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

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 [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 36 post(s)
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:08:00 - [1] 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?
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 23:38:00 - [2] 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".
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 03:48:00 - [3] 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.
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 11:53:00 - [4] 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.
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:22:00 - [5] 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.
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 12:28:00 - [6] 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.
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:00:00 - [7] 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?
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:15:00 - [8] 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...?

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.