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 [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 36 post(s)
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:47:00 - [1] 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
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 01:58:00 - [2] 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
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:49:00 - [3] 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.
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 14:56:00 - [4] Stoffer, please reply to my previous post. Do you want me to keep paying for the subscription to my two accounts?
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:02:00 - [5] 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?
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:08:00 - [6] 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.
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:16:00 - [7] 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.
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:26:00 - [8] 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.
Sally Bestonge	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:35:00 - [9] 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.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:15:00 - [10] 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*

Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:42:00 - [11] 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
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:05:00 - [12] 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
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:05:00 - [13] 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
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:22:00 - [14] 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.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:29:00 - [15] 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?
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:37:00 - [16] 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
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:48:00 - [17] 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
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:08:00 - [18] 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.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:13:00 - [19] 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
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:53:00 - [20] YES OR NO: Due to 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 00:05:00 - [21] 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
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:13:00 - [22] YES OR NO: Due to 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 - [23] 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.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:44:00 - [24] 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
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:52:00 - [25] 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)
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:00:00 - [26] 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.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:07:00 - [27] 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.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:16:00 - [28] 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.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:24:00 - [29] 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?
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.08 23:53:00 - [30] 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

Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 02:52:00 - [31] 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.
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:17:00 - [32] 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)
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:28:00 - [33] 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
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.09 22:14:00 - [34] 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.

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.