCP has made it clear with their recent announcements that empire is truely where its at. So lets all go back to running missions, i know i am. I will probably get really bored and stop playing but hey, thats $35 less i need to pay everytime Followed by the obligatory, "can I have your stuff"
Propotkin	Posted - 2009.11.12 17:32:00 - [3327] Originally by: Aquinzus After speaking to many of the larger Alliances about after Dominion allowing my small crew move to 0.0 and claim a single system we were met with either pay us rent, no, let me scam you, pay rent, no, pay rent, hell no, let me scam you some more, so for smaller operations to actually move to 0.0 it is just not going to happen because the guys with the bigger guns are still going to dictate what and who are allowed to move in reguardless of if they have Sov in a system or not. So true, wether or not one of the larger alliances actually hold the space the smaller alliances aren't going to be able to afford the system isk sink, the pos fuel and the rent the larger alliance wants (to fund them being afk in stations waiting for the alliance fleet op to start).
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.12 17:53:00 - [3328] Originally by: Nhor Haen Yeah, I don't really buy that small alliances wont be able to hold space. It costs 20b to build an outpost, and if you're looking at that level of investment even the original costs are quite affordable (alternately, if you're planning on stealing one, stop complaining about having to pay 1/20th the value in maintenance fees). If you're just planning on operating in an empty system without an outpost, you don't really need sov at all. Because you need more than cash to hold space. The little guys won't be able to hold space because the big guys will destroy them. Because the big guys still need just about the same amount of space to support themselves. With craptacular upgrades, it also doesn't make sense to pay protection money to one of the big guys. They're not gonna let you use their valuable systems, and there's no way to upgrade their crappy systems to the point where they are worthwhile.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.12 18:07:00 - [3329] Edited by: Ukucia on 12/11/2009 18:10:02 Originally by: gnome blood Edited by: gnome blood on 12/11/2009 14:54:59 1. Where did CCP state that Dominion was meant to address 0.0 economics? There are issues, and CCP know about them. The words extensible and infrastructure seem to pass people by. One has to wonder how these people survive in nullsec as it is. Welcome to EvE Online. Since you're so new, you might want to spend some time reading the "New Citizens" Board. On the left side of this page, you'll find the Dev Blogs under the "Eve Insider" heading. Once there you can work your way back to the older blogs, and read about how Dominion was supposed to allow 0.0 alliances to upgrade their systems to support 50-100 people per system. Also since you're so new here, let me tell you a little bit about 'extensible infrastructure'. Once upon a time, the players really hated the random missions. They're dull, pointless, repetitive and don't make you feel like you're actually doing anything since they don't change anything in the game world. So the devs created an 'extensible framework' for creating new, more interesting missions and called them "COSMOS". Initially, they decided to roll out a tiny number of missions, but the new extensible framework was going to make it so easy to add missions that soon space would be littered with missions. Then the next expansion happened, and there were a few new COSMOS missions. They pushed back new missions for Gallente and Amarr, but that was ok, their new extensible infrastructure meant they'd be in soon after. Oh, except they weren't ever added. And that wonderful 'extensible infrastructure' was never used again. You'll find a repeating pattern with all of CCP's new, exciting extensible infrastructures. From POSes to stations to outposts to mining to trading to missions to T3 subsystems, they never release more than a tiny fraction of the promised improvements that their extensible infrastructures are supposed to bring. So we're complaining mightily because we've been here for a while, and we know we've only got Dominion and probably 1 follow-on where they do something about the upgrades. They'll release most of the changes in the first one, a few more and some 'fixes' in the follow-on while promising more stuff soonÖ. Thus if the first batch is terrible, the entire system is gonna be "meh" at best. We'd much rather they start with good and then do better with the follow-on. Quote: 2. Most of the whines about the new sov system appear to be protection of investment, lack of imagination, laziness or failure in basic reading comprehension. It only seems this way if you have faith that CCP will follow through. Their track record says otherwise. Something new and shiny will come along (Incarna, DUST, planets) and it will be years before they look back at the upgrades again.
Zixie Draco Gallente The Queue	Posted - 2009.11.12 18:14:00 - [3330] Originally by: Ukucia Edited by: Ukucia on 12/11/2009 18:10:02 Originally by: gnome blood Edited by: gnome blood on 12/11/2009 14:54:59 1. Where did CCP state that Dominion was meant to address 0.0 economics? There are issues, and CCP know about them. The words extensible and infrastructure seem to pass people by. One has to wonder how these people survive in nullsec as it is. Welcome to EvE Online. Since you're so new, you might want to spend some time reading the "New Citizens" Board. On the left side of this page, you'll find the Dev Blogs under the "Eve Insider" heading. Once there you can work your way back to the older blogs, and read about how Dominion was supposed to allow 0.0 alliances to upgrade their systems to support 50-100 people per system. Also since you're so new here, let me tell you a little bit about 'extensible infrastructure'. Once upon a time, the players really hated the random missions. They're dull, pointless, repetitive and don't make you feel like you're actually doing anything since they don't change anything in the game world. So the devs created an 'extensible framework' for creating new, more interesting missions and called them "COSMOS". Initially, they decided to roll out a tiny number of missions, but the new extensible framework was going to make it so easy to add missions that soon space would be littered with missions. Then the next expansion happened, and there were a few new COSMOS missions. They pushed back new missions for Gallente and Amarr, but that was ok, their new extensible infrastructure meant they'd be in soon after. Oh, except they weren't ever added. And that wonderful 'extensible infrastructure' was never used again. You'll find a repeating pattern with all of CCP's new, exciting extensible infrastructures. From POSes to stations to outposts to mining to trading to missions to T3 subsystems, they never release more than a tiny fraction of the promised improvements that their extensible infrastructures are supposed to bring. So we're complaining mightily because we've been here for a while, and we know we've only got Dominion and probably 1 follow-on where they do something about the upgrades. They'll release most of the changes in the first one, a few more and some 'fixes' in the follow-on while promising more stuff soonÖ. Thus if the first batch is terrible, the entire system is gonna be "meh" at best. We'd much rather they start with good and then do better with the follow-on. Quote: 2. Most of the whines about the new sov system appear to be protection of investment, lack of imagination, laziness or failure in basic reading comprehension. It only seems this way if you have faith that CCP will follow through. Their track record says otherwise. Something new and shiny will come along (Incarna, DUST, planets) and it will be years before they look back at the upgrades again. read it guys...now THIS is how you tank a forum __________________________________________ ~"Oh bother", said Pooh as he chambered another round.~

Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.12 18:58:00 - [3331] A cumulative 2% chance per level of Pirate magnet of an anomaly belonging to a different Pirate faction then normal would be nice. Just due to market rarity it would help generate wealth.
Mr Tycho	Posted - 2009.11.12 20:27:00 - [3332] Sorry if this has been ask in the last 100 pgs Is the Jump Bridge cost for each Jump Bridge, or for the ability to have them? Is there still a two JB max in systems?
Lupus Aurelius Legio V Fidelus Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:11:00 - [3333] Please forgive me if any of this has already been covered, but I have been plowing thru the 111 pages, and my brain is becoming mushà.. Discussion of the rewards vs. risks, and making 0.0 more profitable, costs for maintenance, impacts on territory claimed, etc, seems to be what most of the discussion has been. But one issue I do not see really being addressed is the mechanics of how those ôrewardsö transfer up to the alliance level. Increased spawns, bounties, mineral concentrations are all fine, but none of that transfers directly in any way to an alliance. Best case scenario is bounties are taxed by the corporation, but that does not necessarily transfer up to an alliance level. Also, in NRDS space, where I reside, anything done by non-alliance members of the sov holder would flow into the neutral partyÆs wallet and not the entity controlling that space. Other than outpost fees, there is no mechanism for this atm. What really needs to be addressed is how the isk potential of a system gets translated into the sov holding entityÆs wallet, thus financing system maintenance fees and upgrades. The ability of the sov holder to impose a usage tax, as suggested earlier, would allow for NRDS entities to continue with allowing neutral parties, or blue non-alliance members, to contribute to the upkeep of that space, instead of being a drain that draws isk away from the sov holder. Also, the ability of an alliance to impose a tax rate on itÆs individual members in their member corporations would also provide for an instant transfer of funds, removing the need to filter it through the member corp via an alliance membership fee. Even for an NBSI alliance holding sov, allowing an alliance blue to you to rat/plex/mine in your space would see none of the potential earnings contributing at all to the upkeep of the system. Market transactions in sov holding allianceÆs outpost allow for taxing activity, but nothing prevent a miner, trader, or industrialist, from merely transporting their goods to a hisec station for sale, thus negating any benefit for the activity performed in that space. Even some form of gate fee per usage, going to the sov holder, for non-alliance members utilizing gates, based on type/mass of the ship, would alleviate that situation. Face it, there has got to be a direct mechanism that a sov holder can utilize that will create a direct transfer of the isk potential of a system. Otherwise, for NRDS, you might as well close the door, and for NBSI, youÆll be kicking your allies out of your space all the time. Lupus Aurelius 101010 Alliance Diplo
Chloe Ridenster	Posted - 2009.11.13 00:30:00 - [3334] Anyone from CCP mind to explain why you think anomalies in 0.0 should be on par with level 4 missions in motsu? Don't you think it's a little bit broken, if you can earn the same amount of isk in high sec as in 0.0? What's about risk vs reward? I fail to see the risk in high sec. Why on earth should someone bother with anomalies in 0.0, if he can stay in safe high sec and earn exactly the same? And not only that's he's safe in motsu, no he also gets easy access to all market hubs where he can sell his loot at decent prices. While in 0.0 he first have to manage to bring his stuff to high sec. And moving stuff through 0.0, isn't really the same as moving stuff through high sec. Even if you have got a jump freighter, it's damn expensive to buy one and you need someone who provides you cynos (might be an alt, but it's still more effort and risk involved). Nobody bothers with anomalies, let's face the facts. Ratting provides a much better income than anomalies. Only if you have really really crap rats e.g. in a -0.01 true sec system, anomalies might be worth your time. But than again, why should someone bother if he easily could do missions in high sec? So how should all that encourage people to move to 0.0? It's quite the opposite, you must be dumb to leave safe space only to earn the same while having a lot more risk and effort. And now you want people to even pay 1 bil per month for earning the same? Seriously are you kidding me? If you want to encourage people to move to 0.0, you have to offer them something better than they already have. Offering just the same does not work. That's like offering somebody a 3 room apartment while he already have one. Why should this person take all the stress and costs a migration bring with it, if there isn't any benefit? The risk vs reward is already broken for a long time. It's no news that level 4 missions in high sec provides a better and safer income than most 0.0 activities. And now you're going to make it even worse. Stop it and FIX IT FINALLY NOW! I don't care if you need some time to do that. Take all the time you need, but do it! I really have looked forward to dominion. I have lived in 0.0 for a long time, but became sick of all the blobs and pos bashing. My initial plan was to move back into 0.0 when dominion will be deployed. But now i'm really disappointed. All i can see is a big grind. And i don't like that. Looks like i'm going to stay in wh space. No blobs, no pos bashing, no local in there and as a bonus a good income. That's how 0.0 is supposed to be! You managed it to create such an awesome place with wh's, i really can't understand what's so hard at doing the same in 0.0? PS: I apologize for my bad english, it's not my native language but i felt the need of telling you that.
Gober Pile Minmatar Unity Of Legends	Posted - 2009.11.13 02:38:00 - [3335] Well after reading that all I can say is If the aim was to open nullsec to new alliances and corps you failed completley with the costings model your using. The main reason many leave nullspace to the blob allainces IS the upkeep costs, now you are basically keeping that barrier in place, al be it without the logistical issues that Towers bring, BUT 210 million a WEEK just to maintin sov, that is overpriced. Smaller alliances now MUST focus on isk generation to pay this upkeep, and the blob alliances are going to be the only ones capable of keeping a PVP wing!! I really would like to know what sized alliance/corp were these changes aimed at?
shaved chimp	Posted - 2009.11.13 03:11:00 - [3336] So... why claim sovereignty? Just so you have glowing points with your name on it on the map? OK it is good for the POS business, but not at these prices. Just don't claim the SOV and live in the space you hold. What's the problem?
Daln'oboi	Posted - 2009.11.13 03:21:00 - [3337] Originally by: CCP Chronotis There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary. please do not forget to publish (BEFORE Dominion hits) such currently completely overlooked details as the status of: - POS sovereignty bonuses (because if those silently go, a LOT of people is going to have their fuel calculations borked and thousands of towers will go offline, not to mention the need to fix lots of 3rd party applications) - constellation sovereignty bonuses (supercap shipyards invulnerability, etc) Please, PLEASE, document the changes before you deploy the patch, and PUBLICIZE the documentation.
Major Brainfart Amarr 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.13 03:34:00 - [3338] CCP documents NOTHING! Look at the craptacular Evelopedia wiki they gave us, all full of errors, innacuracies and just complete lack of understanding by the authors, in order to avoid the work of documenting Eve properly themselves. Also, keep in mind that suspension of disbelief is not part of the current Eve formula. I don't think the current devs are smart enough to even attempt to maintain it. They don't seem to care, anyway. They just make up whatever arbitrary bs sounds cool to them at the time, whether it makes any sense from the perspective of the game world or not. (Look at invention and how blueprints are handled! Looks at scan probes that have a graphic showing a parabolic dish but which can't determine direction! Nothing in Eve makes any sense, we should just get used to that.) If not for the pvp this game wouldn't be worth playing. I realize they're trying hard to ruin that too, but at least they haven't quite succeeded yet. The problem is that there are new devs who weren't around when Eve was created, and they have a big hard-on for rewriting things. Hopefully CCP gets smart and doesn't let their egos totally destroy this game for us.
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.13 06:18:00 - [3339] Originally by: Gober Pile Well after reading that all I can say is If the aim was to open nullsec to new alliances and corps you failed completley with the costings model your using. The main reason many leave nullspace to the blob allainces IS the upkeep costs, now you are basically keeping that barrier in place, al be it without the logistical issues that Towers bring, BUT 210 million a WEEK just to maintin sov, that is overpriced. Smaller alliances now MUST focus on isk generation to pay this upkeep, and the blob alliances are going to be the only ones capable of keeping a PVP wing!! I really would like to know what sized alliance/corp were these changes aimed at? that's why I thought the idea was to make it cheap to own a few systems, and then get more an more expensive. it should cost an extra 10 mil per day per cyno jammer on TOP of the other costs. same with sov and everything else. The total cost be a be a combination of how many of each level of objects you have. This straight cost won't stop alliances form owning losts of space at all. I actully think it's funny ccp think this will wrk, but I guess in 2 years they will say how sorry they are again and change it all over again.
Onerous One	Posted - 2009.11.13 07:12:00 - [3340] There should be an "agent" upgrade which adds a complex in the system with an overview beacon. The complex could have one agent for each type of upgrade installed in the system. Agent level would be based on the system security (-0.81 to -1.0 would have level 5 agents). The agent corporations would be related to the type of NPCs in the system. Guristas systems would have Caldari Navy combat agents and Caldari industrial corps for non-combat agents. Another option could be to have five types of agent upgrade modules to determine the agent level. Probably a bit late for this but sovereignty should spread from system to system. The alliance selects a single system to be their headquarters and spreads out from there. When all systems around a system have sovereignty that system will increase a level and unlock tower fuel bonuses and strategic upgrades. All level 2+ systems would be invulnerable requiring sov to be broken in the level 1 systems first. Alliances who claim a lot of space could have weak points in their sov chain where attacking a single level 1 system leads to the loss of sov in multiple systems now separated from the alliance's HQ system. And since we are paying a tax to hold unclaimed space we should get protection in the form of gate guns in level 2+ systems. The guns would have a 30-60 second targeting delay allowing hostiles to easily pass through your space but prevent them from camping your gates. Gun damage could increase with the sovereignty level.

Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.13 08:36:00 - [3341] Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 13/11/2009 08:42:15 Here's an idea, CCP - if we're supposed to consolidate space, how about removing the restrictions on only one outpost per system? That's less jump bridges needed, less systems needed, and "moar targets " for if/when you do that "wrecking outposts" idea. I know the old way of doing things was to require you to own a minimum of two different systems if you wanted to have a refinery and factory, but what's the excuse now? As for the "complex beacon" idea above, simply anchor a dockable object (one of many in the 'large collidable object' family should do) that has no station services except an LP store. Allow any faction (including FW and Empire) and any amount of agents thereof of that faction in, so one agent for each level @ LxQ-20, LxQ0, and LxQ20. I'm not particularly keen on the whole idea of "fixing the L4 mission quandary" with just adding more missions, but the ability to run any kind from any faction might be interesting.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.13 09:08:00 - [3342] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 13/11/2009 08:42:15 Here's an idea, CCP - if we're supposed to consolidate space, how about removing the restrictions on only one outpost per system? That's less jump bridges needed, less systems needed, and "moar targets " for if/when you do that "wrecking outposts" idea. I know the old way of doing things was to require you to own a minimum of two different systems if you wanted to have a refinery and factory, but what's the excuse now? As for the "complex beacon" idea above, simply anchor a dockable object (one of many in the 'large collidable object' family should do) that has no station services except an LP store. Allow any faction (including FW and Empire) and any amount of agents thereof of that faction in, so one agent for each level @ LxQ-20, LxQ0, and LxQ20. I'm not particularly keen on the whole idea of "fixing the L4 mission quandary" with just adding more missions, but the ability to run any kind from any faction might be interesting. And also allow ponies and unicorns. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
IronGoldenEagle The New Era Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.11.13 09:50:00 - [3343] Edited by: IronGoldenEagle on 13/11/2009 09:51:29 Thanks CCP for giving me a chance to live the dream of being an integral part of taking over 0 sec space for my own. But now I've just got to figure out a way to pay for it. And to enjoy its 95% emptiness that will soon arrive. And to conquer more of it. Honestly I think this just killed any notions of conquering 0 sec and pvp outside a few systems. Patch sucks, CCP sucks, I want a refund
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.13 10:23:00 - [3344] So where is the revised numbers CCP Chronotis promised us last week for this past Monday or Tuesday, its Friday now..... Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.13 11:23:00 - [3345] Originally by: Mecinia Lua So where is the revised numbers CCP Chronotis promised us last week for this past Monday or Tuesday, its Friday now..... You mean this? Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost). There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary. Pag. 109 post 3262
Farlo Truan	Posted - 2009.11.13 11:38:00 - [3346] With DUST conquerable planets coming, they will likely provide an income source to help pay for owned systems. I would suggest 'Commerce Module' to tax sales on planetary goods as well as attract pirates (manufacturing your own Robotics, Radioactive materials, etc) instead of 'Pirate Magnet.' Perhaps also making a market available at the Hub where broker tax is paid to the owning alliance. Trade routes could be 'established' between connected systems. Treaty contracts between Alliances allowing such systems to be crossed without interrupting the trade route, in return for tax.
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.13 11:46:00 - [3347] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Mecinia Lua So where is the revised numbers CCP Chronotis promised us last week for this past Monday or Tuesday, its Friday now..... You mean this? Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost). There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary. Pag. 109 post 3262 He promised an update to the blog with the new numbers. But thank you :) Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Vladimir Griftin Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.13 12:43:00 - [3348] I love the way they move the cost onto the Sov marker and make the Hub free. Maybe they realize the upgrades are pointless too and its the only way anyone would bother with them. Still doesn't address the big issues of how alliances are supposed to make ISK from their space and why empire dwellers would be attracted to nullsec.
Damian Vilsalant Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.13 15:47:00 - [3349] Originally by: Vladimir Griftin Still doesn't address the big issues of how alliances are supposed to make ISK from their space and why empire dwellers would be attracted to nullsec. I agree. Reducing the cost was the fist needed step. Now I'd like to hear how CCP wants to incentivize 0.0 so the increased risks and inconveniences actually get compensated for in the form of increased rewards. Basically, this: 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.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.13 15:54:00 - [3350] Just out of curiosity what are you claiming is now possible for isk/hour in null? For ratting? For mining? Anomilies? Slightly harder as its more random- assume 100 hours spent and calculate isk/hour from there.

JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.13 17:19:00 - [3351] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Arkady Sadik For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course): TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost). There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary. Do i understand it correctly 180 per month for holding a system ? WTF ?? Its even cheaper than it is now fueling POSES , and no logistic required. Talking about holding terirory just for sake of holding it. Are you out of your mind listening to goons , having at least half of the whining post of that we know off ??? And goods knows how many alts they rolled into this topic just to make you soft. I am dissapointed CCP.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.13 17:47:00 - [3352] Originally by: Future Mutant Just out of curiosity what are you claiming is now possible for isk/hour in null? For ratting? For mining? Anomilies? Slightly harder as its more random- assume 100 hours spent and calculate isk/hour from there. For ratting, 20m is possible for regular belt rats (faction and officer spawns increase this number but are too random in their appearance and value to properly account for). Do bear in mind this is only possible in a relatively small number of 0.0 systems (low truesec and high beltcount), requires at least one hour and often longer to prune out the low-value spawns, only works for one ratter per system at a time (2 or 3 at a time for some exceptionally high beltcount systems), and can be interrupted at any moment by a roaming neutral entering system.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:18:00 - [3353] You goons and atlas guys are precious. No I am not forgetting about the rest but who cares about the rest tbh, you goons and atlas guys are all that matter. Keep up the whining I am sure ccp is on just about to cave in. If not then atleast we have had another epic like carrier nerd thread. Hail zulupark!
Gramtar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:30:00 - [3354] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Do i understand it correctly 180 per month for holding a system ? WTF ?? Its even cheaper than it is now fueling POSES , and no logistic required. Talking about holding terirory just for sake of holding it. Are you out of your mind listening to goons , having at least half of the whining post of that we know off ??? And goods knows how many alts they rolled into this topic just to make you soft. I am dissapointed CCP. 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
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:47:00 - [3355] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 13/11/2009 18:47:47 Originally by: Nick Bete After all the complaints I have a pretty simple question to those vehemently opposed to the changes as they currently stand; How much of a buff would you recommend CCP give to the money making activities in 0.0 to make it worthwhile? What types of buffs would you like to see? For example, would tripling the number of static belts, rat spawns and rat bounties along with tripling the quality of ore be enough? Quadrupling? Would you want to also see changes to plexes and if so, what? As much as I don't trust (some of) the messengers that doesn't invalidate the message. With so many people agreeing on the major points it seems like a good idea to revisit the idea of buffing null income in a significant way. Personal aside: I feel that upping the rewards are only part of the equation; no matter if you raised the rewards by a game-breaking amount without a lowering of the risks involved with null living there will never be large numbers of people living there. Also, the attitudes of many of the null crowd towards empire people is a huge turn-off. I know I don't want to be viewed as a "pubbie" who doesn't belong or just as a target and there seems to be a lot of animosity towards empire folks in many of the comments I've read over my time in game. I made a blog post about it, though of course that's basically back-of-napkin work, I have no idea how much is practical or balanced. But still, that's an idea of the sort of upgrades I'd like to see - real money, real ability to support lots of players, and real infrastructure. There's no reason a well-upgraded 0.0 system shouldn't earn 50+ players twice as much as they could make in highsec. Or we could get two anomalies.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.13 19:02:00 - [3356] Ok so: 1. Cost will be more than now. Check. Make your members rat for the equivalent of 5 million isk a day. 1500 hundred man alliance will have around 300 actual players which will come to 1.5 bil a day or 45 bil a month. Combine that with other forms of income such as %'s of mining ops, moon goo and the simple fact that you guys had an overhead of about 40% of this new cost anyway and you all should be set. If have so much territory claimed that these numbers still aren't enough then I ain't got no sympathy for you. 2. You say that this new change will do nothing to both prevent larger alliances from losing space or smaller groups from gaining space. I say nothing will sure as hell change if ccp does nothing and since they are running the show you guys need to sit back and take a big tall glass of stfu. Normally I'm ok with a little bit of complaining but this is crazy. If it doesn't work ccp will alter it. Tbh I'm looking forward to simply seeing pos spamming go away.. You guys should too. 3. This, to me, is not as stupid as say the carrier change fiasco ole Zulu and team tried pawning off on us a couple years ago. That was dumb and demanded 100+ pages of hate filled whining. This is just you big boys whining about your wallets. You are in the minority over this. Ccp don't cave in on this one.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.13 19:35:00 - [3357] Originally by: Jovialmadness 3. This, to me, is not as stupid as say the carrier change fiasco ole Zulu and team tried pawning off on us a couple years ago. That was dumb and demanded 100+ pages of hate filled whining. This is just you big boys whining about your wallets. You are in the minority over this. Ccp don't cave in on this one. This sounds like an empire pubbie with no idea what he's talking about trying to give his opinion. We don't care about the costs. Less space is fine with us. We just want rewards to justify the difficulty in holding and maintaining it.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.13 20:27:00 - [3358] 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
Desparo	Posted - 2009.11.13 20:31:00 - [3359] Okay first want to say this is a better system then the old but it still has some major problems. Almost all these upgrades require people to scan. What is wrong with you CCP? A lot of people still can't or won't scan. You may be patting yourselves on the back for the changes to scanning but compared to some of the other ways it could be done yours is still poor. What happened to increasing the quality of rats in belts? How about one to add more belts to a system or increase the quality of ore in the belts? Maybe one to decrease the costs of running a POS? Add gate guns to your system to make it safer. Seems your just making dominion more about mission running in 0.0 Not sure if this has been commented on yet. If CCP had a better forum search engine I could tell.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.13 20:58:00 - [3360] Quote: This sounds like an empire pubbie with no idea what he's talking about trying to give his opinion. hehe that's precious..no see I think you misunderstand as do most prepubecent goons. I want there to be these added costs regardless of reward. I am, for the last four years, 0.0 based.

Eint Truzenzuzex	Posted - 2009.11.13 21:27:00 - [3361] Greetings to the Hive Okay, the only think that upset me about these changes are. We have now to so something to upgrade the space. But now the use of cloakes have made easyer. it took, less than 5 day's. They can block verry simpel aktivities in a 0.0 space (AFK-cloakers)
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.13 22:16:00 - [3362] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 And goods knows how many alts they rolled into this topic just to make you soft. Complaining about alts is pretty funny coming from a guy called "JitaPriceChecker2".
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.13 22:34:00 - [3363] Originally by: Jovialmadness Quote: This sounds like an empire pubbie with no idea what he's talking about trying to give his opinion. hehe that's precious..no see I think you misunderstand as do most prepubecent goons. I want there to be these added costs regardless of reward. I am, for the last four years, 0.0 based. You should probably display your alliance and corp then, because otherwise it just looks like someone with no clue trying to pretend otherwise (hint, you still are). I understand you fine. You think that making 0.0 have a worse risk/reward ratio will encourage people to enter it. Most people would call this things like "stupid" or "illogical" but lets try putting one and one together and see what happens. Added costs drive people from 0.0, added rewards encourage them to come. Just about everyone else wants 0.0 to be restructured such that large alliances hold much smaller amounts of territory, but with rewards justifying the difficulty of 0.0. 0.0 alliances holding smaller amounts of territory for greater rewards will encourage new groups to enter to take advantages of the rewards themselves, and everyone will be happy. Lets move onto what you want. You apparently want 0.0 to be cost-prohibitive such that large numbers of people will leave it, in hopes that large numbers of empire players will suddenly enter it to make less money, but with the added bonus of randomly being blown up. Conclusion: You're pretty dumb.
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.13 23:02:00 - [3364] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Originally by: Jovialmadness Quote: This sounds like an empire pubbie with no idea what he's talking about trying to give his opinion. hehe that's precious..no see I think you misunderstand as do most prepubecent goons. I want there to be these added costs regardless of reward. I am, for the last four years, 0.0 based. You should probably display your alliance and corp then, because otherwise it just looks like someone with no clue trying to pretend otherwise (hint, you still are). I understand you fine. You think that making 0.0 have a worse risk/reward ratio will encourage people to enter it. Most people would call this things like "stupid" or "illogical" but lets try putting one and one together and see what happens. Added costs drive people from 0.0, added rewards encourage them to come. Just about everyone else wants 0.0 to be restructured such that large alliances hold much smaller amounts of territory, but with rewards justifying the difficulty of 0.0. 0.0 alliances holding smaller amounts of territory for greater rewards will encourage new groups to enter to take advantages of the rewards themselves, and everyone will be happy. Lets move onto what you want. You apparently want 0.0 to be cost-prohibitive such that large numbers of people will leave it, in hopes that large numbers of empire players will suddenly enter it to make less money, but with the added bonus of randomly being blown up. Conclusion: You're pretty dumb. lol the more Goons posts the more they talk themselves into a hole. So we are honestly to believe that goons would be happy owning say 2 consteallations in Delve for all their members, assuming the resource base was availiable? and then let small alliances move in next door? yeah right. If you are so noble, why not adopt the Querious dominion experiment, abandon the space and open it up for expansion with the following rules: -An alliance can hold only 3 systems in the region -An alliance can hold space in no other 0.0 region -An alliance can only hold one station -We resevere the right to bring as much pew pew as we want throughout region, expect challenging your sov -Any viloation and we the Goons will immediately remove you, your poses and flags
centurion zulu ATRISC	Posted - 2009.11.13 23:41:00 - [3365] Edited by: centurion zulu on 13/11/2009 23:43:27 This isn't about Goonswarm. This isn't about Atlas This isn't about the NC or the SC LvL 4's isn't the problem. This is about the game as a whole, and how it effects everyone that plays it. It's about the ideas put forth by CCP that doesn't address the issues and basic concerns that has brought on this so called "change" in the first place. I have yet to understand why CCP always attempts to improve the game by degrading some aspect of it, ( the overboard speed nerf as an example ). Making a change in the Titan is one thing, but making a bookend out of it is stupid. The current release does not address the "risk vs. reward" issue and the general overcrowding of null sec. at all. Matter of fact, the impending release as it stands, makes it worse. LvL 4's in empire is still going to be the most profitable way to acquire isk for the average player. Most of the isk I made in the few years of living in 0.0 came from empire. The isk was used for warships in 0.0. Something very wrong with that picture. There's just not enough isk making adventures vs. the population inhabiting 0.0. Try to do something that's profitable, and there's 50 peeps ahead of you. God forbid if you live in the wrong TZ, you never get ahead. It's just wrong. The rewards vs. risk in 0.0 needs to be increased dramaticly. CCP needs to make 0.0 more profitable if they really want a change. This nightmare of industrial expansion isn't going to do anything to change the R vs. R in null sec. They sould at the very least change the sec. of the systems ffs. DO SOMETHING that really addresess the R vs R. Throwing bones that dogs don't like is a waste of time.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.14 00:18:00 - [3366] Saying that 0.0 chain anomalies are inferior to lvl 4's is like saying that manufacturing Trit into Torpedoes to move it to 0.0 is inferior to just selling the Torps at a profit. I mean it would be nice if 0.0 wasn't all about working for less (sometimes for free in hard times) to get things done. But being in your 0.0 space makes you able to defend your 0.0 space and bringing in loot and salvage while in 0.0 cuts down on Alliance wide logistics work.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.14 02:28:00 - [3367] Quote: You should probably display your alliance and corp then, because otherwise it just looks like someone with no clue trying to pretend otherwise (hint, you still are). I understand you fine. You think that making 0.0 have a worse risk/reward ratio will encourage people to enter it. Most people would call this things like "stupid" or "illogical" but lets try putting one and one together and see what happens. Added costs drive people from 0.0, added rewards encourage them to come. Just about everyone else wants 0.0 to be restructured such that large alliances hold much smaller amounts of territory, but with rewards justifying the difficulty of 0.0. 0.0 alliances holding smaller amounts of territory for greater rewards will encourage new groups to enter to take advantages of the rewards themselves, and everyone will be happy. Lets move onto what you want. You apparently want 0.0 to be cost-prohibitive such that large numbers of people will leave it, in hopes that large numbers of empire players will suddenly enter it to make less money, but with the added bonus of randomly being blown up. Conclusion: You're pretty dumb. Yea you are right. I am dumb for wanting your alliance to suffer. See this is what im talking about, you have totally missed the point. Its like a communist and capitalist argueing whose gov't is better. I simply believe that 0.0 should be an earned space that provides basic income with ADDED COST to make it hard to live there so that when ****s get into nap/nonnap mode you cant just run around like a damn chicken with your head cut off trying to control space like in the past. NOW IT WILL CHANGE. Now we can't just pos spam like in the past...now taking space FFS of taking space might actually mean something considering there is serious cost to it. But none of that means jack to you...all you care about is what you can make in the systems as far as income. F... that. Quote: As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:**
Kiara Amaranu	Posted - 2009.11.14 02:33:00 - [3368] Another point that I would like to make about this tax system being as expensive as it is there has to be more ways to make isk in a passive manner. Upgrading a system is great, but does it help much if you start getting reds camping or cloaking in you space constantly. Now you can't go out and rat for fear of being killed by said red or even mine for that matter. Now all that red has to do is wait for your alliance to run out of isk to pay the taxes and that alliance will lose sov and the red didn't have to plan any large engagements. In the end the large alliances will decrease there territory leaving unclaimed space. Then any small alliance will try to claim it and then only hold it for a few months while they have to sit in tower shields watching all the isk they saved get burned up because they can't go out and plex while the red sits in system. Basically this is the best way to bankrupt eve. I thought the whole point of 0.0 is it is an uncontrolled part of space that is directed by the player base not CCP or NPC corps. I think the best way to make a system like this work is instead of paying taxes, create a fuel package. One that is created through a manufacturing process where some components can be obtained from empire but the rest can be found in system or even mined from moons/planets. These 'pellets' would then be put into our sov claiming equipment thus allowing for a more dynamic means to pay for sov. At that point it's up to the alliance to decide if they will just but the fuel packages or make the fuel packages. This way the market can be part of this new system and the industrialists in each alliance can work on helping to pay for sov while the warriors can help defend them in order to keep their space. I'm hoping that you will be able to put serious thought to this as it is the best alternative to let our current market survive this change. Just think how the market will collapse when everyone from 0.0 has to Run to Jita to sell massive amounts of faction mods or other equipment in the hopes of paying the 1 bill isk necessary just to have their name on a system. In regards to Cyno jammers/Jump bridges, the cost to have them is already paid for by having to put up and fuel the towers. I see no reason to tax an alliance to put up an object that they are paying for by fueling it. Last I checked there are no large towers that can run a Jump bridge and mine a moon in order to pay for itself. The new ideas in Dominion are great but being that POS's are still going to be a part of 0.0 operations charging 1 bill for a system and paying for tower fuel is unrealistic.
Bud Johnson Broski Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.14 02:50:00 - [3369] Sure is whine in here. Adapt or die.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.14 03:24:00 - [3370] Originally by: Jovialmadness Quote: You should probably display your alliance and corp then, because otherwise it just looks like someone with no clue trying to pretend otherwise (hint, you still are). I understand you fine. You think that making 0.0 have a worse risk/reward ratio will encourage people to enter it. Most people would call this things like "stupid" or "illogical" but lets try putting one and one together and see what happens. Added costs drive people from 0.0, added rewards encourage them to come. Just about everyone else wants 0.0 to be restructured such that large alliances hold much smaller amounts of territory, but with rewards justifying the difficulty of 0.0. 0.0 alliances holding smaller amounts of territory for greater rewards will encourage new groups to enter to take advantages of the rewards themselves, and everyone will be happy. Lets move onto what you want. You apparently want 0.0 to be cost-prohibitive such that large numbers of people will leave it, in hopes that large numbers of empire players will suddenly enter it to make less money, but with the added bonus of randomly being blown up. Conclusion: You're pretty dumb. Yea you are right. I am dumb for wanting your alliance to suffer. See this is what im talking about, you have totally missed the point. Its like a communist and capitalist argueing whose gov't is better. I simply believe that 0.0 should be an earned space that provides basic income with ADDED COST to make it hard to live there so that when ******s get into nap/nonnap mode you cant just run around like a damn chicken with your head cut off trying to control space like in the past. NOW IT WILL CHANGE. Now we can't just pos spam like in the past...now taking space FFS of taking space might actually mean something considering there is serious cost to it. But none of that means jack to you...all you care about is what you can make in the systems as far as income. F... that. And what was the point of living in 0.0 again? I keep forgetting... Oh yeah, it was to pay more than Empire dwellers do, no wonder those who live in Empire are so jealous of us, their costs aren't as high as ours. Wait... that doesn't sound right... does it? So, what were you talking about again? Cost? Risk? You're an idiot?

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.14 03:43:00 - [3371] Originally by: Bud Johnson Sure is whine in here. Adapt or die. We are going to adapt. We will not claim sov in all systems we own, reducing costs, and leaving the rest of EVE unclaimed. You will be the one who dies because you will get crushed to dust the moment you set foot in 0.0 because our space will remain defended by Deathstars.
Sidus Sarmiang GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.14 04:19:00 - [3372] Originally by: Jovialmadness Quote: You should probably display your alliance and corp then, because otherwise it just looks like someone with no clue trying to pretend otherwise (hint, you still are). I understand you fine. You think that making 0.0 have a worse risk/reward ratio will encourage people to enter it. Most people would call this things like "stupid" or "illogical" but lets try putting one and one together and see what happens. Added costs drive people from 0.0, added rewards encourage them to come. Just about everyone else wants 0.0 to be restructured such that large alliances hold much smaller amounts of territory, but with rewards justifying the difficulty of 0.0. 0.0 alliances holding smaller amounts of territory for greater rewards will encourage new groups to enter to take advantages of the rewards themselves, and everyone will be happy. Lets move onto what you want. You apparently want 0.0 to be cost-prohibitive such that large numbers of people will leave it, in hopes that large numbers of empire players will suddenly enter it to make less money, but with the added bonus of randomly being blown up. Conclusion: You're pretty dumb. Yea you are right. I am dumb for wanting your alliance to suffer. See this is what im talking about, you have totally missed the point. Its like a communist and capitalist argueing whose gov't is better. I simply believe that 0.0 should be an earned space that provides basic income with ADDED COST to make it hard to live there so that when ******s get into nap/nonnap mode you cant just run around like a damn chicken with your head cut off trying to control space like in the past. NOW IT WILL CHANGE. Now we can't just pos spam like in the past...now taking space FFS of taking space might actually mean something considering there is serious cost to it. But none of that means jack to you...all you care about is what you can make in the systems as far as income. F... that. Super Whopper pretty much said what I wanted to say. But yes, you're a moron that doesn't seem to understand that after the patch, especially considering the moon mining nerfs, risk free high sec will be more profitable than 0.0 That's all there is to it. And no, taking space just for the sake of having my alliance name appear temporarily on a map that people sometimes look at in an internet space game does not excite me or anyone else with a clue.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.14 05:47:00 - [3373] Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Super Whopper pretty much said what I wanted to say. But yes, you're a moron that doesn't seem to understand that after the patch, especially considering the moon mining nerfs, risk free high sec will be more profitable than 0.0 That's all there is to it. And no, taking space just for the sake of having my alliance name appear temporarily on a map that people sometimes look at in an internet space game does not excite me or anyone else with a clue. Jovialmadness, Member of Science and Trade Institute [STI], 3 years 11 months 7 days. Don't you just hate it when lvl 4 running Empire huggers, who are too scared to even go into low sec in their pods, come here and tell us how to live our lives?
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.14 05:58:00 - [3374] No actually the part i love is when null sec ppl whine. Im not sure what part amuses me most really. Maybe its the moon goo nerf forcing them to actually work for their ships. Maybe its their total incompetence in making isk through normal methods. Maybe its their utter refusal to even consider recruiting lower sp members who can farm for them- and be taxed to fund their pvp wing. Or maybe its this 112 page WAHHHH fest.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.14 06:39:00 - [3375] Originally by: Future Mutant No actually the part i love is when null sec ppl whine. Im not sure what part amuses me most really. Maybe its the moon goo nerf forcing them to actually work for their ships. Maybe its their total incompetence in making isk through normal methods. Maybe its their utter refusal to even consider recruiting lower sp members who can farm for them- and be taxed to fund their pvp wing. Or maybe its this 112 page WAHHHH fest. Who said noobs aren't welcome in 0.0? You are more than welcome to go to Providence but you won't, you will miss your lvl 4's too much, won't you? Have you actually ever been to 0.0?
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.14 08:26:00 - [3376] I go about once or twice a month- love insmother, almost as much as i love translating russian smacktalk lol On a more serious note- your missing the point. The idea of dominion (one of them anyway) is to get more corps to relocate to null and to encourage the existing null sec corps to recruit. The lone player has no real chance at "living" in null- hes going to be a visitor, but his base of operations will always be hi sec. Nothing short of "acceptance" into a player corp will change the overall population ratio of null vs hisec. Most null sec corps ***** about players staying in high sec while simultaneously excluding them from their corp. Two basic problems- one the costs of maintaining sov- could be solved entirely by collecting taxes from ppl who would love to join- if only to exploit (read farm) your space. The second problem-inequality of isk per hour in null vs highsec. Tbh i personally think most are underestimating the potential isk/hour in null and overestimating the isk/hour in high sec missioning. A few things could possibly be changed to boost ratting income- but some of the expectations ive read here are a bit over the top.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.14 09:32:00 - [3377] Originally by: Mcon99 So we are honestly to believe that goons would be happy owning say 2 consteallations in Delve for all their members, assuming the resource base was availiable? and then let small alliances move in next door? yeah right. You might be surprised by this, but one of the draws of 0.0 is PvP. The goons, in particular, seem to have this strange proclivity for blowing stuff op for no apparent reason. If the patch were to do what it was originally intended to do, it would let the goons become more concentrated in fewer systems — this means they'd have to travel shorter distances to find something to blow up. It would let more people move out into 0.0 — this means there'd be more people and stuff for the goons to blow up. It would let these newcomers (and already-present oldtimers) bunch up as well — this means it would be easier for the goons to find stuff to blow up. It would give all the general goon-haters a new foothold from which to attack — this would mean more people coming to the goons to get blown up, without the goons having to move an inch. If you don't see why the goons would love for this to happen, your train of thought is missing a very important point somewhere… Originally by: Future Mutant The second problem-inequality of isk per hour in null vs highsec. Tbh i personally think most are underestimating the potential isk/hour in null and overestimating the isk/hour in high sec missioning. A few things could possibly be changed to boost ratting income- but some of the expectations ive read here are a bit over the top. People may underestimate the nullsec income, but that's because it's largely random/grind-based, and prone to sudden interruption, making it difficult to measure. It's also very limited in the number of people it can maintain, which is at the heart of the issue. The income potential of highsec is very well mapped out. The expectations people have is that the nullsec income sources are (or should be) better than highsec. This may be true now, with the larger complexes and well-groomed rat chains, but those cannot be used as a point of comparison because they aren't part of the upgrade system and will be the same as they always were. So when CCP comes in here and says that the best ratting improvements will be "on par" with high-sec L4s, that hole argument collapses. It no longer matters what the income estimates are — it will be the same for both by very design. This falls so short of any reasonable expectation you can have on nullsec that it's outright laughable. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.14 09:58:00 - [3378] Edited by: Super Whopper on 14/11/2009 10:03:13 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Future Mutant The second problem-inequality of isk per hour in null vs highsec. Tbh i personally think most are underestimating the potential isk/hour in null and overestimating the isk/hour in high sec missioning. A few things could possibly be changed to boost ratting income- but some of the expectations ive read here are a bit over the top. People may underestimate the nullsec income, but that's because it's largely random/grind-based, and prone to sudden interruption, making it difficult to measure. It's also very limited in the number of people it can maintain, which is at the heart of the issue. The income potential of highsec is very well mapped out. The expectations people have is that the nullsec income sources are (or should be) better than highsec. This may be true now, with the larger complexes and well-groomed rat chains, but those cannot be used as a point of comparison because they aren't part of the upgrade system and will be the same as they always were. So when CCP comes in here and says that the best ratting improvements will be "on par" with high-sec L4s, that hole argument collapses. It no longer matters what the income estimates are ù it will be the same for both by very design. This falls so short of any reasonable expectation you can have on nullsec that it's outright laughable. One AFK cloaker sitting in your system for two days, your income drops to 0 while you could still be running missions in an NPC corp. A BO bridges 10 bombers on top of your mining op and you lose all of your ships, income reduced to -100m at least. With the original idea of 100/system it'd have been much worse. Imagine one AFK cloaker simply deactivating or rendering your upgrades useless. Well thought out idea by CCP because I can put 5 AFK cloakers in hostile systems for days while I do other things and as they can't catch me I win. Cloaking in that case is overpowered and everyone will go back to running lvl 4's but CCP like it that way it seems. As has been said, 0.0 is the back of beyond CCP care so much about they're ruining it. Now CCP have changed it to 10-15 per system but if one cloaker can render upgrades useless then it still does nothing and you just might as well not upgrade. Stupid thing to say, really, as very few systems will be upgrades. I wonder whether what I've said so far will actually be valid, considering CCP don't want us to upgrade at all. My condolences CVA, you will be missed
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.14 10:07:00 - [3379] Edited by: Tippia on 14/11/2009 10:09:29 Originally by: Super Whopper One AFK cloaker sitting in your system for two days, your income drops to 0 while you could still be running missions in an NPC corp. With 100 in the system, it would be the cloaker who was afraid — not the people going about their business. Thus, cloaker-fear is solved. Quote: A BO bridges 10 bombers on top of your mining op and you lose all of your ships, income reduced to -100m at least. No different than now. Quote: Imagine one AFK cloaker simply deactivating or rendering your upgrades useless. How on earth would he do that? A single cloaker placing numerous 2500m¦, 6h-anchoring-time modules, then sieging the hub for 48-72h? While cloaked and AFK? Yeah, I think he'd very much deserve that kind of victory if he pulled it off. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.14 10:39:00 - [3380] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 14/11/2009 10:41:49 Quote: Two basic problems- one the costs of maintaining sov- could be solved entirely by collecting taxes from ppl who would love to join- if only to exploit (read farm) your space Why would someone bother going to die in 0.0 while trying to farm? What would those new players farm? The 10/10 plexes, in a cruiser? Quote: The second problem-inequality of isk per hour in null vs highsec. Tbh i personally think most are underestimating the potential isk/hour in null and overestimating the isk/hour in high sec missioning. A few things could possibly be changed to boost ratting income- but some of the expectations ive read here are a bit over the top. As of today the worst possible in hi sec is 25M/h, the norm 30M and higher SP and better ship do from 40M to 55M per hour. With the crappiness of the non mission PvE content you can grind plexes for a - non prevedible income per hour (and risk dying, and have to split rewards). - 25M/h for ABC roids in case of a bothersome mining op with Rorqual (or you could park 2 hulks in hi sec and go afk and go cash in it in the evening) - 30M+ per hour with ratting, but then the "new players" are not probably going to do 3 battleships, plus it's boring beyond tears, plus you are still in 0 sec, plus you have first to "nurture" the spawns and that time makes for a well lesser income. All of this for an anticlimatic experience. 0.0 is far west. In far west you would see the adventurers and those desperate who had nothing to lose. In EvE you have PvPers who are the adventurers, not the farmers (even the name implies peaceful cultivators). The farmers have no reason to go in the far west, EvE has no Klondike, no El Dorado, no Promised Land. Just a terrible feeling of solitude once you play at certain hours (ie Euro morning) when you are alone in the next 30 jumps. Farmers in EvE are those who remained in the old continent and just farmed the fertile soil they already had. In EvE they farm L4 and hi sec roids. If this expansion aimed at changing this situation in any way, well I want what they are smoking. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz

Resender	Posted - 2009.11.14 10:41:00 - [3381] I see many people whining about the cost but what about the size. The hubs are gigantic to say the least, you need a freighter to move them.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.14 11:12:00 - [3382] Originally by: Resender I see many people whining about the cost but what about the size. The hubs are gigantic to say the least, you need a freighter to move them. Here I agree, maybe just JF size?
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.14 12:23:00 - [3383] Originally by: Future Mutant Maybe its their utter refusal to even consider recruiting lower sp members who can farm for them- and be taxed to fund their pvp wing. Yes, if there's one thing Goonswarm is well known for its hating newbies.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.14 13:29:00 - [3384] Originally by: Future Mutant On a more serious note- your missing the point. The idea of dominion (one of them anyway) is to get more corps to relocate to null and to encourage the existing null sec corps to recruit. [....] Two basic problems- one the costs of maintaining sov- could be solved entirely by collecting taxes from ppl who would love to join- if only to exploit (read farm) your space. No, its you that is missing the point: that if there's no economic incentive to leave highsec, where are these new taxpaying 0.0 farmers going to appear from? You seem to be working on the assumption that all 0.0 alliances can wave magic wands and instantly have 500 players join their 0.0 pet corps, without providing either a carrot or a stick for those players to do so. Quote: The second problem-inequality of isk per hour in null vs highsec. Tbh i personally think most are underestimating the potential isk/hour in null and overestimating the isk/hour in high sec missioning. "Potential" ISK per hour is pretty good in 0.0, but the difference is that it is only potential: if another player is running your belts, or there's a hostile gang in the area, or the market is out of the cruise missiles you need, or if you lost your ship and need to make 15 jumps to get to the nearest place that sells them (frequently at a large markup over highsec prices) then that potential isn't what ends up in your wallet. In a highsec mission hub, if your potential is 20m an hour then short of the easily-dodgable wardec then you will be making 20m per hour. Quote: A few things could possibly be changed to boost ratting income- but some of the expectations ive read here are a bit over the top. At least 'over the top' would achieve the goals that CCP set out when they were announcing Dominion: creating a reason for the carebears to think about heading out into 0.0 rather than farming Motsu until the servers shut down. As it is, CCP have expended a load of effort to annoy all the current 0.0 residents, disappoint the aspiring 0.0 residents, and do virtually nothing to change the 0.0 population or landscape.
Gordo Fartis Caldari 13th Squadron E C L I P S E	Posted - 2009.11.14 14:52:00 - [3385] So far most people have been analyising Dominion by focusing in one aspect or the other. It seems to me that there will be a strong incentive for the current alliances to get renters in their space in order to get the space to imporve which means that the PVP members will not have to bother either mining/ratting or doing plexes in the fully controled areas. Advatages for alliance is more PvP, lower cost of items as more carebear activities means more demand and more industrial people moving in. Or if the alliances get well organised their own industrial wing supplying a growing marked which means more ISK for the alliance. The only problem I see is that current residents will have to move further afield to rat/plexing etc (Which by the way is what happens now) Big disadvantage is that renters are notoriously flaky and the alliance will have to make a big effort to protect them. i.e. fast response to attacks, more roaming gangs etc etc ==> more PVP As for the ISK generation potential of LVL 4s versus 0.0 I have read several people suggesting a 30 to 55 million ISK per hour for level 4s. The 30 million I can just believe it possible (if you are lucky), but to achieve the 55 million it will be necesary that you can consistenly complete 3/4 high paying missions and salvage in an hour on your own. Even with two ships (one killing and one salvaging I found this very difficult). I have found that it is easier to achieve this in 0.0 even with all the risk that is involved (FUN) and the the need to do it with friends (most of the time) From my poitn of view everything in Dominion is linked. Claiming sovereingty is expensive which requires making money (moons, rents, taxes etc), which requires renteres, which require markets, which requires more industry, which requires active defense -->resulting in more PVP, lower prices, more risk and therefore more fun
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.11.14 16:20:00 - [3386] Originally by: Gordo Fartis <stuff> As for the ISK generation potential of LVL 4s versus 0.0 I have read several people suggesting a 30 to 55 million ISK per hour for level 4s. The 30 million I can just believe it possible (if you are lucky), but to achieve the 55 million it will be necesary that you can consistenly complete 3/4 high paying missions and salvage in an hour on your own. Even with two ships (one killing and one salvaging I found this very difficult). I have found that it is easier to achieve this in 0.0 even with all the risk that is involved (FUN) and the the need to do it with friends (most of the time) <stuff> Some basics about level 4 income levels. That is 45mil ISK/h with just a single marauder grinding missions as they come from a single agent. A single generic BS income isn't all that good or overpowered, but it continues to grow as time goes on. When you fly missions you gain enough standings to use a decent amount of lvl 4 agents, that are only separated by few jumps. This allows you to cycle missions and ignore the low income ones. Now consider people with a second account, that can use two ships and share standings gains to corps with their alt characters. This allows you to easily have half a dozen lvl 4 agents per character in a small area and cycle or chain only the best ISK/h missions. 0.0 income can't in some areas compete even with the generic BS income levels and you achieve the income ceiling very fast, when it just keeps growing in highsec with your abilities. Some people enjoy the risk some don't. The ones who don't won't ever come to 0.0 without strong monetary incentives to counter the risk. From those that enjoy risk some don't care about efficiency and some do. Those who do aren't going to waste their time in 0.0 income grind when they can much more easily and faster do the same in highsec.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.14 16:32:00 - [3387] Originally by: Gordo Fartis So far most people have been analyising Dominion by focusing in one aspect or the other. It seems to me that there will be a strong incentive for the current alliances to get renters in their space in order to get the space to imporve which means that the PVP members will not have to bother either mining/ratting or doing plexes in the fully controled areas. Advatages for alliance is more PvP, lower cost of items as more carebear activities means more demand and more industrial people moving in. Or if the alliances get well organised their own industrial wing supplying a growing marked which means more ISK for the alliance. The only problem I see is that current residents will have to move further afield to rat/plexing etc (Which by the way is what happens now) Big disadvantage is that renters are notoriously flaky and the alliance will have to make a big effort to protect them. i.e. fast response to attacks, more roaming gangs etc etc ==> more PVP As for the ISK generation potential of LVL 4s versus 0.0 I have read several people suggesting a 30 to 55 million ISK per hour for level 4s. The 30 million I can just believe it possible (if you are lucky), but to achieve the 55 million it will be necesary that you can consistenly complete 3/4 high paying missions and salvage in an hour on your own. Even with two ships (one killing and one salvaging I found this very difficult). I have found that it is easier to achieve this in 0.0 even with all the risk that is involved (FUN) and the the need to do it with friends (most of the time) From my poitn of view everything in Dominion is linked. Claiming sovereingty is expensive which requires making money (moons, rents, taxes etc), which requires renteres, which require markets, which requires more industry, which requires active defense -->resulting in more PVP, lower prices, more risk and therefore more fun So, basically, you have no idea how EVE and 0.0 work.
Dra Monica	Posted - 2009.11.14 18:08:00 - [3388] Solution: Nerf L4 missions
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.14 18:56:00 - [3389] Originally by: Super Whopper Who cares that the alliance is rich, the individual member will never see any of the benefits because they're expected to rat and mine. It's the leadership that fly Titans, motherships and have dozens of personal carriers and dreads. While this is corrupt it's the way it is and to force the individual member earn less is stupid beyond belief. Nerf greedy leadership- and by all accounts the changes will raise the individuals income in null. The whine is because ppl dont think it raises it enough.
PC5	Posted - 2009.11.14 20:12:00 - [3390] CCP = love carebears = money from subs 0.0 = bad bad... it scares carebears So... CCP was promoting hisec. 1. Freighters... make it easy! 2. Jump freighters - haul that 100b stuff pressing F1 - why to bother creating corp/alliance convoys? No no no... 3. Capital industrial ships = more carebears toys 4. T2 ore ships - just watch those 20 mackinaws in hisec ice belt 5. Maruders - new toys for our best customers! Farm those lvl4 boys! ;) 6. LP store... its good but who uses it mostly... carebears! :) 7. Invention... its good also but its hisec friendly. No need to do it in 0.0 8. POSes in hisec... carebears CANT go to lovsec or 0.0 so lets bring POSes to them! Sure they like it! 9. Faction modules - mostly from LP store. Yay! 10. When suicide BS gangs started to melt freighters - boost concord! 11. ORCA - now they will love us! 12. Nerf motherships because they were sitting at lovsec gates and killing stuff. To powerful for carebears! 13. Give haulers cloak... cool. 0 risk in logistics. 14. Lets make ship for PvPers, call it Black Ops, ZOMG WTF Tech2 BATTLESHIP! Wait... it costs 700m... sh**. 15. Lets make lvl4 eaysier so more ppl can do them. 16. EPIC ARCs! They are for you dear carebears! 17. Market improvments, new api toys - cool for carebears. 18. Lovering skill requirements = long skills and proffesions are bad bad... 19. COSMOS... yes there is COSMOS in 0.0 only few ppl know how to make billions on it (hidden agents), in hisec its like 'its here come and do it!'. 20. DONT REMOVE LOCAL! Carebears HAVE TO see who is coming to system where they are npcing! Enough. And what CCP done for 0.0? Hmmm... Maybe mining... no its better to do lvl4. Maybe killing rats on belts? Hmmm... NPCs are same, more officers but they are empty and do less damage, there are also FEW scrambling frigates. Hmm... oh yes, blob wars, pos wars, capitals online ;) Great (!) sov, titans killing fleet fun with one key press - SUPERB! Ok CCP done some good things for 0.0 like... 1. interdictors! 2. ... 3. hmmm.. 4. titans? motherships! 5. POS bashing 6. ... Ok only 1 abd 4 are good are good ;) I hope dominion will change something. 0.0 is crap, WH space is new 0.0 Lets see what those changes will bring. (sry for my english).

Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.14 21:01:00 - [3391] Originally by: Super Whopper So, basically, you have no idea how EVE and 0.0 work. An officer fitted faction ship or Marauder can run large lvl 4 missions in about half an hour. The ship may cost 10b to buy and fit but with a ship like that you can't make 50m/hour ratting in 0.0. See why people are whining? Why would anyone, in their right mind, move to 0.0 when they can make even more running **ty lvl 4 missions in safety? They're not going to, and it's amazing that after all these years CCP are INCREASING the cost of living in 0.0, encouraging even more people to move to empire to run missions. Who cares that the alliance is rich, the individual member will never see any of the benefits because they're expected to rat and mine. It's the leadership that fly Titans, motherships and have dozens of personal carriers and dreads. While this is corrupt it's the way it is and to force the individual member earn less is stupid beyond belief. Obviously there will be many, including myself, who will not leave 0.0 but that isn't because we love ratting or mining (I absolutely love mining nearly as much as PVP) but for other reasons. If I had a choice and didn't hate missions I, too, would spend 10b on a ship to and run lvl 4 missions. CCP and everyone who support the upcoming changes, without knowing what they're talking about, are stupid and need to play EVE, including coming and fighting in 0.0, and then claim we're complaining about nothing. How many people spend 10b these days on a ratting ship? Economically that is stupid, that is not why they do that. A ship that expensive WILL BE GANKED if it gets scanned. Easily worth flying in 10bs and blowing it up. Also, it would cost 300 hours of labor just to buy the ship. That is far more than most players will tolerate. Isk earning is closer to 30m isk per hour, not 50. The people who fly those are collectors, who like to rat and show off, and don't even need the isk. The overwhelming majority fly T2 fit ships. I see you in this thread calling other people idiots for not understanding this or that. Clearly you have for brains and as for your opinions I have about the same respect them for as your intelligence. I hate to rat, so I use 2 or 3 BS but haven't done that in months. I can earn about 50-100m isk a day afk. So I can earn 1 or 2 billion a month without too much trouble. I can earn more if I am not lazy. Most people who can't earn money who have been playing a long time just are not trying. Grind some data core, get some trade going, build some stuff, do a few reactions and you are rich *! never stop posting...with alts.** Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.14 21:57:00 - [3392] Ive been in 0.0 for close to three years.. I really wish I had all the dirty moongold isk that Tesal and others like him seem to think I have. The reality is that Ive made more in 3 months with an empire hauler/trade alt than I have in all my time in 0.0 Colonies and Capitals
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.14 22:05:00 - [3393] Originally by: Trent Nichols Ive been in 0.0 for close to three years.. I really wish I had all the dirty moongold isk that Tesal and others like him seem to think I have. The reality is that Ive made more in 3 months with an empire hauler/trade alt than I have in all my time in 0.0 The cash for moons and moon gold is made at the top levels of the alliance. Every now and then you will hear about what they have if there is a big corp theft, 70b or 50 dreads will vanish and someone will be like "I'm rich ***". The "grunts" usually never see or even hear about it except when knocking down towers on top of a fancy moon. never stop posting...with alts.** Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.14 23:45:00 - [3394] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Super Whopper Who cares that the alliance is rich, the individual member will never see any of the benefits because they're expected to rat and mine. It's the leadership that fly Titans, motherships and have dozens of personal carriers and dreads. While this is corrupt it's the way it is and to force the individual member earn less is stupid beyond belief. Nerf greedy leadership- and by all accounts the changes will raise the individuals income in null. Yes there are only about 100 pages of posts in this thread explaining why it wont do that.
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.15 00:39:00 - [3395] Nerf moons and make 0.0 space itself worth taking. This is what we hoped dominion was going to do up until this blog. Colonies and Capitals
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.15 01:28:00 - [3396] HI! Lvl 4 mission runner here! And yes i am making as much as you think i am- all in the complete saftey of hi sec! But if you want to make as much isk as me- prepare to do as much work as me. Get off your lazy hippy asses and start working for that isk.
darkneko	Posted - 2009.11.15 05:55:00 - [3397] whats the point!!! I say just make an entire new universe but fill it with enemies!!!! **** the NPC are nothing give the whole eve community something to fight and kill... i thought they would be doing that with the sleepers, but no they never leave their Worm holes i say let them come to us have them attack stations make their Ai better lets us actually MAP and Name WH space and make our own star gates we don't need more influence... we need LESS let us build every thing from the ground up not buy it premade from boring NPC that give us the same missions over and over. give us an something new not just more of an add on
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.15 07:17:00 - [3398] Originally by: Trent Nichols Nerf moons and make 0.0 space itself worth taking. This is what we hoped dominion was going to do up until this blog. If you look at the actual content of what is happening with moons you would see its not strictly a nerf of moons. Dyspro is getting hammered, racial metals get a buff as do low ends, and other high and mid ends get new positions. In short, the same isk is spread over more moons. This makes it more likely that more people can get into moon mining and actually make isk from it. They may not make tens of billions a month, but a clever alliance can certainly get a ship replacement program going by grabbing moons. The incentive for war remains. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Oreth Te	Posted - 2009.11.15 09:56:00 - [3399] Edited by: Oreth Te on 15/11/2009 09:59:57 Originally by: ChronoSphere Jesus this is a lot of money. For a small alliance with only 3 outposts in a constellation, this is gonna cost 5.67 bil every 28 days. I really hope these upgrades do significantly increase the amount of money you can make, cause I dunno where else one can get the cash. The benefits of the upgrades has to outweigh the costs of the system, else whats the point? Small alliances! And what about the even smaller corps who wishes to attempt access to 0.0. possibly for the first time, Especially with CCP's much vaunted attempts to coax folks into 0.0 at the costs depicted in that table in the latest blog is so ludicrously out of range of most it effectively slams the door in the face of potential new interest. After the initial purchase of the TCU, it would be better to have a sliding scale pricing structure for TCU's based upon the corp's active population one with a minimum of six active members (in order to avoid dummy/alt corps holing a system) the more in the corp the more they can afford due to the greater work force to support it. IF the corps numbers decline then the costs would reduce accordingly. Please substitute "alliances" for "corps" if applicable to you and yours.
Suitonia Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2009.11.15 11:19:00 - [3400] Prices are ridiculous, espically if your goal was to get new players into 0.0. ---

drall	Posted - 2009.11.15 13:37:00 - [3401] Originally by: Suitonia Prices are ridiculous, espically if your goal was to get new players into 0.0. TBQH Prices are more than fair. If you don't have a industrial backbone able to finance your alliance. Then very frankly you have no business in 0.0. Its not cheep from a alliance perspective don't expect ccp to hand it to you. But if you have the ability to fund yourselves you should have NO issues meeting the ods.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.15 14:00:00 - [3402] Getting more new people into 0.0 just isn't going to happen. All the really large alliances are just going to squash new players and out skill and out fly them. People say about having a good industrial backbone to fund 0.0, it's awkward with current game mechanics or did no-one else notice that SB raid posted in the fifth corps briefing... 13 sb's attacking a big mining op, 77 barges/exhumers destroyed for the loss of just 4 attackers!!! Whats that, billions in industry backbone destroyed for the loss of a few hundred million in attackers. The power is in the hand of the skilled attackers, I see nothing still in this expansion to encourage people into 0.0, and if it does, they'll just be fresh meat to the existing people there.
Oneiros IV Stella Polaris.	Posted - 2009.11.15 15:19:00 - [3403] Funniest thing that with new system oficer / x-type loot won't be a holy grail anymore. Currently there's 2 kinds of systems a) good ones b) comfortable ones Domi makes confortable systems good, therefore aquiring top-end loot getting somewhat methodical
Oreth Te	Posted - 2009.11.15 16:35:00 - [3404] Edited by: Oreth Te on 15/11/2009 16:36:58 Originally by: drall Originally by: Suitonia Prices are ridiculous, espically if your goal was to get new players into 0.0. TBQH Prices are more than fair. If you don't have a industrial backbone able to finance your alliance. Then very frankly you have no business in 0.0. Its not cheep from a alliance perspective don't expect ccp to hand it to you. But if you have the ability to fund yourselves you should have NO issues meeting the ods. I was commenting the prospect of newer ôsmallö corps having opportunities in 0.0 not everyone wishes to be in bloated groups, but I digress, industrial backbone as you put it requires numbers to be effective and still have access to certain aspects of Eve. The problem as I see it CCP again simply do not provide for the smaller groups and especially at those projected costs. Also I feel you forget there are allot of the smaller groups out there can effectively mine the ass end out of a system or two manufacture and or sell products or refined ore to fund themselves but they are being almost actively discriminated against in lieu of the so called major players. Too your point on ôeasyö hey no one wants easy or you lose the challenge in the game and no one should expect a small corp or small alliance to be able to buy and hold the number of systems the larger ones can that would be ludicrously un-balanced, but the small groups shouldnÆt be barred from being able to hold say one or two systems and more as and if they grow or survive the nature of the beast, but in order to accommodate other players in Eve who are not part of the ôBig Setö the access to 0.0 sovereignty should be priced according to your ability to pay for it that allows for the big guys to hold what they want, and would promote the opportunities for smaller guys to get a foothold. Failing to do that simply bars a fair proportion from ever attempting getting there in the first place.
Sellmewarez	Posted - 2009.11.15 16:39:00 - [3405] Another thing not mentioned yet is time constraints. Typically the people in 0.0 tend to have more time to devote to the game then the average player, however to your normal empire carebear its an important overlooked issue. You cannot just log in and earn money straight away like you can do in missions in high sec then log off when you please. You first need to get in a suitable ship, then travel however far to find a decent system to rat/mine/explore, constantly check if that system has any hostiles in it, if you are exploring you then need to scan down signitures or anonomalies, if ratting and are chaining rat spawns for example you need to hope somebody else doesnt come into system, start ratting and breaking all your chains, etc. etc. i could go on... really CCP how do you expect to attract people from high sec when all of this stuff is one of the main barriers?
Mack Bane	Posted - 2009.11.15 18:12:00 - [3406] Edited by: Mack Bane on 15/11/2009 18:13:05 Originally by: Sellmewarez Another thing not mentioned yet is time constraints. Typically the people in 0.0 tend to have more time to devote to the game then the average player, however to your normal empire carebear its an important overlooked issue. You cannot just log in and earn money straight away like you can do in missions in high sec then log off when you please. You first need to get in a suitable ship, then travel however far to find a decent system to rat/mine/explore, constantly check if that system has any hostiles in it, if you are exploring you then need to scan down signitures or anonomalies, if ratting and are chaining rat spawns for example you need to hope somebody else doesnt come into system, start ratting and breaking all your chains, etc. etc. i could go on... really CCP how do you expect to attract people from high sec when all of this stuff is one of the main barriers? That is a really large portion of the reason, for me, to NOT go into 0.0 aswell.First off, my collegues are not playing in my timezone, then, they're having family (like me). It's hard to coordinate even just a longer trip of mission running.How could we ever hope to coordinate a 23/7 defense of a system?let alone more than one??? As to the Moon nerf, i wanted to point out, that on fanfest, there was an announcment for "comet mining". Maybe, this will become "the" new income source for 0.0 dwellers? I ll wait and see. But i have no hope,to ever become one myself!
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.15 18:38:00 - [3407] Originally by: Niamota Olin All the really large alliances are just going to squash new players and out skill and out fly them. People say about having a good industrial backbone to fund 0.0, it's awkward with current game mechanics or did no-one else notice that SB raid posted in the fifth corps briefing... 13 sb's attacking a big mining op, 77 barges/exhumers destroyed for the loss of just 4 attackers!!! Whats that, billions in industry backbone destroyed for the loss of a few hundred million in attackers. The power is in the hand of the skilled attackers, I see nothing still in this expansion to encourage people into 0.0, and if it does, they'll just be fresh meat to the existing people there. First of all they should have had a proper defense fleet to take care of cloaker freaks popping up and they should have maintained a watch for hostiles entering system. Soon as i see 4 reds pop into a system im running an op in i suspend operations and get everyone on standby to leave while getting our defense fleet ready to counter any attack they have. their own fault they lost several billions worth of isk in industrial equipment. ALSO, CCP can't please everyone with this Expansion. Don't ask them too. The idea is to open up null sec space for the people who were interested in go out there. Not so much mission running carebears or people who like the safty of high sec. Its aimed more at the pvpers in high sec who want to be out in null sec, have the industry behind them to back it up but there isnt any space for them to really move into. Also... numbers and a variety of people over timezones is practically a requirement for operating out here.... so restart those recruitment drives, you'll need the numbers. My corp was like this a few months back where we wanted desperately to join null sec space and we eventually found space in providence we could rent out and an alliance that operated out there willing to take us. We eventually learned how null sec worked and then moved up into an alliance that actually holds space. Now we own an outpost, help run a constellation and enjoying our end of the sandbox. Honestly CCP is not going to make it a cake walk to get out here. you have to have the drive and determination to get out here and honestly if our corp of half care bear, half fanged care bears can get our sorry asses out here over the period of a few months then anyone can. obviously if you want space for your alliance yourself it will take more work. The numbers for operating sovereignty and the prices for the equipment are MORE than fair in price. 6 million a day to have a system and upgrade it is cake. so keep a guy in high sec running a mission a day if you have to. God knows that even when this expansion comes out ill still have a jump clone to motsu to run a mission or three to keep myself entertained and to get the lp for a Navy scorpion. The point i'm making is prices are fair now, CCP needs to fix the isk making ability out there yes and they need to make it to support more people and have higher quality anonmalies and other stuff out there. So no they dont need to cater to the peace loving care bears who want to make money in peace. they are looking to make it more open for the low sec pvper's who are kinda already operating like null sec ut are orced to stay in low sec cause there is no space to go claim. All ive been eharing are people saying you should go straight from high sec to null sec... well you forgot the stop gap low sec in there and all them who WANT this kind of thing. But i will be damned if ccp makes it a cake walk out here. this is the wild west for a reason. No mans land, the pit of despair, if your not ready to take risk, lose lots of isk, a few clones, your ass virginity, and your dignity a few times then by god stay in high sec. you'd be better off there anyway.
Niamota Olin	Posted - 2009.11.15 20:13:00 - [3408] lolian, you know the navy scorp is only from FW lp right...
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.15 20:36:00 - [3409] Quote: this is the wild west for a reason. No mans land, the pit of despair, if your not ready to take risk, lose lots of isk, a few clones, your ass virginity, and your dignity a few times then by god stay in high sec. you'd be better off there anyway. Pioneers did not go to the wild west to search just for taking risk, lose money and virginity. They went because it promised something, and I doubt that something was just a colored corral on a map. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.15 20:50:00 - [3410] Originally by: Lolion Reglo numbers and a variety of people over timezones is practically a requirement for operating out here.... so restart those recruitment drives, you'll need the numbers. This tbh.. Though so far the major null sec corps have shown zero interest in doing it. So when they disband, broken and broke- the mechanics cant be blamed. Blame instead their inability to adapt.

Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.15 20:57:00 - [3411] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Lolion Reglo numbers and a variety of people over timezones is practically a requirement for operating out here.... so restart those recruitment drives, you'll need the numbers. This tbh.. Though so far the major null sec corps have shown zero interest in doing it. So when they disband, broken and broke- the mechanics cant be blamed. Blame instead their inability to adapt. So mr level 4 mission runner, master of space politics. How will this patch drive more people out to null sec. They wont come now, so why will they come with this patch? There are plenty of corps that are open to taking people out into nullsec. But as you admit the money is way easier and way safer in empire. So why will they come?
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.15 20:58:00 - [3412] Edited by: Shawna Gray on 15/11/2009 20:58:18 Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Lolion Reglo numbers and a variety of people over timezones is practically a requirement for operating out here.... so restart those recruitment drives, you'll need the numbers. This tbh.. Though so far the major null sec corps have shown zero interest in doing it. So when they disband, broken and broke- the mechanics cant be blamed. Blame instead their inability to adapt. There is no need for heavy recruitment, and the patch wont lure anyone into 0.0 that isnt already there.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.15 23:12:00 - [3413] You honestly dont think ppl would jump at the chance to live in null? Spending their time running plexes, mining, or ratting? You know whats stopping them? Well aside from the fact that most null sec corps dont open recruit? Whats stopping them is they think most of you act like morons. They think even an attempt to join a null sec corp will get them scammed cough goons * cough* Yes your going to have to do some encouraging to get the recruits. Open your ship replacement program to include their ships. Perhaps even run some ops where you actually protect them. Yes its a lot of work (much more then sitting back and waiting for moon gold income to come in)- but a lot of corps will be willing to do it. Those who wont- will be replaced.
ZenAndNow	Posted - 2009.11.16 02:25:00 - [3414] @ Future Mutant: All I can say sir is that, as a ~3 month newbie to the game, in my opinion you are an idiot. Would I like to go to null sec? Sure. If there were incentives other than finding out what it was like. You see, I can run L4 missions and easily pay for plex. If I wanted to learn to PvP I would go join Red vs Blue. So why should I go to null sec? It can't be because of the isk, because unless you've got moon mining on an R64 (whatever that is) it sounds like you'll never be rich. If you'll never be rich, then you'll be more conservative with your ships. So there'll be less things to pew at, and less ability to pew at things. There goes the PvP. So tell me Oh Intelligent One: why should I go to null sec? What possible incentive is there other than e-peen enlargement - something that doesn't appeal to me.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.16 03:32:00 - [3415] Originally by: ZenAndNow @ Future Mutant: All I can say sir is that, as a ~3 month newbie to the game, in my opinion you are an idiot. Would I like to go to null sec? Sure. If there were incentives other than finding out what it was like. You see, I can run L4 missions and easily pay for plex. If I wanted to learn to PvP I would go join Red vs Blue. So why should I go to null sec? It can't be because of the isk, because unless you've got moon mining on an R64 (whatever that is) it sounds like you'll never be rich. If you'll never be rich, then you'll be more conservative with your ships. So there'll be less things to pew at, and less ability to pew at things. There goes the PvP. So tell me Oh Intelligent One: why should I go to null sec? What possible incentive is there other than e-peen enlargement - something that doesn't appeal to me. Yah, everyone is an idiot. Also, I'm rich ***. never stop posting...with alts.** Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.16 03:45:00 - [3416] Edited by: Future Mutant on 16/11/2009 03:48:01 Originally by: ZenAndNow @ Future Mutant: All I can say sir is that, as a ~3 month newbie to the game, in my opinion you are an idiot. Would I like to go to null sec? Sure. If there were incentives other than finding out what it was like. You see, I can run L4 missions and easily pay for plex. If I wanted to learn to PvP I would go join Red vs Blue. So why should I go to null sec? It can't be because of the isk, because unless you've got moon mining on an R64 (whatever that is) it sounds like you'll never be rich. If you'll never be rich, then you'll be more conservative with your ships. So there'll be less things to pew at, and less ability to pew at things. There goes the PvP. So tell me Oh Intelligent One: why should I go to null sec? What possible incentive is there other than e-peen enlargement - something that doesn't appeal to me. Not sure what part to respond to first... The (whatever that is) was a nice touch. Getting rich and rolling in iskies IS an epeen enlargement. (Most) ppl in null sec corps dont pay for their own ships (or pay discounted prices) As for why should you go- the fact remains that even without upgraded systems you could make much more then 20-45 mill p/hour (typical lvl 4 income) But hey try something constructive instead of spouting the "in my opinion bs". What would entice you to go to null sec? Edit to say- no not just "go" to null sec. Because that misses the point. What would entice you to either start a null sec corp or join one of the very few that do open recruit. Or even pretend your the leader of one- what would entice you to actually recruit.
Mcon99	Posted - 2009.11.16 03:53:00 - [3417] Originally by: ZenAndNow @ Future Mutant: You see, I can run L4 missions and easily pay for plex. Except you fail. Grinding isk to pay for plexes is ... well a lot of things, funny for one. Isk is for ships and equipment.
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.16 04:53:00 - [3418] Originally by: Future Mutant (Most) ppl in null sec corps dont pay for their own ships (or pay discounted prices) Would the alliance which pays for all their members ships please step forward? I want to join.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.16 05:12:00 - [3419] Originally by: Nobani Originally by: Future Mutant (Most) ppl in null sec corps dont pay for their own ships (or pay discounted prices) Would the alliance which pays for all their members ships please step forward? I want to join. Ya, I've been paying and charging reasonable market cost for mine.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.16 07:12:00 - [3420] Originally by: Nobani Originally by: Future Mutant (Most) ppl in null sec corps dont pay for their own ships (or pay discounted prices) Would the alliance which pays for all their members ships please step forward? I want to join. Oh come on, let's be entirely honest - we get all our ships for free because it's a benefit from taking Delve. Everyone "in the know" knows that NOL- has a special hidden station service (the button is 10x10 pixels wide and very well-obscured) that poops out whatever non-supercapital (since there has to be SOME limits) that anyone with the requisite roles needs. All it costs is one Exotic Dancer - why do you think the BoB guys used to always carry one around in their cargoholds? It's so if they got the chance to loot the field, they could get their ships back for zero cost! Seriously, did you think we did a PEDESTRIAN act like import hulls from Empire and build on site? Pah. PAH I say! To think we use a market system in 0.0 like the peons in Empire...preposterous! But seriously, Future Mutant, you're a really bad troll or you're immensely stupid and high-strung. At least the latter is mildly entertaining.

Daniel Ogden	Posted - 2009.11.16 07:53:00 - [3421] Don't ask me to find the post I am referencing in this mountain of replies, but wasn't there a promise of a new dev blog that we were supposed to get about 5-6 days ago with some adjustments and further explanations? What happened to that?
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.16 08:20:00 - [3422] I don't know where these "0.0 corps" statements come from (unless it's smelly and sun does not shine on it). 1) In all the 0.0 corps I know, you don't get free ships. You may be eligible for a refund (and you had to pay the corp for the ship first, not i.e. self made it) in very specific circumstances, with the exact fittings and rigs that made it a "fleet ship". Everything else is at your loss. Guys who proved to be exceptionally dedicated can receive ships as a prize, but that's something reserved to the top PvPers not the top plex farmers. 2) All the 0.0 corps I know are open to recruiting. There are some implicit limits as you are meant to fly a 0.0 "compatible" ship or use corp fittings but so far (both enemies and friends) no one got the WoW bullhit "no Epix = GTFO" attitude. 3) All the 0.0 corps I know are very very PvP centric. The pilots are meant to be out in gangs to protect gates and territory when there's no "corp OP" running, this means we are not meant to sit 23/7 and grind rats and plexes. What happens is that you are the industry guy toying with a POS and you happen to be online when enemies come in, you are meant to go out and defend. Or be the industry guy without the POS any more because it got popped, or worse. 4) The "life" conditions can be quite harsh. Imagine being the industry guy but wait, there's no market hub anywhere within 50 jumps. There's a minor 0.0 hub 5 jumps out and of course you'll be podded just trying to take your stuff there (even blockade runners are not so invincible once you are against people with a clue, from sling blubbles to perma disco-camps make life "interesting"). Imagine having 100M minerals to refine, but wait, unless you are RICH and established* (quite the opposite of the patch supposed targets) your alliance got no outpost and then your refineries suck donkey nuts. Hell, unless you have a nearby station or similar, you cannot even repackage, the most natural and discounted act. Now, where is the patch going to help bring new people in 0.0? Where's the plus - I am not even talking about money - to convince someone that there's some 0.0 place that is better than a WH? After all, in a WH you are "protected", can find the roids you won't find in 0.0 (as of today) unless in few privileged negative truesec places and much more (ie friendly no-displacing gates). If the only plus is "PvP", then it has to be a PvP friendly place, that is not have to PvE grind for hours. Else, if PvE is demanded, have it be a worthwhile PvE. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
PriestWithKnives Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.16 11:41:00 - [3423] The initial blog was to make us so unhappy at the lackluster upgrades and insane costs in getting them that whenever you rolled out something not quite as bad we'll accept it right? Great idea. Can't wait to unsubscribe.
soul diva	Posted - 2009.11.16 12:11:00 - [3424] Originally by: Gramtar 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. This ^^ Whilst slightly off topic we all know about Delve etc trusec being borked. But everyone else now can pay a stupid amount of isk to upgrade and maintain systems in order for them to be a percentage as good as Delve that is naturally better without upgrades. Surely CCP before you move on to bigger and better things let's fix whats broken first. As they saying goes if it aint broke dont fix it. You CCP don't fix things you just invent new broken things. I am 100% possitive that ALL EVE PLAYERS would like broken things fixed instead of more new broken things. We would not put you down for not adding content providing you fix the current content.
Propotkin	Posted - 2009.11.16 12:13:00 - [3425] Originally by: ZenAndNow @ Future Mutant: All I can say sir is that, as a ~3 month newbie to the game, in my opinion you are an idiot. Would I like to go to null sec? Sure. If there were incentives other than finding out what it was like. You see, I can run L4 missions and easily pay for plex. If I wanted to learn to PvP I would go join Red vs Blue. So why should I go to null sec? It can't be because of the isk, because unless you've got moon mining on an R64 (whatever that is) it sounds like you'll never be rich. If you'll never be rich, then you'll be more conservative with your ships. So there'll be less things to pew at, and less ability to pew at things. There goes the PvP. So tell me Oh Intelligent One: why should I go to null sec? What possible incentive is there other than e-peen enlargement - something that doesn't appeal to me. Reason to goto null sec ? = i make 500 mil per week ratting/plexing etc - so there is 500 mil reasons to goto null sec :)
Mr Xanatos	Posted - 2009.11.16 13:10:00 - [3426] Edited by: Mr Xanatos on 16/11/2009 13:13:21 I see very little mention of Dust541 here. The whole purpose of changing Sov Mechanics is so that the Dusties will actaully have something to do. Currently 0.0 Sov is pretty static, yes there are land grabs every now and then but all in all a few big Aliances control most of 0.0. The Alliances have such a foot hold that its pretty much impossible to push them out. With this static movement in Sov changes there is little or no work for Dusties right now. So, CCP are going to force the largest Alliances to give up large swaths of space (consolidate due to cost) to create a lot of "wasteland" 0.0 in the hopes that all the smaller Corps/Alliance will try to take part in a good old fashion land grab/plant your flag type event "tis my field". Then when the Dust settles the Sov mechanic will change again and along comes ten thousand teenage Dusties on their Xbox/PS3, who knows maybe even hundreds of thousands to participate in Sov Wars. CCP have upset a lot of people and looks like they may ruin the hard work of all the 0.0 Alliances, forcing many to quit Eve because of a Star Wars NGE style game change. But why should CCP care, if all of the diehard 0.0 players quit then it makes life much easier for hi sec dwellers to get a foothold in 0.0. The more hi sec dwellers that get involved in land grabs then the more work for the Dusties there will be making Dust541 a success. If the large Alliances stay as major power blocks then Sov changes will remain static thus forcing the Dusties out of work before they even start. Im also guessing CCP will limit the amount of Dusties per planet, so even if you are Goonies you can only send 250 Dusties to fight a small Alliances 250 Dusties for a planet. Gaining Sov then isnt decided by the a massive cap blob or by your wealth but by who has the best Dusties. To summise: Force the big Alliances to give up Sov, create land grab and chaos situation, create work for the Dusties, change Sov mechanics so the Dusties are the most important element in gaining Sov, cap ships become obsolete for Sov grabs, big guys loose the advantage and the little guy can fight on even terms with his Dusties doing the work, many Eve players quit but are replaced by many many more Dusties and CCP laugh all the way to the bank. Cant wait to see how it all plays out :)
Magnum III Journey On Squad	Posted - 2009.11.16 14:57:00 - [3427] Edited by: Magnum III on 16/11/2009 15:04:11 Originally by: Mr Xanatos Edited by: Mr Xanatos on 16/11/2009 13:27:05 I see very little mention of Dust541 here. The whole purpose of changing Sov Mechanics is so that the Dusties will actaully have something to do. Currently 0.0 Sov is pretty static, yes there are land grabs every now and then but all in all a few big Aliances control most of 0.0. The Alliances have such a foot hold that its pretty much impossible to push them out. With this static movement in Sov changes there is little or no work for Dusties right now. So, CCP are going to force the largest Alliances to give up large swaths of space (consolidate due to cost) to create a lot of "wasteland" 0.0 in the hopes that all the smaller Corps/Alliance will try to take part in a good old fashion land grab/plant your flag type event "tis my field". Then when the Dust settles the Sov mechanic will change again and along comes ten thousand teenage Dusties on their Xbox/PS3, who knows maybe even hundreds of thousands to participate in Sov Wars. CCP have upset a lot of people and looks like they may ruin the hard work of all the 0.0 Alliances, forcing many to quit Eve because of a Star Wars NGE style game change. But why should CCP care, if all of the diehard 0.0 players quit then it makes life much easier for hi sec dwellers to get a foothold in 0.0. The more hi sec dwellers that get involved in land grabs then the more work for the Dusties there will be making Dust541 a success. If the large Alliances stay as major power blocks then Sov changes will remain static thus forcing the Dusties out of work before they even start. Im also guessing CCP will limit the amount of Dusties per planet, so even if you are Goonies you can only send 250 Dusties to fight a small Alliances 250 Dusties for a planet. Gaining Sov then isnt decided by the a massive cap blob or by your wealth but by who has the best Dusties. To surmise: Force the big Alliances to give up Sov, create land grab and chaos situation, create work for the Dusties, change Sov mechanics so the Dusties are the most important element in gaining Sov, cap ships become obsolete for Sov grabs, big guys loose the advantage and the little guy can fight on even terms with his Dusties doing the work, many Eve players quit but are replaced by many many more Dusties and CCP laugh all the way to the bank. Every decision/change made to Eve by CCP for the next 12+ months is going to have to sole purpose of "how can we create more work/fun/addiction for our Dusties". If that means selling out a % of its existing player base and stepping on them then CCP will, why?? Because its a numbers games, plain and simple. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and in the is case "The needs of the massive potential cash paying hundreds of thousands of teenage Xbox/PS3 Dusties outweighs the few thousand potential 0.0 rage quitters". Cant wait to see how it all plays out :) Great point about it better be Dynamic and not so static like now for the Dust 514 . I was wondering about it being static my self, I want to go to 0.0 but it need to be more then a big alliance and pets not really warring with each other were things change and your doing more then just sitting in one system with someoneÆs permission. But no matter what I say if I make sence or not , YOPU got a great point, even I can see that. Originally by: soul diva Originally by: Gramtar 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 f
Magnum III Journey On Squad	Posted - 2009.11.16 15:07:00 - [3428] Originally by: soul diva Originally by: Gramtar 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. This ^^ Whilst slightly off topic we all know about Delve etc trusec being borked. But everyone else now can pay a stupid amount of isk to upgrade and maintain systems in order for them to be a percentage as good as Delve that is naturally better without upgrades. Surely CCP before you move on to bigger and better things let's fix whats broken first. As they saying goes if it aint broke dont fix it. You CCP don't fix things you just invent new broken things. I am 100% possitive that ALL EVE PLAYERS would like broken things fixed instead of more new broken things. We would not put you down for not adding content providing you fix the current content. I think I know what you saying, and imo I never saw the good in making it so Alliances were even harder to boot out of said regions and it's got to be easier now, and maybe they should just get rid of all money making things in 0.0 and let them only be put in with upgrades but make then easy to upgrade but easy to loose even for no matter what size your alliance is like making sure gorilla warfare is useful like in RL.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.16 16:37:00 - [3429] Originally by: Magnum III like making sure gorilla warfare is useful like in RL. I know its hard to see the difference between a soldier and a gorilla, but i hope you dont actually give gorillas guns? Or are gorillas the new terrorists you are hunting?
Avoida	Posted - 2009.11.16 16:38:00 - [3430] Originally by: Magnum III like making sure gorilla warfare is useful like in RL. Umm...I think you mean guerilla warfare.

Xikorita Mob Thought Maru Ka'ge	Posted - 2009.11.16 17:12:00 - [3431] Originally by: Avoida Originally by: Magnum III like making sure gorilla warfare is useful like in RL. Umm...I think you mean guerilla warfare. Isn't gorilla warfare a BLOB or multiple titans? It seems like that.
Kalexander	Posted - 2009.11.16 20:15:00 - [3432] We talk about their not being a reward for going down to 0.0. With plenty of people making the correlation with 0.0 being "wild west" and "frontier" like it occurred to me that the biggest solution to injecting life into 0.0 is to simply make a new market dependent on it. Thats right, CCP needs to fabricate a "gold rush" so to speak, tech 3 modules. In all these systems equally, their needs to be a way to "work the land" to milk these newfound minerals and materials to make tech 3 equipment or something, or some type of newly created high demand "shiny things". Whatever it is, it needs to involve not just ratters and miners, but industrials and everything else. One could argue, that the tech 2 market is already dependent on null sec and that might be good enough if they completely did away with moon mining and just found a way to equally distribute all that goo out into the far reaches of null where various things you can do in the actual systems gets you the pieces of the relevant ingredients (plexes, ratting, mining etc.). This would prevent power blocks from using their ingenuity to completely dominate over the oil wells (moons), and actually have to commit particular bodies to extracting/working for the adequate amounts through playing the game through any of the number of ways they see fit (this includes PVPers, as they will be in charge of defense and offense ops). People would be excited again, the entire market in the game will see so much volatility and people would laugh, and cry at the same time as old fortunes are lost, but new fortunes could be found! We need a gold rush!
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.16 20:22:00 - [3433] Originally by: Niamota Olin lolian, you know the navy scorp is only from FW lp right... Well ** i need to change systems them...lmfao. Originally by:** Pointfive Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Lolion Reglo numbers and a variety of people over timezones is practically a requirement for operating out here.... so restart those recruitment drives, you'll need the numbers. This tbh.. Though so far the major null sec corps have shown zero interest in doing it. So when they disband, broken and broke- the mechanics cant be blamed. Blame instead their inability to adapt. So mr level 4 mission runner, master of space politics. How will this patch drive more people out to null sec. They wont come now, so why will they come with this patch? There are plenty of corps that are open to taking people out into nullsec. But as you admit the money is way easier and way safer in empire. So why will they come? Never said it would. The oath with the current mechanics for the upgrades wont attracth people. which is why im such a proponent for the upgrade of the quality of the things to do out there. All im saying is that those people who want to go out there now regardless of how much there is to be made will enjoy the space opening up, but as for drawing more people beyond that is up to ccp and how they fix the upgrades.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.16 20:25:00 - [3434] That new dev blog, or any kind of developer response would be nice right now. I know they are busy screwing other things up and getting yelled at, hut hey this one came first. At least pretend your customer input matters.
Katrinazinski	Posted - 2009.11.16 20:59:00 - [3435] Ah, yes. Solve the problem with moar taxes, less personal income. Moar Tax = Moar Grind for fluffeh bunnies in 0.0 space. Moar tax = good old boys grab all available isk production. Newer players pay moar tax, or Mutiny = Migration = Emergence. (Just remember to bring moar whine to go along with patch.) Ah, yes. "The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves!"
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.16 21:55:00 - [3436] Originally by: Pointfive That new dev blog, or any kind of developer response would be nice right now. I know they are busy screwing other things up and getting yelled at, hut hey this one came first. At least pretend your customer input matters. Too late to stop...too invested...we promise to look at it again when we get a chance/after we've seen the results... There's your dev response.
The Tallman	Posted - 2009.11.17 01:12:00 - [3437] Edited by: The Tallman on 17/11/2009 01:14:03 There's constructive criticism and then there's simple questions. Why is CCP so afraid of letting people make reasonable isk in game? REASONABLE PERSONAL INCOME IN 0.0 SHOULD BE 30%-50% HIGHER PER HOUR THAN EMPIRE! If you simply made that increase you would get people out of empire and into 0.0. And it's reasonable considering the time/effort/expense you have to take to hold 0.0 space. SO.... Why does CCP keep aiming 0.0 income to equal LVL 4's in empire instead improve 0.0? You got to wonder.... Here's another question... Why does it just so happen that with decent skills most people can rat, mission or mine and make around 20-30 mil per hour? Three totally different professions but very similar income. Hmmm wow how did that happen... Simple answer: CCP would rather Nerf personal income from LVL 4's than improve personal/corp 0.0 income. Why? My guess: CCP is a company, their end goal is to make money. They do that by keeping people in game. The number one thing people do in game is try to make isk. So the longer you spend doing that, the more time you are in game. So this is what CCP feels is acceptable. If you want an internet space ship (battleship) you should spend 8 to 10 hours earning isk to buy it. Similar to your day job. Until that attitude changes, you won't see any improvement in your isk per hour income.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.17 08:03:00 - [3438] Originally by: The Tallman Edited by: The Tallman on 17/11/2009 01:21:31 There's constructive criticism and then there's simple questions. Why is CCP so afraid of letting people make reasonable isk in game? REASONABLE PERSONAL INCOME IN 0.0 SHOULD BE 30%-50% HIGHER PER HOUR THAN EMPIRE! If you simply made that increase you would get people out of empire and into 0.0. And it's reasonable considering the time/effort/expense you have to take to hold 0.0 space. SO.... Why does CCP keep aiming 0.0 income to equal LVL 4's in empire instead improve 0.0? You got to wonder.... Here's another question... Why does it just so happen that with decent skills most people can rat, mission or mine and make around 20-30 mil per hour? Three totally different professions but very similar income. Hmmm wow how did that happen... Simple answer: CCP would rather Nerf personal income from LVL 4's than improve personal/corp 0.0 income. Why? My guess: CCP is a company, their end goal is to make money. They do that by keeping people in game. The number one thing people do in game is try to make isk. So the longer you spend doing that, the more time you are in game. So CCP probably feels this is acceptable time vs reward. If you want an internet space ship (battleship) you should spend 8 to 10 hours earning isk to buy it. Similar to one day at work. Until that attitude changes, you won't see much if any improvement in your isk per hour income in 0.0. In the end, that is CCP's mistake. Instead of rewarding the thrill seekers, they will nerf the cautious. This is what most people have been saying for years and you know what CCP did? They boosted lvl 4 missions. That's why people compare making money in 0.0 with lvl 4 missions. Before the boost two years ago lvl 4's were barely slightly better than current lvl 3's. Then there was the epic whine from mission runners and instead of CCP telling them to go to 0.0 they drove people to empire and into npc corps.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.17 11:39:00 - [3439] Where does the feeling of entitlement come from? You really think that because you live in null that isk should be shoveled your way? Everything i hear compares null sec income to lvl 4 missions. One major flaw in that- and that is you in null do not want to do lvl 4 missions. If you did want to do them- you would be. Or you would do pirate missions or lvl 5's. The other flaw in the argument is that null sec can be extremely profitable. Just because you would rather be shooting someone then earning isk- does that mean ccp should just hand you isk? Look at a rat get 10 mill? How about a null sec allowance? The idea is ridiculous. If you want isk- work for it. If you want to shoot ships- then by all means shoot ships. But stop complaining that you dont make more isk then somthing else makes- something that you refuse (or are incapable) of doing. And stop complaining null sec isnt profitable- it is. Every way to make isk in null makes more isk then its counterpart in hi sec.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.17 12:35:00 - [3440] This is a PvP game, where PvE is completely badly made (unlike IE WoW or other games, where PvE got a lot of focus and "care") and thus uninsteresting. Now there's the catch: they can't do like you say and "If you want to shoot ships- then by all means shoot ships." because to shoot ships you need to grind the yawnsome PvE. Now, since it's PvPers and the PvE is yawnsome, they want to get rid off grinding their next ship ASAP. But wait, those PVEing in hi sec don't lose ships but earn more in hi sec than those who actually lose their ships in 0.0? - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz

Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.17 15:07:00 - [3441] Originally by: Future Mutant One major flaw in that- and that is you in null do not want to do lvl 4 missions. If you did want to do them- you would be. Uhm. You are aware, I hope, that L4s aren't universally available in nullsec? Quote: The other flaw in the argument is that null sec can be extremely profitable. …for a very low amount of people at any given time — the problem Dominion was said to solve. Quote: And stop complaining null sec isnt profitable- it is. Every way to make isk in null makes more isk then its counterpart in hi sec. …for a very low amount of people at any given time — the problem Dominion was said to solve. Do you really have such a hard time understanding what the problem is? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
The Tallman	Posted - 2009.11.17 16:18:00 - [3442] Edited by: The Tallman on 17/11/2009 16:23:40 Originally by: Future Mutant Where does the feeling of entitlement come from? You really think that because you live in null that isk should be shoveled your way? Everything i hear compares null sec income to lvl 4 missions. One major flaw in that- and that is you in null do not want to do lvl 4 missions. If you did want to do them- you would be. Or you would do pirate missions or lvl 5's. The other flaw in the argument is that null sec can be extremely profitable. Just because you would rather be shooting someone then earning isk- does that mean ccp should just hand you isk? Look at a rat get 10 mill? How about a null sec allowance? The idea is ridiculous. If you want isk- work for it. If you want to shoot ships- then by all means shoot ships. But stop complaining that you dont make more isk then somthing else makes- something that you refuse (or are incapable) of doing. And stop complaining null sec isnt profitable- it is. Every way to make isk in null makes more isk then its counterpart in hi sec. Ok, in a nutshell, you want to motivate people you do it with money. Same reason companies give sales bonuses. If CCP's goal is to get people out of empire into 0.0 they need to aim higher than just making the system upgrades (that you have to pay for and defend daily) equal the income you receive from running lvl 4's.
Gramtar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.17 16:41:00 - [3443] Since we've gone almost two weeks without answers to our basic concerns (risk vs reward out of balance between lev 4 mission running in highsec and comparable pve activities aka ratting in 0.0), I feel its safe to assume CCP plans to move ahead with Dominion largely "as is". So, dear readers, here are some sample responses that will probably be similar to what we will get if CCP ever does bother to make a post about it: a) Thanks for your feedback, but we believe the upgrades we've suggested (or slightly adjusted to make it 3 whole anomalies per system or something similarly ineffective) are a significant improvement to 0.0 income generation. In any case, it was never our intention that the bulk of alliance income come from taxes on ratting and exploration. Alliances will, after all, be able to generate significant revenues via moon mining. Now, they will simply have to work a little bit harder than they did previously. b) We understand and appreciate the feedback. Our primary goal in releasing Dominion was to foster an extensible environment. It was never our intention to provide a single patch to fix everything we would like and plan to in 0.0. We will be watching how the military and industrial upgrades are utilized over the coming months and be reviewing feedback via the forums and CSM. Rest assured, Dominion is not an end but only a beginning. Many additional features are coming down the pipe. c) .... As I've previously noted, this doesn't "level the playing field" in 0.0 by any stretch of the imagination. Those alliances with control over player-pirate hybrid regions (and therefore the best truesec) will be impacted the least - Pandemic Legion/Sons of Tangra in Fountain and GoonSwarm in Delve. Those with defacto control of pirate sov regions will similarly maintain some level of isk generation through corp taxes on bounties and mission rewards - Stain Empire, Sys-K, and others in Stain and Northern Coalition residents of Venal. The only big question is which large alliance(s) will move to effectively take over Curse - my guess is AAA/AAA Citizens and Atlas since they're the closest. There are big losers under current plans to make it cost prohibitive to run long logistics chains deep into 0.0. These include Red Overlord and Atlas in the southeast, with AAA and pets/renters similarly effected in their Tenerifis holdings. Tau Ceti Federation could be in the same boat at the opposite end of the map, Deklein. There are bigger losers, still, though. Without a way to improve effective truesec for ratting, CVA occupies one of the least valuable regions in the game, Providence. CVA could see some small benefit from addition of anomalies, but with their NRDS policy, and expected loss of safe supercapital production, the results will still be a net negative. More importantly, the viability of "upgrades" being on a per system instead of per-constellation basis insure that the effects will be easy to counter with just one hostile cloaker. Worse off still are the Drone regions. Solar and xDeath occupy a number of regions where rats have no bounties. Anomalies provides exactly no addition to either of these alliances, since both members and renters can export all their loot (alloys) to empire for easy 100%, tax free refines. 0.0 residents deserve an answer to the basic 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.
Gramtar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.17 17:13:00 - [3444] To add to my previous post, I'd like to point out how CCP's plans will actually make it harder for empire residents to make a move into 0.0. With successive speed nerfs (first to Battleship hulls, and then across the board to all ship, modules, and implants) running missions for Angels and Serpentis is less valuable now than at any time in EVE's history. The same and other nerfs negatively impacted the value of various faction loot that drops from Domination spawns (10mn MWD, Webs, and Gyrostabilizers). The best thing about Curse, now, is its proximity to highsec. Even in that regard, the overall number of jumps to the nearest trade hubs, it's inferior to Delve (which can get closer to Amarr through three jump bridges in Querious than Doril is to Rens or Jita). I advised many a new player to EVE, desiring to experience 0.0, to venture into Curse. The reason was simple. Barring times of occupation during East-West conflicts, it was the most empty 0.0 of pirate sov regions. This opened faction/officer hunting up to anyone with the guts to try to make a life there. Compared to other 0.0/empire border regions (Syndicate and Gemanite among them), Doril was historically lightly camped as a 0.0 entry point. Sadly, that is going to change come December. The need for alliances to occupy the best truesec close to empire means someone big is going to move in there. Curse stands at a crossroads between East and West. Anyone attacking Catch, Detorid, Immensea, Scalding Pass or Wicked Creek could and often did base out of Curse for the duration of an offensive. This meant Curse has always vacillated between being a sleepy 0.0 region to one filled with multiple, large hostile fleets complete with Titans camping popular intersections. Once prized only for its strategic location, planned changes will turn Curse into something else - a place to make isk. AAA, Atlas, and other nearby residents will likely expand into Curse before or after Dominion. It only makes sense. The change from needing to hold a handful of R64 moons to many, lower moons in the T2 component chain, means a larger presence will be necessary to exploit regions like Curse. This fact alone guarantees it's a question of who, not if anyone, will move into Curse full time. CCP can avoid this, but rethinking some planned changes, but I fear its too late in the game. They're likely to release Dominion, SWG-NGE style, without regard to the issues we've warned them about for years through feedback on these forums and in the CSM. Releasing Dominion appears to be its own end, much like "health care reform" in the United States looks to be. It's a box to check off on a form - Hey, we fixed 0.0, now on the next thing. While we will see the usual promises (Black Ops BS, etc etc) for future updates and tweaks, nothing will be forthcoming.
Crichet	Posted - 2009.11.17 18:34:00 - [3445] EPIC FAIL That's all I get when I read the proposed changes to the Sov. I'm not bagging on the whole thing because there is some good things in there. You need to look at the proposed cost and the supposed influx of isk that will be coming in. If you look at the 3 largest Alliances (Goonswarm, Shadow of xXDeathXx and Morsus Mihi) then you are talking about thousands of pilots all working at once to meet the cost of maintaining their systems. There would have to be some DRASTIC changes to the mining, ratting, wormholes and plexes just to make maintaining any number of systems cost effective. Make it more affordable and you make nullsec more appealing to everybody and you will encourage more traffic thru the area. This will increase commerce and give PvP players something to do besides just trying to grind out isk to pay for everything.
Cearain	Posted - 2009.11.17 19:12:00 - [3446] If the idea is to have more smaller alliances in null sec then the costs of upkeep for the second system should be more than the first. The cost of upkeep for the third system should be more than the cost of upkeep for the second etc.
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.17 19:33:00 - [3447] Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:34:33 Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:33:15 Originally by: Cearain If the idea is to have more smaller alliances in null sec then the costs of upkeep for the second system should be more than the first. The cost of upkeep for the third system should be more than the cost of upkeep for the second etc. While a good idea in theory, this won't work in practice. In practice you would get "GoonSwarm -- Delve", "GoonSwarm -- Querious", or "GoonSwarm -- OK-FEM", "GoonSwarm B4H", depending on how harsh the multiple system penalties were. Any system which penalizes claiming sov also has the problem of splitting "real" sov, the space an alliance will defend, from "TCU" sov, the space an alliance will claim with TCUs and iHubs. In order to shrink alliance footprints you need to increase the cost of defending space, not just the cost of claiming space. You also need to increase the number of people who can make maximum ISK in each system, or you will get a mass exodus back to Empire, at least for ISK making.
Kalexander	Posted - 2009.11.17 19:34:00 - [3448] Originally by: Gramtar ... Releasing Dominion appears to be its own end, much like "health care reform" in the United States looks to be... Wait, what?!
ShadowMaiden Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2009.11.17 19:59:00 - [3449] Originally by: Gramtar 0.0 residents, living there by choice, would like an answer to the basic question: fixed.
Cearain	Posted - 2009.11.17 20:01:00 - [3450] Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:34:33 Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:33:15 Originally by: Cearain If the idea is to have more smaller alliances in null sec then the costs of upkeep for the second system should be more than the first. The cost of upkeep for the third system should be more than the cost of upkeep for the second etc. While a good idea in theory, this won't work in practice. In practice you would get "GoonSwarm -- Delve", "GoonSwarm -- Querious", or "GoonSwarm -- OK-FEM", "GoonSwarm B4H", depending on how harsh the multiple system penalties were. ... If the rules had some requirement that each of these different "goonswarm ____s" had to have different leadership then I think that would be fine. The large alliances would be broken up. There may have to be a rule about alt accounts but I think that would be doable as well. Sooner or later things will fall apart and the in fighting will start. Look what happened to purple.

Crias Taylor GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.17 20:11:00 - [3451] Originally by: Kalexander Originally by: Gramtar ... Releasing Dominion appears to be its own end, much like "health care reform" in the United States looks to be... Wait, what?! it's being pushed through for the sake meeting a deadline. No matter how terriable it is.
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.17 20:12:00 - [3452] Originally by: Cearain Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:34:33 Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:33:15 Originally by: Cearain If the idea is to have more smaller alliances in null sec then the costs of upkeep for the second system should be more than the first. The cost of upkeep for the third system should be more than the cost of upkeep for the second etc. While a good idea in theory, this won't work in practice. In practice you would get "GoonSwarm -- Delve", "GoonSwarm -- Querious", or "GoonSwarm -- OK-FEM", "GoonSwarm B4H", depending on how harsh the multiple system penalties were. ... If the rules had some requirement that each of these different "goonswarm ____s" had to have different leadership then I think that would be fine. The large alliances would be broken up. There may have to be a rule about alt accounts but I think that would be doable as well. Sooner or later things will fall apart and the in fighting will start. Look what happened to purple. All the alliances would function as one alliance except where the game mechanics prevent it. I.e. shared messageboard, shared killboard, shared chat, etc. Actually, the only members of most of the alliances would be POS gunner alts and logistics pilots.
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.17 20:18:00 - [3453] Gramtar is pretty smart and deserves a reply from CCP.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.17 21:10:00 - [3454] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 17/11/2009 21:14:02 I'm just going to put out some very simple numbers, you can make of it what you will. One fully upgraded anomaly is purported to bring in level 4 mission income, lets use 40mil per hour as a figure to work with. If your alliance membership can manage to keep 1 anomaly busy 23/7 that is a total of 644 hours in a 28 day (2 fortnights) period. If your corps charge a standard 10% tax (4 mil per hour) that one anomaly generates 2,576,000,000 isk in that 28 day period... in tax alone. The other 23,184,000,000 goes into the pockets of your alliance members. This is 1 anomaly out of the 10 generated by your upgrades. This does not include any naturally occuring anomalies. This does not include any escalations. This does not include any of the other 4 upgradeable income types. This does not include the normal income generating assets in the system (ratting, moons, Cap ship production, etc.). The above are facts, this part is my interpretation (for better or for worse). The fee for a fully upgraded system is easily paid (in reality many times over) by any upgrades that you develop in that system "IF" (and this is the cruicial point) you have enough active membership to actually make use of the resources generated. If you do not have enough active members to generate income in that system, it becomes a large drain on your resources and it would be fiscally irresponsible to keep sov in that system. If I'm not mistaken, this was one of the main points to the expansion. Smaller empire based entities can easily get a start financially in 0.0 under this system, and quickly begin to generate (in taxes alone) more than enough isk to offset the costs of holding SOV (and upgrading) a single system or two. One really should remember than not everyone in Empire runs Level 4 missions. There are thousands of people plying the many other vocations in EVE that would kill (literally) for a chance milk the passive and active revenue streams in Null sec that will be available to them in Dominion. Some of them are newer folk, many of them are people that have become dispossed from one 0.0 entity or another and are meerly looking for a way to get their foot back in the door (or perhaps a little payback). Now whether the current inhabitants will (or can) do anything to stop them is another story entirely. That addresses rather directly the second major point to Dominion, opening up some fissures in 0.0. alliance territorial holdings. I have seen a lot of exaggeration in this thread, and a lot of posturing, but the numbers don't lie. The simple fact of the matter is if the current 0.0 entities can't figure out how many systems they can actually utilize, and redefine thier borders and internal layout accordingly, there are plenty of people who can... and will. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Cearain	Posted - 2009.11.17 21:10:00 - [3455] Originally by: Gramtar Since we've gone almost two weeks without answers to our basic concerns (risk vs reward out of balance between lev 4 mission running in highsec and comparable pve activities aka ratting in 0.0), [/b] I'm not sure what you mean by balance here. Anyone can get their sec status high enough to run level 4 high sec missions. Its not an ôimbalanceö against any type of character or faction. If you think running level 4 missions is so great then get a jump clone in high sec and go to it. DonÆt be bothered with the paltry sums you can make in null sec. Is trading unbalanced because people make billions per hour trading with little risk? Does trading need to be nerfed? It seems that the only thing we hear about in null sec is this or that capital ship battle where ungodly amounts of isk are blown up. If there is that much isk that can be lost at the blink of an eye then the current mechanics of isk making in null sec would seem to be a good deal better than many in this thread would have us believe. If big alliances in null sec did have to earn isk by running level 4 missions, like just about everyone else in eve, then maybe null sec would be more fun.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.17 21:31:00 - [3456] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha This is a PvP game, where PvE is completely badly made (unlike IE WoW or other games, where PvE got a lot of focus and "care") and thus uninsteresting. Now there's the catch: they can't do like you say and "If you want to shoot ships- then by all means shoot ships." because to shoot ships you need to grind the yawnsome PvE. Now, since it's PvPers and the PvE is yawnsome, they want to get rid off grinding their next ship ASAP. But wait, those PVEing in hi sec don't lose ships but earn more in hi sec than those who actually lose their ships in 0.0? This illustrates so many of the points ive tried to make. Eve is a game- pvp if you want, pve if you want- dont expect to be handed isk. You are not special just because you pvp. Next theyll be wanting a button that deposits 10 billion into each null sec players account.
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.17 21:35:00 - [3457] Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 17/11/2009 21:20:47 I'm just going to put out some very simple numbers, you can make of it what you will. One fully upgraded anomaly is purported to bring in level 4 mission income, lets use 40mil per hour as a figure to work with. If your alliance membership can manage to keep 1 anomaly busy 23/7 that is a total of 644 hours in a 28 day (2 fortnights) period. If your corps charge a standard 10% tax (4 mil per hour) that one anomaly generates 2,576,000,000 isk in that 28 day period... in tax alone. The other 23,184,000,000 goes into the pockets of your alliance members. This is 1 anomaly out of the 10 generated by your upgrades. This does not include any naturally occuring anomalies. This does not include any escalations. This does not include any of the other 4 upgradeable income types. This does not include the normal income generating assets in the system (ratting, moons, Cap ship production, etc.). The above are facts, this part is my interpretation (for better or for worse). The fee for a fully upgraded system is easily paid (in reality many times over) by any upgrades that you develop in that system "IF" (and this is the crucial point) you have enough active membership to actually make use of the resources generated. If you do not have enough active members to generate income in that system, it becomes a large drain on your resources and it would be fiscally irresponsible to keep sov in that system. Smaller empire based entities can easily get a start financially in 0.0 under this system, and quickly begin to generate (in taxes alone) more than enough isk to offset the costs of holding SOV (and upgrading) a single system or two. One really should remember than not everyone in Empire runs Level 4 missions. There are thousands of people plying the many other vocations in EVE that would kill (literally) for a chance milk the passive and active revenue streams in Null sec that will be available to them in Dominion. Some of them are newer folk, many of them are people that have become dispossed from one 0.0 entity or another and are meerly looking for a way to get their foot back in the door (or perhaps a little payback). Now whether the current inhabitants will (or can) do anything to stop them is another story entirely. That addresses rather directly the second major point to Dominion, enabling the newly created fissures in 0.0 sov to be filled by smaller entities. I have seen a lot of exaggeration in this thread, and a lot of posturing, but the numbers don't lie. The simple fact of the matter is if the current 0.0 entities can't figure out how many systems they can actually utilize, and redefine thier borders and internal layout accordingly, there are plenty of people who can... and will. A whole lot of words to say "i really dont get it". As long as level 4 income is on par or above 0.0 empire, most money will be made there, and most people will not try to go out and live there. Even if space opens up they wont bother. They aren't going to get shot at in order to grind for weeks to get back to making level 4 income. And besides all it takes is a hostile and now you are making level 0 income. System cons Your upgrades can be wiped clean in days currently. 1 hostile can still ruin your income. You will still lose ships Logistics is still hard, and will be harder Your items will still cost more to obtain Your personal income will still be lower than a mission runner You will be taxed more You have less access to large markets You are paying significant chunks of cash to maintain space You have less realistic chance to fly rare ships, many empire players like flying expensive stuff, cant do that without being suicidal in 0.0 System Pros You can make level 4 income maybe sometimes Sign me the hell up bro empire sucks compared to that ****.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.17 21:41:00 - [3458] Originally by: Vadinho theyre taking money out of nullsec while increasing the cost to live there thats the problem that the entire problem 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.
Vadinho GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.17 21:49:00 - [3459] 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
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.17 21:53:00 - [3460] Edited by: Future Mutant on 17/11/2009 21:53:36 Originally by: Vadinho 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 Confirming ccp should shovel you isk because otherwise theres nothing to fight for Borders? WTF do i care about borders? IMA PIWAT YAARRR *****ES Edit to say- goons confirmed the situation is fine- nothing to see here, move along sir.

Infinion Caldari Endless Destruction BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.11.17 21:53:00 - [3461] I have a reasonable question to whomever knows the answer: On the test server I noticed that the sovereignty information in wormhole space says "Unclaimed". Will system infrastructure extend to wormhole null sec space, allowing us to anchor FLAGs or is this an intended effect just to emphasize wormhole space as unknown and uncharted?
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.17 21:54:00 - [3462] You win Pointfive, you managed to say "I don't get it" in far fewer words than I did. You are again making the mistaken assumption that all Empire dwellers make their isk by farming level 4 missions. This is a fallacy and you know it, even if you (and others in this thread) don't want to admit it. Whether you want to believe it or not, many people in Empire are looking at the same numbers I have put in that post. Then they are looking at the points you have made (over half of which are completely inaccurate by the way. Then they decide "what the hell, it's a game I'm going to take my shot", along with "if the idiots currently in 0.0 can't figure out how to make a profit in that environment, then by all means let them make an exodus back into Empire". You should probably start thinking on your own more, and quit mouthing the popular memes the major entities are spouting. They do indeed seem to be trying very hard to convince anyone who will listen that money just can't be made out there in loney old 0.0. Been there, done that. It's not that hard gentlemen, and the fact is the numbers show after Dominion it will get even easier for the average Joe to put isk in his pocket in 0.0 then it ever has been before. Doesn't really matter what you think though, my final point stands. If current 0.0 entities can't figure out how to manage their space and make it profitable there are a very, very large number of people who can (and will) be quite happy to take their place. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:07:00 - [3463] Quote: the reason we can part with hundreds of capitals and billions of isk in the blink of an eye is because of r64s (the only worthwhile thing in nullsec) which are getting nerfed past the point of worthwhile profit Past the point of worthwhile profit... really. Could you point to your source on that information. All the rest of us have heard is that they were being devalued to more reasonable levels, and that other moons (which your alliance will also likely own) will be buffed to level the playing field. You say they are taking the money out of null sec while increasing the cost to live there... thats the problem, thats the entire problem. Hmmmmm. Well which is it. When it benefits you, the Goons are very fond of bragging about the ridiculous amount of excess isk they make from their territory. Now suddenly they are too poor to take a hit of any type to their income, too poor to pay for system sov and upgrades (which easily pay for themselves if you have an active alliance membership)? Please. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
SpeakerForTheDad Amarr Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:19:00 - [3464] Originally by: Pointfive 1 hostile can still ruin your income. I have seen this reference several times, but I have not found the explanation of the game mechanism that allows for the presence of a single hostile in a system to ruin the income. How does that work? Speaker The Dad Abides
molec res	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:23:00 - [3465] Edited by: molec res on 17/11/2009 22:23:36 .
Cearain	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:25:00 - [3466] Originally by: Vadinho Originally by: Cearain I'm not sure what you mean by balance here. Anyone can get their sec status high enough to run level 4 high sec missions. Its not an ôimbalanceö against any type of character or faction. If you think running level 4 missions is so great then get a jump clone in high sec and go to it. DonÆt be bothered with the paltry sums you can make in null sec. why fight over and pay for space in null sec if you can make more money risk-free cost-free running level 4 missions <--this is the crux of the entire problem have you been paying attention at all Quote: Is trading unbalanced because people make billions per hour trading with little risk? Does trading need to be nerfed? its just as easy to lose your shirt trading as it is to strike it rich so thats not a big deal Quote: It seems that the only thing we hear about in null sec is this or that capital ship battle where ungodly amounts of isk are blown up. If there is that much isk that can be lost at the blink of an eye then the current mechanics of isk making in null sec would seem to be a good deal better than many in this thread would have us believe. If big alliances in null sec did have to earn isk by running level 4 missions, like just about everyone else in eve, then maybe null sec would be more fun. the reason we can part with hundreds of capitals and billions of isk in the blink of an eye is because of r64s (the only worthwhile thing in nullsec) which are getting nerfed past the point of worthwhile profit theyre taking money out of nullsec while increasing the cost to live there thats the problem that the entire problem Well if level 4 missions are so great, then go run them. Get a jump clone and go to it. Nothing says that just because you are in big alliance you can not run level 4 missions. This crying about level 4 missions is ridiculous. Just about anyone can do them in eve so if its so great then by all means take advantage of the situation! Its funny that you act almost insulted by the suggestion that you should have to earn isk the same way everyone else in the game does. Few go into null sec. I think we agree. Why? Because it sucks. Why does it suck? It sucks because the big alliances there have way too much money and resources to crush anything that even thinks twice about it. If r64s get nerfed and big alliances canÆt make insanely large fleets of titans IÆm not gonna start crying. If some group is going to try to take over a new part of null sec where are they going to get the resources? Well they will need to get them in high sec or low sec. Therefore if anyone is ever going to have a shot at dislodging the current alliances the amount of money that can be made in null sec canÆt be that much larger than what can be made in high and low sec. If we continue to make it so alliances holding territory in null sec make vastly more money than anyone else can possibly make in the game, then we will continue with the same lame situation. Running level 4 missions is likely the best money that can be made in high and low sec. Therefore it would seem an appropriate ceiling to put on what null sec holders should be making. Allow null sec holders to make allot more and you will just have more of the same lame gridlock. Oh and no itÆs not as easy to lose your shirt trading as it is to make money. Not if you can count.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:29:00 - [3467] Originally by: SpeakerForTheDad Originally by: Pointfive 1 hostile can still ruin your income. I have seen this reference several times, but I have not found the explanation of the game mechanism that allows for the presence of a single hostile in a system to ruin the income. How does that work? Apparently some alliances have a rule that when engaged in any non-PVP activity you are forbidden to be in a gang, and that you must perform said PVE activity in a ship that is easily insta-ganked before your gangmates have a hope of responding. Now since isk making opportunities will be concentrated in their home systems you would think that they would relax this strict "no gang" philosopy as it would make it even easier to respond to a call for help within seconds. But no, apparently that would only serve to draw more targets for the lone cloaker to gank at his leisure. Kinda makes you wonder how they keep their space doesn't it. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:37:00 - [3468] Edited by: Shawna Gray on 17/11/2009 22:39:47 Originally by: Ranger 1 Doesn't really matter what you think though, my final point stands. If current 0.0 entities can't figure out how to manage their space and make it profitable there are a very, very large number of people who can (and will) be quite happy to take their place. If that was true they would be there already. Originally by: Cearain Well if level 4 missions are so great, then go run them. Get a jump clone and go to it. Nothing says that just because you are in big alliance you can not run level 4 missions. This crying about level 4 missions is ridiculous. Many already do. They have their missionrunner/inventor/trader in empire and their pvp char in 0.0. But the proclaimed purpose of this expansion was to give people a reason to move their isk grinding char to 0.0.
Cearain	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:40:00 - [3469] Originally by: Nobani Originally by: Cearain Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:34:33 Edited by: Nobani on 17/11/2009 19:33:15 Originally by: Cearain If the idea is to have more smaller alliances in null sec then the costs of upkeep for the second system should be more than the first. The cost of upkeep for the third system should be more than the cost of upkeep for the second etc. While a good idea in theory, this won't work in practice. In practice you would get "GoonSwarm -- Delve", "GoonSwarm -- Querious", or "GoonSwarm -- OK-FEM", "GoonSwarm B4H", depending on how harsh the multiple system penalties were. ... If the rules had some requirement that each of these different "goonswarm ____s" had to have different leadership then I think that would be fine. The large alliances would be broken up. There may have to be a rule about alt accounts but I think that would be doable as well. Sooner or later things will fall apart and the in fighting will start. Look what happened to purple. All the alliances would function as one alliance except where the game mechanics prevent it. I.e. shared messageboard, shared killboard, shared chat, etc. Actually, the only members of most of the alliances would be POS gunner alts and logistics pilots. I think making the game mechanics prevent it is a good start. They can of course share killboards and out of game stuff as much as they like. CCP shouldnÆt care about that. But in game the leadership of the different alliances should be lead by different people if they want the lower costs. If itÆs the same people then the costs of each system should go up.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:41:00 - [3470] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 17/11/2009 22:44:21 Originally by: Shawna Gray Originally by: Ranger 1 Doesn't really matter what you think though, my final point stands. If current 0.0 entities can't figure out how to manage their space and make it profitable there are a very, very large number of people who can (and will) be quite happy to take their place. If that was true they would be there already. Really? I could have sworn the main impedement to entities forging (or often as not re-forging) a foothold into 0.0 was that all territory was currently claimed by large alliances. I could also swear that pretty much everyone in this thread is either smiling or screaming over the fact that the current sov sprawl is unsustainable under Dominion. So yes, your sweeping generality completely misses the point. If you don't think people are already casting covetous eyes on various sections of 0.0, and that plans are not already in place to "liberate" certain area's, you are going to be in for a rude awakening in December. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.

Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:44:00 - [3471] Originally by: Cearain But in game the leadership of the different alliances should be lead by different people if they want the lower costs. If it’s the same people then the costs of each system should go up. You cant control that.
Cearain	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:50:00 - [3472] Originally by: Shawna Gray Edited by: Shawna Gray on 17/11/2009 22:39:47 Originally by: Ranger 1 Doesn't really matter what you think though, my final point stands. If current 0.0 entities can't figure out how to manage their space and make it profitable there are a very, very large number of people who can (and will) be quite happy to take their place. If that was true they would be there already. No they canÆt now because of the vast resources the null sec alliances have. If the disparity between their resources and those in high and low sec diminishes in dominion, then we will have that. Originally by: Shawna Gray Edited by: Shawna Gray on 17/11/2009 22:39:47 Originally by: Cearain Well if level 4 missions are so great, then go run them. Get a jump clone and go to it. Nothing says that just because you are in big alliance you can not run level 4 missions. This crying about level 4 missions is ridiculous. Many already do. They have their missionrunner/inventor/trader in empire and their pvp char in 0.0. But the proclaimed purpose of this expansion was to give people a reason to move their isk grinding char to 0.0. Well if that is the goal thatÆs fine, but a better goal would be to have more characters venture into null sec û not just the isk grinding ones. If you just want isk grinders in null sec then by all means make it more profitable than high and low sec. But if you want allot more pvpers and wars donÆt make null sec so crazy profitable in comparison to high and low sec.
Cearain	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:55:00 - [3473] Originally by: Shawna Gray Edited by: Shawna Gray on 17/11/2009 22:50:01 Originally by: Cearain But in game the leadership of the different alliances should be lead by different people if they want the lower costs. If itÆs the same people then the costs of each system should go up. You cant control that. CCP can try. Their trying to do this might be good for the game. They may not be able to stop real money trading either but they can try, and their trying to do that is good for the game.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.17 22:58:00 - [3474] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 17/11/2009 23:03:00 Originally by: Shawna Gray Edited by: Shawna Gray on 17/11/2009 22:50:01 Originally by: Cearain But in game the leadership of the different alliances should be lead by different people if they want the lower costs. If itÆs the same people then the costs of each system should go up. You cant control that. Originally by: Ranger 1 I could also swear that pretty much everyone in this thread is either smiling or screaming over the fact that the current sov sprawl is unsustainable under Dominion. You dont need sov to claim a system, and with the low value of the upgrades alliances will just not put down a sov marker but will control it anyway. There are only about 110 pages of posts explaining this in this thread. If they cant manage to get into 0.0 now they wont do it after dominion. I'm just going to put out some very simple numbers, you can make of it what you will. One fully upgraded anomaly is purported to bring in level 4 mission income, lets use 40mil per hour as a figure to work with. If your alliance membership can manage to keep 1 anomaly busy 23/7 that is a total of 644 hours in a 28 day (2 fortnights) period. If your corps charge a standard 10% tax (4 mil per hour) that one anomaly generates 2,576,000,000 isk in that 28 day period... in tax alone. The other 23,184,000,000 goes into the pockets of your alliance members. This is 1 anomaly out of the 10 generated by your upgrades. This does not include any naturally occuring anomalies. This does not include any escalations. This does not include any of the other 4 upgradeable income types. This does not include the normal income generating assets in the system (ratting, moons, Cap ship production, etc.). Oh yes, those upgrades are totally useless. Engage your brain and think for yourself, stop mouthing platitudes without actually looking at the numbers. And I will say this one more time, slowly. Keep telling yourself that 0.0 alliances have nothing to worry about... that if they keep saying 0.0 will be worthless then everyone will believe it and not start hammering at the cracks which will develop. You should find December very, very entertaining. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.17 23:04:00 - [3475] Originally by: Cearain No they can’t now because of the vast resources the null sec alliances have. If the disparity between their resources and those in high and low sec diminishes in dominion, then we will have that. Its not going to change much from the current system. Empire dwellers dont have a real reason to make vast alliances as they do everything solo or in small groups. And the "new alliances" will be mostly made up of the same old pvp'ers with 0.0 experience. Quote: Well if that is the goal that’s fine, but a better goal would be to have more characters venture into null sec – not just the isk grinding ones. If you just want isk grinders in null sec then by all means make it more profitable than high and low sec. But if you want allot more pvpers and wars don’t make null sec so crazy profitable in comparison to high and low sec. The pvp'ers that want to fight in a 0.0 environment are already there. The others prefer to live in empire or low sec where they dont have to join big fleets and can avoid bubbles or whatever. The purpose of bringing isk grinders to 0.0 is to get people to actually LIVE there. Not just keep it as a pvp battleground where you fight over r64's like it is now.
Shawna Gray Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.17 23:12:00 - [3476] Originally by: Ranger 1 I'm just going to put out some very simple numbers, you can make of it what you will. bla bla bla Sorry but thats completely irrelevant as long as i can keep my isk making char in empire and make more and give the same tax to my corp(while avoiding the costs). Looking at it in a purely selfish manner i can keep my isk generating char out of my main corp and make even more isk for my own benefit. I can even do so while on pvp ops because i can be afk in empire and not worry about my ship exploding. Thats a huge boost especially if you got limited playtime. If i keep my isk making char in empire my alliance can use more isk to make a bigger capfleet instead of paying for upgrades so i can make less isk with my isk generating char.
ep1k Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.17 23:14:00 - [3477] Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 17/11/2009 23:03:00 Originally by: Shawna Gray Edited by: Shawna Gray on 17/11/2009 22:50:01 Originally by: Cearain But in game the leadership of the different alliances should be lead by different people if they want the lower costs. If itÆs the same people then the costs of each system should go up. You cant control that. Originally by: Ranger 1 I could also swear that pretty much everyone in this thread is either smiling or screaming over the fact that the current sov sprawl is unsustainable under Dominion. You dont need sov to claim a system, and with the low value of the upgrades alliances will just not put down a sov marker but will control it anyway. There are only about 110 pages of posts explaining this in this thread. If they cant manage to get into 0.0 now they wont do it after dominion. I'm just going to put out some very simple numbers, you can make of it what you will. One fully upgraded anomaly is purported to bring in level 4 mission income, lets use 40mil per hour as a figure to work with. If your alliance membership can manage to keep 1 anomaly busy 23/7 that is a total of 644 hours in a 28 day (2 fortnights) period. If your corps charge a standard 10% tax (4 mil per hour) that one anomaly generates 2,576,000,000 isk in that 28 day period... in tax alone. The other 23,184,000,000 goes into the pockets of your alliance members. This is 1 anomaly out of the 10 generated by your upgrades. This does not include any naturally occuring anomalies. This does not include any escalations. This does not include any of the other 4 upgradeable income types. This does not include the normal income generating assets in the system (ratting, moons, Cap ship production, etc.). Oh yes, those upgrades are totally useless. Engage your brain and think for yourself, stop mouthing platitudes without actually looking at the numbers. And I will say this one more time, slowly. Keep telling yourself that 0.0 alliances have nothing to worry about... that if they keep saying 0.0 will be worthless then everyone will believe it and not start hammering at the cracks which will develop. You should find December very, very entertaining. Cost is not the issue large alliances will control all the space they want whether or not they claim sov or not. You seem to have a fantasy where all these smalls guys will finally be able to make out it out to 0.0 and challenge the big guys. They could do that now if they wanted, and they do not. Its all about motivation, having a reason to live in the space. Level four income is not a good reason. No small corps are going to come out and try to fight, take loses and get attacked daily just they can earn level 4 income. Thats pretty silly. Explain to me why they will be coming out to nullsec to fight? What does this expansion offer them they didnt have before.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.17 23:23:00 - [3478] CCP, it should be telling you a lot when the people coming out in unanimous support of this are trolls and mission runners who seem to be bitter and/or ecstatic that the marginalization of 0.0 is possibly going to make their risk-free internet spaceship money worth more so fewer new-ish players will be less able to afford things like CNRs and Golems.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.17 23:41:00 - [3479] Quote: This illustrates so many of the points ive tried to make. Eve is a game- pvp if you want, pve if you want- dont expect to be handed isk. You are not special just because you pvp You are trying to illustrate points, inside a deep sea suit you are gesticulating to people on Mars about what space is meant to be dealt with. In the mean time, anyone with an IQ above a squirrel can see how an expansion meant to move people to 0.0 is redundant if all it creates are these nice "if you don't like 0.0 go to mission in empire". Point is, the 0.0. are already farming L4s in empire, they are already jump cloning, they are already doing what is illustrated as "if you don't like it do that". So WTF is going to change in the end? Nothing? So WTF is this patch about? Only about introducing some hugenormous block to freight for 60 jumps in 0.0 to claim a sov that is not needed? - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Aram Yong Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.17 23:49:00 - [3480] Interesting points on all sides. Still not sure what to make of it. Will have to see how the patch goes.

Kalexander	Posted - 2009.11.17 23:51:00 - [3481] It's really not just a matter of money either, because if fresh fish can make enough money to account for the risks over level 4's, then the big fish in the sea are going to be able to pump so much isk into the game that the economy is liable to crash. What new alliances need to have a chance at is very simply survival... They have to be able to take and hold a system in a reasonable way despite the odds being astronomically stacked against them, OR, the bigger fish need to see an incentive to letting the little guy stay because it benefits them in X, Y, or Z ways. And why in gods name doesn't the cost of holding systems SCALE UP with how ever many you hold? isn't that one of the major points of this whole thing was to diminish the ability to hold mass area's of unused space? Force those big alliances to see an advantage in splitting up in order to hold what they currently have, thats right! It makes for much more interesting drama's that way when fragmented groups slowly begin to develop their own corp cultures and you will inevitably have people turning against one another etc.
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.18 00:07:00 - [3482] Originally by: ep1k What does this expansion offer them they didnt have before. A chance to kill you. never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
Sigras	Posted - 2009.11.18 00:14:00 - [3483] I think the answer this whole massive whine thread was summed up by one of my ex-alliance mates the best. If the large alliances truly thought that level 4's were so much more profitable and easier to run they'd be running them! They just want more meat shields/targets in their 0.0 space so they whine about how unprofitable 0.0 is. Honestly if anyone from -a- Goons or anyone else i see on the big map wants to trade me their place in 0.0 for mine in Auvergene just eve mail me. I'll even throw in my list of salvage thieves and my Paladin (though i bet you could just buy one yourself) Also has anyone actually run the numbers for sov lately? for a fully loaded system IE one with a cyno jammer and jump bridge it costs 43.5 million isk a day. That means if the system has 5 active people in it at any given time they only need to give the corp 8.7 million a day to keep the system going. and if you cant have 5 people in the system at any given time do you really need that system? TL;DR If level 4's are so profitable, shut the heck up and go run them Sov is not that expensive if you use the system correctly.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.18 00:40:00 - [3484] Quote: If the large alliances truly thought that level 4's were so much more profitable and easier to run they'd be running them! They run them. Now, while I am new-ish to the game so I am not bothered yet, I know corp mates that along with many others are asking to change the fact they have to run L4s in empire. Because you are just stating that you want the status quo, that is everything stays as of today and everyone has to have 2 accounts to farm L4 in hi sec. Why, if EvE is a sandbox game, someone has to be forced a path? Actually EvE is worse than WoW in this. In WoW once you are done with the tutorials, you are thrown in increasingly hostile territory like in most other games. In EvE, once you are done with the tutorial you... stay in the starting territory and get the best deals with the least downsides. Everyone even 0.0 players (ie not the directors that can milk the moons and this cannot change in Dominion (no change in the privileges system afaik)) have to be forced and farm L4s. This is a false sandbox. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read* http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.18 00:43:00 - [3485] Edited by: Future Mutant on 18/11/2009 00:43:58 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: If the large alliances truly thought that level 4's were so much more profitable and easier to run they'd be running them! They run them. Now, while I am new-ish to the game so I am not bothered yet, I know corp mates that along with many others are asking to change the fact they have to run L4s in empire. Because you are just stating that you want the status quo, that is everything stays as of today and everyone has to have 2 accounts to farm L4 in hi sec. Why, if EvE is a sandbox game, someone has to be forced a path? Actually EvE is worse than WoW in this. In WoW once you are done with the tutorials, you are thrown in increasingly hostile territory like in most other games. In EvE, once you are done with the tutorial you... stay in the starting territory and get the best deals with the least downsides. Everyone even 0.0 players (ie not the directors that can milk the moons *and this cannot change in Dominion (no change in the privileges system afaik)) have to be forced and farm L4s. This is a false sandbox. MY GOD HES RIGHT! About hi sec- About low sec! Even the stuff that made no sense! HES RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING! CCP SHOULD GIVE ME ISKS BECAUSE OF SANDBOX- IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.18 00:46:00 - [3486] Originally by: Kalexander It's really not just a matter of money either, because if fresh fish can make enough money to account for the risks over level 4's, then the big fish in the sea are going to be able to pump so much isk into the game that the economy is liable to crash. Yes, except that the lifetime L4 runner with billions pretty much lets it stagnate on the whole. They buy a CNR, fit it with faction, deadspace, and/or officer gear and do nothing but hoard until you get the spark that it might be nice to use your giant pile of isk to annoy others. Some go blinged-out lowsec ganking route with T3 cruisers, carriers, etc - but on the whole most of them still never really lose significant amounts of isk. The only time they're ever put in a position where they can lose a massive chunk is when they find themselves on the other end of a suicide BS gang or don't escape in time to be ambushed when pirating. The thought of the average 0.0 schmo earning on the same pale as them threatens the worth of their money, so they go nuts whenever someone suggests that someone else should make more than them, risk be damned from the equation. That's why some in this thread are busy trying to paint 0.0 denizens as spoiled. So it becomes a case of trying to equate alliance wealth with the average 0.0 alliance member, by trying to sell falsitudes like "they get free ships" when the most you ever get is subsidies for loss when you use a regimented fit which aren't meant to reward the person flying them but rather give them incentive to show up and risk the marginal loss in isk and larger cost in earning time to become engaged in a protracted conflict.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.18 00:51:00 - [3487] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 18/11/2009 00:46:40 Originally by: Kalexander It's really not just a matter of money either, because if fresh fish can make enough money to account for the risks over level 4's, then the big fish in the sea are going to be able to pump so much isk into the game that the economy is liable to crash. Yes, except that the lifetime L4 runner with billions pretty much lets it stagnate on the whole. They buy a CNR, fit it with faction, deadspace, and/or officer gear and do nothing but hoard until they get the spark that it might be fun to use their giant pile of isk to annoy others. Some go blinged-out lowsec ganking route with T3 cruisers, carriers, etc - but on the whole most of them still never really lose significant amounts of isk. The only time they're ever put in a position where they can lose a massive chunk is when they find themselves on the other end of a suicide BS gang or don't escape in time to be ambushed when pirating. The thought of the average 0.0 schmo earning on the same pale as them threatens the worth of their money, so they go nuts whenever someone suggests that someone else should make more than them, risk be damned from the equation. That's why some in this thread are busy trying to paint 0.0 denizens as spoiled. So it becomes a case of trying to equate alliance wealth with the average 0.0 alliance member, by trying to sell falsitudes like "they get free ships" when the most you ever get is subsidies for loss when you use a regimented fit which aren't meant to reward the person flying them but rather give them incentive to show up and risk the marginal loss in isk and larger cost in earning time to become engaged in a protracted conflict. Im not just saying your spoiled- though we both know moon gold does now and will after dominion bring in billions per month. Im saying your lazy. You want as much isk as me- work as hard as me. Get off your ass you lazy hippies
Pointfive	Posted - 2009.11.18 00:57:00 - [3488] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 18/11/2009 00:46:40 Originally by: Kalexander It's really not just a matter of money either, because if fresh fish can make enough money to account for the risks over level 4's, then the big fish in the sea are going to be able to pump so much isk into the game that the economy is liable to crash. Yes, except that the lifetime L4 runner with billions pretty much lets it stagnate on the whole. They buy a CNR, fit it with faction, deadspace, and/or officer gear and do nothing but hoard until they get the spark that it might be fun to use their giant pile of isk to annoy others. Some go blinged-out lowsec ganking route with T3 cruisers, carriers, etc - but on the whole most of them still never really lose significant amounts of isk. The only time they're ever put in a position where they can lose a massive chunk is when they find themselves on the other end of a suicide BS gang or don't escape in time to be ambushed when pirating. The thought of the average 0.0 schmo earning on the same pale as them threatens the worth of their money, so they go nuts whenever someone suggests that someone else should make more than them, risk be damned from the equation. That's why some in this thread are busy trying to paint 0.0 denizens as spoiled. So it becomes a case of trying to equate alliance wealth with the average 0.0 alliance member, by trying to sell falsitudes like "they get free ships" when the most you ever get is subsidies for loss when you use a regimented fit which aren't meant to reward the person flying them but rather give them incentive to show up and risk the marginal loss in isk and larger cost in earning time to become engaged in a protracted conflict. Im not just saying your spoiled- though we both know moon gold does now and will after dominion bring in billions per month. Im saying your lazy. You want as much isk as me- work as hard as me. Get off your ass you lazy hippies Leve 4 missions are the hand out and you know it. Afking to earn better isk than the people actually risking themselves is a hand out. You are crying people are asking to get rewarded for their work. So you sti here crying, because your safe little magic risk free isk bubble is being questioned. Get a grip future mutant, present idiot. I am in a large alliance and you knwo how much magic moon isk money ive seen this month? 15 million for a ship loss in one of the few ops that was covered. I still lost 20 million dollars from the ship loss. Yes a ship loss, those happen outside of empire.
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.18 01:06:00 - [3489] I wish I had a private dyspro moon. Cept my alliance takes them all. Shame.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.18 01:11:00 - [3490] Quote: You want as much isk as me- work as hard as me. Get off your ass you lazy hippies Since you don't seem to shine in comprehension: we are already farming L4s. So you can put your "work as hard as me" where the sun does not shine. Plus if you call farming L4 "work", then you don't want to ever put your nose out of your house. Once again in your failmassive mindset, you just don't get that what you say is already here and done. And then, what's the point of an expansion just changing zero? A nice colored .JPG? - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz

Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.18 01:55:00 - [3491] Edited by: Future Mutant on 18/11/2009 01:54:58 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: You want as much isk as me- work as hard as me. Get off your ass you lazy hippies Since you don't seem to shine in comprehension: we are already farming L4s. So you can put your "work as hard as me" where the sun does not shine. Plus if you call farming L4 "work", then you don't want to ever put your nose out of your house. Once again in your failmassive mindset, you just don't get that what you say is already here and done. And then, what's the point of an expansion just changing zero? A nice colored .JPG? BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH im a lazy hippy give me isks or ill quit and my 43 thousand friends will also unsubscribe because we dont see the point if we dont get free isks WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Cearain	Posted - 2009.11.18 03:27:00 - [3492] Originally by: Shawna Gray Edited by: Shawna Gray on 17/11/2009 23:05:55 Originally by: Cearain The pvp'ers that want to fight in a 0.0 environment are already there. The others prefer to live in empire or low sec where they dont have to join big fleets and can avoid bubbles or whatever. The purpose of bringing isk grinders to 0.0 is to get people to actually LIVE there. Not just keep it as a pvp battleground where you fight over r64's like it is now. There are allot of pvpers who would like to go into null sec and fight in large fleets but are not interested in facing/joining ridiculously large capital fleets. If null sec wasnÆt the source of infinite resources for those in it there wouldnÆt be these massive capital fleets and more would come. Right now the gap between what large null sec alliances can make and what others in the game can make is huge. If that gap were narrowed then we wouldnÆt have these large cap fleets. I agree that null sec has to have something worth fighting for. That is the problem with FW û it doesnÆt provide anything worth fighting for so people often just run unless there is an easy gank which is no fun. I donÆt really care if people like having these large capital fleet gangs. ThatÆs fine with me. But I and many others would also like a format in eve to fight in regular ships for something. Something worth forcing a fight. Null sec is a possible route but if the rewards for it are so huge it will immediately ramp up to capital ships, then no thanks. Perhaps wormholes will be another route. I donÆt know but IÆm sure there are others who would like to fight in regular ships for something worth fighting for. If null sec continues to be an infinite gold mine that can kick out capital ships like frigates IÆm not sure how those players will ever get their wishes.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.18 05:10:00 - [3493] Originally by: Cearain Originally by: Gramtar Since we've gone almost two weeks without answers to our basic concerns (risk vs reward out of balance between lev 4 mission running in highsec and comparable pve activities aka ratting in 0.0), I'm not sure what you mean by balance here. Anyone can get their sec status high enough to run level 4 high sec missions. Its not an ôimbalanceö against any type of character or faction. If you think running level 4 missions is so great then get a jump clone in high sec and go to it. DonÆt be bothered with the paltry sums you can make in null sec. Is trading unbalanced because people make billions per hour trading with little risk? Does trading need to be nerfed? It seems that the only thing we hear about in null sec is this or that capital ship battle where ungodly amounts of isk are blown up. If there is that much isk that can be lost at the blink of an eye then the current mechanics of isk making in null sec would seem to be a good deal better than many in this thread would have us believe. If big alliances in null sec did have to earn isk by running level 4 missions, like just about everyone else in eve, then maybe null sec would be more fun. [/b] Most money spent in 0.0 IS earnt in high sec. It's much easier to earn money there which currently is then spent in 0.0 for fun.
torN Deception GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.18 05:28:00 - [3494] The long and short of it is that the only way to really incentivize 0.0 is to either significantly nerf L4 empire income, which CCP isn't bold enough to do, or to significantly increase 0.0 income, which CCP isn't willing to do. If CCP were serious about really changing things, these new upgrades would do things like double rat bounties, or spawn special +50% ore varieties. As it is, they don't seem to even come close, but it's hard to be very precise when CCP seems dead-set against letting anyone do any actual testing on the test server.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.18 05:29:00 - [3495] Edited by: Future Mutant on 18/11/2009 05:29:44 Originally by: Pointfive Leve 4 missions are the hand out and you know it. Afking to earn better isk than the people actually risking themselves is a hand out. You are crying people are asking to get rewarded for their work. So you sti here crying, because your safe little magic risk free isk bubble is being questioned. Get a grip future mutant, present idiot. I am in a large alliance and you knwo how much magic moon isk money ive seen this month? 15 million for a ship loss in one of the few ops that was covered. I still lost 20 million dollars from the ship loss. Yes a ship loss, those happen outside of empire. CHECK IT OUT! BOB called me an idiot! No its cool- not like my alliance was disbanded because i didnt know basic game mechanics or anything You rich null sec corps want nothing to do with empire dwellers. The only use you see is to shoot at them. If you actually TRIED TO RECRUIT you would see that the taxes they bring in pays for your upgrades. As for the moon goo income not being used to fund your pvp- what can i say- your alliance sucks. Hows it feel to be a meatshield for no pay?
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.18 05:33:00 - [3496] The only money I earn in high-sec is from datacores.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.18 06:17:00 - [3497] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 18/11/2009 06:21:48 It is true, some people are perfectly content to farm level 4's in high sec, and no amount of incentive or opportunity will make them leave. This is fine. It is also true that many people in 0.0 currently earn their income with alts in Empire farming those self same level 4's. Both because it is easier than to find a secluded system in 0.0 to earn their isk in, and because they have the opportunity to log in to their 0.0 character whenever they wish. This is also fine. However... If a 0.0 native can earn the same income without leaving his home system the incentive to split hims time between Empire and 0.0 is significantly lessened. Especially since in doing so he actually helps his alliance mates maintain the upgrades that concentrate that wealth literally at their fingertips. If 0.0 entities begin to concentrate in their more profitable core Sov systems, and withdraw their Sov and a fair amount of their physical presence (due again to wealth being concentrated in their core systems) from outlying areas, this opens up opportunity. This "concentration of population" effect is simply human nature. The large number of Empire folk who do not wish to do level 4's for eternity (or currently earn their money by other, often more social means) will do their best to fill the void, and smart 0.0 entities will take full advantage of the treaty system which will be released shortly after Dominion to harness that manpower to develop those abandoned systems and provide yet another revenue stream. Believe it or not, most Empire folk (aside from mission runners) do consider null sec to be more profitable and challenging than high sec. The equally large number of more aggressive folk who have become displaced from 0.0 due to the fortunes of war, or disgust with the current stagnant political climate there, will be drawn to those area's for different reasons. Financial infrastructures will indeed be both more concentrated and more vulnerable to disruption from smaller entities. There will be many attempts made. Many will be crushed, some will succeed. Either way, the 0.0 landscape is going to start changing. The Time line: First the map will change, probably dramatically, as people make hard choices on which systems they can afford to hold Sov on. The population will not change as much at that time as power is projected without Sov, out of habit if nothing else. Attempts will be made to fill in the gaps on the map, but all but the most organized (read former 0.0 entities) will be repulsed. Then Sov will begin to mature in key area's, and the population will begin to shift towards those area's as they become more lucrative. Some area's will become abandoned by current residents, others will again try to fill the void. This time a few more will succeed, mostly the more aggressive groups. Then Treaties will be introduced. Intelligent entities will recognize the potential revenue they represent. Revenue generated from area's that have become useless to them. More new population will arrive, either content with exploring 0.0 for the first time or ecstatic at having a base of operations to vent old grudges from. Some will die of natural causes, some will be assassinated, some will thrive. Eventually those new residents will develop those area's, and their own populations, to the point of being considered full fledged residents of 0.0... and the space itself will be able to sustain much higher levels of population than it currently does. Then planetary interaction will be introduced, providing yet another revenue stream for the individual, followed by DUST which will provide yet another level of conflict, so on and so forth. This is what the whole system is designed to accomplish. Change is coming whether you like it or not. I rather hate the over used phrase "adapt or die", but in this case it is highly accurate. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.18 11:43:00 - [3498] Quote: If null sec wasnÆt the source of infinite resources for those in it there wouldnÆt be these massive capital fleets and more would come. Right now the gap between what large null sec alliances can make and what others in the game can make is huge. If that gap were narrowed then we wouldnÆt have these large cap fleets. Do you believe the day past Dominion's release this will happen? Or 1 year after it? One of the things this patch does not manage, is the current situation. We are not starting some patch on SiSi, but on a server where the huge alliances are here to stay (regardless of colored dots or lack thereof on a map). Moreover between the years long mongoo dupe exploit and the accrued money in years and years, it won't take a short time to suck those alliances coffers dry, expecially if the scenario steps down off the expensive huge feet battles and will consists more of "cheap" smaller ships. - Those who farmed titans won't magically lose them. Your new 0.0 alliance will still be farmed exactly like today. - Those who took foothold of the few worthwhile areas won't magincally lose them. - You actually have two enemies: these older alliances with their huge reserves and a meager new system where YOU get drained of YOUR vital money in ISK sinks, not them. Because GS, Atlas etc. won't flinch for some billions, YOU will do. Because GS, Atlas etc. will happily freight those > 120k m3 new 0.0 items protected with their fleet of 500, YOU will not. Also, in addition to the above: Quote: I donÆt know but IÆm sure there are others who would like to fight in regular ships for something worth fighting for. If null sec continues to be an infinite gold mine that can kick out capital ships like frigates IÆm not sure how those players will ever get their wishes. You won't fight in regular ships in 0.0, period. You can't go in with a frig or cruiser and expect to have a sparring, because all you'll get is to be bubbled and owned till you quit. You might be lucky some times, expecially in NPC 0.0, but that's where it ends. Moreover those "infinite gold mines" you talk about don't even get in the alliance pilots. The best you can hope for is a corp / alliance insurance where FIRST you buy stuff from them (including dreads, carriers...) and THEN, if you lose it with a series of restrictions (ie being in corp fleet, with precise corp fitting and rigs), you will be partially refunded. Now, we could do this insurance without even being in 0.0, so 0.0 is not the source. Guess where all that infinite gold came from? From farming hi sec and low sec L4s, not from the moons we didn't have. Quote: You rich null sec corps want nothing to do with empire dwellers. The only use you see is to shoot at them. If you actually TRIED TO RECRUIT you would see that the taxes they bring in pays for your upgrades. False. You can easily come and join our corp with Cynosural Field Theory trained to level 1 and a frigate, recruitment is permanently open. http://dark-rising.co.uk/Dark/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8 Will you do it? No, because then you'll have actually to put your money where the mouth is. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.18 11:53:00 - [3499] Quote: If a 0.0 native can earn the same income without leaving his home system the incentive to split hims time between Empire and 0.0 is significantly lessened. What's wrong at having lessened time spent in hi sec? 0.0 is another dimension, including agents (in NPC 0.0) having you mission against the Empire. EvE should be about choices, not about having 2 accounts, 1 stuck in hi sec. Quote: Believe it or not, most Empire folk (aside from mission runners) do consider null sec to be more profitable and challenging than high sec. Then if it's so godly why aren't them going to null sec? I first went there in a 10 men corp, so what's their excuse not to? Quote: Then Treaties will be introduced. Intelligent entities will recognize the potential revenue they represent. Revenue generated from area's that have become useless to them. This assumes the intelligent entities can cope without Sov protection and could give land behind their protection choke points to potential disruption corps. This also assume that someone will bother going there so that those intelligent entities can impose them a treaty. Now, I don't see a reason to go in that "useless" space as you call it to be further taxed. Not when a WH will give at least as good minerals as an expanded 0.0 system, much more protection, no displacement gates, POS innate protection and much more. Quote: Change is coming whether you like it or not. I rather hate the over used phrase "adapt or die", but in this case it is highly accurate. Only thing: those who will die are probably those this expansion was aimed to be for. I don't see Goons or AAA going down. They have the easiest life at adapting, they can selectively downsize leaving out the discards systems. The new guys instead, have to start from zero and don't get first dibs at the good systems. They are supposed to somehow grab lands from current owners and live in complete utter garbage space until they upgrade it, aka be in the worst adverse situation. Of course the former holders will just watch these newcomers improve their system 1 jump away (in case the newcomers are so stupid not to see the inevitable outcome that is) and NEVER do anything, right? - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
SeerinDarkness Minmatar An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.18 12:24:00 - [3500] Realisticly,for eve that is,this is possably the worst thought out patch/expansion i have ever seen produced for EVE. Personally i am reminded of the scrap dealer on tatooiene "What you alliance think your some kind of Jedi waving your economics around like that..mind triks dont work on CCP onnnly money!". However i know perosnaly of at least half a dosen people who are letting multipal accounts lapse over this, so it seems certian that CCP is going to lose money right off the bat and just before the holidays too. Whether or not this is a long term decline is yet to be seen. Will CCP reconsider the path they have chosen, Maby. Will we stuck with a horriable piece of thinking that is 180deg from the designe brief, Likely. Does the Dev team really think they can get away with holding up NRDS as a shineing example of what they wish to accomplish and then kick it right in the teeth without repercussions, dam me if im going to allow that to go on by without commenting. I implore whoever is overseing the dev team to take some kind of action on this,because its apparent to me and just about every other major group that holds Sov currently , that the Dev team is only waving around their own e-peen their stick is bigger than ours with the new expansion. And that folkes is the Short of it after 117 pages is that the dev team only whished to experiment in chaos theroy to see what happens..nothing more nothing less. Seer

Mack Bane	Posted - 2009.11.18 12:54:00 - [3501] Nerfing lvl4, would not be very wise,because as many here said, 0.0 alliances also have missionrunners in Empire,to generate some additional income.If that is nerfed, they lose this as well.Plus, the Empire residents would run amok,and they still are the majority in this game (70%).If they ragequit,how will you get new targets/meatshields? I would like it, if the nullsec could get another income source, instead of nerfing, what is here already.
SeerinDarkness Minmatar An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.18 13:37:00 - [3502] Furthermore the dev team needs to look at and spend some serious thinking time on removing spammers from the game. The constant harrasment of trial accounts spamming adverts needs to be addressed. There nneeds to be some kind of method to address all this hacking of acounts that has been going on and many of these isk spammer sites need to be held accountable for their action in court period...and accounts that have been hacked need to hvae some kind of method for retrieving peoples accounts and chars that they have spent time and money on for Years! in many cases building up. like leave the local char list but remove the chat so it cannot be spammed. then the only way to be spammed would be by eve mail...also the 14 day free trial needs to be secured agianst ip ban evasion, or it just needs to end. All isk sellers ripping off eve and hacking accounts and their owners need to be slapped with huge lawsuits over lost revenue from the playerbase snad dragged thru the legal system period oog. Seer
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.18 13:42:00 - [3503] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha The new guys instead, have to start from zero and don't get first dibs at the good systems. They are supposed to somehow grab lands from current owners and live in complete utter garbage space until they upgrade it, aka be in the worst adverse situation. Of course the former holders will just watch these newcomers improve their system 1 jump away (in case the newcomers are so stupid not to see the inevitable outcome that is) and NEVER do anything, right? Isn't that the whole point of Dominion?
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.18 14:40:00 - [3504] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: If a 0.0 native can earn the same income without leaving his home system the incentive to split hims time between Empire and 0.0 is significantly lessened. What's wrong at having lessened time spent in hi sec? 0.0 is another dimension, including agents (in NPC 0.0) having you mission against the Empire. EvE should be about choices, not about having 2 accounts, 1 stuck in hi sec. Quote: Believe it or not, most Empire folk (aside from mission runners) do consider null sec to be more profitable and challenging than high sec. Then if it's so godly why aren't them going to null sec? I first went there in a 10 men corp, so what's their excuse not to? Quote: Then Treaties will be introduced. Intelligent entities will recognize the potential revenue they represent. Revenue generated from area's that have become useless to them. This assumes the intelligent entities can cope without Sov protection and could give land behind their protection choke points to potential disruption corps. This also assume that someone will bother going there so that those intelligent entities can impose them a treaty. Now, I don't see a reason to go in that "useless" space as you call it to be further taxed. Not when a WH will give at least as good minerals as an expanded 0.0 system, much more protection, no displacement gates, POS innate protection and much more. Quote: Change is coming whether you like it or not. I rather hate the over used phrase "adapt or die", but in this case it is highly accurate. Only thing: those who will die are probably those this expansion was aimed to be for. I don't see Goons or AAA going down. They have the easiest life at adapting, they can selectively downsize leaving out the discards systems. The new guys instead, have to start from zero and don't get first dibs at the good systems. They are supposed to somehow grab lands from current owners and live in complete utter garbage space until they upgrade it, aka be in the worst adverse situation. Of course the former holders will just watch these newcomers improve their system 1 jump away (in case the newcomers are so stupid not to see the inevitable outcome that is) and NEVER do anything, right? You give them books, and give them books, and all they do, is eat the pages. I won't point out the obvious flaws in your hasty reasoning, you should already know better considering who you are flying with now. Which, by the way, I notice that IT is positioning itself nicely to do exactly, precisely, what I have outlined above. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.18 16:01:00 - [3505] Quote: Which, by the way, I notice that IT is positioning itself nicely to do exactly, precisely, what I have outlined above. I don't know IT too much, but I know my corp and they are going to get something good regardless of what rules are implemented. They don't need incentives or anything, in fact the point of Dominion would be to entice those that do need incentives because as of now they did not budge off high sec. Quote: A: Crush them, because they can. B: Make a treaty with them C: Crush them, because they are better to. No one sane of mind are going to let stuff develop right outside of their territory. What I could see as possible is for the newcomers to be steamrolled till they convince the big guys nearby to adsorb them as pet and slap them somewhere nasty inside their territory. But this is a forced subservient role that while being possible, is not really so of a nice perspective for a corp / alliance willing to go in 0.0. What the expansion should have done, instead, would have been to make it possible for newcomers to effectively cut a little piece of universe for themselves, something like a WH mechanism but expanded to have harvestable moons plus the possibility to hold a "small sov". As of now, instead, I see many possible new pets and they won't have their own sov, but will have to be in someone else's sov, with no right of self determination. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Cearain	Posted - 2009.11.18 16:09:00 - [3506] Originally by: Aralis Most money spent in 0.0 IS earnt in high sec. It's much easier to earn money there which currently is then spent in 0.0 for fun. I think CVA is a different kettle of fish. When I see massive capital ship engagemnts I have to assume most of that isk that is being blown up is being made by some other means than running level 4 missions. I mean if they are just running level 4 missions and buying those cap ships like a high/low seccer would have to do, I will stand corrected. But if they are able to create those fleets due to the resources available in null sec then my point stands. Actually I think the CVA space is likely closer to what ccp wants the other spaces to look like. And is likely the space that would go to if I go null sec. I might be wrong but I would think providence is above average as far as being populated.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.18 16:29:00 - [3507] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 18/11/2009 16:33:34 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: Which, by the way, I notice that IT is positioning itself nicely to do exactly, precisely, what I have outlined above. I don't know IT too much, but I know my corp and they are going to get something good regardless of what rules are implemented. They don't need incentives or anything, in fact the point of Dominion would be to entice those that do need incentives because as of now they did not budge off high sec. Quote: A: Crush them, because they can. B: Make a treaty with them C: Crush them, because they are better to. No one sane of mind are going to let stuff develop right outside of their territory. What I could see as possible is for the newcomers to be steamrolled till they convince the big guys nearby to adsorb them as pet and slap them somewhere nasty inside their territory. But this is a forced subservient role that while being possible, is not really so of a nice perspective for a corp / alliance willing to go in 0.0. What the expansion should have done, instead, would have been to make it possible for newcomers to effectively cut a little piece of universe for themselves, something like a WH mechanism but expanded to have harvestable moons plus the possibility to hold a "small sov". As of now, instead, I see many possible new pets and they won't have their own sov, but will have to be in someone else's sov, with no right of self determination. This would be called "Cutting off ones nose to spite ones face". If an area of space is unsettled near a major 0.0 entity it will be because either A: The entity did not have the finances to claim SOV and develop that space. B: The entity did not have the manpower available or willing to spend time there to develop it to the point of profitability. If a suitable outside (probably smaller and of little threat) entity wants to move into that unused space, develop it out of their own pocket and pay rent along with possibly sharing the resources of the developed area (since they are perpetually renewing) with the main entity. The whole point of the arrangement is to make money off of the system(s) without having to devote isk/resources/manpower from "your" alliance. Why would you absorb these new folks into your alliance when you just want to use them as a revenue stream. They won't be forced to exist "in someone elses SOV" as you put it, the whole point is that "they" are paying for the SOV instead of you. You are meerly profiting from it (profit where there would be none before). Alliances that insist on doing things as they have always done will suffer. They may not die right away, but they will not flourish. Those that can leverage the new system will rapidly outstrip those that can't. I think you will find your alliance leadership has already recognized this. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Gevic	Posted - 2009.11.18 16:47:00 - [3508] Originally by: Ranger 1 This would be called "Cutting off ones nose to spite ones face". If an area of space is unsettled near a major 0.0 entity it will be because either A: The entity did not have the finances to claim SOV and develop that space. B: The entity did not have the manpower available or willing to spend time there to develop it to the point of profitability. If a suitable outside (probably smaller and of little threat) entity wants to move into that unused space, develop it out of their own pocket and pay rent along with possibly sharing the resources of the developed area (since they are perpetually renewing) with the main entity. The whole point of the arrangement is to make money off of the system(s) without having to devote isk/resources/manpower from "your" alliance. Why would you absorb these new folks into your alliance when you just want to use them as a revenue stream. They won't be forced to exist "in someone elses SOV" as you put it, the whole point is that "they" are paying for the SOV instead of you. You are meerly profiting from it (profit where there would be none before). Alliances that insist on doing things as they have always done will suffer. They may not die right away, but they will not flourish. Those that can leverage the new system will rapidly outstrip those that can't. I think you will find your alliance leadership has already recognized this. Congratulations you've discovered the concept of a buffer/pet alliance. I'm pretty sure a member of the former GBC are well aware of what they are and what they do. People already stated that this will most likely be the only possible fate of small group trying to enter Dominion, the very thing that a lot people thought it was trying to avoid.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.18 17:12:00 - [3509] It needs to also be said that alliance members MUST begin holding it's leadership accountable now for these costs. Nerf of moon goo or not, these top alliances and their leadership can no longer pocket or "skim" off the top. Listen people don't let your leadership attempt to make you guys pay for it all either. That moon goo profit is typically never seen muchless known to 99% of alliance membership. I know as I used to run them. Hold your leadership accountable for these upcoming sov changes and make them show you the numbers. Otherwise I gurantee you all will be paying for it all while the big dogs take advantage of you.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.18 18:09:00 - [3510] Quote: They won't be forced to exist "in someone elses SOV" as you put it, the whole point is that "they" are paying for the SOV instead of you. You are meerly profiting from it (profit where there would be none before). Yes, this is called "being a pet". That is the thing that SUCKS DONKEY NUTS (have been in a 0.0 pet corp before to know that). Since it sucks, it's impopular. The expansion was meant to change "impopular". Originally by: Gevic People already stated that this will most likely be the only possible fate of small group trying to enter Dominion, the very thing that a lot people thought it was trying to avoid. This - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz

Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.18 19:30:00 - [3511] Originally by: Ranger 1 A: The entity did not have the finances to claim SOV and develop that space. B: The entity did not have the manpower available or willing to spend time there to develop it to the point of profitability. C: Any bonuses for claiming sov aren't worth 6m/day, but the entity is still using that space.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.18 21:04:00 - [3512] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 18/11/2009 21:05:33 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: They won't be forced to exist "in someone elses SOV" as you put it, the whole point is that "they" are paying for the SOV instead of you. You are meerly profiting from it (profit where there would be none before). Yes, this is called "being a pet". That is the thing that SUCKS DONKEY NUTS (have been in a 0.0 pet corp before to know that). Since it sucks, it's impopular. The expansion was meant to change "impopular". Originally by: Gevic People already stated that this will most likely be the only possible fate of small group trying to enter Dominion, the very thing that a lot people thought it was trying to avoid. This Interesting that you think any kind of blue arrangement that involves money exchanging hands means a "master" "pet relationship. While that relationship will certainly exist post-Dominion, it certainly won't be the only one (in fact, its not the only one now). However, lets press on with the pet angle so as not to cause you any more confusion. Pets or not, this does indeed provide incentive to get more people into 0.0, which in fact actually "is" one of the main points to Dominion. Thank you for proving my point.... again.... Consider also that its not uncommon for the "pet" to eventually turn on the master. Sometimes it works, sometimes not, but it's always interesting. I find it amusing to be arguing this with an IT member. Your leadership already knows how they are going to use these mechanics to their advantage. Apparently they haven't clued you in yet. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.18 23:08:00 - [3513] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 18/11/2009 23:14:49 Quote: Pets or not, this does indeed provide incentive to get more people into 0.0, which in fact actually "is" one of the main points to Dominion. Thank you for proving my point.... again.... Yeah, pets or not it has indeed provided for so much incentive to get more people into 0.0. I almost wonder why of this expansion since the success of pets has been so awesome so far. Also, your > 9 standings vs Empire factions shows me you clue people about stuff but post on a mission character? - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.19 06:39:00 - [3514] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 18/11/2009 23:34:07 Quote: Pets or not, this does indeed provide incentive to get more people into 0.0, which in fact actually "is" one of the main points to Dominion. Thank you for proving my point.... again.... Yeah, pets or not it has indeed provided for so much incentive to get more people into 0.0. I almost wonder why of this expansion since the success of pets has been so awesome so far. Also, your > 9 standings vs Empire factions shows me you clue people about stuff but post on a hi sec mission character? Edit ie with risk to be ganked on whatever costly ship Actually, employing pets in 0.0 is a time honored tradition, and with raw manpower becoming ever more important I'm sure it can only increase and evolve in the future. If you knew your history, you'd also know that many former "pets" have matured into well recognized entities in their own right. As to the rest... Yes, this is my main. I haven't run missions for a living in over 5 years. I haven't needed to, nor have I had the the time. You should probably ask around before you are tempted to take a poke at my experience in large null sec organizations over the last 4 or 5 years, particularly in matters of leadership and organization. You would be better served pointing your browser to the new and more detailed thread on these issues. I think you will find it educational. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.19 08:30:00 - [3515] Quote: You should probably ask around before you are tempted to take a poke at my experience in large null sec organizations over the last 4 or 5 years, particularly in matters of leadership and organization. Uh, I don't question experience. You seem to have been on the "sov holder" side of the equation though, so of course you find pets good. On the other side, despite I am playing just since 2009 I have been resident in many places (including IA space, NPC 0.0 in 4 regions and others) and for multiple "blocks" and every time I or my alts have been there as pets: - defense was poor, roaming gankers had free reign despite previous arrangements with the holders - disputes between pets were basically let go, contested moons would be handed to the "most friend" of some sov holder officer and I can't exclude there were subterfuges and money exchanges. - pets were invariably (in every block, in every place) confined in the worst space (enter our neg truesec space and you'll get podded), no good rats spawns, far away off outposts and so on. But the money they asked for it, was good. Infinite, infinite quarrels for NPCs farming. And lets not get started about prepping the BS spawns because it's pure e-drama. So, excuse me if I am not overenthusiastic if I am not happily foaming at the mouth at the prospect of getting in Dominion: pets reloaded. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.19 23:49:00 - [3516] Keeping this at the top along with the awful new capital "changes."
Sapegu	Posted - 2009.11.20 14:06:00 - [3517] My acoorp, and alliance are having a bit of a problem with this: can SOV be taken in a system lower than 0.0?
Bilbo II Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.20 17:26:00 - [3518] Originally by: Sapegu My acoorp, and alliance are having a bit of a problem with this: can SOV be taken in a system lower than 0.0? If you mean higher than 0,0 such as .1, .2 etc... No
Reno Shinra	Posted - 2009.11.21 22:16:00 - [3519] Reading through the patch notes and ppl comments this patch is equivalent to the film 2012 - Basickly its dooms day. CCP will undo all the good things about eve and give us basickly africa - with no resources and limited way to expand again. small entities will stay small and large entities will grow smaller. eventually it will be the extinction of the eve comunity. and we can all go and play somthing else. Funny how in all the post i have read not one replay from ccp on this post.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.22 01:18:00 - [3520] Originally by: Reno Shinra Reading through the patch notes and ppl comments this patch is equivalent to the film 2012 - Basickly its dooms day. CCP will undo all the good things about eve and give us basickly africa - with no resources and limited way to expand again. small entities will stay small and large entities will grow smaller. eventually it will be the extinction of the eve comunity. and we can all go and play somthing else. Funny how in all the post i have read not one replay from ccp on this post. Lol confirming eve is now a third world country.. Lets not kid ourselves what dominion does. It nerfs a nullsec corps income by (possibly) nerfing the price of moon goo. This is a bit of an unknown- we do know the "demand" will decrease. It is a bit unknown if the price will decrease (though its a logical assumption) There are reasons why they want to nerf this (somewhat) passive income- i wont bother getting into them, just saying its happening. On the other hand, a null sec corps members can expect to make more isk per hour with active sources. The catch is if the corp has to upgrade their systems (or enough of them) Theres no doubt whatsoever that ccp has "buffed" active sources of individual incomes. Its up to the corps to utilize these buffs- and yes it will cost isk. Now if you ask me do i expect null sec corps to shell out billions so theyre members can make many more billions. No i do not. Its not that the corps cant afford it (the established ones can anyway). Its that they would rather all the profits of moon goo go into their pockets (ceo, directers-ie select few) If you find yourself in a nullsec corp that is too greedy to upgrade their systems- leave it and join one that cares about its members.

Dante Edmundo	Posted - 2009.11.23 16:14:00 - [3521] Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 23/11/2009 16:14:45 Originally by: Dante Edmundo Non-constructive content removed.Applebabe This is the first time I have ever been censored in a forum. EVER for ANY GAME I HAVE PLAYED. And the "constructive" post I believe was in regards to holding off the SOV release. This is so incredibly offensive and disparaging toward myself and the player base it is beyond reprehensible. You may be able to silence some of us on these forums but you will not be able to silence those of us who speak outside of it - and believe - my voice and many others do get heard and are being heard.
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.24 13:30:00 - [3522] Edited by: Itzena on 24/11/2009 13:30:44 CCP speaks...elsewhere: Quote: The biggest change to resources that will happen in Dominion 1.0 is that players owning space in 0.0 space will be able to upgrade the density so that more people can live in a given system. The income however isn't being increased much over what players can get from level 4 mission in the initial point release so we don't expect a massive exodus of people out of empire space or a massive change in the influx of money or resources. We're going to watch how the resource upgrades take hold and iterate on them. The majority of the upgrades revolve around exploration content and we have plans to boost that content, but not until we let players get used to the system and we're sure we're not going to crash the economy. So fully upgraded 0.0 three or four months down the line in a tiny handful of 0.0 system with sovereignty costs and higher cost of 'living' generally = marginally better than solo running L4s all day long with zero risk. Assuming that CCP remembered to factor LP rewards and mission bonuses into their equations, natch. welp
Mack Bane	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:45:00 - [3523] Most ppl.tend to forget, that missionrunners in NPC-corps. didn't pay taxes. That's about to change too, so,there you go.An 11%-nerf,on profitability of all missions (the lvl.doesn't matter).
Chiyoko sama Griefer-B-Gone Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:29:00 - [3524] CCP, The introduction of Concord Sovereignty Taxation needs to be removed from the Dominion Patch. This effectively turns 0.0 into nothing more than empire, complete with taxes and all the concord red tape. At first I had doubts, but relied on the "devs must know their game better than myself". Through actively testing these sov changes on Sisi, I have come to doubt whether the developers still understand how this game works. CCP has prided itself on the largest and best "sandbox game" in the industry, however these sov changes are entirely antithetical to the "sandbox". This is the forced tyranny of concord taxation, with no recourse left to players. Sov will be auctioned to the highest bidder, not the collective warfare and industrial skills of an alliance. Sov is not something you buy, it is something you fight for. Please leave us alone and stop trying micromanaging us.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.25 00:53:00 - [3525] Originally by: Chiyoko sama CCP, The introduction of Concord Sovereignty Taxation needs to be removed from the Dominion Patch. This effectively turns 0.0 into nothing more than empire, complete with taxes and all the concord red tape. At first I had doubts, but relied on the "devs must know their game better than myself". Through actively testing these sov changes on Sisi, I have come to doubt whether the developers still understand how this game works. CCP has prided itself on the largest and best "sandbox game" in the industry, however these sov changes are entirely antithetical to the "sandbox". This is the forced tyranny of concord taxation, with no recourse left to players. Sov will be auctioned to the highest bidder, not the collective warfare and industrial skills of an alliance. Sov is not something you buy, it is something you fight for. Please leave us alone and stop trying micromanaging us. Talk about missing the point. Look ill make it clear- upgrade your systems or not. Spend 100% of your time pvp'ing- or spend some making isk. Its up to you. Stop complaining about ppl "forcing" you to do things. Do whatever you want. Nothing in that regards has been changed.
Major Brainfart Amarr 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.11.25 03:07:00 - [3526] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 13/11/2009 08:42:15 Here's an idea, CCP - if we're supposed to consolidate space, how about removing the restrictions on only one outpost per system? That's less jump bridges needed, less systems needed, and "moar targets " for if/when you do that "wrecking outposts" idea. I know the old way of doing things was to require you to own a minimum of two different systems if you wanted to have a refinery and factory, but what's the excuse now? As for the "complex beacon" idea above, simply anchor a dockable object (one of many in the 'large collidable object' family should do) that has no station services except an LP store. Allow any faction (including FW and Empire) and any amount of agents thereof of that faction in, so one agent for each level @ LxQ-20, LxQ0, and LxQ20. I'm not particularly keen on the whole idea of "fixing the L4 mission quandary" with just adding more missions, but the ability to run any kind from any faction might be interesting. Multiple outposts...and add stations. Real stations, just like the NPC's have. The build cost would be astronimical I'm sure, but if you put them in game, they'll be built by someone regardless. And they'll rock. If you want a lot of players in a solar system, just let us build one of those. It'll happen then.
Shazbot Nanu	Posted - 2009.11.25 03:14:00 - [3527] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Future Mutant Just out of curiosity what are you claiming is now possible for isk/hour in null? For ratting? For mining? Anomilies? Slightly harder as its more random- assume 100 hours spent and calculate isk/hour from there. For ratting, 20m is possible for regular belt rats (faction and officer spawns increase this number but are too random in their appearance and value to properly account for). Do bear in mind this is only possible in a relatively small number of 0.0 systems (low truesec and high beltcount), requires at least one hour and often longer to prune out the low-value spawns, only works for one ratter per system at a time (2 or 3 at a time for some exceptionally high beltcount systems), and can be interrupted at any moment by a roaming neutral entering system. Hahahahaha..dude! If you're saying you can only make 20 mil an hour in 0.0, you belong in Goonswarm. Oh wait! You are! Try plexing. Once you learn which plexes to run and which not to bother with, there is big ISK there. More than in running level 4's. It does require more skillpoints and better fits, though.
Gordo Fartis Caldari 13th Squadron E C L I P S E	Posted - 2009.11.25 11:43:00 - [3528] My corp has lived in 0.0 for quite a while now... we have been involved in many wars, we run plexes, cosmic anomalies, production etc. The main problem of 0.0 until now is that active resources were finite. Plexes had to be hunted and there werent many per system, CA also once finished you had to wait for them to respawn etc, ratting was a pain in the ass as it could not support more than 2 or 3 players on an average system. In other words there were not enough resources to support the player base hence the LVL 4 mission running in empire which is dull and you have to do the good ones along with the bad ones. With the advent of Dominion things chage as there is a possibility to have 20 anomalies continuosly spawning, which means that the system can now support at least 20 people. Add to this the other upgrades and systems are starting to become interesting. Please note that I am not taking into consideration (ratting, Mining and exploration) As systems support more people there will be more industry and therefore les need to bring stuff from empire (which is dull). The knock on effect of this is that more sutff will stay behind in 0.0 due to the increased market which will also increase prices in Jita and other market hubs. From the point of view of a small alliance/corp living next door to a larger entity, the idea that the large alliance will stomp on the small one (who is willing to develop the system) is rather short sighted. What I suspect will happen is that large alliances will allow smaller alliances to develop areas adjacent to theirs as it gives the large alliance an income stream, more space for their members, more people in the area to develop systems and more people for defence. Large myopic alliances that stomp on smaller neighbours will slowly disapear as members start to drift to those that provide better space. Wars will still happen in a more strategic maner and it is here were smaller alliances/corps are at risk as they will be the natural target for the agressor. With this in mind I suspect that unfriendly alliances will find themselves with empty surrounding areas of poor space and slowly lose members to those alliances that support their smaller neighbours.
Otin Bison Gallente Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.11.25 17:05:00 - [3529] original quote edited for specific points. Originally by: Gordo Fartis From the point of view of a small alliance/corp living next door to a larger entity, the idea that the large alliance will stomp on the small one (who is willing to develop the system) is rather short sighted. What I suspect will happen is that large alliances will allow smaller alliances to develop areas adjacent to theirs as it gives the large alliance an income stream, more space for their members, more people in the area to develop systems and more people for defence. Short sighted or not, the few nul-sec alliances I have spoken with have universally stated they will only be sov'ing in key areas and still keep others (read little guys) out by stomping. Originally by: Gordo Fartis Large myopic alliances that stomp on smaller neighbours will slowly disapear as members start to drift to those that provide better space. Wars will still happen in a more strategic maner and it is here were smaller alliances/corps are at risk as they will be the natural target for the agressor. With this in mind I suspect that unfriendly alliances will find themselves with empty surrounding areas of poor space and slowly lose members to those alliances that support their smaller neighbours. I suspect a lot of empty (non sov) space out there that the mega-allainces will not allow anyone but renter-pets (I hate that term) in and considering the current costs to rent a system and now the mod costs ... gonna be a lot of unused space out there. ------- Nothing especially witty to say at this time.
Evil Cain	Posted - 2009.11.26 16:32:00 - [3530] this is outrageous paying for systems we have been fighting for the last 3 years or so,another thing is where do you get these numbers from fuel cost is not 4 bill a month per system.Maybe it¦s time to quit the game and move to the next one, Someone has forgotten to take his pills for several months plz send him to the nut house

Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.26 18:43:00 - [3531] Originally by: Evil Cain this is outrageous paying for systems we have been fighting for the last 3 years or so,another thing is where do you get these numbers from fuel cost is not 4 bill a month per system.Maybe it¦s time to quit the game and move to the next one, Someone has forgotten to take his pills for several months plz send him to the nut house Obligatory can i have your stuff? No seriously- please stop your whining and just leave already. Dominion will increase the income a person can make in null- end of story. Your corps moon goo income will easily pay for sov costs- as well as upgrade costs. You still get to fight over your space- or take others space.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.26 20:31:00 - [3532] Originally by: Future Mutant Dominion will increase the income a person can make in null- end of story. Yes? If you pay attention, you'll notice that no-one as actually arguing otherwise. The argument is that, while you can now earn more (if you choose to pay for it), that "more" is still less than it should be: highsec will still provide far better (not simply "higher") income, which completely ruins the entire point of the expansion. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.26 23:12:00 - [3533] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 26/11/2009 21:00:01 Originally by: Future Mutant Dominion will increase the income a person can make in null- end of story. Yes? And? If you pay attention, you'll notice that no-one is actually arguing otherwise. The argument is that, while you can now earn more (if you choose to pay for it), this "more" is still less than it should be: highsec will still provide far better (not simply "higher") income, which completely ruins the entire point of the expansion. I disagree with this entirely. Even before dominion someone in null can make more then they could make in the following activities. Ratting, mining, running anomalies. More income ratting in null compared to ratting in highsec. More income mining in null compared to mining in hisec. More income running anomalies in null compared to running them in hisec. Im many cases now these activities meet or exceed lvl 4 mission running isk per hour. After dominion they will pay even more.
Boink'urr Minmatar Wasserette De Tarthorst	Posted - 2009.11.27 11:53:00 - [3534] Actually, when thinking about this, it kinda feels like the large 0.0 alliances are becoming the rental pets of Concord They became little 9 to 5 biatches just like the rest of us D: Somehow, and I'm not even in null so i have no side to pick, it feels a bit odd to have people that wandered into zero protection space pay taxes to a faction that only polices hi sec basically. Why exactly does Concord get to tax these alliances? What mysterious power do they have over these Alliances? Come to think of it, CCP kinda acts like any generic gouvernment: the answer to any problem is basically TAX-EM!
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.27 12:17:00 - [3535] Edited by: Future Mutant on 27/11/2009 12:18:01 Originally by: Boink'urr Actually, when thinking about this, it kinda feels like the large 0.0 alliances are becoming the rental pets of Concord They became little 9 to 5 biatches just like the rest of us D: Somehow, and I'm not even in null so i have no side to pick, it feels a bit odd to have people that wandered into zero protection space pay taxes to a faction that only polices hi sec basically. Why exactly does Concord get to tax these alliances? What mysterious power do they have over these Alliances? Come to think of it, CCP kinda acts like any generic gouvernment: the answer to any problem is basically TAX-EM! If your going to give null sec corps huge passive income streams (moon goo) then you need some way to siphon off or have that isk used up. They tried the "spend hours upon hours either fueling up a pos/or shooting one" way- with the isk sink being the dreads and the pos's (as well as their fuel) Now theyre trying a simplier method- if it makes the role player in you feel better then just consider the sov payments as "bribes", cuts to other controling "pirates" and the like.
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.27 13:53:00 - [3536] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 26/11/2009 21:00:01 Originally by: Future Mutant Dominion will increase the income a person can make in null- end of story. Yes? And? If you pay attention, you'll notice that no-one is actually arguing otherwise. The argument is that, while you can now earn more (if you choose to pay for it), this "more" is still less than it should be: highsec will still provide far better (not simply "higher") income, which completely ruins the entire point of the expansion. I disagree with this entirely. Even before dominion someone in null can make more then they could make in the following activities. Ratting, mining, running anomalies. More income ratting in null compared to ratting in highsec. More income mining in null compared to mining in hisec. More income running anomalies in null compared to running them in hisec. Im many cases now these activities meet or exceed lvl 4 mission running isk per hour. After dominion they will pay even more. I am impressed by this Republic Military School pilot knowing so much about life in 0.0. Will you run for CSM? I'd vote for you.
Cargol Bages Caldari The 5th Freedom Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.27 15:07:00 - [3537] I really like these new changes to sov. Less tower bashing, wider need for tactics and the posibility to upgrade your home! It's all great but: Why must it be more profitable to be in Empire in complete safety than in 0.0, risking your ISK? I just don't get it... Can someone PLEASE explain to me why the rewards aren't greater in 0.0 than in Empire? The devs say the rewards from a high end anomaly will be on par with the rewards from a level 4 mission in Empire. Where is the logic in that???
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.27 15:37:00 - [3538] Originally by: Future Mutant I disagree with this entirely. Even before dominion someone in null can make more then they could make in the following activities. Ratting, mining, running anomalies. More income ratting in null compared to ratting in highsec. More income mining in null compared to mining in hisec. More income running anomalies in null compared to running them in hisec. Im many cases now these activities meet or exceed lvl 4 mission running isk per hour. After dominion they will pay even more. No. After dominion, they will pay the same or less. Ratting doesn't change, still requires tons of prep work and will still be limited to a very small number of players per system. Anomalies won't pay more because they're designed not to — the only ones that might pay more than L4s are the old ones, which suffer the same fate as ratting (aren't affected by dominion, only sustains a very tiny number, most are worthless as it is). Mining isn't worth it as it is, and adding tons of grav-sites doesn't improve things since they're a ***** to empty out and cycle. So no, it won't be better and it certainly won't pay more. Not because I say so, but because CCP says so. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.27 21:59:00 - [3539] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Future Mutant I disagree with this entirely. Even before dominion someone in null can make more then they could make in the following activities. Ratting, mining, running anomalies. More income ratting in null compared to ratting in highsec. More income mining in null compared to mining in hisec. More income running anomalies in null compared to running them in hisec. Im many cases now these activities meet or exceed lvl 4 mission running isk per hour. After dominion they will pay even more. No. After dominion, they will pay the same or less. Ratting doesn't change, still requires tons of prep work and will still be limited to a very small number of players per system. Anomalies won't pay more because they're designed not to ù the only ones that might pay more than L4s are the old ones, which suffer the same fate as ratting (aren't affected by dominion, only sustains a very tiny number, most are worthless as it is). Mining isn't worth it as it is, and adding tons of grav-sites doesn't improve things since they're a ***** to empty out and cycle. So no, it won't be better and it certainly won't pay more. Not because I say so, but because CCP says so. See thats an outright lie. Systems can be upgraded to provide more rats, more anomalies, more hidden astroids. On an isk per hour basis- having more means more income. More rats to shoot= more income. More anomalies to run= more income More hidden roids to mine= more income To say dominion would mean equal or even less income compared to isk per hour now is beyond misleading- it is a blatant lie.
Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.28 00:22:00 - [3540] Originally by: Future Mutant See thats an outright lie. Systems can be upgraded to provide more rats, more anomalies, more hidden astroids. On an isk per hour basis- having more means more income. More rats to shoot= more income. More anomalies to run= more income More hidden roids to mine= more income To say dominion would mean equal or even less income compared to isk per hour now is beyond misleading- it is a blatant lie. Say I have a system with a lot of belts that I can rat for 25 mil ISK/h. Suppose in Dominion CCP now adds some abnormalities which I can run to earn 20 mil ISK/h, and some hidden asteroids I can mine from 10 mil ISK/h. How much ISK/h can I earn from this system?

something somethingdark	Posted - 2009.11.28 03:18:00 - [3541] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Future Mutant I disagree with this entirely. Even before dominion someone in null can make more then they could make in the following activities. Ratting, mining, running anomalies. More income ratting in null compared to ratting in highsec. More income mining in null compared to mining in hisec. More income running anomalies in null compared to running them in hisec. Im many cases now these activities meet or exceed lvl 4 mission running isk per hour. After dominion they will pay even more. No. After dominion, they will pay the same or less. Ratting doesn't change, still requires tons of prep work and will still be limited to a very small number of players per system. Anomalies won't pay more because they're designed not to ù the only ones that might pay more than L4s are the old ones, which suffer the same fate as ratting (aren't affected by dominion, only sustains a very tiny number, most are worthless as it is). Mining isn't worth it as it is, and adding tons of grav-sites doesn't improve things since they're a ***** to empty out and cycle. So no, it won't be better and it certainly won't pay more. Not because I say so, but because CCP says so. See thats an outright lie. Systems can be upgraded to provide more rats, more anomalies, more hidden astroids. On an isk per hour basis- having more means more income. More rats to shoot= more income. More anomalies to run= more income More hidden roids to mine= more income To say dominion would mean equal or even less income compared to isk per hour now is beyond misleading- it is a blatant lie. have you actualy tried to "farm" a system ? say 10 belts bad true sec status (more than half of eve) (-0.20) first you will even run into troubles making the required military index to advance and if by magic you manage that at first you will be swamped by utter **** cosmic anomalys (run some and you will know) and no cosmic anomalys arnt equal to missions in rewards (that is bounty salvage loot and LP) and you are going to have to run the bad ones (read 90% of them) so you might be luckyer at the respawn and in adition you have to keep your military index up wich is impossible with simple beltratting as for the other signatures if you care to check the market it already took a preemtive dive on things like decryptors and the likes wich now will be more abundant thus reducing your rewards as for upgraded mining stuff that looks to be usefull but im not to well versed in the intricacies of that market to postulate a likely outcome of that change
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.28 11:16:00 - [3542] Originally by: something somethingdark as for upgraded mining stuff that looks to be usefull but im not to well versed in the intricacies of that market to postulate a likely outcome of that change If it is truly the miners dream, and everyone gets a pet mining corp or two, then 0.0 markets are going to get right weird in a few months. Effects will be less severe in Empire as they will have to trickle in.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.28 11:19:00 - [3543] Originally by: Future Mutant See thats an outright lie. Systems can be upgraded to provide more rats, more anomalies, more hidden astroids. Oh dear. You haven't read up on what the upgrade system does and what it will provide, have you? Quote: More rats to shoot= more income. …except that there isn't a "more rats" upgrade. The closest thing is the "more anomalies" one where the rats are worth far less. Quote: More anomalies to run= more income …except that "more income" = "on par with L4s" for the top tier anomalies that the upgrade system will spawn. Quote: More hidden roids to mine= more income …except that the market is already saturated and mining is already not worth it. Adding more of something that there's already too much of makes it worth even less. In addition, the gravsite despawn mechanics means you'll either quickly mine out everything valuable and then have to wait for three days, or you'll have to waste time mining worthless ore. You'd be half-right if you changed the above statements to "income for more people", which is a different thing, but the problem is that CCP have already stated that they fall well short of the goal, at most providing income for an additional 10-20ppl per system rather than the 100 or so they were initially touting. The problem is that this additional sustainability comes at a cost — a cost that certainly can be paid for by the added income of the upgrades, but that's just it: you pay for upgrades that give you on par income with highsec. "On par" (at best) income, minus the costs of having the upgrades that give that income = less income than highsec L4s. Oops! ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Feyleaf	Posted - 2009.11.28 13:00:00 - [3544] This is the death of the sandbox, paying taxes to concord(whatever)for 0.0!? lame. Instead of fighting for territory we now all become concord pets and have to grind our ass off or buy isk. This also makes nrds impossible which is very bad for the game. I honestly dont know what the dev's are thinking, maybe paying the full price for -1.0 and 1/10 for -0.1? It would be just as lame but less game-breaking, Maybe giving the owner of a system the power to tax all rat kills in the system by say up to 5%, low price for the first sov systems with prices scaling upwards? If nrds dies then I wont have anything worth fighting for, can always fight other ppls wars and look at the pretty explosions, did that once but it got old quickly, I guess il keep a pirate/gank char and cancel the others. But we will see how it goes.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.28 18:39:00 - [3545] Edited by: Future Mutant on 28/11/2009 18:41:51 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Future Mutant See thats an outright lie. Systems can be upgraded to provide more rats, more anomalies, more hidden astroids. Oh dear. You haven't read up on what the upgrade system does and what it will provide, have you? Yes i have- but i dont have unrealistic expectations either. Dominion upgrades WILL provide more income- for more ppl, if the systems are upgraded. Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Future Mutant More rats to shoot= more income. àexcept that there isn't a "more rats" upgrade. The closest thing is the "more anomalies" one where the rats are worth far less. Aside from the more anomolies upgrade i keep reading about something theyve been calling a "pirate magnet". The description sounds a lot like more rats to me. Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Future Mutant More anomalies to run= more income àexcept that "more income" = "on par with L4s" for the top tier anomalies that the upgrade system will spawn. Yes except for the possibility of multi billion isk mods dropping the income will be similar to lvl 4's. Sounds fair to me. Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Future Mutant More hidden roids to mine= more income àexcept that the market is already saturated and mining is already not worth it. Adding more of something that there's already too much of makes it worth even less. In addition, the gravsite despawn mechanics means you'll either quickly mine out everything valuable and then have to wait for three days, or you'll have to waste time mining worthless ore. A miner in null can easily make 50 mill an hour NOW- if he has transport support. Hidden belts sound great- they even come with special rats to shoot. Sounds like an improved situation to me. Originally by: Tippia You'd be half-right if you changed the above statements to "income for more people", which is a different thing, but the problem is that CCP have already stated that they fall well short of the goal, at most providing income for an additional 10-20ppl per system rather than the 100 or so they were initially touting. The problem is that this additional sustainability comes at a cost ù a cost that certainly can be paid for by the added income of the upgrades, but that's just it: you pay for upgrades that give you on par income with highsec. Your corp should pay for the upgrades- what do you think the moon goo income is for? Originally by: Tippia "On par" (at best) income, minus the costs of having the upgrades that give that income = less income than highsec L4s. Oops! Again your corp should use its passive income for paying for sov and the upgrads. Your average member shouldnt see a tax increase. Its simple- null sec pays more after dominion then before dominion. You can argue all you want about more or less then "lvl 4's". But the simple truth is- if you want to do lvl 4's- by all means do them. If you want to stay in null to make isk- you now have improved sources to make your isk from.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.28 20:03:00 - [3546] Originally by: Future Mutant Yes i have- but i dont have unrealistic expectations either. Dominion upgrades WILL provide more income- for more ppl, if the systems are upgraded. That sounds like a very unrealistic expectation. Quote: Aside from the more anomolies upgrade i keep reading about something theyve been calling a "pirate magnet". The description sounds a lot like more rats to me. So you haven't read up then? Quoth CCP: Pirate Magnets - add two additional guaranteed anomalies per level to your solar system Quote: Yes except for the possibility of multi billion isk mods dropping the income will be similar to lvl 4's. Sounds fair to me. You're talking about the existing anomalies – not the ones being discussed here. Again, you haven't read up. Quoth CCP: Financially, the top tier anomalies that will be spawning are much more profitable than mining and ratting currently is, and pretty much on par with level 4s. Quote: A miner in null can easily make 50 mill an hour NOW- if he has transport support. Hidden belts sound great- they even come with special rats to shoot. Sounds like an improved situation to me. So he makes 25M/h. Special rats is something you've dreamed up. And you're still missing the fundamental point that more mining = less valuable ore and that the extra mining come from grav sites that will require you to mine crap ores if you want to get large amounts of the good ones. So either you lose ISK/h by mining crap or you lose ISK/h from not having anything left to mine. Quote: Your corp should pay for the upgrades- what do you think the moon goo income is for? …which assumes that everyone has that kind of passive income, and ignores that this passive income has been reduced because CCP wants alliances to use this upgrade system to make use of active incomes instead. It also completely goes against the main idea behind the sov changes – to make it easier to get into 0.0 – but we all already know that this has failed. Quote: Again your corp should use its passive income for paying for sov and the upgrads. Your average member shouldnt see a tax increase. Its simple- null sec pays more after dominion then before dominion. Funny that. CCP says otherwise. Less passive income, more active income, which has to be gathered by taxes, which means null-sec pays less than before. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.29 02:30:00 - [3547] Now i admit im prolly wrong about a few specifics- theres just to many pages of threads to read. A lot of it is contradictory at best. But still the fact remains- your income in null before dominion is less then your income will be after dominion. Moon goo income- is not so much getting nerfed as it is distributed among the minerals more. Even if the income drops slightly your corp will have plenty of isk to pay for system sov and upgrades. It may cut down on what your ceo/directors can line their pockets with but eh, cry me a river. I see a lot of ppl comparing null income with lvl 4 mission income. But i dont see many ppl using ratting ships that even come close to what the average mission ship costs. seems ppl think they should make as much in a cruiser- as some make in a golem. Unrealistic. Theres a lot of isk to be made in null- but the fact remains you are completely free to stop whining and join us in hi sec doing lvl 4's if you want.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.29 12:21:00 - [3548] Originally by: Future Mutant But still the fact remains- your income in null before dominion is less then your income will be after dominion. How is that a fact? Everything you've brought up to suggest that this will happen goes against what CCP is actually saying. Quote: Moon goo income- is not so much getting nerfed as it is distributed among the minerals more. So you're telling me CCP is wrong here too? After all, their express purpose for the nerf is to make it less valuable as part of making the "AFK empires" go away. Quote: But i dont see many ppl using ratting ships that even come close to what the average mission ship costs. Hardly relevant – you use what's best for the purpose, and the best-suited ship is the one that provide the best income. As it happens, a Golem isn't the best-suited ship for 0.0 belt ratting, so it doesn't matter how good it is at L4s. Price has nothing to do with it. Quote: Theres a lot of isk to be made in null- but the fact remains you are completely free to stop whining and join us in hi sec doing lvl 4's if you want. …and that's the whole point. In their attempts to make living in 0.0 more attractive, they've once again made it a better choice to live in highsec. The stated goal was to compress the nullsec empires; to make it easier for newcomers to get a foothold; to make more people move out; to kill POSbashing; and to remove the AFK:ness of the current system. Of these, only the POS-bash removal will happen, and just like with Exodus, it will only more drive people into empire to run their AFK empires because that's how it's best done. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Gevic	Posted - 2009.11.29 17:53:00 - [3549] Originally by: Tippia The stated goal was to compress the nullsec empires; to make it easier for newcomers to get a foothold; to make more people move out; to kill POSbashing; and to remove the AFK:ness of the current system. Of these, only the POS-bash removal will happen, and just like with Exodus, it will only more drive people into empire to run their AFK empires because that's how it's best done. I've GOT IT! That's exactly it! Since everyone, except for the poor bastards that have to maintain and put w/e sov and sov related structures in nullsec, will be in Empire, it will be that much harder to touch anyones income, cause it will most likely be the case that your opponent will be right next to you, missioning along as well. And since no ones income can be touched, even the most braindead(read: carebear)of alliance/corporations can now make it in nullsec. I mean after all with no actual way of cutting into their income and output, they can throw T1 ships at you all day and not feel a thing. And the current nullsec factions are already more or less used to it anyway (you have to be really damn dense to try and chain in anything less than .75/.8 truesec, and GOOD exploration anything is pretty damn rare and won't support more than a handful of people per constellation), so its business as usual. Aside from sieging R64 and techntium moons (everyone into Revelations now! doubly so with the new cap changes) there won't be anyone losing any ships to mean 'ole people raiding, making everyone happy. I've figured it out! CCP's master plan! BWAHAHA!
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.29 23:23:00 - [3550] FM, what's worse than your fellating of CCP over these changes that will decrease the "competition" you see in 0.0 earning over your L4 mission running (thereby making your isk "worth more" I guess) is that your feigning of understanding of the logic of these changes is moot since you're obviously just going to stay in Empire running missions. So...congrats on being "Carebear Prime," I guess?

Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.30 00:30:00 - [3551] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar FM, what's worse than your fellating of CCP over these changes that will decrease the "competition" you see in 0.0 earning over your L4 mission running (thereby making your isk "worth more" I guess) is that your feigning of understanding of the logic of these changes is moot since you're obviously just going to stay in Empire running missions. So...congrats on being "Carebear Prime," I guess? Your missunderstanding of game mechanics is only surpassed by your lack of understanding of game economies. So...congrats on being a "laughingstock", I guess?
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.30 00:33:00 - [3552] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Kayl Breinhar FM, what's worse than your fellating of CCP over these changes that will decrease the "competition" you see in 0.0 earning over your L4 mission running (thereby making your isk "worth more" I guess) is that your feigning of understanding of the logic of these changes is moot since you're obviously just going to stay in Empire running missions. So...congrats on being "Carebear Prime," I guess? Your missunderstanding of game mechanics is only surpassed by your lack of understanding of game economies. So...congrats on being a "laughingstock", I guess? Yeah, I guess I'd be an expert if I knew the spawn mechanics of The Blockade down to the second. Doesn't change the fact that you spent half this thread acting like a **** to everyone who plays this game differently than you and now you're purporting to be an expert in a facet of the game that of your own admission you have no interest in now and probably won't post-Dominion.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.11.30 00:52:00 - [3553] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Yeah, I guess I'd be an expert if I knew the spawn mechanics of The Blockade down to the second. Doesn't change the fact that you spent half this thread acting like a ** to everyone who plays this game differently than you and now you're purporting to be an expert in a facet of the game that of your own admission you have no interest in now and probably won't post-Dominion. I have no problems with ppl playing the game how they want. On the reverse can you say the same? Or are you one of the guys always ***ing about npc corps? Have you used the word "carebear" in this thread?- am is supposed to think you didnt have a negative connotation in mind there? My problem is when a very small minority in eve thinks they should be treated 500 times better then everyone else. Every null sec captain who ever posted in rage about "quitting eve, canceling their accounts"- should. My dislike is not because they live in null- my disdain is because they are pathetic whiny douches.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.30 02:01:00 - [3554] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Yeah, I guess I'd be an expert if I knew the spawn mechanics of The Blockade down to the second. Doesn't change the fact that you spent half this thread acting like a ** to everyone who plays this game differently than you and now you're purporting to be an expert in a facet of the game that of your own admission you have no interest in now and probably won't post-Dominion. I have no problems with ppl playing the game how they want. On the reverse can you say the same? Or are you one of the guys always ***ing about npc corps? Have you used the word "carebear" in this thread?- am is supposed to think you didnt have a negative connotation in mind there? My problem is when a very small minority in eve thinks they should be treated 500 times better then everyone else. Every null sec captain who ever posted in rage about "quitting eve, canceling their accounts"- should. My dislike is not because they live in null- my disdain is because they are pathetic whiny douches. Well, evidently CCP agrees with you since they're launching an unfinished and unproven patch that seems designed to end large-scale 0.0 warfare forever. So here's a :colbert: for you, champ.
Keyzer Sozze	Posted - 2009.11.30 14:10:00 - [3555] to be honest i see not much is really going to change the landscape of eve, i look at the cost to do things in null sec still will only drawl out large corp/all....while rest of us will sit in our stations snoop around in our cloaky ships and try and grab the scraps off the table so to speak. the video is awesome to bad the real game is not like that for all the guy with a RL that can only play the game maybe hr or two a nite or less will never benfit from these changes .
Major Brainfart Amarr 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.12.03 05:10:00 - [3556] Originally by: Future Mutant Originally by: Kayl Breinhar My problem is when a very small minority in eve thinks they should be treated 500 times better then everyone else. Every null sec captain who ever posted in rage about "quitting eve, canceling their accounts"- should. My dislike is not because they live in null- my disdain is because they are pathetic whiny douches. Amen, dude. That is right on. That's why I'm in the process of moving back to highsec right now! Despite Dominion. Living in empire means not being forced to listen to THEM in my chat windows on a daily basis! No amount of rebalancing by CCP will change that. If they could find a way to actually force me to live in 0.0, they'd only succeed in forcing me to play a different mmo.
Dominicas	Posted - 2009.12.03 11:22:00 - [3557] On a seperate thought; have you wondered that maybe Dominion is simply the next step in CCP profitability. What do I mean; well the player base of EVE while growing - has slowed tremendously. Income from accounts is static and the company (CCP) is required to increase profits. Plex's are introduced, popular, legal isk generation - no risk to your character. Now hear me out, Dominion simply positions 'PLEX' or 'instant secure income' as a more viable option for those trying to secure/keep space. End of the day, a self perpetuating economy for CCP - a good business if you can create the requirment to spend more to do what your already paying to do.... Bad isk sellers... I mean Bad CCP
HeliosGal Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.03 12:21:00 - [3558] end of the day 60000 subscribers is their target. More wormhole spaec be good start but dust will help if its on console and PC Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00
SolinaXex	Posted - 2009.12.08 07:59:00 - [3559] Edited by: SolinaXex on 08/12/2009 08:02:40 Well I find it odd. We have sov in a system under my main. But we have been billed 2 times..... wtf? Not only that the sov had not been running 24 hours when we were billed 2 times yet. And we paid. And yet even though we paid in less then 24 hours the modules were offlined.... This better be bugged and compensated. I thought you get billed once every 14 days? So in 24 hours we paid a ton of money. I hope we do not get billed DAILY!!! Petitioned, but knowing how crappy CCP petitioning system is I gues I will expect a response in.... May... 2012.... just before the world blows up.... maybe.... Seriously WTF? Our alliance was also given a updated costs. The costs do not match whats on the Dev Blog and it also does not match the updated lists. Please post a updated cost list somewhere. Apparently it was updated on Dec 2nd.
zoolkhan Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.02.19 12:48:00 - [3560] @CCP Fallout et al can we get a public statement on the "48 minutes bug" ....where after about that time, a succsessfully onlined and payed for TCU goes offline again, and sov lost? To my knowledge there are just two systems in eve where this is happening, but it might still be interesting for all of us to learn more. As far i know you have been made aware of it by petition since a few days. And i find it odd that on a bug of this significance not even a "we are working on it" statement is issued. best regards and in anticipation of your response, recruiting -forum

AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.14 04:00:00 - [3561] This thread won't die...


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 119 :: [one page]

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

Infrastructure

Usage Index

Planned upgrades

The Upkeep System

How this system tackles our goals

In Closing